This is quite a funny exercise in literary stereotypes and personality types. I was surprised to see no Dante or Goethe in here. Still, worth a read. And chuckle.
A bit says:
Andrew Ross Sorkin
People who refer to themselves as “playing devil’s advocate”.
Virginia Woolf
Female high-school French teachers who have their master’s degree.
Michael Chabon
People who hate Ayelet Waldman.
More here.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Being Sensitive, Gender, iPhones, and Gadget-mania
I had an interesting exchange with the Apple representative today. I called to report a problem with my iPhone and that I needed to get a replacement through my Apple Care plan. The rep asked me to describe the problem and the following ensued:
Rep: What's the issue with it?
I: Well, the wheel is not cooperating and instead of responding when I press it, as it should, it responds without my actual pressing down on it. I could be in the middle of a text message and then I get sent back to the main screen. So, the screen is hyper sensitive.
Rep: So, the wheel is not operating as it should and the screen is
being hyper sensitive, right?
I: Right.
Rep: Sorry, it's taking me a while to spell 'sensitive' in my notes here. I'm a guy, you know, I don't do well with 'sensitive.' Ha, ha ....
I: No worries. Take your time. I'm a girl and I don't do well with 'sensitive' either, you know? So, it's all good.
And then he proceeded to laugh for a bundle of seconds. The rep was most helpful and I suppose a bit of self-effacing humor expedites the fastest of solutions. And that would be the moral of the story.
Rep: What's the issue with it?
I: Well, the wheel is not cooperating and instead of responding when I press it, as it should, it responds without my actual pressing down on it. I could be in the middle of a text message and then I get sent back to the main screen. So, the screen is hyper sensitive.
Rep: So, the wheel is not operating as it should and the screen is
being hyper sensitive, right?
I: Right.
Rep: Sorry, it's taking me a while to spell 'sensitive' in my notes here. I'm a guy, you know, I don't do well with 'sensitive.' Ha, ha ....
I: No worries. Take your time. I'm a girl and I don't do well with 'sensitive' either, you know? So, it's all good.
And then he proceeded to laugh for a bundle of seconds. The rep was most helpful and I suppose a bit of self-effacing humor expedites the fastest of solutions. And that would be the moral of the story.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Inglourious Basterds: Well Worth the Praise
I'm the kind of cinephile who is more likely to view a Wim Wenders film multiple times than go, by my own volition, to a Tarantino film. In my circle, there is a joke that started back in '02 when I suppose I was heard quoting a Tarantino interview as featured on a German newspaper. "Die Leute gehen ins Kino, um die Stars zu sehen" meaning: "People go to the movies to see the stars." I was never that kind of moviegoer. It's not the stars that entice my moviegoing. Not in the least. So, this would be a fundamental aesthetic difference between someone like me and the kind of audience that Tarantino envisions for himself.
Now, I've gone to Tarantino films, of course. The reason was simple. As the saying has it, 'one for them and one for you.' So, if my people will go to see obscure films with me, then I have to give in and watch other stuff as well. Trust me, I enjoy a good blockbuster a much as the other person. Two words: Sherlock Holmes. That I saw twice by my own volition, of course. Entertainment is better when varied, after all.
Tarantino is not without artistic worth. Pulp Fiction was good. No doubt. Kill Bill, I had potential, well not much, but definitely some. The reason why I wanted to see Inglourious Basterds is because of one thing: satire. I read that he satirizes Nazi notions and Third Reich cinema in quite an informed fashion. I read that he is as comprehensive in his references as 153 minutes allowed him to be. And watch it, I did.
Inglourious Basters is the kind of film that would do justice to any college film course that covers modern cinema. Much like an academic, Tarantino's review of literature displays a desire to be thorough and investigative. To truly appreciate this film means one thing: exposure to/understanding of European cinema. I was happy to see so many European and American actors work in such an effortless-seeming way. Action and performance flow so very well. This is a long film (consistent with Tarantino tendencies) but this is not the kind of 'long' that makes one want to look at the watch and fidget. This is the kind of film that makes one want to shower it with all the attention one can give. And, if you're linguistically minded, Holy Cow! The languages spoken in this film are English, German, French, and Italian. I cannot think of another film where four different languages felt like one. Tarantino managed to create an Esperanto-like atmosphere that really impressed me.
And the acting? My-oh-my, the acting! I could tell that Tarantino had done his homework most expeditiously in this area. Christoph Wantz' portrayal of the villain colonel is simply breathtaking. Eli Roth's eyes are mesmerising and Brad Pitt's populist language is nothing if not well-delivered. Till Schweiger, the very talented German actor, is another great addition to this cast. As is Daniel Brühl. I cannot think of a contemporary actor who would have played the role of the hero soldier better. Ah, and Mike Myers has a little part in this film as well.
I revisited Basterds again this weekend and I was glad I did. Give it a try. If you don't watch much Tarantino, it might just make you think differently of him. I do now.
Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast
graph per reeltalktv
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Spartacus: Blood and Sand - A Review
Well, I think I need to go to a confessional or something akin to it. You see, I believe I might have just wasted 54 minutes of my life tonight. I don't like wasting time. Rephrase: I despise wasting time.
I had an hour between tasks and I thought I would watch the new Starz series Spartacus: Blood and Sand. After the first 15 minutes I said something like, 'did you by any chance put the Gladiator DVD on by mistake?'
I know the answer to my question was 'no!' but I thought I'd ask it anyway. Maybe I was asking to get some sympathy for my visual suffering.
I ask, do some cinematographers really think that they can infantilize audiences as they please? Sex and violence will make a show? What an inane notion.
Spartacus is nothing but a cheap imitation of Ridley Scott's vision of the 2000 production of Gladiator. And that's all the praise I can give it. I will not be watching, I don't think.
I might just add here that what I uttered upon its conclusion was, 'is this a joke?!' It sure did feel like a bad prank.
Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast
graph per Starz
Leno vs Conan O'?
If you've read the news daily, you're bound to have read about the NBC nighttime drama surrounding the Leno/O'Brian debacle. It's hardly news, I know, but it's there. We need distractions in order to be able to deal with the really somber news and 'Jay' controversy is certainly better than any and all collective Kardashian nonsense. A lot of people seem to have a lot of opinions on the NBC drama. Mine is mostly informed by my basic entertainment practices. If I had to choose between Jay and Conan, I'd pick Jay. Why? Because I like his unapologetic and genrally hypocrisy-free embracing of mediocrity. That, in and of itself, makes for good comedy. I've always thought that to be his shtick and his best winning quality. Conan, on the other hand, seems to want to exude a kind of elevated elegance that never quite translates to much. I find him generally boring, aesthetically unimpressive, and intellectually as gripping as a Paul Rudd or Oprah. I don't get his appeal. De gustibus non disputandum est seems to go the saying. This is more that that, though.
Jay managed to be successful for a basic reason: he appealed to many and he was darn good when it came to keeping people's interest over time. Whether I was into punk or prog or you name it, I always 'dug' his monologues. Much better than those by Letterman or O'Brian. Maybe Kimmel's joke delivery is a bit better but his show comes at a time I'm told I'm supposed to be in bed so that's a no-go.
O'Brian on the other hand refuses to appeal to more people in an effort to keep this supposed edge that he says he possesses. But where is this edge? In the string dance? Andy's little interjections? The only good thing the new Tonight Show has going is the Max Weinberg music arrangements and that's not saying much about Conan. It says much about Max and the likes of Springsteen but that's another blog.
So, I would say Leno is a better choice than Conan, really. Different people have spoken against Leno and interstingly enough, the reason why they speak against him is because he's simply been too successful and he's been working too long. He should retire now, say they. Am I to understand that the more one works and the more successful one becomes, the more he/she needs to get penalized? Ple- to the -ase!
Leno is not the best comedian out there. Granted, there are many other people who could do a far better job. What he has, though, is a John Carson-esque quality of transcendent mass appeal. And isn't that what the Tonight Show represents? A chance for many to watch something together and be entertained similarly at the end of a hard day?
I don't go out of my way to watch Leno as I don't really care a whole lot for commercial TV. If I am to watch it, I'm bound to watch HBO for the most part, really. But if I had to pick a team, I'd pick Leno. And who am I kidding? The fact that Jay is West-bound has something to do with my choice too. I dig the west and its vibe. Aren't we all entitled to having favorites, after all? And what about sportsmanship? Jay's been able to beat Letterman and Conan and that's worth something. I am not likely to say the following in any other settings, but mass appeal and mediocrity should be embraced in this case. Don't hate, supposed margin-dwellers, study and adapt instead. You might do better that way.
Professors and Liberalism?
I received my Doctor of Philosophy title at 29. My field was in the realm of literary scholarship and the Humanities. Hence, when I read the following title of the recent NY Times article, my curiosity was peaked. It says, "Professor Is a Label That Leans to the Left." Now, as someone who works with gender and literary scholarship, I tend to be averse to congealed labels. But, be that as it may, at times labels come in handy.
According to the article, a couple of sociologists contend that the stereotype that most professors tend to be liberal might just be a valid one. "Conjure up the classic image of a humanities or social sciences professor, the fields where the imbalance is greatest: tweed jacket, pipe, nerdy, longwinded, secular — and liberal. Even though that may be an outdated stereotype, it influences younger people’s ideas about what they want to be when they grow up."
As a professor in the Humanities, I don't quite agree with the premise of this piece. I did not receive my PhD in the Humanities because of my tweed-wearing professors in college. If anything, I always found tweed to be quite unfortunate as a sartorial choice. I was one of those who picked the Humanities for one simple reason: it picked me. The subject matter spoke to me more than those transmitting it to me. Still, this is an interesting article to consider. Another paragraph of note says:
"Typecasting, of course, is not the only cause for the liberal tilt. The characteristics that define one’s political orientation are also at the fore of certain jobs, the sociologists reported. Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and the nonreligious); an expressed tolerance for controversial ideas; and a disparity between education and income."
More here.
According to the article, a couple of sociologists contend that the stereotype that most professors tend to be liberal might just be a valid one. "Conjure up the classic image of a humanities or social sciences professor, the fields where the imbalance is greatest: tweed jacket, pipe, nerdy, longwinded, secular — and liberal. Even though that may be an outdated stereotype, it influences younger people’s ideas about what they want to be when they grow up."
As a professor in the Humanities, I don't quite agree with the premise of this piece. I did not receive my PhD in the Humanities because of my tweed-wearing professors in college. If anything, I always found tweed to be quite unfortunate as a sartorial choice. I was one of those who picked the Humanities for one simple reason: it picked me. The subject matter spoke to me more than those transmitting it to me. Still, this is an interesting article to consider. Another paragraph of note says:
"Typecasting, of course, is not the only cause for the liberal tilt. The characteristics that define one’s political orientation are also at the fore of certain jobs, the sociologists reported. Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and the nonreligious); an expressed tolerance for controversial ideas; and a disparity between education and income."
More here.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Chess and Infidelity? Kevin Kline's First French-speaking Role
As a chess player myself, I especially look forward to seeing "Joueuse", a new French film which just opened in Germany and will be coming to the US soon.
The main character, Hélène, teaches herself how to play chess and then turns to a reclusive American expat (Kevin Kline in his first French-speaking role), whose house she cleans. He willingly helps her with the game, but her playing skills soon overtake his and she begins to live and breathe chess. Meanwhile her new passion threatens her family life – chess is regarded as a form of marital infidelity.
The main character, Hélène, teaches herself how to play chess and then turns to a reclusive American expat (Kevin Kline in his first French-speaking role), whose house she cleans. He willingly helps her with the game, but her playing skills soon overtake his and she begins to live and breathe chess. Meanwhile her new passion threatens her family life – chess is regarded as a form of marital infidelity.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Published Friend
Today I heard from my good friend Joanna Straughn who writes exquisite poetry. We have been friends for a decade and my intellectual and personal life has been greatly enriched by the association. My friend is a very talented poet and she's published her work in reputable journals. I have been a fan of her poetry from the time I was first exposed to it and my life in language is all the better because of it.
She informs me that two additional poems of hers were recently published. I was especially proud of her today as one of the published poems, "Rot", is something I loved right away when I first read it a while back. I remember feeling overpowered by it. Its rhythm evoked the kind of feeling and melancholy I would get when reading Paul Celan's poetry. What impressed me especially was the ending of the poem. It says:
"Have you seen the trees
Ripped up by the bare hands of children,
Beaten down by their shovels
The hour their fate was made plain? ”
There’s such delicate quality to this melancholy language that makes it especially powerful to me. It takes pure talent to find lyrical beauty in such precise and concise language. The kind of talent my friend has. In the other published poem, To Robert Desnos *, the last stanza says:
"He found them in the attainable arms of a woman
Whose alluring eyes alone brought him out
Of a stupor into the heartbeat of human company.
Every café is singing to the birds
Playing a caterwaul of clean intoxication.
The river flows under a bridge
To tell the couple they are alive and good.
Their simple fondness-- a single instance
Of the spirit of human flourishing
Worth defending through any bitter condition."
I highly recommend you read both of these poems. You may find them here. Also, Joanna's excellent book Instinct can be found here.
She informs me that two additional poems of hers were recently published. I was especially proud of her today as one of the published poems, "Rot", is something I loved right away when I first read it a while back. I remember feeling overpowered by it. Its rhythm evoked the kind of feeling and melancholy I would get when reading Paul Celan's poetry. What impressed me especially was the ending of the poem. It says:
"Have you seen the trees
Ripped up by the bare hands of children,
Beaten down by their shovels
The hour their fate was made plain? ”
There’s such delicate quality to this melancholy language that makes it especially powerful to me. It takes pure talent to find lyrical beauty in such precise and concise language. The kind of talent my friend has. In the other published poem, To Robert Desnos *, the last stanza says:
"He found them in the attainable arms of a woman
Whose alluring eyes alone brought him out
Of a stupor into the heartbeat of human company.
Every café is singing to the birds
Playing a caterwaul of clean intoxication.
The river flows under a bridge
To tell the couple they are alive and good.
Their simple fondness-- a single instance
Of the spirit of human flourishing
Worth defending through any bitter condition."
I highly recommend you read both of these poems. You may find them here. Also, Joanna's excellent book Instinct can be found here.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Best Films of 2009: The Hangover, Sherlock Holmes, Up in the Air, (500) Days of Summer
While there was no shortage of films in 2009, there was a definite shortage in quality. Some films, however, were indeed quite good, hence my winners of the year.
4) The Hangover. I was traveling internationally when The Hangover opened. The story takes place in Vegas and having been to Vegas a number of times I felt director Todd Phillips captured the city most accurately. I reviewed The Hangover when it first opened and you may read that review here. This is not the kind of film that provokes great thoughts and inspires much reflection. This is the kind of film that manages to entertain in a most believable way, however. And those who have experienced Las Vegas, get this film and its humor rather effortlessly. This is also a kind of film that tips the hat to true friendships and selfless sociality. In a nutshell, I liked this very well.
3) Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Why? Because I'm an unapologetic fan of Guy Ritchie and because, and I truly can't say this more clearly, Robert Downey Jr. is simply very cool. And so is this film. Downey is the kind of actor who embodies the craft in a way that seems quite incomparable. In Sherlock, he relies on Jude Law and Rachel McAdams but he clearly needs neither. Who allows Downey's talent to shine better on the screen though is Lord Blackwood (played beautifully by the talented Mark Strong) who plays one of Holmes's enemies in the film. While in the actual story, Holmes truly needs Watson, in the Ritchie version of the film, Watson (Jude Law) is more of an additional crutch Holmes might need occasionally.
I cannot think of another director who understands male/male friendships and relationships better than Guy Ritchie. If you have doubts, might I suggest that you look at his Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch? Who better to capture the intimate relationship between Holmes and Watson or Holmes and Lord Blackwood than Ritchie? The man is a natural when it comes to 'man speak.' Incidentally, what gives this film the extra oomph are exactly those moments of familiarity and intimacy that Holmes and Watson share when in the middle of a crisis. Watson chastises Holmes for being a slob around the house and for never cleaning up. I high recommend this. It will not disappoint. And if it does, chalk it up to your lack of exposure to Ritchie humor, I suppose.
2) Jason Reitman's Up n the Air. I didn't quite know what to expect here. George Cloony stars in this picture along with the much underrated but very much talented Vera Varmiga. (Incidentally, if you have not seen Farmiga along with Adrien Brody in Dummy, do so. She has breathtaking range.)
The premise of Up in the Air is the following: A man named Ryan (played well by Cloony) spends more time traveling than staying put on the ground. He has one major mission in life: to collect 10 million miles of flying. His occupation: Firing people. His life seems to be detached from the daily constraints of normal human life as he is not attached to people or real estate. "The slower we move, the faster we die" he says. And the way Cloony renders this line is shear perfection, I thought.
Ryan seems to be quite happy with his existence. Till he meets a female version of himself, that is. Vera Farmiga plays the character of Alex most convincingly. From the beginning Alex seems to be too good to be true and Farmiga manages to make the audience like her and be on her side. Till we meet her in her Chicago residence at which point the actual devirginization of the Cloony character happens. In a way, Ryan acquired his humanity after his own attitudes about life, his career, and living and debunked.
This is a very good film. This is also a difficult film to watch as it is, after all, mostly about people losing their jobs and facing an unknown future. And there's nothing funny or warm about that. However, the film, and Cloony especially, manage to bring a measure of dignity to one of the worst experiences a working human can have, that of losing a job.
1) And the best film of 2009 would definitely have to be (500) Days of Summer. I liked this so well that I wrote an academic article on it. I am also presenting my work at an academic conference in March the proceedings of which I will also post here. My draft of that article may be found here. In nuce, this is a nigh perfect summary of the Zeitgeist.
4) The Hangover. I was traveling internationally when The Hangover opened. The story takes place in Vegas and having been to Vegas a number of times I felt director Todd Phillips captured the city most accurately. I reviewed The Hangover when it first opened and you may read that review here. This is not the kind of film that provokes great thoughts and inspires much reflection. This is the kind of film that manages to entertain in a most believable way, however. And those who have experienced Las Vegas, get this film and its humor rather effortlessly. This is also a kind of film that tips the hat to true friendships and selfless sociality. In a nutshell, I liked this very well.
3) Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Why? Because I'm an unapologetic fan of Guy Ritchie and because, and I truly can't say this more clearly, Robert Downey Jr. is simply very cool. And so is this film. Downey is the kind of actor who embodies the craft in a way that seems quite incomparable. In Sherlock, he relies on Jude Law and Rachel McAdams but he clearly needs neither. Who allows Downey's talent to shine better on the screen though is Lord Blackwood (played beautifully by the talented Mark Strong) who plays one of Holmes's enemies in the film. While in the actual story, Holmes truly needs Watson, in the Ritchie version of the film, Watson (Jude Law) is more of an additional crutch Holmes might need occasionally.
I cannot think of another director who understands male/male friendships and relationships better than Guy Ritchie. If you have doubts, might I suggest that you look at his Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch? Who better to capture the intimate relationship between Holmes and Watson or Holmes and Lord Blackwood than Ritchie? The man is a natural when it comes to 'man speak.' Incidentally, what gives this film the extra oomph are exactly those moments of familiarity and intimacy that Holmes and Watson share when in the middle of a crisis. Watson chastises Holmes for being a slob around the house and for never cleaning up. I high recommend this. It will not disappoint. And if it does, chalk it up to your lack of exposure to Ritchie humor, I suppose.
2) Jason Reitman's Up n the Air. I didn't quite know what to expect here. George Cloony stars in this picture along with the much underrated but very much talented Vera Varmiga. (Incidentally, if you have not seen Farmiga along with Adrien Brody in Dummy, do so. She has breathtaking range.)
The premise of Up in the Air is the following: A man named Ryan (played well by Cloony) spends more time traveling than staying put on the ground. He has one major mission in life: to collect 10 million miles of flying. His occupation: Firing people. His life seems to be detached from the daily constraints of normal human life as he is not attached to people or real estate. "The slower we move, the faster we die" he says. And the way Cloony renders this line is shear perfection, I thought.
Ryan seems to be quite happy with his existence. Till he meets a female version of himself, that is. Vera Farmiga plays the character of Alex most convincingly. From the beginning Alex seems to be too good to be true and Farmiga manages to make the audience like her and be on her side. Till we meet her in her Chicago residence at which point the actual devirginization of the Cloony character happens. In a way, Ryan acquired his humanity after his own attitudes about life, his career, and living and debunked.
This is a very good film. This is also a difficult film to watch as it is, after all, mostly about people losing their jobs and facing an unknown future. And there's nothing funny or warm about that. However, the film, and Cloony especially, manage to bring a measure of dignity to one of the worst experiences a working human can have, that of losing a job.
1) And the best film of 2009 would definitely have to be (500) Days of Summer. I liked this so well that I wrote an academic article on it. I am also presenting my work at an academic conference in March the proceedings of which I will also post here. My draft of that article may be found here. In nuce, this is a nigh perfect summary of the Zeitgeist.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
"Nine" Motion Picture: A Review
Having grown up on Cinecitta films, I had my share of expectations for the new Rob Marshall film, Nine. Alas, none of the expectations were met. Daniel Day Lewis is undoubtedly one of the best actors of our time but in Nine he is neither a Marcello Mastroiani nor a Federico Fellini. And I really wanted to be utterly wowed by him. I wasn't. But not due to any of fault of his own. Bless his heart, the chap does try so. But there's only that much an actor can do when faced with a mediocre script and other performers who give less than what they can actually give. I'm referring to Marion Cotillard here. Even Dame Judy Dench.
I don't think I've looked at my watch more often than I did when in the theater suffering through this picture. The only enjoyable bit of the film comes from a little track Sophia Loren sings. But then again, she is Sophia Loren and I can't remember one single film of hers where I didn't pay attention. Very few performers beg for that kind of attention in this day and age. The rest of the actors were sub par, to say the least. Especially Fergie with her "Be Italian" rendering. Yawn.
Where did all the exquisitely gawdy Cinecitta references go? I'm sure someone could have made Marshall aware of them. I was hoping to see quite a few of them. I left the theater feeling underwhelmed, to say the least, and, more specifically, frustrated for not suggesting to my party that we see Jason Reitman's Up in the Air, instead. But I do love Fellini so.... I suppose when in the mood for some Fellini, check out some actual Fellini. I now feel like I need to overcompensate for the loss of two full hours in the theater.
In nuce, Nine did not live up to the hype. Hardly. And I was rooting for it. It's an embarrassing raising of the glass to utter vanity, promoted narcissism, and populist glory. In short, this picture is your usual case of form trumping content most thoroughly and on every level. Shallowness cannot be filled by the greatest talent regardless of how many Oscar winners you throw into the mix. And Daniel Day Lewis tries hard to convey the tortured artist as convincingly as he knows how but how can he succeed when all he has to rely on are flashy costumes, designer shades, and a rather well-made black suit? After all, it cannot be easy to call Sophia Loren your mamma and most of his artistic torture seems to stem from that relationship. I truly wished Marshall did his literature homework better and actually developed it more adequately.
Quel dommage!
Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast
graph via http://media.photobucket.com/image/nine%20daniel%20day%20lewis/The_Playlist/more/nine-daniel-day-lewis.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
www.brikenaribaj.com
Posts
All Comments