dubya flubya.

Sooo this post is coming a week late, but I've been busy (and by busy I mean waking up after noon, catching up on tv shows and eating all the time). Anyway, I may or may not get yelled at for saying this, but Oliver Stone is getting senile. For all the controversy generated by his recent choice of film topics, his films are becoming relatively...soft. tame. dull (for lack of better words). I look back on classics like Wall Street, Born of the Fourth of July and (my favorite) Natural Born Killers, and I can't believe it's the same director who did Alexander, World Trade Center and now...W. Then again, I haven't seen JFK or Nixon so I don't know how Stone has tackled presidents in the past. Therefore, it's quite possible I have no idea what I'm talking about. Feel free to read on anyway.

This is the first time a film has been made about a president still in office and it has some people's panties all in a twist (and by some people I mean conservatives of course) since it doesn't depict the president in a particularly good light. I have no idea what the problem is though cause it doesn't seem like Stone depicts W. in a particularly bad light either. The film focuses primarily on the events surrounding the Iraq War with flashbacks piecing together Bush Jr.'s younger years from the boozing and the partying to the Laura wooing days and his first foray into politics.

So I'm not gonna lie, but I thought the film was going to end like 5 scenes before it actually did and maybe...it should have. I couldn't tell what Stone was trying to do. When I first viewed the trailer and promotional material, I thought this was going to be a satirical, funny and overall negative look at W's presidency (and judging by the outroar from the right, I'd say I wasn't alone on this one). The brief funny moments in the film weren't so much a critique by Stone, but just a reenactment of actual events. There are a few funny and ridiculous moments, but they're things Pres Bush has actually said or done. No exaggeration or satire here.

Like I said before, conservatives/Republicans/McCain camp really don't have to worry about this film at all impacting the election. Stone managed to do something I never thought possible (especially from someone who works out of a neighborhood as liberal as Hollywood) and that is make me sympathize for poor Bush Jr. He comes off like a boy desperately seeking his father's approval, doing what he believes to be best for the country, but being manipulated by his cabinet into making mistakes. His only flaw is that he's too dumb and goofy to realize what is actually happening and how to make it work. Yes, I know there are plenty of people out there who believe this is really the case, but I personally hate to believe that the people of this country managed to elect someone so sad and pathetic and naive into the most powerful position of authority in this country. I have to believe he is a little more calculating. A little more manipulative. And generally more aware of the consequences of his actions than he was made out to be. But who knows. Maybe Stone got it right.

While I did appreciate the palpable tension Stone created between Bush Jr. and Sr., nothing else about this film resonated with me. Not even the acting chops of Josh Brolin and James Cromwell could save it for me. Brolin did show an uncanny resemblance to Bush Jr. in speech, mannerisms and overall demeanor, but so does Will Farrell on SNL so who knows what that means (since Will Farrell generally annoys the shit out of me in any film). Props to Thandie Newton for maintaining a pinched facial expression throughout the entire film in an attempt to pass for Condie (that could not have been easy). But Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush?? Um...what? Words cannot describe how this did not work so I'm going to have to rely on pictures for this one. I mean they made Bush grey and wrinkly, couldn't they do the same to Liz? Maybe they were relying on the eye candy for viewers. Who knows.


Anyway, for all the hype surrounding this one, I was expecting more. This film was a definite letdown. Then again, the same might be said for the presidency it was based on.

Art imitating Life imitating Art...wait what?

There are a small group of people in the film industry you can safely namedrop around film students without being judged (Gus van Sant, P.T. Anderson, Kubrick, Godard...to name a few), and then there is an even smaller number of people where the mere mention of their name triggers exclamations of adulation and in depth discussions about the quality of their films. Charlie Kaufman is one such person. As the bff so eloquently put it..."film students masturbate to Charlie Kaufman." Well film students...get ready to rub one out with the release of Kaufman's newest film (and directorial debut) - Synecdoche, New York.

Set for limited release (NY, LA) on Oct. 24th, I got a sneak peek of the film at the cast and crew screening Tuesday night. No, I was not cast or crew, but the bff was and invited me to be his plus one. And although I had a lab report due the next morning that I hadn't even started, I decided I could not pass up the chance to meet the wet dream of so many film students. (And by "meet," I mean awkwardly sidle up next to and stare. Yes, that is what happened.)

Needless to say, Synecdoche, New York is Kaufman to the tee. Maybe a little too much. Quirky. Funny. Deep. Convoluted. Beautiful. Essentially, this film is Kaufman's stream of consciousness and as writer and director, there was just no one there to edit his mind. And you know the mind behind films such as Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, while brilliant, is probably not the most coherent and easiest to follow (you know the saying about how there's a thin line between insanity and genius? yea...) Of course this makes it nearly impossible to adequately summarize this film in a couple sentences, but I'll do my best.

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays theater director Caden Cotard (apparently the name comes from Cotard syndrome which is having delusions of already being dead) who is struggling with his health, all the women in his life and his desire to create the ultimate play- a life-size replica of New York City and the people who reside there, including himself. I guess you can say it's the ultimate example of art imitating life (see title of post) except much more complex.

It is impossible to take this film literally and to try would mean missing the beauty of it. The plot skips rapidly through Cotard's earlier years but slows down dramatically in the end as he nears death - an event he spends most of his life fearing. It is packed with ideas and metaphors (some seeming obvious, others much more subtle and up for interpretation). Unfortunately, the pacing makes the film difficult to follow at times (wait...his daughter is how old now? his wife is where now? he's married to who now? he's working on what now?), but eventually you realize it's not the actual events that are important but how the characters interact and cope with each situation. Or more importantly, how you, as a viewer, react to every setback, achievement, loss or failure. It's forcing you to face your own mortality. The inevitability of death. The unrelenting desire to leave your mark on the world before you are no longer a part of it. The futile quest to understand the meaning of your life. Finally discovering how to do it all and realizing it might be too late. Or is it?

Supposedly, Kaufman wanted to make a movie with all his favorite actors so just kept writing in roles, assembling an amazing cast. It probably helps that actors see a Kaufman script and their eyes glaze over with little dancing Oscars. Philip Seymour Hoffman. Catherine Keener. Samantha Morton. Michelle Williams. Emily Watson. Dianne Wiest. Hope Davis. Jennifer Jason Leigh. All provide stellar performances and to go into each one would probably be incredibly boring, even for the nonexistent reader. But in my eyes, Phil Hoffman can do no wrong, I would swing the other way for Catherine Keener, and I don't know where Samantha Morton has been hiding all this time, but I'm definitely welcoming her back with open arms.

Ultimately, I have to believe that what Kaufman intends from his viewers is a visceral, emotional response rather than a logical analysis of the plot events. Everything being up for interpretation. Although filled with moments of dark humor, I cannot in good sense call this film light by any means. Be prepared for something intense (I've been told I use this word wrong but I swear it's appropriate in this case) and thought-provoking. Love it or hate it, it's the kind of film film students love to discuss to no end. But not being a film student, I'm just going to call it quits right....now.

"Fistful of Assholes."

So I'm sitting here in class eating Halloween shaped gummies for dinner and counting down the minutes til I can go home and stuff my face with some real food, and I figure the best way to make this class go by faster is to not pay attention in it. That's where the blogging comes in.

Mostly because the bff is one of those hipster types who takes a certain pride in listening to music that no one else has actually heard of, I find myself knowing more about the indie music scene than I ever thought possible. Unfortunately, not nearly enough to appreciate Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Simply put: the music is good, the movie is not.

For anyone who hasn't seen the trailer (which means you probably don't watch tv given that it runs every 30 seconds), Michael Cera and Kat Dennings play titular characters Nick and Norah in a quest to locate the band Where's Fluffy's latest show as well as Norah's lost drunk friend Caroline (Ari Graynor) in Manhattan. Nick is the only straight member of a band, The Jerkoffs, and is pining for his ex-gf who recently broke up with him. Norah has an on-and-off again ex-bf and a famous daddy (but the details are kept real hush-hush til the end for some reason). They're musical soulmates of course and what follows goes something like...boy gets girl. boy loses girl. boy gets girl back. yay. (and by yay I mean yawn.)

There's a strange pride that comes with seeing your hometown in a film. Of course when your current hometown happens to be downtown Manhattan, this tends to happen a quite a bit. But there is still something satisfying about seeing so many of the hangouts I frequent being used in the film (it's like my life...if I actually had one). Unfortunately, nothing else about this film really satisfied me at all.

First off, I'm pretty sure a snail race could've moved faster than this movie. Long awkward conversations (I think it was flirting but who knows) in Nick's car made me physically uncomfortable and the semi-climactic scene when Nick and Norah finally get together almost put me to sleep (though I was jolted awake by an unexpected onscreen activity...let's just say it involves fingers). It might just be me, but cutesy romantic comedies bore me - especially when the leads are somewhat pathetic. I know we're supposed to be rooting for male and female leads in romantic comedies to get together but it's so inevitable that I generally just save myself the trouble.

The actors were business as usual which wasn't always a bad thing but not anything worth talking about. Kat Dennings as the rebellious teen? Check. Michael Cera as George Michael? Check. I assume Dennings will outgrow this role eventually...people do get older right? And it's her character that utters the classy quote that is the title to this post. (Don't ask me the relevance...I don't know. I just like it.) Apparently many believe she's got big things ahead of her. I'd have to agree. Two big things. Right in front of her (see photo). Seriously kids, when did they get so big??!! Ok moving on. Cera really plays no other character but George Michael no matter what movie he's in. (No complaints here...I want GM to be my bffl as well.) His bumbling awkwardness and gentle sarcasm DID provide some of the film's more amusing moments. Hm...I suppose the one exception would have to be Ari Graynor. Her portrayal of the drunk mess was so spot-on, she must have been drinking on set. Though how she manages to remain that messed up for the entire night without refueling is a mystery I've been trying to solve for the past few years.

Overall, I was over it before it was over. I guess if you're looking for a makeout movie (you know the kind that gives you the warm fuzzies but doesn't require much attention to get the gist of what's going on), then Nick and Norah just might do the trick. Otherwise, I'd just stick with the soundtrack.

From One Addict to Another.

"I admire addicts. In a world where everybody is waiting for some blind, random disaster or some sudden disease, the addict has the comfort of knowing what will most likely wait for him down the road. He's taken some control over his ultimate fate, and his addiction keeps the cause of his death from being a total surprise.
In a way, being an addict is very proactive.
A good addiction takes the guesswork out of death. There is such a thing as planning your getaway." - Choke (the novel).

Here are some clear indications that I am an addict. It was 10pm Monday night. I still hadn't started a paper due 2 hours ago. My roommate asked me if I wanted to go see Choke with her. If I went, not only would my paper be very late...but I would be getting about 3 hours of sleep that night attempting to finish it. Needless to say...I went.

Choke is the novel that popped my Palahniuk cherry way back in the day so it holds a special place in my heart. Of course this also meant two very important things:

1. I went into this film with high expectations (never a good thing).
2. I remember very few details from the book (totally found the above quote online) seeing that I read it nearly 7 years ago.
(So it is highly unlikely that any kind of book vs. movie comparisons will be made here since I obviously don't remember the book, but I think it's pretty much a given that the book is better seeing that a. they usually are and b. Chuck Palahniuk is a literary genius.)

For all you non-Palahniuk lovers out there (yes, these people actually exist) who don't know what Choke is about...Sam Rockwell plays the main character, Victor Mancini, a sex addict working as a historical interpreter who pays for his mother's hospital bills by playing on the sympathies of people who "save" him when he pretends to choke in restaurants. Underlying all of this is Victor's attempt to connect with his mother, deal with the lack of father figure and understand who exactly he is and what he wants out of life. Actor Clark Gregg makes his directorial debut adapting Chuck Palahniuk's novel to the silver screen.

Although there were very few laugh-out-loud moments, there were definitely times where I found myself chuckling or gasping - mostly from the sheer absurdity of the characters. It's amazing how Palahniuk has a tendency to create incredibly flawed characters that you still want to be your bff. Yet, while Palahniuk's characters tend to fall more on the side of disturbing and extremely messed up, Gregg has adapted this particular slew of misfits to be more on the lovably eccentric side. Less shock value, hence less impact? Perhaps.

This is not to say that the film wasn't worth watching. As far as films go...this one is pretty solid in combining sardonic wit, utter dirtiness and emotional self-discovery. It just wasn't enough to completely satisfy. Perhaps a result of my high expectations, but it could've been funnier, wittier, dirtier and generally more insightful. Gregg could have taken more risks with the characters. Victor's bff is a sex addict who has the tendency to masturbate to well anything and everything, yet still comes (no pun intended) across as sweet and innocent. Even Victor himself, a con-man and sex addict who refuses to reform, is generally sympathetic...the full extent of just how messed up he is is just not adequately depicted. Surprisingly, the titular action on which the film is based isn't really explored too much at all but made for great comedy. (hm...choking is funny...does anyone else find that little bit disturbing?)

The actors, as expected, were incredible. Sam Rockwell is perfect as the incredibly flawed Victor. Angelica Huston gives a hilarious and touching performance as Victor's mother suffering from some form of dementia. Kelly McDonald is... Gosford Park. Clive Owen. Hot british accent. Mmm...wait what were we talking about...? Oh right. McDonald is absolutely precious as the love interest that basically triggers Victor's emotional breakdown.

Overall, I'd give this film a go. Especially if you're a Palahniuk fan. The roomie (a bigger Palahniuk fan than I) first voiced her disappointment but relented that the film got better as it progressed. Also, I know I basically said the film wasn't hardcore enough...but still not recommended for the weak of heart. Or anyone who is generally squeamish talking about sex. Yea, you know who you are.

P.S. Stop comparing this film to Fight Club. Different cast. Different director. Different feel. Different FILM.

P.S.S. I doubt THIS will work since no one actually reads this thing but it's worth a shot. Who knows...maybe Shia LaBeouf will play you in a film 20 years from now.