Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon

Just found this sitting in my drafts folder with only this written:
"I don't like it."

Whilst this is accurate, I can see why I put off 'publishing' such a critique...or lack of critique.

We're talking months ago now, and frankly who cares anyway - about the movie, and even less about what I thought of it. But here goes what I think, or what I can remember of what I thought.

Plot
I can't remember what it was about. I guess the Deceptacons were going to destroy Earth, and Shia and the blond Megan Fox, and the Autobots, saved it? Look at the poster, that's where I got my information...


Whas I thunk
I didn't like it. Apparently.

I can only assume I didn't like because it was a tension-less barrage of metal carnage. I know, I know. That's Michael Bay. But surely this could be better. Was the first one better? Can't remember, but I do remember the second one as full of makeup and fake tan and basically a masterclass in how to make a clearly attractive woman (Megan Fox) look like a, well, a cheap slapper. And that it was worse than the first movie.

I can't help but wonder how this film hopes to engage with it's audience. Is it merely to provide some suitable, ahem, wank material for 14 year old boys? Why did I watch it. Good question. Well, I am fairly indiscriminate with my film viewing...but it's also been a matter of what Yusuf has given me, or someone else, and what has been showing locally at the handful of times I've gone to the cinema...and then there's the final factor: given the option of crap over heartbreaking, I frequently choose crap. Only to watch the heartbreaking at a later date. So I guess that's why other people see it. They don't want to watch a movie about the brutal killing of raped child by a schizophrenic meth-addict that won the Palm D'Or. They want to see tits and robots.

But look at Batman Begins - crappy movies don't have to be crap. They can be awesome.

Never Let Me Go - by Kazuo Ishiguro

I've stalled again ... time to get back on the bike or horse or whatever.

Plot
Kathy and her close friends Ruth and Tommy are at boarding school together. 'Donations' and 'completion' are hazy and ill-defined events that are a fact of their lives after school, and consequently are not particularly challenged or investigated. It becomes apparent that the three central characters and their peers at Hailsham College are clones and that the donations relate to their vital organs, and completion to their death.

Write the feem toon, sing the feem toon (Themes)
There are a number of stories going on here. The first is the love story of the three characters: Kath and Ruth's, Kath and Tommy's, and even Ruth and Tommy's. The second story is lurking in the background - it is the issue of harvesting live organs from bred clones. And the final story is for me perhaps the most present one in the book, and that is the relationship between memory and reality.

Love story
For me the real love story is the one between Ruth and Kath. I believe Ishiguro has perfectly captured many of the facets of female friendships, particularly schoolgirl friendships: co-dependent, loving, competitive, jealous, caring, cruel, nurturing, honest, deceitful...the whole enchilada. The other love stories are frankly secondary. These are people who are frozen in this boarding school world. They are children that never grow up. In order to grow up, to develop emotionally into fully functioning adults, they would need access and interaction with people outside their 'system', and they don't get it. And the system is so perfect, and self-actualising, that they don't want it.

Certainly Tommy and Kath have a connection, but it never develops beyond that spark. Just because they are the last ones standing and share a history (and a connection/affinity) does not make this a fleshed out adult relationship. They are only ever children playing at adulthood, and at love and life.

Clones
The most effective method of keeping someone down is for the victim to believe so unquestioningly in the lie that they create their own prisons and chains. And, if they are sold one lie that they can rail against (the myth of 'deferrals'), then the second lie gets ignored (the donations). Also the second lie is so all consuming, so self-fullfilling, that it would be impossible for them to ever get any perspective on it. Their mind is their cage. They have been so utterly indoctrinated and brainwashed that the reality of the donations and completion is just a fact. I have to say, I didn't question the inevitablity of the donations for them. I wasn't frustrated by their lack of railing against the system. This was something that was brought up in group, and this is my take.

Why the Hailsham experience if their future is already decided? The guardians argue it was to prove to the naysayers of the world that the clones had souls, that they were human. But didn't it also give them a quality of life that was better than the alternative? At the end of the day, there are no guarantees for how long and in what manner any of us live, was the Hailsham approach to cloning the best of an unpleasant scenario? Those of us that are meat eaters should consider the same things. Do we care how or in what manner our food is bred and slaughtered to feed us? We should. Banning meat consumption is not likely to happen, so the slaughterhouse is an inevitability. But the way we raise and kill this meat does matter. In the book, organ donation is a fact of the world - and for very good reasons - saving lives. But whose life is more important? Certainly the inevitability of the clones purpose should not detract from the quality of their lives, however short or long. For me, the lie saved them from a much more unpleasant reality. Their indoctrination at Hailsham enabled them to at least experience and take some pleasure from the world, precisely because they were confined and stunted.

History
We are aligned with Kath purely as the narrater of this story. We get special insight into her, but she is not my sort of bird. She doesn't stand for anything, happy to be a sheep and a pawn to stronger and more dynamic personalities (Ruth and Tommy). Although this in itself is very high-school - wanting to be liked, approved of, important to someone (if only through association). I didn't like it then, don't like it now.

It does add something to the nature/nuture conversation. The clones are raised or formed by their peers, rather than by parents or even the guradians. Real life (as opposed to 'clone life') is really just a series of events, internalised and more or less important in the eyes/heart of the person experiencing them. And what is the "real" world anyway? Their experiences are real, doesn't it make that the real world. And is the other world really seperate to them - aren't we all seperate in our own little heads anyway, regardless of the world we inhabit?

Things I did like so much
I really enjoyed Ishiguro's somewhat sparse, unsentimental and practical style of writing. It was very considered, and I enjoyed his pace - which didn't allow me to rush through or skim read.

He doesn't pander to the audience, or spell everything out for us.

Was an extremely familiar portrait of the relationship between women, or schoolfriends. That relationship that doesn't really allow you to move on. It keeps you in that way, that schoolgirl way, which is very difficult to translate into an adult relationship.

Things I didn't like so much
I felt slightly cheated by the 'and that's why I was so amazed at what happened next' technique of keeping us engaged. A little like Ishiguro is a puppet master tweaking us unnecessarily - we are already engaged, you don't have to resort to such cheap pulls! For example, "...and that's why I was so knocked off balance by what he came out with that day we walked around the field." The implication is that something concrete will be revealed, or a life-altering event will take place. Inevitably, it's not so earth shattering - it is just a conversation, a sliver of insight gained. And this is life. There are no full-stops or signposts or flashing neon or spotlights - there is just people muddling through, sharing the journey, sharing themselves.

Final Word
I'm sure there is lots more to say about this book, but I'll leave it here. It's exactly what I'm after when I see the Booker Prize shortlist 'branding' - a thoughtful and great read.

Source Code

Plot
Okay...
So, there's this guy on a train, I mean, he's in a capsule...
No, okay...so, consider the space time continuum...
Erm, Jake Gyllenhaal looks hot, even when he looks like crap...?

Re-Plot
We walked in just as the movie started - with Jake waking up in another man's body. There were credits still on the screen, so I'm hopeful that this is actually the start of the film. On a side note, if a cinema decides to not show any of the trailers and usual pre-feature crap, and actually start the movie at the start time - shouldn't there be some sort of notice for patrons?? I mean you can't just change the rules on me people!!

Re-Re-Plot
Jake, an army helicopter pilot serving in Afghanistan, wakes up in a train and discovers that he seems to be inhabiting someone else's body. The train explodes, and Jake is thrust back into his apparent reality - which is inside some sort of capsule. Vera Farmiga is his mission controller and explains that he can inhabit the body of a living person in the final eight minutes before death - as long as they share similar physique and brain chemistry. Something about 'afterglow', and that this eight minute do-dah is the Source Code - and that he must continue to relive the eight minutes (on the train, in the body of the same man) until he can discover who the bomber is - which in turn will prevent a future, more devastating attack. My god. I could go on and on explaining this. There is no way to make this concise... ugh.

The Time Travel Thing
or TTT as Stephen Hawking likes to call it.

So the mission control people, namely Jeffrey Wright as the inventor of the Source Code, believes time is a straight line, and therefore that an event which has already taken place cannot be undone or altered. The purpose of the Source Code program is to collect information to prevent future (bad) events from happening.

Jake, on the other hand, believes that time is relative to the events of the present. So that the changes he makes in the past, will necessarily affect the future. Unless I'm missing something here (and please tell me if I am), my response to this would be 'derr fred'. Doc Brown told Marty (and therefore us) decades ago that "You must not see anybody or talk to anybody. Anything you do could have serious repercussions on future events"....Back to the Future, in case mum didn't get it. I'm not sure how the terribly wooden Dr Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) could have missed that when he was inventing the Source Code - or indeed Ben Ripley when he was writing the movie?

To put it less simply, Jeffrey subscribes to the approach of classical mechanics, in which Euclidean space is treated as universal and constant, and necessarily indepedent of the state of motion of an observer. Jake, on the other hand favours a relativistic approach, where time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time. All clear then.

But okay. Like all good time travel capers, it's not really about being a painful downer who questions all the science and logic - it's about shutting up and enjoying the ride. And I did for the most part. The dilemma posed by the repetition (of the eight minute cycles) was handled in the same way as Groundhog Day - there were enough points of difference in each eight minute burst to engage us. And Jake is a handsome and heartfelt lead.

The supporting cast are also great - Michelle Monaghan as the 'distracting love interest' (Jake quips when he believes himself experiencing a simulation exercise), and Vera Farmiga as the face of the 'faceless' army division, are earnest and believable. As mentioned, Jeffrey Wright was the weakest link, but I'm probably being too harsh and he's not that weak. I certainly want to like him (as an actor, not necessarily the characters he plays).

I also enjoyed the dinginess of his capsule, and of Jake frankly, in his 'real' time scenes. Very reminiscent of Duncan Jones's first feature, Moon. On a side note, Zowie Bowie dumps all over Duncan Jones - change it back dude.

We missed Clint Mansell in the score department. Wiki says that he was unfortunately replaced by Chris Bacon due to time constraints. Which is a shame. Yet another aspect that was Hollywoodified. Big budget sound to go with the big budget special effects.

A fairly commercial and accessible movie, particularly when compared with Moon, but one I thoroughly enjoyed. My main problem was with the ending (spoiler alert! ... who am I kidding, the whole thing is a spoiler alert, I did warn you at the outset though) with Stephen, the body of the bloke Jake had been inhabiting, not returning to this body. After all, it is Stephen and not Jake that has been saved. Right?

Top 10 Movies of 2010

Is it too late for this?? Just noticed it in my draft folder and thought, publish or be damned woman!

So, these are movies that were released in Australia 2010, and also (of course) the ones I saw... difficult to review an unseen film...

1. Inception
The throbbing sound, buildings crumbling, textures changing, floating, swimming in the air, falling, killing people, running for your life - these are all common themes of my dreams (and menacing floating wooden puppet heads...yep, that one's a doozy). This made the movie incredibly relatable, as well as smart, visceral, uncomfortable, thought provoking... Leo is brilliant as always. And Nolan's direction is perfectly considered and demurely magnificent. Does that last bit make sense? I mean kinda subtle but still WOW awesome....wot eva.

2. The Road
Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant. Got a bit of the Rob Sitch's dinner party guest happening there.... (Has anyone seen The Last Days of Chez Nous. Brilliant. Brilliant. Yes. I recently saw Rocky IV. Brilliant. Brilliant?)
Erm, back to the review. Brutal, sparse, uncompromising - this is a beautiful rendition of Cormac McCarthy's book of the same name. I could just keep reeling out adjectives to describe how powerful and raw this film was. Robert Duvall was...brilliant. Sorry.

3. The Hurt Locker
Simple yet complex. Of all the war movies out there, this is one of the best. Truly conveyed the boredom, the excitement, the luck, the brutality, the camaraderie - and more importantly the impact of all of this life and death stuff on the men and women (and their families back home).

4. Fantastic Mr Fox
An adult children's film based upon the Roald Dahl classic. All the Anderson quirks and neurosis.

5. The Social Network
Subtle, well acted. Like other Fincher works, this movie is a class act.

6. Shutter Island
Liked it. Looked great, and is probably the best of the Leo/Scorcese collaborations in my opinion.

7. Avatar
All the hoopla aside, this was still a great flick. There were slight 'midi-chlorian count' problems, but basically I enjoyed the journey and the world.

8. A Single Man
I'm a bit partial to Colin Firth, and he did look pretty fine in this film. An elegant and poignant movie - heartfelt and beautiful to look at.

9. Crazy Heart
Makes the cut only just. One of the more cliched portrayals of alcholism, as well as a particularly awkward older man younger woman screen pairing. Jeff appeared clearly uncomfortable and embarrassed in his intimate scenes with Maggie ... I just don't think he's that kind of bloke.

10. Stingray Sam
I'm allowed to have one pretentious movie in here. Do yourself a favour, watch it.

Notable mentions:
Exit Through The Giftshop
What is art? and what is an artist? Clever, not too cynical ... a little cynical ... docu/mocku/fiction film.
Bran Nue Dae
Didn't see Animal Kingdom, so this has to be my Australian content. I really loved this film. It was pointed out to me not that long ago that I'm a big musical fan, something I hadn't quite joined the dots on. And on top of that, this particular musical has a bit of a sentimental place in my heart ... however all that aside, this was a really sweet and charismatic film. Ernie Dingo is fantabulous. Who knew?
Kick-Ass
Started off strong, but seemed to loose it's way.
The Town
Thought Gone Baby Gone was better. Still good though, and Jeremy Renner is awesome.
The Good Guys
Good laughs. Good times. Good guys.

Some of the worst:
The Tourist
Shithouse. In so many ways.
Up in the Air
Just crap really. George Clooney is better than this ... is he? Or he certainly makes better movies than this; Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and Good Night and Good Luck, just for starters.
Sherlock Holmes
Worst British accent ever. Downey at his ADHD worst.

The Help by Kathryn Stockett

I'm struggling with my "No Pencil Policy" with this one. I'm not sure what I want to say, or how to say it ... so here goes, before I put it off yet again...

Anything that says "bestseller" is usually something I steer clear of. If that many people liked it, it's usually the case that I won't. Which is not to say I don't try. I've read, or attempted to read, my fair share of nearly all genres of the written word (non fiction, popular fiction, science fiction, teen, romance, crime, horror, classics, literature...) and I am inevitably bored, or frustrated, or both, by popular fiction. And The Help definitely frustrated me.

The Plot
I read the book about 6 weeks or so ago, so I may be a bit sketchy on some of the details. Set in some backwater in Mississippi, it tells intersecting stories of a handful of white women, and their black servants. Basically, Skeeter is an odd-looking white woman (she can empathise - she too has unruly hair!), who is university educated and therefore uncomfortable with the relationships she witnesses between her circle of white middle class friends, and their help .... which is a very Southern and delicate way of saying "the black second class citizens who clean their homes and raise their children". She enlists the help of Aibileen - the quintisensial "help" - to write a secret book: a collection of the stories of the black women. If Scarlets' Mammy was larger than life, feisty, loyal, loving and capable - Abi is the other stereotype: even tempered, subservient, loyal, loving and capable. Not content with one stereotype, Kathryn Stockett went for the quinella - but her Mammy is called Minny. Good imagimanationing KS.

So, the good things first:
It was a page turner. Extremely consumable, and with enough investment in the characters and story to be engaged and interested in the outcome. But, I rushed through the last third of the book, eager to find out what was going to happen. And like binge eating or watching a film in fast forward, there is nothing very satisfying for me about whizzing through a book - just to get to the end. A book should show me something about the human condition, or make me think about the human condition - it's not just about the end, it's about the journey.

And now for the bad things:
My main problem is there's something a bit icky about a book written by a white women in the voice of a black woman. Vaguely cringey. I'm glad that Stockett seems to understand this in her epilogue (why oh why didn't she just write her own story - of being raised by her own Abi in Mississippi??). I think about if I were to write about being a Koori in Melbourne.... it's just not quite right. I see her trying the language, but it feels...well, wrong... "Baby girl hug on my legs all afternoon to where I bout fall over a few times." Seriously.

My copy of the book says something about "being the other side of Gone with the Wind" - but I'm not sure I saw the difference. The servants are still making colored greens, and some ol fried chicken, and whooping your ass, and any other cultural stereotype you can think of. Initially, I thought my problem was that Stockett was a white woman writing these words, but upon reflection, I think it is just the sloppy hokey-ness of this dialogue. As my book group pointed out quite rightly, fiction is about writing made-up stories, so I can't validly criticise The Help because Stockett is not an African American. It's just that she writes crap.

So on reflection I think my problem with the book was the unimaginative use of language, particularly dialogue. Which was only made bearable by the even more cliched "made for TV" story. The pace was so frenetic, with too many dead-end storylines that just muddied the already fairly murky waters of a superficial story - a miraculous cancer recovery, a boyfriend that fades away at the turn of a page. It's written in such stereotypes, with little examination of the why, it just is. Hilly is a crazy racist bitch - and that's all there is to say about that. But why? Well, just coz. It's so cliched and simplistic - and moralistic. I can't really learn anything from reading this book. It paints a consumable simplistic portrait of the shame of white middle class America, without exploring the nuances or saying something new.

To make matters worse. This is an example of the questions posted for reading groups on Stockett's website: Do you think that one can be a good mother but, at the same time, a deeply flawed person?
Erm. Can I go and play pick-up-sticks now, because my inner 6 year old child is sick of answering your dumbass questions. I mean, who is her demographic? I didn't even know people still existed who thought there was such as a thing as THE PERFECT PERSON. Newsflash: people are flawed.... even, shock horror, mothers! Except me, of course. I'm perfect, and the perfect mother. All the time. To paraphrase Brian Fantana (from Anchorman), 60% of the time, I'm perfect every time.

I don't want to go overboard because it wasn't a bad book. She just needed to excise some of the extraneous crap - one story, told well, would have made this a much more successful novel. Well, successful in that I would have enjoyed more. I'm pretty sure, being a Number 1 New York Times bestseller, and soon to be a Dreamworks movie - she could argue pretty convincingly about her "success"!

Sucker Punch

Plot
Emily Browning (Babydoll) is sent to a nut house by her evil stepfather for the accidental death of her sister after her mother died. The stepfather bribes an orderly to have her lobotamised, and in the apparent instant of the procedure we see a re imagining of Babydoll and Lennox House as a brothel. Then within that, Babydoll re imagines the quests for various apparatus required to escape the brothel as different mythic and fantastical battles. She enlists the help of other inmates/prostitutes in her endeavour. Abbie Cornish (Sweet Pea) and some other children/women (namely Donnie Darko's girlfriend and Zac Efron's ex-girlfriend) who scrub up good in knee-high socks and corsets, and more false lashes than a Liza Minnelli .... anything. Lots of lashes.

What say ye?
Well. What to say, what to say? It was pretty good. I guess it sits at the edge of the traditional Hollywood blockbuster - still commercial, but slightly more clever. Definitely better than Snyder's 300 (but perhaps still pipped by Dawn of the Dead), more fleshed out and refined. And not just the story, but his mise en scene as well.

His signature colour washed film, slo-mo action, impossibly beautiful cast, and gritty and mythical CGI are all still there. Borrowing from Peter Jackson, Zack Snyder seems to understand how to use CGI well. Hide it in a dark, moody and colour bleached palette - and voila - instant gravitas and sophistication to your movie. It is corny & hokey certainly, but the actresses are all extremely credible and strong - even if they look like schoolgirl hookers - and this prevents the film from becoming a complete caricature. He was going for something with his story and I liked that.

Umm. Did I mention the girls look pretty great? I won't go into the whole sexualisation of children here, but needless to say, I wasn't entirely comfortable with Snyder's vision of a desirable woman ... face full of make-up, pouty and demure, dressed like Shirley Temple....but there's no denying their hotness. And I guess making them masters of their own destiny helped to rectify the imbalance. However, it was definitely a man's vision/fantasy so difficult to embrace as a woman. Or maybe it's merely that it is what it is - a fringe-commercial film - so the punch will always be pulled a little.

Scream 4 - or Scre4m if you want to be pedantic

I see the poster says, "New Decade. New Rules" ... hmmm ... probably not. "New Decade. Homage to the first" might be more apt. Scream 4 pays huge dues to the original film in more ways than mere returning cast members.

1. There is lots of movie geek, I mean, movie buff flotsam floating about. This is okay if you can smirk/laugh along knowingly whilst patting yourself on the back for understanding all this self-referentialising (I'm allowed to make up words, it's in the blogger handbook). But like bloody Dawson, it gets a little trying ... less of the speaky more of the stabby please.

2. Replication of the original murders, even if they are in the movie within a movie. Scream 4 sadly peaks before the real movie starts. And from all perspectives - scares, dialogue, humour, gore.

3. Replication of plot. Even if they are nudging and winking - I've still been there, seen that. Although there was something quite comforting, and certainly less scary, to watch a "horror" film and know what is going to happen. I say "horror" in inverted commas, because it's really more of a comedy with some blood. Even Andrew's sister wanted to see it. And she is too afraid to see the Harry Potter movies. Say no more.

On this note. Surely a horror film is memorable for the manner in which the victims are slaughtered. I can't really quite remember what happened in the previous movies, nor who it was in the end. After a lengthy debate, it was finally agreed that it was Johnny Depp-lite Skeet Ulrich and the dude that plays Shaggy in Scooby Doo. But it's a horror film at the end of the day, you're not supposed to remember motivations or plot points - you really only need to remember how and in what manner the cast were killed. And I honestly couldn't tell you. Except to say, they were stabbed by Ghostface.

Any suspense was so self-referential (that word again - I can't avoid it) that it mitigated any true or visceral response. With nods to Gen Y - and everything we like to say about them - entitlement, self-absorbed, technically savvy, fame hungry, narcisitic, and even a disertation on the phenonemon of torture porn maskerading as horror. Okay we get it, but at the end of the day, you have to give me something more with your rant. The issue about 15 minutes of fame and that you don't have to do anything: 'what am I going to do - go to college and get a job' Emma Roberts sneers incredulously to Neve Campbell. I like the social media element - it doesn't happen unless someone is watching or reading ... she types into her online blog ... irony withstanding - I liked it, it was timely. But I think Scream 4 missed the mark. It just wasn't scary enough.

The Adjustment Bureau

Plot
Matt Damon is a New York Senate hopeful - young, daring, honest. He loses an unloseable election due to some ill timed stories from his past but a chance encounter with Emily Blunt - a beautiful, sassy dancer - sets him back on track. But what is his 'track'? And who decided it?

Wha Haps?
The Adjustment Bureau was certainly trying for something. It was heavily inspired by our current 1950's obsession - even casting Roger Sterling (aka John Slattery from Mad Men) as the dogmatic 'angel' trying to keep Damon on track. But it just looked at bit try-hard - not very effortless. It all makes sense now that I learn that this was an adaptation of a Philip K Dick short story. The other adaptations of his work have shared an old time feel, perhaps even a parallel world feel, rather than a past or future world. What does this mean? It means that it feels not quite right.

Matt and Emily shared a few zingy exchanges, and there was a real rapport between the two leads, certainly helped by Emily's natural ease with Matt.

I kind of lost interest, or cringed, when they started really hammering home the whole 'Chairman' shtick. We get it. God. He's the boss. Top dog, numero uno honcho, the big man, the big cheese...

Despite the clunking, clumsy, couldn't be more explicit, slide that the second half of the movie shoots down, I guess it does raise some interesting questions about fate and choice. As I said, if we take the second half of the movie out of the equation (and please, lets) and just stick with the questions (and not the pathetic answers) the main question is: what real power do we have over our own lives? Are our 'choices' and our sense of control merely an intellectual attempt to order the true chaos? Are we just getting to pick the pencil colour, and someone/something else is drawing the picture?

Well, you'll get no answer to these issues from this movie. It's just God all along! Silly billy - it is your density. I mean your destiny.

Even more than that, the whole concept seems to be that true love, or basically just a talented woman on equal footing, prevents a real man from reaching his true potential. As if potential is a finite thing, and if you give some to your woman, then you're screwed for giving your all to your job. The old sex before a big game saps your strength routine... don't really buy into this. As far as I'm concerned, significent adult relationships can only make you a better, more well rounded individual. And one who is going to be better at their job.

Now go check your midichlorian count - there could be greatness in your future!

International Women's Day - 8 March ... and a dirty word called feminism

Today is International Women's Day. Never heard of this day before, but a quick perusal of Wiki (...that amounts to factual research... right?!?) tells me that it marks a celebration of womens economic, political and social achievements. I've been talking with a lot of people lately about reverse feminism, so today seems like the perfect time to start the conversation.

Feminism is not a dirty word
This is an issue close to my heart. I am a feminist. Many people are confronted by that word. I'm not sure why or how this happened - but it was happening when I was growing up. People would say, 'of course, I believe in equal pay....but I'm not (da da daaaah... dramatic horror reveal....) a feminist'. Feminists are perceived as angry, confrontational, extremist, ugly, aggressive, hard - and often by other women. When really all feminism is about is valuing women - not about making them the same as men - and about the quest for women to have choices. To vote, to earn money, to conceive, to wear the clothes they choose, to choose ... anything. You get the drift. Choice is the by-product of education. From there, it is a matter of access. And with education, comes access.

Simply put:
Men hate feminists because they are perceived as a direct threat to them: their positions, their power, their money. And women hate feminists because (well, heterosexual women) they want to be desired by men.

Any woman growing up in this country is a feminist by default....free from persecution and assault, they can wear what they want, marry who they want, go to university, go on the pill. So to bite the hand that fed them is pretty repulsive and inexcusable to me.

Let's go back to desire. People - men and women - think they want women to look good, and keep a nice and neat home. Those things are good, sure. Except that this actually isn't what men want. Who men gravitate towards, who men talk to at a party - is the woman who can talk back, who can contribute. Even Cosmo and Dolly know that!

I've heard men and women say recently that things were easier when women had less choices, when they knew what was required of them. The choices of the modern woman are a burden, they say. EXPLETIVE!!! So so so wrong. Wrong in a thousand ways. Try telling a modern woman that she can't work when she gets married (or have sex before marriage for that matter), or use contraception - in fact, tell her to hand back all her clothes and handbags, because now she gets whatever allowance her husband chooses to give her, tell her to expect a smack in the face if dinner isn't hot or to her husbands liking, tell her she must stay with abusive, cheating men... ugh. A little thing called the Stolen Generation? A little thing called Slavery? No no no ... choices are never a burden.

Women have the same rights as men
Well, they don't. The statistics about wages, about senior management, boards - all give evidence to the fact that we are not 'equal'. But more than that, it's not about saying women are the same as men. We are not. It is about finding and placing value on what it is that women offer: a female perspective.

The major problem is that women have children. This involves time away from a career - whether it be to only birth the child, or to take time off to do some raising of said child. This obviously impacts on career progression. And whatever way you look at it, you can't have it all (work full time, and raise your children full time).

We really need to shift the way we work. With the advent of the internet and mobile communications, we are truely operating in a global community. Business hours don't mean a lot to most of the workforce that I know. People are working longer and harder and for less money than ever before. None of this supports raising children. There aren't a lot of flexible work arrangements - and this means that the business world loses the voice and input of a whole demographic, and an extrememly valuable one.... women with children!

If you want bottom line, businesses make more money when staff are happy. They can get happy by working productively, but in more unconventional ways. This is true for both men and women. This might mean working part-time/job sharing, working from home, having breaks away from the desk, working outside normal business hours.

But the best person should get the job
I agree. Currently they don't. It's about the old boys club, but it's also about diversifying the criteria to redress gender inequality.

Part of this problem has got to be how we hire people (or is this a diversion?). Anyhoo, what's with outsourcing human resources (in fact, what's with human resources full stop), and all this psychometric testing. You should be able to meet someone and ask them questions - and either employ them or not. That's what 3 month probabations are for - to rectify any mistakes. I've been employed by companies who have gone through staff like printer ink (we used to go through a lot of printer ink....). My problem is - who was interviewing these people? Who was determining their fit for the company? It took me about 5 minutes to see that it wasn't going to work. I know what you're going to say, "but you're a genius"- and yes, you're right ... but even a lesser mortal could have seen the uselessness of these appointments...

Images of women
Cyndi Lauper said in a recent interview, "If you think chauvinism has gone away, you're out of your mind. It's more sexist now than ever. It comes in waves, and now we're back to the dark ages". She goes on to talk about the misogyny of the music industry, particularly in lyrics and video clips. The sexualised woman is nothing new, but what is slightly distrurbing is the sexualised child (Miley Cyrus, Justin Beiber, Twilight). In the 80's and 90's, it seemed that woman reclaimed their power, their sexuality. Now in the 00's we seem to have handed these things back to men - on a chained up, fetishised plate.

Final word
I'm sorry if this has been a bit all over the place. I'm passionate about this, and have lots of thoughts on the matter, so they might not be as coherant or well thought out as they could be. I have to hope that things will change, and hopefully quickly, because it's extremely demoralising to realise that your (out of paid work child rearing) skills are not recogonised or valued by the 'traditional' workplace.

127 Days

Sometimes you see a film or read a book, and there's just not much to say about it. It just is. 127 Days was a bit like this for me. But here goes....

Synopsis
The film recounts the true story of what happened to keen mountaineer Aron Ralston after his arm becomes trapped by a boulder in Canyonlands National Park in Utah. 127 hours is the amount of time he is held hostage by the rock, before breaking his own arm and severing his flesh with a blunt multi-tool. He makes it - but you already knew that.

Em says...
I'm not a fan of non fiction. There's something limiting about how and in what ways I, as the audience, can interact with a true story. Fiction allows me to imagine and interpret in ways that a biography can't. I believe we get more insight into humanity when we take the 'truth' out of the equation. With someone's real story, what I think or have to say about it becomes redundant.

With that in mind, I appreciate that Danny Boyle fought hard to convince Aron that his part should be played by an actor (the awesome James Franco). Boyle understands that the audience can be engaged in a different way - perhaps in a more intense way - if we understand that this is a movie. That these are actors. That this isn't really happening. Smart move. Touching the Void and Into Thin Air were such successful documentary films that I don't think another re enactment doco-style product would have been as successful.

This has the unmistakable look (and soundtrack) of a Boyle film - flipping between frantic ADHD to calming and trance-like. It's a good film: showy, but still humble and low-key (is that possible?). I mean, it looks good and he does some nifty tricks with the camera, but it never feels incongruous. The film-making and use of effects compliment the plot, instead of fighting against it like some other big-budget films.

James Franco was brilliant as Aron - totally believable as this driven loner (is that a mounteneering pre-requisite?). I loved the interplay of the reality with his hallucinations - particularly the torrential downpour and his escape....as a committed 'magic' thinker, I totally related. Or 'related' insofar as anyone can relate having never had to cut their own arm off.

And about that, I felt a duty to watch him cutting his arm off - albeit through splayed fingers. I felt I owed Aron, or the actor playing Aron, that at least I should bear witness. The ear shattering jar of his nerves being snapped - sends a shiver up my spine remembering it.

That it takes these loner types to be dragging their broken body out of a crevasse or cutting their own arm off to realise that life is about sharing the journey with people - your family, your friends - and that they provide the value and worth ... that's perhaps the most interesting question. I mean, it's not like they got on the tram and saw a mother with her baby, and thought, 'oh, yes, family is special'. But I suppose that makes for a pretty boring movie. And probably a pretty boring life if you all ever did was get on and off trams.

Verdict
Simple story dynamically told.

Why do people hate Betty Draper?

For all the talk about Mad Men - the duplicitous and daper Don/Dick, the return of a curvacous female body to our screens in the form of Joan (Christina Hendricks is a former model, might I add....still pretty unattainably stunning for an 'attainable' representation of women...!), the fashion, the nostalgia for a by-gone era - there is one conversation that irks me. Why does everyone hate Betty Draper? Don's icy, sad, beautiful caged bird of an (ex)wife. Ultimately, it is her treatment of her children that has everyone up in arms.

Betty is not always nice to her children. But why are we so hard on her about this? Being anything less than an adoring and doting mother seems abhorrent to many people - mostly women. Where is our loyalty, where is our understanding and compassion? I can empathise with Betty, and see her parenting as an inevitable product of the following:

Firstly Betty is from a wealthy middle class family, she is university educated, she has travelled the world, she has earned an independant living as a succesful model. Yet, she is supposed to be miraculously fulfilled by childrearing in the suburbs - alone, unsuported, devalued and trivialised.

Secondly, Don and the other Mad(ison Avenue Advertising) Men - are responsible for her shackles. They invented the mythology of the contented housewife, ostensibly to sell products, but also to protect their turf - to keep women at home, out of the workforce, and distracted with the attainment of a perpetually unattainable lifestyle. With womens' time, energy and brain power thus occupied - they are unable to focus on pursuits like entering, and working their way up, the workforce.

Thirdly, we are talking about 60's America. Betty is a first-wave feminist - in some ways. She is sad but doesn't quite have the insight to understand what her sadness is about. It is about the lie she was sold by her own mother. That looking good was the only important thing - then the husband, house and children all follow. But do they in themselves provide fulfillment or happiness? It turns out they do not. The husband cheats, the suburb is tedious, child rearing is relentless and thankless.

Of course, I feel bad for little Bobby and Sally, they are treated as inconveniences, they experience little warmth from their parents - but blaming, and hating, Betty for this is a bit like blaming the victim. Betty rears her children they way she was raised, and she has improved upon it. Just as her daughter will probably go on to do the same thing. Getting a divorce from her misogynist husband was a pretty gutsy and progressive step.

People just want Bets to be nicer to her kids. They say, "Yeah, but...(she could be a better parent)". My final question is: What is a better parent? There are specific instances we could pick apart of Betty's treatment of her kids, but I could pick apart nearly everyone I know's treatment of their kids (and they could of mine). Who is to say what is valid maternal love? I know people who hug and kiss, but who have no honesty or emotional intimacy with their children...

So, I don't hate Betty Draper. I love her more - she deserves more of our love and compassion - not less.

The King's Speech

So, as part of my new no-pencil, laissez-faire approach to writing, the mistakes I spotted in my last post I must leave and move on (synposis anyone?). However, perhaps a spell check wouldn't go astray ... and ditch the funny post titles. Although I did have a good one for Black Swan .... Hommus! And now you see why it's probably best for everyone if I just stick to the actual names of things.

I was wrong, it wasn't my last visit to the crying room. This time, Andrew and I took Ave to see The King's Speech. Who I am kidding, I'll probably be trying to take Ave to movies for months to come.

Synopsis
Soon-to-be King George VI (Colin Firth) is the awkward, knock-kneed, left-handed, stuttering second child of King George V. When his brother abdicates to marry a divorced American (he wot?!), Firth ascends the throne and must deliver a speech to his people concerning the imminent war with Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Opps, forgot to mention the actual story... Two middle aged blokes - one an Aussie, the other a Prince - develop a lasting friendship when the Aussie fixes the Brits crippling stutter. Geoffrey Rush stars as Lionel Logue (seriously - you couldn't make this shit up), the Aussie speech therapist.

What did you think about the movie, Em?
I'm glad you asked. I thought it was a lovely movie. A simple story that was beautifully executed via effortless acting, and easy-on-the-eye directing. Classy. Rush and Firth conveyed an engaging chemistry and believability, and they were beautifully bolstered by all the supporting players. It was an understated film, which is exactly as it needed to be.

The story was as much an insight into the particular conundrums posed by a Royal (do I need to Capitalise this? Seems to be a continuing problem for me...) life, as it was the developing relationship between the two leads - stubborn, angry and defensive against cheeky, patient and encouraging. It was particularly interesting for the context of what the Royal family has now become. This was the beginning of the media (or a new incarnation of it) and it's powerful influence on public perception.

Like The Queen, it plays more on the similarities between the Royals and the rest of us, rather than the differences. At the end of the day, we are all people - in this case, a father, brother, son, husband - negotiating familial responsibility with our professional duties. And unlike The Young Victoria this movie is actually worth watching. Emily Blunt is pretty nice looking, but I'm not sure 2 hours of her in slo-mo wearing costumes actually constitutes a movie?

Sorry, back to this movie. Can a stereotype be subtle? Certainly Rush is a straight talking, loyal, somewhat laconic sort of fellow - treating, and ribbing, Firth as an equal. While Firth is for his part stuffy, defensive and priggish - with this cold exterior melting under Rush's open warmth and honesty. Same old, same old ... but not quite. There is subtlety in their rendering of these 'types'. I put this down to the no-nonsense way the film was directed, allowing the actors to relate together within their rather defined characters, without any winks or nudges to the audience. There is a real, and easy, chemistry between the leads.

I certainly felt the burden of the monarchy - his daughters curtsying to him after his coronation as opposed to rolling on the floor hugging and kissing before bedtime (I did say it was subtle, right?!), and also knowing the context of his eldest little girl - who herself takes the throne at age 25. But do I buy into this? The whole woe is me of the Royal family - conveying them as real people with real problems. It's a little "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." ... or "you keep trying to tell us how difficult and stressful your job is, but we still don't know what you actually do (or why we should care, & why you get paid a fortune?)".

I do understand what they are trying to communicate (we're all people, as I said earlier). And I definitely understand the cult of celebrity. Does a person only exist if they can be seen or heard? Does the tree only make a sound if felled in a magazine pictorial (or in this instance, does the King only have a voice - or matter - if he can be heard on the radio?). Hmm, interesting...

Trivia
Jennifer Ehle played Myrtle Logue, the wife of Lionel. Not only does she do a great Aussie accent, but ... well ... it's Elizabeth Bennet!!! Mr Darcy and Miss Bennet (BBC TV Miniseries Pride and Prejudice) - together again! I'm a sucker for this sort of stuff. And did you know that Col and Jen (we're good mates) used to go out together?! You know, going steady. Awesome.

No Brain, I mean Strings, Attached

Synposis
Natalie and Ashton decide they'll be friends with benefits (sex partners, without the relationship part), mainly because Natalie is a high-achieving commitment phobe. She realises this is a crummy way to go through life, and to my utter amazement and shock .... they finally decide they'll actually be a couple and go out together. Truely genre-bending.

What I thought
This may be the last time I can go to the crying room at Victoria Gardens, Ave is getting a bit too old to be cuddled or breastfed to sleep, and unfortunately this was the only thing showing...

I'm not sure about Natalie Portman as a rom-com lead, even if she is playing a (believable) Doctor. She is very straight. She doesn't really 'do' emotions or exhuberance - she keeps everything in check. And even though these were traits of the character she was playing, they also seem to be her own traits. Ashton Kutcher seems to be playing himself - a slightly thick, handsome guy, with about as much charisma as a piece of cardboard. I get the feeling he thinks he's totally hot, which makes him (for me anyway) totally not...

A rom-com is always going to be predictable. But this was beyond predictable. It was boring. I think a good rom-com has to have some sort of larger than life characters - and these guys are just so tediously normal. Think Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant, Drew Barrymore - even Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey ("alright, alright, alright") though I'm loathe to admit it - these guys are all 'more', not less. It kind of doesn't work if you aren't 'over emoting'. It is a pretty fine line to balance though - go watch any JLo or Cameron Diaz movie - and you will see how over emoting can go horribly wrong.... The Wedding Planner, What Happens in Vegas.... say no more.

Cons
Trying a bit too hard with the whole 'wacky' friend routine. It's like they decided to go with all the wacky friends, instead of just committing to one good solid wack-job - like Philip Seymour Hoffman in Along Came Polly.

Zero charisma between the 'opposites attract' leads.

Pros
It was pretty awesome to see Cary Elwes (Wesley from The Princess Bride) pop up as a Doctor in the hospital where Nat works. Now he's hot.

Black Swan

So, you guessed it. This review is about The King's Speech. Only joking.

Synopsis
Natalie Portman is a member of a New York ballet company. She lives at home with her somewhat controlling mother - herself a former ballerina. Natalie is cast by Vincent Cassel as the lead in Swan Lake, a role that requires her to play both the White (pure), and the Black (sensual), Swan. As she rehearses, and is pushed by Vincent to lose herself in the part, and also comes to grips with her possible usurpment by Mila Kunis, and her overbearing mother, her psychotic episodes and hallucinations increase. The film culminates with Natalie pushed over the edge of sanity. Does sanity have an edge? Whatever. She goes crazy.

Analysis
As you would expect from an Aronofsky film, this is a beautiful and intelligent whole film. I say 'whole' because as much care is taken with the score (Tchaikovsky beautifully reinterpreted by Clint Mansell), the costuming, the cast, the lighting, the sound design.... each piece is as vital to the film as what he frames and how he shoots it.

This is no new story. A young woman with talent is brought under the wing of an exacting/controlling/charismatic/experienced ....usually all of the above.... man who challenges her to extend herself. He pushes. She is pushed. Her professional achievement or breakthrough inevitably results in her personal destruction - in a true Hollywood movie, it may only be momentary destruction, before the resolved and happy ending. The Red Shoes, Million Dollar Baby, My Fair Lady, Romeo & Juliet, Pretty Woman, The Phantom of the Opera, nearly every movie ever made, etc. Okay, so maybe it's a bit much, to reduce the output of an entire industry into such a simplistic synopsis. But it is certainly a theme of film, of all art really. More philosophically, that fulfillment is in the yearning and the striving, and in the 'having' lies the destruction of that which was yearned for/strived for. It has become tarnished and no longer pure or perfect.

Perfection and the attainment of it, is certainly an instrinsic theme of the Black Swan. Vincent has a conversation with Natalie at the start of the film, explaining why she wouldn't get the part (and hasn't got parts in the past) something along the lines of 'nothing is perfect or you can't be perfect'. And Natalie's last words are 'I was, or it was? perfect'. Furthermore, ballet is certainly the embodiment of perfection, bodies doing physically superhuman things under the guise of ease and grace. Ballet is fundamentally a dichotomous world.

My main issue is, is there a way to reimagine the story of girls becoming women, of sexual awakening, of women becoming themselves that doesn't involve death and destruction of the newly awakened woman?? Perhaps not. Perhaps it is like wanting the Titanic not to sink at the end. Perhaps what makes these stories so timeless, is that intrinsically, regardless of social or political movements and modes of thinking, the world continues to see virginal women as pure, and the sexualised woman as destroyed and broken.

Perhaps also it is the women pushing Natalie - her mother, and Lily her competition? But pulling the strings behind these relationships is the somewhat fatherly (albeit an incestuous father) relationship with the artistic director. Where is her father and what of him? Is it the lack of men in her life that has resulted in a such an emotionally stunted woman.

In the case of Black Swan, is it Vincent or Mila who drives Natalie to the inevitable conclusion? I see Lily as more of an enabling vessel - through her, Nina is able to become herself - but it is Thomas who she 'becomes herself' for. Him that she fears is in a relationship with Lily, him that she kisses exhultantly as the Black Swan.

Also, a few people have talked about whether she really died in the end. I think she did. I don't believe there were any 'twists' as such - I think it was a fairly clear parallel story (with Swan Lake). I also think her madness was played out in a very literal way...she scratches her back (self harms), she breaks her mothers fingers in the door, she sees her rival in a romantic clinch, she sees Winona as a broken and nothing woman, she looks in the mirror and sees herself as the Black Swan...

And Finally:
These are some of the things that make this a great film for me:
The somewhat sea-sicky handheld lurking over Natalie's shoulder - rather than a POV, it is perhaps the POV of Nina's black swan waiting to emerge? Swirling with her as she dances. The camera work communicates a truly visceral mood of foreboding, of tension.

The incredible sound design - her rosined pointe shoes on stage, her measured breathing as she exerts herself. Behind the scenes of the effortless ballet!

The performance of Barbara Hershey - controlling and overbearing, or loving and protective? ... and obviously Natalie Portman is incredible.

More Ground Rules - NO PENCIL

Okay - so I'll never hit the 'publish post' button to anything if I continue down this all too familiar path... it's the "scared of failure" path, or in my world, the "do your homework in pencil" path.

Let me explain. All through school I would do my homework in pencil. I told myself that I could always rub it out, nothing was permanent, I was making no mistakes - because, 'what this? this was just my rough copy, my first try, my draft'. Except it wasn't any of those things. It was either slapped together the night before, or 2 months late - but either way, it was it. Pencil or no pencil. So I guess the first issue is, I'm not fooling anybody - what you produce is what you produce, put it out there and let it be. I definitely need to consciously work on the second issue, which would be that there are no bad ideas and that 'perfection' (whatever that means?) is unattainable.

Let me apologise for the somewhat excessive use of talking marks. And for that matter, dashes, ellipsis, commas, brackets, strokes - look, I just use a lot of punctuation, okay? and preferably in the one sentence if I can...

Abridged Rules:
1. Write it then post it.
2. Beware of spoilers, and an overabundance of punctuation.

Welcome

I have re-entered the world of internet brain farting, inspired by my sister in law's awesome blog theclosetdiet.blogspot.com. But what is my schtick, I hear you ask? Well, I will be reviewing anything and everything - movies, books, TV shows...

But first, some ground rules. Well there's just one. Prepare to be spoiled. No, I won't be buying you chocolates and roses - but I will be discussing plot, and potentially even giving away endings. Personally, I hate having an experience - going to a gallery, watching a movie, reading a book - wrecked, destroyed or otherwise utterly spoiled by some know-it-all who lets slip about details of said experienced. However benign these 'slips' might seem - they lodge there in my brain. Before I know it, I have completely written the experience in my mind. I like to have as little information as possible beforehand, I don't want anything interfering or exerting an influence over my interaction with the film or whatever. That said, I devour reviews after the event. And that is what I intend this to be - the conversation you have after the movie/book/ whatever has been seen.

So, sit back, relax and enjoy - and let me Emtertain you. Or rather, other people will entertain you.... and then I'll just rain on their parade, I mean, review it.