Quizzes From The-N

Clueless (1995)

It is always great to see this movie on a print and with a group. It is just so genius. I'm going to limit my comments to how this film relates to 677 in terms of the readings and other screenings, just to narrow the focus of this post.

After seeing Stella Dallas last week at thinking of fashion in terms of class signifiers, this movie really does use fashion as a class locater, specifically, LA/Beverly Hills elitism. More to come later...

After Stonewall (1986)

This documentary was a nice review of GLBT history in terms of politics and movements unrelated to film history. I, naively, don't know much about The Stonewall events or the history of the GLBT political movement. It seems that my generation has never had to really live in secret shame if we chose not to (and of course moved to a tolerant location) and so we have become more apathetic about the politics. Yes, gay marriage is a huge issue, but I don't see any giant marches or parades or protests like this film illustrated. I'm going to refrain from making any more comments on this film and instead post a link to a reveiw that sums it up nicely.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1391

Stella Dallas (1937)

For me this film was a rare character study of a woman that encompassed over 20 years of her life. Barbara Stanwyck gave a really great performance as Stella Dallas, a lower class girl that marries up bit then refuses to leave her small town and winds up devoting everything of herself to her daughter. It is obviously a look at what a self-sacrificing mother should be, but there is something tragic about Stella and her relation to fashion and acquiring material objects (like furs) as status symbols. Over the course of the film, which is meant to be about 20 years of her life, we see Stella's relationship to these objects and her dress slowly spiral out of control as her lower class complex roots itself ever more deeply into her psyche. By the end of the film she is an over-exaggerated embarrassment and the flits of her self-awareness of her over-display are the most dramatic, charming and well acted parts of the film. She is struggling with knowing that she has lost control of her fashion and staying resilient as they strong woman she always has been.

At the beginning her motivations really suck and make no sense to me, watching this movie today. She married the man of her dreams and had a child. Why didn't she want to go to New York with him and live the good life? Instead she stayed in her small town, to stay in the small town upper-class circles and hang out with the drunk. Her decision to stay seems so unmotivated and out of character, but then colors her downward spiral and misery for the rest of the film. I was left asking the whole time "Why doesn't she just move to New York already?"

In class we talked about Stella's push and pull of recognition and resistance in relation to class and how different classes use money/fashion to show status. This returns in the 80s and 90s with Working Girl and Pretty Woman. Pretty Woman is a parable about capitalism. Gere finds a soul in a hooker with a heart of gold. In relation to Bartky Julia Roberts is a woman learning to survey herself through the eyes of patriarchy. Of course there is no way to understand black maid in Stella Dallas or the guy carrying the luggage in Pretty Woman in relation to the readings for today and 2nd wave feminism.

The Celluloid Closet (1996)

Based on Vito Russo's book, The Celluloid Closet looks back on gay and lesbian representation in cinema, primarily during the Production Code era (which began, according to the film, with Hays Code and a boycott byt the Catholic Church in 1934) when all GLBT content was banned from the screen. I enjoy seeing how intelligent and subversive the filmmakers had to be in order to include gay content and messages despite the code. Although I hate the idea of the production code and censorship, I do think that some films today would be much better if they were more subtle. Some of the best romantic tension is that which isn't said, and hides just below the surface and that is precisely what the code forced these movies to do.

It is always shocking to see all the violence and horrible stereotypes edited together in rapid succession. It makes it obvious that Hollywood movies do create a self-referencing, collective conscious of how gays should feel about themselves and how others should feel about them. These sentiments were echoed by the celebrity interviews: "Cary Grant taught me how to behave with a woman" and "people have the desire to see themselves, a mirror of our own existence to not be alone." Yet whole groups weren't represented in Hollywood. (Now we have YouTube to create our own images, but what was its Production Code Era predecessor? I'm sure there were underground magazines or something.)

Call Her Savage (1932) had the first gay bar onscreen, Morocco (1930) Marlena Dietrich in a tuxedo, kisses a woman, and was meant to turn on both the women and the men in the room, sexually delicious. Hithcock's Rope (1948) was based on real life Leopold and Lobe. Lesbians allowed if they were behind bars (or clearly villains).

Nobody really sees the same movie, because everyone sees what they want to see (minorities in particular). Characters, movies and people in real life were in the closet, so everyone had to be subtle. Everything was hidden and coded all the time, even in real life. In Gentlemen Prefer Blondes this happens in the body builders scene where lots of really hot men dance around and are completely uninterested in the gorgeous Jane Russell. Even Bill finds pleasure in the different parts of The Celluloid Closet than I do. Which means we are all watching things with our own agenda. Where does our agenda come from?

Delayed fuck, DF, can’t sleep together until marriage. Rock Hudson was gay man impersonating a straight man, impersonating a gay man. Shirley MacLaine, Audrey Hepburn movie, The Children's Hour (1961) was about a tragic, unrequited lesbian love. Shirley says they did it wrong, they didn’t talk about it, but that is what society felt. Society didn't talk about it. So why did they make this movie?

Movies to see: Personal Best (1982), The Color Purple (1995?), The Hunger (1983) with Susan Sarandon, touch is the most intimate moment. Insists on not being drunk, don’t take away choice to bed Catherine Deneuve. Susan Sarandon, kiss not about sexuality but a declaration of love.

Fried Green Tomatoes (1991) – The woman they interviewed about this movie was angry that she wasn’t being told explicitly that they were lesbians and in love, but I loved the subtly of that. Iggy was so in love with her and clearly coded as lesbian. To me that movie said it as explicitly as you could in the time period/location that the movie takes place. In real life, being in love with a straight woman in the 30s/40s in the south plays out that subtly. I felt it was true, because they couldn’t just stand up and say it back then.

Tomorrow Never Dies

Watched this gem on cable tonight. I wasn't expecting to watch more than first 10 minutes, but it just drew me in. I had forgotten how good, and classic Bond, it is. With brilliant yet cheesy one-liners peppered throughout, like "They'll print anything these days" referring to a dead guy smearing blood on the newspaper press and "Let's take the highway" when Bond drives the motorcycle up on some trucks. It taps into satellite and media mogul anxiety in typical Bond critique of technology, but perhaps the most interesting was Michelle Yeoh in the most un-Bond Girl like role yet. She kicks major ass in the latter part of the film. Proving to be just as competent with guns weaponry, and technology as Bond and, in addition, boosts her famous martial arts skills. She is beautiful, but not in the same way other Bond girls are and I would say that her body was not shamelessly exploited for sex appeal like all the others either. There were no gratuitous naked or swimsuit shots of her. Teri Hatcher fulfills the femme fatale role, sex-bomb role leaving Yeoh free to kick ass, be intelligent, equal Bond and even get him in the end. It seems like the Halle Berry Bond trash stole all the makings of a good Bond flick but ultimately fell flat. What was the difference? Halle Berry was kick ass, but definitely exploited for her looks, and her performance, if I remember, was just lackluster. The fear of technology was linked to genetics, appropriate for the time, but everything about it was so ludicrous. Changing faces, ice castles and I can only assume that amidst all this over-the-top schlock, the charming yet cheesy one-liners became dry and cliche. That is a dichotomy of the Bond films though, always using the neatest gadgets to destroy an enemy that is fixing to use science's next invention to take over the world.

What is interesting to note when looking at the re-envisioned Bond films, Casino Royale being the first, is that they are not Bond-stylized with the expected charm in Tomorrow Never Dies. It also focuses on "going back to realism." Like Batman Begins did for Batman. The Dark Knight's success will definitely fuel this re-envisioning of old series to tap back into reality, trying to keep plots and gadgets firmly with what is feasible today. I have been talking about making action films more real for a while in my blog, but real on the level of human emotion. Casino Royal and Dark Knight definitely start down that path, but still have the hero be impenetrable in the face adversity and fear. They are more realistic in terms of style and technology, but they are ultimately still action movies with hard as ice heroes, that are unequivocally good. And where are the women? They have been sidekicks and motives for males' revenge all summer long. Are we going back in time?

Hellboy

I'm just going to do a quick write up of my thoughts on Hellboy. It was nice to get the story of Hellboy's origins. Given the world it creates, with a fantasy world existing under the surface of our own, it was pretty believable. The creature that spawns 2 more of itself every time it dies was a neat twist. Liz's character was perplexing. She was weak and scared of her power and in a mental hospital, but then unleashed by the man orchestrating the evil. She was really a non-factor in this movie too, except for the kick-ass scene at the end when she tells the guy to hit her so she can get mad and fry all the demons. Otherwise she was the love interest. This was cool in the one scene when Hellboy is stalking her from the roof with the kid and eating cookies. Despite his demon persona, he felt very real in this scene and became very endearing form this point on.

The creatures weren't as fantastical as Pan's Labyrinth or the second film, but that seemed to make sense. Del Toro's imagination was there, however muted by other powers that be. If they make a fourth film, I'll be excited to see it because it could have possibility for Liz to emerge as a strong counterpoint to Hellboy at last. He will probably fall and it will take her being strong to save him, I hope.

I want to read the comics now too. The art looks different and interesting, after seeing so much of it at comic-con, I'm very intrigued.

B.J. Fletcher Private Eye

I came across B.J. Fletcher during my regular trolling of the AfterEllen website for decent lesbian content. It is a great example of everything I want to do with my webseries in terms of marketing, and then some. The creator and stars of B.J. Fletcher have made themselves known to the AE crew and get regular viewers and media attention from there, plus they have a website with merchandise and are now able to have a fundraiser for season 2. The production value is very high for a show with no budget which is exactly what I want to accomplish. Once you get in the circle you will have people go to bat for you and it can only lead to good things. The website is a little clunky and I would want my website and intro to have more Flash/Special FX influence because this would make it more polished, but I don't have the technical skills to do that yet so it would either require a lot of my time to learn or a web proficient partner. I think realistically I can have the series up and running by the time I graduate, but I wouldn't want to launch until I had the whole package together so I could really take it and roll with it once it launches.

As for the show, it started out really cheesy and just over the top for me. All the characters were just ridiculous caricatures in the beginning and it was hard to feel for them or get connected to them. I suppose the production value kept me watching. But it evolved into something much more quirky charming instead of quirky cheesy. From about episode 7 on, they finally got the chemistry right between Georgia and Fletch and the introduction of her nemesis Doyle worked as a great counterpoint within this constructed world. What shifted was primarily Georgia's character. She went from being just as hooky as Fletch in an over animated way to being her counterpoint and the still quirky, but subtle brains of the operation. Before it was just 2 bumbling idiots and then it became good chemistry with the oblivious Fletch succeeding largely due to Georgia's keen perceptions. When Georgia buckled Fletch's seatbelt and called her 5, it really felt like this duo was clicking and that they had been friends since childhood just as Georgia's mom talked about. I loved how Georgia was reading that Japanese book she stole from Advertising Guy's house and how little things like "Let's Roll" keep reoccurring. I liked the Google computron quip and the reference to the Scooby gang without the van and the goats (ghosts) and how Georgia changes her hair after the modeling job, presumably because Fletch will like it more or to just signify her change of profession and the self-confidence that comes with it. Great little touch to signify the shift in her character. The end started to draw everything together and really hit its grove in the last episode.

The highlight of the whole series and what sold it for me was Vanessa Dunn playing Jenna Watson. She was the only character who played as a real person and not a caricature and really tied everything together for me. She was captivating and beautiful and believable and I really wanted her and Georgia to get together. This is the first time that I felt truly invested in the emotions and feelings of the characters. Her part was well written too in that it spoke to Georgia's insecurities without being explicit. Georgia became a real person in this scene and I could see her coming into her own as the brains of the operation. Just as we have hope that Georgia will give up on the clueless Fletch for charming Jenna, the next scene Fletch drops an Macbook on her without batting an eye. This juxtaposition at the end was a brilliant twist and made me feel like this show peaked just in time to be over. I finally cared about the characters and become emotionally invested in their story.

What I'd like to understand is if all the elaborate set-up to this finale really made it better or if the extra time at the beginning was just the clunkiness of a new series finding its legs, that could have been eliminated. Is it possible to start with the good, like start at episode 6 or 7 and have the whole show be quality? Or does every new series need time to work the kinks out? What can I learn from B.J. Fletcher about making my series great from the start (like Girltrash)?

The Dark Knight

So I saw this at the Americana in the afternoon with Steph the first day it came out. Every show was consistently selling out, and there were a lot of shows. I'm wondering what turned little Batman Begins, that only made a total of $200 million domestic gross box office, into the biggest opening weekend of all time. I guess the previous holders of this award, Pirates of the Caribbean and the Spidermans were sequels too, but all I can say is that it must of been the Heath Ledger Hype. His death only added to the intrigue, but his performance alone could have garnered the interest if he was still alive.

After reading the excellent review in The New Yorker and talking to Dustin I feel like I understand where my disappointment with this film comes from. It stems from the disappointment in turning Maggie Gyllenhaal's character's death into the revenge impetus for the 2 male characters. She was supposed to be this strong, fearless DA, but reverted back to woman as only used for rape/revenge scenario. I might have been more OK with this if it truly had lead to the Batman's fall to "The Dark Knight." Batman should have been devastated and been pushed to the edge much like Aaron Eckhart's character was as Harvey Dent. They both should have gone to the brink and what separates them is that Batman came back and Harvey went over the edge. That would have been believable and phenomenal. Batman was only mopey and Harvey Dent was psychotic and great, but his story was smashed into what felt like 5 minutes after such a long long set-up. I would have preferred if he just left being evil (set-up for the next movie) and they focused on the Joker/Batman conflict, so when the Joker gets caught, he still has the last laugh because he made Harvey evil and Two-Face can now cause the mayhem the Joker so desires. The end was too packed together and both stories got slighted.

Of course no one can deny that Heath Ledger was phenomenal. I could not take my eyes from him and the whole middle of the movie, where he is orchestrating his genius plan to cause the fall of Harvey Dent and Batman, was just great. It was eerie and mesmerizing and everything he did set-up a great pay-off when we finally see his plan unveiled. He will definitely win the Oscar and probably would have even if he wasn't dead. My only complaint is the photography. For example, when he is telling Rachel about how he got his scars the camera is spinning around them frantically trying to mimic, I guess, his frenzied state of mind, but it was just distracting and almost nauseating and made me painfully aware of the camera. I would have preferred to just watch his amazing performance and not be told by the camera (and music) how to feel about it. The middle of the movie was amazing, but definitely petered out at the end for me. I would re-edit all the Harvey Dent stuff out and just make it about Heath. Christian Bale was disappointing, but I never really liked him in the role. Too much Michael Keaton love? Despite how stylized Batman was as Tim Burton's creation, Micheal Keaton just felt so human and real, where as Bale felt woody and mopey, even though this movie was trying to go back to realism, the human emotion, for me, was more real in Tim Burton's versions. When creating my stylized, comic book web series, this is what I need to keep in mind, real and accessible characters, always come out on top in telling a good story.

One last note, Heath's Joker make-up was so real, messy and creepy and Harvey's CG face was so fake and scientifically impossible that looking at his "Two-Face" really broke my suspension of disbelief.

Because I am typing this up after the fact, I'm going to include the notes that Grant Morrison mentioned about The Dark Knight at the Comic-Con panel I walked in on, because they were very insightful. He said the Dark Knight isn't about crime, but about human duality. The Joker and Batman as 2 different sides and Harvey Dent "Two-Face" bringing both these sides together. (This duality could have been played off each other much more effectively and brilliantly if the film wasn't so "frenzied," but maybe frenzied is what sells?) He also mentioned that Superheroes in general are moving away from fighting petty crime, which is important in a world where 50% of the world lives on less than $2 a day and environmental devastation runs rampant. It raises the question, what are superheroes fighting and why? Also why do we need them so badly in our media right now?

Another well-written review here. And a response here.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

Saw this with Jeff the day it came out without seeing the original first mostly because it was done by the same director that made Pan's Labyrinth and the creatures in the trailers looked amazing. I thought it would be a good lesson to see if a sequel could stand on its own as well.

Guillermo del Toro creates an absolutely believable and rich fantasy world. Charming, witty and completely original. Getting sucked into his imagination was the most pleasing part for me. Hellboy was a pretty great anti-hero, and I think Prince Nuada was almost a perfect anti-villain. His actions surprised me as he seemed to not be bent on evil for evil's sake, but reclaiming the parts of the world that the humans had destroyed and encroached upon. He was simply trying to reclaim the fantasy world that humans were destroying in their greed. He stopped his evil ways half-way through the film to almost mentor Hellboy in the fantasy realm. He was complex and unpredictable in a way I really liked. The end was predictable, with the Princess killing herself to stop her brother, but I forgive it.

The one disappointment I had was Selma Blair as Hellboy's girlfriend Liz. I think it was combination of her emotionless performance and bad writing, but her character was completely flat and one-dimensional compared to Hellboy's rude charm. She really was just there so Hellboy could be a father. I leaned over and whispered this to Jeff and he was appalled. He completely bought into her character. Jeff is a perceptive and smart guy so I don't want to just be like he is a man so he doesn't care if women are one-dimensional, because he isn't that way. He said I had to see the first one, then I would get her more. More on this in my review of Hellboy 1. To me this is just another example of women being marginalized in the blockbusters this summer. Princess Nuada was more interesting and tortured, but then primarily became Abe's love interest and motivation. No doubt that there is potential for Liz to step up in the next movie, due to the foreshadowing that none will suffer more than her, but I'd be scared that she would just die and trigger Hellboy to go evil or something. I think I need to clarify to myself what I think a good woman character is so I can understand how to make them.

A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila 2

Well last night was the finale of A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila 2, a show I shamefully watched for most of its run both last season and this season. I have now idea why I watch it, other than it is like watching a train wreck. A horrible, awful train wreck that you can't tear your eyes away from. Yes, watching these people makes me feel good about myself, but there is something more. A social experiment gone terribly wrong, with painful stereotyping and categorizing of masculine and feminine that is just so damn intriguing. The whole show comes across as very scripted and calculated. Tila's speeches are well rehearsed and flawless. They have obviously done many takes to achieve this level of "reality," and people are eliminated in predictable fashion in order to heighten drama. I knew from the beginning of this season that Tila would have to choose a girl just to prove she was bi to all the skeptical people out there and sure enough she did.

But what I did not expect was to have a dream about Tila Tequila last night, where I felt the need to go to her house and comfort her after she was rejected by the girl she tried to give the final key to. So maybe I watch the show because Tila has this crazy way of making everybody care for her, even intellectuals who look down on her show but can't look away. In my dream I genuinely was concerned for her feelings. How does this girl do it? I would say that she is just a phenomenal actor playing a part, but I really don't think that is it. She comes across on her show as someone who genuinely cares for all the contestants, seems to honestly "put herself out there" and take risks with these strangers for not just the fame but maybe for love? Her concern for crushing the loser both seasons came across as very genuine. Her reaction to Kristi not taking the key was defensive and vulnerable. It was anger and sadness and loss and self-loathing for her mistakes and just felt real. So real that I had to have a dream where I went and comforted her, talked to her and let her cry on my shoulder. If I believed Tila could act I would still be very much under the impression that it really is all just an elaborate set-up for drama's sake, but despite the set-up there is something there that doesn't seem contrived. Maybe I am gaining respect for her? I think that is it. She is either a genius actor worth respecting for what it is, or a decent human being with real feelings for these people, worth respecting. Well, I'll be tuning in for A Shot at Love 3, gross as that sounds.

And because Dani is hot, here is a pic from season one. This must be a promo pic. I've never seen it before.

Hancock

The last of the films I saw on the marathon movie day and honestly the most surprising. I was expecting predictable Will Smith humor, plot and explosions and ended up getting a bit more. It may be a case of having extremely low expectations and being surprised when it isn't terrible, but this movie might have had something different to say. I'll write a bit about it and see if I can't uncover what that is.

The first thing I noticed after watching 3 films before this one was demographics. There were decidedly more black people in the audience. Will Smith's humor is more urban and "black" (whatever this means, but I can't think of a more PC way to describe it in this moment) and this played to the crowd. As frustrated as I get not seeing any well-depicted lesbians on screen, blacks must be equally frustrated. There is never a black superhero that is the main character and not some side-kick to the white guy. God Iron Man was frustrating on this level. It appears as though this movie was aiming to play to a slightly shifted demographic and hit its mark. They were looking primarily for the Black audience and then banking on Smith's star power and the white side-kick/Charlize Theron to bring in some of the white audience. (I wish things could be colorblind, but they still are, as our Presidential campaign has clearly highlighted. Just as I have to still worry about my sexuality and being a woman in the entertainment industry.)

The movie started out rather predictable and just as the trailers indicated, a screw-up superhero, who is alone in the world and depressed, but wants to make a change and needs help to realize his full potential as a noble good superman like figure. A depressed and lonely superhero is a common enough theme, but it is never the premise of the film, just hinted at. Batman is good at hinting at his loneliness, but he always has a woman interest to at least give him hope of normality. This was about drunken depression and isolation as an outcast from society (which I can relate to and the X-Men films under Bryan Singer alluded to) where being a superhero didn't solve all your problems, but created them.

And then Charlize Theron popped up which was a shock to me. I had no idea what she was doing in the "housewife" role and the whole time I was like, she is way to good of an actor to be playing this vulnerable, angry yet attracted and emotional woman whenever Hancock is around. There must be more to it. I knew something was up and when she busted out her super strength too, I knew it was coming, but in a "Now I'm really excited way!" She was stronger than him, but he was always the "hero." Sure this is a play on femininity and her "maternal" instincts and her desire to settle down, while the man is the hero. It would have been nice to see her become LA's hero and him NYC's hero in the end instead of her staying the housewife, but the whole premise behind their story was interesting. Opposites attracting, becoming mortal when they are near each other and eventually dying, tying in with history and mythology of multiple gods and human nature to love, the desire to settle down and die even when given the choice to be immortal. Hancock's memory loss had a similar effect as Jason Bourne's in that it made him re-examine who he was without social conditioning (literally ages of it). And he was still a hero who loved the same woman, but gave her up to survive even though all the others of his kind had chosen love and death. It was more than I expected from the film and made me think. I like unexpected strong women, even if they are just a counterpoint to men and I wasn't as bothered by this as I should have been. I think because Theron does not allow her characters to be one note. Even as the "homemaker" she came across as having chosen this for herself out of strength of will. Although it should bug me that she can have the world and chooses to houseclean and make cookies like a good embodiment of traditional femininity, it didn't. Perhaps this is why the movie piqued my interest. If only I could pinpoint why it didn't bother me like it should.

Also, congratulations to Daeg who was Michel the bully in this film. What a great little part for him. I hope he continues to have success.

Get Smart

Honestly, I don't feel like I have much to say about this movie. I saw it on the marathon movie day mostly out of convenience. It was campy and predictable. It was goofy and entertaining. Steve Carell is a funny guy. Anne Hathaway was hot and quirky and beautiful in her goofy way. She was not anorexically thin which was a nice relief. I was amused the whole time, but not particularly enraptured. It was just some fun fluff. It never transcended its silliness to say anything more deep about crime or villains and politics of fear or the world (despite the fact that we are at war). It did make fun of George W. with the inane president, but that is just standard anymore. They rationalized the Carell-Hathaway romance by saying she was older before her plastic surgery reconstructed her image. I'm not really sure how I feel about that, but nothing in this movie was serious so I'll let it slide. This movie just kind of invited you to let everything about it slide which can be dangerous, but most likely it too will slide right into obscurity, unless it made enough money to make a sequel which I have no interest in researching right now.

Wanted

I watched this movie second on the marathon movie day at Universal Studios because I clearly had high hopes for something of value to emerge from this film. I was sorely disappointed and ended up enjoying both Get Smart and Hancock more than this film. (Obviously, Wall-E was ahead of it as well since it was my favorite of the day.) I knew it would be a krosh krosh action flick, but Angelina Jolie's ultra tough assassin character intrigued me and I thought for sure something of her strength in this "man's world" would prove redeeming.

The driving force behind this movie is the same as Jumper and really hits on why our society has become so obsessed with superhero movies. People no longer use their bodies for manual labor and computers have made the majority of our jobs sedentary. People literally sit in a cube all day and stare at a screen. That is where the main character Wesley starts at the beginning of the film, just your average guy. As Morgan Freeman's character puts it, he is a "sheep herded by fate" and it is time to take control of his own destiny. (Which, ironically, means blindly carrying out orders given by the "loom of fate." Yes you heard me correctly. An actual loom that weaves the names of assassination targets into the fabric in binary code. I laughed out loud during this explanation and the movie was all downhill from here.) So we are fascinated with superhero films because boys sitting in front of computers all day want to believe that one day a beautiful woman will come along and tell them that their body is magical and that they can use it physically in extraordinary ways to escape their humdrum life. People want control over their bodies again and superheroes represent the ultimate control and escape from monotony. So Wesley, the boy suffering from anxiety learns his anxiety is really a super human gift, tells off his crappy fat lady boss (not a stereotype at all) and becomes a super killer in 6 weeks. Not to mention he gets to make out with Angelina Jolie.

The one intriguing part of Jolie's character was that, although there was a make-out scene and her naked-ness was tossed around to make her the blatant sex object (as expected) she was not the love interest. The kiss was only to make Wesley's ex-girlfriend jealous. Jolie's character remained aloof and beyond caring almost the whole movie, indicated by her face which had practically the same expression plastered on to it in every scene. It was interesting to not make her the automatic love interest and to have the story not be about love. She was more of the mentor, but this also made her character fall flat for me and proved to be the downfall in the end. Her aloofness was a distance and disconnect for the audience and she refuses to question and examine why she is doing what she is doing. Wesley begins to question the loom, but she believes in it blindly, thinking that her family died because an assassin didn't do what the loom told her. The whole time I was like, how do you know that they weren't just telling you what you wanted to hear so you would be loyal? For a movie that touts taking control of your destiny it was strangely shrouded in blindly following fate. So much so that Jolie's character ends the film by killing herself and every other assassin supposedly put on the hit list by the loom. This was just absurdity to me and indicated no character arc for her at all. Because I found her character so shallow, the blatantness of her being the sex object and eye-candy seemed even more pronounced.

The movie derailed into explosions and killing and Wesley finding out he was lied to. He then takes down the whole operation single-handedly after only 6 weeks of training. I just got really bored during all the fighting and shooting in the end. What started out as cool, just got very tiring. One thing I did notice, was that in the car, right after Wesley gets picked up, he was appropriately scared for his situation. I know I was mentioning in the National Treasure 2 post that people in these films just aren't as scared as they should be for someone who is that close to dying. His fear was really just used for comic effect and although it seemed appropriate, used in this context of humor, it just didn't play. It made me question how it is possible to integrate real human psychology into these fantastical worlds and make it play. Can it be something besides comic relief? Is it necessary at all because these worlds are so clearly not real. This is something that can be learned and experimented with and why I must do my webseries!

One more item of note was that Bridget McManus was the checker in the store when Wesley was buying all the Peanut Butter. She was literally in the film for a split second, but I recognized her. After IMDBing her, I found out that she was also the Producer's Assistant. Apparently AfterEllen has enough connections to get its Vloggers decent work on big gigs. This encourages me even more to find my niche with in this market.

Wall-E

This film was by far my favorite of the marathon trip to Universal Studios Theater, which included Wanted, Get Smart and Hancock. What stands out the most is just how human Wall-E was with his child-like wonder. He was fascinated with the world and so the audience was fascinated with him (much like Daniele and Hagen's description of the enraptured cat on-stage stealing all the attention from the actors). Also the level of detail in each frame of the animation was riveting. I could not look away. I know I caught a glimpse of the Dinosaur from Toy Story in there and I am sure I will see something new every time I watch it.

The political commentary was blatant, and really aimed at making sure kids got it. I was OK with this because the focus on the movie was on the robots and not the humans and the fact that the robots were more human than the humans (who acted like robots completely immersed in their technology) was a bit more subtle. The Buy'N'Large company was obvious in what it stated about our waste and consumption driven society (aka capitalism) and how advertising tells you what to think and want. The chairs that walk for you was a warning against our over-reliance on technology and the computer screens in your face were a clear parallel to cell phones and our recent obsession with being constantly connected to people through technology without actually connecting to real people and the world around us. Primarily it was a warning against our ever-increasing technology mediated existence. Will humans forget what it means to be human and become machines of the system, capitalism and technology? We will forget how to connect with people as people? Clearly the answer is no. Wall-E represented an extreme that our society will never reach because we are so diverse and different as people, but extreme and blatant as it was, I think it will still present a mirror for self-reflection as to where our society is headed, especially for children who I think will really connect with the commentary about waste that the film represents. Obviously, something like 1984 is much more profound as an extreme representation of our future and had Wall-E been more subtle it would have had more potential to connect with adults, but it was a delightful film with an important message about our immersion in technology and capitalism, which isn't usually a message delivered to kids.

Fool's Gold

This movie reminds me of what Ron Bozman told me about his career. Sometimes, you make bad movies just to make a living. Producers recognize bad movies, but know they will make money and that is why they get made. Well our definitions of "make a living" are vastly different. Perhaps this is the key to not having to settle? As far as this movie goes, clearly the producers were banking on star power and charisma from both Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson, back together on screen to sell tickets because I didn't hear much else from the ad campaign but this. That immediately makes me think the movie will be complete crap, but honestly, it was pretty watchable. Their chemistry and charisma together was great and I didn't even mind MM's seeping arrogance. I actually really enjoyed the father-daughter relationship, with the Paris Hilton-esque diva girl trying to bond with her billionaire father. The scene where she describes her 24yr-old mother and stands up to her old dad was touching. Kate Hudson was absolutely charming in her quirky, beautiful way. And I am a sucker for the history mystery movies. I did feel like I was learning something whether it was based in fact or not.

McConaughey's character had an Indiana Jones like appeal. A screw-up who is completely passionate and one-minded in his focus. This quality is what always got him (and Indy) through and made him relatable to the audience. Some of the lines were really great. Hudson says "We just had sex in a church and we're not married and now we are digging up a grave. What is that like a triple sin?" McConaughey digs up a barrel in the grave and says maybe its the grave of a "midget with cheap relatives." I laughed. The killing and shooting got a bit crazy at the end. So many bullets flying and no one got hit? That really undermines the danger of guns and is just plain ridiculous, not funny. I'm not sure if it was edited because we were an a plane, but the plane crashing in the water was completely cut. They were headed for the water and then it cut to them floating amongst debris. It felt like they ran out of budget. I can only assume it was "edited for content" because that was just plain bad filmmaking. So what happened with this film. It was good plane fare, but how did it fair at the box office? Well rotten tomatoes gave it about the most scathing reviews imaginable. Maybe all those people went in with expectations, but I clearly had none and was able to enjoy many moments of this film.

Jumper

The premise for this movie intrigues me, especially after just having finished The Man Who Folded Himself. Jumping is teleporting anywhere, and that is basically it. They don't really explain the rules other than you need a "jump point" something visual to focus on to go to. They don't bother with the history of it or how it is possible. It is just enough to know that both Paladins and Jumpers have existed and fought for centuries. That is just what they do. The beginning of the film was more of an exploration into the psychology of a human who suddenly finds out that he is not subject to the limits of space. What will this person become when normal rules no longer apply? (These seems to be the theme of a lot of superhero movies lately. People are ordinary, like us, but then become extraordinary, a way to give us all escapism and hope from our boring lives.)

Hayden Christiansen's character was very much like Daniel in The Man Who Folded Himself, exploring the universe where he is at the center. Jumper, however, was much less insightful. It is about a man without limits hat takes what he pleases and sees the whole world, including women, as his toys. What was interesting about this in the beginning is most "guys who suddenly get power" use it to become heroes. He used it to live in a New York loft and get girls. After begin challenged by Samuel L. Jackson and escaping, he doesn't try to fight, he tries to go back to his old life and win over a girl. There were even subtle allusions, like Hurricane Katrina victims on TV that he could have easily saved, but were imperviously ignored. So even though it is the classic, boy escapes awful life by finding out he has superpowers, he doesn't become a hero or a join a "fraternity of assassins." He has to deal with his alcoholic dad, being picked on as a kid and taking everything that he wants from the world (the wonderful intro, I did all this blah di blah by lunch), but he still feels empty inside. So we learn that his path to wholeness revolves around his girlhood crush and reconciliation with his mom who left. He goes home to find the girl he left behind and she is still there, waiting for him and now we have excellent fodder for him to save, because the movie literally does a 180° and turns, instantaneously, into a superhero movie where Jumpers fight Paladins in a Good (sort of) vs. Evil (religious fanatic undertones not missed). It literally turns into a crazy krosh, krosh action movie with face smashing, cars jumping all over Tokyo and double decker buses plowing through Egypt. Hayden does the impossible and jumps a house to save the day and his girlfriend. Leaves the bad guy on the edge of a cliff and then confronts his Paladin mother in a quasi, accept me even though I'm different (could be gay) moment. She (Diane Lane) gives him a head start. I smell sequel.

Hayden was less obnoxious in this movie than Star Wars, but still, I think people are mistaken to assume he has leading man quality. He did look dark and brooding, with those hollowed out eyes, which is probably why Lucas thought he would make a good villain of the universe as Vader, but even though he looked tortured the whole movie, it really only worked in the beginning, when it wasn't an action movie. I think where this movie derailed is that for people who wanted action, the really didn't get much until the end and for people who are tired of endless car chases and explosions, we started to dive deeper into his psyche and then we were ripped away.

Now all I can really say about this movie is "what a boy flick." White male, god-like power, lots of money. Another white male, god-like power, lots of aggression and anger. The world revolves around him, he can do anything and beautiful girls fall at his feet. We briefly begin to explore his psychology in dealing with his new god like power and his sense of emptiness. Then we see him try to find something meaningful in the girl he left behind, but then the girl becomes his sole reason to be a hero. She is only there so he can have someone to save. She was so one note, just there to give him meaning. I want to know, why couldn't the other jumper have been a girl? Well obviously because then she would've had to have been the love interest. Well what if she was tough and intelligent and kicked ass, but wasn't the love interest? What if she was a lesbian? Would this be too threatening to the 14yr olds going to see the movie who all want to escape their crappy lives by having god-like power and women fall at their feet? Why can't we just stick with exploring his psyche? Everyone in the theater wished they could have his power, which is why we as a society are so obsessed with super hero movies lately, but none of them realized that he was actually miserable and alone with his power. So again this makes me think again of The Man Who Folded Himself. Daniel was the center of his universe yet so very alone that he could only ever be with himself.

If my superhero webseries can begin to transcend this need to be either action or drama, then I need to keep movies like Jumper in my mind. The industry doesn't even consider making movies like Jumper where women are more than just objects for the hero. (I made a note that perhaps Angelina Jolie in Wanted would be different, but sadly that was disappointing as well.) It is about time that movies like Jumper are turned are their head. I really think Hollywood is sorely missing a woman's perspective in the action genre. I think this is why the Batman franchise as always been successful, it mixes action with 2 psychologically warped people and one falls into villainy, an example of what Batman could become, and Batman is always struggling with how to be so cracked, flawed and broken, yet a hero. The trailer intrigues me because it is all about his struggle. "I see the man I have to become to stop men like him" and it scares him. I am really looking forward to that movie. Plus Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over Katie Holmes role as Rachel Dawes in probably the best casting decision of the decade. Dig to Katie, but yay for the rest of the world. Thank god they decided to admit their mistake with Holmes and fix it rather than just plow through as most honchos with power do.

Evan Almighty

All in all it was much better than the trash I expected it to be. It was entertaining, in a feel good, family movie sort of way. Most of the funny parts were, predictably, in the trailer, but Steve Carell, even as the same character in every movie, is just hard to look away from. He can carry things. Even clunky predictable sinkers like Noah's Ark.

It was fun to look for Ty as an extra, although I didn't see him. I think he was in the big Ark scene, pre-flood at the end.

Maile Flanagan made an appearance as the Mail woman and was in the last sequence on the ark. I made a note to find out how she got famous enough to get that part. Wikipedia says she is most famous as the voice of Naruto, but she has also been in several films and TV shows in bit parts including The Office where she played Phyllis's sister in her wedding episode.

National Treasure 2

First of all, they made the mistake of assuming I remembered or cared who the characters were. I haven't seen the first movie in like 5 years and it was forgettable enough that I only remembered the room of gold and Nic Cage. This movie had an elaborate set-up to explain where the people from the first movie were now, but I didn't even remember the actors faces from the first movie so I couldn't recognize them. As a result, the intro of this movie was lost on me. I didn't remember that the girl and Nic Cage got together so this whole elaborate set-up to explain their separation was confusing. I remember the premise of the franchise as being a good one, using history and our nostalgia for what the collective knowledge of U.S. history is (Paul Revere Tea Party etc.) to weave an action mystery ala Indiana Jones, where there is more to the past than meets the eye. I remember the first film starting well and being very compelling but then it went all Bruckheimer action crazy and ended in a giant room of gold. National Treasure 2 was the same, but less clever and more over the top. I cared less about the characters (although the quirky sidekick guy was occasionally genuinely funny) and their predicament or the treasure. The villain was just ridiculous even though it is played by Ed Harris, the premise behind the character was just plain dumb. I was very surprised to see Helen Mirren as Nic Cage's mom and Native American expert. She was regal and I was drawn to her in very scene, but I could not believe the dialog. Apparently she hadn't seen her husband in 32 years and they start arguing over a toothbrush? Give me a break.

It is just so hard for me to feel suspense in these ridiculous, over-the-top action movies. They are so elaborate in their stunts and special effects, but the outcome is just plain predictable and the actors aren't nearly scared enough for how imminent their death should be. They should be pissing themselves with fear and having nervous breakdowns. Not everyone is a "hero" and even "heroes" fear death. I want to see some real emotion in a superhero movie.

What I need to explore is how action movies can actually build suspense. They need to seem plausible and real so that the audience truly fears for the character along with them. I know they are meant to be fantastical and escapist, but their has to be a way to integrate real emotion and fear without it being the comic relief from the nerdy guy. More actual human psychology please, I am tired of blockbuster superhero over the top psychology. It has become so commonplace that people just make movies that way without even thinking about it. I'm not buying it and maybe even little kids aren't either. Kids are smarter than they get credit for. This is what I need to explore with my comic book webseries. Superheroes and victims with real human emotions, reactions and behaviors. People will eventually grow tired (if they haven't already) of the eye-candy, special effects driven blockbuster and they will want some real to identify with. Even movies like Transformers that try to lure the audience in with a "regular kid" Shia LaBeouf eventually have him perform superhuman task with ease and without fear.

And a picture of the leading lady because I like beautiful women who kick ass, even if the do just wind up with the guy at the end.

Museum of Fine Arts - Boston, MA

I had an amazing time just bumming around Boston while waiting for Dad's plane to come in. I stuck true to my word to not let his "inconveniences" hinder me and I really rocked out. First I went to the Sam Adams Brewery Tour. I made it in time for the 12pm tour, getting there around 11:30am. It got crazy busy right after I got there and they ended up being "sold out" until 2pm. It wasn't so much of a tour as a taste a bunch of great beer fresh from the source. I tried the original lager, the summer ale and a German name (Grosh?) with birds of paradise grain. All were delicious. I hadn't eaten so I got a bit of a buzz, hoped on the T and headed back towards the Museum of Fine Arts.

There was something surreal about looking at Monet, Degas, Manet, Van Gogh etc. while having a bit of a Sam Adams beer buzz. I must say, it was wonderful. I was surprised how much I was able to remember just from the two art history courses I took in college. If I really read a book on it, I would make so many more connections and appreciate these works and their effect on history so much more after having seen so much of the world's amazing master pieces in person. It really takes it to a whole new level. By connections, I mean understanding more insightfully the progression of the works and how each movement builds on the other. A refresher in history regarding the politics of the time would also begin to make all this art and its creators gel for me.

Everything in Egypt always fascinates me. It gives me a sense of just how old our Earth is and puts into perspective how comparatively stable the Egyptian civilization was to rule for over 30 dynasties and 4000 years. I feel like the Egyptian culture had a stable middle class, just as we do today that was very focused on earning things, just as we are today. They may have wanted pots and jewelry and trinkets to take with them to the after life, but that isn't much different than working for ipods or cars or clothes today. The basic human need and desire is the same now as it was then. The same emotions, motivations and stories still exists within us. I hardly think our technology driven society will have the stability to last 4000 years. Who know where we will be in the course of my lifetime, let only 30 generations from now.

I can babble all I want, but the pics speak for themselves and say much more, and more elegantly, than I ever could.Mary Stevenson Cassatt, In the Loge, 1878

Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dance at Bougival, 1883

Paul Gauguin, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?, 1897-1898

Vincent van Gogh, Postman Joseph Roulin, 1888

Claude Monet, Antibes Seen from the Plateau Notre-Dame, 1888

Claude Monet, La Japonaise (Camille Monet in Japanese Costume), 1876

Edouard Manet, Street Singer, 1862

Jean-Francois Millet, Potato Planters, 1861

Joseph Mallord William Turner, Slave Ship (Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying, Typhoon Coming On), 1840

Henri Matisse, Carmelina, 1903

Vincent van Gogh, Lullaby: Madame Augustine Roulin Rocking a Cradle (La Berceuse), 1889

Antonio Stradivari, Violino Piccolo, 1734 - A miniature Stradivari violin made for Napoleon Bonaparte's son. Damn!

King Mycerinus and Queen Kha-merer-nebbty II, Giza, 2548-2530 B.C. The woman has been nurturing to her rigid man for thousands of years!

Egyptian writing. Beautiful.

Pair Statue of Ptahkhenuwy and His Wife, Giza, Old Kingdom Dynasty 5, 2465-2323 B.C.

Roman Mosiac Floor, Early Third Century A.D.

Wreath of Olive Leaves, Greek, 4th Century B.C.

Egyptian "stuff" (almost an ipod), later dynasties, 20-30ish)

Sarcophagus with Husband and Wife, Etruscan (with Greek influence), 330-300 B.C.

This is ~Dynasty 27-30 Egyptian Sarcophagus, didn't snap the name plate on this one.