Dance of the Damned

Movies: The Red Shoes, Fish Tank

This entry is about two films in which a character's passion for dancing is central to the plot. In one film, dancing destroys the character; in the other, it saves her.

The Red Shoes

This technicolor marvel, a clear ancestor and inspiration to Aronofsky's Black Swan, is an intense film about all-consuming passion. A young, ambitious ballerina, Vicky Page (Moira Shearer), becomes caught in the web of Boris Lermontov, the extremely demanding head of a ballet company. Lermontov promises to make Vicky a star--the prima donna ballerina of the world. But in return he demands that her entire life revolve around dance. In fact, he demands that her life be dance.


On the set of a production of The Red Shoes--a ballet based on a fairy tale by Hans Christen Anderson about a girl who falls in love with a pair of red dance shoes, only to find that she cannot remove them and the shoes force her to dance to her death, Vicky meets Julian Craster, a talented composer who Lermontov has also taken under his wing. As time goes by, the two fall in love, which is unacceptable to Lermontov. Despite his interference and attempts to thwart their relationship, Vicky and Julian are married and Vicky leaves the company...

...But The Red Shoes is not a film that shows love triumphant. In fact, it is a film that shows how two men unwittingly destroy a woman by demanding she give up her life for both of them. Julian's work doesn't allow for Vicky to dance--at least not at the level she is capable of. And though Lermontov could help Vicky blossom to full potential, he does not allow her room to follow any other passions--including romantic love.

SPOILERS AHEAD

The climax has the two men attempting to force Vicky to give up one of her passions for the other: Lermontov has offered to let her dance the lead in The Red Shoes once more, if only she will leave Julian. Julian tries to convince her to leave Lermontov's company for good and dance anywhere else. It seems as though Vicky chooses Lermontov: she walks towards the stage, visibly wracked with emotional pain. But her red shoes have another idea, and soon she is running to the balcony and throwing herself into the path of an oncoming train. A bit dramatic, yes, but emotionally effective.

/SPOILERS

Moira Shearer's performance as a woman torn between two men, both who want her body and heart completely, with no regard for the woman herself, is magnificent. Transcendent. The closeup shots of her face, covered in sweat or streaked with tears, make your heart break for her. She has, not surprisingly, an intensely physical performance, and she carries it off beautifully. Her body is less an object and more an instrument that conveys joy, agony, and insanity.

The Red Shoes is a visually stunning and emotionally intense film. In Black Swan, Natalie Portman plays a ballerina who becomes a prisoner of her own mind, with her perfectionism and hallucinations driving her to a mental breakdown. In The Red Shoes, Shearer is a prisoner of both external circumstances (Julian and Lermontov who both must have her) and her own heart.

5 out of 5 stars

Fish Tank

Andrea Arnold's film Fish Tank is equally visually beautiful and emotionally wrenching, but shows dance as an escape and a salvation for the heroine. Filmed in the slums of Essex, England, Fish Tank stars Katie Jarvis (an unknown when she was cast) as Mia, a poor 15 year old girl with an awful home life: Dad isn't in the picture, Mom is an immature drunk with boyfriends who come and go, and Sister is a a cigarette smoking, drinking 11 year old who calls Mia a "cunt". Yet, despite living in these dehumanizing conditions, Mia is a smart girl who qualifies for private boarding school and who has a secret passion...for hip-hop dancing. During the day she steals away to an abandoned apartment and dances to Nas, Ja Rule, and a bunch of other hip hop artists I'm not cool enough to know.

But Mia's life is thrown for a loop when Mom brings home a new guy, Connor (the devilishly sexy Michael Fassbender), who encourages Mia's dancing and acts half like a big brother and half like the really creepy, kinda flirty older man he is.



Fish Tank has two shocks. One you know is coming and the other you have no fucking idea. You can Wikipedia the movie is you want to spoil it, but I recommend just seeing the movie because it's an unbelievably fantastic film.

Through it all, Mia's love for dance allows her to have a focus within the chaos of her life. At the end of the film she makes a decision that potentially changes the course of her life and ends the movie on a hopeful note. Even though this decision doesn't relate directly to dancing, it's clear that this passion she has makes her realize that she is more than her used up mom and her shitty life in the projects. Hip hop dancing gives her something to hold to in less than ideal circumstances.

Fish Tank features many brave performances. Clearly, Michael Fassbender, whose performance as man who both helps a young girl and takes advantage of her, is a risk. My friend and I expressed exasperation at this film since Fassbender, being so damn attractive, is hard to hate even though he does some awful things. But it's that ambiguity--is he a good guy, or a bad guy?--that gives his performance a sense of realism. And Katie Jarvis, who was cast right off the street, has enough anger, and naivete, and passion to fill an entire tenement building.

I implore you, Readers, go out and find Fish Tank. It's not the kind of movie you see everyday.

5 out of 5 stars

My Cherie Amour

Movies: Goodbye First Love

Young love is as stupid and silly as it is hopeful and joyous. When you're 15 years old you have little to no experience coupled with raging hormones and complex, often overwhelming emotions. Rarely does anything feel right or comfortable at 15, including love.

Appropriately named director Mia Hansen-Love and wonderful young actors Lola Creton and Sebastian Urzendowsky give young love the respectful and honest portrayal it deserves in the film Goodbye First Love. Creton plays Camille and Urzendowsky plays Sullivan, two Parisian teenagers who are in the midst of a passionate relationship when Sullivan decides to drop out of high school and travel to South America for the better part of a year. Camille, at age 15, can't fathom Sullivan leaving her for such a long period of time. But Sullivan, at the wise age of 17, knows he is called to travel.



Creton and Urzendowsky play their parts with remarkable realism and empathy. Camille comes off as overbearing and mopey--sobbing at the thought of Sullivan leaving and, in the process, driving Sullivan even further away. Yet she also comes off as very sympathetic because who hasn't been through those feelings? It takes a long time to learn to let the people you care about do what they need to do without clinging to them for dear life. Hell, most adults haven't mastered it!

Sullivan's 10 months in South American turn into years, and Camille begins to move forward with her life: cutting her hair into a cute pixie and going to architecture school. Even as she begins to grow into herself, you can sense an emotional heaviness she continues to carry with her: melancholy defines Creton's lovely face. As the years go by, Camille begins a relationship with her much older professor (like, two decades plus), which makes sense despite being, in my mind, incredibly creepy. Camille clearly wants to grow up and get away from the sad-faced, crying little girl she was before. She is a sophisticated and very intelligent young woman, which makes her naturally drawn to an older, artistic man.

But as Camille's life becomes more stable, a chance encounter with Sullivan's mother brings the young man back into Camille's life--and this time it seems like Sullivan is the mopey, clinging one.

Goodbye First Love was a bit difficult for me to watch because the emotions are so real and potent without being melodramatic. I really understood Camille, with her immaturity and romantic, sensitive heart. And I felt a certain amount of anger at Sullivan who, despite being in the right about chasing after his own life, really jerks Camille around--both before he leaves and after he comes back. But neither Sullivan or Lorenz (the professor) are the center of this film. It's Camille's story and it's an uplifting, beautiful one because even as she messes up and makes questionable choices, you see her grow. The movie ends when she's about 23--still so young, with so much more to learn and with many more chances to have her heart broken and then love again. But it's beautiful because, just as Sullivan went on a physical and geographical journey, you can clearly see that Camille is on her own journey within herself.

4.5 out of 5 stars

We're All In This Together

Movies: Angels in America

In my Queer Cinema class, we're taking two class periods to watch the wonderful HBO miniseries Angels in America.

Based on Tony Kushner's Pulitzer Prize winning play, AiA is a beautiful, epic story that takes place in Reagan-era New York at the start of the AIDS crisis. One of the main characters, Prior Walter, is a gay man recently diagnosed with AIDS. His long time partner, Louis, leaves him because he (Louis) can't handle sickness. Depressed, abandoned, and sick, Prior is visited by an angel who claims that God has abandoned heaven. Although He created both angels and human, God fell deeply in love with His lesser creation--humankind--and their ability to move, travel, explore, and progress (whereas the angels sit around heaven and just have sex all the time--true story). So God leaves heaven and the angels want Prior to serve as a prophet to tell humans to "stop moving"--stop progressing, stop inventing, stop exploring. And maybe God will come back.

Still with me? Meanwhile, Roy Cohn, a real-life ultra-conservative lawyer, is trying to get his protege, squeaky-clean Mormon (and secretly gay) Joe Pitt, to take a position in Washington, DC that might help Roy fight his impending disbarment. As Joe is faced with this predicament--doing a not-so-legal favor for a mentor and friend--he finds his marriage to pill-popping, depressed housewife Harper falling apart. Also, Joe starts seeing Louis--the one who left Prior.

Oh, also Roy Cohn has AIDS. But he's calling it liver cancer because men like him--men with "clout"--don't get AIDS.

Still with me?

The fantastical aspects of the story--Harper's hallucinations and Prior's visits from angels and dead relatives--serve as metaphors for a time when AIDS was a new, terrifying disease. Whereas I was born and grew up in a world in which AIDS was an accepted reality and condom use, for my generation, was as mandatory as seat belt use--you just don't ride without one--people who were born into a world without AIDS had to come to grips with the fact that sex now had the potential to kill in a way not seen since there has been a cure for syphilis.

At first some called it the "gay plague". Gay men and drug users got AIDS in higher numbers than heterosexual people and non-users. How perfect this was for people out there constantly looking for more reasons to hate gay people. It was now God's punishment! Or nature's punishment for so-called deviancy. But as the number of AIDS victims increased and we learned more about the virus, it became clear that we were all in this together. Being straight doesn't protect you from AIDS. Sickness and disease affects all of us, even if we are not sick ourselves.

Back to Kushner's play: Angels in America has a diverse cast. Some characters are black, others are white. There are Jews and Mormons. There are gay people and straight people. There are women and men. The play and the series cast women in some male roles and almost all the main actors play one or more supporting characters as well. This casting emphasizes human interconnectedness and flexibility in gender and race.

I love this play because few pieces of art or writing capture what I feel is my outlook on life so perfectly. One message of the play is that "the world only spins forward", as Prior says. While the play most certainly vilifies Reagan-era conservative politics (and Reagan himself), I think the real demon in AiA is unwillingness to accept change and to move forward. In the play, refusing to move forward is tantamount to death, as Prior discovers. Even Roy Cohn, savior of the Right, berates Joe when he refuses to "play the game" of life (by illegally helping Roy). He says to Joe, "This is the game of being alive. You think you're above being alive? Above being alive is, what? Dead."

As difficult as change is, it's the only reality out there. There are no "good old days" and nor are there "bad old days", There are just days gone by, with good and bad aspects to them. And days to come, and what we can collectively make of them.

The message of interconnectedness is important to me as well. I've attended a number of churches on and off throughout my life (although, honestly, not venturing much beyond mainstream Protestantism. The "Frozen Chosen" as they say), and I am coming to realize that if a religion or any system of belief does not promote empathy and kindness, it is worthless to me. In fact, it is less than worthless--it's harmful. Too often, people use religion (or politics, or social beliefs) to put up barriers and mark lines between themselves and "others". And usually those "others" are the bad guys or, perhaps even worse, the Ones We Pity. The ones we pray for not because we care, but because by doing the praying we are assuring ourselves, "it's good that I'm not that person".

We want to build ourselves up. This is natural. But at the end of the day, we're all in this together. This world of violence and illness and agony--no one is spared in the end. Money can delay death, but it can't buy eternal life. Money doesn't prevent heartbreak. Money doesn't make you better than anyone else. In fact, it often makes you worse. Beauty fades, and can be ripped away in an instant. Youth inevitably goes away--unless you die young. Even relationships and friendships often come to an unwanted end.

So what stays? What is worthwhile to have? Connection. Mercy. Empathy. Love. Generosity. These things build up inside yourself and, when expressed, expand into the world. You can't heal a friend who has cancer, but you can love her. You can't always get a raise you want, or find the perfect partner, or be the perfect child--but you can cultivate a kindness and a character in yourself that no one can take away. And when no one will stand up for you, you will have the tools to stand up for yourself. This isn't something you can buy or be given by someone else.

In Angels in America, no character is perfectly good or perfectly evil. Even the villainous Roy Cohn has moments of dignity and humanity. And even the good or heroic characters screw up. I like this because this is real. People aren't monsters. Even so-called "monsters"--pedophiles, rapists, sociopaths--aren't entirely monsters. They're made of the same stuff as everyone else. And, likewise, heroes always have moments of shame and weakness. It's hard not to judge others--I do it all the time. But consider the context of another's life and history. A person can be just in their assessment of someone else while still acknowledging that person's basic humanity. And don't forget--we're all in this together. It could be you who is in need of understanding or forgiveness someday.

If you know me in real life, you know that I have kind of a mantra of sorts: "Only connect". From a passage in E.M. Forster's novel Howards End, I've used this phrase during job interview presentations and even as a handle on a dating website. Why does this phrase stick with me? I'm not the most extroverted person in the world. I've had few long-term romantic relationships, and I've most definitely had friendships fall by the wayside many times. Why should I speak for the values of connection? I just feel that there's no value in refusing to try to understand the "other". I don't see why and how a person could look at the world and see nothing but black and white, when it's so empirically clear to me that it's almost all gray area.

But we persist in building walls and in categorizing and demonizing. We forget that we aren't any better than the next guy. Or, if we are better, it's only in some specific way--and in some other way, he is better than us. Just like with the AIDS crisis, we want to see people unlike ourselves as dirty or wrong or sick on some level, but we forget that we look dirty and sick and wrong to others.

Let's forget these differences for a while. Let's remember that we're all in this together--no one's getting out alive, so we may as well help each other and care for each other as much as possible through life. Let's connect.

5 out of 5 stars

I'm Not Dead!

Hello readers!

Due to a busy time period in my life and work, I haven't had a chance to review any movies for a while. I promise I will be back soon!

In the mean time, enjoy these mini-reviews of films I've watched in a Queer Cinema class I'm taking:


The Celluloid Closet


This important documentary about homosexuality in the movies is a classic and a fascinating film. Beginning at the turn of the 20th century, The Celluloid Closet covers a time during which homosexuality was only found in subtext and "wink wink" jokes and homosexual characters were veiled or outrageously stereotyped. Films such as Rebecca, Rope, and Cruising are explored, among others.

The Celluloid Closet really deserves a sequel, since the film ends in the 1990's--specifically, with the Tom Hanks film Philadelphia. Queer cinema has come so far in the past two decades, and I would love to see a documentary exploring that.

4 out of 5 stars


***

Gods and Monsters

I saw this film, about homosexual director James Whale, when I was younger and I was a bit disturbed by it. James Whale was the director of Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, and he was as openly gay as a man could expect to be in the first half of the 20th century (which is to say, not very open). The film details his friendship with his gardener, Clayton Boone, as Whale slips further into dementia. The relationship between the young, (presumably) straight man (played by hunk o' burning love Brendan Fraser) and the older, gay man (played by shriekingly sexy silver fox Ian McKellan) veers from lightly flirtatious to violent to gentle. In an extremely uncomfortable scene near the end (spoilers), Whale comes on to Boone strongly enough to incite a violent reaction in the young man, but Boone finds that he can't hurt his older, fragile friend. It's both touching and, as I mentioned above, disturbing.

4 out of 5 stars


***

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Well, if I have to explain this one to you, then you clearly don't belong to the club. Rocky Horror, the king (or queen?) of cult films, is about a "sweet transvestite" from Transexual, Transylvania--a distant planet. This mad scientist, Frank N. Furter, lives with his servants in a castle and has created the perfect specimen of manhood as his lover. Two squares, Brad and Janet, end up at his castle when their car breaks down outside it. What happens during their debauched stay will change their lives...forever.

The appeal of Rocky Horror is myriad. It's got lo-budget, sci-fi cheesiness galore, polymorphous eroticism led by a lingerie-clad Tim Curry, and a cult following that includes audience participation, games, and call-backs during live screenings.

There's really nothing not to love...unless you're a square, I guess.

5 out of 5 stars


***

Born in Flames

This extremely low-budget and highly original film by Lizzie Borden (no, not that Lizzie Borden) takes place in a post-revolutionary United States. The US is now officially a socialist democracy and the news media pronounces sexism, racism, and social problems dead. Boy are they wrong. A group of women called the Women's Army, take it upon themselves to perform acts of vigilante justice and culture-jamming (basically, highjacking radio stations and painting on public walls) in order to get their message of queer/racial/female liberation out there.

Led by a cast of multiracial, queer (ish) women, this is an excellent movie to completely freak out your conservative uncle with.

3.5 out of 5 stars


***

Billy Budd

You would think a 2.5 hour long film about law and justice on a naval warship in 1797 would be boring. You'd be wrong. Billy Budd, based on the novella by Herman Melville (the dude who wrote Moby Dick) actually sucks you right into it's world.

Billy Budd has three men at its center: Captain Vere, the truth and law-loving captain of the warship Bellipotent, a handsome and very innocent and good sailor, Billy Budd, and the sadistic, evil master-at-arms, John Claggart. According to some interpretations, Claggart is a repressed gay man whose repression emerges in the form of sadism. As master-at-arms (basically, the chief of police of a ship), Claggart enjoys tormenting the sailors and meting out cruel and arbitrary punishments.

While Billy is so innocent that he sees Claggart as simply a lonely man, Claggart decides to destroy Billy by accusing him of mutiny. The last third of the film is gut-wrenching. Overall, the story is an intriguing meditation on the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law--and which is more important.

5 out of 5 stars

A Whole Bunch o' Movies

Movies: Anna Karenina, Cabin Fever, Queen of Versailles, Gangster Squad


Alright folks, it seems that my muse of Internet Movie Review Blogs is speaking to me on this week and making me want to get all the movies I've been meaning to review out of my system. Instead of writing a separate review for each, I'm offering the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of four movies I've seen over the past month and never got around to reviewing.

***

Anna Karenina
 Joe Wright directs and Keira Knightley stars in this beautiful, if not super-memorable, adaptation of Tolstoy's tragic novel of forbidden love in late 19th century Russia. The most notable aspect of this film adaptation is that most of it is filmed on a stage, and the characters exhibit theatrical actions and expressions. The symbolism behind this artistic choice is a bit heavy-handed (it's like Anna is on stage! Everyone is watching her every move and judging her!), but the sets and costumes are undeniably striking.



The acting is pretty good: Knightley's Anna is appropriately tragic and beautiful. I haven't read the book, but Knightley portrays Anna as someone who is very paranoid and jealous. She actually gets away with taking a lover (Aaron Taylor-Johnson plays Vronsky, her younger suitor) and her husband forgives her; but it ends tragically anyway when she suspects Vronsky of having another mistress. The agony leads to Anna's fateful decision to throw herself under a train (hopefully that's not a spoiler to anyone).

This adaptation of Anna Karenina is also notable because it spends time letting the viewer get to know smaller, supporting characters, such as Anna's goofy brother, Oblonsky (Matthew Macfayden) and lovesick Levin (Domhnall Gleeson). This makes the whole production feel grander and more well-rounded, rather than focusing narrowly on the Anna/Vronsky/Karenin love triangle.

4 out of 5 stars

***

Cabin Fever

Randomly, I decided to watch this small-budget horror film, directed and written by a pre-Hostel Eli Roth. I heard the film was very original and scary because instead of the typical ax-wielding psychopath, the teens in this film are menaced by an extremely contagious flesh-eating bacteria as they camp out in redneck-infested hills.

I wasn't all that impressed. In addition to the constant refrain of "Don't be gay" and "What are you, a faggot?"--language that some may argue is par for the course in a schlocky horror film, but I think is just lazy and offensive--the characters and their predictably dumb actions are weak and two-dimensional. The message of the movie is that when the shit hits the fan, these supposed "friends" turn on each other immediately in order to save their own skins. Maybe they're the REAL monsters! Whoa man...whoa. I like the idea, but I don't think it was executed well.

2.5 out of 5 stars

***

Queen of Versailles

This documentary about an extremely wealthy couple, Jackie and David Siegel, who are in the process of building the largest home in America right when the Recession of 2008 hits, is not as damning as you might expect. If this film had been directed by Michael Moore, the spend-happy Siegels would have been offered up as a sacrifice to angry Americans who barely make ends meet. Instead, it's directed by Lauren Greenfield, a talented storyteller and photographer (check out her book Girl Culture), who shows the Siegels in an honest and sympathetic light.

David Siegel, owner of the largest time-share company in the world, doesn't appear to be in the same sociopathic category as the Bernie Madoff. Siegel genuinely believes that he has helped most of the people he's met--from customers to employees to politicians (he claims that George W. Bush won the presidency due to his "not quite legal" influence. Hmmm...). He mentions his kids as being the greatest accomplishment of his life. The sad irony is that for all his money, success, and his large family and young, attractive wife, Siegel doesn't appear to be a very happy man. When the movie nears its conclusion, he says that nothing makes him happy these days except finding a solution to his problem (losing his largest time-share resort in Las Vegas to the banks). The guy is pretty much the embodiment of "mo' money, mo' problems".

Jackie Siegel is not what you would expect of a trophy wife 30 years younger than her husband. She's pretty intelligent, for one thing, with a degree in computer science. She's clearly addicted to shopping, and she hoards tons of junk she doesn't need, from three different games of "Operation" to furry designer pants. But you can see how she got that way: she was a beautiful, intelligent woman who married a rich, older man and slowly, over time, lost touch with how most people live. She treats her maids and her kids' nannies kindly, but doesn't seem to get the irony of the nanny who practically raises Jackie's kids sleeping in a 10x12 room while the family members all have palatial suites. So she comes off as freakishly shallow and tacky, but I don't think she's a bad person.


Still, ignorance (and how ignorant can the Siegels truly be?) is no excuse for their insane excesses. This family literally has more money than they know what to do with, and they don't understand how to manage it and their property and possessions very well. When the going gets tough financially, David Siegel attempts to sell some of his property--but no seems interested in buying a $100,000 private jet in the middle of a recession. The family ends up materially wealthy and cash poor, having to fire the help and let their mansion deteriorate as David Siegel frantically tries to save his Las Vegas resort because he's too prideful to give it up. The family is sympathetic, but it's hard to take their losses seriously when it appears that they may actually be better off with less than they currently have.

4 out of 5 stars

***

Gangster Squad

Sadly, Gangster Squad is one of those films that show all the best scenes and lines in the preview. You would think that a noirish film about a secret squad of cops taking down a mobster in 1940's LA and starring Josh Brolin, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, and Sean Penn would be a pretty good time. You'd be wrong. Gosling and Stone are pretty to look at, and the movie is crammed with amusing 40's slang ("Who's the tomato?" Gosling asks his buddy, referring to Stone. Later, Stone says to Gosling, "I bet you have a ducky story about the war.", etc). But overall, the whole thing seems fake. The film is supposedly "inspired by true events", but the idea of a group of six cops attempting to take down a powerful mobster's entire empire is...unlikely. The dialogue is often laughable (Brolin's pregnant wife tells him, "You're a kind man. You don't talk much. You're a demon in bed." to explain why she's glad she married him. That line makes me cringe so hard.) And the ending is tied up in a nice bow that's a little too convenient and perfect.


Gangster Squad isn't a *terrible* movie, it's just a "meh" movie.

3 out of 5 stars

Race, Sex, and Body Image: Some Thoughts on Lena Dunham and "Girls"

TV Shows: Girls

*Thar be spoilers here*

In one of the first scenes of season 2 of Girls, Lena Dunham's precocious HBO sitcom, the main character Hannah has sex with a hot African-American guy (Donald Glover), who says "You wanted this...and now you're getting it." Hannah replies, "I'm finally getting it. It's about fucking time."

This scene is a blatantly cheeky response to critics of Dunham who felt the first season of Girls white-washed the hipster boroughs of New York where the show takes place. Feminists seemed to hang their hopes on the very young Dunham to create a show that spoke for them--all of them--and when it turned out that the show was more about self-absorbed, privileged white chicks than an intersectional exploration of fourth-wave feminism, some felt betrayed.

While this is an understandable response, and I agree that the show has some issues with a lack of diversity, at the end of the day it's Dunham's show and I think she gets to do what she wants. I also think her studied and consistently headstrong ability to sweetly flip the bird in the direction of her various critics makes more of an impact than the show itself. And I love it. The more people get pissed off, the more Dunham seems to figure out what really pushes her critics' buttons and..just..ever so slightly...push them harder.

Case in point: the rather hilarious non-controversy over Dunham's love of being naked on her own show. Dunham has a fairy normal body. She's a bit chubby ("I'm 13 pounds overweight and it has been awful for me my whole life!" cries Hannah in one memorable scene) with smallish breasts. In the show, she surrounds herself with actresses with more "conventionally attractive" bodies--the lovely Zosia Mamet, Allison Williams, and Jemima Kirke. And who do you think gets the lion's share of nudity? Yep--the tattooed and dimpled Dunham. For some reason, this pisses so many people off beyond belief! Howard Stern recently said on his ever-tasteful show, "It's a little fat girl who kinda looks like Jonah Hill and she keeps taking her clothes off and it kinda feels like rape...I don't want to see that." (Stern has since apologized to Dunham). It's like, dude, 1) Jonah Hill worked hard to lose a lot of weight, so don't rag on him, 2) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what rape feels like, and 3) Have you ever seen a naked woman? I'm pretty sure Dunham doesn't qualify for "fat". And even if she is fat, I'd willing to bet most people would rather see her naked than Howard Stern.

Stern isn't the only one to reference Dunham's "blobby body" (thanks, Linda Stasi of the totally legitimate news publication, The New York Post!), but Dunham has all but laughed in the face of these mean girls and guys, saying, "My response is, get used to it because I am going to live to one hundred and I am going to show you my thighs every day till I die." BAM.

How can you not love this woman!? Other concern trolls on both the right and left have fretted over the sex lives of the characters. A woman writing into Glamour magazine tsk-tsked the mag for promoting Dunham as one of their Women of the Year, saying "If you think she represents millennials, you're mistaken. We're more than our sex drives." And so are the characters on Girls! Yes, they have a lot of sex, but they also work and get fired, visit with their parents, have parties, and pursue creative ideas (one of Hannah's defining characteristics is that she's an aspiring writer).

On the other side, you get folks who are concerned about Hannah's codependent, semi-BDSM relationship with the weird and narcissistic Adam. In the first season, Hannah and Adam have some...I can only describe them as "lazy-kinky"...sex scenes that are as uncomfortable as they are funny. Some in the blogosphere didn't like that the show seemed to romanticize being treated poorly by a sex partner. Which I think is dumb because when you're that age, it's almost a guarantee that you will be treated poorly by a sex/romance partner. And you'll probably treat some of your partners poorly as well.

Hey, look, I get it. Some of the scenes in Girls have made me roll my eyes (the scene where Hannah follows Adam out into the street while wearing a onesie? And then he spray paints "Sorry" a million times on a wall? Yeah, no.) The whole hipster thing can be grating at times. The characters tend to be pretty selfish and shallow. But I don't think people are allowed to complain about the selfishness of the characters when Don Draper of Mad Men and Walter White of Breaking Bad are much, much more selfish and anti-heroic.

People love to watch women act brazenly sexual and bratty--how else do you explain the popularity of porn and shows like Real Housewives? But people like to watch these selfish, entitled, sexpot brats and then make fun of them and walk away feeling superior. They're not used to watching such women win multiple Golden Globes at age 26. And to have startlingly normal bodies. And to respond to insults with candor and grace, as opposed to repentance and submission. Lena Dunham is talented and audacious and I love it.

I hope she shows me her thighs every day until she dies.

Girls: 4 out of 5 stars

Dancing on the Grave of Our Enemy

Movies: Zero Dark Thirty

Man, I wish I had waited to make my "Best of 2012" list until I saw Zero Dark Thirty because, all politics aside, it is an excellent film. It's intense from beginning to end, and the final 30 minutes, in which the compound Osama bin Laden is living in is raided, made me feel like I was going to have a heart attack. In a good way.

The acting is superb and subtle. Jessica Chastain turns in a career-making performance as Maya, the CIA officer who single-mindedly dedicates a decade of her life to hunting down the top Al Qaeda terrorist, even after the CIA itself has all but stopped caring. Maya is portrayed as having no love life and few friends; her life is totally dedicated to her work. She's smart and forceful, but in a quiet, observant way that helps her get exactly what she wants and needs to take down this man. But the viewer is left wondering--was it worth it? Was this a worthy goal to pursue?


Many would argue that yes, on a symbolic level, the death of bin Laden was extremely important. I remember learning that bin Laden was dead through a second-hand text, and seeing Facebook blow up the next day. Seeing people celebrate the death of a man who certainly was behind the 9/11 attacks but was not singly responsible for them, was bizarre. I'm not a mind control conspiracy theorist, but no doubt we are trained by our media and politicians to latch on to certain people, events, and sound bites. Was bin Laden's death justified? I'd say yes it was. Was it a cathartic moment for Americans? Most certainly. Did it make things all better? No. Nothing will completely wipe away the anger and agony of 9/11.

Another question: was a feature film about the hunt for and death of bin Laden in poor taste? I personally don't believe so. Yes, I think the filmmakers probably got some of their information, er, "extralegally", and yes, I think that's not exactly a great precedent. But I also think that people really want to know and experience, on some level, "what happened", and I don't think satisfying that curiosity is wrong or in poor taste.

Yet, we don't know exactly where Hollywood ends and real life begins. In fact, one of the biggest controversies of the film, which I'll address in minute, is that the film portrays the CIA gaining a critical piece of information about bin Laden through the torture of a specific terrorist. In real life, the CIA got this information through other means. So, was it irresponsible for Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal to present as a fact that critical information was gained through torture? Yes, I do think it is irresponsible and disingenuous.

But let's explore the whole torture thing. Zero Dark Thirty has been lambasted as pro-torture. Some have suggested that Bigelow is a Bush-Cheney apologist who saw torture as critical to the death of bin Laden. Bigelow has denied these charges, and I take her at her word. I also don't see the film as pro-torture (although I do think aspects of the film are problematic--see above), and here's why:

1. Zero Dark Thirty does not romanticize, glorify, or sexualize torture.

Obviously, this interpretation is personal, but when compared to the torture sequences on the TV show 24, or in movies like Taken and Hostel, Zero Dark Thirty feels very different. The torture that Liam Neeson administers in Taken, for example, seems righteous and badass: a man who will (and should!) do anything to find his daughter. The torture in Hostel and Hostel 2 has an element of sexuality and fetishism to it. It involves nudity and gut-churning creativity. And of course, the infamous Jack Bauer is a super-masculinized hero, torturing people to literally save the day.

Zero Dark Thirty strips away the righteousness, the sex, and the glory from torture and shows it for what it really is: a nasty, pathetic affair to be hidden away in a dirty little room at a CIA blacksite. The film portrays torture as grotesque, revolting, dehumanizing to all involved, and nothing to be proud of. It also portrays it as disturbingly real--the victim, Ammar, soils his pants, is forced to crawl on the floor, and weeps openly. Even in Taken, the torture victims are permitted to retain some dignity.

2. The viewer sympathizes with the torture victim.

Ammar, the man who eventually gives up a name that is a key piece of information in hunting down bin Laden, openly admits to being a terrorist and wanting to kill Americans. He's a bad guy. Yet only the most sadistic, disturbed viewer would not be able to sympathize with Ammar. Although he certainly isn't innocent, it's hard to stomach watching him be tortured and humiliated. We (or, at least, I) wanted him to confess--not to help the CIA agents, but so that his torture might end. In some movies and shows that portray torture, the victim is an over the top or generic bad guy who gets what he deserves. The audience of Zero Dark Thirty doesn't see Ammar at his baddest, we see him at his most vulnerable. Therefore, we see his humanity and feel disgust on his behalf.

3. The film shows that torture is dehumanizing to torturer as well as the victim.

Obviously, Ammar is dehumanized by his torture. But Zero Dark Thirty suggests that the act of torturing takes a heavy toll on the torturer as well. Jason Clarke plays Dan, another CIA official who does most of the torturing. Dan is a well-rounded character and certainly not a sadist who enjoys his dirty work (again, this was my personal interpretation--others may see it differently). At one point he tells Ammar that he respects Ammar's ability to remain silent, even though he, Dan, is going to break him anyway. Later, he talks to Maya about wanting to leave the CIA. To me, Dan was a character that reluctantly did his job and removed himself emotionally from his work, despite the fact that it clearly had an impact on his psyche. While the whole "I was just following orders" excuse is pretty pathetic, I liked that Bigelow didn't portray Dan as a 2-dimensional racist meathead who loved his job. I like that she gave him some depth and showed a bit (but not too much) of the regret below his emotionally distant surface.

4. Portraying torture doesn't promote torture.

At the end of the day, I think it's good for American audiences to see a realistic depiction of torture because it forces us to confront this difficult issue head on without any of that Hollywod sheen to make it prettier than it really is. One view of Zero Dark Thirty is that because important information is gained by torture, the movie and all involved are pro-torture. Another view (and this is my view) is this: even if important information WAS gained through torture, does that justify it? I feel that Zero Dark Thirty asks this question and then doesn't fully answer it. On one hand, yes, torture is justified because it leads to the death of a terrorist who was behind the deaths of thousands of people. On the other hand, torture is not justified because when it's all said and done, and bin Laden is in a body bag, it doesn't change much of anything. Maya's tears at the end of the film can be interpreted in two ways: she is feeling incredible catharsis after the successful completion tof a decade-long quest. But she is also wondering, "what now?" Has her life changed or improved? Have others' lives changed all that much? Sure, no one outside of bin Laden's circle of friends, family, and followers mourn him...but his death doesn't bring back the victims of 9/11. Maybe it makes the victims' families rest a little easier knowing justice is kind of served...but it doesn't remove their pain entirely.


Zero Dark Thirty as a film is undeniably tense, well-written, and well-acted. In my opinion, it is one of the best of 2012 and deserving of the accolades it receives. As a political statement, the film is troubling, but not, in my mind, "morally wrong". I try not to attach moral judgments to films and those who watch them. And the films I do judge tend to be bullshit like the Tucker Max movie. There is a lot of wiggle room in art for meaningful portrayals of sex, violence, and moral ambiguity. If not in art, where? Maybe we need to experience violence and morally questionable behavior in the safety of a movie theatre (or library, or art museum) so that we don't feel the need to be violent or immoral in real life. Maybe a film like Zero Dark Thirty satisfies a curiosity to see what real torture looks like, while also making us confront the question: do we want to allow this?

Do we want to live in a society that does this? Is that what we want?

5 out of 5 stars