Femonomics at the movies: Winter's Bone

The Oscar nominations are out, and I was surprised to see my favorite movie of this year getting four big nominations, for Best Picture,  Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay.  That movie is Winter's Bone, and I hope these nominations will be the push you need (yes, you) to watch it immediately.  You can rent it on Amazon for $3.99.



Winter's Bone is more than a great movie; it is the best movie I have seen in recent memory for fully fleshed out female characters that matter.  With a female heroine who never once talks about a boy, her female best friend with whom she shares a family-like bond, and a female villain from whom our heroine receives veiled, then not-so-veiled threats, Winter's Bone passes the Bechdel test with flying colors.  I want to repeat that this is a movie with a female hero and a female villain, neither of whom are sexualized.  Adding to the thrill is the fact that those characters are featured in such a fantastically, spine-tinglingly taut crime drama that you don't realize how special what you've just seen was until it's over.

The film follows 17-year-old Ree, an Ozark Mountains girl from a meth-cooking family.  Her dad is supposed to stand trial for said meth-cooking activities, only no one can find him.  Because he placed the family home and woods up for bond, Ree, her neuro-atypical mother, and her two young siblings will be left with nowhere to go if they can't manage to "turn 'im up."  What follows is Ree's search for dear-old dad, which takes her first to his menacing brother's place, and finally to the home of a local crime boss, whose wife does not appreciate the disturbance.  In a region where the code of silence is more important than family ties, Ree is treated brutally by those who see her quest as "against their ways."  She is helped, finally, by the same uncle who initially menaced her, when he decides the rest of the clan has gone too far in trying to shut down a 17-year-old's quest to keep her family from sliding into destitution.

As Ree digs deeper to uncover her father's whereabouts, a quieter tale unfolds of a 17-year-old girl, torn between home obligations she wasn't ready for in a drug-ridden community whose ways she despises, and a shaky dream of escape, to a world she neither knows nor understands.  Somehow, though, Ree proceeds on her search with an unshakable faith that this better world does exist, and that people in this iniquitous community will, when pushed, still act according to its basic tenants: help your neighbors, love your family, do what's right.  She knows that's the only way she can find her father--if one of these unmovable villains gives, just a little bit--and thus the only way to save her family.  So she fights like she's got nothing to lose.

Red carpet wrap-up: Golden Globes

 [Image via TLo]

Yay!!  Dresses and mean jokes about Hollywood! 

Ricky Gervais was hilariously out of control last night, making jokes about the airbrushed SATC2 poster and how terrible The (nominated) Tourist was.  See a rundown of every funny-awkward-funny jibe here.  Many have speculated he went too far, but I only thought he really crossed the line in making a Scientologists are gay joke--we all know, Ricky, but outing people isn't funny.  Movieline has pointed out that Gervais essentially pulled off the Emperor's new clothes of Hollywood, un-self-awaringly illustrated by this quote from the HFPA: "Ricky will not be invited back to host the show next year, for sure. [A]ny movie he makes he can forget about getting nominated. He humiliated the organization last night and went too far with several celebrities whose representatives have already called to complain."

Gawker has their take on the most memorable moments.  Dave Karger contemplates how the wins affect Oscar predictions.  Complete winner's list here.  For my take, it looks like The Social Network is dominating, but I wonder if the academy doesn't want something more feel-good.  I hope Annette Benning beats Natalie Portman, and I think she has a good chance, given the Academy's penchant for career-achievement awards.  I think supporting actress is a wide-open race, and wish Hailee Steinfeld were getting more love (she was not nominated for the globes).

And the fashion: The Fug Girls have the best and worst outfits over at NYMag.  Tom and Lorenzo (bless them) have parts 1, 2, and 3, as well as a rundown of the men.

What did you think of the hugely mean-spirited and mildly sinister show last night?  (To paraphrase Robert Downey, Jr.)

Femonomics at the Movies: The Next Three Days

 The Next Three Days is an action-suspense movie that follows John Brennan (Russell Crowe) as he plans his wrongfully convicted wife Lara's (Elizabeth Banks) escape from prison. The film takes place in Pittsburgh, and has a long windup as we watch John plot the breakout while simultaneously raising a young son and teaching at a community college.

The Viewer's Angle
The film is very well written and tightly paced, competently following the heist / escape plotline that we've heard before. John's tricks and turns are clever, and it is fun to watch him execute his plan. However, the performances fall rather flat, and a cameo by Liam Neeson only served to remind me how much more engaging similar material is in his hands. A lack of convincing chemistry between the leads, along with limited backstory on their characters, made it difficult to care if they succeeded. If anything, having to wait through the buildup, the main reason I wanted the escape to work was so I could see the payoff of all the planning. Extraneous characters to the story, a brother and sister-in-law, way more detectives than called for, and the most beautiful playground mom ever seen, end up prematurely diffusing some of the tension, which I find critical in a low-explosion film. Overall, a bit of a disappointment, and I'm probably going to check out Unstoppable this weekend to get my action itch scratched.

Femonomics at the Movies: Salt

I'm a little late to the game on this one - it's been a week since I've seen Salt and everyone has already written about it! Easily the most anticipated movie of the year (for this mongoose, at least), the picture is Angelina Jolie's return to a starring role in an action flick (Jolie plays the eponymous Salt). I enjoyed Tomb Raider, and was a big fan of Mr and Mrs Smith - the movie that launched an entire tabloid industry. So, was I disappointed?

The Viewer's Angle

In short, no - but neither was I elated. Salt is an unrelenting action film - not an action-comedy, action-romance, or even action-drama. The basic plot is a chase, with the FBI chasing Salt, and Salt chasing a mysterious group of bad guys to which she might belong. I have to agree with David Edelstein's review that "the movie is a blast, even though - and this might be a deal-breaker for some people - it makes no sense, at all!"

Sexy rape: What Ayn Rand, Michael Winterbottom, and Ang Lee have in common

Atlas Shrugged is at long last being made into a movie, on the cheap and with a largely unknown cast.  As someone who was a big fan of, shall we say, large portions of the book (there are certain parts I think strongly reflect arrogance on Rand's part, and reflect a morality I'm uncomfortable with) in my teen years, I can't help being disappointed that an adaptation once rumored to be starring Angelina Jolie is being set up for mediocrity.  Any fan of Rand knows that mediocrity is the ultimate sin.

But what is the ultimate virtue in her world?  I would say "excellence," but Amanda Hess points out that it's an excellence tinged with an ugly sort of male dominance, one that translated into both Rand's personal life and her works of fiction.  Two pivotal scenes in Ayn Rand's most famous works of fiction revolve around the "sexy rape" of the lead female characters.  In The Fountainhead, it's Howard Roarke's rape of Dominique, with whom the sexual chemistry is so sizzling, he needs to break into her home and take her by force.  From Amanda Hess's transcription:

She tried to tear herself away from him. The effort broke against his arms that had not felt it. Her fists beat against his shoulders, against his face. He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face, but no sound.…Then he approached. He lifted her without effort. She let her teeth sink into his hand and felt blood on the tip of her tongue. He pulled her head back and he forced her mouth open against his.

Of this scene, Rand has said "if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation," presumably because Dominique had flirted with Roarke beforehand.  A lot.  Rand also wrote in her letters,

Femonomics at the Movies: Splice

The Viewer's Angle

Splice is this year's retelling of Frankenstein, and having read several reviews convincing me it was more indie-art than monster horror, I went out (not on a date - thank goodness!) opening weekend to see it. Sarah Polley and Adrian Brody play Elsa and Clive, a couple of scientists building hybrid animals in the lab using gene splicing (don't think too hard about it) to develop pharmaceuticals. Delphine Chaneac is Dren, the monster, and primarily Elsa's creation.

The movie gets off to a great start. The pacing, the creepiness, the thought-provoking images (Elsa for a moment gets trapped by an artificial womb - I don't know what it means, but it was whoa symbolism). For the first 2/3's of the film, I was engrossed. The relationships between Elsa, Dren, and Clive develop with affection and curiosity, but also undercurrents of angst and repulsion, creating the perfect foreboding tone. The audience is also supposed to feel the moral repulsion Shelley's Frankenstein produced. In Shelley's version, I always felt too sympathetic with the monster to be completely disgusted, but Splice impressively had me nauseated half the film. Not the best feeling in the world, but I'm always excited when a movie can knock me that off-balance. (For another queasy but excellent film see Enduring Love with Daniel Craig.)

Femonomics reads the internet: SATC2, breaking the cycle of snark, adjectives as nouns, and more

Some choice words on SATC2 from Erica at Feminista.  She points out the casual racism of the first film, the weird way Michael Patrick King has constructed these movies as a gay male fantasy of femaleness instead of authentic womanhood, and quotes from all the scathing reviews, including Roger Ebert's which contains this gem:

A sample of Carrie's realistic dialogue in a marital argument: "You knew when I married you I was more Coco Chanel than coq au vin." Carrie also narrates the film, providing useful guidelines for those challenged by its intricacies. Sample: "Later that day, Big and I arrived home."

The series was good.  The first movie was fun, if overly consumerist and, yes, a little racially clumsy.  The second one sounds awful.  Why did you do this to Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte?  Why?  Erica's last lament hits home the hardest:

But having said all that, you know why I am FORCED to hope this makes money? Because if it doesn't Hollywood will say female-centric movies -- which never cost nearly as much as action flicks -- don't make economic sense and they'll stop greenlighting them.

I hate that what she says is true.  But still, let's not go see this.  And, after it fails, let's try to communicate to studio execs that it failed because it was insulting, not because it was about women.  Make good movies with female characters and I promise you can have my $12.50!

***

What do you think about MIA?  Is she an interesting artist with an interesting political message, or does she make drama and appropriate causes to sell records?  New articles reveal both sides, and personally, I'm intrigued.

***

Watching The Blind Side, thinking about Hollywood's problem with race

Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for portraying Leigh Anne Tuohy in The Blind Side.  Bullock's performance is quite good--nuanced, funny, natural, and absorbingly watchable.  The film, on the other hand, is riddled with major problems in race representation.  But Hollywood doesn't care.  In addition to Bullock's nod, the movie was nominated for best picture.  Could Hollywood voters not tell that the film's representation of black characters was deeply problematic?  Or, do they just not think that's very important?

The Blind Side is a tricky case.  It's a true story, so we can't blame the film for the story of a white woman as the savior for a poor black child's problems--it really happened.  This was how I defended the film, when I initially expressed interest in seeing it, and my boyfriend said, "doesn't that sound a little bit racist?"  I said, "But it really happened!  Michael Oher really got taken in by this rich, white, Southern family!"  It's a true story, and it's also an inspiring one.  It's the story of an incredibly talented athlete who likely would never have become a household name if it weren't for the intervention of a conservative, white, Christian family that took him into their home and helped him get the grades he needed to play in the NCAA.  The story is real.  The story can't be racist.  But I believe the movie is.

Femonomics at the Movies: The Joneses

The Viewer's Angle

The Joneses takes us into the lives of Steve and Kate "Jones," an upper-middle (who are we kidding, upper) class family that literally has it all - the cars, the clothes, the jewelry, the toys. The twist is that this family is actually a stealth marketing unit embedded in the community as taste-makers employed to drive sales of clients' products. I personally enjoyed the movie as fairly light-hearted and mildly thought-provoking, although as Ebert notes in his review, a key flaw is the tone the movie never quite strikes. Is it a romantic comedy or a tragic morality play? It tries to be both, which is perhaps more authentic but makes the narrative jerky and leaves the viewer without resolution.

David Duchovny as Steve and Demi Moore as Kate prove themselves decent actors and do seem made for the role - sex symbols selling a certain type of conspicuously consumptive lifestyle. Ben Hollingsworth and Amber Heard play their children Mick and Jennifer, and it is quite a stretch to imagine these striking actors in their mid-twenties as high school students. Each of these characters is moderately developed in the film, but a lot more could have been done. The writers hew closely enough to common stereotypes (the nymphomaniac, the washed-up athlete, the too-ambitious single executive) that nothing is particularly provocative, a shame when the concept for the film could have been taken further.

The straight-washing of America

This week, Ricky Martin confirmed that yes, he is in fact gay.  Which, of course, surprised no one.  So, while Ricky Martin's coming out was absurd, even more absurd was the fact that I've heard it being compared to Sean Hayes' coming out.  That's when I thought, Sean Hayes needed to come out?  What?  But, it turns out, Hayes had been demurring to questions about his sexuality since way back in the Will & Grace days.  So, is the problem with celebrities who improbably insist on their heterosexuality, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary?  Or is it with media figures who badger them about their sexuality (as Barbara Walters did to Martin in 2000), forcing them into a queer Catch-22: their career or their integrity?

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Kathryn Bigelow, plagiarism 101, racist drug laws, and more!

The NYTimes' Manohla Dargis, who previously used the F-word to hilarious effect in a rant about female directors, has a lovely piece on the woman of the hour, Kathryn Bigelow. 

Kate Harding over at Shapely Prose (which is an amazing fat-acceptance blog full of terrific writing) has a humorous and biting piece on how not to plagiarize like a certain NYT business reporter, even though you're writing on the internet, and the deadlines are really fast, and the links are all confusing, see?  No, says Kate, we don't.

The Huffington Post publishes a must-read by Michelle Alexander about how drug laws have been used to create a permanent under-class in the United States.  She points out several sad facts about the state of racial equality in the United States (noting it has gotten worse, not better), and looks to biased drug laws predicated on Americans' fears of the inner-city crime bogeyman for the explanation.  Most compellingly, she explains how everything from drug laws, to police incentives, to sentencing guidelines, are designed to get and keep black men in jail.

Reality Check has an update on Utah's effort to criminalize miscarriages (read our earlier piece here), and it seems that even though the governor sent it back without signing, and the bills' sponsor withdrew it, they're not giving up this fight to put women in jail so easily.

[Update: hat tip to Feministe, where I first saw the Alexander piece]

Oscars part 1: dresses, gossip, and more!

The first woman director has finally won an Oscar.  Congratulations, Kathryn Bigelow.  In my opinion, richly deserved.  Lisa Schwarzbaum says it's because she made a great movie, not because it's a great year for women.  Feminist Review weighs in here.   Jezebel has a moving piece about the accomplishment.

TLo has the dresses, part 1.  People's got the best dressed list.  EW has best and worst.  The Fug Girls are doing their thing.  More to come!

Now for the gossip: Everyone's pissed at Seacrest and Rancic for not doing their job and asking about the dresses.  People's got some pretty tame backstage notes.  EW does slightly better.  They also have some highlights of the show.  Roger Ebert offers up his thoughts on the ceremony, including what he calls the "surprisingly unfunny" hosts.  Also, Farrah Fawcett and Bea Arthur were mysteriously excluded from the In Memorium tribute (maybe because they mostly did television?).  And was that awkward moment during the best documentary award friendly, or not?  Not, says Salon.  Lastly, see the Mo'Nique-mentioned Hattie McDaniel Oscar win here.

Winners list here. [Image via TLo, hat tip to @EbertChicago for links]

Who will win the Oscars? The pundits weigh in

Despite the ten best-picture nominees and more than a little early-season shuffling, this season's Oscars are shaping up to be unfortunately predictable... At least so say the Oscar pundits.  I love that there are pundits for the Oscars.

Ew's Dave Karger, NyMag's Vulture pool, and a host of other Gurus of Gold have settled on the same picks:

• The Hurt Locker for Best Picture
• Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director
• Sandra Bullock for Best Actress
• Jeff Bridges for Best Actor
• Mo'Nique for Best Supporting Actress
• Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor

(Also, The Cove, Up, and White Ribbon for documentary, animated, and foreign; Hurt Locker for best original screenplay and Up in the Air for best adapted, although there are more dissents here.  Vulture also helpfully picks the less popular categories, if you're interested.)

So if you want to do well in your office Oscar pool, run with the above picks.  If you like a few surprises, join me in rooting for a Meryl Streep upset (or better yet, Gabourey Sidibe or Carey Mulligan, who were each heartbreaking in their own way), a screenplay nod for the wacky genius of Quentin Tarantino, and a nail-biting foreign film race (that's the most contested category?! Yes).  I won't be wishing for an Avatar or James Cameron spoiler--Hurt Locker moved me in a way few films in recent memory have.  Kathryn Bigelow deserves all the accolades she gets and more.

If you're an awards show fiend like me, let me feed your habit.  Check out the Oscar Watch blog, Gold Derby, Notes on a Season, and the Carpetbagger.

Also, if you're interested in who should win an Oscar, not who will, the NYTimes has started a list.  What's yours?

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Precious, Taylor Swift, and Love under Fatwa

 

Precious is under fire again, this time from Ishamel Reed in the NYTimes Op-Ed pages (in a fit of rather odd timing), for portraying a negative image of black communities meant more for condescending white audiences than black consumption.  As I noted earlier, I disagree with this critique, and find the idea that somehow telling emotionally wrenching black stories is a betrayal of the black community strange. 

The Oscar Nominations are here!!!!

Excuse my quadruple exclamation mark, but as a bona finde award season fiend, I'm a little excited.  This morning Anne Hathaway and Academy president Tom Sherak announced the nominees for the 82nd annual Academy Awards.  Look for my notes below the list.  The so-called "Oscar pundits" haven't weighed in yet (it's 6am in LA), but I'll be sure to update you when they do.

Here are the biggies (click on over to Dave Karger for a more complete list, or the Oscar website itself):

Femonomics at the Movies: Daybreakers

The Viewer's Angle

Daybreakers is the kind of action film that I wait all year for, but thankfully Hollywood saw fit to bestow it on us the first week of January.

Daybreakers tells the story of a world where most people are vampires, and humans are a scarce resource quickly running out (read: oil, water, food, etc.). Our hero, Edward (Ethan Hawke) is a vampire hematologist with a conscious, searching for a human blood replacement and abstaining from the authentic stuff himself.

Femonomics at the movies: Welcome to awards season!

I'm an awards season fiend, and I like to try to see all the Oscar nominated films (and performances, if I'm really ambitious) before the show.  This year, awards season is upon us (the Golden Globes are Sunday), and I've only seen a few of the films.  Some I'm dying to see, others I'm happy to pass on.  Here's a list of the likely awards contenders, according to the blogs I read (Dave Karger's Oscar Watch and Pete Hammond's Notes on a Season, mostly).  I include my notes on the films I've seen or have heard something interesting about.  The other contributors will chime in with their thoughts on films they've seen, and I implore commenters to do the same!  Which movies are must-sees before Oscar season?  Who do you think deserves to win at the Globes this weekend?  Who will win?

Seen

Avatar: The plot is only serviceable, but the graphics are unbelievable.  See it in 3D or you're wasting your money (and time!).  I truly believe this film will change what consumers expect from films, and what producers believe is possible.  After seeing this visual feast, why would I want anything else?  (Now if only he'd hire a screenwriter next time...)

Femonomics at the Movies: It’s Complicated

The Viewer’s Angle

Nancy Meyer’s new film, It’s Complicated, has fulfilled its promise to be a holiday crowdpleaser, having already garnered Golden Globe nominations and grossed over $75 million domestically.

Somewhat amusing and with an entirely pleasant story, It’s Complicated primarily seduces viewers with gorgeous sets depicting luxurious Southern California living and tableful after tableful of mouth-watering food spreads. The story follows divorcee and millionaire bakery owner Jane (Meryly Streep) as she hooks-up with her married ex-husband Jake (Alec Baldwin) and courts Adam (Steve Martin), the architect designing an addition to her already palatial home.

These actors are able to produce some limited chemistry and are believable in their roles (imagine that! a trio of millionaires from Orange County playing a trio of millionaires from Santa Barbara County – what a stretch!)

Those looking for one of Streep’s impressive dramatic performances will not find it here, however.

Is Precious failing to cross over? Or did its distributors fail it? (And the race controversies of Precious)

EW’s Owen Gleiberman recently ran a piece on whether Precious is failing to resonate with wide audiences after a stellar run in limited release.  In another post, he suggests it “peaked too early.”  He worries that the film was only intensely appealing to African American and Art-house audiences, who largely drove its huge initial run.  Rather than psychoanalyze the film’s mass appeal, I favor a simpler explanation—the film was simply overshadowed by other Oscar-contending and heavily buzzed about pics, and didn’t reach audiences while they still had mental space for it.  To me, it seems like a case of the distributors failing to seize upon the positive initial buzz and expanding while people were still talking about the movie.  Slow releases have worked for indie films before, notably Napoleon Dynamite, but only where buzz was slow to build.  Precious has been out in industry circles since January ‘09, when it premiered at Sundance under the title “Push”, and was generating huge positive press, such as a front-cover Times magazine piece, right around the time of its limited release.  I think the distributors made a mistake by continuing to bank those big per theater grosses, without realizing they were coming at a cost to the film’s ultimate theatrical run.