I'm not under the influence...

So this afternoon I was home sick yet again (I don't know if I've mentioned this, but I HATE summer colds!), and I watched this documentary from IFC called "A Decade Under the Influence," which is about auteur-driven cinema in the 1970s. I'm madly in love with this particular era, dating back to my 10th grade crush on the "Taxi Driver"-era Robert DeNiro, so I was really excited, even through my Sudafed fog...

And, I have to say, I was a mite disappointed. As much as it pains me to knock any documentary, let alone on a subject that I love, it left me thinking "meh...." Basically, you've got a selection of players from the film industry in the late 60's and early 70's - Dennis Hopper, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, etc. - going on about how brilliant and ground-breaking their work was. And it was, don't get me wrong...but too often this felt like a couple of dozen middle-aged white men patting one another on the back, rather than a clear-eyed look back.

We get to hear from exactly one person of color (Pam Grier), and the observation that, hey, women have voices, too! comes up 90 minutes in, for exactly nine minutes. The narrative comes off like this: Vietnam and Watergate made us all existential 'n stuff, so with the help of some high grade dope and every movie made outside the U.S. for the previous 20 years, we learned how to take the camera off the tripod. But we also made "Klute" and "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore," so give us a cookie. Or better yet, a pot brownie.

Some questions...how do films like 1967's "Bonnie and Clyde" and 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" get roped into the 70's auteur era? How does Watergate (happened 1972, blew up 1974) influence a film made years earlier? Why is Sam Peckinpah, a studio guy from the 50's on, considered to be part of this cohort? Why, again, am I expected to swallow the opinions of a bunch of middle-aged white men on the Civil Rights movement, feminism, etc.? How, exactly, does "Easy Rider" explore these themes???

There's a good discussion of how "Jaws" and "Star Wars" introduced the idea that films could be marketed nation-wide (rather than building an audience city by city), and that a film could make more money through product licensing than through the box office. But I really wished there'd been as much exploration of the era's beginning as there was of its decline. What we're left with is the idea that the end of the studio contract system suddenly led studio heads, en masse, to take chances on Jack Nicholson, Bruce Dern and Peter Fonda. Why? Because they're so damn cool, that's why!

In every film textbook and Intro to Cinema class in this country, you hear about the brilliant work produced in the late 60s and 70s. And I don't deny that - some of my favorite films came out of that period. But the popular storyline ignores the fact that this set of films embodied themes that were relevant largely to one demographic: middle class white men for whom the post-World War II social movements left them confused about the state of their privilege. Women, ethnic minorities, the lower classes and people who don't do drugs or wife-swap were as voiceless in Hollywood as they always had been, and to an extent still are.

"A Decade Under the Influence" is a nice primer of films from that era, but I really could have used more criticism...

UPDATE: After this, I bumped "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" to the top of my queue...It's an hour shorter, way more thorough and a million times less pretentious. You'll hear more about the role of people like Robert Evans, who *hired* the brilliant auteurs, and about the excesses (drugs, over-budget films that nobody wanted to see, etc.) that did way more to bring down Bogdonavich, Hopper & Co. than "Jaws" or "Star Wars" did. Highly recommend.

NY Times on foreign fuel subsidies

Today's New York Times has a great article on how governments in several developing nations subsidize the cost of gas and diesel for their citizens, which means that individuals and businesses in China, India, Indonesia, etc., aren't paying for their gas what we pay. The increased demand from what we used to refer to as Third World countries is a major reason that oil prices have risen so much in the last year or two.

Remember how, when gas was $2 or so a gallon here in the U.S., everybody drove giant SUVs the half mile to the grocery store instead of walking, made fun of Al Gore and just in general acted as if we had zero incentive to use less oil? Well, that's kind of where Indonesia is right now. And they're not going to start conserving oil just because the U.S. asks them nicely, either. Why would they? It's not like we ever did the same for them.

While we're on the subject, I have a question about off-shore drilling, of which Sen. John McCain is suddenly a fan. First of all, energy companies apparently aren't even using all of the leases they have available to them (way to keep the market tight, fellas). Isn't it a little silly to act like you're starved, at capacity, whatever, when you're not even drilling in all of the places you've been told you can drill? Second, even if we were magically able to extract every drop of oil in the U.S., it would take years to refine it and get it to your local gas station. Which brings me to my question...Oil that's drilled in a U.S. territory doesn't belong to the U.S. It belongs to Exxon BP Mobil Shell, and they can sell it to whomever they feel like selling it to. What on Earth makes McCain or anyone else think that any of the prospective oil under the Pacific is actually going to stay in this country?

I have a much better idea. Let China have the stuff. We're the wealthiest, and at least we used to be the most advanced nation on the planet. How about, instead of continuing to devote resources to a fuel that's expensive, polluting, primitive and that we can't get to without destroying large chunks of our ecosystem, let's just look into something else. C'mon, we put human beings on the moon for crying out loud. We can handle this.

John McCain has not thought much about my uterus

I'm a little late on this, but I still think it bears mentioning:



"I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer...It's a delicate choice. It's not something I've thought much about." -- Sen. John McCain

Huh. Maybe if you know so little about an issue that you can't answer a question about it, you should refrain from legislating on it. Just a thought.

By the way - and I realize that this isn't breaking news here - Bill O'Reilly is an asshole. The "medical condition" that Viagra treats is more of a quality-of-life thing, and is therefore completely elective. Like Botox. Ask the women whose doctors prescribe BC to treat their acne, endometriosis or debilitating cramps if it's a "choice." And BTW, Bill, the "taxpayers" aren't paying for anybody's medical treatment of anything (yet - give us crazy liberals time. Mwah hah hah!). We do, however, occasionally have to foot the bill for unplanned babies. What a judgmental f*cktard.

Quick hit: Congress approves housing bill

The U.S. Senate voted yesterday to pass the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which the House of Representatives had ok'd earlier in the week. Now the bill goes to the White House, where President Bush will almost certainly sign it. The bill will allow homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure to refinance (with the approval of their original lender), plus some other stuff that will hopefully keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which underwrite something like half of the nation's mortgages - from going belly up.

Now, I'm a homeowner, and when I bought my house, I learned all about fixed rates vs. variable interest rates (which seemed like a really bad idea, even to someone as inexperienced as me). I was fortunate enough to have decent credit, so I qualified for a low fixed interest rate anyway. I didn't borrow more than I could afford. My mortgage is actually less than I would be paying for an apartment in my neighborhood. My home-buying process was one of the handful of sensible things I've done in my life.

All that said, I have zero problem bailing out the homeowners who weren't as thorough or just plain lucky as me. We're not talking about a few slackers here. We're talking about billions of dollars that have filtered through every layer of our country's finance system like that God-awful boxwood in my yard has sunk roots into the retaining wall. Loans, pensions, investment portfolios...all that money's rolled up together. Our economy's already teetering on the edge, and I really don't want to see what happens if our mortgage lenders fail.

But maybe I'm alone. In North Carolina, only one Republican representative voted to pass the bill (hint: it so completely was NOT Virginia Foxx), and both of our illustrious senators chickened out and didn't cast a vote at all. (I'm trying to come up with something snarky but I'm too pissed off about this next thing...) And do you know why? Apparently the Republicans who voted against the bill - heavily pushed by the Bush Administration - did so out of a sense of fiscal responsibility. That's right. After eight years of tossing out cash like my nephew in the Hot Wheels aisle, Congressional Republicans have suddenly rediscovered their Adam Smith. Let's get it from the horse's mouth:

Republican Sen. Jim DeMInt of South Carolina single-handedly blocked the bill last week, forcing Saturday's session.

"I know this is a lost cause that I'm not going to stop this bill but I'm disappointed, the American people are disappointed, and what we've done by keeping the Democrats and the republicans here today is maybe give Americans a little more time to see what this Congress is doing to their future," he said Saturday.

No one knows what the line of credit will end up costing taxpayers, if anything. Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison pointed to salaries in the tens of millions of dollars for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives. She said Congress should have implemented greater controls.

"We need checks on executive compensation on perks at Freddie Mae and Fannie Mae with this kind of infusion of taxpayer backing," she said.

Huh. It's interesting that certain Congressional Republicans are suddenly all concerned with long-term fiscal balance, oversight and all that good stuff. Here's a sampling of Rep. Hutchison's votes on key bills from which we can see that she ok'd $120 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but voted against an earlier version of the bill that included benchmarks for eventual troop withdrawal. In other words, tying funding to what Rep. Hutchison calls "oversight" is sometimes good and sometimes awful. It just depends.

Principle I can understand. It doesn't bother me that Rep. Howard Coble voted no, because Howard Coble will always vote no on anything that involves setting a precedent of federal spending. It's not out of malice, it's out of genuine belief that Congress writing a giant check should never be done lightly. I can disagree with him, but still respect his position.

But it's the hypocrisy that gets me - federal welfare is perfectly fine when we're talking about bailing out an airline or an investment bank, but not when it comes to funding school lunch programs. Subsidized tobacco industry = good, but subsidized health care = evil. Approving billions of dollars with no accountability attached is perfectly fine when the money's going to Halliburton and Blackwater, but not so much when it's going to my bank.

At least we won this one. I don't know about y'all, but I am so ready for November!

The Week in "No Sh*t, Sherlock"

I've been ruminating lately on the nature of stupidity. I'm just as likely as anyone to call someone stupid when they piss me off (by, say, failing to notice the road signs indicating that Business 40 and I-40 will split in two miles, or that the left lane is closed ahead, even though they're CLEARLY MARKED...sigh). In actuality, the people are most likely merely ignorant, and we should pity them, rather than throwing things at their heads.

But what if you're talking about people who really should know better? Children, people with no Internet access, etc., get a pass for ignorance in many cases. But what if we're talking about highly paid studio executives, or journalists - people whose JOB it is to find out what other people think - and they still get it comically wrong?

I got to thinking about this today when I read Entertainment Weekly's post-coverage of "The Dark Knight," which busted box office records in its first weekend of release. (I dutifully contributed my $5.50.) The article's second page contains this bombshell: 48 percent of the audience were women. The studio marketing gurus don't know what to think...Women? At an action flick based on a comic book series? It must be because of those hunky male stars.

This is where I start punching things. I can't speak for every woman in that 48 percent obviously, but I know that what I look for in a film are things like a compelling story, a good cast, a writer/director I feel I can trust based on previous experience, stuff like that. And I do happen to like chases, fight scenes, explosions, etc., as long as the story's there, too. "The Dark Knight" has enough story for three movies. But oh, no. It's all about Christian Bale's cheekbones. Motherf*ckers. No wonder this industry's going down the toilet. Maybe if they'd stop making movies as if they were paint-by-numbers projects and just - gasp! - tell good stories and tell them well, then more people would go to the movies.

Of course, there is this idiot, who's probably more what the marketing gurus had in mind when they thought of the female audience. Oh, no, how is my widdle girlie bladder going to handle that two-and-a-half hour big boy movie? Here's an idea...if you're going in for a movie that long, don't start it off with a gallon of caffeinated diuretic. And if you are that stupid, please don't rope the rest of your gender in with you.

This story gets points for flakiness and for common sense. A judge in New Zealand granted a nine-year-old girl's request to change her name from - let me make sure I get this right -Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii. (Not a bad name for a movie, or a rockabilly album, but a child...?) Apparently the funky-nameness in NZ has gotten to the point where the law is having to step in. The BBC story has a selection of names that were ok'd and some that were rejected...Kind of like with "American Idol" contestants, I can't really divine from the results why X is brilliant while Y is awful. But still, it's interesting to think about.

I'm a little cranky 'cause my cable has been knocked out *twice* this week by crazy storms. Fortunately, Time Warner got things back in order in time for "Project Runway" last night, so things could have been much worse. Speaking of...every time that guy Blayne forces his little "girlicious" catchphrase out there, I flash back to that scene in "Mean Girls." ("Stop trying to make 'fetch" happen. 'Fetch' is not going to happen!")

I still miss someone...

...so I'll post this in his honor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLOMYY1FLkM


Here's 'til Tuesday, honey.

Biting off way more than I can chew...

I had an e-mail conversation with a fellow NASCAR fan this week. Among the things we have in common – we both love Dale Jr. and hate Kyle Busch, and we’ve both gotten a tad cynical regarding the abilities of the media who, for lack of a better term, "report" on NASCAR-related issues. This is an old conversation, but this time something jumped out at me.

My friend watched his first NASCAR race in some time over the weekend, and so was treated to the current media narrative that fans are warming up to The Shrub. As the broadcasters put it, every week there are more cheers and fewer boos. Since I’ve gotten to watch more racing lately than he has, he asked me, is that really true? We chatted back and forth for awhile, wishing we had attended Busch-won races ourselves so we could evaluate this on our own, without relying on the assurances of, say, Bill Weber.

That’s when it hit me. When a NASCAR- or network-sanctioned analyst tells us fans sitting at home X, and we reflexively say to ourselves, “Huh, I wonder if that’s true?”…Well, then, Houston, we have a problem.

I realize that NASCAR fans are by nature a conservative and skeptical bunch. We have a healthy respect for authority, but only the authority figures that we feel have earned it. Now, I clued in to NASCAR about the time that L’il Brian started shipping all of our races to Southern California, so I freely admit that I don’t have a giant amount of experience as a race fan compared with some. (I also acknowledge that my media-related cynicism isn’t helped by the fact that my driver is second in points and NO ONE is talking about it – HELLO!!!, but whatever.)

But I also work with press every day, and I know what it looks like when it’s done right. I’m an editor myself. I know what decisions go into evaluating what is a “story” and what isn’t. I also know what it looks like when those decisions aren’t made well. Hint: people don’t take you seriously. They even wonder if you’re actively lying – er, socially engineering them. Not good.

So, with that in mind…I’m brushing off the skills I learned back when I was working for that good ol’ communications degree – media criticism based on quantitative analysis, not just frustration on Dale Jr.’s behalf. In surveying and analyzing NASCAR coverage, I don’t have an ax to grind. (Well, I kinda do, but I promise I’ll keep it in the shed.) I sincerely want to determine, once and for all, whether fans like me have a legitimate gripe about the nature of our media or not.

I have no idea how long this will take me, but I promise to write everything down and report back ASAP.

Cryin' in your beers

Interesting commentary on the purchase earlier this week of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian brewer InBev -which happens to make my favorite summer beer, Stella Artois. You know what that means, don't you? Now you're all going to be drinking snotty Belgian beer! Hahahahahahahahaha...... Beer snobs unite!

Seriously, I don't get the drama. Budweiser tastes like fermented bat piss, it's only remotely palatable when it's ice cold and, as this column points out, they've driven countless regional American beers out of existence. To quote, Bud is the alcoholic equivalent of McDonald's or Wal-Mart. Bland, featureless, ruthlessly corporate, tasteless and with such a low alcohol content you have to drink a whole damned case of it to get a good buzz. (They do have the best ads, though...)

But that's just a personal preference. I do have my moments - usually involving being out in the sun for several hours, sometimes with exhaust fumes involved - where Bud hits the spot. But calm down, people...It's not like they're going to stop making the stuff.

Now, my beer snobbery is well-documented. But judging by the sudden creation of the anti-Bud bandwagon in certain corners of the blogosphere, it looks like it might be time to nominate "trashing Budweiser" for an entry on the Stuff White People Like blog. It's always been interesting to me that hipsters who want to prove their street cred get into sh*tty cheap beers like PBR or Miller High Life, but would rather die than drink Bud, or Coors, or Miller Lite. (Maybe some sh*tty cheap beers go better with their iTunes-downloaded copies of "Live From Folsom Prison" and their Obama-stickered Priuses than others, I dunno.) Should A-B's move lead to some backlash-induced drop in their market share (doubtful), they can always take comfort in the fact that at least then elitist white college kids will suddenly decide that Bud Light is cool.

We real beer snobs, on the other hand, will stick with our Stella and seasonal Sam. And Guinness, of course, once it's not so muggy outside.

[By the way, I cannot believe no one's yet made a NASCAR/Jean Girard joke. C'mon, it's just sitting there on the tee, waiting for you to take a swing...]

Jezebels, rape victims and whores

That funny screech/moan you've been hearing for the past week or so is the sound of the wannabe "third wave" feminist blogosphere straining to bend over far enough over its beer-gut to gaze at its collective navel. (Yeah, I didn't notice either.)

Basically, two writers on Jezebel.com, Moe and Tracie (who publishes under the pen name "Slut Machine") appeared on the program "Thinking and Drinking," where host Lizz Winstead peppered them with questions about what responsibility they feel - as young women who blog extensively about their freewheeling sex lives - toward their readers. Moe n' Tracie's response: not much, actually. Pass the booze.

Watch the full interview and select (edited) clips here. (Yep, there's nothing wrong with casual sex, as long as you're doing it in a place full of wimpy men, like NYC. I don't know what rape/STD-free Shangri-La this Tracie idiot inhabits, but it sounds like it might be fun to visit.)

I rarely read Jezebel at all - it strikes me as the kind of Web site that my most hedonistic gay friends would create at their most self-parodying. Cocktail-infused celeb-bashing and supposedly ironic social commentary with a mean-girl lining aren't really my thing. And I've been deeply turned off by previous posts where Moe excuses her rapist and where the twosome victim-blame Roman Polanski's underaged victim.

My reaction upon watching the interview was simple disgust. These women are obviously dipshits - apparently with serious drinking problems, to boot (And I type this while sipping a Sam Adams, FWIW). They're not representative of anything resembling the feminism that is my guiding philosophy. If they have a point, they fail to make it remotely articulately.

But it seems I'm alone in my certitude. Apparently Jezebel's brand of women's lib has a rabid following. (So do YouTube videos of guys getting hit by cars, but whatev...) And the women who have previously held Moe, Tracie, et al as feminist idols worthy of emulation are now faced with the ugly reckoning - Does Tracie think that being date-raped makes me not "smart"? Is Moe's failure to report her rapist empowering? Am I a Debbie Downer for thinking about liver damage? Maybe I don't have a properly evolved sense of humor???

Ok...I've done edgy, even down-right stupid things in my life, and I take responsibility for my part in the consequences of those actions. But nothing pisses me off more than alleged feminists who act as though all the battles are won and all that remains is for us to look fabulous at Happy Hour, that women have some inalienable right to party and f*ck random strangers without repercussion. It's a slap in the face to the women who still fight for equitable medical care, fair pay and for the basic right to exist as autonomous beings. Every time one of these two ignoramuses opens her mouth or clicks the "publish" button on Jezebel's blog, the true work of feminism is set back years.

Feminism is not about being a total frakking whore. My goodness, can I possibly make that clearer?

I'm not doing any existential soul-searching over Moe and Tracie's lame-ass performance, because I never really identified with them in the first place. And if I can judge by the *crickets* I'm not the only one. Sheesh. Ladies, go get a job...Maybe volunteer in a soup kitchen if you feel your life is lacking.

UPDATE: Read Tracie's take on the situation, along with some really sad comments from her deluded fans. (I especially like the one syncophantic sea-donkey who thinks all rapists wear identifying T-shirts or something, and that you shouldn't be alone with a guy unless you get a "good vibe." Right.) The New Republic's bloggers also get in on the action.

Too bad...he'll miss Obama's Inauguration

I’m about to tell a rather un-PC joke that was quite popular at Speas Elementary School circa 1989:

A teacher announces that any student who can correctly identify the source of a famous quote can have Friday off from school. The first quote – “Give me liberty, or give me death.” An African American girl raises her hand and says, “Patrick Henry.” “That’s right,” says the teacher. “See you next week.” But the girl says she’ll come to school anyway, since she’s on the reduced-price lunch program and doesn’t want to miss a good meal. Fair enough, the teacher says. Next question – “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” “Franklin D. Roosevelt,” answers an African American boy. “That’s right,” says the teacher. “See you next week.” But he’s on the free lunch program, too, and so he says he’ll come to school Friday anyway.

At that point, a white boy in the back row mutters under his breath, “Who decided to give all these n***er kids free lunches?” Furious, the teacher says “Who said that?!?” “Jesse Helms,” says the white boy. “See you next week.”

There were kids in my class who couldn’t remember not to pee on themselves, but everybody knew that Jesse Helms was a mean-spirited bigot. (The News & Observer has a re-cap of his campaigns here.) He died early on the morning of July 4 (a pleasant Happy Birthday for my dad). I know that I should try to come up with something warm-hearted to say, sympathy for his family, etc. But I’m having trouble calling up anything but relief for the fact that there’s one less bigot in the world.

In his death, many conservatives are eulogizing Helms as the standard-bearer. That’s fine I guess, if the Republican Party wants to go on record that their platform is based on white supremacy. (I think Abe Lincoln might take issue with that, though…) Let me tell you what it was really like to grow up in Helms-land. When the representative that your state persists in sending to the Senate for 30 years says stuff like this, it’s a problem for two reasons – First, obviously, the rest of the country assumes that you agree with him. (BTW, Helms never got more than 55 percent of the vote in any election. And that was running against the guy the state's own Democrat party disavowed.)

The second effect is more destructive. See, culture comes from the top. Helms’ homophobia, sexism, racism and general ignorance are bad enough. But his total lack of guile in expressing these things – whistling “Dixie” in front of African American Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, for example, to “make her cry” – contributed to an atmosphere where such bullying was okay. Before Helms (and the larger “Southern Strategy” of which he was a part), Republicans were fiscal conservatives, intellectuals who may not have won all the time, but who at least could look themselves in the mirror. When the post-World War II Democrats in the South began to move away from their own century of bigotry, Republicans like Helms saw a vacuum and they exploited it. And the GOP became the party of regression, fear and hatred. So I guess, in a way, Jesse Helms is the reason I’m a progressive. So he’s got that going for him, which is nice.

It’s sad when any life ends. It’s sad that millions of children went without food or health care or decent schools because of "Senator No". It’s sad that Ryan White died knowing that a United States Senator called him a "sodomite" who deserved to die of AIDS (even though he was a child who contracted HIV from a transfusion). It’s sad that Mathew Shepherd died because of the climate that Helms helped create that told people it’s okay to kill someone different than you, because they’re not really human anyway. It’s sad to think about all the political dissidents in Central and South America who died with Jesse Helms whole-heartedly behind their killers.

If I were to extend sympathy to Helms’ family right now, I’d be lying. I’m still too wrapped up in sympathy for the people whose lives he hurt. So how about this...I'm sorry for the loss of an individual that was beloved by many on a personal level. But, as for what Jesse Helms represents? I find delicious irony in the fact that this gleeful oppressor of so many left this world on Independence Day.

Pic of the Week! Summer Movies edition

Been movie-watching again...I'm launching a concerted effort to watch the half-dozen Spielberg films I've never seen, but I'm mixing in some other stuff, too...

Munich (2005)
Nothing like an upbeat start to the summer, huh? “Munich” is about the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics, when a Palestinian terrorist group murdered 11 members of the Israeli team. The film explores Israel’s never-confirmed response – convening an elite international hit squad to hunt down people involved in the group, Black September, and kill them secretly (but no so secretly that other members wouldn’t get the message). “Munich” is spellbinding on two levels – it’s both a taut thriller and a character-driven meditation on what violence, even justified violence, does to the perpetrators. I loved it. Not that it’s especially pleasant to watch…but it’s engrossing, and I couldn’t stop thinking about it for days. It’s the first time that Eric Bana (playing the lead assassin) really impressed me as an actor. There are some gorgeous and clever visuals. There’s a recurring motif involving preparing food that I’m told plays up the symbolism of Orthodox Judaism’s dietary restrictions…which, if true, is really cool. One note: Several reviews I read at the time of this film’s release complained that director Steven Spielberg spent too much time dramatizing the brutal murders – the consensus being that we all know what happened, so Spielberg shouldn’t put their surviving family members through it. Well, I didn’t know what happened. This was eight years before I was born; when I first heard about the Munich murders (it must have been around the time of the Olympic Park bombing during Atlanta ’96), I remember being shocked that I’d never heard anyone talk about it before. It would be like if no one talked about Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. So, yeah, I did need to know what happened. As a matter of fact, I was supremely frustrated at the beginning of the movie that Spielberg was relying on period news footage to walk me through it. And when the sequence does come where we get to experience the senseless, totally avoidable killings of so many people, the revelation is so breathtaking and visceral that it borders on unwatchable. I don’t know if I’ll ever get over it.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Speaking of things that happened before I was born…I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about how much I wish I could have experienced several classic films as they were released, as opposed to watching them once they’re already ingrained in the culture. For instance, I’ve always wondered what it would be like not to know from the time you were born that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father – how did it feel to sit there in the theatre at the end of “The Empire Strikes Back,” your mind blown, and then having to wait three years to find out what happens next??? Like “Star Wars,” “Close Encounters” came out in 1977, and I just saw it last week. There’s never been a time in my life that I didn’t come across references to Devil’s Tower and mashed potato sculpture. So I feel like I missed something when I watched “Close Encounters”…It’s still a beautiful film. It’s interesting to me how understated Spielberg is as a writer (he wrote this script)…Movies like this one, “AI” and “The Sugarland Express” seem to be both bleaker and more visually oriented in their story-telling than many of his other films. This one also gets points for casting Dead Celebrity Crush #47 himself (speaking English! – sort of…).

Boogie Nights (1997)
Jumping ahead a few decades, we have another auteur (Paul Thomas Anderson), and another film I didn’t see when it came out, this time because I was too young. Also – full disclosure – I took one look at the casting of Marky Mark and decided that “Boogie Nights” had to be a joke. (Yeah, I’m psychic that way…) As it turned out, this was the film that gave Hollywood its first inkling that Mark Wahlberg could actually, you know, act. He’s brilliant as an under-aged porn-star wannabe adopted by a community of other porn-stars in late 70s Southern California. I wonder what they thought of “Close Encounters”? There may actually be a scene in “Boogie Nights” where the characters discuss this, but I wouldn’t know. See, in addition to being beautifully acted (the cast includes Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, Heather Graham, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman, John C. Reilly, William H. Macy…) and beautifully shot, it’s also…really slow. As in “go get a sandwich” slow. Honestly, the only thing that kept me hooked in was a decade of references to a certain giant prosthetic penis. Lucky for me, my friend Lauren called me halfway through and told me where it happens (the very last scene, natch). Thank goodness for DVD chapter selections…And I really do love every actor in this movie. Ironically, I’m to the point with Wahlberg that I’d go see almost anything just ‘cause he’s in it…

The Happening (2008)
…which is how I ended up in “The Happening.” Not the only reason, though…I also have a total girl-crush on Zooey Deschanel, and M. Night Shyamalan is still one of those directors whose films I always find interesting, even if I don’t love them (I’m talking to you, “The Village”). Let me get that out upfront, just so’s I don’t come off as one of those critics who hates Shyamalan on principle because he gets to make movies and I don’t…I loved, loved, loved “The Sixth Sense,” and I think it’s a terribly misunderstood film (it’s NOT about a kid who sees dead people, for one thing). “Unbreakable” grew on me. I even liked “Signs,” because I think I took things away from it that you miss if you’re just looking for a horror movie. Okay, all that said, “The Happening” sucked such massive amounts of ass that I’m having trouble conceptualizing it. It’s the single most unbelievable film I’ve seen in a very long time. And I’m not talking about macro-level plot, either – I’m talking about the small details, like relationships between people, realistic reactions, etc. Even a fantastic story has to be grounded in realism – even more so than a non-fantasy story. This is the kind of movie where people actually say things like “Oh, no!,” and not ironically, either. Early on, there’s a scene where Zooey (playing Mark’s flaky wife) gets a phone call on her cell from a guy she clearly doesn’t want her husband to know about. The phone vibrates, she fidgets, worrying that Mark will barge in any second and catch her, the phone vibrates some more, and she tosses it on a nearby table, watching it continue to vibrate, instead of, you know, just pressing the friggin’ “ignore” button. It’s just that kind of movie. (She also has multiple occasions to talk about how much she doesn’t like showing emotion, usually while she’s in the process of flipping out.) I found myself wishing throughout the film that Shyamalan would come down from his ivory tower long enough to witness how actual human beings interact with one another. I’m just going to say two more things: A) when John Leguizamo gives the film’s most realistic, natural performance, you’ve got a serious problem, and B) I was so distracted by how badly this movie sucked that I walked right out of the theatre, forgetting that I’d already bought a ticket for…

Wanted (2008)
Here’s what I want in a summer movie…spectacle, sure, but not slop. A film that has varying amounts of brains, heart and balls. Eye candy that doesn’t waste my time. “Wanted” isn’t a perfect action movie by any means, but it was miles more believable than “The Happening,” even with all its bending bullets. A lot of that is down to James McAvoy (previously seen in “The Last King of Scotland” and “Atonement,” and one of those “Narnia” movies), who plays a working stiff mysteriously recruited by an ancient group of assassins. “The Fraternity” kill random people supposedly to restore balance to the universe, taking their orders from a code delivered by some sort of psychic loom (don’t ask). The special effects are dazzling, even by post-“Matrix” standards, though “Wanted” does suffer from a bit of that “can’t tell who’s winning the fight scene” editing disease that plagues most modern action flicks. Likes: The Frat traces its roots to weavers in Medieval Moravia – in other words, my ancestors. BOO-YAH! Dislikes: I would’ve liked more explanation of the Frat’s mythology, which is also a must for any action franchise. (The movie’s barely 90 minutes long – surely they could’ve squeezed this in…) Also, not so much a “dislike” as a “mystification”: what’s Angelina Jolie doing in this movie? I’d understand it if it were still the 1999 “Gone in 60 Seconds” Angelina, but isn’t she a bit above playing the Token Hot Chick by now? Maybe she just likes losing the baby weight on some studio’s dime, I dunno…

Pic of the Week: “The Happening,” but only so we can gas together about how God-awful it is…Seriously, I hope every actor in that film earned some kind of special shitty-dialogue hazard pay.