Fandom do conquer my Twitter page, and this is one of my favourite rant. I’m in love. Haha.

Shelf Life: Fight Club

By all accounts, 1999 was one of the best years in film history, featuring an amazing glut of debuts and career-defining follow-ups from a rich and varied roster of directors who are steadily working some ten years later. For example American Beauty, which was also released in ‘99, was one of the first films revisited in our “Shelf Life” series, and it seemed most likely to lose its luster, especially given its Oscar win and almost universal critical acclaim, but thankfully the film sustained most of its initial appeal and impact.

Fight Club, meanwhile, faced markedly more polarizing reactions from audiences and critics, although like Alan Ball’s film it captured a moment in the zeitgeist that made it important almost regardless of how good it was. Ten years later, Fox Home Entertainment just released the film on Blu-ray in a gorgeous new set, and after a decade of conspicuous consumption and ironic detachment, it’s time to see whether the weight of its message or meaning still holds relevance.

The Facts: Released on October 15, 1999, David Fincher’s Fight Club is an adaptation of the Chuck Palahniuk novel of the same name, adapted by screenwriter Jim Uhls. Its incendiary deconstruction of contemporary culture and the narcotizing effects of consumerism, particularly on men, was met with mixed reactions: some hailed it as a brilliant social commentary, while others condemned it as empty provocation, or worse, irresponsible.

Regardless, the film eventually earned $100 million domestically against its $63 million budget (reportedly $17.5 million of which went to star Brad Pitt), and enjoys an 80 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was nominated for only one Academy Award, for Sound Effects Editing, but it was also nominated for several awards by different critics groups including the Online Film Critics Society, and subsequently netted several awards for its DVD release, which featured several commentaries and featurettes exploring the world within the film.

What Still Works: While during its original release the film was deliberately, perhaps even conventionally reactionary (“f*ck Martha Stewart!”), it really serves as a powerful reminder that contemporary consumer culture is still designed to satisfy us in superficial ways and ultimately distract us from the human connections and more visceral accomplishments that prove more meaningful. Particularly with the benefit of hindsight, the film’s analysis of overmodulated consumption, broken down to the details and objects in our life that supposedly define us, is especially potent, and deserves to be revisited as a reminder to remain vigilant against that kind of complacency.

fight2

Meanwhile, I think especially now the film escapes being mere provocation or dangerous advocacy because it ultimately acknowledges that these characters are trading one oppressive structure for another, and that even the intentional absence of order eventually creates its own organized sense of routine, if not full-fledged cultural mores (hence Project Mayhem, the “space monkeys”‘ blind devotion to their anarchic causes, etc).

In terms of the performances, Pitt and Edward Norton are both really terrific as, essentially, the same guy, albeit in different iterations of his self-confidence, much less self-awareness. Fincher, coming off of the menacing polish of The Game, finds a gorgeously gritty aesthetic that really brings the narrator’s oblivious self-examination to life, and creates a truly subversive and valuable portrait of what is essential schizophrenia, filtered through both movie-star sheen and the thematically-reinforced, exacting opposite of stardom’s supposed “importance” – namely, that all of that beauty and truth is as illusory as anything else.

What Doesn’t Work: Surprisingly little, although the unwieldy structure, oddball rhythms of the storytelling and its eventual descent into (self-) destruction seem more shocking in the context of real-life events like 9/11, not to mention our culture’s subsequent escape even further into conventional, comfortable forms of entertainment. There’s lingering resonance to the destruction of the banks at the end of the film, both in terms of domestic and international terrorism and the current state of our economic system, but it’s subjective whether that’s a virtue or a shortcoming for film, since it certainly isn’t the film’s fault.

Otherwise, there is a degree to which the idea of white guys bemoaning their pampered, IKEA-sustained existence feels, well, so 1999, and that their reaction feels like a more than slightly self-indulgent rebellion that people with constructive minds wouldn’t act out. But as a parable and a perhaps necessary reminder of the complacency and boring blandness that can come from a life lived within the lines – and in light of the fact it’s meant not to be taken literally - Fight Club still transcends such criticisms.

What’s The Verdict: Fight Club is a really terrific movie and I am genuinely relieved to say that it holds up beautifully for the most part. Not only was it the first movie that I bought on DVD, but it was an important one in my adult, intellectual maturation, particularly in discovering that as conceptually appealing as such reckless behavior might be, it ultimately serves as mush as a prison as any other philosophy or paradigm. I think I still prefer Fincher’s previous film, The Game, if only because it was just so shocking and cathartic when I first saw it, but Fight Club is a wake-up call and a punch in the gut that needs to still be felt.

by Todd Gilchrist

Watch This: The Muppets' 'Bohemian Rhapsody'

There are times in this busy world when I forget just how cool The Muppets are. Randomly mention the beastly little guys and gals, and I’ll smile politely, vaguely remembering the good old days. Put them in front of me, however, and it’s a challenge to not let out a real world, ear-breaking shriek of squee. I don’t care how long they’ve been around — The Muppets are cool, and they are no cooler than when they’re delighting in the epic grandeur of rhapsody … Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” that is.

We all know the song. It was pretty epic in its own right, and then soared to new levels in Wayne’s World, where it grabbed the #2 spot on the Billboard charts almost two decades after its release. Now the MuppetsStudio on YouTube have released the ultra-awesome clip you can see after the jump — an arseload of Muppets singing the classic Queen song just like the old-school music video. And it’s convinced me that Beaker is a lost member of the band.

The bad thing about all of this is that it’s making me wish for a whole different sort of Muppet movie. Sure, Jason Segel is planning The Greatest Muppet Movie of All Time, and the project will involve the gang reuniting to save the studio. But considering this video, and the utter awesomeness that is Segel’s rock opera inForgetting Sarah Marshall, couldn’t they halt things, change scope, and make thisThe Greatest Muppet Rock Opera of All Time? The possibilities are wonderfully epic and so utterly perfect. Who’s with me?

by Monika Bartyzel

“More than our heroes or pundits, our Draculas tell us who we were.” Nina Auerbach, Our Vampires, Ourselves, p. 112

If our vampires indeed tell us a great deal about who we are, and I think they do, what is the current vampire craze telling us about ourselves and our culture? From Twilight to True Blood to Vampire Diaries, as well as to the forthcoming films Daybreakers and Transylmania, vampires (and the people who love them) are everywhere.

Some of our fascinations are obvious. Many date back to before Count Dracula: the vampire as symbol of immortality, otherness, power, horror, sexuality, and the forbidden.

The vampire is ultimately more like us than other monsters – more human and thus more enmeshed with our own fantasies and fears about the human condition.

Contemporary vampires reveal our enduring fascination with romance, sexuality, and desire. Yet, our feelings about these arenas have changed with certain cracks in the fissures of monogamous heteronormativity. Even Twilight, the most chaste of the works mentioned above, toys with the idea that we can (and should) love more than one person (and love sex). This suggestion seems rather radical for one written by a Mormon and even more so when we acknowledge that it is the female character who is the central desiring subject – it is her wants that shape the narrative. In a flip of real world polygamy practiced by some branches of Mormonism, Bella, the female protagonist, desires multiple partners. The imprinting strand of the narrative (as well as the chaste Edward) reverses this subversive idea though – safely re-assuring the ‘normal’ one woman/one man paradigm.

True Blood more radically toys with the idea of non-monogamous, non-heterosexual desire. Yet, it too places a female as the key desiring subject. Like Twilight, it also chips away at various gendered norms – suggesting that Buffy was not an anomaly but that women too are strong, smart, desiring heroes. Each of these vampire tales also trouble masculine norms – breaking open the macho gender box to reveal that men have feelings, fears, vulnerabilities, and insecurities.

And, while the beauty imperative forced on women’s shoulders is not deconstructed in these contemporary vampire texts, the male gaze is at least partially undercut. The female gaze is acknowledged with male vampires serving as quasi-dream men, their bodies as closely surveyed and as on display as has been the norm for female bodies for centuries. While equal opportunity objectification is not the goal, the recognition and acceptance of female visual/aesthetic pleasure makes a nice change.

Further, visual pleasure is queered to a certain extent in some modern stories of the undead. Though there are no openly gay characters in Twilight, True Blood’s inclusion of non-heteronormative characters as well as its allusions to vampires as a minority that share oppressions with homosexuals revives the queer roots of vampire lore. Carmilla and Count Dracula were not hyper-monogamous heterosexuals like the Cullens – rather, they revealed that desire is not gendered – we only make it so.

Modern vampires also tell us a great deal about our love/hate relationship with wealth, capitalism, imperialism, and religion. They thwart power at the same time as they wield and desire it. Twilight’s vampires live an opulent life complete with mansions, fast cars, and designer clothes. Most of the vampires in True Blood and The Vampire Diaries are not short on wealth either. The fantasy life where money is no object is certainly appealing during these unstable economic times. Yet, these texts ultimate explorations of the haves and have-nots, of us/them, of self/other also suggest that such hierarchical dichotomies mean there will always be an uncomfortable outside. Being working class is no fun in the vampire world, nor is the lack of white privilege. While on the one hand these narratives render privilege very desirable, on the other hand, they reveal that privileged classes (vampires) disempower and oppress other groups – literally sucking the life blood out of those who don’t have such privilege.

Another area of contemporary concern these texts tap into is pandemics and the fear that surrounds the idea of infection. While vampire stories of the 80s and 90s often more obviously referenced AIDS, our current vampire tales tread more lightly through their exploration of illness and dis-ease.  More often they explore addiction, hinting that a culture based on consumption (whether the human consumption of products or the vampire consumption of blood) leads to a life of imprisonment – a life of being beholden to what one is addicted to consuming. Though Twilight romanticizes Edward’s addiction to Bella’s blood, we can also read this addiction as harmful – not only to the characters themselves, but to the fans who become Twilight zombies, lurching towards the next Edward/Jacob fix. In True Blood, the exploration of drug dependency takes on a more complex form, revealing the links between addiction, dehumanization, dependency, and violence. The Vampire Diaries explores addiction as well. Like the other texts though, it shows being addicted to love (while dangerous) is ultimately ok. As such, all of these texts ultimately reinforce the idea that as long as you find your true (vampire) love, all will be well in the end. True Blood most radically troubles this fairy tale meme, but even it suggests that Sookie needs her Bill.

The real life spin off of this focus on the happily ever after of the white, heterosexual, monogamous couple spills into the real world via the ongoing fascination over allegations that Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart are really lovers. And, in a fictional spill into reality, Anna Paquin (Sookie) and Stephen Moyer (Bill) are engaged.

Thus, while our current vampire fascination reveals we are more open to non-normative notions of sexuality, desire, gender, visual pleasure and privilege, it also confirms we are still hopelessly devoted to romantic, sexual love. Is this the irreducible difference that scholars have explored so long – that all of us, at our core, really just want ‘the one’? I think not. Rather, the obsessive focus on true love as what brings us ultimate happiness constructs us as beings who are addicted to love – and, to a notion of love that is utterly impossible – one that is eternal, immortal, and sparkly.

Why love, though? Why create a world of people seeking their Edward/Bill/Eric/Jacob/Stefan or Sookie/Bella/Elena? Well, love is rather safe when you think about it – encouraging the masses to desire desire will keep the wheels running as they are – if the masses were instead encouraged to desire social change, wealth equality, racial equality, sexual equality, etc, well, the world would have to change quite a bit. Keep ‘em in love with love and you’ve got a captive audience of consumers who will buy your stories, your products, your fictions so that you can keep on keepin’ on with your global militaristic imperialism. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer at the end of this post, but methinks we need some politicized vampires to balance out all those hot, hard, muscular ones…

For as many television fans as there are in the world, there are almost as many spoiler policies.  Everyone chooses how spoiled they want to be–and for what shows.  Me?  I love spoilers.  I’ll read anything you give me, for any show, even if it’s unconfirmed.  And then I’ll talk about it.

In the last several months, however, talking about spoilers has become an increasingly challenging part of fandom, as many of our conversations have moved to Twitter.  In most message boards and on LiveJournal, there are options to “hide” spoilers, either within a spoiler bar, in text that must be highlighted to read, or after a cut or jump.  DarkUFO, the largest community for Lost spoilers, posts every spoiler individually, so that readers can choose what to read–and what to comment on.

Twitter, of course, has none of those features.  If Twitter had been around during the season three “snake in the mailbox”/LostFan108 fiasco, you could have seen “OMG THE LOST FINALE IS A FLASHFORWARD AND JACK WANTS KATE TO GO BACK!” sandwiched between two completely innocuous tweets.

Obviously, spoiler-free fans (or even just moderately spoiled fans) want to be protected from tweets like that; and most spoiled fans want to respect that.  (I know I do.)

But where do we draw the line?

I asked fellow tweeters today what they think the spoiler policy is.  And I think you’ll agree that it would be extremely limiting to meet everyone’s preferences.  @Rumpio went so far as to ask that he stay totally unspoiled until airtime–in the UK. @Loster21 suggests a “24-hour-after west-coast-airing-rule, being cryptic til then, or posting a link with a spoiler warning.”  And then there’s @piratesswoop, who says it’s all fair game as soon as the episode airs.

I’m definitely with @piratesswoop, because I think part of the beauty of Twitter is so the fandom can freak out in unison.  Once Lost is back, all it’s going to take is me saying “OMGGGGG JAAAAATE!!!!!!! ” while I’m watching the premiere and anyone not spoiled will be spoiled that there’s a big Jate moment coming up.  (Note: I don’t know that there will be any Jate in the premiere at all–I’m saying this purely hypothetically.)

But I reserve my right to squee, particularly about Jate, on Twitter.

Here are the spoiler ethics I propose.

1. No major plot points should be revealed on Twitter before its U.S. East Coast airdate. Period.
2. Casting information is fair game, as long as it does not involve plot points. (“Holy moley, Josh Groban on Glee!!!” is okay; “Josh Groban’s gonna sex up Rachel Berry? Isn’t he a little old for her?” is not.)  (Note: there have been no indications of a Rachel/Josh hookup, but please credit me on any resulting fan fiction.)
3. Anything in an official press release is fair game.  This includes guest star information, vague synopses, and episode titles.  The way I see it, this information is going to pop up on your digital cable, it’s going to pop up on the Hulu description, it’s going to be all over the promos, and it’s going to be printed in your TV Guide.  Twitter is the least of your concerns as far as staying away from that information.
4. Ausiello and Kristin are in the spoiler business.  Their stuff should be discussed cryptically or not at all.  Links with spoiler warnings are preferred.
5. As soon as it has aired on the East Coast–or wherever its origin is (cough Doctor Who cough)–have at it.

Ideally, Twitter would come up with a solution for this.  I can see one of two features:

• A feature where, say, @Loster21 could “hide” my tweets if she knows I’m in EST sitting down to watch Lost.  It would collapse my tweets so she can see that I’ve tweeted, but it wouldn’t reveal what I said.  (This feature would also be beneficial when it seems a big group of people is in the middle of a freakout–hide ‘em and rejoin them later, without having to unfollow and refollow, which can get awkward.)
• A spoiler warning feature, where the spoiling tweeter can make her tweets appear in background-colored font–or collapsed with a spoiler warning.

Until there are features that protect both the spoiler-free and the spoiled, we’re going to have to coexist.  I totally understand why people are spoiler-free (and a lot of the time, I wish I was one of you), but I also understand the need to talk about current news on Twitter.  

If you have any suggestions for more ethical ethics, please share!

THIS IS JUST ADORABLE. Cassanova!Yoochun and smitten!CL. DD THAT IS TOTALLY A FANGIRL EXPRESSION I SEE ON CL’S FACE. ^^

I think Yoochun and CL would look really good together. ♥

Though not as good as Yoochun and Junsu already do, of course ♥♥♥

Yesterday, my 13-year-old son and I headed to our local movie spot to see New Moon. He enjoyed the film, but he thought Bella’s rejection of Jacob was cruel. “Why couldn’t she choose both?” he asked. Well, because we fixate on monogamy in our world. Obviously she loves both, but given our religious culture and our deification of the one man/one woman paradigm, Bella has to choose.  Seems to me an open relationship with all three could work very well. But, no such queering of relationships is possible according to the ultimate happy ending (?) the series is heading towards.

As for myself, I am more than ever Team Bella and am saddened by the fact so many fans only route for the male characters (and only shower their love on the male actors). I think Kristen Stewart makes an excellent Bella – and even more so in New Moon than Twilight. I get that readers identify with her, feel like they are her, but I don’t get why more don’t step outside this fantasy identification and recognize how dissing Bella (and Stewart) is like slapping themselves and their gender in the face. We females our are own worst enemies, and the contempt for Bella/Stewart is a key example of this.

My feminist side was bothered that Bella was so age-obsessed (though I get this is due to her vampire aspirations). I also felt like she could use a hearty sandwich or two and wished she would have been a co-mechanic with Jacob rather than once again a provider of food (as when she tosses Jacob the pizza slice).

I liked the humorous relief –the references to the movie Facepunch, the classroom scene watching Romeo and Juliet, Jessica’s ranting about zombie films and consumerism, Bella flying on VIRGIN air to Italy. I particularly liked Mike in this film – he took masculinity outside the box, noting he doesn’t like horror films and showing himself to be far less arrogant, confident, or seething than either of Bella’s intendeds. Loved his reaction to Jacob’s unfounded rage in the movie theatre – such a nice nod to the problematics of hyper-masculine rage and macho-ness (which Jacob embodies all too well in his wolf transition).

In the Laurent scene the first thing I thought was “why no shirt?” The general shirtlessness of the non-white characters seemed gratuitous—a painstakingly obvious attempt to provide “wolfy eye candy.” Then again, when Edward removed his shirt in Italy I was not attracted to his paleness – sorry Bells, we disagree on that one – the whiteness is not magnificent to me…

I loved Jacob in this movie and thought Lautner did a great job – though I couldn’t help being slightly disturbed by that much muscle on a 16/17 year-old-boy. Think of the hours that took – yes, that is dedication, but is packing on 30 pounds of muscle really what we want males to do in order to prove their worth? Muscle is attractive, sure, but it goes hand in hand with the violent masculinity we as females should be intent on deconstructing…

As for the audience where I saw the movie, it was diverse – almost as many males and females and ages across the spectrum. However, the handful of 5 to 7 year olds scattered amongst the seats threw me. Surely they must have been bored – or else so indoctrinated into the idea THEY MUST LOVE TWILIGHT that they forced themselves to be interested. Does the 7-year-old girl wearing the “I love boys who sparkle t-shirt” really love the series, or has she been cajoled into this love by older siblings, friends, family? And why does a 7 year old need to be fixating on such a romantic tale – how about focusing on friends and frivolous fun until, say, I don’t know, at least 10 or 11???

Now onto reading reviews/reactions from others and forming some 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th thoughts…

Anime wa Bakuhatsu da! reviews about half of Soul Eater.

For a minute in 2003, web cliques made the news.

Sweet Soul Eater cosplay.

HAHAHA

Credits: sharingyoochun

Because Vanessa you requested more videos! Even though I don’t know if you were just pretending to be interested again like you admitted you were D:< ANYWAY THE GIRL IN THE VIDEO, I LOVE HER AND SHE’S COMING TO SINGAPORE FOR THE CHARITY SHOW ON 6 DEC!!!!! REMEMBER TO WATCH HER!  SHE’S AMAZING, I LOVE HER.

You know, if I keep at this rate, this blog’s going to be 90% fandom and 10% real life stuff. -_-

I should at least make it 50-50 right????

So here’s what happened in my life today. I woke up at 9.40am when I was supposed to meet Angelina at 10am, meaning that I overslept, meaning that I would be incurring Angelina’s wrath, meaning that she would bombard my sms inbox with threatening texts, which she did till 10.30am which was the time I reached Serangoon MRT. We had the interview for the baby store her cousin was in charge of at Marina Square, were taught the ropes, filled in on our probable schedule, then left the store with me feeling rather daunted by her cousin but relieved I was out of her sight. Only to return because I didn’t mention that I had to take leave on 7-9, 12-22, 24-25 December. Her cousin was surprisingly nice about it, still willing to hire, but I would only be starting work on 26th December. That’s a month later asdjkh. Walked around Marina Square, windowshopped and bought a little, then headed to church to help out with Christmas deco. Only to sit around and be not of any help at all.  Walked passed a preschool, asked if they were hiring helpers for just 2 weeks and got a nice no thank you. Walked around at J8 with my sis after that, rearranged the idol photocards at Comics Collection  (i did dbsk, she did two rows of Bae Yong Joon ROFL) and spent a crapload of money at Cotton On on… pajamases?! After which we went home, ate dinner, watched So You Think You Can Dance, watched the 9pm channel8 show (I can’t stop laughing at Chen Hanwei), bathed, read a little of my Bible, sat in front of my computer, checked sharingyoochun.wordpress, opened my wordpress page, clicked on New Post and started writing a piece to bore any potential readers to death. I THINK I SUCCEEDED.

So much for blogging about real life stuff. On a spazzier note, (this is old news but) Changmin’s going to begin filming for his new drama in Australia!!! Please let it be in Melbourne, pleeease, and please let it be anywhere from the 12th to the 22nd of December!!! I HOPE TO STALK HIM SRSLY ): It’s another reason I could look forward to the trip, which I’m only just starting to get excited for. Initially I wasn’t, cos it’s summer in Australia and isn’t the ozone layer like depleting there, my ultra sensitive skin is gonna mess up bad (speaking of which, my skin’s peeling like a bitch again). BUT NOW I AM. I just need to don on big shades and a sunhat and slap on lots of sunscreen.

I shall end off with a Changmin gif because. WHO CAN RESIST. ^^ 

Interview: Judd Apatow (Part Two)

Read Part One of this interview right here

When Judd Apatow’s latest film, Funny People, was announced, many critics and audiences hailed it – even before they saw it – not only as an evolution of the filmmaker’s style, but a return to the kind of drama-laced comedy that flourished in the 1980s and early ’90s thanks to folks like Cameron Crowe and James L. Brooks. When it was released, the film more than satisfied those expectations, offering an unflinching but frequently hilarious portrait of an A-list comedian rediscovering himself, but there seemed to be a sense that audiences knew themselves less well than they felt like they knew the film’s main character, resulting in a less enthusiastic response than perhaps even they expected.

The film arrives on Blu-ray this week, offering what is indisputably the most complete and comprehensive look behind the scenes at a comedy ever produced, and offers audiences a second chance to check out Apatow’s most meaningful and resonant work to date. Cinematical got a chance to catch up with the writer-director via telephone to discuss the contents of the expansive, 2-Disc Collector’s Edition; in the second part of our chat, Apatow talks about precisely what made the movie so personal for him, and offers a few insights about its place in his growing body of work, and its potential influence on his future films (including a Harry Pottermovie, maybe?).

Cinematical: With or without talking to you at the time of the film’s release, people seemed to assume that this was a very personal film, I think because it was more serious than your previous work. Was it really personal, and if so in what way or why?

Judd Apatow: Well, I find that things can be very personal without pointing out to people what is taken directly from your life. If I do it right, it shouldn’t feel like I’m just talking about personal experiences that happened to me or people in my world. So it’s good that it doesn’t seem – that you can’t track it (laughs). But the ideas are very intimate and they relate to a lot that’s happened to me over the decades, but it’s all thrown into a blender to make it more amusing or dramatic. But yes, it does feel very personal, to the point of being embarrassing, but it’s because it’s how you feel about the world that’s out there. It’s kind of showing one’s pleasant side and one’s crazy voices; I’m just better at hiding them in a character that can act them out. You make a movie and think, ah, this is about other people, but slowly you realize it’s all about you. It’s also about everyone who’s involved in the collaboration, but it surprises you when it’s done how much is based on things that you’re struggling with.

Cinematical: Given the sort of line-o-rama process by which you work when shooting scenes, how do you decide what ends up in a film or works best for it?

Apatow: Every joke is meant to illuminate something, whether it’s how funny someone is or a piece of their back story or how they’re feeling on that particular night. So there’s literally no punchline that wasn’t in there that wasn’t debated for hours and hours, but how I like to shoot it is to shoot Adam or Seth doing half an hour of material, not obsessing about what I will use when we’re shooting, and then decide what fits best after. But when you keep it loose and the comedians are really in character, other things happen on stage that are surprising and they do fit into what you need. People do subconsciously start living the story, so Adam one day said, “hey, tonight I’m going to improvise something on the piano,” and he just sits down and sings this mad song. The audience doesn’t know that he’s sick, but in a way it’s a strange goodbye to his audience, and it’s really sad and filthy. I never could have written that in a million years, and Adam did it off the top of his head; and because it’s improvised, it’s sloppy and emotionally raw in a way that’s very truthful. He just went there, and that’s why I try to create some extra space for those moments to happen.

fun15

Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?

Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!

But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.

Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.

Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?

Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?

Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.

Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?

Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.

Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?

Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?

Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!

But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.

Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.

Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?

Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?

Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.

Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?

Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.

Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?

Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in one of my movies again? For instance, I like when sad people find a way to get happy, even if it’s only for a moment; should I avoid that now that I’ve noticed that in a bunch of my

fun14

movies? That’s an interesting question for me as I walk around the house. I can see the stitching on the ball now more than anybody, and then you start thinking about new terrain, but you also don’t want to suddenly make a movie about Icelandic people just because no one expects you to do that. I would like always to write about things that matter to me and I understand, but I was reading this graduation speech that Larry Gelbart delivered at UCLA a few years ago and a big hunk of it was about writing about things you don’t know anything about and how ultimately it will still become a personal story. I usually go against that, but I thought, well, if Mr. Gelbart says that then maybe my philosophy is wrong.

Cinematical: What was the thing that you took away from this experience that was maybe different than your other movies?

Apatow: Well, it’s much more challenging to make a movie that’s meant to be more than just fantasy fulfillment. It is hopefully a big, funny, enjoyable experience but it’s also kind of an independent movie, you know; it’s a character study, and it is a different world when you’re trying to have that relationship with the audience. A lot of people got to the movies just to numb themselves out from whatever other difficult things life is presenting to them, and I’m exactly like that; when a girl broke up with me, the first thing I did was run to see What About Bob? But this is the first time for me where I tried to share a more complicated experience with people. And you get a larger array of reactions to it – some people, it completely knocks them out, other people, you can tell that they emotionally shut down from thinking about any of this, and the movie is hard for them to tolerate. And that’s the point of it: it’s supposed to stick with you for a while. That’s all I thought about when we were ending it, and I hope people talk about this for a while. I hope it’s something that stays on people’s minds.

by Todd Gilchrist

Cheap Web Hosting Plans

so yea, i guess what peta is trying to do is cool, but being a human who takes their clothes off since she is neither vampire or werewolf is kind of pathetic.  this screams “i wish i was offered the role of a cullen or a quilete. sad face, cry cry.” maybe next time angela.

Bashing UK fans is probably not the best way to bring more readers to this site but I do have an issue with a certain segment of Big Blue Nation. I’m referring to those whose devotion to the Wildcats has caused them to reject anything but the most positive news regarding their favorite team. (Grammatically incorrect, longwinded rant coming). These people include those who defended Gillispie to the bitter end (not because they necessarily liked him, but simply because he was The Coach), those who equate Jerry Tipton with Satan, those who view any criticism of a UK player as an act of terrorism against the state and use the defense that, ‘They’re just kids’… Actually, they’re not. It’s called Men’s basketball. If you’re old enough go to war you’re probably old enough to have your jump shot critiqued, and generally just anyone whose greatest fear in life is that which may ‘hurt the program’, their precious, precious program.

Not one of our starting five.

Now, before any of you start calling for my deportation back to New England, I want to stress I really do love UK basketball and UK sports in general. As I mentioned in my first post, I consider myself a loyal Kentucky fan since 1996. Despite my passion for the team, I don’t live in the fantasy world that some fans seem to. Kentucky is not infallible and those that want to pretend it is are actually doing a disservice to the program, and being bad Christians (!!!) The logic here being that holding people (players, coaches, World Wide Weses) accountable for their actions will help prevent these negative actions, whatever they may be, from occurring in the future. It is possible to be critical of a team while still being a true fan of that very same team. Pretty crazy, I know.

I’m sure many of you don’t see how any action that brings us closer to a championship could be negative. A common sentiment seems to be that player/coach transgressions should be overlooked/downplayed while recruiting violations should be almost encouraged. The problem with this thinking, aside from the blatant moral shadiness, is that in the long run it won’t even help win games. The more bad behavior is accepted, the more prevalent and worse it becomes. (Pretty sure I got that from Dr. Phil.) The counterargument to this, at least in regards to the recruiting aspect, was summed up fairly accurately by the great Sir Charles Barkley. He said something to the effect of, ‘You ain’t tryin if you ain’t cheatin.’ There is some truth to this. In the hyper-competitive world of big time college sports, a program must constantly be willing to push the envelope, not just to get ahead, but simply to keep up. While this drive to succeed should be commended, it must also be watched. Doing whatever it takes to win can quickly become a very slippery slope. One day John Wall is suspended for an exhibition game, next we’re vacating Final Fours, losing scholarships, and all going to Hell. I know that was a rather insane leap but my point is that if we create a culture where UK can do no wrong, we’re going to be destined a for a rude awakening. That said, Go Cats!

Today marks the 46th anniversary of Doctor Who’s premiere on British television, so I thought I’d chronicle for you my introduction into its fandom. 

Though I’ve watched Doctor Who on and off for many years, and I was completely excited when it came back on Sci-Fi Channel, I wasn’t involved in any fandom activities at all.  In fact, I didn’t know there WAS a Doctor Who fandom, really.  The only people I knew who liked it were my siblings and my mom.  My biggest exposure to other people liking the show was during pledge breaks on PBS during Sci-Fi Saturday Nights on WXEL back in the day.

The 4th Doctor was my Doctor.

Buying my ipod last autumn really marked my entry into a huge world that I never knew was there.  While I was discovering podcasts of radio shows I liked, I stumbled across The Whocast.  They were the entry drug.  The discovery that not only were there other people out there who knew about and liked Doctor Who, but there were A Lot of them, was pretty astonding.    After listening to the back catalog of Whocast, I found that I most enjoyed the episodes with Tony, so I then back-tracked to Staggering Stories, and then on their recommendations, over to Tin Dog Podcast and Radio Free Skaro.  I was introduced to Big Finish.  I was now well and truely hooked.  Now The Flashing Blade, The Minute Doctor Who podcast, the Two-Minute Timelord, and Bridging the Rift make the regular rounds on my itunes each week.  There are many, many more people all over the world who contribute their own unique talents and perspectives to the discussion– and how awesome is that!

The really great thing about learning about Doctor Who fandom is finding that it was composed of groups of intelligent, erudite, and entertaining people who use their mutual understanding of the show’s 46 years to frame discussions about literature, art, philosophy, morality, history,  politics, and more [If you ask them, they will deny this, but it is true]. 

Sooner or later, of course, I wanted to be a part of the discussion.  I sent in feedback and began writing my own episode reviews,  and that’s when I learned another important part of this fandom– it’s collaborative.   This isn’t some clique of uber-fans who set themselves high above the plebs– far from it.  They actively encourage more people to come to the party and to play on their playground, and they embrace new fans and old alike.  It’s this inclusive joy that makes being a fan fun. 

  I worked up the bravery last weekend to attend my first real fan-event– a Hurricane Who viewing party of “Waters of Mars” over in Orlando.  I had a fantastic time, and much like the fans I’d met on the podcasts, the people were intelligent, fun, and welcoming.  It was a wonderful experience.

So, today on Doctor Who’s anniversary, I raise a glass to the fans– Thanks for being fan-tastic!

Found these on youtube! Hopefully they won’t be deleted.

What a $258.8 million dollar audience looks like

$258.8 million.  That’s the worldwide 5-day gross for New Moon.

That’s $140.7 million domestic.  The film also broke the All-Time Single Day and Friday Opening records, not to mention the Biggest 2-Day total.

It’s now the third biggest opening of all time — following only Spiderman 3 and The Dark Knight.

And it did all of this in NOVEMBER, when kids still have to go to school and the masses aren’t seeking the theater for heat relief.  Crucially, the budget for New Moon = Just under $50 million.  Add in $25 million for promotion, and you’ve already got a film (and franchise) firmly in the black.

The rhetoric flooding the film blogosphere is filled with words like “jaw-dropping,” “huge surprise,” and “phenomenal.”  Nikki Finke and Variety both point out that not even the film’s distributor, Summit Entertainment, thought the film would open this big — estimates were for between $100-$110 million domestic, no small number itself.  Why?  Because it’s what is known as a “two quadrant” film (the four audience ‘quadrants’ = men under 25, men over 25, women under 25, women over 25.  Most blockbusters are films that appeal to all four quadrants — see Spiderman, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Dark Knight, Titanic, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc.).

The audience is not only ‘two quadrant’ (apparently 80% female) but young.  50% of attendees were under 21.  Variety sums it up best:  “the female-fueled New Moon explodes the myth that you need an all-audience film to do that level of biz, or that fanboys hold all the power.”

So does that answer my question?  Is that what $258.8 million could mean? That girls can power movies — especially when there’s a romance (and abstinence porn) involved?

Sorta.  Because it could also mean much, much more.

*It could legitimize the female market.

After big openings for Sex and the City, The Proposal, and Julie and Julia, risk-adverse studios may begin to invest more earnestly (and consistently) in properties that cater specifically (and unabashedly) to the female market.  Of course, the studios have long counterprogrammed with ‘girly’ fare, but the key word is counterprogram — they try to pick up the ‘dregs’ who aren’t flocking to the supposedly four-quadrant blockbuster released the same weekend.  This weekend is actually a fascinating example of counterprogramming, as The Blind Side, starring Sandra Bullock, did surprisingly well — presumably picking up the anti-Twilight female audience and scattered males who had been convinced by the football-time ad campaign that sold the film as a football-oriented triumph-of-the-will.

*It could (and already has) opened the female market to misogynist and ageist critique.

This is the ugly underbelly to what might otherwise be viewed as a ‘girl power’ triumph.  For as anyone familiar with the franchise knows, the text is not immune to criticism.   The original text has been criticized for its conservative, anti-feminist views; the second film in particular has been subject to scathing reviews from most popular critics.  I’ve seen denigrating, clearly misogynist critiques of the film, from both men and women, on a diverse set of blogs and Twitter feeds — many of which interpret the success of the film as the failure of America, reason to hate themselves, their family, their loved ones, the end of the world, etc.  I realize that some of this quips are in jest, but they also interpret a mass movement of females — seeking out a specific type of pleasure — as nigh-apocalyptic.  As if the success of Twilight somehow ushers in the end of good taste.

Such a critique is misogynistic not only because it demonstrates a clear case of cultural amnesia — if any success indicated the end of good taste, it was that of horror porn and boy-oriented Transformers — but also because it explicitly and unabashedly constructs female consumers as rabid, mindless, brainwashed schmucks.  Whatever one thinks of Twilight (and I’m not saying that the text should be exempt from critique), we still need to recognize the fact that the audience is not monolithic, nor is it mindless.  By reproducing those beliefs, we (as scholars, as film critics, as film bloggers and cultural critics more generally) extend the general subjugation of women’s pleasures, tastes, desires, etc.  Indeed, such beliefs contribute to the ghettoization of female-oriented art and artistry in a broad sense — whether female-directed film (if you need a reminder that it’s tough for women in Hollywood, just check out A.O. Scott’s recollection of the most important films of the last decade.  Not a female director to be found.)

I heed the argument that the success of Twilight might contribute to the marginalization of less hegemonic products (with less traditional interpretations).  But I also want to underline the fact that many women — and not just feminist women like the ones with whom I attended the premiere — are engaging in negotiated readings of this text.   Some are reading it as satire, some are rewriting the ending using fanfic.  But as is the case with almost any text, audiences make the text meet them where they are — a 13-year-old girl might love the romance, another might identify with the plainness of Bella, others might crave the family dynamic of the Cullens, older women may crave the thrill of first romance, and others may just relish the chance to escape — either in the books or the films — and become absorbed by a text.

In other words, the females who attended New Moon got to be ‘fan-girls.’  Is there something threatening and wrong with that?

*It will lower the bar for the sequels.

This is a crucial and disheartening point.  New Moon very clearly had higher production values than Twilight — the stunts are far less cheesy, there are CGI wolves, and they hired Dakota Fanning and Michael Sheen to play the baddie vampires.  They shot in Rome; they had all sorts of sweet helicopter and trick shots.  The lighting was more even; the Native Americans’ wigs were less visible.  Why, then, would the bar be lowered? Because Twilight is a superior film.  There.  I said it.  I’m curious to know if I’m in the minority here, but I felt far less magic in the second film — no matter of CGI wolves could make up for the absence of Catherine Hardwicke, who helmed the first film.  Hardwicke, who also directed the superb Thirteen, has a certain way with teen situations.  The way she directed the scenes at the high school — and the deviations from the book, including the classic line “This dress makes my boobs look totally awesome” — absolutely made the film for me.  I could gloss over the clunky vampire jumping from tree to tree — so long as I had the intimate moments between Bella and her dad, Bella and her awkward teenage friends.

Now that New Moon, with its streamlined narrative, has garnered such a substantially higher gross than the original,  it’s only natural that the forthcoming films will heed its lessons.  I’d love for the series to take a Harry Potter bent, exploring various color palettes, alterations in tone, and senses of burgeoning humor with each director.    This seems unlikely.  As Transformers 2, Spiderman 3, and Pirates of the Caribbean 3 have proven, a sequel, however bloated, however much it pales in comparison to the original, will do even better business.  So why concern yourself with quality?

Stars in the making? I'm not so sure.

*It won’t necessarily make stars out of Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner.

This might seem counter-intuitive.  They attract huge crowds!  People put their faces on their t-shirts!  But these actors have become so incredibly wed to their characters, it’ll take critical and financial success in non-Twilight roles to break away from their picture personalities as Bella, Edward, and Jacob, respectively.

My bet for non-Twilight success is firmly on K-Stew, whose forthcoming turn as Joan Jett in The Runaways seems poised to do at least moderately well.  She’s already wrapped Welcome to the Rileys, a small production that should continue to bolster her cred as an actual actress.  (She has to sigh and look scared a lot in the Twilight saga, but I do think the girl can act.)

RPattz might be doomed to Edward-style brooding, as exemplified by his role in Remember Me.

It stars Chris Cooper, Pierce Brosnen, and that girl from Lost, but is it a hit?  Middling?  Fueled by Twilight fans?  (They tried to make that work with RPattz as Salvador Dali this summer in Little Ashes, but I couldn’t even watch the preview (complete with Pattinson in Dali moustache) without laughing.  Pattinson is scheduled for two additional films, Unbound Captives and Bel Ami,  in pre-production — both with big names, if not big directors, attached.  His future outside of Twilight will depend wholly upon the success of such non-vampiric roles.

As for Taylor Lautner, he’s already filmed a small part in the Love Actually-esque Valentine’s Day (opposite his supposed love Taylor Swift, no less).  But other than Eclipse, he’s got nothing.  Not even in pre-production.  He’s the most wooden of the three, and he’ll have to secure another romantic turn — presumably in a teen-geared comedy/drama of some sort — in order to sustain his fan base.  He’ll also have to sustain gossip, either through authenticating his relationship with the other Taylor, re-dating Disney star Selena Gomez, or creating new teen hand-holding buzz.  Odds of success = slim.  He may have great shoulder muscles, but so does Matthew McConaughey.

So what does $258.8 million mean?  It means we have an opportunity to reconsider the way the industry works.  Everytime a movie hits big — and especially when it outperforms expectations — we reach a similar landmark.  A chance for people like me to challenge the idea that the way that Hollywood works is ‘natural,’ inevitable, or necessary.  As director Kevin Smith tweeted following the release of the Friday numbers, “Tween girls can get shit DONE, man.”  Indeed they can — and so can 30 and 40 something moms with their daughters, and 20-something women prefunking with white wine and flasks.  And it’s a lesson we — and Hollywood — is still learning.

♥

If they’d known then that in just a few months things were going to fall apart, they’d have clung onto this so hard.

This week I thought I’d share my Miami Vice fics. They’re based on the tv series, not the movie. You might wonder why I write fanfics based on an old tv series. The answer is DVD:s. A couple of years ago I found some cheap DVD:s at the supermarket and decided to buy four of them (at a very good price). Two of them contained a couple of episodes of Miami Vice. Right away, I was hooked. I really need to see the rest of those episodes.