Things Obama Hates: Indie Film

Every morning as I awake to my Lee Greenwood alarm clock, get out of bed, salute the flag and eat my Wheaties (like the forefathers did!) I have only one thing on my mind: I must get on my knees and thank my American God for Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck, this glorious patriot, has opened my eyes to a mind-shattering truth: Obama is a racist. It's true! Why? Glenny-boy said it! Glenn Beck opened my eyes to the fact that Barack Obama is "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture."

"White culture" is a vague - very vague - generalization. So vague, in fact, that not even Glenn Beck himself knows how to define it. I've decided to help out my boy Glenn and define that which Obama hates. What is white culture? For what does Obama carry a deep-seated hatred? Take me by the hand and let us discover together the bigotry running the White House.

Obama hates:

Indie Film

As a man who hates white culture, Obama must indeed harbor a hatred for Indie Film. Before we can correctly outline why he hates Indie Film, it would be advantageous to make a distinction of what it exactly is that Indie Film is.

Indie Film is a distinct genre of film. It is NOT necessarily independent film, but is often made independently. In mathematical terms we would say a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square. Independent film is Indie Film, but Indie Film is not always independent. Wait . . . no . . . Uh . . . An Indie Film is independent, but an independent film is not always an Indie Film. Hmmm . . . that doesn't work either. Forget what I said. Math and independent film have nothing to do with one another. Unless it's Pi.

Independent films do not equal Indie Film. Independent films are simply movies made outside the financing of major Hollywood studios. Indie Film is a genre sought after by marketers in order to reach the American Apparel demographic. Their soundtracks are filled by quirky white bands from white countries such as Great Britain, Sweden and someplace called Oosah, or USA. There are untold genres financed independently. Even minorities have their own ethno-centric independently financed films, which means Obama couldn't hate all independent films. If he did he couldn't enjoy Soul Food, Shaft, or Tyler Perry's first films. But he can and does hate Indie Film, because Indie Film is a thoroughly white endeavor.

Indie Film is wholly caucasian. The plots feature white people facing problems distinct to white people immersed in white culture. More often than not the protagonist is a white male facing difficulties which do not - how does one say this lightly? - easily transcend racial borders. Ahem. Indie Film protagonists suffer frequently with disillusionment, especially in relation to wealth. A white guy eventually realizes his mistress and his BMW won't "fulfill" him. What will fulfill him? A quirky girl who will enlighten him to the higher ways of being. She will either fulfill him romantically or fulfill him musically presented him with a wealth of Indie Music artists. This white music/film crossover creates a venn diagram of ultimate hate possibility ratio sum of anger. Because these films focus so heavily on white people experiencing problems that no other races experience, Obama has no choice but to dismiss these films entirely.

Indie Film shares a common birthplace and breeding ground with independent film: Park City, Utah. A ski resort town, the only minorities in sight are either whitewashing themselves by disguising their race with ski-boots and puffy vests or being relegated by The Man into low-grade service jobs. This degradation of the black man rears its ugly head as the Sundance Film Festival - Indie Film's favorite parent. The Sundance Film Festival is personified as Robert Redford: the Ultimate White Man. His rugged honky-good-looks and Americanized work ethic represent the ideal cracker for all other white men. Even more representative of its whiteness is - again - its treatment of the black man and the fact it pronounces "foliage" as "foil-age." Obama hates foil-age.

Indie Film is a white man's game. Independent film is for all men, especially men named Spike Lee. But Indie Film is for whitey. FUBU in a vintage shop.

Things Obama Hates: White People

Every morning as I awake to my Lee Greenwood alarm clock, get out of bed, salute the flag and eat my Wheaties (like the forefathers did!) I have only one thing on my mind: I must get on my knees and thank my American God for Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck, this glorious patriot, has opened my eyes to a mind-shattering truth: Obama is a racist. It's true! Why? Glenny-boy said it! Glenn Beck opened my eyes to the fact that Barack Obama is "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture."

"White culture" is a vague - very vague - generalization. So vague, in fact, that not even Glenn Beck himself knows how to define it. I've decided to help out my boy Glenn and define that which Obama hates. What is white culture? For what does Obama carry a deep-seated hatred? Take me by the hand and let us discover together the bigotry running the White House.

Obama hates:

White People

You may be telling yourself "that can't be true, that's a pretty grotesque claim." But it is a true claim. TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTH!!!!! What is a larger part of white culture than white people themselves? Answer: nothing. Nothing is a larger signifier of white culture than an actual white person. Actually, that's false. There is one signifier of white culture that is better than a white person, and that is several white persons: white people.

Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people. As the scripture says "where two are three honkies are gathered, there will Obama hate them." (Matthew 18:20) He hates their narrow noses, he hates their rosy complexions, he hates their hatchbacks and their NorthFace half-zip fleeces. But most of all, he just hates THEM. How do we know this? First and foremost, because Glenn Beck told me that Obama is "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people." But if that is not enough proof for you, let's look at some other reasons!

Obama is trying to pass health care reform, which at one point included a public option. His desires to provide health care to every American are a direct thumb to the nose to white people. Why? Because it would provide health care to minorities and illegal immigrants. (Two groups he likes, probably because he's both a minority - black - and an illegal immigrant - Kenyan - he favors these groups) How would he pay for minority and immigrant health care? By using the money of white people who have worked very hard for it. He wants to steal their money then redistribute it! That definitely proves he hates white people!

Obama had a friend who is African American who was arrested for a misunderstanding that was blown way out of proportion. Obama called white people stupid because of that. End of story. Nothing else happened, and there is nothing else to speak about with this subject. He said white people were stupid. In context, probably, too!

Obama has czars: lots of them. He even made this one black czar retire so Glenn Beck could win at everything. (Whooooo!) Why did he make the black one retire? So he could have a bunch of white czars. Now, you may be confused by this. You say, "If he hates white people so much why would he have so many cabinet members (or czars for short) that are white or white-ish? Wouldn't they technically be considered white(ish) people?" Yes, they do count as white people. (well, except for Kathleen Sebelius who's pretty scarily thug) But think about it, he wants white czars because what happened to the czars? THEY WERE KILLED! It's symbolic! He wants white people killed like the czars were killed! And who killed the czars? More white people! So he's promulgating the idea that white people are violent and kill other white people! What more proof could you ask for???? One more creepy thing: Who killed the czars? Communists, Marxists, Communist-Marxists, Socialists and sociologists! HE'S A COMMUNIST WHO HATES WHITE PEOPLE. Who wants whites to die like the czars! Who wants to steal white money and give it to undeserving people! Who thinks whites are stupid! Who hates your Toyota Corolla! What has happened to this country???????

People, these are some scary times we're living in. But trust in me and what I tell you and we'll make it through together. I'll be back soon, and together we will discover even more things that Obama hates.

Spurious Claims: Volume One - The "Mainstreem"

The world is chock-full of erroneous information passing itself off as fact. Sometimes these facts are so incredibly poorly gathered or misrepresented that they more than merit examination and correction. So here I am with a new feature: Spurious Claims, where I can debunk certain items of falsified information according to my desires.

Today I feature an article found in BYU's The Daily Universe about the film 500 Days of Summer entitled "Indie films find success in mainstreem" (sic) by Rebekah DeMordaunt. I won't reprint the article here, but you can find it in its entirety here. I will simply print the point that I would like to counter and follow with my statements. I will start by listing issues I have that are based on fact, and then any issues of opinion.

• Issue number 1: The headline is "Indie films find success in mainstreem." (sic) If you can't spell-check your own headline, especially a major word that backs up your entire argument, why should I take anything you say seriously? Why should I trust you as a competent writer?

• Issue number 2: DeMordaunt says ". . . with the advent of digital cinematography, independent films are competing in the box office with the big studio productions—and, in some cases, they’re winning . . . '(500) Days of Summer' is a prime example." In fact, Rebekah, it is not a prime example. Of independent films finding a following larger than the art-house crew? Yes, it's prime. As an independent film winning against the big studio productions? In no way is it a prime example. Let's look at the numbers. At the writing of this blog the current box office of the film is $30,189,124. That is in no competition with the big-boys of the summer. 30 million is nothing compared to the current 400 and some-odd million of Transformers 2. Sure, it has earned back its 7.5 million dollar budget, but 30 million is no competition for summer tentpole films. In fact, 30 million is a big win for this independent film, but that figure attached to a summer film from a big studio would be considered a massive flop. DeMordaunt continues by saying "the movie’s popularity quickly skyrocketed and is currently showing in theaters across the country, including Provo." This statement is true, but a poor argument for winning against large-budget studio films. The film opened its widest release the weekend of August 14, playing in 1,048 theaters. Take that number and compare it with a large studio picture. Transformers 2 opened in over 4,000 theaters, as well as the latest film in the Harry Potter franchise and the latest Pixar and Dreamworks films. Going to the widest in a quarter of the theaters of its competitors does not show strong competition. If it were currently grossing more than a quarter of the grosses of its competition it would be laudable, but as it stands all the numbers and facts show that DeMordaunt's statement is unfounded and based on either opinion or conjecture as opposed to fact.

• Issue number 3: DeMordaunt uses the following quote by Chris Wyatt to support her point: “Independent films . . . don’t have to appeal to every man, woman and child in America; they only have to appeal to a certain niche audience or unique audience. They have the ability to speak to a small group of people, to speak with a very specific voice, and to talk about things that only a small segment of the population talk about . . .” Using a quote about how independent films can cater to small niche audiences is not a good argument as to why independent films are finding a large, mainstream audience. In fact, it's completely counterproductive to that little friend I like to call logic.

• Issue number 4: DeMordaunt closes with the statement: "Other independent films currently showing that have created a buzz in the mainstream include 'Adam,' 'Paper Heart,' and 'Food, Inc.'” All of these films are actually creating no buzz in the mainstream. They are films, however that recently played or opened in the local independent cinemas in Utah, hence why DeMordaunt may feel as if they are indeed making their mark. "Food, Inc." actually opened a week before "(500) Days of Summer" but has grossed only $4,238,694 to date. "Adam," opening two weeks after "(500) Days of Summer" has grossed a mere $2,033,298 and "Paper Heart" the most recent of the mentioned films opened mid-August with a current $1,159,967 gross. The widest released of these films, "Adam" peaked with 177 theaters. This in no way indicates mainstream buzz.

Now let's play into some of my opinion-based arguments against this ridiculous article.

• Issue number 5: DeMordaunt swoons, "The movie, which at the surface seems like a basic 'boy meets girl' story, dares to defy common industry practice by actually showing the realities of romance and love." Sorry to burst your bubble, there, Bekah, but it is a basic "boy meets girl story." It may dress up in hipper clothes from urban outfitters and name-drop musicians that most people supposedly don't know, but underneath the hip veneer, it truly is as basic as can be. In fact, if it weren't for 2 or 3 well-used (and rarely-used, I may add) cinematic conventions, "(500) days of Summer" would be no different than any Jennifer Aniston/Vince Vaughn/Cameron Diaz/Matthew McConaughey romcom. Unless, of course there is something different in their onscreen relationship than what we see in traditional romantic comedies that merits the idea that it defies "common industry practice by actually showing the realities of romance and love." But there isn't. Their relationship is just as manufactured and stale (more so, to tell the truth) as any relationship in which we would find Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant. Therefore the only plausible explanation to this sentiment is due to the fact that Summer and Tom don't end up together. The "realities of romance and love" displayed in this film are no more or less cliche than any other basic "How to Lose a Guy Who's Just Not That Into Your Ghosts of Girlfriends' Failure to Launch a Two Weeks Notice of Music and Lyrics" except that the title couple does not end up together. Each member of the couple's story ends happily and tritely - don't worry, kids! - but just not together. By this logic does DeMordaunt think that the "reality of romance and love" equates separation and heartbreak? I doubt it, though the prospect is amusing. What I imagine, though, is she is one of the many to think that because it does not end with the traditional Hollywood happy denouement it is inherently unique. That idea is laughable. Long before Tom brooded for umpteen days over the loss of Summer, Ilsa got onto the plane leaving Rick alone. Humphrey Bogart lost the girl long before Tom did. "The Philadelphia Story," one film in the long line of influences for modern-day romantic comedies (starting with "It Happened one Night") features a love triangle between Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart and John Howard. They can't all end up with her, can they? One of the biggest filmmaking influences on the film is "Annie Hall," Woody Allen's 1977 masterpiece - get this for unique, kids! - that makes known from the beginning the relationship will end, where the 4th wall is repeatedly broken, features an animated sequence and many more unique ideas you can also find in "(500) Days of Summer!" Tonally, "(500) Days of Summer" attempts to crib much from "The Graduate," but fails in creating something so rich and nuanced, leaving us with a feeling of a low-rent "Garden State." (another major thematic influence)

• Issue number 6: DeMordaunt says "The characters seem more real, the dialogue more convincing . . ." My sweet Becky (can I call you Becky?) do you not yet understand that just because it doesn't end like we expect it to, it doesn't make things more real? Actually, because of this desire to play to Chris Wyatt's aforementioned "niche audience" the characters and dialogue both suffer from a lack of realism. Summer as a character is a blank. She is given quirks instead of nuance or dimensions. Tom is head-over-heels in love with her, but the audience is never given a glimpse as to why. She remains a distant cypher the entire film, thus the relationship that drives the film seems as hollow and unimportant as she is. As for the dialogue, the filmmakers knew their niche audience very well. The dialogue reflects this knowledge. It is tailored towards identification and attraction towards a specific demographic and thus it strays far from realistic and into a hyper-stylized speech. The dialogue is just as stylized as any Tarantino Talk-a-thon or Mamet-ian Verbal Thriller, but simply filled with iconic references to subjects that the target audience will understand. It is far from realistic. Take into consideration as well moments where the film tries to disengage itself from its established stylistic vernacular to attempt traditional movie verbal histrionics. For example: Tom's monologue ending with him quitting his job becomes a terribly maudlin and awkward sequence, betraying the films previously established language for a complete reversal. Speaking of believable characters, as well as the status of "unique" bestowed upon the film, let us note that Summer is a fantasy character - one of the most prevalent fantasy characters in modern cinema since hobbits. She is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, or MPDG for short, a term coined by The AV Club's Nathan Rabin, signifying a character that is "that bubbly, shallow cinematic creature that exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." (Read more of MPDGs here and the original use of the phrase here) Her shallow characterization and her blatant existence as such a stereotype further distances the film and the characters from the realm of "realism."

• Issue number 7: DeMordaunt solidifies the group-think agreement of the profundity, uniqueness and greatness of the film by including quotes to affirm her position from Joe-the-Plumber everyman-types. The article states, "Kelli Rich, a BYU student from Houston, Texas, said she liked “(500) Days of Summer” because it was unique." Really, Kelli? Rich continues saying “I thought it was a different twist on a romantic comedy because as I was watching it I wasn’t able to guess what was happening within the first 10 minutes. I thought it was an interesting way to portray that type of story.” REALLY, KELLI? You couldn't guess what was happening in the first 10 minutes? Even when the narrator tells you exactly what is going to happen? Really? DeMordaunt includes a quote from BYU sophomore Ben Zabriskie, a guy with whom I would apparently never be friends or with whom I'd want to "chillax" based on his following quote: “Independent films are often times more creative with music and can worry less about fitting into the mainstream.” Ok, here, Benji, look-see: "(500) Days of Summer" was manufactured with an audience in mind. Said audience loved the moment in "Garden State" where Zach Braff's life is forever changed by an introduction to The Shins. Hence "(500) Days of Summer" includes the same type of scene but only with The Smiths. First of all - THE FREAKING SMITHS? Are they really that underground? Is Morrissey really that unknown? Did the 80s never happen? The Smiths are not some obscure unknown band: THEY'RE THE EFFING SMITHS. You like the creativity with music? Then watch a movie that features actual creativity with music, not simple references meant to wink at the intended audience. Try anything by Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino or "The Graduate" by Mike Nichols. There you'll see actual creativity with music in filmmaking. In "(500) Days of Summer" all you'll find are cleverly picked song choices, and a good soundtrack does not a good movie make. The fact of the matter, though, is that the intended audience eats it up. The flannel-clad row of adultolescents sporting skinny jeans in the row in front of me would wink and nod at each other - maybe even a sly elbow to the ribs - with every mention of The Smiths, or when Tom wears a Joy Division t-shirt. "This one's for us!" they seem to say. That type of filmmaking is not any more creative or unique than standard Hollywood fare. It is simply manufactured and marketed for a different audience. Finally, Becksters, dearie, did we not already establish that it's not a good idea to use a quote contradicting your opinion that independent films are finding power in the mainstream? Then WHY OH WHY do you use Benjie's quote? It ends with him musing on how independent films need not "worry . . . about fitting into the mainstream" I thought we'd moved past this!

In closing, I must state that I don't know why I reacted so harshly or even with such vitriol to this article. But I did. I feel my points are justified. I also feel that one should not write or speak without reflection, examination of factual data and perhaps proofreading. Opinion pieces should stay in the editorial pages and non-editorial pieces should feature more fact than opinion. If speaking on the successes of modern independent film in the mainstream, why not discuss Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire," an independent film that opened in 6 theaters, but eventually widened to nearly 3,000. It grossed over $140,000,000 and won the Academy Award for best picture. Rebekah DeMordaunt, that is an independent film that competes with studio-made films. Please take note. Why not discuss that success, though? Oh yes, I forgot. An op-ed piece on "Slumdog Millionaire" won't get you asked out by the cute boy in the keffiyah, but "(500) Days of Summer" definitely catches the eye of our friend in the thick, black-framed glasses.

Dear to me: Volume 1

There's little more enjoyable to me than sharing things that I love with people I care about. It makes those things that I love all the more special to me, and it creates a fun little bond between my friends and I. With this in mind I've decided to share periodically certain things I love here on the blog.

Volume One: Karleen's Uptown Fare

Uptown Fare is a hidden gem, it is also the best food I've had to eat since returning from France. Uptown Fare is found at 227 Main Street in Park City. It's slightly higher on Main Street than the Egyptian, and on the opposite side of the street. It's a restaurant that's easy to miss, one must really keep one's eye out for it, but it is completely worth finding. 

Now let me begin by saying that I mean it 100% when I say it's the best food I've had in the states since returning from Europe. But that being said, it is not simply because the food is good - it is - but that the owners and operators understand the fundamental principle that it is not only the food that makes for a good meal, but also the atmosphere. First the food, then the atmosphere.

Uptown Fare is pretty much a simple little bistro. They have a simple menu consisting of sandwiches and soups, nothing too original, but altogether delicious. The sandwiches are made on bread from the local bakery and topped with organic vegetables. Their turkey sandwiches are made with real turkey breast cut from the turkey that is sitting right there on the counter. Make sure to get some cranberry sauce on it, it's delicious. If turkey's not your style go for the roast beef, ham or pastrami. They are all delicious, but if you want my recommendation get a half sandwich and then a bowl of soup, that's your best choice. The soups are all homemade each morning and the menu changes daily. I've never been disappointed by the soups, and if you're lucky enough to arrive on a day they're serving cucumber brie, by all means eat some. Their thai chicken noodle and tomato tortellini are equally delicious. 

Walk into the bistro and you'll feel immediately at home. It could be the intimate space - the restaurant is smaller than many people's living rooms. Or it could be the cozy feeling interior, filled with mismatched tables and chairs found at - I'm assuming - various yard sales. But I think it is the owners themselves. Walk in and they'll greet you, as you order they'll talk to you and to each other. This is where I enjoy it the most - maybe they'll greet you happily or maybe they'll be in a more sour mood - but they're always honest, and they always treat you to the best meal they have.

As you leave and pay make sure to leave some room for one of their fresh-baked desserts lining the countertops, and leave room for someone else to take your table. It's nearly always full at Uptown Fare.

A Reconsideration of Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood

Those who know me and know my taste in film will know that I think There Will Be Blood is one of the best American-made films of the past decade. My love for this film is great, and maybe one day I'll describe that saga for a little bit of fun. But I've had many a debate with my friends over one aspect that I always found lacking in the film: That of the performance of Paul Dano as the brothers Sunday. I always felt that it was the weakest part of the otherwise near-flawless film. It wasn't as if I regarded the whole of the performance as poor, either, but rather his acting in the last scene of the film that gave me a sour taste in my mouth. The rest of the film he does quite fine for himself, despite my feelings that he was always somehow slightly "off." His last moments, though, always hit me as over-reaching and bothered me for some unfound reason.

This time around I think I may have changed my opinion of his performance. In reconsidering his performance I saw first, his more grounded and assured performance as the briefly seen Paul. His performance as Paul is slight in its difference from his performance as Eli, but in comparing the two, the more assured Paul versus Eli - whom I always felt was slightly off - makes the feeling of uncertainty rising form Eli work for Dano. It presents Dano as what he is, a charlatan and a deceiver. Having Paul played as grounded and assured gives us the sense of Dano's sensibilities and capacity as an actor, and to have the lack of it as Eli gives Eli a greater sense of character. This feeling of Eli being off is less about Dano's capability as an actor and more of the actual character of Eli. 

As for the last scene of the film, I realized that Dano is more consistent in his performance than I had earlier given him credit for. His breakdown and subsequent panic are in line with the performance he has given for the last two-and-a-half hours, as opposed to the inconsistent over-reaching I had previously assumed it to be. The last scene is still "off" in my senses, but it is no longer due to him being a weak actor, but in being a weaker actor than Daniel Day-Lewis. The truth of the matter is, Dano gives a wonderful and strong performance, but he is acting against a true force of nature, and cannot help but be overshadowed completely. It's not the poor kid's fault that he's acting against one of the best actors working right now. He performs strongly, but is simply overpowered by a stronger actor and stronger character.

So may I have been wrong? Yeah. Do I still feel a slight disconnect from Dano at times? Yes, but I see it less now as an actor's misstep and more as a trait of his character. Will that opinion evolve over time? Most likely. We'll see. As for now, I guess I give Dano back his pass. 

J9, a brief history.

It's a funny thing, my relationship with my sister Jeanine. The shift from animosity to unending love was massive. The extremes to and from which we swung were epic. Legendary, to be truthful. The only way they could be rivaled would be if Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly were to end their feud and become lovers, moving into a cottage in Vermont to live the rest of their lives sewing leather patches onto the elbows of each other's suits and discussing the beauty of the poetry of Lord Byron ("Stunning," said Franken. "I quite agree," replied O'Reilly). 

Growing up, we fought frequently. I knew exactly what I could do to annoy her, or even better, publicly embarrass her. Jeanine and I were the perfect age separation to become mortal enemies, 6 years. Kirk and Kahn? 6 years difference. Darth Vader defied the laws of logic and was somehow 6 years older than every jedi in the universe, thus making them mortal enemies. I did so much deliberately to annoy her, but deep down it was all stemming from the fact that I secretly admired and loved her. But that love didn't stop me from doing everything I could to drive her crazy. Yes, I loved her immensely, but that didn't stop the 11 year-old me from doing the worm shirtless in front of her date when he came to pick her up. 

I don't really remember when the shift truly began, but somehow the mutual seething hatred we felt was transformed into glorious adoration. She went off to college and I stayed at home. Maybe that is when I first realized that I missed having her around. When should would come home on weekends I'd actually be happy to see her. She started introducing me to things that would change my life. It was her who told me about The Royal Tenenbaums and introduced me to Wes Anderson. She literally saved my life - LITERALLY, NOT FIGURATIVELY - when she sat me down and had an intervention. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, she staged an intervention. She sat me down with an Elle and Vogue in hand and taught me all I was doing wrong and then schooled me in fashion and grooming. She took me shopping and helped me begin to develop my personal style. At the time I hated her for it, but I now look back with endless gratitude. 

When I moved to college we started calling each other and actually talking to one another. I realized that she was an interesting and wonderful person as well as being my sister. She was intelligent and funny, passionate and talented. I got to know her so much more, and it made me appreciate and love her all the more. When I moved home from college I started spending more time with her and her husband Sean. It got to the point where I would prefer spending a Friday night with them than out on the town. She became my BFF. When I came home from my mission she was my solid rock. She was one of my safe havens where I would be able to go when I wanted to disappear. 

She's now in St. Louis and I miss her like crazy. She's now a mommy and has the most beautiful little girl, and has another one on the way. I don't know how we changed from where we were to where we are, but I love it, and I love my J9!!!!

BFFs since birth.

Adorability level: Very high.

Now she's preggers, and not only is she a wonderful momma, she's so beautiful, too!

My top 10 films of 2008

Alright, this is me attempting to create my top 10 list of this year's films.

First off, a little word on 2008 in general. Looking at the films released this year I cannot help but agree with the masses of others who say that 2008 was a weak year in film. But why is it so? There is a bevy of great films released this year. 2008 saw a few wonders, so why is it being regarded as a failure? Simply put: 2008 is following 2007, and 2007 was phenomenal. Any year would have difficulty following the lineup of 2007, especially the end of 2007 with its canon of Oscar worthy films. So seeing as 2008 is a weaker year, following 2007 makes it look like a travesty in comparison. As if Brad Pitt went back to Jennifer Aniston after Angelina. Tsk tsk. Nevertheless, 2008 presented some wonderful films, perhaps just not as many as 2007.

To begin, I must describe a bit my criteria. This is my list of favorites of 2008, not the best of 2008. While I do think they are close, I do make a distinction between the two. I may rate technically "inferior" films higher than technical "masterpieces" because of simple preference. Let me also say that I consider my top three to be pretty much equal.

10. Speed Racer

A visual mindfreak of a film, the Wachowski brothers feel completely uninhibited and capture a perfect aesthetic of

 childhood imagination amped up on pure adrenaline. All one must do to truly enjoy this film is to buy into the theme of family that is presented here, and I bought into it completely. Though it may lag a bit with the Royalton segment, the absolutely mad pace and visual wonder on display all but redeem it.

9. Rambo

I can't believe this film is here on my list, but I must admit to it being one of the most enjoyable films I've seen in a long time. The slim film gives us only enough exposition and plot to create an inciting incident, which incites . . . mayhem, simply put. For the rest of the 90 minute running time the film is simply the latest marketing video for Squibs-R-Us. Either that or the latest issue of "Headless Burmese Monthly." It is pure enjoyment.

8. Doubt

An incredibly well-crafted piece of theatre disguised as cinema, John Patrick Shanley's ambiguous did-he/didn't-he tale of a Catholic priest is a showcase of acting at its finest. The movie may falter (pointless dutch angles are jarring) but the quality of the performances make it one of the most excellent films in quite some time. Every single performance is sharp and crackling with passion and dedication, and the courage of the story and its dedication to ambivalence make this one of my favorite cinematic experiences of the year.

7. Iron Man

Iron Man is on my list instead of The Dark Knight for one simple reason: enjoyability. Iron Man was infinitely more enjoyable than its dark and gritty colleague, and that is largely due to two men: Jon Favreau and his light touch and serious dedication to the characters as director, and even more to Robert Downey, Jr. for his wonderful embodiment of Tony Stark. Downey owned this film and helped transcend from its pulpy roots to a funny and intelligent film. Great, committed performances from the rest of the cast round out this wonderful film.

6. Milk

I was very much moved by Milk - more than any other film this year. It is a touching and timely film by Gus Van Sant, elevated by wonderful performances by James Franco, Emil Hirsch, Josh Brolin and especially Sean Penn. The film truly finds its footing about halfway through as Milk and his associates battle against the discriminatory Proposition 6. Once it finds itself it propels forward becoming an elegant and fearless story, as moving as Harvey Milk himself.

5. Vicky Christina Barcelona

I'm surprised this film has received such little recognition. Usually a surprising and beautiful little movie filled with rich characters and complex performances is lauded at year's end, but this, sadly, seems to have been forgotten. Woody Allen's best movie of the past years, this examination of modern sexuality and its consequences is filled with wryly funny dialogue and wonderful acting from Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz and Patricia Clarkson. This movie restored my faith in cinema

 after a brief struggle (true story).

4. Burn After Reading

2008 was good for comedy. Pineapple Express, Tropic Thunder, Step-Brothers and Hamlet 2 were all hilarious, but the Coens' very dark and bitter screwball comedy is by far the funniest. Each and every performance is bursting with life and energy, but special notice must be given to Brad Pitt for his portrayal of Chad Feldheimer - a man who merits every inch of the name Chad. The taught script by the Coen brothers is never merciful, but always hilarious. Twisting and turning over itself, the plot is a perfect deconstruction of film, always using the medium to twist and manipulate our expectations. Burn After Reading only solidifies the fact that the Coen Brothers understand clearly the art of cinema and how to use it.

3. Let the Right One In

Let the Right One In is a beautiful love story and a deeply touching coming-of-age story. It is a wonderful story of isolation and eventually acceptance as young Oskar meets and falls in love with Eli, the pretty vampire next door. The deliberate and drawn-out pacing perfectly accents the moments of horror, making them all the more shocking and terrifying, and the build-up to the climax makes it one of the most satisfying moments of film this year. The cinematography of the stark, Swedish landscape is as beautiful and haunting as the story.

2. Synecdoche, New York

I can't begin to describe this film in an adequate fashion. The scope and ambition of this film is unparalleled this year. Synecdoche, New York is about . . . well . . . everything. It is about life. It is about creation and its inherent selfishness. It is about communication and miscommunication. It's about obsession. Isolation. Sex. Longing. Narcissism. Love. Pain. It is simply about life and its intricacies. But it is in no way simple. The film is ambitious and takes thousands of little risks. Some work, some don't. But those that work pay off in such a spectacular way that the movie stays with you. It is a rare film that dares to take so many risks with its storytelling, and to see one take them so audaciously and fearlessly is to be commended. Marveled, even. The acting is uniformly excellent, and it also boasts a wonderful new score by my favorite film composer Jon Brion. This film moved me as equally as Milk, but in a completely different fashion.

1. Slumdog Millionaire

Danny Boyle is versatility incarnate. His films range from the horrifying to the wildly imaginative to the poignant and touching. His latest film, Slumdog Millionaire is a touching shot of joyful adrenaline into the year in film. His underdog tale of poverty in India is a beautiful and moving film, but also exciting and full of life. His images of impoverished India are haunting and truthful, but not devoid of hope or happiness. His troupe of Indian actors all perform spectacularly, and he manages to coax wonderful and deep performances from his child actors. His color palette is splendid, and the vibrant images on display energize and awaken the mind. But with all the visual frenzy and drama, he does not lose grip on the heart of it all, and he creates a touching and beautiful film. I loved this movie. I left the theatre feeling exhilarated and alive, excited and blissful. It's a powerful movie to make you feel that way, and Slumdog Millionaire is indeed powerful.

Honorable Mentions: Funny Games, The Dark Knight, The Visitor, Pineapple Express, Tropic Thunder

Have Not Seen, But Want To: Frost/Nixon, The Wrestler, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Wackness, Man on Wire, Revolutionary Road, Wall-E, Rachel Getting Married, In Bruges, The Fall, Waltz With Bashir

An Open Letter to The Coen Brothers

Dear Misters Joel and Ethan Coen - 

My dear friends. I do not know you. I have never met you. I would be so privileged. But as a complete stranger to you, I approach you in my mind as friends. You see, you appear to me to be friends - and close ones. I say this because we've had so many blissful moments with each other. It's never been through direct contact, sadly, but through the medium of which you two are such gifted masters. Through your gifted hands I have come to feel as if I know you two, and as if I am close to you. It is because you have revealed yourselves so nakedly and vulnerably through your art that I feel comfortable to approach you in this way.

You see, I want to ask of you two a favor. I know this could seem forward. We have never met, as I mentioned before. But we're friends, and friends can do that for one another. So I ask you two do me one little favor. I hope you don't mind, but I must ask it of you: Please, my dear friends, never stop making movies. I couldn't bear it. As a friend I don't think I could handle the loss of you as working filmmakers. The American cinematic landscape would sit barren of many of its unique beauties if you were ever to cease making movies. You have added so much to that landscape that only you two could have added, and losing you two would be a devastating blow. So again, I implore you with much fervor: never stop.

You must be asking yourselves why I've decided to write this letter. It's simple. Tonight as I watched Miller's Crossing, I marveled at the poetic beauty and that you created in the failed hit of Albert Finney's Leo. As he leaps off the balcony and then picks up the tommy gun and shoots it wildly into to night, as he shoots his would-be assassin through the window and while his once-living would-be assassin shot uncontrollably the bedroom I was awestruck by the near perfection attained. It is a scene that could only be as wonderful as it was in your hands, dear Brothers Coen. It played perfectly to your sensibilities and your capacities, sprung uniquely from your creative genius. It is a familiar moment - many films contain the same type of scene played out similarly - but yours was stamped with your indelible art. You are filmmakers who have taken to heart the theory of Truffaut and Godard, that a director has the capacity and the responsibility to leave his or her imprint on their work. This scene, as well as your entire oeuvre, benefits from this magical imprint. You are unique filmmakers, truly one-of-a-kind, and the loss of your genius would be devastating to the creative world.

So once more I implore you: don't stop. Never stop. If not for you, for me - a friend.

Sincerely, your good friend,

Brian Owen