MOVIES:
Steven Spielberg once said “the only thing better than seeing movies is
reading about them.”
We agree. This month:
This month Juan Marcos has an alien encounter with
District 9 and Jehan's summer simmers with Julie & Julia then
sizzles with 500 Days of Summer.
DVD'S:
Juan Marcos vs. [rec] vs. Quarantine, Dave
praises Husbands by John Cassavetes, Tilda Swinton
inspires awe in Rick as Julia and the first season
of Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse turns out to be better on
DVD.
MUSIC:
Markell shares Chrisette Michele’s great Epiphany and
Rick spins Anna Ternheim’s Leaving on a mayday.
BOOKS:
Rebecca Zerzan On Zadie Smith’s On Beauty.
FOCUS:
P&F remembers writer/director John Hughes.
SPOTLIGHT: “It
is absolutely impossible to ignore the fact that when I
first saw the movie Amélie, I became entranced by the
leading lady and forever fell hopelessly in love with Audrey
Tautou.”
Starring: Sharlto Copley, Vanessa Haywood and Greg Melvill-Smith.
The Kiwis have done it again. I don’t know what they put in the water
over there but WETA is making the American special effects studios look
like a bunch of amateurs. District 9 utilizes all of the latest
filming and special effects techniques, some of which include the ever
popular shaky cam for realism and the best use of CGI special effects
since Iron Man. Neill Blomkamp is the writer director chosen by
Peter Jackson to helm this monster of a project and I feel that he did a
hell of a job. District 9 is the story of what happened to
earth’s first true illegal aliens and what humanity did to fuck them
over. After a massive alien ship suddenly appears over the city of
Johannesburg, South Africa, the people of the world can only wait in
anticipation to see what fate has in store for humanity. To everyone’s
surprise three months go by and nothing happens, the ship just sits
there hovering over the city. When the government decides to send a
military team to board the ship and investigate they find thousands of
malnourished, sick aliens.
Left with no way to return home the aliens find themselves getting
relocated from the mother ship to a slum in Johannesburg called District
9. The non-humans also known as “Prawns” a derogatory reference to a sea
creature that they resemble, live in constant turmoil with the citizens
of Johannesburg. For twenty years these “Prawns” live off human trash
dumps, stealing and trading alien technology for what they need in order
to survive - cat food. The movie was shot in documentary style with a
mix of present day footage and a series of interviews of all the people
involved in the relocation incident. Relocation is the idea of the
Multi-National United, their plan is to take all Non-Humans and place
them miles from the city in a high security prison. It’s during this
initial relocation phase that Wikus Van De Merwe is introduced to the
story. He is given the task of coordinating this relocation, little does
he know that he is about to get genetically closer to the very aliens he
is trying to get rid of. It’s at this point in the story that things
really get grim for the aliens.
The MNU gets hold of the fuel need by a “Prawn” scientist named
Christopher Johnson. He needs the fuel to power the mother ship and
bring back help. Along with the fuel the MNU captures Wikus Van De Merwe
and discovers just how valuable he is. After managing to get away from
the MNU lab both Wikus and the Christopher Johnson join forces and take
it upon themselves to save the stranded aliens and stop what could
potentially become the ultimate human weapon. The film is not shy about
showing just how cruel governments can be with illegal immigrants
regardless of where they come from. This is a well written story with a
stunning backdrop, an amazing action packed fun ride that could never be
topped by a Hollywood production. District 9 is by far my
favorite film of the year. I think this is a beautiful beginning to a
new director’s career. I can’t wait for the sequel, because you know
there’s going to be one.
Starring:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel.
Note: If you haven’t seen this film, your summer
is not complete. Go see it, right now!
After 500 Days of Summer, you might feel
your favorite season has expanded at least some thirty days or so, with
plenty of lit hours and sparkling lemonade in goblets with a colorful
array of floating paper umbrellas and pots of pink hibiscus nearby. This
is normal. You are just high: off the love, honesty, and innocence
found in this highlight of the year starring a handsome boy, Joseph
Gordon-Levitt (Tom Hansen) and a beautiful girl, Zooey Deschanel (Summer
Finn).
There are many magical elements working for Tom
and Summer: a fondness of the Smiths, being single in California, the
friendly greeting card office they work in, a breezy and fun soundtrack
of pop gems, and a belief in the good life. Tom is a believer in true,
all –encompassing soulmate love; Summer is the live for the moment free
bird. Despite her resistance to coupling, they spend a set of 500 days
together for us, as friends and more. The gift of the film is the
truthful unfolding of ups and downs, Ringo Starr and Sid and Nancy, and
how the beauty created between the two lovers is never lost in the
seasons of life.
From singing karaoke after work, playing house in
an Ikea, making out in the copy room and yelling profane words in Los
Angeles locales, to pushing the envelope, forced forkfuls of diner
pancakes, and fighting expectations in the face of just friends,
we follow along so easily because we are these two. We are Tom’s
sentimental, longing, funny, “Love is Us,” card writer, and Summer’s
enchanting, silly, exploring, and wide-eyed embrace to each and every
possibility.
This film does a gorgeous thing for love,
helping us feel again why we wait for our summer, the bluebird on our
shoulder, and hold onto the illuminated moments of the heart always, and
yes, forever.
Written
by: Nora Ephron and Julie Powell (memoir, Julie & Julia).
Starring:
Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina.
It’s all about the butter. In Nora Ephron’s
adaptation of Julie Powell’s memoir, “Julie and Julia,” Julia Child (Streep)
and Julie Powell (Adams) connect at a point in time to cook, eat and
love much their lives and husbands, Paul (Tucci) and Eric (Messina) as
one spirit. Powell’s memoir documents an ambitious goal of cooking and
blogging her way through Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking
in 2002, while referencing Julia’s life in France. Lucky for us, the
story of Child comes through to shine as the inspiring mentor and
wonderful bad-ass heroine she was, with guts and gusto galore. Powell is
a light for us folk to light our lives with new adventures.
Julia was a tall woman with a hearty presence and
Streep plays her amongst a cast of diminutive French with a charming and
bubbling combination of brilliance, passion, wild humor and open heart.
We love her for every awkward mannerism, bouncing out of bed to attend
classes at the Le Cordon Bleu to fist pumping upon success. Her romance
with Paul was a beautiful one, filled with confidence, best friendship
and deep passion for each other. Tucci plays the handsome, worldly man
that believed more in Julia than she did herself, her biggest fan. They
laugh and learn as soulmates and drive the film to be so special. On
Valentine’s Day, Child toasts her, “You are the butter to my bread, the
breath to my life, I love you my darling girl.”
Powell is a bored secretary for a government
agency, post-9/11, seeking the motivation to live her life to the
fullest. She sees her peer group ambitious and consumed by their
passions and she wants the very same. Living in a Queens loft with her
cutie, sweetheart of a husband, she takes on the challenge of cooking
and sharing her journey with the world through her blog. Adams is the
emerald-eyed soul, easy to relate to as she provides her sweet pea
stamp, this time sarcastic and testy over a charred beef bourguignon,
feisty lobster thermidor, and the craziness of aspics. Messina plays the
resourceful, ever-optimistic light to Julie’s frequent bouts of doubt
and gloom as recipes went awry and expectations became too big; a good
man.
As she moves through each recipe and learns more
about the woman behind them, a fresh face emerges from Powell’s
exhaustion and restlessness. She just needed something to do. And as she
found herself, Julia was her light. Julie’s love of Julia’s courage to
be herself and take risks is admirable and engrossing, but leaves
viewers wanting to know more of Julia. For that, perhaps a focused film
of Child’s detailed memoir, My Life in France, and revisiting
those classic public television episodes where she admits it’s quite
alright to pick up chicken from the floor because who really knows,
anyway? No fear, baby, bon appétit!
So here it is ladies and gentlemen, the reason to renew your Blockbuster
membership and update your Netflix Queue. Are you ready for the scariest
movie monster since Pan’s Labyrinth’s Pale Man? I know you can’t
wait for me to tell you about both of these films. So I figured that I
could make everybody’s life a whole lot easier by doing a comparison of
the classic and the remake. [REC] is the original, written and
directed by Spain’s Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza. The film takes place
in Barcelona as a television crew decides to follow a team of
firefighters on what should have been just another routine night on the
job. Of course things take a drastic turn when they respond to a call
from a lady trapped in an apartment building. All of a sudden the movie
switches to fifth gear throwing all of the best elements of terror,
suspense and reality at the viewer.
Strange things have been happening in this building and as the TV crew,
the police and the firefighters are all about to find out they might not
survive the night. The film has a Blair Witch Project meets 28
Days Later feel, but its original storyline and well-written script
will not disappoint. And now to the best part of the film, the glorious
finale with one of the creepiest monsters I have ever seen. WOW, I still
get the willies just thinking about it. All and all this is a fantastic
horror flick that will force you to sleep with the lights on for at
least a week. The American remake of [REC] is called
Quarantine. It is set in Los Angeles and follows the story of the
Spanish version pretty much word for word. Now before you start assuming
that it’s just another pointless remake, I’m going to go out on a limb
here and say that it’s not a bad movie.
I feel that Quarantine is the remake equivalent of what The
Ring was to Ringu. Even though I thought [REC] was
scarier than Quarantine I felt that the American version had done
a better job with the casting and the overall production. The American
writer/director John Erick Dowdle also did a better job of explaining
why all hell had broken loose inside the apartment building. The
American version stars “Dexter’s” Jennifer Carpenter, Johnathon Schaech,
Jay Hernandez, Greg Germann and Dania Ramirez. My only real complaint
with the American sequel was that they dropped the ball when it came
time for the grand finale monster. So my verdict is watch [REC]
first then if you still want more like I did then check out
Quarantine. By the way, the Spanish sequel to [REC] is about
to premiere in Spain, so you know that the first one had to be good.
Every once in a while I catch a movie that makes me wonder how I could
have not heard raves and raves about it when it played in
theatres. I’m not sure how Julia escaped my attention, or really
if it ever had a chance to be seen here in the States, but it amazes me
that it hasn’t been touted as Oscar gold. Directed by Erick Zonca, who
is most well-known for The Dreamlife of Angels, from a script
co-written by Aude Py, Julia would appear to be an intimate indie
about a 40-something alcoholic who gets caught up in a kidnapping
scheme. The fact is that the movie turns out to be several different
things: a thriller, a black comedy and a compelling character piece.
After losing her job amidst drinking and random sexual encounters, Julia
meets Elena at an AA meeting. Elena’s son has been in custody of his
cruel and wealthy grandfather and she plans to steal him away.
Eventually Julia agrees to be the driver of this escapade when promised
a ton of money. However, her very bad judgment isn’t allowing her to see
what is clear to the rest of us: Elena is off her rocker. However, Julia
herself is no angel and devises a plan to separate the kid, Tommy, from
Elena to extort even more money from her. There are many twists and
turns as the story unfolds over two and a half hours that don’t seem
nearly that long. The movie is fantastic and there is certainly a bit of
homage to John Cassavetes’ film Gloria. However, the reason that
you simply have to watch Julia is Tilda Swinton, who
utterly becomes this wreck of a woman and commands the screen for the
entire film with a performance that’s completely astounding. I don’t
know if Julia qualified for last year’s Oscars or this year’s,
but I can’t imagine a performance by any actor this year impressing me
more.
Starring: Ben Gazzara, Peter Falk, John Cassavetes,
Jenny Runacre
Finally on DVD is John Cassavetes’ 1970 film
Husbands. The story of three men who mourn the death of their friend
by drinking, living to excess over several days and taking an impromptu
trip to London, Husbands brought together three fine actors and
started a decade of extraordinary work among them. Ben Gazzara, Peter
Falk and John Cassavetes are the three titular married men. The film
created a lifelong friendship among the three actors and led to
Cassavetes working with Falk again in A Woman Under the Influence
and Gazzara in The Killing of a Chinese Bookie and Opening
Night.
The version of Husbands available in this
edition is the original theatrical release intended by Cassavetes before
Columbia Pictures cut twenty minutes out of the movie. The film is a
study of male behavior under extreme duress and Cassavetes looks at each
moment with unforgiving honesty. Like most of Cassavetes’ pictures it is
the character’s lives and the performances of the actors that stand out.
Ben Gazzara’s performance is one of the most explosive, truly dramatic
character portrayals I have ever seen. And the collaboration he shares
with Falk and Cassavetes enhance it even further.
The DVD also includes two wonderful special
features. A twenty minute featurette that includes producer Al Ruban,
cinematographer Victor Kemper and star Ben Gazzara features memories
that the three men share about the development and filming of the
project. The other feature is an audio commentary by Cassavetes
biographer Marshall Fine which is wonderfully informative, full of
anecdotes about the making of Husbands, about the three stars and
about Cassavetes’ career.
For any fan of Husbands and of John
Cassavetes, this DVD is a must have. It’s one of the filmmaker’s
greatest works and the insight provided by the special features make the
independent icon all the more interesting.
I adore Joss Whedon. I’m one of those people who actually saw the 1992
version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and liked it. I remember
having the movie’s poster (bought for a buck from the local video store)
on my wall back in the day. When the television version of Buffy
began I was totally surprised that A) it was being made at all
considering how the movie wasn’t exactly a hit and B) it was… not
serious, but darker, truly combining spookiness with comedy. That’s when
I became a Joss Whedon fan. I loved Angel, which for my money was
more consistently good than Buffy was, and adored Firefly,
becoming one of those uber-geek fans in the theatre opening night to be
the first to see Serenity. You can imagine how much I anticipated
his newest creation, the Eliza Dushku starring Dollhouse.
The premise of the show is that a mysterious organization is using
beautiful young people (who have signed years of their lives away and
had their memories wiped) as dolls- empty bodies that can be implanted
with a new personality, memory, and whatever skills may required by
their billionaire clients, only to be wiped again until the next time
they’re made “active.” The premiere episode aired and was… promising. I
liked the idea and thought they were going somewhere interesting with
it, but it didn’t quite hook me. I kept my hopes up high, ready to be
amazed …until about 7 minutes into the second episode, “Target,” when
Echo’s client (played by one of my all-time favorite Hollywood crushes,
Matt Keeslar) takes a sudden turn for crazy and announces that she’d
better run because he’s going to hunt her down. It was odd and jarring
and made it pretty hard for me to appreciate anything else that happened
in the episode. Until I re-watched it on DVD.
What I found myself disliking so much about Dollhouse, when I
first watched it on television, was the episodic feel of it. This week
Echo gets stalked by a crazy serial killer! This week she’s a bodyguard
to a pop star! There’s nothing less interesting to me than
“blank”-of-the-week television. Monster-of-the-week,
criminal-of-the-week, trial-of-the-week, I don’t care. My favorite shows
(and I think, the best ones) have to have a strong arc, some depth and
meat, that remains at the forefront of the series. Think Lost or
Battlestar Galactica or 24. Sure, Buffy and
Angel both had a lot of monster-of-the-week episodes, and one of the
shows I enjoyed a lot a decade ago, The Pretender was incredibly
episodic. But it’s the story beneath the story that matters to me the
most- Buffy vs. The Hellmouth, Angel vs. Wolfram & Hart, Jarod’s vs. The
Centre. That is why I stopped watching Dollhouse after 4
episodes. The client-of-the-week stories tended to suck while the real
drama and intrigue of Dollhouse was in unfulfilling bits stuck in
the background. What was frustrating was that in every interview I read
or heard, Whedon and Dushku would acknowledge that the show got off to a
slow start, defending it by advising fans to “stick it out through
Episode 6. By Episode 6 the show really gets its stride.” So I tried
again with Episode 6, “The Man on the Street.” It was an improvement,
yeah, but I didn’t care. With a heavy heart I declared Dollhouse
a no-go.
Until reading an article someone posted online from a television critic,
praising the recent episodes and encouraging people to watch the
season’s last episode, which when it aired was very possibly the show’s
finale. (Dollhouse ended up getting renewed after all.) I went to
Hulu and decided to give it a chance. I started with episode 8 and
watched through to 11 online, then caught the finale when it aired that
night on Fox. The show had actually kicked into high gear with an
intriguing and addictive arc that had me shaking my head in disbelief:
Was this even the same show I had disowned weeks before? Re-watching
Dollhouse on DVD is an improvement because it’s much easier to focus
on the goings on at the Dollhouse and the ongoing mystery of renegade
active Alpha (so awesome I can’t even tell you a little about it or who
plays him) while blocking out the other stuff, like say the truly
god-awful main plot of Episode 3, “Stage Fright.”
Highlights of the DVD include the unaired pilot, “Echo” and an unaired
13th episode, “Epitaph One.” “Echo” is a hundred times better
than the aired pilot, setting up things nicely, but in a much less
straightforward manner. Which I guess is what must’ve scared Fox so
much. One negative aspect of “Echo” is that it did sort of blow its wad,
storywise. The introduction of Sierra (Dichen Lachman), identity of
Victor (the fantastic Enver Gjokaj), Topher (the Xanderiffic Fran Kranz)
showing his mistrust of Dr. Saunders (Amy Acker, a recurring guest star
who by the end of the season will be the person you want to see
the most of), and even the season’s last uttered line, “Caroline” all
come out in the unaired pilot. On one hand, elements of surprise that
remain secrets through the series until two, three, even twelve episodes
down the line, seem they are revealed far too soon. On the other, it
makes you wonder if there was a reason for letting those secrets out so
quickly. Some exact moments from the premiere featuring the Dollhouse
searching FBI Agent Paul Ballard (Tahmoh Penikett of Battlestar
Galactica) are parts of other episodes over the season, although one
scene has quite a different outcome in the pilot. The unaired “Epitaph
One” is a truly special one-off episode, set ten years in the future.
It’s the most mysterious and strange episode of the bunch, but exactly
what fans of shows with rich mythologies will love. We get a glimpse of
Dollhouse to come and are left wondering what happened between
now and 2019, what drove some characters to madness or… well, okay, even
more madness. Again, it’s unbelievable that Fox chose not to air
“Epitaph One” because it is one of the best episodes of the set and
completely whets your appetite for more of the show. In a way, I can’t
believe I’m excited for it and hope that the second season sticks to the
show Dollhouse became in it’s second half rather than what it was
for the first. Fortunately (very fortunately) I got Dollhouse:
Season One through a 50% off sale. It seemed appropriate.
Chrisette Michele returns with her sophomore effort Epiphany, her
follow-up to 2007’s critically acclaimed I Am. This talented
songbird avoids the sophomore slump effortlessly with Epiphany,
an exceptional collection of songs. It’s another chapter in a career
that looks even more promising with each release.
Epiphany
is a smooth 12-track set full of songs about love and relationships.
Michele, who wrote/co-wrote all of the songs on her debut, takes a
backseat creatively on this release co-writing only 3 songs (“Blame It
On Me,” “Fragile,” and “Mr. Right”). This release finds her
collaborating with heavyweights such as Ne-Yo (who also served as an
executive producer), Chuck Harmony, Rodney Jerkins, Allstar, Bie Maejor,
and Tim Bosky. Regardless of whether Michele wrote these songs or not –
they were tailor made for her. She makes every song believable. The
songs showcase her colorful personality, her maturity, and that she has
learned her share of lessons about love, loss, and relationships.
Musically, Epiphany is more cohesive than I Am. These
songs meld into each other extremely well. Whereas I Am was more
versatile, Epiphany stakes its claim and doesn’t stray too far
from it (which is not a bad thing here). It’s urban adult contemporary
R&B/Soul music with elements of Hip-Hop, Pop, and Gospel. The jazz
influence that was ever-present on the first album is still evident in
her voice but not so much musically on Epiphany. This may be a
downfall for some fans but not a deal breaker in my book. Genres don’t
matter to Michele – she can sing (SANG!) anything and make it sound like
a classic. And it’s clear that the focus was creating great, long
lasting music and Michele and her producers have done a commendable job
of that.
Lyrically, Epiphany runs the gamut. She knows when it’s time to
go on the title track (and first single). On “Porcelain Doll,” she
commands respect and asks her mate to treat her like a woman and not a
child. On her soon-to-be-classic “Blame It On Me,” Michele sings of a
love she thought was meant to be that had to be set free. On “What You
Do” (the second single), she tells her mate that love is not only in the
words but also in the actions behind the words. Michele sings of
finding her ideal mate on the Roots-esque “Mr. Right.” “On My Own”
finds Michele singing about her independence and taking control of her
life. And finally, she sings about an undying love that she can’t
express but wants to share on “Notebook” (which could easily be a Quiet
Storm favorite).
Epiphany
solidifies that Michele is gearing up to be in the same class of
vocalists that she admires – Ella Fitzgerald (who Michele’s voice shares
a similar girlish quality and timbre), Sarah Vaughan and Natalie Cole
(to name a few). With Michele, each song is a performance and each
performance is memorable. She exercises great control of her instrument
– varying its color, timbre, power, and dynamics to express the emotions
behind each lyric. She is one of today’s best vocalists. “Blame It On
Me,” “Playin’ Our Song,” “I’m Okay,” and “Mr. Right” all show this vocal
showstopper at her best.
From start to finish – Epiphany is a complete, consistent set of
beautifully crafted songs. It easily goes down as one of this year’s
best R&B/Soul albums. Epiphany may only be Michele’s sophomore
effort but it demonstrates a talent, artistry, and commitment well
beyond her years. With releases like Epiphany, critics and fans
alike will continue to sing Chrisette Michele’s praises.
Last month I waxed poetic about Swedish singer/songwriter Anna Ternheim,
and my obsession with her music as triggered by her single, “What have I
done” and fueled by the US releases Anna Ternheim and Halfway
to Fivepoints. Since then, I’ve feasted on the gorgeousness of her
two proper albums, Somebody’s Outside and Separation Road.
Both of these discs, not released in the States, only confirmed what I
suspected upon my first listen to “What have I done” – She’s going to be
one of my all-time favorite musicians. I was literally unable to listen
to anything else for the rest of the month and if you were to see the
top 100 most played songs on my ipod, you’d find every single one of her
songs listed.
You can imagine how excited I was on the release day of her new album,
Leaving on a mayday. Her first to be released in the US (the
previous albums compiled songs from her European releases) by Verve
Forecast, Leaving on a mayday starts off magnificently with “What
have I done.” However, it goes on to be a bit of a mixed bag. While the
majority of songs on the album are strong, the ones that don’t make an
impression really don’t make an impression. A favorite, though,
is the beautiful “Terrified” with its chorus of “you see me/like no
one/ever saw me before.” “Let it rain” is a song that’s jus as cinematic
and epic as some of the ones on her magnificent Separation Road
album. There’s an intriguing story-song called “Losing you” and the
single-sounding “Make it on my own,” which was added exclusively to the
US release.
I really do like Leaving on a mayday, but not as much as I
wholeheartedly adore the previous albums by Ternheim. It’s quite
frustrating sometimes to write about music; for instance, I can’t put
into words, or put my finger on why a few of these songs don’t seem to
work for me. I don’t know if it feels like they’ve been produced to fit
into a certain style or what it is exactly, but her other albums were so
perfectly crafted, so cohesive- one filled with hushed and intimate
beauty (Somebody’s Outside), another bursting with sweeping
vitality (Separation Road). Maybe my mixed feelings about this
albumare because certain songs just feel out of place and seem
to sort of lay there, lifeless. Of course, I wish everyone would give
her music a chance, because I think she’s an interesting and talented
artist. I wish I could rave blissfully about Leaving on a mayday
being a perfect album. It’s good, but for perfect, look for Anna
Ternheim’s earlier work.
On Beauty
cements Zadie Smith's reputation as a great literary talent. It also
proves her to be a steely but good-humored social critic whose works
merrily tear apart the cozy myth of multiculturalism. The characters in
both of her major novels, On Beauty and White Teeth, are
misfits—immigrants, biracial teens, interracial couples—plucked from
United Colors of Benetton ads and led on an inexorable march toward
self-destruction. In Smith’s world, race and class and politics are
indelible lines drawn on a shifting landscape, and those unlucky enough
to tumble over the borders lose their balance forever.
In
White Teeth, biracial teens are trapped between ethnicities, unable
to genuinely occupy one or the other. They wind up seeking refuge in
various kinds of fanaticism, dogmas to anchor them in the rising tide of
cultural alienation. On Beauty features a similar struggle for
identity and belonging, but with an older cast of characters. At a
fictional university in Boston (widely considered a stand-in for
Harvard, where Smith began writing the novel), middle-aged professors
battle over radical theories and extreme politics, dogmas mirroring the
midlife angst that will ultimately consume them.
Howard
Belsy and his wife, Kiki, are liberal elites who would be stereotypes
save for their profound sense of cultural dislocation. Howard came from
a childhood of poverty, a fact that he scrupulously hides from his
bourgeois peers, and Kiki feels isolated as an African American
professional in a white academic community. They have three children,
each of whom embodies a variant of liberal neurosis: Jerome, the eldest
son, rebels against his family’s atheism by becoming an evangelical
Christian; Zora, the daughter, embraces her family’s left-wing politics
with a narcissistic zeal; and Levi, the youngest son, frequents ghettos
and befriends Haitian street vendors in a quest for racial authenticity.
Their nemeses are the conservative Kipps family, British-Trinidadian
Christians whose opposition to affirmative action and women’s lib is
both ghastly and quaint. One’s son has an affair with the other’s
daughter, an event that mobilizes all the characters in a joyless
procession of sex and outrage.
On the
surface, politics and sex seem to play the starring roles in this
parable. The racial elements are less pronounced, but turn out to be
much more powerful. Perhaps because she is an outsider, Smith chooses to
bypass the explosive real-life tensions between African Americans and
whites in Boston, focusing instead on the city’s fractious black
community. African Americans and black immigrants share the indignities
of poverty, in sharp contrast to the affluent black protagonists whose
middle-class comforts blind them to real inequality. Smith’s satire here
is ripe and brutal. She skewers the casual superiority her characters
direct toward their poor black neighbors. Kiki, for example, imagines
lecturing other black women on motherhood. Though she is acutely aware
of her own racial isolation, she is oblivious to the wealth and
privilege that attend it, a fact that disqualifies her as the black role
model she thinks she is. Smith also takes down the professors’ towering
but brittle egos, dismantling their beliefs and relationships with
ruthless humor.
But the
satire can also go too far, and when it does the characters flatten into
cartoons, odious and absurd. Smith says she was inspired by George
Saunders, and the novel is steeped in Saunder’s brand of satire—a tonic
so caustic as to dissolve any trace of goodwill or affection between or
for the characters. They share only two or three moments of believable
warmth, and even these seem a bit perfunctory. In an essay about the
novel (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jul/15/zadiesmith)
Smith writes, “The kind of satire I write aspires—as George Saunders
said recently—‘to the indirect praise of perfection.’ My characters are
all wrong-headed in their own ways—we used to call it ‘false
consciousness’. Writing is my way of expressing—and thereby
eliminating—all the various ways we can be wrong-headed. Whatever is
still standing at the end represents those things I have realised (by
doing the writing itself) I value.”
It’s not
clear what is still standing at the end. Careers are upended, families
are ruined, egos are burned to the ground, and the poor are briskly
returned to their ghetto. There is no ambition left, no mutual or self
respect. The only thing remaining, it seems, is a real but ineffectual
kind of love. One hopes that there is more to value than that.
-Rebecca
Zerzan
FOCUS:
Pictures & Frames Magazinewould
just like to say, in honor of John Hughes, that the sportos, the
motorheads, the geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads...
they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.
Juan Marcos:
I’ve been listening to Simple Mind’s “Don’t you forget about me” over
and over again as kind of a one song musical tribute to the most
influential director of my generation. His movies have become cult
classics around the world and most important of all, with my family. I
can’t remember the amount of times we all gathered around the TV to
watch Uncle Buck, Planes, Trains & Automobiles and
Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. I still cannot believe that he is gone,
and in such a tragic manner. John Hughes understood what it meant to be
young and unpopular in America. He preached to a generation of lost and
insecure kids that had no one to look up to. I am thankful that he was
able to share with us so much of himself and inspired other directors to
follow in his footsteps. He was the real deal, a beautiful caring man
that gave us a reason to be proud of our individuality. Thank you John,
I won’t forget about you.
Dave:I think
one of the most telling moments of the effect John Hughes had on me and
my generation happened about ten years ago. I was at a baseball game
with a friend and I started to do the “Hey batter!” bit from the Wrigley
field sequence in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. What made both of us
laugh was how we both waited a few seconds after saying “Saaawiiing
Batter!!!”, and without planning it, turned to each other and said: “You
know if we played by the rules we’d both be in gym class right now?”
For me,
that speaks to the impact a filmmaker can have. Though The Breakfast
Club is my favorite of Hughes’ films, with Ferris a close
second, I find that I can pick up on the most trivial references to
Sixteen Candles. And I was surprised a couple of years ago, when I
came across Weird Science on television, a movie I’d not seen in
over ten years, and immediately remembered lines of dialogue and knew
what scene was coming up next.
For a
child of the 1980s, John Hughes set the tone for our humor and showed us
on film what the high school caste system was all about. He helped us
make sense of the foolishness around us and the things we felt but
couldn’t articulate. I don’t think it’s just that I’m too old, and more
mature, that I don’t get the teen comedies that are out there today. I
refuse to believe that when I find nothing funny about a film like
Superbad it’s because it’s been fourteen years since I was in high
school and I don’t remember what it’s really like to be a teenager. I
think it’s because I was fortunate enough to see the films of John
Hughes and it just can’t get any better than that.
Rick:I love
John Hughes. Also, I’m kind of mad at him. Like so many of the people in
my generation, his movies were far more than cotton, the fabric of my
life. I saw most of his movies for the first time on VHS, beginning in
junior high school. They were instant favorites because they were so
funny, but as I grew older I found myself identifying with them even
more. My favorite Hughes movie is and always shall be Sixteen Candles.
Sure, Ferris Bueller may be funnier and The Breakfast Club
is definitely his best film, but I will always choose the tale of
Samantha, forgotten birthday girl, pining over dreamy Jake Ryan. And
getting him. This is why I’m sort of angry at John Hughes. The outcast
gets the hottest guy in school? When does that happen?? Honestly, it is
the Samantha/Jake Ryan romance that I blame for my failure of a romantic
life. You made me set my hopes far too high, Mr. Hughes and here I am in
my 30s still swooning over every Jake Ryan I meet with a hopeful heart.
But that’s my only beef with you. Because honestly, you brought me so
much more joy and such a sense of understanding through the true
characters in your movies than anyone else until Angela crushed on
Jordan Catalano in “My So-Called Life.” Thank you. We’ll always
remember.
Whenever
I sit down to write a profile on an actor or a director, I try to focus
mainly on their work, their abilities and what effect they have had on
the medium of film. I make attempts to stay away from hero worship and,
for lack of a better phrase, “crush-like” adoration. Well that is,
frankly, not going to happen here. It is absolutely impossible to ignore
the fact that when I first saw the movie Amélie, I became
entranced by the leading lady and forever fell hopelessly in love with
Audrey Tautou.
Audrey Tautou first appeared in 1999’s Venus Beauty Institute,
winning Most Promising Actress at the Cesar Awards. The following year
she starred in Pretty Devils, playing a young woman who is ready
to commit suicide after finding her lover with another woman. When she
meets two con artist sisters, she gets them to figure out a way to make
her lover’s life a living hell. Tautou is engaging in the film, sharing
an individual chemistry with each of her two main co-stars.
In 2001, Jean Pierre-Jeunet directed an instant classic with the
imaginative romantic tale of Amélie. Tautou plays the title
character, Amélie Poulain, a coffee shop waitress whose loneliness and
unfulfilled need to fall in love are distracted by her vivid
imagination. At first she decides to give her life purpose by giving
others happiness: she describes all the things happening on a busy
street to a blind man, she reconnects a middle-aged man with his
childhood and arranges for others around her to find or re-capture love.
When a chance meeting with Nino Quincampoix (French
actor/writer/director extraordinaire, Mathieu Kassovitz) occurs, she has
the opportunity to find love for herself.
Tautou’s performance is one of the finest to be found. She is absolutely
charming and indescribably adorable. Each comedic moment is timed to
perfection, each smile is flashed with irresistible poise. But the
obvious aesthetics aside, there is a deeper reason why Tautou’s Amélie
is impossible not to love… she has a beautiful soul. One can’t help but
embrace every moment of Tautou’s performance whether sweet, touching,
honest, painful or beautiful. Each time she is on screen the audience
melts like Amélie looking through the glass at Nino.
Also in 2001, Tautou further showed the charm she exhibited in Amélie
in the film God is Great, and I Am Not. Playing a woman looking
for a spiritual belonging, Michele, Tautou gives a very funny and
truthful performance. When Michele falls in love with a Jewish man, she
begins to study the history and customs of Judaism. Much to her lover’s
chagrin, she becomes obsessed with being Jewish. Tautou’s performance is
charming and full of moments that make you fall for her Michele as you
did for her Amélie.
Audrey Tautou showed her incredible range when she played Angelique in
He Loves Me… He Loves Me Not (2002). The film is an
extraordinary romance-thriller where Angelique struggles with the idea
that she is being used by the doctor she is in love with. He is married
and his wife is pregnant. Angelique believes that the doctor loves her
more than he does his wife and tries to lure him away. The film is
terrific in the way the story unfolds and how director Laetitia
Colombani reveals the jaw-dropping secrets as the movie progresses. But
the whole story hangs on the delicate balance of the portrayal of
Angelique. Tautou gives a wonderful, multi-layered performance that
enables the film to work as a complex psychological thriller.
That same year Tautou starred in another terrific thriller, alongside
Chiwetel Ejiofor in Stephen Frears’ Dirty Pretty Things. As Senay,
a Muslim woman living in London after seeking asylum, Tautou gives a
powerful performance. When Senay’s immigration status is under review,
she faces difficult decisions and puts her life in danger to acquire a
passport that will allow her to pursue her dream of living in New York.
Tautou gives one of the most subtle and interesting performances of her
career, relying mainly on reactions to convey the emotions she is
wrestling with.
Audrey Tautou and her Amélie director Jean-Pierre Jeunet reunited
with 2004’s epic romance A Very Long Engagement. Tautou gives an
incredibly moving performance as a woman in love, convinced that her
fiancé has survived the First World War. As Mathilde, Tautou portrays
great strength as she desperately believes she will see her love again.
Mathilde has great faith in her quest and it is the intelligence and
strength that Tautou puts into the performance that brings Mathilde to
life amid sweeping scenery and a touching story.
In 2006, Tautou played two very opposite characters in two very opposite
films. In Ron Howard’s adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, Tautou
plays Agent Sophie Neveu, a woman who holds an ancient secret that
interests the Vatican and theological historians alike. The film is more
or less a formula Hollywood suspense flick. Nevertheless, Tautou is
intriguing in the picture and adds weight to an otherwise run of the
mill movie.
Also that year Tautou starred in Priceless, a comedy about a
woman who lives off romancing wealthy men until she mistakes a hotel
bartender for a posh socialite. Once she realizes her mistake she tries
to get rid of him, but he has fallen for her. She wickedly tries to
teach him a lesson by emptying his shallow pockets and inadvertently
teaches him the principles of the con. Once he finds a wealthy older
woman and she finds a wealthy gentleman, they find themselves competing
with each other to see who gets the most from their arrangement, all the
while falling deeper in love with each other. Tautou is well-matched
with her co-star, the talented Gad Elmaleh, and the two share a
chemistry that truly holds the film together. Tautou gives one of her
most captivating performances, charming, sexy and ruthless, yet
heartfelt, honest and vulnerable.
This month her latest film Coco Before Chanel receives its U.S.
release. It will be, undoubtedly, another interesting performance by an
actor who commands the audience’s attention be it through talent and
ability, charm, elegance or irresistible beauty. Whether a clever
romantic comedy like Amélie, a complex thriller as in Dirty
Pretty Things or a simple blockbuster like The Da Vinci Code,
Audrey Tautou makes me want to watch her do anything.
