Middlesex

July 23rd, 2008
(Years later, my mother would recall the days when she was wooed by clarinet. “Your father couldn’t play it very well. Two or three songs. That was it.” “Whaddya mean?” Milton would protest. “I had a whole repertoire.” He’d begin to whistle “Begin the Beguine,” warbling the melody to evoke a clarinet’s vibrato and fingering the air. “Why don’t you serenade me anymore?” Tessie would ask. But Milton had something else on his mind: “Whatever happened to that old clarinet of mine?” And then Tessie: “How should I know? You expect me to keep track of everything?” “Is it down in the basement?” “Maybe I threw it out!” “You threw it out! What the hell did you do that for!” “What are you going to do, Milt, practice up? You couldn’t play the darn thing back then.”)

All love serenades must come to an end.

~ Middlesex, Jeffrey Eugenides

Mystic River

July 22nd, 2008

Mystic River (2003)
Drama
Starring Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon and Tim Robbins
Directed by Clint Eastwood

Oh, fuck. I have a feeling that whatever I think is going to happen in this movie will not only not happen, but will undoubtedly have been better than what actually happens.

That being said, I feel that I can confidently say that Tim Robbins did not kill her..

Now, let’s see just how badly Clint Eastwood can twist the one thing I can be fairly confident about.

[…]

Well, fuck.

(Although, Mystic River soundtrack … meet Liz’s iPod.)

Rating?  B+
Favorite line(s)?
“Hey, Jimmy. God said you owed another marker. He came to collect.

~ Kevin Bacon as Sean Devine

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

July 22nd, 2008

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
Science Fiction
Starring Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter
Directed by Don Siegel

Anyone else think it’s a little odd that a guy named “McCarthy” stars in a film that is widely believed to have been a commentary on the social autonomy of the Soviet Union and the personal autonomy of the Communist Party? No?

Just me, I guess.

Compared to the movie I watched just before this one, man, the cinematography could use some work. Where Sunset Boulevard was filmed in crystal clear focus, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was fuzzy, too dark or too bright, and filmed by a much shakier hand. But all of that, intended or not, really suited the tone of the film. Why everyone thought Blair Witch Project was revolutionary is beyond me; clearly they haven’t seen this movie. I mean sure, for the modern viewer Invasion certainly lacks the “glued to your seat, hearts pounding, chest heaving, Oh-my-God-what-just-touched-my-leg” thrills of Blair Witch but that’s only because the idea of aliens has, for the most part anyway, dwelt less and less on the threat they present to human life and increasingly on the potential benefits that an encounter might present. Aliens are exciting now, and if, once in a blue moon, they briefly delve into the realm of the terrifying, well, we’ll just get good ol’ Will Smith to save the world just one last time.

As for the movie itself? Well, comment pertinentes, no? Au moins, plus pertinentes que je ne soin de réfléchir dès maintenant. Comment je ressens pour vous, le Dr Bennell, comment je ressens.

Rating? B
Favorite line(s)?
There’s no emotion. None. Just the pretense of it. The words, the gesture, the tone of voice, everything else is the same, but not the feeling.

~Virginia Christine as Wilma Lentz

Dowd, a Priest, and the Institution of Marriage Walk into a Bar…

July 21st, 2008

… Tell me if you’ve heard this one before.

Maureen Dowd, of the New York Times, has a piece summarizing the advice of Father Pat Connor, a 79 year old priest now in New Jersey, on marriage, advice culled from a lecture that Connor gives to girls in local high schools. And while I am rarely in agreement with anything that Dowd says, and really cannot remember the last time I read one of her columns and said “Hey, now that’s some damned good writing” or “Gee, golly, that makes me think,” in this one she’s literally just sharing the words of someone else. And that’s why it’s readable.

Anyway. I actually liked what this guy had to say. (I’m half tempted to send it to Paul, or my brother–it works just as good for men as it does women.) For a talk directed at mid-to-late adolescents, it’s surprisingly candid and reasonable.

I asked him to summarize his talk:

“Never marry a man who has no friends,” he starts. “This usually means that he will be incapable of the intimacy that marriage demands. I am always amazed at the number of men I have counseled who have no friends. Since, as the Hebrew Scriptures say, ‘Iron shapes iron and friend shapes friend,’ what are his friends like? What do your friends and family members think of him? Sometimes, your friends can’t render an impartial judgment because they are envious that you are beating them in the race to the altar. Envy beclouds judgment.

“Does he use money responsibly? Is he stingy? Most marriages that founder do so because of money — she’s thrifty, he’s on his 10th credit card.

“Steer clear of someone whose life you can run, who never makes demands counter to yours. It’s good to have a doormat in the home, but not if it’s your husband.

“Is he overly attached to his mother and her mythical apron strings? When he wants to make a decision, say, about where you should go on your honeymoon, he doesn’t consult you, he consults his mother. (I’ve known cases where the mother accompanies the couple on their honeymoon!)

“Does he have a sense of humor? That covers a multitude of sins. My mother was once asked how she managed to live harmoniously with three men — my father, brother and me. Her answer, delivered with awesome arrogance, was: ‘You simply operate on the assumption that no man matures after the age of 11.’ My father fell about laughing.

“A therapist friend insists that ‘more marriages are killed by silence than by violence.’ The strong, silent type can be charming but ultimately destructive. That world-class misogynist, Paul of Tarsus, got it right when he said, ‘In all your dealings with one another, speak the truth to one another in love that you may grow up.’

“Don’t marry a problem character thinking you will change him. He’s a heavy drinker, or some other kind of addict, but if he marries a good woman, he’ll settle down. People are the same after marriage as before, only more so.

“Take a good, unsentimental look at his family — you’ll learn a lot about him and his attitude towards women. Kay made a monstrous mistake marrying Michael Corleone! Is there a history of divorce in the family? An atmosphere of racism, sexism or prejudice in his home? Are his goals and deepest beliefs worthy and similar to yours? I remember counseling a pious Catholic woman that it might not be prudent to marry a pious Muslim, whose attitude about women was very different. Love trumped prudence; the annulment process was instigated by her six months later.

“Imagine a religious fundamentalist married to an agnostic. One would have to pray that the fundamentalist doesn’t open the Bible and hit the page in which Abraham is willing to obey God and slit his son’s throat.

“Finally: Does he possess those character traits that add up to a good human being — the willingness to forgive, praise, be courteous? Or is he inclined to be a fibber, to fits of rage, to be a control freak, to be envious of you, to be secretive?

“After I regale a group with this talk, the despairing cry goes up: ‘But you’ve eliminated everyone!’ Life is unfair.”

Doesn’t it sound like Dowd just cut him off there? Like there was something more to Connor’s last statement? Something along the lines of life being unfair, yes, but really now? All these suggestions do is eliminate the people who wouldn’t make that great a fit for you anyway. He suggests that you compromise on your expectations, not your values.  Which isn’t a bad way to go, honestly.

Heck, maybe I’ll forward it to Andrea too.

Anyway.  I was just kind of surprised how readable and even relevant I found the man’s points.  I suppose I am continually surprised by how human and even understanding members of the religious clergy can be.  Apparently it just takes one bad example to scar you for life.  Or scare.  Probably a mix of both.

Sunset Boulevard

July 21st, 2008

Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Noir
Starring William Holden and Gloria Swanson
Directed by Billy Wilder

Oh, sweet Jesus.

It is unfair how much I love this movie. (Yes. I know. It won’t end well. But still. The love.)

I mean, I love it to the point that I’m not even sure what to say about it. I can tell you that I loved it from the very beginning. From the opening narration. It’s certainly noir, but a noir of a different type than I’m familiar with. No gold falcons or cynical private eyes in this movie. And while there is, of course, a dead body, it appears in the first five minutes and disappears until much later in the flick.

So yes, I’m not sure where this movie fits in in my understanding of the film noir genre, but I have a feeling my definition is about to get much, much bigger.

I think that Norma Desmond is perhaps one of the most pathetic characters I’ve ever seen onscreen. I hated her as much as I loved her, and I pitied her even more. And I have a feeling that there are aspects of this movie that are more true than most of Hollywood would prefer to have us believe. Gloria Swanson really pulled out all the stops for this role, didn’t she? A former silent actress herself, or so I might’ve read once upon a time, this woman knows how to speak a line with just the slightest tilt of her eyebrows, the crook of a smile, and a wave of her hand. And still she has learned how to add in that final element, her voice, as she does so. She becomes, as I’m sure was intended, a bloody fucking presence on that screen. So much so, in fact, that she seems to crowd the very edges of my not so small tv.

Also. Dude. Talk about the crazy eyes.

And can I just say … Max? Creepy.

Lord, the script. The prose. It reads like a book; the kind of book that, much loved, sits on my shelf, pages falling out of the broken binding from the number of times they’ve been flipped through. It’s beautiful. Every last breath of it. Yet William Holden and Gloria Swanson never seem to stagger under the weight of their lines, everything is delivered perfectly. No hesitation, not a single suggestion that they’re just playing a role. (Yes. Duh. That’s the point. I know.)

I’d say something here about the lighting and the composition of the shots, and maybe touch on the parallels between the house and good ol’ Norma, but someone else would just take credit for that. So I’ll just say “mmmhm … pretty,” and move on.

And a final thought: If they ever remake this–which, considering the current state of the movie industry, is not out of the realm of possibility–Bette Midler will undoubtedly be cast as Ms. Desmond. Simply for the Charlie Chaplin scene alone.

Rating? A
Favorite line(s)?
“Honest to goodness, I hate you.”

~ Nancy Olson as Betty Schaefer

Rio Bravo

July 20th, 2008

Rio Bravo (1959)
Musical
Starring John Wayne and some other folks
Directed by Howard Hawks

Son.

Of.

A.

Bitch.

Edited to add the following:

I’ve debated the merits of adding a real review to this one and have decided that it would be a tad dishonest, seeing as this is what I saw fit to post the first time.   That being said, I will qualify my review a tad.  First of all.  Oh, the betrayal.  The sweet sharp sting of betrayal.  Is that a knife in my back or …

This is not a musical, Kerry.  One song does not a musical make.  And even if a single song did make it a musical, the tumbleweed and the burro cancel it out.  More than cancel it out, actually.

Secondly.  Bloody hell.  Stupid Angie Dickinson and John Wayne.

Rating?  A-
Favorite line(s)?
“I said I’d arrest you.”

~ John T.

Dinner

July 20th, 2008

Oh.  My.  God.

Also.

Local godmother?

What?

In Her Prime

July 18th, 2008

Kate: “Auntie Linda is such a nicer mom. She asks Sara to do things in a nice tone of voice.”

Me: “Let me tell you, kiddo, when Auntie Linda was in her prime …. ask her about the fork-incident sometime. Or the shoe. Ohhh. Ask her about the shoe.”

Anatomy of a Murder

July 18th, 2008

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
Court Drama
Starring James Stewart
Directed by Otto Preminger

Oh. My. God.

Will this movie never end!

I had high hopes for this movie but perhaps that’s because I was expecting a legal thriller. Actually, it’s actually more of a law school visual aid. You know, a filmstrip for those all-important classes … “How to Charm a Jury 101, “Advanced Witness Tampering,” and so on.

James Stewart, while always a powerful performer in any role he plays, was lacking something in this film. I think the character fit him too well, actually, an old guy who really just wants to be left alone to fish. I didn’t find him compelling so much as boring.

And the case itself just didn’t grab me and hold me the way that other depictions of legal procedure have in the past.

Now don’t get me wrong, the movie was brilliant. But only as far as it is a depiction of the legal world. The controversies and issues concerning a rape trial and rape testimony, especially for the late-1950s, must have been absolutely groundbreaking at the time. Certainly it didn’t shy away from the classic defenses–focusing on the wife’s appearance, her past relationships, casting suspicions on her promiscuity, etc.–but these ideas were presented by the prosecution, not the defense. Stewart presented a revolutionary defense for both his defendant, on the murder of the rapist, and his defendant’s wife, the victim of the rape, one in which the blame for the rape is clearly placed upon the deceased rapist. In fact, his whole case hinges on the jury’s perception of the wife as a victim, not a harlot.

I guess the problem I have with this movie is that when it comes right down to it, I didn’t care who won or who lost. I didn’t care who was right or who was wrong. I didn’t care if the wife had been raped or had been caught having an affair. I didn’t care if the secretary never got paid again. It didn’t make me care.

Rating? C-
Favorite line(s)?
“Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It’s one of the miracles of Man’s disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries.”

~ Arthur O’Connell as Parnell Emmet McCarthy

Redefining: Christina Page, the HHS and Contraception

July 16th, 2008

Christina Page on HHS and their latest decision regarding contraception:

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman’s access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services. In the “Definitions” section of the HHS proposal it states,

“Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term “abortion.” Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term “abortion” only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.”

The proposal continues,

“Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term “established pregnancy” as occurring after implantation. Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as “[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation.” Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as “the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.”

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation’s pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there’s no test to determine if a woman’s egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she’s not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS’ new science.

From here.

While I am not the most political of people (okay, major understatement there) this concerns me. Literally and figuratively, actually. I am, in fact, a woman. I am a woman who doesn’t like being told what she can or cannot do with her body. I.E., if I want to take contraceptives, for whatever my motives, I want to be able to take them without interference from the Federal government and anyone who believes differently than I do.