"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.

"She's different...in every way."

Pictured: Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig

Many people have been presenting David Fincher’s “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” under the misnomer of “remake.” Of course, the best-selling Steig Larsson series was adapted in 2009 into three Swedish-language films, but the two variations are almost incomparable beyond the fact that they are based on the same source material.

Obviously, the most stand-out point of departure that has indeed been the focus of virtually all attention paid to this film, is the performance of Rooney Mara as the iconic character Lisbeth Salander. Mara handles herself well, but at times reveals a bit too much of her own intimidation of the character. Her Lisbeth is steady and calculating but with a level of insecurity and vulnerability that Noomi Rapace for the most part lacked. Mara’s Salander was much more devoted to a sense of personal justice rather than justice for all. When she goes back for revenge on the man that violated her, it is more to make things right for herself rather than to act as crusader to the universal victim.

The black and white perception of morality that so defines the character is there, but not to the universal degree that it was with Rapace, which was, in my own opinion, the greatest strength of her interpretation of the role. Mara’s strength is her ability to connect with the emotional life of the character, honing in on the few things she genuinely does care deeply about. With a role that can so easily descend into “badass female” cliché, Mara’s frailty combats her appearance into a very complicated, if not quite as remorseless sense of the character. This is not to say one is better than the other, but each actress gave what the other lacked. Combine the two performances into one, then we would have the true Lisbeth Salander of Larsson’s novels.

In what does become a rather convoluted plotline (all those Vangers!) Fincher characteristically keeps the story fast, but evenly paced, while still presenting a surprisingly comprehensive adaptation of the novel. What changes were made were excusable and necessary to maintaining the atmosphere of Fincher’s vision of the story, which seems to be to create the effect of retreating ice as one by one the events unfold.

Daniel Craig, as disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist, the man hired to investigate the 40-year-old crime that makes up the plot, successfully de-Bond’s himself into a curious but self-conscious makeshift detective. His chemistry with Mara is spot-on as a kind of platonic if not paternal figure, but they still remain completely believable as not only business, but romantic partners. Fincher has repeatedly stated in interviews that for him, the heart of the story lies in the relationship between Blomkvist and Salander as a new breed of good-cop bad-cop, and it is clear that this was his chief conceptual focus. I would certainly not be the first to say it was extremely successful. Mara and Craig, Mara in particular, turn an extremely plot-driven thriller into an intimate portrait of two lost souls, and indeed that seems to be exactly what Fincher, and quite probably Larsson himself, had in mind.

She's Just a Picture

Pictured: Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes



Aside from its difficulty to say in a conversation, the title of Sean Durkin’s Martha Marcy May Marlene in fact gives you all the information you really need in summing up this mysterious and unsettling piece. For even in its final frames, the film bravely refuses to answer its most burning question: who is this girl?

MMMM gives us Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) a young woman who has spent two years living in upstate New York as a member of a small, subsistence-oriented cult, centered around a man named Patrick (John Hawkes). It is here that she gains her three extraneous names. We first meet Martha as she escapes from them, finding refuge with her somewhat-estranged sister Lucy (Sara Paulson) and Lucy’s husband Ted (Hugh Dancy), an affluent early-30s couple who live in a Connecticut lake house, where they invite Martha to stay with them. It quickly becomes apparent that their lack of understanding of what Martha has been through is not only damaging to Martha’s recovery, but to their own sanity as sister, wife, and husband.

Mr. Durkin allows his audience to know what is happening now and what has happened immediately prior. No more, no less. This leads to some frustrating holes in understanding the character of Martha, but is clearly a crucial element in the way Mr. Durkin has chosen to tell his story, as her anonymity is part of what makes the film so chilling. There is an eeriness to the blunt immediacy of this kind of storytelling, and given its subject matter (the seduction of cult lifestyle and the rejection thereof) such an undefined heroine allows us to project ourselves onto her vulnerability and ask that terrifying question of “Could this happen to me?”

With so little to take from the script as far as character history and relationships, Elizabeth Olsen’s performance can be considered nothing short of extraordinary. The camera focuses so often on her young, wide-eyed face that by the end one can interpret that one flinch of an eyelid speaks to the world of confusion and frustrated hurt beneath its surface.

The back-and-forth between the two worlds of past and present gives the story not only its structural complexity, but moral as well. Though no audience member could ever approve of the cult’s practices (one of which requires all newly inducted women – girls, rather - to be drugged and forced into sex with their leader, Patrick), its “acceptance of all” values and the soft warmth and charm of John Hawkes as Patrick make us realize that maybe Martha’s choice to leave the group was not so simple as we would feel comfortable believing. After all, she meant something there, her life had purpose, even if it was only to be the favorite of the man who controlled her.

That said, we are never led to believe she regrets her decision to escape. No, what we are left with at the end is a young woman who cannot reconcile the life she led, the life she was promised, and the life that awaits her in a world much bigger than the one she has come to know living on a farm in Upstate New York. She has abandoned one vision of right and wrong for another, one that allows her to own her body and her choices vs. one where she is scolded for swimming nude. When Lucy finally begs of Martha, “What happened to you?” and Martha, overwhelmed, collapses her head in her hands and sobs, “I don’t know!” we have no doubt this is the truth.

A second Earth, a second chance

There is a moment in Another Earth in which one of the many voice-over commentators suggests that we are always striving to step outside of ourselves. To see ourselves objectively and converse as if our mind were a separate person entirely. Screenwriters Mike Cahill and Brit Marling (the director and the film’s star, respectively) take this thought to its most literal extreme: What if there was in fact an alternate earth that held an alternate you with perhaps even an alternate life?

Another Earth tells the story of Rhoda Williams, a young woman who, on the night it is discovered we may not be so alone, causes a fateful car accident that claims the lives of a pregnant mother and her young son, leaving the father in a coma. This exposition, as well as the initial introduction to the sci-fi conceit, sends the film off to a rocky start in terms of pacing, but finds its footing once we catch up to Rhoda four years later upon her release from prison.

The film seems to be frustrated by its need to explain the semantics of the concept surrounding “Earth 2” as well as the sequence of events that leads Rhoda to scoring a ticket aboard the maiden voyage, and it is in these moments where the greatest disconnect occurs. Details and plot devices are either carelessly tossed into dialogue, making it at times groaningly heavy-handed, not to mention the preposterous essay contest Rhoda enters to try and win a ticket, which she of course does.

The heart of the film lies in its human story, and Cahill is wise to pay most of his attention there. Rhoda, unable to live with what she has done, seeks out the sole survivor of the accident: John Burroughs (William Mapother), who has emerged from his coma to become a depressive recluse. She knocks on his door with the intention of apologizing, but when nerves get the best of her she fabricates a story about a cleaning service that leads her much farther into his life than she had expected, or perhaps wanted to go.

Once the film enters its second act, in which Rhoda and John become perhaps dangerously close, the two plotlines converge into the film’s true purpose: exploring the preoccupation with “what ifs” inherent in us all. Surely someone who has been through what Rhoda and John have would spend every moment of their days with such analysis. The idea of “Earth 2” allows them the rare chance to take these maddening questions seriously, on the promise that perhaps somewhere out there they really had made a different series of choices and none of this tragedy had ever occurred.

By the conclusion of the film, one is left with several unexpectedly existentialist questions, the biggest of all coming in the final image. With delicate (if at times uneven) performances from its leads, superb direction and editing from Cahill (the repeated image of Rhoda walking beside the looming Earth 2 on the horizon is breathtaking every time) Another Earth succeeds in its goal as a meditation on regret, forgiveness, and the infinite complexities of life which none of us can control. If nothing else, this is a unique film that deserves to be commended for its originality and spirit.



Pictured: Brit Marling and William Mapother

On the Early Marketing of David Fincher's "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"

In the last few months, the early stages of marketing began for David Fincher’s adaptation of the Steig Larsson novel The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. The announcement of this adaptation has been met with some polarized opinions as several believe it diminishes or ignores the quality of the already existing Swedish films starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist.

Before any of this marketing began, casting of the film came under great scrutiny as fans waited for the announcement of which lucky ingénue would snag the role of Lisbeth Salander, and perhaps even more importantly, would she be able to fill the combat boots of Noomi Rapace, whose performance inspired an (ultimately unfulfilled) campaign to get her considered for an Oscar.

That lucky actress wound up being Rooney Mara, most recently seen in her brief but notable appearance in Fincher’s The Social Network. The benefits of casting an unknown in this role are fairly obvious, it’s a part that cannot come with any expectations, because any actress called upon to play it will have to undergo such extreme transformation that any prior knowledge of her work or skill would inevitably interfere with our perception of this character. In other words, with a role as extreme and anti-Hollywood as Lisbeth Salander, it benefits the audience to have never seen her before. She is an entity all her own.

However, true to form, the marketing machine of Hollywood has taken the reigns of her image and put forth a series of posters and promotional photos that quite frankly would upset any fan of the novel or the original Swedish film. For example, the poster. We see Daniel Craig as a threatening Mikael Blomkvist, his arm wrapped protectively around a topless Mara, her face blank if not helpless. Now, I will be the first to admit that this poster does a fantastic job of shocking its audience, as the film will inevitably do, but the effect is achieved at the expense of one of the fundamental themes of not only Salander’s character, but the novel itself.

The original Swedish title of the novel is Man Som Hatar Kvinnor, which translates to “Men Who Hate Women.” Lisbeth Salander is described as a “woman who hated men who hated women.” And yet here she is, naked, guarded by the strapping Craig, totally exposed. We go further into the images and see her getting a tattoo on her rear, her back arched with a seductive cigarette hanging out of her mouth. Is it badass? Absolutely. Is it meant to be titillating? This is Hollywood we’re talking about.

The entire foundation of Salander’s character is rooted in her feelings toward men, particularly the negative feelings. This is a young woman who clearly does not care about how people view her, including if not especially in a sexual light. This is something the Swedish films captured superbly, and at no point was Rapace made to be any kind of sexual object, a crucial point at that considering how victimized she is throughout the novel.

I am still very eager to see the film and I have high hopes for Mara’s performance, if her physical transformation is any indication to the lengths to which she has gone to embody Lisbeth. Obviously the marketing campaign is not necessarily indicative of the film or the filmmaker’s goals, but it does once again bring to an interesting light the absurdity of Hollywood’s obsession with finding something to sexualize, even in a film whose message is about the evils of just such a philosophy.

Where the Lost Generation is Hiding

Pictured: Adrien Brody steals his scene as Salvador Dali


Paris in the 1920s. The subject of universal fantasy, whether you’re the intellectual who feels he has been born in the wrong era or the student ogling at the idea that these mythic figures of art and literature were in fact real people, let alone close chums. This fantasy is captured to dazzling perfection in Woody Allen’s latest Euro-city-centric film, Midnight in Paris.

Screenwriter Gil (Owen Wilson) is suffering a crisis of conscience on two levels: one being that he longs to revisit his dream of being a novelist, but fears his novel isn’t any good, the other being that he’s beginning to discover he might not truly be head over heals for his shrill fiancée, Inez (Rachel McAdams). The couple are visiting her parents in Paris, where Gil once dreamed of living the ex-pat lifestyle in the vein of his idols (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Stein, the whole gang). In an effort to get the creative juices flowing, so to speak, Gil becomes fond of late night strolls through the inexplicably enchanting city. The trick? Each night at the stroke of 12, a buggy arrives promptly, filled with partying flappers (or TS Eliot and Hemingway) to transport him back into the 1920s, where he fits right in rubbing shoulders with the literary and artistic giants of the era.

Perhaps the best decision Mr. Allen makes regarding his whimsical storyline is that he at no points attempts to explain it. Naturally Gil is in disbelief at first, and wonders offhandedly if he is suffering some kind of neurological disorder, or as Inez puts it when he attempts to confide in her his secret for a second time, “Your brain tumor is acting up.” However, it doesn’t take much time for him to just go with it. It takes the audience even less.

What Mr. Allen seems to understand the most, and is in my opinion the primary reason the film is as successful as it is (both structurally and at the box office) is that people quite simply enjoy picturing Paris as this kind of fairytale world of culture and ideas, as well as their perception of those who gave it this reputation.

For example, the Fitzgeralds play a major role as Gil’s initial guides into the nightlife of 1920s Paris. Now, we know plenty about the complicated relationship between Scott, Zelda, and Hemingway, and where the film could have taken the opportunity to delve below this surface, it rather affirms it, giving a light-hearted touch to our clichéd knowledge that Zelda was crazy and Hemingway hated her. Case and point, Gil and his companion Adriana (an exquisite-as-always Marion Cotillard) happen upon Zelda (Allison Pill) preparing to leap into the Seine and end her own life. To diffuse the situation, Gil offers a valium. Also worth note, the scene in which Gil attempts to explain time travel to a table of surrealists including Dali and Bunuel...naturally they think it makes perfect sense.

Mr. Allen’s choice to promote the caricatures of these figures rather than portray them as the destitute, suicidal alcoholics so many of them were (somehow Hemingway is one of the funniest characters in the film?) is the key to helping Gil (and the audience, for that matter) not only fulfill his fantasy, but realize that life can go on without it. Ultimately, life’s worth is not measured by time or nostalgia, but by places and above all, people.

Cannes 2011: Lars, Lars, Lars.

I've pretty much abandoned this blog entirely, but I feel particularly compelled at the moment to discuss the recent Cannes Film Festival and the events surrounding one of my favorite filmmakers, both for his work and his insanity as a human being: Mr. Lars Von Trier. A little background on dear Lars and the Cannes Film Festival. Two years ago, his film Antichrist received an Anti-Award from the Cannes Ecumenical Jury, declaring it the most misogynistic film ever made. Yet somehow, Charlotte Gainsbourg still ended up winning the Palme d'Or for Best Actress.

Since then, Von Trier has retreated quietly into the shadows to make his new film, Melancholia, which also just saw its premiere at Cannes. In true Von Trier fashion, he elected himself official shock-jock of the festival and in a garbled rant that, while completely tasteless, was misinterpreted as a blatant confession of antisemitism and sympathy for the National Socialist party. Von Trier prides himself on being a provocateur. Not to mention, he threw his heroine under the bus in the same press conference, announcing to the audience that Kirsten Dunst struggled with deep depression shortly before signing on for this film and he was able to manipulate that for his purposes. A class act, always.

That aside, Melancholia (which also stars Von Trier vets Aleksander Skarsgaard and Charlotte Gainsbourg) was very well-received and earned Dunst the Best Actress award. Von Trier apologized for his comments but, after two years of essentially deciding he was the most pig-headed filmmaker on earth, the Cannes Film Festival has finally put itself out of its own misery and banned him from ever returning. And while I do understand this decision to an extent, I also have to ask: Cannes, have you ever met Lars Von Trier? He is notorious for his complete inability to interact with other human beings in any kind of normal social convention. He has blatantly confessed to the world that he hates women. I mean, The man was cracking jokes about directing a porno starring Dunst and Gainsbourg for heaven's sake...while they were both sitting next to him. Well...at least now we can just watch his movies in peace without having to hear the nonsense that comes out of his mouth. Still...



I'm going to miss you, buddy.

"You could be brilliant, but you're a coward."

Pictured: Natalie Portman in "Black Swan"

What is the price of perfection? Can it be achieved through destruction, not just in spite of it? And ultimately, is it worth it? These are just a few of the questions audiences are left with at the end of Darren Aronofsky’s “Black Swan,” a cerebral hellscape of a young ballerina’s descent into madness. Although perhaps the most confounding question I and others were left with was quite simply, “What did I just watch?” I mean this not in a negative sense, but in the sense that it was so visceral yet alienating that I truly was unable to liken it to any film-going experience I have had in recent memory, if ever.

The story tells of Nina (Natalie Portman), a precocious ballerina devoted to the technique and skill of her craft, but not necessarily the art of it. However, she must confront her perfectionist attitude head-on when she is cast as the Swan Queen in her company’s upcoming production of Swan Lake, which will call upon her to play the naïve White Swan as well as the dark, seductive Black Swan. As the parallels between the ballet and the narrative race toward the climax, we see that perfection, for Nina, will cost no less than her very sanity, if not her soul. Add to this the threat of ambitious newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis) and the suffocating presence of her overbearing mother (Barbara Hershey), and it is no wonder Nina finds herself unraveling so quickly.

The performances are relentless and unforgiving. Portman throws herself from scene to scene, daring you to call her dainty. Indeed, she herself must play two roles: the aggressor and the victim in one woman, a challenge she meets with ferocity and poise. Kunis offers rich contrast as the effortlessly sensual Lily, embodying the care-free spirit Nina both resents and longs for more than anything.

However, the brilliance of the film lies in its first-person storytelling. You blur the lines of reality and fantasy as Nina does, your skin crawls as hers does. It is as internal a journey for the audience member as it is for its leading lady, which makes for an extremely uncomfortable viewing experience, but one I consider truly unique. Even the sequences that take place during the dancing itself are shot on a single-person handy-cam, placing you directly into the fray and frenzy of it, which seems to be a crucial element in articulating Aronofsky’s ultimate goal: to show ballet for the blood sport it can be, and the lengths to which some artists will go not to achieve perfection, but to discover what it truly is.

Trailer for 'Last Night' released

Contrary to what my posting record lately may have you believe, I am in fact alive and still watching movies, just not new ones. I honestly have not sat in a movie theater in months. Blame it on location. I'm either nowhere near a quality theater or if I am, it's infested with bed bugs. ANYway, as you may have guessed from the subject, the trailer for the long-awaited film "Last Night" has at last been released. It's had a bit of a rocky upstart over the last few years due to Miramax going under, a shift that left many projects indefinitely shelved, including this one. Luckily it has found a distributor and is slated for a release early next year. I have read the script, and I am extremely excited for it. It's somewhat similar to "Closer" but with sympathetic characters.

Note: there are better quality versions on YouTube, but this was the only one that allowed embedding.




In other Keira Knightley news, they have also released a trailer for 'London Boulevard' which you can view here and a handful of new stills from 'A Dangerous Method' which you can view here

Emmy post-mortem (ish)

Pictured: the cast of 'Modern Family'



I suppose I should say up front that I did not watch the Emmys. Not because I didn't care about them but because I had other obligations in my real life to attend to (real life always ruins everything, doesn't it?) but of course I caught up on the winners and losers (or should I say LOST-ers!) but anyhow, here are my thoughts, because obviously my opinion is the most important.

I cry foul on the victory of Kyra Sedgwick for Best Drama Actress. She has been nominated 5 times and never won, and all of a sudden this year she wins? After literally just continuing to do the same thing? Here's what I think happened: the vote got so split up amongst the other actresses (probably most between Glenn Close and Julianna Marguiles) that somehow she ended up with majority. It happens. Case and point: Chicago winning Best Picture while being nominated alongside Gangs of New York, Two Towers, The Hours, and The Pianist.

I think a similar fate befell the Best Supporting Actor: Drama category. With both Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn in there, along with John Slattery, there's a lot of love for those guys so it was probably hard to determine one as the clear winner. So it ended up being Aaron Paul of Breaking Bad, who I'm sure is amazing, but strikes me as an odd choice considering this was their last chance to honor LOST.

Mad Men won for the third year in a row which was actually a bit surprising to me. While I don't really watch any of the other shows that were nominated (aside from Lost, which I'm glad didn't win since other than the finale and Ab Aeterno season 6 was a complete mess), season 3 of MM just didn't cut it for me as much as seasons 1 and 2. I found the pacing inconsistent and lacking focus. That said, the last three episodes of that season are absolutely amazing. Some of the best of the series.

I'm glad Jon Hamm didn't win Best Actor. Frankly, this season I'm realizing the limits to his performance. I don't know if he's always been like this and I've just ignored it or if suddenly this season he's just more tense, but his physicality is just very awkward and stiff for some reason. Everything feels more strained and not in a good way. I'm fearing he may have peaked at the crying scene in season 3.

And finally, MODERN FAMILY. Yes. A thousand times yes. So happy Glee didn't get it, they need to find their footing more solidly before they can start winning these awards, and I really hope they do. But this year was all about Modern Family. That show is beyond glorious. But in all honesty, here's hoping next year Parks and Recreation will be given a well-deserved nomination.

Where's Maury Povitch when you need him?

Pictured: Thomas Robinson and Jason Bateman


Let’s face it, nobody really was expecting this movie to reinvent the wheel. Now I know what you’re going to say: “Kate, didn’t you just make a post in which you claimed that ‘The Switch’ would be the first of a new wave of intelligently-written romantic comedies?” Yes, my possibly lone reader, I did indeed. And while I don’t necessarily take back what I said in that post, I do acknowledge that I was putting a few too many eggs in one basket (pun completely intended).

“The Switch” based on the short story "The Baster" by Jeffrey Eugenedes, is charming, incredibly sweet, and has more than a few genuine laughs (most of which brought to us by Juliette Lewis). The problem is that it takes itself a bit too seriously. With a plot device as "you can't make this stuff up" as they come, the comedy needs to come from the mere fact of the situation. If you're going to have characters say the words "sperm" and "semen" in the first third, not to mention sperm confetti in the invitations to an insemination party, you need to commit to that level of bluntness (which offers plenty of opportunities for laughs). By the second half everyone is using euphemisms like "ingredient" as if they were sitting in a 6th grade health class.

While the sentimentality does get a little thick in several scenes, the performances manage to keep it away from the bottomless pit of kitchiness to which most films of its ilk are doomed. Jason Bateman in particular makes leading man Wally relatable but not completely helpless, as is often the case with underdog heroes such as these. Bateman is one of the few actors who can take the concept of playing a "nerdy type" and not run away with it into horrible caricature. Jennifer Aniston is on auto-pilot, having been playing some variation of Rachel Greene since the late 90s. But I'm not complaining. While she will probably never rise beyond films like these (and it's certainly not the worst place to be) she has an undeniable likability that may even help me forget the fact that she was in "Bounty Hunters."

"The Switch" is light, feel-good, and displays at least some respect for its audience, which is more than most rom-coms today can boast. So many late August movies get lost in the transition between mindless summer fodder and the early fall Oscar season, and while such a fate is likely to befall this film, I admire its efforts and encourage everyone to at least look out for it on DVD.

Movie News!: "Black Swan" trailer, "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" casting, and more!

The trailer for Darren Aronofsky's latest film, "Black Swan," has debuted on Apple Trailers. The story is of Nina (Natalie Portman), a young New York City ballet dancer, whose status is threatened by the arrival of Lily (Mila Kunis). As the two compete with each other for the spotlight in Swan Lake and their director's affections, Nina taps into an inner darkness that she cannot contain as it strives to overcome her.

View the trailer here!



In other news, actress Rooney Mara has officially been selected for the highly coveted role of Lisbeth Salander in the American adaptation of the popular Stieg Larsson novel "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and its sequels "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest." Speculation has gone on for months over which Hollywood ingenue would nab the role. Many were predicting Kristen Stewart or Carey Mulligan, but ever since the director announced he wanted a relatively unknown actress, all bets have been off. Mara has most recently been seen in the remake of "Nightmare on Elm Street" and will soon be starring in "The Social Network" along with fellow up-and-comer Andrew Garfield.



Ian McEwan's 2007 bestseller "On Chesil Beach" is headed for the big screen in what I can only call a collaboration the likes of which I could usually only fantasize about. McEwan has written the screenplay himself (which is good because I don't know how this novel can be adapted without an NC-17 rating, anyone who's read it knows what I'm talkin' bout). He has long said in interviews that his dream team for the film version is Sam Mendes at the helm with Carey Mulligan as its lead. And Ian McEwan is a man who gets what he wants, this case being no exception.

The novel is about a young married couple on their wedding night facing their fears and insecurities as they move ever closer to what will be their first sexual encounter. Carey Mulligan will portray the young bride, Florence, and is in fact learning how to play the violin in preparation for the role (which is that of a gifted concert violinist). Her husband, Edward, has yet to be cast. Filming will most likely begin in late fall.

I suppose that's all for now. I really just wanted an excuse to post that "Black Swan" trailer. (Does that not look crazy?)

2010: The return of the intelligent rom-com?

Pictured: Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman in "The Switch"


As of late, the romantic comedy has perhaps become the laziest of all genres. Gone are the days of the genuinely decent rom-coms of the 90s, the decade in which the genre arguably saw its greatest golden age thanks almost entirely to Meg Ryan. But now what do we have? Dozens upon dozens of the same thing: successful woman in her late 20s/early 30s, doesn't really know what she wants in life and is defensive about it therefore she remains single, may or may not be baby crazy. Oh and her best friend is Judy Greer.

Enter effortlessly successful man, terribly charming in a vaguely toolish way. He immediately can see right through any front of iciness our heroine has and begins calling her out on all her insecurities as soon as the first date. They will bicker and banter but ultimately realize their affection, and just when they finally approach the point where they're ready to admit their feelings, someone does something to mess it up but for some reason it's always her that ends up asking for the second chance. They end up happily ever after. If you notice, (with a few exceptions) I have just described the plot of 27 Dresses, Notting Hill, 13 Going on 30, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Sweet Home Alabama, etc...

But somehow, 2010 seems to be ushering in some very promising new forays into this factory-produced genre. The first (I hope) will be 'The Switch' starring Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman. All things considered, it does have a fairly original device when it comes to bringing the two main characters together. Plus those two could have some seriously sweet chemistry. I'm hoping for the best.

But in case that doesn't work out, here are the trailers for three upcoming romantic movies (they're really dramadies, but frankly I think those make for the best ones) that actually look pretty good. They include: 'Love and Other Drugs' starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway (which looks the most cliche of all of them but in a Jerry Maguire kind of way), 'The Romantics' starring a whole bunch of people (more of a drama, but it actually looks quite good and may prove that Malin Akerman can act) and 'How Do You Know' which stars Reese Witherspoon and Paul Rudd so...rom-com gold.

Follow the jump to see them!