Dazed and Confused

Have you ever left the cinema confused? Not sure what you’ve just paid money to see? This can sometimes mean the film is crap: confused plots (or lack thereof) and or performances. However, this can sometimes be a good sign: you’ve been challenged and now see the world in a new light. Today’s reviews fall somewhere in this grey zone of cinematic confusion. Let the ride begin.

Black Swan

In an interview with an Australian film magazine a comparison was made between Aronofsky’s last film The Wrestler and his latest offering Black Swan. For those of you who saw The Wrestler this may seem a bit like chalk and cheese: the story of a broken down, has-been professional athlete up against the grace, beauty and finesse of the ballet world. However, the comparison also invites favourable reminiscence about the guts and raw intensity of Mickey Rourke’s performance and the ability to make a largely ridiculed and derided form of entertainment heartbreaking and accessible to a mainstream audience. So is the comparison warranted?

Firstly, the intensity of the Black Swan has not been rivalled this year. Not since watching the last half hour of Inception have I been on the edge of my seat until the credits started rolling. The slick directing from Aronofsky ensures the dramatic suspense of the storyline does not fizzle out and as we are thrown into a world of fantasy, ballet and inner turmoil one feels as though you are living the experience of Natalie Portman’s Nina. The end is comparable to Mickey Rourke attempting one last “Ramjam” and no less thrilling.

Also, like The Wrestler, the performances are superb. Portman as Nina, the innocent new principal ballerina, gives a performance worthy of the Oscar buzz. Her struggle to embrace the darker side of her personality is engaging and painful as we see her battle, self-harm and the whims of a demanding artistic director in Vincent Cassel. One of the early scenes in which they embrace and she bites him demonstrates both the clever psychology of Cassel and the ability of Aronofsky to keep the audience on its toes.

Finally, the music does not disappoint. The score keeps pace with the action and almost negates the need for spoken interaction. The last half hour is only sparsely punctated by dialogue as the music heightens the dramatic tension. Like the soundtrack to The Wrestler, this will be in my rotation for sometime.

So was it a fair comparison? I hope not. Both films are intense and tell familiar stories in a unique and engaging light. Both have wonderful performances by lead actors and direction that crescendo into heartbreakingly beautiful cinematic finishes. However, Mickey Rourke did not win an Oscar for his performance and it would be a travesty if Natalie Portman is denied one here.

The Dilemma

I think the backers of this film had a dilemma: cast funny guy Vince Vaughn as your lead and get dependable director Ron Howard to control him. Unfortunately, one of Vaughn’s companies financed it and so what you get is confusion: Ron Howard drama trying to compete with Vince Vaughn humour.

This is not to say that the film isn’t funny. As I sat there watching I knew which parts were meant to be funny: cue Vince ranting while someone else played the straight guy. Unfortunately, when we got to those moments I didn’t feel like laughing all that much. Okay, I did giggle at the urinating joke in the beginning, but laughing at an intervention to stop problem gambling that turns into the very public break up of a marriage is not exactly a belly ache. Call me old fashioned but Vaughn threatening to burn off the face of a man whose house he just broke into or hijacking someone else’s wedding anniversary to rant about cheating doesn’t tickle my funny bone.

Moreover, Vaughn’s character must have been lobotomised somewhere in the back story because he lacks basic emotional awareness granted to functioning citizens. He’s shocked that his best friend is angry at him for telling him he slept with his wife before they were married? That’s a new one. Hang on, he doesn’t quite get why the cheating man wants to kill him when he breaks into his house and destroys his possessions? That’s just plain unreasonable. Most disturbingly, he wants to get married to his girlfriend (played by Jennifer Connelly*) yet fails to be honest with her about the situation or realise that his behaviour is somewhat suspicious for a recovering gambling addict.

Now at this point it seems just like a long rant and I probably didn’t appreciate the film for what it was: comedy =) Not true, I love comedy but laughing at gambling addiction, break and enter and infidelity aren’t exactly on my laugh radar. Nice concept, poor execution. Lesson to learn: never let Vince Vaughn tell Ron Howard how to direct a film.

Adult Humour?

Drinking problem? LOL! Lets do some weed too! ROFL!




Bored out of my mind on Sunday night, I ventured into the world of American sitcoms and far from being amused I was shocked: substance abuse is alive and well in the world of the “average” family!

The show I am referring to is Rules of Engagement, a show premised on the hilarity from observing a married couple, an engaged couple and a single man interacting. While the premise alone has potential for laughs, the performances are forgettable and even David Spade cannot rescue the comedy (*NB: I gathered it was a comedy from the presence of a laugh track NOT the dialogue or poor Godfather impersonations).

However, my concern was the blatant ignorance of alcoholism and the condoning of recreational drug taking. Both substance abuse issues revolved around the engaged woman who we first meet carrying a box of about a dozen empty wine bottles:

You guys must have had a party?
No.
So you guys like wine.
Yeah, we like wine.
Okay.
Actually, I just like wine.
Okay…
Do you want to have a wine?

So the responsible married woman notices that her neighbour and friend seem has a drinking problem and her only response is to shrug it off. This is further reinforced by the engaged woman choosing to smoke marijuana because there is no wine in the house!

Now, I may seem like a wowser and reading too much into a sitcom whose job is to purely entertain but I think not. Sitcoms reflect social attitudes and if this is the attitude towards substance abuse then we have a serious problem. Alcoholism impacts not only the abuser but family and friends as well as job prospects. For her friend to blatantly ignore this problem is to neglect her friend and as good as putting another bottle in her hand and saying “bottoms up!”

Furthermore, the portrayal of smoking marijuana was stupidly clichéd and condoned the practice. If the woman is suffering from alcoholism then smoking recreational drugs will further compound her problems and may lead to harder substance abuse problems.

Following your heart can be painful… but rewarding

The beginning of the year is my favourite movie time of year. With the Oscars just around the corner, the cream of the crop of films start to be released and I have an even more reason to buy the new DVD releases! That being said, Christmas also sees the release of the “holiday blockbuster”, usually a prequel/sequel or a film with multiple stars that just can’t be ignored, that can unfortunately be hit and miss. So let’s look at what the beginning of the year brought so far.

Somewhere
There was an intriguing, engaging and heartbreaking story of a man trying to reconnect with his child as he realises the futility of his materialistic, drug and sex driven existence. Unfortunately, Sofia Coppola’s latest cinematic release has all the beautiful trademarks of her early work but fails to pack a punch in the storyline. This sounds harsh but she did set herself a high benchmark following Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides and this was made higher by the tagging of the film with this former hit and thus I couldn’t help but leave the cinema disappointed.

On the positives, the film had all the hallmarks of Sophia Coppola’s film making genius and her ability to convey a sense of isolation amongst chaos. Her main actors hit the mark and much has been rightly made of Elle Fanning and Stephen Dorff as the father/daughter duo. Their on screen chemistry is perfect and Stephen Dorff brings a sense of humanity to an otherwise selfish character: his blank stare at the poll dancing duo is a poignant opening that quickly conveys the message of the film. Similarly, the soundtrack by Phoenix enhances the mood of the film and lulls the audience into Johnny Marco’s world of opulence, girls, booze, and film premiers. Finally, the cinematography is beautiful and brings back shades of Lost in Translation.

However, the thing that made Lost in Translation so beautiful as well as powerful was the relationship between Murray and Johansson that blossomed and ultimately died in front of our eyes. Their joint isolation and mutual relationship dissatisfaction made their union an engaging dance with that final whisper in her ear being a scene that will remain a part of cinematic history (along with that famous opening shot but that’s not really emotional is it?). All this is missing in the latest effort and shows up more so for all its other strengths. Granted, she couldn’t remake that story but a self-pitying Hollywood actor who decides to give it all away – yawn, I’ve seen it a hundred times and I’m still don’t feel any more sorry for them. Moreover, the final scene is so clichéd I only stayed around for the credits to find out who did the soundtrack.

The reason I think behind this is her critical failure in Marie Antoinette. Personally, this is one of my favourite films of all time, not just counting Sophia Coppola films, and was a raucous mix of history, fashion and social commentary. However, the general reaction to the film was criticism and as such it didn’t attain the commercial success of her previous outings. This saw a long wait for her next work and I feel that this has hampered her creative output this time around. I don’t blame her for wanting to ensure box office and critical success but in playing it safe with such a well worn storyline has its downfall.

The Tourist
Johnny Depp looks blank/stupid or heroic/earnest.

Angelina Jolie pouts her lips and acts annoyed at Depp.

Paul Bettany acts likes an infuriated British plodder.

Shock twist at the end of the film.

This may seem a harsh summary of an awful film so here it is in simple language: it was crap and everyone sleep walked their way through their roles. Scriptwriting 101 plus good actors does not a good movie make, as my wife said: “It seems they just did the film to get paid.” Enough said.

Blue Valentine
I was meant to see this film about a month ago with a complementary ticket to the Canberra film festival but it was sold out and I left feeling like I hadn’t really missed out on anything. How wrong could I be?

This is the best film I’ve seen since Inception and all the more impressive because it doesn’t tell a new or exciting story. It is a love story: boy meets girl, they fall in love, have a family and run into trouble. Whereas in Somewhere a well worn story fails to pack a punch, this film has emotional grit to spare and isn’t afraid to explore sensitive issues head-on (the paedophile joke on the bus in just one example).

Gosling and Williams make an excellent leading couple whose disintegrating marriage we follow, interceded by a series of flashbacks, to its painful conclusion. Gosling’s earnestness is matched with Williams’ vulnerability and together we see all the phases of love: the chase, initial lust, marriage and dissatisfaction. The most powerful thing about the film was its rawness and realness: I felt like I had lived and seen those scenes played out in my own life and felt their pain at going through them. The smile on Williams’ face when she meets an old flame and the ensuing argument with Gosling capture the reality of married life and the daily struggle of living with another person; a person with their own wants, desires and fantasies.

I couldn’t say too much more without giving away the important plot points but the build to the film’s final crisis is superbly timed and makes the journey feel complete. How does it end? I think the film leaves it open enough and I’m an optimist. See it. Cry during it. Love it.

Al Jolson for Prime Minister

One of the most fascinating things that have emerged from this election campaign is Julia Gillard’s hands. This may sound a bit weird but when we look at her speaking style pre and post her ascension to the office of Prime Minister there is a marked difference. Why is this worthy of an entire blog? Well, you know the quality of this campaign so I won’t say anymore…

Watching Gillard’s performance at the Labor Party launch today brought back some fond memories. It reminded me of the time that I saw a musical about Al Jolson at the Capitol Theatre. Al Jolson, the famous black face jazz singer, was well known for his live performances of “Mammy” with his excellent jazz hands. These same jazz hands were out in force today with our acting Prime Minister. In the short 30 second grab they showed of her speech I counted nearly a dozen individual hand movements that can be categorized as follows:
-Left jab
-Right jab
-Jazz hands
-Double jab left
-Double jab right
-Thumb back

Next time you see her talk try doing a running commentary on her hand movements. It’s even more fun when speaking to someone else and makes the repetitive nature of her words (moving forward, lets have another debate, you’ll wake up with Tony, yes we can – no I mean yes we will) more bearable.

More importantly, it gave me some ideas for Tony Abbott’s next announcement. Known for his love of cycle and all things exercise, maybe Abbott can do his policy announcements on an exercise bike or incorporate the following hand gestures:
-The swim
-The jog
-The Muhammad Ali

So as we head to Saturday lets hope for a plethora of new hand gestures to generate further interest in this insipid campaign.

Badger for PM

When the election was initially called a couple of weeks back I had a great idea for this blog. My idea was to do a running commentary on the weekly events in the spirit of South Park, who devoted an entire show to democracy and PETA: concluding that most elections are a choice between a giant douche (foam baseball bat) and a shit sandwich (enough said). It was decided that Julia due to her height could be the giant douche while Tony’s muscular frame was more suited to the shit sandwich (NB: both are as bad as each other so do not read anything into the choice of roles for either leader).

Unfortunately, I have been so under-whelmed by this election campaign that I haven’t had the urge to write anything and am feeling even less inclined to actually cast my vote. In fact, the only reason I will chase up my voting options is so that I can avoid a fine from the electoral commission. Moreover, this is a sharp contrast to 2007 when I proudly wore my Kevin 07 t-shirt much to the annoyance of my workmates in a blue ribbon liberal seat and felt passionately about changing our government.

What has changed since then? For one, I lost my opportunity to vote out Kevin Rudd myself. Yes, I didn’t think he did a good job and was hoping that I could let him know on polling day myself. Instead, Julia has chosen to deprive me of my right to vote out the Prime Minister (yes Julia, we chose him NOT you as PM) and so I would like to deprive her of her right to lead the dysfunctional Labor Party. Moreover, the Liberal Party decided to remove the thinking man’s politician, and my local member, Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the opposition. I remember announcing to my Redlands history class that day that the Liberal Party was now dead to me with Abbott as leader and reading back on my blogs even wrote one about him called “Stupidity”. Has my opinion of the Mad Monk changed: not really, he is still an idiot with minimal policy ideas and if I see him running around one more time I will scream.

So a week to go and to say I am disillusioned would be a gross understatement. The actual campaign has perhaps been even worse that Julia’s attempts to revive the corpse of the Labor Party with quick fixes that make Abbott look like a policy intellectual: scrap the ETS, decapitate the mining tax and re-badge the Pacific Solution. Then during the campaign itself it has been a plethora of small target announcement aimed at marginal seats (unfortunately I am not in one but at least the race for the senate in the ACT is interesting) with appearances from a fake Julia and a caged Abbott.

However, like Stan in South Park, I must vote or face exile (a fine in my case). So what issues most influence me?
1. Julia is a backstabbing puppet who will be shafted as quickly as KRudd was when she goes badly in the polls
2. Tony has changed his mind on so many issues that he is a blank canvas to Julia’s puppet and essentially shows a lack of leadership
3. National Broadband: Julia’s plan is clearly too expensive and leaves us still too far behind other countries but Abbott’s plan is not clearly explained and produces speeds that are too slow
4. Education: both parties want to pay teachers for better performance with Abbott’s plan sounding more sensible than Julia’s and Labor’s track record on delivering the Education Revolution (revolutionary in its failure to do anything despite massive fanfare) being dismal
5. Immigration: both parties are racing to the bottom and Julia’s nose dive to sympathize with racist, moronic, idiotic, Western suburbs voters (what’s to fear? Most of the immigrants don’t take your jobs) made me ashamed to have voted Labor

So all up I will vote Malcolm Turnbull in not because he’s Liberal but because he actually brings some intelligence to the table (see his debate with Maxine McKewen for evidence). As for the overall winner: we’re screwed either way – a dysfunctional, incompetent Labor Party or an ultra-conservative, idiotic Liberal Party.

Congratulations Australia: we have officially had the worst electoral campaign in history!

A Rat in the Kitchen!

Last year I made a promise to myself. It wasn’t made lightly or without much thought. It was a matter of principle and something that I cared deeply about. The promise I made to myself:

NEVER WATCH MASTERCHEF AUSTRALIA EVER AGAIN!

Why did I make such a decision? Call it a protest of sorts: a protest against deliberately manipulated outcomes that increasingly dominate reality television. Anyone who watched the series would attest to the fact that Julie Goodwin (the eventual winner and I‘m happy to note a somewhat insignificant figure on the Australian television landscape except for her target audience: stupid, gullible housewives who watch crap like Kerri-Anne) should have been eliminated multiple times in the last two weeks and was somehow kept in the competition. As a dead give away to the ridiculous meddling this involved: for most of the final week we didn’t see the judges deliberation as presumably they would have had to admit that her performance did not warrant her continuation in the competition. Ultimately though, she didn’t deserve to win because she wasn’t a master CHEF. Julie was a great cook no doubt but was clearly an inferior chef in terms of her presentation and style of food.

The reason why I rehash this old news, much to my satisfaction there was a significant backlash from the netizens about this travesty of justice, is that history is repeating itself. A feature of Julie’s tarnished run to the line was a series of incomplete dishes that failed at a basic level to meet the requirements of the challenges. For instance, the task was to complete a two course meal and she completed one or half or not much of it at all. Regardless, the judges gushed about how tasty her food was and a contestant who actually completed the task (shock, horror: someone actually doing what they asked) was shown the door because they weren’t overweight, had a stupid Australian accent, cried at the drop of a hat and gushed constantly about cooking for their kids.

It seems Callum from South Australia has the same such luck. In tonight’s elimination challenge he failed to plate up the five dishes as required in the task (notice the similarity) but somehow avoided the bottom three because it tasted so good (despite ALL THE OTHER CONTESTANTS plating up the 5 dishes as required). This is a joke: if not completing all aspects of the task are required to go through then previously eliminated contestants have a right to complain. Maybe if the judges had chosen to ignore incomplete task at other stages then they might have survived.

It’s left me wondering why Callum is having so much luck. A few things immediately come to mind: large puppy dog eyes, a cute but stupid sounding lisp, looking like an idiot, being only 20 years old and residing in South Australia. All these things normally spell disadvantage and probably do for him in normal life: he probably has problem relating to people (perhaps living in South Australia this is negated as most people are weird in that state) and being a young man obsessed with lisping and cooking would make him a bit different from the football crowd. Moreover, his constant looks of disappointment and blinking back tears probably make it hard to maintain a conversation with him as you would be afraid of him breaking into great big sobs. However, maybe this is a demographic that Channel 10 has identified as the next big money spinner. Due to the failure of Julie Goodwin’s cookbooks (its already on sale at Borders which is a bad sign) maybe they have realized that stupid housewives tune in but don’t fork out the money for the merchandise.

Either way, there is definitely a rat in the kitchen and no amount of over dramatic acting by the three judges can hide the fact!

Attack of the Counselors

There are many times in life when we are struck by grief and sadness. The loss of family, friends or even prominent figures such as Heath Ledger can trigger such emotions. Ultimately though, each person needs to find their own way of dealing with this grief so that they can move on with their life and continue with the business of living. This process can take months or even years and is a deeply personal journey that cannot be fitted into a one size fits all approach.

On a personal note, I have experienced loss of both immediate family and close relatives. Some of the issues surrounding these linger to this day and the grief I experienced remains unresolved. Moreover, following the murder/suicide of professional wrestler Chris Benoit, I experienced a profound sense of grief that lingered with me for many months. During that time I felt numb and was visibly upset and emotional when news reports and print articles appeared. This numbness led to an almost obsessive collection and following of the events. Why? Perhaps I needed to make sense of the events within myself in order to continue living. By finding out all I could about this man, his life and ultimately his death maybe I could justify how one of the people I most admired in the industry could so coldly end both his family and his own life. For me this was a real and saddening time and something that I can only now begin to look back on with some sense of calm.

What angers me though is the crap we get with events such as the recent death of the pilot in Sydney. A hero by all accounts, he flew his plane away from crowded areas including schools so that there was minimal loss of life. This man is a hero and his family along with that of his passenger will be experiencing a deep sense of grief at this time. These people deserve to be in our prayers and need all the support they can get to help them continue on. Who doesn’t need help are the children at the school next to where he crashed.

Yes, you heard me correctly. The children at the school at which he DIDN’T CRASH and at which NOBODY DIED as a result of the accident don’t need counseling. In fact, they don’t need any special attention whatsoever. They all lived and should get on with their lives. Instead we have the crock of shit counselors who seem to make a living from turning up at large public gatherings as soon as something remotely “traumatic” occurs. These people do nothing to help or aid these people; instead they encourage them to express grief for events that did not result in any of them losing their lives. The moronic idiots who decided they should be present in the first place should be fired for incompetence and stupidity. All they are doing is encouraging the students to experience grief that is unnecessary and harmful.

Resilience is a word that is not used often enough at such times. Rather than teach our kids to fall to pieces for an accident that didn’t occur to them and which none of their school friends died, the school leaders should instead encourage them to show resilience to continue on with schooling and move past the tragic events. This is not to ignore the accident or make it trivial: this IS a tragic event but for the PILOT and his PASSENGER not the unharmed and unaffected school children.

Its time Australia stopped its obsession with grief counselors that encourage our kid to fall to pieces when something mildly bad happens to them. We should be teaching our kids resilience so that they can overcome real tragedies in life’s journey when they actually occur. The death of the pilot was sad and tragic but lets remember who for.