Marni Newell
Arts Journalism: Marin Heinritz
3/16/09
After the all the male staff members of CollegeHumor hire interns who are “hot”—that is, slim, long-haired, and tightly clothed—instead of qualified to work at a website, the men find themselves doing all of their work plus running errands for the interns. So begins both the hilarity and the gender stereotypes of CollegeHumor’s second episode that aired on MTV in late February.
A few scenes after hiring the “hot girls,” three of the men are gathered in a stock room looking for a three-hole-punch and an ink cartridge when they hear footsteps.
“Quiet, I hear a hot girl coming!” one shouts, and they all lean against the shelves stiffly in an effort to look cool and non-chalant. When their female coworker Sarah Schneider walks in, they all bust out laughing. Confused, she laughs and asks what they’re laughing about.
“We thought you were a hot girl,” one of the men answers and Schneider’s smile vanishes
This is just the beginning of jabs at Schneider’s looks in comparison with the interns along with the failed efforts of the men at the office to strike up a conversation with the “hot girls.”
When one lanky male employee, Patrick Cassels, wants to work up the courage to talk to his intern, he solicits the help of stout coworker Sam Reich to play the part of the intern while he fumbles out a conversation. Even the simulation ends badly, however, and an irritated Reich, still impersonating an intern, returns to texting instead of listening to Cassels.
With that, it’s evident the CollegeHumor show is making fun of more than just Shchneider and playing with more than just the ridiculous standards to which women are held. Unfortunately, as shown by a comment by MTV.com user “freduardo,” it goes over some of the veiwers’ heads. Under the video of the second episode, “freduardo” writes, “WTF happened to the days when ‘hot girls’ had to have boobs?” Apparently, the slim “hot girls” CollegeHumor hired weren’t hot enough.
In the end, when all laptops are closed and packed up, it’s the images of “hot girls” and not the jokes about the guys that have a lasting effect.
Not surprising, perhaps, to anyone who’s been to the CollegeHumor website. With a click of the mouse one can access an entire page dedicated to “girls” which has every “Cute College Girl of the Day” for the last few months. These user-submitted photos show mostly young college women in bikinis or making pouty faces hid behind long hair and skin tinted orange from product or tanning booths. Next to these photos, there is a short interview asking sometimes-condescending questions to make the women even more of an object.
Cosmopolitan.com shows an interesting contrast to this. The site—devoted mostly to women—also has a drop-down menu specifically labeled “hot guys.” There, women can compare boyfriend pictures, check out the Cosmo bachelors, and scan through naked pictures of muscular men. However, the overall feeling of these pages is starkly different—down to the chef-themed nude photos of men. Even with their personal bits blocked by mixing bowls and aprons, the men are smiling and laughing instead of sporting the “sexy” gaping-mouthed and pouty-lipped look the women on CollegeHumor do. Not to mention the rest of the site, as well as the magazine, is almost entirely dedicated to ways to “please” men intimately as well as toning and weight loss tips for women.
Why, then, do women play into unhealthy situations like CollegeHumor’s search for the “Hottest College Girl in America” (they’ve narrowed it down to 64 and are awaiting user votes) and, by extension, society’s impossible standards of physical beauty? The answer is subjective, a grab-bag of insecurities: a need for acceptance, low self-esteem, because Billy Princeton called you “braceface” in middle school, the list goes on.
So, why is CollegeHumor so popular, starting off with just a stupid website and working its way up to a television show? The answer to that, is simple: because it’s funny.
The ugly truth of the nearly impossible standards women are held to by most college men—tiny waists and large breasts—is easier to swallow when it comes as a joke.
When the Phantom of the Office—an employee with a top hat, mask, and operatic voice—is a guest on Bleep Bloop, CollegeHumor’s short videos about current videogames he lists off his favorite childhood games in his melodramatic vibrato, “Hoop stick, drown the cat, drown the rat, caged rat, bald rat, I liked Beat the Greek, Hobble the Goat, oh, and Frogger.” His stupidity makes up for his earlier sexist comment when he tells Schneider to “ask her thighs” why he gave her Diet Mountain Dew instead of regular.
Moments of pure humor without nearly-exposed breasts and glamour shots of women hoping to be named “cute” by these very average-looking CollegeHumor employees shine through on the website and in the television show. Amidst videos entitled “POV: Hot Girl. Get inside her. Deep inside her,” are videos like “Sarah’s Birthday” which show the men of the office forgetting the words and the tune to the birthday song. They each give their attempt at remembering it after one of the men says “I’m thinking the first word isn’t ‘happy.’” What ensues are, “Birthday, birthday candles on your cake,” and “You’re older than you were before sha na na na” before they all break out in a barbershop rendition of “Baby, it’s your birthday” that leaves Schneider in angry tears. After she storms out, claiming they’ve ruined her birthday, they all gather and sing their barbershop version together as an entire office, and the last scene shows Schneider, her arms crossed, wearing a birthday party hat and grimacing.
Even if CollegeHumor showcases women attempting to fit ridiculous standards of beauty and the average-looking men who are trying to enforce the standards, it also produces videos goofy enough to laugh at. Currently, the habit of scrutinizing women’s bodies is generally accepted as normal and websites like CollegeHumor are part of a vast collection of men objectifying women. Fortunately, there’s a bigger habit, one that has been popular since before the internet and will still be around long after which somehow eases the pain of the insults and distracts from the constant comparisons to women with “hot” bodies and that is, simply but powerfully, the desire to laugh.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Whatever, it's funny
I know this was supposed to be an article, and I'm sure I can find an article about women and how they're not as hot as they used to be or some BS like that, but I feel you all should know how funny CollegeHumor can be.
Also, before I get to that, have you heard of Jocelyn Wildenstein? Check this out, although I agree with some of what Lionel says, his tone as altogether too accusatory and deprecating toward women. After all, why do women get plastic surgery? I don't think it's to look good for other women, but maybe I'm wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1609D9jr7-w
Ok, but now for some hi-larious stuff, here's an original video from colleghumor that I've watched too many times to admit. It still makes me giggle.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1901719
Sadly, it was hard to find one that didn't make fun of girls in some way. Whatever.
Also, before I get to that, have you heard of Jocelyn Wildenstein? Check this out, although I agree with some of what Lionel says, his tone as altogether too accusatory and deprecating toward women. After all, why do women get plastic surgery? I don't think it's to look good for other women, but maybe I'm wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1609D9jr7-w
Ok, but now for some hi-larious stuff, here's an original video from colleghumor that I've watched too many times to admit. It still makes me giggle.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1901719
Sadly, it was hard to find one that didn't make fun of girls in some way. Whatever.
Monday, March 2, 2009
CollegeHumor Final
Marni Newell
Arts Journalism Final
CollegeHumor
3/1/09
After a coworker hires a skinny, long-haired, tight-clothed intern to help him with extra office work, his colleges set out to find their own intern.
“The interns we hire should be skinny,” the short, pale one says.
“But not too skinny,” his equally pale bespectacled coworker adds.
“Just super hot,” the last closest-to-handsome coworker adds.
So begins the infiltration of the “hot” female interns to the offices in Mtv’s CollegeHumor Show’s second episode. Eventually, these skinny, long haired text-fiends overrun the working space, leaving the male workers shut up in walled offices, scared to emerge. The running joke of the episode, beside the unsuccessful attempts of the men to talk with any of the “hot girls,” is senior writer Sarah Schneider’s—the only woman in the workplace, and of average build and self-described “Holly Hunter thing going on”--attempts to show her coworkers how useless the “hot” interns are and the jabs at her image that ensue.
At one point, three men are in the stock room looking for a three-hole-punch and printer ink when they hear footsteps. “Quiet, I hear a hot girl coming!” one shouts, and they all lean against the shelves pretending to be cool but when Sarah walks in they burst in laughter. Confused, she laughs, too, and asks what’s so funny.
“We thought you were a hot girl,” one says. She stops laughing and points out how they’re doing the work the interns should be doing.
“Oh my G,” one says, as if it hits him, but he says instead, “You’re so jealous!”
The rest of the 30-minute show has countless nearly-identical jabs at Schneider and more instances of the male CollegeHumor writers doing both their jobs and the “hot” interns bidding while the women sit in their boss’ chairs and lick lollipops or text friends.
Before they had a regular spot on Mtv, CollegeHumor.com found a loyal audience with popular original videos featuring reoccurring characters like Jake and Amir, a straight man-funny man relationship reminiscent of Abbot and Costello but contemporary, and the Phantom of the Office, an office worker not much different than most, but with a mask, top hat, and operatic voice.
Perhaps that’s why the television series comprised of a compilation of already filmed original videos and a new scripted narrative of life at the CollegeHumor offices seemed so jarring as it continuously mocked Schneider’s appearance in all three episodes; just perusing the most-watched videos of CollegHumor.com could result in stupid-humor that had little to do with women’s appearance.
That’s not to say that the website is free from the exploitative user-submitted photos of college women in bikinis with their mouths hanging open to be named “Cute College Girl of the Day” or videos entitled “POV: Hot Girl. Get inside her. Deep inside her,” but the videos that don’t include bouncing breasts and shower scenes are funny, actually funny and have no hint of sexuality.
In one video, the men of CollegeHumor present Schneider with a birthday cake and attempt to sing “happy birthday,” but they have all forgotten the tune and the words. They each proceed in giving their version of the birthday song which includes, “Birthday, birthday candles on your cake,” and “You’re older than you were before sha na na na” as Schneider waits angrily for the actual birthday song. They end in a pseudo-barbershop rendition of “Baby it’s your birthday” with one of the men playing a keyboard. Although Schneider is upset, claiming their bad memory has ruined her birthday, the rest of the office gathers to sing and dance to this new song and the end shot is of Schneider grimacing in a cardboard party hat with her arms crossed.
Short videos like this one are put at the beginning and ends of each episode, but the episodes are also interrupted by ads for the new movie Miss March, about a high school girlfriend “a solid seven” according to one of the characters, who grows up to be a Playboy Bunny. “Do you think she’s still a virgin?” her ex-boyfriend asks his friend who’s peering closely at a picture in Playboy, “Nope, I’m afraid not.”
The saddest part of the series is the viewer comments of each episode on Mtv’s website. The comment at the top of the board for the episode “Interns” says, “WTF happened to the days when ‘hot girls’ actually had to have boobs?” According to “freduardo” who posted this, the “hot girls” CollegeHumor found weren’t actually hot enough, which begs the question, what exactly does it take for a woman to be attractive? The episode had enough painful moments of the men of the office attempting conversation with the “hot girls” to make the point clear that they weren’t “hot” enough men for the women, but, thanks to “freduardo” the “narrow definitions of beauty” as Schneider called them keep getting narrower. All the while, college women are taking flattering, or in some cases just hypersexual, photos of themselves in an effort to be named by these gawky, pale, unattractive men as one of the “Cute College Girls of the Day.”
In the March 2008 issue of Glamour, Gabriel Olds wrote an article about the women he’s dated who have had surgical enhancements and his reactions to them. After relaying awkward epiphanies of his partners’ breast augmentations and rhinoplasty, Olds decided the “surgical enhancements” were a sign of insecurity, “it didn’t seem like a celebration of beauty, but a scrambling attempt to fix something...It was as if something purchased to say, ‘Hey, check me out’ actually said, ‘I don’t like myself very much’” The article tried to spin this as positive by generalizing that all men want natural beauty, but the quoted men at the end of the article are counterproductive. Lee Cohen from Portland said, “I love the way fake breasts look—they’re a turn-on. But I couldn’t see myself getting involved with someone who’d go through that just to turn into a fantasy.” There you have it, women should be stick thin with large busts, but it needs to be natural or no dice. It’s all becoming so clear and manageable now.
Gabriel Olds is a semi-attractive, slightly chubby, very average-looking man as are the men at CollegeHumor, and probably all the men quoted at the end of the article yet these are the makers and enforcers of women beauty standards. Put as bluntly as this, the power seems to be in the hands of women now, why do they submit to these judgmental and unrealistic standards?
Arts Journalism Final
CollegeHumor
3/1/09
After a coworker hires a skinny, long-haired, tight-clothed intern to help him with extra office work, his colleges set out to find their own intern.
“The interns we hire should be skinny,” the short, pale one says.
“But not too skinny,” his equally pale bespectacled coworker adds.
“Just super hot,” the last closest-to-handsome coworker adds.
So begins the infiltration of the “hot” female interns to the offices in Mtv’s CollegeHumor Show’s second episode. Eventually, these skinny, long haired text-fiends overrun the working space, leaving the male workers shut up in walled offices, scared to emerge. The running joke of the episode, beside the unsuccessful attempts of the men to talk with any of the “hot girls,” is senior writer Sarah Schneider’s—the only woman in the workplace, and of average build and self-described “Holly Hunter thing going on”--attempts to show her coworkers how useless the “hot” interns are and the jabs at her image that ensue.
At one point, three men are in the stock room looking for a three-hole-punch and printer ink when they hear footsteps. “Quiet, I hear a hot girl coming!” one shouts, and they all lean against the shelves pretending to be cool but when Sarah walks in they burst in laughter. Confused, she laughs, too, and asks what’s so funny.
“We thought you were a hot girl,” one says. She stops laughing and points out how they’re doing the work the interns should be doing.
“Oh my G,” one says, as if it hits him, but he says instead, “You’re so jealous!”
The rest of the 30-minute show has countless nearly-identical jabs at Schneider and more instances of the male CollegeHumor writers doing both their jobs and the “hot” interns bidding while the women sit in their boss’ chairs and lick lollipops or text friends.
Before they had a regular spot on Mtv, CollegeHumor.com found a loyal audience with popular original videos featuring reoccurring characters like Jake and Amir, a straight man-funny man relationship reminiscent of Abbot and Costello but contemporary, and the Phantom of the Office, an office worker not much different than most, but with a mask, top hat, and operatic voice.
Perhaps that’s why the television series comprised of a compilation of already filmed original videos and a new scripted narrative of life at the CollegeHumor offices seemed so jarring as it continuously mocked Schneider’s appearance in all three episodes; just perusing the most-watched videos of CollegHumor.com could result in stupid-humor that had little to do with women’s appearance.
That’s not to say that the website is free from the exploitative user-submitted photos of college women in bikinis with their mouths hanging open to be named “Cute College Girl of the Day” or videos entitled “POV: Hot Girl. Get inside her. Deep inside her,” but the videos that don’t include bouncing breasts and shower scenes are funny, actually funny and have no hint of sexuality.
In one video, the men of CollegeHumor present Schneider with a birthday cake and attempt to sing “happy birthday,” but they have all forgotten the tune and the words. They each proceed in giving their version of the birthday song which includes, “Birthday, birthday candles on your cake,” and “You’re older than you were before sha na na na” as Schneider waits angrily for the actual birthday song. They end in a pseudo-barbershop rendition of “Baby it’s your birthday” with one of the men playing a keyboard. Although Schneider is upset, claiming their bad memory has ruined her birthday, the rest of the office gathers to sing and dance to this new song and the end shot is of Schneider grimacing in a cardboard party hat with her arms crossed.
Short videos like this one are put at the beginning and ends of each episode, but the episodes are also interrupted by ads for the new movie Miss March, about a high school girlfriend “a solid seven” according to one of the characters, who grows up to be a Playboy Bunny. “Do you think she’s still a virgin?” her ex-boyfriend asks his friend who’s peering closely at a picture in Playboy, “Nope, I’m afraid not.”
The saddest part of the series is the viewer comments of each episode on Mtv’s website. The comment at the top of the board for the episode “Interns” says, “WTF happened to the days when ‘hot girls’ actually had to have boobs?” According to “freduardo” who posted this, the “hot girls” CollegeHumor found weren’t actually hot enough, which begs the question, what exactly does it take for a woman to be attractive? The episode had enough painful moments of the men of the office attempting conversation with the “hot girls” to make the point clear that they weren’t “hot” enough men for the women, but, thanks to “freduardo” the “narrow definitions of beauty” as Schneider called them keep getting narrower. All the while, college women are taking flattering, or in some cases just hypersexual, photos of themselves in an effort to be named by these gawky, pale, unattractive men as one of the “Cute College Girls of the Day.”
In the March 2008 issue of Glamour, Gabriel Olds wrote an article about the women he’s dated who have had surgical enhancements and his reactions to them. After relaying awkward epiphanies of his partners’ breast augmentations and rhinoplasty, Olds decided the “surgical enhancements” were a sign of insecurity, “it didn’t seem like a celebration of beauty, but a scrambling attempt to fix something...It was as if something purchased to say, ‘Hey, check me out’ actually said, ‘I don’t like myself very much’” The article tried to spin this as positive by generalizing that all men want natural beauty, but the quoted men at the end of the article are counterproductive. Lee Cohen from Portland said, “I love the way fake breasts look—they’re a turn-on. But I couldn’t see myself getting involved with someone who’d go through that just to turn into a fantasy.” There you have it, women should be stick thin with large busts, but it needs to be natural or no dice. It’s all becoming so clear and manageable now.
Gabriel Olds is a semi-attractive, slightly chubby, very average-looking man as are the men at CollegeHumor, and probably all the men quoted at the end of the article yet these are the makers and enforcers of women beauty standards. Put as bluntly as this, the power seems to be in the hands of women now, why do they submit to these judgmental and unrealistic standards?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The state of my final
I've thought about what I'd like to write about for my final since I've turned in the proposal. It's changed about 45 times.
So, to start I had this idea:
For my final Arts Journalism project, I’d like to explore food and food prices in terms of health. For instance, the cheapest (and in some cases tastiest) foods are shockingly unhealthy, while organic food, or even lower fat options at restaurants are more expensive and usually bland. I could go a little into fad diets, but I guess to keep myself grounded I could choose one or two restaurants that have lower fat options and critique the meal. I think TGI Fridays and Chili’s all boast of having healthier options, and I think it’s TGI Fridays that has decided to serve smaller portions, Right Portion Right Price kind of thing. I could talk about the dollar menu at McDonald’s or any other fast food place, and can even talk about supermarkets and organic and lower fat and sodium options being more expensive than regular items. In order to stick with the critique idea, I’d need to narrow it down and select one or two things to critique, so I could do a meal at TGI Fridays and see if there’s any meals that are similar and not a healthier choice and compare the two. I guess I need you to tell me when my story is straying from a critique and getting into regular feature writing.
Then, I thought about the last time I wrote about food and how hard it was, so I decided against food reviews. But I love food, and I actually do like reviewing movies, so I thought about some food-related movies. Well, more specifically, I had been thinking a lot about body image and then food and then media. So, I came up with the Gilmore Girls, because they're supposed to be this gorgeous mother-daughter duo who are inept in the kitchen and eat out all the time. They only eat pop tarts and cheeseburgers and they're both stick-thin. Then, I remembered reading an interview with Lauren Graham (the one who plays the mom) and as she was answering questions she was eating an arugula salad, then she said some things about how much she exercises and she doesn't really eat like her character does. I mean, I figured she didn't actually eat like that, but who doesn't want to believe that they can eat as much as they want like they're favorite tv stars and still stay thin? It had been a comforting thing, like when I ate badly they were my justification, as crazy as that sounds. It felt like false advertising.
They do that on the Disney show iCarly, too. I'm getting over how much of a weirdo this all makes me sound like. Anyway, there's one really skinny character who eats all the time and is known for eating all the time. It's this new trend of playing into American habits of overeating, but making the characters also fit the American beauty standards of being model-thin so it keeps all audience members happy.
I hope I have a story here, because I think I could get 1000 words out of it. We'll see.
So, to start I had this idea:
For my final Arts Journalism project, I’d like to explore food and food prices in terms of health. For instance, the cheapest (and in some cases tastiest) foods are shockingly unhealthy, while organic food, or even lower fat options at restaurants are more expensive and usually bland. I could go a little into fad diets, but I guess to keep myself grounded I could choose one or two restaurants that have lower fat options and critique the meal. I think TGI Fridays and Chili’s all boast of having healthier options, and I think it’s TGI Fridays that has decided to serve smaller portions, Right Portion Right Price kind of thing. I could talk about the dollar menu at McDonald’s or any other fast food place, and can even talk about supermarkets and organic and lower fat and sodium options being more expensive than regular items. In order to stick with the critique idea, I’d need to narrow it down and select one or two things to critique, so I could do a meal at TGI Fridays and see if there’s any meals that are similar and not a healthier choice and compare the two. I guess I need you to tell me when my story is straying from a critique and getting into regular feature writing.
Then, I thought about the last time I wrote about food and how hard it was, so I decided against food reviews. But I love food, and I actually do like reviewing movies, so I thought about some food-related movies. Well, more specifically, I had been thinking a lot about body image and then food and then media. So, I came up with the Gilmore Girls, because they're supposed to be this gorgeous mother-daughter duo who are inept in the kitchen and eat out all the time. They only eat pop tarts and cheeseburgers and they're both stick-thin. Then, I remembered reading an interview with Lauren Graham (the one who plays the mom) and as she was answering questions she was eating an arugula salad, then she said some things about how much she exercises and she doesn't really eat like her character does. I mean, I figured she didn't actually eat like that, but who doesn't want to believe that they can eat as much as they want like they're favorite tv stars and still stay thin? It had been a comforting thing, like when I ate badly they were my justification, as crazy as that sounds. It felt like false advertising.
They do that on the Disney show iCarly, too. I'm getting over how much of a weirdo this all makes me sound like. Anyway, there's one really skinny character who eats all the time and is known for eating all the time. It's this new trend of playing into American habits of overeating, but making the characters also fit the American beauty standards of being model-thin so it keeps all audience members happy.
I hope I have a story here, because I think I could get 1000 words out of it. We'll see.
Forget about the economy, let's watch movies
The eighty-first Academy Awards which aired last night set its own stage up for a possible disappointment with its decided change from the norm and the way it went about promoting itself. After the red carpet but before the ceremonies there was a behind-the-scenes look at the stage and music production at the curtain of crystals hanging from the ceiling and the recognizable theme from Lawrence of Arabia, but with a swing beat. Take all of the eccentricities and add Hugh Jackman—the first non-comedian single host since further back than anyone’s recent memory-- and let the nail-biting begin. David Carr summarized the pressure in the end of his pre-Oscars projection, “Can Hollywood find a way to acknowledge the times we are living in without giving in to the gloom?”
Jackman answered all of these questions with ease as he introduced his opening number, “Due to budget cuts,” he explained that there wasn’t originally going to be an opening song. Luckily, Jackman says he “stayed up all night in his garage” making props, and out comes a make-shift “Who wants to be a Millionaire?” set made from pizza boxes and glittery green letters on cardboard. Then Jackman started his song with full vibrato.
The longer Jackman was on stage singing about the biggest movies of 2008—props to Jackman and writers for the intense dance scene complete with backup dancers as he sang “I haven’t seen The Reader”—the more comfortable the audience became. He ended the number with a duo reenactment of Frost/Nixon with Ann Hathaway and finally Jackman belting the line “I’m Wolverine.” His playful jabs at the actors before the first award presentation was funny but by then the laughter felt more like his payment for not letting the audience down with his musical opener.
In perhaps the best-intended but minimal-follow-up joke Jackman mentioned Brad Pitt saying, “I don’t have a joke for him, my contract says I have to mention his name five times—that’s one.” He noted Pitt in the second number of the show, but for the most part, Jackman was offstage, letting the rest of the big-name presenters have full attention.
The awards lived up to its promise of changing from the norm by letting five previous winners of the best actor and actress awards present the nominees and the Oscar. It felt more like a moment from Star Trek as five of the Academy’s elite stood in a wide half-circle on the stage and gave individual praise to each nominee before the middle actor or actress opened the envelope.
The ceremony was rushed during the recognition of some of the technical aspects of film—the visual effects, sound editing, and sound mixing— all presented by Will Smith. He seemed to be continuously tugged around the stage by those beautiful-but-business-oriented silver-clad stage women as he moved from presenter to background to presenter again. At one point acknowledged the rushed awkwardness, “Yes I’m still here,” and “I believe Hugh is napping” at another. It was if that section of the show was thrown together at the last minute and Smith was stuck with more than his share of presenting and in half the amount of time to do it.
The Academy Awards were starkly different this year finally in a lack of long-winded acceptance speeches; no one got the orchestra music to signal a wrap-up. With a great majority of the winners giving their own version of Hilary Swank’s “I’m just a girl from a trailer park who had a dream” speech, the Oscars had the effect of a feel-good movie. Even with bleak economy and bleak Midwestern winter it was easy to watch the excited faces and, like Swank, start to dream.
Jackman answered all of these questions with ease as he introduced his opening number, “Due to budget cuts,” he explained that there wasn’t originally going to be an opening song. Luckily, Jackman says he “stayed up all night in his garage” making props, and out comes a make-shift “Who wants to be a Millionaire?” set made from pizza boxes and glittery green letters on cardboard. Then Jackman started his song with full vibrato.
The longer Jackman was on stage singing about the biggest movies of 2008—props to Jackman and writers for the intense dance scene complete with backup dancers as he sang “I haven’t seen The Reader”—the more comfortable the audience became. He ended the number with a duo reenactment of Frost/Nixon with Ann Hathaway and finally Jackman belting the line “I’m Wolverine.” His playful jabs at the actors before the first award presentation was funny but by then the laughter felt more like his payment for not letting the audience down with his musical opener.
In perhaps the best-intended but minimal-follow-up joke Jackman mentioned Brad Pitt saying, “I don’t have a joke for him, my contract says I have to mention his name five times—that’s one.” He noted Pitt in the second number of the show, but for the most part, Jackman was offstage, letting the rest of the big-name presenters have full attention.
The awards lived up to its promise of changing from the norm by letting five previous winners of the best actor and actress awards present the nominees and the Oscar. It felt more like a moment from Star Trek as five of the Academy’s elite stood in a wide half-circle on the stage and gave individual praise to each nominee before the middle actor or actress opened the envelope.
The ceremony was rushed during the recognition of some of the technical aspects of film—the visual effects, sound editing, and sound mixing— all presented by Will Smith. He seemed to be continuously tugged around the stage by those beautiful-but-business-oriented silver-clad stage women as he moved from presenter to background to presenter again. At one point acknowledged the rushed awkwardness, “Yes I’m still here,” and “I believe Hugh is napping” at another. It was if that section of the show was thrown together at the last minute and Smith was stuck with more than his share of presenting and in half the amount of time to do it.
The Academy Awards were starkly different this year finally in a lack of long-winded acceptance speeches; no one got the orchestra music to signal a wrap-up. With a great majority of the winners giving their own version of Hilary Swank’s “I’m just a girl from a trailer park who had a dream” speech, the Oscars had the effect of a feel-good movie. Even with bleak economy and bleak Midwestern winter it was easy to watch the excited faces and, like Swank, start to dream.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Kael Revision
Marni Newell
With lewd humor and images, Kael’s art shines through
2/20/09
Oscar Wilde describes criticism as an art form that is staunchly subjective in his essay “The Critic as Artist.” The art Wilde speaks of is in the critic’s ability to convey her sense of personality in the criticism and make the piece her own. He says “the highest Criticism deals with art not as expressive, but as impressive, purely.”
Pauline Kael, in this sense, is the pinnacle of Wilde’s portrait of a critic. Kael’s critiques of films are a reflection of her values and her reasoning in a way that is as entertaining as it is informative. This allows for readers to draw their own conclusions on the films she reviews without simply agreeing with her decision.
Renata Adler describes Kael’s writing style, or more specifically, what Adler perceives as Kael’s shortcomings as a critic, in her essay, “House Critic.” Adler details Kael’s use of questions, seemingly unclear metaphors, uses of personal pronouns, and repetitive images in Kael’s latest anthology of critiques, and cites them as reasons why Kael has “ceased to care about” films.
More accurately, these quirks in Kael’s writing represent her unique style.
One of Adler’s criticisms of Kael is her use of questions in reviews, which Adler believes distracts the reader and has them blindly reaching for answers. What Adler doesn’t appreciate about Kael’s use of questions, is the effect they have on the reader that cannot be mirrored with a statement; it gives the sense of inviting the reader to disagree with Kael instead of telling them what to believe. For instance, one question Adler quotes is, “How can you have any feeling for a man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren?” This question catches the reader’s attention and is rhetorical, humorous, and illuminating.
With this one question, Kael opens the readers eyes to a different perspective of the actor who isn’t enjoying being in bed with Sophia Loren, it recalls them to specific scenes, and then, lastly, allows them chuckle at the absurd idea that any man wouldn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren.
The effect would fall drastically short if Kael had followed Adler’s strict guidelines and written, “A man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren can’t be taken seriously.” Odds are the aggressive sentence would have been overlooked and dismissed.
Similarly, Adler picks apart Kaels images and metaphors that deal with bodily functions. One example she cites is Kael’s phrase “just a belch from the Nixon era.” Even not knowing the context of this statement, a clear image is still communicated: an attempt at something that not only fell short, but stank.
Adler summarizes her criticisms with a list of four aspects of movies Kael does seem to appreciate, “frissions of horror; physical violence depicted in specific detail; sex scenes...; and fantasies of invasion.” With this, Adler is attempting to warp one of the main duties of a critic: to know what they like. Adler distorts and emphasizes the perversity in her description of Kael, but the fact remains that she does have a style, she has preferences, and she is consistent in pointing out when a film executes these correctly and when they do not.
In the end, readers know where Kael stands based on their knowledge of her inclinations and can enjoy her critiques as both entertainment and an assessment of the film based on her unique interests and perspective.
With lewd humor and images, Kael’s art shines through
2/20/09
Oscar Wilde describes criticism as an art form that is staunchly subjective in his essay “The Critic as Artist.” The art Wilde speaks of is in the critic’s ability to convey her sense of personality in the criticism and make the piece her own. He says “the highest Criticism deals with art not as expressive, but as impressive, purely.”
Pauline Kael, in this sense, is the pinnacle of Wilde’s portrait of a critic. Kael’s critiques of films are a reflection of her values and her reasoning in a way that is as entertaining as it is informative. This allows for readers to draw their own conclusions on the films she reviews without simply agreeing with her decision.
Renata Adler describes Kael’s writing style, or more specifically, what Adler perceives as Kael’s shortcomings as a critic, in her essay, “House Critic.” Adler details Kael’s use of questions, seemingly unclear metaphors, uses of personal pronouns, and repetitive images in Kael’s latest anthology of critiques, and cites them as reasons why Kael has “ceased to care about” films.
More accurately, these quirks in Kael’s writing represent her unique style.
One of Adler’s criticisms of Kael is her use of questions in reviews, which Adler believes distracts the reader and has them blindly reaching for answers. What Adler doesn’t appreciate about Kael’s use of questions, is the effect they have on the reader that cannot be mirrored with a statement; it gives the sense of inviting the reader to disagree with Kael instead of telling them what to believe. For instance, one question Adler quotes is, “How can you have any feeling for a man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren?” This question catches the reader’s attention and is rhetorical, humorous, and illuminating.
With this one question, Kael opens the readers eyes to a different perspective of the actor who isn’t enjoying being in bed with Sophia Loren, it recalls them to specific scenes, and then, lastly, allows them chuckle at the absurd idea that any man wouldn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren.
The effect would fall drastically short if Kael had followed Adler’s strict guidelines and written, “A man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren can’t be taken seriously.” Odds are the aggressive sentence would have been overlooked and dismissed.
Similarly, Adler picks apart Kaels images and metaphors that deal with bodily functions. One example she cites is Kael’s phrase “just a belch from the Nixon era.” Even not knowing the context of this statement, a clear image is still communicated: an attempt at something that not only fell short, but stank.
Adler summarizes her criticisms with a list of four aspects of movies Kael does seem to appreciate, “frissions of horror; physical violence depicted in specific detail; sex scenes...; and fantasies of invasion.” With this, Adler is attempting to warp one of the main duties of a critic: to know what they like. Adler distorts and emphasizes the perversity in her description of Kael, but the fact remains that she does have a style, she has preferences, and she is consistent in pointing out when a film executes these correctly and when they do not.
In the end, readers know where Kael stands based on their knowledge of her inclinations and can enjoy her critiques as both entertainment and an assessment of the film based on her unique interests and perspective.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Hicok Review
Sorry this is posted late, I don't have the stamina for the K life anymore and everything seems to be falling by the wayside.
Self-taught poet charms K College
Marni Newell
In the room packed shoulder-to-shoulder with Kalamazoo College students and faculty, Bob Hicok, the self-taught poet from suburban Detroit, sympathized with his audience. “If it’s any consolation to those who are here because they have to be,” he told the rustling students. “I hate poetry readings. I can’t focus on the poetry.”
Lucky for the students who had to be there, his poetry was interesting enough to focus on. As visiting professor Glenn Deutsch stated in his introduction Hicok’s short-but-dense poetry is “serious-funny.”
In one poem about and named for the gene that has been linked to cancer, BRCA-1, Hicok describes a woman who has the gene and then imagines she’s had a mastectomy and her ovaries removed, “The faux breasts and egg sacs are gone.” He continues talking about her ovaries, or more appropriately, her “novaries” as she blow dries her hair in the bathroom near where he waits in the bedroom, petting his dog, “I would not dry my hair in such a moment, but I’m bald.” In nearly all of Hicok’s poetry, if the audience is ever unsure of whether to laugh or not, it’s probably safe to laugh.
Hicok succeeded in being just as entertaining in that awkward space between poems by talking about how awkward that space of time is. In another space between poems, he discussed his hatred of the debate about a stimulus package for the country and said of President Obama, “I hope for Michelle Obama, he does have a stimulus package.” An audience member, comfortable with him by now, shouted back, “Oh, he does, Bob!”
His poetry, never pretentious or abstract, utilizes images and metaphors that are accessible without being cliché. He is honest in his descriptions because he isn’t trying to please anyone. In the same poem about a woman’s cancer, his line “I have no reason to use the word cancer while petting a dog” reverberates with simplicity, yet hits a common emotion.
Hicok never extends himself beyond what he can accurately describe, and this leads to concise, sincere poetry that induces both chuckles and serious thought. In his poem, “Lost American in Paris,” he describes following a wandering violin player before exclaiming, “I felt doctors had replaced my heart with a kitten.”
His poem about Michigan was a favorite among the Midwestern audience and perfectly timed for the snowy Wednesday night of his reading. Michigan, Hicok says, has a February that’s fourteen months long, which explains why “‘What did we do?’ is the state motto.”
Unlike most contemporary writers, Hicok rarely writes more than one draft of a poem. As he describes it, his poems are “records of a moment,” and the moment he wrote it in is as important as the subject matter. Hicok’s refreshing perspective on poetry lends itself to poems that are simple yet honest to the complexity of human emotion and never void of humor. It was hard not to be inspired by his quirky poetry as the large crowd filed back out into the 14-month-long Michigan winter.
Self-taught poet charms K College
Marni Newell
In the room packed shoulder-to-shoulder with Kalamazoo College students and faculty, Bob Hicok, the self-taught poet from suburban Detroit, sympathized with his audience. “If it’s any consolation to those who are here because they have to be,” he told the rustling students. “I hate poetry readings. I can’t focus on the poetry.”
Lucky for the students who had to be there, his poetry was interesting enough to focus on. As visiting professor Glenn Deutsch stated in his introduction Hicok’s short-but-dense poetry is “serious-funny.”
In one poem about and named for the gene that has been linked to cancer, BRCA-1, Hicok describes a woman who has the gene and then imagines she’s had a mastectomy and her ovaries removed, “The faux breasts and egg sacs are gone.” He continues talking about her ovaries, or more appropriately, her “novaries” as she blow dries her hair in the bathroom near where he waits in the bedroom, petting his dog, “I would not dry my hair in such a moment, but I’m bald.” In nearly all of Hicok’s poetry, if the audience is ever unsure of whether to laugh or not, it’s probably safe to laugh.
Hicok succeeded in being just as entertaining in that awkward space between poems by talking about how awkward that space of time is. In another space between poems, he discussed his hatred of the debate about a stimulus package for the country and said of President Obama, “I hope for Michelle Obama, he does have a stimulus package.” An audience member, comfortable with him by now, shouted back, “Oh, he does, Bob!”
His poetry, never pretentious or abstract, utilizes images and metaphors that are accessible without being cliché. He is honest in his descriptions because he isn’t trying to please anyone. In the same poem about a woman’s cancer, his line “I have no reason to use the word cancer while petting a dog” reverberates with simplicity, yet hits a common emotion.
Hicok never extends himself beyond what he can accurately describe, and this leads to concise, sincere poetry that induces both chuckles and serious thought. In his poem, “Lost American in Paris,” he describes following a wandering violin player before exclaiming, “I felt doctors had replaced my heart with a kitten.”
His poem about Michigan was a favorite among the Midwestern audience and perfectly timed for the snowy Wednesday night of his reading. Michigan, Hicok says, has a February that’s fourteen months long, which explains why “‘What did we do?’ is the state motto.”
Unlike most contemporary writers, Hicok rarely writes more than one draft of a poem. As he describes it, his poems are “records of a moment,” and the moment he wrote it in is as important as the subject matter. Hicok’s refreshing perspective on poetry lends itself to poems that are simple yet honest to the complexity of human emotion and never void of humor. It was hard not to be inspired by his quirky poetry as the large crowd filed back out into the 14-month-long Michigan winter.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Some thoughts on Pauline Kael
I loved reading Afterglow, and at one point I had my computer next to me with IMDB open so I could look up the movies they were talking about and watch the trailers, it was fascinating.
Kael's ability to watch a movie once and be able to have such a strong opinion about it impresses me, and that she can recall the movies enough to carry conversations about them years later is just ridiculous. Especially at eighty. I love what she said about modern movies, and I love that she didn't really like Star Wars, because when something is so universally loved like Star Wars usually is, it makes me nervous. To be honest, Star Wars is kind of boring to me.
I looked up Francis Davis and read a bit about his jazz reviews. It's so interesting that there's enough jazz venues to have a reviewer. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but I thought it would be hard enough to find a movie or music critic job, jazz seems so sparse these days that there would only be 3 job openings for a jazz reviewer...ever.
Kael's ability to watch a movie once and be able to have such a strong opinion about it impresses me, and that she can recall the movies enough to carry conversations about them years later is just ridiculous. Especially at eighty. I love what she said about modern movies, and I love that she didn't really like Star Wars, because when something is so universally loved like Star Wars usually is, it makes me nervous. To be honest, Star Wars is kind of boring to me.
I looked up Francis Davis and read a bit about his jazz reviews. It's so interesting that there's enough jazz venues to have a reviewer. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but I thought it would be hard enough to find a movie or music critic job, jazz seems so sparse these days that there would only be 3 job openings for a jazz reviewer...ever.
Outline
For my second draft, I completely rewrote it. I took the comments from my workshop members about the environment being a strong point.
1. Intro by describing the inside of Thai Cuisine, decorations, wallpaper, white tablecloth covered in paper etc.
2. introduce the almost-there theme I try to keep through the whole thing
3. Drinks and thai heat
4. Cup of soup
5. Entree
6. Dessert
7. Price/conclusion
1. Intro by describing the inside of Thai Cuisine, decorations, wallpaper, white tablecloth covered in paper etc.
2. introduce the almost-there theme I try to keep through the whole thing
3. Drinks and thai heat
4. Cup of soup
5. Entree
6. Dessert
7. Price/conclusion
Thai Cuisine Review: Revision
Thai Cuisine: Some heat in the dead of winter
Marni Newell
2/08/09
Apple red wallpaper donned with golden Buddhas and shiny colored mirror ornaments greet the customer of the recently added restaurant, Thai Cuisine, on the corner of Drake and West Main. Chic white square tables are generously spaced around the tidy room and waiters dressed in white and black give off the air of an upscale restaurant. With a closer look, however, the white sheets of paper covering each tablecloth and the printed cover sheet of Buddha on the menu gives a slightly more elementary feeling: finger painting day and Microsoft WordArt.
Thai Cuisine is consistent in its almost-there mood, right down to the food that is almost-Thai. Kudos should be given to the cooks for keeping with Thai tradition and giving the option of severely spicy entrees that are the norm in Thailand. Whereas in Thailand a normal spicy dish includes eight or so chili peppers, at Thai Cuisine diners have the option of “mild,” “hot,” “very hot,” and “Thai hot.”
“Mild” entrees still induce moderate nose-running, but it’s offset by the options of popular Thai drinks like the bright orange sweet iced tea and equally sweet iced coffee with a douse of condensed milk that’s reminiscent of the bags of drinks travelers can buy from kiosks in downtown Chiang Mai. These drinks seem to solidify the idea that Thailand isn’t only a country of intense heat in dishes, but instead intensifies all flavors.
The lunch entrees come with a cup of the soup of the day to start, but the experience would have benefited without the hot and sour soup that was filled with too many red pepper flakes to be ingested without coughing. The sour aftertaste was consistent with Thais’ love of extreme flavor, but hot and sour soup is generally a Chinese dish which has been done better at grungy Chinese restaurants and definitely not good enough to redeem the discomfort of the spice. Fortunately, entrees come soon enough after the soup to serve as a forgettable mistake.
The Gang Garee was plated beautifully on circular white porcelain plates with dollop or two of rice as a contrast to the smooth pale orange of the curry. The curry succeeded at being all at once sweet, spicy, and smooth, but the baby-carrot-sized chunks of green pepper could have been chopped more finely to evenly disperse the strong onion flavor. Substituting traditional Thai ingredients for what’s readily available in America only slightly inhibits the integrity of the dishes: the crinkle cut carrots--much like French fries--distracts from the rich sophisticated curry that covers it, but doesn’t compromise the experience altogether.
The heavy potato and tofu curry lends itself well to leftovers giving an excuse to stop early and order Thai Cuisine’s only dessert at the moment: coconut ice cream. It’s hard to tell if this coarse dessert is coconut flavored ice cream covered in shredded coconut, or vanilla ice cream blended with shredded coconut, but either way the flavor is sweet with only a mild coconut flavor. The ice cream is enhanced by the shredded coconut which gives a satisfying bite to savor the sweetness.
Averaging at nine dollars a meal for lunch and twelve for dinner, the large portions are consistent with a casual dining experience but coupled with an almost-classy environment. Compared to typical delicious-but-grungy Asian restaurants, Thai Cuisine offers an entire experience rather than just the order ahead and take out mentality for nearly the same price.
Marni Newell
2/08/09
Apple red wallpaper donned with golden Buddhas and shiny colored mirror ornaments greet the customer of the recently added restaurant, Thai Cuisine, on the corner of Drake and West Main. Chic white square tables are generously spaced around the tidy room and waiters dressed in white and black give off the air of an upscale restaurant. With a closer look, however, the white sheets of paper covering each tablecloth and the printed cover sheet of Buddha on the menu gives a slightly more elementary feeling: finger painting day and Microsoft WordArt.
Thai Cuisine is consistent in its almost-there mood, right down to the food that is almost-Thai. Kudos should be given to the cooks for keeping with Thai tradition and giving the option of severely spicy entrees that are the norm in Thailand. Whereas in Thailand a normal spicy dish includes eight or so chili peppers, at Thai Cuisine diners have the option of “mild,” “hot,” “very hot,” and “Thai hot.”
“Mild” entrees still induce moderate nose-running, but it’s offset by the options of popular Thai drinks like the bright orange sweet iced tea and equally sweet iced coffee with a douse of condensed milk that’s reminiscent of the bags of drinks travelers can buy from kiosks in downtown Chiang Mai. These drinks seem to solidify the idea that Thailand isn’t only a country of intense heat in dishes, but instead intensifies all flavors.
The lunch entrees come with a cup of the soup of the day to start, but the experience would have benefited without the hot and sour soup that was filled with too many red pepper flakes to be ingested without coughing. The sour aftertaste was consistent with Thais’ love of extreme flavor, but hot and sour soup is generally a Chinese dish which has been done better at grungy Chinese restaurants and definitely not good enough to redeem the discomfort of the spice. Fortunately, entrees come soon enough after the soup to serve as a forgettable mistake.
The Gang Garee was plated beautifully on circular white porcelain plates with dollop or two of rice as a contrast to the smooth pale orange of the curry. The curry succeeded at being all at once sweet, spicy, and smooth, but the baby-carrot-sized chunks of green pepper could have been chopped more finely to evenly disperse the strong onion flavor. Substituting traditional Thai ingredients for what’s readily available in America only slightly inhibits the integrity of the dishes: the crinkle cut carrots--much like French fries--distracts from the rich sophisticated curry that covers it, but doesn’t compromise the experience altogether.
The heavy potato and tofu curry lends itself well to leftovers giving an excuse to stop early and order Thai Cuisine’s only dessert at the moment: coconut ice cream. It’s hard to tell if this coarse dessert is coconut flavored ice cream covered in shredded coconut, or vanilla ice cream blended with shredded coconut, but either way the flavor is sweet with only a mild coconut flavor. The ice cream is enhanced by the shredded coconut which gives a satisfying bite to savor the sweetness.
Averaging at nine dollars a meal for lunch and twelve for dinner, the large portions are consistent with a casual dining experience but coupled with an almost-classy environment. Compared to typical delicious-but-grungy Asian restaurants, Thai Cuisine offers an entire experience rather than just the order ahead and take out mentality for nearly the same price.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Scrubs Season 8: first, a hesitation, then a good old LOL moment, but ultimately sadness.
In order for Scrubs to even have a season 8, was traded from NBC to ABC, and with that came very unfortunate consequences. Mainly, The Todd is no longer allowed to be shown in a banana hammock, which constitutes about half of his jokes. From now on, The Todd will only be making crude jokes and high-five snapping guest stars, which is a loss, but it's manageable.
Zack Braff (JD) is sporting an annoying beard now. I'm not sure what else to say about the patches on his face, but after a while you can start to ignore it. Besides not seeing enough of either Carla or Turk, my main beef with season 8 is it has a distinct feeling of transition. We're being given these new, quirky in a bad way, interns who I have the feeling are going to slowly take over the show. In the end, JD will pop out here and there but it will be mostly the Intern story with Zack Braff voice-overs. I also read that they might be doing this.
I have two words to say about that: bad idea. It's better to burn out than fade away, and this show is definitely fading and it's compromising it's integrity all the while. Although it still gives laugh-out-loud moments, they're interrupted by this anxiety because too much has changed for this to be going on much longer. Bob Kelso isn't the chief of medicine anymore, but he hangs out in the coffee shop for the muffins, the janitor makes a few appearances, but rarely is in the same scene as JD, we're still laughing at Turk's diabetes? The show has definitely lost it's umph and it's left with a flat, overdone set of jokes that still get me laughing, but leave me ultimately sad because it doesn't seem like the actors like it anymore.
In the words of one of the interns I don't really like, Scrubs has turned into a buzz kill.
Zack Braff (JD) is sporting an annoying beard now. I'm not sure what else to say about the patches on his face, but after a while you can start to ignore it. Besides not seeing enough of either Carla or Turk, my main beef with season 8 is it has a distinct feeling of transition. We're being given these new, quirky in a bad way, interns who I have the feeling are going to slowly take over the show. In the end, JD will pop out here and there but it will be mostly the Intern story with Zack Braff voice-overs. I also read that they might be doing this.
I have two words to say about that: bad idea. It's better to burn out than fade away, and this show is definitely fading and it's compromising it's integrity all the while. Although it still gives laugh-out-loud moments, they're interrupted by this anxiety because too much has changed for this to be going on much longer. Bob Kelso isn't the chief of medicine anymore, but he hangs out in the coffee shop for the muffins, the janitor makes a few appearances, but rarely is in the same scene as JD, we're still laughing at Turk's diabetes? The show has definitely lost it's umph and it's left with a flat, overdone set of jokes that still get me laughing, but leave me ultimately sad because it doesn't seem like the actors like it anymore.
In the words of one of the interns I don't really like, Scrubs has turned into a buzz kill.
Marni pretended food was a medium.
Marni Newell
Thai Cuisine: A hot spot in the middle of winter
2/4/09
In a typical Thai fashion, Thai Cuisine, on Drake Rd. near West Main, has an air of exotic fashion with a modest twist: the neat square tables with stark white table clothes are each covered with their own matching white disposable sheet to be removed as the customer leaves, allowing for slick, clean look all day. It isn’t too distracting, the walls are covered in bright red and gold wall paper featuring Buddha, and ornaments and statues grace the walls and doors with mosaic colored mirrors. The atmosphere distracts long enough for the wait staff to notice within a reasonable amount of time to seat customers.
This exotic on the outside, modest at a closer look theme resonates through the entire meal starting with the thick menus encased in chic plastic and leather holders, but with a picture of Buddha printed on white paper that has that Microsoft Word Art feeling, not to mention the loose leaf of white paper with the lunch specials printed on it.
Thai Cuisine has authentic Thai appetizers like barbequed skewered pork, Moo Tod, and deep fried tofu along with more generally Asian items like Crab Rangoon and hot and sour soup. They offer Thailand’s two biggest drink options: Iced Tea and Coffee, in an accurate, if classier, representation of the bright orange and light brown super-sweet bagged drinks bought on street corners in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Meals are moderately priced at Thai cuisine with lunch specials between nine and twelve dollars for a cup of soup and lunch entrée and twelve to twenty-five dollars for any dinner entrees. Appetizers are three to six dollars and their coconut ice cream is three dollars. Not only are there strictly vegetarian options, but all meals can be ordered with either pork, chicken, shrimp, beef, or tofu.
When ordering dishes, the wait staff asks what heat level the dish should be: mild, hot, very hot, and Thai hot, in an effort to appease Westerners. Mild hot still leads to runny noses, and one customer had a full plate of fried vegetables, Pad Pak, she couldn’t eat even though it was only ordered “very hot.” Discretion should be taken when requesting hot dishes from Thai Cuisine: they’re used to making meals much hotter.
The entrees come quickly after the soup to start and are hearty portions, mostly curry or fried vegetables with a scoop or two of rice on the side. The presentation is once again beautiful at first glance and when a zigzag cut carrot is speared in the curry, it brings back the modest air of crossing cultures.
Though Thai Cuisine uses more American vegetables like green onions and carrots, but the general flavor is reminiscent of Thailand. The sweeter and milder flavors of Thai Cuisine will bring customers the ultimate Thai-American meal for a moderate price. The atmosphere is comfortable, the music quiet and soothing, and although customers are treated with a large view of the snowy parking lot and adjacent pancake restaurant, it’s all oddly part of the endearing exotically modest experience. After all when a meal for two including drinks and a dessert is under thirty dollars, the view is definitely not a deal breaker.
Thai Cuisine: A hot spot in the middle of winter
2/4/09
In a typical Thai fashion, Thai Cuisine, on Drake Rd. near West Main, has an air of exotic fashion with a modest twist: the neat square tables with stark white table clothes are each covered with their own matching white disposable sheet to be removed as the customer leaves, allowing for slick, clean look all day. It isn’t too distracting, the walls are covered in bright red and gold wall paper featuring Buddha, and ornaments and statues grace the walls and doors with mosaic colored mirrors. The atmosphere distracts long enough for the wait staff to notice within a reasonable amount of time to seat customers.
This exotic on the outside, modest at a closer look theme resonates through the entire meal starting with the thick menus encased in chic plastic and leather holders, but with a picture of Buddha printed on white paper that has that Microsoft Word Art feeling, not to mention the loose leaf of white paper with the lunch specials printed on it.
Thai Cuisine has authentic Thai appetizers like barbequed skewered pork, Moo Tod, and deep fried tofu along with more generally Asian items like Crab Rangoon and hot and sour soup. They offer Thailand’s two biggest drink options: Iced Tea and Coffee, in an accurate, if classier, representation of the bright orange and light brown super-sweet bagged drinks bought on street corners in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Meals are moderately priced at Thai cuisine with lunch specials between nine and twelve dollars for a cup of soup and lunch entrée and twelve to twenty-five dollars for any dinner entrees. Appetizers are three to six dollars and their coconut ice cream is three dollars. Not only are there strictly vegetarian options, but all meals can be ordered with either pork, chicken, shrimp, beef, or tofu.
When ordering dishes, the wait staff asks what heat level the dish should be: mild, hot, very hot, and Thai hot, in an effort to appease Westerners. Mild hot still leads to runny noses, and one customer had a full plate of fried vegetables, Pad Pak, she couldn’t eat even though it was only ordered “very hot.” Discretion should be taken when requesting hot dishes from Thai Cuisine: they’re used to making meals much hotter.
The entrees come quickly after the soup to start and are hearty portions, mostly curry or fried vegetables with a scoop or two of rice on the side. The presentation is once again beautiful at first glance and when a zigzag cut carrot is speared in the curry, it brings back the modest air of crossing cultures.
Though Thai Cuisine uses more American vegetables like green onions and carrots, but the general flavor is reminiscent of Thailand. The sweeter and milder flavors of Thai Cuisine will bring customers the ultimate Thai-American meal for a moderate price. The atmosphere is comfortable, the music quiet and soothing, and although customers are treated with a large view of the snowy parking lot and adjacent pancake restaurant, it’s all oddly part of the endearing exotically modest experience. After all when a meal for two including drinks and a dessert is under thirty dollars, the view is definitely not a deal breaker.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
If they were still alive, they'd hate me: Strunk and White
Reading The Elements of Style again, I'm pretty ashamed to admit that, although I was enlightened and motivated last time I read it, I'm still a grammar moron. How many times do I have to read over the guidelines before I realize where to put a comma? I'm one of those lazy, willy nilly comma people. I guess it sounds good here, wait, would a period be better? No, comma. Maybe a semicolon, those look cool. I either over-do it, or I don't use enough. I'm extreme like that.
The present participle versus gerund case is still confusing and illuminating as ever. I love how much meaning each word has and what they mean together, but I feel I still make stupid mistakes and misuse everything.
Do you mind me asking a question? vs. Do you mind my asking a question?
Awesome.
Another biggie is being concise. I think because we've been trained to milk every sentence to try to reach the page requirement, we students have become vague and wordy. Sometimes I get stuck trying to convey an idea in a whole paragraph, when it only requires a sentence or two. When a preface for an English SIP has a seven-to-ten page requirement, the natural result is seven pages of long, repetitive paragraphs.
My success story from reading this last time is I have been a stickler about when to use persuade and convince. I usually stop halfway through, "He was trying to convince me" and replace it with persuade. So, I guess I'm making strides toward better grammar, one rule at a time.
The present participle versus gerund case is still confusing and illuminating as ever. I love how much meaning each word has and what they mean together, but I feel I still make stupid mistakes and misuse everything.
Do you mind me asking a question? vs. Do you mind my asking a question?
Awesome.
Another biggie is being concise. I think because we've been trained to milk every sentence to try to reach the page requirement, we students have become vague and wordy. Sometimes I get stuck trying to convey an idea in a whole paragraph, when it only requires a sentence or two. When a preface for an English SIP has a seven-to-ten page requirement, the natural result is seven pages of long, repetitive paragraphs.
My success story from reading this last time is I have been a stickler about when to use persuade and convince. I usually stop halfway through, "He was trying to convince me" and replace it with persuade. So, I guess I'm making strides toward better grammar, one rule at a time.
Oscar Wilde is in my five
When I first started reading "The Critic as Artist," I wasn't appreciating what Wilde had to say, and instead getting bogged down by the long blocky paragraphs. But, when, I read without that feeling of judgement and irritation, my love for Oscar Wilde was renewed. What a happy ending.
Specifically, I love what he's saying in the beginning about the critic and the creator being one and the critic having the particular difficult job of setting the standard. Sometimes while I'm writing reviews I feel like, in order to give accurate feedback, I need to have a broader knowledge of the type of movie I'm writing about. For instance, I have those friends who know everything about music, or everything about movies and directors and can give such a specific assessment based on the director's other works and the actors' roles through the last ten years that when I try to rebut anything they say, it sound's like a third grader during show-and-tell. Once I had a discussion about the first three Star Wars movies (Phantom Menace, etc.) my friend went on and on about the script and the acting and all I had to say was, "But, the colors were really vibrant. Yeah, I really liked all the colors."
Next, I agree with his ideas about the artist and how the artist shouldn't be too concerned with the meaning of her piece, "The longer I study, Ernest, the more clearly I see that the beauty of the visible arts is, as the beauty of music, impressive primarily, and that it may be marred, and indeed often is so, by any excess of intellectual intention on the part of the artist." When someone writes or paints something with the intention of making it deep and meaningful or abstract, it often comes out as flat and bland. Once I was speaking with an author about a piece of short fiction she wrote, and I said, rather stupidly, "I love the character of the father, the details you tell us about him seem so random, yet paint such a specific and coherent picture of him." And the author then started arguing with me about the word "random" and how everything she wrote in the piece she wrote on purpose. After having spoken with other writers and having written some myself, I think anyone who sits down and writes every detail consciously to paint a picture is compromising the integrity of the piece and questioning the intellect of the reader.
The last point I like about Wilde is about the personality of the critic being part of the critique. Ernest: I would have said that personality would have been a disturbing element.
Gilbert: No; it is an element of revelation. If you wish to understand others you must intensify with your own individualism.
It made me think back to the reviews I've been reading and the kind I like the most is when I get a sense of the author as they're assessing the piece. Oscar Wilde also said that art is a reflection of the viewer and not of life itself, and it's always more interesting to read about people and what they enjoy than a robotic, lifeless review. Well, not always, but if the writer is talented, then yes.
Very lastly, as a senior, this line is saving my soul right now: Each of the professions means a prejudice. The necessity for a career forces everyone to take sides.
Specifically, I love what he's saying in the beginning about the critic and the creator being one and the critic having the particular difficult job of setting the standard. Sometimes while I'm writing reviews I feel like, in order to give accurate feedback, I need to have a broader knowledge of the type of movie I'm writing about. For instance, I have those friends who know everything about music, or everything about movies and directors and can give such a specific assessment based on the director's other works and the actors' roles through the last ten years that when I try to rebut anything they say, it sound's like a third grader during show-and-tell. Once I had a discussion about the first three Star Wars movies (Phantom Menace, etc.) my friend went on and on about the script and the acting and all I had to say was, "But, the colors were really vibrant. Yeah, I really liked all the colors."
Next, I agree with his ideas about the artist and how the artist shouldn't be too concerned with the meaning of her piece, "The longer I study, Ernest, the more clearly I see that the beauty of the visible arts is, as the beauty of music, impressive primarily, and that it may be marred, and indeed often is so, by any excess of intellectual intention on the part of the artist." When someone writes or paints something with the intention of making it deep and meaningful or abstract, it often comes out as flat and bland. Once I was speaking with an author about a piece of short fiction she wrote, and I said, rather stupidly, "I love the character of the father, the details you tell us about him seem so random, yet paint such a specific and coherent picture of him." And the author then started arguing with me about the word "random" and how everything she wrote in the piece she wrote on purpose. After having spoken with other writers and having written some myself, I think anyone who sits down and writes every detail consciously to paint a picture is compromising the integrity of the piece and questioning the intellect of the reader.
The last point I like about Wilde is about the personality of the critic being part of the critique. Ernest: I would have said that personality would have been a disturbing element.
Gilbert: No; it is an element of revelation. If you wish to understand others you must intensify with your own individualism.
It made me think back to the reviews I've been reading and the kind I like the most is when I get a sense of the author as they're assessing the piece. Oscar Wilde also said that art is a reflection of the viewer and not of life itself, and it's always more interesting to read about people and what they enjoy than a robotic, lifeless review. Well, not always, but if the writer is talented, then yes.
Very lastly, as a senior, this line is saving my soul right now: Each of the professions means a prejudice. The necessity for a career forces everyone to take sides.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Review 3
American Ideals exposed in Taxi to the Dark Side
Marni Newell
1/26/09
Lack of concrete directions, convenient oversights, and an extra dosage of self-justification occurs at all levels of the American bureaucracy in “Taxi to the Dark Side.” The documentary by Alex Gibney details modern American torture through the story of one small-town Afghani taxi driver, Dilawar, who was falsely accused of terrorism and tortured at the hands of American soldiers.
As told by his family in the start of the documentary, Dilawar grew up on a farm and planned to bring the “meat and potatoes” back to his family through his work in the city as a taxi driver. Before he could bring back anything, however, Dilawar and his passengers were accused of acts of terrorism dealing with rockets. The details of their crime are, even to the soldiers who abused him, murky at best. This doesn’t stop the soldiers at Bagram Air Base from following orders, which include hours of forced standing, sleep deprivation, demoralization, and beating the prisoners—as long as it is below the waist and using their knees.
By the time Dilawar died, he looked, according to coroners, as if he had been “pulpified.” And, as the documentary continues, it becomes apparent that he was not the only one to receive this treatment nor that those were the only techniques the soldiers used.
The soldiers interviewed in the documentary sit in a dark room with a single light shining on the side of their face, allowing the shadows to symbolize their violent, seemingly inhuman alter ego. But, as their soft-spoken justifications and admissions of guilt continue, they seem more a tool of the wrong-headed Bush Administration than individual murderers. In this way, Gibney succeeds in conveying the drama of the subject matter without compromising the weight of their hellacious deeds or making scapegoats of the soldiers. Through a delicate balance of shocking inhumanity at the soldier and administration level, Gibney shows the blame is not easily placed. One soldier describes Afghani’s as “very frail people” and he was “surprised it took [Dilawar] that long to die,” and later, Gibney shows a hand-written note by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking why the prisoners only have to stand for four hours when he stands at his desk eight-to-ten hours a day.
By the middle of the documentary, it’s hard to tell which is more disgusting, the actual torture, or the self-justification of the soldiers and administration about the torture. In one of the most shocking lines of the film, a soldier who had tortured men at Bagram says, “If I had to do it again, I’d probably say no.” Probably?
One might breathe a sigh of relief with recent decisions by the Obama Administration to close Guantanamo Bay and redefine the treatment guidelines of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but those who’ve seen Alex Gibney’s “Taxi to the Dark Side” know the ambiguous workings of the government and bureaucracy are rarely conclusive, and sometimes not even in conjunction with the Geneva Convention. Most of the time, politicians seem to be arguing the definition of “torture,” than actually protecting human rights. Through careful editing Gibney allows “Taxi to the Dark Side” to be both illuminating and horrifying but stops before it becomes too accusatory, letting the message resonate without smothering.
Marni Newell
1/26/09
Lack of concrete directions, convenient oversights, and an extra dosage of self-justification occurs at all levels of the American bureaucracy in “Taxi to the Dark Side.” The documentary by Alex Gibney details modern American torture through the story of one small-town Afghani taxi driver, Dilawar, who was falsely accused of terrorism and tortured at the hands of American soldiers.
As told by his family in the start of the documentary, Dilawar grew up on a farm and planned to bring the “meat and potatoes” back to his family through his work in the city as a taxi driver. Before he could bring back anything, however, Dilawar and his passengers were accused of acts of terrorism dealing with rockets. The details of their crime are, even to the soldiers who abused him, murky at best. This doesn’t stop the soldiers at Bagram Air Base from following orders, which include hours of forced standing, sleep deprivation, demoralization, and beating the prisoners—as long as it is below the waist and using their knees.
By the time Dilawar died, he looked, according to coroners, as if he had been “pulpified.” And, as the documentary continues, it becomes apparent that he was not the only one to receive this treatment nor that those were the only techniques the soldiers used.
The soldiers interviewed in the documentary sit in a dark room with a single light shining on the side of their face, allowing the shadows to symbolize their violent, seemingly inhuman alter ego. But, as their soft-spoken justifications and admissions of guilt continue, they seem more a tool of the wrong-headed Bush Administration than individual murderers. In this way, Gibney succeeds in conveying the drama of the subject matter without compromising the weight of their hellacious deeds or making scapegoats of the soldiers. Through a delicate balance of shocking inhumanity at the soldier and administration level, Gibney shows the blame is not easily placed. One soldier describes Afghani’s as “very frail people” and he was “surprised it took [Dilawar] that long to die,” and later, Gibney shows a hand-written note by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking why the prisoners only have to stand for four hours when he stands at his desk eight-to-ten hours a day.
By the middle of the documentary, it’s hard to tell which is more disgusting, the actual torture, or the self-justification of the soldiers and administration about the torture. In one of the most shocking lines of the film, a soldier who had tortured men at Bagram says, “If I had to do it again, I’d probably say no.” Probably?
One might breathe a sigh of relief with recent decisions by the Obama Administration to close Guantanamo Bay and redefine the treatment guidelines of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but those who’ve seen Alex Gibney’s “Taxi to the Dark Side” know the ambiguous workings of the government and bureaucracy are rarely conclusive, and sometimes not even in conjunction with the Geneva Convention. Most of the time, politicians seem to be arguing the definition of “torture,” than actually protecting human rights. Through careful editing Gibney allows “Taxi to the Dark Side” to be both illuminating and horrifying but stops before it becomes too accusatory, letting the message resonate without smothering.
Monday, January 19, 2009
History Repeats itself in Live from Baghdad
History Repeats itself: Life from Baghdad Review
Marni Newell
19 Jan 2009
It’s hard to imagine, but once CNN was only an amateur emerging station waiting for its big break into televised news credibility. The station found that break in the Gulf War, which provided a perfect news station equivalent to cotillion, all CNN needed was a charming, sensitive producer and his hard-as-nails date. “Live from Baghdad” provides both with Michael Keaton and Helena Bonham Carter in the lead roles, and an added bonus of a quirky tech staff and slew of reporters played by if not high profile, then at least recognizable faces: Bruce McGill, Lili Taylor, and John Carroll Lynch.
“Live from Baghdad” tells the true story of producer Robert Wiener’s (Keaton) journey to Baghdad during the Gulf War to make a name for himself and his news station, CNN. Weiner, accompanied by co-producer Ingrid Formanek (Bonham Carter) and their hodge-podge crew maintain their sense of humor and direction in the mystical and dangerous country of Iraq, where men are watching their every move and stopping them before they tell too much. Weiner and his crew find creative and sometimes tense-but-funny ways to side-step the country’s censorship laws along with charming their way into good humor with its censorship authorities. “Live from Baghdad” succeeds in portraying bravery and ruthless reporting as well as the regret, humor, and frustrating mistakes that go along with it.
Written by Weiner himself, the script has honest emotions sometimes masked by too-perfect lines: when asked if Weiner wants Formanek to accompany him to Iraq because they’re having an affair, Weiner says, “I want her head, not her ass. She keeps me honest.” The charged relationship between Weiner and Formanek can be distracting and heavy-handed, Weiner speaks of his wife and family maybe three times but entire scenes are dedicated to Weiner’s awkward advances to Formanek and her equally-awkward reactions. The portrayal of confusion, danger, and constant fear of death almost excuse these scenes, but they’re too numerous and intense to be believable enough.
Weiner gives every character his or her own personality and conflict, and the actors do well to follow their written personalities within the precious few moments they have to show it. Keaton’s acting is appropriate for Weiner’s charm balanced with just the right amount of inner turmoil, and Bonham Carter really does keep him honest with a gritty portrayal of a woman who’s been everywhere and seen it all. Meanwhile, the budding relationship between sound tech Judy Parker (Taylor) and cameraman Mark Biello (Joshua Leonard) always appears to lighten the mood with humor and a little bit of cutesy courtship.
The cinematography shows but doesn’t tell, the angles and lighting are always both effective and artistic, and only once or twice did it seem fabricated, which probably only showed the available technology at the time. The score wasn’t overbearing and helped set the mood: in a tumult of colors and street noises and shouting, the light music in the background gave the “Ok” to chuckle, or asked for serious consideration.Even almost two decades later, the panic and confusion portrayed in “Live from Baghdad” feels relevant, especially when CNN leads the way in reporting the conflicts in Iraq and exposing the bitter truth of all sides of the situation. It proves the age-old adage that history really does repeat itself
Marni Newell
19 Jan 2009
It’s hard to imagine, but once CNN was only an amateur emerging station waiting for its big break into televised news credibility. The station found that break in the Gulf War, which provided a perfect news station equivalent to cotillion, all CNN needed was a charming, sensitive producer and his hard-as-nails date. “Live from Baghdad” provides both with Michael Keaton and Helena Bonham Carter in the lead roles, and an added bonus of a quirky tech staff and slew of reporters played by if not high profile, then at least recognizable faces: Bruce McGill, Lili Taylor, and John Carroll Lynch.
“Live from Baghdad” tells the true story of producer Robert Wiener’s (Keaton) journey to Baghdad during the Gulf War to make a name for himself and his news station, CNN. Weiner, accompanied by co-producer Ingrid Formanek (Bonham Carter) and their hodge-podge crew maintain their sense of humor and direction in the mystical and dangerous country of Iraq, where men are watching their every move and stopping them before they tell too much. Weiner and his crew find creative and sometimes tense-but-funny ways to side-step the country’s censorship laws along with charming their way into good humor with its censorship authorities. “Live from Baghdad” succeeds in portraying bravery and ruthless reporting as well as the regret, humor, and frustrating mistakes that go along with it.
Written by Weiner himself, the script has honest emotions sometimes masked by too-perfect lines: when asked if Weiner wants Formanek to accompany him to Iraq because they’re having an affair, Weiner says, “I want her head, not her ass. She keeps me honest.” The charged relationship between Weiner and Formanek can be distracting and heavy-handed, Weiner speaks of his wife and family maybe three times but entire scenes are dedicated to Weiner’s awkward advances to Formanek and her equally-awkward reactions. The portrayal of confusion, danger, and constant fear of death almost excuse these scenes, but they’re too numerous and intense to be believable enough.
Weiner gives every character his or her own personality and conflict, and the actors do well to follow their written personalities within the precious few moments they have to show it. Keaton’s acting is appropriate for Weiner’s charm balanced with just the right amount of inner turmoil, and Bonham Carter really does keep him honest with a gritty portrayal of a woman who’s been everywhere and seen it all. Meanwhile, the budding relationship between sound tech Judy Parker (Taylor) and cameraman Mark Biello (Joshua Leonard) always appears to lighten the mood with humor and a little bit of cutesy courtship.
The cinematography shows but doesn’t tell, the angles and lighting are always both effective and artistic, and only once or twice did it seem fabricated, which probably only showed the available technology at the time. The score wasn’t overbearing and helped set the mood: in a tumult of colors and street noises and shouting, the light music in the background gave the “Ok” to chuckle, or asked for serious consideration.Even almost two decades later, the panic and confusion portrayed in “Live from Baghdad” feels relevant, especially when CNN leads the way in reporting the conflicts in Iraq and exposing the bitter truth of all sides of the situation. It proves the age-old adage that history really does repeat itself
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Thesis.
The thesis in my Gran Torino review is the following at the end of paragraph two:
"Although Eastwood is convincing in his rendition of nearly every middle class white racist grandpa in the country, the symbolism is thinly veiled, the cinematography is almost cartoonish at times, and the acting always falls short of realistic."
How I would revise my entire piece is I would take out all of the personal pronouns that I used quite often. I would also clarify some of the jokes I tried to pull off that actually just turned out vague, and I would ease up on Grandpa Kowalski, I talked only briefly about the merits of this film, I think. Maybe just a little more of the positive so the readers don't think I was just having a good time trashing the film (you got me).
"Although Eastwood is convincing in his rendition of nearly every middle class white racist grandpa in the country, the symbolism is thinly veiled, the cinematography is almost cartoonish at times, and the acting always falls short of realistic."
How I would revise my entire piece is I would take out all of the personal pronouns that I used quite often. I would also clarify some of the jokes I tried to pull off that actually just turned out vague, and I would ease up on Grandpa Kowalski, I talked only briefly about the merits of this film, I think. Maybe just a little more of the positive so the readers don't think I was just having a good time trashing the film (you got me).
Monday, January 12, 2009
Marni's Critical Defense Article
Here's the link to a review of Happy-Go-Lucky which is playing at the Little Theater on Oakland: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/movies/10happ.html
Manhola Dargis gives Mike Leigh’s “Happy-Go-Lucky” a positive review, and keeps the reader convinced by including the specific reasons why it isn’t perfect and how it’s not always consistent. As Dargis goes through the particulars of “Happy-Go-Lucky,” he gives a positive and a negative aspect to the film saying, “much depends on whether you wear rose-colored specs.” The review is so back-and-forth about the movie, that I’m almost unsure that Dargis liked it, but by the last two paragraphs, it’s settled. Dargis is almost warning the audience that there are some optimistic and bubbly characters and situations that could get annoying, but in the end, everybody is struggling with the reality of happiness and not just floating along untouched.
The first “but” that made me think Dargis liked the film came at the end of the second paragraph with an actual “but”: “Nobody mounts a soapbox and whistles, “The Internationale” in Happy-Go-Lucky, but the film is so tuned to the pulse of communal life, to the rhythms of how people work, play and struggle together, it captures the larger picture along with the smaller.” Dargis mainly seems thrown by Leigh, who seems to only have written darker and more moody films in the past, but Happy-Go-Lucky has it’s moments and the characters are tested enough and fail enough that Dargis is reassured.
Manhola Dargis gives Mike Leigh’s “Happy-Go-Lucky” a positive review, and keeps the reader convinced by including the specific reasons why it isn’t perfect and how it’s not always consistent. As Dargis goes through the particulars of “Happy-Go-Lucky,” he gives a positive and a negative aspect to the film saying, “much depends on whether you wear rose-colored specs.” The review is so back-and-forth about the movie, that I’m almost unsure that Dargis liked it, but by the last two paragraphs, it’s settled. Dargis is almost warning the audience that there are some optimistic and bubbly characters and situations that could get annoying, but in the end, everybody is struggling with the reality of happiness and not just floating along untouched.
The first “but” that made me think Dargis liked the film came at the end of the second paragraph with an actual “but”: “Nobody mounts a soapbox and whistles, “The Internationale” in Happy-Go-Lucky, but the film is so tuned to the pulse of communal life, to the rhythms of how people work, play and struggle together, it captures the larger picture along with the smaller.” Dargis mainly seems thrown by Leigh, who seems to only have written darker and more moody films in the past, but Happy-Go-Lucky has it’s moments and the characters are tested enough and fail enough that Dargis is reassured.
Gran Torino: A closer look at angry, racist grandpas
By Marni Newell
In one of the most believable scenes in Clint Eastwood’s newest film, “Gran Torino”, Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) sits on his porch accompanied by his dog, Daisey, and a cooler full of Pabst Blue Ribbon and grumbles about his neighbors. Like most grandfathers who served in the military during a conflict and now spend their time at the bar or the VFW, Kowalski balances his time between his passionate racism and sense of elitism while maintaining his yard and 1972 Gran Torino. In this sense, Eastwood pulls on the heartstrings (and brings out the guilt) of grandchildren everywhere, which gives enjoying this film a deeper conflict: we all want Grandpa’s movie to pull through.
Statistically, “Gran Torino” is the leading film in box offices everywhere, allowing me more leeway emotionally (that is, with less guilt) in giving an honest review. Although Eastwood is convincing in his rendition of nearly every middle class white racist grandpa in the country, the symbolism is thinly veiled, the cinematography is almost cartoonish at times, and the acting always falls short of realistic.
This may have to do with the authentic Hmong actors, all of which, excepting Duoa Muoa (Fong, aka “Spider”) are newbies to the craft. It doesn’t explain, however, nearly every other actor in the film, leading me to blame the script for being too simple for the dramatic shots and lofty message. After all, Ahney Her (Sue Lor) is believable as the spunky older sister who will never take flak, even when her safety is compromised, but her insults are grade school-esque: she retaliates to a come-on from a gang member with, “Mentally, I’m too old for you” and ends multiple snarky comments with the signifier, “stupid.”
Not to mention the overt racism of Kowalski’s character who teeters between appreciating the Hmong culture and showing off his extensive knowledge of anti-Asian slurs, leaving the audience in a perpetual hesitant chuckle. For Kowalski, tough love is the only love, but even the most racist of love is never enough to be convincing.
As far as the films deeper meaning goes, I was either being distracted by the young persistent priest’s (Christopher Carley) ability to position himself in half-shadows and maintain an uncomfortably large ego even with Grandpa Kowalski’s constant atheism, or I was being bludgeoned in the head by Biblical symbolism and parallels to Jesus. On second, thought, they’re the same thing.
The one commonality between all of the characters in Gran Torino was their keen ability to portray typical middle class Americans, only more exaggerated. Kowalski’s oldest son Mitch (Brian Haley) and his wife Karen (Geraldine Hughs) are too ignorant of how to act respectfully and logically around the grumbling Walt, and never seem to notice when his growls get louder until they’re being kicked out of his house, claiming their kids are more sensible than they are for refusing to visit Grandpa Walt on his birthday in the first place (another forcefully spoon-fed theme).
In the end, thirty-something racial slurs and countless hours of Eastwood’s disapproving growl later, the movie ends. But it doesn’t end without drama and tears, another kick-in-the-face symbolic moment and a shot of the Gran Torino accompanied by Eastwood’s gravelly rendition of the song, “Gran Torino.” Other than a sense of guilt for buying Grandpa a jitterbug phone instead of a new lawn mower for his birthday, Gran Torino leaves you feeling cheated out of a more involved and complex story and a convincing cast.
In one of the most believable scenes in Clint Eastwood’s newest film, “Gran Torino”, Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) sits on his porch accompanied by his dog, Daisey, and a cooler full of Pabst Blue Ribbon and grumbles about his neighbors. Like most grandfathers who served in the military during a conflict and now spend their time at the bar or the VFW, Kowalski balances his time between his passionate racism and sense of elitism while maintaining his yard and 1972 Gran Torino. In this sense, Eastwood pulls on the heartstrings (and brings out the guilt) of grandchildren everywhere, which gives enjoying this film a deeper conflict: we all want Grandpa’s movie to pull through.
Statistically, “Gran Torino” is the leading film in box offices everywhere, allowing me more leeway emotionally (that is, with less guilt) in giving an honest review. Although Eastwood is convincing in his rendition of nearly every middle class white racist grandpa in the country, the symbolism is thinly veiled, the cinematography is almost cartoonish at times, and the acting always falls short of realistic.
This may have to do with the authentic Hmong actors, all of which, excepting Duoa Muoa (Fong, aka “Spider”) are newbies to the craft. It doesn’t explain, however, nearly every other actor in the film, leading me to blame the script for being too simple for the dramatic shots and lofty message. After all, Ahney Her (Sue Lor) is believable as the spunky older sister who will never take flak, even when her safety is compromised, but her insults are grade school-esque: she retaliates to a come-on from a gang member with, “Mentally, I’m too old for you” and ends multiple snarky comments with the signifier, “stupid.”
Not to mention the overt racism of Kowalski’s character who teeters between appreciating the Hmong culture and showing off his extensive knowledge of anti-Asian slurs, leaving the audience in a perpetual hesitant chuckle. For Kowalski, tough love is the only love, but even the most racist of love is never enough to be convincing.
As far as the films deeper meaning goes, I was either being distracted by the young persistent priest’s (Christopher Carley) ability to position himself in half-shadows and maintain an uncomfortably large ego even with Grandpa Kowalski’s constant atheism, or I was being bludgeoned in the head by Biblical symbolism and parallels to Jesus. On second, thought, they’re the same thing.
The one commonality between all of the characters in Gran Torino was their keen ability to portray typical middle class Americans, only more exaggerated. Kowalski’s oldest son Mitch (Brian Haley) and his wife Karen (Geraldine Hughs) are too ignorant of how to act respectfully and logically around the grumbling Walt, and never seem to notice when his growls get louder until they’re being kicked out of his house, claiming their kids are more sensible than they are for refusing to visit Grandpa Walt on his birthday in the first place (another forcefully spoon-fed theme).
In the end, thirty-something racial slurs and countless hours of Eastwood’s disapproving growl later, the movie ends. But it doesn’t end without drama and tears, another kick-in-the-face symbolic moment and a shot of the Gran Torino accompanied by Eastwood’s gravelly rendition of the song, “Gran Torino.” Other than a sense of guilt for buying Grandpa a jitterbug phone instead of a new lawn mower for his birthday, Gran Torino leaves you feeling cheated out of a more involved and complex story and a convincing cast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
