Fumarama

In her top ten movies of the year story, Manohla Dargis wrote the following sentence: David Lynch's ''Inland Empire'' isn't for the faint of heart or lazy of thought, notably those for whom moviegoing is simply a more socially acceptable version of sucking on a pacifier. She was saying this about a specific movie and Pan's Labyrinth was not in her top ten movies. But ever since, i have seen the statement as an indictment or a challenge (who knows maybe it was actually meant to be self-congratulatory to New York Times readers who will go to more provocative films, but knowing the types of movies i love it was not a congratulations to me). So I saw Pan's Labyrinth last night, and I have to say, it was nothing like sucking on a pacifier. It was more like an emotional marathon, I squirmed, I covered my eyes, my chest felt all heavy.

Like (or enjoyed) is a strange word to use for this movie. That is the other thing about Dargis, she often does not say whether or not she liked the movie, she just kind of talks about it for 1000 words and leaves whether or not she enjoyed her two hours in the theater up for interpretation. Well, I kind of see her point. Sometimes it is hard to talk in terms of like or dislike for a movie that was so affecting. Sometimes I worry that going to the movies is a cop-out from actually living life, but when I left the theater last night, I felt not like I had passed my evening away, but that I really experienced something.

John Atkinson of Chiasm recently linked to my blog from his own. It was incredibly nice of him. And if you like music, energy issues, non-mainstream worldwide news, or boys from Northern New Jersey, this is the blog for you. He did express disappointment that I don't blog on either of the shows he watches, Lost or Beauty and the Geek. While it is true that I do not watch Lost, I have been watching this season for BatG. I have been a bit afraid to blog about it because the show is based on a stereotype and I knew that I could not write about it without engaging in my own stereotypes. And so I apologize but here goes...

The premise of the show is fundamentally flawed for me. As Karen so succinctily put it recently: "successful is the new cute." And she is totally right, while "geeky" might hold a guy down in high school but by the time you hit your twenties (and definitely your mid to late twenties) women, even incredibly shallow annoying ones such as some of the ones on this show, prefer a man who can support them than one that looks good. See for example, Trump and his wife, or Anna Nicole Smith's decision to marry that old guy. And some of these guys with their grad degrees from MIT, and Harvard, and Berkeley are going to be successful.

So these girls rather than sneering at these guys lack of fashion sense should be chasing after them. And these guys aren't even so bad. Except for Pao who seemed really over the top, these guys are not so bad. Scooter and Nate are both really cute and funny. And Matt was talking about how he has a lot of female friends, those types of guys always get a girl. Girls like being treated nicely. My point is that that any of those guys can go back to their normal lives and get a very cute girl but for the girls, in contrast, this might be their only chance to find anyone as successful as the men on the show.

Anyway, maybe this is why the show works perfectly. Because underneath the gloss of being from two diffrent worlds, these two groups are really compatible. The girls need a stable guy who will treat them nicely and admire them, and the guys, not quite over feeling like a geek in high school, want to be with the hot girl they could not get back then. The true social experiment would be to have it the other way around: geeky girls and beautiful, vapid men. I don't think it would work. Smart women, in general, don't like men who are dumber than they are. And men never pay attention to a woman unless they think she is attractive. Basically, they are very dismissive if a girl is not hot. I would like to see it done. The one advantage is that girls are far easier to make over.

So when it first came out that that T.R. Knight (George on Grey's Anatomy) and Neil Patrick Harris (Doogie Houser) were gay, there were several articles wondering whether we (society) have reached the point where we have no problem watching actors that we know are gay as romantic figures. You know, were the days of a Rock Hudson having to hide his sexuality to be a romantic hero over?

I think because i have actively thought about it (and not just now, sexuality and hollywood actors is not an esoteric topic, and I spend a great deal of time thinking about cultural assumptions and how they affect me), it has not affected my viewing of Grey's Anatomy at all the T.R. Knight is gay. It has not changed my perception of the character or his romantic inclincations.

But you know what is driving me crazy? Burke and George's friendship. I can't buy it anymore. I know what Washington (Burke) said about Knight, and I simply cannot see them in the same room without getting upset and uncomfortable. How can you have such an intimate conversation with him George? You know what he said? And also how you can you believe his lines about science ending and faith beginning when he is such an angry, mean human being.

I was surprised because after all my thinking about my ability to suspend disbelief when watching tv shows, it actually only happens in those areas where I have thought about the differences between reality and television head on. There are still areas lurking where my knowledge of celebrities invades what I watch on screen.

7:22pm: why is it ok for Ryan Seacrest to oogle all the female actresses? He actually stared at Katherine Heigel's ass as she left her interview with him. On camera. Is sexism the new black?

7:40pm: Seacrest asks Jolie and Pitt if all the media attention bothers them. Angelina can barely tolerate him. Is he kidding? Has he forgotten who he is? He hosts an entertainment news show on an entertainment channel. He is currently hosting what might be one of the most shallow traditions around. Maybe he is asking that question ironically.

7:51: The E women are discussing that Angelina looking so upset. They are saying that she probably wants to be in a third world country. She probaby thinks this a bit much. They then call her that kind of girl. They totally hate her for refusing to bow to them and their cheap celebrity press.

7:54: I am kind of sad that I am going to leave E in a few minutes and watch the actual show. I fear there will be less to hate.

8:05: Jennifer Hudson did not thank her co-stars. I am just saying.

8:10: when they go to commercial break the annoucer keeps saying stuff along the lines like this party is so exciting: these are stars everywhere you look. This is the biggest party of the year, blah blah blah. All this gushing makes me unconfortable. My god who cares about the "stars." They are just entertainers. I know that I am taking time out of my life to watch this three hour event voluntarily. And yet, I still like to think of us as equals. I wish the announcer would agree with my perspective.

8:13: Did Jeremy Irons essentially play Joe Fiennes character from Elizabeth on HBO? It is great. Cate Blanchett and Joe Fiennes turn into Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons. (Oh, and Irons is very funny)

8:17: Kyra Sedgewick seems so genuinely happy, calling her show the Closer an unexpected gift. Ok, so this is why I enjoy award shows. It is a chance to watch people in a moment of genuine happiness

8:40: Director of Cars wins and thanks Pixar and everyone else he knows. This is the second reason I love award shows. It is a chance for people to publicly thank the people they work with. It is really sweet to watch. And how often do we get to see it?

9:00: ok, between Elizabeth and Prime Suspect and the Queen, this is just an extended love fest to Helen Mirren. I absolutely love it.

9:02: Eddie Murphy also did not thanks any of his co-stars. I am just sayin.

9:22: Tim Allen has a golden globe???

9:33: Ugly Betty won. They are so happy. Hugging and screaming in happiness. I am moved. See Sedgwick and Cars above.

9:34: it seems wierd when they call someone a Golden Globe winner. Like Jamie Foxx, didn't he win an oscar? Doesn't calling him a golden globe winner sell him short?

9:35: Actors are not making their cause about movies getting out there in front of viewers. It started with Meryl Streep saying that many people got to see The Devil Wears Prada because it was playing at every theater, but other movies she has recently loved like Pan's labyrinth and Children of Men and Volver cannot be seen by most Americans. She told viewers to demand their theater managers play these movies. I often think these actor causes are kind of lame and annoying, but I actually think this is a really good one. It is ridiculous that there are movies that can only be seen in New York and LA. It is a form of culture that could easily be transmitted everywhere. And actors are totally the right people to promote this, because this is an area in which they should have muscle.

At this point I decided that I no longer wanted to get out of bed to comment, so here are the rest of my thoughts with timestap guesstimates.

10:15: I can sometimes be a tiny bit contrarian so as Tom Hanks Q score (his likeability) went through the roof, I began to dismiss him. But I watched his tribute to Warren Beatty and Tom Hanks is great on stage. Many actors are not. But Hanks is charming and funny. It shows that America occasionally has good taste.

10:20: Martin Scorsese has very bushy eyebrows.

10:30: The producer of Dreamgirls does thank his cast.

10:35: I am trying to read The Merchant of Venice while watching the Globes. The more Shakespeare vilifies shylock, the more I heart him.

11:05: Apparently it is cold in Los Angeles.

This is from a week in review article in the Times about Ugly Betty and exporting the telenova to the United States:

But South American veterans of the telenovela industry suggest the genre may have a North American future, after all. The growing income gap in the United States reminds them of their own societies, they say, and it may assure an appetite for feel-good stories about social mobility.

I must admit I have never thought of rising inequality this way....but I always pass by the telenovas and they look kind of awesome.

(actually this statement made me laugh out loud. It is outrageous, and incredibly cynical, but also wierdly optimistic. It is just brilliant social commentary.)

Just when I proclaim that the OC is good again, Fox cancels it. At first I was bummed. Even though I was skeptical that the show's improvement would last, I am going to miss those Newport Beach-ers. They are just so shiny. And their surroundings too. But then I considered sitting through a Taylor/Ryan break-up and then Ryan trying to save another girl, and Julie committing another crime, and it all seemed so tiresome. This way the show can end on a good note. Ryan can end up in a normal, healthy relationship and go off to Berkeley. Seth and Summer can go to Providence together and we can imagine they live happily ever after, etc. And most importantly, without Marissa.

So remember how I promised that I would review every new fictional show of the new television season...yeah, I totally did not do that. I made a good faith effort to do so, but believe it or not, I reached my television breaking point. I could not make myself watch Men in Trees. It is wierd cause that is totally my kind of show, woman centered dramedy with a long will they or won't they relationship. So I was home on a Friday night (working theoretically) and i made myself a dinner and turned on the tv in order to finally sit down and watch Men in Trees. And I could not do it. Something about Anne Heche trying to be cute, and the predictable dialogue, and I was bored and annoyed and after five minutes I could not take it anymore and turned off the tv. I believe I read the New York Times with my meal instead.

Reviewing tv after the first episode is really hard. In all those other arts, movies, books, even if you don't give anything away, you get to review reflectively so your impression of the movie is more than the details coming through and that comes through. Television reviewing is prospective. I tried to solve this problem by asking the question "will I watch this show again?" But that turned out to be a harder question than I thought. I was right about Ugly Betty and Friday Night Lights, even though I think for each around episode 3 I thought that maybe I was wrong about them. But I never turned on either Six Degrees or Brothers and Sisters again. And I was totally wrong about Heroes. I randomly watched it a couple of weeks ago. That show is amazing! I still maintain that I might eventually find it really frustrating, right now it is just awesome.

All that being said I watched Shark last week. It is a big time defense attorney that gets a heart and turns into a prosecutor. He represented really rich defendants so i think that is why the audience is expected to believe he was heartless. I can't imagine a public defendant being portrayed as heartless. Anyway, it was a pretty good procedural. I almost never watch law shows and so I found myself trying to figure out if the law was correct. Of-course I have become insanely cautious so my answers tend to be like well, I am like 80% sure that the show is wrong and that evidence would be indeed admissible but really I would have read the statute in the jurisdiction and really feel much more comfortable if I had a California evidence treatise and some applicable case law. But yeah, as I said, reviewing tv is hard. The show is not awful. It is not amazing. If you are sick or bored, totally watch it.