One- (and some two-) Liners

Movies: The Lego Movie, Neighbors, 22 Jump Street, How to Train Your Dragon 1&2, Tammy


Well, folks. I've gotten so behind on my blog that the only way to get out of this mess is with an entry comprised entirely of short and dirty reviews. Instead of a comprehensive look at each film here, I'm going with an overall impression. Hopefully, I'll be back to full-length reviews soon!


The Lego Movie

I was excited about The Lego Movie mainly because the director/writers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were also the creators of the one-season cult TV show Clone High, which was on and off the air much too quickly. I wasn't disappointed--not only does The Lego Movie have the wacky, mildly subversive humor that Clone High had, it's also one of the most uniquely animated films I've ever seen. The Lego Movie is great fun for viewers of all ages.

4.5 out of 5 stars

***

Neighbors

Neighbors is a reasonably funny film, but it doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne play new parents who are young enough to harbor fantasies that they're still cool and full of energy. Their patience is tested when a fraternity, led by Zac Efron and Dave Franco, moves in next door. The couple enters a love-hate relationship with the frat as peace offerings of weed and booze are exchanged between the two parties and the frat ultimately refuses to be quiet, respectful neighbors. Hijinks ensue and everyone learns a lesson about self-respect and the true meaning of shutting the fuck up so the baby can get some sleep.

3.5 out of 5 stars

***

22 Jump Street

Speaking of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the duo also directed 21 Jump Street and its sequel, 22 Jump Street (side note: as I just typed that sentence, I almost typed "22 Hump Street"...I'm sure the adult film is already out there on the web somewhere).  21 Jump Street was hilarious, and 22 is pretty good but not quite at the same level. Undercover cops Schmidt and Jenko (Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, a surprisingly great comedy team) are back--this time looking to bust the supplier of a drug called "Whyphy" (pronounced "wi-fi") which is making the rounds at a local college. The two go undercover as college kids to gain the trust of students and figure out who is behind Whyphy. Much is made of that fact that this film is a sequel with basically the same plot os the first film. The movie is self-referential and cheeky, which sometimes hits the mark and sometimes just falls flat. Tatum and Hill are worth the price of a ticket as the perfect pair--Hill all anxiety and sarcasm, and Tatum playing the hunky lunkhead.

3.75 out of 5 stars

***

How to Train Your Dragon 1 & 2

Like The Lego Movie, both kids and adults can enjoy the How to Train Your Dragon movies. Both movies take place on an island called Berk. At the beginning of the first film, the vikings of Berk spend their lives fighting the dragons that attempt to steal their sheep and generally cause havoc. Young Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel, he of the nasally nerdiness) figures he doesn't have what it takes to be a dragon-killer, which is unfortunate since his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), is chief of Berk and also a masculine badass. When Hiccup manages to shoot down a rare Night Fury dragon, only to be moved to nurture it back to health, he realizes violence isn't the only way to deal with dragons. He has to overcome massive dragonphobia in order to prove to Berk that vikings and dragons can coexist in harmony.

The second film takes place a few years later, when Hiccup is a dashing (but still nerdy) young man of about 19 or 20 years. On one of his exploratory trips with Toothless, his dragon companion, he learns that there are other vikings out there capturing dragons and using them to form an army. Hiccup and his dad butt heads when Hiccup wants to confront the mysterious man behind the dragon army and Stoick prefers to batten down the hatches and protect the village. How to Train Your Dragon 2 is more intense and scary (for little ones, at least) than the first film, and I found it more entertaining and emotionally satisfying. The sequel takes the trope of a boy becoming a man and expands upon it to include themes about family, sacrifice, and what it means to be a leader--commanding respect versus demanding respect and all that. Both films are a lot of fun, but I thought the sequel was a little "fuller".

How to Train Your Dragon: 4 out of 5 stars


How to Train Your Dragon 2: 4.5 out of 5 stars

***

Tammy

Melissa McCarthy was AWESOME in her breakout film role as Megan in Bridesmaids and she deserves all the opportunities that come with newfound fame, including leading roles. You would think that her role as the titular character in Tammy would be ideal since she and her husband wrote the film, but alas I did not think it was worthy of McCarthy's talent. Tammy is about a down-on-her-luck blue collar woman who goes on a road trip with her alcoholic grandmother (Susan Sarandon) after she finds her husband cheating on her. The two have a series of adventures, including holding up a fast food joint in order to get bail money when grandma ends up in the slammer. Tammy (and grandma) also both find romance on the road. My problem with the movie is the character of Tammy herself. Whereas Megan in Bridesmaids was truly unique in that she was a heavyset, "butch" woman who was also super intelligent, confident in a believable way (you get to hear her backstory and how she went from bullied in high school to rich and successful), and pleasantly weird. Tammy is none of those things. She didn't strike me as smart, she didn't strike me as confident, and she seemed weird in a socially bizarre way. The film is about how Tammy learns to love and forgive herself, but the lessons are spoon fed. Mark Duplass plays her love interest, and I while I really like the fact that a plus-sized woman gets paired with a very cute (but not chiseled) man, the two didn't seem to fit together. Duplass plays too much of the straight (normal) man to Tammy's socially awkward woman. Being plus-sized in Hollywood is still very taboo, and so a film like Tammy, where weight is barely mentioned, is ground-breaking and should be applauded as such. I look forward to the day where men and women of all different sizes fill the big screen without comment.

3 out of 5 stars

Not in Our Stars, but in Ourselves

Movies: The Fault in Our Stars

Annnnd I make my triumphant return to blogger-dom! Readers, I have seen many a film over the past 6 weeks and I plan to write one of those catch-up blog posts where I do mini-reviews of all of them very soon, but I just can't relegate the wonderful film The Fault in Our Stars to a single paragraph in a giant collection of reviews. It deserves better than that.

Like many other adaptations of YA novels into films, I haven't read the actual book The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, although God knows I plan to now. Unlike Divergent, which I saw a month ago, I'm not satisfied to let this story end on the big screen. I want to read the book as well because I'm sure that as meaningful and moving as the movie was, the book will be better. But that's not to say the movie wasn't excellent! I recently saw a click-bait headline that said "The Fault in Our Stars: Manipulative and Crass". Well, fuck me, but I just don't think that journalist and I saw the same movie. The film I saw, while subject to occasional moments of cheesiness, was achingly authentic. Sure, I do take issue with the ethereal beauty of the stars (Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort) which never fades no matter how close to death they get. But despite the elements of Hollywood-ization, the message of the story remains pure: be grateful for the love you have and the time you have. If you find that sentiment manipulative and crass, well, then I can't do nothing for you, son.

The plot of The Fault in Our Stars is simple. Hazel Grace Lancaster (Woodley) is a 17 year old dying of terminal lung cancer. She's not depressed, per se, but she's also not exactly optimistic. Hanging in a limbo of time, Hazel spends her days reading, watching reality shows, and generally lounging around. Her mom urges her to go to a cancer support group for teens so that she can make some friends. There, she meets Augustus Waters (Elgort), a beautiful, arrogant, sunny young man who is a cancer survivor himself attending the group to support a friend of his. Gus takes an immediate liking to Hazel and begins to flirt with her in a gentle, yet firm way that doesn't really take no for an answer. Hazel is attracted to him, but can't get past the idea that she's a "grenade"--a ticking time bomb of sadness that could explode at any minute. Hazel is very aware that when she dies, her parents will be devastated. She doesn't want to extend that devastation to anyone else.

In spite of her attempts to emotionally distance herself from Gus, the two bond over Hazel's favorite book, An Imperial Affliction, by Peter van Houten. Hazel wishes she could go to Amsterdam to meet the author in person, but her family doesn't have the money to get her there. Lucky for her, Gus saved his "kid dying of cancer" wish and uses it to take Hazel and her mom to the European city of vice (and Anne Frank) to meet van Houten.The trip is a turning point in the story for the characters' relationship.

I won't get into what exactly happens during the rest of the film, but it's definitely a three-hankie picture. Hazel and Gus' relationship is interesting since they have to take turns being the strong one for the other. Their differing attitudes toward life change each others perspectives--Gus appears to be the classic optimist, the guy who want to leave a mark on the world, while Hazel sees oblivion as an inevitable reality of life. But when push comes to shove, Hazel is a steadying and comforting presence to Gus when his cavalier attitude about life with cancer crashes up against the reality of his own vulnerabilities and limitations. I liked that both characters were equally strong; there are no "damsel in distress" or "bad boy saved by love" tropes here. There are just two precocious teens forced to grapple with untimely sickness and death who happen to be lucky enough to find love. Am I skeptical that a 17 and 18 year old can fall in "real" love, especially in such a short amount of time? Of course. But time plays by different rules in The Fault in Our Stars: when you might have one year, one month, or one week left to live, you're not going to waste any goddamn time.

The acting in The Fault in Our Stars is awesome. Shailene Woodly and Ansel Elgort capture the contradictory nature of late adolescence--the simultaneous arrogance and vulnerability. One minute you're drinking champagne in an expensive Dutch restaurant, the next you're in the fetal position crying yourself to sleep. Maturity is not a line that you cross on one particular day when you go to college, or get married, or have kids--it's a painful path most folks are on their whole lives. While cancer forces Gus and Hazel to grow up quickly, it doesn't magically make them wise or mature. They're still learning the same lessons every other 17-year-old is learning, in addition to harsher ones about life and death.

Hazel's parents are played by Laura Dern and Sam Trammel (who also plays Sam Merlotte, my favorite character on True Blood). They are relatively relaxed for the parents of a dying teenage girl. But a flashback reveals that when Hazel was 13 years old she was very near death and managed to pull through with the help of some trial drugs. In my interpretation, that near loss let Hazel's parents relax a bit and be thankful for the extra time they were given with their daughter. Her parents' down to earth nature was refreshing in a film this emotionally intense. If they had been hysterical, overprotective parents, I don't think the movie would have been half as good.

Willem Dafoe also does a great job in the role of Peter van Houten, the author Hazel loves who turns out to be not what she (or the audience) expects at all.

I have to admit, I LOVED The Fault in Our Stars. There were a couple scenes that made me cringe a bit (spoiler: when Gus and Hazel kiss in the Anne Frank house and everyone bursts into applause? That is so ridiculous and cliched it belongs on the Internet Meme Database, not in a movie as good as this one). But overall, the movie got to me, dammit! Even though it pretties up cancer a whole lot (the characters have thick hair, beautiful skin, and barely ever throw up or cry), the larger ideas of how everyone's time is limited and love is a precious gift and that dying doesn't mean you have to lose your sense of humor or your anger and snark--those shine through like stars in the night sky.

4.5 out of 5 stars

Split Personality

Movies: Divergent

I have to begin this review by pointing out that I haven't read any of the books in the Divergent trilogy by Veronica Roth. This review is based on the film alone and the information that the film provides.

With that said, I found Divergent to be very entertaining, if a little lacking in the world building department. The film takes place in Chicago, some time in the future. Wars and other disasters have apparently torn the United States apart and those who live in the crumbling city built a wall to keep scary things out. They've also built walls around each other: society is divided into factions based on dominant personality traits: Erudite, Candor, Amity, Dauntless, and Self-abnegation. The roles of each faction are based on their talents--so Candor serve as judges and lawyers, Dauntless as police and protectors, Self-abnegation and governmental leaders (since they're selfless and less corruptible). When teenagers turn 16 they take a test that reveals their aptitude and which faction they should join. Despite test results, they have the freedom to choose any faction they wish to be part of, but once the choice is made they cannot change their minds and pick another faction.

Tris (played by the lovely and talented Shailene Woodley), was born into Self-abnegation. When she takes the test, the results are inconclusive--she tests "positive" for dauntless, erudite, and self-abnegation and is thus "divergent". Being divergent is a big problem. It's the equivalent for testing positive for psychopathy in our society--divergents are seen as freaks, unstable, and uncontrollable. The mistrust of divergents is growing by the time Tris takes her test due to political tensions between Erudite and Self-abnegation. Erudite feels that *they* should be running the government, so they are talking shit about Self-abnegation and trying to smear the faction by claiming they are harboring divergents. So Tris must hide her true identity at all costs--even from family and friends.

When Tris chooses Dauntless at the Choosing Ceremony, she is put through a hellish boot camp of physical and mental training for her role as a protector of society. It's not enough to simply choose Dauntless--new members must complete a series of tests to prove their worthiness, and there are a limited number of spots. If you don't make the cut, you are kicked out and end up "factionless" and on the fringes of society.

Tris' story is compelling and fun if you suspend your disbelief. But my problem was that there was no real explanation as to why this dystopian society thought the best way to deal with social control was to divide people up based on personality traits. If anything, that seems to be a very unstable system with a million cracks in it. Also, when a person chooses a faction, they are not allowed to change their mind, even if it turns out that are unsuited to that faction. Hmmm...seems like a society where people end up where their talents are most useful would be a more smoothly run society, but I guess not! Erudite's power struggle with Self-abnegation makes some sense, but the fact that Erudite's members so easily conform to the communal belief that they would be better governmental leaders than Self-abnegation seems weird because aren't these people supposed to be the critical thinkers of society? Why does the film suggest that intelligent people are also power hungry?

Perhaps the books address these questions more fully, but again I am basing this on the information the film alone provides.

Divergent is a fun movie, but a little on the light side, especially compared to the Hunger Games films, which pack a heftier punch, both emotionally and as social/political commentary. I know films should be judged by their own merits, it's hard not to compare the Divergent to the other enormously popular YA dystopia trilogy and find it lacking.

Overall, Divergent is a good time at the movies--good to see on the big screen with a bucket of popcorn. But it probably isn't the kind of film you'll still be thinking about a week later.

3.5 out of 5 stars

She's Gotta Have It

Movies: Nymphomaniac, vol. 1 & 2

Warning: Nymphomaniac is an unrated, sexually explicit art film. If you do not wish to read about sexually explicit scenes, do not read this review.


And spoilers too, probs.


"The human qualities can be expressed in one word: hypocrisy. We elevate those who say right but mean wrong and we mock those who say wrong but mean right." 
--Nymphomaniac


I read a review recently that referred to the films of Lars von Trier as twisted fairy tales for adults. That description set off the little lightbulb above my head: of course! That's why I like his films so much, despite their misanthropy, violence, and disturbing qualities. They're fables, filled with mysticism and magical realism. I've always loved fairy tales and fairy tale retellings, so it makes perfect sense that even though von Trier's films put me through the emotional ringer, I'm still attracted to them.

Following up Antichrist and Melancholia, which are both terrifying in their own unique ways, comes Nymphomaniac, a four hour long film (there is a 5.5 hour director's cut that I would love to get my hands on) broken up into two parts. Nymphomaniac, along with the two other films mentioned above, is part of von Trier's "depression trilogy", which I believe he has said mirrors his own struggle with depression. Nymphomaniac is actually the least depressing von Trier film I've seen. It follows the story of Joe (played by Stacy Martin as a young woman and Charlotte Gainsbourg as a mature woman), a self-described "nymphomaniac" who vacillates between believing she is a bad, destructive person, and--in her words--loving her cunt, above all.

Joe is found by Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), beaten and bloodied on the streets on a snowy evening. He offers to call an ambulance, but she rejects that idea. He takes her back to his home for tea instead and she recounts the whole story that led up to that moment.

What I found wonderful and fascinating about this story is that Joe was never the victim of anything that one might assume would turn a person towards sex addiction. Joe has a happy upbringing and close relationship with her father (played by Christian Slater, strangely enough). She isn't the victim of sexual abuse or rape. Rather, she is influenced by her group of female friends, who form a "church" of sorts, devoted to their sexuality and to the rejection of love. There is a scene with the young women chanting "mea vulva, mea maxima vulva", a cheeky perversion of a traditional Catholic prayer of confession.

Yet, while all Joe's friends eventually fall away from the "church" by falling in love, Joe's nymphomania only increases. For a while, it seems she may end up with Jerome (Shia LeBeouf, who is actually good in this movie), the young man who took her virginity and shows up in her life again as the boss's nephew at the office where Joe works as a secretary. But when he runs off to marry another woman, Joe begins taking lovers--up to ten a day--to fulfill the demands of her body.

There is an absolutely gorgeous scene at the end of vol. 1 where she describes three lovers as the parts of a piece of organ music: there is the man submissively devoted to her orgasm, the aggressive, domineering man, and then there's Jerome--the one man she's ever loved. In a split-screen shot we see them making love to Joe as a piece by Bach plays over the scene. It sounds cheesy, but I found it to be one of the loveliest scenes I've watched in a while.

Volume 1 ends with Jerome and Joe having sex and Joe suddenly losing all sexual sensation. Volume 2 is the darker half of the film, with Joe's sudden inability to have an orgasm driving her to more and more extreme sexual experiences. She and Jerome have a baby together, which ups the emotional stakes considerably as Joe often chooses to leave her young son home alone to go out and seek sex.

Jerome gives Joe permission to have sex outside of their relationship since their love life is exhausting to him. Joe describes her encounters with "the dangerous men", particularly K. K is played by Jamie Bell (the kid from Billy Elliot, most definitely grown up in this film). He is a sadist with an artistic eye for pain. Joe's sessions with K were particularly interesting since K didn't strike me (hah!) as a cruel man at all--but more like a photographer, the way he arranges Joe and straps her down to a couch in order to beat her with a leather crop. Only when she endures the most vicious beating--40 lashes with a homemade cat o' nine tails, on Christmas Day no less--is she finally able to achieve climax. I suppose you could read this as a moral against the dangers of sex addiction, but von Trier is no moralist. His depiction of Joe's insatiable lust is not celebratory, nor is it damning. It is merely a story, presented without judgment.

After the Christmas Day session with K, Jerome leaves Joe and takes their son with him. Joe takes a job as a...debt collector. You know, one of those people who breaks the kneecaps of those who owe money to various crime bosses. Joe, of course, uses her sexuality to manipulate, terrify, and humiliate the poor souls who owe money. She eventually takes on a young, female protege, "P". But when P is faced with collecting money from none other than Jerome, she quickly begins a relationship with him, to the devastation of Joe.

The film ends with Joe attempting to kill Jerome as he walks down the street with P. For some reason, the gun does not go off, and Jerome beats Joe bloody and leaves her there, which brings us up to the point where Seligman finds her. However, the movie isn't over yet. In a bizarre and blunt ending, after Joe has told her story, Seligman leaves her to sleep...but he returns in the middle of the night and attempts to rape her (despite having admitted to Joe earlier that he is a virgin and is asexual). The screen goes black and we hear Seligman protest, "Joe, you've slept with thousands of men". Joe says "No!" and we hear the gun go off and Joe leave in a hurry. The end.

I found this ending extremely off beat with the rest of the story...yet...somehow fitting within its moral framework. Throughout Joe's myriad sexual adventures, she is never the victim of coercive sex (although, in one disturbing scene early on, she has non-consensual sex with a married man who begs her not to, making Joe the predator). To have the film end with the most sexually harmless man in the movie (up until that point) attempting to rape Joe and immediately being killed for his transgression flies so intensely in the face of our cultural narratives of what rape is and who deserves to be punished for it that I was like "Right fucking on, Lars".

However, I hesitate to claim that this--all sex is good/acceptable except for coercive sex--is the moral of the story. I don't know what the "moral" of Nymphomaniac is, or even if there is one at all. You could view the film as an almost reverent treatment of female sexuality. Or you could view it as a testament to the loneliness that comes when one is unable to love or truly connect with another human being. Joe's story does not fit into any traditional boxes about sexuality and sexual morals. This is not a "you go girl" film, as Joe does indeed lose a lot by submitting to the endless needs of her cunt. But it's not a story of warning either, since although Joe certainly faces pain, she is never "punished" for her sins. In fact, this film does not condemn Joe's behavior as "sinful". Nor does it consider her behavior "natural". It merely is. And for that, I found Nymphomaniac to be a genuinely unique film about sexuality and the human desire to "fill all our holes", physically, spiritually, and emotionally.

Nymphomaniac is not a film for everyone. It's artistic, amoral, and extremely explicit. It contains unsimulated sex which can't truly be called "pornography", or even "erotica". Although some of the scenes are indeed erotic, their intent isn't so much to arouse but to tell a story--to weave a tapestry of one woman's life. It's also an intellectual film, with tangents and asides relating to fly-fishing, Bach and Beethoven, religion, and ash trees. Many who see this movie will see it as pretentious, boring, and frustrating. I found it to be beautiful in the way only a story that delves so openly into ugliness can be. Beauty and empathy don't always come from what's right, good, noble, and self-abnegating. Sometimes beauty comes from destruction, rebellion, and all the emotions and impulses we'd rather not talk about or look too closely at. Once again, Lars von Trier (and his amazing cast) has created a challenging, engaging piece of art.

Although the film is far from perfect, I feel that I must give it

5 out of 5 stars

Hotel Zubrowka

Movies: The Grand Budapest Hotel

"[Boy with Apple] is a masterpiece. The rest of this shit is worthless junk."
 -M. Gustave

Once again I have the pleasure of reviewing a Wes Anderson film and once again Anderson has impressed me with with his singular brand of dry humor and stylistic storytelling.

The Grand Budapest Hotel has a very different feel to it than Anderson's last film, Moonrise Kingdom. Whereas Kingdom touched me deeply with its sincere depiction of young love, Hotel takes more of a comic caper turn with its story about a genteel, yet randy hotel concierge with a passion for older (as in, octogenarian) women who gets caught up in a family battle over a dead woman's fortune. Ralph Fiennes plays M. Gustave, the concierge of The Grand Budapest Hotel in the fictional country of Zubrowka circa 1932. Gustave takes his job with a pride and seriousness bordering on obsessive-compulsive. He runs a tight ship at the hotel, but he also takes the time to train young lobby boy, Zero Mustafa (played by newcomer Tony Revolori), and to make passionate love to 84 year old Madame D. (Tilda Swinton, unrecognizable behind a mask of wrinkles and age spots).

When Madame D. is found murdered, Zero and Gustave head to her family's estate to pay their respects. It turns out that although Madame D. left most of her fortune to her thuggish sons, Dmitri and Jopling (Adrien Brody and Willem Dafoe), and daughters, she left a priceless painting, "Boy with Apple", to Gustave. Enraged by the knowledge that Gustave gave his mother the big one for near 20 years, Dmitri threatens Gustave, who retaliates by stealing the painting right off the damn wall.

Thus starts a domino effect which involves police chases, secret second wills, a prison break, and a ski chase on an alpine slope. Anderson masterfully blends his trademark aesthetics (perfectly framed scenes exploding with saturated colors) with a sense of playful silliness, but also tempered with moments of sexuality and violence rarely seen in other Anderson movies. The film feels packed, but in a good way--where you want to watch the movie multiple times to catch all the witty quips and weird details you missed the first time.

Much of the success of The Grand Budapest Hotel rests on the shoulders of Fiennes. This film is absolutely star-studded, with actors from Jude Law to Jeff Goldblum playing big characters and Bill Murray to Jason Schwartzman playing smaller roles. Yet, I think the "Wes Anderson Family Reunion" aspect actually takes away from the film. While it's delightful to see our favorite actors pop up for brief cameos, those moments took me out of the world of this film. The actors, for the most part, speak in their natural accents. So Ed Norton sounds like Ed Norton. Jeff Goldblum sounds like Jeff Goldblum. Only Ralph Fiennes, in my opinion, is given the chance to create a character. And what a character he creates! Unlike the typical "Ralph Fiennes role"--dignified, perhaps a bit of cool malice, and oh-so-British--his M. Gustave is irreverent, flamboyant, charming, debonair, flippant. The older Zero narrates Gustave's life and loves by explaining that the women Gustave wooed were, to a one, old, rich, vain, blonde, and needy--just like Gustave (at least, the blonde, vain, and needy parts). Gustave is not taking advantage of these rich, elderly women. He genuinely prefers them. He explains to Zero that the "cheaper cuts" have more "flavor" with a gleam in his eye, practically licking his lips. Such naughtiness is exactly what an Anderson movie needs to firmly ground his twee mise-en-scene back to the earth.

I very much enjoyed The Grand Budapest Hotel, despite the flaw of--again, my opinion--too many cameos. Also, the lack of female characters is pretty disheartening, although I've come to expect that from Anderson's movies (which, let's face it, are generally big, ol' sausage fests). Anderson's one theme that he continually reinvents, whether in telling a love story, a coming of age story, or a comedy, is the father-son  (or, in many cases, surrogate father/surrogate son) relationship. You see this theme played out in almost all his films, and he is a master at capturing that special relationship between an older mentor and his young protege.

4.5 out of 5 stars

...all this other shit is worthless junk.

Reading Days

Books: Misc

Hello Dear Readers,

I apologize for not updating my blog recently, but this time it's not due to laziness, but rather simple lack of content to write about. I haven't seen a movie in the theatres in nearly two months, which is unprecedented for me. But wintertime is always feast or famine with movies: you gorge on Oscar nominated films which are released from Nov-Jan and then hibernate and avoid the movies from mid -Jan-March as the dredges of cinema are dumped into theatres. But don't worry! The minute Wes Anderson's latest confection, The Grand Budapest Hotel, makes its way to my town, I'll be first in line to watch and review it.

Until then, considering my URL is technically "readingwatchingreviewing", I figure I'd catch you up on the "reading" part. I've plowed through many books since getting a Kindle for my birthday and that momentum has led to more reading in my life in general (including print books and magazines). Some of the books in this entry I'm only partway through. I picked out the most interesting of the wide range of novels and non-fiction I've been reading over the past few months.

***

A Year of Biblical Womanhood
By Rachel Held Evans
Memoir

Rachel Held Evans is a writer who is both a feminist and an evangelical Christian. She writes a blog where she discusses topics of interest to Christians of a more liberal persuasion, such as patriarchy and abuse, discrimination, masculine identity in the church, etc. In A Year of Biblical Womanhood, Evans tackles the issues of "Biblical womanhood"--i.e. living life as a woman in accordance to a literal(ish) interpretation of the Bible--head on by spending a year attempting to conform to the dictates of the Bible. Every month, Evans focuses on a virtue--modesty, purity, resourcefulness, etc--valued in the famed "Proverbs 31 woman" (a description of an ideal wife) and sets various goals for herself, such as cooking Thanksgiving dinner for her family, not cursing, dressing modestly, and so on.


Her adventures lead to much hilarity and a decent amount of self-reflection. I'm only about halfway through, but I already know what Evans' conclusion will be: that it's impossible to hold oneself to the standards of Biblical womanhood (although trying to might lead to some insightful moments) and that egalitarian marriage is where it's at. I'm not an evangelical or a fundamentalist, but I am interested in religion, feminism, and gender roles--which is why I was drawn to this book. Unlike other explorations of patriarchal Christianity (such as Kathryn Joyce's devastating and excellent Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement) by "outsiders", Evans gives us an inside perspective. My only beef is that she doesn't come down more harshly on the limited views of evangelicals when it comes to gender roles and feminism. Frankly, I wish Evans was more damning of her own religious subculture, which I understand is unfair to expect. In place of true criticism and questioning is a hefty dose of cuteness and humor. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and Evans is doing a lot to be a public voice for feminist evangelicalism, which can't be easy. I just hoped for a little more bite and edginess.

Similar books you might want to check out: The above-mentioned Quiverfull, as well as Joyce's new book The Child Catchers about Christian families who take advantage of the adoption industry; Kevin Roose's funny and surprisingly respectful memoir titled The Unlikely Disciple about spending a semester at Liberty University; although I haven't read it yet, Cami Ostman and Susan Tive's Beyond Belief: The Secret Lives of Women in Extreme Religions seems like an interesting read that attempts to understand why women get involved/stay in religions where they are expected to be submissive.

3.75 out of 5 stars

***

It's Not You: 27 (Wrong) Reasons Why You're Single
By Sara Eckel
Self-help

I'm not one to read dating advice books (although I enjoy mocking them), but I read an excerpt of Sara Eckel's It's Not You and knew this was a different kind of book. Rather than dispense advice on how to find a mate, Eckel takes common arguments about why (heterosexual women) remain single--"you're too picky",  "you're too desperate", "you're too old", etc--and breaks them down with common sense and logic. For example, why are women told they need to be a bit stand-offish and not needy, but also show a man he's "needed"? I'll tell you why: because people are dumb. Eckel's arguments point out the simultaneously liberating and frustrating truth about love: much of it has to do with timing and luck. Also, chemistry, the definition of which varies from person to person. This truth doesn't sell advice books, but hey, I guess the ladies who wrote The Rules gots to eat too!

I absolutely loved this book because rather than aim to make women feel panicky and ashamed, its goal is to make them feel calm, accepting, and in control. Which is a far better place to be when looking for love. Eckel shares her own success story about meeting her now husband in her late 30's, but she never suggests that her own life should be held up as a model for all women. Her writing voice is warm, funny, and logical. A wonderful counterpoint to the nagging, shaming voices we hear all too often when it comes to women and romantic relationships.

Similar books you might want to check out: Sasha Cagen's Quirkyalone changed my freakin' life. She captured the concept of truly enjoying being alone, but still open to romantic possibilities. Outdated by Samhita Mukhopadhyay is a "dating while feminist" guide which includes reasons why it's *better* to be a feminist while playing the dating game: it's sexy (feminists ask for what they want in bed!), it reminds you that it's ok if the relationship doesn't last forever, and (most importantly), it gives you the courage to walk away when things aren't working out.

4.5 out of 5 stars

***

Unbound
By Cara McKenna
Erotic romance

And for all the single ladies who crave a little, er, mental stimulation, Cara McKenna's erotic romance Unbound will blow you the fuck away. At least, it blew me away. Be warned though--its contents are for adults (who like readin' 'bout sexytimes) only! The story takes place in Scotland, where Merry (last name slipping my mind) is taking a solo hiking vacation. Merry lost 100 pounds over the course of a year and is still coming to terms with her new body and the negative reactions of some of her friends, who prefer the old (people-pleasing) fat Merry. After drinking some bacteria-laden loch water, Merry finds herself at the door of Rob Rush, a guy who lives alone in the Scottish highlands. Rob harbors some major secrets, which are slowly revealed during the time her nurses Merry back to health.

Spoilers! Rob is a recovering alcoholic who was in an unsuccessful marriage. He initially drove to the secluded cottage to drink himself to death, but chose to throw out his booze and get sober instead. He is terrified at the thought of leaving his rural home, the isolation of which was his saving grace. The other secret Rob harbors is his sexuality: Rob is sexually submissive and has an intense fetish for rope bondage and female-dominant roleplay. Rather than seeing his kinks as fun and sexy (as Merry sees them, once the two start sleeping together), Rob is very ashamed of them. Unbound is the first book I've read to so sensitively approach the topic of sexual fetishism. Other books use kinks to titillate or shock the reader, but Rob's interests and his own ambivalence toward them are treated with such understanding and empathy, I would literally get up and say out loud "This book is SOOOOO GOOOOOOD!" while reading it. Oh, and the sex scenes are....wheeeewwww. Let's just say I needed multiple cold showers. The romance is truly romantic: the characters are flawed and human, the sex is scorching, and you root for their happy ending the whole way through. A+ work, Cara McKenna.

Similar books you might want to check out: If you're into BDSM-oriented romance that's not completely balls-out freaky deaky, look no further than Delphine Dryden's "The Science of Temptation" series. The books are about a group of extremely intelligent and nerdy friends who work at a university in Austin and also belong to a BDSM club. The first in the series, The Theory of Attraction concerns beautiful Cami and awkward (but sexually dominant) Ivan--basically, a hot Sheldon Cooper. The sequel, The Seduction Hypothesis, pairs up Lindsey and Ben (referred to as "a curious sub and a Dom in denial") while they attend BeastCon, a comic convention. Yes, BDSM sex at a freakin' comic convention. This book was written for all the sexy nerds out there! Finally, The Principle of Desire features a submissive man, Ed (who is adorable) and a dominant woman, Beth (who is recovering from a very controlling previous relationship where she was submissive). It's not the strongest of the series, but it's hot nonetheless.

5 out of 5 stars

***

Mandingo
By Kyle Onstott
Fiction

I'm reading Mandingo for a class I'm taking this semester about the history of sexuality in America. Mandingo was published in 1957 and was wildly popular despite its very un-1950's like content. Mandingo takes place on a fictional plantation, Falconhurst, in 1832 Alabama. Falconhurst is a slave-breeding plantation, where the overseers, the elderly Warren Maxwell, and his son Hammond, encourage their slaves to have as many babies as possible to keep the plantation going and to sell for a profit. Falconhurst is a den of wretched, sadistic behavior. The 659-page novel, which I am only partway through, describes whippings, rape, incest, and all manner of racism and debauchery. I'm reading it for a project in the class and it is a bear to get through, although it is also strangely compelling. The novel is notable for breaking away from literature that presented the Antebellum South as a respectable, genteel culture with happy slaves and God-fearing slave owners. Mandingo is Gone with the Wind by way of the Marquis de Sade. It takes all that Lost Cause-ers found lovely and beautiful about the South and essentially smears the whole thing with excrement. So, there is a bit of a dirty feeling of schadenfreude while reading it. It's an angry, shocking read, and it's also long and meandering, with detailed discussions of slave bodies and sexuality. Generally speaking, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but the morbidly curious. Or those doing a project on slavery and sexuality.

Similar books you might want to check out: I got the idea to do my project on Mandingo from Gregory Smithers' excellent book Slave Breeding: Sex, Violence, and Memory in African-American History. Smithers' focuses on the issue of slave breeding and coercive reproductive practices in the Antebellum South, an issue he claims has been ignored and dismissed by many (white) historians for far too long. It's a fascinating read. Another book along those same lines, which I have not read myself is Annette Gordon-Reed's The Hemingses of Monticello, an extremely well-researched exploration of Sally Hemings and her family while they were slaves at Thomas Jefferson's residence. The book argues that Jefferson's long-term affair with Sally Hemings was, in some ways, consensual (as consensual as a relationship between slave and master could be) and that Hemings was an active participant in the relationship.


2.5 out of 5 stars

***

Thanks for reading about my reading, y'all! More reviews coming soon!

Some Movies I Watched on Netflix Recently

Movies: Drinking Buddies, Black Rock, But I'm a Cheerleader, Rosemary's Baby

It's time to play catch-up. Here are a few movies I've been meaning to review.


Drinking Buddies

Drinking Buddies is a rather pleasant comedy that was attractive to me since it concerns two friends who work together at a brewery, and beer is my jam. Olivia Wilde plays Kate--a gorgeous guy's gal who likes beer, biking, and pool. She's dating the stuffy Chris (Ron Livingston), but is close friends with her coworker Luke (New Girl's Jake Johnson, all hipster teddy bear here). Luke is dating stuffy Jill (Anna Kendrick). Gosh, do you think maybe these two sets of couples aren't right for each other!?

Not a lot happens in Drinking Buddies. The two couples take a weekend trip out to the woods and events occur fueled by beer and wine that lead to romantic confusion. That's pretty much it. It's basically a glossier mumblecore film. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it! All four actors in the leading roles had their characters down pat--and Olivia Wilde really shines as a woman who by all appearances is the "ideal girlfriend", but who is just as unlucky in love as anyone else.

Drinking Buddies is a great film for a relaxing Saturday night with your buds and your brews.

3.75 out of 5 stars

***

Black Rock

It's been called the "female Deliverance", which should give you a hint or two about its content. In Black Rock Kate Bosworth, Lake Bell, and Kate Aselton (who also directed) play Sarah, Lou, and Abby, three old friends who go to a remote island for a weekend of camping and catching up. But tensions are high due to a long-held grudge between Lou and Abby. Sarah thinks that the trip will mend old wounds. After a day of hiking, the women realize they are sharing the island with three men--Iraq War veterans who are spending the weekend hunting on the island. They cozy up to the men and share their camp fire, drink, and, well, one thing leads to another. Abby and one of the guys, Henry, head to the woods to make out. But when Henry gets too aggressive, Abby clocks him on the head with a rock.

This act leads to the men turning on the women and a fight for survival. Abby, Lou, and Sarah realize that they won't be able to escape the island--they'll have to kill or be killed. Unfortunately for the men, these ladies have it in them to fight viciously for their lives.

Black Rock has some tense moments, but overall it could have been a better and more original film. The "guys vs. girls" dynamic seems rather forced and exploitative, especially since it stems from an attempted rape. Not a bad movie by any means, just rather average.

3.5 out of 5 stars

***

But I'm a Cheerleader

I loved this movie when I was in high school, and it's just as delightful 10 years later. Nastasha Lyonne plays Megan, a bubbly, popular cheerleader whose parents and friends suspect she's a lesbian, and so they ship her off to "True Directions" a gay rehabilitation center run by a strict woman (Cathy Moriarty who forces the girls to wear pink and learn to vacuum and the boys to wear blue and learn how to repair cars. Of course, sticking a bunch of queer teens together leads to, ahem, experimentation, and it's only a matter of time before Megan finds herself falling for the sardonic Graham (played by the wonderful Clea DuVall).

But I'm a Cheerleader was directed by Jamie Babbit, but it has a distinct whiff of John Waters about it: from the genderfuckery of the characters (the film stars RuPaul out of drag as one of True Directions' counselors), to the brightly-colored sets that look like they jumped out of a 1950's appliance advertisement, to the cameos by Waters regulars Mink Stole and Bud Cort as Megan's parents.

If you're in the mood for a sassy, not-too-serious take on LGBTQ rights and coming of age, But I'm a Cheerleader is your movie. And it's got a great soundtrack.

4 out of 5 stars

***

Rosemary's Baby

How I came to re-watch the horror classic Rosemary's Baby is a bit screwed up: I was reading about Dylan Farrow's letter in which she opens up about her abuse at the hands of Woody Allen. This led me to think about Roman Polanksi, who drugged and raped 13 year old Samantha Geimer in 1977. Thinking of Polanski led me to think about one of my favorite horror films of all time, Rosemary's Baby. And then I saw it was available via Netflix streaming, so I...watched it. I don't want to downplay the disgusting crime Polanski committed against a young girl, as well as the fact that he fled the country to avoid facing the full punishment for his crimes. But taken as a discrete work of art, Rosemary's Baby is amazing. Starring Mia Farrow as Rosemary, the young wife who unknowingly becomes the center of a satanic plot, Rosemary's Baby intensely (and ironically, given that Polanski went on to harm a vulnerable girl himself)  depicts female powerlessness at the hands of male authority in the mid 1960's.

Rosemary's Baby is a haunting gothic horror film as well. The apartment Rosemary shares with her husband, Guy, is as terrifying as the creepy neighbors who live next door (played by the indomitable Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer). The musical score adds to the tension, and I found myself looking over my shoulder while watching the movie. Rosemary's Baby would be a great companion piece to 1944's Gaslight, given that both films depict the systematic mental abuse of a woman by her husband (and in Rosemary's Baby, her doctor and neighbors as well). Farrow is excellent at capturing the confusion and horror of a woman who slowly realizes that those closest to her are using her as a vessel for Satan. Her iconic Vidal Sassoon pixie haircut, rather than giving her a chic, womanly look, makes her look more vulnerable and childlike, as she wanders her apartment in a housecoat, making anagrams with Scrabble tiles and eating raw meat.

If there's one thing the crimes of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski can teach us, it's that even monsters and criminals can create great art. What we choose to do with that art is on us. I know that this statement comes off as simplistic, but at the moment it's all I can manage to say on the topic.

5 out of 5 stars