Older = Sentimental?

Saw Jane Eyre for the second time today and it was thankfully quiet the whole way through, though I did miss the raucous enthusiasm of the first screening. No one burst into applause or cheering when Jane and Rochester kissed, and no one said "YOU GO GIRL!" A bit disappointing, I must admit.

There were a lot of elderly couples here, and I noticed after the screening that about a third of them remained in their seats, and I was intensely curious to find out what they were thinking. Did they just usually sit there because they usually liked to ponder the movie they had just watched, or had the movie touched them so intensely that that they were having some serious flashbacks and rushes of sentimentalism?

I'm growing more sentimental as I'm getting older, and it's worrying me a lot. And not just "more sensitive to the cares of the world" or anything productive. I'm listening to the Phantom of the Opera, something I once couldn't abide for its unbearable cheesiness, a LOT recently. I can't stop feeling touched when I listen to "That's All I Ask of You" or "The Music of the Night". I sigh when Christine sings "Say you love me" and Raoul passionately bellows (but tenderly!) "you know I do.....". I cried the other night when I re-read Wuthering Heights. I'm afraid that I'm becoming an incurable romantic, something I disdained from my younger days as a tomboy to high school, when I advised my English class to pick husbands that could provide them with alimony. I think I need help.

Most Anticipated Performances of 2011

Viggo Mortensen and Michael Fassbender in a "A Dangerous Method"

Michelle Williams in "My Week With Marilyn"

Rooney Mara in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia" (just the thought of Dunst paired with Lars Von Trier is so surreal. I gotta see what happens)

Jessica Chastain in "The Tree of Life"

Marion Cotillard and Rachel McAdams in "Midnight in Paris"

Greta Gerwig in "Arthur"

Remembering A Beloved Class

Sometimes I look back at my AP Art History class and miss it like crazy. I love college and this semester's classes are great, but there are 2-3 certain classes I took in high school that were simply unmatched in their brilliance and vibrancy. AP Art History was one of them. I may not have always enjoyed (okay, mostly I resented) memorizing fifty pieces of art in one night for a test the next day, but how wonderful the discussions were, how amazing it was to literally see your perspective of an art piece morph before your eyes as the teacher described its qualities and altered the way you saw art forever. I actually even enjoyed taking the AP test *cough nerd*.

It's amazing how much I still reference the lessons and the art pieces we learned. My psych professor talked about modern art in our last lecture, and I brought up the Venus of Willendorf to make a point about culture in my english seminar the other day. A very close friend and fellow art-lover (we sat in AP Art History together) is coming in April and the first thing we shall do, certainly, is hit up some art museums and argue about Rococo (she adores it, I find it nauseating) and obsess over our old art history teacher. Can't wait.

From top to bottom: "Mrs Fiske Warren and Her Daughter'", John Singer Sargent. "Venus of Willendorf", unknown. "Nighthawks", Edward Hopper. "Judith Slaying Holofernes, Artemisia Gentileshi

*For instance, my teacher would be absolutely ashamed by the fact that I've cited the paintings without their full information, something I always got points off in our tests. I just can't do dates for art, okay?

But everyone should take an art history class at one point in their lives or another. It's one of the best things you can do.

Jezebel: Mad Men Won't Be Coming Back Anytime Soon

Jezebel reports:

There's good news and bad news for Mad Men fans. Creator Matt Weiner is working on a deal that would extend the show through a fifth and sixth season, but negations are taking so long that we won't be spending Sundays with Don and Joan this summer. In fact, production may be so delayed that the program won't come back until 2012.

However, the drama surrounding the show is already in full swing, as rumors have been flying about the state of negotiations for weeks. From Weiner's perspective, he deserves a hefty sum because the show is a massive critical hit that's responsible for reviving AMC. Yet, since the network has been able to develop other original series like Breaking Bad andThe Walking Dead, it's now less reliant onMad Men. (And due to the fact that Americans are more interested in the zombie apocalypse than a '60s advertising agency, The Walking Dead already has twice as many viewers as Mad Men.)

Hah. Last sentence so true. But does this mean that all I'll have to watch this summer is True Blood? COME ON! By last July, I was looking forward more to Mad Men each week than I was to Alexander Skarsgard's alternately naked glory. True Story.

The Curious Case of Robert Pattinson

Dear Robert Pattinson,

In light of the new much-buzzed agonized spread in Vanity Fair, WE GET IT. You have mixed feelings about the whole Twilight thing. On one hand it's gained you everything most people have ever dreamed of - fame, millions, an undeserved but unquestionably iconic place in movie history, innumerable fans who adore you with all their hearts and would conceivably lie down in the middle of the road if you asked (seriously. ugh). But the role has also "typecast" you and the celebrity limelight is doing weird things to your mind, and all you want is to be taken as a serious actor and also be able to sit down in a pub and toss back a drink without a riot breaking down, amirite.

But seriously. You've always come off as an intelligent, sincere young guy with an appealing and charismatic demeanor, even if I think you're not a very special actor. But seriously, I can't help but scoff when you have five bajillion interviews coming out per year where in each one, you whine to the interviewer about how you want your life to be more private and then spend the rest of the day strolling the streets with the interviewer and basically treating them like your new BFF and granting your rabid fanbase to an exclusive insight into A Day In the Life of Robert Pattinson. Even I admit to being totally riveted when I read your interviews, even though I think you're a terribly bland actor. Therein lies the problem. It's like you are disgusted at all the attention, but in reality all you want to do is show people that you really are a cool human being with a soul who does charming antics and even has a dirty sense of humor to boot, oh how precious of him!

Well, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If you really want to "prove yourself", giving interviews that are more far interesting than any of your performances is not helpful at all. You cannot whine about your privacy when, honestly, we don't need paparazzi or cameras in your situation - you give us all the dirt we need.

It's not exactly private when you present a near goddamn psychological case study of yourself in Vanity Fairy, causing fangirls to boo-hoo over your mental state and Roger Ebert to publicly express his sympathies. You claims to be protective of your life, but I swear there's almost nothing you haven't revealed to magazines, save your romantic life. You're neurotically open to interviewers (that's what a shrink is for, honey), and tells them things I wouldn't tell my casual acquaintances much less international publications, for god's sake. It's like, get a LOAD of this. With this outpouring of intimate and emotional details to millions of readers worldwide, you REALLY don't get why your fans become ever-increasingly obsessed about your life? Let me make it short: YOU SHARE TOO MUCH, DEAR. Stop with the telling. Get with the showing.

Pull your shit together and stop blabbing. As anyone knows, if you pick good movies that people want to see, then they will see it, regardless of whether you appear on that month's Vanity Fair or not. Christian Bale never does late-night talk shows hosts (much to my chagrin back when I was a huge devotee), and he seems to be doing okay. I know you really want to show off your intelligence and sensitivity and humor or whatnot, but no one really gives a shit except for the fangirls, and so it's only adding more fuel to the fire.

Btw, that cover really says "leave me alone, give me my own space" and not "look at me how fine I am with this alligator and smoldering glare". Goodness you are frustrating.

Come Soon, Spring

A few of my favorite spring/summer snapshots from The Sartorialist. It's almost April but it's forty degrees outside. I'm ready again for warm breezes and spring fashion.

Ah, spring!

Favorite Movie Scenes #1: Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979)

Favorite Movie Scenes: #1

I’m starting a series of my favorite scenes from movies. First entry: Manhattan (1979, Woody Allen).

The inherent problem with this series, though, is that the moments are best viewed in the context of the movie. Seeing it as stand-alone clip doesn’t do it justice unless you understand its relevance within the story.

In this case however, the opening scene of “Manhattan”, a montage of New York set to the gorgeous swells of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, stands on its own as a masterpiece.

[music: the opening of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. Voiceover]
“Chapter One. He adored New York City. He idolized it all out of proportion. Eh uh, no, make that he, he romanticized it all out of proportion. Better. To him, no matter what the season was, this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin. Uh, no, let me start this over.

Chapter One: He was too romantic about Manhattan, as he was about everything else. He thrived on the hustle bustle of the crowds and the traffic. To him, New York meant beautiful women and street smart guys who seemed to know all the angles. Ah, corny, too corny for, you know, my taste. Let me, let me try and make it more profound.

Chapter One: He adored New York City. To him it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture. The same lack of individual integrity that caused so many people to take the easy way out was rapidly turning the town of his dreams in - no, it’s gonna be too preachy, I mean, you know, let’s face it, I wanna sell some books here.

Chapter One: He adored New York City. Although to him it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture. How hard it was to exist in a society desensitized by drugs, loud music, television, crime, garbage - too angry. I don’t want to be angry.

Chapter One. He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved. Behind his black-rimmed glasses was the coiled sexual power of a jungle cat. Oh, I love this.

New York was his town, and it always would be.”

Favorite Movies of 2010

Goodness gracious, I'd feel bad about getting out a 2010 wrap-up in the middle of March, but I choose to blame all these film companies that didn't release their prime Oscar-bait until December. I simply haven't had the time to get around to everything! And TBH, I'm not nearly dedicated as some I know to see every movie that comes out, so yes, I rely on the end of the year top-10 lists from all the publications to help me decide what to watch.

So the best movies I've seen of 2010 don't add up to ten overall, but I don't think that reflects less the quality of this year's movie than just my own limited intake.

1. Animal Kingdom

Most people just know it as a vehicle for Jacki Weaver's Oscar-nominated performance, but I didn't expect the rest of the movie or the other performances to be so damn good. You know one of these movies that never makes a single false move, where each moment is perfectly calibrated, and the movie takes you in during the first scene and the slow-burning momentum doesn't cease until the final second, when everything falls into place? Animal Kingdom is one of those. it's almost perfect.

Characters flit in and out of scenes, sometimes lasting for scarcely ten minutes of screentime, others are ruthlessly killed off (it is a crime drama, after all) but the human impact is never lost. You barely know who to turn your sympathies towards but you still feel towards everyone all the same. The violence is key to the story, but never feels desensitized or gratuitous. Oh, it's SO good. I love it.

2. The Social Network

I still have major problems with this movie, most of which have to do with Aaron Sorkin's glib and in many ways cheap stylization of a truly fascinating story, with what the laughable ending and somewhat ignorant/shallow/egotist perspective of the whole thing ("he wants to distinguish himself in a school full of people who got 1600s on their SATs!" "this movie is absolutely true!" "it's about how the internet is alienating a generation!"), but I really don't want to say much else about it because I feel like I've spent the last four or five months expressing the lady-boner I have for the directing/styling work from Fincher and the thrilling performances of the cast, in particular Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield (my massive crushes on those two actors doesn't hurt, either). Despite its major writing flaws, it's still hella memorable, exhilarating, and phenomenally executed.

3. How to Train Your Dragon

It's "one of these movies" where you don't realize how good it is until you've watched it for the fifth or sixth time and realized that it's still so much fun to watch. There are a lot of movies nowadays with a couple magnificent/slick visual scenes and little attention paid to whether the rest of the story sticks, but this isn't one of them. It works on every level, and I love all the details - Hiccup's brainy tech skills, every movement or expression Toothless makes, the perfected Gen-Y dialogue of the side characters ("Oh, I'm hurt! I'm very much hurt!" or "Isn't it weird to think that your hand was inside a dragon, like if your mind was still in control of it, you could have killed the dragon from the inside by crushing its heart or something?"

4. Winter's Bone

On some level, I guess that it could be this year's American equivalent of Animal Kingdom. They're both modern stories that evoke primal, very essential struggles - human survival at its most basic and bleakest. There's something greater at stake here. But there's a really stark beauty and compulsion to the story that makes the movie so pleasurable, and a richness in thematic content that makes it truly epic. And like AK, it's just some very fine storytelling.

5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

Loved the slow-burning pace. Loved the overall cohesion, the imposition of thoughtful details, daring sequences (Tale of the Three Brothers, anyone?) and one or two scenes that admittedly should have been cut but added an interesting layer nonetheless. Loved the action scenes and occasionally thrilling/frightening showpieces and the moodiness that in itself was faithful to the spirit of the first half of the 7th book. It means SO much to me that a Harry Potter movie can stand on its own. This is the second HP movie in the series that I've actually loved and respected - the first was the previous Half-Blood Prince.

Apart from those, I really liked True Grit, Fish Tank, Tangled, The Fighter, The Kids Are All Right, and Black Swan.

Favorite Scenes of 2010:

True Grit: Beginning sequence and midnight ride

Black Swan: Last fifteen minutes

The Social Network: hacking sequence, "Do i have your attention?","Lawyer up", meeting Sean Parker, the regatta sequence

How to Train Your Dragon: first flight, toothless and hiccup connect, opening scene,

The Kids Are All Right: Every scene that involves a family meal

The Fighter: Porch scene with Charlene and Dicky

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Beginning sequence, Ministry of Magic infiltration, graveyard, The Tale of the Three Brothers

Underwhelmed of 2010: Eat Pray Love, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Toy Story 3 (SUE ME), Inception (ditto), Easy A

Jane Austen's Fight Club

Fight Club + Jane Austen = Genius. Just wondering what a Fincher-directed period film would be like. It would either be the best or the worst thing in the world. We all know he's a maestro at painting social rebels. That's just his thing. Austen doesn't really rebel against society as much as just majorly make fun of it, but still.......oh god, now I can't get this thought out of my my head. I'd genuinely explode if the news came that David Fincher would be doing English period. It would be the world turned upside down. Then it would be followed by the announcement that Tom Hooper is directing a serial killer movie and it would be......so epic.

Oscar Done Right

It was fucking abysmal, the entire affair. At least I wasn't so offended as last year's, just mostly bored to tears. But there were three parts that I can't stop watching over again and again:

Oscar opening montage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3Z_iyBFcQ

Oscar closing BP montage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONCVJvbp27M

I know that this has gotten a lot of flak for making it so obvious that The King's Speech was going to win, but at the same time, this montage is just really well-made and I liked the fact that they tried to parallel parts of the speech to themes of the other nominees, at least.

Oscars Autotune

Ok, I'm not ok with this being at the Oscars - I just cringe at the thought of the audience seeing this - it's just embarrassing. But it really does make me laugh. Andrew Garfield's head bopping back and forth, oh my god.

I Can Feel It Coming

Like a storm.....on the....horizon. Like a curious sensation - oh whatever. I suck shit at metaphors.

Another "Actor Obsession" is heading this way. I may or may not find Michael Fassbender extremely intriguing right now. After watching him woo Mia Wasikowska passionately and walk around tight pants (bless the costume designer) for two hours, I suddenly find him to be a really really really interesting person. Isn't that strange? How original of me.

But thank god. It's been too long.

UPDATE: Oh shit! I guess it's not meant to be. The problem with these crushes of mine, is that the actor and the person are always inextricable for me. I love the actor because of the person and I love the person because of the actor and oh, it's just always a stupid mess. I always have to google them and I can only really fall in love with them if they prove to be an equally gorgeous human being, and most of the time they ARE (or so they seem so). Ralph Fiennes, Paul Rudd, whatever - just come off as classy and intelligent people. It just enhances the illusion of the actor when I feel like I can love the person behind it. In my process of falling-into-obssession, two things happened: 1) I thought he wasn't very good in a certain movie (granted, the movie of question itself sucked and he was slightly miscast) and 2) He dissed a movie that I esteem very highly. This is where my inner snob emerges - I think you just have to have good taste to like this movie. Cue hurt feelings and shattered fangirl illusions and what I recognize as collectively silly behavior, but the budding Actor Obsession melted right there and then. Oh Michael, it's too bad. But you're going to have a billion other fangirls, so I'm sure you'll be fine. We'll always have JE.

Jane Eyre (2011): Thoughts and Audience Madness

You know, I always pick out the conditions of the movie I'm seeing. Popcorn films demand a large audience to see it with. For scary movies and blockbuster pics, I just have to bring a friend because the shared experience just enhances the viewing. We scream together, laugh, joke around and the audience whoops and cheers. My all-time favorite movie watching experience was the premiere of The Dark Knight three years back, when the audience collectively gasped, cheered, and groaned. Oh, it was excellent.

But for smaller intimate movies, I always prefer to go alone. I don't need my friend's pithy comments or shared ennui or whatever. I'm utterly absorbed alone, and it's a blissful state. So when I settled down to an advance screening of "Jane Eyre" this evening with a friend (she was the one who got me the ticket so I owe it to her), I blanched when I saw thirty middle-school girls followed by a gi-fucking-gantic group of rowdy, baseball-cap wearing, hoodie-donning teenagers behind them. "Oh noooooooo," I moaned, sinking lower into my seat. "I can't handle this. I really fucking can't. Why are they here? Why the fuck do they even want to see Jane Eyre? Don't they want to see like, "Drive Angry" or something?"

To make a long story short, it was simultaneously the best and worst movie-watching experience of my life. Half the time I was pulled into the shared collective experience of popcorn movies; during funny moments the entire theater cracked up; at Jane and Rochester's first kiss, someone blubbered "YOU GO, GIRL" and my friend and I both cried with laughter as the rest of the theater burst into much hearty whooping and applause. Those spontaneous moments, the shared bursts of emotions, were the best.

The downside, and boy was it bad; the smartasses who kept trying to drop lame quips during the movie, the girls next to us who kept howling at the people behind us to shut the fuck up, the catcalls and occasional idiotic reactions, and worst of all, A FUCKING CRYING BABY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MOVIE. I whispered to my friend, "who the FUCK brings a baby to the MOVIE THEATER?" And its caretaker didn't even make an effort to carry it out. So it wailed and wailed incessantly throughout the movie causing someone more than once to mutter, "I'm going to kill that baby". I wanted to correct them: Babies cry. Their caretakers, on the other hand, should know better than to take it to a movie instead of TAKING CARE OF IT.

So I was emotionally distraught the entire movie. During poignant or dramatic scenes, I'd be trying to cry in peace and then someone would make a wiseass catcall, or I'd be engrossed in a good moment and then the baby would start crying again, and I just wanted to rip my hair out. Then I would start laughing again and then crying and then getting pissed again. I was practically babbling by the time we left.

THAT ASIDE. THE MOVIE. Did I mention that these annoying teenagers were for the most part, fixated? I was dreading walkouts and groans, but they never happened. Shrieking baby aside, everyone seemed to really enjoy it. More on that later.

Overall, I thought the director, Cary Fukunaga did a great job of "updating" the movie (there's more suspense, visual flair, modern, tight pacing) and capturing the spirit of the book at the same time, and that's all you can ask of an adaptation, really. The style is quite impeccable, and the content, well, there's only so much of JE's nuances and themes you can cram into two hours. If only it could have been a miniseries. I noticed that some of the scenes from the trailer were cut; waiting for a "extended feature" DVD, perhaps?

Anyways, anyways, the ACTORS. Well, Mia Wasikowska was good, not great. In some scenes Mia would do too much and in others she'd do too little. She has a preternatural calm and maturity that suits her for Jane, but some of the traits other characters claimed to see in her ("ambition" "vivacity") were a bit lacking. She was clearly an intelligent, thoughtful, feeling person, but I'm not so sure she had the same spark and spirit of fire that I imagined in Jane, or even seen in a sketch of Charlotte Bronte. She has the requisite chemistry with Fassbender's Rochester, which is the most important thing, but I'm not sure the movie managed to capture Jane's allure - her full-bodied uniqueness and unearthly spirit; it tells that more than it shows.

Portrait of Charlotte Bronte, circa 1850

Still, the movie sincerely attempted to capture the book's spirit, which is all I can ask for - I understand that a perfect adaptation is impossible. It simply can't be done because how you imagine the characters and scenes is drawn so vividly in your mind, and it's just unfair to expect that your personal version would be translated exactly to screen. All you can ask for is that they tried their hardest to re-create the spirit, the tone, and the themes. The 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley is a wonderful movie, but it really is an adaptation and not a re-creation, because it deliberately made a different story. It was sad and romantic, not satirical or bitingly self-aware and because of that, I can't love it. It just isn't the book.

But Jane Eyre really does capture that odd spell of the book. The beauty of the cinematography reminded me of 2005's Pride and Prejudice, but this world is so far removed from Austen's - all its otherworldliness. The score was very "Memoirs of a Geisha" - melancholy and eerily beautiful.

Okay, I just *really* enjoyed Fassbender's Rochester. Truth to be told, I've never been able to handle any of the past incarnations of Rochester. They always feel so cartoonish. They're glaring and brooding! They're dark, harsh and statuesque! I just can't buy it. Usually the actors are so involved in scrunching their eyebrows and strutting around in their broody sarcastic Byronic walk doing broody Byronic things that they completely forget to include some of his more human qualities - like tenderness and mischief, which is what Jane notices in spite of himself, just as he notices her inner warmth and vivacity in spite of her own hardy facade.

Fassbender's Rochester isn't as harsh or arrogant as previously portrayed, and I preferred this credible human version a lot more. He's not so tall or statuesque either, but makes up for it with his physical charisma - I thought he nailed the restless, furtive energy of the character. I wish some of the climatic scenes with him and Jane had a more explosive quality to them, but overall, the drama is much easier on the eyes. I didn't cringe, which is a first. I'm a very cringe-y person. Did I mention that he is unbelievably fucking HOT in this? Just really, really, so. Maybe that's why I like him in this so much. Hmm...........

Jamie Bell was great, too. It's just completely different from anything else he's done, and he just carries St. John's kind but mannerly and ill-guided priggishness with ease. There really isn't enough of him in the movie to have a full characterization, to be honest - again, they left quite an awful lot out, but the pacing is so tightly controlled and Bronte's characterization is still vivid enough that the aforementioned teens that sat behind me were hilariously responsive to Jane and Rochester's actions, at times calling out instructions or critiques ("say yes!" "You fool!" etc.).

Companies and the Academy and whoever else panicking over the state of the "hip teen" nowadays, take note. I just sat with a bunch of freaking high schoolers/middle schoolers who, yes, may have catcalled and occasionally snickered at a couple admittedly cheesy scenes and were even a bit bored at times, but for the most part to my great surprise, were seriously invested in the movie and its characters. And that's because it was a damn well-made movie. The characters, though hailing from the 19th century, were strong and engrossing because human drama never changes in its ability to pull us in, and there was enough hooky suspense to lure us in as well. Afterwards, I heard kids say, "that was GREAT" in complete surprise, as if they didn't expect it to be interesting at all, probably because they've become acclimated to bad movies with shallow characterization and shoddy execution that attempt to pull in young audiences by mishmashes of hyper shiny loud things in their faces, because they're not supposed to have enough attention span to engage otherwise.

Well newsflash; a bunch of supposedly ADHD teens sat through JANE FREAKING EYRE and most of them, as far as I can tell, truly, truly enjoyed it. Take that, slimeball corporate movie studios and older generation naysayers.

And props to Cary Fukunaga and everyone else involved. If I ever meet Michael Fassbender one day I'm going to have to thank him for doing such wonderful justice to Mr. Rochester. The perfect Jane, however (by far the more difficult and impossible character to get right of the two, IMO), is still out there though, I think.

That aside, this is the first adaptation of Jane Eyre I've been able to tolerate, and certainly the first one where I've really appreciated. I don't know if I love it yet - I'll have to wait over time and multiple re-watchings - but I'm just pretty gratified all the same.

P.S. Oh, and I finally get it. I finally get the Fassbender thing. Before, I wasn't even remotely attracted to him, not even in the most dashing pictures or drool-worthy clips. I just shrugged. But um, I get it now. He really is sex personified.