Films That Deserve More Attention

As proclaimed by me...you should see these films...

THE FIVE SENSES (1999)

WHY: Really creative concept and Mary Louise Parker

PRIVATE PRACTICES: THE STORY OF A SEX SURROGATE (1986)

WHY: Honest documentary about a very intimate subject. Lots of wonderful moments.

DAMAGE (1992)

WHY: Moody, sensual atmosphere with ace performances from Irons, Binoche, and, especially, Miranda Richardson.

FREEWAY (1996)

WHY: Insanely funny and dark adaptation of Little Red Riding Hood starring a feisty Reese Witherspoon. Kiefer Sutherland is terrifying and Brooke Shields is endlessly amusing.

MYSTERIOUS SKIN (2005)

WHY: Captivating story told in an intriguingly shot manner. Tons of creative shots and two stellar performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Brady Corbet.

Stay tuned for more kids.....

Microwave Toilet

RANDOM POST AHEAD....so beware.....

Last night, I had the most bizarre dream that I was searching for a toilet in an old folks' home. I was running past geezers in hospital gowns, intently searching for a toilet. Instead I find a room full of microwaves. I gleefully hopped onto the table and opened one of the microwaves. I pulled down my pants in front of a bunch of old men and I sat inside the microwave as if prepared to go to the bathroom. I shut the microwave door and asked them to give me some privacy. They kept staring. Then the microwave caught on fire and I fought with the door to get myself free of the flaming microwave toilet of death. I somehow managed to free myself and the fire went out.

What the hell did that mean?

That I'm surrounded by privacy-probbing old men? That I need to extract something vile and I need to do it quick? That I'm doomed to die in a microwave-fire related incident?

Regardless of the dream's hidden meaning, I did an artist's rendering of the dream. Just a simple sketch of a not so simple dream.

RIP Elvis Dumbledore!

Ah, the magic of a new Harry Potter film. I opted out of going to a midnight screening and instead enjoyed watching The Half-Blood Prince with a less enthusiastic crowd. A much more hilarious one though, I might add. They made a ton of spontaneous comments that enriched my film-going experience. One girl intelligently pointed out when Ginny was seen kissing a boy in the pub, "Oooh, that must be embarrassing." Or when Hermione found herself heartbroken over Ron, she proclaimed, "Hermione has feelings, too!"

But I digress. This film, though it is certainly the most technically impressive of all the Harry Potter films, lacks the emotional weight it needed to make it truly a triumph. The cinematography is stunning, impeccable work. A lot of shots are true creative works of art. The CGI is also great in this installment.

The performances were also really good for a Potter flick. Daniel Radcliffe has stepped up his game quite a bit from "HE WAS THEIR FRIEND." Watson and Grint were wonderful as well. Tom Felton really did justice to Draco's dramatic storyline too. Jim Broadbent was pitch perfect as Professor Slughorn and Gambon turned in a wise, nuanced performance as Dumbledore. Overall I enjoyed it, but it could've been a much better adaptation of the novel.

Fun little tidbit: I misheard Helena Bonham Carter during one line and thought she called Albus, Elvis. Another thing...why on earth would Harry have to force any liquid down Dumbledore's throat...everyone knows Albus is a cumhungry homo. Just saying....

Elegy: The Curse of Dying Alone

Practically spilling over from my last topic, I finished watching Elegy, the 2008 film starring Ben Kingsley and Penelope Cruz. The film is remarkable in its probing examination of the appearance of things. Kingsley plays David, an aging professor who decides to woo his much younger student, Consuela, played by a mystifying Penelope Cruz. The film studies the characters as if they were shells of people. The captivating part of this film is how it attempts to reveal the unexpected insides of these shells.

David tells Consuela that she is a work of art and while Penelope Cruz sure is a looker…it makes one wonder about (again) what defines art? He undermines her by seeing her as a piece of artwork…objectifying her very being. The character of David himself is intriguing in that his exterior completely contradicts his interior. He feels young. Yet that inner youth is tainted by the reality of his aging body. He fights to find life. Consuela remains a mystery to him…a beautiful shield concealing the warrior.

The film is fleshed out with several decent supporting performances. Peter Sarsgaard is passable as David’s finicky son. Dennis Hopper is deliciously blunt as David’s womanizing poet friend. The true standout of the supporting cast is definitely Patricia Clarkson. Her performance as Carolyn is brilliantly nuanced and assured. The character is endlessly fascinating thanks to Clarkson’s realistic filling out of the “shell” of a life that Carolyn leads. She’s unorthodox in her relationship with David, but she seems to find a bizarre strength in the dissention from society’s norms.

As the film progresses, however, the veneers of these people’s lives begin to crack and reveal the solitude that they endure. They all feel trapped into these molds they’ve made for themselves. Alone for life. David fights to recapture his youth, a youth he threw away to endless hordes of women in bed. Consuela fights against the sickness that pervades her very beauty, a beauty she grows to resent. The film is full of little truths regarding life. The two lead performances are stunning. Cruz is a marvel and creates such a tragic character beneath the surface of her glossy appearance. I enjoyed the film to pieces.

What defines art really?

This is a topic that has been on my mind for quite some time. I've always been a fan of all kinds of art from painting to writing and film and music. In being a fan though I've also become a bit of a critic because I harbor my own distinct opinion about things. That being said though, what really justifies my criticism? What makes my opinion of value? What makes anyone's opinion in regard to art valuable?

I'll provide a couple of examples. For instance, a few weeks ago a girl who I'm "friends" with on Facebook dissed a couple of photos I had posted citing bad lighting and some other aspects. I got pissy and deleted her comments. I sent her this long ranting message about how she had no right to rip my work to shreds on my Facebook of all places. It was immature of me, but I suppose those photos to me were works of art. To her they were photographs...bad ones, apparently. I am of the opinion that all work is commendable and that no matter what a critic should be able to comment on the artistry of what they're examining.

Another example: Last week I went to the National Quilting Museum...interesting, huh? What was fascinating about it was the technique that these women and men put into these creations. All the stitching and patterns were flawless and it was truly stunning. These people had taken a hobby that most discard as a pasttime of old women and they turned it into a significant art form. It was really commendable. You could see the sweat and passion that went into the work through the hands of the hunched over quilters.

All art is subjective and I love that about art. I could type the word "Art" on a piece of paper and staple it to the wall...it's still art. I feel this is a big part of filmmaking as well. Just recently people were outraged at Lars Von Trier's latest creation Antichrist. Call him a misogynist, but it doesn't make him any less of an artist. His film features a woman cutting off her clitoris and a man ejaculating blood, but does that make it any less of an artistic statement? Is it just sensationalism? Or pornography?

Anyway to cap this whole entry off I'm going to post a sketch I did ages ago. It is entitled "My Brain." I'm quite proud of it and, yes, I consider it art.

Lohan Pains

So I have seen LaLohan's newest film venture and surprisingly really liked it. Also...can we stop for a moment and just look at the poster? I love the poster. It makes me giggle and it kind of makes me want to get a Happy Meal. It exudes this fun energy and I adore it.

Now about the movie...it was satisfying in terms of what it was. A pregnant version of Liar, Liar.

Or something like that. Lindsay Lohan was pretty good in it too. The film itself isn't on the level of pregnancy classic Waitress...nor is it on the level of decent bun in the oven flicks Juno or Knocked Up. It's good fun though and I definitely don't regret watching it.

Give Lohan a second chance world. You may be surprised. She might actually clean up her mistake ridden life. Or not...

Persepolis

Marjane Satrapi's hilarious and tragic tale of a young girl's journey through war to womanhood is by far one of the best tales woven by any artist. Her graphic novel follows her own life story with a zeal that is ultimately charming. It is commendable that she undertook not only telling her story, but also telling the story of Iran and the struggles faced by millions of immigrants all over the world.

The graphic novel (or comic as my sisters would call it. They mocked me for using the term graphic novel, but they're drunkards, so....) is so wonderfully constructed and artfully done. It is full of stunning images and humorous situations. She compares God to Karl Marx in terms of appearance...from his reaction later on one can deduce that God is apparently quite sensitive about his looks.

In examining the treatment of women in Iran, Satrapi exposes the misogyny that runs rampant in the region. In one scene a man asks her how much to have sex with her because she is carrying a can of Coke. Her father explains that in some countries only a prostitute would dare to drink a Coke on the street. The veil is present throughout the work as well and it is painted out to be quite a nuisance. Obviously.

To sum it up, Persepolis is the best graphic novel I've ever read. It's funny, sad, and relevant. Something else to note is that the film is good in its own way though it fails to reach the novel's level of greatness.