The Filmcake

I’m in the midst of a bit of a Woody Allen kick. It started a couple of weeks ago after watching Annie Hall (1977) on television. I’d seen it a couple of years earlier and loved it even more on this second viewing. The Marshall McLuhan scene is enough to hook me. I can’t imagine a comedy film today being brave or confident or stupid enough to reference McLuhan. Or for that matter, convincing someone of his stature to even appear in the film. Maybe I’m wrong.

A week or so later, I watched Interiors (1978) for the first time. This was such a change of pace. I hadn’t thought he’d done such somber films until much more recently. I liked it quite a bit, but I wasn’t sure if it was just because it was so different from what I expected out of a Woody Allen film or indeed if it could stand on its own. Needless to say, seeing such two different Allen films made we want to learn more. I went to the library and checked out a couple of books and a couple of Allen DVDs.

One of those DVDs I checked out was Bananas (1971). Talk about taking a U-turn after Interiors. This one is pure slapstick. It’s a gag-a-second without much of a plot. But still quite funny.

After Bananas, I read The Films of Woody Allenby Sam Girgus. I found the book to be quite enjoyable even if it can be a bit academic. While I knew what diegesis meant from Film Art, I had to run to Google to figure out histoire. It’s got to be French-y for it to be real film criticism. Anyways, it was interesting to read Girgus’ take on Woody in regards to psychoanalysis, his Woody Allen character/persona, and feminism. Of course, the perceptions of all three of these aspects can be fundamentally altered by the tabloid coverage of Allen’s personal life (which, admittedly, I only know roughly and care about even less).

Now I’m in the middle of Conversation with Woody Allenby Eric Lax. It’s a book of interviews spanning from 1971 thru 2007 that revolves around Woody’s moviemaking process. It’s neither a definitive biography nor an exhaustive study of the films. But, it is still an engaging read for an amateur film student like myself.

Reading through the book, I’m drawn towards the side of Allen that makes him private or even anti-social. I can certainly relate. Okay, maybe he’s not anti-social. As Woody says in the book: “I’m not anti-social; I’m just not social.”

I’m also drawn towards the “literary” side of Allen. I don’t relate in that regard so much as I kind of aspire. And of course I’m intrigued by the balance between that and say the Knicks. It’s pretentious without being pretentious in a way. It’s sneakers and a tweed jacket. Then, of course, given my own lack of religious belief, I’m extremely interested in his thoughts concerning a godless universe and how they play out in his films (which was also my initial reason for checking out some of Bergman’s films).

From a February 2006 conversation, Woody talks with Lax about the themes of Match Point. He mentions a Catholic priest who wrote about the movie but assumed wrongly “if, as I say, life is meaningless and chaos and random, then anything goes and nothing has any meaning and one action is as good as the next.” Instead Woody doesn’t think everything is hopeless in such a world:

If you acknowledge the awful truth of human existence and choose to be a decent human being in the face of it rather than lie to yourself that there’s going to be some heavenly reward or some punishment, it seems to me more noble.

He talks about how a priest-philosopher from St. John’s University described the film as “the most atheistic film ever made.” The absence of God is not trivial, in fact it really does matter:

To me it’s a damn shame that the universe doesn’t have any God or meaning, and yet only when you can accept that can you then go on to lead what these people call a Christian life–that is, a decent, moral life. You can only lead it if you acknowledge what you’re up against to begin with and shuck off all the fairy tales that lead you to make choices in life that you’re making not really for moral reasons but for taking down a big score in the afterlife.

I haven’t seen Match Point since it came out on DVD, but I’m going to have to check it out again sometime soon. I’ve still got Hannah & Her Sisters at home to watch. And, then Manhattan, Sleeper, and Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex…are at the top of my Netflix queue.

More to come.

An interesting commentary written by Sarah (originally posted at Two-Headed Blog):

I had no immediate plans to go out and see the Sex and the City movie, but after reading Roger Ebert’s review, I now feel compelled to – if only to try and rebut some of his points. I need to know how much of his review is warranted criticism of a flawed movie, and how much is simply an adherence to dated gender stereotypes.

Something about the way this movie has been discussed in the media has created a little blip on my Sexism Radar. The level of smarminess and near-hostility that’s been directed towards the movie so far surprises me. Look at how Ebert begins his review:

I am not the person to review this movie. Perhaps you will enjoy a review from someone who disqualifies himself at the outset, doesn’t much like most of the characters and is bored by their bubble-brained conversations.

Okay, that’s fine. There have certainly been plenty of movies in which I couldn’t stand the characters. (I’m thinking of The Darjeeling Limited at the moment, although there have been many others.) But where Ebert felt the need to make such a disclaimer at the beginning of his review, one of the two male hosts of Filmspotting (one of my favorite podcasts) has been trying to get out of seeing the movie entirely. I think this might be the first time I’ve heard of a film reviewer try to get out of seeing a particular movie. Why this one? I’m sure there have been many other, much worse, movies. But, at least the Filmspotting dudes are bringing in a female film critic for a little “female perspective” on the movie.

Wait – there are female film critics?

As far as the Ebert review is concerned, I agree with his criticisms of glorified materialism. That was very much present in the Sex and the City series. And some of the over-the-top, gross-out gags he described – one character literally craps her pants, another has a compulsively masturbating dog – seem like they’d be more appropriate in a movie aimed at the traditional target audience of male teenagers. All of that is fair criticism that I very well might agree with after seeing the movie myself. But it are comments like these that catch my eye:

The most human character is Louise (Jennifer Hudson), who is still in her 20s and hasn’t learned to be a jaded consumerist caricature. She still believes in True Love, is hired as Carrie’s assistant and pays her own salary on the first day by telling her about a NetFlix of designer labels (I guess after you wear the shoes, you send them back). Louise is warm and vulnerable and womanly, which does not describe any of the others.

To me, this sounds like Ebert is suggesting that to be appropriately “womanly,” one must be warm, vulnerable and devoted to the idea of “True Love.” Really, Ebert, really? The worst of it, though, is reserved for Carrie Bradshaw’s longtime love interest, “Mr. Big,” who’s described as “unreal,” “passive” and “kinda slow:”

As played by Chris Noth, he’s so unreal, he verges on the surreal. He’s handsome in the Rock Hudson and Victor Mature tradition, and has a low, preternaturally calm voice that delivers stock reassurances and banal cliches right on time. He’s so … passive. He stands there (or lies there) as if consciously posing as the Ideal Lover. But he’s … kinda slow. Square. Colorless. Notice how, when an old friend shouts rude things about him at an important dinner, he hardly seems to hear them, or to know he’s having dinner.

To me, “passive” is pretty much in the same adjective group as “vulnerable.” Is Ebert criticizing one of the main male characters for being what the women of Sex and the City are not? And would a more “manly” response at the described dinner party have been to stand up and deliver a punishing blow to the insulter’s jawbone? This part, most of all, really got me: “He stands there (or lies there) as if consciously posing as the Ideal Lover.” Substitute “she” for “he” and you have a sentence that aptly describes the typical female role in the typical male-oriented film.

There are plenty of things one could reasonably criticize about Sex and the City. As I said, it can be a little materialistic for my taste – although some secret little part of me always did kind of lust over Carrie’s Manolos and Jimmy Choos. I also think the series went on a season or two too long. But it was (and I think this is what many male critics don’t get) one of the few shows that portrayed women as strong, assertive, independent people. Perhaps even more, it portrayed female friendships as interesting and worthy of attention. We’ve been inundated over the decades with portrayals of male relationships (there are even entire genres devoted to male bonding – westerns and war movies). So why the hostility towards a television series, and subsequent movie, that does the same for female friendship?

Actually, another one of my criticisms of the series is that in the end, it still (quite predictably) boiled down to love, marriage and children for most of the main characters. I don’t think it did quite as much as it could have to buck some of those gender stereotypes. With that being said, in a world where there seem to be fewer and fewer interesting roles for women in mainstream film and television, Sex and the City has been much appreciated. And I, for one, am looking forward to the movie. Even if I have to go by myself to see it.

Green Porno. It just doesn’t get better than this. Isabella Rossellini made eight short films that demonstrate the sex lives of various backyard creatures. They’re gross, hilarious, and just plain awesome.

Sarah and I caught Rossellini on Letterman last week where she talked about making these short films and screened the Praying Mantis video. Besides the Mantis film, be sure and check out Snail and Fly.

(Cross-posted on Two-Headed Blog)

It’s been over a month since my last post. It’s high time I returned to this experiment–this blog–to see where it can take me. I haven’t been doing a lot of posting over at 2HB (it seems to be more of a one-headed blog at the moment). I’m not sure if I’m tired of the whole blogging thing, temporarily uninspired, or what. But, I did want to compel myself to come back to Filmcake, not so much for the sake of the blog but as a conduit for growing as a student of film. I’m thinking about movies all of the time. But perhaps blogging about movies will get me thinking about movies in different ways. I don’t know. Like I said, this is an experiment.

Moving forward, I’m going to try a couple of new things. First, I’m just going to try (force myself) to blog more regularly. A few times a week. Or daily, even. Second, I’m going to try and do a weekly recap of the movies I saw that previous week (Week in Review). So basically just a list of those movies with maybe a short 1 or 2 sentence thought about it. If that leads to some longer review or discussion, then all the better.

That being said, Sarah and I finally made it to Warren Theater. The weekend before last we went to see Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It was nice. The decor certainly let you know that it wasn’t your average multiplex. The tackiness worked. But, then I don’t go to a multiplex for the ambience, I go for the movie. Still, we need to see a movie from a balcony seat in one of their Grand Auditorium theaters to get the full experience.

Also, I purchased our tickets for deadCENTER yesteday. This year they’re offering discounts for students and for those who order early. So, we actually saved $35. I’m really excited. I’m sure when it rolls around I’ll be doing some cross-posting here and at 2HB.

Warren Theater opens on Friday here in Moore, OK. Driving by at night, it stands out as a handsome multiplex. The retro looks serves it well. And, from what I’ve read, the facade is only the beginning. And, I’m most excited by the fact that there won’t be any commercials or slide-shows before the features. It’s just unfortunate that it’ll open with such a dismal lineup of movies. It is April after all. Both the Oklahoma Gazette and Moore Monthly have nice articles about the theater (see the paper editions).

So, the opening of this theater not a mile from my front door step got me wondering what other film opportunities are available in my area. Of course, there are the other traditional theaters. The multiplexes and dollar theaters. But, there is certainly more than that.

Noble Theater @ The Oklahoma City Museum of Art offers independent, foreign, and classical films. Noble Theater also acts as one of the host venues for the deadCENTER Film Festival which showcases independent films from Oklahoma and beyond (the 8th edition will take place this year June 11-15). Some of these same festival films can be seen throughout the year at shortsSUITE at the XO Lounge. Down at the University of Oklahoma, the OU Film & Video Studies program hosts a variety of screenings. While on the Norman Campus, you can also check out Fred Films at the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art where they currently have an ongoing program on the Three Cinemas of China. If OU is not your cup of tea, you can head over to OCU where the Oklahoma City University Film Institute holds the occasional screening or lecture. And, if you’re in the mood for something bigger, you can head over to the Dome Theater at the Science Museum Oklahoma. And, finally, if you just want to get out of the city, you can certainly head up to Circle Cinema in Tulsa for the latest documentary, independent, and foreign films.