"This is some very dirty business." Mad Men 5.11

“The Other Woman” is already one of the most talked about episodes that Mad Men has ever produced. In a show that is so consistently high quality, it is always a special moment for fans to acknowledge when an episode elevates even beyond this level of expectation. Indeed, I don’t believe there has been a finer episode since season 4’s "The Suitcase," but I can at least personally say that there has never been an episode of not only this, but any program, that has elicited such a profound emotional response from me, and as it appears, many audience members.

This season has been decidedly darker in tone. Season four gave us the depths of Don Draper’s existential depression, but season five has made its mission of exploring the sinister nature of everything it has presented us so far. Espcially the manner in which women were treated in this era. Sexism has always been a major theme of the show, but it has always been dealt with in a rather intellectual manner. In earlier seasons, the sexism on the show was mostly portrayed via workplace harassment (of varying degrees) or the frustrated ambition of Peggy and Joan. ‘How to make it in a man’s world’ and the like. Not to mention Betty Draper’s struggle as one of the most complicated examples of the “bored housewife” such fiction has produced.

This season, however, has moved out of the office and into the day to day terror of sexist attitudes in the 1960s. “Mystery Date” explored violence against women, as shown in Don’s hallucination in which he strangles a former lover, Ginsberg’s ad pitch which involves a woman running away from a threatening man, and Joan’s decision to leave her husband, pre-empted by a reminder of the rape she suffered at his hands. There has also been the frequently explored sado-masochistic nature of Don and Megan’s relationship, which admittedly continues to puzzle me.

This examination of the true, and very real dangers of sexism reached their peak in this week’s episode, “The Other Woman.” As a young woman, I can admit outright that I have never found Mad Men more difficult to sit through than during this episode, but I also acknowledge that it very well may be the most important statement the show has made about its characters and their purpose in the show’s larger commentaries on society.

In order to gain business with Jaguar, a client which could change the landscape of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce forever, the agency has made themselves willing to do anything. It is established early on in a dinner between Ken, Pete, and the head of the Dealer’s Association (a man called Herb) that “anything” requires them to quite literally act as pimps. Herb will give them his vote, and in effect his business, on the condition that he be given a night with Joan Harris. When these conditions are explained to her she of course is insulted and all but laughs them off. The partners discuss the possibility of it, and all are rightfully appalled at how seriously Pete Campbell is taking it, having little to no feeling for Joan’s dignity in the equation. However, it’s not enough to stop them from trying.

When Lane Pryce reminds Joan that she is a single mother, and the compensation for this act would mean a partnership and 5% of the company, things take a very real and pragmatic turn in Joan’s consideration. Therefore, the portrait we are given of this dynamic of sexism is distressing on two levels: that the men would even ask this of her, and the fact that she knows because of her circumstances, she is not in a position where she can truly afford to say no.

Meanwhile, Peggy is finally realizing that she deserves better than what she is being given at SCDP. Don blatantly takes her for granted, her work is being overlooked and undervalued, and she knows she has very little prospect of advancing within. Therefore, she sets her sights on other opportunities.

The entire episode deals with ideas of male ownership of women. The campaign that ultimately wins them Jaguar boasts the tagline, “At Last. Something Beautiful You Can Truly Own.” Don struggles with the idea of Megan being an independent actress traveling to other cities without him being able to keep an eye on her. Peggy has come to understand just how much she is considered the property of Don Draper as the man “responsible for every good thing that has ever happened to you”, and that she must remove herself from his shadow.

And Joan, in her own way, somehow manages to elevate herself above her station by giving in to its most despicable potential. Throughout the entire series, we have seen her struggle to accept the fact of how keenly aware she is that were it another time, she would be running this company, but her sexuality has in many ways held her back from being taken seriously in this regard. Here, she is faced with a choice: retain her honor but never excel beyond her role as Office Manager, or use what is seen by the men around her as her only tradable quality in order to gain the power she knows she deserves. Ultimately, she chooses the latter, and though we want to criticize her for it, we’re too heartbroken to judge. And ultimately, we do understand. For a woman so capable and so independent-minded, we forget just how few choices she actually has.

Based on most fans’ immediate responses, this episode has succeeded in being possibly the show’s most profound to date. At the very least, it will be criminal if it does not earn Christina Hendricks the Emmy she has so long deserved. As stated, this may be as important an episode as Mad Men will ever produce, as it puts the mirror to society in a manner more unapologetic than it has perhaps ever approached. We are forced to ask ourselves how much we would be willing sacrifice for the thing we must protect, what is worth those kinds of sacrifices, and ultimately, how much we have truly changed. Indeed, the moment I found myself feeling most nauseous was when the episode cut to a commercial break for Stella Artois, the ad for which involves a gorgeous woman holding a chalice of the beer and the tagline, “Stella Artois: A Thing of Beauty.”

Fitzgerald gets the Luhrmann treatment.

Pictured (from left): Tobey Maguire is Nick, Leonardo DiCaprio is Gatsby, Carey Mulligan is Daisy, and Joel Edgerton is Tom in Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby


Baz Lurhmann, with his upcoming film of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby has the unique and difficult position of being not only the director attempting to adapt a work that is more of a cultural icon than a book, but he is attempting to do so while retaining his hard-earned status as an auteur filmmaker. Many have entered this realm before him, but few with as important a work as Gatsby. For example, the majority of Hitchcock’s films take their source material from literature, but we do not measure the success of Psycho in its closeness to Robert Bloch’s novel, nor do we condemn Stanley Kubrick for straying from the original texts of The Shining or A Clockwork Orange.

This of course is not to assume Luhrmann’s Gatsby will be a cinematic landmark as those films are, but he does share an important trait with them: he is a director defined by his unique style, and anything he directs must be taken as a Baz Lurhmann film as opposed to an adaptation of another author’s words. This is not F. Scott Fitzgerald’s film of The Great Gatsby, it is Luhrmann’s, which will likely entail all the bizarre extravagance we would expect it to. And judging by the trailer, it seems to deliver on this promise.

The immediate “backlash” to the first trailer is predictable as it is completely well-founded. When one pictures The Great Gatsby, one does not immediately conjure the hyper-stylized universe that Lurhmann seems to be creating (one that remains set in 1922 yet contains the music of Jay Z and Jack White). Then again, how many of us read Romeo and Juliet and thought of bright Hawaiian shirts set in an exaggerated mash-up of Mexico City and Venice Beach. If there is one thing Baz Luhrmann has never seemed to be concerned with, it’s making everyone happy. This of course has worked both for and against him (usually with equal fervor from both sides). And Gatsby will probably be no different. Hardcore traditionalist fans of the book will likely balk at it, hardcore fans of Luhrmann will probably love it (if simply because they feel obligated to) but as one analysis of the trailer aptly put, “when it comes to Luhrmann, the opinions of traditionalists are irrelevant.”

This is a director with a very distinct, loud, and often ridiculous voice. If there is one thing that can almost assuredly be said about his interpretation of The Great Gatsby, it is probably nothing like any of ours. Whether that worries or excites you is a different matter.

May the Odds be Ever in Your Favor.

However many years in the however distant future, North America has evolved (or devolved?) into the world of Panem, a society made up of 12 Districts ruled by a morally corrupt sadistic government based out of a place called simply The Capitol. To keep status quo, each year the Capitol organizes a televised event in which children fight to the death in an elaborately designed landscape arena. This event is known, of course, as “The Hunger Games.” Each District must offer up two “tributes,” a male and female between the ages of 12 and 18, to participate in the games. As our heroine, Katniss Everdeen, succinctly describes, “There are 24 of us. Only one comes out.”

Gary Ross’s film adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ beloved book succeeds on almost all counts, in some cases exceeding expectations. It is clear from the first several frames that Ross expects his audience to understand the difference between reading about brutal violence on the page and seeing it on a big screen. When we are reading through the voice of Katniss Everdeen, it is easy to forget just how young these competitors are. However, in the film, when the horn blows for the games to begin and the audience is launched into a frenzied (eerily un-scored) montage of absolute carnage, we are reminded that this is nothing short of a horrific, disturbing ordeal in which there truly are no winners.

Jennifer Lawrence is commendable in her portrayal of District 12’s tribute, Katniss Everdeen. With a character who, in the novel often verges on tedium, Lawrence chooses to highlight Katniss’s discomfort with her sudden fame, making her both likable and mysterious. As her counterpart in the games and would-be love interest, Josh Hutcherson is sweet but supremely capable as Peeta Mellark. Peeta is a character who could easily be given the “boy next door” treatment, but Hutcherson gives him a pragmatism and honesty that present him as a young man who understands there is more at stake than his life, and that his identity is the one thing he really can’t afford to lose. Whether it’s for show or for real, the chemistry between Lawrence and Hutcherson gives the film its heart.

The story has its obvious commentary on 21st Century media. Ross takes this and runs with it to great effect. The entire film is essentially shot like a reality TV show, relying heavily on the use of hand-held cameras and staggered close-ups, making the audience feel a part of the crowd watching the games themselves (though not in an accusatory sense, per se). Perhaps it was my imagination, but throughout the film there even seemed to be winks at its dystopian science fiction predecessors, with certain designs uncannily evoking Truffaut’s 1966 adaptation of Fahrenheit 451. One thing is for sure, Gary Ross has achieved a rare feat: creating a film that is at once both a mega-blockbuster as well as a sophisticated piece of filmmaking.

"I just don't want to let John down."

Many people, myself included, approached the idea of the Game Change film with slight wariness, an attitude of “too soon” surrounding the whole project. However, in looking at the political landscape in this current election, it is perhaps more necessary than ever that we are given a reminder of what it was like the last time around.

The film is ultimately quite even-handed in its portrayal of Sarah Palin. This is thanks entirely to the performance of Julianne Moore. Moore has built her career on playing characters that can perhaps best be referred to as the “Complicated American Woman” (see The Hours or Far From Heaven) and within minutes of this film, it becomes impossible to imagine such a sensitive role in the hands of any other actress. For Tina Fey, playing Palin was mainly about getting the voice down. For Moore, it is about finding where Sarah Palin, the woman, ends and where Palin the frightened child begins.

Indeed, the dynamic established between Palin and the majority of the McCain staff (particularly Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace) is akin to that between cautious parents and a petulant daughter. She is frequently referred to as “poor girl” by Ed Harris’s John McCain, and in one scene where she is essentially giving her advisers the silent treatment, Schmidt (a captivating Woody Harrelson) appeals to her as one would an insecure teenage girl, commenting on how he is concerned at her weight loss and that she should give up her no-carb diet.

Whether it’s because of our own proximity to the 2008 election or because of our national perspective on the event itself (after all, we know how the film ends before it begins), it is truly not possible to watch this and offer any sincere mea culpa about how rigorously she was criticized throughout the McCain campaign. That said, the film does not necessarily ask this of us. Instead, we are asked only to understand that this woman quite simply should never have been chosen for this position. To this end, we are able to pity her.

As far as any “bias” goes within the film-making itself (and I admit I do not have enough background knowledge on the production process and cannot speak to sources beyond the book) the most glaring point of contention is that, through its portrayal of McCain’s staff, it seems to suggest that the selection of Sarah Palin was the sole mistake made in the entire McCain campaign. It does include references to the week in which McCain postponed debates in order to return to Washington and deal with the economy, as well as the increasingly harsh rhetoric used toward the end of the campaign, but even in these instances, the blame is either placed on others or disregarded entirely.

By the end of the film, we have not been led to “like” Sarah Palin. But we do find ourselves with a better understanding of who she was, and how the American population responded to, and in some senses manipulated, the image she presented. There are moments where even the film itself is willing to poke fun. The conversation between Palin and Steve Schmidt over the pronunciation of “Biden” (as opposed to “O’Biden, as Palin kept saying) borders on Abbot and Costello routine.

However, as stated, this film does prove that we have gained enough distance from the 2008 election that we are at least able to feel sorry for her. As Palin watches in silent humiliation while Tina Fey and Amy Poehler lambaste her Katie Couric interview, I admit that a part of me just wanted to step in and tell her to change the damn channel.

OSCARS 2012 LIVE BLOG

Wuttup everybody. It is 7:06, this British woman is talking to Jonah Hill. Crowds are cheering, Jessica Chastain is looking amazing, Tim Gunn is talking to Maya Rudolph. We are off to the races y'all.

Oscars 2012 - Final Predictions

Tonight is the night, folks. The 84th Annual Academy Awards. I may or may not be liveblogging the event, it remains to be seen, but at the very least, here are my final predictions for this year's main event. As always, these predictions are not based necessarily on what I think DESERVES to win, but what has the most realistic chance of winning. Hence I have distinguished between "Should Win, Could Win, Will Win." As anyone knows, you can predict the outcome of the Oscars without having seen a single nominated film. This is more about who knows who and politics than anything else. But rather than cast a cynical shade on the proceedings, let's just get to the nominees:


ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Descendants
Hugo
The Ides of March
Moneyball
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Will Win: Moneyball
Could Win: The Descendants
Should Win: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy


ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

The Artist
Bridesmaids
Margin Call
Midnight in Paris
A Separation

Will Win: The Artist
Could Win: Midnight in Paris
Should Win: Bridesmaids


CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Artist
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Will Win: The Artist
Could Win: War Horse
Should Win: The Tree of Life


SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Berenice Bejo, 'The Artist'
Jessica Chastain, 'The Help'
Melissa McCarthy, 'Bridesmaids'
Janet McTeer, 'Albert Nobbs'
Octavia Spencer, 'The Help'

Will Win: Octavia Spencer
Could Win: Berenice Bejo
Should Win: Melissa McCarthy


SUPPORTING ACTOR

Kenneth Branagh, 'My Week With Marilyn'
Jonah Hill, 'Moneyball'
Nick Nolte, 'Warrior'
Christopher Plummer, 'Beginners'
Max von Sydow, 'Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close'

Will Win: Christopher Plummer
Could Win: Nick Nolte
Should Win: Christopher Plummer


BEST ACTRESS

Glenn Close, 'Albert Nobbs'
Viola Davis, 'The Help'
Rooney Mara, 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo'
Meryl Streep, 'The Iron Lady'
Michelle Williams, 'My Week With Marilyn'

Will Win: Viola Davis
Could Win: Meryl Streep
Should Win: Michelle Williams


BEST ACTOR

Demian Bichir, 'A Better Life'
George Clooney, 'The Descendants'
Jean Dujardin, 'The Artist'
Gary Oldman, 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'
Brad Pitt, 'Moneyball'

Will Win: Jean Dujardin
Could Win: George Clooney
Should Win: Jean Dujardin


BEST PICTURE

The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Will Win: The Artist
Could Win: The Help
Should Win: The Artist

We've All Got Our Junk.

(Poster design by Philip Romano)

Vocal Miscellany’s production of Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater’s Spring Awakening is in many ways an homage to the original Broadway production, but far from mere imitation. With a show so beloved by the current student generation, director Dr. Melanie Blood and her cast have put together a performance that pays respect to what we loved about the original show while maintaining a distinct sense of individuality.

Based on the 1890 play by Frank Wedekind, Spring Awakening is a rock musical which tells the story of a group of teenagers in late 19th Century Germany struggling to reconcile their growing sexual urges with the repressive nature of their society.

We are first introduced to Wendla, a curious 14-year-old girl, played by junior Alexandra Mendes. With a role often burdened by the shadow of Lea Michele’s original interpretation, Mendes succeeds at making Wendla entirely her own, carrying her sexual ignorance with weary bitterness. This is not the wide-eyed innocent who believes in the stork, this is a young woman who knows she is being lied to and is tired of it.

Her answer arrives in Melchior Gabor, a rebellious classmate who is far more worldly than most kids their age. Sophomore Luke Martin plays Melchior not just as a young man eager to explore the world, but even more so, one who is overwhelmingly saddened that his friends refuse to embrace enlightenment. This choice lends a level of disillusionment to the character that matches Mendes’ Wendla well. Together they are a pair searching in each other for some semblance of hope which cannot be found.

The voice of this hopeless youth is embodied in junior Josh Horowitz’s sensitive portrayal of Moritz Stiefel, Melchior’s best friend, who feels the pressures to succeed more than any other character, ultimately buckling underneath them. Horowitz gives Moritz a tender vulnerability, making his suicide in Act II all the more heartbreaking as the victim of society’s unrealistic expectations.

Also of note are junior Julia Masotti and sophomore Elyssa Ramirez as Martha and Ilse (respectively), two of Wendla’s close friends who are physically and sexually abused by their fathers. In “The Dark I Know Well,” the two young women wail in release of their pent-up anger, letting the audience understand every inch of the pain they have suffered in silence.

Seniors Lauren Scheibly and Brandon DeFilipis achieve the formidable task of portraying all the adult characters, distinguishing their multiple identities while adapting to rapidly changing emotional contexts. In one moment they are grieving parents, the next they are hilarious caricatures of a smarmy headmaster and headmistress.

Overall, SUNY Geneseo has made its mark as one of the first colleges to perform this musical since the close of its Broadway and touring runs. While it certainly has its nods to the original production, it does, without question, make a unique and individual statement thanks to its enormously talented ensemble of actors and designers.

Script Review: Is America Ready for 'Django Unchained'?

Tarantino's hand-written title page of his 'Django Unchained' script.



Quentin Tarantino has described in recent interviews his goal to create companion films that take ugly moments of history and turn them in the style of spaghetti westerns. The first was of course the hugely successful Inglorious Basterds, which rewrote the history of WWII into a revenge film straight out of the wild west. Americans were happy to sit back and watch the good US of A beat the hell out of those Nazi bastards. Something tells me, however, that the general American public will not take so kindly to his follow-up, Django Unchained.

In a nutshell, Unchained tells the story of Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who is freed and mentored by a German bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Waltz) in order to rescue Django’s wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the ruthless slave owner, Calvin Candie (DiCaprio). In true spaghetti style, this is an ultimate tale of revenge. Django escalates to the level of mythic hero by the end, and one can hear the sweeping music even from merely reading scene descriptions. Such is Tarantino’s unparalleled eye for genre convention.

However, Tarantino has made it abundantly clear, both from interviews and the unapologetic brutality of the writing, that he wishes to portray this era in American history as the horror story it so undoubtedly was. To give a better picture of what exactly I mean by this, on any given page of the script, hardly two lines go by without someone using the “N” word. What allows him to get away with the offensive language is of course his unrelenting determination to immerse us in the period. The characters talk like this because…well, that’s how these kinds of people talked (whether we like it or not).

Every member of the cast has their work cut out for them. There is no role in the entire film that will not present risks to the careers of even the most famous of the cast. Indeed, probably the most daring individual involved has to be Leonardo DiCaprio, whose success has always seemed bullet-proof. It will be interesting to see how, or possibly if, he will survive the role of Calvin Candie, who is without a doubt one of the most disgusting villains in film, not just by Tarantino standards.

That said, if anyone is up to the challenge it is without a doubt someone with as much clout as DiCaprio, and it is certainly his performance I anticipate the most. Not to overstate, but I feel confident in saying this will be the greatest departure anyone is likely to see from him in his entire body of work. Not many a man would have the guts to go after a villain like Candie, who represents so much more than himself, indeed, he represents the darkest side of America’s national personality.

Kerry Washington also has a hugely formidable task before her. Apparently, Tarantino wrote the role of Broomhilda with her in mind, but was skeptical that she would accept it due to the amount of nudity called for by the role. Indeed, Broomhilda is rarely clothed at any given point in the script, and contrary to Tarantino’s usual trademark of strong women, Broomhilda is repeatedly made a victim. However, I attribute this complete and utter damsel in distress character to Tarantino’s mission to stay true to the conventions of the spaghetti western. The structure is simple: the hero seeks to rescue his love from the clutches of an evildoer. The complexity lies in the setting he has chosen to place this structure, and the clear desired effect it will have on its audience.

Judging from the script, this is probably going to be Tarantino’s most controversial film to date. He has no desire to appeal to “joe popcorn.” This is a niche genre film disguised by a Hollywood A-list cast, which will inevitably broaden its market. However, any audience member will be able to tell almost immediately who among them knew what they are getting themselves into and those who did not. Almost more than I am for the film itself, I am excited to see the reactions of the nation as we are confronted with our darkest period of history laid out before us in 35mm.