Movie Review DOUBLE-DIP: Hugo and In Time

            This past Turkey-Day, my familly was up to its usual shenanigans: Getting lost in a snow-storm on a walk (with my father in the lead), a weepy round-table giving of “thanks” for everything we’re thankful for this past year (my father, brother, sister and I were all thankful for our “mustaches,” for example), a multi-course glutting at the Sunriver Lodge (mmmm, cranberry-sauce... on... EVERYTHING), and our post-glutting trip to the movies.


Hugo:
    
           The movie everyone had agreed to seeing before I’d been able to show up and work my argumentative magic was Martin Scorcese’s Hugo (“I’m not saying I won’t like it, dad, merely that I have absolutely no desire to see it”).

Yeah, I didn’t want to see Hugo before being dragged to the theater by my family (the only film I wanted to see less than Hugo was Puss in Boots, another movie that might not be godawful but which I have absolutely no desire to see... A part of me wanted to see Jack and Jill).

Yeah, when I was 13 that kind of pre-judgment might have been enough to prevent me from liking d@mn-near anything.

HOWEVER, I like to tell myself I’m not 13 anymore and that I’m more than willing to revise my pre-judgements if I’m proven wrong.

I wish Hugo had proven me wrong.

            My primary complaint against Hugo comes from Mark Twain. Twain writes somewhere in his “How to Tell a Story”:

But the teller of the comic story does not slur the nub; he shouts it at you--every time. And when he prints it, in England, France, Germany, and Italy, he italicizes it, puts some whooping exclamation-points after it, and sometimes explains it in a parenthesis. All of which is very depressing, and makes one want to renounce joking and lead a better life.

In his essay, Twain is trying to distinguish what he calls “American humour,” with its meandering style and willingness to pass over the nub/butt/punchline of a given joke and be like “What, what’s so funny?”, from the kind of comic stories that make Twain want to renounce joking and lead a better life.

While not at all comic (sorry Sasha Baron Cohen and fans), Hugo was packed with so much shouting about the themes and morals and what was supposed to be of dramatic-import, so much italicization of The Point, so many exclamation points after things of significance and explanations of What’s What and Who’s Who and What’s to Come that it made me want to renounce story telling and lead a better life. 
                   Me, my brother, and one of my younger sisters didn’t like Hugo. My dad, step-mama, and other sister did. Me, my brother, and my younger sister are in a teeny-tiny minority of Hugo haters (Hugo has a 97% on RottenTomatoes). My dad, step-mama and other sister are a part of the 99, er, 97% that think it's Gawd's gift to cinema.

            You know what I think? I think Martin Scorsese totally bamboozled film critics the world over by creating a film that--because of who made it (Scorsese!!!), the quality of its production (it's beautiful) and apparent quality of its story-telling (it's a clock!), not to mention its lovey-dovey gushing over old movies (those of Melies)--cannot be criticized from within the current state of movie-criticism. Scorsese fooled us, or, at least fooled 97% of movie-critics.
            Allow me: Hugo was a belabored suck-fest of the the most polished order.
            Oh, and: It’s in 3D!!!
            Oh, and: My younger brother spent the entirety of the movie disliking/wanting to punch Hugo’s whimpering male lead (Asa Butterfield) in the face.
            AND: When (SPOILER!!!) Abigal Breslin, er, Chloe Grace Moretz’s character turns out to be the writer of the whole she-bang I nearly threw my Thanksgiving up all over the backs of my parents' neighbor’s heads (long, un-comic story, i.e., humorous).

Hugo, even for them that claimed to like it (my dad, step-mama, and sis) was the kind of film that made you want to go watch something else, which is exactly what we did when we left Hugo and snuck into....

In Time:

            In Time, while having lots of problems (plot stuff, the woodenness of Amanda Seyfried), was also lots of fun.

DO YOU HEAR THAT, SCORSESE?!? FUN!!!

Thought-provoking instead of thought-inducing, In Time takes place in a future in which 1% of the population lives forever while everyone else dies not long after they turn 25. Interesting, right?!?

In Time is a movie I’d gladly watch at least part of again. It’s also a movie made by the same guy who made the considerably better Gattica. I’m talking about Andrew Niccol, a guy who basically only makes thought-provoking, fun movies like Gattica, The Truman Show, S1m0ne, and Lord of War. Movies that, while definitely not perfect (except The Truman Show, of course, which I think is perfect and probably the best thing Jim Carey’s ever done), I’m always happy to have seen.

            Oh yeah, and In Time’s got JT doin’ his JT thang:

Parting Shot/Thought: Perhaps the New-Zealand born Niccol is, in accord with what Twain says about “American humor,” more American than Scorsese? I’m just saying...

Movie Review: The Skin I Live In

           The Skin I Live In is only the second of Pedro Almodovar’s films I’ve seen, the other being Bad Education. I honestly can’t say that I remember all that much about Bad Education so I’m not sure how much the following pronouncement actually means: The Skin I Live In is my favorite Almodavar film to date and the less I say about it in my review, the better.
           Of course, I will say something about the film. Heck, a few things.

Thing 1: Unlike Bad Education, The Skin I Live In actually made me want to see more Almodovar films, which is exciting (for me) and about the greatest compliment I can give an artist.

Another Thing: I saw The Skin I Live In--a film replete with _____ and _______ and all sorts of disturb__________--with my old high-school librarian, whom I hadn’t seen in almost a decade before meeting up with to go see this film. Who’d’ve thunk me and my old h.s. librarian would eventually sit together in a movie theater and watch a man in a tiger-costume try and _______ a woman in a skin-colored neoprene jumpsuit? Honestly? Who’d’ve thunk?!?

   

Just One More Thing: I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to re-watch The Skin I Live In (while it is lovely and engrossing it’s also a bit ________), but I definitely wouldn’t mind talking it over with someone who’d seen it. The film is jam-packed with questions of _________ and ____ and, well, it’s just so __________ and Antonio Banderas is just such a convincing _________ that...

Movie Review: The Victim

            It was my first time at the Baghdad Theater’s Kung-Fu night. The film showing was an old Sammo Hung--



--flick called The Victim.

The guy who curates the Baghdad’s Kung-Fu series came out before the film started and told the packed house we we’re about to watch the only known 35mm print of the film, a print which he himself had painstakingly tracked down in somebody’s London basement and even more painstakingly dedicated three days to untangling and cutting and splicing it back together again. That we were even able to see the film in a theater was a work of crazy love.

            I wish I could say the film truly deserved it.
            I mean, I really wish.
            The story goes something like this: Sammo Hung’s character is looking for a Kung--Fu master, fighting guy after guy after guy (the last guy he fights is the best because this spacey warble-music plays whenever he’s on the screen) until he finally finds one (KA-Yan Leung). But there are a couple of problems: (1) that Sammo’s new master doesn’t want him as a pupil and (2) that Sammo’s new master is in a little bit of trouble with his crazy, one-eyed brother.

What follows in the film was not quite comprehensible and included Samo Hung faking like he was a vampire (which, considering the film is supposed to be set in feudal China...), and faking like (SPOILER!!!) he’s double crossed his master.

             Anyways, I probably wouldn’t want to see The Victim ever again, but I would like to go to another of the Baghdad’s Kung-Fu nights if anyone’s interested.

Movie Review: 50-50

            I wouldn’t pay anymore of my hard-earned cash-money to see 50-50 in theaters. And I probably wouldn’t Netflix, Red-Box, or On Demand it of my own accord. But I also wouldn’t mind watching it again with somebody who hadn’t seen it, and I definitely wouldn’t mind talking about it with somebody who had, except my mother, of course...

50-50, which stars Seth “Kind’a Funny A$$hole, Smokes Weed” Rogen and Joseph “Probably the Best Actor of My Generation” Gordon-Levitt, actually does a better job touching on issues between mothers than sons than it does touching on death/cancer issues (even if the death and cancer stuff is what the film is “really” about).

Joseph Gordon Levitt’s “Adam” has a mother. Just like the rest of us (yeah you, Seth Rogen). Played to perfection by Angelica Huston, Adam’s mother’s propensity to weeping and melodrama and guilt-induction reminded yours truly so much of his own mother that the film actually got quite uncomfortable at times. But then, unfortunately, so did Adam’s handling/treatment of his mother (distant, weary).

The film was therapeutic.

It's message ends up being something like: Even if they’re prone to weeping or melodrama or guilt-induction, even if at some point along the way they’ve Let You Down something fierce/deep/meaningful/traumatic (which you’ve probably taken out on others over the years), even if you begrudge them for said letting down (especially when you find yourself in new painful situations), YOUR MOTHER STILL LOVES YOU!!! And they’ll always love you. And the sooner you accept that fact and everything that comes along with it, the better.

Novel+ Review: The Marriage Plot

            Jeffrey Eugenides' The Marriage Plot was another book I acquired/read down in Los Angeles this past month. I picked it up after a friend sent me a link to a New York Magazine article called “Just Kids”.

Had I not read the first page or so of “Just Kids” I probably wouldn’t have bought The Marriage Plot. But I did read the first page or so, then buy the book, ergo, I feel inclined to make the following disclaimer: I have NO IDEA what reading the The Marriage Plot would have been like had I not been reading it through the lens provided by the first page-or-so of “Just Kids.” I’m just saying...

           Thing 1: I liked the book, i.e., enjoyed reading it. I found it stimulating, thought provoking, entertaining, anger-ing.

Sense I Got: The Marriage Plot is less a bildungsroman (as was suggested by “Just Kids”) and more a revenge novel, a revenge novel in which author Jeffrey Eugenides seeks to settle an old score between him and (1) “post-modernism” (post-modern literary-criticism, specifically), (2) David Foster Wallace, and (3) someone like The Marriage Plot’s “Madeleine Hanna.”

Conclusion I’m Drawing on the Basis of the Sense I Got: Jeffrey Eugenides--whose Pulitzer Prize winning Middle Sex I haven’t read and whose Virgin Suicides I’ve only seen the movie version of--has the literary equivalent of a little d*ck.

Think Bill Paxton in True Lies:

            Logic Behind My (Admittedly) Weird Science: If Eugenides didn’t have the literary equivalent of a little d*ck he would have written/published The Marriage Plot back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, when there were still people who believed in deconstruction and David Foster Wallace WAS ACTUALLY ALIVE and could’ve defended himself from what basically amounts to a kind of pity-ridden slander, and you know what they say about pity (“Basest form of currency there is”).   

My Largely Speculative Fuel for The Machine:

1. Eugenides is extremely relieved, like PREPARATION-H relieved, that po-mo-deconstruction has fallen out of fashion.
1. On page 43, Madeleine Hanna says, “Maybe it’s just me, but wasn’t it a relief to read a logical argument for once”; I bet this is exactly how Eugenides feels...
2. Eugenides understands just enough about the texts and tenets of post-modernism to be able to deride them (or, he understands just enough about people to be able deride them for posing as if they understand the texts and tenets of post-modernism).
1. Eugenides’ quote from Derrida’s Of Grammatology on page 47 seems borderline malicious. Yes that Derrida text is hard, but considering it’s the only direct quote from a text that gets repeatedly mentioned/used by characters who seem like TOTAL poser-a$$holes, well...
2. I can’t find it BUT Eugenides mentions Hegel once in passing, and I remember reading it and thinking, “You d*ck!”
3. Derrida’s only advocate in the WHOLE BOOK is the manic-depressive David Foster Wallace based character, Leonard BANKHEAD, and even he doesn’t give Derrida the thumbs-up, saying “You can’t just write him off” (p. 43).  
3. Eugenides has never himself been depressed, but has probably had to deal with his fair share of depressed people and the people who continue to love them (i.e., the Madeleine Hannas of the world).
1. While reading Eugenides descriptions of Wallace, er, Bankhead’s mania, I just got this sense that Eugenides only understood depression from the outside looking in. Call... it... a... hunch...
4. The End (Spoiler Alert): Jeffrey Eugenides’ own character in the novel, Mitchell Grammaticus, says to Madeleine Hannah (after David Foster Bankhead has exiled himself to the Great Northwest and divorced Madeleine), “Was there any novel where the heroine [Madeleine] gets married to the wrong guy [Bankhead] and then realizes it, and then the other suitor [Eugeneides] shows up, some guy who’s always been in love with her, and then they get together, but finally the second suitor realizes that the last thing the woman needs is to get married again, that she’s got more important things to do with her life?” (406). Now, if this isn’t the biggest piece of Ego-Pumping-Heroism masked as Self-Sacrifice=True-Love BULLSH*T I’ve encountered in a really, really, really long time, I... Just... Don’t... Know... What... Is.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah: I know that it’s still unfashionable to talk about the character of the people who write the novels we read, but WHATEVER. I think Jeffrey Eugenides basically has the literary equivalent of a little d*ck and that The Marriage Plot is an enjoyable, fun, cowardly novel, the kind of novel I hope to never write.

WITBD: Somebody You're Attracted to is Already in a Committed Romantic Relationship

There they were, just’a walkin’ down the street, singin’ “Do-a-ditty, ditty-dum, ditty-do!” Snappin their fingers and stompin’ to the beat, singin’ “Do-a-ditty, ditty-dum, ditty-do!” They looked good... They looked fine... They looked good, they looked fine, then I... Found out that they were already in a committed romantic relationship...

            If this has never happened to you, then congratulations, you’ve never been single. As for the rest of us, the question becomes: When you find out that someone you’re attracted to is already in a committed romantic relationship, What is to be done?!? Nothing? Something? Something Hoffmanesque?

Let’s run through the requisite questions.

First, those questions that beget information it’s best for us to ferret-out before hand in the name of just knowing enough:

            Question #1: Are you yourself single? If your answer is “No” and you’re getting all hot’n’bothered watching people walk down the street, so to speak, then you’ve probably got some very real relationship Q&A of your own to conduct. If your answer is “Yes,” then proceed to...

Question #2: Is the person married? Do they have a wedding-band on their finger or do you know--first/second/third-hand--that they’re married? If the answer to this question is “Yes” (and their marriage is not an open/polygamist one), then, in my opinion, you’ve entered into the realm of forever holding your “peace” (i.e., I can’t/won’t help you adulterate). If the answer is “No,” then proceed to...

            Question #3: Is the person who’s got you all hot’n’bothered in a committed romantic relationship with someone you yourself know? If your answer is “Yes,” then the question becomes how do you know them? Family member? Friend? Coworker? Acquaintance? Enemy?

The reason the answer to this question matters should be obvious: It will by and large determine the blast radius/fallout of the action you’re entertaining, e.g., if  you try and steal--and it is stealing, sort’a (well get back to this)--your brother’s girlfriend or boyfriend, then expect some nuclear-type sh*t:

If your answer is “No” or “Yes, but I don’t have any real meaningful connection with the other person,” then proceed to...
            Question #4: How attracted are you to the person who’s got you all H&B’d? Is it like a one-prong attraction, i.e., either physical, emotional, intellectual, playful, or spiritual. Or is it multi-prong (intellectual-playful-physical, e.g.)?

If your answer to this question is “One-prong,” then proceed more/less without my blessing, i.e., with my “Really? You’re going to jeopardize another person’s committed romantic relationship for whatever your personal-equivalent to a nice booty is?!?” If your answer is “At least two,” then proceed with my blessing/caution to...

            Question #5: What kind of C.R.R. is the person who’s got you all H&B’d in? Good one? Bad one? Violent one? Long-term? Short-term? If you truly have no means of accessing such information (e.g., if the person in question is a total stranger in a relationship with another total stranger), that’s OK, but try and find out as you go, just to know enough.

If you do have means of accessing such information, then do. And be honest, i.e., if their relationship is a good one, then go forward with that knowledge (“I’m willing to jeopardize a good relationship!”). If it’s a bad one, then go forward with that knowledge. If it’s a violent one, well, then you should probably contact the police.

            On to the questions that have less to do with just knowing-enough and more to do with determining the moral-status of the action we’re entertaining:
            Question #6 (The Big One): Do you consider pursuing someone who’s already in a committed romantic relationship to be “Wrong” or “Evil”?

Before you answer this question for yourself, let’s run it through a variation on Kant’s mechanism for determining the potential wrongness of a given action. According to Kant, we can determine whether we should not undertake a given course of action if it would (1) lead to ANARCHY:

 

And (2) if it disrespects the autonomy of other human beings.

So, if everyone actively pursued the people they were hot’n’bothered by regardless of whether/not those people were already in committed romantic relationships, would that spell the end of committed romantic relationships the world over? Would it undercut their very possibility and thereby bring about the C.R.R.-equivalent of dogs and cats living together?!?

Let’s imagine that we’re the ones in the C.R.R. and that someone else is H&B’d by us. Let’s imagine that this someone comes up to us and says, “Hey, I’m single, you’re not married, you’re not dating a close friend of mine, I’ve got a serious, like, three-pronged romantic interest in you--physical, physical, and more physical--and, yeah, from what I’ve gathered your present C.R.R. seems like a pretty good one, but... I just wanted to let you know that if you’re interested in jumping ship or just seeing what another ship looks like, you know, like going to a boat-expo or something, well...”

Would we or would we not be free to say just about whatever we wanted in response to such a proposition--e.g., “Sure, my present C.R.R. is THE PITS... I think there’s a motel right down the street!” or, “No, sorry, thanks, my partner’s abusive, but I’m kind’a into it. It’s an S&M thing,” or, “F*ck you, get the h*ll away from me with your stupid/creepy boat-expo analogy!”--and, therefore, decide to either affirm or deny our present committed romantic relationship?

Regarding the question of whether or not the course of action we’re considering undertaking would lead to ANARCHY within the world of committed romantic relationships, the answer seems to be “No, not necessarily,” because the people were interested in might have little/no interest in us.

As to the question of whether or not the course of action we’re considering might disrespect the autonomy--ability to self-legislate--of another human being, well, let’s take a look at it: If we proposition someone in the fashion conjured above, are we taking away the person’s ability to say “Yey” or “Ney” for themselves and their C.R.R.? I don’t think so (see above)...

I can hear someone crying out: But what about the other person in the committed romantic relationship?!? The partner or S.O. or lover... What about disrespecting them? Aren’t we, in effect, talking about stealing someone from them and isn’t that pretty frickin' disrespectful!?!

The dictionary.com definition of stealing is: To take the property of another or others without permission or right, especially secretly or by force. Last time I checked, being in a C.R.R. does not make the privy parties the property of each other (at least, not in most areas of the good ol' U.S. of A). So we’re not talking about stealing...

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we’re the other person in the committed romantic relationship. Now let’s imagine that our partner/S.O./lover comes to us one day and tells us something like, “Hey, so, this weirdo came up to me and started talking to me about boat-expos and prongs... Super weird... I love you snookums!” Or, heck, let’s imagine that our partner tells us, “Hey, so, I got an offer today, an offer I can’t refuse... I’m breaking up with you.”

In either scenario, can it be argued that the other person's ability to self-legislate and either affirm/deny their C.R.R. for themselves is hampered? Even in the case of the latter scenario, the other person would still have the ability to say “Wait just one gosh-darned minute! I love you, snookums, doesn’t that mean anything!?! Yeah, things haven’t been going well lately, I know, but...”

            From a Kantian perspective, then, the course of action we’re entertaining cannot be said to be “Wrong” or “Evil.” It neither necessarily leads to anarchy nor does it disrespect the autonomy of our fellows. That said, if your answer to Question #6 is still “Yes, I think it’s Wrong/Evil,” then I’m curious why you’ve even made it this far. If your answer is either “No, long live Kant the provocateur!" or "No, all’s fair in love and... basketball,” then go on to...

Question #7: What the heck should I do? In the opinion of yours truly, I think something like, “Hey, I’m single, you’re not married, you’re not dating a close friend of mine, I’ve got a serious, like, three-pronged romantic interest in you and, yeah, from what I’ve gathered your present C.R.R. seems like a pretty good one, but... I just wanted to let you know that if you’re interested,” is a good place to start. And while I can’t advise you regarding the time/place to deliver such a potentially explosive proposition, I can tell you to that you should probably leave out any/all boat-expo analogies.

Oh, and, last but not least: Question #8: How do you feel about getting your a$$ kicked? I'm just asking...