Archive for the 'movies' Category



And the Oscar goes to…

Sara made a good point in her comment on the last post: why are we not talking Oscar noms? Ok, she didn’t really say that, but I read between the lines. Kate, stop talking about your boring existence and get to the glitz and glam of Hollywood. It’s a message I eagerly receive.

Ok, so I’ve said it before, but I’m going to say it again: it’s completely annoying to nominate more than five films for best picture of the year. Maybe I could handle six nominees. Seven? I think that’s a stretch. The current nine nominee format is ridiculous. It dilutes the whole idea of being a nominee. Yes, I know there are a million films made a year (maybe slightly less), but still: narrow it %$#@#$%$#@ down!

Here are my thoughts:

Argo: Loved it. So fun & fun & fun. Best picture? Nah. But, it was good and I suggest you see it. Despite what the dumbest review on the planet says. Read the comments: they’re hilarious.

Amour: No clue. Haven’t seen it and I don’t think it’s chez Madison yet. It somehow irks me, though, that it can be nominated in the best pic category and the best foreign film category. AO asked me why I felt this way. I can’t really articulate it, but I think it’s because it seems like there shouldn’t be a separate category for best foreign film if foreign films are in the best film category. It also seems like it’s a given it’ll win best foreign film when they set it up this way. Why the separation? Just. Seems. Weird.

Beasts of the Southern Wild: I haven’t seen it, but the trailer for it sure looked cool. Still, I think it has no shot at winning.

Lincoln: Didn’t really want to see it, but I pretty much adored it. I don’t think it’s possible to see the movie and not think it’s amazing. During the movie, I turned to AO and said, “I’m pretty sure that Daniel Day-Lewis and Lincoln are the same person.” In addition to amazing performances (James Spader?) and compelling subject matter, the movie has so much humor in it that the whole product leaves almost nothing to criticize. I predict it’ll win best picture and DDL best actor. After seeing it, I thought this a given, but now I’m not so sure because I’ve seen…

Silver Linings Playbook: Amazing. Amazing. Amazing. This movie has it all: a story that is quiet and unassuming, brilliant acting from every.single.person, a dance montage, a sweet love story, gambling, hilariousness, painfully-felt emotion and an incredibly satisfying ending. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it. I don’t think it’ll win best picture or director, but I think best supporting actor nominee, De Niro, and best supporting actress, Jacki Weaver, have a real shot. At least they would if I were voting. Especially Weaver.

Django Unchained: Holy ^&*$%#@*!& crap. This movie blew me away. Blew. Me. Away. Despite what my dad would tell you (see Argument #579472862836 between Kate & Bill, ca. 1994, in re: Pulp Fiction), I’ve never been a big fan of Quentin Tarantino. I don’t think I’ve seen Inglorious Basterds all the way through, but what I have seen I found pretty damn good. Django Unchained is more than pretty damn good. It may even be brilliant. There are a few parts I definitely could have done without, but overall holy fun! Aesthetically, the pic is a gem and Chistoph Waltz’s performance alone is worth the price of admission. Yes, it’s violent. Yes, it’s bloody. But you know what? It’s essentially a war movie and I found it way, way less horrific than most war movies I’ve seen. And a million times more fun.

Life of Pi: I haven’t seen it and – gasp – I pretty much have no desire to see it. I read a few pages of the book at some point, based on peer pressure, but it didn’t take. I’m just not that interested in this story. I apologize to any one offended by my disinterest.

Les Mis: I haven’t seen it and don’t plan to. I’m just not really a musical person. I think I may have thought I was at some point, but it’s not really true. After AO & I found our seats at the Overture Center for the Wicked performance, I immediately turned to him and said, “Crap. It’s a musical.” Um, hello? I bought the tickets. I knew it was a musical. I ultimately really liked it, but boy was I nervous. I don’t think I’ll be seeing Les Mis anytime soon. Or ever. I hear, though, that Ms. Hathaway’s performance is superb. I consider her a strong contender for an award.

Zero Dark Thirty: I haven’t seen it but I CAN’T WAIT until I do. I mean, I can, but I don’t want to. Please let me see this movie soon.

Here are my totally amateur predictions about the big six:

Best pic: Lincoln

Best director: Steven Spielberg

Best actor: Daniel Day-Lewis

Best actress: Jennifer Lawrence

Best supporting actress:* Anne Hathaway

Best supporting actor:* Christoph Waltz

*I think the best supporting categories are crazy-packed with amazing performances!

It’s the holidays. It’s true.

Especially in light of the horror of last week’s events, I think we are all taking extra time to be grateful not only for our health and safety, but for the little things in life that make us happy and full of wonder (the good kind). I have been hugging Bear closer and kissing her more often (which I didn’t think possible). But in addition to all of the really important things for which I’m grateful, I’ve also been recently reminded how grateful I am for the movies. I don’t mean this in any sort of trivial manner. As you know, Dear Reader, I love the movies and am often left in awe at a good movie’s ability to transport me to someplace else, to make me think of things in a new way, to make me wonder at things I never thought to wonder at. AO & I saw Lincoln on Saturday (thanks again to the Madison grandmas for watching Bear) and it really was amazing. I was worried that it would be too dry or melodramatic or bellicose, but it was none of those things. Thanks again, Mr. Spielberg, for lifting me up and leaving my mind spinning. I appreciate it more than I can ever say.

The holiday movie, as a genre – or more specifically the Christmas movie because I suppose Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Eve could be subcategories of The Holiday Movie genre – is particularly fun. I think a good one usually consists of a lot of sparkle, a little adversity and plenty of good cheer. So, let’s talk favorites. It’s a Wonderful Life tops the list for me for obvious reasons. As for other classics, Miracle on 34th Street really never gets old. I also have always enjoyed Christmas in Connecticut and need to see Holiday Inn again because I remember thinking it was pretty nifty. More recently made favorites include The Holiday (I can’t help it: I always watch it when it’s on), The Family Stone (Diane Keaton AND Rachel McAdams? What’s not to like?), While You Were Sleeping (I love Sandra Bullock in a Chicago toll booth taking subway fare with a passport in her pocket ready to head to Florence should the moment present itself) and Love, Actually (because it is actually pretty damn fun). As for the movies set at Christmas time but that don’t exactly make you feel warm & fuzzy, I think I’d probably put Die Hard at the top of my list.

I know I’m forgetting a million (some deliberately) so please tell me what flicks put you in the holiday mood. And happy holidays!

Sigh

It’s been lonely around this blog lately. I miss you guys.

I just came upon this news, which made me feel old and sad. I remember where I was when I learned he died: in my basement dorm room in Liz Waters Hall. Oh, River. I was never a fan of your extreme veganism,* but I loved you nonetheless.

*I remember an acquaintance making fun of the dreamy actor, declaring, “Don’t eat meat! Do drugs!”

Descending and ascending

AO and I recently saw The Descendants. I had heard mixed things – well, actually, I had heard two very curt reviews: one labeled it close to excellent and the other deemed it so-so. I knew Aaron wasn’t psyched to see it, but he didn’t put up much of a fight so off we went! I’m still processing my thoughts and feelings on the film so please forgive me if this post is un peu disjointed.

Let me start by stating that if I had put it together that The Descendants was from the same man, Alexander Payne, responsible for Sideways, I’m not sure I would have even entered the theater. I found Sideways to be full of whiny, humorless middle-aged male crap for which I have almost no tolerance. Not to mention that I happen to like Merlot. Anyway, Payne’s resume also includes Election, not one of my favorite flicks, as well as a couple of Playboy videos. Had I known all this, I don’t know if I would have seen the movie at all, but if I had, I know I would have anticipated, at a minimum, a sexist or misogynistic vibe emanating from the screen. So, it’s probably a good thing I didn’t know anything about Payne, instead thinking only that the movie would probably strike me as being somewhere between excellent and so-so.

If I had to rate it as one of those two, I would smack it with the label ‘excellent.’ But let me back up. We settled into the theater with a bag of pregnant-lady popcorn (previously dubbed just ‘popcorn’) and a tasty cold Diet Coke (caffeine!). Gotta love Sundance for many reasons, not least of which are the real butter and Coke products the concessions stand offers. This movie snuck up on me, in the way that life tends to, I suppose. One minute I was munching happily away on my popcorn and then next I was weeping quietly, thinking about how hard life can be. Anyway, without any spoiling I think I can safely say the narrative of the film is as follows: George Clooney plays Matt King, a real estate attorney in Hawaii, who is married with two daughters, Alexandra, 17, and Scottie, 10. His somewhat estranged wife, Elizabeth, has recently been in a boating accident and is in a severe coma. Instead of tending to his wife and children for the last who-knows-how-many-years, Matt has buried himself in work. He became, or always was (we don’t know), the back-up parent (his term).  Because of Elizabeth’s coma, Matt must become the primary caregiver. But this isn’t a Mr. Mom tale (love that movie, though!) or a How Will a Man Raise Daughters Alone? movie or even a Regarding Henry-type Work-Isn’t-As-Important-As-Family story. In fact, it’s nothing close to any of those paradigms for formerly absentee father films. This movie, instead, is about love and marriage and relationships and forgiveness and frailty and humanity and weakness and responsibility. It’s about care-taking in the truly best possible way. But let me back up.

While Elizabeth is literally comatose, Matt learns she had been cheating on him. The news floors him, but he is clearly more surprised, angry and resentful than heartbroken or sad. Matt copes with the news by trying to learn as much as possible about the man with whom his wife cheated, deciding he must confront the interloper in person, if only to relay to him the fact his lover is in a coma. This MacGuffin device is useful and relatable and, like most MacGuffins, ultimately quite irrelevant. It is what Matt learns about himself, his daughters and life while in search of his wife’s paramour that is the point of The Descendants.

Overlaying all of this, though, is Matt’s obligation as sole executor of a trust that holds an inordinate amount of beautiful, pristine land on Kauai. The beneficiaries of the trust are about a dozen or so of Matt’s cousins; the trust contains the family’s significant land ownings. The trust is in a precarious position as it may not hold the land in perpetuity, so Matt and his cousins are considering selling the land to comply with the law and, as luck would have it, to make them all very wealthy. The problem is, of course, the land is supremely beautiful, untouched and, well, paradise. Through his cinematography, Payne does an excellent job of driving home the point he had Matt extol at the beginning of the movie: Hawaii is beautiful, but it is inhabited by humans; no matter where humans are, life will be complicated and ugly, painful and hard. The land held by the trust is remarkable in its stark contrast to the other Hawaii Payne shows us, the one that looks more like something we’d recognize around us on the mainland: Matt’s dirty pool & his cluttered office, Alexandra’s utilitarian boarding school dorm, Scottie’s classmate’s house or Elizabeth’s stale hospital room. The Kings’ Hawaii is both beautiful and messy. And like all of us, Hawaii needs someone to tend to it, to care for it, or at least to look in on it, once in a while.  

To me, The Descendants resonated as a tale of love and loss, reminding me that to love and to hurt, to cause pain and to mend, are innately part of our collective human life. As I continue to struggle with my own guilt at having hurt others and with the pain I hold at having been hurt, I appreciated and relished the movie’s reminder that we all hurt the ones we love, whether intentionally or callously, but that we all have the power to forgive, to heal and the obligation to wrap those closest to us in a blanket of safety and love.

Law schools: the students

In a recent post, I used The New York Times’ piece on the business that is law school to rail against the predatory nature of law schools. I told you, Dear Reader, that I would have a post to come about the students who attend law school. This is that post.

Well, this is that post with a bit of a twist. You see, yesterday Aaron and I saw Inside Job, the documentary about the global financial crisis that hit in 2008 and continues to be felt around the world. While watching Inside Job, I thought a lot about that Times article. The article features a guy, Michael Wallerstein, who must be nominated for Biggest Ass Ever to Come Out of Thomas Jefferson Law School. I’m pretty sure he’s the favorite for the win.  The kid is annoying at best, completely slapworthy at worst. Wallerstein calls himself part of the “Bailout Generation,” which is a totally new term for me. He seems to think that because Washington bailed out Wall Street, they may do the same for him and his student loans. His loans, by the way, may be $200,000, they may be $300,000. He doesn’t really know.

That attitude drives me crazy. Let someone else clean up my mess! But then after seeing Inside Job, I realized that it drives me crazy for another reason as well: it’s completely delusional. There is no Bailout Generation. At least not for people like me. Or even people like Wallerstein. The bailouts were, and always will be I fear, for the rich. And there will be no repercussions for those who receive them. Those folks go on to run other companies, run universities, run parts of the government. They go on to buy yachts and more houses in the Hamptons. They go on to write the tax code and financial laws. The repercussions of the pernicious actions of the rich, and of the government’s bailouts of the rich, don’t affect the rich, they affect the rest of us. They come in the form of an avalanche, hurting no one at the top of the mountain, but everyone on the way down and piling the most amount of damage on those at the very bottom. [I know the analogy isn’t perfect because, obviously, anyone in an avalanche’s path is going to be destroyed, but let’s just pretend it works.] Washington is not going to step in and help Wallerstein with his massive debt. It’s massive to Wallerstein, but it’s just one person’s debt and it’s meaningless to Washington. [In fact, Aaron told me recently that the interest paid to one’s student loans won’t even be tax-exempt as of 2013. As college and graduate school prices soar out of control compared with personal income, Washington has decided to get rid of the teeny tiny thing they did to help graduates out after accumulating massive loans to pay for an education.] Paying off Wallerstein’s debt — or any middle class or poor person’s debt — is not a priority for our government. There will be no bailouts for those who need the help.

Inside Job is a really great movie. It’s full of great footage of what the economic crisis really did — there are people living in tents in Florida, there are thousands of houses that sit empty and boarded up, there are people waiting in line for food stamps. There is great footage of the decadence and hedonism and arrogance that led to the crisis — Lehman Brothers’ six private jets, prostitution and cocaine, estates with acres and acres of land. But what really makes the movie so great is its simplicity. Over and over we hear that the financial world is far too complicated for us poor, pathetic lay people to understand. Economists laugh at reporters, as if their questions are cute or silly. And while I know that there are all sorts of things in this universe I do not understand, it does not take a genius, or even a BS in economics, to understand what went on here. It was greed.

The movie contains dozens of interviews of economists – some who had warned that the economic climate was becoming increasingly unstable and some who still pretend that they could not have seen this crisis coming. There are so many delicious bits in this movie! Some of the super fun ones come when the director, Charles Ferguson, interviews Frederic Mishkin, a professor in Columbia’s Business School, who also happened to be on the board of the Federal Reserve from September 2006 until May 2008, when he resigned. When Ferguson asks Mishkin why he resigned just as the world needed the most help, Mishkin answered that it was because he had a textbook to edit. Brilliant. Documentaries are so great when a director can get moments like that on film – it’s better than anything scripted. There’s also a perfect moment in the Mishkin interview in which he discusses his paper on the stability of Iceland’s economy. [The movie had started with shots of Iceland and a brief summary of how Iceland’s economy was a total house of cards. For more on Iceland’s nuttiness, I highly recommend this article in Vanity Fair from 2009.] Of course, Mishkin had taken money from Iceland’s Chamber of Commerce to write the puff piece. What may be even more interesting, though, is that his current resume cites the paper as a piece on the INstability of Iceland’s economy. When asked about the change, Mishkin dismissed it as a typo.

There are so many other great moments in the movie; moments when you laugh to keep yourself from crying. Ferguson is a polite, but tenacious, interviewer, which strikes an absolute perfect note, I think. My favorite thing in a documentary like this is when the director can get a previously cooperative subject to ask that the camera be turned off, which happened during part of the Ferguson interview with former Under Secretary of the Treasury during Bush 2, David McCormick. You can almost feel the satisfied grin of the movie’s crew. Zing!

Over the past couple of years, I have heard people state, or at least imply, that the homeowners who bought more than they could afford caused the economic crisis. I am now asking myself why I never felt that way, but why I am quick to blame Wallerstein for his behavior. Both groups of people have been swindled, really, and both groups of people could have known better. Of course part of why I blame Wallerstein is because he comes off as incredibly arrogant and entitled. And the poor homeowners highlighted in Inside Job did not speak English and were literally preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders and brokers. But both of those groups are probably extremes. Most people who have gotten themselves in over their heads are most likely in between. They maybe could have done better due diligence (what does this paperwork really say? how much do we really bring home a month? what kind of jobs are actually out there for recent law graduates? etc.), but both groups are clearly the Little Guy caught up in a savvy, greedy, well-oiled machine. So, while I am all for personal responsibility and owning up to your mistakes, we are talking about money-making practices that are designed to prey upon and chew up and spit out the person who is just looking for their little part of the dream. We aren’t talking about greedy kids or greedy working-class people. We are talking about folks who want to further their education or to put their family in a house. Those aren’t money-crazed people looking for a bailout. They were looking for a loan.

So while I put some responsibility on the students in this law school game, I put the bulk of the responsibility on the schools. The law schools, afterall, are supposed to teach ethics.