Thursday, August 7, 2008

The Orphanage: What Happens When Wendy Goes Back to Neverland?

Juan Antonio Bayona's The Orphanage is a fairy tale. How do I know this? It's the music. And some other stuff.

A quick note about why the music is so important here. The music — an integral part of every film — doesn't just enhance a film, it acts as a sort of dialog between the action and the viewer. 2001: A Space Odyssey and Jaws come to mind, indelible and enduring uses of music in film. The scores of these films transcend their original uses to embody either grand discovery (2001) or imminent danger (Jaws). I don't mean to suggest that The Orphanage has a score that is as enduring, but rather it uses conventions that tend to apply to more fanciful and less frightening films. In the way that the two classic films scores now connote something related to their respective films, the music in The Orphanage connotes a fairy tale. It is light and airy, a counterpoint to the tension that builds in the story. It's the foil to the building fright.

The Orphanage is a fairy tale in the tradition of the Brothers Grimm or Eastern European ones like Baba Yaga or Guillermo Del Toro (the producer), which is to say that it could also be called a ghost story. Del Toro has emerged as the leader of this type of fantastic film making. He's the epitome of this new genre of original fairy tellers. These fairy tales are for older children and adults, not unlike the traditional models listed before Del Toro. While Grimm's stories and tales like the gruesome Baba Yaga could be abridged or toned down for younger ears, The Orphanage cannot.

Like Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, the mystical world intermingles with the real, and characters either can or cannot see it. However, the grand effects and the rich palette of Pan's Labyrinth are gone here. What we get instead is a modern tale of loss and redemption...and never growing old. And a child with a creepy burlap sack on his head. Early in the film, Simon reads Peter Pan quietly to himself, sounding out words and trying to grasp their meaning. His family entertains itself in a rather old fashioned way, by reading — there is no TV. Laura (not Wendy), his mother, tries to help him figure out the meaning of the story, of growing up. We already know that he is incurably ill and that he is adopted, but we begin to understand that somehow he also knows. The subtext of this discussion is hardly subtext at all. In the following scene, Simon reveals after an exciting game of treasure hunting that he does know these secrets they've been keeping and doesn't understand them. That he disappears very soon afterward is not much of a surprise. That treasure hunt is fascinating — he's either revealing that he cleverly took and hid items so that finding them in the right order would lead to the treasure or his imaginary friends (ghosts?) did it. Either way, It's amazing and a little unnerving to watch.

Then there's the similarities to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining — another fairy tale about never growing old and a large historied building and ghosts. And a Wendy. Interestingly, both families have problems. Jack and Wendy are saddled with his alcoholism, his inability to hold down a teaching job, and a hypersensitive son. Laura and Carlos are struggling with Simon's illness and her own apparent one. Oh and each family has decided to take on a Herculean feat despite their challenges — the former manages a huge and isolate mountain resort through the winter and the latter is also going to be helping 5 or 6 other disabled children. More interestingly, both boys are able to see and interact with ghosts as are one of the parents. While Kubrick's Jack becomes a monster — the extreme incarnation of his alcoholic transformations — Bayona's Laura becomes more than a mother. She becomes the mother to all the lost boys or children. {Consider the bathroom scene right when Simon disappears for a visual quotation from The Shining. And think about how differently Jack acts in a similar scene.} I think another significant link is in the buildings. The Overlook Hotel and the orphanage seem alive, as characters in these fairy tales. Just as Jack seems to have always been at the hotel and will forever be, Laura seems to have always been at the orphanage. These buildings have appetites and appear to breathe or perhaps to digest. The boiler at The Overlook or the plumbing at the orphanage, these are the vital organs of these horrible places.

An orphanage is an interesting choice for setting this movie. Can you imagine little orphan Annie going back to her orphanage as an adult to renovate it and reopen it? That's what I find so interesting about the setting, Laura grows up and decides to return to her orphanage. I've never seen that in a film. We don't have to wait long, though, before all our preconceived notions about how scary an old orphanage should be are vindicated. That aside, the orphanage also provides the great device for setting off fairy tales — the parentless child. Great British fairy tales and films use WWII and the convention of sending children away from London to live with distant relatives during the bombing. One great series of fairy tales is C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, a series that has been revived by film adaptations, but they essentially work off of the parentless child. For that matter, consider Harry Potter, the odd and classic Bed Knobs and Broomsticks, and even The Goonies. The Orphanage doesn't fit the pattern perfectly as we're seeing Laura's point of view, but I think it relates to that genre. She is still very much the orphaned girl who was adopted in time to avoid a horrible fate.

That horrible fate should remain something of a surprise if you haven't seen The Orphanage. I will say that I doubt the resolution that is arrived at in the film, and I don't think it's important. It's a misdirection, in language of illusions, to keep our and Laura's eyes off Simon's vanishing act. This is a more complex film than I thought as I was watching it. That's an ideal isn't it. I enjoyed the spectacle and the simple shock of the ending, then I got to think of all this afterward. Netflix it.

Friday, July 25, 2008

My Very Own Dream Double Bill

Szerelmesfilm (Love Film)
István Szabó (1970)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Michel Gondry (2004)


I was given a wonderful and unique gift this Father's Day — a year's subscription to the British Film Institute's (BFI) monthly magazine Sight & Sound. This month's issue features a cover article about double bills — pairings of movies at repertory theaters or grindhouses that often were linked in some way, though sometimes were put together at random. For this wonderful piece, writers and critics and film historians were asked to name one dream double bill and to explain it. I am too young and have lived in to many nonurban places to have experienced an original double bill. I did see the fabulous Grindhouse movies by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, but the whole experience was contrived and not the work of a theater programmer. I have had many ideas in recent years for double bills of my own to watch with a group of friends. I even had a chance to try one of my double bills: Alien 3, David Fincher (1992) and Panic Room, David Fincher (2002); a then and now look at his filmmaking. That's one acceptable approach to programming a double bill, but I like the thematic approach the most. With that in mind, I submit my own dream double bill — Love Film, Istvan Szabo (1970) and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Michel Gondry (2004).

I saw these films relatively close together in time and both on DVD — I knew immediately that they were made for each other. Love Film has a special significance to me because my wife watched while studying in Budapest and fell in love with it's unique story. I couldn't help but fall for the brilliant collaboration of Charlie Kaufman and Michel Gondry in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I wish I had been able to see this on the big screen. This double bill is an ode to love's memory — its endurance. They are alive with the dynamic joy and sorrow of remembering. Distance and societies and even reality enhance the value and the liability of past love. Love Film's lovers are separated by the Iron Curtain at the height of the Cold War — Jancsi lives in Budapest and Kata in France. The lovers in Eternal Sunshine are on the brink of losing their memory of love though they share the same suburban Long Island community. Each movie weaves it's story into something that better resembles a dream catcher than a tapestry. Perhaps like a spider web, extending out in all directions, going back and forth through time. Istvan Szabo is able to convey the dream-like nature of memory using editing — scenes are repeated in different lengths and in no particular sequence — and sparse dialogue. Michel Gondry uses editing and his signature special effects — hand made props and mixing the real with the unreal (junk yard cars fall out of the sky around Joel) — to achieve the same goal. These films are beautiful partners, like the couples in each film, separated and different but perfect.

I have other ideas for double bills, like The Maltese Falcon, John Huston (1941) and The Long Goodbye, Robert Altman (1973). Try it, maybe, and see how two different directors at the top of their game at two different times take on the hard boiled detective story. I love to get ideas below for other double bills — think about and leave a comment. Both Love Film and Eternal Sunshine are available from Netflix.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Train in Vain: The Darjeeling Limited

Note: As always, see Rober Ebert's review for a plot synopsis and for another point of view.

Wes Anderson's The Darjeeling Limited is beautiful. It's main characters are bodies in orbit around an intangible and invisible center — family. Their orbits criss-cross and diverge in familiar ways, even family ways. The three brothers and their mother act in ways that evoke a typical family to most. Without taking too much time, the three brothers are Francis L. Whitman (Owen Wilson), Peter L. Whitman (Adrien Brody) and Jack L. Whitman (Jason Schwartzman). Their mother is Patricia Whitman (Anjelica Huston). There are other characters who are wonderful, but these four are the core — the orbiting bodies.

The most interesting aspect of this film is that it is about details, so much so that Mr. Anderson even employs slow motion several times. I'm sure that most of his films are full of details, but I noticed it prominently with this one. This is essentially a short film that has been expanded. I don't say that in the way such a thing is said of TV shows that become movies. I mean that the brother bit is so familiar that a short in the train car could have told a fine story, but we are treated to minor triumph in the lives of these men with a longer story.

My image of the orbiting planets is not accidental, the story is circular as are the lives of the members of this family. Or any family, for that matter. Just as in real life— this distinction is important not just because this is a work of fiction, but because it is borderline absurd — these brothers are imprinted with their own personalities. And those personalities don't change, even as they become better brothers. They each exhibit interesting and superficially outrageous traits and flaws. Francis, the firstborn, is both a leader and bossy. Peter, the second born, is competitive and resentful. Jack, the baby, acts like the baby with his constant refrain of "I don't know". Jack interests me because Mr. Schwartzman collaborated with Anderson on the screeplay and stars in the short before the film, The Hotel Chevalier (Really a prologue and vital to the whole experience). He's created a character that is not unlike his Louis in Marie Antoinette or even his character in Shopgirl. My first inclination was to wonder why, then it just came to me: Maybe they're not acting so much as being. Think of Wilson's ex boyfriend in Meet the Parents or even his voice-over Lighting McQueen — he's always the firstborn.

As they orbit, the brothers not only criss-cross and separate, they also bump into each other. The traits and flaws that are exposed on this bizarre trip into India provide some repeated pleasures. I particularly liked the way that Francis couldn't help, but to direct everything. Mr. Wilson strikes a balance between knowing that this is potentially a flaw in his character and not being able to control it. I feel like this is unusual, that normally actors are too self-aware and tend toward being tentative or cruel in their performances. A great example comes in the dining car as Francis is ordering dessert, he's been told that Peter hates when he orders for everyone. Francis begins ordering for everyone, stops and acknowledges that Peter wants to make his own choice, then proceeds to needle Peter with the choice Francis has already made. Peter agrees, reluctantly, that he wants what Francis said. It's as illustrative of Peter as it is of Francis and Adrien Brody is great as the brooder. While these men hardly seem to be different in age, though Jason Schwartzman is probably the younger of the three, their characters are well enough written and the performances well enough given that we're convinced.

And then there's the mother. Angelica Huston has never been one of my favorites, but I love the work she does with Wes Anderson. Here she is close shorn with a rough boyish haircut and untreated silver hair — she's fabulous. Her screen time is brief and much about her character and her location is a twist in the story. I won't give anything away except to say that it's clear that she's their mother. They take after her in ways that I found both surprising and typical. Also, she's so frank — she has the best face for frankness. When she says something that is direct, the effect is that she's just answered whatever question you might have had. And her eyes...

So much more can be said about this film: the ancillary characters are amazing and vivid or the locations are characters too and so on. Because I've focused on some things and not others, you need to see it so you can fill in the blanks I've created. If you've seen it already, throw in some stuff that you love below. A word of warning, and perhaps admission, see another recent Anderson first if you're a newbie — The Royal Tenenbaums or The Life Aquatic will do nicely. Actually, here's the admission: I'm a post-Rushmore Anderson fan. Which is to say that I saw Rushmore back when it was released on VHS and didn't enjoy it, but saw The Royal Tenebaums and The Life Aquatic and loved them. I can add The Darjeeling Limited to that list. Now I have to rewatch Rushmore and see what I've been missing.

PS There's a scene in a river that appears to break the movie in two. It becomes serious, whereas it hadn't felt too serious until then. I think it didn't feel serious because the brothers weren't taking their own lives seriously and we bought into it. Peter, in particular, has much to get serious about. Tragedy kick starts him and begins moving him in the right direction. There's a wonderful detail in this scene, one that touches me as a father: a boy holds another boy's hand. The context breaks your heart, it happens when the boys and the brothers are looking for their father.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Be Kind Rewind. Life is Swede.

Be Kind Rewind is Michel Gondry's endearing film about salvation. Not the religious kind, though spiritual salvation isn't out of the question. There are two storylines: Mr. Fletcher's (Danny Glover) struggle to keep his home and business and Mike (Mos Def), Jerry (Jack Black) and Alma's (Melonie Diaz) creative effort to remake — Swede — erased feature films on video. See IMDB for more plot summary. I will add, or emphasize, that the story is set in Passaic, New Jersey.

This is unmistakably a Gondry film. Like the more dramatic, different and slightly better Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, strange things happen to people who aren't quite normal. Likewise as in The Science of Sleep, fantastic and hand-made props show up all over the place, especially as the three friends set out to replace the erased videos with their own recreations. Here, though, the hand-made stuff is meant to appear that way, as movie props. Other effects, which are reminiscent of some used in Eternal Sunshine, are realistic and organic. Take Jerry's unfortunate magnetic body — the reason all the videos in the store are erased — as he walks back to his trailer from the video store: the camera is stationary at the store watching Jerry walk down the sidewalk. His body interacts with any large metal item he passes — a light pole is hard to get past only to be sucked in by a chain link fence. And then there is the very Gondry-like sentiment...

A key moment early in the film is a big wink at the audience that we're in for something uplifting. In a sad, bureaucratic office Mr. Fletcher is told that a bland condo complex intended for the site his video store and home are on is "just trying to improve people's lives." We don't believe that for a minute nor does Mr. Fletcher, who just sits and stares in his disbelief. What we do believe is that Mr. Fletcher was beaten to the line by the smarmy developer, because Fletcher is the one really improving people's lives. We can't forget that Mike, his adopted son, and Jerry are also trying to improve people's lives. What's kind of great is that the do gooders know they're doing good. It's what makes them try harder. In many movies, people do good things then appear humble to point of being oblivious. In reality, people feel better when they do good and sometimes they even gloat. In doing good Mike and Jerry sometimes break the law, which never seems too threatening. Despite the realistic characterizations of these odd folks, this is every bit a fable as those told by Aesop.

There are lessons out the wazoo here, but what makes Be Kind Rewind fun is watching the lessons play out and watching the characters learn them. There is so much wonderful variety in the characters. In many ways, I'm reminded of Do the Right Thing — a recent favorite of mine that I tried, but failed to write about. The neighborhood and its inhabitants, the local mythology and the sense of place that binds the locals and transplants together — it just reminds me of it. I don't think it's an accident that I'm reminded of a New York film. There is a certain tone that pervades post-Scorcese New York film regardless of the filmmaker. Whether it's Spike Lee or Wes Anderson or Noah Baumbach, even Whit Stillman, these filmmakers mix fantasy and reality in different amounts to spin their tales. Michel Gondry brings a French sense of adventure to his filmmaking, a desire to go into uncharted waters with his stories, while grounding them with this New York sense of reality — one not overly concerned with the truth.

There is so much more to talk about with this movie, like Swedeing — what!? And, Alma is a fabulous and indispensable character. I don't recall critics I read referring to her as much as they should have. I'm only mentioning her greatness here at the end, but that's another reason to see this movie — figure out what's so great about her. One thing to look for early on is a great sight gag: Mike has a note that he's trying to decipher, even as he and Jerry are attempting to sneak in to a power plant. The gag's at the plant. I laughed. Netflix it! Or go to your corner store, if one still exists, and rent it. Here in DC, I guarantee you that Potomac Video and Capitol Video will have one waiting for you.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Wall•E or What if Wal Mart Ruled the World? Really.

Wall•E is the answer to that question. It's really more than that -- a lot more -- but that question came into my head in the first 5 minutes of the film. Wall•E, the new Disney/Pixar film, happens to also be the first Disney movie that scares the parents more than the kids. I don't think there was much in this special film to scare the target demographic -- the villain is one that adults will identify with much more than kids. Fortunately, there is plenty of excitement, as in all good animated features, and adventure. And for a movie that has very little dialog, even from the humans who eventually appear, it is remarkably deep. Everyone should see it with our without kids. If you go without kids, I recommend going in the evening though if you want to minimize the interruptions. See Roger Ebert's review for a good idea of the overall story.

My wife, Abi, made the great point that the sleek white probe robot EVE is like the dove in the flood story retrieving the sign of renewed life. In fact, Wall•E is a modern day flood story. When I said that she suggested that this had the opposite of a flood as there seems to be no water in the future. What if our greatest threat, the one thing that would not easily recede or evaporate, is the waste that we generate? The deluge that drives these inhabitants onto their ark is that of trash. And what a deluge it is! There are not mountains of trash, but skyscrapers of it. If this is a flood story, and I think it is among other things, it raises may questions. I don't like thinking of questions much when watching these kinds of films. Really what's the point? Why didn't the people at the Wal Mart-like Buy N Large want to take animals on their ark, the Axiom? What happened to the people in the rest of the world? The answers might have been answered if this were a story by Phillip K. Dick or a film in the vein of 28 Days Later, but they're too gruesome and depressing for a film like this. However, I think it's clear now why this movie is much scarier for adults than for kids. We're asking these questions even as we're enjoying the movie.

Evidently, the co-writer/director Andrew Stanton wasn't intending this to be a polemic piece. Or that's the talking point. In any case, it's a solid pro-green message. With some jabs at the Bush administration, too. The green part is self-evident and brilliant -- I cringed at the sight of the overflowing theater trash cans spilling out oversized cups and uneaten pop corn. So are the jabs. First of all, corporations don't just get incentives and apparent tax breaks they get to take over the world. The winning corporation, which acts as a benevolent dictatorship (who the dictator is is the surprise), with it's first CEO being a GWB-like guy who says things like "stay the course" and does a lot of smirking. On a level that isn't so far below the surface, this is kind of like a Michael Moore film for the kiddies. There's plenty of entertainment and messaging to go around. I almost wrote preaching, but I'd be the proverbial "choir".

All of Pixar's movies are chock full of great details. This one has plenty. Along with some of the messagey stuff I just mentioned with borrowed lines and so forth, there are some sight gags that offer a moment of recognition or even a quiet chuckle. There's plenty in the first act as we get to know Wall•E and see what his life is like, then as we get to know EVE and her capabilities and watch a romance blossom. My favorite, though, comes as Wall•E is hanging on to the side of a space ship and they leave Earth's orbit, which has become it's own sort of landfill of satellites. All of Pixar's movies also have incredible closing credits, since they take the place of the more typical opening credits. Wall•E's credits are brilliant and grow right out of the ending. As a onetime student of art history, I just loved them. That's all I'll write -- they're brilliant and need to be seen first hand.

Go see it. Take a kid. Don't take a kid. Pixar is cool enough so you don't have to look like you belong there.

One last thing, there's some talk about how this would be a good Sci Fi film if it were only live action. Roger Ebert mentions this, too, but he allows that it might just be anyway. Since it took him 30 years to recognize Blade Runner as a Great Movie, I'm going go ahead and put it out there this is already a great Sci Fi movie.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Barack Obama Asked. I Answered.

Sen. Barack Obama spoke about his plans to make us more competitive globally last week in Michigan. After the speech he posted the video and asked people to watch and answer a question over on LinkedIn: What ideas do you have to keep America competitive in the years ahead? My answer is below. I would like the answer to be more thorough, but time being short these days it's still a pretty good thought. Watch the speech after my answer.

The Answer: Innovation in education, energy and infrastructure are key to our reemergence as a global leader. The value of education eludes most boomers and the WWII generation largely because their days of needing the system for their own children are past. However, the stability and the success of our society is directly linked to the ability of all children to be competitive both at home and in the world. You say it well — keep saying it.

As for energy, conserving is as important as creating. Amazingly, we have reached a point where business plans revolve around energy rather than activists alone. You refer to the steel plant that converted to a wind turbine factory retraining its workforce for the conversion. There are so many stories, but two more stories come from purple states that highlight the business value of energy. In the Washington Post, is the story of how Ikea determined that the cost of fuel justified building its first factory in the U.S. Now a forgotten Virginia manufacturing town is revived by Ikea and other foreign investors who need to stay competitive in our market. Thomas Friedman wrote in the NY Times, about how Texas Instruments found more value by building green and in the U.S. Than going conventional in China.

These are stories that are repeated in nearly every state and under Democrat and Republican alike. You already tap into much of this narrative, but there is so much more out there.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Barack Obama for President

I am so glad that the primary season is over. I am so glad that Obama is the probable nominee. I am so glad that Senator Hillary Clinton gave such a rousing and emotional speech to endorse him.

Just about every Democrat, let alone much of America, respects both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Much of that respect has led to immense and loyal support of her candidacy for President of the United States of America. But much of it has led to real disillusionment -- disappointment -- with both of their legacies. I know I was at real risk of losing the goodwill built up through the 90s, despite the tumultuous impeachment and the sad result that we had taken our eyes of the ball of terrorism. I also know that had I not had a better choice, I would have supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. However, I wouldn't have been this involved.

I'm glad that Senator Clinton has come on board, because I can say her name with pride. One of the trickiest aspects of attracting so many first-time voters, the way we have this year, is that they don't get politics. We don't get it. It took Hillary facing down disappointed and disgruntled supporters to remind us all that we are all still Democrats. So I get it now. We are all on the same team. We always have been. I know that much of the noise about all the fighting words that the Clinton campaign used had to do with her attacking her own family. I know that, but when Obama says that he's a better candidate for having faced Hillary Clinton he's so right.

So thank you, Senator Clinton. Let's spread the word -- we're all one team. We seriously have to shut out the opponent. We have to win.


Saturday, May 17, 2008

Across the Universe -- Sad Songs Say So Much

Julie Taymor's spectacular "Across the Universe" is a musical set in the tumultuous 60s to the music of the Beatles. It is a fantastical romp through a time that often has been viewed through rose colored glasses, but here is beautiful and frightening and confusing and wild. Ms. Taymor's previous projects include The Lion King on Broadway (well-known for its use of large puppets that seem to dance above the people who dance while operating them), Titus (a cross between Baz Luhrmann and David Lynch making an obscure Shakespeare play) and the underrated Frida (with a fabulously unpretty Salma Hayek and stand out cameo by Ashley Judd). All share the same fantastical approach to storytelling that Across the Universe epitomizes — I'm reminded of Baz Luhrmann (again) and Alan Parker.

Julie Taymor and her musical producers reimagine familiar songs to give us a new way of hearing them. The idea is that the characters think and feel in songs by the Beatles organically — the Beatles don't seem to exist in the movie. There are plenty of examples in Universe of musical revelation, but the song "Something" when sung by Jude (Jim Sturgess) to a sleeping Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood) becomes an intimate soliloquy of his love for her. Despite already being a love song Sturgess' inflection changed the way I heard it. Ms. Taymor also uses terrific visual effects like animation, masks and puppets and 60s-era film effects to help her story along. This has the effect of making each musical vignette seem a little like a music video, but rather than derail the story they add up to the conclusion. One of the most effective and relevant vignettes is the beautifully choreographed Army draft office scene — identical Army sergeants sing "I Want You" to draftees in their briefs while they undergo the standard testing. "I Want You" is a 2 part song, notice the relevance of "She's So Heavy" to today's failing idea of nation-building.

In addition to honoring the writing of the Beatles, Universe is a love song for New York City. It's an homage in its details of New York. Katz's Delicatessen, the decaying docks, the iconic arch in Washington Square, the Village, the eclecticism, the loft and walk-ups, the brownstones. The New York that Taymor is reprising is the one of Bob Dylan and NYU and not — happily — the hippie mecca of Hair. Jude, an illegal alien, becomes nothing less than a graphic designer with home studio for painting on the side. New York was a hot bed of design in the 60s as it has been ever since. War protesters wear army jackets and are more quick to radicalize, full of leftist ideologies, than those seen in many other retrospectives. Much more New York than Left Coast. It's always wonderful to see how a filmmaker treats the location of the story. Woody Allen, Whit Stillman and PT Anderson are famous for it in their use of New York and California. New York is just another character and it sings every song in duet with the flesh and blood actors on screen. Even though we see other locations in the film, notably Liverpool, all life is drawn to NY and ends up there.

A final note: there are 2 cameos in the film that are worth noting. Bono and Eddie Izzard play competing leaders of communal groups. They make for a wonderful midpoint in the story and each bring his own strengths to the performances. Don't miss Joe Cocker and Salma Hayek in their brief cameos.

Friday, May 9, 2008

Juno: The Big Blue Slurpee Edition

I finally saw Juno. I want to cover a few things that I found remarkable — the slang, the adoptive parents and the decision to have the baby. Since I tend to see movies well after they've made it to DVD, I'm not really reviewing them. This is my analysis, what I got out of the film, so I'm going to write about the occasional ending or surprise plot element.

Diablo Cody got a lot of flack from the blogosphere for her slang-filled script. Folks felt that the characters and, by extension, the screenwriter were smarter than they were. I was prepared for word associations that sounded clever, but fell flat or were flatly indecipherable. I thought the dialog was sparkling and the only use of slang was between Juno and her best friend and the occasional slang when around adults. Stepping back to look at the big picture, Juno (the movie) is more modern fairy tale than it is realistic. That said it's great that Juno uses a completely unreal slanguage — some of it real but much of it made up I imagine. I was reminded of A Clockwork Orange with its slavic-heavy slang that required context for a full understanding. I certainly wish that I had had such a robust slanguage when I was 16, though I'm surely better off for only having used the most common phrasology. In any case, the presence of this second language enhanced the layers of Juno's character. One layer, perhaps the one most visible, is the kid who speaks a made up language to differentiate from the adults around her. A second layer is the kid who can still use proper English because she knows she's only 16, but wants to identify with the adults around her. I think a third is the kid who is speechless, despite her motormouth, because of the suddenly adult challenge of carrying and delivering a child — one that will belong to someone else. I think the slang is an integral part of this beautiful film.

Another integral part of Juno, one that I didn't fully realize would be so well defined, is that of the adoptive parents, Mark and Vanessa Loring. I haven't endured the challenge and the heartbreak of trying and trying and failing to conceive. I do, however, know those who have. For the families that are in tact in the end, after all the trying — over some years — and the IVF and the adoption planning and waiting hopefully they are stronger. These days many people wait until later in life to start their families. That wait can be a fight against both the biological clock and the biological possibility of conceiving — the older the parents, the harder it is to get pregnant. One other difficulty can be that while the prospective mom is physically committed to the lengthy and stressful process, the dad — who can only be a supporter, a cheerleader — can begin to resent the eventual responsibility. That's quite a burden. Well, that burden is evident in the writing and portrayal of the Lorings. Mark is happyish at what he does, but he's a prisoner in his own home — albeit a beautiful one. His cherished mementos of other, happier times are put away in their "own room" or packed away in the basement. The result is a house that is orderly and the product of Vanessa — whether it contains any real mementos for her isn't covered. She is a hard worker who doesn't understand what's happened to her husband. They both talk about the baby, but he's set in the background using body language that suggests he doesn't want it. They've endured the excruciating attempts at conceiving and adopting from a surrogate only to meet failure again and again. The clincher, after much drama and a twist, comes at the end. Spoiler: Vanessa goes to meet her new son and she is like ice — a blend of fear and incredulity that this is her baby, that she is finally a mother — but she melts at the newborn's touch. The transformation to mother is completed by Juno's stepmother admiring presence in the door of the nursery — she's technically the grandmother after all. All of Vanessa's suffering at failing to become a mother is replaced by the beauty of her baby boy.

That leads me to Juno's decision to have the baby in the first place. I've read that folks interpreted carrying the baby as an anti-choice message, somewhat supported by Juno's quick escape from a Planned Parenthood-like clinic, though I think it was mostly the MSM. Other folks were offended by the subject matter. I'm more interested in this notion that the script was somehow anti-choice. It wasn't. First of all, dramatically and comedically the story is about a girl who decides to carry a baby to term and to find a couple to adopt it. Whatever political messaging there might be, the story can't include an abortion. In any case, Choice, with a capital "C", is about choice not automatically having an abortion. Certainly, Juno's first decision is to end the pregnancy, though her girlfriend is too matter of fact and the father of the baby is too bewildered and still a boy to know how to comfort her. His reaction moves almost imperceptibly from stun to relief, probably still reeling from the hormonal wackiness of having had sex with Juno in the first place. While at the clinic, where the receptionist is psychotic and overly attentive yet somehow dismissive, the atmosphere is crude and discomforting. This probably owes more to a typical lack of funding and heavy community work probably than to a disregard for the comfort of the patients. Anyway, with no support apparatus Juno freaks and bolts. Choice is paramount, but some choices just cannot be casually made when you're a 16 year old all alone. In the following parent sit-down scene she tells the truth about her pregnancy then correctly deduces that her stepmother prefers that she keep the baby with a quick lie about considering an abortion. Her support was still her own family, no matter how grown up she might have felt, and their rules and aspirations drove her decisionmaking. Whatever the political motive, the choice to keep the baby makes the story.

Lastly, I want to mention how exciting it is that alongside new, unknown directors there is a new generation of Hollywood directors born of the last generation: Sofia Copolla, Jake Kasdan and, in this case, Jason Reitman (I'm sure there are others, but these are off the top of head). Their vision is fresh, informed by their illustrious parents yet full of unique viewpoints. They appreciate the skill of a good photographer, they can make the most out of a script and they can elicit performances out of their actors that receive the highest regard. Think Bill Murray's turn in Lost in Translation or John C. Reilly in Walk Hard or Ellen Page — and Michael Cera, Allison Janney, J.K. Simmons, Jason Bateman or Jennifer Garner for that matter — in Juno. Bravo!

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

A Veep for Barack Obama

We made it. A 15% win in N.C. and a narrow 2% win for Hillary in Indiana. What a great contest!

I've tossed around ideas of folks who would be great VP choices in conversations with other Obama supporters and I've wanted to write about it for several months. But the perpetual closeness of this race has made me uncomfortable with posting these thoughts — superstition. Just take a look at today's Huffington Post home page for the reason why I'm confident about sharing now.

I'm not going to speculate about Hillary's chances of being asked or of taking this job. The MSM has that covered — overcovered, I'm sure. My list will read in the order of my preferences. Here it goes.

1. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) of Kansas. When I saw her endorsement speech in El Dorado, Obama's Kansas hometown, I was taken aback. I guess it began the night before actually when she delivered the Dem. response to the State of the Union address. Not only was she warm and well spoken, she echoed the themes of change and unity that Obama has made his own. She wasn't yet a public supporter of his, though there were rumors. Back to El Dorado, she gives her endorsement and then switches gears to address the crowd more directly -- looking into their eyes -- to encourage, even admonish, them to show up at their caucuses to caucus for Obama. Her message was simple -- one might say midwestern -- and clear, the crowd responded with enthusiasm. I wouldn't call that pressure, but Gov. Sebelius was cool on the stump at the presidential level. While I think that women who had deeply powerful hopes for the first woman President will support Obama insofar as they are Democrats to begin with, Gov. Sebelius is an outstanding and ethical woman for the job. 2012 just might be her year. One last point: Obama has mentioned that he want a Veep who brings something he doesn't already have to the party. Sebelius is a popular 2 time governor of a red state, whose lineage goes back to Ohio in politics. She is solidly midwestern, in a non-Chicago way, and she stands up with great intelligence and strength for policies she believes in. Take this story about new coal plants in Kansas and her opposition.

2. Sen. Jim Webb (D) of Virginia. Not that I was thinking about VPs yet in early 2007, but when Sen. Webb gave the Dem. response to the State of the Union address I knew there was something special. As a DC area resident, I had watched the Senate race in Virginia between George Allen and Jim Webb. It was tense and action packed. There were distractions galore, but in the end a Dem. was elected to what had been considered a solidly Republican seat. Especially since the Presidential-hopeful George Allen was supposed to be unbeatable. However, Allen was no match for the not-so-new new media that would bring him down. Sen. Webb had issues of his own to address, but his earnestness and eloquence saved the day. Jim Webb's military background, his high post as Secretary of the Navy under no less than Ronald Reagan, his decision to change parties from Repub. to Dem. and his ability to write and speak as compellingly as Obama all add up to a formidable Veep choice. That and Virginia is a key state in November. Finally, Sen. Webb just might help shore up the lunch pail voters as he is naturally conservative, as opposed to suddenly so, and even one of the few concealed weapon licensees on the Hill.

3. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska. This one just came to my attention about a month ago. I watched an interview with Sen. Hagel with Keith Olbermann and I was convinced that this was a third way. Chuck Hagel has dissented from the Republican party line on several key fronts. He's an intelligent and experienced firebrand who knows what he believes and sticks to it. I still have more to learn about Sen. Hagel, but I like what I see. I also like the idea of Obama putting his money where his mouth is on the notion of appointing the right people regardless of party for the Veep positions. Also, there's an aspect of this match-up that could be appropriate in light of the primaries — Obama took Nebraska in a blow out like Kansas and Virginia — that's a good start for building support.

4. Is the "Clinton" option without Hillary: Gov. Ted Strickland (D) of Ohio. Having just read his Wikipedia page I know more than I did right before I read it, but he was widely credited with delivering Hillary's Ohio win. If it becomes necessary to ask a Clinton surrogate to join the ticket, he seems like a good choice.

There it is. I know there are many qualified and powerful options for this job. These are some that just resonate with me.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Obama and Friedman, hmmmm

Obama just paraphrased Thomas Friedman's column, which can be found below, in a town hall meeting in Munster, Ind. Very interesting. Video to come if it is posted.

Krugman Sticks it to Obama ... Again

For the umpteenth time, Paul Krugman has devoted his precious space in print and online claiming that Barack Obama is really speaking for Republicans when seeks to bridge the divide and tries to convince America that he's the right candidate. It's old hat. Mr. Krugman seems to ignore the awfully right wing fight that the Clinton campaign is engaging in. Krugman does mention her support of the Gas Tax Holiday as her pandering to the right or at least getting it wrong. Boo hoo. That's the least of what has been coming out of that camp, and it's certainly not the last.

I believe that there is a point at which all of us looking at the very important issues must step back from the ideology that guides us, and step into the shoes of our opponents. We might not agree with everything they say or claim or demand, but compromise is the cornerstone of progress. It is clear to me, as a regular person, that words like "mandate" when coupled with services like health care set off alarms for conservatives who are averse to big government. "Socialized medicine" is already the common slur against the Democrats' attempts at universal health care. Thems fightin' words. Words that need to be considered when planning the showdown that will occur when this plan actually hits Congress.

When the Clintons' original plan, which inflexibly included a mandate, made it to Congress in 1994 Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee, had already drafted a universal health care bill that "had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats". Both plans failed, because the Clintons' wanted nothing to with the Cooper bill over their own.

So here we are in 2008. Mandates or not, the Democrats are the only ones coming up with a solution and some of us feel so strongly about the minutia that it's worth constantly scratching away at the forerunner. It was annoying back in February, but now — after we've seen the O'Reilly show, the Richard Mellon-Scaife show, the "I'm more pious than he is" show — it sounds silly.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Obama: Bloggers Are the Future!

He didn't really say that, but check out this video:



It's also below in my YouTube feed, but Obama talks about how connected he wants his government to be to the people. Town hall meetings — with him and his cabinet — and a web site that actually has information on it for the White House. I think he's hinting at a MyBO style web site. Very exciting!

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Thomas Friedman is back at NYT!!

Thomas Friedman has been on sabbatical from the NYT Op-Ed page writing a book on how Green is the new Red, White and Blue. He's back.

http://tinyurl.com/63n2dy

After surviving a pie-ing at Brown University, he's back on the job. I look forward to his new book and his weekly columns.

Monday, April 28, 2008

The Wright Stuff

Now that Barack Obama has separated himself from Rev. Wright, an act that visibly cut Obama to the quick, maybe all — but the far right — can get back to deciding who's right on the issues. I still have something on my mind, though. The day before Obama gave his press conference rejecting Rev. Wright, the same day that Wright gave his own press conference at the National Press Club, I wrote about how much this episode in this long race has to do with a cultural misunderstanding. Then I saved it — rendering it untimely. I think it still bears examination.

"The most recent attack on the black church, it is our hope that this just might mean that the reality of the African-American church will no longer be invisible."
— Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, The National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

This quote, though merely a sound bite of words, sums up much of the controversy surrounding the revered Biblical scholar and retired pastor, Rev. Wright. His claim to represent the whole black church in this controversy sounds egotistical, but I feel that there's some merit there. It's clear from folks I've spoken with that Wright's not like most other African American preachers, but much of the strong reaction in the MSM and in the public has as much to do with what he says in his sermons as with how he says it. Nonreligious observers understandably lack insight into the value and complexity of a church community — that not all members agree or march in lock step with each other and their pastor. Religious observers, right and left, are often not familiar with any church tradition outside their own.

While much can be written on this, I just want to highlight two conversations that really opened my eyes to a cultural tradition that I was previously blind to. A culture that was invisible to me. The first conversation was with an African American coworker and the second was with a former student of Rev. Wright's. I learned something about the tradition of the black church — that it is an amalgam of traditions: the African tradition brought here, the African American tradition cultivated here and the Christian tradition shared at a basic level by all Christians (Catholic and Protestant). I learned also that black churches routinely meld the social issues of the African American community with the teachings from the Bible making the pulpit a place where ideas flow both out of and also in to. That it is not uncommon for the energy level to become elevated and for the volume to rise. While I attend a church that is staid and solemn, black churches engage in an exchange of ideas between the pastor and the congregation that can be imagined even in the simple call and response popular in hip hop. Because the issues relevant and vital to the African American community aren't always addressed in the MSM or in many other arenas, they become topics during the church service on Sunday. Far from being divisive to society, these problem sharing opportunities — containing passionate speech — are a catharsis. Just like revivals have been for more than a century.

Maybe this sounds like a high fallutin' look at the black church. That's OK. There is a misunderstanding, even an ignorance, about what goes on behind church doors among all races and creeds. Most folks don't know what it's like to worship in a mosque or synagogue let alone in an Orthodox church, a Catholic church or an Evangelical mega church. Though the latter gets beamed into many households every weekend. We could use a little anthropology on our neighbors faiths, then perhaps we could leave it out of the public forum for good.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

A Former Presidential Candidate and Obama

Lately there's a grumbling in the media about the similarity of former Democratic nominee George McGovern's run for the White House and Barack Obama's. Maybe that makes him unelectable!!! *sarcasm* Those same people said that electability was a factor that couldn't — and shouldn't — be assessed in the primaries just a couple of months ago. I won't go into the details of McGovern's 1972 run for President, but the gist is that he was wildly popular with a segment of the population — not enough to win the general election. It certainly looks like a comparison that is worth some investigation, but the media is not really investigating it. Not the mainstream media, that is.

I read an interesting piece about George McGovern's take on the campaign by Sam Stein in Huff Post the other day: http://tinyurl.com/3fdsg5. In it Mr. McGovern explains that the problem with his candidacy in 72 was with other Dem. nominees who lost to McGovern before the convention. That nomination process went long and was decided late. The competition was fierce — and dirty — and apparently the rifts didn't heal in the brief Fall general election period. According to the former nominee, himself, his opponents continued their attacks throughout the Fall adding to the opposition's appeal.

I know that it is appealing to look back for a precedent that mirrors 2008. But it's hard if not impossible to use McGovern's name as a curse if that person debunks the very basis for the curse. On the other hand, history is not entirely wrong — McGovern had a loyal and limited group of supporters as all candidates do. So many aspects of our political climate are different from that time in our history, let alone any other, that we would be much better off just reporting on the progress of the race for a Dem. nominee. Journalists hardly report anymore, they represent interests that are sometimes obvious and sometimes obscured. Now journalists interpret, something that used to be left to Sunday morning talking heads. Now every minute of 24 hours news is full of tea leaf reading and innuendo, guessing and cataloging.

Obama is not like McGovern, yet. When the Democrats figure out that they can only win the White House if they come together for the general election then the big truth of McGovern's loss in 72 can be avoided. That will have to included all the candidates who lost. Already we see in the "Vote for Change" 50 state voter registration, a solid effort by the Obama campaign. The media can help by avoiding tags like McGovern or Brady that are divisive rather than illuminating. They can help by telling like it is and not like they think it should be. Some people are still listening.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Walk Hard

Walk Hard, the Apatow clan's most recent addition to its fake bio pic repetoire, stars John C. Reilly with a cast of supporting actors out the Apatow troupe, SNL and The Office. Unlike the previous two bio pic parodies, which starred Will Ferrell and were plenty funny, this one takes full advantage of the dramatic range of Reilly — finally a leading man in a comedy. The humor in these has been more subtle than in the other Apatow-related films like 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Certainly there's the genitalia as comic device, the oddly placed profanity, and the desire for sex that isn't always fulfilled, but the comedy is more about the juxtaposition with real life stories of similar people that are often told with extreme seriousness.

The film is acted and shot with a straight face and there are fewer caricatures than in Talladega Nights or Anchorman, which makes it funnier and more challenging. The humor is darker in Walk Hard. Jake Kasdan has used photography and his actors to create a film that doesn't differ much in tone from a typically well made bio pic. Walk the Line comes to mind often, though Johnny Cash is not the only musical legend lampooned by Dewey Cox. He has experiences similar to Elvis and others who came out of the Memphis music scene — in a recording studio he sings a treacly version of an Italian America standard that's met with disgust, but creates a stir with a song sung his own way.

This movie didn't do as well as its makers hoped I'm sure, but it should be enjoyed by many more people now that it's on DVD. The trailer suggested a campy, silly movie — another example of the misleading quality of many trailers — when in reality it's a smart, funny movie. Neither shy nor offensive, Walk Hard strikes even notes creating many chuckles and a few belly laughs. Ultimately it's more satisfying than a laugh fest can sometimes be. Put it at the top of your Netflix cue.

Race and the Right

I've been a little surprised by the polarizing use of race in the Democratic primaries. I know that politics ain't bean bag, but there are certain things the Democrats stand for and represent that doesn't really include stoking racial prejudice. I've been particularly dismayed by the repeated use of the divisive language of race by the king and queen of the Political Correctness movement. However, none of that compares to the fearless use of race as already exhibited by the institutionalized Right of our politics.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently — following the stories of the N.C. "Too Extreme" ad and a Willie Horton-style ad — created by the folks who made that 1988 ad — also out of N.C. The former rehashes the also ran controversial sound bytes of the retired pastor of Trinity United in Chicago — addressed by one of the most famous and respected political speeches in memory, "A More Perfect Union". (Those sound bites now drowned out by the new loop of Rev. Wright in a suit and tie speaking with Bill Moyers, NAACP or the Nat. Press Club.) The latter full of outrageous bloody shirt writing and photography regarding a death penalty bill that Obama voted against in 2001 — left unsaid, the Republican governor at the time vetoed the bill for its broad reach and lack of specificity. Neither of these ads bothers too much with accuracy or timeliness or tastefulness. I suppose that they might hit their mark, but with whom?

The New York Times (NYT) editorial board said on Saturday today that the "Too Extreme" ad is nothing but "Manipulative. Shameful. Race-baiting." Very true. They cite an ad that Jesse Helms ran in a N.C. race that directly taps into the Right-wing hate for affirmative action, a passive aggressive attack on his African American opponent, Harvey Gantt. In both cases, the ads strongly suggest negative euphemisms for African Americans that sometimes resonate with voters: Reverse Racist and

The NYT ed. board might have also included the death penalty ad mentioned above. The more direct insinuation is that Barack Obama is a gang member because he opposed the same bill that his Republican governor even felt needed to be vetoed. Everyone should check barackobama.com for the facts on Obama's record on crime. What these two ads do implicitly if not explicitly is assigned some of the most disgusting racial stereotypes associated with African Americans in this country — reverse racist and gang member. Disgusting. And false.

Barack Obama has built up a lifetime of service to local, state and national communities — a real champion. He has headed a campaign that has been professional and better equipped to manage adversity and capitalize on opportunity than any of the other campaigns. Revisiting overplayed sound bites in an ad that smacks of racism, and wildly misrepresenting an old vote adds up to the shameful use of racial prejudice in the Presidential race. It's arguably a tactical decision for a Democrat to use race to divide voters since it's the primary season, but the GOP has no excuse using race to derail the democratic process before the Democratic nominee has been elected. The Right is setting up a lot of swords to throw themselves on.

Using race to divide voters at all is sad and shameful. As a final thought I'd like to offer up a recent example of the failure of racial insensitivity in local/national politics: George Allen of Virginia. His campaign against Sen. Jim Webb (D) barely hid it's racially divisive views and it failed. Happily this example is more recent than Jesse Helms' passive aggressive commercial that worked against his African American opponent and the Willie Horton ad that is credited with damaging Dukakis' run for the White House.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Headline: McCain Drinks Starbucks!!

Believe me there is more — and better — to come. But...

Watching Hardball, Mike Huckabee and McCain together on a bus. McCain drinks some sort of venti coffee drink from Starbucks. Hmmmm. Caffeine!

Welcome. Let's Get Started.

This is my first entry. As the description above says, I'll be musing about film, politics, music or whatever catches my interest.

In the meantime I'm setting up shop and getting my bearings.

More to come...