Spontaneous Musings

Felt better for a bit, then felt horrid again. Ugh. It's like the weather, overcast this morning, then beautiful, sky is clear blue, sunny, then overcast again. If I didn't know any better I'd say it is the weather causing it. I'm a human weather vane.

Watched too movies today:

1.) Spy via HBO on-demand, which stars Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Jude Law, and Jason Stratham...and is basically a parody of the James Bond films, but not quite as broad. It's quite good in places, and way too raunchy in others. There were times I wanted to put it on mute because the insult a-thone was giving me a headache. That said, there were some laugh out loud moments - Jason Stratham and Melissa McCarthy are hilarious at various points. She plays a CIA handler who ends up becoming a field agent. She's supposed to just track the target, but instead goes into the field and makes contact. Like all of Melissa McCarthy's films it pokes fun at how shallow our society has become in regards to looks and body type.

2.) Room -- this is the film that got nominated for multiple awards and won Brie Larson a best actress oscar. (After seeing it and the film 45 Years in which Charlotte Rampling was nominated, I'd have given the oscar to Charlotte Rampling. YMMV.)

In case you don't know the plot -- ( spoilers )

I have mixed feelings about the film. Can't really say I liked it all that much nor do I understand the rave reviews or hype surrounding it.

For one thing, it didn't feel all that new to me. Yes, we get most of this through the child's eyes, but, well I've been watching the Family, which has also has Joan Allen playing the mother of the child who was taken and now returned, shell-shocked. Also, I've seen news reports, read true crime accounts, seen the comedy - the Unbeatable Kimmy Schmidt, and read various fictional novels on the topic. This topic was very popular in the 1990s and popped up in just about every mystery novel or thriller series that I'd read back then. Kidnapped women/children and serial killers. Very popular plot-lines and in my opinion overdone.

It's also really hard to watch. Painful. I found it frustrating at times and cringeworthy at others. Not a nice topic, even if it ends well.

The film is ultimately uplifting, and I'd recommend it for its emphasis on how someone reacts to discovering a huge world outside of their small room. Not knowing there is actually a world outside of it. But again, I've seen it done elsewhere and in some respects far better. So, I felt the film was a tad over-rated in that respect. (Can't help but wonder if the book might have been better - you're more fully in the child's pov in the book apparently, and here...the pov is more split, which of course they had to do, but isn't as innovative or effective.)

The kid is quite good in it. Compelling for the most part and it held my attention. But I wouldn't have given it awards and I'm glad I didn't pay anything to see it.

[Saw if for free via a For Your Consideration DVD.]

1. WHOA.... Justice Antonin Scalia died at 79 -- to put this in context, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 82. By the way, they were very close Friends. Poltics doesn't define friendships.

But this is huge. And before Obama leaves office, long before he leaves office. This could change the nature of the Supreme Court. Scalia was one of Ronald Regan's appointees.


2. Just finished watching The Danish Girl - the film based on the book, which in turn was based on the real diaries of Lili Elbe, entitled Man Turned into a Woman. Is it close to the book/real story of Ms. Elbe? According to this article it is. And apparently they went out of their way, to do the story the justice it deserved...as it was written. As seen HERE.

The movie is a beautifully filmed tragic love story, reminds me a lot of the film Carol actually in how it was filmed. The acting was superb, and yes, Eddie Redmayne is pretty in the role of Edward/Lilli and the actress playing his wife, Gerda, quite good. But much like Carol --- I found it difficult to watch in places, difficult to care about the characters, and, ultimately? I did not like the all film. In both cases -- I felt as if the filmmaker showed me the surface, but never dug deep. I also felt, and this is an odd thing to state, but that I was looking through the heterosexual male gaze throughout both films..it was almost as if we were seeing how heterosexual men view women. Or rather romanticize women. How they think women act, react, and deal with each other and men. And more importantly how someone who is treated as a man but identifies as a woman would act. So, as a result, the film felt flat to me --- like looking at a painting by Degas. A pretty painting, but something missing. It's interesting, I didn't figure out that this was my difficulty with Carol until after I saw The Danish Girl - because the two films feel very similar to me in tone, both also look like paintings on the screen.

There's a scene in The Danish Girl that is a perfect example of this -- Edward/Lilli goes to a peep show to watch a woman performing for men, he copies her movements. Movements she does for the male gaze. I remember thinking during this bit - that there is no way a woman would do this, woman don't do that with their bodies unless they are trying to turn on a man for money at his request.
Men tell them to do it. And in fact that's what the woman in the peep show is doing. So why would someone who is transgender go to a peep show and copy movements meant for a heterosexual male gaze?
It felt off.

Carol equally has bits with cameras, where we feel as if the male gaze is evident in the film.

These are two films about female relationships and female characters. The male characters really aren't that prevalent in either. Yet the directors shoot both as if we are looking at the characters through a male perspective. It felt off to me and jarring, in both cases.

Interestingly enough, I didn't realize that was my problem with the film Carol until I saw the Danish Girl. They both have the same problem, the male trying to understand what it is to be a lesbian or for that matter, a man who wants to become a woman. Which by the way is NOT the case with transgender or was even the case with Lilli. As said in the writing...the writing states that clearly, it's the direction that states otherwise. In both cases, hence the feeling of being jarred by the story -- as if the something is off.

Now, it is hard to tell a transgender story, because you can't generalize about transgender. It's not simple. Or clear cut. I've known a wide-range, and everyone is different. But, most transgender are basically individuals who somehow or other feel out of sync with their body. There was a rather good French film on the topic made years ago...entitled Ma Vie En Rose - or My Life in Pink, which is about a child whose family and community views as a boy, but who communicates as being a girl. It too does adopt some female stereotypical fetishes, but not to quite the same extent. Also, it does a good job of commenting on society's intolerance on transgender. In that film, there's a child who is treated as a girl but identifies as a boy. Another film about Transgender that I haven't seen but been told is rather good is Boys Don't Cry - which is the true story of Brandon Teena, a transgender man (an individual who identified as man but everyone saw as female..and became a man) - who is beaten to death.

It's hard for cisgender (those of us who aren't transgender and were lucky enough to be born into a body that reflects our gender identification/personality) to wrap our minds around someone who isn't.
It took me a while. But if you can think of it this way -- we are beings of light energy or spirit, with organic bodies. The body and spirit intertwine as one..if the two don't match, it's discordant, sort of like wearing shoes that don't fit. A more medical/scientific explanation is the wrong hormones...or a hormonal imbalance...but I think the other explanation works better. Science doesn't explain everything -- it's limited, too much reliance on concrete scientific explanations leads to horrible results. You have to be open to the fact that there are just some things that exist outside our ability to understand or explain.

At any rate -- I think the filmmakers tried to do the story justice, but it doesn't work. You can tell that they just can't wrap their minds around Lilli Elbe's character and we never really get her story, instead we get a weird male romanticized and justified view of Lilli and Gerda, that doesn't quite play. Or at least it did not work for this view. Your mileage may vary. (My friend who lent me the film liked it a lot better than I did, she also liked Carol better than I did.)

At any rate, I wouldn't have nominated the film for any awards. Maybe the acting. The acting is rather good. Still thought Steve Jobs was a better film.

3. This is odd, my sink appears to be farting or rather the floor is farting. Not sure what to make of it.

4. I may take a sabbatical from Face Book until the election is over...which is ironic, considering I went on Facebook in 2008 in order to get information on the election. People are just ranting. It's getting annoying. LJ is so much easier to deal with, instead of crazy ranty Americans, we have sane, bewildered, and somewhat amused if a wee bit terrified Europeans - watching the American Election much the way I'd watch a horror flick, with one hand over my eyes, trying not to wince, but unable to look away from the ensuing train wreck.

Cold and overcast here, no sun. Actually we haven't seen the sun in NYC in weeks apparently. (I was gone during part of that time, so am relying on the sentiments of co-workers.) And the meterologists had promised a clear, sunny, but cold and breezy day. It's cold and breezy, but not sunny nor clear.

Finished watching two critically acclaimed documentary films, courtesy of Showtime:

1. Listen to me Marlon- which is a bio-pic of Marlon Brando's life and career as told by Marlon Brando, in his own words. It utilizes news footage, interviews, and audio recordings made by Brando over a lengthy period of time. The documentary is an incredibly moving portrayal of a complicated actor and civil right's activist. Brando gave up acting for a while to join Martin Luther King in his fight for Civil Rights, and various social justice causes. Later, he gave up acting to aid the American Indians (Native Americans) in their fight for equality.

His personal life was a train wreck. He's brutally honest about it, blames himself, and is naked in how he feels about these things. And Brando was almost too sensitive for the career he chose - he was a method actor, who dug deep into the characters he portrayed. His portrayal of Stanley Kowaski on Broadway almost drove him nuts and into a depression, because he despised the character and everything he stood for. Loved and respected the play, and the craft. But the work of bringing it every night was more than he could handle.

Becoming disillusioned with Hollywood in the 1970s, he made a few interesting comments about it and the craft of acting:

* "There are no great movies. The audience brings it with them - they find something in the film to relate to. It's their own personal fantasy, that they are alone with in the dark."

*"Movies make people feel good. They take them out of themselves if just for a little while. And that's a good thing to contribute to the world."

* "All actors are liars. That's the craft of acting to tell a good lie. We are all actors. Everyone. And great ones. When we lie - we are acting. That's all acting is."

* "Stellar Adler changed acting...before it was the great expression, overdone, now it was about finding a real moment in the character, digging deep and discovering that moment. She'd tell me -- if you feel 100% - bring at least 60% to the role, 60% bring at least 40%, if you feel less than 60, you might as well just turn around and go home."

Fascinating man, and a wonderfully engaging actor. When he was good, he was amazing. When he was bad, he was terrible. His best roles, which we see snippets of in the film were:

*Stanley Kowaski - Streetcar Named Desire
* Paul in Last Tango in Paris
* Vito Corelone - in the Godfather
* The Men
* The Wild One

There's also a great statement he makes about the American Indians and how Hollywood has portrayed them, from Dick Cavett clip. The documentary doesn't show the first half of the clip, just the American Indian portion that appears at the 2.50 point. He really rips into white privilege.

( Read more... )

Regarding his weight gain and difficulty with weight - he makes a statement that I can identify way too closely with. "You see, food was always my best friend. When I came home from school after a bad day, there was always apple pie and cheese in the ice box. Come on, it would say, take me out old pal."

"Think of things that comfort you...milk, cookies, brownies...don't eat them, just think about them." He'd say in one his self-hypnosis calming tapes.

Highly recommend this documentary - possibly the best bio-pic that I've seen and by far the most compassionate. You leave with a true sense of the man and what it is to be an actor, to be human, and to struggle. Found it moving and reassuring at the same time.

2.) Alex Gibney's - Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief - which is about as close as you can get to an in-depth look at Scientology, the religion started by pulp science fiction author L.Ron Hubbard, who went a bit insane developing it. It serves as a cautionary tale of sorts. (I didn't for one minute question the veracity of the documentary, mainly because of my sister-in-law and brother's interaction with the church of scientology while they were interning on a film in Texas. The church kept calling them to get their hands on my sis-inlaws cousin, who had escaped the church and his insane mother, both of which had been abusing him terribly. Also I'd studied it a bit in the 1980s, along with the EST movement.)

It's a disturbing story about how our desire to believe in something can drive us insane and imprison us. And how if you believe in something hard enough it will appear to be true. You can convince the human mind of just about anything.

It also indicates the difference between Scientology and other religions...people of other faiths can summarize their beliefs fairly simply, Scientology - keeps theirs hidden and isn't up front about it.

Also most other religions (ignoring the insane religious fanatics) - tend to help the world or at least try to through charitable causes. To date, Scientology hasn't really done much of anything that I'm aware of. If they have -- they need to hire better PR people.

Now, what to watch next?

I'm back...from visiting my family in South Carolina. (Actually it was just my aging parents, the rest of my family is scattered across the 50 states, including Hawaii, where my brother and sisinlaw and niece are currently residing. But most of us stay in touch via Facebook.)

Saw quite a few films over the holidays, three via DVD, and three in an actual movie theater -- which is a bit out of the norm for me this year. It's cheaper down there, plus more comfortable - since they have recliners. In NYC, it costs close to $20, and the seats are crappy, in Hilton Head, it costs $6 per person, and the seats are more comfortable than in my own living room. Also they confiscate cell phones from folks who text or use them during the film in Hilton Head. (Not sure how well that would work in NYC.) Oh, and my mother treats me, so the movies are also free (at least from my perspective).

1. Million Dollar Arm starring Jon Hamm - this is the Disney flick based on the true story about the sports agent who rebooted his business by convincing Sony to sponsor a Baseball recruiting effort in India. Basically, Hamm plays this self-involved, somewhat shallow sports agent who flies off to India to find a few great pitchers. He holds a huge contest, anyone who pitches over 85 miles per hour gets 10,000, a trip to the US, and the possibility of a major league baseball contract. He gets the idea watching "cricket" where he discovers that the game has some interesting similarities to baseball - and maybe there are a few talented players over there. Except the two kids who win - hate cricket, never played it, and actually excelled at track, javelin throwing, and hockey. The movie has its moments.
Anyhow Hamm brings the kids back to the states with him, much chaos ensues, because Hamm has to take full responsibility for the kids and can't rely on others to do so - as originally planned. They bond. He screws them. He feels deep remorse. Everything works out in the end.

It was okay. Not all that memorable, but good family fare.

2. Ken Burns Documentary of Mark Twain - actually quite good. If you haven't seen this yet, go rent it. I was impressed. I gave it to my Dad for his birthday, hoping it would be good, so was rather relieved. Learned a few things about Twain that I didn't know - such as he lost everything that mattered to him before he died in his 70s. He blamed himself for the deaths of his brother, son, wife, and favorite daughters. The only relative remaining, his middle daughter Clara, he was never close too. Although she did return before his death, and was with him when he died.

( Read more... )

3. Lee Daniels The Butler - this is loosely based on the story of Eugene Allen, who was a White House Head Butler for almost 50 years. The story sort of gives you the cliff notes version of the Civil Rights Movement through the eyes of a black man struggling to make ends meet. All the main characters are black. The white characters - such as the Presidents of the US, are in the background. It's okay, better than I expected actually. Although, the most entertaining bit was admittedly the casting choices for the five Presidents of the US featured, and two first ladies.

Quick run-down:( Read more... )

4. Mockinjay Part I - better than expected. Also more focused...than most of Danny Strong's screenplays. Which is interesting. Strong also wrote the screenplay for the Butler, in case you were wondering. This film made me cry, which I don't recall happening with the last film. Of course, I was also feeling hormonal.
So there's that.

Has a haunting soundtrack. But all the films do. Also, the acting was top-notch. I've decided the Hunger Games is by far the best adaptation of a series of childrens/YA novels that I've seen to date. (I've not read or seen Divergent, so cannot comment on it.) Harry Potter? It was okay, but I felt the adaptations lacked some of the humor and magic of the books. Also, I'm not sure Harry Potter lends itself to movies well - it's more serialized in nature, and seems to have a broader point of view. I say that, with the caveat that I happen to own all the Harry Potter films on DVD, have gotten rid of most of the books, and do not own any of the Hunger Games films. So...

5. Into the Woods - starring Meryl Streep, Chris Pine, Johnny Depp, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick amongst others. The best performances were of course the unknown theater vets...as should be expected: The Baker, Red Riding Hood, and Jack. Although
Emily Blunt was surprisingly good in the role that Johanna Kerns portrayed far more comically on Broadway - Blunt has a better voice than Kerns does.

I wish they'd cast Bernadette Peters as the Witch, Streep felt wrong somehow. Also not sure about Depp as the Wolf, although he only has two scenes - so it hardly manners.

Chris Pine was surprisingly good as Cinderella's self-involved and rather shallow Prince. Actually, the scene where Cinderella and Rapunzel's Princes attempt to outdo each other singing "Agony" is a hilarious send-up of Disney's Prince Charmings or hero trope.

I loved it. Of course. It's a musical. It's Sondheim. It's about fairy tales. It's steeped in metaphor. And I'm hardly a purist or for that matter much of a music snob (you sort of have to be able to sing in order to be a music snob...and well I can't), so what's not to love?
( what's not to love, spoilers )
If you've never seen the stage musical - you probably won't notice. Also like the stage musical - the first act is much better than the second act. The second act sort of drags - but it's totally worth it - because it features two of the most powerful and by far the best songs that have ever been written. "No one is Alone" and "Children Will Listen". The last one almost gets lost...since it rolls at the very end. These were showstopping numbers for the stage musical. And send chills up my spine.

If, however, you are one of those poor deprived souls who despise musicals (along with my Granny - who never quite understood the point of them, she thought people bursting out in song for no reason was rather silly, but she had similar issues with science fiction and fantasy not to mention historical romance novels, mysteries however didn't bug her - probably because there was less in them to jar her out of the story...lovely woman my Granny but she lacked imagination in the storytelling department), you might want to skip it.

6. The Imitation Game starring Benedict Cumberbatch (and the Good Wife's Matthew Goode, plus Keira Knightly and Charles Dance.)

I enjoyed it. But, it's not accurate. So if you see it? Keep in mind that 75% of it was made up or altered by the screen writer to get certain points across or make an interesting movie.

For the facts, or rather the Facts according to Andrew Hodges biography on Alan Turning, entitled "Alan Turning:The Enigma" go HERE.

Cumberbatch is rather good in it, but I'm not sure it's an accurate portrayal of Turning. Cumberbatch performs Turning more like Sherlock or Sheldon, when I think Turning was actually more like Leonard on The Big Bang Theory. This may get in the way of Cumberbatch getting a nomination for the role.

Also there's a moment in the movie that reminds me of BladeRunner...it's actually in regards to the title or where the title derives...apparently "The Imitiation Game" is determine if a person is a machine or a person based on a series of questions.

The problem with movies based on the lives of real people or real events is well, we sort of expect a certain level of "historical accuracy". If we're told up front that it is loosely based on the individual's life, or is a fictionalized account, or not based at all - then we suspend disbelief. If we're lead to believe it is an actual account or closely based - then we get a might jarred or pissed when we realize otherwise. Or at least that's how I react, your mileage may differ. Some people can't handle any variation from the history as they know it without being jarred out a story. (I'm not that well-versed in history to care. Nor that anal.) Usually, I tend to be fairly easy-going. As I was in regards to The Imitation Game, I knew going in that it varied from real events, just not to what extent. I admit to being a bit disappointed that it varied to the degree that it did - and I felt the writers were a bit heavy handed and emotionally manipulative in how they did it. BUT...I still enjoyed the movie and do highly recommend it. It's unlikely to jar any historians, unless of course you are experts on Turning, The Enigma Machine, British Homosexual Legal History, or WWII Code Breaking. If so, it might jar you a bit. If you know next to nothing about these things...it may inspire you to get more information or it could mislead you into thinking Turning was a tragic victim of British homophobia and injustice. (I don't think he actually was, I think his death was more complicated than the movie depicts.) The movie does get across how homophobia in Britain ruined lives...but, I think if anyone looks up the facts on the internet - that message could be lost, since it's not clear that Britain's homophobic laws really destroyed Alan Turning. He was hurt by them, don't get me wrong. But not quite to the degree that the movie portrays - like most films and novels, the writers tend to exaggerate things for effect. This embellishment - I think - could have a derogatory effect on how various people view the film, particularly those who are savvy enough to hunt down the actual facts. Which is the risk you take when you decide to embellish upon actual history in order to get across a specific moral message.

While we're discussing historical accuracy or fact checking in fictional and non-fictional works of art, it really only bothers me in works of art that pretend to be accurate or factual. For example? If you have written a biography of Theodore Roosevelt and decide to embellish or make up facts, cite secondary sources, or make up sources - I'll be annoyed. OR say, you are writing a non-fictional history of the women's movement in Great Britain, then dang-it, you better get the fashion, marriage laws, and property laws right. But if you are writing a historical romance novel, a mystery novel, or say just a fictional meeting between Doctor Who and Jane Austen, I sort of know that you're making stuff up. It would however be nice if I could tell it was Jane Austen and we were actually in her time period - if you have her write Wuthering Heights instead of Pride and Prejudice, I would be jarred out of the story.
Historical novels - I struggle with, because the writers often do embellish or play loose with the facts. I know Hillary Mantel did in Wolf Hall - I read a while back on how she changed a few things to make the story more interesting. John Jakes certainly did in his historical novels, as did Gore Vidal and Phillipa Gregory. This tends to bug me more - possibly because - the writer is pretending to provide facts. I feel like I've been mislead or lied to. I go in thinking they are giving me actual info, when - whoops it's not. I had the same problem with The Tudors, Downton Abbey, and
The Borgias...and it's why I struggled with those series. Jarred me out of The Tudors and The Borgias - gave up entirely. Downton Abbey...I sort of shrug it off, and look at it as being similar to Mad Men and The Hour (although apparently, Mad Men and The Hour are historically accurate, while Downton is not or so I've been told by the British historians on my flist.) But, in a television series such as Sleepy Hollow, it doesn't bother me. You know going in that the writers are making things up. It's horror. Hello. It's when it is "straight historical drama" or "mystery" - that I get jarred. It's almost as if I expect the writers of the straight historical or mystery novel to actually do fact-checking? Or hold them to a higher standard? I don't know.
It is at any rate my difficulty with historical novels and why I don't like them very much - mainly because, I think, if I'm going to take the time to read a historical account - shouldn't it be accurate? And wouldn't it make more sense to read non-fiction? Preferably a good non-fiction, there's a lot of lousy non-fiction novels out there.

Speaking of non-fiction books - two have grabbed my interest:

1. Alan Turning: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges - the book that inspired the film The Imitation Game.

2. The Most Dangerous Book: The Battle for James Joyce's Ulysses by Kevin Birmingham

Did I tell you that the reason I became obsessed with James Joyce's Ulysess was my mother had written her college thesis on the battle to get this book published in the US? I remember her telling me about it. And that it was a 800 page book that took place in one day. Separated into chapters...that closely followed Homer's The Odyssey.
The narrative structure along blew my mind.

(Hmm...sort of like why people raced out to see The Interview over the holidays. Note to self, if you want people to read your book or see your film - piss someone off badly enough that they want to censor it or ban it. Guaranteed to get readers and viewers and critical acclaim. Plus free publicity.)

This is the story about why that book couldn't get published. And it is also a fairly relevant critique of the book publishing industry - and it's inability to take risks.
The Mark Twain documentary also touched on this - Twain had his own publishing company, otherwise he would not have been able to publish The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - which was banned by various libraries at the time, and critiqued for the narrative style - the book is written entirely in dialect and not in the accepted prose style of the time period. (*cough*HenryJames*cough*). James Joyce did the same thing - he stepped outside the norm and created a new and revolutionary literary style.

Saw three movies over the weekend with my folks. The first of the three was in the movie theater, and the movie theater was an experience in of itself. Never in my life have I had that comfortable a movie-going experience. If I'd known how comfortable that movie theater was - I'd have insisted on seeing more movies, particularly the Hobbit. But oh well. Walking on the beach with my Dad, shopping at the outlets, and enjoying the lovely lagoon was probably a better expenditure of my time.

The movie seats in this quaint and rather small movie theater in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, which is located in a strip mall of all things, are recliners. They are comfortable, reclining armchairs, complete with foot rests, and lit cup holders. Plus enough leg room between rows to allow people to walk unencumbered in front of your recliner to get to their seat. Only draw-back was the lit cup containers on the arms, which have these annoying little blue lights that you can't turn off and I found distracting. Well, that and the fact that my 71 year old mother had troubles getting out of the recliner after the movie was over - I had to help her.

Anyhow, movie reviews:

1. American Hustle by David O. Russell, which has already made most critics end of year best lists. There's a reason for that, it's brilliant. And possibly amongst the best films I've seen in a while. (Granted I haven't seen that many good films. The last one in a theater was Man of Steel, which unless you have a thing for Henry Cavill, isn't exactly all that interesting. Plus, while that theater was mildly comfortable - it didn't come close to the one in Hilton Head.)

The story, in case you aren't into reading critical movie reviews like I am, is based rather loosely on real events. In fact, the movie starts with the disclaimer: "And some of these events actually happened". (Which should give you an idea of the tongue firmly in cheek tone). And in some respects is this year's Argo, although I actually think it may be a much better movie than Argo. It's about the ABSCAM Scandal. In 1978, the FBI hired a convicted con artist named Irving Rosenfield, played by an almost unrecognizable Christian Bale in the film, to fabricate a sting or scam to catch a bunch of politicians.
( spoilers if you don't remember ABSCAM Scandal and vague spoilers on the movie )

Russell plays homage to and pokes fun at the films, political scandals, and styles of the 1970s. While at the same time, managing to tell a gripping, often funny, and ultimately touching human story about a pair of con artists stuck in a government scam gone awry.

Overall rating? A+

2. Nine - directed by Rob Marshall. How's this for a movie adaptation? In 1982, Arthur Kopit and Maury Yeston wrote the musical "Nine" based on Federico Fellini's famous semi-autobiographical film 8 1/2 which was released in 1963. The movie "Nine" is an adaptation of the stage musical.

8 1/2 refers to the number of films Federico Fellini had made up to that point.His previous directorial work consisted of six features, two short segments, and a collaboration with another director, Alberto Lattuada, the latter three productions accounting for a "half" film each.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni), a famous Italian film director, is suffering from "director's block". Stalled on his new science fiction film that includes veiled autobiographical references, he has lost interest amid artistic and marital difficulties. As Guido struggles half-heartedly to work on the film, a series of flashbacks and dreams delve into his memories and fantasies; they are frequently interwoven with reality.

That's 8 1/2.

Nine is more or less the same story, except the film is called Italia and Guido is based closer on Fellini. Also the emphasis is on the women in his life or his relationships with each of them and what they mean to him.( Read more... )

3. Gaslight - this is the famous film noir by George Cukor, starring Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, (a 19 year old Angela Langsbury) and Joseph Cotton. Oddly, only Ingrid Bergman and the art direction won oscars, even though it received nominations for best picture and best actor.

The film is amongst the few that resulted in a word being added to our lexicon. "Gaslighting" - came directly from the film's title and did not exist prior to it.
( spoilers )

Many television series, books and films have long since copied the trope...but here is the original idea. It's a good film, but knowing the story sort of hampered my enjoyment. I can't help but wonder what I'd have thought of it - if I'd seen it blind or without any knowledge of the plot or themes?

[As an aside - thank you to the folks who did my poll, if you haven't please take a moment to do so..the more responses, the better. Thanks. Go here:

http://shadowkat67.livejournal.com/374888.html.]

Between the election and my grandmother...frustration level has been pretty high. Am trying, somewhat unsuccessfully to avoid both. Sort of hard to avoid things you care about.

Watched two flicks this week. Recount and Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day. I don't recommend watching Recount unless you a) find the voting process fascinating, b)do not have issues with what happened in 2000 regarding it, c) don't despise the Bush Administration, d) aren't worried about a repeat of 2000 and 2004 with the current one, and finally, e) don't get emotional regarding politics.

It is a well written film. Well acted. Well produced. Not to mention hilariously funny in places. BUT - it also is incredibly frustrating and depressing if you care at all about the US political process. The good news is they have taken steps since 2000 to remedy the problem and avoid another collassal embarrassment.
( Recount review )


Miss Pettigrew on the other hand is a delightful little movie that reminds me a great deal of PG Wodehouse, specifically Jeeves and Wooster, except from a female perspective.
It also stars Ciarin Hinds and Lee Pace - who I happen to like, along with Frances McDormand and Amy Adams. The film isn't great, it's a bit rushed in spots and slow in others. But, it is a fun, light, film...that makes one smile.

It's about a down-on-her luck, horrendous governess, who poses as an American singer's social secretary in 1940's England. She thinks she's been hired as the gal's governess, only to learn there are no kids and she's the social secretary. What follows are a series of romantic intriques/entanglements reminiscent of the light airy touch of Wodehouse, but not quite as funny or clever.

McDormand makes an endearing protagonist - a woman who looks like most of us, and Hinds is a great leading man. With Adams and Pace doing a good job in the supporting roles. Usually it's the other way around, which is the treat of the film. Also Adams once again shows off her singing chops, as does Pace.

Recommend for anyone who wants a light romantic treat with a bit of a laugh and a smile.

I started writing this as an updated severely edited version of my review of The Prestige in the post below. Instead decided it would make more sense to do it separately. Because this is not about the film The Prestige but rather about something I've recently figured out while railing at the universe, which I've decided for whatever reason to write about. Maybe the reason I'm writing it out is much the same reason Marcel Proust wrote five paragraphs on steeples to get it out of my mind and make sense of it. What boggles my mind is why the heck I want anyone else to see it and why I can only seem to type it out so that they will. That inclination feels a tad insane to me, and just a little exhibitionist.

Yesterday, after months of anticipation I took off and saw the film The Prestige - which contained everything I wanted in a movie at this particular point in time. I went by myself and refused to read reviews ahead of time, for a very good reason - lately I've discovered that what I want from a movie or TV show or even a book is in direct opposition from what many tv/movie and book critics want. Not all though. Found a really good review in Newsweek by a professional film critic, David Ansen that more or less sums up what I adored about the movie, how I watched it, why I can't stop playing with it in my head - without giving all its secrets away:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15338103/site/newsweek/

By the way, The Prestige has gotten 77 positive reviews and 28 negative ones. Proving something I keep getting reminded of, that like it or not as the internet slogan goes our mileage will may vary (or YMMV - your mileage may will vary). Human beings think differently for biological, environmental, educational, relationship-nurture, and other reasons I can't come up with at the moment. For me, the movie in a way was about that - how and why people think differently and how that different thought process can cause conflict. I'm well aware that not everyone who sees the film will see that aspect of it.

It occurs to me that we see different things when we look at something, even something as absurdly simple as a flower. A botantist for example may see where the flower came from, how it is clearly a hyrbid, and think about its history - it's filla. Which flowers or breeds of flowers it descended from, how it pollinates. A flower judge, someone who breeds flowers for a living - may look at it and think this flower doesn't work, the stem is wrong, the petals are off-color, the head is too big or they may think, it's too similar to so many breeds, easy and unworthy of their time, or depending on the flower - that it is brilliant, rare, new breed of color, and the most perfect flower they've seen. While the child, a little girl, might think flower pretty, Mommy will like it and I'll give it to her for her birthday.

But it isn't just education or knowledge of something that affects our perspective, it is emotion, what we are going through at this moment in time, even how big we are or what our bodies look like.
( Read more... )