Sunday, July 26, 2009
Bruno
In 2006 the movie Borat was lauded as comedic brilliance for its ability to reduce the audience to tears of laughter while shoving American ignorance right in its face. Rising above the controversy surrounding the film, its creator and star was lauded as a genius whose star has not diminished in the last few years. Bestowing the title of a comic genius on Sasha Baron Cohen set the anticipation for his next work impossibly high while making the wait for the follow-up interminably long. Cohen’s long-awaited follow-up, Bruno, has finally been released and has indeed raised the “mockumentary” to dizzying heights of hilarity. The laughs though may have come at the cost of his subversive message that had many calling the man a genius being lost in the push for shocking humor.
There is no doubt that the depictions throughout the film are absolutely outrageous and hysterical in spite of any moral indignation. There are no lengths Cohen will not go to humiliate himself for the uncomfortable enjoyment of his audience. It is shocking in fact that the film did not receive a NC-17 rating for its graphic depictions of sexuality. There are images that, for better or worse, will become etched in your mind. With such a commitment to your psyche, questions will come as to what exactly those images will be remembered for.
The roar of the audience and tears down your face will no doubt come to mind, but what of social commentary. Cohen is attempting to expose hidden homophobic attitudes to the rest of the world through is flamboyantly homosexual character Bruno. Unfortunately, his over-the-top antics do not expose all that many hidden homophobic attitudes; it is not a shock that a hunter would take offense to a naked Bruno trying to crawl into his tent at night with nothing more than a handful of condoms. Nor is it shocking that an arena full of ultimate fighting fans would be offended by homosexual conduct; the purpose of the stunt called into question because it is equally doubtful whether their indignation would cause any of them to feel any sense of shame.
The real shame may lie with Cohen solely. By going for laughs at the expense of attitudes, he has run the risk of having his own views called into question. Does he humiliate himself as the flamboyant Bruno because he wants to exploit society’s evils or because those evils are ingrained as a part of him? Are the exploits funny because those evils reside in all of us? The only hidden evils he exposes in the film comes at the expense of some horrific stage parents who should have children protective services investigate each and every one of them. Otherwise the humiliation alone falls on Cohen whose antics implicate us all.
There is no doubt that the depictions throughout the film are absolutely outrageous and hysterical in spite of any moral indignation. There are no lengths Cohen will not go to humiliate himself for the uncomfortable enjoyment of his audience. It is shocking in fact that the film did not receive a NC-17 rating for its graphic depictions of sexuality. There are images that, for better or worse, will become etched in your mind. With such a commitment to your psyche, questions will come as to what exactly those images will be remembered for.
The roar of the audience and tears down your face will no doubt come to mind, but what of social commentary. Cohen is attempting to expose hidden homophobic attitudes to the rest of the world through is flamboyantly homosexual character Bruno. Unfortunately, his over-the-top antics do not expose all that many hidden homophobic attitudes; it is not a shock that a hunter would take offense to a naked Bruno trying to crawl into his tent at night with nothing more than a handful of condoms. Nor is it shocking that an arena full of ultimate fighting fans would be offended by homosexual conduct; the purpose of the stunt called into question because it is equally doubtful whether their indignation would cause any of them to feel any sense of shame.
The real shame may lie with Cohen solely. By going for laughs at the expense of attitudes, he has run the risk of having his own views called into question. Does he humiliate himself as the flamboyant Bruno because he wants to exploit society’s evils or because those evils are ingrained as a part of him? Are the exploits funny because those evils reside in all of us? The only hidden evils he exposes in the film comes at the expense of some horrific stage parents who should have children protective services investigate each and every one of them. Otherwise the humiliation alone falls on Cohen whose antics implicate us all.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Tony Manero
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, unless of course the imitation is of traits that are not flattering. Movie history is filled with characters of dubious morality that have garnered a cult-like following. John Travolta’s Vincent Vega from Pulp Fiction certainly comes to mind. Travolta’s Tony Manero from Saturday Night Fever, not so much. Although the character of Tony is a violent womanizing potential rapist, the narrative of Saturday Night Fever is a beautiful arc of a story that watches Tony grow as human while using dance in the local disco as a vehicle to escape his bleak existence. It is a character that has and should garner a lot of imitation, unless the beauty of the tale is lost on the audience.
The Chilean film Tony Manero follows a man obsessed with Saturday Night Fever during the late 1970s, when the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet was ruthlessly ruling over his South American country. Existence was bleak so Raul Peralta turned to dance as the best hope for escaping the life he leads. He spends his days studying the film, practicing his dance moves, perfecting his clothes, hair and the stage where he is to perform his opus to disco. It would be a heart-warming tale if Raul didn’t fund his endeavors by also mimicking Tony’s lesser traits. He womanizes to ensure a place to live and violently takes what he can’t afford to purchase.
For Raul, those traits probably were his only chance out. His dance scenes are wonderful moments of comic relief, the dancing is awful with little hope of improvement. He would have been better served taking a hint from one of the scenes of Saturday Night Fever. In the American tale, Tony is mistaken for Al Pacino, who has garnered acclaim for his portrayals of violent gangsters. In a delicious bit of casting, Alfredo Castro, the actor who plays Raul, more closely resembles an aged Pacino than the dancing Travolta he wishes he were. A man like a Pacino character would have been a benefit to the Pinochet regime that violently eliminated all forms of opposition in Chile for several decades.
The abuses of the dictatorship are a backdrop to the story of Tony Manero. The regime’s obsession with its opponents allows the crimes of Raul to go on unnoticed. The only reason politics come close to Raul is because Raul’s friends were in active opposition to their government. Their activities have no affect on Raul because he truly is apolitical. His violence was a means to an end that was to include disco, a genre of music that has been accused of having no meaning itself outside of individual satisfaction. For Raul is satisfaction was all he could see; his downward spiral the perfect counterpoint Tony found in the heights of Saturday Night Fever.
The Chilean film Tony Manero follows a man obsessed with Saturday Night Fever during the late 1970s, when the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet was ruthlessly ruling over his South American country. Existence was bleak so Raul Peralta turned to dance as the best hope for escaping the life he leads. He spends his days studying the film, practicing his dance moves, perfecting his clothes, hair and the stage where he is to perform his opus to disco. It would be a heart-warming tale if Raul didn’t fund his endeavors by also mimicking Tony’s lesser traits. He womanizes to ensure a place to live and violently takes what he can’t afford to purchase.
For Raul, those traits probably were his only chance out. His dance scenes are wonderful moments of comic relief, the dancing is awful with little hope of improvement. He would have been better served taking a hint from one of the scenes of Saturday Night Fever. In the American tale, Tony is mistaken for Al Pacino, who has garnered acclaim for his portrayals of violent gangsters. In a delicious bit of casting, Alfredo Castro, the actor who plays Raul, more closely resembles an aged Pacino than the dancing Travolta he wishes he were. A man like a Pacino character would have been a benefit to the Pinochet regime that violently eliminated all forms of opposition in Chile for several decades.
The abuses of the dictatorship are a backdrop to the story of Tony Manero. The regime’s obsession with its opponents allows the crimes of Raul to go on unnoticed. The only reason politics come close to Raul is because Raul’s friends were in active opposition to their government. Their activities have no affect on Raul because he truly is apolitical. His violence was a means to an end that was to include disco, a genre of music that has been accused of having no meaning itself outside of individual satisfaction. For Raul is satisfaction was all he could see; his downward spiral the perfect counterpoint Tony found in the heights of Saturday Night Fever.
Public Enemies
There is a long continuum of American outlaws who were legends in their own time whose stature has grown over the years. Dating from the Founding Fathers themselves to the Wild West and into the early decades of the Twentieth century, these individuals challenged and broke the laws of the governments of their times and reveled in populist adoration. Then, the adoration seemingly stopped; the idea of criminal as hero was wiped out as a modern America emerged. John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) was one of the last of these heroes. His demise and a theory as to why the outlaw became a villain in the mind of the general population is the subject of Michael Mann’s latest film, Public Enemies.
Dillinger’s heyday coincided with the end of the easy bank target. His profits came at the expense of banks that still relied on a vault as their only means of defense. A great deal of the film focuses on the FBI’s development of a modern mode of law enforcement designed to capture the brazen gangsters. Led by J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) who tabs Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) as the lead agent tracking Dillinger, the FBI develops a system of wire tapping and profiling to tighten an ever shrinking circle around the outlaw. They go from being two steps behind to a step ahead as they employ tactics that question whether we as a country have sold our souls to bring about the end of the crime spree.
This is a question worth asking because Mann makes a point to throw in a line from Dillinger to another man that the gentleman should put away his money, the gangsters were there for the bank’s money, not the individuals. Set during the Great Depression, this positions Dillinger as a sort of modern day Robin Hood. Not necessarily giving to the poor, but definitely stealing from the rich who were perceived to be stealing from the poor. Was the population really on the side of law and order when the destruction of their financial world was being blamed on the same forces hunting Dillinger? The question is rendered moot as it becomes clearer that a common man can no longer stand up to a corrupt and/or self-interested government. Soon the criminals themselves begin to formulate their own modern techniques, robbing blind both the establishment and the common citizen.
It is a question from an era that has long since passed. The government still has a dubious reputation that is now matched by the country’s famous criminals. They are no longer lionized, but roundly vilified for their heinous acts. With an establishment that has become an untouchable; theft has become sanctioned by the SEC and violence has turned on the concept of neighborly love. Dillinger was as blood-thirsty as Ted Kaczynski and as greedy as Bernie Madoff. Public Enemies hints at why these villains went from famous to infamous in the span of decades and questions which reality would have left America better off.
Dillinger’s heyday coincided with the end of the easy bank target. His profits came at the expense of banks that still relied on a vault as their only means of defense. A great deal of the film focuses on the FBI’s development of a modern mode of law enforcement designed to capture the brazen gangsters. Led by J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) who tabs Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) as the lead agent tracking Dillinger, the FBI develops a system of wire tapping and profiling to tighten an ever shrinking circle around the outlaw. They go from being two steps behind to a step ahead as they employ tactics that question whether we as a country have sold our souls to bring about the end of the crime spree.
This is a question worth asking because Mann makes a point to throw in a line from Dillinger to another man that the gentleman should put away his money, the gangsters were there for the bank’s money, not the individuals. Set during the Great Depression, this positions Dillinger as a sort of modern day Robin Hood. Not necessarily giving to the poor, but definitely stealing from the rich who were perceived to be stealing from the poor. Was the population really on the side of law and order when the destruction of their financial world was being blamed on the same forces hunting Dillinger? The question is rendered moot as it becomes clearer that a common man can no longer stand up to a corrupt and/or self-interested government. Soon the criminals themselves begin to formulate their own modern techniques, robbing blind both the establishment and the common citizen.
It is a question from an era that has long since passed. The government still has a dubious reputation that is now matched by the country’s famous criminals. They are no longer lionized, but roundly vilified for their heinous acts. With an establishment that has become an untouchable; theft has become sanctioned by the SEC and violence has turned on the concept of neighborly love. Dillinger was as blood-thirsty as Ted Kaczynski and as greedy as Bernie Madoff. Public Enemies hints at why these villains went from famous to infamous in the span of decades and questions which reality would have left America better off.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Goodguys Auto Show
America’s past will once again roll through Columbus in the form of the Goodguys auto show this weekend. Harkening back to a more simple time when the big three ruled the road and before the specter of evil fossil fuels hovered over our national consciousness, these vehicles are the pride and envy of motorheads all over the world. Multi-hued and oozing horsepower, the rumble of the engines will raise the moribund American automotive industry for 3 days as a reminder of the power of a little ingenuity. Over 6,000 1972 and prior street machines will be on display at the Ohio Expo Center in conjunction with countless automotive vendors selling anything needed to keep these dream machines running
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Away We Go
There are a multitude of roads to take on a journey through life. Some highly traveled, others, less so. Good roads and bad. What works for some people does not work for others. The problem is society puts the pressure of conformity on individuals starting at a very young age. There is a standardized American dream that is purported to be the goal of all warm-blooded Americans. It is a nice dream that in reality cannot be made to fit each or any of us. Growing up with this prevailing ethos, it is difficult to see the absurdity of it all. That is why we need an outsider to point out the flaws in the mystique and to help point us in differing directions; an outsider such as English-born director Sam Mendes.
In 1999’s American Beauty and 2008’s Revolutionary Road, Mendes did his best to obliterate the American dream. With Away We Go, he is intent on finishing off any remaining vestiges of the dream. He accomplishes this task rather effectively, setting the stage to rebuild the dream without the clichés that it was built upon. The obliteration comes on a cross country trip an expectant couple, Burt and Verona, (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph) take to find a place to call home for the start of their family. The family and friends they seek as the archetype of marital bliss are clichés in and of themselves and often times a disaster at the game of life. Where once the couple questioned if they are fuck-ups, the realization comes that everyone is a fuck-up; the road to happiness will have to be forged on Burt and Verona’s own terms.
The road they take leads to a wide open future with no certainty. Burt and Verona can only wish the path they have taken will lead to happiness, the only thing any of us can wish for. Despite what we are led to believe, there is no American dream that can be followed; we as humans are far too different. Mendes has spent his career tearing the belief in a common dream to pieces; in Away We Go he lays the groundwork to begin rebuilding. Taking divergent paths may feel alienating but they are necessary. Through these treks of individuality we find our own way and discover the differences between us all are indeed held together by a common string.
In 1999’s American Beauty and 2008’s Revolutionary Road, Mendes did his best to obliterate the American dream. With Away We Go, he is intent on finishing off any remaining vestiges of the dream. He accomplishes this task rather effectively, setting the stage to rebuild the dream without the clichés that it was built upon. The obliteration comes on a cross country trip an expectant couple, Burt and Verona, (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph) take to find a place to call home for the start of their family. The family and friends they seek as the archetype of marital bliss are clichés in and of themselves and often times a disaster at the game of life. Where once the couple questioned if they are fuck-ups, the realization comes that everyone is a fuck-up; the road to happiness will have to be forged on Burt and Verona’s own terms.
The road they take leads to a wide open future with no certainty. Burt and Verona can only wish the path they have taken will lead to happiness, the only thing any of us can wish for. Despite what we are led to believe, there is no American dream that can be followed; we as humans are far too different. Mendes has spent his career tearing the belief in a common dream to pieces; in Away We Go he lays the groundwork to begin rebuilding. Taking divergent paths may feel alienating but they are necessary. Through these treks of individuality we find our own way and discover the differences between us all are indeed held together by a common string.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)