Sunday, April 02, 2006
The Real Deal
So, as I'm sure you're all aware by now, that last post was a joke. April Fools. Yes, I know I'm mean. But it's not every day a guy like me comes up with a good idea for a joke.
I had considered doing this for months. Originally, I was going to write a long, dramatic post in Microsoft Word last week and copy/paste it into here when it was perfect. Sonia was also going to write a supportive post on her blog to make it seem more realistic. But we just didn't have time to go through all that.
So, at around 12:30 AM on Saturday, I tricked Karen online with the same joke. That was fun. Then, at 6:00 PM the same day, she told me I should go ahead and write a quick post off the top of my head, just to see people's reactions. So I did.
Within 3 hours I had a voicemail message from my parents saying they had bought plane tickets and were going to be in Raleigh the next day. So I panic, thinking they didn't click that pretty link at the bottom of the post, and call them. My dad acts very serious on the phone and asks me if I want both of them to come or just him. Then he says it's a joke.
There was only one joke played on me the entire day Saturday, and it was by my parents. That was good.
Anyways. That's that. Send all hate mail to me.
Honestly, I can't believe so many people fell for it. I just wrote it up in a few minutes, and thought I included enough crazy stuff for people to realize it was a joke. I even had the specific words "practical joke" in there. I mean, come on. The Brokeback comment? "Maybe if I can see how those guys dealed with their sexual confusion I can deal with my own." Puh-leeze. And I thought surely a quote by a comedian (Woody Allen) would make it clear everything was in jest. But no. I guess I'm really convincing.
Oh well. Maybe we can all learn something from this. Like: what would you do if it was true? It's one thing to say you're not homophobic. It's another thing to say it when someone you know and love is actually not heterosexual.
But on to other things. Last week was super busy (hence why the joke wasn't even more persuasive). I had reports to write, projects to prepare for, movies to watch and review, and a film festival to attend and write about. I managed to survive.
My review of ATL can be found here.
My first feature article about the Pinwheel film festival can be found here. I'm pretty happy with it, considering it's my first one. I ended up getting a call a few hours before it was due to be printed asking me to elaborate on some stuff since it was too short. A whole lot of the things I added (like the last paragraph! agh!) don't flow very well, but I guess that's what happens when I have to rush.
Invisible Children - A great, emotional documentary about children in Uganda who are abducted to fight in the rebel army. I think I'll end up reviewing this for the paper.
The Producers - Great musical, though slightly too long. I really want to see the Broadway show now.
Brokeback Mountain - Good, but overrated. Definitely not better than Crash. In fact, in terms of the Best Picture nominees, the only film I'd say it's better than is Capote. It's pretty much a hit-and-miss paradox of a film. Sometimes it seems like a genuine love story, others times it's leftist propaganda. At times I sympathized with the characters, other times I didn't care for them at all. Some scenes make sense. Other scenes don't (like how there's very little evidence of any sexual attraction between them and the next thing you know, they're having sex). So yeah. Definitely overrated, probably because critics were afraid of being labeled homophobic. Just because a movie is brave doesn't mean it's excellent.
Irreversible - This might possibly be the most graphic film I've ever seen, in terms of violence and sex. It's an unrated French film from a few years ago that caused a huge amount of controversy for that same reason.
Is it a good movie? In some ways. I enjoyed it immensely from a filmmaking perspective. But at times I think the director went a tad too far. But hey, they're French. When it premiered at Cannes, many people walked out within the first ten minutes. Others made it to the key scene and then couldn't take it. And the ones that made it to the end were split in terms of whether or not they loved it or hated it. The controversy pretty much came down to whether or not this was art or if it was explotative and pornographic.
The film is a revenge tale about how "time destroys everything", as the tagline goes. It's about what happens when a woman (Monica Bellucci) is brutally raped, and her boyfriend seeks revenge. The entire thing goes backwards, scene by scene, like Memento. It begins with a scene of two men being pulled out of a gay bar and put in an ambulance. We then see Marcus (her boyfriend) going through said bar looking for the rapist. The camerawork here is extremely disorienting - it spins and tilts all over the place. I got slightly queasy. Anyways, he gets in a fight with the person he think raped his girl, and bashes his face in with a fire extinguisher. We see it all. And it is very, very graphic. It was at this point many people left the theater.
Honestly, I didn't have as much problem with the gore (which was very obviously computer generated) as I did with the fact that it took forever to get there. There are only so many brief glimpses of gay sex orgies necessary to let the audience know, "This place is bad."
The central scene to the film is the rape scene. It's 10 minutes long. I had read so much about it, that I guess I had braced myself for worse; it wasn't that bad. It's the only scene in which the camera stays stationary and unflinching. Luckily, the angle wasn't as graphic as it could have been.
After that scene, the only controversial scene shows her with her boyfriend talking to each other as they lie nude in bed. First of all: I can appreciate a good contrast and the decision to show what a "positive" sexual relationship is like. However, it went on for too long, and showed a bit too much for my tastes. Evidently full frontal male nudity isn't as big of a taboo in France as it is here.
From an analytical perspective, this movie is great. I've read a whole lot of different interpretations of it, all of which seem valid. Roger Ebert gave it a positive review and talked about how the structure is key to understanding its message about time. Another review I read basically said, "I didn't enjoy this film, but I can defend it" and talked about how the central motif of the movie is an anus. The gay bar is called Rectum. The hallways are hellishly orange and narrow. She's sodomized in a narrow, red tunnel. What does it all mean? Ah, who can say...
The fact that it's open to interpretation both helps and hurts the film. On the one hand, I like being able to analyze and get different things from a film. On the other hand, when dealing with such a controversial and graphic movie, it would be nice to be certain that there was indeed a point to it all. Which brings up the question everyone who saw this film asked: Where do we draw the line between art and pornography? At which point does a film cease to be artistic and instead become exploitative?
Honestly, I wish I could say Irreversible was entirely artistic. In fact, I quite enjoyed its story, themes and crazy camerawork most of the time. And I actually didn't have a problem with a lot of the "objectionable" material. As one reviewer said, "If we can be realistic in regards to violence, why should sexuality be any different?" But there were a few scenes (namely, near the beginning and end) where I thought the director went slightly too far. I recommend this movie to film buffs and people looking for some good scenes, ideas, and cinematography to analyze the heck out of. But be warned: when I say this film is graphic, I mean it. It is brutal and beautiful, at the same time. Some have dismissed it entirely as exploitative porn. I think there's more to it than that. It's one of those movies I found myself loving to hate, and hating to love, a lot of the time. It's a very dark film with dark characters (Marcus = jerk) about time and dreams and the future and how one event can make things...irreversible.
As I watched this movie, I ended up asking myself what I would do in a similar situation. Would I go on a rampage for revenge if something like that happened to the girl I love?
Then I saw the rape scene. And the answer was most definitely yes. I would bash his face in until there was nothing left but dust. I know I'm a Christian, and I know Christ said to love your enemies, but everyone has their breaking point. I don't think I'd be strong enough to resist that anger. I know it's no excuse, but in the Old Testament vengeance was allowed. I can't think of another situation that might fall into that category.....that's how realistic this movie is.
I might be going to the FullFrame documentary film festival. Not only am I interested, but the people at the Technician evidently liked my first article about Pinwheel (though it was too short), and told me I could cover it for them if I wanted to. We'll see. I might go just to see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated", just because I think it looks fascinating, and has interviews with a lot of my favorite directors.
I had considered doing this for months. Originally, I was going to write a long, dramatic post in Microsoft Word last week and copy/paste it into here when it was perfect. Sonia was also going to write a supportive post on her blog to make it seem more realistic. But we just didn't have time to go through all that.
So, at around 12:30 AM on Saturday, I tricked Karen online with the same joke. That was fun. Then, at 6:00 PM the same day, she told me I should go ahead and write a quick post off the top of my head, just to see people's reactions. So I did.
Within 3 hours I had a voicemail message from my parents saying they had bought plane tickets and were going to be in Raleigh the next day. So I panic, thinking they didn't click that pretty link at the bottom of the post, and call them. My dad acts very serious on the phone and asks me if I want both of them to come or just him. Then he says it's a joke.
There was only one joke played on me the entire day Saturday, and it was by my parents. That was good.
Anyways. That's that. Send all hate mail to me.
Honestly, I can't believe so many people fell for it. I just wrote it up in a few minutes, and thought I included enough crazy stuff for people to realize it was a joke. I even had the specific words "practical joke" in there. I mean, come on. The Brokeback comment? "Maybe if I can see how those guys dealed with their sexual confusion I can deal with my own." Puh-leeze. And I thought surely a quote by a comedian (Woody Allen) would make it clear everything was in jest. But no. I guess I'm really convincing.
Oh well. Maybe we can all learn something from this. Like: what would you do if it was true? It's one thing to say you're not homophobic. It's another thing to say it when someone you know and love is actually not heterosexual.
But on to other things. Last week was super busy (hence why the joke wasn't even more persuasive). I had reports to write, projects to prepare for, movies to watch and review, and a film festival to attend and write about. I managed to survive.
My review of ATL can be found here.
My first feature article about the Pinwheel film festival can be found here. I'm pretty happy with it, considering it's my first one. I ended up getting a call a few hours before it was due to be printed asking me to elaborate on some stuff since it was too short. A whole lot of the things I added (like the last paragraph! agh!) don't flow very well, but I guess that's what happens when I have to rush.
Invisible Children - A great, emotional documentary about children in Uganda who are abducted to fight in the rebel army. I think I'll end up reviewing this for the paper.
The Producers - Great musical, though slightly too long. I really want to see the Broadway show now.
Brokeback Mountain - Good, but overrated. Definitely not better than Crash. In fact, in terms of the Best Picture nominees, the only film I'd say it's better than is Capote. It's pretty much a hit-and-miss paradox of a film. Sometimes it seems like a genuine love story, others times it's leftist propaganda. At times I sympathized with the characters, other times I didn't care for them at all. Some scenes make sense. Other scenes don't (like how there's very little evidence of any sexual attraction between them and the next thing you know, they're having sex). So yeah. Definitely overrated, probably because critics were afraid of being labeled homophobic. Just because a movie is brave doesn't mean it's excellent.
Irreversible - This might possibly be the most graphic film I've ever seen, in terms of violence and sex. It's an unrated French film from a few years ago that caused a huge amount of controversy for that same reason.
Is it a good movie? In some ways. I enjoyed it immensely from a filmmaking perspective. But at times I think the director went a tad too far. But hey, they're French. When it premiered at Cannes, many people walked out within the first ten minutes. Others made it to the key scene and then couldn't take it. And the ones that made it to the end were split in terms of whether or not they loved it or hated it. The controversy pretty much came down to whether or not this was art or if it was explotative and pornographic.
The film is a revenge tale about how "time destroys everything", as the tagline goes. It's about what happens when a woman (Monica Bellucci) is brutally raped, and her boyfriend seeks revenge. The entire thing goes backwards, scene by scene, like Memento. It begins with a scene of two men being pulled out of a gay bar and put in an ambulance. We then see Marcus (her boyfriend) going through said bar looking for the rapist. The camerawork here is extremely disorienting - it spins and tilts all over the place. I got slightly queasy. Anyways, he gets in a fight with the person he think raped his girl, and bashes his face in with a fire extinguisher. We see it all. And it is very, very graphic. It was at this point many people left the theater.
Honestly, I didn't have as much problem with the gore (which was very obviously computer generated) as I did with the fact that it took forever to get there. There are only so many brief glimpses of gay sex orgies necessary to let the audience know, "This place is bad."
The central scene to the film is the rape scene. It's 10 minutes long. I had read so much about it, that I guess I had braced myself for worse; it wasn't that bad. It's the only scene in which the camera stays stationary and unflinching. Luckily, the angle wasn't as graphic as it could have been.
After that scene, the only controversial scene shows her with her boyfriend talking to each other as they lie nude in bed. First of all: I can appreciate a good contrast and the decision to show what a "positive" sexual relationship is like. However, it went on for too long, and showed a bit too much for my tastes. Evidently full frontal male nudity isn't as big of a taboo in France as it is here.
From an analytical perspective, this movie is great. I've read a whole lot of different interpretations of it, all of which seem valid. Roger Ebert gave it a positive review and talked about how the structure is key to understanding its message about time. Another review I read basically said, "I didn't enjoy this film, but I can defend it" and talked about how the central motif of the movie is an anus. The gay bar is called Rectum. The hallways are hellishly orange and narrow. She's sodomized in a narrow, red tunnel. What does it all mean? Ah, who can say...
The fact that it's open to interpretation both helps and hurts the film. On the one hand, I like being able to analyze and get different things from a film. On the other hand, when dealing with such a controversial and graphic movie, it would be nice to be certain that there was indeed a point to it all. Which brings up the question everyone who saw this film asked: Where do we draw the line between art and pornography? At which point does a film cease to be artistic and instead become exploitative?
Honestly, I wish I could say Irreversible was entirely artistic. In fact, I quite enjoyed its story, themes and crazy camerawork most of the time. And I actually didn't have a problem with a lot of the "objectionable" material. As one reviewer said, "If we can be realistic in regards to violence, why should sexuality be any different?" But there were a few scenes (namely, near the beginning and end) where I thought the director went slightly too far. I recommend this movie to film buffs and people looking for some good scenes, ideas, and cinematography to analyze the heck out of. But be warned: when I say this film is graphic, I mean it. It is brutal and beautiful, at the same time. Some have dismissed it entirely as exploitative porn. I think there's more to it than that. It's one of those movies I found myself loving to hate, and hating to love, a lot of the time. It's a very dark film with dark characters (Marcus = jerk) about time and dreams and the future and how one event can make things...irreversible.
As I watched this movie, I ended up asking myself what I would do in a similar situation. Would I go on a rampage for revenge if something like that happened to the girl I love?
Then I saw the rape scene. And the answer was most definitely yes. I would bash his face in until there was nothing left but dust. I know I'm a Christian, and I know Christ said to love your enemies, but everyone has their breaking point. I don't think I'd be strong enough to resist that anger. I know it's no excuse, but in the Old Testament vengeance was allowed. I can't think of another situation that might fall into that category.....that's how realistic this movie is.
I might be going to the FullFrame documentary film festival. Not only am I interested, but the people at the Technician evidently liked my first article about Pinwheel (though it was too short), and told me I could cover it for them if I wanted to. We'll see. I might go just to see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated", just because I think it looks fascinating, and has interviews with a lot of my favorite directors.
# posted by Andrew Johnson : 4/02/2006 11:33:00 PM 
