High Definition Intuition

Tough Teen Chicks and the 83rd Annual Academy Awards

2011-03-01T20:17:00.001-08:00

When presented with the words, “teenage girl” and “movie” perhaps cultural artifacts such as Twilight or Justin Bieber come to mind. Or, if you’re a feminist, perhaps you mutter something about how the audience is impressionable yet underserved. Looking at last night’s Best Picture nominations, though, one can’t help but notice that the 2010 films featured an uncharacteristically high amount of teen chick badassery. Specifically, I’m referring to Winter’s Bone and True Grit. In Winter’s Bone, seventeen-year-old Ree is saving her family’s home and taking care of her mentally absent mother and two younger siblings in the absence of her meth-cooking father. In True Grit, fourteen-year-old Mattie goes after her father’s killer. In both cases the girls are simply fighting hard and putting their safety at risk to do what they think is right, and what no one else is willing to. The girls also both have no time for even a passing glance at a boy. And don’t get me wrong; I thoroughly enjoy teen sexual tension a la Harry Potter and Glee. Nevertheless, it’s refreshing to see this is not a requirement in creating a teenage female character. The other cool thing—or not-cool thing—depending on how you look at it, is that these films weren’t necessarily aimed at teenage girls. I’m an advocate of anything that presents the general public with a positive representation of our nation’s female youth, but I suppose I wonder if the girls themselves are seeing these films or others that promote general female kickassery.

WTF: "Cyrus"

2010-07-01T19:12:00.000-07:00

I'm not seeing Cyrus, and I'll tell you why: It's a lady's nightmare. I've said this before, but as a female viewer, I naturally align with or feel connected to the female character in the film. Even if one is neutral to this phenomenon, we can still note that it's considerate to America's women to include at least one interesting or positive representation of the gender in any given movie with women in it. The problem with the Marisa Tomei character is that she's playing out every woman's nightmare: living with a weird adult son only to then snag a chubby divorcee. Cool. I mean, really? Must the schulumpy man-children invade the quirky Fox Searchlight relationship dramedies? Does the world really need more movies about lame dudes who don't really do anything but still land hot chicks? I hope my girl-crush on Catherine Keener can survive this.

Girl Power on "Parks and Recreation"

2010-03-06T22:05:00.000-08:00

Ron: Come on Leslie, you know I'm not sexist. I love powerful women.
Leslie: You do attend a shocking number of WNBA games.

I love Parks and Recreation. Really, if you’re not watching it, start. GQ named Parks and Rec "Sitcom of the Year" for 2009 and I found this very exciting when I first read it, since I've always thought of Parks and Rec as a highly feminist show. (In one episode, protagonist Leslie rejects a potential suitor when he mistakes her framed photo of Madeleine Albright for her grandmother.) Parks and Rec is about women, and smoothly and subtly recognizes feminist issues while still being a show both men and women can connect with.

The last episode, “Woman of the Year” was no exception to the awesome-streak Parks and Rec has been on this season. In this episode, Leslie excitedly opens an envelope from the Indiana Organization for Women, expecting a female empowerment award recognizing a camp she started for troubled girls. It turns out the award is for her boss, "the opposite of a woman" Ron Swanson. Right away, Ron announces to us (but not Leslie) that he recognizes Leslie should have received the award: “Awards are stupid, which is why I fully intend to decline this nonsense and recommend it go to Leslie because she works really hard and I don't.” He then announces that he's going to mess with Leslie for a little bit longer, to prove a legitimate point about the insignificance of awards.

Ron usually doesn’t show interest in much other than breakfast food, so it was sweet to see him care this much about Leslie. The plot still let him be himself, though, staging a fake photo shoot to torment her: “Which of these objects most represents women for this portrait? A pot? Or this deputy director Barbie? Isn't it adorable? She's got a little briefcase.” Since we knew he was only giving her a hard time, Ron was able to really torment Leslie, which was simultaneously funny and good character development.

Another notable feminist episode this season was “Beauty Pageant.” When intern April tells Leslie she's entered the Miss Pawnee Beauty Pageant, Leslie responds, "That is why I decided to be a judge. So that awesome girls like you who aren't, you know, classically hot, can be rewarded for their intelligence and savvy." Unaware of how she turns a compliment into an insult, Leslie's unrelenting honesty and well-meaning oblivion allows us to not only laugh at her, but align with her.

At the pageant, Leslie immediately votes for the girl who really should win the contest: Susan, a homely history major who plays the piano and volunteers at the children's hospital. However, the other judges immediately decide on Trish, who has "been on YouTube" and likes wearing bikinis. "Trish will win this pageant over my dead body," Leslie says, and locks down the judgement, 12 Angry Men style. Of course, Trish wins the pageant.

But Leslie isn't the only feminist aspect of the show. Rashida Jones' character doesn’t declare herself a feminist the way Leslie does, but Ann functions as the normal person with whom the audience can align. She's the "Jim" of Parks and Rec, and simply casting a woman as the "everyman" character is feminist in itself. Another note about Ann is that she leaves her schlumpy, unemployed, Seth-Rogen-style boyfriend, Andy, early in the series. Andy has turned out to be a funny character on the show, but it makes me happy that he’s no longer with a woman who is working hard and struggling to support him and clean up after him. Leslie and Ann are different, but both are genuine, positive interpretations of the modern woman.

It’s a show about a feminist that’s honored by a men’s magazine. That’s great news. Parks and Rec may not be the best show (just a damn good one) on television, but it is probably the most progressive show on television.

For more girl power with Amy Poehler, check out her web series, Smart Girls at the Party.

Superbowl Ads 2010: Angry Towards Women, Insulting to Men

2010-02-08T13:07:00.000-08:00

Note to CBS and real-life Mad Men: Women also watch the Super Bowl. Many women like football. Those who don't are watching because the men in their lives like it, and they'll sit through something that's not their favorite to spend time together. Because that's what you do when you love like someone. The ads last night were full of misogyny and the general notion that women are a pain in the ass, and somehow stripping men of their masculinity, and in some cases, intellect.

Dodge's "Man's Last Stand" takes the prize as most offensive as the narrator, weakened and depressed, rattles off the drudgery of his domestic life: "I will put my underwear in the basket," "I will say 'yes' when you want me to say 'yes,'" etc. At the end of the ad, he's able to at least drive what he wants to drive: a Dodge Charger. Titles slam the screen: Man's. Last. Stand. Men who made this stupid spot: Cleaning the sink out after you shave is what real men do.

Moving on, the Budweiser ad, "Women's Book Club" is as insulting to men as it is to women. In this ad, a man puts off his baseball game to sit in on his wife's book club because the ladies are drinking Budweiser beer. The women are discussing a book they read; one explains that in the book two women are "thrust" together by a war they don't understand. The man goes "Ooohh, thrusting!" Somebody's married to this guy? I don't think that's what men are like? When asked if he liked "Little Women" he says he's "not too picky." It's insulting to all parties that a buffoon husband is a normal dynamic.

I'll go ahead leave you one more gem. This one is an ad for Dockers, where men wander, pants-less, through a field. The narrator calls on the men to reclaim their masculinity: "Calling all men: it's time to wear the pants." That's always been an offensive phrase. Why can't we all wear pants? Or be powerful in skirts? Speaking of skirts, also check out this spot for FloTV, where the narrator tells a man shopping with his girlfriend to "change out of that skirt" and watch sports on his mobile device.

So, as it turned out, the Focus on the Family, Tim Tebow ad was one of the more tame spots of the night. It's only offense being that it was stupid. "Timmy" also unnecessary tackles his mother, but we'll let that one slide. What ultimately disappoints me is how irresponsible CBS was this year. They rejected a gay dating service's spot, but Dodge made the cut? That doesn't make any sense. Read more about, and see more these terrible ads on BuzzFeed, and Salon. And then go watch the cute Google ad a few times to cleanse your palate.

The Chubby Guy Gets the Girl in "The Invention of Lying"

2010-01-23T15:14:00.000-08:00

The chubby guys are on a roll, and it's not down a hill. Last week I watched The Invention of Lying, Ricky Gervais' comedy about a world in which lying doesn't exist. While I love the idea, this was not my favorite movie. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm disappointed in TIoL. My expectations were high, and with several of my favorite actors, it had a lot of potential: Ricky Gervais (funny), Tina Fey (strong female), and Rob Lowe (hot). Plus, I can almost never resist a high concept like those of The Truman Show, Groundhog Day, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The thing about alternate universes, though, is that there have to be rules, and they mustn’t be broken. TIoL is inconsistent in its own universe, and as a result, falls flat. Two hours later, I was left thinking about what could have been in what was ultimately a fantasy movie for the slightly-below-average male, much like, but not quite as terrible as, Knocked Up or (Ugh) Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

The movie started out strong enough. Establishing the world was fun. Not only do people not lie, but they let out every thought, no matter how insulting to others. (While I question this interpretation of truthfulness, I recognize that an author is free to create the rules in their own alternate universe.) For example, when meeting him for a blind date, Jennifer Garner's character, Anna, tells Mark (Gervais) that she's disappointed in his looks. He tells her he feels awkward for showing up early. This whole date could have been much more charming if we were rooting for Anna and Mark to get together. I didn't really want them to get together, though, because much like Anna states several times, she's way out of his league. Specifically, she makes more money and she’s more attractive. And let’s be honest, she’s significantly more attractive than Gervais.

The not-too-attractive guy getting the totally hot girl feels like a trend in movies, and it’s a problem. While many real couples certainly have a more attractive half—and I definitely applaud the use of average-looking characters—it’s bothersome that in films, the less attractive partner is almost never the woman. In fact, average or overweight women rarely appear on the big screen. This sends a message that appearances carry a heavier weight (no pun intended) for woman than they do for men.

Film is often an escape where the viewer imagines themselves as, or empathizes with the hero. Of course, the hero is typically a man, and while the female viewer can often connect with the male character, she is also drawn to, or imagining herself in the role of the female lead. In this case, the female viewer does not feel empowered or as though she’s fulfilling some sort of fantasy because none of us are really dying to sleep with a pudgy, lying guy. While we are left feeling a sense of “If Garner gets him, who does that leave me with?” the male viewer is feeling a false sense of empowerment. He perhaps more attractive than Gervais, and feeling as though he too could snag any woman he likes. If Gervais can get Garner, who knows what he can do. A movie making a viewer feel falsely empowered in this way is a common form of scopophilic pleasure, but it's skewed to the pleasure of the male.

This brings us to another strange fantasy being played out here: Mark gets dangerously close to raping a woman. When he first discovers lying, and realizes he's the only one who can grasp the concept, he tells an attractive businesswoman on the street that the world will end if they don't have sex right then. This is definitely a would-be rape, because the woman believed her life was threatened if she didn't have sex with Mark. He gets her to a motel room, then his conscience gets the best of him.

Even if we go beyond superficiality, there still isn't much chemistry between Mark and Anna. It's unclear why he loves her, and we never really learn who Anna is. We know she wants children, and she's looking for a good genetic match; she doesn’t want “little fat kids with snub noses.” Fair enough, but it’s still unclear why she doesn’t have any relationships other than one with her mother. The question, of course, is whether or not relationships and love exist without lies. I’d argue that love does exist (in this world), based on clues we can gather from a pair of recurring extras. When Mark first learns he can lie, he approaches the couple who are arguing, and whispers something to them (presumably, "you’re going to get married and be happy" or something like that) and they suddenly put their arms around each other. This shot is part of a montage to show how Mark uses his newfound power.

Now, I'm going to go ahead and spoil the end. The last scene of the movie shows a pregnant Anna serving dinner to Mark and their fat, snub-nosed son. Dinner looks terrible, but the guys tell her it's delicious. When she turns away, they give each other a knowing thumbs-up. Does cooking for and serving your chubby/unattractive/lying family while pregnant sound like fun? Not really. This movie is again constructed from the male perspective, and while this in and of itself isn’t problematic, Anna’s undesirable situation is, because, well, I want the woman to be in a good place at the end.

I had conflicting feelings about this film because it did pose some interesting questions, such as those relating to the role lying plays in our lives and relationships—and how in a lot of ways it helps us keep our sanity. About midway through the film, too, Mark accidentally invents religion, a ballsy suggestion in our Christian nation that religion can only exist simultaneously with lying. While I don’t usually give audacity points...that was not bad. But I'll leave that for another day. In any case, The Invention of Lying is an interesting movie, but not kind enough to women to receive my approval.

The Separation of Church and Charlie Brown

2009-12-24T23:22:00.000-08:00

"A Charlie Brown Christmas" is my all-time favorite Christmas special. This article on The Onion pretty accurately summarizes how I'll react if my future child doesn't love it as much as I do. The way Charlie Brown searches for meaning in the season, questions the commercialism, and worries he's not happy enough rings true to me, and feels so relatable. In the end, Charlie Brown realizes--at least until the next cartoon--that he's good enough, and the little tree he picked out was perfect all along. All it needed was a little love. Charlie Brown quickly forgets his frustrations from the day, and enjoys the moment, being with those he cares about. It's very sweet.

I DVRed the "A Charlie Brown Christmas" last week, and I noticed something I hadn't thought about before: it's a religious special. It ends with Linus quoting scripture, explaining the true meaning of Christmas to Charlie Brown. Prior to this year, I'd always thought of Charlie Brown's rejection of commercialism, and his ultimate thankfulness as themes of the show, not Christianity. As secular citizen and lifelong Peanuts fangirl, I found this conflict bothersome. Though I do believe the word "God" should be removed from the dollar bill and the Pledge of Allegiance, I wouldn't typically care about religion in a television special. But I do in the case of Charlie Brown. Adding a religious element to anything excludes those of other faiths, and those who don't connect with religion at all. And to me that clashes severely with the universality and spirit of Peanuts and Charlie Brown.

Charlie Brown is the ultimate protagonist and neutral hero. Though he suffers from frequent failures, his optimism keeps him likable, his insecurities and poignant observations of others keep him relatable. Even the drawing of Charlie Brown is so simple that anyone can sort of project themselves onto him and feel connected to him. To see Charlie Brown enlightened by a Christian belief threw me off because I'd always considered the comic strip and television specials to have complete and timeless universal appeal.

This bothered me for a few days, and then I read that article in The Onion and realized I'm the person it parodies. I do want to watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas" with my kid some day. I'm standing by the special. At it's core, it's about Charlie Brown reconciling his feelings of inadequacy, and seeing that his feelings were natural all along. He learns that Christmas is a time to reflect on what you're thankful for, and to enjoy time with your friends and family. Ideally, in addition to a Separation of Church and State, we would also have a separation of Church and Charlie Brown, but in the spirit of the holidays, I'll take it. Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!

Film Review: Paranormal Activity

2009-10-04T02:22:00.000-07:00

I had to be dragged to this movie. I generally shy away from horror movies (I'm chicken), found-footage movies (hand-held makes me sick), and anything involving Ouija Boards (that's just stupid). That said, I liked Paranormal Activity. The main characters are a young couple, Katie and Micah, who have moved into a new house. Katie believes she's had a paranormal entity following her since her youth. Therefore, it's not the house that's haunted, but Katie. Micah doesn't believe her, so he buys a video camera AND A TRIPOD (thank you!) and rigs up the house to disprove Katie. Of course, they catch some very strange things in the middle of the night, and spookiness ensues.

The movie was creepy because of noises in the night, and everything we don't actually see. It's an effective horror movie about someone getting possessed without any blood, distorted fingers or disjointed heads. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But even stepping outside of the genre for a moment, I liked that the film provoked an emotional response from the audience without any violence, sex, special effects, major actors, or money. Again, not that there's anything wrong with any of those things, it was just interesting to see the power of filmmaking and timing.

Another reason this movie worked for me was the characters. I bought their relationship. Their banter and bickering seemed natural, and Micah had an unafraid-but-really-afraid attitude that felt realistic for a young guy in a new house. Katie's role was a little bit harder to play, as a character who thinks she's followed by ghosts is less believable. However, I again bought that, and I liked both characters.

Finally, Paranormal Activity was a lot of fun to see. Because (at first) it only showed at limited theaters and only at midnight, the theater was inevitably packed. So, every time the audience gasped all at once, everyone laughed right after. In that way, Paranormal Activity felt more like a ride, or the Haunted House at Universal Studios than a movie. I also got the inappropriately vocal guy behind me who'd mutter, "Ohhhhhh, shit!" every time the main characters turned the lights out at night. Paranormal Activity probably would have been scarier on DVD at home. This is probably one few movies that has less impact in the theater. But then again, I don't know if that's good or bad...boo!

The 61st Primetime Emmy Awards

2009-10-03T21:02:00.000-07:00

The Emmys were kind of awesome this year. And I'm not talking about who won and who lost; I watch too much television on DVD after the fact to have terribly strong feelings about that. The production itself, though, was right on target. Host Neil Patrick Harris opened with a musical number, poked fun at the internet's relationship with television, and was even interrupted by his alter ego, video blogger Dr. Horrible. My favorite aspect of the show, however, was the details, and its thoughtful and recurring acknowledgement of the collaborative nature of television itself. For example, as NPH pointed out, the musicians were on the stage as opposed to hidden/forgotten in the pit. The control room was also featured on stage. Enclosed behind glass walls, the glow of the different camera angles provided not only aesthetic interest, but a reminder that people were hard at work on the production. The other little thing I noticed was wording of the announcer. In cases where a show, or group of people won, he'd say, "Accepting the award for the team...Tina Fey." Using the word "team" was effective, because everything on television is the result of a team effort.

I thought the recognition of those working behind the scenes was great because—with things like the broadcast from the red carpet—attention is usually focused on the actors. However, Neil Patrick Harris also recognized the actors in a unique and meaningful way. When introducing the presenters (actors), NPH would say something like, "Best known for his performance as Mailman #1 in..." The recitation of insignificant roles was meant as a joke (and worked as a joke) and they were probably made up, but the simple detail also reminded us of the long road most actors take before finding success. Therefore, the production seemed to go beyond the bling, as we considered the behind-the-scenes, the before-the-scenes, and the general time, work, and effort that goes into entertainment.

Film Review: District 9

2009-08-17T00:41:00.000-07:00

District 9 probably worked really well as a short, but it didn't translate quite right to a feature. On paper, it’s a great concept. A giant spacecraft hovers over Johannesburg until the humans break in, only to discover and then rescue a shipload of malnourished, lobsterlike crustaceans. The aliens are then confined to a slum—District 9, duh—where they are segregated and discriminated against. This is all shot in a mockumentary style complete with interviews and faux-newsreels. The protagonist, Wikus Van De Merwe, is eventually assigned a task of relocating the aliens to a different (worse) slum, and in the process, he gets squirted with an alien fluid that causes him to slowly turn into a crustacean himself. It's VERY much like The Fly. Though I prefer the process on Jeff Goldblum. With the government hunting him down for the military now that he can operate powerful alien weaponry, Wikus is then forced to hide out in District 9 where he befriends a crustacean scientist named Christopher Johnson and his (cute?) son CJ. Christopher and the kid are the only sympathetic characters in the film. They're intelligent, sweet, and they just want to go home. We can all get on board with that. And Wikus? We can't care too much less about the bumbly bureaucrat and his boring wife. It's all the same to me if he turns into dinner at Red Lobster.

Back to the aliens. Whether or not you like District 9 ultimately comes down to whether or not you think Christopher Johnson cancels out and creates sympathy for the rest of his scavenging, tentacled, alien race. While these characters are certainly a lovely display of CGI, they are simultaneously gooey and hard-shelled, and ultimately disgusting. And their violent, unruly behavior matches their appearance: They buy cat-food (to eat) on the black market, and it's also suggested that they buy human prostitutes (ugh). Of course, anyone forced to live in such desperate and horrible conditions could revert to these barbarous kinds of behaviors. I get that. But when we see people this way, it's heartbreaking because we know what people are normally like, and the potential they have. I feel more emotion when I see a suffering person than a suffering man-shrimp. So shoot me. What I needed from this movie was a few more sympathetic aliens. That, and the characters could have been toned down to be less grotesque. I know it's what's on the inside that counts; they don't need to be shiny. Simply ditching the mouth-tentacles would have made a dramatic difference in my emotional response to this film.

Finally, let's address the apartheid allegory and racial commentary. If the aliens are the black South Africans in this allegory, they shouldn't be so disgusting. Forget about my emotional response and my gag reflex. It's offensive to draw that parallel. We should also look at the actual black characters in the film: They all seem to be either gangsters or tribal witch-doctors who eat aliens in hopes of absorbing the necessary DNA to operate the advanced weapons. (I know the white characters are also bad people, but they're still not trying to eat Wikus.) Black people are trying to violently kill the white protagonist for the entire movie, and I'm not sure why the black characters in District 9 are presented with such regressive imagery. It's possible I'm not getting the irony, but maybe the allegory itself should be more subtle, the irony more blatant.

The idea for District 9 and the first 45 minutes are solid, but the handheld camera and general grotesquery of the third act gave me a headache. I was also disappointed in the absence of an intentional laugh-beat for the fact that the alien is named Christopher Johnson. I mean, come on. That's silly.

Film Review: (500) Days of Summer

2009-08-03T19:06:00.000-07:00

In a lot of ways, (500) Days of Summer is another quirky movie about hipsters with indie music flying out its ears and over my head. That said, it's still charming, and I'll probably still download the soundtrack from iTunes. Vaguely echoing Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (one of my favorites), (500) Days is a nonlinear story about a normal guy and an offbeat girl who just aren't right for each other. Tom, the protagonist, is especially enjoyable. He's respectful, talented, attractive, well-dressed, and a romantic. This is a welcomed contrast to the Seth Rogen, schlumpy man-child model.

Not only does Tom feel fresh and innocent, but so does the film itself. There's something oddly film-student about (500) Days, but not in a bad way. Between references to The Graduate, The Seventh Seal, and the French New Wave, and experimentation with narrative devices like split screen, animation, a musical number, and nonlinear structure, you can tell the filmmakers went to film school. And in a world of adolescent male fantasy movies (coughjuddapatow), it's nice to see the guys who did their homework succeed.

Finally, I hate to criticize the movie—because I really did enjoy it—but the one (and frankly, severe) problem with (500) Days is the enigmatic nature of Summer. She's a mystery and a code that cannot be cracked. We never learn anything about her, other than that she's cute, she likes The Smiths, and she's VERY stylish. She encourages Tom to achieve his dreams, but she doesn't have any of her own. Also, Summer's not very nice. Her actions are often unexplained: when she randomly breaks up with Tom, she wants to continue with breakfast, asserting that he's still her best friend. She's inconsiderate, and she leaves Tom (and us) with the sentiment that women will always break your heart. And I promise that's not true.

Don't get me wrong, (500) Days is a cute movie. But by day 501 I'm ready for another female character.

Film Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-19T01:46:00.000-07:00

Spoiler Alert! If you haven't read the book, you probably won't like the movie anyway.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince skips over large parts of the book, such as memories of Voldemort's past, and even entire characters, like newly-appointed Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour. However, once you get passed a moment of "Hey, what about Kreacher and Dobby?" you move on and enjoy the film. HBP works not despite omitted chapters, but because of them. The plot of HBP is largely focused on the romantic relationships and general awkward sexual tension between Harry and Ginny, and Ron and Hermione (and Lavender Brown and Romilda Vane). The emphasis on characters over plot allows the film to breathe on its own, and offers a compliment rather than a reenactment of the book.

Another surprise is the anticlimacticity (there's no reason why that should not be a word) of the climax. There's no big action scene or battle. While to a certain extent this is odd and disappointing, it works because everybody knows that Snape kills Dumbledore at the end of the book. This fact was boldly written in chalk on the side of a house in my college neighborhood. No matter how dramatically this scene played out, it was not about to be a shock. So, instead, Yates pulls it in the other direction, placing characters over curses. This is not to say that HBP is light-hearted or gentle in any way. The film's charm is an ominous reminder of what's at risk, and ultimately raises the stakes for the final films—and the real showdown.

At the end of the day, HBP has a certain finesse in the acting and direction that isn't present in the other movies. Little moments like when Harry and Ron both dive for the one nice-looking Potions textbook really show the characters as people and friends. There are also many ways in which one can become intoxicated in the wizarding world, and these are fully taken advantage of, showcasing Radcliffe's comedy chops. I also liked the slight nods to the franchise itself, and its inevitable redundancies. In one scene, Professor McGonagall shakes her head at the three leads, inquiring as to why the trio is always present when there's trouble. In other words, HBP isn't trying to be the book. It takes advantage of that which is cinematic—moments that don't have the same impact on the page. With a self-referential ease, Yates takes a step back and closes in on character nuances and what the story is really about: teenagers growing up.

The Half-Blood Prince was my favorite book in the series, and it could be my favorite film as well, though I should probably go back and re-watch the others. In any case, HBP did not disappoint, and I look forward to the final installments.

The Scripps National Spelling Bee Might Just Be Better than the Olympics

2009-05-29T17:39:00.000-07:00

The girls have never flat-ironed their hair, the boys haven't learned to shave. The spellers in the Scripps National Spelling Bee are awkward, khaki-clad and frankly, adorable. The Bee is a unique television event that features unlikely heroes--smart middle-schoolers whose clothes don't fit just right--and I thoroughly enjoy the live broadcast every year. (Ironically, I just typed "Thoroughly" about three times before the spell checker removed the red underline from the word.)

I'm still not sure why spelling interests us in entertainment. There are plenty of national contests for kids' activities--sports, music, cheerleading, dance, etc. Perhaps it's because spelling is a symbol of childhood. It's something you only do as a kid, and in the world of spelling, Scripps is the big leagues, the masters, and broadway. Also, everyone has a spelling memory. You know what word knocked you out in your last (or only) bee. (For me, it was "oyster.") Even movies like the documentary, Spellbound and the drama Akeelah and the Bee were successful and made for some good entertainment.

What I like most about the event itself is the sense of community and support in the room. When a speller misses a word, the whole place lets out a sincerely disappointed "Ohhh." The students also share high-fives, and give each other standing ovations. There's a team spirit amidst the individual competition, as though they want to make the Bee last as long as the rules permit. Also, the spellers are never alone on stage. When the competition gets down to the select few, the families come sit on stage too. You're alone at the mic, but surrounded on all sides by people rooting for you. The sense of community is also emphasized in the diversity of the kids. Most ethnicities seem to be represented, and while I think there are more girls, the gender ratio is close as well. Spelling is effective in bringing together a diverse group to celebrate hard work and intelligence.

This year, the tension was further broken up by funny sentences as examples for the spellers. For example, "Stacy told Alex his dating prospects might increase significantly if he started bathing hebdomadally." This made the show more fun to watch, but more importantly, it must have been nice for the spellers. Laughing reminds you to breathe.

The televised production is also well constructed. In between rounds, they profile the kids with short videos of them in their hometowns. This--most of the time--shows them as regular kids who still have friends and fun in addition to spelling. They also each choose a word that describes them, and they spell it out with letter blocks. It's a cute production idea that gives the segments a cohesive feel that keeps with the theme and focus of the broadcast.

Mostly I like it because I can remember a time when my hair looked like that. And I didn't know what to wear. (Okay, I still don't know what to wear.) And it's just nice to see a spotlight on the quirky, and often forgotten middle school set. Interesting and entertaining, the Scripps National Spelling Bee a rare televised competition event that is all kindness and positivity.

In Defense of Kate

2009-05-27T21:28:00.000-07:00

"One day my kids will Google me." - Jon

So, lots of Jon and Kate drama lately. Did he cheat on her? Did she cheat on him? Are they exploiting their children? La la la. Though we see a lot of their lives, we certainly don't have all the facts. We do know, though, that Jon was out late with significantly younger women, and he also issued a statement conceding that he behaved irresponsibly. We also know that Kate can be bossy on the show. But, really—looking only at what we know to be true—Jon's actions are worse right now. I wonder why Kate is taking so much more criticism. In a sarcastic recipe, one blog suggests, "1 cup of kindness towards your husband." What Would Tyler Durden Do? titles an article, "Everyone Really Hates Kate," and they continue on about how she isn't hot enough to cancel out her attitude. All of this bothers me because the negative emphasis is on two things: her Type A personality and her appearance. The personality thing is silly because many people are Type A. Sure, she (and others) have things to work on, but the existence of this kind of person is just not alarming to me. And then we have her looks. It just doesn't matter if you like her hair. And it especially doesn't matter if she wears a bikini. Jon is passive-aggressive. He went snowboarding in Utah on Kate's birthday. It feels as though the consensus is that Kate is a shrew with bad hair who deserves to be cheated on because she can't shut up. On top of unearthing multiple stereotypes about women, this is unfair. Kate's words may be mean, but so are Jon's actions, and I thought actions were supposed to be louder.

That said, I don't mean to beat Jon down—just level him with Kate. I've always been a fan of the couple. When I turn on the show, nine times out of ten it's an episode I've seen. Possibly twice. The kids are cute; Jon and Kate always seemed generally normal. It's a look into a life that is a little bit like yours, but simultaneously another world. J&K+8 also works as a reality show in that it feels—whether or not it is—more like a window into their life than generated drama. We can side with Jon and Kate too because—unlike the Octomom and the Duggars--they weren't trying to have a huge family. Fertility treatments are a legitimate way to get pregnant, and they rarely lead to such large batches of kids. We don't have indication that Kate was implanted with too many eggs, like the Octomom, and I won't judge her decision to go through with the full pregnancy, since on principle I'm not about to judge any woman's ovarial decisions. (Except Mrs. Duggar's decision to not use birth control. That's a terrible idea.) And again, the kids are adorable.

The J&K+8 season five premiere brought in 9.8 million viewers, including myself. The opening jingle used to start with Kate laughing in Jon's arms, and she says in voice over, "It all started with the two of us." This season opened with pictures of Jon and Kate in opposite corners of the screen, and photos of the children filled in the space between them. Also, instead of opening with a kid laughing and saying, "On this episode of Jon and Kate +8!" the show opened with alternating shots of Jon and Kate talking separately to the camera about their relationship and the uncertainty of the future.

It's a sad story, and the question remains of whether or not J&K should continue with the show. At first, having a skeleton camera crew around for much of their lives didn't distract the family too much. They seemed to ignore it, having too many other things to think about. But now that there are paparazzi, tabloids, bodyguards, and book tours, there's a chance the kids are on their way to therapy. While I initially wondered why Kate didn't immediately cut the cameras, now I think she worries it will land her back home full-time where her relationship with Jon will most likely end. It's sadder still because she has four seasons of television on DVD chronicling their life together. Finally, I think she wants to resolve their story in public. Everyone knows Kate is no quitter, and I think she'd like to finish what she started. As for the kids, I think so far they're fine. They seem loved and cared for and they get to go on fun trips. And so, I wish Kate the best, and I hope she has a happy ending. She should be warned though, if things do work out (for real) everyone will still assume the resolution was fabricated by producers. It's probably too late to win that one, but maybe she can still keep her family together.

Film Review: Up

2009-05-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

I'm lucky enough to live just across the bridge from Pixar Animation Studios, and double-lucky enough to have a boyfriend who finds enough success writing about video games to afford tickets to an early Up screening at Pixar. One could also read this as unlucky in that I'm a train ride away from an unattainable childhood dream, but I digress.

There was wine. And cheese. And vegetables and hummous and brownies and strawberries. I happily enjoyed these hors d'oeuvres in Cafe Luxo, surrounded by Up-inspired art, character statues, and industrial-yet-inviting architecture. Just outside, I could see a giant Luxo lamp. Eventually, our cameras and phones were collected by security, and we were ushered inside a screening room filled with incredibly comfortable seats. When the house lights finally dimmed, tiny ceiling lights created a night-sky effect, complete with shooting stars. These soon faded, and the movie began.

I'll get right to it: Up is fantastic. Packed with both poignant sentiments and slapstick comedy, Pixar's latest/finest elegantly balances heart and hilarity. While I knew Up would be visually stunning, I was struck by the emotional punch. I don't usually expect tears until the second act break or so, but Up had me going less than twenty minutes in--and then laughing five minutes after that. Nothing is sacrificed in this movie. Every aspect of filmmaking is nurtured, refined, and expertly executed. Animators, directors, writers, and everyone else in the world of cinema should consider the bar raised.

Up begins in hero Carl Fredricksen's boyhood. It's not long before he meets his spunky, future wife Ellie, and they bond over a shared thirst for adventure and love of star explorer Charles Muntz. Carl and Ellie get married, and they dream of a trip to Paradise Falls in South America. They live a happy life together, though never making it to Paradise Falls, and Ellie passes away. All of this happens in a montage under five minutes. If you felt anything during the "When She Loved Me" montage in Toy Story 2, this one will floor you. The sequence is beautifully shot, and it does more than wrench your heart: it immediately puts you behind Carl one-hundred percent. And this is absolutely key when the hero is an unlikely 78-year-old curmudgeon.

After Ellie's death, Carl seems to be simply waiting for his own. He preserves his home as a sort of monument to Ellie, and sometimes talks to her as though she'll remain within the walls as long as the house stands. When Carl is about to get evicted and taken to a retirement home, he ties hundreds of balloons to his house and floats away--an act we'd all like to do sometimes. But, of course, Carl has a stowaway: a bright-eyed and plump Junior Wilderness Explorer named Russell. All he needs is his "Assisting the Elderly" badge to become a Senior Wilderness Explorer.

And then there's the adventure. Carl and Russell make it to South America where they find a rare and exotic bird they name Kevin, and aging Muntz, and Muntz' dog pack he's using to hunt down Kevin. I won't tell you too much, but I'll tell you this: You may need to reevaluate your opinion of talking dogs. In one of animation's cleverest plot devices, Muntz' dogs wear collars with computer voices that express their thoughts. You may be able to guess a few places this goes, but nonetheless: hilarious.

Up revels in visual humor, redefines adventure, and reminds us that the seemingly boring moments are the ones we remember most. I left the theater saying the same thing I say as I leave every new Pixar film: This is by far the best Pixar movie yet.

When I got back home, I immediately applied (again) for a position at Cafe Luxo.

The Little Camera I Never Liked But Miss Anyway: An Obituary

2009-03-30T21:55:00.000-07:00

The lens is stuck open. The on/off button yields a sad silence. A piece of Scotch tape covers the flash from the day I tried to manually diffuse the light. It's been three days since the water damage, and after asking me one last time to please change its batteries, my Canon Powershot A720 IS finally died.

A few years ago I got a DSLR camera for my birthday. Though this is not the camera in question, the story starts here. I carried it everywhere for a while, but as it began to weigh down on my shoulder, I realized that a shallow depth-of-field is not necessary in every situation. So, the next Christmas my parents got me an Olympus point-and-shoot from Costco. The details are not important, but I didn't like my Christmas photos, and I returned it. I ultimately purchased the A720 IS from Target. I was between this and the Digital Elph from that year, which was slightly smaller. My boyfriend, Nick, told me to go with the Elph for maximum portability, but I bought the A720 IS because I wanted to control the f-stop too. This was a mistake. I do not change the f-stop with a point-and-shoot, and the thing has always been a little too cumbersome. And, since the recent release of smaller Powershots in different colors, mine has since become even less appealing.

The water damage happened last Friday. I had to get up earlier than usual for a day of training at Apple in Cupertino, and I filled my travel mug with water. While I securely screwed on the top, I neglected to close the part you drink out of--and I tossed it in my backpack. I rode the MUNI like this to Civic Center. I walked in the direction I thought was my co-worker Troy's apartment. I felt some moisture on the back of my knee. I thought I stepped in a puddle and it splashed up. When I felt wetness on my lower back, I knew what happened. I pulled the bag off my back, started grabbing things out of it, and I turned around, realizing--to top things off--I was also walking in the wrong direction.

At first it turned on and seemed fine. Later, it turned on, flashing "Memory Card Error." I removed the memory card and batteries and tried to air it out. The next error message I got was to change the batteries. I could see the moisture along the edges of the LCD screen. I popped the memory card in and out, repeatedly drying it in a fruitless effort to remove as much water as I could. At work the next day, Guillermo suggested that I close it in a container with a silica gel (those little things that come in the shoeboxes and say, "do not eat") because they attract moisture. I left it in a Ziplock with the silica gel for 24 hours and tried again. With a meek beep, A720 IS made one final plea for batteries and then couldn't even find the strength to close its lens.

Bye, little camera. I'll miss you.

Film Review: Religulous

2009-01-10T16:37:00.000-08:00

I like Bill Maher and I enjoy his show on HBO. Prior to hearing him discuss religion and his agnosticity--I really think that should be a word--I’d considered “agnostic” to mean “persuadable.” However, he convinced me on Real Time that it’s an unwavering stance: it is pointless and potentially harmful to feel absolutely positive about the unknown.

I think this is where he was going with “Religulous,” asking why otherwise logical people feel 100% confident about their faith, and what that means for our culture and--however unconstitutional--our political system.

Unfortunately, Religulous turns from a search for reasoning behind religion to a search for the wackiest people in America. (i.e. the segment at the Christian theme park). This does little to form an argument other than “There are lots of crazy people walking around.” The problem is everyone can agree on that. The existence of weirdos is not a point or a question.

In short, the proportion of smart--or simply prominent--people to wacky ones is off. The focus should have been on the religious scientists and politicians. The characters speaking to the dead on DVD should have been a tool, not a feature. Leave that stuff for a reality show.

Letter to Todd Oldham

2008-12-21T15:07:00.000-08:00

Dear Todd Oldham,

You probably don’t remember me.

Last week, you came into the Apple Store and bought some software from me. I was staring at you, so I didn’t catch what it was, but in my peripheral vision I noticed the box was red and white. There are no returns on open software, by the way; I think I forgot to tell you the return policy. In any case, I wanted to apologize for a few things:

First, I’m sorry I thought you were David Sedaris. I know you aren’t David Sedaris. Luckily though, when you pulled “Children Playing Before a Statue of Hercules” from your backpack to compare the photo on the back to yourself, we had something to talk about.

I’m sorry it looked like I wasn’t listening. I promise I took your book recommendation and I plan to purchase it soon with my next Borders Rewards coupon. I just finished “When You Are Engulfed in Flames.” Have you read that one?

I’m sorry I cited “Top Design” on Bravo as your major work. I know you have a very extensive resume, and you were only on “Top Design,” because you were already famous. But I’ll tell you what I remember about that show: You are so nice. Even if the contestants had bad designs, or were jerks, you were always genuinely kind and encouraging. If I were you I would have told them what was what.

Finally, I’m sorry I asked you to sign my business card. Apparently this is against Apple policy. And I’m sure it is also annoying for you. For what it’s worth, though, I do keep it behind my name tag while I am at work.

I hope you forgot about me.

Sincerely,
Caryn

The Top Five Olympic Fashion Faux Pas

2008-08-14T21:18:00.000-07:00

There was a time in my life when I was a gymnast. After several falls on the head, however, my height, bony arms, and general lack of power got the best of me, and I've hated watching and playing sports ever since. But I do love me some Olympics. Of course, when my general distaste for sports (and love for clothes) gets the best of me, I evaluate the outfits. So, here we are: The Top Five Olympic Fashion Faux Pas:

1. Kerri Walsh's Braid
Menacing and rope-like, Kerri Walsh's braid looks more like a weapon than a hairstyle. It also appears to periodically smack her in the face, making the look as impractical as it is ugly. I can only assume that she's been wearing her hair like that her entire volleyball career, and in all of her success, doesn't want to change it. However, she's obviously proven herself as a talented and attractive person, and it's time to move on and lose the braid. I think she could cut it for a cuter ponytail like Misty's, or she could certainly keep the length and do some sort of tight bun.

2. Serena Williams' White Outfit and White Bra
White bras do not go under white tops. You have to wear one that is the color of your skin tone. While all of these athletes have great bodies, the girls should stay under wraps, and Serena was unnecessarily exposed.

3. Venezuelan Indoor Womens' Volleyball Uniforms
These women wore loose, full-coverage tank tops and bikini-cut bottoms. At first, they looked alarmingly uncovered, but--when you think about it--compared to the beach volleyball uniforms, they're pretty conservative. The problem with Venezuela is that their uniforms are unbalanced. If the team felt as though they had more movement in small bottoms--I hate to say it--but they should have worn tighter, shorter tops! The sleeveless t-shirt balances out with shorts...so as a result the Venezuelan women looked as though they forgot their shorts. You just have to go big or go home; there is no half-way in the Olympics.

4. Scrunchies in Women's Gymnastics
Why why why are scrunchies OK in gymnastics? They are not ever acceptable anywhere else, and haven't been since 1993 (?). I know they're not for some reason required, because there were a few girls with regular hair bands. (Shawn Johnson had a ribbon or something, which is probably equally as dumb, but whatever.) Also, as a sidenote, scrunchies are just generally reminiscent of the third grade, and did not help the Chinese girls' cause of trying to look 16. (Neither did the body glitter and star hairclips, but again, not my point right now.)

5. ....And the Gymnastics Uniforms in General
I don't really get the shiny, hologram-inspired fabric they use on these uniforms. Obviously it's flexible, since they wear them, but it just looks platicky and stiff to me. And cheap. I feel like that crap is for 9-year-olds' jazz costumes, hookers, or Halloween. The long sleeves look restricting to me too. I feel like they should do either a sleeveless or at least a 3/4 length sleeve. Not for their comfort, obviously, but just so they look comfortable to me at home on my couch.