Feb 19 2012

Seven thoughts about “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”

I just watched this movie and then was sitting down to write a different blog post, but I couldn’t focus because all of this was stuck in my brain. A movie is never just a movie. These are the type of things I think about.

See also: times when I wish I could turn off my “critical analysis” mechanism.

1. I’ve seen this movie dozen of times. Why is it that I always forget how truly awful Mickey Rooney’s racist character and performance is? Really bad. Really, really offensive and bad.  And purposefully so, even within the context of the time period.

2. Times may change, but vapid parties are forever. Apparently huge parties based on image over substance are an constant in this universe.  Wealth and hipsters then, wealth and hipsters now.

3. I love Audrey deeply. She obviously created this film character the the movie version of Holly is iconic. However, I can also never watch this without thinking of the parallel character of Holly from the book. The other Holly, I always imagined, looks more like a young Mia Farrow.  That Holly is a scrawny chameleon tomboy/bohemian/socialite mash-up. I always imagined her as a different kind of woman who ran on charm more than natural elegance, where the movie Holly has that streak and is quirky, but still kind of floats through on Audrey’s grace.

4. That emotional scene where she says to Doc “Stop calling me that, I’m not your Lulamae anymore.” never sits right with me.  It’s directed well and Audrey brings the emotion perfectly, but there is a complexity that the writing never gets at.  Because she both is (in terms of how parts of us are different to different people) and never was Lulamae (because whoever she decides Holly is, even if she is constantly reinventing herself, that is always the truest part, the most vital part). None of the lines in this movie really speak to that, especially the end. Which brings me to another point…

5. That whole bit about her running away and keeping herself in cages at the end… You know, the part where the dude tells her all about herself  - even though I understand how and why it fits for the movie’s love story – I don’t care for it. She’s way too complex for that. I just wish that the script, in some places, let Holly be that complex.  She is treated as a broken thing. Her quirks and choices are seen as escapes and defenses. And maybe some of them are, but that really isn’t for anyone else to say, especially not anyone who is trying to love her. The movie could have handled a bit more of her complexity, humanity. Audrey certainly could have handled it as an actress – she would have ripped it open, the way she does in The Children’s Hour when she has to dance through 800 levels of “not talking about being a lesbian” – the tension in that movie is incredible. Breakfast at Tiffany’s lacks some tension where it would have potentially been brilliant.

6. The book is not a love story, or rather it is, but not a romantic love story. The narrator in the book (the writer, whom she calls Fred) is gay. It’s a story about connection. It’s a story about human stories. I love this movie, but again, when the culmination is a confrontation and kiss-in-the-rain scene, I really actually prefer Capote’s original vision. The one that ends with Fred sitting in a bar thinking about this girl he used to know. Where no one is ever allowed to keep Holly.  Even Holly.

7. I wonder if the dude who wrote that terrible “What About Breakfast at Tiffany’s” song in the 90’s ever actually saw this fucking movie. That is one of the worst and most disingenuous songs about breaking up/staying together ever.

Sidenote:  I always find it odd that Audrey sings in this movie and does a lovely job, but they wouldn’t allow her to sing in My Fair Lady. What was that about?

Fun trivia: Marni Nixon, who sings in My Fair Lady also was the dubbing voice for Maria, and some of Anita’s vocal parts in West Side Story. She got paid shit for it too and often the actresses were kept in the dark about what they were actually recording. So it was a totally fucked situation for all the women involved.  And also, my heart broke a little the day I found out that Nathalie Wood didn’t really sing!

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Email

Jan 25 2012

Two Minute Review: Crazy Stupid Love

Waste of talent. Waste of time. Terrible movie.

It might have been salvageable and decently fun, had the entire movie been about Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone’s characters. Maybe not. Maybe I could just watch Ryan Gosling do anything

The directing alternated between boring and weird. The writing was way too trite to take itself this seriously (or was it even more trite that it did take itself this seriously?)

Also, congrats on the barely having one likeable (Emma Stone) female character, who only has 3 scenes in the movie while the rest of them were portrayed as some combination of crazy, cheating, weak or stupid.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Email

Jan 15 2012

the list of now’s favorites: 2011

Oh hi, middle of January. It was time to do this 3 weeks ago. Alas, I had some priority issues over the past month – this blog being one of the things that had to go hang out on the back burner for a while.

So here’s my list of highlights from 2011:

Books

Music
Some of these are albums and tunes I revisited this year, some are ones I discovered this year.  Most were not new releases from 2011.  Click albums to launch on spotify, the individual songs I listened to are all playable in that handy widget guy.

Albums

Songs

(in totally random order)


Movies

I didn’t see as many movies as I would have liked to this year. And I didn’t keep track of the older ones I watched (there were a lot of dvds from the library, netflix and hulu streaming this year).  Here is a handful of movies from this year that I really enjoyed. I will do better keeping track in 2012.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Email

Apr 25 2011

Two Minute Review: “Scream 4″

I went into this movie expecting to have fun watching it, good or bad and I am pleased to say that I really did.

Self-aware and meta to the point of self-obsession, the writing as the plot winds-up was either intentionally campy and over-the-top OR a really half-assed hack job.  It turned out to not matter all that much, especially because it was genuinely quite funny. While there were several moments during the first 45 minutes when I wondered what it was intended to be, in the second act it tightened considerably and by the time I was watching the conclusion unravel, I no longer cared.

The ending delivered nearly as much as the original Scream, which I consider a classic (albeit a relic) of the 90′s.  This fourth installment may be a cliche sequel moneygrab, but unlike nearly other franchise piece for which this is true, Scream 4 might be completely aware of that.  Intentionally or not, it managed to remix itself into a punchy, fun and effective commentary on the entertainment industry and our times.

 

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Email

Feb 26 2011

list of oscar predictions 2011

Here are my picks (if I ruled the world), my predictions (what I think will actually happen) and Ebert’s picks (just for fun comparison!)

best picture
what I would pi
ck: The Social Network or Black Swan
what will probably win: The King’s Speech
what Ebert says: The King’s Speech

direction
who I would pick: David Fincher for The Social Network
who will probably win: I really don’t know on this one.  It’s a total grab bag, but it’s likely to go to whoever won best picture.
what Ebert says: Tom Hooper for The King’s Speech
*note: I’m really sad that Nolan did not get a director’s nod for Inception. I happened to love it, but I understand why people did not love the screenplay. Regardless, he directed the fuck outta that movie.

screenplay (original)
what I would pick: The King’s Speech
what will probably win: The King’s Speech
what Ebert says: The King’s Speech

screenplay (adapted)
what I would pi
ck: The Social Network
what will probably win: The Social Network
what Ebert says: The Social Network
*note: Why the fucking fuck is Toy Story 3 in this category?  Great film, but an adapted screenplay? No. Just no.

best actress (lead role)
who I would pi
ck: Nathalie Portman.
who will probably win: Annette Bening
what Ebert says: Nathalie Portman

best actor (lead role)
who I would pick: Colin Firth
who will probably win: Colin Firth, although, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a James Franco upset!
what Ebert says: Colin Firth

best actress (supporting role)
who I would pi
ck: Hailee Steinfeld (who really should have been nominated but not won for leading role… how the fuck was her part in True Grit not a leading role? The star of that movie was not Jeff Bridges, even though he rocked it as usual!)
who will probably win: Melissa Leo
what Ebert says: Hailee Steinfeld

best actor (supporting role)
who I would pi
ck: Jeremy Renner.  He brought it in The Town. He was exceptional.
who will probably win: Christian Bale (Which I’m fine with. I’d also be happy if Geoffrey Rush won.)
what Ebert says: Geoffrey Rush

cinematography
what I would pick:
Black Swan, Inception or The Social Network (if for nothing else, that beautiful tilt-shift scene just killed me!)  If I had to pick only one, I’d go with Black Swan.
what will probably win: True Grit
what Ebert says:True Grit

So that’s the basic set of awards I care about.  The only other two I’m really, really pulling for:

best documentary: I haven’t seen any of the others. I don’t care, I want Exit Through the Gift Shop to win.  I have no idea if it will.

best music: The Social Network.  That soundtrack was epic, it added layers of brilliance to the experience of watching that film which was good to begin with.  I am terribly excited that Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor have signed on for the soundtrack to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. You can sign me up for that right now.

will you be watching tomorrow?  what would your picks be if you were an Academy voter?

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Email