Thursday, December 31, 2009

The Year in Meh

I love movies.  I equally love serious (artistic) cinema and regular "movie movies."  I am even under the impression that movies today are better than they've ever been, technically, artistically, and ideologically, something I would not and could not say through the 1980s and 1990s, though I will say my esteem for the output of these decades has grown in the past few years.

This is the time of year when moviegoers like me post their "best of" and "worst of" lists.  But I live in a city that is not first in line for foreign, independent, and "Oscar bait" releases, which is to say that I do not live in Los Angeles or New York City.  So many of the "best" movies do not enter my radar until the following year ... and often not until a whole year or two later, when the film shows up on DVD or somebody's "dark-horse masterpieces" list.  The best I can compile here are the movies of 2009 that struck my fancy and were actually seen in 2009.  Here they are:  Avatar, Where the Wild Things Are, Watchmen, 2012, and World's Greatest Dad (I saw this movie late on DVD.  It's best if you ignore the misleading title and the fact that it stars Robin Williams and rent it knowing only, as I did, that Bob Goldthwait directed it and John Waters named it one of the "best" of 2009.)  My list does not even hit the magic number ten.  I guess I'm saving five spots for 2009 releases I'll catch in 2010 or later.

Also, I am not a paid film reviewer, so fortunately I am usually spared seeing the "worst" movies of a year.  What follows, then, are my list of the ten (neither top nor bottom) meh movies of 2009, that is, the movies I expected to like because of glowing reviews, friends' recommendations, or my own irrational high hopes, but I responded to with little (if any) enthusiasm.  Some of these movies made real reviewers' "best of" lists, proving only "to each his own tastes."  Some of these movies are on people's "worst of" lists, meaning only that I've seen worst and found them at least to be bearable.  Most of these have been unreviewed in this blog and uncommented on here precisely because of my lack of enthusiasm for them and negligible interest in them.  All I can really say is that I saw them and probably won't remember them, so it's best if I list them here now, while I still can.

1.              Up 
2.              The Men Who Stare at Goats
3.              Nine
4.              Star Trek
5.              The Proposal
6.              Julie and Julia
7.              Me and Orson Welles
8.              The Hangover
9.              Zombieland
10.            Fighting

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The Shroud of Chiquita





Story here.

Monday, December 28, 2009

It's Complicated (Movie Review)



Ann asked me to go see It's Complicated with her yesterday.  We both walked into the theater knowing it would be a chick flick, but a chick flick par excellence since it sports Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, John Krasinski, Steve Martin, and, in cameo doses, Mary Kay Place, Nora Dunn, and (usually a warning sign) Rita Wilson.


Let me say the obvious first:  Streep is incredible in this film, and because of her deftly complicated performance as a 58-year-old divorcee with three children, her own business, and a dried-up sex life, Complicated is the first modern chick flick to be worthy of an Oscar nomination.  It's not exactly The Piano or Annie Hall great, but, with Streep in it, it's way ahead of the pack of things like Sex and the City (dreck) and The Proposal (which is not dreck, but it lacks nuance or wit).

In fact, all the glowing praise heaped on Streep for Julie and Julia (in which rather meh movie she is, indeed, won-der-ful) needs to be relit and reheaped for her performance in this film.  In fact, I will be angry if she gets nominated for playing Julia Child instead of her achievement here.  It's just that much better, though both performances are noteworthy.

If you saw the trailer for this movie, you get the gist of it (divorcees reignite the old passion with a late midlife affair) and you can perhaps even guess the outcome, but what you may not expect is how involved you can get in it.  It's mostly Streep's doing, as I said, with her finely tuned double takes, infectious laughter, and her gift (it's called acting) of conveying loneliness or embarrassment with just a flicker of an eyelash.  But some credit goes too to writer-director Nancy Meyers (The Holiday and Something's Gotta Give), who has a good ear for the things people say that hurt each other (intentionally or not) and the things people do not say that give each other hope.

Alec Baldwin and John Krasinski are also major pluses in this film, though neither gets to (or does) exhibit the range of human feeling that Streep does.  They don't convey a lot about their characters beyond their emotions, which (you're ahead of me) Streep does.  In fact, the mark of what a magnificent actor Streep is (despite what that shrill, jittery, and sometimes brilliant Camille Paglia says to disparage her talent) that she conveys not just emotions, but who the person is behind the emotions (so that we can imagine the character's responses to events that are not even in the movie!) and, most incredible of all, she conveys insights to the characters around her, so that about 40% of what we feel towards Baldwin's and Krasinski's characters is (I would argue) due to Streep's reactions to what they say and do.

Streep is 80% responsible for what we come to feel for the rest of the cast.  Not that they are bad actors, but they just don't or can't work a moment the way God's gift to American cinema can.  Steve Martin's performance as a newly divorced architect is peculiarly drained (and draining), almost as if the gifted comedian/banjoist/art collector/playwright is under the impression that total lack of affect is the best way to convey a character's insecurity, withdrawal, expectation, and sorrow.  And in retrospect I'm pretty sure that I would have been more impressed with Martin's "restrained" performance, had it not been juxtaposed against Streep's, which conveys all the above, plus the whole living being of her character.

Okay, enough jisming all over Meryl Streep.

What are the film's drawbacks?  For me?  Apart from some niggling complaints I won't bother with, it has one main drawback; it's way too elegant.  Way too.  Yes, everybody in it is fabulously wealthy and reside in absolutely envy-inducing homes.  Sure, they are lawyers, restauranteurs, and architects.  But their environments are portrayed in golden Hollywood excess ... art-directed to death.  It is possible to portray the lifestyles of the well-to-do without idealizing them, as even a brief excerpt from The Graduate about midway through this movie illustrates by contrast.  The mise-en-scene of It's Complicated is calculated to induce desire and envy, the way television commercials do.  The food Streep serves in this movie made me even hungrier than the shots of food in Julie and Julia, which is, after all, partly about the delectability of a well-prepared meal.  Why couldn't the beautiful and wealthy characters in this film at least breathe something remotely like actual oxygen?

Kudos to the film (and its script) for transgressing some of the generic boundaries of the chick flick, for daring to violate the principle that all children should be adorable, for not depicting middle-aged sex and romance as inherently ridiculous, for at least hinting at what makes philandering husbands charming, and for addressing the feelings of guilt over casual sex with some attention to their ethical bases, and yet without didacticism or the pretense that sexual mores are absolute or just.

Chick flicks have an audience beyond those of the female persuasion, to be sure.  Some, like It's Complicated, are just good entertainment, regardless of their genre, and can be enjoyed even by those who aren't ordinarily devotees of the form.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Sunday Beefcake










Saturday, December 26, 2009

Monkey Punch and Bunny Lift


Brian Kenny, Monkey-Punch, 2009




Brian Kenny, Bunny-Lift, 2009


Friday, December 25, 2009

Yule (A Suggestion)



Christmas Tree, by Gareth Pugh (2008)

I'm of the opinion that Christmas should always be on a Sunday, just as Thanksgiving Day is always on a Thursday.  The holiday is inherently anticlimactic, with the potential for spoiling every day of the week except Sunday, which, let's face it, most of us have already gotten used to being pretty much a washout.  Things shutting down on a Friday, like today, just seems cruel.  In fact, putting Christmas permanently on Sunday would give Sunday a little color, at least for one Sunday out of every 52.

Putting Christmas on Sunday should also make the Christians happy, putting Christ back into Christmas and letting them just go to town singing hymns, building creches, and feeling holy.  Nobody believes that Jesus was born on Christmas Day anyway.  Christmas became Christmas because the tenth-century church wanted to put the kibosh on pagan midwinter celebrations, like Yule.


Now, Yule is another story.  We could keep Yule as a fun time, to celebrate peace and fertility (or the Germanic divine-mothers) the old-fashioned way, for three to twelve days sometime from late November to the beginning of January, depending on the lunar calendar.  We could probably dispense with the animal sacrifice or wild hunt (though an NRA tie-in could help popularize the revival of Yule in the South), but we could maintain the tradition of decorating logs and trees, singing our hearts out, lighting bonfires, and drinking heavily.  It would be a great time for all, including non-pagans.

The important thing is, if we're going to shorten operation hours at the mall and stop mail service for the day, Christmas on Sunday would ensure that we don't get two boring days within three days of each other.  Not to say that shopping at the mall or getting junk mail is all that much fun, but at least it's nice to have options for stuff to do.

And then Christmas could be all about the "true meaning" and shit, and everybody could coo over the baby Jesus, and angels, and shepherds, and wise men, and Yule could be about "happy holidays" and laughter and irreverence and sex and just getting along and fun.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Come and Behold Him

Pecs and biceps like these, to say nothing of lashes black as ebony and lips like cherry soda, wipe the slate clean of all the insincerity, narcissism, salesmanship, and self-promotion of the video in general.  Here is the true meaning of Christmas:  a babe and a proclamation of good news (for five days only).  Visions of sugary plums and a stocking-stuffer for my long winter's nap.




LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...