It was early in my college career when I first encountered the condescending tone of surprise in a male classmate's voice when he told me that I was smart. I'll never forget how knee-jerk offended I was by his comment and the time it took me to understand what was going on behind it. But more notably it's been something of a hallmark as I continue to receive that same backhanded compliment in different forms throughout my (more) adult life. One of my favorite sayings suggests that feminism is a journey, but I progressively find that feminism is mistakenly considered something that is just for women.
Being a teenager of the early 00's I was faced with a lot of 'media feminism,' basically a mashup of
thin women who are airbrushed to perfection while simultaneously being aggressive and empowered. The secret to this, ladies, is that it's an impossible recipe for failure. Armed with this horrible paradox I grew up trying to achieve being a thin infantalized version of a human woman who is so cute and datable and also a fiercely independent warrior a la any member of TLC who doesn't need a man anyway and probably wears a lot of Tommy Hilfiger tube tops because the 2000s. Obviously if you aren't the only superhuman woman on earth (Beyoncé) this formula doesn't really work, which is why a lot of girls my age became caught in a trap of having false confidence to compensate a severely weak sense of who they actually are, and not just who they are supposed to imitate, due to the emphasis of the success of the physical self over the intellectual self. It was a time when young womens' feminism was being represented by sassy songs about not needing to be paid for but the stereotypes that were supposedly being broken hadn't budged.
Flashing forward to the present, in my mid 20s I've come to finally understand that although I do believe that feminism is a journey that should include both men and women, it's often men that have been socialized to be unable to find a way to deal with this confusing standard. Women are given a lot of social cues, and with awareness at least have the hope of understanding what persona suits our individual characters as well as how we choose to represent ourselves as females . That's the dream at least, and I have found that with age comes the stability and perceptiveness to know what we want and shake off some of those extraordinarily oppressive messages about what we are supposed to be. But men haven't been taught which messages they are meant to disregard, and most of the failed communication and frustration my friends and I have experienced doesn't come from what we're doing wrong, it's from our male peers entering adulthood without having received any guidance about how to interact with the same unclear messages we have been trying to translate since we were children.
Now enter the failure of a generation. I'm not the first girl to experience the novelty of their own intelligence or personality in the eyes of male peers. I once had an ex-boyfriend tell me that I was the first genuinely intelligent girl he had ever dated. As college seniors it's possible that nobody he was partying with in undergrad had revealed an intelligent side, but I consider that a matter of context and the reality that he probably wasn't searching that hard for an intellectual conversation. Interestingly, this same person told me two years later during our subsequent breakup that some of his friends has suggested to him that I was 'domineering' and that he was now taking that into consideration through the course of the breakdown of our relationship. In this incredibly vulnerable time I found myself wondering if I had been too domineering, which I resented. Calling a woman domineering is the same as calling her crazy - it's a way to invalidate her power as a person and her entitlement to her own feelings. The reality is there were 2 years of a successful partnership and any other suggestion is an excuse to feel better about something that is very difficult to process. I came back to the very sad and progressively outdated theme that strength in women means weakness in men and more often than not this insecurity channels itself into blaming the girl for being 'too' or 'not enough' of something. There are many more examples of times when it has been completely legitimate and equal in the ways relationships have ended, but in this absurdly stereotypical case it was a significant shock to experience a level of gender bias that I was naive enough to believe would never effect me so directly.
The biggest perpetrator of this incredibly damaging dynamic is women's classification as either 'cool' or 'clingy' - a word for which there are not enough sarcastic parentheses in the world - and when faced with the prospect of a person who is autonomous and self-sufficient men may succumb to insecurity in their own masculinity, which media and society has taught them is in large part relative to how much women defer to them. There is an epidemic where words like crazy and clingy exist to make women feel insecure about how much they're allowed to feel about a person they are dating or involved with. It's terms like these that automatically decide that the XY in the pair is the one in charge of what happens next and that the XX is fated to wait until judgement has been passed in her favor because any move made of their own self-determination is aggressive or worse, needy. Which is, of course, complete insanity and a massive waste of time for people who could just be enjoying each other's company instead of transferring their manufactured insecurities back and forth.
Which brings me back to the beginning - I'm tired of being the most interesting girl in the room. I want my and other women's ability to appreciate our autonomy to be something that is a given, and not a shocking revelation and later an excuse to find someone too intimidating by default of a painfully outdated social contract. I am hopeful that future situations will allow men to be able to appreciate partnership without it making them feel as though they're having to sacrifice their confidence in their masculinity. There's plenty of discussion about how society has directly oppressed women and it's very worth understanding, but it's also worth focusing on how society has failed men. There are no guidelines for how to collaborate with strong women, only how to fear them and that's where all of us have been failed.
Ultimately, though what I've discussed is acutely relative to the 20-something millenial, all aspects of these confusing biases are worth deconstructing. To begin we need to understand this issue as something that is effecting everybody as part of the human condition, and that despite a lot of misinformation to the contrary feminism is a movement that encompasses both genders.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Don v. Don
In the wake of the most tragic news of James Gandolfini's death I've been re-watching a lot of The Sopranos to cope. Of course anybody who knows anything about me is aware that The Sopranos is, in my opinion, the best show that's ever graced the airwaves (and yes I've seen and appreciate The Wire). In accordance with this opinion Tony Soprano is and remains the standard by which I judge a good television character. Do I cry when they cry? Am I happy when things go well for them? Am I conflicted 83% of the time? Then yes. Not only has he portrayed one of the most interesting and controversial characters of all time he really kicked off a new age of television where we can finally engage with conflicted protagonists that don't condescend to the idea that audiences need good and bad spelled out to them in gigantic alphabet letters. People are complicated, and we deserve characters that reflect this aspect of reality.
So I've been revisiting my Sopranos 6 season box set and weeping mentally, but all the while I couldn't help but find myself comparing my favorite protagonist to my other favorite protagonist (of late) Don Draper. I didn't realize in the first round, primarily because Mad Men hadn't aired yet but also because Don Draper, until season 6, has only intermittent moments of intrigue that pieced together at a painfully glacial pace. Either way they're both fascinating troubled brooding men and I am going to dig into their similarities and differences with the vigor of somebody who has too much time on their hands to think about fake people.
OKAY getting down to business. Beware of spoilers for both shows!
So the obvious thing that ties these two characters together is their mothers. The mutual mom problem. In Don's case it's painfully glaring where his issues with mothers and women comes from vs. Tony's which, while explained further, are far more subtle and not as much of a motivator for his more destructive actions. The new season shed a lot of light onto Don's mother/prostitute/mother issues and the duality of those themes is almost overwhelming in his case. It does help to make his downward spirals pretty straightforward, though: marrying women, cheating on women, disposing of women. Don sees all women as prostitutes in some form (except for Betty, the actual mother of his children) and as such he continues to create relationships and destroy them as a way to control, reconnect with and ultimately punish his mother and his stepmother who neglected and verbally abused him. Easy peasy.
Tony is a little more complicated, if only because the show doesn't illustrate it with the same easily identified primary colors (red, quite literally in the costuming) as Don's. His issues with Livia aren't brought up over and over again in long term failed attempts at reconciliation. They aren't one of his primary motivations to create and control his image like Don's are and so they come out suddenly and aggressively as debilitating panic attacks, because he chooses not to deal with them at all - of course it does show up here and there with important plot lines, but there are so many other story lines outside of Tony's family issues that it doesn't have as much of a spotlight. Tony's mother was a fantastic monster of a character, constantly controlling and manipulating their family through undermining and victimization. Tony definitely gets around, and one could argue that his need to sleep with everyone comes from the emasculation he and his father both faced, but I personally think it has more to do with his nature and his mid-life crisis, which is referenced more than once during the Tony/Carmella separation quake in season five.
Okay so at the core that is both characters' biggest and most suppressed problems. The next important similarity is their mutual struggle with their status and power. Tony is especially interesting and this is where he really takes the cake (or cannoli?) in the comparison. Tony was bred for this role, he wasn't chosen and he didn't work for it, not in a way the general audience can relate to. This is such an important character point for him. The range of emotions on James Gandolfini's face could perform it's own opera but his boss faces really pinball between a smirk and a scowl. The amused, condescending smirk that always means a tense scene ahead and the scowl and heavy sigh of crushing pressure to make the right decision. Both modes are so important for who Tony is because he has a certain entitlement and an incredibly childish side of himself that uses his power to punish those who strike a nerve with him, of which he has many. He especially utilizes his position when he's angry at somebody for not accepting something he's offered them (Tony Blundetto was a great example and also Steve Buscemi at his creepy featured finest). He takes it incredibly personally when people reject his offers of help and goes straight into petulant payback mode, his power makes him believe that anything he offers should be graciously accepted, it's an honor that he's even offering to help. There's also some stuff there about rejection in general with Tony, but this is definitely one of the worst aspects of his complex and subversive personality.
Unfortch Don also struggles with this, but Don's childish mantra is Don't Touch My Stuff. That's mine. So is that. So is she. They're both giant man-children in their own incredibly overbearing way and Don likes to punish those who infringe on his territory. This comes through with the firm merger, and is both sentimental and painful when it involves people, namely Peggy. Don is a master of professional payback, and he won't apologize for it. He and Tony both use their status to punish those who hit their particular nerve, but in very different ways. His two favorite boss faces are more like eyebrows raised 'what did your idiot mouth just say' and eyebrows furrowed 'get your idiot face out of my infinitely more handsome one.' He clawed his way into his powerful position through charm and ambition and he is not about to share; he also has a bad habit of coveting what other people have and finds ways to also claim those (Silvia) can you even imagine what these two would have been like on a playground together? Yeesh.
Another important thing that these two share is how they handle regret. Obviously they're both mentally unwell uh, to say the least. But Don tends to find more comfort in the sentimental. He thinks he's constantly reinventing himself but really he's just found something new to become sentimental about and believes he's finally discovered his humanity. Often this is some new woman or some other supposed success or loss. When he does end up regretting something he first self-destructs, then finds an outlet usually in somebody or some new idea and begins again. Don has gone through this cycle once or twice a season and most moves end up being lateral. Tony on the other hand ends up piling regret on top of self-loathing and has a breakdown or a panic attack. His sentimentality lies heavily with his family and the idea of the Italian family in general and often that brings him right back to the cause of his self-loathing in the first place. Janice, his mother, Carmella - all women he disappointed and was disappointed by, and all people that he has been firmly conditioned to believe are the only things he should never compromise. And then other times, both characters are totally absolved of regret for things that the audience feels horrible about having happened. Don and Peggy's relationship will never be the same and I personally will never get over Adrianna. Sometimes you watch these plot lines unfold and you can't help but think what an ungodly asshole this character is, and three scenes later you're back on their side. It's fantastic.
That's the abridged overview, this could become a novel if I had the time. Or was getting paid. Ultimately the question is always looming, are these two people sociopaths? They both lie unflinchingly and seem more at odds with those who wronged them then their own morality. But they are also written as products of their past and their culture, so it's hard for an audience to determine and that's what keeps us wanting more.
RIP JG
So I've been revisiting my Sopranos 6 season box set and weeping mentally, but all the while I couldn't help but find myself comparing my favorite protagonist to my other favorite protagonist (of late) Don Draper. I didn't realize in the first round, primarily because Mad Men hadn't aired yet but also because Don Draper, until season 6, has only intermittent moments of intrigue that pieced together at a painfully glacial pace. Either way they're both fascinating troubled brooding men and I am going to dig into their similarities and differences with the vigor of somebody who has too much time on their hands to think about fake people.
OKAY getting down to business. Beware of spoilers for both shows!
So the obvious thing that ties these two characters together is their mothers. The mutual mom problem. In Don's case it's painfully glaring where his issues with mothers and women comes from vs. Tony's which, while explained further, are far more subtle and not as much of a motivator for his more destructive actions. The new season shed a lot of light onto Don's mother/prostitute/mother issues and the duality of those themes is almost overwhelming in his case. It does help to make his downward spirals pretty straightforward, though: marrying women, cheating on women, disposing of women. Don sees all women as prostitutes in some form (except for Betty, the actual mother of his children) and as such he continues to create relationships and destroy them as a way to control, reconnect with and ultimately punish his mother and his stepmother who neglected and verbally abused him. Easy peasy.
Tony is a little more complicated, if only because the show doesn't illustrate it with the same easily identified primary colors (red, quite literally in the costuming) as Don's. His issues with Livia aren't brought up over and over again in long term failed attempts at reconciliation. They aren't one of his primary motivations to create and control his image like Don's are and so they come out suddenly and aggressively as debilitating panic attacks, because he chooses not to deal with them at all - of course it does show up here and there with important plot lines, but there are so many other story lines outside of Tony's family issues that it doesn't have as much of a spotlight. Tony's mother was a fantastic monster of a character, constantly controlling and manipulating their family through undermining and victimization. Tony definitely gets around, and one could argue that his need to sleep with everyone comes from the emasculation he and his father both faced, but I personally think it has more to do with his nature and his mid-life crisis, which is referenced more than once during the Tony/Carmella separation quake in season five.
Okay so at the core that is both characters' biggest and most suppressed problems. The next important similarity is their mutual struggle with their status and power. Tony is especially interesting and this is where he really takes the cake (or cannoli?) in the comparison. Tony was bred for this role, he wasn't chosen and he didn't work for it, not in a way the general audience can relate to. This is such an important character point for him. The range of emotions on James Gandolfini's face could perform it's own opera but his boss faces really pinball between a smirk and a scowl. The amused, condescending smirk that always means a tense scene ahead and the scowl and heavy sigh of crushing pressure to make the right decision. Both modes are so important for who Tony is because he has a certain entitlement and an incredibly childish side of himself that uses his power to punish those who strike a nerve with him, of which he has many. He especially utilizes his position when he's angry at somebody for not accepting something he's offered them (Tony Blundetto was a great example and also Steve Buscemi at his creepy featured finest). He takes it incredibly personally when people reject his offers of help and goes straight into petulant payback mode, his power makes him believe that anything he offers should be graciously accepted, it's an honor that he's even offering to help. There's also some stuff there about rejection in general with Tony, but this is definitely one of the worst aspects of his complex and subversive personality.
Unfortch Don also struggles with this, but Don's childish mantra is Don't Touch My Stuff. That's mine. So is that. So is she. They're both giant man-children in their own incredibly overbearing way and Don likes to punish those who infringe on his territory. This comes through with the firm merger, and is both sentimental and painful when it involves people, namely Peggy. Don is a master of professional payback, and he won't apologize for it. He and Tony both use their status to punish those who hit their particular nerve, but in very different ways. His two favorite boss faces are more like eyebrows raised 'what did your idiot mouth just say' and eyebrows furrowed 'get your idiot face out of my infinitely more handsome one.' He clawed his way into his powerful position through charm and ambition and he is not about to share; he also has a bad habit of coveting what other people have and finds ways to also claim those (Silvia) can you even imagine what these two would have been like on a playground together? Yeesh.
Another important thing that these two share is how they handle regret. Obviously they're both mentally unwell uh, to say the least. But Don tends to find more comfort in the sentimental. He thinks he's constantly reinventing himself but really he's just found something new to become sentimental about and believes he's finally discovered his humanity. Often this is some new woman or some other supposed success or loss. When he does end up regretting something he first self-destructs, then finds an outlet usually in somebody or some new idea and begins again. Don has gone through this cycle once or twice a season and most moves end up being lateral. Tony on the other hand ends up piling regret on top of self-loathing and has a breakdown or a panic attack. His sentimentality lies heavily with his family and the idea of the Italian family in general and often that brings him right back to the cause of his self-loathing in the first place. Janice, his mother, Carmella - all women he disappointed and was disappointed by, and all people that he has been firmly conditioned to believe are the only things he should never compromise. And then other times, both characters are totally absolved of regret for things that the audience feels horrible about having happened. Don and Peggy's relationship will never be the same and I personally will never get over Adrianna. Sometimes you watch these plot lines unfold and you can't help but think what an ungodly asshole this character is, and three scenes later you're back on their side. It's fantastic.
That's the abridged overview, this could become a novel if I had the time. Or was getting paid. Ultimately the question is always looming, are these two people sociopaths? They both lie unflinchingly and seem more at odds with those who wronged them then their own morality. But they are also written as products of their past and their culture, so it's hard for an audience to determine and that's what keeps us wanting more.
RIP JG
Monday, August 13, 2012
Ryan's Song
So I'm not even in America right now and the big news of the week is still making me want to yell at strangers. Paul Ryan? But...what? It's like Romney has already gone out of his way to alienate women and the working class, so he thought he would add the elderly to the mix as well? And even more women, since Ryan has done a brilliant job of voting again pro-choice and defunding planned parenthood? That's cool at least the rich and the conservatives (same costume) will have even more reason to vote the way they were going to anyway, but with more assurance that their tax breaks will be safe.
I suppose it's Romney's prerogative to add more energy to his campaign and he's succeeded in doing so. Albeit at the beginning of a veep rollout there is generally a lot of attention, because it's a big deal for four days or so! Unless you're Sarah Palin. Then you never escape. Or unless you introduce your vice presidential candidate as The Next President of The United States which probably confused a crowd into thinking they were being punk'd. The crowd being the conservative party and face it some of them were momentarily hopefully that Romney had actually passed it off. Anyhow, I guess we haven't had enough controversy since Rick Santorum left to go build himself an ark out of bibles to sail back to the 1950's in. He's still mad women get to vote. Yeah I'm not over Rick Santorum it's going to take some time.
But I digeess. Romney/Ryan 2012? Withering sighs are the new soundtrack to the Republican party.
To add some positively to this post I've included this picture I took of Amsterdam. That ought to fix things. Why didn't the Obama administration think of THAT amirightteaparty? ....because whatever Obama didn't think of is the answer.
I suppose it's Romney's prerogative to add more energy to his campaign and he's succeeded in doing so. Albeit at the beginning of a veep rollout there is generally a lot of attention, because it's a big deal for four days or so! Unless you're Sarah Palin. Then you never escape. Or unless you introduce your vice presidential candidate as The Next President of The United States which probably confused a crowd into thinking they were being punk'd. The crowd being the conservative party and face it some of them were momentarily hopefully that Romney had actually passed it off. Anyhow, I guess we haven't had enough controversy since Rick Santorum left to go build himself an ark out of bibles to sail back to the 1950's in. He's still mad women get to vote. Yeah I'm not over Rick Santorum it's going to take some time.
But I digeess. Romney/Ryan 2012? Withering sighs are the new soundtrack to the Republican party.
To add some positively to this post I've included this picture I took of Amsterdam. That ought to fix things. Why didn't the Obama administration think of THAT amirightteaparty? ....because whatever Obama didn't think of is the answer.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Does anyone want to try scaling their way out of a massive hell pit with me this weekend? No? YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FATHERS AND HOPE.
I wish I could have Hans Zimmer scores playing in the background of my entire life. Also, look out for a mine field of spoiler alerts since I'm going to talk about this movie in it's entirety.
So I have officially seen The Dark Knight Rises twice, and in memorandum of my prior posts' ideals about what I thought this movie would be I'd like to begin with another series of questions that I asked myself during and following my viewing of the movie: What were Christopher Nolan's messages throughout this film? What were all of these characters supposed to mean relative to Batman and Bruce Wayne's respective developments? Did everyone notice Talia Al Ghul literally twisting a knife in Bruce Wayne's side as she explained the twist of the story? LOL@christophernolan. Is that a real social networking thing I just did? I don't know how any of that actually works. And finally the most important question of all - what would Joseph Gordon-Levitt look like making pancakes in my kitchen in the morning? (I'm sure a good percentage of the audience had a similar thought bubble there).
SO MANY QUESTIONS to look into, and I'm genuinely disappointed to say many of them really weren't questions that needed answering at all. It was a great movie. I knew it would be, Christopher Nolan can't actually fail in making a film but it was no Dark Knight. Because there's so much to write about I'm going to break this down into a few categories based on themes. This was incredibly difficult to untangle because ultimately a lot of these themes and points were shoved into the movie unnecessarily and they sort of ran into and conflicted with one another but I'm going to try to make this as easy as possible to write about. Prepare to go on a journey of extreme over thinking about the philosophy of this movie, below.
But first the academy awards of Laura!
BEST ACTOR: Joesph Gordon-Levitt. Done and done the perfect blend of eagerness and slicked back hair. I was so happy to see him in a role that didn't require him to awkwardly smile (no offense to his adorable dimples. It may be obvious I came out of this movie with a new acting crush) and be someone's needy boyfriend. GLAD that he got the opportunity to act in a role that was a little more dynamic and challenging, I hope that he ends up getting more things like this in the future it was a great use of his talents. I haven't seen everything he's ever done but the things he's most known for definitely don't require more than a furrowed brow and a shy smile. And the robin twist was very cool although I wish they'd called him Dick Grayson in the movie, it wouldn't have given it away to the general population and I think the hardcore fans would have appreciated the nod.
MOST AWKWARD USE OF SEXUALITY: Anne Hathaway. Every time she tried to be provocative she sounded like she was reciting from an 80's porn script. She wasn't much of a scene stealer and her character didn't really do much to move the story in any direction until the cliche 'knick of time' save at the end. Ultimately well written, flatly delivered, great hair, no chemistry at all with Christian Bale. She lacked the subtlety of Michelle Pheiffer's Catwoman that made her mysterious and believably manipulative. At least we're one more Catwoman away from Halle Berry's.
BEST CHRISTIAN BALE: Michael Cain. Just kidding guys it was Christian Bale.
BEST CAMEO: Scarecrow. I expect Christopher Nolan and Cillian Murphy to announce the wedding any day now.
MOST DISTRACTING CAMEO: Peter Baelish.
WORST VOICE AWARD: Bane. Sorry, it was Bane. It is like Christopher Nolan can't make a movie without someone having an indecipherable accent. He sounded like someone's British grandfather I kept expecting him to invite Batman into his sewer kitchen nook for tea. Tom Hardy is very good from what I've seen but in this movie he wasn't exactly acting. He probably wasn't even speaking during those scenes he's just a pair of eyes and a freakishly gigantic body.
OVERUSED MANIPULATIVE VIXEN: Marion Cotillard. Boom.
Everyone else was awesome. Gary Oldman, amazing. Morgan Freeman, flawless. Guy from Malcolm in the Middle who's job was to block traffic and accidentally get shot, okay why not.
Onto themes. This part is an exercise in frustration so if you went to watch shit get blown up and you were satisfied turn back now and don't do this to yourself. There are recurring points about C. Nolan recycling plot lines from Batman Begins and renouncing huge themes from the Dark Knight that will drive me crazy until my dying day.
FEAR
After sifting through everything in the movie this is what I found to be the most important thing Nolan tackled. Bruce Wayne was told in Batman Begins that he must eliminate his fear to truly learn to fight crime; this is what Ra's Al Ghul coaches him to do and this is how he overcomes and adopts his fear of bats and his anger about his parents' death and becomes The Batman. In The Dark Knight rises Prison Alfred explains how the child was born of vengeance and fear and anger (much like himself) and the cataract-ridden (?) doctor in the hell pit tells him that he must embrace his fear again in order to get himself out, that anger and vengeance is not enough; what this is really saying is to embrace the humanity and vulnerability of Bruce Wayne (that The Joker apparently successfully got rid of in the Dark Knight) to find his way out. Talia Al Ghul climbs out as a child because of her anger and her need for vengeance, and then goes on to use this to fail at exactly what her father failed at. And this continues to explain why Batman wasn't suited for the League of Shadows, unnecessarily since we already went over that in Batman Begins.
I will never get over that Nolan took new characters and made them do old tricks.
HOPE
Blake was the symbol of hope for the movie, and although they never interacted he represented the antithesis of Bane. Bane was constantly preaching how the loss of hope was the ultimate sacrifice to bring somebody to their knees. This was a very interesting point, I really enjoyed how Bane was written to discuss the erosion of the soul over the destruction of the body, even though he of course also destroys bodies pretty well. Philosophically it's a complex issue and I appreciated that the audience got a view of both sides. Additionally both Blake and Bane were ultimately the catalysts for those carrying the real message. Bane's rhetoric about hope and hope lost is the support beam for Talia's insane prejudice against Gotham and her ultimate plot to destroy it, and Blake is what finally gets Bruce Wayne remembering the hope he once gave to Gotham and what must be restored since war has begun again in Gotham. The purpose of these characters is to off-set each other to instill and remove hope where necessary, which is subtle because it isn't obvious that Blake and Bane are ultimately the pair in the movie that are most perpendicular.
$MONEY$
This boggles my mind to no end. The message the Nolans are sending here is incredibly unclear and counterintuitive. It seems obvious at first - he's making a point about the poor and the rich and how extreme the divide in society can be. But he seems to really contradict himself - Alfred tells Bruce Wayne to use his money to help Gotham instead of his body. This is a good message, no? Alfred J. Pennyworth is no novice to sage grandfatherly advice. This is what America has been yelling about for a while - use your money to help others, don't just use it to make yourself richer. Philanthropy, etc. And that's what Bruce Wayne has seemingly done with his sustainable energy reactor except then it turns out to be...the thing that almost destroys Gotham? So, money doesn't help. Money will destroy Gotham faster. Okay, except then Batman also becomes 'Broken Bat' via Bane so his body is no good either. Which leaves him with a really lucky couple of last minute saves? Luck saved Gotham? Ouch. There is a thin argument for hope being what drove Catwoman (somehow) and Jim Gordon and Blake and Fox to take the actions that ultimately saved the city but that seems a little cliche for the Nolanverse.
Also on another note Bane tells the people of Gotham that the city is theirs to take back but a scene later says that the prisoners are the ones who deserve the city and it's implied that everyone should actually just stay home until they die and the seedy underbelly of Gotham are the ones that deserve to rule. What on earth, Nolans.
I also super duper wish he'd left the Talia twist out completely. Bane is so COOL on his own he ended up just being some patsy for the girl who is avenging her father who she hates. Not to mention Bane's problem with authority is perfectly understood in his actual comic book story but in the movie it's hard to understand why exactly he hates authority figures and police so much. Even in the pit it seems like authority wasn't really the problem, over-zealous face eating prisoners were. And that's definitely a problem, just not one that makes me understand why he wants the people of Gotham to drown cops and beat up rich people with tire irons. They explain that he did it for love of Talia, which one might assume means his love for her as her protector when she was a child but then becomes vague because by the time this all happens they are somehow the same age. Luckily a gratuitous shot of Anne Hathaway's butt was there to distract us from thinking about it too much. And it wasn't even that much of a twist if you just pay attention to the sex scene that was forced uncomfortably into the script Bruce Wayne runs his finger over Miranda (Talia)'s scar which is so similar to what Bane has on his head so, there you go guys. FoReShAdoWing. I liked that because it tipped me off right away and from then on I looked at her with side eyes.
So much to say. If you read this whole thing thank you it took me four days to write and I've spent all of my analytical cognitive capacity.
So I have officially seen The Dark Knight Rises twice, and in memorandum of my prior posts' ideals about what I thought this movie would be I'd like to begin with another series of questions that I asked myself during and following my viewing of the movie: What were Christopher Nolan's messages throughout this film? What were all of these characters supposed to mean relative to Batman and Bruce Wayne's respective developments? Did everyone notice Talia Al Ghul literally twisting a knife in Bruce Wayne's side as she explained the twist of the story? LOL@christophernolan. Is that a real social networking thing I just did? I don't know how any of that actually works. And finally the most important question of all - what would Joseph Gordon-Levitt look like making pancakes in my kitchen in the morning? (I'm sure a good percentage of the audience had a similar thought bubble there).
SO MANY QUESTIONS to look into, and I'm genuinely disappointed to say many of them really weren't questions that needed answering at all. It was a great movie. I knew it would be, Christopher Nolan can't actually fail in making a film but it was no Dark Knight. Because there's so much to write about I'm going to break this down into a few categories based on themes. This was incredibly difficult to untangle because ultimately a lot of these themes and points were shoved into the movie unnecessarily and they sort of ran into and conflicted with one another but I'm going to try to make this as easy as possible to write about. Prepare to go on a journey of extreme over thinking about the philosophy of this movie, below.
But first the academy awards of Laura!
BEST ACTOR: Joesph Gordon-Levitt. Done and done the perfect blend of eagerness and slicked back hair. I was so happy to see him in a role that didn't require him to awkwardly smile (no offense to his adorable dimples. It may be obvious I came out of this movie with a new acting crush) and be someone's needy boyfriend. GLAD that he got the opportunity to act in a role that was a little more dynamic and challenging, I hope that he ends up getting more things like this in the future it was a great use of his talents. I haven't seen everything he's ever done but the things he's most known for definitely don't require more than a furrowed brow and a shy smile. And the robin twist was very cool although I wish they'd called him Dick Grayson in the movie, it wouldn't have given it away to the general population and I think the hardcore fans would have appreciated the nod.
MOST AWKWARD USE OF SEXUALITY: Anne Hathaway. Every time she tried to be provocative she sounded like she was reciting from an 80's porn script. She wasn't much of a scene stealer and her character didn't really do much to move the story in any direction until the cliche 'knick of time' save at the end. Ultimately well written, flatly delivered, great hair, no chemistry at all with Christian Bale. She lacked the subtlety of Michelle Pheiffer's Catwoman that made her mysterious and believably manipulative. At least we're one more Catwoman away from Halle Berry's.
BEST CHRISTIAN BALE: Michael Cain. Just kidding guys it was Christian Bale.
BEST CAMEO: Scarecrow. I expect Christopher Nolan and Cillian Murphy to announce the wedding any day now.
MOST DISTRACTING CAMEO: Peter Baelish.
WORST VOICE AWARD: Bane. Sorry, it was Bane. It is like Christopher Nolan can't make a movie without someone having an indecipherable accent. He sounded like someone's British grandfather I kept expecting him to invite Batman into his sewer kitchen nook for tea. Tom Hardy is very good from what I've seen but in this movie he wasn't exactly acting. He probably wasn't even speaking during those scenes he's just a pair of eyes and a freakishly gigantic body.
OVERUSED MANIPULATIVE VIXEN: Marion Cotillard. Boom.
Everyone else was awesome. Gary Oldman, amazing. Morgan Freeman, flawless. Guy from Malcolm in the Middle who's job was to block traffic and accidentally get shot, okay why not.
Onto themes. This part is an exercise in frustration so if you went to watch shit get blown up and you were satisfied turn back now and don't do this to yourself. There are recurring points about C. Nolan recycling plot lines from Batman Begins and renouncing huge themes from the Dark Knight that will drive me crazy until my dying day.
FEAR
After sifting through everything in the movie this is what I found to be the most important thing Nolan tackled. Bruce Wayne was told in Batman Begins that he must eliminate his fear to truly learn to fight crime; this is what Ra's Al Ghul coaches him to do and this is how he overcomes and adopts his fear of bats and his anger about his parents' death and becomes The Batman. In The Dark Knight rises Prison Alfred explains how the child was born of vengeance and fear and anger (much like himself) and the cataract-ridden (?) doctor in the hell pit tells him that he must embrace his fear again in order to get himself out, that anger and vengeance is not enough; what this is really saying is to embrace the humanity and vulnerability of Bruce Wayne (that The Joker apparently successfully got rid of in the Dark Knight) to find his way out. Talia Al Ghul climbs out as a child because of her anger and her need for vengeance, and then goes on to use this to fail at exactly what her father failed at. And this continues to explain why Batman wasn't suited for the League of Shadows, unnecessarily since we already went over that in Batman Begins.
I will never get over that Nolan took new characters and made them do old tricks.
HOPE
Blake was the symbol of hope for the movie, and although they never interacted he represented the antithesis of Bane. Bane was constantly preaching how the loss of hope was the ultimate sacrifice to bring somebody to their knees. This was a very interesting point, I really enjoyed how Bane was written to discuss the erosion of the soul over the destruction of the body, even though he of course also destroys bodies pretty well. Philosophically it's a complex issue and I appreciated that the audience got a view of both sides. Additionally both Blake and Bane were ultimately the catalysts for those carrying the real message. Bane's rhetoric about hope and hope lost is the support beam for Talia's insane prejudice against Gotham and her ultimate plot to destroy it, and Blake is what finally gets Bruce Wayne remembering the hope he once gave to Gotham and what must be restored since war has begun again in Gotham. The purpose of these characters is to off-set each other to instill and remove hope where necessary, which is subtle because it isn't obvious that Blake and Bane are ultimately the pair in the movie that are most perpendicular.
$MONEY$
This boggles my mind to no end. The message the Nolans are sending here is incredibly unclear and counterintuitive. It seems obvious at first - he's making a point about the poor and the rich and how extreme the divide in society can be. But he seems to really contradict himself - Alfred tells Bruce Wayne to use his money to help Gotham instead of his body. This is a good message, no? Alfred J. Pennyworth is no novice to sage grandfatherly advice. This is what America has been yelling about for a while - use your money to help others, don't just use it to make yourself richer. Philanthropy, etc. And that's what Bruce Wayne has seemingly done with his sustainable energy reactor except then it turns out to be...the thing that almost destroys Gotham? So, money doesn't help. Money will destroy Gotham faster. Okay, except then Batman also becomes 'Broken Bat' via Bane so his body is no good either. Which leaves him with a really lucky couple of last minute saves? Luck saved Gotham? Ouch. There is a thin argument for hope being what drove Catwoman (somehow) and Jim Gordon and Blake and Fox to take the actions that ultimately saved the city but that seems a little cliche for the Nolanverse.
Also on another note Bane tells the people of Gotham that the city is theirs to take back but a scene later says that the prisoners are the ones who deserve the city and it's implied that everyone should actually just stay home until they die and the seedy underbelly of Gotham are the ones that deserve to rule. What on earth, Nolans.
I also super duper wish he'd left the Talia twist out completely. Bane is so COOL on his own he ended up just being some patsy for the girl who is avenging her father who she hates. Not to mention Bane's problem with authority is perfectly understood in his actual comic book story but in the movie it's hard to understand why exactly he hates authority figures and police so much. Even in the pit it seems like authority wasn't really the problem, over-zealous face eating prisoners were. And that's definitely a problem, just not one that makes me understand why he wants the people of Gotham to drown cops and beat up rich people with tire irons. They explain that he did it for love of Talia, which one might assume means his love for her as her protector when she was a child but then becomes vague because by the time this all happens they are somehow the same age. Luckily a gratuitous shot of Anne Hathaway's butt was there to distract us from thinking about it too much. And it wasn't even that much of a twist if you just pay attention to the sex scene that was forced uncomfortably into the script Bruce Wayne runs his finger over Miranda (Talia)'s scar which is so similar to what Bane has on his head so, there you go guys. FoReShAdoWing. I liked that because it tipped me off right away and from then on I looked at her with side eyes.
So much to say. If you read this whole thing thank you it took me four days to write and I've spent all of my analytical cognitive capacity.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
BATPOST. Countdown to the end of days.
There are many questions an existentially aware human being may ask in their lifetime. A few examples:
1. Why was Chris Brown in my dream last night?
2. When did I accidentally start napping and why is there a string cheese wrapper stuck to my arm?
4. When will the Arrested Development movie FINALLY get made?
3. I accidentally listened to four seconds of Call Me Maybe and now it will be playing in my head for the rest of my natural born life. Why? WHY?
But there is one question that nobody will ever have to ask themselves: Will Chrisopher Nolan make a good movie? The answer is always, unfailingly going to be yes. The answer to #2 is eating string cheese in bed.
Here it is, week 0. The week batfans have been waiting for since stepping out of a theater four summers ago.
The Dark Knight Rises Comes Out Friday, at 12:03am as my pre-purchased ticket dictates. And here's what it is - I am absolutely terrified to see this movie. I am afraid of what Christopher Nolan is going to do to my faith in humanity this time, since the last occasion left me completely rattled. Grappling with themes of fear, desperation, the fragility of human connection and the ever-raging duality of good and evil present in all people in the ultra-concentrated cocktail of Nolan characters.
There is not enough reiteration in the world to express my skepticism about Anne Hathaway as Catwoman but I've done a lot of thinking about his choice of characters for this particular story. The Dark Knight dealt almost entirely with issues of duality and conflict - good vs. evil, batman vs. bruce wayne, Two-Face as himself, The Joker vs. Batman, crime vs. morality, rich vs. poor, British actors with American accents. Nolan wove this incredibly intricate cloth of self-reflective questions. I think the most effective use of his story is the question of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. When the costume becomes the man, and the man becomes the thing, which they alluded to a lot in the Dark Knight and I have a strong feeling is going to be a huge theme in this new film. The Joker recognized this reality and manipulated Batman into at times succumbing to what makes him a vulnerable human being just to show him how ugly human vulnerability is, and how much more empowering and natural a human instinct for destruction can prove to be especially with the power that he has in his hands. Slowly bringing Batman to the brink of his humanity to push him into the other side and creating a monster that Batman literally HAD to embody to keep Harvey Dent looking like the good guy only convinces me further of the path I think we'll be seeing him on in The Dark Knight Rises. This is obviously infuriating to watch but also one of the most convincing struggles I've ever seen portrayed in a tragic hero film; Bruce Wayne sets out to do something good and instead of just stopping at the lazy Peter Parker Spiderman society questions me dilemma we get to actually see him question this himself! So rare and such an incredible psychological platform to build the jarring realism of the Nolanverse around. He goes out to create good but his desire is based on anger and vengeance. Batman has no purity, he didn't come into this role out of the goodness of his heart Batman was born of fear and anger and a need for revenge. These feelings are constantly bubbling under the surface and the more grief and obligation he feels in the role the more he begins to embrace it.
So, as far as character choices, I think Nolan may have done something very interesting. My thought is that Bane being a character based on pure force, and Catwoman who is known for her manipulation and quiet cunning represent the different sides of Batman/Bruce Wayne. If Nolan continues with his themes of duality the two characters being juxtaposed will serve to tear Bruce Wayne even further in two. When the two are literally at odds in front of him how will that self-evolve? Dangerously, no doubt. Of course Bane is known for doing one particular thing that I fear every moment counting down to this will mean the end of Batman in a way I can't trust is off the table. What I love so much about Christopher Nolan's take on Batman is his bringing it into our reality, as something that's happening in one of our big American cities and knowing as you see this unfolding that you would be another innocent bystander. It creates an incredibly unnerving feeling of identity with the victims of these complex criminal masterminds.
So, in keeping with themes of duality and the 'what would you do' factor that always seems to be Nolan's winking undercurrent I feel this one will make any audience member (if you're going for the action more power to you this ones for the cerebral nerds out there) incredibly uncomfortable with what it's representing about a character that is neither entirely good nor admittedly evil; someone who struggles as much as anybody else might with whether doing the right thing is always the right thing and at what point does that destroy you? You either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Isn't this the truest and most painful reality that has been created within the institution of Batman? Batman will never truly be the hero, not the real Batman not the human story behind the heroic actions. Batman is born to fear and hurt and suffer and sacrifice and get no thanks for it. Batman is JESUS. Just kidding don't let Mel Gibson get his hands on that. But facing this all-encompassing question how exactly does Nolan plan to answer that question? And this is what keeps me crossing my fingers that it isn't what I think it is.
I'll be eager to discuss the horror after I do a bunch of googling about how much money the box office made off of it.
1. Why was Chris Brown in my dream last night?
2. When did I accidentally start napping and why is there a string cheese wrapper stuck to my arm?
4. When will the Arrested Development movie FINALLY get made?
3. I accidentally listened to four seconds of Call Me Maybe and now it will be playing in my head for the rest of my natural born life. Why? WHY?
But there is one question that nobody will ever have to ask themselves: Will Chrisopher Nolan make a good movie? The answer is always, unfailingly going to be yes. The answer to #2 is eating string cheese in bed.
Here it is, week 0. The week batfans have been waiting for since stepping out of a theater four summers ago.
The Dark Knight Rises Comes Out Friday, at 12:03am as my pre-purchased ticket dictates. And here's what it is - I am absolutely terrified to see this movie. I am afraid of what Christopher Nolan is going to do to my faith in humanity this time, since the last occasion left me completely rattled. Grappling with themes of fear, desperation, the fragility of human connection and the ever-raging duality of good and evil present in all people in the ultra-concentrated cocktail of Nolan characters.
There is not enough reiteration in the world to express my skepticism about Anne Hathaway as Catwoman but I've done a lot of thinking about his choice of characters for this particular story. The Dark Knight dealt almost entirely with issues of duality and conflict - good vs. evil, batman vs. bruce wayne, Two-Face as himself, The Joker vs. Batman, crime vs. morality, rich vs. poor, British actors with American accents. Nolan wove this incredibly intricate cloth of self-reflective questions. I think the most effective use of his story is the question of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. When the costume becomes the man, and the man becomes the thing, which they alluded to a lot in the Dark Knight and I have a strong feeling is going to be a huge theme in this new film. The Joker recognized this reality and manipulated Batman into at times succumbing to what makes him a vulnerable human being just to show him how ugly human vulnerability is, and how much more empowering and natural a human instinct for destruction can prove to be especially with the power that he has in his hands. Slowly bringing Batman to the brink of his humanity to push him into the other side and creating a monster that Batman literally HAD to embody to keep Harvey Dent looking like the good guy only convinces me further of the path I think we'll be seeing him on in The Dark Knight Rises. This is obviously infuriating to watch but also one of the most convincing struggles I've ever seen portrayed in a tragic hero film; Bruce Wayne sets out to do something good and instead of just stopping at the lazy Peter Parker Spiderman society questions me dilemma we get to actually see him question this himself! So rare and such an incredible psychological platform to build the jarring realism of the Nolanverse around. He goes out to create good but his desire is based on anger and vengeance. Batman has no purity, he didn't come into this role out of the goodness of his heart Batman was born of fear and anger and a need for revenge. These feelings are constantly bubbling under the surface and the more grief and obligation he feels in the role the more he begins to embrace it.
So, as far as character choices, I think Nolan may have done something very interesting. My thought is that Bane being a character based on pure force, and Catwoman who is known for her manipulation and quiet cunning represent the different sides of Batman/Bruce Wayne. If Nolan continues with his themes of duality the two characters being juxtaposed will serve to tear Bruce Wayne even further in two. When the two are literally at odds in front of him how will that self-evolve? Dangerously, no doubt. Of course Bane is known for doing one particular thing that I fear every moment counting down to this will mean the end of Batman in a way I can't trust is off the table. What I love so much about Christopher Nolan's take on Batman is his bringing it into our reality, as something that's happening in one of our big American cities and knowing as you see this unfolding that you would be another innocent bystander. It creates an incredibly unnerving feeling of identity with the victims of these complex criminal masterminds.
So, in keeping with themes of duality and the 'what would you do' factor that always seems to be Nolan's winking undercurrent I feel this one will make any audience member (if you're going for the action more power to you this ones for the cerebral nerds out there) incredibly uncomfortable with what it's representing about a character that is neither entirely good nor admittedly evil; someone who struggles as much as anybody else might with whether doing the right thing is always the right thing and at what point does that destroy you? You either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Isn't this the truest and most painful reality that has been created within the institution of Batman? Batman will never truly be the hero, not the real Batman not the human story behind the heroic actions. Batman is born to fear and hurt and suffer and sacrifice and get no thanks for it. Batman is JESUS. Just kidding don't let Mel Gibson get his hands on that. But facing this all-encompassing question how exactly does Nolan plan to answer that question? And this is what keeps me crossing my fingers that it isn't what I think it is.
I'll be eager to discuss the horror after I do a bunch of googling about how much money the box office made off of it.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Michael Bay's new film: War on Job Creators. The senate is EXPLODING with various bills that will need future review.
Does anybody else immediately put up an NPR tab when they open internet explorer just because it's comforting?
So it looks like the campaign is finally getting down to brass tacks again. I haven't read a story about abortion is weeks. We're back to scandals and the failing economy, everybody's favorite choices in Draw Something.
At least Mitt Romney will be happy about it he digs the economy. He loves money, just ask him he'll tell you all about it. Although there haven't been any presidents thus far who have been primarily CEO's, and I've heard some interesting theorizing about how he's going to handle the rest of the workload. I've said it before and I'll say it again I've never thought that Mitt Romney would make a bad president. We don't have glaring red flags of alcohol abuse and undeserved blind conflidence like some presidents whose names rhyme with tush. He's a smart man, and he's sharp and successful. But we're talking strictly business. When I first began to watch Rick Santorum's attempts to bring us back to the good old days of puritan England I thought it was kind of funny to watch Romney try to sidestep the issues or awkwardly stutter through them. He's a smart man but he just does naaaahhhhht care about whether or not women should be allowed to get abortions, or whether gay people are allowed to get married. He's not a stickler for family values he just wants to get our weight up. But being past that I'm beginning to wonder if his distinct lack of being well-rounded is going to be a hindrance to his ability to tactfully run a country if it comes down to it. Obama didn't come to us with the most extensive background but the man can work a room and it's helped us a lot with foreign relations and yes, even economically we have improved during the Obama administration. Romney may be able to do a lot business-wise for the country, hypothetically, but that doesn't mean he can have a conversation with a foreign national or handle basic diplomacy. I mean he was governor of Massachusetts - we're 84% white and the state is well-off that's like a Romney dinner party if you include the staff as the other 16%. It's kind of his gig.
It's kind of cute that his slander ads accuse Obama's administration of creating a 'war on job creators.' LOL war on the massively rich captains of industry god Obama is such a jerk for that. What a jerk for trying to tax the absurdly wealthy that's being so mean to the job creators. They're not going to create any more jobs if you keep asking them to pay money to the people who they are offering a future to so that perhaps some day those destitute people may not have to rely on them for jobs. Jerk.
This is also an irritating quality of Mitt Romney's because for all of his business sense presidents don't actually have the power to create jobs. Despite what they all say they can't just open a magic door to all of the jobs that Obama has been too lazy to unlock. He can only hope that they can get Congress to go along with them on the plans they do want to make and that, my friends, is what we call a gridlock. It's coming for you too Mitt you're not special.
Happy weekend everyone
So it looks like the campaign is finally getting down to brass tacks again. I haven't read a story about abortion is weeks. We're back to scandals and the failing economy, everybody's favorite choices in Draw Something.
At least Mitt Romney will be happy about it he digs the economy. He loves money, just ask him he'll tell you all about it. Although there haven't been any presidents thus far who have been primarily CEO's, and I've heard some interesting theorizing about how he's going to handle the rest of the workload. I've said it before and I'll say it again I've never thought that Mitt Romney would make a bad president. We don't have glaring red flags of alcohol abuse and undeserved blind conflidence like some presidents whose names rhyme with tush. He's a smart man, and he's sharp and successful. But we're talking strictly business. When I first began to watch Rick Santorum's attempts to bring us back to the good old days of puritan England I thought it was kind of funny to watch Romney try to sidestep the issues or awkwardly stutter through them. He's a smart man but he just does naaaahhhhht care about whether or not women should be allowed to get abortions, or whether gay people are allowed to get married. He's not a stickler for family values he just wants to get our weight up. But being past that I'm beginning to wonder if his distinct lack of being well-rounded is going to be a hindrance to his ability to tactfully run a country if it comes down to it. Obama didn't come to us with the most extensive background but the man can work a room and it's helped us a lot with foreign relations and yes, even economically we have improved during the Obama administration. Romney may be able to do a lot business-wise for the country, hypothetically, but that doesn't mean he can have a conversation with a foreign national or handle basic diplomacy. I mean he was governor of Massachusetts - we're 84% white and the state is well-off that's like a Romney dinner party if you include the staff as the other 16%. It's kind of his gig.
It's kind of cute that his slander ads accuse Obama's administration of creating a 'war on job creators.' LOL war on the massively rich captains of industry god Obama is such a jerk for that. What a jerk for trying to tax the absurdly wealthy that's being so mean to the job creators. They're not going to create any more jobs if you keep asking them to pay money to the people who they are offering a future to so that perhaps some day those destitute people may not have to rely on them for jobs. Jerk.
This is also an irritating quality of Mitt Romney's because for all of his business sense presidents don't actually have the power to create jobs. Despite what they all say they can't just open a magic door to all of the jobs that Obama has been too lazy to unlock. He can only hope that they can get Congress to go along with them on the plans they do want to make and that, my friends, is what we call a gridlock. It's coming for you too Mitt you're not special.
Happy weekend everyone
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Nerdom
I finished my Game of Thrones prints I put a bunch of them up online you can find the rest of them here:
http://www.etsy.com/shop/Freshkicks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)