Marriage; On the Rocks

Movies: Smashed

There be spoilers in this review!

Smashed is a film about a married couple, Kate and Charlie, who are codependent alcoholics. And when I say "alcoholics", I don't mean that they share a bottle of wine over dinner a few times a week. These people drink and drink and drink. They have a serious problem. Kate, especially, has problems. The film opens with her getting up in the morning after another night of hard drinking. She has wet the bed (again), and she and her hubby act like it's no big thang. She drinks a beer in the shower as she gets ready to go to her job teaching first graders. She ends up throwing up in front of them. And that's not even remotely the most humiliating thing that happens to Kate as a consequence of her drinking.

After a bender that involves urinating in public and drunk bicycling, Kate realizes things need to change. A coworker who is a recovering addict himself offers to take her to an AA meeting, and within one meeting, Kate finds a sponsor. But as she begins to sober up, her relationship with Charlie unravels as the two realize they don't have much in common besides getting wasted.


In my opinion, Smashed was just an ok film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead's performance as Kate was the best thing about it. This is a very unglamorous role. Kate wears no makeup and hideous "mom who gave up" type outfits. I admired the choice of the filmmakers to make Kate the opposite of a sex object. She's naturally pretty, but they don't gussy her up in tight clothes and high heels. The focus of the film is 100% on her struggles with alcohol and relationships; her looks are beside the point.

The rest of the cast is...ok. Aaron Paul, so fierce and edgy in Breaking Bad, is well-cast as the laid back, arrested development hubby who loves partying with his wife more than he actually loves his wife. Nick Offerman of Parks and Rec plays Kate's supportive, but creepy coworker, who gets the best/worst line in the movie. Octavia Spencer is Jenny, Kate's AA sponsor, in an uncomfortably "mammy"-like role: a recovering addict African-American woman who provides tough love and lots of food to those around her.

I really can't speak for alcoholics or addicts, but Smashed didn't seem very realistic to me. Kate has a *serious* drinking problem and is probably physiologically addicted to alcohol. Yet, after one AA meeting, she quits drinking cold turkey for months. Of course, she falls off the wagon near the end of the film after a serious setback in her life. But after an emotionally gripping scene where she comes home drunk and then rages at Charlie, telling him she can't be sober AND be with him, --BAM--the movie flashes forward and Kate is sober one year. Whaaaa?!

Smashed had an intriguing premise: what happens to a marriage when one person makes radical changes in their life? What if those changes are for the better, but the other partner isn't ready to deal with them? However, in practice Smashed didn't really seem to work. The movie had a lot of unrealistic extremes that didn't match up: for example, Kate' extreme alcoholism and her extremely easy time getting sober. I mean, I guess I can't judge because I don't know much about alcoholism and AA, but I had to give this movie the serious side-eye many times.

3 out of 5 stars

The Joy of Disabled Sex

Movies: The Sessions

"I asked Cheryl whether she thought I deserved to be loved sexually. She said she was sure of it. I nearly cried. She didn’t hate me. She didn’t consider me repulsive."
--Mark O'Brien, from "On Seeing a Sex Surrogate" 

I've always been fascinated with sexuality. Not always in a prurient way, although, yes, sometimes in a prurient way (Mom, if you're reading this...sorry!). But fascinated by sex in an academic way, and also in a socio-cultural way. What are the implications of sex in our society? In other societies? In history?

Something I often think about in regards to sexuality is that despite being one of the most powerful and transformative experiences in human life, sex is so often used as a weapon to shame or hurt. Physically, rape and abuse are disturbingly prevalent, especially among vulnerable populations. But sexual shame and humiliation are just as prevalent and perhaps even more insidious. Religious communities police sex to varying degrees, using shame and threats of hell to control what they see as sexuality that goes "against God". Secular culture is filled with messages that tell people they are too fat, too ugly, too slutty, too virginal for sex. Or, conversely, that they are not enough: not enough of a man, not enough of a woman.

I'm not a clergyperson. And I'm not a psychologist. And I don't have an advanced degree in sociology or gender studies (yet...). But I can tell you something that I know is true, and I think you know is true as well: the people and forces in society who say that you don't deserve physical affection and that you are in some way "not good enough" for sex are wrong. You are good enough. The religious communities that tell you your sexuality and sexual expression are sinful? They are the sinners. Is it a worse sin to have sex outside of marriage, or to be gay, than to systematically remove someone else's bodily agency through constant shame, physical punishment, and threats of God's wrath?

Mark O'Brien, a poet who contracted polio at age 6 and spent most of his life immobile in an iron lung, knew something about shame and sexuality. He was raised by a Catholic family that never spoke of sex. Despite Mark's severe disability, he graduated from college and became an accomplished poet and writer. But by age 38 he had no sexual experience beyond kissing. He could achieve orgasm, but it was often out of his control and usually while he was being washed by his attendants, adding an extra helping of humiliation.

In his wonderful essay, "On Seeing a Sex Surrogate", Mark explains that it wasn't just his disability that kept him from having a sex life; in fact, he had interviewed a series of disabled people with active sex lives for an article, so he knew that it was certainly possible. The biggest obstacles for Mark were his repressive upbringing and his own self-loathing about his disabled body.

But Mark O'Brien was a brave and pretty independent dude, and so at age 38 he decided it was time to lose his virginity. With the blessing of a very cool priest, Mark hired a sex surrogate to teach him how to have sex and how to accept his own sexuality.

The Sessions, a frank and sincere film, chronicles Mark O'Brien's experience with sex surrogate Cheryl. The mind-blowingly amazing and versatile actor John Hawkes (from Winter's Bone and Martha Marcy May Marlene) plays O'Brien--a man who used words and a sense of humor as both an entrance into and a defense mechanism against a world that had trouble adjusting to his body and disabilities. Helen Hunt plays Cheryl, a warm woman who is able to see that Mark's fear of sex stems not from his disability, but from the anger, shame, and self-loathing that he has had to fight against his whole life. Cheryl doesn't just teach Mark to control his body in order to have "fully penetrative intercourse", but also to forgive himself for contracting polio as a child.

The Sessions itself is a pretty decent film--the acting, as mentioned above, is excellent all around. It's lightly humorous and talks about sex in a very frank way without being vulgar or even showing anything too explicit. The film itself is unoffensive, positive, and, honestly, not that challenging. What is challenging are the ideas that propel the film: that disabled people have just as much of a right to sexual expression as able-bodied people. That being a man means more than have a strong body or the ability to be virile in bed. That God Him/Her/Itself rejoices in physical love and affection. These ideas surround and influence the movie. But to get the full experience of what Mark O'Brien was thinking and going through, you should really read the article. It's not long, but it gives insight into how even just a few hours spent with a therapist whose job it was to help him explore sex truly changed Mark's life and perception of his own body and sexuality for the better.

We live in a weird world. The constant thrum of not good enough not sexy enough not thin enough not rich enough surrounds us. We get messages from our families, our churches, our communities, and our peers on what acceptable sexuality looks like. We feel like we need to ask permission to be ourselves: is this ok? am I normal? will you love me? will you accept me? Our politicians use our bodily autonomy as wedge issues to ensure votes. And some of us, like Mark O'Brien, have the added burden of an unprivileged body. A disabled body, a fat body, an "ugly" body. 

What is so easy to forget as we negotiate and navigate this world where it feels like so much is at stake, is that it's up to us. Perhaps God gave you your body, but in giving He also gave you the right, the access, the choice. It's your body. It's your sexuality. Don't use it to hurt others or yourself. Don't waste it on shame and fear. Use it for love.

4 out of 5 stars

Mark O'Brien and a friend.

Bite Me

Movies: Breaking Dawn, pt. 2

"It's over. Now let's never speak of it again."
-My friend, upon leaving a screening of Breaking Dawn, pt. 2


Well, you can breathe a sigh of relief. The Twilight Saga films are officially over and done with (for now...until Stephenie Meyer decides to continue the series). I stuck with the Twilight movies to the bitter, sparkly end, and I can't say I'll miss the series. However, the final part of the series, Breaking Dawn, pt. 2, had a surprising amount of...bite to it. Ho-ho!

For one thing, now that Kristen Stewart's character, Bella, is a vampire, she is finally granted a personality. No longer the shrinking violet with a masochistic streak, Bella is kinda cool as a vamp. She's sexy, she's hungry, she's strong. She also has a quirky little special power--she's a "shield". She can protect others by projecting her shield onto them (visually, it kind of looks like when movie characters have flashbacks and the screen gets all wavy and blurry). So, finally, Bella isn't so damn weak. And it's a good thing, since she's made an enemy of the Volturi.


Let me remind you who the Volturi are again. Basically, they are the high church of vampires. They reside in Italy and make sure that all other vampires in the world are following the rules. When the Volturi get word that Bella and Edward Cullen have created an "immortal child" (a vampire child), which is a huge sin in the vampire world because such children cannot be controlled, they amass an army to confront and punish the Cullen clan.

What they don't know is that the "immortal child" is actually mortal. She's the half-human, half-vampire spawn of Bella and Edward, conceived and born while Bella was still human. She also has a terrible name, Renesmee, and a grown man (Jacob) is in love with her. But, you know, let's roll with it.

So the Cullens begin amassing an army of their own--not to fight, but to serve as witnesses to the fact that Renesmee poses no threat to the vampire world. This is an excuse to meet cool vampires from all over the world, include a couple of black vampires from the jungle who are dressed like exotic natives and it's all racist and shit!

Once the final showdown begins, with the Volturi showing up to confront the Cullens and all their cool vampire friends, it gets veeerrry interesting.

Stop reading now if you don't want to get spoiled!

In the trailers for BD2, you may have noticed that there is an intense fight sequence between the Volturi and the Cullens. Indeed, there is an epic battle scene in the film that begins with Aro (Michael Sheen, camping it up wonderfully), the head of the Volturi, ripping Carlisle Cullen's head from his motha-fuckin' body!!! During this battle we see many beloved characters kick the bucket before Bella and Edward finally take out Aro himself.

Here's the thing. I've read Breaking Dawn and no one, except one minor villainous character, dies at the end. The ending of Breaking Dawn is one of the dumbest, most anti-climatic endings ever. Basically, the Volturi come, they try to pull some vampire tricks on the Cullens, but Bella protects everyone with her womanly childbearing hips "shield", and then after the Cullens explain that Renesmee is actually not 100% a vampire and will grow up, the Volturi leave. The end. Seriously, it's THE WORST. Even J.K. Rowling had the balls to kill off Hedwig and one of the Weasley brothers at the end of Harry Potter.

Ok, so the movie seeeeems to take the source material in a radically different direction by actually having a battle sequence where characters actually die. And man, the crowd was going wild in the theatre where I saw the movie. But at the last minute, they pull the biggest cliche in the book: it was all a dream! Sort of. It turns out that the fight sequence was a vision. Alice Cullen, who can see into the future, takes hold of Aro's arm to show him how a battle could turn out (with Aro, and many other Volturi, dying the true death by getting their heads ripped off) if the Volturi insist on fighting. Well, needless to say, Aro doesn't much like that, and the Volturi turn tail and head back to Italy. And no one dies! Yay!

Ultimately, BD2 wanted to have its cake and eat it too--to have an awesome battle scene, complete with shocking and violent ends to beloved (and not so beloved) characters--but to also please the fans by staying true to the (awful, bad, poorly written and plotted) source material. And you know, it kinda works. I would have loved it if the battle scene had been real--what a shock to the throngs of tween girl fans!--but even though they pulled the whole "It was only a dream" switcheroo, I'm glad they got even a little subversion in there. It was better than nothing.

End spoilers!

I could mock the Twilight movies further, but they are such easy targets that it's not very fun. The books are poorly written and the final book is absurdly anti-climatic and reads like bad fan-fiction. The movies are not great, and Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson are underwhelming. The whole Twiverse is sexist, heteronormative, shallow, and simplistic.

But are they the worst books and movies ever? The most sexist books and movies ever? No. Not even close. It's kind of sad, actually. The series is so mediocre, it doesn't live up to the haters' expectations of it.

In conclusion, the only thing to really say about Breaking Dawn, pt. 2 is: it's not as bad as the other Twilight movies.

3 stars out of 5

Argo See These Movies

Movies: Argo, Looper

I feel guilty for not getting around to reviewing Argo and Looper sooner, since it's been a few weeks since I've seen them and the details are fading in my memory, but hey...other stuff like hurricanes and work get in the way.

Argo



Ben Affleck's latest directing/acting effort since The Town is a real nail biter. Based on the true story of six American embassy personnel who managed to escape from Iran during the tumultuous 1979 revolution, Argo is one of those "truth is stranger than fiction" movies. Affleck plays Tony Mendez, a CIA exfiltration expert who, after watching Planet of the Apes with his son, devises the hare-brained scheme to smuggle the embassy employees out of Iran under the guise that they're a production crew of a science-fiction film being shot in the area. The plan needs to be elaborately detailed and fool-proof, so Mendez gets the help of somewhat sleazy Hollywood producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) to guarantee that all of Hollywood is fooled into thinking this movie ("Argo", picked out of a pile of random scripts) is actually happening. Then Mendez travels to Iran and has the unenviable job of convincing the six stowaways at the Canadian prime minister's house to trust him with their lives and run with this plan.

Perfectly cast with many familiar faces who disappear into their roles (Clea Duvall as one of the six embassy employees hiding out, and Victor Garber as the Canadian prime minister among them), Argo is really entertaining. Affleck sustains a palpable tension for most of the movie, particularly in the last third when the escape plan is put into action. Argo isn't my personal favorite of the year, but it's objectively a great movie and is definitely going to be up for some awards during Oscar season.

4 out of 5 stars

***


Looper

One must go into Looper prepared to suspend one's disbelief. As with any movie about time travel, the film is rife with plot holes. But if you're able to get past that, and not ask too many questions, Looper is a hell of a good time.

I was genuinely surprised by the direction Looper took. I won't give too much away,  but I'll say that Emily Blunt's character, the homesteading mom Sara, who was barely featured in the previews, takes on a pivotal role in the movie. In fact, Looper is less about the mechanics of time travel and more of a philosophical exercise in how our current choices and actions affect those around us and our future selves.

The year is 2044. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a "looper" whose job is to arrive at an appointed spot at an appointed time and kill people that criminals in the future (around 2074, when time travel is invented and immediately outlawed) send back in time. It's a glamorous--if unethical--job that pays well (in silver bars!) and lets Joe and his fellow loopers party their asses off in a society where the gap between the rich and poor is outrageously large. [On that note: vote Obama on Tuesday!]

The only thing that sucks about being a looper is that at some point you will be required to "close your loop". Basically, the baddies in the future will send the future you back in time. You are expected to kill your future self with your giant blunderbuss, take a final golden pay check, and kick back and relax until 30 years from now...when you're on the other end of that blunderbuss.

Those loopers who "let their loop run" by failing to kill their future selves are in for a world of hurt, as Seth (Paul Dano in a small but memorable role) finds out. The loopers' bosses can't allow this to happen, so if your loop runs, you better find him and kill him or risk being killed yourself.

And guess who accidentally ends up letting his loop run and must spend the rest of the movie hunting his future self down?

Joseph Gordon-Levitt once again shows his acting chops as Joe, a looper with a little more foresight and motivation than the others. JGL wears prosthetics in order to look more like Bruce Willis (playing Joe's future self). I gotta say, he looked both creepy in an uncanny valley way, and really hot in a "butch Joseph Gordon-Levitt" way.

Another great actor in Looper is Jeff Daniels, playing the loopers' big boss, Abe. Daniel's plays Abe as basically an evil version of the Dude in The Big Lebowski--a man just as likely to offer you a drink as his is to smash your fingers with a hammer.

And I mentioned Emily Blunt earlier, but the real standout is Pierce Gagnon, who plays her son, Cid. This kid is un-frickin'-believable. Not *quite* as good of a performance as Quvenzhane Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild, but pretty damn amazing. And creepy. Although most child actors are creepy. It's that uncanny valley thing again: they're talking like grown-ups, but they're obviously tiny children. Eeek!

I won't say anything about what happens in Looper because it's too complicated and spoiler-y, but I will say that it is totally worth checking out. It's slick and dark and brain-twisty. Kind of like Inception, but a little more rough around the edges. Like Joseph Gordon-Levitt's prosthetically-enhanced face.

4.5 out of 5 stars

JGL with his normal face.
<--------

JGL with his butch Bruce face.
<-------