1. It is the Matthew Perry's first appearance as Joe Quincy, a candidate for the associate counsel position that Josh (Bradley Whitford) has to interview. Since I did not catch Perry's post-Friends, Lifetime-esque movie, this is the only time I have seen him in a non-comedic role. He is subtly humorous, smart, and adorable in his back-and-forth with Josh. This episode is the first of two featuring Joe Quincy. I wish there were more.
As I said, she faces no non-believer as rigid as Toby (Richard Schiff). This is one of the overwhelming themes throughout the show, which is also why this episode is, in my opinion, archetypal. Constantly, optimism must battle with cynicism, as the characters try to balance what must be done with what they wish could be done.
Enter, The Good Wife. The Good Wife is an awesome show, currently in its third season, about Alicia, played by Julianna Margulies, who goes back to work at a big law firm after her politician husband is caught in a sex scandal. On The Good Wife, the main character is obviously a woman. One of the name partners in her firm is also a woman, played by Christine Baranski, as is the firm's investigator, Kalinda, played by Archie Panjabi.
who holds onto the traditional ways, mostly those of being haughty, while a younger member of the aristocracy tries to mix with the lower class, either for fun or genuine interest. Many times, the aforementioned matriarch is played by the great Maggie Smith. Usually, there is also some sort of scandal in the aristocracy that inevitably must be cleaned up. In general, those in the lower class are nicer, although there are always the evil, conniving ones, while those in the upper class are either flaky, coarse, or stifled, showing that it ain't easy to be rich.
But if none of that interests you, watch it for the clothes. Oh, the clothes! The aristocrats' wardrobe will have you salivating. The style on this show is impeccable and the ornate dresses and jewelry the women wear are enough to send you reeling.
This past week, I went to an advanced screening of Martha Marcy May Marlene. For months, the film world has been aflutter with news of this festival darling. It is one of the few films to be screened at the "Big 3" -- Sundance, Cannes, and Toronto (September 8-18).
Earlier this week, I attended an advanced screening of the new documentary Senna. This film, directed by Asif Kapadia, depicts the career of arguably the best driver in Formula One history, Ayrton Senna. Of course, some of the impact of this film is lost on those who do not follow F1 racing, and even more on those who, like myself, don't really know the difference between F1 and Nascar. However, it is a testament to this film that, even without any prior knowledge or interest, I was able to connect with and find inspiration in the documentary.
Last week, after a long day at work and a strenuous workout (due to the fact that it was my first in eons), I decided to take the advice of a magazine doctor, whose article I once read while in Sleepy's. He said that, in order to have a good night's rest, I should tell my body to calm down by drinking tea and and watching a movie to relax. Sounded good to be, so I got some tea and combed through Netflix. I came upon Buster Keaton's 1924 masterpiece Sherlock Jr.
Enter Latif Yahia. Due to his resemblance to the President’s son, the Iraqi soldier was chosen to be Uday’s body double. As such, Latif had to melt into Uday’s life, not only bearing witness to Uday’s psychotic behavior without the power to stop it, but also becoming Uday in the public sphere. The new film The Devil’s Double, directed by Lee Tamahori, starring Dominic Cooper, and based on Latif’s book by the same name, tells the story of Latif’s life as Uday’s “twin brother.”
You may remember Cooper from Mamma Mia (2008) and The History Boys (2006). In this film, he plays three roles: Latif, Uday, and Latif pretending to be Uday, which is another character all together. For Cooper, this role was a huge jump from his past roles of brooding bad boy or jet-skiing golden boy, so I was skeptical at first. However, from the opening credits, it was clear that Cooper had risen to the challenge and that this would be a career-making performance. His portrayal of Latif is accomplished; his portrayal of Uday is outstanding.
One of the first scenes depicts Latif being delivered to Uday at his palace. The two stand face to face, one laughing manically like a hyena, the other staring soberly in disbelief. From there, Latif is jailed, beaten, forced to get plastic surgery, and made to relinquish all rights to his former identity. Much of what happens in the film seems over the top and extremely exaggerated. Uday disembowels his father’s friend at a party. The next morning, his henchmen dump the strangled body of a 14-year-old girl he had picked up as she was walking home from school. Later, he rapes and beats a woman on her wedding day, shaming her so greatly that she jumps off the balcony, dying on the patio in the middle of her waiting wedding reception.
These things may seem exaggerated, but, in fact, Uday’s actions are toned down for the movie. In the film, Latif survives two assassination attempts on Uday. In actually, he survived more than ten. In an interview with Latif after Uday’s death, he says that he once watched Uday mutilate a woman until she was a “hunk of meat.” Sadly the horrors in the movie pale in comparison to reality.
The world into which this film takes you is terrifying. In many films in which the content is foreign to Americans, the director must establish the rules of the environment, so that the audience can understand the gravity of what is happening. In this film, Lee Tamahori establishes that there are no rules, and that is why Latif’s world is so terrifying; accountability for Uday is virtually nonexistent with no safe haven for those he wishes to harm.
Latif’s is an amazing story and Tamahori’s is a wonderful film. Go see for yourself.
The final film I want to talk about is Takers, the film that started this whole thing. CAUTION: SPOILERS. So, you may remember Takers; you may not. It was that heist film with Idris Elba, Paul Walker, Matt Dillon, Jay Hernandez, Zoe Saldana, that girlfriend-beater, that singer, and that guy with the amazing eyes. Anyway, pretty awesome cast, so why don't you remember it? Because it was a bona fide genre mash-up and, by the end, you're like WTF was that?! It was, first and foremost a heist film. It goes how many heist films go -- successful heist, unwelcomed crew member returns, greed, unsuccessful heist, sadness. In heist films, we expect to see some creative crime, and a variety of face coverings (president masks, nun masks, ski masks, etc), but bank robbers and the like are supposed to be the good criminals, so there is seldom outright brutal violence.
1. THE TREE OF LIFE -- I saw The Tree of Life shortly after is came out in Philadelphia. I had no real idea what to expect because it had done so well at Cannes, but, from watching the trailers, I could not figure out what the film was about. Then I learned that the reason for that was that the film is hardly about anything. It was artsy to the extreme. There were metaphors, whispered lines, and Sean Penn really earning his money by sitting in chairs and looking out windows. I must say that it was a beautiful film. It showed the full capabilities of film and utilized a new storytelling style. The cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, should be crowned king of cinematographers. The film is very high art, which makes it extremely inaccessible to most people, which explains the "ugh" reaction from half the audience. I didn't really feel for any of the characters, which severely lessened my investment in the film. Further, Malick suggested a whole bunch of metaphors that he never wrapped up or connected to the other storyline. For these reasons, I appreciated The Tree of Life, but strongly disliked it.
becasue it was high art, an acquired taste, you might say. Green Lantern, I disliked for it's lack of taste. For one thing, I severely dislike Blake Lively, in no small part because of her annoying blonde leggy-ness. However, my adoration for Ryan Reynolds outweighs said ill-feelings. Though Reynolds was delightful, the film in general was just "too." Too many special effects, especially when it seemed that Reynolds was doing a "head-in-the-hole" picture becasue his suit and the background were both computer generated, too much make-up on Peter Sarsgaard, making him look laughable rather than menacing (although he did the maniacal act well), too many hokey morals, like when fear is literally ruining the world and courage is the only solution, and finally, too many butt and boob centric (and work inappropriate) outfits for Lively. Although the same could be said for Reynolds, since the studio could have saved millions on special effects by simply painting Reynold's abs green. I know that this common fare for super hero movies, but so many comic adaptations -- particularly X-men and Batman -- have added a little something extra. I wish this had too.
3. LARRY CROWNE -- In the credits for Larry Crowne, I learned that (1) Tom Hanks directed it and (2) Nia Vardalos co-wrote it. I took these as good signs since I enjoy That Thing You Do and My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and it's always nice to see mentor-protegee type teams staying together. But then the movie sucked. The only thing I liked from it was the scenes of the Vespa-gang, which I thought was cute. However, the rest of it was kind of horrible. Almost every character was annoying, most of all Julia Roberts and GuGu Mbatha-Raw. Even Hanks, who was fairly likable, wasn't someone you'd want to be friends with in real life. Further, the entire film was completely improbable, from the 24/7 yard sale hosted by Cedric the Entertainer and Taraji P. Henson (the best characters in the movie), to Wilmer Valderrama feeling threatened by Tom Hanks, to the Hanks-Roberts coupling even though they had zero chemistry and no more than three conversations. This movie will probably fade and finally disappear forever, which would probably be better everyone.
1. I turned 21! Yes, this past May, I entered the realm of the legally drinking. I had gone to bars in Italy, so I thought that it wouldn't be a big deal, but I was wrong. Turning 21 is like pulling back the big red velvet curtain that had been blocking your view for the first two decades of life. It opens up a whole new world of socializing and drinking. I can't tell you how illuminating it has been to go out and see that Philadelphia night life is not just North Philly house parties. It has made the chances that I would stay here after college rise significantly.
2. I got an internship! I have been looking for internships since my freshman year. I now realize I started too early, but that did not occur to me then. Anyway, now I have one, and it's one that I love. It is at the Philadelphia Film Society, which hosts the Philadelphia Film Festival. Yes -- FILM FESTIVAL!!! I am the co-volunteer coordinator for the festival and, being that we work in such a small office, I'm sure that I will learn tons of other things about the workings of a film fest. It's incredibly exciting. I also work with a completely awesome group of people -- interns and "real people" alike. For the summer, we have various events and screenings at which I also work and see films. So, in addition to my volunteer coordinator responsibilities, I am seeing movies for course credit. The only thing better would be if I were also moonlighting as an ice-cream taster.
scribbling screenplays, but my writing teacher suggested that I produce last year's project. So I am! My teacher got me in touch with other students to direct and help produce, so I'm starting out with a great team that will hopefully be patient with me as I muddle through role of 'co-producer.' Anyway, the film is called Guests of a Nation. It is based on Irish author Frank O'Connor's short story about Irish soldiers and their British captives during the Irish War of Independence. The story is beautiful and we're doing all we can to make sure the film is too.
The Adjustment Bureau (2011, directed by George Nolfi, starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt)
Red Riding Hood (2011, directed by Catherine Hardwick, starring Amanda Seyfried)
In the past, Drive-In theaters were an average way to see new movies. Today, they are few and far between, but attractive for their simplicity and the sense of nostalgia they inherently exude. In contrast, Dine-In movie theaters are attractive for their luxury and may become a norm in the future...but I hope not.
Film is about art – art of acting, art of directing, and art of writing, among other things. Hollywood is about glamor. And one night a year, the epitome of Hollywood and film come together to celebrate the little golden man named Oscar. I love the Oscars. Let’s just get that out there. There are countless other awards out there for films nowadays, but it still holds true that it ain’t over til the fat lady sings and nothing sounds better before an actor’s name than “Academy Award Winner.” So let’s hear it for the Oscars. I enjoyed this year’s show very much and here are a few things I learned from this year’s Academy Awards...
