Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is not the movie it appears from the trailers. It's not a comedy, even though it has some very funny parts. In tone it reminded me of The Invention of Lying, another film that started with a very funny first act based on a high concept and then became a serious philosophical examination in the third act. Lying was a movie that was actually about religion, and even though it was written by an atheist it actually made a good argument that faith in a higher power gave people happiness even if it isn't true. Seeking a Friend is a movie about love, but even more about being alone.
Dying alone is the ultimate fear for most people. Being alone in life is annoying, but the taunt isn't "you're going to spend the weekend alone" it's "you're going to die alone." That when the show is over you will be by yourself with nobody left to mourn and nobody to remember you were ever here. Seeking a Friend gives that fear of dying alone a timetable. The world is ending in 21 days. There is no hope. There is no Bruce Willis to save the day (the movie starts after the action movie heroes who were going to save Earth end up failing- the implication being that as long as that chance of a rescue still existed that people were not ready to deal with the true finality of death). You are going to die, and unless you get into gear, it is going to be alone.
Steve Carell plays Dodge, a guy who has played it safe his entire life. The film starts with his wife leaving him (well, running screaming from him when she hears that the rescue mission has failed on the radio). He wants to love someone and be loved, but he also doesn't really want to put the effort into actually falling in love when they're going to die anyway. He isn't very upset about his wife leaving. He admits he married her because he was afraid of dying alone. He is torn between wanting to have someone to share these last days with and recognizing that the entire thing in pointless.
From there he meets Penny (Kira Knightly doing a good job of being more than just a manic pixie dream girl) and goes in search of his high school sweetheart and reconnects with his past. Look, it's a movie that is pretty good. You should see it. You'll cry for the last 15 minutes of the thing. And then on the drive home.
What I loved about it is Dodge's central dilemma- love takes a lot of time and effort. Is it worth it to go through all that crap when it's going to end anyway? It is an interesting question because it's true even when the world isn't ending. The best possible ending for your love affair is that you both die at the same time. Every other option involves one person leaving the other (either breaking up or dying). When Romeo and Juliet is your happy ending then it shows how fucked up the entire world it. Why even worry about romance when the end is predetermined to be bad?
The reason is because love is great. Being loved is nice, but the greatest joy is in loving someone else. It's going to end. It will probably end badly. The flower is going to die, that doesn't mean it isn't lovely to look at right now.
There's another message in the film. Dodge and Penny have a great love story, but they aren't some perfect couple. If the world didn't end they'd probably just grow apart because they are so different. But they can be the loves of each others lives right now, because they both have decided to just love unconditionally. In this world where internet dating has made finding a mate similar to shopping for shoes. I've been known to read a profile and be thinking the guy is interesting but... The DaVinci Code is your favorite book? Pass.
We all have this idea that if we look long enough and far enough we can find the person who has all the traits we want and who wants all the traits we have. That's a crapshoot. We could also just learn to love people as they are (even if they have terrible taste in books) and be happy with that. Loving someone is as much about our willingness to open our hearts to their flaws as it is about them meeting some checklist of worthiness.
Although, it is much easier to do that when you know that you only have 3 weeks left. It's hard for me to give up on finding a guy who loves old movies and Kurt Vonnegut novels when the end seems so far away. Even though part of me knows that I might be passing on wonderful people in the process.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Roger Ebert's Brave Review Gives Me a Sad
I love Roger Ebert.
The guy is not just one of the best movie reviewers in modern history, he'd just a hella great guy. Love his books. His interviews. His blog posts. I love the guy.
Which is why his review of the new Pixar movie Brave is extra head desky in the final paragraph.
To which I say... huh?
Let me break down the logic here, LSAT style. Merida rejects her suitors. She seems to be happy without a husband. Therefore- Brave is not dealing with her femaleness.
See, that can't be right. Because for that to be true he would be saying that femaleness is defined by wanting a husband. That's just silly. There are plenty of women who don't want a husband who don't give up their gender in doing so. There are also lots of men who do want a husband who don't suddenly become women when they acquire this desire. I'm not saying that a woman needs a husband like a fish needs a bicycle. The early feminist ideas of defining modern womanhood as a rejection of marriage is just as limiting as a world where womanhood is defined by wanting marriage. A woman can want to get married or not want to get married without it needing to take on some symbolic meaning about her relationship to her gender.
I really am hoping that the Brave review is just some type of editing error. That there is a whole other paragraph that got cut out of it that clarifies how the fact that a pre-teen character doesn't want to get married is related to the movie making her male. I commented on the related facebook post to the review and there is some good discussion going on about it. For the moment I'm going to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt and hope that there is a clarification coming soon.
Because, I am curious about how Pixar is going to deal with its first female lead character. Pixar has a troubling relationship with women in their previous films. Toy Story was a great movie, but it was a film about male friendships. Toy Story 2 got better with Jessie, but the audio commentary for the film has the writers admitting that the original script featured Jessie as being little more than a damsel in distress until Joan Cusack suggested letting her save the day. They hadn't even considered that option when they were writing. I don't think it is that they were sexists, but they were more invested in Buzz and Woody. They hadn't even considered that Jessie could be the hero.
Monster's Inc. is another film that does great with male friendship but places women either as girlfriend, crone, or semi-silent pet. Look. I LOVE Boo. I sometimes just scream "Mike Wazowski" imitating her little voice. But it isn't like a little girl could watch Monster's Inc. and say "yes, I want to be like her." While Sully or Mike have traits to be admired, what did the women really do.
The original opening scene of The Incredibles featured Mrs. Incredible getting into a fight with her new neighbors at a picnic when one of them was dismissive of the fact she was a stay at home Mom. The scene was later cut and the film moved to focus more on the mid-life crisis of Mr. Incredible than on the work/life balance issues of the Mrs. Which makes sense in a narrative sense even though I wish I could have seen the film with a bigger focus on the women. This is just more of Pixar's problematic relationship with women. It isn't that I think the studio is sexist or that they hate women. It's just that they tend to place the focus of the story on men. Maybe it's because that's what most modern films do and you just pick it up as a storytelling device. But it doesn't make it any less upsetting.
Their best treatment of female characters are often when they are barely seen. The opening scene in Up that followed a fearless little girl as she went on an adventure, fell in love, got married, lost a baby, and never gave up on her dreams of the world might have featured Pixar's most fully formed female character. Then she died. (Ask yourself for a moment if the film would have been made any different by having the boy scout who ended up on the adventure be a girl scout. The story would have been as good with the bonus of giving little girls a character they could see themselves in). Eve from Wall-E is also a great female character who just happens to never talk. Cars, for being a film that seems made just for boys who like toys, had its heart in the female character voiced by Bonnie Hunt, a big city gal who gave everything up to live in the place she loved. The female chef in Ratatoulle showed how hard it is to be a woman in a man's world, but still got upstaged by a rat.
Until Brave, Pixar's biggest female character would probably be Dory from Finding Nemo. She's more memorable than Nemo's Dad (I literally can't remember his character's name...never a good sign). She's a good loyal friend who does her best even with a handicap which makes her unable to remember things. She starts off seeming like just a joke, but by the end of the film I didn't really care if Nemo and Albert Brooks were reunited as long as Dory was with people who accepted how awesome she was.
I am worried about what type of female Brave will give us. Will we have a complex character like Dory, Eve, or Mrs. Lou Grant from Up? I wish I could look to the Ebert review for help, but instead he just makes me even more concerned about what the media thinks of my gender.
The guy is not just one of the best movie reviewers in modern history, he'd just a hella great guy. Love his books. His interviews. His blog posts. I love the guy.
Which is why his review of the new Pixar movie Brave is extra head desky in the final paragraph.
But Merida is far from being a typical fairy-tale princess. Having flatly rejected the three suitors proposed by her family, she is apparently prepared to go through life quite happily without a husband, and we can imagine her in later years, a weathered and indomitable Amazon queen, sort of a Boudica for the Scots. "Brave" seems at a loss to deal with her as a girl and makes her a sort of honorary boy.
To which I say... huh?
Let me break down the logic here, LSAT style. Merida rejects her suitors. She seems to be happy without a husband. Therefore- Brave is not dealing with her femaleness.
See, that can't be right. Because for that to be true he would be saying that femaleness is defined by wanting a husband. That's just silly. There are plenty of women who don't want a husband who don't give up their gender in doing so. There are also lots of men who do want a husband who don't suddenly become women when they acquire this desire. I'm not saying that a woman needs a husband like a fish needs a bicycle. The early feminist ideas of defining modern womanhood as a rejection of marriage is just as limiting as a world where womanhood is defined by wanting marriage. A woman can want to get married or not want to get married without it needing to take on some symbolic meaning about her relationship to her gender.
I really am hoping that the Brave review is just some type of editing error. That there is a whole other paragraph that got cut out of it that clarifies how the fact that a pre-teen character doesn't want to get married is related to the movie making her male. I commented on the related facebook post to the review and there is some good discussion going on about it. For the moment I'm going to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt and hope that there is a clarification coming soon.
Because, I am curious about how Pixar is going to deal with its first female lead character. Pixar has a troubling relationship with women in their previous films. Toy Story was a great movie, but it was a film about male friendships. Toy Story 2 got better with Jessie, but the audio commentary for the film has the writers admitting that the original script featured Jessie as being little more than a damsel in distress until Joan Cusack suggested letting her save the day. They hadn't even considered that option when they were writing. I don't think it is that they were sexists, but they were more invested in Buzz and Woody. They hadn't even considered that Jessie could be the hero.
Monster's Inc. is another film that does great with male friendship but places women either as girlfriend, crone, or semi-silent pet. Look. I LOVE Boo. I sometimes just scream "Mike Wazowski" imitating her little voice. But it isn't like a little girl could watch Monster's Inc. and say "yes, I want to be like her." While Sully or Mike have traits to be admired, what did the women really do.
The original opening scene of The Incredibles featured Mrs. Incredible getting into a fight with her new neighbors at a picnic when one of them was dismissive of the fact she was a stay at home Mom. The scene was later cut and the film moved to focus more on the mid-life crisis of Mr. Incredible than on the work/life balance issues of the Mrs. Which makes sense in a narrative sense even though I wish I could have seen the film with a bigger focus on the women. This is just more of Pixar's problematic relationship with women. It isn't that I think the studio is sexist or that they hate women. It's just that they tend to place the focus of the story on men. Maybe it's because that's what most modern films do and you just pick it up as a storytelling device. But it doesn't make it any less upsetting.
Their best treatment of female characters are often when they are barely seen. The opening scene in Up that followed a fearless little girl as she went on an adventure, fell in love, got married, lost a baby, and never gave up on her dreams of the world might have featured Pixar's most fully formed female character. Then she died. (Ask yourself for a moment if the film would have been made any different by having the boy scout who ended up on the adventure be a girl scout. The story would have been as good with the bonus of giving little girls a character they could see themselves in). Eve from Wall-E is also a great female character who just happens to never talk. Cars, for being a film that seems made just for boys who like toys, had its heart in the female character voiced by Bonnie Hunt, a big city gal who gave everything up to live in the place she loved. The female chef in Ratatoulle showed how hard it is to be a woman in a man's world, but still got upstaged by a rat.
Until Brave, Pixar's biggest female character would probably be Dory from Finding Nemo. She's more memorable than Nemo's Dad (I literally can't remember his character's name...never a good sign). She's a good loyal friend who does her best even with a handicap which makes her unable to remember things. She starts off seeming like just a joke, but by the end of the film I didn't really care if Nemo and Albert Brooks were reunited as long as Dory was with people who accepted how awesome she was.
I am worried about what type of female Brave will give us. Will we have a complex character like Dory, Eve, or Mrs. Lou Grant from Up? I wish I could look to the Ebert review for help, but instead he just makes me even more concerned about what the media thinks of my gender.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Virginians: Wear your Gang Color Necklaces Safely
The Virgina Supreme Court has come down on the side of accessories in Rushing v. Commonwealth,
(Va., No. 111569, 6/7/12) by deciding that the fact that a defendant wore a necklace with black and blue beads should not have been admitted into evidence as to the defendant's membership in a gang.
This makes sense. I'm wearing a black and blue necklace at the moment, although mine is to show my affinity with House Ravenclaw and not any gang membership. If a necklace is enough to show affiliation the risk is that many people could be convicted who were otherwise innocent.
On the other hand, it isn't as if gangs necessarily hand out membership cards and t-shirts or that they keep official membership directories. If the wearing of a necklace in gang colors can't be used, then what will be considered strong enough evidence?
From a pure statutory interpretation standpoint the Prosecution probably didn't even need to show that the defendant was actually in a gang. From Va. Code § 18.2-46.2
This makes sense. I'm wearing a black and blue necklace at the moment, although mine is to show my affinity with House Ravenclaw and not any gang membership. If a necklace is enough to show affiliation the risk is that many people could be convicted who were otherwise innocent.
On the other hand, it isn't as if gangs necessarily hand out membership cards and t-shirts or that they keep official membership directories. If the wearing of a necklace in gang colors can't be used, then what will be considered strong enough evidence?
From a pure statutory interpretation standpoint the Prosecution probably didn't even need to show that the defendant was actually in a gang. From Va. Code § 18.2-46.2
Any person who actively participates in or is a member of a criminal street gang and who knowingly and willfully participates in any predicate criminal act committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if such participant in or member of a criminal street gang is age eighteen years or older and knows or has reason to know that such criminal street gang also includes a juvenile member or participant, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.Membership and Active Participation are two separate factors and the prosecution can prove either one. If "he wears beads" was your evidence of membership it seems that it would be stronger to focus on showing that he actively participates in a criminal street gang. Assuming that the State was able to prove the additional element of a "predicate criminal act committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang" (and because the ruling focused on the membership aspect I think this is a fair assumption) it would seem that showing that he was an active participant in gang activities, which is enough to meet the statutory requirements even without showing membership.
Backseat Prosecuting from a Jury Box
I wish I could tell you that I've been busy. I have, but I can't talk about it because of forms and paperwork.
I also wish that meant that the things I can't tell you are interesting. They aren't.
So, here's what I can say... juries are the worst.
Take, for example, the government's case against Roger Clemens for lying in front of a congressional hearing on drug use in baseball. I don't follow sports at all. I don't care about drugs and doping and whatever else is going on. That either makes me the WORST person to be talking about this or the BEST! Worst because I have no background and best because I can look at the facts without letting things like sports pride and fame get in the way.
Clemens lied. He was asked questions. He answered with things that were not true. Things he knew were not true. That is pretty much what we around here call perjury. And yet one jury failed to come to a verdict and the second one acquitted the guy.
Is it because the government couldn't prove the case? Because Clemens was innocent? Nope, apparently it's because the jurors didn't like the fact that Congress called Clemens to testify in the first place. Jurors in the trial are saying that they didn't like the case from the start because the didn't think it was something the DOJ should be prosecuting and that Congress shouldn't have been investigating steroids at all.
Really?
There is this common misconception about government that there are limited resources and that these investigations and prosecutions are zero-sum games. They aren't. The fact that Congress held hearings on drugs in baseball didn't prevent them from getting other work done. They're congress. They weren't going to get anything done anyway. And the DOJ's prosecution of Clemens didn't mean that they opted against prosecuting some terrorist or drug kingpin. They can balance multiple cases, especially since 95% of them end up in pleas. Most of the cases never make the paper because they are worked out in conference rooms instead of courtrooms. The cases that do end up in court tend to be weaker ones (the strong cases plea out) like Clemens or the John Edwards trial. People see these cases on the news and don't hear about all the other cases the DOJ worked out and then assume that this is all they do.
If the Clemens and Edwards juries think that they are sending the message that the DOJ needs to focus on more "criminal" feeling crimes, it's a message that doesn't need to be sent. Just because these cases with famous figures make the front page doesn't mean that there aren't many other cases, like the Gupta insider trading case, which don't make as big an impression because they involve names that aren't well known and fact patterns that you need a degree in accounting to understand.
The only message that is being sent is that it is okay to break the rules as long as you're famous.
The final lesson is that Prosecutor's in these cases might do well to talk about the elephant in the room. Instead of ignoring the fact that many people find these types of crimes (perjury, campaign finance, even insider trading) to be less worthy of prosecution, winning the case might rest on convincing the jury not only that the defendant is guilty, but that the case should have been brought in the first place.
I also wish that meant that the things I can't tell you are interesting. They aren't.
So, here's what I can say... juries are the worst.
Take, for example, the government's case against Roger Clemens for lying in front of a congressional hearing on drug use in baseball. I don't follow sports at all. I don't care about drugs and doping and whatever else is going on. That either makes me the WORST person to be talking about this or the BEST! Worst because I have no background and best because I can look at the facts without letting things like sports pride and fame get in the way.
Clemens lied. He was asked questions. He answered with things that were not true. Things he knew were not true. That is pretty much what we around here call perjury. And yet one jury failed to come to a verdict and the second one acquitted the guy.
Is it because the government couldn't prove the case? Because Clemens was innocent? Nope, apparently it's because the jurors didn't like the fact that Congress called Clemens to testify in the first place. Jurors in the trial are saying that they didn't like the case from the start because the didn't think it was something the DOJ should be prosecuting and that Congress shouldn't have been investigating steroids at all.
Really?
There is this common misconception about government that there are limited resources and that these investigations and prosecutions are zero-sum games. They aren't. The fact that Congress held hearings on drugs in baseball didn't prevent them from getting other work done. They're congress. They weren't going to get anything done anyway. And the DOJ's prosecution of Clemens didn't mean that they opted against prosecuting some terrorist or drug kingpin. They can balance multiple cases, especially since 95% of them end up in pleas. Most of the cases never make the paper because they are worked out in conference rooms instead of courtrooms. The cases that do end up in court tend to be weaker ones (the strong cases plea out) like Clemens or the John Edwards trial. People see these cases on the news and don't hear about all the other cases the DOJ worked out and then assume that this is all they do.
If the Clemens and Edwards juries think that they are sending the message that the DOJ needs to focus on more "criminal" feeling crimes, it's a message that doesn't need to be sent. Just because these cases with famous figures make the front page doesn't mean that there aren't many other cases, like the Gupta insider trading case, which don't make as big an impression because they involve names that aren't well known and fact patterns that you need a degree in accounting to understand.
The only message that is being sent is that it is okay to break the rules as long as you're famous.
The final lesson is that Prosecutor's in these cases might do well to talk about the elephant in the room. Instead of ignoring the fact that many people find these types of crimes (perjury, campaign finance, even insider trading) to be less worthy of prosecution, winning the case might rest on convincing the jury not only that the defendant is guilty, but that the case should have been brought in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)