Jonze Scores with Wild Thngs

Well, it took eight days longer than I anticipated but on Saturday, Molly and I ducked out of the rain and finally saw Where The Wild Things Are. Here are a few thoughts …

Spike Jonze confirmed that he is a great fucking film-maker. I have long been a fan of his videos and his films, but I always thought that he perhaps was riding Charlie Kauffman’s great scripts. Well, Kauffman is nowhere to be found this go around but Jonze crushed it with a beautifully-shot film that was both true to the book and yet also was something completely different. Artistically, it is hard to find fault with WTWTA. The wide-shots, the cinematography, the set design, the costumes, the CGI stuff, the music editing ….are all great. You can’t help but watch the movie and think this is what Maurice Sendek had in mind when he was illustrating the book. So on that count, the movie is a home run.

But what I loved about WTWTA is that Jonze was able to stay true to the “art” of the book, which was no easy feat, and also fashion a story that complements the book in a very valuable way. By making the movie about a boy’s emotions, as shown through the “wild things,” Jonze has done much more than just execute a literal translation of the book. Instead, he took a shot at explaining adolescence, and growing pains and divorce and loneliness, in a way that few have done before. I felt it all worked very well and I was surprised that the reaction I had in the theatre was far from what I expected. Rather than sitting there and thinking about how much I loved the book, my thoughts took me back thirty-two years and how I felt when I was growing up.

I know some detractors are arguing that the movie is not for kids and it’s sad and it’s dark and it’s heavy. My response: Yes it was sad and no, it’s not for children. But who cares? Not everything about eight year old boys is for eight year boys.

Molly:  I'm a fan of small and quirky movies; I like mood and tone as much as I like plot (more, probably), and above all else, I want to feel a movie. I want to feel as if I'm in it. (Which is why I loved The Virgin Suicides so much, and In the Bedroom, and The Sweet Hereafter, and Wonder Boys, and...well, I'm getting sidetracked but my point is just that I'm much more moved by mood than by 'splosions and star power.)

Where the Wild Things Are is all mood. For me, it's a good thing. I liked looking at it and listening to it and marveling at the artistry of it. It's not Harry Potter or Chronicals of Narnia: this movie is not about plot. It's not about Max's adventure. It's about Max.

Max broke my heart. It goes without saying that WTWTA was stunning to look at (my favorite parts: the little clay figures carved by Carol as a nice nod to Maurice Sendek's illustrations, the frantic opening scene in which the camera tumbles down the stairs with Max) but beyond the imagery, Spike Jonze so acutely captured the angst and uncertainty of adolescense that at times, I ached watching the movie. I'm not going to lie: I liked the scenes with Max and his human family which bookended his Wild Thing adventure more than I liked his fantastic journey to the island. I loved his rumpled hair and his sadness at being left behind by his sister and hre friends, I loved him tugging at his mother, trying to get her attention. I loved his rage, his frustration, his wide eyes and his lonliness.

It's hard to be a kid. This movie made me want to be a better parent (and I'm not a parent).

The echoes of adult conversations - as heard and re-interpreted by his nine-year old mind and then personified by the Wild Things - were a sweet yet melancholy reminder of just how much children hear and remember, all without the benefit of being privvy to adult decisions and context. Without saying a word about single parenthood or divorce, Spike Jonze said everything.

I told Don that I wasn't sure if I wanted to write about the movie. I'm still not sure if I could write an actual review. But I sure liked spending time with Max.

Evolution Deniers and Litmi Tests

I saw chart on Little Green Footballs this morning that I found both amazing and unsettling. It was a survey of people in 34 countries and it asked how strongly they believed in the theory of evolution. Guess what? The only country whose population is dumber than the United States is Turkey. Yep, the U.S. finished 33rd out of 34 in terms of how strongly its population believed in Chuck Darwin’s crazy idea. The raw numbers are as follow …..just over 40 percent of Americans believe in evolution while another 20 percent aren’t so sure. That leaves forty fucking percent of this country believing that evolution is a crock of shit. For comparison sake, 90 percent of Icelanders think our great ancestors were swinging from trees. So I ask …..what is in the water that makes this country so fucking stupid? And when did “dipshit” become so fashionable?

I mention this study because I am fascinated by the evolution-denial industry. Moreover, I mention it because I use “evolution” as a litmus test to judge and guide my relations. If you believe in evolution ….you pass. If not, you get thrown in that bin with those who can’t be taken seriously on matters related to ……well, almost anything. Other litmi tests I have ……if you think SouthPark is funny, you don’t know funny. And if you like Wilco or Phish ……..well, I am not sure we have much to discuss when it comes to music. All this leads me to the following question ……Molly, what are those three or four (or five things) that you use as a litmus test to gauge someone’s thoughtfullness on a given subject.

Molly: Hey, I like Wilco! 
True story: I was once emailing back and forth with a guy I had bumped into on the internet and before we met in person (he was a friend of a friend of a friend) we did the obligatory back-and-forth email thing and bantered a little and at some poing in our exchange the question of dealbreakers came up and I mentioned that I'd have a hard time taking anyone who listed Ayn Rand and/or John Grisham as their favorite authors. A week or so later I ended up at his apartment and there on display was his collection of John Grisham books, alongside his collection of Yankee memorabilia and digital photo frame (a friend of mine had a mantra: Never go home with a man who has a digital photo frame.) I like to think I've matured beyond using something as superficial as 'what books are on display' as a litmus test but the truth is, I am sort of judgy about that. And home decor. Which is not the same as a litmus test, and is irrelevent in the face of true chemistry and compatibility (whether as friends or romantic partners), but I can't help it. I judge books.  (I've read all of John Grishams' books, by the way.  And I own all the Harry Potter books.  I never said I was being fair!)

That said, Ayn Rand devotees do not pass my litmus test.

Someone who DVRs Two and a Half Men might not share my sense of humor.

Prissiness is not something I do well around (although I can be prissy at certain times) so anyone who blanches at foul language will probably not pass the test.  Or someone who wears Lilly Pulitzer.

I'm not sure if this is a litmus test item or just a peeve of mine, but as soon as someone I meet starts either denouncing outer boroughs or referring to Manhattan as if it is the only part of New York City, they are dead to me.

"My dream vacation would be to an all-inclusive resort."

Don:  No digital frames for me but I liked Pelican Brief and don't you DVR "How I Met Your Mother?"  I think you may have slightly enlarged the topic (at least in my eyes) to perhaps capture some pet peeves but I'll give you a a few more that qualify as "tests" for me:
 
If you don't believe in physician assisted suicide, you don't have my vote and you should get the hell out of my living room.
 
If the first thing you say to a bartender is ...."what are your specials?" ...... we should part ways. 

There are plenty of celebs that I dislike wtih a passion but most -Colbert, Chevy, Dick Vitale, Brent Musberger, Brett Favre, Joba Chamberlin - are simply just objectionable. So if someone prays at their alter, it doesn't quite rise to a "failed test." However, the following quotes result in failing grades:

".....Oh, I love Michelle Malkin, she is so clever and does such a great job describing the big picture ..."

".......no funny women?  Have you SEEN Amy Sederis ......"

" .......nobody does physical like Robin Williams ........."
 
Other tests ....how one comes down on dogs and the Wire/Soprano debate.

Molly:  Yes, I DVR How I Met Your Mother.  You call into regional sports' radio talk shows; no one is perfect!  The evolution statistic surprises me as I'm not sure I know anyone who outright denies evolution, but I do know people who are quite religious (is that even possible?  Can you be a little religious or is that like being a little pregnant?) and some who are very vocal in their devotion and it's been a bit of an eye-opener to me and while I'm not going to propose we have theological debates any time soon, I don't have a problem with other people's religious beliefs, so long as they are not the Shouty Bride of Jesus types.  But if someone I met honestly told me they did not believe in evolution (science!), then I'd have a hard time talking about much else.  Faith is not a dealbreaker; turning a blind eye to empirical data is.

Social intolerance is probably one of the biggest sins someone can commit, in my mind; bigotry, racism and homophobia are pretty hard for me to overlook.  That might sound a little too much like a pageant answer but at the first signs of, 'homosexuality is wrong," I'm heading out the door.

I hate stand-up comedy and anyone who tells me he or she enjoys going to comedy clubs will never, ever, EVER be going with me. 

If my above examples were either too picky or not clear enough, maybe these help:
"Dogs? Ick."
"Gays? Ick."
"Brooklyn? Ick."
"I love the Hamptons."
"I love Ayn Rand."

Don:  My thought on evolution is in the same ballpark as you. If somebody wants to split the baby and go with the "evolution and faith in god are not necessarily exclusive," I will look the other way. I think its a pretty incredible argument to make but again, I will let it slide. However, if you reject carbon dating and think the world is 7000 years old, then I suggest you move to Turkey (or Kansas) where your fantasies will find an even more sympatheitc audience.  

Molly:  And take the Libertarians with you.

The Invention of Lying: Gervais Is Now Dead to Me

Molly and I saw the movie The Invention of Lying last night and I felt compelled this morning to offer my thoughts (and warning) to anyone who might consider throwing down $12.50 to see this outrage. NC-17 disclaimer: I am going to be a bit crass here so I apoligve in advance.

For the past decade, I have used a litmus test to weed out those who have bad taste in comedy. It really is quite simple: if you think South Park is funny, you are either 17 or you suffer from a terrible sense of humor. There is just no middle ground. Well, I have a new litmus test: if you were a witness to The Invention of Lying and have anything good to say about it, then I don't think I can respect your opinion on anything related to film or television. It really is that simple because this movie was really that bad.

In a nutshell, this was a one-joke pony that fell apart seconds into the film and suffered under the weight of that one joke for the next 95 minutes. Here was the premise ...Ricky Gervais lives in a world where no one can tell a lie. So everything that comes out of one's mouth is the god's honest truth. Well, you can guess what ensues. Lots and lots and lots and lots of brutal honesty. And you know what ....when brutal honesty is blatantly telegraphed, it isn't funny in the least. And after 120 or 130 times? It becomes excrutiating.

I think what bugged me most about this film is that I suspect this was a case of Ricky Gervais sitting around one night and thinking ...."you know what would make for a funny movie? Let's do a 'what if' story where nobody has ever told a lie ......" He and his lads were probably crying while thinking of all the possibilities. Unfortunately, creating the premise was probably the last funny thing that happened on this project because certainly nothing funny or clever made it into the script. And what is shocking is that after Gervais and company puked out this script, somebody in charge of the project actually authorized its making. I just don't get it.

Final point for now ....this film was such an abortion that I have to throw it into my Asante Samuel Bin, a category named for the New England Patriot who did great things for my Pats but then ended up droping an easy interception that would have secured a Super Bowl and a perfect season for the Pats. By dropping that pass, Samuel lost every ounce of goodwill he had ever earned with me. Ricky Gervais ....meet Asante Samuel. You are back to zero in my book. Yep, 50 points for the BBC Office. Another 30 points for bringing The Office to NBC. Maybe another 50 points for HBO's Extras. But a 130 point deduction for Invention brings you right back to zero. That is how I am scoring this one ......Molly?

Molly: What's the saying in comedy?  A joke should bend but not break?  The joke broke.  The joke broke in the first twenty minutes.  The remainder of the movie left me 1) looking for holes in the premise (like, how does ANYONE function in the world created for this movie: if all anyone says is the most horrible brutal truth than how do any businesses function?  How do relationships work?  How do families manage to procreate?  And, why does being unable to lie render the main characters into moderately retarded people?  Were all the characters in the background having equally dumbed down conversations?) and 2) admiring Jennifer Garner's body.  She's so pretty!

I gave up on most sketch comedy long ago, because a funny premise is not always enough for a funny sketch.  It's often not enough for even a legitimate joke.  In this case, it certainly was not enough for an entire movie.  It smacked of insider-cliquey-smugness (Hey!  Let's have cameos!  And sight gags!) and was so thinly strung together that I am convinced it was made, shelved and then released on account of some unforseen Hollywood currency that those involved must have recently accrued.

It should have been a sketch.  Maybe.

And the worst part was I didn't even get to finish my piece of pizza before we rushed into the theater.  You owe me a crust, Ricky Gervais.

Don: Broke after twenty minutes? What movie were you watching? This thing snapped halfway into the opening scene where Gervais and Garner were on there first date. I was frustrated by the time the check came and that was at the six minute mark.  That being said, I admit to having similar conversations in my head. But the one thing I was considering: how do we go from a premise where people can't lie to a premis where everyone has Tourette's and has to blurt out every unvarnished thoughht that they may be having?

Molly: Yep, that's the same breaking point; I guess it just felt like twenty minutes.  And your last comment is exactly where the "premise" of the movie whiffed it for me.  "Not lying" turned into Rainman turned into some sort of film school project which never should have made it past the laptop it was written on.