Mini Reviews - Strangelove, Elling, Interpreter, Reefer Madness(s)

The holidays are always a crazy time. Intense, stressful, busy. It's a wonder there is any time for anything. Especially movies. But what better way to escape the madness of the season than with a few mad flicks? This week: Dr. Strangelove, Elling, Reefer Madness and another Reefer Madness, and The Interpreter.

Full week!

Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick, 1964)
I have never liked Kubrick. I was dating this guy in the mid 90s, the total artsy type, who made me watch his favorite film, A Clockwork Orange. I found it utterly distasteful and yet, oddly, boring. I mean, come on, a bar where the libations are poured out of naked mannequin breasts? Tell me that isn't disgusting! My next boyfriend, a wannabe soldier and war-movie buff, made me sit through his beloved Kubrick film, Full Metal Jacket. Again, I was mystified. What was it he saw in the movie that I didn't? I chalked it up to his fanaticism and moved on, but I had the same reaction to the widely loved Kubrick "classic" The Shining. Obviously there is something about this man's work I don't get. So far I see some common threads: his movies are disturbed, slow-paced, he loves wide shots, and he has a penchant for using familiar classical music pieces making his corresponding images feel like an odd ballet. I admit, I have only seen snippets of his reputed masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey, but what I saw confirmed three of the four theories at least. Dr. Strangelove is no different. Just when I thought I might actually be able to say that I enjoyed a Kubrick film, it left me hanging. At least there was some departure from his usual fare. Sure, his usual wide shots are present. And the familiar music is there (though not classical, in this case he was using songs such as "The Ants Go Marching One By One.") But it is shot in a grittier black and white, rather than his usual pristine color pictures. Humor/satire is also atypical for the filmmaker. It is also not so painfully disturbing to watch as some of his other films and it is actually interesting! Lots of politics that are eerily relevant. I didn't get as bored. And how could I not love the image of the cowboy riding the nuclear bomb to the dawn of destruction? (A remake with Bush riding said bomb might be sweet.) But then... it ended, it just ended, and I just went, "huh." Anticlimactic to say the least. I still don't get Kubrick.

Elling (Næss, 2001)
Two middle-aged, socially-challenged men find amity in each other as roommates at a mental institution. Released into the world, they have to find a way to survive with only each other as support in this Norwegian odd-couple film.
Sweet. I loved this movie. There is a lovely quiet about many Scandinavian films that Elling also has. Not slow and painful like Kubrick, but peaceful and zen. They sort of soak into you and you, in turn, eventually become soaked in their world without pomp and force. (See Babette's Feast.) I also especially loved that these two, though clearly mad to some degree, are remarkably normal. If this movie were made in Hollywood, they surely would have either had vacuous gazes and drool pouring out their mouths or would have been violently bouncing off walls à la Brad Pitt in Twelve Monkeys.

Reefer Madness (Gasnier, 1936)
A 1930s propoganda film that warns parents against the ill affects of "marihuana" on their children.
This is quite possibly the original cult classic. One of the first films to have midnight showings. One of the original "so-bad-it's-good" films. It is widely regarded as hysterical, in an unintentional Mystery-Science-Theater kind of way. But for me, there weren't too many funny parts. The scrolling title at the beginning was the funniest part for me:

The motion picture you are about to witness may startle you. It would not have been possible, otherwise, to sufficiently emphasize the frightful toll of the new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America in alarmingly-increasing numbers. Marihuana is that drug -- a violent narcotic -- an unspeakable scourge -- The Real Public Enemy Number One! Its first effect is sudden, violent, uncontrollable laughter; then come dangerous hallucinations...

I don't want to spoil it for you, but it gets better! Other than that, there is some hilarious over-acting, and ludicrous dancing, but mostly it is juuuuuuuuuussst toooooooo looooooong to wait for the humor. Apparently I need to get the new, colorized version featuring audio commentary by the MST3K dude. Apparently that is the definitive version.

Reefer Madness (Fickman, 2005)
Showtime-made movie version of the off-broadway musical version of the notoriously bad 30s propoganda film.
There is a difference between the kind of campy that is unintentionally funny - because it is just that bad - and intentionally, winking-so-much-I'm-developing-a-tick campy, which is generally, not funny. This belongs in the latter category. I also think that the Veronica Mars chick was miss-cast (though I love her on the show). Plus - when Neve Campbell and Steven Weber are in the thick of their hot dance sequence, all the hubby and I could say is "typical." If I have to watch another dance sequence in TV or film where the couple aren't actually dancing (and instead shift through a series of poses) so help me...

The Interpreter (Pollack, 2005)
Nicole Kidman is a South African bred interpreter working at the UN. She accidentally overhears an assassination plot in an obscure language and is suddenly in the middle of a political thriller.
Sounds good right? After a week of weird flicks, I was in the mood for some good ole Hollywood fun. And this was... not bad, but it wasn't great either. I was hoping for the kind of thriller that Hitchcock made. You know, the average Joe who unwittingly gets caught up in a spy-plot, and now somehow only he can save the day. Hitchcock was the master of the spy plot, but it has been done successfully many times since Hitch's day. This time, turns out she isn't average Joe (or Jane) and it's more Hotel Rwanda than North by Northwest. Come on Pollack, where's the MacGuffin? Too bad. Could have been really good instead of not bad.

Well, it's Friday night, projector's revved up, popcorn is popped, it's movie time!
Happy Viewing!

And Happy Pre-New Years!

Back to the full blog...

December, week 3 - mini reviews

Just got back yesterday afternoon from trip number 2 of 3 in 2 weeks. Vegas! Seems to me I will have to write something on Vegas and its preoccupation with the visual delights, and indeed voyeurism, but that will have to wait. Owing to the fact that the trip was short and interrupted by a family death, I didn't get to see any of the shows or the 3-D IMAX like I hoped. Next time. I instead focused on the gastronomic titillations that the city had to offer me. And they were many. Consequently my waistline has grown significantly in the last four days. Meanwhile, I have only seen one movie over the last week, so I only have one mini titillation to offer you:

The Island (Bay, 2005)
Ewan McGregor (my new crush as of Trainspotting) and Scarlet Johansen discover they have been brainwashed and unknowingly living as slaves. Now that they know, will they escape the clutches of the evil doctor that controls them?
There are some nice things going on in this movie. It's fun and exciting and there is some thinly-veiled political discourse presented here. About a third-way into the movie, I leaned over to the hubby and said, "You wanted to know what a republican movie looked like, well here you go!" It seems apparent to me that the filmmakers want in on the discussion over stem-cell research. But the hubby reminded me that all the "Big Brother" themes of The Island are more like the ravings of a paranoid liberal. True. So it began with a mixture of thought-provoking themes and fun plot (and a couple of real cutie-pies to follow on their journey), but fell completely flat as it abandoned anything interesting and began to resort to violent action (one of the most intensely violent car chases ever) and corny one-liners. SPOILER! There are so many more interesting plot-lines and themes left unexplored. Could the clones integrate into society after their release? How would society react once they heard of the company's methods? Also left untouched were interesting moral dilemmas. How much more interesting it would have been if Johansen gave up her flight and sacrificed herself to be harvested organs for the survival of her owner! Yes, on the one hand it was wrong for the company to create life to be sacrificed willy nilly for other life, but on the other hand, that is still the purpose that these clones were meant to fulfill. Her owner was dying, she saw the little son that would be left behind by Mommy's passing, she has a generous heart. So few people ever find a concrete purpose in life and even fewer are able to realize that purpose. She could have, but the film glossed passed that in favor of empty action sequences and implausible plot points. End Spoiler! Still prefer Ewan as a scrawny Scot. I think I am going to bump Shallow Grave up in my Netflix queue.
Back to the full blog...

December, week 2 - mini reviews

Dry week for movies this week, I am afraid. As I mentioned in the previous post, I watched Ghostbusters last weekend and now I have been so busy getting ready for this road trip I am on to Omaha, NE, and then for another trip next week to Vegas, that I haven't had hardly any time to devote to my usual movie watching. So, this week's reviews are few and brief.

Trainspotting (Boyle, 1996)
Ewan McGregor and friends live on a merry-go-round of drug use. Sometimes fun, sometimes vomit-inducing. --What a beautiful metaphor, eh?-- Will any of them ever be able to get off the ride?
I was surprised at how much I liked this one. I had heard about it for years, but it's been hovering around the middle of my netflix queue (which for me is about #130) for a year. I only moved it up so I would have more interesting selections for my guests on movie night Sunday. Thank goodness for movie night! It definitely inspires me to up my caliber of viewing. I thought this film was engaging and quite imaginative in its telling. But I must warn the squeamish amoung you that there are, I believe, at least two, maybe three scenes that involve human feces, and also two deaths. (One slightly horrific for the innocence of the deceased.) Even more than the shock of my enjoyment of the film was my new found lust for Ewan. I have always found him mildy attractive at best, in a sort of cheeseball, flash-a-grin-that-goes-BING sort of way. But for that reason I haven't ever really cared for him as more than a lovable guy. But now, phew! He became real, and gritty, and imperfect. And I have a huge crush. The hubby doesn't get it of course. He only saw this scrawny actor sporting a heroine-not-so-chic look. But I see it. I hope he does more 'real' films in the future.

Dial 'M' for Murder (Hitchcock, 1954)
A so-so looking, middle-aged husband is so shocked and dismayed that his sugar-mamma wife, the unbearably gorgeous and refined Grace Kelly, is cheating on him, that he blackmails an old college buddy to off her.
Another great Hitchcock flick with a questionable ending. Always one to exploit any limit or technique to his advantage in an unexpected way, it is easy to see Hitchcock's unusual use of space, that he used to heighten the effect of the 3-D film, as that is how this film was originally shot. Unfortunately, by the time of the film's release, 3-d movies were no longer en vogue so it is almost never shown in 3-d. I had the opportunity to see a portion of it in 3-d when I saw a Hitchock exhibit at Universal Studios years ago. I wish I could remember it well. And now that my eye is trained enough to notice his use of space, I would give anything to see the whole thing as it was originally shot. The film itself, aside from visual gimmicks, is quite suspenseful. It is a testement to the reputed "Master of Suspense", and his ability to have his audience gripping our armrests with anticipation. This film (until the usual hokey ending) even plays well to spectators with more modern tastes, so he must have done something pretty good here. How funny that, right when we were thoroughly awash with anxiety over whether or not the killer would be successful, our power went out and we were in complete darkness. It was almost unbearable to wait the next few ours to see how the movie would conclude.

Ghostbusters (Reitman, 1984)
Three former 'scientists' and a newhire set about their lucrative plan to rid the world of ghosts when, coincidentally, an ancient god and his minions decide to come back to pay Manhattan a little visit.
How can you not love this movie? It's just fun! The first scene alone, with the librarian getting the shock of her life as she puts away books in the New York Public Library is classic, and it is immediately followed, of course, by the awesome theme-song. I love the goofy humor of this movie. It still works for me every time. And who doesn't love the scene where Rick Moranis gets attacked by the demon dog as the backdrop to some refined dining at an up-scale restaurant? And so quotable: "Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown."

Well, sadly that's it for this week. And good thing too. I am starting to see that my run-on sentences get worse when I am exhausted from travel. Tune back in next week for (I suspect) even fewer reviews (but hopefully better writing.) Busy times.

Back to the full blog...

80s Series - Top 20 Nostalgia Movies

So I had the awesomest birthday dinner the other night with friends. Most of us being from the generation that had its childhood in the embarrassingly 80s-ish 80s, we ended up talking a lot about the shows and movies we grew up on. Afterwards, we headed into our fabulous home theater to watch some really great movie. Something obscure, classic, interesting, exciting. We were going to have a vote. I had Dr. Strangelove and Dial M for Murder, one friend brought Office Space and Refer Madness, one friend brought The Interpreter and another brought 13 Conversations About One Thing. So many great flicks to choose from! While we were waiting on someone, the hubby popped in Ghostbusters to continue the boogie down memory lane we had been doing. By the time everyone was seated and ready, everyone was so thoroughly full of ectoplasmic nostalgia that we ended up watching all of Ghostbusters instead of any of the other amazing options. Afterwards we tried to list all of the great 80s movies we could remember. And there are now requests for an 80s series to be played next year at the Hurley-David Cineplex. Well, we'll see about that one, but I thought I would do an 80s series on the blog.

Each post, I will put a list of top 20 80s movies for a particular category. This post: Nostalgia movies. Come on! Put on your best Madonna, MJ, or Prince shirt, bring the lightsaber, hop in my DeLorean, and let's ride our bikes past the moon!


Criteria for choosing movies for this list:
1. It must have been released in the 80s.
2. I must have seen this movie in the 80s.
3. Watching or thinking about this movie must take me back to the era. Either by being very 80s in feel, or by reminding me of my experience of the 80s.


You will notice that there are some major 80s movies that don't appear on the list. That is because of one or more of the following reasons:
1. The movie didn't do anything for me.
2. I forgot about it.
3. I didn't see it until later (or never at all).
4. I had to narrow down a list of 260 80s movies that I could remember seeing, so, it doesn't remind me of the 80s as much as these ones do.

By the way, I may put movies on more than one list. Because, well... because I can. Now, let's get on with it...

20. Short Circuit (Badham, 1986)
How could you not get the warm and fuzzies from watching a movie about a robotic WMD that acquires life through a freak accident, escapes the weapons facility, and is subsequently hunted by the authorities? Robot "Number 5" (Johnny 5 to his buddies) is just a misunderstood infant, having to run when he only just learned to walk. He only wants to be allowed to live and maybe make some friends along the way. Oh yeah, and he has a voracious appetite for "input, input, need more input!" This one killed me as a kid. All the corny one-liners, the Indian guy with the awesomely immitatable accent, the social commentary. (whuh?) Thanks to this movie, I was able to sling new verbal arrows at my fellow classmates, who had no idea what hit them when I shouted, "Hey Laser Lips! Your mama was a snowblower!" Hey, did anyone else notice how much this robot looks suspiciously like E.T. without his skin? Did they use the same creature shop for both movies? Something to think about.

19. Top Gun (Scott, 1986)
TC at his best. Wise cracks, sideways smirks, sexy glances, goofy serenades, bold flirtation, and rockin, riding-off-into-the-sunset-on-his-motorcycle shots. What could be better for a pubescent girl who had a poster of Tom Cruise that covered half her ceiling? This movie not only taught me the importance of being a good wingman, but I also learned some new variations on the high five that were previously unseen in my corner of England. I also learned to look at the guys on our military base a little differently - especially the uniformed ones. "I feel the need, the need for speed!" Woo!

18. Flash Gordon (Hodges, 1980)
A great campy sci-fi flick replete with over-the-top costumes, ridiculous scenery, and absurd dialog. "Flash! Flash! I love you, but we only have 14 hours to save the Earth!" Fantastic, B-movie quality stuff. I loved it and it's bad effects, it's winged warriors, it's fake-Asian, heavy-eye-liner wearing, villainous ruler, and it's toe-headed, sparkle-eyed, all-American hero. Oh! And the theme song is one of Queen's all-time best. "Flash! Ah-ahhhhh... Savior of the universe!"

17. Adventures in Babysitting (Columbus, 1987)
That other great Elisabeth with an 's' as the reluctant hero on a mythological journey straight out of Joseph Campbell's research. The only catch this time, is that the hero has a couple of brats in tow, and the journey is a trek through a treacherous sky-scraper jungle. This movie rocks.

16. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg, 1981)
Our introduction to Dr. Jones, Indiana Jones - the guy we came to know and love for two (and apparently soon three) further movies. He is my favorite kind of hero. He's sarcastic, smooth, calm (unless surrounded by snakes), and gorgeous. He knows the worth of a leather fedora (which he values about as much as his hand), he knows how to outrun a massive ball of stone, escape any danger, outsmart any villain, all with charm and wit. He's like a scruffy, American, more visceral Bond. (with a whip!)

15. Rocky III (Stallone, 1982)
Same Rocky, with an added dose of camp thanks to Mr. T. "I pity the fool!" Can I just say that I loved him? Him and his weird mohawk-sportin, gold-chain-wearing, tough-talkin self? Loved him here, loved him on the A-team. Remember how he was tough, badass, but also made you want to hug him and his pouty self? Or was that just me? I think the world could do with a little Mr. T right now. Too many action stars are too serious anymore.

14. ¡Three Amigos! (Landis, 1986)
I was blissfully ignorant to the negative, social side-affects that movies like this could have for latins - or other races. (As you can see by my unaffected love for the other movies on this list.) If I saw this movie for the first time now, I am sure I would wax academic about the reduction of Mexicans to a people who's only means of self-preservation lies in utilizing their only skills (sewing - an utterly domestic ability) and who can only be saved with the help white men, no matter how clueless those white men are. In fact, from this movie we see that Mexicans are either simple, sewing villagers, or gun-toting, bullet-belt-wearing, pistol-shooting, "arriba"-and-"andale" screaming maniacs. (Or no, wait, that last one was Speedy Gonzalez.) But let's forget all that and focus on the fond memories we have of the fun of this movie. And hey! Thanks to this movie, I learned the meaning of the word "plethora."

-"Would you say I had a plethora of piñatas?"
-"Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora."
-"Jefe, what is a plethora?"
-"Why, El Guapo?"
-"Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora."

13. Xanadu (Greenwald, 1980)
Hey, I love campy movies, I love musicals, I love guilty pleasures. And this movie is probably at the top of my all-time greatest guilty pleasure movies list. First of all, how great is Gene Kelly in this movie? And how awesomely tacky is it to mix greek goddesses with roller-skating? This movie screams 80s for me, and as a rule I always watch it if it comes on TV. Funny though, not sure I have seen it on TV once since I moved to the States. Hmmm.... Brits must have a better sense for camp. (Or am I hopelessly lacking in taste like the Brits? I think I will go with Option A please. Brits share my awesome appreciation of camp aesthetics)

12. Tron (Lisberger, 1982)
I miss movies that are as unabashedly stylized and hokey as this one. When I was a kid, I think this was the coolest movie I had ever seen. I mean, how freakin great was it when they were racing on those motorbike things, drawing out neon patterns behind them? This is really a precursor to The Matrix, and though I absolutely love The Matrix (the first one), I think Tron was just sooooooooo much more fun.

11. The Never Ending Story (Petersen, 1984)
Ok, so you may have noticed by now that, by and large, my nostalgia movies from the 80s are all kid/family flicks. Well, yeah! I was a kid! And just like today, I loooooooooved movies. This was probably one of my absolute favorites. It taught me the ability of movies to give you real escape, and how far imagination could take you. How beautiful is that? And what in all the 80s was cooler than that big, friendly, flying dog-dragon? Hmmm... maybe I should have put this movie higher up on my list.

10. Big (Marshall, 1988)
#10! Halfway there!
Adulthood through the eyes of a child in the late 80s. I love the innocence in Tom Hanks's eyes. But was I the only one who was creeped out that the 13 year old (allbeit in the body of a 30 year old) had a sexual relationship with that woman? At least that is better than the reverse in Birth. That movie is so creepy in a bad way. But Big not only mad me laugh and gave me an awesome musical number (the duet on the oversized keyboard, remember?), but also gave me a little glimpse of the American childhood culture that I was missing in Europe.

9. Gremlins (Dante, 1984)
This movie did the impossible: it functioned as both a B-horror flick and a family film. Genius! The critters are both evil and scary AND cute and cuddly (and totally marketable) thanks to a plot mechanism that allows them to go from nice to naughty. But not Gizmo of course. We love him, so he can never go over to the, ahem, other side. He has to stay our furry little friend who shrieks "Bright light! Bright light!"

8. Back to the Future (Zemeckis, 1985)
Must be one of my all-time favorite 80s movies. We watch it every time it comes on TV even though we own the trilogy DVD set. It has everything - Michael J. Fox, the brilliant Christopher Lloyd in what is quite possibly his best performance, contemporary music & buyable theme song, skateboarding tricks, a new way of working through the Oedipus Complex, and a healthy dose of diegetic (contained in the world of the movie) nostalgia. And it's chock full of 80s references (especially by comparison with the 50s). The only reason this movie isn't higher up the list is because I have seen it so many times since the 80s that it doesn't really remind me much of the 80s anymore so much as just the experience of a great adventure. (But on the other hand, I couldn't leave it out altogether, could I? It had to be on the list!)

7. E.T. (Spielberg, 1982)
Is this not one of the greatest movies of all time? Don't we all just love that Reese's Pieces eating, home-phoning little alien? And how cute was Drew Barrymore? She says in interviews now that, while filming E.T., she would speak to the alien between takes, because she believed he was real. How cute is that? I think a lot of us in the audience (and yes, I was a little kid) believed he was real too. And don't lie! You got choked up at the end too, didn't you?

6. Ghostbusters (Reitman, 1984)
I always played the rockin theme-song on any jukebox I saw. I had the VHS box-set of both the movies. I bought the ectoplasm. I watched the cartoon. I drew the logo in my doodles. I LOVED this movie. As hokey as it may be, I still do. I loved Peter and his dry sarcasm, Winston and his realist perspective, Ray and his naïve enthusiasm, and Egon and his hopeless nerdiness. This may be the movie that helped me to develop crushes on nerdy men. Sorry babe, you may well be my latin Egon. I loved the ghosts, the comedy, the drama, and for me, yes, this movie was a little scary. (Not in the truly frightening way, since I have told many of you that I haven't been scared by a movie since The Wiz but this movie was more exciting for it's ghosts than truly scary.) And it contained a reference to my then-favorite food:

-Tell him about the Twinkie
-What about the Twinkie?

5. Superman III (Lester, 1983)
What's better than Superman coming to earth, growing up to save the day & getting the girl? Superman with Richard Pryor! As a seemingly gormless scientist, Pryor gets in over his head a bit, ends up on the wrong side of the good/bad divide, and adds a little comedy to Superman's struggle along the way. Even better than that, this installment of the series could really be named, "Superman: The Soap Opera." Guess what? He now has an evil twin! Ha!

4. Karate Kid (Avildsen, 1984)
One summer in the Faroes (where my Mom is from, and where I spent many summers growing up), before I realized what I was missing by staying indoors in such an amazing place, I spent many days watching Karate Kid, and Superman III. Well, mostly Karate Kid. In fact, I watched it so much that I could recite nearly the entire movie from memory. -- Hey! I wasn't an active kid, this is what I loved! Not sure why it didn't inspire me to become active and take up martial arts. You'd think... But it didn't. "Daniel-san! You all wet behind ear! Ah-haha-ha -ha -ha -ha haaaa." Mr. Miyagi rocked! Was it not the coolest thing you had seen when Mr. Miyagi opened a can of whoopass? I don't think anything has come close till Yoda did the same in the new Star Wars movies. Although that would have been better if it was the Yoda, not that CG crap.

3. Footloose (Ross, 1984)
Was 1984 not a good year for cheeseball movies? Good for me at least. And as far as I'm concerned, you can't go wrong with musicals. Especially musicals that are fun to sing along to. Gosh I remember thinking that Kevin Bacon was such a great dancer with that ubiquitous 80s-jazz-ballet dance he (and everyone else) did. Eeeewwww... Good thing I never tried to imitate it! Maybe I did and just blocked it out of my memory. This movie is also notable for being one of the last times we ever took John Lithgow seriously. Remember how intense he was? I really believed him as an overpowering dad and 'father.' Now I think I would laugh at him no matter what he did. Well, at least that's because he's good at being funny. It would be sad if it were because he was a sucky actor. (PS I love that they made a musical out of a true story.)

2. Mr. Mom (Dragoti, 1983)
I can remember watching this one when I was real little. I remember wondering why the kid called his blanket a "woobie" and why he took it with him everywhere. I remember having no idea what The Young and the Restless was, but still finding the parody of it funny. I remember understanding that the boss-guy was a total scuzz, and thinking that drying a baby's butt with a hand-dryer in a public bathroom was the funniest thing ever. That and the soap bubbles pouring out from the washing machine and filling up the house. Ahhhhh.... memories....

Drumroll please.......................................................

1. The Goonies (Donner, 1985) Ta da!
There is no other single movie that can conjure up memories for me like The Goonies. I watched this movie a lot. And I made all my little British friends (I grew up in England) watch it too. We watched it one year for my annual Halloween sleep-over. Which many of my friends still thought was my birthday, since they didn't do Halloween over there (and certainly not Halloween parties.) I remember several preteen bodies packed like sardines between the arms of the couch backrest that we had on the floor (it was sort of a multi-piece foam couch that came apart, and the back and arms were one piece. I loved being on the floor at the time (sleeping, sitting, etc..) so we tossed that on the floor and all of us crowded in.) If one of us wanted back in the pile after a trip to the bathroom, we'd have to step between knees and thighs, and feet to find our place again. The Goonies, tacos, twinkies, pickles, Kraft Mac & Cheese, and Halloween parties, were my gifts to England. And what better way is there for England to understand American culture than by watching Chunk do the truffle shuffle, Mikey using his inhaler while his brother lifted weights, Mouth freaking out the latin maid who speaks no English, and by seeing a very dysfunctional family with a disfigured son that they have chained in the basement who screams, "Hey you gu-uys!"???

And now for the runners up...
21. Three Men and a Baby - Remember how silly it was to think of men taking care of babies?
22. Beetlejuice - Fun in the underworld.
23. Cocktail - Top Gun in the Bahamas, twirling booze bottles instead of planes.
24. Dirty Dancing - Nobody puts Baby in the corner!
25. Splash - Fish can be hot!
26. The Money Pit - Best scene: Tom Hanks singing "the Name Game" while stuck in a hole in the floor.
27. See No Evil, Hear No Evil - Making fun of debilitations and color. "What???? I'm black????" - genius!
28. Roxanne - a.k.a. Cyranno De Bergerac for Dummies. Also: humor with unfortunate facial features.
29. Labyrinth - Puppets, a maze, the bog of eternal stench, and David Bowie.
30. Flight of the Navigator - Sci Fi for kids.

Well, that's all folks. See ya next time.


Back to the full blog...

December, week 1 - mini reviews.

I think that shorter reviews are sometimes more appropriate for some films I see. So I think that I will try to do this about once a week or so to supplement the more in-depth writing I do on the other films.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (Liman, 2005)
Brad & Angelina's marriage is on the rocks because they haven't told each other everything, especially that they are both secretly spies!
I did enjoy this one for the most part. But it never really left the box of its own premise, and everything sort of plowed along as it should have. Screenwriting 101 - (SPOILER!) Pit two spies against each other who are in love and we will inevitably end up in a fight scene between the two of them that will morph into a sex scene. Ah yes, the conflation of sex and violence, still such a witty choice! (END SPOILER!) I would have enjoyed it a little more if I hadn't been clued in on the movie's secret right at the beginning. Don't worry, if you blink, you'll miss that clue, my husband did. But if you catch it, there is no missing its significance. Still fun to watch Brad & Angelina pretend to be ordinary to each other when anyone else can look at them and know they are anything but ordinary. And there was a fun retro-ish style to it all. Plus, loved seeing B & A get drunk on Aguardiente in Colombia. (The same brand we had at our wedding!)

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (Clooney, 2002)
George Clooney's directorial debut. A biographical piece on game-show legend, Chuck Barris, with one foot planted firmly in historical depiction and the other foot doing pirouettes through la-la land.
I really liked it. And didn't even know until the credits rolled at the end that the screenplay was penned by none other than my fave screenwriter: Charlie Kaufman. This man is seriously a genius! (Maybe I should revisit Human Nature, since that is his only one to date that I haven't liked.) This story was great. Truthful, fanciful, stylized, crazy. It was great. Did I say it was great? And it made me really want, no need to read Chuck Barris's autobiography (on which the film is based) to see how convincingly he tells it. What a story! A big-time game show host/producer who was also a CIA hitman? Also can't wait for the next Kaufman film to come out. Hurry up Charlie!

March of the Penguins (Jacquet, 2004)
A nature doc on the emperor penguins, narrated by none other than Morgan Freeman.
Well I think after the bar was set with Winged Migration other nature documentarians had to rise to a new level. March of the Penguins, like Winged Migration, was beautifully shot (though perhaps not to the same, groundbreaking degree) but lacked the simple peacefulness of the nearly uninterpreted image that WM offered. Instead it was candy-coated and packaged by Hollywood and became something that was so sugary at times that I began to watch the clock. Though the 'story' is compelling and the imagery gorgeous, I couldn't get past the feeling that I was watching something heavily processed. And I got a little tired of Morgan's voice telling me what emotions the penguins were going through. Check out the other long doc on the DVD. Same story, shot by same guys, much more honest.

Back to the full blog...

Winged Migration: Truth, Lies, and Documentary Somewhere in Between.

Since the beginning of film, documentaries have been inextricably linked to truth. Even in the earliest days of the film medium's infancy, alongside films that told stories, our curiosity for the real world brought us "actualities," the precursor to today's documentaries and reality TV. In fact, cinema's first audiences were for these early docs. Unlike fiction-film, actualities were unstaged, "slices of life," that brought the camera to the subject and watched life as it happened rather than bringing the subject to the camera and making the subject 'perform' in an artificial environment. These actualities were presented with such shocking realism that when the Lumière brothers (the world's first documentarians) screened Train Arriving at a Station, in the late 19th century, the audience shrieked and ducked for fear that the train coming toward them would hit them all.

The early 20th century brought us the predecessors to newsreels, called "kino-pravda" (truth cinema), from Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov, and documentaries called "cinéma verité" (also truth cinema) from the French. Already the genre was established as a means of documenting and delivering truth, but by 1898 filmmakers had also already begun to fake and reconstruct life in documentaries.

And so we come to my dislike of the documentary genre. I know, some of you who don't know this are surprised. After all I did work on a doc (10mph), something I am quite proud of. But what I know now is that there are different kinds of docs, and some I like and some I don't.

You might say that I have an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong and lies and deception are a particular subset of this morality that I have always felt very strongly about. I am sure this has something to do with a lie I told as a child that took me several haunted years to finally confess. I am virtually incapable of lying to this day and when I find out I have been deceived, it is intolerable.

Additionally, anything that challenges my concept of truth is difficult for me to handle. For instance, early in my college career I learned that "gravity" in the traditional sense, was just a concept that we tell children because it is easier to grasp than what scientists believe to be true. They say, there is no such force as gravity. In actuality, it has something to do with the way space bends around the planet that keeps us here. Like the dent you create it a mattress when you lie on it - as my genius, science-teaching brother-in-law describes it. And if you dropped a marble on the mattress anywhere near your body, it would roll towards you. Seems simple enough, right?

While the other college kids dozed off in class, my eyes grew wide with anger. How could they do this to me? How could I have been lied to my whole life? No such thing as gravity? This is monumental! This is outrageous! The conspiracy is so widespread! Parents, books, even kindergarten teachers are in on it! But as the pressure grew in my chest, the other kids' eyes stayed vacant and heads continued to bow lower and lower.

When I was a preteen or so, I saw a documentary on TV. Strange that I continued to watch, because I had always found documentaries as tedious as the worst of history classes. But watch I did. The doc was a doc on docs and to what degree many of them are... faked! They showed the extreme cases, such as a doc that tried to expose the horrendous (but ficticious) practices of eskimos who skinned baby seals alive. Do you know this completely despicable crew actually skinned a baby seal alive themselves to make the fakery complete? Their agenda to make the eskimos stop seal-hunting was more important to them than committing a cruel and disgusting act themselves.

The doc I was watching also showed the other end of the spectrum. They showed editors editing video of a cheetah chasing a rabbit. The filmmakers of the nature doc wanted to show the chase, but they didn't have such footage, so they manufactured it themselves by taking footage of a cheetah running and a rabbit running (in two separate locations), adding some voiceover, and some sound effects and hey presto! They had a cheetah chasing a rabbit. This may not seem bad to you, but to me, this was worse than finding out there was no Santa Clause. They were lying to me. Constructing and shaping their story, just like they would with a Hollywood movie, piecing together shots and sounds they liked and presenting a version, their version, of reality but presenting it as if it were absolute and true.

Some of you may be thinking that documentaries need not be so strict in their means of depicting of truth. And for you there are films like Winged Migration. But let's, for a moment, consider the relationship between art and truth a little further.

Since the beginning of art, man (and woman) has struggled between the need to document and the need to create - think cave paintings. These seemingly conflicting needs continued through art history to the development of film. And as technique and technology allowed for further realism, the struggle grew stronger. In fact the innovation in photography by Muybridge that led to the invention of moving pictures was created to settle a bet and record, as proof, the foot patterns of a horse galloping. Without that need to provide absolute proof as motivation, the motion picture may never have been invented. On the other hand, André Bazin (film theorist) said that the perfect synthesis of moving images and sound to record reality as it is was something the human race was destined to create. He believed that there was some kind of need and desire to document fully that precipitated the invention of film, and this "myth of total cinema," as he called it, has been around since the dawn of man.

However, other critics, such as Rudolf Arnheim have argued that film as an artform must strive to do more than merely duplicate. That duplication is something a machine is capable of, whereas art is not. But is this true? Yes, I personally prefer styles that do more than duplicate. But I also believe that film is inherently a creative medium, rather than one of mere reproduction. Because in order to produce a film, even if capturing real life as it is, it must be visually composed and edited. We can minimize the director's effects on a film, by, say, removing the edits, but he (and the director of photography) still decided where, when, and how to point the camera, and he (and the editor) still decided when to begin and end the shot(s). So you see, film cannot be made without having been structured and filtered through someone's perspective.

So, if this is true, why get all bent up about the fact that documentaries are not absolute truth, after all they are told from someone's perspective, right? Right, but I believe that person should either be open about the fact that they are presenting this topic as heavily filtered (this is my story a la Michael Moore, or 10mph), reconstructed (like crime shows that flash "dramatic reenactment" across the screen), or even faked (mocumentaries are usually so over the top that their artifice is clear), or they should do everything in their power to record truth as objectively as possible. Otherwise how can the medium retain credibility? How else can we believe what they tell us?

Enter Winged Migration (Perrin, 2001). The film begins by following a small bird around a french, countryside home. In the barn, by the river, etc.. As I watch it, I smile to myself and think, "I know this bird is actually comprised of different birds that have been edited together to appear as if we are following the story of one bird." But the imagery is so beautiful, the bird is so sweet, and the close ups are so unusual in a nature documentary, that I just delight in the image. Soon we begin to see the remarkable shots of entire flocks of birds in flight, shot from alongside them, up close and personal. These are the shots I rented this film for. This is the truly wondrous sight I had heard about. Wow! I kept saying. I was enthralled with the serene and almost zen sensation I felt watching this marvelous vision. I was taken in by it for about 5 or 10 minutes, until I started to think about the mechanics of the shots. I knew they were using some kind of small flight contraption like a glider plane or something to get the shots, but what about the sound? How so perfect? Yes, even if it is a glider plane it is supposed to be very quiet, but what about the birds, we can hear them. Surely their quacks and honks would be inaudible over the winds whipping by them! Something is amiss here. Initially, I believe that they have some very good audio equipment, as the synching of the birds with their sounds is so convincing. Then I think, no, there is no way no matter how good the equipment, it is too perfect. They have sound effects being added. I sigh and settle again into the bliss of watching these birds as humans have never before seen them. That is until about a third-way through the movie, when I pick up on other tell-tale signs of forgery: Shots are too perfect. Almost choreographed. How did they get the birds flying across the screen so perfectly instead of flying immediately offscreen? Wow! What luck! I coo the first couple of times, but there is only so much luck I can believe. Not only does it appear as if the birds' flights are choreographed, but now and again, I have to wonder if birds (and props) have been planted in unlikely places, since some shots make me ask things like: what are they doing there, and why are they crossing the street?

I know, I know. I am different that most. First, because I sometimes think about the mechanics of shots. Second, because I care about this level of fakery. But doesn't this on some level upset you? Don't you feel deceived in the slightest? This doc, although arguably nearly not a doc as it was nearly all just imagery and nearly no narration, is telling you where and how far the birds migrate, showing you the paths they take. Telling it to you as gospel. But it is not. I was distracted, for this reason, throughout the rest of the film. I quickly jabbed at the buttons on my remote at the film's conclusion. Must check special features, see how this was done! To my dismay, it was even worse than expected. The birds we saw featured in the film were of several flocks of different breeds that had been the subjects of filial imprinting, allowing the filmmakers to be not only close to them at any time, but to also become their "wranglers" and effectively direct them, to some extent. Not only this, but the birds were taken by plane to the shoot locations and released when the camera was ready. They weren't just on their typical migratory path and the filmmakers weren't just along for the ride as the film seemed to have us believe. Furthermore, the director admitted to having included a shot of the birds flying where they wouldn't normally fly (even thought the film was about the migratory paths of the birds) simply because it was a recognizable, French landmark, and the shot was too compelling to omit. So if that shot wasn't accurate or "true", what else wasn't? Do you see what I mean here? Am I all alone?

Honestly I don't care how constructed it is if it isn't presented as though it were the truth of actual reality. This film even stated in the opening titles that "none of the shots of the birds were faked." I suppose, for the most part, that depends on perspective. They did really do something remarkable and groundbreaking in their methods. They really were up there with the birds and didn't rely on CGI to make it all happen, and gosh is it all successful in that regard. Still, it was constructed. And there were at least two shots in the film that are impossible without CGI (involving what seems to be composited images of birds and shots of earth from space). And they showed us how they planted the birds and, indeed, some props, and told us that some shots weren't exactly accurate. Is that not faking?

After all was said and done though, the images were beyond belief, they were just so gorgeous. Even with my intolerance for lies, I still absolutely loved the experience of watching the film. Ultimately the images were so stellar, they made me forgive the deception.

Incidentally, a non-deceptive version of this film would have been possible (and in my mind, arguably better) if they hadn't presented it as a nature doc. They could have just presented it as a collection of amazing shots and let them stand for themselves, instead of pairing them with sparse narration and titles. And in that case, they also could have easily done without the sound effects. The music was fantastic anyway. If they had let us appreciate the film for what it was, it could have been just (if not more) remarkable.

Back to the full blog...

Star Wars 3 - the force was kinda with this one.

Well, I realize that before I go off on a particular angle of a movie -- as I did with the previous topic -- perhaps I ought to let you know how I liked the movie in general. So here goes:

I actually quite liked this one. It was far better than episodes one and two. But there are still some areas lacking and some problematic areas for me.

The good:
The special effects are not so bad this time! They are a testament to the developments of CGI (computer-generated imagery) technology. Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) Lucus' gift to the industry and leaders in the area of CGI are clearly getting better at what they do. They are becoming more adept at creating more convincing and better-integrated CGI. As someone who has always been completely anti-CGI I consider myself to be difficult to convince in this area, and I have to say, I was nearly there. At least my eyes aren't always telling me directly anymore when something is real (not all the time anyway).

The acting was better. But this is not a difficult feat to accomplish, so maybe this shouldn't really be listed with the good.

With all my cynicism surrounding Lucas and the prequel trilogy, I must say that I felt like I was witnessing a real moment in movie history when they put the helmut on Darth Vader. It wasn't even the most remarkable of shots from a composition standpoint, but unh! The intense mood, the exquisite drama of that black on black image at the moment when that hard, shiny helmut was pushed on to his masked head, surrounded by whisps of fog, and Vader took his first breaths. And the sound of those breaths! Familiar to nearly every movie watcher around the globe. This was the moment of moments. The moment when the audience breaks out in full applause. This was the moment when Lucas breathed life into his monster and shouted "It's alive!" This was the magic of cinema.

The movie overall was much more emotionally engaging than the other two prequels. I have to admit that I even got a little misty during Padmé's funeral procession.

I also liked the allusions to the Bush administration. Lucas gave Darth Sidius and Annakin/Darth Vader some Bush-encoded language. Ah what fun.


Having said all that...
The bad:
The acting was still pretty bad. If I see Hayden Christiansen give his little evil glare for no reason again, ugh! Or the caricaturish Palpatine after his scarring encounter with Mace Windu - suddenly he is ridiculous instead of strong, quiet, and compelling.

The writing was worse. Padmé had little place in this movie. Once she had served her initial plot purpose, the movie only checked in on her every once in a while out of obligation to find that she was reduced to silent hand-wringing and staring through her enormous apartment window in complete despondency. Furthermore, Annakin's turn to the dark side was both ludicrous and pathetic. Here we are to see the moment that binds the trilogies together. The crucial turning point that made a good man go bad (so that he could later go sorta good again.) It is crucial enough to necessitate two previous movies as back story. Yet with all the pressure of 5 other films hanging in the balance, it fails miserably. His turn was unmotivated and sudden! It also made no sense whatsoever. 1. Annakin sees Windu & Sidius doing the saber dance, 2. Palpatine tells Anni that he is helpless and Windu is going to kill him, 3. Anni seems to see through this lie, 4. Windu and Palpatine both become the little angel and devil on Anni's shoulders informing him on both side of his decision as Palpatine tells Anni that only he can help him save his girl. 5. Anni looks frustrated and conflicted and like he might pop if he doesn't decide soon. 6. Windu prepares to kill Palpatine, though Anni thinks this is a bad way to go. 7. Anni succombs to weakness and tries to make Windu release Palpatine, 8. Palpatine rises from his ruse victorious and kills Windu. 9. Anni is distraught at his involvement in this heinous act and cries out from the soul "WHAT HAVE I DONE???" 10. Anni immediately pledges to do Sidius's bidding (yes, the man that obviously just tricked him into doing something that made him cry out in anguish.) 11. Anni is now suddenly fully evil and is dubbed Darth Vader. Hmmmm... he had me through what have I done but what the heck happened in the split second after that? Ah well, going to Jedi-hell now anyway, may as well just side with this jerk now. I mean I could have even bought that if there was a shot of his facial expression changing, indicating a change of heart. But nothing!

The CGI still registers as false. Better by a long shot, but still seems false even when my eyes can't easily spot the reason why. This thought was solidified in me (ha ha, no pun intended!) when my hubby popped in episode 4 and suddenly I sighed with relief. Doesn't this all look refreshingly solid, George? There are also still moments when the bad CG is plain as day. The wide shot of the mustafar duel for instance, when Annakin/Vader & Obi Wan are hanging from the big metal thing. You see their little blue sabers flailing and it all looks so fake. Or the lizardy-dragony thingy that Obi Wan rides when going after Gen. Grievous. That thing looks like it is from a bad cartoon . SO not an improvement on Jurassic Park, which is still one of the best, and most convincing, uses of CGI to date. Ugh, I am just waiting for the day when movies become these glorified cartoons altogether. What happened to the beauty of the photographic image? (A topic for another day.)

Then there are the plot-points that conflict with episodes 4-6. Leia knew her real mother, yet Padmé died in episode 3 in childbirth. Obi wan tells Luke that he hasn't been called obi wan since before Luke was born, yet he was called Obi wan in the birth scene! Annakin seems to be filled with much more ambition than Darth Vader later shows and talks all this jazz about overthrowing Sidius, which he apparently never does. There are so many inconsistencies I could discuss, but I will save them for another day.

I wanted so badly to see this one and respond to it independently from the other films, but I just couldn't. The movie overall is lacking the humor for me and ultimately still the magic of the the first three flicks. The optimism and irreverence. The charm, the naivete. Lucas! Stop taking yourself so seriously! Give us our magic back!

Other problems: Yoda is better as a puppet. Why did he give up fighting Palpatine? Why is his speech more consistently (and overly) backwards than it used to be? Also, the last two fight scenes were pointless because all four characters live on to be in the next episodes. Lucas should have involved someone or something else that could have upped the level of suspense for us a bit.

So when you add the goods and the bads, you get...
The verdict:
SW3 is a movie I somewhat enjoyed and gave me a magic moment, but ultimately had problems with. Phew! Any other questions

Lucas theories - part 1 - Mace & Race: a saber of another color

Well, I just finished re-watching Star Wars episode 3 finally. After the miserable experience I had at the theater at the midnight-opening-night showing, I thought it unfair to make any decisions on how I felt about the movie until I saw it again.

Some of you have already heard some of my theories on Lucas and SW. They are numerous to say the least. So I won't even try to attempt them all in one sitting. I thought we'd whet appetites with this topic, since It's a good one for discussion:

Mace Windu, played by Samuel L. Jackson, (if memory of the other 5 films serves) is the only lightsaber-wielding character in all of the SW series to have a lightsaber that is a color other than green, blue, or red. (His is purple). What to make of this?

It is difficult for me to consider this without considering SLJ's race. I know some of you are rolling your eyes thinking: not EVERYTHING in a movie has to do with race & social issues. But when you are looking at it from that angle it sure does. A director isn't always aware the reasons he does things. Sometimes his subconscious might creep in and societal influences may creep in and make some decisions for him. He isn't in a vacuum, he can't create something that isn't at all influenced by his society or his own beliefs. How a man or a culture produces a work of art informs us on the maker's psychology and ideology. Let me ask you this: Do you think that Lucas (master and commander of all things SW) would want or allow a different color to be used for the character if he weren't black? Think about it. If one character gets a different color, then why not all, then we have to decide what all colors everyone is getting. Then actors would start putting in their input. "I really see my character as having a pink saber" or "I have always been partial to the color yellow, can I have a yellow one?" It just seems to add too many more variables. And from what I have seen on Lucas, this man is all about controlled decisions, especially in later life. Plus, if you have too many colors, audience members would have a harder time immediately identifying the saber-wielder, and he couldn't have that kind of imperfection in his film, right?

I had a couple initial thoughts on why SLJ specifically was given a different color. All of them lead back to race for me. Was it because of racism outright? A man of a different color needs a saber of a different color? Was it because black men & SLJ in particular are badass and he needs to have a more badass color? Even if SLJ requested the color himself, don't you think that leads back to race? Again, why would Lucas allow one actor to request a color and not all? What makes SLJ different from the other jedi actors?

There is such perfect and simple symbolism with the other colors. Red, of course, signifies passion, anger, evil, blood, danger, etc.. This is why siths have red sabers, since they find strength in succoming to their most intense and dark emotions such as anger. Blue signifies purity and light, good for the iconic jedi who are purely good-deed doers, and seers of "the light." Green signifies also good things: growth, birth, vigor, innocence, fertility, prosperity, harmony. Also perfect for the jedi whose work is constructive and brings peace, properity and harmony to the galaxy. (also good since one of the leaders of the jedi is a little green man!)

With such simple, and pure symbolism, why complicate things? Good versus evil. Why not use color to underscore that Manichaen symbolism rather than undermine it? It has been known to work well already with black versus white, why not go with two colors like red and blue or even color opposites like red and green to emphasize the two poles? You must be one or the other, you can't be both. Or can you?

Why bring other colors into this? Was it as simple as one of the reasons I mentioned? Was it also to do with symbolism? Purple as far as I know, symbolizes spirituality, royalty, and nobility. How does that fit Mace Windu? He is not royalty; he doesn't seem to be of any higher standing than the other jedi. I have no other clues to determine his degree of spirituality. So maybe they are just trying to mark him as 'noble.' Nobility, hmmm... that IS interesting, since one thing we discussed in my class on Colonialism is how "natives" and dark-skinned people in general are often represented as the "noble savage." This concept in it's beginnings discussed dark-skinned natives of Africa (etc.), primarily, but came to be applied to their decendents as well. "The concept arises in the 18th century as a European nostalgia for a simple, pure, idyllic state of the natural, posed against rising industrialism and the notion of overcomplications and sophistications of European society... The crucial fact about the construction is that it produces an ostensibly positive oversimplification of the 'savage' figure, rendering it in this particular form as idealized rather than a debased stereotype." (Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Conepts, page 210) We see this in film all the time, right? Black characters since the early days have often been comical, dangerous, or quietly noble. Ever seen IMMITATION OF LIFE, GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER, or THE GREEN MILE? Those are just a few I can name off the top of my head. Of course, the nobility was slightly different in GUESS WHO'S... because that was used as device to highlight the father's racism, because other than his skin color, he couldn't have found a more perfect (or idealized) suitor for his daughter than this Sydney Poitier character. (That is a discussion for another day too: Why black people in film have to prove they are EVEN BETTER than white people in order to show they are worthy of the same things.) In the other two films this nobility is of the simple variety, and the nobility of the otherwise seemingly simple people. So simple in the Green Mile in fact that he is downright mentally challenged! But they understand something simple and pure that the rest of us don't.

Obi wan is a noble guy, why isn't he marked with nobility, and what about Yoda? The jedi by definition are noble, aren't they? But this one is the only one marked? What does it mean? That otherwise we would see him as ignoble? That we need that help to see it? That he is nobler because of his ancestry? That he is more badass? That he should be segregated somehow? That he is both good and bad somehow (remember how purple is made by mixing red and blue?)? That Lucas made a weird decision based on no other reasoning whatsoever? I don't know about you, but the last seems the least likely to me.

Let's say it is because of his nobility. What are the implications? They could be as simple as: We haven't progressed. Even in a sci-fi when race simply doesn't matter in the same way, we still have to mark a black man as "other" in some way or another. And we still don't look at SLJ the same way as we would look at any other alien.

And for those who are asking... what if SLJ did in fact ask for the color change himself? How could that be racism? Well, there are a couple of things to consider there. First, racism is so ingrained in our society, so encoded in everything we say and do, that even the victims of it can't help but support it's perpetuation at times. Also, again, why would Lucas grant SLJ's wish when it is doubtful that he would grant any other? Why would he allow this character to stand out when he hadn't planned it that way?

I don't know what the real answer is. But everything just keeps coming back to race for me here.



NOTES: I draw on my memories of discussions on color theory in school from elementary through college and readings beyond, as well as my own connotations, but you can read a little on the topic on wikipedia.

Now of course, you can argue other meanings for these colors since I picked only the good connotations for the blue/green/purple sabers and only the bad for the red sabers. But, being that the "good" guys were given only blue/green/purple, and the "bad" guys were given red, I think those are the appropriate connotations to discuss.

Also, if you think that color choices are random, consider how western painters have used colors to signify things about their subjects that we otherwise wouldn't know: who is wise, who is royal, who is spiritual, it is often is reflected in the color clothing they wear, etc..

And you if want to talk about why general Grievous (an unquestionably bad "bad guy") is given green and blue sabers instead of red, that would be somewhat interesting as well. He is not a jedi (or sith) for starters, so the symbolism doesn't really apply since the weapons aren't rightfully his. My theory is simply that he took them from the jedi he killed. Convenient for the sake of visual symmetry that he killed two blue-saber jedi and two green-saber jedi, eh?

Bye Bye Bad Post

The previous post was pointless. I didn't notice till now that there are LOTS of comments on this movie on imbd.com and most of them correct the Iceland mistake. BUT I was the only one who mentioned colonialism and search for identity! :) I wish I had read the other comments before, there is one I would like to comment on. One person said that this road movie failed because faroese people can tell when a certain road does not lead to the right village in the movie. How silly is that?

Every year Ebert has what he calls "cinema interruptus" at CU Boulder, where he screens a movie and has an open discussion with the rest of the audience about every nuance as the movie is playing, stopping it when people want to say something. It is usually quite interesting. But some poeple say some really silly things. I remember one year - I am thinking it must have been when he showed Fargo - that he prefaced that day's discussion (it's a 5-day thing) by saying something to the effect of: "I don't want to hear anything about how this highway does not go to that part of town... It's a movie!"

It's not as if that's the only part of a movie that is fake. Consider the dialog! If people spoke in movies the way they do in real life, it would sound terrible!
-"What do you want to eat?"
-"Don't know. What do we have?"
-Shrugs & sighs.
-"Pizza?"
-"Maybe."
-"Don't want to spend anymore money right now."
-"Me either."
-"What should we do?"
-"Don't know."
-"Let's just order a pizza."
-"Don't we have anything?"
-"Nuh-uh."
-"There is always pasta."
-Grunts.
-"Let's eat at McDonalds."
-"Ugh. They don't have crap there."
-"Burger King?"
-"Taco Bell."
-Grunts.
-"I gotta pee."
(shall I continue?)

Movies aren't life, they are life enhanced. "Life with all the dull bits cut out" Mr. Alfred Hitchcock used to say, but it's more than that. In life, not everyone you are attracted to, is attracted to you. Having a Makeover doesn't always get you the guy. Saving the day doesn't always get you the girl, and how often is the day really saved? In real life, all questions are not answered and neatly tied up in a pretty package and a bow. And horror of horrors - we don't all have our own theme songs. (How come these same kinds of people don't object to the unlikely orchestral music that plays while the actor is driving on a road that does not lead to the following town?)

Bye Bye Blue Bird - a post I just put up on IMDB.com

(This post refers to BYE BYE BLUE BIRD, a Faroese film by Katrin Ottarsdóttir made in 1999)

I must first note that, contrary to the previous reviewer's comment, this film is NOT set in Iceland. It is set in the beautiful and remote Faroe Islands. Funny, I am used to people referring to the Faroes as Denmark, not Iceland! I must also admit that my comments are somewhat biased because I have family that acted in the film and other family that sang on the soundtrack. I have also met one of the two lead actresses and know family of some of the actors. My family is from the Faroe Islands, you see. I saw this film at my college in Colorado, and was absolutely thrilled to see part of my life represented onscreen. It was the first time I had ever seen a film in the Faroese language, even BARBARA - a film based on Faroese legend - is in Danish. There have been a couple of films before this one in Faroese, but I hadn't had the chance to see them (I have seen one since). I loved this movie for those reasons, but I also thought it was quite enjoyable in and of itself. I would have to see it again before I could speak more critically on it, since on the first viewing I was just so excited to see it all. But some interesting things to watch in this film are the hints of colonialism and the search for identity that I feel are such a part of the Faroese psyche. Notice the relationships with the Danes - who speak only Danish in the film, for those who don't pick it up. This film is also truly quirky, which makes it a lot more interesting to me than other road films. As a film grad, style counts a lot for me, since so many films are so devoid of it. Now if only this (and other Faroese films) could be released in the States!