And if you really want your head to explode…

50 People You Wish You Knew In Real Life.

Never.

Laughed.

Harder.

You’re welcome.

Harveyesque antics aside, the MPAA has long functioned with a sort of arbitrary ethical conviction.  At the very least, an explanation should be provided, especially for a film like ‘Bully’, which is about and for a young audience, believed to be in need of some emotional guidance.

On the flip side, I think there is way to remedy this ruling.

Parents: take your kids to see this movie.

Sign permission slips to allow your children to be bussed to screenings with their schools.  Talk to other parents and volunteer to chaperone private screenings at your neighborhood theatre.  There are ways around this.

Another offering from the boys at Waverly Films.  Check it.  Love it.  Share it.

Below, I present to you ten totally fictional, but awesomely varied, tough and sassy ladies who have earned my support over the years.  And to the writers (Aaron, your ‘ladies’ made this list TWICE.  We NEED you!!!!) who created them, I thank you.

1.  Claudia Jean ‘CJ’ Cregg, The West Wing

“The more I know, the more I can help you.  And don’t be concerned with my exposure — I’m not your daughter, I’m the White House Press Secretary.”

boom.

Serving as the face of the Bartlett Administration, CJ, initially finds herself immersed in a bit of a boys’ club, only to TOTALLY DOMINATE… and get promoted to White House Chief of Staff.  Take that, glass ceiling!  But seriously, in a job where she is required to face/accept a number of unpleasant realities, on a daily basis, this woman handles herself with the utmost grace and optimism (even when she falls down, which she does… frequently), and is never afraid to dish out a little tough love, when need be.  And oh yeah… she raps.

2.  Angela Chase, My So-Called Life

“What I, like, dread is when people who know you in completely different ways end up in the same area. You have to develop this, like, combination you on the spot.” 

Angela’s insights never stop being true.  So painfully true.  Even now.

Back in 1995, it meant so much to see a young girl be so thoughtful and observant, inquisitive about the world around her.  Now it’s important because Angela helped us learn to identify the Jordan Catalanos in the actual world.  He’s not tortured, okay.  He wrote a song about his car.

3.  Beatrix Kiddo, a.k.a. The Bride, a.k.a. Black Mamba, Kill Bill Vol. 1 & Kill Bill Vol. 2

“You and I… have unfinished business.”

The amount of suffering this woman endures– physical, mental and emotional– is enough to destroy, I mean, utterly demolish a normal human psyche.  But she’s not a superhero.  And she’s not a vigilante.  And she’s not crazy… or sane.  This is a story about choices, and this woman makes hers, without apology.

And hello!  Who wouldn’t want access to a samurai sword??

4.  Daria Morgendorffer, Daria

“Smart is not a four-letter word. That would be smar-”

For all her dryness and sardonic wit, Daria was always willing to admit that she didn’t have all the answers.  But she made it cool to be smart… and always made me laugh.

5.  Lelaina Pierce & Vickie Miner, Reality Bites

“I was really going to be something by the age of 23.” — Lelaina

“Evian… is naive spelled backwards.” — Vickie

Ah, the 90s.  For much of my adolescence, these two characters embodied the complexity of the modern young woman, and the idea that ambition can be applied to any career path and any lifestyle.

After Lelaina gets canned from a bullshit job that she’s obviously overqualified for, and then TOTALLY FAILS at finding another one, you know what she does? Girlfriend hustles, that’s what.  No tears, no panicking.  And when her artistic efforts get completely disfigured by a trashy cable network, she has enough self-awareness and integrity to be appropriately insulted and outraged.  And kudos for being one of the few fictional 20-something women who don’t aspire to work at a fashion magazine.  No offense to the fashion industry.  Most of us appreciate pretty clothes, but like… it’s not every girl’s dream, okay.

And Vickie can hang simply because of that hilarious/heartbreaking diatribe about how her life is like “some crappy show like Melrose Place” and people will come to her funeral wearing “halter tops and chokers or some shit.”

6.  Clair Huxtable, The Cosby Show

ow, ow!!!

7.  Amelia ‘Amy’ Gardner, The West Wing

“I didn’t burn by bras, J.  In fact, I like my bras.  I ring your bell when it’s important.”

Oh, snap!

Not many people can keep up with the likes of Joshua “Special J” Lyman, let alone level him WITH HER EYES.  Ivy League educated and a devoted public servant, Amy is most certainly not meek.  In fact, you get the feeling that the early years of her career were spent being sorely underestimated, allowing her to hone her ball-busting skills.  What I love about her is that she acknowledges the distinction between (as CJ once put it) women’s issues and dumb women’s issues.  Upon her first meeting with the Bartlett Administration, she calmly and charmingly asserts herself as someone who should definitely be taken seriously… complete with balloon animals.

8.  Faith Lehane, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Buffy: “Wait. Stop! Think.”
Faith: “No. No. No.”

I know there are comic book fans in this circle, so here’s some very brief backstory, if you’ve never seen the show.  Faith is a slayer who crosses over to the dark side and then reforms again.  The writers drew inspiration for her character from Elektra, of Daredevil fame.  And that picture (from the Buffy Season 8 comic) kind of says it all.

I do love Buffy (the character), but creatively, I have a soft spot for Faith.  In most stories, women are rarely permitted to make mistakes to the degree that she does and still be redeemed.  And if they are, it’s usually only in death.  Faith is driven by self-loathing, in deeds both good and evil.  It’s an important part of our humanity that is endlessly explored in men, but rarely in women, unless she’s like… sexually abused or a drug addict or a hooker or something.

9.  Maria Elena, Vicky Christina Barcelona

“Not talent.  I’m not talking about talent.  I said gen-i-ous.”

To deem her solely crazy is just unimaginative.  Rarely have I seen a female character so emotionally aware and completely undaunted by her dark side, and without the obligatory tattoos, piercings and black eyeliner.*  She’s totally unfiltered, totally unapologetic, totally punk rock!

*Nothing wrong with any of those things, but if clothes don’t make the man, they certainly don’t make the woman either.

10.  Mona Lisa Vito, My Cousin Vinny

“Oh my god, what a fuckin’ nightmare!”

I mean… how do you not love her?  That floral jumpsuit she wears while stomping her feet, fretting about her biological clock???  Amazing.

Yes, Lisa wants the big church wedding, ‘with bridesmaids and flowers’, but she’s not just chasing down a diamond ring.

She’s got her own set of skills: she’ll fix your car and style your hair, all in the same day!

She actually reads the newspaper: Jerry Gallo’s dead.

She’s resourceful: no traveler’s checks?  No worries!  She’ll hustle up some money with a friendly game of pool.  Just don’t stiff her when you lose.

But most importantly, she’s both authentic and a good girlfriend: proof that the two should never be considered mutually exclusive.

And even though it’s played for laughs, Vinny and Lisa actually have one of the most healthy relationships I’ve ever seen on screen.

Don’t see the awesome lady of your dreams on this list?  Tweet ‘em to me!  @jiunkwon

Yeah, I said it.  I didn’t want it to come to this.  Attempts were made to will this feeling away, but they were useless in the face of this monstrosity.

Ringer, the new prime-time series that puts Mrs. Gellar back on the small screen, is a blindingly shiny un-nuanced faux-noir, weighted down by soggy affect.  Yes… SOGGY.

The show revolves around twin sisters Bridget and Siobhan (both played by Gellar), who’ve been estranged for the last six years.  Bridget is a recovering addict and ex-stripper.  And the smudgy eyeliner tells us that she’s still a hot mess of a lady.  She’s also on the run from the mob after witnessing a murder.  She seems pretty calm about it though, even when she flees to see her twin sister, Siobhan.  Siobhan (pronounced: shuh-VAHN) is a Park Avenue wife, and has probably never stripped because she wears her hair in a chignon (see above photo).  The sisters seem to be repairing their broken relationship until Siobhan mysteriously disappears overboard, during a boat trip.  Bridget panics, mostly by rubbing her temples, before she decides to pose as her sister. She soon discovers Siobhan’s seemingly perfect life is full of secrets.

I wanted to love it.  But I don’t.  I cringe.

In interviews, Gellar’s been describing this show as a cross between Dynasty and Twin Peaks, which only make me think she watched some version of Twin Peaks made for people who like Twin Peaks, but wish it was awful.

She’s also been relaying how arduous it is to play twins:

“The joke is that I’m playing five characters,” Gellar explains. “I play Siobhan and Bridget present day, both women in flashback, and then ‘Shivette,’ which is when Bridget is pretending to be Siobhan.”

Yeah… It’s weird (and a touch self-congratulatory), because if you ever took Character Acting According to Sarah, you’d learn that you actually become another person, just by changing your hair.  It’s a crutch that more or less disappears after the pilot episode, leaving Gellar flailing whenever she’s forced to… you know, act; not exactly Primal Fear, you know what I’m saying.

Since her time on Buffy the Vampire Slayer  –it remains, not just her best work, but great work, by anyone’s standard— Gellar’s acting has devolved into a parade of monotone detachment.  There are still glimmers of that promise she displayed on Buffy, mostly when a scene demands some sort of heightened emotion, but she struggles with naturalism and remains painfully unconvincing when engaged in mundane tasks – like picking up a phone… or sleeping.  It is particularly problematic when your show hinges on a case of mistaken identity, a setup that lives and dies by the attention paid to its details.  Tasked with playing two sisters who are, on paper, as different as can be, Gellar does exactly nothing to distinguish their characters.  Bridget and Siobhan are really just Gellar, pretending she has range… via her hair.

This may be why the writers of Ringer have completely squandered the opportunity to capitalize on this device.  Any potential moments of authentic suspense (Will she give herself away?  Answer: No, because everyone around her is an idiot) are abandoned in favor of annoying and explain-y dialogue, which solely serves to deliver information and nothing else.  It would have been nice to learn of Siobhan’s less-than-adored status within her circle by seeing that discomfort play out on screen, rather than having someone walk up to Bridget (as Siobhan) and pronounce, “You’re in a good mood.  That’s unusual.”  Really?  Shut.  Up.

None of this matters, of course.  The show is doing fairly well, ratings-wise, which hardly gives Gellar the motivation to start behaving like a human.   But it’s a bummer for people like me.

I will defend her work on Buffy until the day I die; it was a magical perfect storm that played to all her strengths and somehow rendered her weaknesses invisible.

But Ringer does neither.

*sorry, I couldn’t embed videos for all…

10. Dunya & Desie (ThreeDoubleYou)

This film is based on a Dutch television series about two best friends from different cultures.  Its wonderfully quirky prop-based title sequence is the work of Balder Westein of ThreeDoubleYou, based in Amsterdam.  Westein’s use of objects brings the audience into the film in a way that is immediately personal and helps establish the story with intimate details, even before we’ve seen a single frame of the film.  I already want to know if they’re still friends!

9. BreadCrumbs (Satan’s Pearl Horses)

This is such a beautiful use of illustration and imagery.  The film follows a group of filmmakers through the woods who come across two mysterious Hansel-and-Gretel-type kids.  Creeeepy.

*Upon seeing the trailer, this might be one of the aforementioned overshadowing title sequences

8. Playgrounds (Oncesize)

This piece opened Holland’s Playgrounds Festival.  It’s an amazing use of photography to create really subtle and sophisticated 3D imaging.  No movie, but it makes me totally want to hang with the Dutch.

7. Ex Drummer (Koen Mortier)

Amazing mix of reverse photography and use of props.  The action in this opening sequence Belgian film gives us great insight into these characters, three friends searching for a new drummer for their local band, and portends something violent and dark in their future.  Am I right???  I must find out.

6. Earthwork (Stan Herd)

Crop-titles for a documentary about the inventor of crop art!  FTW.  Kudos for visual cohesion, and for making me want to know all about this crazy-specific vocation.  LOVE.

5. Saippuaprines (Fake Graphics)

A comedy from Finland about a soap opera writer who falls in love with the star.  The title sequence is a 3D rendering a script, with fun and vibrant effects that make the whole thing come to life.

4. 7 Miljonärer (Fake Graphics)

It’s not just cause this is a Swedish film (Go Sweden!).  This sequence is the opening for a comedy about people fighting over a huge inheritance and the use of monopoly paraphernalia is especially inspired.  Little details sprinkled throughout are made clear only after you watch the film.  So… yeah, now I want to see it.

3. Splice (Kook Ewo)

I’m including this opening sequence, even though it makes my skin itchy, because it’s super disturbing.  I actually meant to see this movie way back when it first came out because the trailer rocked my face off and Sarah Polley is fantastic.  But the title designers knocked me over again… by grossing me out.

2. Ça Se Soigne? (Deubal)

Oh, the French!  How they make such wonderful whimsical things that sing with romance and delight.  This animated title sequence is truly captivating and full of imagination.  The build-up is so organic and fluid, it just takes you for a ride… a ride filled with joy and whimsy.

1. Pocko/Magma (Captive)

This is freaking adorable.  This was created for an exhibition of customized Russian Matryoshka dolls.  “An uncompromised homage to the title sequence of Dr. No,” it’s also so cute I can’t stand it.

Enjoy!

Graphic designers, animators and other filmmaking creatives will undoubtedly be delighted by this modest documentary from Submarine Channel, which showcases the varied and endlessly creative techniques of title design. There was a time when title sequences were treated strictly as a utilitarian device, a visual delivery system to satisfy a contractual requirement.  These days, the work that goes into creating some of the most innovative title sequences rivals the film itself.  And let’s be honest; sometimes, it’s the only good thing to come out of it.  (See: almost every romcom ever made).

Watch the Titles is an intimate look at this thriving specialty and introduces us to some of the brilliant and quirky minds (almost all European… Take that, Hollywood!) behind this ever-changing industry, shining a light on a wide range of clever narrative techniques.  They include traditional methods of photography and filmmaking, fun and clever prop work, illustration and animation, balls-to-the-walls computer graphic imaging and even large-scale crop art (freaking awesome!).  The documentary portion of this 2-DVD set is a collection of interviews with 9 of the leading title designers working today, and the companion disc contains 38 visually stunning title sequences (mostly European films) to appropriately blow your mind.

The film’s website (which is frequently updated) also features a total of 163 awesome title sequences from films all over the world, including some of my personal faves (Se7en, Juno, City Slickers… and I will assume the omission of Catch Me If You Can is due to resistance from the licensing mercenaries over at DreamWorks).

As someone who frequents the movie theatre as much as I do, I make no secret of the fact that I adhere to a fairly strict policy of “Don’t Be a Jerk”.  So this little gem, courtesy of Alamo Drafthouse, had me crying tears of laughter.

From the HuffPo:

Just listen to this voicemail from a livid, obnoxiously entitled customer who left a voicemail for the Austin-based company after she was kicked out for texting during a movie.

Instead of issuing an apology, the Alamo instead turned the call into a hilarious video proving that when it comes to a moviegoing experience free from distraction, they mean business.

By now, the inter-web is familiar with the likes of one Alexandra Wallace and her (not at all) intellectually sophisticated and nuanced take on cultural diversity on the campus of UCLA.  It’s completely offensive, yes.  But… she’s an idiot, so I don’t feel a particularly urgent need to respond with anger.

But comedy?  Always!  Check this guy out!  A few things should be noted:

1) UCLA has acquired many nicknames over the years.  During my high school days, it was known as University of Caucasians Lost among Asians.

2) There were tears of laughter while viewing this.

Attention Park Slopers!… Brooklynites!… New Yorkers!… really, anyone with a working cerebrum.  There is a weasel in our midst!

He/she calls him/herself Jennifer McMillen, and gained notoriety last week after posting a mind-numbing display of I-swear-I’m-not-racist racism on petitionbuzz.com.  In it, he/she urges fellow Park Slope residents to discourage the owner of a forthcoming neighborhood establishment from spinning hip-hop in the “family-centric” community.

…First, let me explain what’s at the heart of this conflict: I know for a fact that there’s no single type of establishment (or type of bar/club patron for that matter) that Park Slopers would inherently view as “undesirable.” I don’t think anyone would deny that Park Slopers are about the least “racist” people on the planet…

It’s not “racist” to equate hip-hop with an elevated crime rate vis a vi other types of musical genres – It’s just a statistical fact that crime is more likely to occur among urban audiences than among audiences of other demographics. R&B and rap happen to be my two favorite types of music, but no one (especially my African American friends and colleagues) would seriously deny that hip-hop’s violent history tragically precedes it.

In addition, conveniently(!), we also happen to be in the middle of an unprecedented drought of live music. Seventh Ave has ZERO venues for live music by indie artists, and is absolutely ripe for the right type of establishment to come along and breathe life into the live music scene. The business owner who is able to do THAT will reap financial rewards far beyond what they could hope to earn by selling Henessey/etc to basketball fans after a Nets game.

The whole thing is pretty gross.  First of all, there are like 11 false statements in this excerpt alone.  Also, why is racist in quotations?  Moron.

Needless to say, the internet is all a flutter!  Some are speculating whether McMillen is merely a humorless prankster, or a spineless interloper.  But most of the coverage is focused on the appropriate backlash that has erupted from the community, which has transpired in the form of some hilarious fake signatures being submitted to McMillan’s petition.

A sampling, for your reading pleasure:

“I love your hair, can I touch it?” – Separate but Indie

Birth of An (Indie) Nation

I love black people.  Just not “that kind”.

I paid too much for my house to see you people having fun.

Passive aggressive racism is my favorite kind of racism.

There are tons more to read through.  It’s awesome.  Also, the parody train is full steam ahead.

It’s not unlikely that the whole thing is a big hoax.

But if these words are, in fact, the ramblings of a misguided idiot who believes him/herself to hold the best of intentions, let their clumsiness be a lesson to us all when attempting any sort of civic involvement:

Sanctimony is a big, fat no-no.

Ballet is a monster.  Or so suggests Darren Aronofsy by way of his latest film.

Two years after resurrecting the career of Mickey Rourke and moving audiences (meaning me) to tears with The Wrestler (2008), the director has put his stamp on the year 2010 with Black Swan, a nightmarish exploration that reunites the filmmaker with the surrealism so distinctive in his previous works.  This go around, he trades wrestling for ballet, and in place of Mickey’s weary gaze and weathered face is the graceful, fluttering visage of Natalie Portman.

Portman plays Nina, a dancer at a New York City ballet company, striving to be noticed by her domineering and egomaniacal director, Thomas… or rather, toh-MA (Vincent Cassel).  Soon, through a somewhat creepy set of circumstances, Nina is cast as the lead in the company’s revival of Swan Lake, just as a new dancer, Lily (Mila Kunis), arrives at the company to shake things up.

The role of the Swan Queen is actually two different characters in one: the enchanting white swan who wins the love of a young prince, and the alluring black swan who eventually, through a case of mistaken identity, seduces the prince away, leading to the white swan’s demise.  The latter is a role less dependent on precision, relying more heavily on physical sensuality and a sexual freedom that Nina, a meticulous technician with a manically pathological work ethic, has great difficulty accessing.  She is reminded of this constantly by Thomas, who harshly points out her inadequacies during rehearsals and earns major creep-meister points by morphing into a kind of sexual puppet master.  Nina is momentarily comforted by a burgeoning friendship with Lily, a weaker but strikingly more charismatic dancer, who tries to shake Nina loose of her own self-control.

But Nina isn’t chasing freedom.  Her true pursuit… is perfection.

Swan is largely a story of the artist’s toxic obsession with this impossible goal, and the destruction it causes when expectations and dreams blur into madness.  The more she pushes herself, the more she starts to flail… and starts careening toward Crazytown.  What unfolds is a Kafkaesque tale of creative delusion, complete with wild paranoia, self-mutilation and one drug-fueled lesbian encounter (I spoiled nothing.  Watch the trailer).

It is an impressive visual accomplishment; both awesome and gruesome.  Aronofsky is a master of creating beauty out of ugliness, a perfect fit for his chosen subject, which comes wrapped in its own mystique.  Ballet is a form that demands supreme physical control with the look of floating on air.  Dancers appear to soar on stage because in the time between performances, they are running their bodies into the ground.  Those lovely pointe shoes wrapped around their feet that give length to the body lines also conceal a mess of blisters and bloodied sores.  Every lift is another bruise, every twist is another morning of back pain.  And off-stage is no different.  What appears so pristine and elegant on the service is actually a labyrinth of politicking and fierce competition… and at times, sabotage.  But ballet’s appeal has always been in its refinement  -its poise- which seems to draw in its more blue-blooded audience, who likely gives little thought to the drama that plays out long after the curtain goes down.

Aronofsky constructs this world with great care, and his work in Swan is unquestionably gorgeous.  But the film is wrapped in a fog of coldness that, intentional or not, keeps his audience at a distance.  I have noticed the word “visceral” getting thrown around quite a bit in other reviews.  But that’s pretty much the only time I’ll use it.  There is certainly intrigue and tension; a mental unrest that develops from watching Nina come unhinged.  But the experience isn’t so much “visceral” (I lied) as it is a psychosomatic reflex; the arthouse equivalent of covering your eyes during the scary parts.  While we are engaged and interested in Nina’s torment, we never give much thought to her humanity, partly because we never really see it.  The ballet, as it turns out, isn’t merely a backdrop or an expression of the human story underneath — it is the entire story; a parable of what can result when our artistic pursuits turn cold and maniacal, when the psyche gets swallowed up… and the artist prevails over the self.

Though Swan may suffer from the weight of its own psychosis, it does contain some stellar acting.  Portman delivers one of her most adult performances to date.  She infuses Nina with an almost inconsolable fearfulness that only heightens her mental instability.  Mila, as Lily, is appropriately saucy, and her spunk provides a distinctive, but in-no-way-cartoonish contrast to Portman’s mental frailty (Mila, you’re adorbs and you give wonderfully sassy interviews).  Vincent has made a career of playing arrogant, somewhat smarmy men, which would be a problem if he were bad at it, which… not at all.  And Barbara Hershey is a glorious ball of nervous obsession as Nina’s controlling stage mother.

Black Swan is certainly a worthy accomplishment, inarguably one of the most original visual works I have seen in some years and engrossing from start to finish.  But its aura is one of detachment… distance.  As someone who holds every viewing experience as an opportunity for empathy, I left this one feeling patently unsatisfied.

It’s that time of year again!

Hello, friends.  My posting schedule has been embarrassingly anemic, as of late, but in the spirit of the season… Award Season… I will be extending my very best efforts to assist you all through this very overwhelming, and at times confusing period in our lives.

And we begin with the recently announced Golden Globe nominations.  Best Picture Drama offers up one of the most robust and balanced list of nominees that I’ve seen in quite some time, though I haven’t yet seen The Fighter or The King’s Speech (reviews to come).  But the other three films (Black Swan, Inception, The Social Network) are all entirely solid works and deserving in their own way… although I did only see one of them multiple times (Hello Mr. Sorkin, you’re a gem.  That is all).

Best Picture Musical or Comedy is also a varied list, but the variety seems to unsuccessfully mask the this-is-all-we-have-to-work-with awkwardness of reading these titles in the same breath.  The Kids Are All Right totally makes sense, it’s fantastic.  And one could make a case for Alice In Wonderland’s weird Burton-esque appeal (though my first thought was, “That was this year?”) and the fact that Johnny Depp makes anything seem arty and cool, because he’s arty and cool, but was the movie really anything?  Similarly, the Depp-Jolie pairing in The Tourist seems to be appealing to the Press Association’s love of movie stars.  And hot damn, those are some good looking movie stars.  Red sort of sticks out as a notable eyebrow-raiser.  Interesting concept, not horribly executed.  But is it really a contender for a Best Of anything?  Best use of a machine gun by Helen Mirren, perhaps, but as a movie… suspect.

NOT as suspect, however, as the last film to round out that list:  Burlesque.  Now, look.  I love watching dancing on film.  I love throwback wardrobes and retro-inspired art direction.  And, as some of you already know, I am a longtime supporter of Ms. Aguilera.  I had fun watching this movie and there are some sparse moments that are amusing and kind of delightful.

But let’s cut the shit.  This is absurd.  A series of dance routines, thoughtlessly stitched together with a mess of bosoms and swinging hair and a couple scenes of Stanley Tucci getting his snide on does not make a movie.  It’s just irresponsible.  It also garnered some nominations for Best Original Song… but that’s totally acceptable (she still sounds amazing).

Anyway, for the moment, my money’s on the dynamic duo of The Finch (David) and Sorkin.  It’s the kind of creative pairing that makes film and theatre geeks go ape-shit and luckily, in this case, the result was pure magic.

It was nice to see The Walking Dead on the list for Best Television Drama.  I don’t know if I’d say it’s absolutely the best thing on TV, but I love the way it looks and kudos to the production for excellent sound design and the stylistically sparse music score (bold move… that totally works!).

Other things of note in the television categories:

Congratulations, Mr. Caan.  I’m a longtime fan and you’ve always been aces in my book!

All five of the actors nominated for Best Performance in a Mini-Series are fantastic.  I’m glad my vote doesn’t count for real, I’d stall the whole damn thing.

Um… Jennifer. Love. Hewitt.  WTF is going on???

Okay, I’m out.

Click here for a full list of nominees and leave a comment if you want to get your debate on.

Oh, God <wipes tears from eyes>… still funny.  Sigh.

Over the past few years, Louis C.K. has artfully positioned himself as one of the most provocative and fearless comedians working today.  His current series, “Louie”, which airs on FX, is that rare perfect cocktail of pathos, humor and humanity, mixing narrative and stand-up in a way that really showcases his unique comedic sensibility.  He has been one of my favorites for years and it’s pretty awesome to see him get both, the recognition he deserves, and (more importantly) sharper and funnier with each new project.  So here are 10 of my favorite Louis moments.  Enjoy!


10.  Louis and People

Louis hates with amazing prose.  I struggle to think of another comedian who describes his/her rage with the same level of detail, and with such accuracy.  The idea of needing your “whole body” to hate another human being… recreationally.  I mean… it’s just. fucking.  incredible.

9.  Louis and his divorce

Warning:  If heartstrings are found to be on or around your person, they will be violently severed by the all-consuming laughter that will inevitably overtake you.  Please be advised: this may be painful… if you’re a douche.

8.  Louis and People… Part 2

See.

7.  Louis and Gender Roles

“It’s all she had…”

6.  Louis and his kids

Louis C.K. talking about his kids is some of the greatest comedy gold I have ever had the pleasure of hearing.  He is, in essence, expounding on the joys of parenting, but in a most un-precious fashion, offering empathy to those who can relate and a reality check to those who complain about stupid shit.   The clip above happens to be from an earlier HBO Special from 2005, but he revisits the topic often, tossing out choice words like “fucking asshole”.

5.  Louis and his kids… Part 2

I love this… so much.


4.  Louis and his weight

This shit had me CRYing, I was laughing so hard.  ”Fat asshole” is a phrase Louis likes to throw around when he talks about himself, and his description of arguably one of the most disgusting items to ever appear in an American food court is freaking priceless.


3.  Louis and Race

Perhaps it was a sign of things to come.

Thank you, Louis.  Thank you.


2.  Louis reacts to 2 Girls, 1 Cup on Opie & Anthony

Every moment of this is both excruciating and hilarious.  If you’re reading this before seeing the clip, the guy in the freeze frame actually starts to DRY HEAVE while sitting in the studio.  Granted, this is not Louis doing a bit, but somehow, as disgusted as he clearly is, he still manages to be funny… even as he storms out of the studio.  Let his reaction also serve as a warning to anyone out there curious enough to search for that notorious piece of depravity:  You can’t un-watch it.

* there are numerous audio clips on YouTube of Louis on Opie & Anthony.  They are all amazing.


1.  Louis and Technology

This will remain one of my favorite moments of all time.  Not just for television, or comedy… but EVER.  This bit gets stretched to a healthy and riotous 40 or so minutes in his most recent special, “Hilarious” and I encourage everyone who hasn’t yet watched it to go add it to your Netflix queue.  Now.

Coda:  A taste of “Louie”.  You’re welcome.

“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”  — Kanye West, September 2, 2005

Last week, Kanye West appeared on the Today Show to respond to former President Bush’s reaction to this statement, which Bush emotionally described as “one of the most disgusting moments” of his presidency.   Much of the media response to the interview seems to be painting it as yet another Kanye meltdown.

But I don’t.  I think it was a Matt Lauer Fail.

Today Show anchor, Matt Lauer, is not a stupid man.  As a morning show host, he is adequately personable and widely described by many as “affable.”  Kanye West, has never (to my knowledge) been described as such.  He is a man gifted with tremendous musical ability, along with a temperamental ego and a stunted emotional maturity.  There are times when he seems entitled and petulant, like a toddler demanding more attention.

But after seeing that interview, I can’t fault him for his reaction, and am far more compelled to give the man his due respect for refusing to play the PR game.  The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was a deeply troubling thing the see.  Among many things, it highlighted the harsh realties that have formed as a result of the systemic racial prejudice in this country, that still remain unaddressed.   It was sobering for all of us to see those inequities materialize with such devastating consequences, in a country so widely celebrated as “the land of plenty”.  And what was, in broad strokes, a utilitarian debacle was seen by many people as a profound humanitarian failure. West’s declaration on the night of that telethon 5 years ago was an emotional outcry derived from a feeling of despair and frustration in response to this failure.  And it’s important to remember that a lot of people rallied behind him at the time, perhaps more than those who claimed to be horrified by it.

“I would tell George Bush in my moment of frustration I didn’t have the grounds to call him a racist.” — Kanye West, Today Show Interview 2010

Maybe not.  But also… I’m not entirely sure that’s what he did.  As president, Bush was not just the man, but the office.  This has to be considered.  The well-being of a society demands that its democratic institutions demonstrate agility in times of crisis.  Much of the support for Kanye at the time stemmed from a collective feeling of abandonment, at many levels.  But saying Bush ‘doesn’t care’ about black people is not the same as saying ‘George Bush hates black people’.  It might seem negligible, but that distinction matters.

I don’t fault President Bush for feeling offended by the statement or taking it personally.  But I definitely fault the way the media has chosen to reexamine it.  Katrina was not a crime of hatred.  But it was a crime of neglect and inaction that displaced over a million people across the United States.  Isn’t that a more appropriate presidential low-point than the comment that this fact buoyed into the public consciousness?  Frankly, to revisit this moment and turn it into a discussion about how Kanye made President Bush feel is fucking offensive.

Which brings me to Matt Lauer… who may be likable, but remains an extremely poor and infuriating interviewer.  His line of questioning often reads as thinly veiled insults or just incredibly patronizing and melodramatic, creating a general state of awkwardness that I find exceedingly irritating.  I literally cringed when Lauer instructed West to just “look at his face.”  Why don’t you look at MY face, Matt, you sanctimonious— ahem.  Sorry.

Television is a strange and bizarre world that demands a certain amount of artifice.  It’s fast and chaotic, which usually leads to people behaving in ways they normally wouldn’t.  But there are times, even in today’s 24-hour media shit-show, when the only reasonable thing, the only decent thing, is to drop the act and just be a person.  Having Kanye come on the show, willing and ready to respond and reflect on one of the few moments his lack of restraint actually made sense, was a rare opportunity… for discussion.  NOT TO AMBUSH HIM WITH B-ROLL.  It may not have been “improper”, but it was totally bush-league (no pun intended).  You know it, I know it.  Matt knows it.

I’ve been critical of Kanye in the past.  I find him wildly talented, but also socially unruly.  I wasn’t a fan of his behavior in that MTV/Taylor Swift incident, not because I thought it was the unforgivable mistake that other people labeled it, but because it was discourteous and completely unnecessary.  Kanye has an impulse control problem, yes.  But he’s not a monster.  And his effort was beyond apparent during that interview.  He really tried; to be humble, truthful and empathetic, instead of just seeming it.  Unlike his interviewer.

This shit is hilarious –brought to my attention via our very own Hawkes Klein.  And it’s compelling me to make a list of funniest and least likely films to be featured in a film studies course.  Suggestions???

Source: www.lamebook.com

Do I even need to intro this film?  Johnny Knoxville et. al unleash their antics again — this time, with a new fancy super camera that puts you right in the middle of all the grossness.  And I believe the image below says it all:

Kwon: I have to say… Everything about these guys tells me I should HATE them.  But I don’t.  They make me laugh… HARD.  Why is that?

Juan: I mean – Holy Jesus maybe it’s because these guys are geniuses. They are essentially Picasso except instead of paint their tools are vomiting, shitting, stunts, and random pranks.

Kwon: It’s pretty remarkable.  Also remarkable… the opening sequence is one of the most brilliant uses of 3D EVER.  Had me on the floor.

Juan: Yeah, you and I were jumping out of our seats

Kwon: Through the WHOLE MOVIE.

Juan: Unbelievably it took Jackass 3D to make me a believer in 3D (fuck you Avatar).

Kwon: A. men.  They’re the only ones allowed to use 3D now.  I’ve decided.

Juan: Done – I’m calling the MPAA tomorrow… is that who decides?

Kwon: I think they just rate the movies…

Juan: Anyways.

I honestly think these guys are really talented, and if there were an award for their brand of filmmaking I think they should win it. It comes down to keeping randomness interesting for a couple of hours. The narrative really is about a bunch of friends who are scared to death of making yet another movie, and yet still really want to make another hit movie… because who doesn’t?

Kwon: Yes!  Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, there is something noble about putting your body through so much abuse for the sake of capturing a moment.  And they get many more than one out of this movie.  It’s almost sublime.  They’re sort of like action stars a la Jackie Chan… only they’re not avoiding injury… they seek it out.

Juan: Somehow they’re really good stuntmen too though because while they get hurt they don’t die or even break a bone. Which is really something because there is some really dumb shit in this volume, and a lot of nut busting. I mean if a kid at Blizzcon can break their leg from jumping up and down it’s a downright miracle these guys got off with bruises.

Kwon: Truth, JC.  Truth.  I think Johnny must share some DNA with Wolverine.  I mean at one point he frickin’ LANDS ON HIS NECK.  No injuries.  Though he does get bitten on the ass by a dog.. one of the few moments that involves blood.

I think my favorite moments are the few times we get to see that the guys are actually really scared to do these stunts.

Steve-O: [about to get hit between the legs] I’m Steve-O, and… oh god, why do I have to be Steve-O?

They’re such endearingly honest, humorous moments of anxiety.  I’m crying out my eye, laughing, even as I squirm.

Juan: Like when Chris Pontius puts a viking helmet on his chin, draws on eyes and a nose, and goes head to head with a scorpion. We all know his chin doesn’t stand a chance, and just after he gets stung for the fifth time he jumps up angrily.

“Okay! That’s it! I want this to stop”

“Dude, it was your idea – you were totally into it”

“Yeah, well now I’m done”

“Dude are you mad?”  *

*[that's not verbatim from the film just what I remember]

Kwon: HAHA.  I think they do ask him if he’s mad…and he kinda IS.  But he’s also momentarily embarrassed that he’s mad.  It’s such a charged/hilarious moment.  Or when Steve-o is getting strapped in to do the final (indescribably disgusting) stunt:

Johnny: “You ready, Steve-o?”

Steve-O: [silence… then]  “No.”

I DIE.

Part of me thinks, “these guys REALLY love their fans.”

Juan: Yes. They love their fans, and they want them to be entertained, and they want to achieve more themselves. Living products of the American Dream(tm).

CAST OF CHARACTERS:

Clockwise from top left: Bam Margera, Preston Lacy, Chris Pontius, Ehrren McGhehey, Weeman, Dave England, Steve-O, Ryan Dunn; Center: Johnny Knoxville

Juan: I think Johnny Knoxville is an incredibly charismatic insane person, and one who is almost venerated in that group of friends. At the beginning or end of a scene I feel they will look to him to make sure everything got to the appropriate level of insanity.  He’s not that into gross humor as much as he enjoys doing really stupid daredevil sort of stuff.  It’s almost like Evil Kinevil style with Johnny except with a sort of hilarious twist, and some great art direction.

Kwon: Totally.  Johnny’s got a little bit of that old vaudevillian showman in him.  He could have his own talk show, if he wasn’t such an insurance liability.

Juan: Steve-O: Knox’s #2.  This guy loves gross. He seems to be obsessed with it. He loves puking, shitting, drinking weird things, and doing things that go above and beyond the call of duty.  For example he drinks a cup of Preston (Fat man) sweat.

Kwon: Dude, that was gross.

Juan: Just remembering it makes me queezy.  And what is that camera operators name?  Because he was totally a character in this film, and he looked sooo good.

Kwon: I don’t know, but he throws up a lot.

Juan: Some weird visor over his face and long curly hair – i couldn’t place where he could have come from. Maybe a dead head?

Weeman and Preston always end up doing a fat man and small man thing. Although one of the best moments was the dwarf scene where two dwarf guys lay into each other over a girl. Then some dwarf cops come in to break up the fight, and finally some dwarf paramedics come in to take away the people who are hurt.  Genius scene.

Kwon: It was like being in a Fellini movie.

Juan: YES.  Jackass = Fellini absurdism

Kwon: OMG.  We SOLVED the puzzle.

Juan: All of their favorite movie of all time is Satyricon

Kwon: Of course it is.

I love how emotional Bam gets.  He’s the big ball of feelings.  Usually rage, but still.  The guys play a major prank, preying on one of his intense phobias, and he goes absolutely berSERK.  It’s sad and riotous at the same time.

Juan: Seriously, this guy is that person who gets shit on by everyone in the group, and everyone loves him for being sort of who he is.  I feel like, and have no real reason for this, that he tells tall tales about his life and times.

Kwon: haha.  He weaves deceit!  Also, it’s hilariously appropriate that the premiere of this film was at the MOMA.

Juan: Haha, really? AMAZING. These guys.

The others sort of get jumbled up in my mind in terms of their prank/daredevil style.  Except for Ryan Dunn who I think is the stand out in this installment.  He really gets in on a lot of the pranks. It’s pretty impressive.  Dave England does something crazy with bees this time around.

Kwon: Ugh.  Bees are totally awful.  I learned that from watching Candyman.

Juan: Finally, let’s just relive the introduction again. Each of them comes out wearing something in the color of the part of a large rainbow they are inhabiting. Then each one gets something amazing done to them in super slow motion, and eye-popping 3D enhances it completely.

Kwon: These guys are fantastic.  The slow motion is perfection.  I think we immediately looked at each other with the same wide-eyed expression.. like, “YES.”  Movie win, Johnny.   Movie.  Win.

Juan: What would you say was the ultimate 3D moment?  There was something that you and I both went “wow” too. It was like we could reach out and touch it.  Was it the dildo?  No, it was something else.

Kwon: I think it was a chicken… though there ARE many dildos.

VERDICT:

Kwon: Verdict:  If you’re a fan, there’s no way you won’t enjoy it.  These guys are out-of-their-minds hilarious, committing to wild acts of stupidity that are, among other things, incredibly brave.  Go.  Holler.  Squirm.  Laugh.

Juan: Yup. Absolute Scale: 10  You get exactly what you came for and it makes 3D filmmaking more than just a passing fad.

Team K&J, being entirely impressive and possessing mind-boggling endurance (or just being big time movie geeks), went for a two-fer this past weekend, taking in the Davis Guggenheim-helmed Waiting For Superman, a documentary that tackles our broken education system… and the Johnny Knoxville-led injury-filled romp, Jackass: 3D.  Enjoy our chat-like reviews in two parts!

Kwon: So we double-featured our faces off this week.

Juan: We did and it was good.  I found out you hate popcorn eaters and I am a popcorn eater. Thank goodness I ate before hand.

Kwon: I DID, however, consume the most unnecessarily large container of french fries out of desperate hunger, so I would have made an exception for you.

Let’s begin with…

PLOT:

Filmmaker Davis Guggenheim reminds us that education “statistics” have names: Anthony, Francisco, Bianca, Daisy, and Emily, whose stories make up the engrossing foundation of WAITING FOR SUPERMAN. As he follows a handful of promising kids through a system that inhibits, rather than encourages, academic growth, Guggenheim undertakes an exhaustive review of public education, surveying “drop-out factories” and “academic sinkholes,” methodically dissecting the system and its seemingly intractable problems.  [Sundance Film Festival]

Juan: The story is a character driven tale of a few students moving through our education system with running commentary from some of the great educators and entrepreneurs working today.

Kwon: Wow, this film ripped my heart out.  There are so many revelatory aspects to this issue and there’s SO MUCH people don’t know about the process.  Public education is legitimately terrifying.  What did you think?

Juan: I completely agree. I was totally engrossed in the lives of these kids who are living our broken education system. It was at once hopeful, terrifying, and incredibly endearing. While the film had some story problems, glossed over a few major issues, and used the old 1960′s movie clip to tie everything together crutch; it was also completely relevant, a true indictment of education, and has brought a great amount of awareness to the major issue.

Kwon: Yes.  Essay-based documentaries have become the standard in the age of Michael Moore.  But I really appreciate that this film was much more focused on the people and less on ‘creating’ the narrative.  Their stories really speak for themselves.

Juan: Actually that’s a great note I’ve been hearing a lot from documentary film lovers. We’re forcing stories into documentaries to make them more entertaining, and we’re losing focus on the reason we’re making them. Case in point: the amazing Oscar winner last year “the Cove” that resembles a heist movie to perfection. Which is not to say the right movie doesn’t deserve both, but you’re totally right. We’re not force feeding anyone here, and to that end it serves the the film’s motive. Hats off, Jiun, hats off.

‘CHARACTERS’ OF NOTE:

Geoffrey Canada (born January 13, 1952) is a American social activist and educator. Since 1990, Canada has been president and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone in Harlem, New York, an organization whose goal is to increase high school and college graduation rates among students in Harlem.

Michelle A. Rhee (born December 25, 1969) is the chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools system of Washington, D.C. in the United States.

Randi Weingarten (born December 18, 1957)[1] is an American labor leader, attorney, and educator, is the current president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a member of the AFL-CIO, and former president the United Federation of Teachers. New York magazine called her one of the most influential people in education in New York state.

William Henry “Bill” Gates III  is an American business magnate, philanthropist, author and chairman[3] of Microsoft, the software company he founded with Paul Allen.

Kwon: So Randi does not come off well, and by extension, neither does the teachers’ union, which is shown to provide endless and excessive cover for inadequate, uninspiring teachers who have exactly zero interest in shaping minds or even earning their money.  That section in the film is accompanied by some horrifying hidden camera footage of teachers kicking back at their desks while students PLAY CRAPS IN CLASS.  It’s pretty unconscionable.   We can’t really speak to intentions, but if the film is any indication, the function of the union has little to do with serving the greater good… or any kind of good at all.

Geoffrey is presented as a teacher for the new age, a progressive educator with energy and gusto.  The kind of teacher you normally only see in movies.  The one thing that struck me was his admission that it takes every teacher a few years just to be decent.  It took him 5 years to become good.  Lesson:  Teaching is an actual job.

Juan: Michelle Rhee in my eyes is a real show stealer because she is such a controversial figure in the world of education. She made a decision to go against teacher’s unions, and is pitted against Randi in many respects in an attempt to break some of the oldest tenets held by teachers. More specifically, tenure.

Kwon: I agree.  That’s a terrifying job, that I would never want.  And I really get the sense that she’s trying to do the right thing, which in this case, is most definitely not the popular thing.

Juan: Finally, Bill Gates is essentially in the picture to give a broad view of what happens to students in the job market when the system has failed them. He does a great job of discussing the largest issue facing America today, and that is loss of jobs to better educated work forces overseas.

Kwon: Yeah, Bill’s the man.

Juan: The movie was directed by a pretty great director, who made watching a slideshow into a feature film (An Inconvenient Truth), which was pretty impressive and incredibly entertaining.

Kwon: Fact.  Yes.

Juan: The introduction to the film is absolutely gorgeous.  Well shot and thorough.  It’s strange because while it has more of a narrative I didn’t feel like I really got to know any of the children that well. They were archetypal in man respects, and I think I liked it that way.  It made more of an overarching statement about all kids.

Kwon: I agree.  They are merely a handful of examples, representing a much bigger collective in America.  And one of the things I found myself doing is figuring out which situation best represented my high school.  I think my school was most like Emily, the girl in the suburbs whose public high school gets wonderful marks… but really only if you’re tracked at a certain level.  I was fortunate enough to benefit from this tracking system… but I would imagine my life would be notably different, had I been placed in a lower tier.

Juan: I had a public school upbringing too.  I hit up the magnet school in poorer locations though.  I lived in Washington DC which was in one of the better areas for education.

I am a little torn because I think this film sort of tows the party line. As in Obama’s party line about charter schools being the miracle solver. That’s not to say they aren’t great. It just seems like as a populace we tend to embrace one solution, and then run after it haphazardly. It’s part of what I feel makes it so hard to evoke real change in our country because we’re always after these ‘cure-alls.’  While I understand that the concept is teachers are the problem. I was really affected by the examples that were being touted.

Kwon: Yeah.  One thing I foresee is people walking away with that misguided blanket assumption.  The real issue is that we need better teachers, qualified teachers, and we need to PAY them.

Juan: I think the idea of awarding good teachers more money is a good idea.  Making sure that a good teacher continues to be good is also something important to keep in mind.  Tenure is a scary crutch that I didn’t realize was controlled by a teacher’s association.

Kwon: What really blows my mind about the curse of tenure is the way the school systems are forced to deal with “underperforming” teachers.. namely, the lemon dance.

Juan: Yes! please explain.

Kwon: Every year, schools trade off their bad teachers to each other, in the hopes that somehow those teachers will be less awful in a new environment.  Teachers that ‘dance’ out of this ridiculous process end up in some sort of holding pen, where they are PAID to sit in a room and do crossword puzzles while the system tries to figure out what to do with them.  They are paid to be shitty employees.  It’s the definition of lunacy.  In what other profession would this be okay?

Juan: I just can’t believe that every county has this same policy.  And wasn’t it sort of insane that the head of the teacher’s association (Randi) resembled the devil?

Kwon: Seriously, she makes them all look insane.

Juan: I mean what age are we living in that the person at the head of a teacher’s association takes the pulpit like she’s a reverend bestowing the holy eucharist.  Do you have any idea what the education world thinks of this movie?  Have they taken this lady out of power yet?  Is she in the middle of a lemon dance to middle management or the clergy?

Kwon: OMG, she’s totally lemon-dancing!

Juan: Note, a comment from Rick Ayers at University of San Francisco:

“The film dismisses with a side comment the inconvenient truth that our schools are criminally underfunded. Money’s not the answer, it glibly declares. Nor does it suggest that students would have better outcomes if their communities had jobs, health care, decent housing, and a living wage. Particularly dishonest is the fact that Guggenheim never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private money that has poured into the Harlem Children’s Zone, the model and superman we are relentlessly instructed to aspire to.”

In Ayers’ view, the “corporate powerhouses and the ideological opponents of all things public” have employed the film to “break the teacher’s unions and to privatize education”, while driving teachers wages even lower and running “schools like little corporations.”[22] Ayers also critiqued the film’s promotion of a greater focus on “top-down instruction driven by test scores”, positing that extensive research has demonstrated that standardized testing “dumbs down the curriculum” and “reproduces inequities”, while marginalizing “English language learners and those who do not grow up speaking a middle class vernacular.

Kwon: I get that schools are underfunded, but it is also true that there are bad teachers who refuse to teach and they are still employed.  And the film doesn’t delve as deeply into certain specifics, but what I take away from it is that it’s clearly not working the way it is now.

Juan: Sure – I mean in a feature there really isn’t too much time to do much on giant subjects other than gloss over the major speed bumps and impediments that are making it harder to get to what we want.

Kwon: I was speaking to a friend of mine who has actually just opened a charter school in the city and we were discussing statistics.  The achievement gap between a child from a low income neighborhood and a child from an affluent community is so wide, it’s unbelievable.  And apparently, by the age of 3, a child from a family of means knows 30 MILLION more words than a child from a low-income household.

Juan: 30 Million?

Kwon: Isn’t that insane?

Juan: It’s sad and scary to think that we create these structured environments where it’s nearly inevitable for people to be stuck in the place they are in.  Worse still is that we don’t live in a time where we can deal with it.  The stats about job placement going overseas and most countries being much smarter than ours was unbelievable.  We literally aren’t creating a work force for our industries, and so they have to recruit overseas.

Kwon: But we still rank #1 in confidence…

Juan: Yes – we’re #1 – an amazing short lived segment. I’m waiting for the 3 1/2 hour version of this film.  Seriously there better be some massive scene extensions.

Kwon: There HAS to be.  I can’t imagine Guggenheim hearing that and NOT responding with a forceful “WTF?”

Juan: I think what the film did an insanely good job of was showing how aware the children were of the stakes.  They saw their parents afraid for their lives, and knew that something horrible would happen to them if they didn’t magically get picked.  For everything that this film didn’t do I have to give it major high fives for their depiction of the silly system in place for choosing kids to get into “good” schools.  Random selection is such an arbitrary mechanism to decide on the fate of children.  And the most important lesson is that if everyone is terrified of their public school that must really say something about what we’re doing to the kids there

Kwon: Yes.  You celebrate for the kids that get into these alternative schools.  But the ones that don’t… ugh, hello waterfall tears.  It’s just so incredibly wrong.  It’s tragic that a little boy at 10 can have the existential awareness of his circumstance and know that he wants something “better for his kids”, but is left to rely on the luck of a lottery draw.  Like… he’s TEN.

Juan: It’s almost like you could cut directly to a slaughterhouse because of the way the parents and children seem to view it.  And who is to tell them they are wrong. If they live in a district where the feeder school is bad then generally speaking you’re probably not going to get the best education in the world.  And quite possibly not really have a chance at life.  That’s something that’s even scarier. That we force children who are being underserved through the system because we cannot accept their failure. Then on the other side of a bad high school they have a degree, and aren’t even eligible for a 4 year college.

Kwon: Yes, they get pushed through (or age out) without actually learning anything.

VERDICT:

Kwon: Personally, I think this is a film everyone should see; for all the usual reasons you recommend a film (superbly made), but also because it’s just that important.

Juan: Agreed. You will be tempted by popcorn flicks of all kinds Friday through Sunday, and maybe you don’t want to eat a real juicy steak in the middle of a movie, but remember that it’s better for you and is more filling.

Kwon: Nice analogy.  You CAN finish with dessert though… which we did.  By watching Jackass 3D… [stay tuned]

It is widely being referred to as “The Facebook Movie”.  But The Social Network, a vibrant film that tracks the website’s rise to ubiquity, and brought to us via the serendipitous pairing of Fincher and writer/demi-god* Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing), is about so much more.  It’s about the link between ambition and desperation.. for wealth, power, fame, adoration, status, independence and acceptance; things that are entirely too easy to want while impossibly hard to define.

*[I was lucky enough (thanks again, Kenda!) to catch a screening of the film at The New Yorker Festival on Friday, where Sorkin was in attendance, along with Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake.  I believe it is the only festival in the world where Sorkin has groupies, and Timberlake does not.]

The success of Facebook, and the fact that its creator (and the subject of the film), Mark Zuckerberg, is at present the youngest billionaire in history, is both a timely and fascinating lens through which to tell this story.  The networking website is the most trafficked digital paradox on the internet, bringing millions –500 million, according to the film’s tagline– together into one virtual space, and as a result, drawing each of them further and further away from one another within the actual space they share.

Zuckerberg’s entrepreneurial rise, as (brilliantly) written by Sorkin, embodies this paradox completely, beginning with the film’s opening scene, a curious back and forth between Zuckerberg (a wonderfully layered and minimalist Eisenberg) and his then girlfriend, Erica (Rooney Mara) that soon implodes into a painfully neurotic self-desctruction, leaving the future billionaire heartbroken and rife with youthful vengeance.  He does what most rejected young men do.  He gets drunk and calls her a bitch… only he does it online.  And then he expands his vitriol by objectifying nearly every woman in his proximity, creating a Harvard-style ‘hot or not’ platform, which he dubs Facemash.  The site is forwarded to the whole school and promptly crashes the university’s server.

Zuckerberg is reprimanded, but is far less concerned with his punishment as he is piqued that the disciplinary board fails to acknowledge his coding prowess.  I mean, he just hacked into Harvard, for crying out loud!

But the stunt makes it to the pages of The Crimson and catches the attention of three fellow students who approach Zuckerberg and ask for his help programming a social networking website for the students of Harvard, which they call HarvardConnection.

Zuckerberg, as we now know, has other plans.

And we quickly learn, it doesn’t end well.  The film flashes back from two separate deposition meetings that take place long after the initial launch of the website, with Zuckerberg being sued both by his former business parter, Eduardo Saverin (a wonderful Andrew Garfield) and the three Harvard students, Divya Narendra (Max Minghella), and the Winklevoss twins (Armie Hammer: awesome!) who are now claiming intellectual property theft.  Though sparse on movement, it is within these scenes, which are stylishly and elegantly intercut between the chronological action, where we glimpse a small amount of the tragedy –The demise of his friendship with Eduardo is actually the real heartbreak in the film– that stands ready to engulf Mark and his blind ambition, which interestingly enough, has little to do with the one thing everyone wants from him: money.

Mark isn’t necessarily a bad guy.  He simply wants to matter.  He’s an emotionally wounded computer nerd, who just happens to be the smartest kid in the room.  His brilliance is the only thing hinging him to the possibility of being exceptional, and by extension, his invention gives him the power to subvert the fate foretold on the night his girlfriend stomped all over his heart: that people won’t judge him for being a nerd, but they’ll hate him for being an asshole.  Mark seems driven by the notion that if his creation is ‘cool’ enough, no one will care if he’s an asshole.  No one will care that he’s just a college kid, no one will care that he lacks the ability to dress weather-appropriately and no one will care that it may not have been his idea in the first place.

Eisenberg portrays Zuckerberg with a perfect mix of arrogance and disarming urgency, allowing the audience plenty moments of empathy to balance with their disgust.  His face collapses at times and his eyes grow distant, melting any signs of emotion.  But not because Mark is some kind of sociopath.  He doesn’t want to hurt anyone, but he also doesn’t want to care if he does.  Eisenberg’s youthful face and determined eyes seem to be a perfect fit for this kind of subdued misanthropy.  When challenged by what Mark views as lies and slander, his brows narrow and his voice grows sharp with indignation, a notable contrast to the boyish wonder that glows from within when receiving sage advice from the more seasoned business cowboy, Sean Parker (a very impressive Timberlake), who eventually takes the young Mark under his wing.

Parker is, in many ways, the rogue genius Mark wants to embody.  He’s glib, creative and most importantly, has managed to forget about the girl who stomped all over his heart.

“This is our time,” he tells Mark.  Fuck, ya.

He’s not just talking about them.  He’s speaking for a new generation of people who have grown weary of the path towards employability; a generation of tech-savvy minds, for whom ‘cool’ is currency, who will not apologize for thinking bigger and being brighter than the men and women peddling jobs they don’t want in the first place — a generation suffering from a new strain of entitlement.  As Mark explains to the opposing counsel during one deposition:

“You have part of my attention – you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.”

Make no mistake.  The star of this film is the writing.  Mr. Sorkin has delivered one of the sharpest, funniest, most poignant and authentic works, not just of his career, but anyone’s career.  The film was heavily researched, right down to the brand of beer that was consumed by Zuckerberg in the drunken blogging that opens the film.  But a surplus of facts does not guarantee a story, let alone a great story.  Sorkin marries the two beautifully.  His dialogue shines, without blinding.  Every scene is rich with subtext and teeming with conflict.  Even Fincher, no stranger to quality storytelling, though known more for his visual wizardry, yields to the strength of the words on the page, providing space for the performances (all of them solid) and allowing them to take center stage.  The result is the kind of film that everyone yearns to experience at least once in their lifetime, and makes one hope Fincher and Sorkin don’t wait too long before working together again.

At the end of the screening, a young man from Mr. Sorkin’s alma mater stood up to tell him that after seeing the film, he believed Mr. Sorkin would be the first alumnus to win an Academy Award.

I’m very inclined to agree.