SOFA Chicago, the city's largest and longest continually running art fair, will be going on this weekend at Navy Pier. It’s an exposition of sculpture objects and functional arts. You can buy art or just look at it, depending on your mood or wallet. Admission is $15 or $25 for a three day pass.
The West Town art gallery and education center Intuit is also involved. They’re offering lecture series presentations and special exhibits, with lectures led by both emerging artists and academics. Topics range from explorations of artistic materials like glass, ceramics and wood to a discussion of artistic aspects of drinking vessels and customs.
SOFA will be showcasing more than 60 international art galleries and the Intuit Show of Folk & Outsider Art will feature 16 exhibitors.
SOFA’s focus is on sculptural and functional art whereas Intuit, according to their website, is the only nonprofit organization in the country dedicated to self-taught and outsider art. Intuit Board President Ralph Concepcion said the collaboration between the two groups works because the art the Intuit dealers sell complements the art at SOFA so well.
Concepcion said Intuit was initially planning to launch an outsider and folk art show on their own, but after consulting with Mark Wynam, owner of The Art Fair Company, they agreed that Wynam would produce the show as a separate but connected part of SOFA. “In the long run, it turned out to be a good fit with SOFA,” Concepcion said.
Earlier art shows had experienced some built-in conflict between the established high end art dealers and the dealers of self-taught art, who didn’t want to marginalize the work they carry, according to Concepcion. After the move to SOFA, “there wasn’t that same conflict,” Concepcion added. “We’re able to bring in galleries from all over the country and show the local audience here a wider variety of presentations of self-taught art.”
Donna Davies, director of SOFA, said, “We hope that there’s something for everybody.” She called SOFA a “venue to learn and make new discoveries” and pointed out that even if visitors are unable to make a purchase, they can still stop in at the lecture series and learn more about new forms of art.
This is the second year the two organizations have collaborated on the annual fair. Calling the outcome of the first year “tremendous,” Davies said, “The collectors were overjoyed to see some artists and forms that they hadn’t learned about.” She went on to call it “a wonderful partnership.” Concepcion echoed that sentiment, saying dealers “did well and the show looked good.”
The fair starts Friday, November 4th at 11 a.m. and tickets are still available online or at the door. If you want to learn more about SOFA, go here, and if you want to learn more about the Intuit part of the show, head over here. And if you're generally interested in learning about some new artists, you may want to check out Intuit's usual grounds over yonder.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The one, the only, Garfunkel and Oates
Recently I had the great good fortune to interview Riki Lindhome and Kate Micucci, the ladies behind Garfunkel and Oates, when they came to Chicago to play a few shows at the Mayne Stage in Rogers Park. I would highly recommend checking them out, if you haven't already. In concert, they're witty and profane, in person they're witty and beyond kind to student journalists.
The duo started posting videos to Youtube in 2009, but didn't start playing concerts out together until about six months after the videos were posted. Their song "F*ck you" appeared on Scrubs prior to them playing out as well, though with a sanitized name. Lindhome said she voted for "Nail you", but the producers ultimately went with the apparently less offensive "Screw you".
They're working on a show for HBO ("Glee with dick jokes," as Lindhome describes it) and their album, "All Over Your Face", is available on iTunes (and Amazon, which is easier to link to). Trivia I learned at their concert: that really odd picture they used for their album cover was picked because it was so unattractive. The photographer was taking pictures of them jumping and somehow snapped that one of them right after they landed, leading to the frowny faces and hunched over posture. How could they pick any other photo?
Below is an audio piece I created from the interview. Enjoy at your leisure. If G&O comes to a city near you, go see them. They're hilarious and it's sweet to see performers with such evident affection for each other.
The duo started posting videos to Youtube in 2009, but didn't start playing concerts out together until about six months after the videos were posted. Their song "F*ck you" appeared on Scrubs prior to them playing out as well, though with a sanitized name. Lindhome said she voted for "Nail you", but the producers ultimately went with the apparently less offensive "Screw you".
They're working on a show for HBO ("Glee with dick jokes," as Lindhome describes it) and their album, "All Over Your Face", is available on iTunes (and Amazon, which is easier to link to). Trivia I learned at their concert: that really odd picture they used for their album cover was picked because it was so unattractive. The photographer was taking pictures of them jumping and somehow snapped that one of them right after they landed, leading to the frowny faces and hunched over posture. How could they pick any other photo?
Below is an audio piece I created from the interview. Enjoy at your leisure. If G&O comes to a city near you, go see them. They're hilarious and it's sweet to see performers with such evident affection for each other.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Book Review: The Magician King
I believe I decided to read The Magicians by Lev Grossman when I saw it described as Harry Potter for adults. Call me a sucker, but that's enough to reel me in. What I discovered was a book that was more like Harry Potter meets The Corrections. I enjoyed The Corrections, but I think I might have disliked it in equal measure. That was about my take on The Magicians as well. There were parts that were exciting and scary and clever, but it was not always fun to keep company with Lev Grossman's main character, Quentin Coldwater. Quentin is immature and selfish, prone to terrible life-decisions, but with the self-awareness to recognize how terrible those decisions are later. It's all the more frustrating that he then continues to make terrible decisions.
Grossman is not the first person to write about an unlikeable main character. Literature is filled with unsavory types who are nonetheless so compelling that you can't tear yourself away. Quentin occupies some middle ground. He's far from heroic, but, and this is damning with faint praise, he's not the worst person in the world either. I couldn't quite decide if this made him more realistic or just aggravating.
I must have come down on the side of compelling, because I found I was excited when I learned that the sequel, The Magician King, was coming out. I picked it up the day it came out and went to a reading by Lev Grossman later in the week. My capsule review of that is that Lev Grossman is clever and funny and only sometimes a little pretentious. The question and answer session was interesting. One person asked why the magicians in Grossman's books aren't doing anything more noble with their time, to which he answered that there are magicians who are noble in his world, but they're not the ones he's writing about. The question that I found most interesting in retrospect was the one with the simplest answer. A girl asked how long it had taken him to write the book and he said two years. It took him five years to write the first one. Having finished the book, I think this shortened writing period shows.
Without giving too much away, the book is split between Quentin's story and the story of his high school crush Julia, who had the chance to get into his fancy magician college in the first book, but was rejected. I don't want to sound hopelessly plot-driven as a reader, but I felt like I was halfway through the book and nothing had happened yet. Both of their stories are interesting, but a little underdeveloped. Years of Julia's story are skimmed through and Quentin's quest is resolved so quickly that I found the eventual stakes of it less meaningful and occasionally confusing. The climax of the book, when it comes, is underwhelming, and the grand denouement of Julia's section (which takes place at an earlier time) is noticeably similar to the big fight at the end of The Magicians.
There's also the fact that by the end of The Magicians, I thought Quentin had finally grown up a bit. By trial and error and having his heart broken, he's no longer solely a hedonist. However, at the beginning of The Magician King, he seems remarkably similar. I suppose we could say he regressed, but to me it came across as some retrofitting.
Pluses? Grossman is a good writer and it's generally worth following him through to the end. He has a firm sense of the ridiculous and when characters question the world around them, anyone who's read a fantasy book will feel the pangs once again of wondering why in the world Susan doesn't get to go to Narnia. For a book with awfully sad sections, it's often quite funny and Grossman is nothing if not inventive when creating the various magical spells and worlds.
My final take is that if you liked The Magicians, you'll like The Magician King. You'll see some old friends and meet some new ones. You'll want to strangle Quentin, but you'll stick by him. And if you're me, you will probably begrudgingly pick up the planned third book at some future date.
One last note: I've seen mostly positive reviews for this book, so I'm curious to see what other people think of it. If you're a fan of the first, are you a fan of the second? If you were frustrated by the first one, did you find this one to be an improvement? If you haven't read either one, this review has probably left you wondering whether or not these books are worth reading. Go for it! Take risks in life. Eat ice cream for dinner once, just because you can, and read books that provoke discussion.
Grossman is not the first person to write about an unlikeable main character. Literature is filled with unsavory types who are nonetheless so compelling that you can't tear yourself away. Quentin occupies some middle ground. He's far from heroic, but, and this is damning with faint praise, he's not the worst person in the world either. I couldn't quite decide if this made him more realistic or just aggravating.
I must have come down on the side of compelling, because I found I was excited when I learned that the sequel, The Magician King, was coming out. I picked it up the day it came out and went to a reading by Lev Grossman later in the week. My capsule review of that is that Lev Grossman is clever and funny and only sometimes a little pretentious. The question and answer session was interesting. One person asked why the magicians in Grossman's books aren't doing anything more noble with their time, to which he answered that there are magicians who are noble in his world, but they're not the ones he's writing about. The question that I found most interesting in retrospect was the one with the simplest answer. A girl asked how long it had taken him to write the book and he said two years. It took him five years to write the first one. Having finished the book, I think this shortened writing period shows.
Without giving too much away, the book is split between Quentin's story and the story of his high school crush Julia, who had the chance to get into his fancy magician college in the first book, but was rejected. I don't want to sound hopelessly plot-driven as a reader, but I felt like I was halfway through the book and nothing had happened yet. Both of their stories are interesting, but a little underdeveloped. Years of Julia's story are skimmed through and Quentin's quest is resolved so quickly that I found the eventual stakes of it less meaningful and occasionally confusing. The climax of the book, when it comes, is underwhelming, and the grand denouement of Julia's section (which takes place at an earlier time) is noticeably similar to the big fight at the end of The Magicians.
There's also the fact that by the end of The Magicians, I thought Quentin had finally grown up a bit. By trial and error and having his heart broken, he's no longer solely a hedonist. However, at the beginning of The Magician King, he seems remarkably similar. I suppose we could say he regressed, but to me it came across as some retrofitting.
Pluses? Grossman is a good writer and it's generally worth following him through to the end. He has a firm sense of the ridiculous and when characters question the world around them, anyone who's read a fantasy book will feel the pangs once again of wondering why in the world Susan doesn't get to go to Narnia. For a book with awfully sad sections, it's often quite funny and Grossman is nothing if not inventive when creating the various magical spells and worlds.
My final take is that if you liked The Magicians, you'll like The Magician King. You'll see some old friends and meet some new ones. You'll want to strangle Quentin, but you'll stick by him. And if you're me, you will probably begrudgingly pick up the planned third book at some future date.
One last note: I've seen mostly positive reviews for this book, so I'm curious to see what other people think of it. If you're a fan of the first, are you a fan of the second? If you were frustrated by the first one, did you find this one to be an improvement? If you haven't read either one, this review has probably left you wondering whether or not these books are worth reading. Go for it! Take risks in life. Eat ice cream for dinner once, just because you can, and read books that provoke discussion.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean the Fourth: On Stranger Tides
Ah, June. The trees, they are leafy, the flowers, they are blooming, the weather, she is making it too warm to sleep at night. And in the mercifully air conditioned movie theaters, it's explosion time. Starting this weekend, you can watch the X-Men blow things up again (or as a friend called it, X-Men: Hotter Than Before and With Accents) and soon to come, the return of Battlebots. Sorry, I mean Transformers. I like summer blockbusters. Some of them are big awful failures, but there's something enjoyable about seeing a movie make use of all those special effects. The part that starts to get to me is the oversequelization of everything. You know, the notion that if a movie made more money than expected, the saga should be continued, even though ostensibly everything is wrapped up at the end, which I assume is the case of The Hangover. I skipped that one when it came out, but I've been able to glean enough clues to safely conclude that it didn't end with Bradley Cooper getting encased in carbonite, Ed Helms losing a hand, and Zach Galifianikis sensing he needed to come to the rescue. Now, there was a movie where you knew a sequel was coming.
All of this is leading, in my usual roundabout way, to me saying that I'm not sure what to make of this latest pirate installment. The first one was unexpected fun, especially considering it came from one of the more cynical bases for a movie I'd heard of at the time: a theme park ride. Of course, that was before the big screen adaptation of Battleship was announced. The sequels had diminishing returns, sacrificing a coherent story for continuing box office paydays and undoing the happy ending of the first movie. When asked to recall the other night what had happened in the third one, I had a lot of trouble piecing it together. Bill Nighy was there, scowling, and there was a kraken, or something? This new one has sacrificed all of that dead weight in favor of focusing exclusively on Johnny Depp's eyeliner pirate.
I'm not sure that was such a good idea. While I'm not particularly enamored with Orlando Bloom's acting chops, he and Keira Knightley provided for a good percentage of the dramatic momentum in the original movies. Most of the time, the two of them were just trying to be together, which, when it comes down to it, is a sweet, simple plot. Jack Sparrow, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of motivation, beyond a deep affection for rum, a fine hat, and his ship. He seems like a good guy, since he does help the young lovers out, but he doesn't want anything besides the freedom to sail around.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, to use a sailing term, is adrift. It has no wind in its sails. Jack is the only lead now and the basic plot revolves around a search for the Fountain of Youth, but does Jack want it? Yes, kind of. But nowhere near as much as some of the other people in the movie, like Blackbeard or Penelope Cruz or some Spanish guys who are in the movie for no purpose I was able to discern. Jack gets shanghaied, more or less, into helping. He's Captain Jack Sparrow and there is a scene in this movie where he mops a floor. Mops. A. Floor. If you're only going to take one thing from the originals, at least do it right. Well, two things. Geoffrey Rush showed up to collect his paycheck. He's been given a peg leg and slightly clearer motivations than Jack. They have a lot to do with Blackbeard, here portrayed by Ian McShane. Blackbeard is evil, mostly, with occasional nicer moments happening around his apparent daughter, Penelope Cruz. He's heard he's going to die, so he's after the Fountain of Youth, and Penelope, well, she wants to help him because she thinks if he survives, she'll get the father she always wanted. Wait, there's a good plot! Daughter trying to save irredeemable father, even though he probably won't change even if he does survive.
But there's also the Spanish dude (really, I don't think he had a name) chasing down the Fountain, because two sailors find a half drowned old man who claims to have been sailing with Ponce de Leon, who as we all know died two hundred years before the setting of the movie, and OMG, how old can the half drowned old man be?? and then you never see the old man again. That doesn't even cover the missionary and the mermaid, which sounds like a joke, but isn't.
There are a lot of people in this movie.
Some of the action sequences are fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with a lot of characters, other than the issue that constantly jumping characters can leave you with not enough time to fully develop any of them. But these movies need to either give Jack Sparrow some definite, movie-guiding motivations or else have other leads. There are worse ways to spend time than in the company of Johnny Depp and that's ultimately what this movie is: spend two hours with Johnny Depp doing his cute pirate thing, see some explosions, and call it a night. Give him a better why and you manage that most delectable of summer blockbusters; namely, the kind that compels you to keep watching for reasons other than the next big explosion.
All of this is leading, in my usual roundabout way, to me saying that I'm not sure what to make of this latest pirate installment. The first one was unexpected fun, especially considering it came from one of the more cynical bases for a movie I'd heard of at the time: a theme park ride. Of course, that was before the big screen adaptation of Battleship was announced. The sequels had diminishing returns, sacrificing a coherent story for continuing box office paydays and undoing the happy ending of the first movie. When asked to recall the other night what had happened in the third one, I had a lot of trouble piecing it together. Bill Nighy was there, scowling, and there was a kraken, or something? This new one has sacrificed all of that dead weight in favor of focusing exclusively on Johnny Depp's eyeliner pirate.
I'm not sure that was such a good idea. While I'm not particularly enamored with Orlando Bloom's acting chops, he and Keira Knightley provided for a good percentage of the dramatic momentum in the original movies. Most of the time, the two of them were just trying to be together, which, when it comes down to it, is a sweet, simple plot. Jack Sparrow, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of motivation, beyond a deep affection for rum, a fine hat, and his ship. He seems like a good guy, since he does help the young lovers out, but he doesn't want anything besides the freedom to sail around.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, to use a sailing term, is adrift. It has no wind in its sails. Jack is the only lead now and the basic plot revolves around a search for the Fountain of Youth, but does Jack want it? Yes, kind of. But nowhere near as much as some of the other people in the movie, like Blackbeard or Penelope Cruz or some Spanish guys who are in the movie for no purpose I was able to discern. Jack gets shanghaied, more or less, into helping. He's Captain Jack Sparrow and there is a scene in this movie where he mops a floor. Mops. A. Floor. If you're only going to take one thing from the originals, at least do it right. Well, two things. Geoffrey Rush showed up to collect his paycheck. He's been given a peg leg and slightly clearer motivations than Jack. They have a lot to do with Blackbeard, here portrayed by Ian McShane. Blackbeard is evil, mostly, with occasional nicer moments happening around his apparent daughter, Penelope Cruz. He's heard he's going to die, so he's after the Fountain of Youth, and Penelope, well, she wants to help him because she thinks if he survives, she'll get the father she always wanted. Wait, there's a good plot! Daughter trying to save irredeemable father, even though he probably won't change even if he does survive.
But there's also the Spanish dude (really, I don't think he had a name) chasing down the Fountain, because two sailors find a half drowned old man who claims to have been sailing with Ponce de Leon, who as we all know died two hundred years before the setting of the movie, and OMG, how old can the half drowned old man be?? and then you never see the old man again. That doesn't even cover the missionary and the mermaid, which sounds like a joke, but isn't.
There are a lot of people in this movie.
Some of the action sequences are fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with a lot of characters, other than the issue that constantly jumping characters can leave you with not enough time to fully develop any of them. But these movies need to either give Jack Sparrow some definite, movie-guiding motivations or else have other leads. There are worse ways to spend time than in the company of Johnny Depp and that's ultimately what this movie is: spend two hours with Johnny Depp doing his cute pirate thing, see some explosions, and call it a night. Give him a better why and you manage that most delectable of summer blockbusters; namely, the kind that compels you to keep watching for reasons other than the next big explosion.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Race and the Hunger Games
Like many adult nerds who should probably be doing something better with their time, I've been following the casting news for the film adaptation of The Hunger Games. On the plus side, they've cast two really talented young actors and also that dude who dated Miley Cyrus. On the minus side, they took what could have been a minority lead in one of the biggest upcoming films and cast a white, blond actress. It's hard to argue too much with this casting; from what I've heard about Winter's Bone, Jennifer Lawrence has basically already played Katniss Everdeen, the main character in the books. She's been nominated for an Academy Award. In the realm of adaptations of children's books, she's a real catch. On the other hand, how many major motion pictures have people of color as main characters?
In the first book of the series, Katniss and Gale, her studly longtime friend, are described as having "straight black hair", "olive skin", and "gray eyes." In an otherwise softball interview that features questions like "How invigorating has this been for you Suzanne after several years of writing alone" (so invigorating, obviously), Entertainment Weekly did raise the issue of the race of the main character to the author, Suzanne Collins. Collins says, "They were not particularly intended to be biracial. It is a time period where hundreds of years have passed from now. There’s been a lot of ethnic mixing." So, we'll say "mixed race" rather than specifically biracial, as the interviewer put it. Collins goes on to say "I think I describe them as having dark hair, grey eyes, and sort of olive skin." Did we need the qualifier there? Instead of olive skin, they have "sort of" olive skin. Not to worry, though, because "You know, we have hair and makeup."
Can we all agree that using "hair and makeup" to make white actors less white is a bad idea? Of course, I can't pretend to know these characters as well as Collins does. They're her creation and as such, if she says they're white, then they are. I also understand that it's not exactly to anyone's benefit at this point for Collins to say that she disapproves of the casting. However, I do think her response in the interview came across as her backing off of her own description of these characters. I also don't think it's too surprising that a lot of people read the characters as being people of color.
In the weeks leading up the casting announcement, virtually every actress between the ages of 14 and 25 was suggested. Not a single one (that I saw in my very extensive research, obviously) was not white. Are there really no young actresses of color in Hollywood who could have been considered for the part? Bella Swan is white. Harry Potter is white. Percy Jackson is white. Katniss Everdeen is the only one who could easily have been cast differently.
As my esteemed friend Andrew pointed out, the term "olive skin" is often used to describe someone most of us would call Caucasian. It can mean Greek or Spanish. It can also mean Middle Eastern or South American. What rankles me is the opportunity lost more than anything else. How great would it have been for a young woman of color to portray someone this heroic? I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that we could do with some positive representations of people of color in these times of "anchor babies" and people claiming the president is a practicing Muslim.
In the first book of the series, Katniss and Gale, her studly longtime friend, are described as having "straight black hair", "olive skin", and "gray eyes." In an otherwise softball interview that features questions like "How invigorating has this been for you Suzanne after several years of writing alone" (so invigorating, obviously), Entertainment Weekly did raise the issue of the race of the main character to the author, Suzanne Collins. Collins says, "They were not particularly intended to be biracial. It is a time period where hundreds of years have passed from now. There’s been a lot of ethnic mixing." So, we'll say "mixed race" rather than specifically biracial, as the interviewer put it. Collins goes on to say "I think I describe them as having dark hair, grey eyes, and sort of olive skin." Did we need the qualifier there? Instead of olive skin, they have "sort of" olive skin. Not to worry, though, because "You know, we have hair and makeup."
Can we all agree that using "hair and makeup" to make white actors less white is a bad idea? Of course, I can't pretend to know these characters as well as Collins does. They're her creation and as such, if she says they're white, then they are. I also understand that it's not exactly to anyone's benefit at this point for Collins to say that she disapproves of the casting. However, I do think her response in the interview came across as her backing off of her own description of these characters. I also don't think it's too surprising that a lot of people read the characters as being people of color.
In the weeks leading up the casting announcement, virtually every actress between the ages of 14 and 25 was suggested. Not a single one (that I saw in my very extensive research, obviously) was not white. Are there really no young actresses of color in Hollywood who could have been considered for the part? Bella Swan is white. Harry Potter is white. Percy Jackson is white. Katniss Everdeen is the only one who could easily have been cast differently.
As my esteemed friend Andrew pointed out, the term "olive skin" is often used to describe someone most of us would call Caucasian. It can mean Greek or Spanish. It can also mean Middle Eastern or South American. What rankles me is the opportunity lost more than anything else. How great would it have been for a young woman of color to portray someone this heroic? I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that we could do with some positive representations of people of color in these times of "anchor babies" and people claiming the president is a practicing Muslim.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Ah, l'amour
Recently, I saw two movies about love. Since both of these movies took place in the present day (mostly), I decided to assume that both of them were trying to be realistic in their portrayal of young people falling in love. Both showed two attractive young people meeting and then what happened to them years later. Only one of them featured a virtually unrecognizable Dread Pirate Roberts, but we can't have everything. These two movies were Blue Valentine and No Strings Attached. One is a critically acclaimed drama about two people at the beginning and end of their relationship. The other is a saucy romantic comedy about friends with benefits who just might be developing feelings for each other. What do they have to say about love in these modern times? Can we reach a consensus?
How does time flow? In one of those linear fashions or some kinda crazy hopscotching business?
BV: Hopscotching business. The movie jumps back and forth between the two leads falling in love and falling apart years later.
NSA: Linear, but beginning when the leads are teenagers before jumping forward a few times, for no particular dramatic purpose.
Do the young people have family issues?
BV: Yes. Ryan Gosling has an absentee mother, Michelle Williams has a father who screams at her mother. Also, her mother suffers a terrible case of evaporating in the block of time between the early scenes and the later ones.
NSA: Yes. Natalie Portman's father dies early on. Ashton Kutcher's father is a lecherous faded TV actor dating his son's ex.
Is there a doctor in the house?
BV: Michelle Williams wants to be a doctor, but becomes a nurse after having a child ruins her life.
NSA: Natalie Portman is apparently in the Grey's Anatomy stage of becoming a doctor.
Sorry, I meant, is there a handsome doctor in the house?
BV: Ben Shenkman is on hand to tempt away the little lady.
NSA: This guy. Also, Cary Elwes, no matter how old or bearded he gets. Natalie Portman knows what I'm talking about.
Does anyone throw a punch?
BV: Ryan Gosling, at Ben Shenkman.
NSA: Ashton Kutcher, at his own father. This was nearly as disturbing.
Do they get by with a little help from their friends?
BV: No. These two have zero friends. Maybe everyone else finds them as unpleasant as they find each other.
NSA: Yes. Natalie has two ladyfriends, played by the notably more interesting Greta Gerwig and Mindy Kaling, as well as a gay friend. Ashton has two gentlemen friends, horny sarcastic dude and horny emotional dude.
How's the Oscar pedigree look?
BV: Both stars have been nominated, though Ryan was nominated for Half Nelson, not this one. Sorry, Ryan.
NSA: Natalie Portman and Kevin Kline both know their way around an Oscars ceremony.
General economic outlook?
BV: Lower-middle class. Living in a trailer.
NSA: Upper-middle class, but everybody has roommates.
Get to the good part. How's the sex?
BV: Bad.
NSA: Good.
What's the tagline?
BV: "A love story" (I think this is one of those ironic things)
NSA: "Friendship has its benefits", which is an important message for the lonely malcontents in Blue Valentine
I know these two movies don't really jump to mind as comparable ones, but I do think it was interesting to note what they did have in common, whether that was highly-respected actors or the fact that taglines are always a little painful. What does it say that two movies with vastly different aims both feature women as high-achieving professionals and men as charming underachievers? They also both had something to say about the choices and consequences young people face about sex and how worthwhile it is to stick with someone or make a go of it on your own. One of them might be saying it slightly more painfully than the other, but it is an aspect of romance on which both focus. Also, there seems to be something irresistible about what happens when people first meet.
I don't really want to recommend one over the other, since there's probably a time and a place for each. But I did gather some romantic advice after seeing both: Be rich, have friends, make a good first impression, and don't get married if you don't know each other that well.
How does time flow? In one of those linear fashions or some kinda crazy hopscotching business?
BV: Hopscotching business. The movie jumps back and forth between the two leads falling in love and falling apart years later.
NSA: Linear, but beginning when the leads are teenagers before jumping forward a few times, for no particular dramatic purpose.
Do the young people have family issues?
BV: Yes. Ryan Gosling has an absentee mother, Michelle Williams has a father who screams at her mother. Also, her mother suffers a terrible case of evaporating in the block of time between the early scenes and the later ones.
NSA: Yes. Natalie Portman's father dies early on. Ashton Kutcher's father is a lecherous faded TV actor dating his son's ex.
Is there a doctor in the house?
BV: Michelle Williams wants to be a doctor, but becomes a nurse after having a child ruins her life.
NSA: Natalie Portman is apparently in the Grey's Anatomy stage of becoming a doctor.
Sorry, I meant, is there a handsome doctor in the house?
BV: Ben Shenkman is on hand to tempt away the little lady.
NSA: This guy. Also, Cary Elwes, no matter how old or bearded he gets. Natalie Portman knows what I'm talking about.
Does anyone throw a punch?
BV: Ryan Gosling, at Ben Shenkman.
NSA: Ashton Kutcher, at his own father. This was nearly as disturbing.
Do they get by with a little help from their friends?
BV: No. These two have zero friends. Maybe everyone else finds them as unpleasant as they find each other.
NSA: Yes. Natalie has two ladyfriends, played by the notably more interesting Greta Gerwig and Mindy Kaling, as well as a gay friend. Ashton has two gentlemen friends, horny sarcastic dude and horny emotional dude.
How's the Oscar pedigree look?
BV: Both stars have been nominated, though Ryan was nominated for Half Nelson, not this one. Sorry, Ryan.
NSA: Natalie Portman and Kevin Kline both know their way around an Oscars ceremony.
General economic outlook?
BV: Lower-middle class. Living in a trailer.
NSA: Upper-middle class, but everybody has roommates.
Get to the good part. How's the sex?
BV: Bad.
NSA: Good.
What's the tagline?
BV: "A love story" (I think this is one of those ironic things)
NSA: "Friendship has its benefits", which is an important message for the lonely malcontents in Blue Valentine
I know these two movies don't really jump to mind as comparable ones, but I do think it was interesting to note what they did have in common, whether that was highly-respected actors or the fact that taglines are always a little painful. What does it say that two movies with vastly different aims both feature women as high-achieving professionals and men as charming underachievers? They also both had something to say about the choices and consequences young people face about sex and how worthwhile it is to stick with someone or make a go of it on your own. One of them might be saying it slightly more painfully than the other, but it is an aspect of romance on which both focus. Also, there seems to be something irresistible about what happens when people first meet.
I don't really want to recommend one over the other, since there's probably a time and a place for each. But I did gather some romantic advice after seeing both: Be rich, have friends, make a good first impression, and don't get married if you don't know each other that well.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
TV Review: Being Human
There's this weird thing that happens in the entertainment industry. One country makes a thing, the thing is super popular, and then a different country makes their own version that is simply horrendous. For instance, the movie Mostly Martha is this sweet, slightly cheesy German movie about an uptight chef. A few years later, Catherine Zeta-Jones ruined it in English with No Reservations. Please, don't rent No Reservations. You're only feeding the beast.
Sometimes these adaptations work. Unfortunately, for every Office, there's a Coupling or Viva Laughlin. The latest entry into this pantheon of hits and embarrassing misses is Being Human, currently running on the Syfy channel. I would call this one more miss than hit, at the moment. It is a show about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost who are roommates. To me, this sounds like the set up to a joke, but most of the characters are incapable of pushing their faces into smile shapes, so it's more of a drama.
Aside from their general humorlessness, they're also whiny and not terribly interesting. Aidan, the requisite hot brooding vampire guy, is two hundred years old. He used to be really violent and murderous, but now he's not, except for when he relapses once an episode. He has this one vampire friend who is kind of threatening. Then there's Josh, the whiny werewolf. I keep thinking Josh will be the funny one, but he isn't. He mostly sulks, because he's not old enough to brood. Finally, we have Sally the ghost. Hey, what's that over there? Oh, it's another feminist rant.
OK, you have three main characters, so two of the three have to be men instead of the other way around (of course), but the one female character is also a ghost? The only one with no power to do anything at all? The one who can't interact with any characters except the two main dudes because they're the only ones who can see her? The one whose ultimate fate rests on her ability to find emotional closure about her life? At least make some effort here. I know the cast is based on the British version, but that doesn't mean it was OK when they did it.
Moving on to other issues, the show is supposed to be set in Boston, but the producers apparently didn't even spring for a few skyline shots to toss between scenes. The only indication that they're in Boston is that one, someone casually referred to them being in Boston, and two, Josh was supposed to be attending MIT Med School before he got bitten by a werewolf and dropped out. I can't even tell where in Boston they're supposed to be living. I'm guessing they're in South Boston, but I'm not sure. Didn't Good Will Hunting teach us all the phrase "Southie"? Also, Josh goes off into "the woods" once a month to turn into a werewolf. Where is he going? What woods? Why isn't anyone taking the T anywhere?
I'm not expecting ol' Josh to be all, "Head down Boylston, take a right on Arlington, a left on Newbury, and it's by the Urban Outfitters across from Hynes." But if you're going to go to the trouble of setting your show in a specific town and more than that, a large famous town, let the city give your show a little added flavor. This show needs it. So far, plot lines focus on how miserable everyone is. There needs to be something else going on or else they need to make me care about these people more. I mean, a show about poor whiny 20-somethings in Boston with a supernatural element is totally my cup of tea. I probably won't give up on it yet, partially because it's already set up as a series recording on my DVR. I suggest a second emotion for each character, as well as one of those famed "ongoing plot lines" to tie the episodes together.
Final verdict? Skip it, unless you refuse to let anything vampire-related pass you by or you can think of some other reason to watch it.
Sometimes these adaptations work. Unfortunately, for every Office, there's a Coupling or Viva Laughlin. The latest entry into this pantheon of hits and embarrassing misses is Being Human, currently running on the Syfy channel. I would call this one more miss than hit, at the moment. It is a show about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost who are roommates. To me, this sounds like the set up to a joke, but most of the characters are incapable of pushing their faces into smile shapes, so it's more of a drama.
Aside from their general humorlessness, they're also whiny and not terribly interesting. Aidan, the requisite hot brooding vampire guy, is two hundred years old. He used to be really violent and murderous, but now he's not, except for when he relapses once an episode. He has this one vampire friend who is kind of threatening. Then there's Josh, the whiny werewolf. I keep thinking Josh will be the funny one, but he isn't. He mostly sulks, because he's not old enough to brood. Finally, we have Sally the ghost. Hey, what's that over there? Oh, it's another feminist rant.
OK, you have three main characters, so two of the three have to be men instead of the other way around (of course), but the one female character is also a ghost? The only one with no power to do anything at all? The one who can't interact with any characters except the two main dudes because they're the only ones who can see her? The one whose ultimate fate rests on her ability to find emotional closure about her life? At least make some effort here. I know the cast is based on the British version, but that doesn't mean it was OK when they did it.
Moving on to other issues, the show is supposed to be set in Boston, but the producers apparently didn't even spring for a few skyline shots to toss between scenes. The only indication that they're in Boston is that one, someone casually referred to them being in Boston, and two, Josh was supposed to be attending MIT Med School before he got bitten by a werewolf and dropped out. I can't even tell where in Boston they're supposed to be living. I'm guessing they're in South Boston, but I'm not sure. Didn't Good Will Hunting teach us all the phrase "Southie"? Also, Josh goes off into "the woods" once a month to turn into a werewolf. Where is he going? What woods? Why isn't anyone taking the T anywhere?
I'm not expecting ol' Josh to be all, "Head down Boylston, take a right on Arlington, a left on Newbury, and it's by the Urban Outfitters across from Hynes." But if you're going to go to the trouble of setting your show in a specific town and more than that, a large famous town, let the city give your show a little added flavor. This show needs it. So far, plot lines focus on how miserable everyone is. There needs to be something else going on or else they need to make me care about these people more. I mean, a show about poor whiny 20-somethings in Boston with a supernatural element is totally my cup of tea. I probably won't give up on it yet, partially because it's already set up as a series recording on my DVR. I suggest a second emotion for each character, as well as one of those famed "ongoing plot lines" to tie the episodes together.
Final verdict? Skip it, unless you refuse to let anything vampire-related pass you by or you can think of some other reason to watch it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)