Bea Arthur, star of sitcoms Maude (1972 - 1978) and The Golden Girls (1985 - 1992) and Tony Award winner, died over the weekend after a battle with cancer. Here are some clips to remember her by.
"Maude's Dilemma," where Maude, age 47, decides to have an abortion. The episode aired before Roe vs. Wade (1973), when abortion was legal in New York, but illegal still in many parts of the United States. Search on YouTube for a minute and you can watch the entire two-part episode.
"Sniff, Swig, Puff" with Rock Hudson on The Beatrice Arthur Special (1980):
"Bosom Buddies" with Angela Lansbury, for which Arthur won the Tony:
Some highlights from The Golden Girls, where I first came to know Arthur:
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Preview: Grey Gardens
This Saturday night (April 18), HBO premieres its new film version of the classic Grey Gardens. Starring Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore as Big Edie Bouvier Beale and Little Edie, the film recreates scenes from the original documentary as well as providing the backstory of how these women came to find themselves in such a condition. Directed by Michael Sucsy.
Here's the movie trailer:
Before it was a movie, of course, Grey Gardens was a fantastic documentary. Made in 1975 by David Maysles, Albert Maysles, Ellen Hovde, Muffie Meyer, and Susan Froemke, the film gives an unflinching portrait of two discarded members of the American aristocracy and their co-dependent relationship. The film is gorgeous, tragic, poetic, and haunting. One of my all-time favorites.
Here's the original documentary trailer:
Finally, PBS' Independent Lens made a film about the making of the documentary, and about the premiere of a Broadway show based on the lives of the women.
Here's the PBS trailer:
Here's the movie trailer:
Before it was a movie, of course, Grey Gardens was a fantastic documentary. Made in 1975 by David Maysles, Albert Maysles, Ellen Hovde, Muffie Meyer, and Susan Froemke, the film gives an unflinching portrait of two discarded members of the American aristocracy and their co-dependent relationship. The film is gorgeous, tragic, poetic, and haunting. One of my all-time favorites.
Here's the original documentary trailer:
Finally, PBS' Independent Lens made a film about the making of the documentary, and about the premiere of a Broadway show based on the lives of the women.
Here's the PBS trailer:
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Observe and Report Roundup
April is National Sexual Assault Awareness Month.
An odd coincidence is that Jody Hill's Observe and Report is currently in theaters, and getting all kinds of attention for a rape scene that's played as comedy. Worst of all, many out there are defending the movie as an edgy, dark comedy, and arguing that the scene doesn't depict rape at all.
I've hesitated writing about the film; movies this noxious don't deserve whatever free press a site like ours provides (assuming that all press is, in some way, good press). With no plans to ever see OaR, I don't know that I could contribute a whole lot to the discussion personally, but thought I'd compile a list of what other smart people are saying, and give you a glimpse of the R-rated trailer--with hopes that it shows you as much of the movie as you'll ever want to see.
A lot of the discussions center around the question of whether or not the sexual encounter shown in the final seconds of the trailer is actually rape. Stupid question; yes, it is. Period. The more interesting debate, which not many are taking up (according to my reading) is why a film like this is being made at this time. I'm all for dark comedy, though this doesn't really seem like one (MaryAnn Johanson asks whether the movie is a comedy at all in her weekly column at AWFJ), and what worries me is the kind of cultural work being done. All those people who like to shout about how movies are just entertainment and say people like us have no sense of humor, or take things too seriously, are underestimating the power of representation--of the arts in general, film-making included. Although the movie has an R rating, we must ask who the intended audience of such a movie is. Clearly, it's male, and the movie has a ring of adolescence about it (an epidemic of our time), with its "jokes" about sex, drug use, alcoholism, violence, and whatever else I'll miss by refusing to see it, which clues us into the fact that it is for people who are still in a phase of their lives when they figure out their own values.
People are seeing OaR, too. It finished fourth in the holiday weekend box office, selling over $11 million worth of tickets. There's a desire for this sort of thing, and the interesting question is: Why?
Here are some highlights (and lowlights) from the blogosphere:
An odd coincidence is that Jody Hill's Observe and Report is currently in theaters, and getting all kinds of attention for a rape scene that's played as comedy. Worst of all, many out there are defending the movie as an edgy, dark comedy, and arguing that the scene doesn't depict rape at all.
I've hesitated writing about the film; movies this noxious don't deserve whatever free press a site like ours provides (assuming that all press is, in some way, good press). With no plans to ever see OaR, I don't know that I could contribute a whole lot to the discussion personally, but thought I'd compile a list of what other smart people are saying, and give you a glimpse of the R-rated trailer--with hopes that it shows you as much of the movie as you'll ever want to see.
A lot of the discussions center around the question of whether or not the sexual encounter shown in the final seconds of the trailer is actually rape. Stupid question; yes, it is. Period. The more interesting debate, which not many are taking up (according to my reading) is why a film like this is being made at this time. I'm all for dark comedy, though this doesn't really seem like one (MaryAnn Johanson asks whether the movie is a comedy at all in her weekly column at AWFJ), and what worries me is the kind of cultural work being done. All those people who like to shout about how movies are just entertainment and say people like us have no sense of humor, or take things too seriously, are underestimating the power of representation--of the arts in general, film-making included. Although the movie has an R rating, we must ask who the intended audience of such a movie is. Clearly, it's male, and the movie has a ring of adolescence about it (an epidemic of our time), with its "jokes" about sex, drug use, alcoholism, violence, and whatever else I'll miss by refusing to see it, which clues us into the fact that it is for people who are still in a phase of their lives when they figure out their own values.
People are seeing OaR, too. It finished fourth in the holiday weekend box office, selling over $11 million worth of tickets. There's a desire for this sort of thing, and the interesting question is: Why?
Here are some highlights (and lowlights) from the blogosphere:
- Friday Feminist Fuck You: Seth Rogen @ Feministing (This one has been getting lots of play, but if you haven't seen it yet, please check it out.)
- Shorter Seth Rogen: Rape is Hilarious @ Feministe (Jill reminds us that the real trouble here is that the claim that the scene doesn't depict a rape.)
- Observe and Report Date Rape Scene Sparks Outrage @ The Huffington Post (Be sure to vote in their poll about the scene--and prepare for the expected disappointment when you read the results. )
- Sexism Watch: Date Rape Gets Mainstream Film Release by Melissa Silverstein @ The Huffington Post (Silverstein also runs the awesome Women & Hollywood.)
- Is Date Rape Funny? Seth Rogen Explains it All for You by Margaret @ Jezebel (Quotes from interviews with Rogen and Anna Faris help you understand a little bit about the attitudes Hollywood rewards.)
- Observe & Report: On Real Rape and Um. by Sady @ Tiger Beatdown (Two well-articulated analyses on rape in this film and its impact on actual women.)
- Observe and Report by Michael Phillips @ The Chicago Tribune (In a review that otherwise seems fair, writer Micheal Phillips seriously drops the ball--to say the least--when he claims: "The best, riskiest bit in Observe and Report involves Faris, with wee vomitous spillage drying on the pillow by her slack jaw, underneath Rogen, who cannot believe the dolt of his fondest desires is trashed enough to give him a toss.")
- Mall Crisis? Call Security. Then Again, Maybe Not by Manhola Darghis for The New York Times (Darghis can be counted on as a female voice in the NYT, but she often--and this is no exception--offers more respect than is due.)
- Observe and Report by Peter Travers for Rolling Stone (The most appalling of all the "official" reviews I've read, which should be no great surprise, considering the source. Here's a sample: "Props to Hill and Rogen for believing you can play anything for a hoot, including R-rated sex and violence." Yeah--props. That's what I was going to say.)
- Writer Jody Hill describes his latest movie as "a dark, crazy, awesome journey" in "An Auteur of Awkward Strikes Again" in the NYT
- An apologist for the rape scene, in a column from New York Magazine, says:
But, given all the horrible things Ronnie does later in the movie — out of spite, or stupidity, or flat-out psychosis — this scene winds up seeming a lot less awful as the movie goes on. For one thing, as horribly misdirected as it becomes, his "courtship" of Brandi is the only thing in Ronnie's life that comes partly from a place of sweetness rather than entirely from a place of darkness.
- And a special GFY to Bill Gibron of PopMatters, whose article "No Means Ho: Debating Observe and Report's Most Controversial Scene" is the worst I've seen, and includes gems such as:
Audiences are happy when Ronnie ends up with shy coffee girl Nell, someone who he’s built up a narrative-long relationship of openness and trust. When Brandi tries to get back in his good graces, Ronnie gives her a public kiss-off that centers on her sleeping around.and, best of all
So which is it? Rape, or the reality of dating circa 2009? As with anything Hill has to say, the meaning is not clear. Feminists have the right to be angry, especially when a mainstream Hollywood movie offers such a backward vision of male/female fornication. But is Observe and Report really saying anything new? In this Girls Gone Wild dynamic of brazen openness and complete lack of shame, should a drunken slut bear any of the blame? It’s not a question of that horrid old excuse “she had it coming.” It’s more of a mirror on where society has sunk since women were empowered to ‘take back the night.’ Clearly, had Hill meant the scene to be something akin to pure sexual assault, Brandi would have been treated like a piece of dead meat.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Flick-Off: WALL-E
The Flick-Off is a new series in which we give a quick--but smart--rip to movies that tick us off.
I know, right: a rebuke of a Disney/Pixar cartoon? About robots? Yes--and it deserves it.
While the beginning of WALL-E is a lovely silent film (and would've been a fantastic short film), when you brush away the artifice and the adorable little robots, all you have is standard Disney fare: a male protagonist and a female helper, told from his perspective. Why the robots are gendered at all isn't clear; the movie could've been about their friendship--and far more progressive than the heteronormative romance that ensues.
EVE is sleek and lovely, and is physically able to do things WALL-E cannot, but she's part of an army of task-oriented robots. The mere push of a button shuts her down, and she lacks the self-protectionist drive that WALL-E exhibits when his power reserve drains. He is, of course, beholden to no one since the humans left Earth; he is autonomous and self-sufficient. EVE, on the other hand, is fully robotic: she's a badass, complete with gun, and she's more intelligent and cunning than WALL-E, but she's been programmed to be that way. She's an advanced form of technology, but she needs WALL-E to liberate her.WALL-E, it seems, has developed human qualities on his own. He is also capable of keeping up with a robot approximately 700 years newer (read: younger) than he is--an impressive age gap in any relationship. EVE worries over WALL-E and caters to his physical limitations (he is, after all, an old man--with childlike curiosity), acting as nursemaid in addition to all-around badass. Who says we can't be everything, ladies? While EVE doesn't have any of the conventional trappings of femininity, she's a lovely modern contraption with clean lines, while WALL-E is clunky, schlubby, and falling apart (not to mention he's a clean rip-off of Short Circuit's Johnny 5)--reinforcing the (male) appreciation of a certain kind of female aesthetic, while reminding girls that they should look good and not worry too much about the appearance of their male love-interest.
Pixar, by the way, hasn't created a female protagonist yet.
More contrary opinions about WALL-E--including the troubling way it portrays obesity--on:
If you know of some other good discussions on the film, leave your links in the comments.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Short Review: Los Ojos de Alicia
Los Ojos de Alicia (2005). Written and directed by Ugo Sanz. In Spanish (no English subtitles).
I saw the short film Los Ojos de Alicia as part of the Cincinnati World Cinema 8th annual "Oscar Shorts," which screens this year's nominated short films, along with 'bonus' films (of which this is one; I'm not privy to the selection process of the bonus films).
Of the eight films (in Part B of the program), I'm sad to say that not one passes the Bechdel test. Los Ojos de Alicia (which you can--and should--watch in its entirety above, although it is in Spanish without subtitles) comes closest, as it stars a woman and a video recording of a woman talking to her--although it turns out to be the same woman, talking to herself. (Note: if anyone can provide an English transcript of the film, please let me know.)
We open on a woman, tied up and blindfolded, just waking from a memory-erasing procedure. A recording turns on and a woman leads the blindfolded woman to a glass of apple juice to quench her thirst, then tells her the juice is poison. She tells the still-hooded woman exactly what memory she's had erased: the woman returned home to find her husband seriously wounded and bleeding to death. She stopped to care for him before checking on her daughter, who she found also seriously wounded and who soon died. Not only did the woman choose her husband over her child, but she then learned that her husband stabbed the child, before trying to kill himself. The woman doesn't know how to live with the implications of the tragedy, which led her to this room. The woman in the recording tells her there's an antidote to the poison juice, if she can just cut herself free and swallow a pill. Just before the woman swallows the pill, we learn that it's the pill--not the juice--that contains deadly poison. The woman in the video challenges her will to live in the face of the tragedy she experienced.
I think the film was included because it is provocative and good for engaging conversation, though the format of the festival (one film right after the next) did not encourage discussion. However, it bothers me on multiple levels. We have a male writer and director pontificating on a woman's guilt, remorse, and what can only be described as self-hatred. This is a torture film, even if it is self-torture.
It's interesting to consider how we deal with tragedy, though the thesis here seems to be that the only way past it (or through it) is to create an even more horrific tragedy. I can see how a woman would want to punish herself for failing to save her child, even when it's not in any way her fault. What I like about the film is that it literalizes the way we torture ourselves when we feel we're to blame for something terrible. The act of making literal torture in a raw and painful way makes us think about the banal torture people inflict on themselves. We all know someone who has been through unspeakable tragedy, and many times what the person does to herself (or himself) amounts to destruction on a tragic level.
What I don't like about the film is its manipulation. It feels very much like cheating to create a universe in which we have alternate reality (memory erasure) and still are supposed to feel sympathy for a woman who would choose to do this to herself. We don't know if the memory-erasure was a success; even with the juice detail (the woman claimed to enjoy the apple juice, even though we're told she hated apples as a child) we just don't know what kind of memory she has of what happened. She saves herself, but not without first forcing the "new" her to have a (false?) memory of what she lived through. Ultimately, the film is manipulative and sadistic; a thought-experiment on suicide, but not a very productive one.
Here is the CWC program of Oscar Shorts, Part B:
I saw the short film Los Ojos de Alicia as part of the Cincinnati World Cinema 8th annual "Oscar Shorts," which screens this year's nominated short films, along with 'bonus' films (of which this is one; I'm not privy to the selection process of the bonus films).
Of the eight films (in Part B of the program), I'm sad to say that not one passes the Bechdel test. Los Ojos de Alicia (which you can--and should--watch in its entirety above, although it is in Spanish without subtitles) comes closest, as it stars a woman and a video recording of a woman talking to her--although it turns out to be the same woman, talking to herself. (Note: if anyone can provide an English transcript of the film, please let me know.)
We open on a woman, tied up and blindfolded, just waking from a memory-erasing procedure. A recording turns on and a woman leads the blindfolded woman to a glass of apple juice to quench her thirst, then tells her the juice is poison. She tells the still-hooded woman exactly what memory she's had erased: the woman returned home to find her husband seriously wounded and bleeding to death. She stopped to care for him before checking on her daughter, who she found also seriously wounded and who soon died. Not only did the woman choose her husband over her child, but she then learned that her husband stabbed the child, before trying to kill himself. The woman doesn't know how to live with the implications of the tragedy, which led her to this room. The woman in the recording tells her there's an antidote to the poison juice, if she can just cut herself free and swallow a pill. Just before the woman swallows the pill, we learn that it's the pill--not the juice--that contains deadly poison. The woman in the video challenges her will to live in the face of the tragedy she experienced.
I think the film was included because it is provocative and good for engaging conversation, though the format of the festival (one film right after the next) did not encourage discussion. However, it bothers me on multiple levels. We have a male writer and director pontificating on a woman's guilt, remorse, and what can only be described as self-hatred. This is a torture film, even if it is self-torture.
It's interesting to consider how we deal with tragedy, though the thesis here seems to be that the only way past it (or through it) is to create an even more horrific tragedy. I can see how a woman would want to punish herself for failing to save her child, even when it's not in any way her fault. What I like about the film is that it literalizes the way we torture ourselves when we feel we're to blame for something terrible. The act of making literal torture in a raw and painful way makes us think about the banal torture people inflict on themselves. We all know someone who has been through unspeakable tragedy, and many times what the person does to herself (or himself) amounts to destruction on a tragic level.
What I don't like about the film is its manipulation. It feels very much like cheating to create a universe in which we have alternate reality (memory erasure) and still are supposed to feel sympathy for a woman who would choose to do this to herself. We don't know if the memory-erasure was a success; even with the juice detail (the woman claimed to enjoy the apple juice, even though we're told she hated apples as a child) we just don't know what kind of memory she has of what happened. She saves herself, but not without first forcing the "new" her to have a (false?) memory of what she lived through. Ultimately, the film is manipulative and sadistic; a thought-experiment on suicide, but not a very productive one.
Here is the CWC program of Oscar Shorts, Part B:
- Auf der Strecke (On the Line)
- This Way Up
- Los Ojos de Alicia
- Presto
- Spielzeugland (Toyland) - Live Action Short Oscar winner
- Lavatory - Lovestory
- Sintonia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)