I just want to share a short I made for my video class called "Los Suenos del Deseo," which is a parody of a telenovela. When I compressed the file on Final Cut, the fonts and titles got all screwed up, but it doesn't really matter too much...
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
hooray for hollywood
Here is the short video I filmed on Tuesday, which incorporates footage of the strike and some footage of L.A. that I compiled as my "landscape" project for my video class. Enjoy!
Friday, October 19, 2007
move over, mcg!
A few days ago I posted a link to the YouTube site that my friend Esther and I use to host the videos we collaborate on for contests and stuff. Last night we uploaded a stop motion animation that we submitted to the Dashboard Confessional contest. It's a music video for their new single, "Thick as Thieves," and if it wins, it'll be the official video for the song! So please watch it at http://www.youtube.com/katandesther and vote, comment, tell me what you think!
Monday, June 11, 2007
series finales
So, I can't really write about it as I don't have cable at the moment, but I know that everyone is talking about The Sopranos series finale, and from what I gather, everything was left up in the air. On KROQ's Kevin and Bean show this morning, a lot of people were calling in either glad or concerned that the fate of Tony was not revealed to us. I used to watch The Sopranos pretty regularly for a couple of years somewhere in the middle of its run, and someday I'd like to rent all the seasons and just follow all of the characters' story lines, but as of now, I don't have a lot to say. I am very curious, though, what everyone else thought about the series finale, so please comment!
Also, I was thinking about series finale styles in general. What were your favorite series finales? Your least favorite? Is it better to cauterize every hanging question there was, or allow each viewer to decide what sort of ending will make them the happiest? Certainly I think the success of a series finale is tied to the timing of it. If the show's creators let the show go on too long, the finale may be a dud because no one cares about the outcome anyway. If the show got cancelled before its time should have been up, fans may find the ending to be rushed.
Arrested Development was a show that was certainly canned before its fans wanted it to be. I was there with the Bluths from the beginning, and I could have stayed with them until George Michael (and Maeby?) had kids of their own. The third season was a mixed bag for me, because though I loved it, the creators and the viewers were so painfully aware of the show's fate. Self-referential in-jokes are at once genius and saddening. In the end, we find out all we wanted to know about George Bluth, Sr., George Michael and Maeby, and the Bluth Company itself. Despite the cruel cruel trick of teasing us into thinking a movie was in the works, everything was wrapped up, which I appreciated. I think when audiences are invested in a show, and they don't have a chance to follow them as long as they'd like, the least the show's creators can do is answer the outstanding questions.
Six Feet Under was my favorite series finale by far, though. Like a lot of HBO shows, this one was difficult for me to follow because with going off to school and everything, I couldn't always keep up with the random placement of seasons. But I made sure to tune in for the series finale, which still haunts me when I think about it. Every episode of the show had begun with a character's death, a fade-to-black, and a title card displaying their name and years of life. The finale began with a birth, which was a beautiful tack to take anyway, but it was the final sequence of the show that threw me for a loop. Audiences always regret missing out on what happens to the characters of a show they love after the final credits. Six Feet Under showed us how each of the main characters would die years into the future. These scenes were intercut with a shot of Claire driving across the country to start life fresh. For a show about death, I thought it was very smart that we got absolute closure. We got to see where life would take each of our characters. Years later I was in a sort of a funk, driving around the L.A. freeways and listening to Indie 103.1 when Sia's "Breathe Me" came on the radio. I had to pull over to the side of the road because the song was so beautiful. I didn't remember at the time, but that was the song playing during the final sequence of Six Feet Under, and it was magical. Watch the clip below...
Clearly these two finales stuck with me, and while I'm sure there are others that I have enjoyed or appreciated, I am curious what it is you look for in a series finale, and what your favorite have been!
Also, I was thinking about series finale styles in general. What were your favorite series finales? Your least favorite? Is it better to cauterize every hanging question there was, or allow each viewer to decide what sort of ending will make them the happiest? Certainly I think the success of a series finale is tied to the timing of it. If the show's creators let the show go on too long, the finale may be a dud because no one cares about the outcome anyway. If the show got cancelled before its time should have been up, fans may find the ending to be rushed.
Arrested Development was a show that was certainly canned before its fans wanted it to be. I was there with the Bluths from the beginning, and I could have stayed with them until George Michael (and Maeby?) had kids of their own. The third season was a mixed bag for me, because though I loved it, the creators and the viewers were so painfully aware of the show's fate. Self-referential in-jokes are at once genius and saddening. In the end, we find out all we wanted to know about George Bluth, Sr., George Michael and Maeby, and the Bluth Company itself. Despite the cruel cruel trick of teasing us into thinking a movie was in the works, everything was wrapped up, which I appreciated. I think when audiences are invested in a show, and they don't have a chance to follow them as long as they'd like, the least the show's creators can do is answer the outstanding questions.
Six Feet Under was my favorite series finale by far, though. Like a lot of HBO shows, this one was difficult for me to follow because with going off to school and everything, I couldn't always keep up with the random placement of seasons. But I made sure to tune in for the series finale, which still haunts me when I think about it. Every episode of the show had begun with a character's death, a fade-to-black, and a title card displaying their name and years of life. The finale began with a birth, which was a beautiful tack to take anyway, but it was the final sequence of the show that threw me for a loop. Audiences always regret missing out on what happens to the characters of a show they love after the final credits. Six Feet Under showed us how each of the main characters would die years into the future. These scenes were intercut with a shot of Claire driving across the country to start life fresh. For a show about death, I thought it was very smart that we got absolute closure. We got to see where life would take each of our characters. Years later I was in a sort of a funk, driving around the L.A. freeways and listening to Indie 103.1 when Sia's "Breathe Me" came on the radio. I had to pull over to the side of the road because the song was so beautiful. I didn't remember at the time, but that was the song playing during the final sequence of Six Feet Under, and it was magical. Watch the clip below...
Clearly these two finales stuck with me, and while I'm sure there are others that I have enjoyed or appreciated, I am curious what it is you look for in a series finale, and what your favorite have been!
Thursday, June 7, 2007
richard reid a laugh riot? he is now!
You can read about my expectations for Judd Apatow's current box office hit Knocked Up here, and I am pleased to report that the movie actually did exceed my expectations! I like to guess what tone a movie is going to take by the trailers that are shown right before it, and the pre-show experience was a little bit of a red herring this time. Trailers were for the standard teen comedy fare (including Superbad, which I am excited for...), whose audience Knocked Up certainly appealed to, but the characters and the situations they got into were so believable and well-crafted, that I think older moviegoers could have had as much fun watching it as teenagers could.
On a message board I frequent, someone said that they liked how the film portrayed both sides of a conflict evenly, without vilifying either side. I thought this was a great way to express what I liked so much about the movie. It is true that not every argument has a right answer or party, and I was glad to be reminded of that by the interactions between the two couples. That alone was enough to make me, as a viewer, feel like a friend to all of the main characters. I didn't want to pick sides, because I sympathized with everyone. It may not seem like much, but to be able to appeal to male and female audience members equally using humor is something that I am very impressed by.
Secondary and tertiary actors Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Harold Ramis, and Kristen Wiig were excellent. Ramis was perfectly cast as Seth Rogen's father, and Wiig is one of SNL's best assets right now (do a YouTube search for "SNL" + "Body Fusion" or "Sloths" or the eponymous "Dick in a Box," and you'll see what I mean). Her comedy is borne out of restrained displeasure, and it gets me every time. Paul Rudd - who, first of all, has gotten way better looking with age - played such a good counterpart to Leslie Mann, because they seemed so polar even though they were realistic enough to have shades of each other's characters in themselves. I just wish they could have used Firefly's Alan Tudyk a little more.
I think Apatow uses weed humor as a bit of a crutch, when there are always plenty of other elements to his stoner characters that could elicit laughs. I thought the celebrity nude scene humor was awesome, and just the sort of quotable fare that will make this movie last. The ribbing among Ben and his friends was just too funny. Too, too funny. I'm cracking up a little bit at work right now, and I'd hate to draw attention to the fact that I'm blogging on the clock...
Katherine Heigl was beautiful, and played the vulnerable yet capable character very well. I thought she emoted at all the right times, but wasn't simply a hormonal mess. At a couple of points she was a little too reminiscent of the character of Izzie Stevens, whom I've grown to dislike, but it's hard to say if that's more my fault than hers.
There were a couple of points at which I wondered how audiences at large would react to the possibly pro-life sentiment displayed by the film. Neither of the main characters really considers abortion or adoption, and the two supporting characters who suggest the former option do it so cruelly that I would think few audience members could sympathize with them. I think this is interesting in light of how common alternatives to keeping an unplanned baby are displayed in the media, compared to how much more common it is for Americans to raise their unplanned kids. I was glad to see that Apatow didn't force Ben and Alison to have a shotgun wedding in order to appease those put off by the premarital baby-making, because I don't think it would have made much sense for the characters.
B.J. Novak's cameo was well-played, but my giddiness at the prolonged presence of real-life doctor and ...sensual... comedian Dr. Ken makes me want to leave you with one thing:
On a message board I frequent, someone said that they liked how the film portrayed both sides of a conflict evenly, without vilifying either side. I thought this was a great way to express what I liked so much about the movie. It is true that not every argument has a right answer or party, and I was glad to be reminded of that by the interactions between the two couples. That alone was enough to make me, as a viewer, feel like a friend to all of the main characters. I didn't want to pick sides, because I sympathized with everyone. It may not seem like much, but to be able to appeal to male and female audience members equally using humor is something that I am very impressed by.
Secondary and tertiary actors Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Harold Ramis, and Kristen Wiig were excellent. Ramis was perfectly cast as Seth Rogen's father, and Wiig is one of SNL's best assets right now (do a YouTube search for "SNL" + "Body Fusion" or "Sloths" or the eponymous "Dick in a Box," and you'll see what I mean). Her comedy is borne out of restrained displeasure, and it gets me every time. Paul Rudd - who, first of all, has gotten way better looking with age - played such a good counterpart to Leslie Mann, because they seemed so polar even though they were realistic enough to have shades of each other's characters in themselves. I just wish they could have used Firefly's Alan Tudyk a little more.
I think Apatow uses weed humor as a bit of a crutch, when there are always plenty of other elements to his stoner characters that could elicit laughs. I thought the celebrity nude scene humor was awesome, and just the sort of quotable fare that will make this movie last. The ribbing among Ben and his friends was just too funny. Too, too funny. I'm cracking up a little bit at work right now, and I'd hate to draw attention to the fact that I'm blogging on the clock...
Katherine Heigl was beautiful, and played the vulnerable yet capable character very well. I thought she emoted at all the right times, but wasn't simply a hormonal mess. At a couple of points she was a little too reminiscent of the character of Izzie Stevens, whom I've grown to dislike, but it's hard to say if that's more my fault than hers.
There were a couple of points at which I wondered how audiences at large would react to the possibly pro-life sentiment displayed by the film. Neither of the main characters really considers abortion or adoption, and the two supporting characters who suggest the former option do it so cruelly that I would think few audience members could sympathize with them. I think this is interesting in light of how common alternatives to keeping an unplanned baby are displayed in the media, compared to how much more common it is for Americans to raise their unplanned kids. I was glad to see that Apatow didn't force Ben and Alison to have a shotgun wedding in order to appease those put off by the premarital baby-making, because I don't think it would have made much sense for the characters.
B.J. Novak's cameo was well-played, but my giddiness at the prolonged presence of real-life doctor and ...sensual... comedian Dr. Ken makes me want to leave you with one thing:
Saturday, June 2, 2007
movie magic
When I first began this blog a few months ago, I was musing about what it is about cinema that is "the magic of the movies." Though I had concluded it had something to do with the illusion caused by light shone through static images, I recently proved to myself that that is only a part of it. Last Friday night I went to the AMC theater in Burbank, whose walls are festooned with the slogan, "where the people who make the movies, see the movies," and settled in to watch Waitress. I didn't think much of the popcorn smell and cushioned seats that we're all so used to, but when the lights went down and the screen lit up, I realized just how long it must have been since the last time I saw a movie in theaters. I'm such a bad film studies major sometimes. Come to think of it, I think the last one I'd seen was 300. That is way too long ago.
Sidenote: there were many excellent trailers shown before the movie began, but one that particularly caught my attention was for Evening. Based on a novel by Michael Cunningham, and starring many of the same actresses that were in the adaptation of his moving homage to Virginia Woolf, Evening looks even better than The Hours. It has the same focus on mothers, daughters, long-lost remembered romances, generations, and sadness, but what can I say? Claire Danes has a much more prominent role this time, so I am bound to think it's better! Also, her love interest is played by Patrick Wilson, and their chemistry has already proven captivating...
The opening credits of Waitress set the tone for the experience to come. It is so clear how much love Adrienne Shelly and her D.P. had for the film and its characters, as is evidenced by the beautiful portrayal of pies. Our main character, Jenna, was raised by a mother who loved making pies, and carries in herself that same passion. The pies in the film are caressed and kneaded and made with the most spectacular panoply of colors and fillings. It actually made me go home and make a very simple pudding pie. Because Jenna and her pies are so inextricably linked, it is a pleasure to see Keri Russell's radiant onscreen presence treated with the same care and closeness as her pastries.
Performances were excellent across the board, as Russell, Nathan Fillion, Cheryl Hines, and Shelly were always pleasant to watch. But the most incredible performance for me had to come from Andy Griffith. Portlier now than I ever would have thought he'd be, he cut such a perfect figure as Joe, the crotchety old pie-shop owner. Ruddy cheeks above a snug bowtie, white, wing-like eyebrows, and a maw that never stops flapping. He was perfectly cast. Other perfect casting was on display with the minor characters of Ogie and Cal. Jeremy Sisto, as Jenna's abusive, smothering husband Earl, must have done a great job, because I keep thinking of the Six Feet Under alum as a greasy creep, which keeps me from wanting to compliment him too much.
I think what pleased me the most about the film is that every time it had the chance to take a turn for the trite, it never gave in to temptation. In a movie about adultery, that's a pretty difficult thing to do. I don't want to spoil the denouement, but it managed to strike a clean balance between realism and fantasy. Certain expectable conventions were present, but they were tempered by the frank look into our characters' lives.
Though it is not directly related to the viewer's experience of the film, I think it is important to say that watching Waitress with an understanding of the awful end to Shelly's life is a bit painful. Clearly, a lot of love went into this film, and I admire so much people who are able to dedicate themselves to the one thing that makes them feel alive. As another non sequitur, I must say that it is a pleasure to see Nathan Fillion onscreen. As much as I love him as Captain Mal Reynolds in Firefly, he is much more than a one-note actor.
As the film came to a close, it became evident to me that I had really been moved by the experience of witnessing a universe unfurl itself, allowing a roomful of willing spectators to get a peek at its minutiae, only to close up and hide its future from us as we move along to our own. This is a big part of the magic of the movies, I think. Man, I just love watching them... does collective escapism make anyone else praise Xenu as much as I do?
Sidenote: there were many excellent trailers shown before the movie began, but one that particularly caught my attention was for Evening. Based on a novel by Michael Cunningham, and starring many of the same actresses that were in the adaptation of his moving homage to Virginia Woolf, Evening looks even better than The Hours. It has the same focus on mothers, daughters, long-lost remembered romances, generations, and sadness, but what can I say? Claire Danes has a much more prominent role this time, so I am bound to think it's better! Also, her love interest is played by Patrick Wilson, and their chemistry has already proven captivating...
The opening credits of Waitress set the tone for the experience to come. It is so clear how much love Adrienne Shelly and her D.P. had for the film and its characters, as is evidenced by the beautiful portrayal of pies. Our main character, Jenna, was raised by a mother who loved making pies, and carries in herself that same passion. The pies in the film are caressed and kneaded and made with the most spectacular panoply of colors and fillings. It actually made me go home and make a very simple pudding pie. Because Jenna and her pies are so inextricably linked, it is a pleasure to see Keri Russell's radiant onscreen presence treated with the same care and closeness as her pastries.
Performances were excellent across the board, as Russell, Nathan Fillion, Cheryl Hines, and Shelly were always pleasant to watch. But the most incredible performance for me had to come from Andy Griffith. Portlier now than I ever would have thought he'd be, he cut such a perfect figure as Joe, the crotchety old pie-shop owner. Ruddy cheeks above a snug bowtie, white, wing-like eyebrows, and a maw that never stops flapping. He was perfectly cast. Other perfect casting was on display with the minor characters of Ogie and Cal. Jeremy Sisto, as Jenna's abusive, smothering husband Earl, must have done a great job, because I keep thinking of the Six Feet Under alum as a greasy creep, which keeps me from wanting to compliment him too much.
I think what pleased me the most about the film is that every time it had the chance to take a turn for the trite, it never gave in to temptation. In a movie about adultery, that's a pretty difficult thing to do. I don't want to spoil the denouement, but it managed to strike a clean balance between realism and fantasy. Certain expectable conventions were present, but they were tempered by the frank look into our characters' lives.
Though it is not directly related to the viewer's experience of the film, I think it is important to say that watching Waitress with an understanding of the awful end to Shelly's life is a bit painful. Clearly, a lot of love went into this film, and I admire so much people who are able to dedicate themselves to the one thing that makes them feel alive. As another non sequitur, I must say that it is a pleasure to see Nathan Fillion onscreen. As much as I love him as Captain Mal Reynolds in Firefly, he is much more than a one-note actor.
As the film came to a close, it became evident to me that I had really been moved by the experience of witnessing a universe unfurl itself, allowing a roomful of willing spectators to get a peek at its minutiae, only to close up and hide its future from us as we move along to our own. This is a big part of the magic of the movies, I think. Man, I just love watching them... does collective escapism make anyone else praise Xenu as much as I do?
Saturday, May 5, 2007
we will rock you... booyakasha!
In some of the best movie news I've heard recently, Sacha Baron Cohen is signed on to play Freddie Mercury in an upcoming biopic! He is replacing previous frontrunner Johnny Depp, possibly because studio executives realized they had been considering Johnny Depp to play Freddie Mercury.
In some of the worst movie news I've heard recently, rumors that Sacha Baron Cohen is signed on to play Freddie Mercury in an upcoming biopic are absolutely untrue. The actor's publicist has come out and said that the reports are "pure hokum."
Who says "hokum" anymore? Anyway, the conclusion I've come to is that internet entertainment news is a cruel temptress, trying always to get my hopes up about something before dashing them away again. I had been very upset to hear about Depp's possible casting as legendary Queen singer Mercury (the dear Farrokh Bulsara, fyi), and am at least hoping that the confusion regarding the actor in the role means that Depp is out. I grant that he is a talented actor, and he used to be hot back when he was on 21 Jump Street, but I do not think people would be able to take him seriously in the role.
I understand this statement is confusing in light of my support for the casting of Cohen as Mercury, but I think that SBC has proven himself capable of committing to so many different types of roles - so far as to sacrifice himself to the character he is playing - more convincingly even than Depp. I think when the average person watches Ali G, they are entirely focused on and drawn into the noted Staines-ian, and don't think about Borat or Bruno until after they have absorbed who Ali G is. With Depp, however, it has become difficult for audiences to suspend their caricature of Depp caricaturing Keith Richards as Captain Jack Sparrow. The character and the man are almost inseparable, even for long-time fans.
Certainly, Cohen looks a hell of a lot more like Freddie Mercury than Depp does, but more importantly, I think he is woefully underappreciated in Hollywood. Though I did not see all of the contenders for the most recent Academy Awards, I maintain that Cohen should have at the very least been nominated. I don't think any other actor in Hollywood, Daniel Day Lewis be damned, could have commited to the role of Borat with such devotion, and pulled it off. I didn't like the movie or the character as much as I like some of Cohen's other work, but the fact is that he takes himself just seriously enough for everyone else to buy into his shtick.
So here's my vote for Sacha Baron Cohen as Freddie Mercury. May the best man win, and go on to lipsynch to classic sports anthems forever...
P.S. I should point out that I am quite devoted to Queen, and it is very important to me that the makers of a Freddie Mercury biopic give the man and the band the credit they deserve. I have seen the London stage musical "We Will Rock You" three times, and highly recommend it to anyone lucky enough to get a chance to watch it. I have so so so many memories of listening to Queen on my headphones and really absorbing the magic of the vocals, the instrumentals, the lyrics. Beautiful music deserves to be held on a pedestal, and I hope that the biopic, especially when dealing with a subject such as a famous death to AIDS in 1993, will be dignified. To me, even spandex suits and cocaine don't diminish the aplomb of this band...
In some of the worst movie news I've heard recently, rumors that Sacha Baron Cohen is signed on to play Freddie Mercury in an upcoming biopic are absolutely untrue. The actor's publicist has come out and said that the reports are "pure hokum."
Who says "hokum" anymore? Anyway, the conclusion I've come to is that internet entertainment news is a cruel temptress, trying always to get my hopes up about something before dashing them away again. I had been very upset to hear about Depp's possible casting as legendary Queen singer Mercury (the dear Farrokh Bulsara, fyi), and am at least hoping that the confusion regarding the actor in the role means that Depp is out. I grant that he is a talented actor, and he used to be hot back when he was on 21 Jump Street, but I do not think people would be able to take him seriously in the role.
I understand this statement is confusing in light of my support for the casting of Cohen as Mercury, but I think that SBC has proven himself capable of committing to so many different types of roles - so far as to sacrifice himself to the character he is playing - more convincingly even than Depp. I think when the average person watches Ali G, they are entirely focused on and drawn into the noted Staines-ian, and don't think about Borat or Bruno until after they have absorbed who Ali G is. With Depp, however, it has become difficult for audiences to suspend their caricature of Depp caricaturing Keith Richards as Captain Jack Sparrow. The character and the man are almost inseparable, even for long-time fans.
Certainly, Cohen looks a hell of a lot more like Freddie Mercury than Depp does, but more importantly, I think he is woefully underappreciated in Hollywood. Though I did not see all of the contenders for the most recent Academy Awards, I maintain that Cohen should have at the very least been nominated. I don't think any other actor in Hollywood, Daniel Day Lewis be damned, could have commited to the role of Borat with such devotion, and pulled it off. I didn't like the movie or the character as much as I like some of Cohen's other work, but the fact is that he takes himself just seriously enough for everyone else to buy into his shtick.
So here's my vote for Sacha Baron Cohen as Freddie Mercury. May the best man win, and go on to lipsynch to classic sports anthems forever...
P.S. I should point out that I am quite devoted to Queen, and it is very important to me that the makers of a Freddie Mercury biopic give the man and the band the credit they deserve. I have seen the London stage musical "We Will Rock You" three times, and highly recommend it to anyone lucky enough to get a chance to watch it. I have so so so many memories of listening to Queen on my headphones and really absorbing the magic of the vocals, the instrumentals, the lyrics. Beautiful music deserves to be held on a pedestal, and I hope that the biopic, especially when dealing with a subject such as a famous death to AIDS in 1993, will be dignified. To me, even spandex suits and cocaine don't diminish the aplomb of this band...
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
i carried a watermelon
In 1987, two very important things happened, for which the year will be earmarked in the pages of history. In July, I was born. But a few short months earlier, another bundle of creative energy, joy, and inspiration was brought into this world. Yes, I am referring to none other than cinematic tour de force, Dirty Dancing. Some people seem to like this movie in a tounge-in-cheek, "get me drunk and I'll sit and laugh at it with my gal pals" sort of way, but to them I turn a wry smile and think with fondness about what they're missing out on.
Next Tuesday and Wednesday, Dirty Dancing will be rereleased into theaters in honor of its 20th anniversary. Though I can't know for sure yet, I'm worried that end of semester business will prevent me from seeing one of my all-time favorite films on the big screen at last. Enough with the pessimism, though... Let's just bask in the cool knowledge that enough people understand the importance of this picture to bring it back for audiences old and new.
I can't remember how old I was when I first watched what must certainly be Vestron Pictures' magnum opus, but I remember finding out that there were "controversial themes" in the storyline which I had been too young to pick up on. I have some vague memories of watching my mother iron while nobody put baby in the corner on TNT, but I just cannot pinpoint the moment at which I could declare that I was truly a fan. Sometime in early high school, I think it was TBS that hosted a 12-hour marathon of Dirty Dancing. That's right - the same movie six times in a row. Now who would actually sit through something like that? Well, me, of course!
I cannot claim that this picture is a guilty pleasure of mine because I have loved it since before I knew what a guilty pleasure was. I can't tell if it falls into the category of cheezy dance movie that I love or cheezy romance that I love, but I figure it must be enough of both that it cycles out of the cheezy category altogether. I understand that the dancing is not that great, the actors are not really super-hot, and the performances are...alright. But somehow this neither diminishes my enjoyment of the movie nor forces me to love it in a so-bad-it's-good sort of way. I think that the mediocrity of some aspects of the film is perfectly balanced by the highlights of the characters involved and the lowlights of the situations they're placed in. Kellerman's is a completely boring place for the rich and complacent, and the location it was filmed in lacks even the natural beauty of a resort like Mohonk which must have inspired it. Finding a little bit of inspiration or romance in an otherwise unremarkable locale is tried and true, and this is where Dirty Dancing hits the spot.
Because to me, it's not about dance or love or even rebellion, really. It's about a teenage girl on the precipice of adulthood - too smart for her family, too naiive for independence, and too insecure in general. She wants to be free to learn about herself and change the world, but the reality is that she's too scared to let go of her support system.
"Me? I'm scared of everything. I'm scared of what I saw, I'm scared of what I did, of who I am, and most of all - I'm scared of walking out of this room and never feeling the rest of my whole life the way I feel when I'm with you." Baby says this to Johnny and I don't really think it's because she knows they're soulmates or anything. I'm sure there was a time in my preteen years when I believed that, but I've come to view her attachment to Johnny as a transference of security from her father to her lover. I'm not judging her motivations or saying they're too Electra-complex to be valid, but it just seems a likely explanation for how alone she feels when he is gone.
Baby represents intelligent, inexperienced, white-collar teenage girls everywhere, and I think her character marks an interesting change in American society. Her character grew up a child of the optimistic, economically-booming 1950s - the era of the teenager. By the time she had come into her own and was ready to attend Mount Holyoke, she must have absorbed enough of early second-wave feminism to believe that there was a cause in the world with her name on it. Poverty, hunger, and war are too big too start out with, so Johnny acts as a good stepping-stone for her. But the movie didn't come out in the '60s; it was released over two decades after it's set. I believe that the implications of a young woman looking to balance her sense and sensibility (notably not a new topic, Austen-ites) would have been quite resonant in a time when women's roles in the workforce were in a period of difficult adjustment.
I identify with Frances "Baby" Houseman, perhaps because I recognize so many of her flaws. She wants so badly to do something meaningful, even if she's fooling herself into thinking her actions are more important than they are. The good-hearted father coming to terms with his daughter's blossoming sexuality, the first love, the search for excitement - these are all old tropes. But Baby gets something that almost none of us get. She gets those "celluloid moments" that I mentioned in an earlier post. She gets lifted up by a strapping young man in a lake with summer rain falling on her face. She gets to wear a flouncy pink dress and dance with a group of street-wise hotel employees who all know the steps. This is something that many of us envy, and I don't think there's anything about that to feel guilty for.
~Kat
P.S. I refuse to respond to any comments regarding the sequel, as I am barely willing to acknowledge its existence. However, if anyone's seen the musical based on the movie, I'd love to hear what you thought about it!
Next Tuesday and Wednesday, Dirty Dancing will be rereleased into theaters in honor of its 20th anniversary. Though I can't know for sure yet, I'm worried that end of semester business will prevent me from seeing one of my all-time favorite films on the big screen at last. Enough with the pessimism, though... Let's just bask in the cool knowledge that enough people understand the importance of this picture to bring it back for audiences old and new.
I can't remember how old I was when I first watched what must certainly be Vestron Pictures' magnum opus, but I remember finding out that there were "controversial themes" in the storyline which I had been too young to pick up on. I have some vague memories of watching my mother iron while nobody put baby in the corner on TNT, but I just cannot pinpoint the moment at which I could declare that I was truly a fan. Sometime in early high school, I think it was TBS that hosted a 12-hour marathon of Dirty Dancing. That's right - the same movie six times in a row. Now who would actually sit through something like that? Well, me, of course!
I cannot claim that this picture is a guilty pleasure of mine because I have loved it since before I knew what a guilty pleasure was. I can't tell if it falls into the category of cheezy dance movie that I love or cheezy romance that I love, but I figure it must be enough of both that it cycles out of the cheezy category altogether. I understand that the dancing is not that great, the actors are not really super-hot, and the performances are...alright. But somehow this neither diminishes my enjoyment of the movie nor forces me to love it in a so-bad-it's-good sort of way. I think that the mediocrity of some aspects of the film is perfectly balanced by the highlights of the characters involved and the lowlights of the situations they're placed in. Kellerman's is a completely boring place for the rich and complacent, and the location it was filmed in lacks even the natural beauty of a resort like Mohonk which must have inspired it. Finding a little bit of inspiration or romance in an otherwise unremarkable locale is tried and true, and this is where Dirty Dancing hits the spot.
Because to me, it's not about dance or love or even rebellion, really. It's about a teenage girl on the precipice of adulthood - too smart for her family, too naiive for independence, and too insecure in general. She wants to be free to learn about herself and change the world, but the reality is that she's too scared to let go of her support system.
"Me? I'm scared of everything. I'm scared of what I saw, I'm scared of what I did, of who I am, and most of all - I'm scared of walking out of this room and never feeling the rest of my whole life the way I feel when I'm with you." Baby says this to Johnny and I don't really think it's because she knows they're soulmates or anything. I'm sure there was a time in my preteen years when I believed that, but I've come to view her attachment to Johnny as a transference of security from her father to her lover. I'm not judging her motivations or saying they're too Electra-complex to be valid, but it just seems a likely explanation for how alone she feels when he is gone.
Baby represents intelligent, inexperienced, white-collar teenage girls everywhere, and I think her character marks an interesting change in American society. Her character grew up a child of the optimistic, economically-booming 1950s - the era of the teenager. By the time she had come into her own and was ready to attend Mount Holyoke, she must have absorbed enough of early second-wave feminism to believe that there was a cause in the world with her name on it. Poverty, hunger, and war are too big too start out with, so Johnny acts as a good stepping-stone for her. But the movie didn't come out in the '60s; it was released over two decades after it's set. I believe that the implications of a young woman looking to balance her sense and sensibility (notably not a new topic, Austen-ites) would have been quite resonant in a time when women's roles in the workforce were in a period of difficult adjustment.
I identify with Frances "Baby" Houseman, perhaps because I recognize so many of her flaws. She wants so badly to do something meaningful, even if she's fooling herself into thinking her actions are more important than they are. The good-hearted father coming to terms with his daughter's blossoming sexuality, the first love, the search for excitement - these are all old tropes. But Baby gets something that almost none of us get. She gets those "celluloid moments" that I mentioned in an earlier post. She gets lifted up by a strapping young man in a lake with summer rain falling on her face. She gets to wear a flouncy pink dress and dance with a group of street-wise hotel employees who all know the steps. This is something that many of us envy, and I don't think there's anything about that to feel guilty for.
~Kat
P.S. I refuse to respond to any comments regarding the sequel, as I am barely willing to acknowledge its existence. However, if anyone's seen the musical based on the movie, I'd love to hear what you thought about it!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
the love song of p. seymour hoffman
As Professor M taught me, a man doesn't have to be drop-dead gorgeous in order to win my love. From the first day sitting in his class, I felt my heart being swept away on the wings of his words forever. Something about his halted swagger, smooth velvety voice, and impeccable fashion sense just work together to create this frenetic sexual energy that radiates through the room as soon as he walks in... In Hollywood there are very few who have this same presence onscreen. One such man is the lovely Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Okay, so I've only seen twelve of his 47 IMDb acting credits, but I just wanted to say a few sweet words. The first time I was aware of PSH's virility and verve was in his role as Lester Bangs in Almost Famous. "The only true currency in this world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool." Teenage Kat in high school with her headphones on and her awkwardness and her dirty sneakers pretty much went nuts for that line. I later realized he wasn't a one-hit wonder when I saw him ironically-sans-pornstache in Boogie Nights. Paul Thomas Anderson brought us the ultimate trifecta of sexy-ugly with PSH, John C. Reilly, and Mark Wahlberg, and while the last two were running around shirtless and doing chicks, PSH's Scotty was making me sweat. Maybe it's the short shorts and the ill-fitting tank tops stretched over his expanse of stomach, maybe it's his awkwardly colored and poorly styled hair, but he brings so much anguish to his unrequited love for Dirk Diggler that whenever his character takes center stage, the dramatic irony reaches uncomfortable levels and I can't help but squirm in my seat watching everything go wrong.
What I loved about seeing many of Boogie Nights' actors return to working together in Magnolia was that they were still playing characters as insecure as their previous roles, but with completely different strengths and dynamics. As hospice nurse Phil Parma, he conveys a sensitivity and tranquility that Scotty would have been incredibly jealous of. At first I assumed the character was gay, but upon repeated viewings I realize this is not necessarily true. Though Parma lacks the raw sexiness of PSH, he is a completely believable young man who has simply settled into his place in life, but still manages to be surprised by what can make him feel. (Wow, just thinking of these PTA films is making me write an ode to John C. Reilly in my head. Maybe later...)
I wasn't sure what to expect out of Capote, movie-wise, but I am still impressed by PSH's range two years later. Apologetic yes-man Brandt in The Big Lebowski, greasy deviant priest Veasey (what a great name) in Cold Mountain, and now unlikable leading man. You know you've made it as a star when... Sure, at first the Truman voice was disconcerting, but the pacing and atmosphere of the picture allowed me to look past it after a while. As far as how the film made me feel about the true events and real people that inspired it, I won't attribute that to Mr. Hoffman. But the fact that he could bring gravitas to a character that most viewers are familiar with, all the while taking that squeaky voice completely seriously, just makes my heart swell.
Oh, what a man!
~Kat
P.S.
Okay, so I've only seen twelve of his 47 IMDb acting credits, but I just wanted to say a few sweet words. The first time I was aware of PSH's virility and verve was in his role as Lester Bangs in Almost Famous. "The only true currency in this world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool." Teenage Kat in high school with her headphones on and her awkwardness and her dirty sneakers pretty much went nuts for that line. I later realized he wasn't a one-hit wonder when I saw him ironically-sans-pornstache in Boogie Nights. Paul Thomas Anderson brought us the ultimate trifecta of sexy-ugly with PSH, John C. Reilly, and Mark Wahlberg, and while the last two were running around shirtless and doing chicks, PSH's Scotty was making me sweat. Maybe it's the short shorts and the ill-fitting tank tops stretched over his expanse of stomach, maybe it's his awkwardly colored and poorly styled hair, but he brings so much anguish to his unrequited love for Dirk Diggler that whenever his character takes center stage, the dramatic irony reaches uncomfortable levels and I can't help but squirm in my seat watching everything go wrong.
What I loved about seeing many of Boogie Nights' actors return to working together in Magnolia was that they were still playing characters as insecure as their previous roles, but with completely different strengths and dynamics. As hospice nurse Phil Parma, he conveys a sensitivity and tranquility that Scotty would have been incredibly jealous of. At first I assumed the character was gay, but upon repeated viewings I realize this is not necessarily true. Though Parma lacks the raw sexiness of PSH, he is a completely believable young man who has simply settled into his place in life, but still manages to be surprised by what can make him feel. (Wow, just thinking of these PTA films is making me write an ode to John C. Reilly in my head. Maybe later...)
I wasn't sure what to expect out of Capote, movie-wise, but I am still impressed by PSH's range two years later. Apologetic yes-man Brandt in The Big Lebowski, greasy deviant priest Veasey (what a great name) in Cold Mountain, and now unlikable leading man. You know you've made it as a star when... Sure, at first the Truman voice was disconcerting, but the pacing and atmosphere of the picture allowed me to look past it after a while. As far as how the film made me feel about the true events and real people that inspired it, I won't attribute that to Mr. Hoffman. But the fact that he could bring gravitas to a character that most viewers are familiar with, all the while taking that squeaky voice completely seriously, just makes my heart swell.
Oh, what a man!
~Kat
P.S.
Monday, April 23, 2007
digital digital get down
Why am I a film studies major? Well, I suppose any college student questions why they chose their course of study, but with this one I can't quite explain it away by saying that I'm going to make a ton of money in I-Banking after I graduate. I came to a college with a gov/econ focus because I was intending to go into foreign service. One year and a dropped intro to economics class later, and I found myself declaring as a literature major.
Oh, the life of a lit major is as glamorous as you'd imagine, I promise. I think I read more when I was in elementary school. Oh well, I'd rather write essays than take exams any day. Also, it's a nice thing to have on my diploma as someone who takes great pleasure from the smell of old pages in stacks and stacks of library books.
So then as a sophomore I met Professor M. Oooh, Professor M. What a man... I was taking his journalism class in order to explore some career options, and I just became totally smitten. I signed up for his screenwriting class the next semester just so I could be close to him, but instead I found myself on a new career path with a second major.
I'm not the biggest fan of film majors, usually. Sometimes class discussions about Baudrillard and postmodernism feel like one big circle jerk of affected quasi-intellectualism, but then I find myself telling uninterested friends about the simulacrum or mise-en-scène, and I have to check myself (before I wreck myself). But I do so love cinema. And I like having the excuse as to why I watch so many movies and TV shows that it's research for my intended career as a screenwriter.
********************************************
In my Intro to Video Production class we've been talking a lot about the implications of the transition from film to digital. At first I didn't think the change was very meaningful past economics, but I've come to change my mind. As far as visual quality - sure, that's a given. But now with the cost-effective practice of filming digitally and editing to give "the film look," that's not even the most important part of the discussion. Ownership and distribution are obviously a big deal in the equation, too. With cheap cameras and YouTube, anyone can be a celebrity, and any material can be seen worldwide. I maintain that this is both a good thing and a bad thing, and refuse to come down strongly on either side.
But it was something I heard Quentin Tarantino say in a radio interview the other day that really struck me. "When you talk about the magic of cinema," he said (don't worry, I'm totally paraphrasing), you're referring to the illusion of movement. A film strip is just a row of static images which, when applied to the proper equipment and amount of light, trick us into believing that we are watching a moving image. With digital video, we are denied this magic. Not to say that beautiful, meaningful things can't be created digitally, but there is a lot to be said for celluloid moments like when Kate Hudson wipes away a tear from her right cheekbone with her left hand in Almost Famous, smiles, and asks, "What kind of beer?" Totally magical.
~Kat
Oh, the life of a lit major is as glamorous as you'd imagine, I promise. I think I read more when I was in elementary school. Oh well, I'd rather write essays than take exams any day. Also, it's a nice thing to have on my diploma as someone who takes great pleasure from the smell of old pages in stacks and stacks of library books.
So then as a sophomore I met Professor M. Oooh, Professor M. What a man... I was taking his journalism class in order to explore some career options, and I just became totally smitten. I signed up for his screenwriting class the next semester just so I could be close to him, but instead I found myself on a new career path with a second major.
I'm not the biggest fan of film majors, usually. Sometimes class discussions about Baudrillard and postmodernism feel like one big circle jerk of affected quasi-intellectualism, but then I find myself telling uninterested friends about the simulacrum or mise-en-scène, and I have to check myself (before I wreck myself). But I do so love cinema. And I like having the excuse as to why I watch so many movies and TV shows that it's research for my intended career as a screenwriter.
********************************************
In my Intro to Video Production class we've been talking a lot about the implications of the transition from film to digital. At first I didn't think the change was very meaningful past economics, but I've come to change my mind. As far as visual quality - sure, that's a given. But now with the cost-effective practice of filming digitally and editing to give "the film look," that's not even the most important part of the discussion. Ownership and distribution are obviously a big deal in the equation, too. With cheap cameras and YouTube, anyone can be a celebrity, and any material can be seen worldwide. I maintain that this is both a good thing and a bad thing, and refuse to come down strongly on either side.
But it was something I heard Quentin Tarantino say in a radio interview the other day that really struck me. "When you talk about the magic of cinema," he said (don't worry, I'm totally paraphrasing), you're referring to the illusion of movement. A film strip is just a row of static images which, when applied to the proper equipment and amount of light, trick us into believing that we are watching a moving image. With digital video, we are denied this magic. Not to say that beautiful, meaningful things can't be created digitally, but there is a lot to be said for celluloid moments like when Kate Hudson wipes away a tear from her right cheekbone with her left hand in Almost Famous, smiles, and asks, "What kind of beer?" Totally magical.
~Kat
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
