Sequels

Sequels are a funny thing. After reading an article on EW.com last week about the 15 best sequels, I've been thinking about them. They're hit or miss. Because of this, they cannot be generalized: I can't say every sequel is great, or that every threequel sucks, or vice versa.

Because of the prevalence of Shrek 4 commercials, I'm finding myself debating whether I should rush to see it because of this very problem-- Shrek 2 was awesome in my book, but Shrek 3 was god awful. Really, I have no desire to watch it again. (I have a problem with it primarily because of how they had to explain their jokes. Wasn't that what was so awesome with the first two? You could watch them over and over and catch new, hilarious things every time?) And what about Spider-man? Spiderman 2 was bomb. Three? Not as much. It wasn't the worst movie of all time, but it tried too hard. There were too many villians and too many threads of storyline, too many attempts to be funny and failing (That dance scene, anyone? Yeah, I can't watch it without feeling really uncomfortable and I don't know who can.) Terminator 2 was awesome, the third was a joke (the fourth was not too bad, however, IMO.) The Mummy 2 was cool but I actually walked out of the most recent one (and I NEVER do that). X2 was by far my favorite X-Men movie, while The Last Stand just didn't have the magic and Wolverine was simply embarrassing.

But think of Oceans' 11, 12, and 13! Twelve sucked and 13 rocked. An example of redemption! And what about Indiana Jones? The Last Crusade was much, much better than Temple of Doom (though I still love that movie-- don't judge me.)

But then there are few movie series that just keep getting better, like Lord of the Rings. The second was great, the third was even better. The Dark Knight kicked ass. Star Wars (the original trilogy-- I can't even talk about the prequel trilogy) was amazing and classic (Happy Star Wars Day btw: May the Fourth be with you!) I even think Pirates of the Caribbean did a pretty good job. But is there such thing as too much? There's too much Star Wars now, following Episodes 1,2, and 3 and everything Clone Wars, and they're trying to make another Pirates.

I think the only thing generalizable about sequels is that every animated Disney sequel is to be avoided. Other than that, the only way to find out is to check out new sequels/threequels/prequels for ourselves.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20355856_20365577,00.html

The Magical World of Race and Gender

I'm sure your time in college has provided you with many opportunities to hear criticisms of Disney and the messages sent. I think some of these arguments have validity. Why is it that so many women need a man to save them or to find happiness? Is it appropriate to have these women in stereotypical roles, like a housecleaner? The idea of being a princess is the goal to be achieved in many films, and this can be dangerous to girls who grow up learning that gowns, jewelry, and the need for a prince are important things. There is a possibility that it could cause girls to desire impossible or unhealthy body images. Studies have shown that women who aspire to classic feminine beliefs are at risk: less likely to use contraception, more depression, less interest in sports and physical activity. The white princesses give this impression, of demureness and fragile, while women of color are highly sexualized (for example, The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Esmerelda, Aladdin's Jasmine). The princes depicted in many of the films are overly handsome, sensitive, smart, and dare I say perfect? It's such an ideal that is uncommon and probably unachieveable. It sets impossibly high standards for boys to achieve and for girls to desire. It can create false hopes in regards to romance or at least for the romanticized worlds that exist in Disney movies.

Why is it that in Aladdin, a movie set in the Middle East, the main characters have been Americanized while the bad guys have accents? The "evil" hyenas in The Lion King had street-wise African-American dialects too. Why did the primates act black in The Jungle Book? If Tarzan was set in Africa, why was there not a single black person? And Dumbo. I couldn't believe how the black crows were depicted when I looked back on the film recently. Seriously, I can't even describe it, just watch it. And in Peter Pan, Tiger Lily's father was uncivilized and savage.

I'm not going to discount that Disney has been making progress in the last few years. The movies of the 90's depected stronger women and various cultures, but there were still many mistakes that are embarrassing, such as the depiction of ethnicities in Aladdin that I alluded to earlier, or Tarzan's white-person party. At first I'm pleased with the character of Belle in Beauty and the Beast, but upon closer inspection, her intelligence and individuality begins to disappate as she falls further for the Beast. She becomes foolish in her decisions to trust the rageful and abusive Beast. Pocahontas provides us a positive story of ignoring skin color and cultural differences, but her independence and strength that becomes clear by her choice to stay with her people is diluted in her apparent desire to be with her man. Mulan is my favorite example of progress, because it positively portrays a different culture and encourages people (particularly women) to be strong in the face of adversity and suppression, but even in that film it finishes with the idea that she needs to find a man ("Great, she brings home a sword. If you ask me, she should have brought home a man!" And of course he shows up right then.)

Crash into me [and I'll come into you]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7in-9E3ImQ

One of the Dave Matthews Band's best and most popular songs is called Crash into Me. It's cute how many people think it is a love song, because it really isn't. As my cousin finely put it one day, "It's a stalker song!" and he's quite right: if you listen closely to the lyrics, you might realize that it is totally voyeuristic. In the VH1 Soundstage, Dave Matthews himself admitted this. It's about a guy who is crazy about this girl, watches and fantasizes about her.

Don't believe me? Think about these lyrics:
"Hike up your skirt a little more and show your world to me
A boy's dream...a boy's dream
I watch you there through the window and I stare
As you wear nothing but you wear it so well
Tied up and twisted the way I'd like to be
For you, for me, come crash into me"

Hmm...only a little bit creepy.

Spartacus

Last week, I watched a few episodes of the Starz! show Spartacus, and though I knew that there would be nudity (both female and male) and sex scenes, I was a little surprised about how unfair this was. What I mean is that the proportion of female nudity to male nudity was a phenomenal ratio, for you would see boobies and more every single episode while there were only a couple of nude shots of the men the half-dozen or more episodes I watched. "There's something for everyone (as the show's PR people said in an article I read a while back)" my ass. Or their asses, I suppose. The show aims to show women as powerful and smart, but considering how often they are undressing and having sex with the men, I can't help but conclude they are included in the show as little more than objects of a sexual nature, since they do little to advance the plot (other than Spartacus' wife being a damsel in distress). This show is no better than any skanky ad that uses sex to sell and I wasn't impressed. Next time, Starz! needs to do a better job of including respectable female characters if they want to have a larger demographic.

Pushing up the daisies.

I have the title lowercased and reworded on purpose, it is not a typo. It's a play on the fact that the wonderful, whimsical television show was cancelled far too early into its run. Perhaps the writers' strike was to blame. After all, it cut the first season in half and put the show on hiatus for months. Then the second season was cancelled halfway through, despite decent ratings. Why is it that good, unique shows like this get cancelled so early, but every time a medical drama/cop show comes around, everyone watches it like it's the new best thing? Aren't there a million and a half of those? Not to mention prime-time soap operas like Gossip Girls and 90210 are dumber than the remote people use to turn them on. If only more clever things stuck around, I wouldn't be so bitter.

The Amazing Spider-Plan

No offense meant to all those living under rocks, but by now everyone should have heard about the new reboot of the Spider-Man franchise. For those rock-dwellers, or those who need a refresher, here's one of the breaking articles on the news from back in January: http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/01/spider-man-film-gets-reboot-sam-raimi-tobey-maguire-out.html. I read just today that Percy Jackson's Logan Lerman is almost definitely going to be the next Peter Parker. It's a good thing I think he's cute.

I'm pretty pissed about this. Okay, I'll be the first to admit that Spider-Man 3 was not as good as the first two, but I would have been more than willing to line up at the theatre for a Spider-Man 4 if they wanted to make one. So would millions of others. After all, the Spider-Man movie franchise has been one of the most successful in movie history! Critics and audiences have adored it. It is a big money maker if I've ever seen one.

So why are they remaking it? Why mess with a good thing? I understand Tobey's getting older and all that, but it's not like he's got wrinkles. Part of the whole deal of going to a movie is the knowledge that the movie is not real. It doesn't need to be perfect. Moreover, I think it is WAY too soon to start over. The reboot is scheduled for 2012! No wonder the world is set to end that year, it probably has something to do with the crazy, unnecessary remake slated for release. I can understand waiting a few years and then starting again, but the Tobey/Riami version is still going to be fresh in everyone's minds. Comparisons will flourish, and this movie is going to struggle under the pressure, just watch.

Don't get me wrong, I'll probably be at the theatre the week the new Spider-Man comes out, seeing if it's any good like half of America, but I really don't think it is a good idea. As my dad just said, "What's wrong with it the way it was?"

Jackson Katz

When I saw Jackson Katz speak, I kept thinking to myself over and over how great it was how insistent he was that stuff like violence against women was a men’s issue, and I think he’s absolutely right. For years, men have gotten by ignoring problems like this when the reason for them stems from people just like them, not the easy-to-ignore minority cultures. As he was clear about, not all men are violent, but many are, and that’s part of the reason why so few people are willing to step forward and admit that there is something wrong with that part of society. I find it frustrating, though, to sit and watch a speaker like Jackson Katz say all of these true things and realize that I am rather unable to make changes myself because I am a woman; he explained how women try to stand up for what is right, but are ignored. It is necessary now for men to do that, and it seems that it is time for women to sit on the sideline with our fingers crossed.

Books --> Movies

How many times have you read a book and thought to yourself, "I wish they'd make this into a movie!" Then how many time have you seen the movie verson and have been disappointed it because it didn't live up to your expectations?

I was trying to think of why. I think that movie makers are stuck between a rock and a hard place: Some people want to have the movie verson differ from the book, so it stands on its own as a work of art. Others want the movie to follow the book closely and be faithful to the parent materials.

Thinking about this for too long gives me a headache. How can everyone be satisfied? It seems impossible.

I can think of many examples of movies that are based on books, and I have mixed feelings. I like when a movie tries to stay close to the book's characters and storylines, and I think movies like the first couple Harry Potters, the Golden Compass, and Lord of the Rings have done a great job with this. I feel like the book has come alive, out of my imagination, and onto the screen. (I suppose even Twilight wasn't that bad, though I'm not a fan of the series.) But what about movies like Percy Jackson and the Olympians, where the characters were changed to appear nothing like the description of the physical and personal represenations in the book, and the story was manipulated to be completely different? Perhaps it could make an entertaining movie, but I didn't like it. I was too annoyed with the actors playing the roles and the drastic change of storyline to disappear into the film. I kept thinking, how can they continue the story line of the rest of the series? What were they thinking? Stuff like that doesn't make for a fun movie experience.

Can you think of other movies based on books that left an impression, good or bad, on you?

A Razzie AND an Oscar? That's special.

Better late than never: Sandra Bullock's award season. It was pretty amusing to say the least. How often does an actor/actress win the best award and the worst award for acting all in the same year?

For those who don't know, she won an Academy Award for her role in The Blind Side. Good for her. But she also won a Razzie, which is where the worst of the worst are acknowledged for their roles, for her movie All About Steve. I haven't seen it, but part of the reason for that is because I heard it sucked. Perhaps it did, and Sandra's acting was cringe-inducing. What I did see, however, was Sandra's appearance at the Razzies to accept her award (which rarely ever happens, as you can imagine). It was rather classy. She showed up dressed rather casual, pulling a red wagon behind her full of All About Steve DVD. And when she walked up to the microphone, instead of saying, "Yeah, maybe the movie sucked," she basically said, "You're not looking at this movie right, and if you did, you'd see that it wasn't that bad and I didn't do a bad job. I'm giving you all copies of the movie and I want you to watch it and try to look at it differently. Then I'll come back next year and give back this award." Something like that.

I think that response was, well, cool. First, she showed up to the Razzies and accepted her award. Second, she defended herself without seeming whiney. It was classy.

Kudos to Sandra. I'd give her an award for her respectable attitude, but I think she's gotten enough of those lately.

You can watch her Razzie acceptance speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adYced7GB8k

Bagpipes!

I did my blog critique on an episode of How I Met Your Mother, and perhaps this is backwards, but it only made sense to post this as part of my blog. I hope you'll read through it and give me some feedback!

I'm not sure how much background is needed for those who don't watch the show, but I'll give a little information-- The narrator is Ted, and he is years in the future, telling his kids the story of how he met their mother. Makes sense now, right? Apparently everything in the episode is relevant to this long, elaborate story about how they met. FYI, five seasons in, we have yet to be introduced to the mom, so forget about that. What does matter are the relationships and weird situations the five friends constantly get into.

This is the episode I analyzed: http://tvshack.net/tv/How_I_Met_Your_Mother/season_5/episode_6/a:699692/


In the season 5 episode “Bagpipes” of How I Met Your Mother, Barney’s seemingly perfect relationship with Robin – apparently they never even fight! His strategy for walking away and her strategy for getting naked seems to fix any conflict – makes him think he has the right to give relationship advice to Marshall about his marriage with Lily. Barney seems to think their marriage is crumbling because Lily has him do the dishes immediately, though Marshall doesn’t care one way or the other; that is, until Barney said something.
In the show, the three men almost perfectly represent Freud’s theory of id, ego, and superego. Barney is the id, which is dedicated to fulfillment of all sorts of desires, especially sexual. Barney is known for being a womanizer, and being monogamous doesn’t seem to halt his carnal desires and pleasure-loving. He works based on instinct without care to the consequences (he doesn’t seem worried about any repercussions of his promiscuity throughout the series) and pretends to spout of how he thinks like it is logic, though it is not. (He always wears a suit and tie, and the tie has often been interpreted as a phallic symbol, perhaps in that he always desires to be erect.) When Barney informs Marshall on how to deal with his problem, his fantasy that involved Lily’s submission to his sexuality is an excellent example of his voyeuristic mindset, or his scopophilia.
In comparison, Marshall is the superego: he internalizes all sorts of social values (including the values in his relationship with Lily) into a sense of right and wrong, and as a result he is constantly suffering from guilty about what he shouldn’t do because of how he has been programmed. He is very constrained.
Ted, their best friend, is the ego, since he is one who faces the world realistically and consciously (he is the narrator, after all) and referees between Barney and Marshall, as he attempted to do the entire episode. When Marshall says to Barney, “Okay, so you walk away, Robin gets naked… Those are the two stupidest ways to have a conflict I’ve ever heard.” Ted injects, “Actually, the naked thing ain’t bad! Okay, that felt weird.” This quote represents Ted’s inability to relate to either the superego or the id, though he’s balancing between.
Barney is certain that Marshall’s relationship is doomed because Marshall follows Lily’s rules, specifically about the dishes left in the sink. According to Freudian perspective, the sink could be a yanic symbol, representing Lily’s potential for control. Marshall’s submission is a result of castration anxiety, or the fear being reduced to the powerless position of women by the loss of his manhood. (Marshall says partway through the episode, after Barney messed with his head, that, “Those dishes are my manhood! And if I want to leave my manhood dirty in the sink, caked with ketchup and pasta, then dammit, that’s my right! I’ll wash my manhood when I’m good and ready!”) Lily, on the other hand, suffers from penis envy, or as it can be more accurately interpreted here, power envy, so she takes advantage of what power she does have to control Marshall by making him wash his dishes in the sink instead of leaving them there for her.
Barney’s relationship with Robin is not so perfect, however, as we find out. Nor is he, for that matter. He has a selective perception about his relationship with Robin in order to keep believing they are as perfect of a couple as he portrays, and has selective memory about their fights; in other words, he suffers from denial. He believed that conflict avoidance was the best approach and attempted to project this philosophy onto Marshall’s relationship with Lily.
In conclusion, this episode of How I Met Your Mother had many examples of Freudian’s theory of psychoanalysis. It consisted of the id, ego, and super ego; scopophilia; phallic and yanic symbols; the Oedipus complex through its representations of penis envy and castration anxiety; and unconscious anxieties and defenses.

A weird example of Marxism.

I had a lot of trouble coming up with an example of Marxism in popular culture. I see stories when I watch movies and television, not symbols. For instance, when I watched the Lion King (on VHS, of course! Like there's any other way.) the a couple weeks ago with my friend, we just had a brainless night of nostalgia and fun. But then I said to my ambitionless sister, "You are Simba, Danielle. Look inside yourself Simba. You are more than what you have become. You must take your place in the Circle of Life!" Le gasp! I made a comparison of pop culture to the real world and the economy!

My sister, who hasn't gone to college, who hasn't done anything in her life, has not taken her place in the real world of work and money, which is like the Circle of Life. In the Circle of Life, there are the lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) who are the top of the food chain, and that reminds me of those with money in our society. Of course, those people rely on those below them in the food chain to work for them, and those people make money and rely on those of lower class to work for them... Then, those lions often utilize the needs of those at the bottom in order to make their money. It becomes circular.

In the story of the Lion King, Simba left Pride Rock and went chasing after bugs for years. He left responsibility behind to live a life of, well, pretty much nothing. There is no meaning or substance, but he liked it because it was easy. But the real world eventually called, because society dictates that we participate in the economy and be good workers. Those who take advantage of the system and don't make any effort to work are typically frowned upon. My sister is currently in a phase of chasing bugs since she's working part time and that's sort of it. She's not in school to attempt to have more security or success in life or looking for a better job; she has no place in the Circle of Life!

After thinking about this, I pondered what the rest of the movie meant from a Marxist point of view. If the Circle of Life is a capitalist society (and a clearly thriving society too), then what happened when Scar screwed with the system? Maybe Scar's reign was like a socialist government, since he tried to share the wealth not only with the lions but the hyenas too. During the years Simba was gone, Scar's government really screwed up Pride Rock. Many of those who had lived there left or died off. In this view, what wasn't capitalistic was not successful.

Maybe this is crazy, but the Lion King is awesome.

Spoilers!

No, I don't actually intend on having any spoilers contained within this blog, but I want to discuss them. I'm a sucker for spoilers. It's fun to have an idea of what's around the corner, especially when not everyone is aware of what is happening. But simultaneously, I don't want whatever it is I'm watching to be ruined. It's kind of weird and nonsensical. Why is it that people like me enjoy knowing bits and pieces about favorite shows and movies, yet we can't stand it when someone blabs out the ending? What's too much, and what's not enough?

Damn Ausiello for feeding this contradiction. http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/

A day at the movies.

The other night, I was up 'til 4:00 in the morning swapping work/war stories with my best friend. He manages an AMC movie theatre in Ahwatukee (though he previously managed the AMC in downtown Phoenix), and he expressively ranted about Dear John opening up this weekend. It had nothing to do with the movie necessarily, he said it wasn't a terrible movie when he screened it, but of course there was enormous potential for frustrating circumstances since this is the most scream-worthy movie that has come out since New Moon. Hundreds of young teenagers and Channing Tatum, all in the same movie theatre? I'm glad I stayed away. (Not from the Channing Tatum part, but that's getting off track.)

Anywho, Zak, my best friend, told me about how before one of the first showings of Dear John, he did that thing that managers do sometimes in movie theatres and got in front of the audience to review the rules: Keep your cell phone away, keep talking and disruptive behaviors to a minimum, etc. He had them repeating these back to him like they were young children, which I wish I could have seen, but the audience had a good reason to cooperate after Zak explained that if any one were breaking any of these simple rules he would kick them out without a refund. The tough part was over, he thought, since he hated public speaking, but as soon as the lights went down and the movie began, he saw at least 20 faces light up because they pulled out their cell phones. As he promised, he kicked them out. He left to take care of other business, but the movie wasn't halfway over when an adult came up to him and explained how many of the people in the theatre were being disruptive. Sure enough, Zak walked in and quite a few of the audience members were being rowdy and yelling at the screen, mocking the film. By the time he could get it sorted out, Zak had told nearly three rows of misbehaving kids to leave the theatre.

A half an hour after that, some middle-aged people walk up to him and start yelling at him, "Are you the manager?! Why did you kick out my kid? He is an honor role student at (insert prestigious school in a good part of town that costs a lot of money), he is on the Dean's List, he participates in sports... He would have done nothing wrong!" Of course, instead of listening and accepting the fact that their "perfect" kid was acting out and ruining two hundred other people's movie experience, they threatened to sue the theatre, to go over Zak's head.

So, as the title says, this was just another day at the movies for Zak.

Why I wanted to talk about this in my blog was so I could ponder why people behave the way they do in movie theatres. I'm not just talking about the kids causing a ruckus, but why do people walk in feeling superior to the employees and management that runs their entertainment hub and attempt to strike fear into the individual's livelihoods (I've lost track of how many times Zak has told me that people say that they will make sure he is fired, for silly reasons too)? Why do people enter dark theatres and play on their cell phones rather than watch the movie they paid nine dollars for? Why do teenagers think that the best way they can spend their Friday nights is finding the cheesiest chick flick and proceeding to mock and ruin it for others?

Perhaps a couple of you will have insights, or even better, personal experiences. Have you been the victim to rude moviegoers, or have you been the "fucking asshole"?

Hopefully, when I see Percy Jackson next week it will be a pleasant, asshole-less experience. I'll be crossing my fingers.

Radio Gaga

For my first blog in this class, I wanted to pick something relevant and timely as well as interesting, like Haiti or some shocking news. I didn't think it was the best idea to discuss something already run into the ground by anyone and everyone, but I can't help it.

Even Queen understood what it would be like back before she was ever born: "All we hear is radio [Gaga], radio goo goo, radio [Gaga]..."

That's right, I'm going to talk about Lady Gaga. I figured with the Grammys right around the corner and with her nominated for Best Dance Recording, Song of the Year, Album of the Year and Record of the Year, this discussion would be current.

What makes her such a phenomenon? Why does she stand out so much in a culture full of colorful personalities, catchy music, and more artists in the pop arena than it can handle?

I think that Lady Gaga understood more than the rest of us what is needed to stand out in popular culture: Shock value but enough quality in her product to stick around. That's a tricky combination. People may complain about her weird fashion choices, but they seemed to have worked perfectly since she got you talking about them. I can't seem to go hang out with my friend without hearing Poker Face or Bad Romance at least once or twice, and he's a dude.

I wouldn't even consider myself a fan, but damn, even I'm impressed with her.

I don't think she's going to burn out any time soon; people are still sitting at the edge of their seats to try and see what she's going to come out with next. As long as she keeps up her combination of shock-and-awe and good fun, she can be around as long as Madonna has been.