Grindhouse/Dollhouse

I hope everyone is getting pumped up for Joss Whedon's new show, Dollhouse, starring long-time muse Eliza Dushku and premiering Friday the 13th on Fox at 8 pm central. I know I sound like a TV promo, but a new Whedon project is like nerd crack. And as Joss Whedon is a muse of MINE, I owe it to him to do my part to get the word out.

I don't want to jinx the show, but I have a bad feeling about the decision to air it on Friday night (TV wasteland) after the already-struggling Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. In fact, I'm surprised you can't already pre-order the DVD set with all of the unaired episodes.

However, I feel hopeful as I am LOVING the new grindhouse-y ad campaign. I think whoever thought it up (I'm betting Joss had a hand in it) really knows and understands the target audience. It's spot-on.

They're going with the "double bill of hot babes" angle, and it rocks. Check it out:



Brilliant. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino would be proud (though the commercial is already better than Tarantino's Death Proof...).

Support Joss Whedon. Please watch Dollhouse. Let's give it a fighting, ass-kicking chance.

Hellboy and The Boy Who Lived

I recently watched the new trailer for Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy II: The Golden Army. When I saw the first trailer, I was angry. Now, I'm just frustrated, bewildered, and sad. THIS is really what he turned down a chance to direct a Harry Potter film for?

If I take Harry Potter out of the equation for a minute, obviously I'm just upset with him because he proved, with Pan's Labyrinth, that he was capable of doing better and more significant work. As a follow-up, this looks pitiful. I'm sure Hellboy is perfectly fine for what it is, but this seems like such a step down for him.

Now, let me get back to Harry Potter. I know people will argue that Harry Potter is just as trivial as Hellboy II. Well, I totally disagree, to put it very mildly and as politely as I can. The Harry Potter books are some of the most beautiful, inspired, and inspiring works ever created. Period. They're brilliant! J.K. Rowling has single-handedly, in a digital age no less, motivated an entire generation to read, and other generations to read again. She's done more for books than anyone, and few have been responsible for as massive a pop culture phenomenon. Harry Potter is up there with The Beatles.

I think the films are marvelous. They could have been screwed up big time. Sure, some are better than others, but they all stay true to the integrity and spirit of the books. And the casting couldn't be better. They're really magical pieces of filmmaking, if you give them a chance. And how often do you see an 8-part film series? I'm not talking about James Bond and a bunch of individual entries that surround a character. I mean a cohesive sequence or structure in which each part is integral to the success of the whole. Every film is inextricably linked with, and dependent on, the others. So, an 8-part film series is absolutely unprecedented. It's pretty extraordinary.

Say what you want about Harry Potter, but the legacy of Harry Potter will endure forever. Hellboy II will be forgotten in months. How could Gullermo del Toro pass up an opportunity to be a part of that legacy? It's inconceivable to me. Why didn't Alfonso Cuaron persuade him? Guillermo del Toro could have reached so many more people with his art this way. The Harry Potter films all contain the individual stamps of the filmmakers. They basically would have given him carte blanche. He had a chance to make history. Instead, he made Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Sigh.

Hellboy II looks gorgeous, and the creatures in it are astounding and beyond fantastic. That's why I'm so sad. If he put that much effort and creativity into this crap, imagine what he could have done with Harry Potter. It's painfully disappointing. Hellboy II is visually stunning, mind-blowing really, and the style is so wonderfully interesting and trippy. I can see Pan's Labyrinth all over it. He's totally ripping himself off with Hellboy II, which is fine, I guess, but the film is so unworthy. What's the point? It's beautiful, yeah, but then the characters talk, and it's practically ruined right there. The plot is also ridiculously silly and stupid. What a waste of his enormous talent.

I would have LOVED to see what he could have done with Harry Potter. I think the result would have been spectacular. The Hellboy II trailer reveals the mind of a genius, to be sure, but why didn't he put THAT mind to use on Harry Potter? Why? Why Hellboy and not Harry Potter? Why, Guillermo, why? Harry Potter's beneath you, but Hellboy II isn't? Is that it? I really hope not.

Guillermo del Toro had a chance to try something new, to accept a challenge and really put his creativity to the test, to tackle a worthwhile project, to broaden his horizons, to grow and soar as an artist, to take a serious risk, and to bring his own type of magic to Harry Potter. He chose not to. I love you, Gullermo, but that just seems lazy and cowardly.

Has Judd Apatow Gone Too Far?

Okay, if you live in or near a major metropolis, or even in a big suburb, I think we can all agree - we're sick of the damn Forgetting Sarah Marshall ads already! Sheesh. No matter how you feel about the movie, whether you're crossing off days on the calendar or cursing the arrival of yet another Apatow flick, enough is enough with the freaking ads. This advertising campaign is why the word "overkill" was invented. It's a tribute to Judd Apatow's refreshing type of comedy that people aren't totally repelled from the film altogether. Actually, I guess that's yet to be seen. It ain't over until the box office numbers are in next Sunday night/Monday morning. Meh, who am I kidding? Forgetting Sarah Marshall is going to be a massive hit. If I'm wrong, I will humbly eat my words.

I love Judd Apatow and almost everything he's done. When I refer to the cinema of Judd Apatow, a revolutionary new school of comedic filmmaking, I'm including his whole empire, meaning all the films with his name on it, even if he's only the producer and didn't write or direct the project. His mark is all over them, in a good way. The most notable Apatow films are: The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and the upcoming Pineapple Express, which has enough buzz to put a bee to shame. I think I described his comedy best in two reviews I wrote for Suite101.com. So, I'm going to to plagiarize myself here, because I can't quite seem to articulate those thoughts as well now. I first mentioned him in my review of Albert Brooks' Mother: "Judd Apatow (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up), Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (Superbad), and Diablo Cody (Juno) are the best comic writers in Hollywood today. They have all perfected the art of combining shocking, brutally honest, and often raunchy comedy with sweet, honest humanity. Judd Apatow is the king and pioneer of this recent movement. With all the trash currently out there (Meet the Spartans, Fool's Good, Strange Wilderness), discerning filmgoers have Apatow to thank for resurrecting and reinventing a brand of comedy, with heart and hysterics, that has been virtually lost since the days of Preston Sturges and Billy Wilder." Then, in my review of Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle, I said this: "Apatow's films (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up) and Harold & Kumar share intimate character studies, unflinching humanity, hilarity stemming from honesty, and huge hearts. Harold & Kumar also contains that magical raunch factor so integral to Apatow's films, its purpose being to shock puritanistic America out of its conservative slumber. These films make sex a normal part of life, which it is, and which American society tries to pretend it isn't." So, put all that together, and that's the essence of Judd Apatow's work.

Attaching Judd Apatow's name to a movie, his golden seal of approval, practically guarantees success. His distinct sensibilities are always there. I mean, he knows what he's doing. He chooses a project for a reason, right? I think he's absolutely brilliant. He really is a modern-day Billy Wilder or Preston Sturges. I really couldn't pay someone a higher compliment than that. He's the closest we'll ever get to them in this crap-filled comedic landscape, and for that, we should be thanking the cinema gods. When I say he's as close as we'll ever get, I'm not saying we're just settling for him; I sincerely believe he's damn close to the level of genius of those masters. Apatow has built this huge reputation for himself and set a really high standard, and so far, he's done a great job of upholding both. You have to admit - it's pretty remarkable when you've only directed two films, and you're already considered an auteur.

So, that was my elaborate set-up for the Forgetting Sarah Marshall ad campaign. You all know the ads I'm talking about. "My mom always hated you, Sarah Marshall." (Actually, there's no comma on the ads - I added that myself because I enjoy proper grammar.) "I'm so over you, Sarah Marshall." "You suck, Sarah Marshall." "You do look fat in those jeans, Sarah Marshall." I believe there's also one that simply says: "I hate you, Sarah Marshall." I spend a lot of time in heart of downtown Chicago, so for the past month and a half, I've seen these ads EVERYWHERE. They whiz by on the tops of cabs, lurk around bus stops, and scream at me off the sides of buses. I just don't think this approach is very clever. Sure, it's getting people talking, but so what? So does a good premise and a great trailer. The movie was already sold. The ads are dumb. Maybe they were cute or funny the first couple times, but we're talking serious advertising assault here. They're so aggravatingly, hellishly irritating. I hate them.

Besides just being annoying, these ads have become controversial. They're rubbing a lot of people, mainly women, the wrong way. Oh, there's also a lot of Sarah Marshalls who are pissed. To them I say - get over it. If they're only mad because their name is negatively being thrown around, then that's pretty lame. Does anyone who knows them really think that they're the Sarah Marshall being referred to on the top of the cab, with the website info and R-rating on the bottom? And if people don't know them, then they don't know that their names are Sarah Marshall, do they? I think their outrage, on the superficial name level, is silly.

But, that's not all the flack these ads are receiving. There are harsh accusations of misogyny. This "misogyny" is allegedly blatant and even intentional. I'm a woman who considers herself pretty down with feminism, and I think the misogyny charge is bullshit. Judd Apatow is not misogynistic and neither are his films. While I agree that the ads are too abundant, people know it's a movie. I know, I know, movies can be very real. But in this case, these ads are exposing the main character's idiocy and immaturity. When I see the ads and watch the trailer, HE'S the one who looks bad, not Sarah Marshall. I view his hatred of her in the context of HIS insecurity, self-loathing, and pathetic wallowing. He's a loser! Yes, he's the protagonist, and we're asked to identify with him, but he's majorly flawed, and we know that and accept that going in.

Judd Apatow's films are male-centered. So? That doesn't inherently make them misogynistic. If people have a problem with him making movies about men, then go make your own female-centric movies! He's doing what he can and what he knows. You can't ask him to save the world and single-handedly rid the cinematic landscape of all its evils. In The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad, and apparently in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the men are totally clueless, socially awkward, or just plain morons. If people want to misconstrue his films as anything, wouldn't they seem to be male-bashing? In The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up, the women are the ones who stabilize the men. The woman is the savior. If you ask me, that's pretty awesome.

Superbad is more about the relationship between the guys, but I think the women are represented fairly in that movie, too. When Seth drinks too much and tries to hook up with Jules, she says no because a) she admirably doesn't drink, b) she doesn't want to do anything with him while he's drunk, c) she's not a slut, and d) she wants to explore their feelings like adults, not like juvenile, horny maniacs. Fogell's girl Nicola is admittedly not that well-developed and seems kind of one-dimensional, but look at who she's paired up! How three-dimensional is McLovin? Not very, but it doesn't matter. Every character is a film does not have to be developed to the fullest extent of screenwriting law. Then there's Becca, Evan's crush. She's popular but isn't ashamed to talk to shy, nerdy Evan. She acts kind of foolish at the big party, but so does he, and she later understands the consequences of her actions. I was pleasantly surprised at Superbad's depiction of women in the high school world. They have intelligent things to say, they're down to earth and, most importantly, they're respected and adored by the male characters.

Superbad needed some explanation, but I think it's obvious that women are respected in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall (again, if I'm wrong and it's a misogynistic piece of trash, I'll eat my words). In fact, I think Trish in The 40-Year-Old Virgin is kind of revered. Apatow's women are equal to Apatow's men. In all cases, I actually think they're depicted as superior. The Forgetting Sarah Marshall marketing is totally misguided and out of control, but it's unfair to prejudge a movie based on advertising and a trailer and call it misogynistic. I don't hate Sarah Marshall. Seeing a bunch of ads doesn't condition me to start watching the film already hating her, and I don't think anyone else with a brain would do that either. Sarah Marshall seems like a lovely woman. Jason Segel's character, what's his name, is the one who has to prove his worth and likability to me. Apatow's female characters may not be the best, most progressive specimens of femininity imaginable, but why is he expected to provide that? I think they're great as they are, and he makes a conscious effort to avoid stereotyping and sexism. His women strike me as real people. They're not caricatures or setbacks to feminism at all. His movies just happen to center around men. He shouldn't have to make a film with a female lead just to prove he's not a woman-hater. I know he's not. I don't even understand how that could be open for debate. I'm definitely a feminist, but I'm not unreasonable about it. Sometimes, so-called feminists go too far, read way too much into things, and resolve to only see what they want to see.

Now that I've defended Judd Apatow's honor, I return to the ad issue. There is one Sarah Marshall ad that bothers me more than the rest. "You do look fat in those jeans, Sarah Marshall." Okay, hold up a second. I realize that it's the ramblings of an immature, just-dumped imbecile, but this goes way too far. A line has been crossed. This is the woman the ads are saying looks fat in her jeans?

Kristen Bell? Smoking hot, body to die for, one of the most gorgeous women ever - THAT Kristen Bell? Wow, now I've seen (and read) everything. This is tricky, because I think this is mainly the fault of the people marketing the film and not Apatow. However, I get the feeling that he's super-involved in every aspect of the process, so he's probably also to blame, even though it's difficult for me to say that. Misogyny is too strong a word, but I do think this ad is sexist and anti-feminist. It preys upon a common insecurity of women. It's become stereotypical and almost farcical, the whole "Do I look fat in this?" thing, but it's grounded in reality. This is a very prevalent, valid fear that exists because of an unrealistic standard of beauty imposed upon women by society. It has become a punchline, especially concerning jeans, but I'm not laughing. I'm certainly not laughing at this ad either. I'm offended. I mean, older women can see how ridiculous it is that Kristen Bell could ever conceivably be called fat. It's preposterous. My problem is that I think this ad, as prominently displayed as it is, can be harmful to younger, more impressionable girls of the high school and younger range. They see that, they maybe don't know it's a joke, and they put two and two together ("If she's fat, I must be a whale."), and voilà, self-esteem meltdown. I KNOW it's a joke, and even I find myself thinking, "Boy, I wish I looked like Kristen Bell in MY jeans." I just think it's a horribly negative message to have out there. It only contributes to the warped ideal of body image plaguing society. Girls can see it and get the wrong idea, and that's why it infuriates me.

The ad campaign as a whole? The trailer? Not misogynistic. The movie? It does not appear to be misogynistic in the slightest. This particular ad about Sarah Marshall and her jeans? I wouldn't call it misogynistic, because I know it's rooted in playing up the flaws of the film's leading man, but it's definitely sexist. I believe the advertisers and even Apatow himself got carried away, didn't think about the potential ramifications of that seemingly harmless message, and went way too far. I know it's not intentional, but it's harmful nonetheless. With the rest of the ads, I think it's easy to discern reality from fiction. With this one, it's too blurry for my liking.

I found a pseudo-article on Cinematical's website by Erik Davis that bothers me almost as much as the ad. In it, he talks about the ads and all the backlash. He oinks this: "One ad which reads, 'You DO look fat in those jeans Sarah Marshall' has some women signing up for gym classes, and applying extra make-up in the morning." I think that's a pretty chauvinistic, reductionist viewpoint. It's so flippantly arrogant. Yuck. Hey, Erik, maybe the whole "thinking" thing isn't working out for you. Don't do it. You might hurt yourself.

I know this post has been epic, but thank you for sticking with me. Even with that advertising snafu, as grossly negligent as it may be, my respect for Judd Apatow has not been diminished at all. It's forgiven because his work more than makes up for it. And I can't wait to see Forgetting Sarah Marshall. For the integrity of cinema, the comeback and reinvention of great comedy, and yes, for the honor of my gender, I'm really, really excited.

To conclude, Judd Apatow is NOT a misogynist, his films are NOT misogynistic, and the women in his films are infinitely stronger than the women in most films. I think I have to use the E-word here: empowering. Gosh darn it, Apatow's women are empowering. Judd Apatow, as a woman, I tip my hat to you, good sir.

I have very strong opinions, and I realize that they might be contentious. I think the phrase "Them's fightin' words" can be applied to this post. So be it. I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

Leave The Women Alone!

I've heard for a long time that there were plans to do a remake of George Cukor's brilliant 1939 film (oh, that magical year) The Women. The rumors really annoyed me, but now that it's actually happening and will be released later this year, I'm downright furious. First of all, I hate when anyone messes with a classic. Whether you agree with the film or not from a feminist perspective (I'll get to that later), it's a wonderful film. It's witty and hilarious with fantastic performances. So, the film surrounds a bunch of catty high society women and their shenanigans. The cast is all women, down to the animals. There's not one man in it. That's pretty remarkable in itself. Here are my thoughts on the original (and only, as far as I'm concerned) from when I first watched it on October 19, 2005 (I watched it in a life-altering class, so it's chronicled because we kept a journal):

"Wow. Where do I begin about The Women? I have never seen another film like this, so completely dedicated to women, without a man in sight. This film just blew my mind. There have been so many times at Columbia where I have seen really amazing films that completely validate my coming to film school. They make me feel like I made the right choice with my life. And this film is one of them. I think it is quite shocking for its time, and it amazes me how much it got away with as far as the Production Code. I mean, it really pushes it, and I wonder how that could happen. Maybe the idiot male censors figured a bunch of women could not possibly be talking about anything substantial. They probably thought, “Oh, those silly women, with their silly clothes and their silly problems!” What suckers. Anyway, I am exhausted from listening to them for over two hours, but I loved every second of it. I also am so impressed with the unparalleled ensemble cast. There are just so many strong, talented women in it. Also, the women who wrote this are unbelievable. This film is one of the smartest, funniest, most biting social commentaries ever written. I have a whole new respect for George Cukor after seeing this. Surely, no other director could have made this film, especially no male, and probably most would not have wanted to. He really does have a knack for working for with actors, especially women. His camera style is not as flashy as other directors, but who cares when he can encourage such incredible performances and get Rosalind Russell to throw dishes around? It seems like the set was a very warm and nurturing place.

As far as the character of Mary (Norma Shearer), I do not think she sells out. Even though Steven really does seem pathetic, she loves him and forgives him, and I think that makes her strong. People do make mistakes, and he has certainly done his penance. If she wants him, even after everything, she should have him. After all, she is a human being, and the heart wants what it wants. And I think this time around, she will have the control in the relationship. Maybe it would have been more satisfying if she had told him to go to hell, but still, there are so many other strong women in the film, it hardly matters. Also, there are so many different types of women in this film, so it makes it really easy to relate to. Everyone knows someone who is like at least one of those women. Joan Fontaine is adorable as the sweet Peggy, and Mary Boland is a riot as Flora. While Norma Shearer is very good, Joan Crawford (Crystal Allen) and Rosalind Russell (Sylvia Fowler) steal the film. Crawford is perfect as the delicious bitch you love to hate, and her scene in the bathtub is incredible. It is easy to see why this made her a star again. Crawford is fantastic, but I have to say that Rosalind Russell was my favorite part of the film. She is such a firecracker! I have only seen her in His Girl Friday before (one of my favorites), and I loved her in it, but she is so great in The Women. She is so beautiful and unique-looking, but I love how she just immersed herself in her character and went for the whole ugly, awkward look in this film, glasses askew and all. Sylvia is certainly not a glamorous character. But she breathes such life into the film, and the scene where she throws the plates is one of the funniest I have ever seen in any movie, and Russell does it so brilliantly. I am so grateful that we watched this film, and I want to show it to everyone I know."

(Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer, and Rosalind Russell - Keep in mind that Crawford and Shearer hate each other in the film and loathed each other even more in real life. I think some of that comes across in this picture, which I find fascinating. It's also just a beautiful shot.)

Aww, memories...that brings me back. Since then, George Cukor has become one of my favorite directors, Rosalind Russell has become one of my favorite actresses, and Norma Shearer has become incredibly grating. Alas, I love the film more than ever. George Cukor would never make an anti-women film. Never. The Women is pro-feminist all the way. Yes, these women are bitchy, catty, and quite awful people, but it's done in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. The original play was written by the incomparable Clare Boothe Luce (an uber-feminist), who wanted to expose the vanity of (some) high society wives. They're exposed for what they are. The movie follows suit, because it isn't saying that all women are like that, just the ones in this warped universe. It's telling women NOT to be like these people. You have to go deeper, because it's a satirical look at the society of the time and women's roles and the unreasonable expectations placed upon them.

The Women basically takes all of the stereotypes and nonsense about women only being superficial and weak and throws it in your face by amplifying it to such a ridiculous level that no one could possibly believe that Cukor and company don't 100% support women's rights. This film is their revenge, for all the times they were slighted in Hollywood. Also, these are strong characters, even if they have questionable motives and reputations. The Women undermines the male superstructure of the time by pumping it so full of estrogen that it would make a misogynist whimper out of fear of the wrath of women united (despite the fights, they're a community). And did I mention there are NO men in it? No matter how much they talk about men, you never see one penis (not like you would have seen it back then, but you get it). That's empowering! This is in no way anti-feminist. It's a satire. Lighten up!

That being said, the remake is an atrocity. I don't think it's going to be tongue-in-cheek at all. I have a horrible suspicion that it's going to lose all insightful commentary and nuance and just be a glorified bitch-fest with none of the intelligent bite of the original. The poster even mimics the one for 27 Dresses, so how promising does that look for feminism? Here's just some of the line-up: Eva Mendes, Meg Ryan, Jada Pinkett Smith, Carrie Fisher, Annete Bening, Debra Messing, Candice Bergen, Debi Mazar, Cloris Leachman, and Bette Midler. Those are some stellar actresses, but it's just going to be a wreck. Don't mess with the women of 1939. Ryan is playing the Shearer role (which is okay, because I think Ryan is annoying, too), Bening is playing Russell's role (What????? How outrageously awful!), and Mendes is Joan Crawford (please, honey, you wish). What's with the hourglass-shaped torso on the poster and drawing the boobs with lipstick? Gag. Very classy. And then if you read down, it gets all sappy and sentimental. The great thing about the original is that, with the exception of Mary, no one gets particularly sentimental. They bond, you know it, and no one has to weep to get the point across. This remake is going to turn into a Hallmark movie. It's an abomination.

Find the original and watch it. You can get it on Netflix or even buy it cheap on Amazon or just check for it on TCM. It's pretty easy to find, because it's a cinematic gem. And my final bit of advice? Run, don't walk, from the remake. The remake is a bitch slap to the face of the original.

A Beautiful, Sweded Mind

I worship Michel Gondry. He's part goofball, part crazy, and all genius. He represents what filmmaking should be. There's such a purity and childlike exuberance to his approach and vision, yet there's also such a sophistication to his stories and artistic expression. Gondry is so creative and totally audacious, and he couldn't be sweeter or more humble. He just loves making movies, and it's inspiring to see him get so excited about his projects.

For his newest film, Be Kind Rewind, he made his own "sweded" version of the trailer. According to the film's official website: "Sweding is re-making something from scratch using whatever you can get your hands on." This is what the characters do in the film, and what Gondry does with the trailer. It's shot-by-shot exactly, and he plays all the roles. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything more endearing than Gondry reciting his own brilliant dialogue in his broken, heavily accented English and doing the most loving, adorable impersonations of the actors in the film. It's adorable because he obviously cares so much. This trailer is a masterpiece in its own right. It's one of the most brilliant things I've ever seen.

His trailer is great on its own, just because it's a kooky French guy having the time of his life playing, but you'll appreciate it more after seeing the original, which is why I'm posting both. Actually, I think it's essential to see the original one first to have a basis for comparison and to maximize appreciation, because what Gondry does with his sweded version is magical. It's magical, just like his films.

Original trailer:


Gondry's sweded trailer:

Gondry's trailer makes me smile every time and totally brightens my day, whatever day it happens to be. It makes me happy. It just radiates such warmth and joy. I can't get enough of it. As Mia Farrow (and Gondry as Mia Farrow) says, "To movies with heart and soul!" Michel Gondry certainly has that covered. He has a heart as big as the Eiffel Tower, a soul as deep as the waters of the Seine, and he possesses a joie de vivre like no other director working today. Michel Gondry, je t'adore!