The Filmcake

June 2nd – June 8th

Sex and the City- If you watched the entire series on HBO like me, then maybe this movie is for you. Otherwise, probably not. For fans of the show, it was like 5 bonus episodes. It is what it is. I enjoyed the movie, but there wasn’t anything in it that’s going to really stick with me. Sarah and I watched it at the Warren in one of the balcony seats. We each grabbed a big beer beforehand at the bar to take in with us. As we settled into our big & comfortable seats (replete with heaters), we ordered some mozzarella cheesesticks to enjoy with the movie. The balcony was quite nice. A very good theater experience. I can’t wait to go again with a movie I love…and get sloppy drunk up in the balcony. Fun, fun, fun.

The Andromeda Strain – This was the 1971 version. Very science-y. Most of the movie is just a group of four scientists performing tests to determine what the mysterious life form is and why the two survivors haven’t been killed. Perhaps that makes the pacing a bit slow to some, but for me it was very much welcomed. I like that the saviors were scientists for once instead of the same old sinewy action heroes. Also, the nature of the “alien” (lacking any amino acids) might fit in with what one may describe as a “believable” alien.

The Omega Man- Speaking of sinewy action heroes, we continued our 70′s Sci-Fi marathon with The Omega Man starring Charlton Heston. Heston is just great in the role of Robert Neville. Because, well, he’s Charlton Heston. He embodies God and insanity all at once. He’s “genuine 160-proof old Anglo-Saxon, baby.” I haven’t seen The Last Man on Earth (1964) or I Am Legend(2007), nor have I read the Richard Matheson novel, so I’m not sure how the different versions match up against each other.

For the Bible Tells Me So- This was a nice documentary about the intersection of homosexuality and religion. Sometimes it ends up okay, sometimes it ends up horribly wrong. It featured stories from several families, including Bishop Gene Robinson and Chrissy Gephardt (daughter of former Senator Dick Gephardt). While perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising, it is still shocking to see somebody reject their own child first before rejecting supposed Biblical teachings.

Buried in the Backyard- This was a short, mostly non-judgemental look at a group of people who take bomb shelters very seriously. It’s one thing to be prepared. It’s another thing to think that you can prepare for ALL contingencies. What’s the use in surviving if you’re not really living in the first place? Still, there’s something sort of clubhouse-y about bomb shelters that make them a fun escape (a sort of grown up treehouse).

At the Death House Door- I heard about this after hearing Reverend Carroll Pickett’s story on NPR’s Fresh Air. He was the chaplain who administered to the death row inmates when Texas reinstated the death penalty. After each execution, he decompressed by recording his thoughts onto cassette tapes. I would have liked to have heard more of these tapes…to have seen how Pickett’s thoughts changed as he witnessed more and more executions and ultimately came to be against the death penalty. Regardless, the parallel story of the innocence of inmate Carlos De Luna certainly played an effective role in damaging the credibility of the death penalty itself.

Breakfast on Pluto- This was a fun but scattershot movie. Cillian Murphy was quite good as Patrick “Kitten” Braden. The character was quite annoying, not because of his transgendered nature but because of his real lack of being grounded in reality.  It’s one thing for a man to dress like or “be” a woman; it’s another thing to continuously play a fantasy game of dress-up.

The Seventh Seal- Bergman. Playing chess with death. Enough said. I don’t know about this one. I’m gonna have to watch it again. Actually, I’m gonna have to read up on Bergman and then have a Bergman marathon of my own. I think it’s the sort of film that you have to watch a couple of times in order for it to really soak in. Plus, the subtitles seemed out of whack at times (DVR’ed from IFC). Still, the image of lingering death and the suggestion that God is created out of our own fear are certainly intriguing. But like I said, I’ll have to return to it at a later time.

The Andromeda Strain (A&E)- Well, we bookmarked our weekend with The Andromeda Strain. This made-for-TV miniseries version was just awful. It was way too convoluted and full of unnecessary filler (presumably to stretch it to miniseries length). It lacked the deliberate science style of the original while favoring a busier 24style. It started off entertaining enough, but by the end there were so many twists and turns and conflicting explanations that I didn’t really care in the end.

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.