"You're An Inanimate Fucking Object!"*

Originally Posted 3/19/08:

*That's from In Bruges. The context is a dude is pissed and is bashing a phone to smithereens. His wife walks in and says, "Harry, it's an inanimate object." He wittily retorts the above. It's hilarious. Later he apoligizes by saying, "I'm sorry I called you an inanimate object."

Okay, I’m back. I know it’s been tough for you guys to get through the night without my notes to comment on, but it’s time to step off the ledge.

I was gone for two reasons primarily. 1) I had a ton of stuff to do. 2) I realized after that Oscar post that I had gotten way too in love with my opinions. Yes, I love Juno* and Into the Wild, and no, I don’t love No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood, but they’re all on the same level. And who cares anyway? Geez. I needed a break. And so, keeping that in mind, I’m going to do my best to talk about these things in terms of how much I like them, and you much I think you all will like them, rather than about some nebulous intrinsic goodness.

Anyway, because it’s been so long, I have an absolutely ridiculous amount of stuff to cover. So, let’s begin.

*Yeah, so my house here in Santa Fe is for sale, and some people came by to look at it today, so what did I do with that time? That’s right, saw Juno again (View Count: 3—will rise dramatically when it becomes available for purchase). In my defense, there was nothing else playing at the right time, but I think I would have seen it again over anything but Snow Angels anyway.

Ordinary People
This movie is remembered more for beating Raging Bull for Best Picture in 1980 than for its own merits, but I think that is wildly unfair.

Ordinary People tells the story of a family, primarily through the eyes of its younger son, in the aftermath of their older son’s accidental death and the other’s subsequent suicide attempt. Those events all happen before the movie’s open, and what we actually see is much smaller and more understated.

That’s what I really love about Ordinary People, how personal and understated it is. Its entire focus is the emotional lives of the three main characters—the cruel, Stepford-esque mother; the confused, well-intentioned father; and the terrified and depressed but sensitive son. My favorite relationship is the one between the son (Timothy Hutton) and his psychiatrist, which is the best treatment of the subject I’ve ever seen.

That said, I don’t think most of you will love this movie as much as I did. It’s like Ordinary People was written precisely to please me. This is exactly the kind of movie I love*: personal, emotional, realistic, uplifting, honest. It has none of the flair or scope of a Goodfellas, a Network, a Casablanca, or really any of the movies I can think of that are considered among the best ever. That is actually a bonus for me, but for everyone else, it may hold back your enjoyment. A+/A

*This actually made me start thinking about what exactly is “the kind of movie I love.” I’ve narrowed it down to essentially three categories:

1) Ordinary People type understatement. This also includes The Lives of Others (seems like scope should be bigger but ends up being extremely personal), Into the Wild (ditto) and 21 Grams. This is the smallest of the categories, I think partially because these kinds of movies tend to aim for goodness rather than greatness (see: Thirteen later).

2) Hero stories. I love the good against evil duality, and the one (or a couple) people having the fate of the world in their hands. Plus, it’s a category that lends itself nicely to symbolism and allegory. Favorites include V for Vendetta, The Matrix, Spiderman 2, Batman Begins and Terminator 2.

3) Quirky, insightful films that exist in a stylized pseudo-reality. Charlie Kaufman and Wes Anderson movies are the best examples of this, but I’d also include Juno,** Quentin Tarantino movies, maybe even Memento and American Beauty. Obviously, there’s major variability in how realistic those are, but I think they basically fit together. When I look at my favorite movies, most of the top ones come from this category, which surprises me a little, but I think what I like is that these movies toe the line well between aspiring for greatness without getting lost in their subject rather than the characters (obviously there are exceptions—I Heart Huckabees is a good example of being about its shtick instead of characters, though I like it a lot, ditto Science of Sleep—but there are less well-done films in every category.

**I think this is one of the things that people miss about Juno. It’s not nearly as out there as a Wes Anderson movie, but the same kind of elements are present. Yes Olivia Thrilby says, “Honest to blog.” Yes, Dwight Schrute calls Juno a “home-skillet.” No, no one has ever actually said either of those things. But that’s not the point. If you don’t demand realism from Juno the same way you don’t demand Luke Wilson to ever change his clothes in The Royal Tennenbaums, then those and many other problems disappear. I’m not saying it’s a flawless movie, just that I don’t think the use of ridiculous slang is one of those flaws.

Alright, we’re going to have to pick things up, as I only have so much free time (okay, I have a lot, but not THAT much).

Thirteen
Thirteen is another very understated film, painfully realistic to the point that you almost forget there’s someone standing behind the camera. I said last note in passing that I think it sometimes gets caught up in being a cautionary tale, but I don’t think that anymore. There’s no judgment, just honesty. The ending doesn’t resolve a whole lot, but it works well enough. B+

In Bruges
In Bruges is about a couple of hit men hiding out after a murder in the Belgian medieval tourist town, Bruges (pronounced Brooj, with a soft j). It is a black, black, black comedy, and though it often tries to add elements of real drama and emotion, it is the comedy that makes it worth seeing. I found many parts hilarious, and this is a movie Ross was made to see. But don’t let that dissuade the rest of—just about everyone should find it funny. The more emotional parts aren’t bad at all, but the few parts where it does fall flat come in those moments. And despite not liking most of the things that led up to the ending, I really liked the last 30-60 seconds, so that made up for it somewhat. B+

Starting Out in the Evening
This is about a forgotten writer trying to finish his last novel before he succumbs to heart problems, a pretty, young grad student trying to write a dissertation that will bring the writer’s work back to prominence, and the writer’s middle aged daughter’s relationship with a man who loves her but doesn’t want children.

There’s a lot to really like in this movie, and it actually falls into that Ordinary People category too, which seems to be popping up all over the place today. The most interesting part to me was the relationship between the daughter and her boyfriend, and he was actually the character that changed the most. The grad student gets kind of lost in the ending, but overall, I was very satisfied. The story was interesting, the acting was good, and, again, everything was understated. Definitely recommended. B+

Thank You for Smoking
Considering how much I love Juno, I was excited to see Jason Reitman’s other film (does he have others?), Thank You for Smoking. And while I liked it, I was far from blown away. It’s quirky and funny, always pluses, and the relationship between Aaron Eckhart and his son was pretty genuine, but for the most part I didn’t really find most of the relationships deep at all. Also, I have no idea what the ending means. Is the conclusion that you should do what you’re best at regardless of the moral implications? The movie also seems to often ignore those moral implications all together. All in all though, I still thought it was plenty enjoyable. B/B-

Clue
I love this movie, and this board game. Ah, get a clue like Colonel Mustard in the study with the candlestick.

Mean Girls
I also love this movie. B+

Oh, and also...
I've given this a small amount of thought, and, for now, I've decided to change my NBA allegiance from the Suns to the Hornets. I'll always love the Suns, root for them against everyone ese, and imagine the team they could have had if Robert Sarver wasn't a cheapskate*. But the Suns aren't as fun with Shaq, and Chris Paul is unbelievable. You know he throws more than one alley-oop a game just to Tyson Chandler, whcih is three times as many as anyone else does to any other player. It's incredible. He's carrying that team in a way you never see pure point guards carry their teams, not even Steven Nash in his undeserved MVP years (seriously, that was all about him being short and white, as much as I love him). Ah, the beauty of being a sports bigamist.

*PG: Nash, Rondo. Wing: Iguodala/Deng, Bell, Barbosa, Grant Hill (maybe he wouldn't have signed with them--fine, James Jones). Big: Amare, Marion, Diaw, Kurt Thomas. It almost makes me cry to think how good and exciting that team would be.

I was going to do books too (Beloved and To Kill a Mockingbird), but I’m all noted out. I didn’t cover Saving Private Ryan, but you probably all know it’s fantastic already (see it otherwise), and I’m sure I forgot something else too. I’ll fill it in when I remember. And I can’t wait to see Snow Angels. Hope this wasn’t too much for one post…