A Girl Grows in Brooklyn

Movies: Brooklyn

It's rare for a film to be both sweet and earnest without being saccharine and pandering these days, but Brooklyn manages to do it--and beautifully so. Directed by John Crowley, adapted for the screen by Nick Hornby, and based on the novel by Colm Toibin, Brooklyn is the story of Eilis (pronounced "ay-lish") Lacey, a young Irish girl who travels to Brooklyn in 1952 to make a better life for herself than she could have in her country of birth. Sponsored by a kindly priest (Jim Broadbent), Eilis (played by the lovely Saoirse Ronan) has a room in a boardinghouse and a job as a shopgirl in a fancy department store. She is also enrolled in an evening bookkeeping class and has dreams of becoming an accountant.

But Eilis misses her mother and sister back home and feels awkward and out of place in America. That is, until she meets Tony (Emory Cohen), an Italian boy from a warm, blue collar family. Eilis and Tony fall hard and fast for each other, but then a tragedy calls Eilis back to Ireland, where her friends and family strongly encourage her to stay. She even has a handsome, wealthy suitor--Jim Farrell (Domnhall Gleeson). What's a girl to do?

But the love triangle at the heart of Brooklyn is only part of the story. Eilis' choice isn't so much between Jim and Tony, but between a comfortable, familiar life laid out before her in Ireland and an exciting, unsure life of independence in Brooklyn. It truly is a coming of age story where a young woman who is just beginning to get a sense of her own power and purpose in life has to make a life-altering decision.

There are a few things in particular that I love about Brooklyn:

1) It's woman-centered

Brooklyn is about a woman's journey in both love and life. In addition to Eilis' suitors, we see her interactions with her mother, sister, best friend, fellow boarders at the boarding house, and her boss at the department store (a delightful cameo by Jessica Pare--aka Megan Draper from Mad Men). Eilis may have to choose between two men, but women are just as, if not more important to her story. They offer her advice, friendship, and love--but also guilt and shame. She has complicated relationships with all of them, especially her mother. Brooklyn not only passes the Bechdel test, it transcends it.

Another thing I have to add: In Brooklyn, whatever choice Eilis' makes will ultimately hurt and disappoint someone. She is given the freedom to cause sadness in others in order to seek her own life, and is not punished for it. Let me repeat: a woman is not punished for choosing her choices, even if those choices may disappoint others. This is a big fucking deal, since most female characters exist for the sole purpose of soothing life's boo-boos and miseries in others.

2) The love story and life story are given equal weight

So many films are about a woman's path towards a man and the wedding altar. Although the love stor(ies) are not watered down one bit (see below), Eilis' "life story"--i.e. her job, education, family life, friendships, and general sense of adventure in a new country--are given equal weight in their role in her decision between the old (Ireland) and the new (Brooklyn). Eilis longs for love, as most people do, but she has a life beyond men which is explored in depth in Brooklyn.

3) The men are her equals--in different ways

Eilis' choice between Tony and Jim is not easy. Both men have a lot to offer her, as well drawbacks. Tony is warm, passionate, and--most importantly--is there for Eilis at a time when she feels lonely and homesick. He is "home" personified. But then there's Jim. Played by the incredibly handsome Domnhall Gleeson, Jim is exceptionally good-looking, educated (whereas Tony is barely literate), from a rich family (Tony's family is solidly blue collar), and in many ways is Eilis' equal. He also--most importantly--lives in Ireland, alongside Eilis' friends and family. Jim is "home" personified.

So with two men who represent "home", Eilis does not have an easy choice. She must choose which home she herself wants.

With its remarkable cast, beautiful cinematography and costumes, and open-hearted view of the life, Brooklyn is worth immersing yourself in. It's a love story without the cliche, a coming of age story without the melodrama, and a period piece that feels lived in. I can't say enough great things about this movie.

Grade: A

Silver Tongued

Movies: Do I Sound Gay?

Do I Sound Gay? is a documentary by journalist David Thorpe that explores the so-called "gay voice" or "gay accent". It's not the most substantial of documentaries, but it raises some interesting questions.

Thorpe interviews a number of celebrities about gay voices, including Dan Savage, David Sedaris, Margaret Cho, and Tim Gunn. Listening to their perspectives is far more interesting than listening to Thorpe talk to his own friends about his own insecurities surrounding his voice (his friends are basically like, "who cares?"). 

Sedaris, in particular, has a couple moments of honesty and vulnerability that are touching--such as his embarrassment when people call him "ma'am" on the phone or his shame-ridden delight when someone meets him and says "I didn't know you were gay." His comments get to the the heart of the matter: 1) the "gay accent" sounds effeminate to most people's ears and 2) a number of gay men are embarrassed by it for a variety of reasons, not least of which is, as Dan Savage bluntly explains, good old fashioned misogyny. Gay guys don't want to sound like women because being "like a woman" is humiliating for a man, no matter his sexual orientation.

Thorpe also visits a speech therapist who points out his habit of up-talking, which is the thing where it always sounds like you're asking a question even when you're making a statement. She also makes him aware of his tendency to hang on to his vowels. These are all speech patterns women tend to exhibit more than men. So, again, we have the female/gay male connection.

A theory that Thorpe points to is that people tend to pattern their speech on those they spend the most time with while growing up. So for some gay men, and many women, that's female relatives and friends. Thorpe gives the example of one of his gay friends who grew up with four brothers and thus sounds "the straightest of all of us".

I'm not a gay man, so I can't speak to that experience. But as a woman, I do know that women are given mixed messages about their speech. For example, we are taught not to sound too assertive, lest we alienate people and come off as bitchy. This is one reason why women up-talk, say "I'm sorry" a lot, or act self-deprecatingly. But then, we're also told that our speech patterns hold us back--by up-talking, apologizing, and having "vocal fry" (I'm probably most guilty of that last one), we come off as weak and ineffective. As with many aspects of womanhood, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

This leads to a lot of interesting, and potentially upsetting questions. Why are gay men seen as "effeminate"? Is that something our culture thrusts upon them? Are gay men more "privileged" than women...or are they less privileged? And does amount of privilege really matter when both groups still struggle for dignity and equality? Growing up, I realized that straight men seemed to reserve a special anger/hatred/violence for "flaming" gay guys. Is this because those straight men hate women...or just hate other men who don't act masculine?

The answers to these questions aren't simple. Gender and sexuality don't fit neatly into boxes--there really is no concrete definition of what it means to be "masculine", "feminine", "gay", or "straight"...and I think most of us logically know this despite our efforts to categorize people for reasons both harmless (hey, I want to know if that cute guy is gay or straight before I ask him out!) or harmful.

Thorpe's documentary merely scratches the surface of this topic. It raises more questions than it answers, and it barely touches on other markers of gayness, like body language and clothing. It also briefly brings pop culture into the mix, using clips from old movies to show how gay characters have been portrayed as harmless, effeminate sidekicks and/or dangerous killers (children's movies are no exception--think Scar from The Lion King). But not until very recently have they been portrayed as normal human beings and/or heroes.

I'd love to see more work from Thorpe. Do I Sound Gay? is an more of an appetizer than a full meal.

Grade: B-

Black and White and Red All Over

Movies: Crimson Peak

Guillermo del Toro's Crimson Peak isn't so much "good" as it is entertaining. The film has an enormous gothic sensibility, with a crumbling old mansion at its center; and like many gothic novels and films, the melodrama is rampant and, at times, hilarious.

Mia Wasikowska plays Edith Cushing, an aspiring writer who falls for delicate, pale Baronet Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston). Thomas and his sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain) are titled but poor, forced to travel the world all but begging for funds to help get Thomas' invention--a machine that pulls red clay from the ground so that it can be made into bricks--afloat. Despite the Sharpe's destitution and her father's distrust of the siblings, Edith falls for Thomas and the two get married and travel to England to Allerdale Hall, the Sharpe's family mansion which is in complete ruin. It's also filled with unsavory spirits.

To say that Crimson Peak is over the top is putting it lightly. The film has more plot holes than a moth-eaten negligee and enough half-baked metaphors to fill a 7th grade English class. Allerdale Hall is built on a red clay mine. Since the house is so old, it's slowly sinking into the ground, which means that the clay oozes through the floorboards looking, of course, like thick, red blood. Edith is a sensitive woman who has seen ghosts her whole life--so naturally she can't get a decent night's sleep in a place like Allerdale Hall--a veritable boarding house for ghosts (interestingly, the ghosts are all portrayed as having Nosferatu-like fingers and big, ol' titties [they're all lady ghosts, you see]). But despite seeing ghosts literally every second, Edith never thinks to actually leave Allerdale Hall--nor does she seem all that frightened to begin with.

The secrets of the house--and of the Sharpe siblings--is revealed slowly over the course of the film. When the big "twist" is revealed, it's not all that shocking. More of a confirmation of what the viewer was already expecting.

But despite the ridiculousness of the whole premise, Crimson Peak is good, mildly spooky fun (it's a good scary movie for people who can barely tolerate scary movies). And it is absolutely gorgeous. The fact that red, blood-like clay leaks through every crevice of the mansion is certainly a ham-fisted metaphor for violence and decay, but damn if it doesn't look beautiful and haunting on the big screen. And the ridiculous, high-necked gowns that Chastain and Wasikowska wear should have their own museum exhibit.

So: mediocre film, good fun, and Tom Hiddleston's ass. It's not the worst night you could have at the movies.

Grade: B-

A Brilliant Asshole

Movies: Steve Jobs

Some of the promotional materials for Steve Jobs ask "Can a great man be good?" Indeed, this is the question at the center of the beautifully filmed, theatrically paced movie.

I don't know a lot about Steve Jobs. I know he wore black turtlenecks and died of cancer--cancer that was initially curable, though he refused traditional Western treatments for it. So really, Jobs was killed by his own hubris, which, in Greek tragedy style, is incredibly appropriate given that he was brimming with self-importance.

Jobs was an asshole. A brilliant asshole. Which is a label we give, almost reverently, to Great Men (Great Women are dismissed as "bitches", but that seems to be changing).

This biopic was written by exactly the correct person to write it: Aaron Sorkin, master of the "walk and talk", a man with a love for Great Men (and the Women Who Stand Beside Them, But Not Too Close as to Gain Their Own Glory). Sorkin writes condescending assholes really well, and his script for Steve Jobs is excellent--witty, fast-paced, informative but not expository.

However, the movie transcends Sorkin-dom because director Danny Boyle at is also at the helm. Boyle's films are edgy and gorgeous. Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, 127 Hours: they're nervy, edgy, and cool. Boyle takes Sorkin's intellectual script and shakes it up with scenes filmed at skewed angles, or softens it with scenes of a young girl wandering among Christmas lights in the bowels of the symphony hall where Jobs launched one of his greatest failures: the NeXT computer. Together, Boyle and Sorkin create a film that is arty and intellectual, dreamy and down-to-earth, soft and hard.

That young girl is Lisa Brennan. Lisa was Jobs' daughter, though he denied paternity for years (although he bought Lisa and her mother, Chrisann, a house and paid child support). The beating heart of Steve Jobs is Jobs' relationship with Lisa. The film suggests that once Jobs realized Lisa was a very intelligent girl, he started accepting that maybe, in fact, she was his.



Jobs is played by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender doesn't really look like Jobs at all. He's too square-jawed, handsome, and masculine. But he nails Jobs' nasally, soft-spoken tone of voice. Fassbender, who is also known as a brilliant asshole (albeit in the world of acting, not computers), is surprisingly appropriate to take on the role of a man who is very soft-spoken and perhaps even a bit wimpy-looking, but is aggressive and off-putting to even his close confidants. One of those confidants is Joanna Hoffman (played just fucking wonderfully and perfectly by Kate Winslet), his marketing executive and the only person who is able to hold her own around him.

The film is divided into three 40 minute acts: in 1984 at the launch of the Apple Macintosh, in 1988 at the launch of the NeXT computer, and in 1998 at the launch of the iMac. The action during these acts is almost all "behind the scenes". Jobs interacts with the same people each time: Hoffman, Lisa and her mother, John Sculley (played by Jeff Daniels)--who was the Apple CEO from 1983 to 1993 and played a major role in ousting Jobs from his own company--and Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen). In each of these acts we see the various power struggles Jobs had with those closest to him and we also learn a bit about the history of Apple.

Steve Jobs doesn't set out to give all the entire arc of Jobs' life and achievements, but rather a glimpse into a few key moments in his career. Biopics that try to show ALL of someone's life often fail since they can only scratch the surface of each life event. By focusing on literally three days in Jobs' life and his interactions with just a handful of people, we learn more about the man than we would if the film tried to cram his entire life into 2 hours.

Unless you are 1) a Steve Jobs fanatic and/or 2) a film buff who wants to see the film for its dream-team collaborators, Steve Jobs probably won't interest you all that much. But, for what it is, Steve Jobs is a great film and fitting tribute to a complex and difficult man.

Grade: B+

PS: for whatever it's worth, I'm typing out this review on a MacBook Air...and I fucking love my MacBook Air.

Spooky Scary

Movies: Favorite scary movies

Hello, Dear Readers,

In honor of Halloween, I present to you a few of my favorite scary movies--with a convenient "scare-ometer" to gauge how frightening the films are. Enjoy!


Nosferatu (1922)

This silent German classic, directed by F.W. Murnau, depicts a vampire--Count Orlock--who is so iconic that he became the subject of an episode of 90's Nickelodeon TV show Are You Afraid of the Dark. Unlike the majority of portrayals of vampires on screen, Count Orlock is not sexy. Bald, with snow-white skin, long fingers, and rat-like teeth, Orlock has none of the seductive powers of Dracula. He is simply terrifying. Nosferatu was one of the first silent movies I ever saw, and though it may not be quite as frightening as some of the other films on this list, its images are forever seared in my brain.

 Scare-ometer: 2 out of 4 skulls


***

 Rosemary's Baby (1968)

The scariest thing about this 1968 film about a woman (Mia Farrow) carrying Satan's child isn't the plot--it's the fact that the director (Roman Polanski) once raped a teen girl and still received a standing ovation at the Oscars when he won Best Director for The Pianist. Womp.

Despite my repulsion at Polanski's crimes, I simply cannot ignore the suspense, dread, and artful storytelling of Rosemary's Baby. In short, this film gives me the creepy-crawlies no matter how many times I watch it. The sense of claustrophobia and dread as Rosemary creeps around her own New York City apartment, becoming more and more paranoid about her difficult pregnancy and the strange behavior of her husband, Guy, is suffocating. I find myself looking over my shoulder whenever I watch the movie. Another element I love about Rosemary's Baby is the "satanic panic" plot and Rosemary's quest to find answer about her strange, elderly neighbors through both research and--in one memorable scene--Scrabble tiles. Rosemary's Baby is not only a masterpiece of horror, it's a masterpiece of film in general.

Scare-ometer: 2.5 out of 4 skulls

***

Suspiria (1977) and Deep Red (1975)

Two films directed by Dario Argento--one about a coven of witches at a ballet school and the other about a series of bizarre murders--Suspiria and Deep Red are exemplary giallo films. Both of them are deeply unsettling and feature violent and imaginative deaths. They're just barely on the right side of campy/trashy horror. They're also really, really entertaining. For those with sensitive ears, be warned that Suspiria has a harsh score by prog rock band Goblin that sounds like hell and adds to the general feeling of discomfort while watching the film.

Scare-ometer: 
Suspiria: 3.5 out of 4 skulls
Deep Red: 3 out of 4 skulls

***


The Shining (1980)

Based on the book by a master of horror, and directed by a genius with an especial talent for cinematography both vibrant and clinical, The Shining is inevitably a creep-fest of the highest order. Although author Stephen King hated director Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of his novel, I personally feel that Kubrick brought the sheer insanity of King's writing (King was extremely fucked up on drugs when he wrote The Shining--and you can tell, especially when Jack Torrance starts going nuts) to the big screen perfectly. From the use of a child's perspective as Danny Torrance rolls down the hotel hallways on his Big Wheel, to the weird mixture of sexuality and horror in the scene where Jack finds a naked lady in room 237, there is something absolutely sinister about The Shining. I never get sick of watching it.

Scare-ometer: 3 our of 4 skulls

***

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Like Rosemary's Baby, The Silence of the Lambs is a movie that no matter how many times I watch it, I never stop being freaked out by it. Clarice Starling's investigation into the kidnapping and murder of half a dozen young women leads her to some strange and horrifying places, such as an abandoned storage unit...and to Dr. Hannibal Lecter's prison cell. The Silence of the Lambs is not only good horror, it's a great film with two extremely solid performances at its center: Jodie Foster in a very pro-woman, feminist role as the strong, intelligent, almost foolishly brave Starling, and Anthony Hopkins as the psychopathic charmer Dr. Lecter. While the film's take on transgender individuals is, shall we say, a bit out-dated, Ted Levine's performance as killer Buffalo Bill makes me shudder to this day. It puts the lotion on its skin...

Scare-ometer: 3 out of 4 skulls

***

The Ring (2002)

The American remake of Ringu brought Japanese-style horror, with its long-haired, crawling ghosts, to the States. And it scared the ever-loving shit out of 16 year old me. I could barely sleep for a week after I watched it in the theatres with a couple friends. Between the heart-stopping opening sequence, that damn horse jumping off the ship, and the cursed film itself, The Ring has some images you won't soon forget. Almost everyone I know who has seen this film was fucking terrified of phones, televisions, and long-haired little girls afterward. The film's cinematography, based on the beautiful yet eerie paintings of Andrew Wyeth, make the viewer feel both scared and depressed. And the twist at the end ("You weren't supposed to help her.") which turns the "help a ghost to move on and it will leave you alone" trope on its head is genius.

Scare-ometer: 4 out of 4 skulls

***

The Descent (2005)

A couple movies on this list have elements of claustrophobia: Rosemary's apartment, The Overlook Hotel, etc. But nothing compares to the claustrophobic nightmare that is The Descent. Six women go spelunking--an activity the ladies have enjoyed doing together for years. After a passage in the cave collapses, one of the women admits that she led the group into an unexplored cave system--which is extremely dangerous. As the women try to figure out an alternative exit, their camaraderie breaks down. But the horror is only beginning. Various members of the group start seeing and hearing things around the cave. It becomes clear that they are not alone.

The Descent is not child's play. This is a scary fucking movie. It combines fear of being trapped, fear of monsters, and emotional trauma and doesn't let up. It also has a number of highly effective jump scenes. Watch at your own risk.

 Scare-ometer: 4 out of 4 skulls

***

Insidious (2010)

Directed by James Wan, Insidious has a really different premise. Patrick Wilson (who is amazing in everything and I want to have 10,000 of his babies) and Rose Byrne (she's cool too) play Josh and Renai Lambert, the young parents of Dalton and Foster Lambert. After Dalton takes a spill off a ladder, he ends up in a coma--a situation that would be any parent's worst nightmare. But it gets worse. As Dalton languishes, the Lambert's home seems to become infested with ghouls and bad vibes. The Lamberts hire a psychic who explains that Dalton is able to astral project onto another plane/dimension. His comatose body is serving as a bridge of sorts from the other dimension to this one, letting in all kinds of creepy, spooky things. Yeah, it sounds weird, but it somehow works in the movie. In order to save his son, Josh allows himself to be put in a trance so that he can also project to wherever his son has gone and bring him back. Although PG-13, Insidious is so scary, it *feels* like it should be rated R. It also has an infamous jump scene that practically made me shit myself. If you watch it, good luck...

Scare-ometer: 4 out of 4 skulls

***

The Conjuring (2013)

For the more sensitive movie-goer, The Conjuring (also directed by James Wan) is a gentler, more old fashioned scary movie. Based on the "true" story of the Perron family, the film takes place in 1971 and has fabulous costume and set design. Carolyn and Roger Perron (played wonderfully by Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston) and their 5 daughters move into a beautiful farm house, only to find that's it's just fucking lousy with ghosts. Ghosts out the wazoo, I tells ya! So after an increasing number of sleepless nights, Carolyn seeks out the help of Ed and Lorraine Warren (played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, also great), ghost hunters who have devoted their lives to cleansing people's homes of spirits.

Although there are some truly original scares in The Conjuring (including the infamous "three claps" game), the film builds suspense by holding back instead of going for dozens of cheap jump scares. I mentioned above that the movie has an old fashioned feeling to it, and not just because it's a period film. It reminded me of the more suspenseful, less gory scary movies of the 60's and 70's. It was also the movie that brought me back to horror after years of avoiding scary movies completely (thanks to the trauma I suffered by watching The Ring). So if you're looking for a chilling movie that isn't *quite* as intense, The Conjuring is a good one to check out.

Scare-ometer: 3.5 out of 4 skulls

***

It Follows (2014)

It Follows, directed by David Robert Mitchell, also has a retro feel--partially because of its awesome synth score. It's a movie I would describe as singular and unique. The monster at the center of the film can take the shape of any person--an old woman, a tall man, a close friend. And the monster doesn't run at you or jump out at you from the bushes--it simply walks directly at you at a steady pace. This monster, or demon, or whatever it is, is passed from one victim to the next through sexual activity. Once you're "infected", it will find you and kill you--unless you have sex with the next person and pass it to them. But beware, if the person you pass it to is killed by this thing, the curse reverts back to you.

The rules of this film sound both complicated and goofy when I try to lay them out in words. Director Mitchell avoids goofiness by only giving the characters (and thus, the viewer) a tiny bit of information at a time--they're just as confused about this thing as we are, and our questions ("Can you kill this thing by shooting it?") are explored and answered over the course of the film. Beware though--if you like your movies wrapped up in a nice, explanatory bow at the end, It Follows may not be for you.

Scare-ometer: 3.5 out of 4 skulls

***

So there you have it--some of my favorite scary movies. There are many more, of course (The Babadook, Audition, You're Next, and Bram Stoker's Dracula are a few "honorable mentions" for this list), but the above films are ones that are not only excellent, terrifying scary movies, but great films the stand on their own outside of the horror genre.

Happy Halloween!

He Blinded Me With SCIENCE

Movies: The Martian

Ridley Scott's The Martian (based on Andy Weir's bestselling novel, which I have not read), requires a good amount of suspension of disbelief. But if you're willing to suspend that disbelief, you're in for an optimistic, pro-humanity, pro-science treat. And the ride is definitely worth it.
The Martian takes place in the not-too-distant future. The United States makes regular trips to Mars, and during one particular mission, a team of astronauts (lead by Jessica Chastain) is forced to evacuate the planet because of an intense storm. Their colleague, Mark Wattney (Matt Damon), is hit with debris during the storm and the team can't rescue him. They assume he's dead and take off without him...

...but he's not dead. Wattney comes to, realizing that a piece of debris that punctured him also plugged what would have been a deadly hole in his spacesuit. He makes it back to the team's base camp before his oxygen runs out. But even though he has survived the storm, he is basically living on borrowed time. He calculates that it will be 4 years until the next group of astronauts arrive...and he can only stretch his food supplies for about a year.

Not one to give up easily, Wattney decides to "science the shit" out of his hopeless situation. He keeps a video diary of his attempts (and successes!) to grow food on the desolate planet and rejigger a moon buggy so that he can drive it to where he is supposed to "meet" the next mission to Mars. Damon plays Wattney with a jokey, friendly looseness. He's relaxed and calm in the face of almost certain death. I enjoyed Damon's performance, although it was a bit too similar to George Clooney's performance in Gravity: a handsome astronaut who jokes and flirts with Sandra Bullock even as he is literally drifting into space to die. Like Clooney, Damon could have used a few more moments of humanity. I would have liked to see a good, snot-nosed, weeping and gnashing of teeth scene in addition to his scenes of being a cool, science-nerd badass.

Meanwhile on Earth, NASA realizes that Wattney is still alive collectively brainstorms ways to get a rescue mission to him before he starves. This is where we have to suspend our disbelief--would NASA really spend millions (or billions) or dollars and months/years of time to rescue one man? Or would they simply cover up their mistake and let Wattney die--with no citizens the wiser about what happened? The skeptical side of me says there's no way in hell they'd try to rescue this guy. But The Martian isn't about the *real* world, it's about the *ideal* world.

The Martian envisions a United States that values collaboration, ingenuity, and science. A US that laughs in the face of danger while it grows potatoes from its own shit on planet Mars. It's a story that the US likes to tell about itself, but rarely (though certainly we've had our moments as a country) puts its money where its mouth is. We say that we're smart, we're brave, and we value human life--where, actually, we have politicians that don't believe in climate change or vaccines and we are careless not just with human life around the world, but the very humans living within our borders.

The Martian gives us a beautiful, hopeful glimpse of what we could be, as a nation, if we were "our best selves" as many a pop guru puts it. And I admire the film for that.

This is a film Americans need right now. A story about how logic and intelligence can solve problems. We've become increasing skeptical of science and intellectualism over the past couple decades, and it's a real shame. Of course, yes, there have always been folks skeptical of science or who lean too heavily on faith and misinformation. But as someone who works in education, it saddens me that some people now see ignorance as a badge of honor, or who dig in their heels to their false beliefs when presented with accurate facts.

The Martian, while not a perfect movie, is a film that proudly proclaims that it's cool to be smart and dares to believe that if we all put our heads together, we can achieve anything.

Grade: B

Short Takes

Movies: The Skeleton Twins, Obvious Child, Enemy, Sleeping Beauty, Going Clear

To paraphrase John Oliver on Last Week Tonight: just time for a quick recap of these movies I've seen recently

The Skeleton Twins

As far as I'm concerned, low-key dramedy The Skeleton Twins serves one major purpose: to highlight Bill Hader's gifts as an actor. Between his role here as depressed, gay, 30-something Milo and his role as the romantic lead in Trainwreck, Hader is killing it in his post-Saturday Night Live career.


As Milo attempts suicide in the opening scene, his estranged twin sister Maggie (Kristen Wiig, not very impressive in this role) is also contemplating suicide miles away. As she stares down at a handful of pills, she's get a phone call informing her that her brother is in the hospital. The twins are thrown back into each others' lives and gradually realize that maybe a lot of their problems in life have been caused by their estrangement.

Luke Wilson costars as Maggie's extremely nice doofus of a husband, and he's great in the role, but The Skeleton Twins is ultimately Hader's show.

Grade: B

***

Obvious Child

Obvious Child isn't all that different from The Skeleton Twins in its low-key, slice-of-life plot, only where Twins begins with a suicide attempt, Child ends with an abortion. Starring comedian Jenny Slate, Obvious Child has been called the 'abortion rom-com', but that's a bit of a misnomer since the abortion doesn't play a huge role in the film--it happens at the end, almost as an afterthought, which is precisely the intention of the filmmakers; i.e. to present a woman getting an abortion as NDB.

Slate plays Donna, whose boyfriend of many years dumps her. She goes to a bar and has drunken rebound sex with a random dude named Max (like ya do) who turns out to be a really nice person who actually wants to date her. Most of the movie is Max (Jake Lacey) trying to convince Donna to go out with him. Oh, she also gets preggers from that hook-up, which complicates matter.

I liked Obvious Child a lot, but it wasn't quite as good as I had been promised by the feminist blog-o-sphere. I think they were just happy to see abortion portrayed as not an insane tragedy. And it does in fact accomplish that goal.

Grade: B



***

Enemy

Ugh. The Redbox description of director Denis Villeneuve's film Enemy calls it an "erotic thriller". I wish! Instead, this arthouse film, starring Jake Gyllenhaal (the sole reason I rented it) is an abstruse, confusing mess. Gyllenhaal plays a college professor who winds up meeting a man who looks exactly like him (also played by Gyllenhaal). He attempts to unravel the mystery: are they twins separated at birth? Two versions of the same man living in alternate universes? Beats me. We never get a straight answer and it's very annoying. This is the second film of Villeneuve's I've seen and not enjoyed (I wasn't crazy about Prisoners).

Grade: C-

***

Sleeping Beauty

This ain't your grandmother's fairy tale. Sleeping Beauty (2011) stars waifish Emily Browning as cash-strapped college student Lucy who takes a job providing erotic companionship to rich, old men. No, she's not a prostitute--she never has sex with these men. Instead, Lucy allows herself to be drugged into a deep sleep and then put into a bed where these old pervs can come in and do almost anything they want to except penetrate her or leave marks.

The film, directed by author Julia Leigh is very beautiful, but only "erotic" in the way films like Belle de Jour and Eyes Wide Shut are. That is to say, not at all. There's no heat, only chill. One assumes that there's a deeper point the director is trying to make here--perhaps that men prefer women young, beautiful, and comatose--but when the movie is over you may scratch your head and say "what was the point?"

Grade: B-

***

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief

Directed by Alex Gibney and based on the thoroughly researched book by Lawrence Wring, Going Clear takes a deep dive into Scientology: what it is, what its followers believe, how it started, and what convinces people to stay in it. Gibney and Wright take a firm stance against Scientology, particularly for its abusive tactics (especially towards "Sea Org", aka the closest thing Scientology has to a clergy) and extreme wealth hoarding (since it's technically a "religion", Scientology churches are tax exempt).

The best part of Going Clear are the candid interviews with former members, such as director Paul Haggis. Their willingness to be forthright to the point of admitting that they were sucked into a cult gives the film both its emotional heart (Haggis left in part because Scientology is still pretty anti-gay and he has two gay daughters) and its credibility.

Beware: watching Going Clear will make you question your own religion, political, and social beliefs in that you'll start to see group think patterns (in less extreme forms than in Scientology) everywhere.

Grade: A