Archive for the ‘At the Movies’ Category

The story

Saturday, June 15th, 2013

I’m in the midst of writing the toughest story of my professional life, a thorny narrative journalism project, and wouldn’t you know that in my off time I end up at a movie that has as its subject storytelling.

Actually, it didn’t just turn out that way. I actively agitated to go see Stories We Tell, a documentary by the enormously talented Sarah Polley. I wasn’t disappointed, of course. It was thoughtful yet sly, lyrically shot, a real joy.

But the subject matter is one that weighs on me. Who gets to tell a story? How do you accommodate multiple stories about the same central story? By being The Storyteller (in my case, journalist, in Polley’s, writer/director), what responsibility do you have? How far do you go? How much do you reveal?

How do you honour the story?

Documentary’s Dark Ages

Friday, May 24th, 2013

Look, I’m neither Siskel nor Ebert. But I’m beginning to think that just as we’ve in a golden age for television drama, we’re in the Dark Ages when it comes to documentary films.

I’m a person who gravitates toward non-fiction — I’m a journalist, after all — but too often these days I leave the theatre disappointed. Documentary filmmakers seem to be either polemicists beating the drum for their cause or fanboys, also beating the drum for their cause. What they aren’t: storytellers.

Case in point, the movie I saw tonight, Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf’s, about the iconic department store. We can agree on that much. But what about Bergdorf Goodman’s? Well, it definitely wasn’t about the department-store doorman, highlighted in the bait-and-switch intro, never to be seen again. Was it a history of its past and founders? A celebration of the buyers and creative directors and the designers whose careers they helped make? A frothy confection as celebrities shared their favourite memories? A peek inside the inner workings of a distinctly American institution? A feature about the months-long process of designing their marquee Christmas windows? (The last third was certainly about the latter…)

I guess I don’t understand. Is it that, with digital film and iMovie, the bar is so low that any schmo who can hold a camera (sort of) steady can make a documentary? Because clearly there’s no premium placed on plot or character or arc or story — as if somehow those things don’t matter because this is Real Life. I suppose it makes me grateful for documentaries like the Up series…which has managed to carry a coherent concept across five decades.

Giving old, haggard face

Tuesday, February 5th, 2013

Cast in a costume drama? It might not be because of your acting chops but rather because of your lack of tats and piercings and your “period face.”

Which is a nice way of saying ugly.

(Half) in the closet

Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

I think we all — or many of us — can agree: There’s no reason why movie stars should have to share their sexuality, no more than non-famous people. Reciting lines in front of a camera doesn’t mean you lose your right to privacy, and stars have no responsibility to open up, at least not for purient reasons. Doing so in order to serve as a role model to others is admirable but not required.

That’s why I’m not sure how to feel about Jodie Foster kinda, sorta coming out during her speech at the Golden Globes the other night. She all but said she was a lesbian, all the while lamenting that sexuality is no longer a private matter. But at this point in her career, it kind of is for Foster. Frankly I can’t exactly see the impetutus. Just because she was standing in front of a microphone? It’s not like softball-pitching reporters who cover the award shows were going to force her to ‘fess up.

What’s more, I’m unsure of the message we’re all supposed to take away from her speech. Because, yes, years ago, movie stars didn’t get up and announce their sexuality. But some do, and do so not because they are being hounded but because they want to, admirably. She almost seems to chide: “I’m told that every celebrity is expected to honor the details of their private life with a press conference, a fragrance and a primetime reality show.”

More confusing, however, is her portrait of the past as “very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers.” Maybe the young girl would guard that information, keep it close, because, hey, in those “quaint days” it wasn’t okay to be gay?

Back to the Six-Column Hed

Saturday, January 5th, 2013

Over at Vulture, they decided to do an analysis of the newspaper headlines in Back to the Future. Why? I’m not exactly sure.

I do agree with their assessment that the Hill Valley Telegraph had an unfortunate habit of writing banner headlines, a font size that should be reserved for war or at least major national events, for such dubious “news” as a local man’s lucky streak at the race track (a tendency of which my hometown paper is frequently guilty). But my concurrence is tempered by my puzzlement at why, why? someone would go through the trouble of taking numerous newspaper-headline screen shots from B-grade ’80s movies.

Also, I realised I’ve totally forgotten the plot. All I remember is a car and a ’50s dance and Michael J. Fox flirting with his mother.

Zero Dark screens

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

Dear idiots at Sony Pictures,

How can you release Zero Dark Thirty, the only movie I have reallyreally wanted to see this year, in New York and Los Angeles, but not in D.C.? You know, the place where rendition is cocktail-party conversation?

Signed,

Your Target Audience, morons

The Bacon Hypothesis

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Google was invented to help save time, an easier and more intuitive search process. But now it’s aiding procrastination with its new “Bacon Number” search function. That’s Bacon, as in Kevin, and it’s a play on the old game, Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, in which you try to connect actors back to Bacon through their co-stars: Actor A was in Movie X with Actor B who was in Movie Y with Actor C who was in Movie Z with Kevin Bacon.

The problem with the new Google Bacon search? Absolutely everyone you can think of is exactly two degrees of Bacon-ness.

Love stories?

Sunday, August 5th, 2012

M. and I went to see Take This Waltz, a story about a young married Toronto woman who has a romance, more emotional than physical, with her neighbour. I can’t exactly decide if I liked the movie: Pro, it was directed by the wonderful Sarah Polley, who starred in one of the most incredible movies of all time, The Sweet Hereafter, and learned from a master about the importance of visual style. Con, it features Michelle Williams in her most cutesy, pixie-hipsterish, tic-addled Michelle Williams-ness. Ugh. It makes it very hard to have sympathy for her, as the centre of this love triangle.

And maybe that’s the point. Although Polley shoots Williams all doe-eyed and lip-biting, in the end, you realise how foolish she’s been, how little she understands her wants. She walks out on her husband, Seth Rogen, who seems to have going for him only that he is a cookbook author capable of preparing chicken a zillion ways and an authentically Canadian pronounciation of sore-ee. She wants to feel all shaky and fluttery inside, emotions churning as if they’ve been shaken by a darkened amusement-park ride. She thinks that’s what her neighbour, an artist-cum-rickshaw driver does for her. (“I think he’s only has that job so that Michelle Williams can get all hot watching his sweaty muscles as he runs,” M. accurately noted.)

But in the end, it may be more that she’s move in love with falling in love than with love itself. She fetishes infatuation but stumbles in nurturing long-term, mature, sometimes messy relationships. Indeed, it’s not even clear if she tries much at the latter — yes, she bakes muffins and love-talks in a little-girl voice, but, hell, she pees in front of both her husband and her new lover. (Once when I had food poisoning, I passed out from vomiting too violently rather than let my boyfriend in the bathroom, so you can imagine my stance in this matter.) Still, while we can’t all be so insufferably cute, probably many of us are more Michelle Wiliams than we’d care to admit — for evidence that we don’t excel at the long-term, only look at the divorce rates in the U.S. (and Canada). When the lights come up and the infatuation dims, how good are any of us at finding the romance in chicken every night?

All the news that’s fit to film

Sunday, June 10th, 2012

Dan Barry on why reporters love movies about reporters:

The films tend to add style to their khakis and wit to their whining. Their ordinary workday world suddenly seems so exciting, so glamorous and, very often, so unreal.

You’ve got nostalgia

Saturday, June 2nd, 2012

I got home at 2 a.m., exhausted, so exhausted I couldn’t sleep. I did what any person would do — I turned on the television and watched a bad ’90s romantic comedy.

I’m not a rom-com fan. While there are genres I like less — scene-chewing period pieces and anything that might star Slyvester Stallone come to mind — I really only watch them if I’m on a very long airplane flight and have burned through the other options. Or, if it’s the middle of the night, and I’m catatonically sleepless. So, there you go.

Anyhow, the movie was You’ve Got Mail, which is built around the conceit that Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan hate each other in real life but have a budding virtual romance (don’t ask me how, I missed the beginning) conducted through this novel medium known as the Internet. Specifically, AOL. And so they each keep anxiously logging on, that burpy modum dial-up noise and the AOL greeting “You’ve got mail!” the soundtrack to their, ahem, love story.

What’s remarkable to me — aside from the fact I was sort-of willingly watching a Meg Ryan-Tom Hanks movie — was the way it treated their online wooing, as if it was a bizarre, practically unbelievable, and potentially awkward thing to do. I looked it up, and the film’s less than 15 years old. I’d find it far stranger today to call a man I was interested in on the telephone than to ping him online or send him a text. You’ve got nostalgia, indeed.