« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
December 31, 2005
Happy New Year!
I enjoy the extended time I've had at the end of 2005 to reflect on my life. Bob and I are having a magnificent New Year party - I'm drinkin Cote du Rhone and throwing together a feast, and he's singing me into the new year.
I hope everyone is happy and healthy and looking forward to an extraordinary 2006. I've made my resolutions, and hope you have too.
notes on my feast:
brie and crackers...too much of both for the guest list
lobster ravioli...too much butter sauce for the amount made
potatoes, asparagus, and strip steak...in progress...
I'm free to choose my future and explore the world. It's going to be an exciting year. Although, I gotta say, I'm not too impressed with On the Road...blasphemous, I know, for a woman whose domain name comes from "Howl" ...
Posted by cj at 07:23 PM | Comments (0)
December 27, 2005
Munich: The Most Over-Hyped Movie of the Year
I can't get it. I don't understand David Brooks lambasting the film in a NYT op-ed for having the audacity to present Palestinians as three-dimensional human beings. (I was disgusted by the article; but it made me excited for the film: Palestinians as human beings is always a sign of reality to me.) And every trailer seemed to scream Reviewers Around The World Love This Movie And So Will You. Alas, I couldn't. I left the theater angry, wanting to get into an argument with everyone in the world who enjoyed the film.
Let's get something straight - allowing characters in a film to be human beings with back stories and thoughts about the future is not the same thing as giving an even-handed account of their lives. I'm not saying terrorism is justified. I'm saying that the Jewish murderers acted just as criminally as the Palestinian murderers. The film ends with a few words about how many of the originally sought Palestinians were murdered. It says nothing about the fate of the main protagonist, or that no one was ever convicted for the murders portrayed on film. I get that the film was inspired by real events and is not a documentary. But the world is a seriously fucked up place when this trite swan song for Israel is crucified as being anti-Israel.
I guess my political views overshadow my ability to enjoy the film. Sure, I can agree with the reviewers that there were nail-biting procedural thriller scenes and I'm a sucker for those kind of scenes; I'd never call a procedural movie the stand out #1 movie of the year. Everyone seems to think Spielberg broke new ground by having a single comprehensible scene where a Palestinian articulates a motive for terrorism. But its telling that you can't really understand the Palestinian family featured at the beginning of the movie; and you never see Palestine in this film. All you see is stalwart Holocaust-surviving Jews who, against all stereotypes of my fine ethnicity, have the courage to use big guns and loud explosives to murder their neighbors.
Is no one else outraged? Whether or not this movie is based on reality or fantasy, Israel continues to murder Palestinians with impunity, justifying its actions as being provoked by suicide bombings. There is a really good reason that, at least officially and in full view of US law, the US government cannot assassinate people. You cannot promote law and order, democracy, and civilization by murdering people.
My heart was filled with outrage and sadness when I left the theater. I cannot believe this is a controversial film. I cannot believe people actually think this film gives Palestinians a fair shake. I cannot believe mainstream society cannot grasp that Palestinians are just as human, just as capable of governing themselves and being civilized as any other group of humans - from slaves in colonial America to black South Africans to Indians under British colonial rule - humans everywhere strive for independence and deserve the ability to be treated humanely, and not be collectively punished for the horrible crimes of a few people.
More info:
Ebert's review / plot summary
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Manohla Dargis review in the NYT
David Edelstein's review in Slate (probably the best of the bunch)
Posted by cj at 09:23 PM | Comments (0)
Happiness
I looked at the menu, then I looked at my wife. The one thing about her that I always loved was that she was never one of those people who thinks that someone else is the answer to their happiness. Me or anybody else. She's always had her own built-in happiness. I valued her opinion and I trusted her. "You order," I said.Bob Dylan, Chronicles Volume One (the memoir, not the cd)
Posted by cj at 08:55 PM | Comments (0)
December 25, 2005
March of the Penguins
I saw the film for the first time on DVD, which allowed me to watch the extras right after the film. I'm not sure that was such a good idea. First, it bothers me that extras don't have time indicators - I had no idea the making of doc was practically as long as the movie, nor that National Geographic makes such tasteless drivel (with a bunch of interesting facts pushing you through the drivel and fast, flashy camera work).
What I find most interesting about the reviews for the film is that reviewers thought they were watching the life cycle of the entire Emperor Penguin species. When the movie ended I thought, hey I wanna know more about these creatures - how many of these mating places are there and how are they affected by global warming and how were these shots gotten. Turns out, the documentarians had to wait in camp during the coldest month b/c one got frost-bitten and the other mucked up his leg during a particularly grueling six hour mile walk back to base camp during a seriously bad storm. And there's not exact truth in the film, in a way I think ppl would find disturbing if it was a documentary about people - they didn't follow the mothers all the way back to the ocean, yet played footage of penguins as if they did.
I kept getting infuriated that Morgan Freeman never said the words dies, dead, or death. Instead, penguins mellifluously faded away. During the making of doc, Of Men and Penguins, the truth was revealed - a quarter of the babies die either in the egg or during their first year. And many more fathers die standing around for three months, not eating or drinking, but only protecting their kids from the weather.
Another really interesting thing brought up in the National Geographic doc is that there are plenty of other pods of Emperor Penguins - and some of them only live a few miles offshore. I think those pods have more success with their reproduction...unless a huge iceberg comes along (the largest in the world, the size of Ceylon, broken off of Antarctica due to global warming), and crashes into your bit of the continent, destroying the beautiful sheets of ice and leaving you with a hilly terrain that your simple claws and waddling body cannot navigate. That happened to another pod, and most simply disappeared into the depths of death, but a few were caught on tape (dead or dying in troughs of ice they'd fallen into).
I guess I'm far more fascinated with the big picture of Antarctica and its penguins than I am in the "love story" Morgan Freeman spinned. Maybe, like the BBC reviewer, I'm simply too hard-hearted. I know I would've felt differently about the movie if I'd seen it 8 months ago. Oh well. It's pretty and it made me appreciate the relative warmth of a Chicago winter.
BBC review by Paul Arendt
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ebert's review
LA Weekly review
IMDB entry
Posted by cj at 07:35 PM | Comments (0)
The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe
I originally planned to see two films at a theater today, to fulfill my duty as a Jew to Go Forth And Pay Money To Watch Movies On Someone Else's Holiday. Alas, I had a pleasant diversion from that mission - a friend was in town for a few hours on her way to NYC, so I met her for dinner instead. Which led me to seeing one film. And I chose the happy one on my list because I figured (a)not too many kids are taken to the movies on Christmas Eve and (b)I didn't want to watch a political Spielberg romp after seein a friend for the first time in over a year. Alas, even without kids the theater wasn't silent. Why the hell don't people understand that When They Whisper Everyone Is Disturbed?!?!? It drove me frickin nuts and no amount of turning and glaring helped. I suppose it only worsened my own experience.
Well, back to the movie adaptation of one of my favorite childhood books. For some reason, I've never been able to retain all the plot points of the books, despite the fact that I read them several times as a child. I do remember that the Narnia bit started way earlier in the book than the movie.
I'm not sure why It Needed To Be Firmly Anchored To Reality by an extended sequence introducing WWII and the kids' mum to the viewer. But, for some reason, chronicles cannot begin without pointless diversions. I also recall the book spending a lot more time explaining all of Narnia's creatures more thoroughly; or perhaps that was just me re-reading passages because I never read Greek or Roman myths before C.S. Lewis, and I was so enchanted by the whole world.
I did enjoy myself. I agree with A.O. Scott of the NYT that the two hours after Lucy's initial encounter with the wardrobe and Mr. Tumnus, a faun, didn't quite live up to the excitement and wonder of the original transition. I think this is best explained by Ty Burr of the Boston Globe:
Anyway, the true deity in this movie is Peter Jackson. "Chronicles of Narnia" is very much "The Lord of the Rings" rebuilt to PG specifications, which services the box office at the expense of C.S. Lewis. It also cheats the youngest readers of an intense little story of moral ideas. A gracefully subtle metaphor about life's Deep Magic has become a war film; what was a one-chapter battle toward the end of the book is now a ripsnorting Armageddon that looks like something Hieronymus Bosch might dream up after a heavy meal.I miss the fantasy of my youth enough to buy the book that's been calling to me since the Spring - a one volume, paperback version of the entire Chronicles. Heck, it's cheaper than the total cost of my movie watching experience (including popcorn, pop, parking, and a $9.50 admission fee).
More info:
Rotten Tomatoes Entry
Ty Burr in the Boston Globe
A.O. Scott in the NYT
Carina Chocano in the LAT
Roger Ebert (of the Chicago Sun Times) (I thought he was more articulate in his t.v. review than in print.)
IMDB page
Posted by cj at 12:10 AM | Comments (0)
December 24, 2005
Something's Gotta Give
Last night, I was convinced it would be months before I could enjoy a romantic comedy. Today, perhaps because I was enamored with movies after waking up to Double Happiness, I stuck around HBO to watch a movie I've avoided since it came out. My sister instilled in me a healthy dose of Jack Nicholson dislike and I've never particularly cared for allowing the cad to be the hero of my movie fantasies. Oh, really, who am I kidding? Cads are usually a helluva lot more interesting than nice guys on film.
So I was pleasantly surprised when I enjoyed the first two thirds of this film. It seemed to strike true notes with pitch perfect dialogue and the right twist. And yet, there was always Keanu Reeves sticking out like a sore thumb. And really, did it have to have a Hollywood ending? About the third to last scene is when people get into a cab. I thought that would've been the perfect place to end it. Nope. Instead it had to be schmaltzy.
Which was another interesting thing. Keaton's family is vaguely Jewish - at least I don't know any non-Jews who throw around Yiddish as easily as they do. But why? Because of the ethnic identity of the screenwriter / director, Nancy Meyers? Perhaps.
I agree with Ebert that Keanu's character was a poorly constructed plot device whose actions are completely unrealistic (except for his initial action of being smitten for a woman whose work he admires)...and I'm struck by A.O. Scott's observation that he and his fellow theater goers laughed hysterically when Keaton cried hysterically. Guess it hit too close to home for me because I thought - "oh, okay, I'm not going crazy by having the same reaction" and "her crying sure doesn't sound real to me." I suppose it's harder to laugh at the truth when you're living it.
More info:
IMDB page
A.O. Scott's review in the NYT
Ebert's review
Rotten Tomatoes page
Posted by cj at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)
Double Happiness
I missed the first two minutes of the film because I was figuring out what to watch while making breakfast. It took me awhile to start cooking because the movie is just fascinating. And since it is in English and Cantonese, it's a little difficult to turn away from the screen.
Perhaps because I missed those first two minutes, I didn't realize it is set in Vancouver. In a pleasant twist of fate, I've been wondering recently what else Sandra Oh has been in besides Sideways, Under the Tuscan Sun, and Grey's Anatomy. Turns out, this is one of her first works, from 1994.
I enjoyed the slice of life look at a Chinese-Canadian family, dealing with the tensions between traditional parents and Westernized children. It reminded me of this chick-lit book I read about a Korean woman and her family, In Full Bloom, by Caroline Hwang. And I kept thinking during the movie that I thought Sandra Oh was Korean, not Chinese. (Turns out she is Korean and there's this little thing called acting which allows an actor to sound believable even when speaking a foreign language.)
There's nothing particularly deep about the film, although it does perceptively portray the difficulty of being an Asian woman trying to succeed as an actress in North America. Its themes are universal - we all try to please our parents and find our own happiness, and sometimes we're able to maintain double happiness, and sometimes we can't.
I enjoyed the movie and hope more people can catch it on HBO soon (or rent it). In case you're wondering, I am trying to fulfill the Jewish stereotype of watching tons of movies during my Christmas break. I'm off work till Tuesday, January 3. Go me.
More info:
IMDB page
Roger Ebert's plot summary
Posted by cj at 02:29 PM | Comments (0)
Brokeback Mountain
At first blush, I wasn't sure the movie lived up to the hype. I'm a little frustrated by all the chatter that surrounds December openings. I particularly feel jilted by knowing too much about movies before I see them. I prefer to allow them to unfold naturally, especially films like Brokeback Mountain. Since it takes place over the course of many years, it's better not to know anything past the first arch.
It has a lyrical, slow pace to it. The primary characters are well drawn, and the secondary characters work well at being part of the film's world, even though they don't get much time to develop. Heath Ledger absolutely melted into his character; it was a brilliant performance.
And since the film has been haunting me since it ended, I must concede that it is worthy of its hype. But I'm definitely not going to attempt to watch any romantic comedies for awhile; I don't have the stomach for over-the-top love stories. This one was quite enough for me for awhile.
More info:
IMDB entry
Greg's Previews says it was filmed in Calgary, Canada. Why do I remember New Mexico being thanked in the credits?
Ebert's Plot Summary Really no need to read it before you see the movie. Although I'm glad he wasn't sure about a plot point towards the end of the film, since it troubled me too. The review also reminded me to put some Ingmar Bergman films on my Netflix queue.
Posted by cj at 03:10 AM | Comments (0)
December 23, 2005
It's starting to feel a lot like Chrismikah!
On the Today show this morning, a rabbi and a priest chided interfaith couples for attempting to raise their kids with both religions. The rabbi pointed out that no religious institution ("certainly no Jewish temple") would accept a pupil who was simultaneously studying at another religion's children's school. The priest pointed out that the meaning of Christmas is to accept Christ as the Messiah and Lord. And, surprisingly, modern day Judaism does not believe that.
The interesting thing was that both religious leaders thought that by denying a primary religion to your children, you deny them an identity. To me, that's like saying the child of a white man and a Lebanese woman is neither white nor Lebanese. Identities are no longer black and white and many children grow up to question their religious beliefs, whether or not both parents share the belief. Further, it is possible to separate the ethnic identity of Judaism from the religion.
To me, it's interesting that I'm open to learning more about all religions, that I can understand the pull of paganism and Hinduism and Buddhism, but I still can't wrap my brain around a virgin birth and a trinity of holiness being equal to monotheism. I wish everyone health and happiness in the New Year and comfort and joy in their spiritual beliefs - I certainly don't have to agree with you to agree with your right to celebrate.
And on a lighter note, here's Hanukah 101 by Jonathan Safran Foer in the NYT.
Posted by cj at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)
December 22, 2005
Remember
That was a memorable day to me, for it made great changes in me. But it is the same with any life. Imagine one selected day struck out of it, and think how different its course would have been. Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation of the first link on one memorable day.from Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
Posted by cj at 08:43 PM | Comments (0)
December 19, 2005
Choosing Home
I've lived all over the United States. Once, I was so desperate for love and a life outside of this country, I flirted with moving to Amsterdam. Nowadays, I call Chicago home. There are very few places in the States that make me happy. I need a metropolis full of different people, an assortment of culinary indulgences, a Trader Joe's, and most importantly reliable public transportation. Last weekend, I visited friends in Milwaukee who tried to convince me that their city was a better, smaller version of Chi-town. Frankly, I don't need a smaller city. And I'm not interested in packing up my crap to move anywhere that I have to drive to work. I have to believe that taking public trans is about more than just saving gas money. Its a recognition that in our oil-dependent country, where everyone is separated from one another, I enjoy doing something relatively small to help the world. Further, I enjoy reading on my way to work. And since my wrists aren't always my friends, I enjoy giving them a bit of a rest on my commute to work.
I also obviously enjoy living in a big city. And I've been thinking lately why it is I keep looking only for jobs outside of my current state lines. Am I weak to run away from a city I love simply because my heart was broken? Perhaps. Because there is no WTTW in NYC or Philly or any other city that draws me towards it. There's no Chicago Tonight or Check, Please! on the public airwaves in another town. But there are more friends and perhaps more career opportunities in those fine places, so maybe I do need to give up this city I love to find a more fulfilling life.
More on oil:
"The Price of Oil," by Peter Maass in the Sunday NYT Magazine
Posted by cj at 08:35 PM | Comments (0)
December 14, 2005
Syriana
When I write about a film, I try to convey my experience in watching it without revealing too much of the plot. It smacks of elementary school book reports to waste time telling you all the characters' names, which actors play them, and how they're related. I also think it detracts from your viewing experience when a critic or trailer reveals any significant plot point past the first five minutes of the film.
So, I always suggest reading reviews after you see a film. Yet, for some reason, I'm still watching Ebert & Roepert on Sunday mornings. I guess I'm just having difficulty giving up the detritus of my past relationship.
In any event, in his written review of Syriana, Ebert tried really hard not to focus on the plot. He still gave away a plot point and introduced a bunch of characters.
I've been trying to sort out my own reaction to the film. I've decided I need to see it again. My viewing experience was simply too altered to give the movie the concentration it deserves. First, I saw it at the Davis Theater in Lincoln Square. They are slow as cold molasses in selling you a ticket and popcorn, so I missed the first few minutes of the movie. Plus, since I came in late, I took the first seat available - on the aisle by the door. Found out that the reason I could see the seat wasn't because I had opened the door but because the Emergency Exit sign would keep me and my seat illuminated throughout the film. And for some reason, my fellow movie-goers decided to walk in and out of the theater endlessly during the film. So I could often hear The Chronicles of Narnia playing next door, which completely distracted me.
I agree with Roger on this:
The more you describe it, the more you miss the point. It is not a linear progression from problem to solution. It is all problem. The audience enjoys the process, not the progress. We're like athletes who get so wrapped up in the game we forget about the score.Except since my viewing experience didn't allow me to fully engage in the process of the movie, I was left grasping for straws. In some ways, I feel like the frame of the movie (which Roger calls "hyperlink movies" and which was described by the NYT several Sundays ago) is over down. It's a cliche even though there aren't that many multiple story movies. Does it really make for a better movie to make the plot so complex it would take multiple viewings to sort it all out? It's true that politics are best left as complicated on screen as they are in real life, but does that make for an enjoyable viewing experience? I think it does when the film isn't too preachy. Preachy movies only appeal to the choir. I think Syriana is an intriguing look at the reality of the world that doesn't try to Push Down Your Throat A Message, which in some ways is what Traffic did. At the same time it is completely devoid of environmental crusaders and there are no important women in its world. Perhaps tree huggers and women don't play a crucial role in the interaction between China, the US, and the Middle East. Perhaps tree huggers and women aren't intimately involved in the world of oil. But I think they are and I wish they were better represented in this film.
Posted by cj at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)
I Heart Huckabees
I wanted to see this quirky film when it came out in theatres. For one reason or another (probably because other films pulled me more), I never saw it. Then, last Friday, I found it on HBO. It is a quirky powerhouse of life's ultimate questions. Some movies don't need a traditional plotline for me to enjoy them. This is one of them. The flurry of debate between existentialism and nihilism is exhilirating; the truths calmly portrayed about corporate America and activists are biting; and ultimately the experience is uplifting.
This truly is a movie you'll either love or hate. Kinda like The Royal Tenenbaums. Ebert hated it. Then again, he liked that crap Me, You, and Everyone We Know. Different quirks for different folks.
Intriguing sites:
Official movie site. (Way too much flash for my taste.)
Huckabees dot com
open spaces dot org
IMDB page
Seriously, both the fake corporate and fake coalition sites are pitch perfect. I only wish they could be expanded by fans of the film, instead of lying static and (dare I say?) dead.
Posted by cj at 09:38 AM | Comments (0)
December 10, 2005
Richard Pryor Died Today at 65
Check out the tribute by Allen Johnson in the Trib.
Reuters tribute by Kevin Krolicki
I looked up Pryor tonight because I'm watching the "Richard Pryor: I Ain't Dead Yet, Motherfucker" special on Comedy Central...
Posted by cj at 11:24 PM | Comments (0)
December 04, 2005
huh?
What causes a site to come up frequently on web searches? My first blog has had over 17,400 hits. It gets an average of 10 hits a day. That would not be so interesting if I was still blogging on that site. But I haven't written there since December 2004. Clearly, I should move my thoughts on the foreign service to an active blog, since that seems to be getting the most traffic. But other than that, I can't figure out why that site gets so much damn traffic. And how can I move that traffic over here or there?
Compare my dead blog's 17K hits with this blog's anemic almost 2K hits and my other blog's 3200 hits. Wackiness abounds in the blogosphere. As my online personal headline states, pick me! pick me!
Posted by cj at 12:20 PM | Comments (2)
In Good Company
Last night, I stumbled across In Good Company, just as it was starting on HBO. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the film. I suppose my original decision not to see the film was based on jealousy - my ex had a crush on ScoJo (Scarlett Johansson).
The movie accurately portrays the tension between mega-merger corporate behemouths and regular businessmen who truly believe in their industries. It also does a good job of juxtaposing the consumption crazy lives of young professionals with the idealism-fueled lives of young college students. I thoroughly believed Dennis Quaid as Dan Foreman, an ad sales director for a national sports magazine. I also recognized the truth about print ad sales told in the movie; something I could relate to since its the biz I currently work in. Topher Grace created a character that was definitely Hollywood-ized: very few young professionals ever stop to wonder whether their work has any meaning or if they are connected to it for any reason other than to buy more crap.
Nevertheless, it was a great film. I can't expect a Hollywood feature to conform to reality; after all, that's not their primary purpose. I encourage you to check it out on cable or dvd.
Randomly, now that network tv is not pulling my strings the way it once did, I'm seriously considering getting my own subscription to Netflix. I'm trying to check the desire, since I'm also trying to save money for an eventual move....still, dvd's are a great source of entertainment (and cheaper than going to a movie theater every week).
Posted by cj at 11:32 AM | Comments (0)
December 01, 2005
Huzzah! JDate Accepts Queers!
Thanks to an item on Gawker, I found out that JDate will finally stop its homophobic lack of searching for gay and lesbian matches. After all, every Jewish boy and girl should marry a Jew (according to my Jewish mom).
JTA, the "Global News Service of the Jewish People" reports this intriguing update to the venerable niche dating site. It will also include more deets for those goyim who troll the site - allowing them to indicate their willingness to convert. Alas, the site still hasn't clued into the fact that bisexual people exist - you can only search for men or women, not both. Plus, in the last 18 months, they've jacked up their prices and made most services only accessible if you pay $35 a month. As much as the rents would love for me to find my own Israeli soulmate via JDate (like my big sis), I highly doubt that'll happen anytime soon.
Posted by cj at 07:55 AM | Comments (0)