For Your Consideration: How to Survive a Plague

So Oscar season has finally commenced (as evidenced by one of my favorite elements--the composition of Alisa's Oscar Menu), and as usual, I haven't seen as many nominated films as I should.

But I did catch How to Survive a Plague last night, and I think its content, if not its form, is worthy of Best Documentary Feature gold. The doc's title, as Jonathan points out, is a little misleading, as its focus is not on the macro issues of managing the AIDS crisis in the late twentieth century (largely leaving out issues such as worldwide infection issues, patients of color, and infected women), but rather the micro--the history of ACT UP, a subversive AIDS activist group that used guerilla tactics to raise awareness and deliver experimental drugs to patients who were dying at apocalpytic rates. And at this, How to Survive a Plague is masterful.

The documentary follows the lead provacateurs of ACT UP (some you might recognize--playwright Larry Kramer and artist Ray Navarro, and others you might not, like Bob Rafsky and Mark Harrington) as they stage massive and visually spectacular protests at the National Institute of Health, various drug companies, and the streets of New York and Washington DC in order to call attention to the lack of funding for AIDS research in the 80s and early 90s. While the protestors' flair for embodying the rage and grief they felt at the unspeakable loss the virus was wreaking (a large group scattered the ashes of their deceased loved ones over the White House lawn to call attention to President George Bush's inattention to the epidemic, for example), what is even more remarkable is their commitment to self-empowerment and education in the medical field.

With the help of retired chemist Iris Long, an American hero, the men and women of ACT UP wrote policy papers, researched drug trials, and shepherded experimental treatments through the FDA approval process. They for all intents and purposes created an underground health care system that provided practical assistance and emotional hope to those who were being cruelly and lethally overlooked by the mainstream doctors and pharmacists. And what is almost miraculous is, it worked. Due largely to the untiring work of the men and women of ACT UP, the current class of protease inhibitors--the "Lazarus drug, as it brought the nearly dead back to life--have rendered AIDS (for those who can afford the protocol--a crucial but little remarked upon distinction) into a chronic condition rather than a death sentence. As well a a documentary about the AIDS epidemic, Plague is also a testament to how committed and sustained social activism can (and does) change the world.

How to Survive a Plague doesn't offer a particularly innovative way of telling its story, but its archival footage of early ACT UP meetings and protests is remarkable, and evidences that even as these people were dying, they felt compelled to record the bloody and passionate war they waged against not only AIDS, but a social system that at best ignored the problem, and at worst blamed the victims for their plight. What was even more remarkable to me was the joy and laughter that punctuated the strategy meetings, even as their comrades were physically, unmistakably, wasting away. As the ACT UP motto insists, "Silence = Death," and even during infighting, arrests, and inconceivable loss and grief, these brave, brilliant, and hopeful men and women never stopped shouting, and never believed they weren't worthy of being heard.

Are you watching An Idiot Abroad? You should be.

The second season of An Idiot Abroad is airing on Science Channel (not to be confused with Syfy) and you should be watching.  The background of the show is that Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, two of Britain's greatest comedy minds, have encouraged their friend/patsy, Karl, to leave England and experience all the world has to offer.  If Karl had his way he'd never leave England.  Ever.  Prior to the show, the furthest he had gone was on holiday to Wales and that was it. Karl saw no point in leaving his country so Ricky and Stephen got the bright idea to send him abroad to see the wonders of the world.  In the first season, Karl went to the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal, Chichen Itza, Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, and more.  Along the way Ricky and Stephen forced Karl to culturally immerse himself in each country, bizarre customs and all.   The poor guy was kidnapped in Israel!  Sure, it was a training exercise but it was still scary.  Karl was miserable the entire time and Ricky and Stephen enjoyed every minute of it.  Their goal was to broaden Karl's horizons.  It didn't really work.  He just never got the concept of seeing things or having life experiences.

In the current season, Karl is picking items from other people's bucket list wishes.  Swimming with dolphins, spending time on a desert island, driving Route 66 are just a few of the things he's doing.  Since he's already experienced some travel, this season is less novel but no less uncomfortable for both Karl and the viewers.

The first season is available on DVD from Netflix or streaming on Amazon and I highly recommend it.  If you have onDemand with your cable/satellite provider you can catch up with the current season's shows.  And I highly recommend that too.

Wait, I need to sell this better.  Karl is a dear, sweet, slightly dumb but mostly naive man.  He puts up with Ricky's shenanigans, which border on cruel.  Have I mentioned how miserable he ALWAYS is? While you may feel badly for him, you're also glad it's him and not you. Karl loves to share what he's thinking and feeling, which is lucky for us because based on his facial expressions you'd never know if he's confused or upset or both:

Ricky's so mean and I'm so glad.  This show is pretty great.

For Your Consideration: Ryan Gosling

He does have a lean and hungry look, wouldn't you say?

Just in general. But also for Best Actor for Ides of March. Though I haven't seen the complete slew of films Gosling appeared in this awards season, I was mightily impressed by his turn in the Clooney-directed political drama.

The movie itself is compelling, but uneven. It has that feel of a film adapted from a play (as it was--the original drama is called Farragut North), with all the attendant strengths and weaknesses that tend to accompany such projects. So we get the dizzying pleasure of a two-man scene between Gosling's political operative, Stephen Myers, and the candidate's campaign from which he was recently fired, Clooney's Mike Morris, in which they basically play poker with each other's lives. I've always admired Clooney for taking roles that simultaneously acknowledge that he is a hyper-evolved examplar of humanity and expose the cracks that form beneath men who were seemingly born powerful and good looking. Gosling takes a similar tack here, and more than holds his own against George the Mighty.

The film also has more excellent actors than it knows what to do with, which doesn't sound like a problem, but it is. And the plot itself swerves towards the sensational and melodramatic in a way not entirely earned. However, none of this is Gosling's fault, and watching his character evolve, and I use that word intentionally, into a creature best suited to survive in its chosen environment is mesmerizing. He does it almost entirely through the way he holds his face and the way he speaks. It's something to see, and I think it's a performance deserving of a nomination. The film itself is a mix between The Candidate and The Godfather, and I think Gosling lives up to the major stars that anchored both of those films. Plus, he'll probably show up to the ceremony in a tux, and that would be enjoyable in and of itself.

Being Human, season 2

I thought my friend Dana and I were the only ones watching the US/Canadian Being Human but it turns out Tracy likes it too.  Great minds!  It's on Syfy and the second season just started up last night at 9pm.  Yes, it's science fiction but mostly it's a show about 3 roommates trying to achieve normalcy as best as possible.  You see, the roommates are a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost.  I guess there are no witches looking on Craigslist for roommies in Boston.

The vampire is Aidan and he's been around for a while.  In fact he was made into a vampire during the Revolutionary War.  Aidan's been trying to live as normal a life as he can in Boston where he works as a nurse.  He tried not drinking human blood for a while but had a nasty relapse early last season.  His mess got cleaned up by Bishop, head of the Boston vamp clan.  Vampire politics being what they are, Aidan and Bishop has some issues throughout the season and Aidan ended up killing him and inheriting not only the Boston clan but Bishop's group of recently turned orphans.  Aidan's now the temporary leader of the Boston clan and trying to figure out how to get back to his semi-normal existence from before. 

Sally is our resident ghost and she has a heck of a story.  She was engaged to Danny and though they had some bumps, were pretty happy.  It's too bad that one of those bumps, Danny's anger, led to Sally's death.  They argued at the top of the stairs and Sally got pushed.  By the time Sally reached the bottom step she had died.  Unable to move on, Sally made use of her time by haunting the house, haunting Danny, and getting to know other local ghosts.  By the end of the season her door to the beyond appeared but she didn't make it through.

Then there's the werewolf, Josh. A bit more prone to isolation, Josh spent last season finding out how to best control his 'time of the month' and falling in love with nurse Nora.  Oh yeah, Josh is an orderly at the hospital where Aidan works but has dreams of going to medical school.  He's a little nerdy, a little goofy but terribly sweet and just wants to protect those around him, especially from himself.  He and Nora finally get together (that was a doozy!) and she even ends up pregnant.  He transformed in front of Nora so now she knows what he is and it doesn't change her feelings for him.  It's too bad that Josh scratched her and now it looks like Nora might be in for the biggest change of her life.


So now you're caught up!  Let's get on with Season 2!

"Turn This Mother Out"

Aidan tries helping one of Bishop's orphaned vamps by giving him a bag of blood in order to keep him from feasting on any of Boston's human population.  The guy is terribly whiney about a) having to drink someone's blood donation and b) that being a vampire isn't all he thought it would be.  He left his wife and kids for something more than being hungry all the time and only getting bagged blood.  Plus the newbie asks Aidan about who "she" is because he keeps hearing that "she is coming."  Aidan seems to know what he's talking about and is hopeful that "she" will have some answers for him.  That "she" is Mother (pictured) and she is indeed coming to Boston but then the rumors change to her plans of culling the Boston clan.  This isn't any less settling news for Bishop's orphans but Aidan still seems hopeful that things will work out all right.

Josh's 'time of the month' is here and Nora is asking tons of questions about what it's like to be a werewolf, how does it feel, what does shifting feel like, etc.  Josh would rather protect her from that part of him but she's desperate to know all she can.  It's too bad she doesn't feel like she can tell him what's really going on with her...she's not sure if she'll be shifting too.

Sally's high school reunion is today and Aidan, Josh and Nora think she should go.  It's rare that you get to be there and not be seen.  Plus she gets to be the one who died too young, too early and while still beautiful.  This does the trick so Sally decides to go.  While there she runs into Stevie who killed himself their junior year.  He's been hanging around the school since then and even has the 411 on their class's most recent loss...the prom queen.  Stevie also tells Sally that she can not only sleep but dream and the dreams are pretty darn vivid.  Cool.  Sally gives the prom queen a good talking to, prom queen learns her life lesson and her door pops up.  Off she goes and poor Sally is still stuck on the earth.

Aidan's at some creepy hotel for his meeting with Mother.  She doesn't give him Boston and decides her daughter would be the best candidate to take over with Aidan as her second.  If he cooperates he'll get what he wants, true freedom from the vamps and their politics.  Also, she does want to cull the clan and get rid of the orphans.  They get wind of this and show up later to complain with their pointy stakes.  Mother watches as Aidan dispatches them and is quite pleased.  She'll be even more pleased when "the wolf" is removed and no longer a distraction for Aidan.  Oh she best not mean Josh!

Back at Syfy Manor Sally takes a nap and has a dream where her door appears but there's a creepy figure off in the distance that gets closer and closer and eventually comes through the door.  Sally awakens freaked out not only by the dream but the fact that she's been levitating too.

Each episode should have Aidan digging something up, wife beater optional.

Aidan is digging something up in the forest and at the same time Josh and Nora have arrived so he can wolf out.  He departs her car and she sits in there thinking for a while.  Soon enough Josh is shifting and so is Nora...much to her dismay.  She opens her door and let's out a scream, which Josh hears.  He starts heading her direction but is slowed down by a silver bullet from the Amish vamp guy that Mother sent.  So she did mean Josh.  Mother effer!

For Your Consideration: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory for Best Documentary Feature

Last night, HBO premiered the latest and probably last installment of Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky's three-film Paradise Lost saga detailing the arrest, trials, and appeals of the West Memphis 3, and followed it up by airing the first two documentaries. Needless to say, I didn't get much sleep last night. Watching the three films in (near) succession was a revelation. For the last eighteen years, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelly have been in prison, Echols on death row, for the brutal murder of three eight-year-old Cub Scouts in West Memphis, Arkansas. The first two films chronicle the way the three teenagers were railroaded by Satanic panic and mob mentality into their sentences, despite the state presenting only the most circumstantial of evidence. I mean, you couldn't even convict someone in an Agatha Christie novel with the coerced confession by Misskelly, an "expert" on the occult with a mail-order Ph.D., and a parade of witnesses that testified to nothing much more than Echols's and Baldwin's collective difference, marked by their goth wardrobe and taste in music. But what makes the third film remarkable is not only its made-for-the-movies epilogue, but also the way it details how time has simultaneously stood still and accelerated for the three men.

The West Memphis 3, now in their mid-thirties, have been physically, emotionally, and intellectually transformed by their ordeal. Misskelly now resembles a man in his forties. Echols's haunted sunken eyes and ghostly pallor--due to the total lack of sunlight in his confinement--makes the round-faced, cocky boy who took the stand in 1994 seem like a distant relative rather than the same person. Echols has also largely lost his Southern accent, along with his bravado. He admits that his fuck-you attitude during the trial probably didn't help his case, though his ticket was probably already punched even if he had behaved like a choir boy in the courtroom. For me, Jason Baldwin's evolution is the most striking. In the first film, he is an undersized and diffident kid, clearly used to letting his best friend Damien do the talking for the both of them. This film finds him hyper-articulate, legally sophisticated, and enraged at the miscarriage of justice that has stolen half his life away. And no matter whether you believe the three guilty or innocent, it seems to me undeniable that due process was trampled on, in the first film in order to get a conviction for a crime that shocked, sickened, and terrified the community, and in the second by the prosecution's and presiding judge's refusal to admit they may have been wrong as evidence continued to surface that exonerated the boys and excoriated the trials.

The transformation of the three subjects of the film is echoed by the point of view of the documentary itself. Berlinger insists that he began filming in 1993 convinced of the guilt of the three boys. Whether he's bluffing or not, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills has the feel of a film looking for truth rather than professing it (see the collected works of Michael Moore for examples of the latter). As the movies progress, the relationships being formed between the filmmakers and the principals, including some members of the victims' families, develop and deepen and evolve over time. That intimacy results not only in more access for the directors, but also a more subtle and complicated depiction of the turn the case takes in the last section of the film.

The three men submitted an Alford plea in August of last year, which allowed them to profess their innocence but plead guilty to the crime and be released on time served. It's the sort of fubar maneuver that is sadly in keeping with the way the case has been handled in the previous two decades, and turns Paradise Lost 3 into a meditation on the meaning of justice in theory and practice. Baldwin states it best when he wryly comments that when he said he was innocent, they sent him to jail, but when he admitted guilt, they let him go. And Baldwin also, it is revealed during a press conference, initially refused the deal. This seems in keeping with his commitment to unambiguously clearing his name, and thereby in some way restoring integrity to a broken system. However, as he explains, "They were trying to kill Damien," so he took the deal to save his friend. There was something about the way he said that that was simultaneously guileless and resigned--the voice of both the kid and the man none of these three has ever really gotten to be.

Thanks in no small part to this series of films, as everyone interviewed agreed, the West Memphis 3 have been released, which is evidence of the kind of social and political work good art can do. For that reason, I hope to see Berlinger and Sinofsky Oscared come February. I mean, I liked Senna too, but these three films are a pretty monumental achievement, and the Academy is accustomed to rewarding a body of work with one award. See: Return of the King.

Looks like another documentary on this case is on its way from long-time WM3 supporter Peter Jackson. Check out Alisa's Trailer Park post to give it a look!

alisa's 2011 Film Favorites

If I went with Tracy's categories then I'd pretty much be duplicating her list save for a couple of things.  So here's a bit of a different list:



Movie I bought the day it went on sale on DVD/Blu-ray: HANNA.  I couldn't wait to watch it again and enjoyed it as much the second time as I did the first.  Super 8 was a close second for this as were Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows parts 1 and 2.  I'm so tight with my money that I rarely buy a movie the day it comes out.  Usually I'll wait a bit and it'll go down in price.  If you wait a year you may even spot it in the $5 bin at Walmart.  It's not often I buy something so that I can have it in my possession on the Tuesday it arrives in stores.  I did with Hanna.  I almost did with Super 8 (I was a week late with that one.)  I was lucky that with HP7.2 it was on sale on black Friday at Best Buy.  Now I'm waiting for them to release a super Blu-ray collection of the HP movies.  I know they have it bundled but I want a special one with a cuddly Dobby toy inside.

Movie I most wanted to live myself: Midnight in Paris.  Corey Stoll was AH-MAZING as Papa.  And honestly, who wouldn't want to sit in a Paris cafe and listen to Dali go on and on about a rhinoceros.  I can't decide, though, if I'd want to be with the actual artists of the time or the actors playing those artists.  Shameful as it may be...I think I'd much prefer to be with the actors Woody chose.








Movie I least want to live in myself but still loved: Drive.  It had quite an impact on me when I saw it.  Sadly I saw it alone and had no one to discuss it with.  I immediately got online when I got home and wanted to see what other people were saying.  I loved it but I felt wrong about loving it.  Turns out not everyone loved it but it didn't have an effect on my loving it.  I feel like I'm talking in a bit of a roundabout way.  It's violent and upsetting but incredibly well done and Gosling was as talented as usual. 

Movie that most reminded me of why I love going to the movies: Super 8.  I do have to say that Hugo was a very close second.  It was beautiful to watch and should only be watched on a large screen.  But Super 8 was more emotional for me.  It brought me back to seeing ET in the movie theater when I was a little kid.  In fact it reminded me of seeing most of Spielberg's movies in the theaters.  I guess that's what JJ was going for and it worked.

Movie that I love for solely personal reasons and was actually a good movie: 50/50.  I have a few movies that I've loved for personal reasons but they weren't necessarily good movies.  50/50 was a good movie.  The subject matter hit close to home and helped me deal with some stuff.  That's pretty cool.  Aren't most movies supposed to evoke emotions?  It was so well made, acted, etc. and I appreciated how they approached a touchy subject matter.  I'm sure there are other movies I felt emotionally attached too as well but 50/50 was a standout.






Movie that most brought back my childhood: The Muppets.  Oh how I loved The Muppets.  It was simple and perfect and fun and sweet.  It was exactly what a movie about getting the Muppets back together should have been.  It harkened back to Muppet movies of the past but still felt right for this time.  It had fun cameos and a solid leading (human) cast. This is one that I'll buy the day it goes on sale.








Movie that I saw the most times in the theater (and loved it the same each and every time): Bridesmaids.  Seriously.  I could watch that scene where Wiig drives her car back and forth trying to get Chris O'Dowd's attention over and over and over again.  In fact the next time I'm feeling a bit blue I may skip right to that scene.  It puts a smile on my face and makes me giggle.  I hope they don't do a sequel to it.  They don't need to.  It didn't work with Hangover 2.  But they probably will.  My only hope is that everyone comes back and Wiig gets to script it again with writing partner Annie Mumolo.  It could have been the female Hangover and I know people refer to it that way but it wasn't.  Oh and I saw Harry Potter parts 1 and 2 twice each.  I saw Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows two times too and that was fun.






Movie in two parts that I'm desperate to watch back-to-back: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 and part 2.  I'm convinced that part 1 will rise to the occasion when partnered directly with the second half.  I won't know until I do it and I don't know when I will be able to sit down and spend over 4 hours with the final installments of Harry Potter.  But when I do I will let you know.  I'm in the minority because I didn't dislike part 1 at all.  It's a hard one to put on screen because it's slow going and mostly just the three kids on the run.







Movie that I'm beyond proud that I followed from beginning to end: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.  I haven't posted about it yet but I will tomorrow.  It was so very great.  The acting was insanely good.  The look and feel of it just SCREAMED cold war.  It was smart and restrained and genius.  I'm sorry it didn't get a wide release yet and people aren't putting it on their best of lists.  The acting in it was astounding.

tracy's 2011 Film Favorites

Oh, how I love a good list. And seeing how it's nearly the end of 2011, lists are in abundance.
Because I live in a tiny town on the prairie, I haven't been able to see as many of the year's finest films as I'd like. For example, I've only seen two Michael Fassbenders and a shameful single Gosling. So rather than compile a "Best Of" list (see here and here for selections from two of my favorite critics), I've catalogued some of my favorite flicks that might indeed be among the best movies the year had to offer, but are memorable to me for other reasons. Happy New Year!
 

Favorite movie about the economy that's about the economy: There seems to be something about the global financial meltdown that has captured the imaginations of directors from Brett Ratner to Jason Reitman. I was really impressed with J.C. Chandor's Margin Call, which traces a really bad twenty-four hours in the life of an investment firm based on Lehman Brothers. Though it suffers a bit from too-many-endings syndrome, this film is smartly shot, scored, and scripted like a horror movie, which in a lot of ways, this crisis is. It stars always awesome Zachary Quinto, Jeremy Irons, and Stanley Tucci, and recently awesome again Kevin Spacey. Additionally, this is the first feature-length film from Chandor, who wrote and directed. Talented little bleeder.



Favorite movie about the economy that's not about the economy: Like the Vietnam War (and unlike the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan), the economic crisis has probably affected you or someone you know quite directly. Warrior is in some ways a pretty typical sports movie (though the sport is MMA), but the motivations of the two fighters are directly tied to the country's un/underemployment problem, as well as the struggles of returning veterans, and their families when they don't return. It stars it-boy Tom Hardy and future Tom Buchanan Joel Edgerton, as well as Nick Nolte as "not a train wreck Nick Nolte." Alisa reviewed it here.




 
Favorite nostalgia-drenched film from a noted auteur: It was a tight race, with J.J.'s Super 8 and Scorsese's Hugo giving strong showings, but I'm going with Woody's Midnight in Paris, if only because I think that's *exactly* what it would be like to hang out with Hemingway. It stars Owen Wilson as Woody Allen, Rachel McAdams as the shrewish Allen girl, and too many fun cameos to list here.






Favorite movie I liked that no one else did: Though the feministas were furious and beat it bloody with the undeniably better Bridesmaids baton, I quite enjoyed What's Your Number? It stars the still criminally unfamous Anna Faris and Captain America.









Favorite gritty reboot: For your consideration: Andy Serkis for Best Supporting Actor in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. And, despite the Franco factor, I though this film was clever, provocative, and knew how to shoot a balls-to-the-wall CGI-enhanced action sequence. In addition to Gollum and Franco, it's also got Draco Malfoy.








Favorite novel adaptation (contemporary): Well, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 of course! It stars D-Rad, Ru-Grin, E-Wat, and a host of British thespians, including the perpetually crush-worthy Alan Rickman.










Favorite novel adaptation (classic): The forbidden love! The dark and tormented Byronic hero! The madwoman in the attic! The FASSBENDER! It has to be Jane Eyre. Though Fassbender's presence should be enough, it also stars Mia Wasikowska and Dame Judi Dench.










Favorite novel adaptation (graphic): Yeah, he didn't wear the helmet, but I quite liked Thor. I enjoyed the light and unpretentious touch and, of course, the upcoming Avengers implications. It stars Kirk's Dad, Erik the Vampire's Dad, and the Black Swan.









Favorite indie darling: When enough people tell you to see Weekend, you start to believe them. I'm glad I did, and now I'm joining the chorus. It's like Before Sunrise, except with more sex, more drugs, and two hot dudes instead of one hot dude and one hot chick. And it streams, so you really have no excuse. It stars no one you've ever heard of, unless you're a lot hipper than me.

The Tree of Life is Tripped-out Theodicy

The Tree of Life is a movie in the same way Moby Dick is a novel; that is, it shares just enough structural elements to be a recognizable part of the genre, but in a lot of ways it takes the category itself and blows it up from the inside out. If that doesn't sound appealing, don't put yourself through the 139 minutes of Terence Malick's ethereal dreamscape. I mean, we don't get anything resembling a coherent narrative until roundabout minute 50, and even then, the designation is shaky. Though I was thoroughly captivated throughout, I don't think I could tell you more than one character's name with any confidence.

However, the film is nonetheless deeply interested in character, in the human experience--specifically, why do we suffer?  Where does cruelty come from? To badly paraphrase T.S. Eliot, in the face of the inevitability of death, not only the deaths of those we love but that of the planet, what peace? Much like a movie I loved, A Serious Man, Tree of Life takes the Book of Job as its organizing principle. Much like a movie I loved but everyone else hated, The Fountain, it seemed to me that Tree of Life tries to cinematize mourning--framing, though the generic constraints of film as well as the edges of the screen itself, an inward process that often escapes articulation.

One line from the preview that I found eye-rollingly portentous--"Mother . . . Father . . . Always you wrestle inside me," delivered in voiceover, accompanied by a shot of the King of Pain himself, Sean Penn--actually is quite moving in the film, not least because the line, along with the purported argument of the film itself, is ironically undone through the way the "conflict" is represented. The Mother (Jessica Chastain, aka "grace") is positioned in contrast to The Father (Brad Pitt, aka "nature," aka the role he should be nominated for instead of Moneyball). The Son (Penn) feels he must choose between a way of being in the world that is liberated and sensually awake and one that is red in tooth and claw, governed by a cruel "survival of the fittest" ethos. However, this dichotomy is proven to be illusory. His father, though mouthing, and, in the more disturbing moments of the film, enacting, the kind of crude social Darwinism aligned with "nature," he is shown to be fallen from, and grasping towards, "grace" himself. He wanted to be a musician, and the music he plays, though harsh, is inescapably beautiful, as is the kind of loving touch he is capable of bestowing on his sons, even though he often chooses not to. (As an aside, this is the first DVD I've ever seen that included a plea from the filmmakers to "play it loud"--do so; the music is haunting and thematically resonant. There's a reason Smetana's "Moldau" is so prominently featured.)

And here's where the dinosaurs come in. Yes, the rumors are true--there are dinosaurs. A sequence early in the film shows a wounded dinosaur being threatened, but ultimately spared, but a stronger predator. Then, spoiler alert, an asteroid destroys their ecosystem. But, crucially, there is that one moment that can only be explained through an empathic mercy that connects these two living beings. It is the same indescribable something (call it God, call it love, call it spirit) that ultimately allows for a reconciliation between Penn and Pitt, between grace and nature; or, rather, a recognition that they were never estranged in the first place. While watching, I was reminded of a quote from Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek: "In nature I find grace tangled in a rapture with violence; I find an intricate landscape whose forms are fringed in death." And that's the good news.  The Tree of Life gets that and puts it on the screen in a way I found incredibly, unbelievably, right on.

For Your Consideration…REVENGE

Are you watching?  Well you should be.  You may be thinking, “But Alisa, isn’t Revenge just a soap opera?  Aren’t there more meaningful and thought-provoking procedurals on?”  Or you could be one of those “TV is a wasteland” or “I don’t own a television” types. If so, why the heck are you reading this?  Go away, hipster.  We don’t want your kind ‘round here. 

For those of you who do own a television, it should be tuned to ABC at 10pm on Wednesday nights.  Well, maybe set your DVR/TiVo because there’s another fun show at 10pm on Wednesdays.  

So to answer your earlier question that I totally made up in my head…yes, Revenge is a soap opera and I actually mean that as a compliment.  It’s what so many shows, no matter the genre, aspire to be but just can’t pull off.  It’s what Desperate Housewives should have been but never could accomplish.  Plus, it’s for everyone who has ever been hurt and wanted to make someone pay. 

At its core, Revenge is about a girl, Emily (nee Amanda), whose father was set up and falsely accused by the people he trusted.  Then, years later, he dies and she’s left with guilt, pain, and the deep need for retaliation.  Those people her father mistakenly trusted not only ruined his life but took away her childhood as well.  And as most of us know, a stolen childhood is the basis for some great writing, not only in literature but in movies and television as well.  Now I’m not saying Revenge is anything like great literature except for one little thing.  It’s totally satisfying!  Actually it is a bit like The Count of Monte Cristo so there!

I am going to get up on my high moral horse (his name is Bob) for a second, and admit that I never would have imagined that I’d be watching a nighttime soap titled Revenge. I would like to believe that people who do bad things get bad things done to them in return.  I also believe that a life lived only to take down others is an unfulfilling one.  What happens when you’re finished with your mission of retribution?  Are you able to sit back, breathe a deep sigh of relief and enjoy a mojito?  Mojitos don’t sound right for that kind of occasion.  Maybe that’s more of a Jack and Coke kind of day. After you’ve taken revenge on others don’t you have to constantly watch your back? Don’t you live your life waiting for their kids to take revenge on you?  Like The Bride said in Kill Bill, “It was not my intention to do this in front of you. For that I'm sorry. But you can take my word for it, your mother had it comin'. When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting..”  Anywhoodle, I found myself giving the show a shot and dangit if they didn’t suck me in right off the bat.  Five episodes in and I’m cheering every time one of these people’s lives is ruined.  Bob the horse is long gone and I want revenge as much as Emily does.

Story aside, the show is really well done.  The writers have obviously sat down and mapped out the entire season. The pacing is just right and leaves nothing out.  Typically in each episode, Emily orchestrates someone’s demise while not losing sight of the bigger plan.  I was unsure of how they could pull off a second season but creator Mike Kelley addressed that question from Entertainment Weekly:

according to Kelley, who cites Dexter as somewhat of a storytelling model. “In our show, there’s a whole conspiracy and seasons worth of people that will reap what they’ve sewn,” says the producer. “Revenge is a universal concept and it’s gonna permeate the show on every level. I plan to do installments of revenge. So I’ll set two installments a season which will be self-contained. They’ll focus on a group of people that need to come down and we’ll introduce new people. We’ll also give other characters on the show a reason to want their own revenge.

It’s really refreshing to hear a showrunner so confident in the direction of the show.  I’m not naming names but I suspect that at the end of Revenge’s run none of its viewers will be having a WTF moment wondering why the characters were stuck in limbo the whole time and not alive at all.  This is an honest-to-goodness, well-thought-out television program.

What’s cool about the story is that even though it’s the goal in Emily’s life to take down some of the Hampton’s elite, she really doesn’t have to put forth much effort.  Basically, Emily does a little tweaking here and there, orchestrates certain situations now and then, and lets the chips fall where they may.  And they almost always fall right where she wants them.  One thing the writers figured out before they even started this show is that bad people will always be bad.  Give them a nudge and they’ll do the rest.  The other thing that works is that we don’t exactly know what the situation was with her father but we get bits of it each week.  The writers satiate our curiosity with each week’s plot of retribution without giving us too much

So we have established that the writing is good.  Guess what?  The acting is good too (aside from a now hospitalized Amber Valetta – her character, not the model/actress. Geesh!).  Emily Van Camp is so good as Emily that she has forced me to completely forget her as Amy Abbott on Everwood, and I freaking loved that show.  Madeleine Stowe, while overly nipped and tucked, is doing a fabulous job as the main target in Emily’s plan.  Yes, there are strong elements of soap opera in the acting.  There are looooooong lingering looks between characters who are trying to convey strong emotion, but who cares? It works. 

My one real complaint is based on what we saw in the pilot.  I actually may watch it again to really pay close attention to what went down.  In the pilot we flash forward to see Emily’s engagement party to Daniel, the son of Madeline Stowe’s Victoria.  Poor Daniel (Brit Joshua Bowman) ends up dead!  Not a way to end your engagement party.  I’ve really grown to like the guy and I was truly rooting for him.  He’s had a checkered, frat-boy past but sincerely seems to be trying to live a good life. It’s possible we’re supposed to root for Emily and bar owner/friend from childhood, Jack (Roswell’s Nick Wechsler).  I’m torn because both guys are great but obviously her relationship with Daniel is built on a lie (and sweet, delicious revenge on his family) so it wouldn’t have worked.  That doesn’t mean he needs to die though. Then starting with the second episode the show goes back to the beginning of the summer to show how events unfold to get us to that fateful engagement party.  I’m enjoying all the parties that people tend to associate with life in the Hamptons. If I were wealthy I’d have a place there.  Maybe not as big as Madeleine Stowe’s TV house…

Have you watched it and disagree with me?  Tell me why!  I’m biased because usually once I love a show I’m in it for the long haul and tend to ignore some of its faults <>Lost<>.