A Plea to AMPAS

I don't care if The Social Network loses, only that David Fincher wins Best Director. Please, Oscars, uphold a shred of dignity by giving the award to that man, because you know he deserves it. I have a feeling they will even if he did lose the DGA (because members of the Director's Guild are poopy phonies), and even if the directors won't vote for Fincher, he's still universally adored by actors, and actors make up the biggest proportion of AMPAS.

At the Globes, when Fincher went up onstage to give his acceptance speech, all the actors had these looks of very serious attentiveness and longing as they watched him talk, in a kind of "do whatever you want to me, I will serve you as a footstool on the set of your next movie if only you'll let me bask in your genius" kind of way, and besides, he's worked with so many big and respected names. Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Edward Norton, Cate Blanchett, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., Jake Gyllenhaal, Forest Whitaker. Like, some *very* big names. He is probably one of the most appreciated directors working right now, especially for his (in)famous reputation as an actor's director. Or maybe I'm just trying to rationalize why he'll still win. Just pleaseeeeee give it to Fincher. COME ON. Kthanksbye.

JGL's Open Letter to Peter Travers' Review of the Social Network

I agree with his letter 100% (nice sly ref to his own website, HitREcord at the end) and damn, I love his writing. He writes exactly the way he sounds - a mixture of easy intelligence and stoner cool.

The Social Network & My Generation
an open letter to my friend Peter Travers

Peter,

Hey man! So, I finally watched The Social Network the other night, and today I read your review of it, curious about your claim that this film defines my generation. First let me say, I agree that the movie is impeccable, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I have nothing but praise and admiration for the folks who made it. But on behalf of we who are inheriting a new earth connected by the Internet, I must raise my hand to say that while Mr. Fincher’s Facebook drama certainly nails a lot of today’s more ominous trends, this story only tells half of our tale.

You say that technology is winning a battle against actual human contact, and that we have become a nation of narcissists, reshaping ourselves online in the hope of being “friended” by others. First of all dude, the cool kids don’t really use “friend” as a verb like that ;o) But in all seriousness, you and I share some of those concerns which The Social Network so poignantly portrays. Whether judging a person’s worth by Twitter followers or a movie’s merit by box office scores, the Information Age has introduced some disturbing new ways for us to measure our culture and ourselves based on trivial statistics and exclusive hierarchies. The low self-esteem and obsession with social status represented by Mr. Eisenberg’s protagonist speak to that brilliantly. And yes, using new communication technology in this way does indeed have the potential to alienate us, to stratify us, and ultimately to weaken the human race.

However! Mr. Travers — I know because of your work and because we’ve had a bunch of awesome conversations — you are a man of letters and a lover of cinema. Well, aren’t the printed word and the motion picture both technologies that blew open doors to new forms of human expression? Technology is not fighting a “battle against actual human contact” any more now than it was then. The Social Network sounds a pertinent alarm against some arguably unhealthy ways our culture is currently using new communication technology, but to say that this film defines a generation is to dismiss the sense of community, the shared empathy, and the collective beauty that our new connectivity has allowed us this past decade. This generation, my generation, we are reaching out to each other, communicating with one another, and creating a shared world in ways no prior generation could have.

Yes, you could focus on the friend-counting narcissists, but you could also focus on countless meaningful relationships formed across national borders and cultural boundaries that would have been logistically impossible before sites like Facebook. And yes of course, there’s the spam-bots slinging Viagra, but there’s also unprecedented opportunities for independent artists and entrepreneurs on sites like Etsy and KickStarter. Or how about the simple fact that I’m sitting here writing this in New Orleans and you’ll read it by tomorrow in New York, along with thousands of movie-lovers like us from all over the world, who will also chime in with their own opinions?

These relationships, these opportunities, these connections, these are the unique blessings of my generation. So who’s gonna make the movie about us? I don’t know, but if I had to guess, it’ll be some group of kids who’ve never physically met, living in all different places, all far from Hollywood, trading ideas, uploading videos, and working together via one or another social network.

<3

Blurb

Hollywood, stop trying to make Gemma Arterton happen. She's not going to happen!

How Inception Could Have Been Great

This is random, but I was thinking about Inception, and you know what I wish? I wish Nolan had asked a different visual director to construct a different "dreamscape" for each character. One of the things that disappointed me about Inception was that all of the characters' minds appeared to be so uniform and geometric - apparently, everyone dreams about living in a James Bond movie, and there is no discrepancy between Leonardo Dicaprio's mind and Cillian Murphy's. Nolan would respond to the change in subconscious level by just shifting the location. A snowy mountain with a military-like complex, really? That's Cillian Murphy's deepest, darkest level of subconscious, his innermost refuge? The essence of dreams, the inexplicable and unfathomable details that leave us lying awake in the morning, musing - were left out. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if each dream level had been a different world, each designed by a different director - like Guillermo Del Toro or David Lynch? Wouldn't that have made Inception so beautiful to revisit?

Unfortunately, I've seen it once and have no interest in seeing it again. I feel like Nolan was more influenced by videogames than he was by dreams. Time up, points earned, faceless enemies counted - onto the next level!

Speaking of zeitgeisty actors, I found this picture several months ago. I believe it was taken in 2009. It's Tom Sturridge, Andrew Garfield, and Robert Pattinson. They're like all part of this young British invasion mafia, I think? Supposedly they all hang out together in LA - Eddie Redmayne's part of it too. BUT THE CLOTHES, THE CLOTHES.

I could not stop laughing when I first saw this. Bless his heart.

Golden Globes Live Reaction

8:15: Well so far, I love that people are COMPLETELY ignoring the band sign-off and just plowing on with their speeches. Ricky Gervais incredulously: "It's like Pac-Man!"

8:30: I do not believe anyone can top Chris Colfer's speech tonight. Just amazing. And Lea Michele's tears.

8:35: 8:10: Since none of my friends were interested in watching The Golden Globes, I just wandered into my favorite common room, and alas, I'm sitting with a few girls who have NO IDEA WHO ANY OF THE PEOPLE OR MOVIES SHOWN TONIGHT ARE. One fascinating specimen of a girl: did not recognize Robert De Niro, and also said "ugh" in disappointment after Chris Colfer's name was announced as the winner, and then said "oh, he DID win!" when the camera showed Chris walking up the stage....I just don't know how to respond.

8:40: I knew Boardwalk Empire would win for the movie-legend names attached, but IT IS SIMPLY UNJUST. This was the best season of Mad Men so far, one of the finest television seasons in history EVER, and Boardwalk Empire was solid but still grasping for its straws, understandable for its first season. Also: Jon Hamm should have won.

8:45: Andrew Garfield is just too funny/cute (while presenting TSN clip). "A very supportive room we have here!" I refuse to fall in love with you, Andrew.

8:50: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross win! And did David Fincher actually show up for an awards show? I love his reaction to all of the hullabaloo - he seems genuinely annoyed by all the awards shows, and said publicly that he didn't understand the critics praise. "The Social Network is not earth-shattering." Oh Finchy.

9:10: New gem from the girl next to me during a clip of Mark Wahlberg in "The Fighter": "Is that Matt Damon?"

9:12: Al Pacino wins. He may be one of my favoritest actors ever, but like most people who have sat through his acceptance speeches (it's like he specifically takes advantage of his "Screen Icon and Fucking Legend" status and toys with us by rambling on because knows that no one would ever dare play Al Flipping Pacino off the stage) I now have a Pavlovian response to leave the room whenever "Al Pacino" is read off an envelope. Brb.

9:18: Back! Claire Danes' speech wrapping up. Whew. Missed double dose of spastic rambling.

9:25: Tina Fey and Steve Carell: BEST BANTER EVER. "King George V-I".

9:44: Ad for "No Strings Attached". Everyone in the room simultaneously: "I realllyyyy want to see that!" Sigh.

9:58: Girl next to me while Matt Damon is speaking: "Is that Matt Damon?"

1o:00 De Niro montage epic time. Did they leave Heat off the list??

10:20: MORE DARREN CRISS SIGHTINGS PLEASE.

10:40: Am hating the animosity towards Ricky Gervais. C'mon, actors. 1) You are constantly receiving lavish praise and fawning attention, so SUCK IT UP. 2) You know who you hired, right? Didn't you get him because his "edgy" humor is exactly what the Globes wanted? What pussies. "He used to be much nicer." If Karl Pilkington can do it, so can you. But then again, not many people are as awesome as that orange-headed genius, are there? Making fun of Tim Allen's mostly forgettable filmography, Robert Downey Jr's old party ways, and Mel Gibson's general shittiness, and slamming the universally lambasted The Tourist is not crossing the line. At all. If he had say, made fun of Sandra Bullock's divorce from Jesse James, that would truly be a shitty thing to do. But pleaseeeee Hollywood. Admit that this is in fact healthy for you.

10:45: Colin Firth wins at life for coining the phrase, "robust triangle of man-love." My favorite comment about him tonight: "The way he kissed his wife after winning confirmed my suspicions that he is a tiger in the sack." Must pause now.

10:58: Jesse Eisenberg yanking Andrew Garfield out of his chair and pulling him onto the stage = fave moment of Globes ever.

2011 Critics Choice Awards Observations

1. The camera really, really likes Jon Hamm and Matt Damon. And I like you, cameraperson. There was also a really hot shot of Ryan Gosling looking spruced up for once, reclining in his chair with his arm slung to the side like he didn't have a care in the world. My god, he looks fine in that pose.

2. I LOVE ANDREW GARFIELD. He looked ridiculously happy/goofy when Christian Bale won, and he's was headbanging to the beat of the music. I wonder if he knows about the online fandom of the "Jewnicorn" romance between him and Eisenberg?

3. Christopher Nolan on winning "Best Action Film" for Inception: "I'd like to thank the studio for believing that this was an action movie in the first place." Oh Mr. Nolan, that is what your movie is. It's an elaborate heist movie with a few psychological/surrealist gimmicks. You have half the explosions of a Michael Bay movie and all the stunts, suits, and pithy retorts of a James Bond movie.

3. Seeing stars chat up other stars is the weirdest. Elle Fanning and Matt Damon talking, Quentin Tarantino with random people, Colin Firth and Michelle Williams, Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield being incredibly buddy-buddy, Christian Bale and Ryan Gosling, and Robert Duvall and Warren Beatty probably having fun together in their exclusive Acting Legends' Club.

4. Spoof skits are SO EMBARRASSING. Did they not learn from the Kristen Chenoweth mishap from last year? I had to change to another channel.

5. The Kardashian sisters present, and I lower the volume immediately. My favorite film blogger is so funny about this: "The Kardashians? Oh BFCA. I haven't been this ashamed since Katy Perry didn't know who Darren Aronofsky was two years back. THEY are making jokes about documentaries and the failures of our educational system? Oh the levels."

6. I don't know if it's the pregnancy glow or the post-Black Swan confidence - maybe both, but this is the most relaxed and interesting Natalie Portman as I've seen her. Glad to see that the little-girl-Valley-speech shtick is over.

7. Jane Fonda presents Best Picture. A) I am so glad that they asked an actress to do this B) "Someone backstage called me a cougar. I told him, "young man, I have no idea what that even means, but put your clothes on and get out of my dressing room.". <3.>

8. Mila Kunis is not impressed with Quentin Tarantino's exuberant, inspiring speech or The Social Network's win. She has been looking exquisitely bored all night.

9. In retrospect, the BFCA showed admirable restraint in showing a 'Best of the Year' montage instead of just "this year in movies" in some pseudo-egalitarian attempt to rein in younger viewers. I don't care if Eclipse does represent an important demographic of movie-goers; it doesn't belong in any awards show, period.

10. Most awkward cut-away ending ever to the calmest, strangely non-eventful and overall amiable awards show ever. And that's a wrap.

11. And uh.....I am so re-watching this?

2nd Annual Golden Globes Rage

It was a good thing no one else was home with the exception of my puppy (not a puppy anymore, but I still call my baby that because she looks like one) sleeping under the covers because then I could give full vent to my feelings and moan "Oh...... GOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDD!" without inhibition.

after reading that Justin Bieber and Zac Efron will be both presenters at the Golden Globes. I realize that every teenage/preteen girl is screaming the same thing, albeit in a different tone, but my god, they really are past pretending that their presenters have anything to do with the movie biz at all, aren't they? I mean, I actually don't have anything against Bieber, unlike most people. I think he's adequately talented and has the right skills and understanding of the industry. But realllllllllllllllllllllyyyyy? Again, I simply don't understand why awards shows bother to cater to the pre-teen set since the Globes will be totally past their bedtime. They'll have to introduce him in the first half-hour if they want the targeted demographic to tune in.

And WHY the awards show obsession still with Jennifer Lopez? She hasn't been relevant for about eight years. The last movie she did that comes to mind is that movie with Jane Fonda...let's see, she did come out with a movie in 2010 - The Back-Up Plan, which I recall seeing promos for even though I still can't tell you what it's about - and that was her first movie in three years. She also has no further upcoming projects (she did American Idol, right?) and is well on her way to becoming a mere smudge in the history books of pop culture. C'mon, globes. I understand the fascination with Bieber at least, but Lopez' presence is just a puzzle.

The sad thing is, earlier I remember someone writing on a blog - "next thing you know they'll be inviting Justin Bieber to the Globes" and well, just comes to show that you can never set your standards low enough for the Globes - they'll defy your wildest expectations for crap.

Media Fail #2

As always, the classy Jon Stewart chose his first moment on air after the Arizona shooting tragedy to bring a moment of hope, compassion, and optimism, and always, reflective sanity, instead of relishing an "aha" moment, so I will do it for him: frankly, he's emerged as the most human and rational social commentator in America, and for a show that "highlights absurdity with humor", he always chooses to recognize the profound moments with gravitas and eloquence.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

"There is light in this situation. I urge everyone to read up on those who were hurt or killed in that situation. You will be comforted by the anonymous goodness there really is in this world. You read about these people and you realize that all these people you've never heard about or met and the lives of real dignity and goodness - and you hear about crazy, but it's rarer than you think."

and later:

"Someone or something will shatter our world again. And wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't take this opportunity to make sure that the world we are creating now, that will ultimately be shattered again by a moment of lunacy, wasn't better than the one we previously lost?"

I mean, as of now, most of the media STILL haven't halted their unproductive mudslinging and instead of taking a critical introspective look into themselves, most comments and opinion articles I read run along the lines of "well, conservatves/tea partiers/Palin is DEFINITELY to blame for this." Definitely, 100%, factually? On your mother's grave? So much for the promise to start deflating hyperbolic rhetoric. I think everyone's been practicing it for so long, they just liken any kind of objectivity or call for unity to surrender. Stewart tries to expose hypocrisy on his show, not engage in it. And he's right. We don't know the causes of the shooting for sure. But why must a tragedy always occur in order for us to open our eyes? We don't need 6 deaths to inform us that our political climate is not what it should be.

Who Knew Young Stalin Was Like a 20th Century Situation

^Just kidding. But you should check out

http://bangabledudesinhistory.blogspot.com/

For all history geeks. It's true that half of these gentlemen featured aren't so comely but I'm sure they're beautiful in the eyes of the ladies who lust over their other attractive features. I'm encouraging my friend to submit her historical crush, Woodrow Wilson (though honestly, I have no idea what's up with that), and I personally have a thing for William III of England or more commonly known as William of Orange/half of the William & Mary duo of Glorious Revolution fame. Several reasons are the cause of this. For one, he was known to be a plain man devoted to duty and country, who disliked pageantry and pretensions - an excellent trait for any ruler surrounded by sycophants - and most admirably, like most great men, it was a great woman who formed the core of his world. Despite being a kind of charmless, chillingly reserved man, William went batshit when he found out that his wife, cousin, and co-regnant, the 32-year-old Queen Mary, was dying from smallpox, in the most romantic way possible.

Hysterics, weeping, praying, all that. (for full details, click on link above) His devastation was so extreme that everyone at court became frightened at this immoderate display of emotion from a man usually so unfathomable. He wasn't even around when the queen finally died because he actually fainted when the doctors told him that she was in her last moments. William declared that "from being the most happy, he was now going to be the most miserable creature upon earth. He said that "during the whole course of their marriage he had never known one single fault in her; there was a worth in her that nobody knew besides himself". That is moving shit.

After her death, he shut himself up in his bedchamber and refused to see anybody, writing that the "world was over for him," and confined himself for so long that people actually wrote him poems, reminding him that he still had a country to rule, foreign enemies to ward off, and not to mention, crazy grief was unseemly for a male monarch and so un-Christian to boot since technically she was in a better place. He never pulled a Queen Victoria, exactly, and eventually resumed his duties with the same exhaustive diligence he had committed to throughout his entire career, but he wore a locket of Mary's hair under his clothes for the rest of his life until his own untimely death, eight years after hers.

So you can see why I find him so attractive. I would totally watch a movie about their life as a guilty pleasure.

Well Gee

According to the media, now would be a good time to deflate the political rhetoric and calm the increasingly unstable political climate before, you know, more people are senselessly gunned down. Frankly, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert foresaw this before anyone of the bickering, persnickety media did.

Today, in the aftermath of Congresswoman Gifford's shooting, the NYtimes is now wondering if we should maybe attempt to not "conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon." Good job, media. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been pleading this for more than a year, with the urgency of their message culminating in the Rally to Restore Sanity/And or Fear, which took place in October.

"We live in hard times, but not end times", was the summation of their message. Basic civility must be reinforced, no matter the level of disagreement. How hard was that? And their powerful message went mostly unnoticed - I scanned major news sites after returning from the rally, and the summaries in the NYtimes and online blogs seemed more preoccupied with how many people had attended vs. the attendance number at Glenn Beck's rally, or dismissively patronized it as a political Woodstock event, reefer included. Even the liberal pundits seemed so terrified of affiliating themselves with this comedic duo, that their coverage on the event was minimal at best. Truly, the tone of every article on the rally - sans Huffington Post, since Ariana is like StewartColbertfan #1 - was implicitly condescending. Probably the fact that Jon Stewart's keynote speech so adroitly attacked the media, or the "24-hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator", as he called it, didn't sit too well with them. Stewart's ernest words were too sane and reasonable to be a proper reality check. Until now.

What a complete media fail.

2010 in Cinema

Ok, all other 2010 Movie montages bow your heads in shame. This is how it should be done. It's five minutes but feels a lot longer. But it's worth it - to the very last shot. I LOVE IT.

2010 Salute to Cinema from Ben Zuk on Vimeo.

Oscar Predictions 1/6/10

Updates 1/6/10: Okayyyyy, Jacki Weaver is definitely NOT a lock, despite whatever I may have said before. What the hell. I mean, technically she's supposed to win the damn thing but now she may not even be nominated. It's now very possible that Hailee Steinfeld of True Grit or Mila Kunis of Black Swan may take her spot. These three are definitely all wrangling for the last two spots.

Meanwhile in the Best Supporting Actor category, Andrew Garfield, John Hawkes, and Jeremy Renner are duking it out for the last two coveted spots. Love me Renner but I want Hawkes and Garfield. Pleaseee?

For Best Actor, it's a ring of four actors circling the drain. Bridges, Duvall, Bardem, Gosling. My guess is that it won't be Bardem. The Best Actress, a truly awesome lineup, seems solid so far after that Hilary Swank misstep for the SAG awards. Michelle Williams seems good to go and she's doesn't really have any competition other than Lesley Manville but alas, the latter's buzz is practically dead.

To recap - stars* are locks:

Best Actor:

Colin Firth - The King's Speech*

James Franco - 127 Hours*

Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network*

Jeff Bridges - True Grit

Robert Duvall - Get Low

Ryan Gosling - Blue Valentine

Javier Bardem - Biutiful

Best Actress:

Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right*

Natalie Portman - Black Swan*

Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole*

Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone*

Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine.........(just checking.....ok)*

Best Supporting Actor:

Christian Bale - The Fighter*

Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech*

Mark Ruffalo - The Kids Are All Right*

Andrew Garfield - The Social Network

Jeremy Renner - The Town

John Hawkes - Winter's Bone

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams - The Fighter*

Melissa Leo - The Fighter*

Helena Bonham-Carter - The King's Speech*

Mila Kunis - Black Swan

Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit

Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom

Happy Birthday Hayao Miyazaki

A very happy and healthful 70th birthday to Hayao Miyazaki, the best living animator in the world, a pioneer, and dare I say, the godfather to whom Pixar looks up to with reverence. Up (2009) in particular felt heavily Miyazaki-flavored.

I have never been a fan of anime, but in Miyazaki's case, I imbibe his movies like souffles. I admit I have not yet seen major movies of his yet, like Kiki's Delivery Service or My Neighbor Totoro (#3 on my Netflix queue, I swear!). But I really loved his last effort in 2009, the underseen Ponyo. It had two spectacular Miyazaki moments - the opening sequence when the wizard is making underwater magic, and the detail of the flora and fauna take your breath away - and the sequence when Ponyo is running on the waves. The year 2009 being a particularly sentimental one for movies, I was already vulnerable at time watching it, and both sequences brought tears to my eyes.

Well, he's...a genius. What else? His movies are genius. They have everything I love in movies.. They're layered with bursts of unrestrained joy and sequences of exquisite craftsmanship, but NEVER, never, never, never, does Miyazaki ever abandon storytelling and depth for visual spectacle. The emotions shown are always just as sophisticated as the visuals; unlike Tim Burton, Miyazaki has yet to resign himself to merely cheap graphic design in lieu of *actual* creativity, even if he is seventy freaking years old. And even if he is seventy, his movies still retain a child-like sense of wonder that is well, wondrous to behold. Through the dismal themes of greed and loneliness and environmental destruction, his movies are ultimately life-affirming (in every movie he's made, there is at least one scene of flying through the air, whether via floating "castle", fish, bird, beast, contraption, or magic).

I have to thank Christian Bale, my former cinematic flame, for introducing me to this maestro, since he did an English dubbing for "Howl's Moving Castle", and I was determined to see everything on Bale's filmography at the time (not to mention I thought Bale's wizard was really, really sexy and thought he and Emily Mortimer's Sophie made a hot couple)

His movies will continue to be cherished by children and adults alike, either in the form of his own movies or through the works of the countless artists and storytellers he's inspired, particularly in Pixar. Happy Birthday.

A Reflection on True Grit: Don't Forget the Nihilism

"People do not give it credence that a fourteen-year-old girl could leave home and go off in the wintertime to avenge her father’s blood, but it did happen. I was just fourteen years of age when a coward going by the name of Tom Chaney shot my father down and robbed him of his life and his horse and and two California gold pieces that he carried in his trouser band.

Chaney was a hired man, and Papa had taken him up to Fort Smith to help lead back a string of Mustang ponies he had just brought. In town, Chaney had fallen to drink and cards and lost all his money. He got it into his head he was being cheated, and went back to the boarding house to get his Henry rifle. When Papa tried to intervene, Chaney shot him. Chaney fled.

He could have walked his horse, for not a soul in the city could be bothered to give chase. No doubt Chaney fancied himself scot-free.

But he was wrong. You must pay for everything in this world, one way or the other. There is nothing free, except the grace of God."

Of the 110 minutes of True Grit, the ones I love best are the opening and ending sequence. Everything in between is kind of well, mediocre - there's the typical Coen characters and Coen morbid eccentric humor - there's Roger Deakins' lovely but often fleeting cinematography, but I think all of these kind of pale in comparison to the two elegiac, kind of haunting sequences that begin and end the movie.

But this is less of a review than a spirited defense of the movie, from those who called the ending cold and empty and the characters devoid of emotional depth or warmth.

Why does True Grit need "warmth" to qualify as great? Because it has comedic moments and a sassy young girl character? I kind of like to think of True Grit as a companion piece to No Country For Old Men. They're both modern spins on the Western and both have a good dose of nihilism and murky morality, even if True Grit is being touted as a more family-friendly genre picture. But I don't think the Coen Bros. ever intended to make a fuzzy, warm, feel-good movie.

The epilogue is kind of hilarious in the way that *SPOILERS* you have what appears to be a sweetly satisfactory conclusion pan out to something that leaves the cheering audience cold and uncertain in their seats. But then again, this is a Coen Brothers movie. The hipster sarcasm that makes them so popular with teenage boys aside, they've never phoned in for simplistic conclusions.

Sure, the movie concerns themes like revenge, but it's mostly a character study of an identity, a tough breed of people who possess the titular "true grit, like Mattie and Rooster. They're decent and morally upright people, not without kindness, but they are not tender or or even preternaturally warm. As much as I like Hailee Steinfeld's performance, she almost makes Mattie too likeable, because at heart, she and Rooster are the same - stoic, inexorable, and self-assured loners. The "true grit" is the cause of their isolation from other people, but it's unfair to assume that Mattie and Rooster lack emotional depth anymore than say, Mark Zuckerberg does in The Social Network, who shares a similar hardwiring with Mattie and Rooster. The only difference is TSN's sadsack ending, which I thought was kind of a Hollywood cop-out and betrayed the Zuckerberg character they'd been beautifully building up to that point. Unlike Zuckerberg, Older Mattie has absolutely no regrets despite a similar emotional isolation, but because of that, she's "empty"?

Listen, in the 21st century where the need to simply be alone is increasingly seen as a cause for concern, there still exists some people who - well, are natural loners, period. They can enjoy human company but enjoy the comfort of solitude more. And they are not lonely. And it is not weird, or soulless, or that they do not find their friendlessness empty or lonely. In the Old West, it is a common personality, but in 2010, it's Asperger's?

Tangent alert. Anyways, in retrospect, it would have been odd for the Coen Bros to let a movie where people shot in cold blood end all happy-go-lucky. They tell good stories, but their stories have always come with some sort of moral or spiritual implication. I disagree with others who found this movie off the mark. In a way True Grit's ending is more emotionally genuine than The Social Network's, since it actually makes the audience feel the hard emptiness of Mattie's choices instead of enforcing the false sentimentality of Zuckerberg's. Both movies end up having odd reversals of tone.