If I Were An Obama Campaign Honcho

I’d make the staff watch Recount over and over.

Brideshead Revisited Revisited

Alex Massie makes a somewhat compelling case that snobby purists like myself shouldn’t get apoplectic about this adaption massacre that’s soon to hit the screens:

And in any case, if we’re honest, Brideshead is ripe for a Dynasty style makeover. Brideshead is a soap opera after all and, frequently, a contrived, over-written, nonsensical drama to boot. That’s part of its charm of course - itself, natch, the novel’s fatal flaw…

Matt Zeitlin, on the other hand, suggests one should weep over this trailer. Now there’s something to the argument that given the great success - indeed brilliance - of John Mortimer’s Granada adaptation there’s no need for a new film. But then again, what damage can there really be? Anyone who loves Brideshead - and it’s one of those novels that despite its brilliance attracts too many too passionate defenders - has no monopoly or veto on how the book must be interpreted. In fact some of them need winding up…

Massie is right - us loyal Brideshead defenders are a small bunch (outside of my household, I don’t know where to find such utter fanatics) but that doesn’t mean I have to sit and cooly contemplate the ruining of a masterwork. After all, once this tripe hits the big screen, how am I supposed to explain that when I say Brideshead Revisited is the best thing on film ever, that I mean the miniseries, not this melodramatic crapwerk? And even if I can patiently explain which Brideshead I love so dearly, it would still be a pain.

But I sound like a old fogey complaining that they’re just making a rather staid, langrouous book/tv series into something more exciting. It also turns out that they’re totally mangling the plot:

The television version was faithful to the plot, but Davies warns he is writing a “darker, more heterosexual” approach. Instead of Charles Ryder’s relationship with Sebastian Flyte, he seeks to concentrate on the doomed affair between Charles and Julia Flyte. He also intends to ignore Charles Ryder’s conversion to Catholicism, and to reveal how the faith destroys the relationship. “If God can be said to exist in my version,” he said, “he would be the villain.”

This, if really true, is horrendous on so many levels. At first, it’s just weird. So often, it’s the remakes and modern interpretations that try to elevate the homosexual subtext to the forefront. With the original Bridesheads, it was just kind of there, and not really that big of a deal. But even ignoring whether or nor Charles and Sebastian are “gay” (a pointless question), it’s impossible to ignore that it’s their relationship, not Charles’ with Julia, that’s at the center of the book.

Also, do we really need another romantic drama where the strictures of religion are unambiguously evil? One of the many things that makes Brideshead so distinctive is that it takes an incredibly complex subject - being Catholic in England - and treats it with extreme sympathy. How many other great 20th century novels have an urbane, educated agnostic end up believing in God because of the faith of boorish, Catholic aristocrats? Although the ornate language, or in the movie, the great clothes and sumptuous settings are nice and all, Catholicism really lies at the heart of the work.

The adaptor, Jeremy Brock, claims that it’s not belief in God, per se, that he’s after, but instead “man-made theology; the emotional and moral contortions forced on to individuals by their adherence to a particular set of codes and practices.” I’m afraid that when it comes to Catholicism, and especially the faith of the Flytes, this is a distinction without a difference. When Charles Ryder whispers the catechism, or when Lord Marchmain comes home to have the last rites administered, when Sebastian ends up in a monastery or most importantly, when Julia leaves Charles, is that just unimpeachable personal faith, or instead that bugagboo of “man made theology”?

This is not too say that Waugh’s perspective is necessarily correct, I surely wouldn’t want to live my life like the Flytes, but it’s an important perspective nonetheless, and one that deserved exposition in serious literary and cinematic form. At a certain point, adaptation turns into artistic misuse, and I’m afraid this is one of those times.

Via Ross Douthat.

Dear God, Please No

I have very few sentimental feelings attached with movies or television programs. Brideshead Revisited, however, is the one great exception. Perhaps I say this because everyone in my family loves it, but for me, the 11 part miniseries was the greatest thing ever to appear on television. And so, when I first heard that there was going to be a feature film adaptation of Evelyn Waugh’s book, I was worried.

What made Brideshead so great was its willingness to meander through the lives of the main characters, with entire one hour episodes in which nothing much happened. It was wonderfully absent of melodrama, and instead of pointlessly hyping the scenes with added on suspense and contrived importance, it was willing to quote entire passages from the book and allow the viewer to sit back and inhale both the great writing and the amazing period recreation of declining aristocratic England between the wars. And even though the material in the book - well dressed, super rich, hedonistic English aristorcats - could easily make a fun and visually sumptuous movie (think Gosford Park, Atonement, every Masterpiece Theater) such an approach would surely sully such a great piece of art.

And now, from Ross Douthat, comes the trailer for the movie. And my build-a-family-chapel-for- worshiping-Roman-Catholic god, it looks absolutely dreadful. Instead of getting a 11 part, two decade disquisition on Catholicism in England, the decline of the landed aristocracy or the temptations of wealth and privilege, we instead appear to have some horrible hybrid between Atonement,The Dreamers and every crappy romance film ever made. See the trailer and weep:

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Although, contra Klein, I don’t think Forgetting Sarah Marshall is as good as Superbad, it’s certainly in the same class as 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up. I guess the one complaint I have is, like most every other Apatow movie, the female characters aren’t written that well. Although we get some depth in Mila Kunis’ character; until the very end, Kristin Bell’s Sarah Marshall is just really awful…and really hot. But I still think this criticism is unfair: it’s hard for male comics to write good female characters, and more importantly, to get people to play them.

It’s unfair that Apatow, because his movies are now the gold standard for the romantic comedy genre, is now expected to not only write realistic, sympathetic, hilarious male characters but also do the same for female characters. He can’t do everything, after all. Why can’t we just accept that Apatow has his limits and weaknesses, and focus on how good he is at doing what he does?

But even if someone wanted to make Apatowian comedy with a female lead, it would be incredibly difficult. The leads in all of the Apatow gang’s movies are not just men, but men who are quite unappealing in many fundamental ways. They’re usually emotionally stunted, childish, slovenly, not exactly the picture of physical perfection and so on and so forth. But the way our society and culture works, it’s acceptable to have Seth Rogen or Jason Segel as a romantic comedy lead. But if you look at the women in these movies - Katherine Heigl, Kristin Bell, Mila Kunis etc - they are all very typical actresses. It’s unfortunate that, to be an actress in a lead role, you have to look like one of those three. Not just because it promotes a sexist double standard, but because it limits the opportunities to have funny women in movies.

I’m not saying that women aren’t funny, they certainly are. It’s just that it is much harder to find women who can carry a comedic lead if they have to look like Mila Kunis or Kristin Bell(just look at Kate Hudson’s career). Exactly how we’re supposed to alter or eliminate this expectation, I don’t know, and maybe Apatow could try to be something of a trailblazer, but considering the societal constraints he’s working in, he and his gang of writers and directors are doing quite well.

Primary Colors Sequel

No, N, there aren’t any actual rumors of there being a sequel to my favorite political movie . But let’s pretend there are! So, who plays who? Of course, John Travolta, Emma Thompson, Maura Tierney and Paul Guilfoyle could all reprise their roles. But in any remake, the Obama campaign would be the locus of much of the drama. So who plays them? I’m thinking, provisionally, Denzel (or, in an ironic twist, Adrian Lester) as Barack, Regina King as Michelle, Matthew Broderick as David Plouffe, JK Simmons as David Axelrod and, this is the good one, John Goodman as Mark Penn. But that’s just a start, there would have to be a huge ensemble cast. Who would be McCain or Jeremiah Wright or John Edwards…and that’s just the start. Have at it!

Free Harold and Kumar!

I love, absolutely love, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle.  It’s rare that the premier stoner-buddy flick is also a sensitive portrayal of the cultural and social pressures of second generation Asian immigrants.  The movie is just good.

And so I, like the gang at Vulture and Reihan Salam, am anxiously awaiting the release of Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay.  But I feel that Vulture is getting the reasoning wrong for why they should push up the release date from April 25th.  Although it’s true that movie-goers are forced to deal with an unrelenting wave of crap until the 25th, I don’t exactly feel all that compelled by this line of argument for pushing up the release date.  Movies always suck until April and May, when the first summer blockbusters trickle in.  And it’s not like there being no good movies at the theaters is that bad anyway, you can just rent Brideshead Revisited or Twin Peaks.

Instead, Harold and Kumar 2 must be released one week earlier because stoners all over the world need a chance to see their movie on their day.  How New Line Cinema could misunderstand their audience in such a fundamental way never ceases to baffle me.

Heath Ledger

Within seconds of getting out of my constitutional law class, I heard from about five people at once that Heath Ledger had died.  I was skeptical, of course; usually when I hear that some celebrity dies, I immediately assume that I’m being screwed with.  But, of course, he’s actually dead of an apparent suicide.

Of course, many more young men die every day in Iraq, but there’s something tragic about a successful, beautiful, young person who kills himself.  He seemed to have been pretty troubled, having separated from his wife about a year ago.

This sounds pretty embarassing, but my favorite Heath Ledger movies were A Knight Tale and 10 Things I Hate About You.  The Dark Knight looks awesome though.

The Impossible is Possible

So I decided that watching election returns on CNN and MSNBC was a too stressful and at the same time boring, so I decided to watch The Devil Wears Prada on HBO instead.  I’m thinking that if Anne Hathaway managed to lose 20 pounds, get better makeup and be all Prada’d in about 15 minutes, then Obama closing this two percent gap is nothing.

Serious political commentary time:  Even if Obama manages to pull this out, the storyline will be all for Clinton, about how resilient she is, a “comeback kid” and what not.  And sure, I’m pretty impressed and surprised she’s seemingly managed to close a ten point gap in the polls, the more pertinent “narrative”, if there has to be one, is that Clinton was the frontrunner all year, was up ten points a few weeks ago, and is now barely scratching by with a victory.

On a second note, why hasn’t there been a Washington political mag version of this movie?  I mean, who wouldn’t want to see Harold Meyerson shouting orders at a few terrified Prospect writing fellows?  I’m thinking maybe Paul Giamatti as Meyerson and then maybe Shia Labeouf and Scarlett Johansson as the fellows?

Violent Movies and Violent People

The Times has an article highlighting some interesting research that might silent those reactionaries who tell us that violent movies are not only a sign of degeneracy, but also an actual cause of real violence. Two economists, Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna argue that by taking people who might have violent instincts and putting them in a closed, calm, alcohol free environment on weekend nights, violent movies probably reduce the number of violent incidents:

Instead of fueling up at bars and then roaming around looking for trouble, potential criminals pass the prime hours for mayhem eating popcorn and watching celluloid villains slay in their stead.

“You’re taking a lot of violent people off the streets and putting them inside movie theaters,” said the lead author of the study, Gordon Dahl, an economist at the University of California, San Diego. “In the short run, if you take away violent movies, you’re going to increase violent crime.”

Professor Dahl and the paper’s other author, Stefano DellaVigna, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, attach precise numbers to their argument: Over the last decade, they say, the showing of violent films in the United States has decreased assaults by an average of about 1,000 a weekend, or 52,000 a year.

The stuttering response from the anti-fun forces is pretty funny. What they can’t seem to realize is that Dahl and DellaVigna have found a trade-off between engaging in behavior that could lead to violence and watching violent movies, “What would these people have done if they had not chosen to go and see a movie? Whatever they would have done would have had a greater tendency to involve alcohol. If you can incapacitate a large group of potentially violent people, that’s a good thing.”

But despite Dahl’s good work, the conclusion he drew from his research — that we just need ways to herd young men into movie theaters on weekend nights so they don’t drink and fight — has a pretty frightening implication:

“We need more Adam Sandler movies,” he said. “Even though I’m not a big fan of Adam Sandler, that’s the implication.”

Juno and Choice

*Spoilers Abound*

One of the many reasons that I loved Juno was just how sweet-tempered it was.  The movie predominately had characters being nice to each other, and for Juno particularly, those around her were mostly understanding and kind.  The same goes for its politics.  Like Knocked Up, it has a brief run-in with the possibility of abortion, but for obvious plot reasons, she doesn’t go through with.  Juno is then a decent movie for both the pro choice and pro life causes, the former because Juno is supported by her friends in family in whatever choice she makes, and the latter because the film depicts getting an abortion to be a poor decision for the protanginist to make.

Ross Douthat, “movie obsessisive and pro life scold” makes the latter argument, mostly because Juno rejects abortion not only because she’s expressing her “personal autonomy that’s of a piece with her broader nonconformity,” but also because the fetus “already has fingernails.” While Juno clearly isn’t Ramesh Ponnuru in thinking the fetus should have the rights of a person, she is at least sympathetic to pro-life concerns.  But I feel like Ross is missing some broader points about Juno, that despite its pro-pregnancy, abortion skeptical message, it is, at its core, all about choice.

The reason Juno is able to go through with the pregnancy is the same reason she is able to openly contemplate abortion.  It’s because everyone close to her is incredibly supportive of whatever choices  she makes.  While it’s not true that all pro-lifers would want to slut-shame Juno, it’s certainly true that, on average, those in the pro-life movement would be more likely to have a reaction that included, “why is she having SEX at 16?”  Her parents, while certainly not thrilled that their 16 year old daughter is pregnant, support her in whatever decision she makes.  Their refusing to be judgmental is an attitude that is fostered by pro-choice convictions.

It’s impossible to ignore that Juno immediately plans on getting an abortion and is in the clininc before she gets cold feet.  So why does she back ou?.  While Ross is certainly right that the “fingernails” were a big part of it, when she is explaining her decision to Leah, she says that the clinic “smelled like a dentists office” and while she’s there, she is visibly turned off by the shabbiness of the place and odd, goth receptionist.  The fact that her decision is influenced by the “unremitting grossness of the abortion clinic” is another reason why Juno is a pro-choice movie.  In states/regions that are more generally pro choice, the idea is that abortion clinics won’t turn off their potential patients by being so nasty.  If the ability for a 16 year old girl to be as autonomous as possible in dealing with her pregnancy is valued, than her shying away from abortion because the clinic is off-putting isn’t really a good point for the anti-abortion cause.

While Ross is certainly right that Juno is “decidedly a brief for not getting an abortion,” I think he would be wrong to generalize out from that.  Juno is a brief for why the main character, Juno, made the best decision for herself in keeping the baby. It is a brief for tolerance, acceptance and being sympathetic to girls and women who have unplanned pregnancies.  And while there is much for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers to like, the celebration of tolerance and autonomy is also a celebration of what being “pro-choice” means, in its highest form.

Give Wes a Break

I’ve been reading a lot of criticism of Wes Anderson — ranging from calling him a fascist to saying that his minority and female characters are hallow caricatures.  While I’ll leave dealing with the details of the latter criticism to Reihan, I’ll add that all this highfalutin criticism of Anderson is just a sign of how talented and important he is.

That he makes movies where he’s a bigger draw than the high profile actors in them and that he tries to make art: this is what makes him a target for this type of criticism. Because his movies are so expertly and lovingly shot, because they’re written so cleverly and are just so damn endearing, people have very high and very specific expectations of them. Since there are so few directors who actually have artistic ambition like Anderson, every film buff who has some sort of cultural agenda (not that there’s anything wrong with having a cultural agenda) focuses an inordinate amount of criticism on him.  Let’s be happy we have Wes at all, and not worry so much that he can’t be perfect in writing and depicting all of his characters.

How Hot is Hayek?

Kathy G, in discussing and endorsing Alex Tabarrok’s fantastic Presidential Candidate Game Show, wonders why so many libertarian web types have the hots for Salma Hayek.  It is not enough to say that Ms. Hayek is super hot, on her end of hotness bell curve it’s pretty hard to make any real distinctions.  Why then do Dan Drezner, Tabarrok and much of the free market/libertarian internet ogle Salma with such frequency.  Part of it is a matter of timing - from what I understand, the phenomenon was launched with the infamous Hayek vs Hayek scorecard, comparing various attributes (age, philosophical depth etc) which was written in 1996, when Salma Hayek was quite prominent.  Her relative hotness has held up in the last 11 years, whereas other net oglefests like Jessica Biel weren’t around 10 years ago (well, she was in Seventh Heaven, but Jessica Biel as known today didn’t really exist).  Salma also was in movies that would appeal to the types that make up the mass of the libertarian internet - namely a movie that involved her doing some crazy dance with a snake and a subsequent hour long violent clash with a hoard of vampires.

There’s also the fact that the heavily male libertarian internet community is a collective sucker for pretty women, just look at the entire Libertarian Girl situation, where an otherwise unread 30 something libertarian blogger who lived with his parents decided to become “Libertarian Girl” - he even took a picture from a Russian bride website for his alter ego’s image.  His blog traffic skyrocketed until it was discovered that she was, in fact, a he.  The same people who read libertarian blogs also frequent Russian bride websites, so the gig was doomed from the start.

I would be remiss if I avoided the name issue.  Clearly, Salma wouldn’t be so consistently ogled in the libertarian blogosphere if her last name weren’t the same as St. Friedrich.  All the above reasons I gave just cemented Salma’s status as numero uno libertarian internet object of lust.  The more interesting question is if, say, Jessica Alba was Jessica Rawls or if Scarlet Johansen was Scarlet Galbraith would the (straight male) liberal blogosphere/internet be so enamored?

Ewok Errors

I love the gang at Cracked, I haven’t read a list of theirs that didn’t make me laugh, but for a such a charming, funny gang of pop culture nerds, they make a rather glaring, yet common error.

Finding the worst line of Lucas dialogue is no small feat. There are more crappy lines of dialogue in the Star Wars movies than there are Ewoks on Endor.

While yes, George Lucas does suck at writing dialogue, Cracked’s analogy would indicate Lucas writes no crappy dialogue. That’s because Ewoks don’t live on Endor at all, but instead on a moon of Endor, the forest moon specifically. Of course, there’s the whole issue of the Endor Holocaust, but that’s a debate I have very little interest in engaging in.

Andy Samberg Must Be Some Kind of God

He’s managed to date Natalie Portman and get the feministing crowd in a collective swoon over him because he wore a NOW shirt. This dude has his shit together. He’s also a Bay Area native which is not a coincidence, not a coincidence at all.

Goblins and Jews - Photographic evidence

Some people wanted photographic evidence of my thinking that JK Rowlings’ depiction of goblins draws upon (almost certainly unconsciously) on some common stereotypes of Jews. Well, via a message board post that linked to me, I’ve tracked down these pictures. Once again, I’m not calling JK Rowling an anti semite, or anything of that nature. Just thought it was interesting how greedy, miserly, cheap, hooked nose, treacherous, studiously neutral, short and banker all got thrown into the mix of a single magical race. All the stereotyped fun is below the fold.

NO! Emma Watson is MINE!

Via Shakesville - Men’s libidos don’t really care about the difference between 17 and 18, and thus, “Ask Men” needs a feature on the incredibly talented and super attractive Emma Watson (aka Hermione Granger). I should be a bit angry that openly declaring your undying devotion to Emma Watson is now considered OK for nearly everyone, considering that I’m 50 days older than her and thus have been able to be attracted to her without societally imposed guilt.

Among Harry Potter fans everywhere there’s been some debate - is the silver screen Hermione allowed to be so hot, or is she really a tomboyish bookworm. The most obvious evidence that she really is quite the looker is the Yule Ball in Book 4 (Goblet of Fire) where she “lets her hair down” (and applies massive amounts of magic hair products) and beautifies herself, or unleashes her otherwise hidden beauty to the extent that she is unrecognizable to Harry and Ron (her best friends). But in the films…she’s always attractive, or at least we see what makes her such a looker - good skin, bone structure, features etc all the time she’s on screen, instead of in Rowling specified moments of beauty.

But how has the movie Hermione affected our perspective of the book Hermione? Originally, Rowling always was trying to show that the attractive girls in the HP universe were Cho Chang, Fleur Delacour and Ginny Weasley. The movie Fleur was able to handle the hype, but silver screen Ginny and especially silver screen Cho really pale in comparison to Emma.

How does this affect our reading of the seventh book, or re-reading of any subsequent HP books? Do I see Hermione as the bookworm or the stunner? What does JK Rowling think about this, she clearly had a vision for Hermione, and I don’t think Emma Watson was quite it. In the recent books, however, she’s girlied up a bit, not only her affair de Krum, but also her incessant gossiping with Ginny and relationship with Ron. Who knows, she might even be sexually independent and feminine enough to have CS Lewis exclude her from Aslan’s heaven and let her die in a horrific train accident on earth.

I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!

From Dr. Evil to the Pentagon.

Creating armor that renders a soldier invisible. Stimulating the brain to suppress sleep for days. Arming sharks with chemical implants and cameras to work as spies.

This year the Pentagon will spend $78 billion — about half of all government research and development dollars — on a variety of projects, according to the American Association for the Advancement for Science (AAAS).

Are they ill tempered?

Tip of the hat…Pandagon 

The Future of American Jewry

Jewish mothers across the world constantly fret that their beloved sons and daughters may go off into the world…and marry non Jews. The opportunity has never been greater, and the social stigma has never been lower; so it really is a great chance for young Jews to expand past their cultural and traditional boundaries, because you never know how these things may change.

There is however, in this bleak world of intermarriage and diminished identity, hope. And Hope’s name is “Natalie Portman and Andy Samberg are dating.”

In the words of a “Portman source”- “A nice Jewish boy would be good for her.”

Via US Weekly.

PS - I’ve had a crush on her since I visited my brother at school and saw her in a bar/restaurant there…it was love at first site, but I don’t think she saw me.

El Laberinto del Fauno

Otherwise known as Pan’s Labyrinth by the plebes. I really liked it, Guillermo Del Toro’s directing was quite good, I don’t have much to say that other people who actually know how to write about movies haven’t already said. Just one thing, in nearly all the battle scenes between the partisans and the Army, the army just had pistols while the partisans all had rifles. One would think that the big advantage of an actual military would be having big guns that could use up lots of ammo. I know that Del Toro’s mission wasn’t to represent the conflict as accurately as possible, but the addition of big, scary guns to the Fascists arsenal wouldn’t have distracted from the artistry of the film, and I wouldn’t have been so confused while watching it.

Talkin’ Bout Zach Braff’s Generation

The backlash has been coming for a long time, the people have been agitating against this mousy, over-sensitive, not super talented actor being the voice of our generation. And, in the blogosphere at least, Ross has finally cracked - declaring him to be “a no-talent poseur.” The Wise Old Ezra, perhaps showing some solidarity for a fellow member of the tribe, doesn’t entirely go the full Ross, but sure is happy to see Gawker launch a devastating attack on him.

The “I Hate Zach Braff” founding document is, of course, Josh Levin’s classic Slate article of the same name. It is, in fact, absolutely hilarious and hits on all the right reasons why those of us (well maybe not me, I might be a tad young for Braff’s generation) should be disgusted that this guy is our culturo-generational representative. Here’s the nut:

What has Braff’s keen ear picked up about the nation’s young people? If Garden State is to be believed, they spend their days squinting and staring wistfully while slowly learning that it’s OK to feel and, like, live. When they do speak, yearbook quotes come out. For example: “Maybe that’s all family really is. A group of people who miss the same imaginary place.” In The Last Kiss, Braff furrows his brow solemnly and ponders a question that’s paralyzed millions: Should I replace my incredibly hot girlfriend with an incredibly hot college student?

Yes, this is really why people find him annoying. Because he writes movies that has him sleeping with multiple incredibly hot women, or in Garden State, just one. And then he wraps up his translucent lust in lame profundity, gets more hot girls, and the ressentiment comes on pretty quick.

It’s odd because many of the Braff haters are probably, like most men between 16-35, huge Entourage fans. Entourage is just about how an actor and his hanger-on friends use a scintilla of acting ability to get with a bunch of girls. Zach Braff, by all accounts, does this in real life. So, I think we should all just step off, and respect Braff’s gangster. Don’t hate the player, hate the fact that you (and me) aren’t able to play the game.

PS - I have watched many episodes of Scrubs much more recently that I’ve seen Garden State, and I’ve never seen The Last Kiss, so maybe I’m just more predisposed to being sympathetic to Braff.

This is how Garden State’s infamous “this song will change your life” scene should have turned out: