Silver Shadow Believer

I've been gone . . .

2010-10-26T17:37:00.002-06:00

Sorry to any who read this blog. As of late I haven't touched my blogspot but rather have been posting brief things I enjoy on my tumblr account here, or blogging in long-form over at Chud.com.

My recent entries at Chud:

Nicole Kidman: Wrongfully Maligned

I salute you, Jackass 3D!

Cut Your Teeth Already! Part One

Cut Your Teeth Already! Part Two

The Sassy Gay Friend: The New Magical Stereotype

2010-05-10T01:00:00.000-06:00

The Magical Negro is a powerful figure in American fiction. He’s had a constant presence in cinema and television from the beginning. From little Ms. Temple’s dear friend Bojangles to the honkies’ saving grace Michael Clark Duncan in The Green Mile, the Magical Negro has been featured as one of the more prominent stereotypes in our media. Author Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu, however, outlines the problem: It is the subordination of a minority figure masked as the empowerment of one. This disguised denigration has been protested and lambasted, notably by African-American filmmaker Spike Lee, and has seen less prominence in the public forum. But it did not leave without finding a replacement: the Sassy Gay Friend.

The Sassy Gay Friend is a perfect heir to the throne as a minority striving for acceptance by secretly subordinating itself. Okorafor-Mbachu identifies what he calls the “5 Points of the Magical Negro” as the following most common attributes:

He or she is a person of color, typically black, often Native American, in a story about predominantly white characters.
He or she seems to have nothing better to do than help the white protagonist, who is often a stranger to the Magical Negro at first.
He or she disappears, dies, or sacrifices something of great value after or while helping the white protagonist.
He or she is uneducated, mentally handicapped, at a low position in life, or all of the above.
He or she is wise, patient, and spiritually in touch. Closer to the earth, one might say. He or she often literally has magical powers.

Each of theses 5 attributes can be found within the Sassy Gay Friend with little modification other than replacing each minority and majority with its proper parallel. Modeled after Okorafor-Mbachu’s own points, the “5 Points of the Sassy Gay Friend” would be as follows:

He or she is a homosexual, possibly bisexual, in a story about predominantly heterosexual characters.
He or she seems to have nothing better to do than help the straight protagonist, who is his or her close friend. He or she acts as the protagonist’s confidant.
He or she disappears, dies, or sacrifices something of great value after or while helping the straight protagonist.
He or she is intelligent, witty, campy or all of the above. He or she is identified by these archetypal traits as opposed to developed characterizations.
He or she is wise, patient, and spiritually in touch. He or she often literally has magical powers, or powers and abilities the heterosexual characters do not and cannot possess.

Each stereotype has its prejudiced parallels. While the Magical Negro would be pigeonholed into a working class or poverty level circumstance (point number 3) the Sassy Gay Friend will be found privileged in a stereotypically gay profession: designer, decorator, artist of some type, etc. Each mystical character will come from society’s stereotype of where they should be: the black man below the white; the gay man ironically distanced and culturally above the straight.

Homosexual characters in television and film are increasing as the years pass. This would be a positive step forward if it weren’t for the fact that the majority of these characters are relegated to being the Sassy Gay Friend. The character is used for comedic effect, is secondary to the heterosexual characters, and is used seriously only when advice, solace or comfort is needed. Take, for example, Rupert Everett’s character in the Julia Roberts romantic comedy My Best Friend’s Wedding. He is a perfect example of the Sassy Gay Friend stereotype. The character is Julia Roberts’ confidant. He is there only when needed as a wise sage figure, or as a deus ex machina. He exists solely to guide the straight protagonist safely through her journey using nothing but witty repartee, the occasional bon mot and well-coiffed hair.

Or, look at the recent ABC sitcom Modern Family. Praised for its portrayal of a functional, loving homosexual couple, Modern Family often finds itself guilty of utilizing the stereotype of the Sassy Gay Friend. It makes the mistake already cited from Okorafor-Mbachu of appearing to empower the homosexual while truly subordinating it. The straight couples carry the largest dramatic weight on the show, whereas the homosexual couple is relegated to comedic relief. An undercurrent of “how can two stereotypical homosexual men fulfill the gender roles of a traditional heterosexual couple?” weakens any attempt at dramatic weight for the homosexual couple. This dichotomy allows for much humor, but very little progress for the homosexual. These are characters defined solely by their sexuality – and not just their sexuality alone – but their sexuality as a stereotype. While heterosexual characters may have varied interests and hobbies, the gay characters’ interests and hobbies are limited to “being gay.” While Finn on Glee may enjoy singing and football and Rachel is Jewish, loves musical theatre and being a diva; Kurt will always just be “the gay kid.”

The use of the Sassy Gay Friend places the homosexual at a safe distance from both the heterosexual character and the heterosexual viewer. Because the Sassy Gay Friend is there solely for entertainment and sage advice when needed, it allows the heterosexual to be left unharmed by the gayness of the Sassy Gay Friend. Rather than understanding the homosexual, the heterosexual viewer is able to point to the Sassy Gay Friend and say “I want one of those,” much like one would say about a new pair of Ferragamo shoes. A shopping decision surely made at the behest of your new gay best friend, who is great at helping you shop.

Things Obama Hates: Indie Film

2009-11-15T23:52:00.005-07:00

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

2009-10-12T23:22:00.001-06:00

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"

2009-09-16T19:51:00.014-06:00

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

2009-04-10T16:10:00.000-06:00

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

2009-04-10T14:53:00.002-06:00

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.

2009-03-01T12:46:00.005-07:00

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

2009-01-03T23:26:00.015-07:00

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

2009-01-03T04:17:00.003-07:00

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

Truffaut

2008-12-25T00:32:00.008-07:00

What is it about Francois Truffaut that makes him such a wonderful filmmaker? I took the afternoon today to watch and absorb his first film, The 400 Blows, and this question has been in my head since then. I pose the question seriously, not in any condescending sense. His films are beautiful and poignant. They have a way of elevating one's spirit. But he is a simple filmmaker. He does not do this by any manipulation or by technical spectacle, but he finds stories that are pulled from a collective consciousness of experiences to make films bothe fantastic and relatable for everyone.

So what is it about Truffaut that makes him such a fine auteur? I think first and foremost it is the word auteur. It is found within the theory projected by all those involved with Truffaut and contemporaries' new wave filmmaking, the theory that a director is the author of his films, and that he leaves an indelible fingerprint on his films. He took it farther. As writer of most of his films he allowed himself to be an even stronger "author" of his style in filmmaking. He believed that the director had not just the ability, but the responsibility to make a unique piece of art, reflective of one's own style. He believed it and he lived and created by it.

He also understood the medium from two different perspectives. He understood it as an artist and a creator, but also - thanks to his years at Les Cahiers du Cinema - as a critic and an analyst. He understood film in both theory and application. He was a harsh critic of the current French cinema, and as such he - along with his fellow new wave filmmakers - made films in direct opposition to the current trends in filmmaking. He understood from a critical standpoint where other films were going wrong, and as an artist he understood how make it right. His personal beliefs of the ability and responsibility of a director and his understanding on different levels of the art of film are two of the strong components that make hims such a fine artist.

Then we have his actual ability manifest in his films. His artistry was nearly unparalleled. His stories, while often lacking the traditional three-act structure as we recognize it, were always well-crafted and well-realized. They were somehow always relatable enough, even in his more fantastic of films. His stories all seemed to find a way to reach down into the heart of each viewer and pull their individual experiences out to be examined and re-experienced. While few among may have experienced the rejection and neglect of Antoine in our own lives, it is told in such a way that our own childhood isolations - no matter how small - are brought to the surface, having us experience life alongside Antoine, instead of simply watching it. He crafts wonderful reflections of our experiences.

His camerawork is what astounded me in this last viewing. His camera is a casual observer to the situation, very unassuming and devoid of any flourishes that take away from experiencing the story. When he does use the occasional technical flourish, it's for a reason and it is arresting. In the 400 Blows he uses no establishing shots, which is a subtle change but has huge impact. An establishing shot will show us the entire school building before entering the classroom, the home before the bedroom or the restaurant's name before panning in to the couple at the table. Establishing shots have become an easy way of identifying something to the audience. It spells it out for us. Worse yet, it has become a substitution for mood: show us point-blank a location and expect the mood to be evoked by a flash of identification. Truffaut uses no establishing shots. On each cut he takes us immediately to our characters, and to our stories, there is no wasted time to have it painted out to us. He has two shots in the film that I would consider for Truffaut his establishing shots: at the beginning of the film we see Paris from the streets and when we shift to the juvenile camp we have a brief shot of the school with a supertitle before the class exits. Both of his locations, Paris and the camp are full characters in the film. It is for this reason, I believe, that he has no large need for establishing shots. I believe the realism of the film is greatly aided by his lack of establishing shots. There is no halt of the story in order to show us where we are, we simply see and we simply know it.

His few technical flourishes in the film become completely breathtaking after a film of such unassuming camerawork. The final shot of the film is well-known, but what stunned me the most this time around was the transition after Antoine's meeting with the psychiatrist. The slight freeze with the dissolve was absolutely stunning, and it allowed the mood of the scene - the heartbreak and abandon - to linger just that much longer.

To me, that dissolve illustrates what works so well about Truffaut and his work. It shows a perfect synthesis between technical proficiency and artistic excellence. The dissolve is technically well-conceived, but is a wonderful moment of art that evokes reaction and emotion. And it succeeds on every level.

"What can I offer?" In function to my religion

2008-12-03T01:52:00.002-07:00

To continue in my thoughts on the idea of "What can I offer?" I now take my ideas and put them into the context of my religion as well as the social stigmas and ideologies that stem from, not my religion per se, but rather by the culture grown from zealous living in a controlled cultural environment.

The earlier quote, that someone could "never marry a man majoring in art" because "it is selfish" is an idea held firmly in place by many members of my religion. Many people my own age in college believe this. It grows from a place that I do not understand, but I have many theories on where it may come from. Expectations for a certain type of life are high within the church. It is a life where righteous living is priority, and a happy home and happy family are the results. This expectation, though, can often be manipulated with the Calvinistic ideology that those who are favored by God will be identified by their temporal success. In the church this ideology is not so literally believed that we will consider those in the larger homes to be truly on a faster track to the celestial kingdom than those in the smaller homes. But we do judge far too often one's righteousness by their exterior signs of commitment or by temporal successes. So when someone assumes that an art major will never be able to provide for his family, the implication is serious. They are putting their family - which is the most important - behind their desires to follow their pipe dreams. Or so this idea would have you believe.

So within this warped framework of ideology we have beliefs that begin to form in the collective consciousness that there are careers and educations that are inherently more righteous than the others. Those with noble ambition - the doctors and lawyers, the scientists and businessmen - are regarded as nobility. Those with "normal jobs" who have the ambition and talent for manual labor or office work are also regarded as noble - they who will work and do everything it takes to provide for their families. But the artists are for some reason looked upon as selfish people, too absorbed in our own desires and abilities to come to our senses and put others first. I am not saying this is the case for all members, but a group of them feel this way, perhaps without realizing it. but to them, we are hedonists who care only about our dreams and desires and not about the health, safety and security of our families.

Then there is the odd stigma that many oddly have, that the arts are somehow a heathen world of pornographers and sinners, and that pursuing a career in the arts is enlisting directly in their services. It is odd seeing as this archaic mindset of religion that banned arts was one of the major steps forward of the restoration. Our church championed art and artists. Not to mention, the major events leading us out of the dark ages and into modern thought and intelligence was fueled by the renaissance and its art and artists. But in this modern age, art is equated with the snarling face of Babylon. Unless it is, of course, the wonderful genre of mormon art (another subject altogether) which is how the Lord sees fit to produce art. Art is bad. Unless, you know, it is Eric Dowdle, Halestorm Pictures or generic paintings of Jesus in a field of blooming flowers accompanied by small children.

We cannot assume that to be considered a successful or a righteous mormon that we must belong to a certain profession. We cannot assume that to be a positive influence in someone's life or to help people come unto Christ that we must be a doctor or a real estate agent or a sales manager at a local Staples. We must simply do the best with what the Lord has given us. In the parable of the talents the wise and profitable servants took that which were given and multiplied it. The unprofitable servant whose apathy frustrated the master simply hid his away. In the Lord's kingdom we have each been given talents. Some talents are in some disciplines and other talents are in other disciplines. What is unwise is hiding that which we have been given away. I will be a far more effective servant of the Lord in being myself and multiplying the talents I have than by hiding my talents away and force the growth of talents I may not even possess. I will have the capacity to influence the world positively and to help bring others to Christ far more by being involved in my art and the talent the Lord has given me than by majoring in anthropology and finding a "normal job."

The arts have their place in the Lord's kingdom. He has given us artists for that reason. Burying the talents given to us is frustrating to the Master, and does nothing to benefit His work nor His kingdom. To not broaden one's education in the arts if given the talent is to bury it, and is to be - in turn - an unprofitable servant. To seek an education in the arts is not a selfish quest - it can be if approached poorly - but rather it is a quest to take what is given to us an multiply it. In so doing we prepare ourselves so that when the Master arrives He can tell us that we have done well, and that we may enter into His kingdom.

So do you want to open a shop in a large city? Sell vintage clothing and your own designs? Want to create a community of artists in order to consistently create and perform original quality material? Want to make films? Than do it. If this is what you truly desire and want to do, there is no reason to bury it and force it to sit unused. Make yourself profitable. Make the world a better place by whatever means you can. Bring people to Christ by the means that He has given you, and you will be far more productive than trying to do it some other way. Our righteousness will not be based on our 401k nor our decision to choose biochem over painting. (and vise versa) The Lord's kingdom requires all types, not just those deemed to be in "respectable" professions by the local neighborhood watch.

What I can offer?

2008-12-03T01:00:00.002-07:00

"I could never marry a man majoring in art. It's selfish on his part."

That's in quotes for a reason: someone actually said it. It is a sentence that must, by obligation, be put in quotation marks because - as improbable as it seems - it was actually uttered. Odd, I know, to think that such a misguided and sad idea could be expressed by a friend of mine, and even sadder to come to the realization that there are many who share the same viewpoint. It has started me thinking. The statement is flawed and hypocritical by its own selfish trappings so I won't spend any time on why I think it should be disregarded. I will rather express the thoughts that have been occupying my mind all day as I contemplate my place within this idea of selfishness by artful expression. The thought that is reoccurring most frequently in my mind is the following: What do I have to offer?

So what do I have to offer? I am not speaking of myself in a marital sense, as in "What can I bring to the table in a relationship?" but rather "What can I bring to the world?" It's not as deeply existential as the question may lead one to believe. What do I have to offer the world? How can I better it? How can I change or influence it? Within this, there lies many paths. Each is unique, and each is important. But we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that a path which diverges from what many would define as "normalcy" is a lesser path. The artist's influence, while perhaps unfelt and unseen by many is just as imperative to the world as the influence of lawmakers, powerful businessmen, politicians and doctors. You know, the "normal professions."

So what can I offer? I have only that which I can create and that which I am given. I cannot force interest or talent in areas where they do not exist in me. I cannot pretend that I understand the deep inner-workings of an equation. I cannot pretend that I would like to. I cannot feign interest in the things in which I would normally have no interest. So why force myself into an education, career and life devoted to it? Why pretend that I could be effective in accomplishing important goals by surrounding myself in that for which I have no talent or ability. I am what I am, and I am who I am. I have certain abilities and talents which are unique to me, and for that I am thankful. I am no lawyer or politician, and for that I am thankful. I am no biochem major, no physicist in training. I have to offer that which I have, that which I am. I cannot change that. What I can do is refine and hone that which I have. In doing so I will a greater impact on the environment around me than I could in any other way. I have talent for the arts. How can I fool myself into thinking that my life would be more affecting by denying them and turning myself to scholarly pursuits accepted by the masses? In all truth I can only be effective by being who I am. I cannot have the same influence or impact in hiding my abilities or denying them in order to pursue a "marketable" career. Saying that a point comes where one must grow up and pick a big-boy job is an idea as ludicrous as saying that a talented and gifted doctor would have more success in life by leaving his practice and painting.

Why is it a selfish pursuit to hone and perfect the abilities that I have been given? Those who are gifted in thought, in science or in mathematics certainly use education to further deepen their knowledge and abilities in their crafts, why is it not the same for me? Why am I a fool for wanting to further my abilities in my own craft? It is a fallacy to think that it is selfishness that leads many to do that which they love. It is a fallacy to believe that pursuing one's dreams is left only to the artists. It is a pursuit that should drive all of those seeking education in their respective fields. We can all better our capacity to offer something to the world. The lawyer may grow in his knowledge of the law, the doctor in his ability to understand the human body, the taxi driver the fastest route and the artist his craft. Each of us can offer the world what we have. That which we have we can improve and refine. But taking that which is innate and ignoring it for that which is accepted is a disservice to ourselves, seeing as we rob ourselves the ability to fulfill the extent of our own potential. Again, this extends to all realms of ability. We cannot rob the world of a good surgeon, a good mechanic or a good executive by ignoring our natural gifts, abilities and tendencies. The world cannot afford it. Whatever it is that we are, we cannot positively or as powerfully affect the world by denying or changing it. We can never achieve our potential by deceiving ourselves.

So in summation, I can only offer that which I am and that which I have. Anything else would be either a lie or a disservice, and would not be as affecting. To refine one's ability in that which one loves is, in fact, the antithesis of selfish. True selfishness would be to deny the world that which one could offer.

Trips to the Broadway Center

2008-11-27T21:52:00.000-07:00

Last night I was able to go to the Broadway Center Cinemas, one of my favorite places on Earth. My life living in Utah has seen me wasting hours upon hours of my life at this wonderful cinema. The Broadway Center Cinemas is run by the Salt Lake Film Society (get information on screenings, and more importantly on becoming a patron here) an organization that is wonderful and deserves our support. Because of the SLFS I have had several of my most intimate and moving experiences with film, and what I have experienced because of them plays in heavily with why I want to be a filmmaker and an artist.

It has been too long since I've been to the Broadway Center. I was able to go last night with a close friend, and together, we shared two wonderful films together.

Let the Right One In is a slow, subtle Swedish film about two 12 year-olds coming to know each other and deal with their growing affection for one another. As far as plot goes, I don't want to speak about it much more, because I feel as if I would have enjoyed this heartwarming and beautiful tale if I new less about it going in. The film is slowly but perfectly paced, allowing the character relationships to blossom and develop naturally. The story also progresses in a natural and beautiful arc, accompanied by affecting performances by the two young leads. What really impressed my in the film was the sound. Using silence when many films would use far too much music, and using deep human noises for certain scenes create an effective and often horrifying environment.

I won't say much more about Let the Right One In, because I don't want to spoil it too much, and I also don't want to overhype it. But honestly, the film is perfect. In retrospect, I cannot find one flaw in the film. No hyperbole, I'm serious. Not one flaw. I loved this movie.

The second film was the epic and wondrous Synecdoche, New York. It is Charlie Kaufman's latest film and his directorial debut. The exciting thing about this film is that it is Kaufman directing Kaufman, so we are left with solely his vision, no filtering. While his collaborations in the past have been massive successes , this is 100% Kaufman pur jus. The last time I was this excited about seeing someone bring just their vision, and solely their vision, to the screen was Shane Black's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. For me, both films are triumphs for their respective filmmakers.

I don't know where to begin with Synecdoche, New York. As with all of Kaufman's films, the plot is unorthodox, to say the least. Theatre director Caden Cotard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is given a Macarthur grant and decides to do something big and truthful, creating an ever-growing replica of life in New York City. That's probably about as simple as I can make it, but it is increasingly complex. The film that I would relate this to would most likely be Fellini's 8 1/2, due to Synecdoche's tale of the struggle to create as well as the tale being told largely by analyzing Caden's relationships with the women in his life. The film also has no problem analyzing itself and its themes on several different meta-levels.

Synecdoche is a grand, sweeping tale playing with time and consciousness as if it were a near-annoyance. It's protagonist's struggle to connect and create is a beautiful tale that touched me, as well as my friend, deeply. It also sports a new score by the incredible Jon Brion.

I plan on spending more time over my Christmas break at the Broadway Center, and I hope to have as many marvelous film experiences as I did this weekend.

"Indie"

2008-11-27T21:12:00.002-07:00

In response to my friend Josh's note "Indie" found here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=59350253824

The line between what is technically "independent" and mainstream is becoming more and more blurred as time progresses onwards. At its outset, independent art was the art created without the aid of the mainstream funding machine, also known as "the man." But nowadays each major label, each major production studio has their "indie" label, where they can fund artists that either started on the outside and have deservedly worked their way into the public consciousness, or that have the feel or energy of the true independents. Or, perhaps, that the companies feel can sell to the demographic know as "indies."

So labeling things as indie can no longer simply come down to where the support or where the funding comes from. There are still the certain kings of independent art who produce and distribute their own art, such as Aimee Mann, but thanks to revolutionaries like Jack White we have indie in the mainstream. I would agree that indie is, indeed, defined by spirit and feeling now. Technically, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is an independent film, seeing as he financed it himself outside the aid of the studios. Would I classify that as an "indie film?" In no way.

The Sundance Film Festival and the Sundance Institute are great examples of the opposite of this spectrum. For all intents and purposes, they still represent the American Independent Film movement and embody the "indie spirit." But does it truly foster independent art? Not really, but it fosters the spirit of it. Most of the films at Sundance, while being non-produced by studios, are not fully "independent." The Sundance Film Festival is no longer the early 1990s behemoth where unknown, unique filmmakers maxed-out three credit cards in order to make a modest film a la Robert Rodriges. These are movies starring Steve Carrell and Courtney Cox-Arquette, with people like Danny Devito throwing cash behind the films. These are professional films by professional filmmakers, but the visions they produce are unique and embody the ideas of independent art.

So by comparing The Passion of the Christ and the Sundance Film Festival what we see are two different examples of the forms in which "indie" exists today. There is art independently produced that is in no way independent, and there is art produced by the mainstream that is truly indie. What we as artists and as supporters of the indie zeitgeist must realize is that the good exists on both sides, as well as the bad. We cannot believe that all that is indie is quality, and that all that is mainstream is pointless shill. There is much indie art that is not worth a single moment of our time, as well as much mainstream art that is beautiful, uplifting and inspiring. Just because a book was on Oprah's book list does not mean it's not worth your time, Jonathan Franzen.

In our time, independent art will be judge far less by how or where it was produced and far more by the tone, spirit and ideals that it produces and upholds.

Personal Accomplishments

2008-11-18T22:41:00.005-07:00

I am feeling good tonight. Not cockily so, but just good. I came from a productive and fun day, and feel very pleased with my accomplishments as of late.

One: I have successfully not drunk any carbonation for three-and-a-half weeks, except for about a quarter of a cup to try some Pomegranate 7-Up.

Two: I set another minute of my choreography piece this evening.

Three: I am about to finish the run of Into the Woods, having played one of the most physically demanding roles of my life.

Four: I have lost 16 pounds since I moved to Wyoming.

Five: I had a good interview today for a job position this summer.

Six: My hair is starting to look awesome.

Seven: I found a duffel coat that looks great on me and it only cost $65.

Eight: I successfully hit on a stranger at Borders this morning.

Nine: I am staying on top of my schoolwork.

Ten: I accomplished one of my major goals for my studies here at Western - I am in Deirdre MacDonald's dance piece.

Eleven: I am happy.

So that is pretty much it right now. But I'm feeling good. Again, not cockily so, but just very content.

Can't Sleep

2008-11-17T02:00:00.001-07:00

It's 2:00 am and I can't sleep. I don't know why. My roommate is not here, and I'm up thinking. I watched United 93 tonight and my mind is wrapping around it. It was one of the most difficult movies I've ever watched, but I'm surprised how cathartic it is, and not simply about September 11. I was also very touched by how well the film was made. Paul Greengrass is a very talented director (and I suppose writer with this film, even though most of the dialogue was created in rehearsals with he actors) and he coaxes a painful realism from the proceedings throughout the entire film. It is really a movie that I would say everyone needs to see at least once, if not for anything but a moving story of true-life heroics.

It is interesting to watch my evolution as a person. The last few months have been very hectic for me. I tell myself frequently that "I'm going to write, I'm going to write," but I never do. Not even something as simple as a blog. But I wish I could have documented more of my thought-process in the last few months. Returning from France I was so sure I knew exactly what I wanted and how to get it. But it never goes as planned. I was also sure that I knew exactly what I didn't want. Again, things never go as planned. And now I'm here. 8 months in America and I'm a different person than I was. I'm far more reserved than I used to be, and far calmer. I do not experience the same level of stress that I used to inflict upon myself. I am calmer and I am more relaxed about life. Maybe that is why it is so glaringly different when I descend into moments of panic or anxiety . . . But they quickly subside and I find myself again tranquil. I am more comfortable with my creative identity and am more confident in expressing it in the midst of many who do not think the same way as I do. I am far less dependent upon others' opinions of me. I have difficulty with extroversion in social gatherings and am often crippled with fear in certain social situations. I am completely blank in my mind in regards to my future, but fully confident that it is alright, that with time my path will be laid out before me, and that I will have no problem recognizing it. I have a complete and utter abhorrence to the thought of mediocrity in myself. I am far stronger and far more capable than I have ever previously given myself credit for.

Stream of consciousness . . . oi gevalt, where does it lead? Here, apparently. It's now 2:17. I still have no ability in my body to sleep. I can feel it, I know myself, and I'm not ready for sleep. My mind is still too awake. I was able to see my family last weekend. I hope I'm able to fully express to all of them how much they mean to me. Living 3 hours away is not that bad, but I wish I could see them more often. I wonder how it will be if I go someplace even further away to finish my bachelor's. Or for Grad school. I never thought I would say something similar to what I'm about to: But I love school. I want to learn as much as I can for the rest of my life. Ok, so maybe I don't love school, but I love learning. Sometimes I have difficulty learning here, I have a hard time in classes having to focus my "learning" into one prescribed method. I can't wrap my mind around it. But as I take my own time and read as much as I can about everything that interests me, I adore it. I just finished a book called Blink which was so interesting. It spoke on our thought processes and our ability to make decisions. It was so intriguing to dive into a specific theory of how our mind cognitively analyses its information. Before that I read a wonderful study of America by Mark Hertsgaard called The Eagle's Shadow. The election was a period of mass study for me, especially trying to shove a year-and-a-half's worth of missed campaigning into the past 8 months to understand this election.

Does it frustrate anyone else that to read decent and fair news about America you have to go to gaurdian.uk or bbc.com? I've been growing weary of it. Especially with the fact that a while ago, maybe a little more than 3 or 4 weeks, America raided Syria - the first time we've crossed the Iraqi border into that country - killing 8 people and the American media has made nearly NO mention of it. NPR is the only news source I've heard covering it at all, and from what I found, it was scant. But the major news sources in America have ignored this story. I don't understand it. I've gone to other country's websites to get our news. I read stories in the British magazine The Economist. But here? I can hardly find anything. I don't get it.

All in all, life is good. It's a supposed halt for me as I take my studies seriously. At times this does not feel like a real life to me. I feel like time has paused and I'm allowed to just learn as much as I can, which would be wonderful if it were true. The true pause seems to have happened during my time in France. It honestly feels as if it should still be 2006 for me. I was over in France as the world went forward in time and I didn't even realize it at all.

Alright, I'm not going to bed, but I'm stopping this blog this evening. I think I've rambled enough for one entry. I will probably be surprised and maybe even slightly horrified come morning when I realize what I've written.