accidental feminist

af summer movie festival entry #1: secretary June 24, 2007

Well, we all know my affinity for the hot version of James Spader (not the “purposely-let-himself-go-to-prove-that-sex-appeal-is-about-attitude-not-physique” James Spader from Boston Legal), so this was quite a treat in that regard. Regarding the obvious selling point of the film, a supposedly honest and quirky look at the world of dominant/submissive sexuality, I felt mixed. It definitely had more humanity than “The Piano Teacher”, but there were just a few spots that seemed overwrought, to wit: 1) the scene in the “spanking” montage where Spader puts a saddle on Gyllenhaal’s back and a carrot in her mouth…really? No, I mean, really? Um…okay…, and 2) The end of the film, where, for example, Gyllenhaal’s slightly too eloquent manifesto on S&M that somehow makes it into the newspaper that Spader reads (”I finally found someone who would play with me”? I’m sure that’s a term from the dominant/submissive lexicon, but “play” was not what she was after; release was, which she got, and bravo to her, but let’s let the real character speak and not make her a mouthpiece, a mere plaything, if you will.). Here the movie makes a strange turn as it merges with the ending of “Never Been Kissed”, which, for me, is significantly more disturbing than any of the aberrant sexuality presented in the film.

It is, as many critics note, rather sexy, if you allow yourself to accept the givens of the relationship at hand. But it might do a bit too much advocating for some psychological states that should probably be addressed by means other than sexual bondage, even if the two character’s do love each other have reached a mutually agreed upon state for their sexual relationship; a girl who has been self-mutilating since 7th grade doesn’t just need a good hard smack on the bottom from, an albeit alluring, James Spader; she needs some therapy, and possibly a good hard butt smack.

knocked up= wait? you mean I’m not supposed to think that seth rogen is the kind of guy i’d consider dating? June 18, 2007

I mean, call me crazy, but I think he’s got it going on! Jewfro, 80s movie references, super-sweetness. I think that all girls wish they were “too pretty” and “too sophisticated” for “that dude”, but they should really thank their lucky stars if they end up with him, and not some gelled-hair, ascot-wearing, cheating-at-his-bachelor-party prick. She’s the one who got the good deal in the end. And, hello? “Who’s Doc?” I’d be all up in there with the 1.21 gigawatts on that one! “Who’s Doc?” Seriously, lame! Oh, did I mention that I have a supercrush on Paul Rudd, and have since “Clueless”, but got an even bigger one when I realized that he’s actually not a straight man, hunky guy actor like they tried to pass him off as in that flick at all. He’s, like, super funny! And oh, that perky nose (ignore the other people in that picture, except for Roger Ebert- he looks so healthy and happy there- and look at that freaking adorable nose!)! You slay me, Paul. (Is that too many links? You scour through imdb and try to pick only one!) I wish you had picked me to dance with at the first Champagne Snowball of your Bar Mitzvah. I would have appreciated it, unlike the pretty, skinny, popular girl who the nerdy guy always picks, because it’s his one chance to touch her where she can’t say no. I’m that girl who always listened to you talk about that other girl and secretly loved you, but who you always told what an awesome friend I was, and how my personality totally made me pretty. Oh, Paul. You never knew how much it hurt…Wait? What? I didn’t go to Jr. High with Paul Rudd? Why, just because he’s eight years older than me? Shut up!

Okay, I’ll divert your criticisms with a cute picture, lest you think I am whistling Dixie about my affinity for cute noses:

Just look at that. You don’t get a nose that cute on your kid without a nose that cute on your spouse. And that, my friends, is natural selection. (Did I just channel Dwight?)

the piano teacher= i swear the emperor is naked May 20, 2007

I know, I know; Ebert loved it, Cannes loved it, the Village Voice loved it (although they hated “Five Towns”, so what do they know?), but I just wasn’t impressed. Maybe with the acting, okay. Maybe if I had read the book I’d have a little more context (some of the linking threads that might have ended up on the cutting room floor that might have made the film cohere, or even make some sense). The whole film reminded me of the improv adage never to play a crazy person because it just undermines anything you say or do, and the entire reality of the world you’re creating on stage. Okay, she’s a spinster who’s into S&M, okay, okay she goes to drive-ins and watches the couples making out in the cars, okay she collects bondage toys and stored them under her bed, okay, she rolls over in bed and starts making out with her mom…no, wait! What?! I mean, really, WTF!?!? When does a film go from being an honest portrait of the untold story of the lives of the brilliant and sexually aberrant to being, well, just something the author just dreamed up in his own aberrant mind (which he has a right to, but which cannot be considered art simply because it is strange)?

Basically, this film was every stereotype people (read: I) resent about French films. Inaccessible, pretentious (watch Huppert’s interview if you believe me not), and overindulgent (how many 45 second shots of a person watching another person play the piano am I expected to watch?). For a more favorable review of a not dissimilar film, see my earlier comments on “Henry and June”. Really, I’m not completely full of bile.

keeping up with the steins= ari gold: the movie May 16, 2007

At least they could have changed Jeremy Piven’s character, like, at all; you know, just to show he has some range. I mean, he must; he was trained at that esteemed Chicago landmark that brought us Lily Taylor and John (and, yes, fine, to a lesser extent, Joan) Cusak.

I did enjoy being able to turn to Yosef periodically and say “No, this is not an exaggeration”. I remember one bar mitzvah where they brought in tropical animals (there were definitely large birds in cages; there may have been a drugged tiger or something, too, but don’t quote me on that); I remember ice sculptures, I remember elaborate portable game shows, fire breathers, karaoke stations, and always, always, boys lighting things on fire in the hallways (that’s one detail that would have really lent some credibility to the film).

Anyway, it was a little blast from the past. And Jamie Israel, if you’re reading this, I want to formally forgive you for making me, like, the only person in the whole 7th grade who wasn’t invited to your lavish and decadent Bat Mitzvah just because you resented me for being a little bit shorter than you and therefore being the one to stand in front of you for all of the cheerleading routines, and always making you look bad because I knew them and you didn’t. There, I’ve made my peace. Can you make yours?

boston legal makes more than just baby boomers feel old May 14, 2007

Yes, it’s a touching show with spot-on comedic writing about aging, male friendship, the politics of compassion, and the internal struggle between moral integrity and monetary success. It also places me squarely in an age bracket that I continue to resist. Some examples:

• When I talk about the show to my high school students, they get confused when I refer to the “hot, young” James Spader from his “bad boy/asshole” days (sort of like the Boston Legal variety, but with blonder, more feathered hair).
• Shelly Long is a guest star playing a 57 year-old nymphomaniac who is on trial for enjoying the services of male prostitutes; Diane never had to pay for sex from Sam!
• Not that I was alive when Candice Bergen was still hot, but I have a father who is old enough to have made me watch “Getting Straight” in high school (the only good scene is the defense of the thesis, in case you’re considering renting it).
• I am, however, old enough to remember a time when William Shatner was sort of taken seriously, or at least not best known for his “has-been”-ness.

okay, well, back to life… April 26, 2007

Why have two shows, “The Girls Next Door” and “Big Love“, both about polyamorousness, taken off this past year? And, really, they couldn’t be more different:
Reality Show vs. Complete Fabrication
Hot Playboy Chicks vs. Stuffy (if hot) Mormon Ladies
Absence of Sexual Taboos vs. Presence of a Myriad of Taboos (all except being married to more than one woman).

Is it because they reflect a 21st century feminist attempt to suggest that, as long as a woman is an equal actor in a consentual sexual relationship, it doesn’t matter what form it takes? I’ve had many a conversation about the problematic nature of the term “exploitation”. If a woman consents to something that others would be seen as demeaning, is it still “exploitation”? What if she has a emotional or psychological history that might explain the abberation in her moral judgement? Do we than say that she lacks the presence of mind to recognize her own exploitation? Don’t we all?

Interestingly, however, in both shows, there is a clear “Wife #1″, the premise being that, all things taken into account, the man is still uncapable of (or unwilling to) provide equal emotional support to all three lady-friends. Or perhaps he is simply, despite himself, is affected by our society’s conventions of monagamous love between a man and a woman, and thus must relegate the others to a status of second-tier in order to maintain some semblance of emotional normalcy for himself.

I should also remember that “he”, in this case, is Hugh Hefner, the man who all but invented post-modern sexuality, especially with respect to the woman’s role in it. And yet, is he not a man? If you prick him does he not bleed? If he walks into a restaurant with 8 playboy centerfolds and 3 hot girlfriends, is he not the mack? (oh, rule of three; you are so cheap and yet so compelling…)

answer: “phrase that will induce vomiting if I hear it one more time on ‘24′?” March 27, 2007

“Uh, what is ‘within the hour’, Alex?”

I mean, at least you could rotate a little; “greater than 10 minutes, less than 60″, “before lunch”, or “soon…very soon” are some humble suggestions.

notes on a scandal= awk-ward! March 7, 2007

I can’t imagine that any young, female middle or high school teacher could watch this movie and not squirm. Icky!

That said, everyone was incredibly well cast:

*The “love interest”: good looking, but clearly just barely past puberty…and those freckles! It’s not like “Desperate Housewives” where you can pretty much understand why Gabrielle is having an affair with John; it’s more like watching a very mature Dennis the Menace have an affair with his best friend’s mom. You’ll suspend your disbelief for the sake of the movie, but in those moments of suspension-lapse, you’re just a bit disturbed by what you’re watching.
*The teacher: Cate Blanchett is just ethereal enough to pull off the lightweight and yet compelling character. You don’t see why everyone is so enamored with her, but you find yourself being drawn in, too.
* Judi Dench is a bitter old hag! And she gives hope to every aspiring actress who thinks you have to be thin and pretty to make it. You don’t; but if you’re not, you better be, let’s say, one of the ten greatest living actresses in the world.

henry and june = clap if you believe in movies! February 26, 2007

Every so often a movie comes along that one can watch and be simultaneously in awe of the deliberateness of the film making itself, and moved by the realness of it. This was such a movie. No, seriously, I’m not being ironic. The cinematography deserved the Oscar for which it was nominated, the dialogue was artful and just stylized enough to match the heightened passions of the characters. Some highlights:
* A young Uma Thurman as a woman who whores herself for her husband’s art, hoping to be repaid by becoming the exalted Sonia to his Raskolnikov; but Henry Miller is no Dostoevsky.
* The most interesting treatment of explicit sex I’ve ever seen in a movie. It’s as if it declares: “There is sex in this movie because there is sex in the world. And not all of it is pretty. If you find it ugly or upsetting, stop looking”. Much in the same way the Henry Miller would not apologize for the sex found in his books.
* All the sensibilities and charm of a French film, but without the subtitles.

Highly recommended.

oh beauty and the geek, why do i love thee? January 12, 2007

I know, I know. It’s no more mindless than “The Real Wives of the O.C.” or “Armed and Famous”, but there’s something so fascinating about the social dynamics that I can’t stop watching. It’s like merging The University of Chicago’s Society for Creative Anacronism with the Ohio State cheerleading squad. I am also fascinated (but not surprised) by the fact that elimination is decided completely based on the female 1/2 of the team; as in, the team who chooses who to eliminate is strictly concerned with which girl they want to kick out. This makes sense because the boys are too socially retarded to know how to be backhanded or cut-throat, and therefore wield no power or influence. I think Yosef has a few books they could read…

And for the record, Nate’s a plant; he would be a total stud in Hyde Park. I mean, the man wears big stupid un-broken-in trucker hats and unmatching plaids on purpose; he’s a superhipster.