The Kane Mission

Citizen Kane is quite an anomaly when you think about it. Or at least its reputation is. Can anyone agree on the best novel ever written? If asked, someone might throw out Joyce’s Ulysses, but another might immediately counter with Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu or Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. Even if you limited the question to novels written in the English language, you’d be faced with devotees of Dickens, Eliot, and Melville, as well as those of Nabokov and Twain, but to name a few. Hamlet is the classic example of great play, but not the universal answer for "greatest play." Putting aside those who would campaign against Shakespeare, you could still find Bard enthusiasts who would argue that the man’s (yes, one man) greatest work is King Lear or The Tempest. Subjects as seemingly limited as “the epic poem” find a clash between the mouth of Homer and the pen of Milton.

Yet, Citizen Kane is “the greatest movie ever made.” It tops every big critical list and anyone who makes a case against it is not simply making an argument for the greatest movie ever made, but distinctly marking themselves out as challenging an accepted truth.



And oddly, so many people who have seen Citizen Kane do not like it or even understand what makes it great. Furthermore, the strangest part of that situation is that, unlike a person’s reaction to disliking almost any other great movie, in this case, they actually accept the blame. I have heard countless people challenge everything from The Godfather to Vertigo to Sunrise to 8 ½ to Star Wars. I myself will piss on most Kurosawa films like they were freshly laid snow and I had an uncontrollable desire to see my name. But the standard reaction for Citizen Kane is, “I probably don’t know enough about film to fully appreciate it.” The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the film, but in ourselves.

So the film sits upon its throne, loved by a few critics and film buffs, unappreciated yet revered by many and unwatched by even more. It is a treasure the masses can never comprehend.



As one of those masses, I was not content. I could not figure out what was worse: being denied a marvelous piece of art or being denied the ability to bash a treasure with all the iconoclastic fury I could muster. But reading a book on Citizen Kane would not be enough. I wanted to see, not simply hear, what a marvel it is.

Thus, the great mission was born. The original plan was this: create a list of essential movies to watch made which were made before Citizen Kane and, for a month or two, only watch those movies. Anything that could possibly use post-Kane techniques was to be avoided like electricity on the sabbath. Naturally, this task was not one I could or should tackle single-handedly. I needed a partner, someone with whom I could share thoughts, reflect, and, most importantly, turn to for impetus after a particularly boring film. I immediately turned to Nick, my oldest friend and another budding film geek. I say “film geek” since neither Nick nor I consider ourselves “film buffs.” There are two types of “film buffs.” The first group is those who think that seeing a few foreign films and renting movies made before 1980 on a decently regular basis makes one a film buff. The second are the real film buffs: those who really just know their shit. Nick and I lie somewhere in between the two; we know just enough about film to know we are not buffs.

Upon reflection, perhaps this mission would have made a great Julie and Julia-esque blog. Too bad Julie and Julia came out after we were two months into it. And I console myself with the fact that, knowing me, only the blog or the mission itself could be of true importance. Were I to keep the blog, the mission would be a reason for the blog and, thus, lose its true purpose and my true understanding. I would be watching movies, taking notes on them for quips to make and so forth, instead of allowing them to envelope me. Though, I admit, I would love Amy Adams to play me in a movie. Meryl Streep could play Roger Ebert or Žižek. Is anyone in Hollywood reading this? You're sitting on a gold mine!

But I digress.

We quickly ruled out the isolation approach. After all, Nick was off for the summer and needed to do something to fill his long days; not watching post-1941 films would be an issue. Also, we both needed to catch up on Mad Men. Of course, with this rule eliminated, the list was able to grow, unconstrained by the necessity of a month or two lifespan. What was once 50 films burgeoned to 120 or so. Soon, we were not only getting the best of the best, but a fuller sense of films at the time. We knew not only the high points of aesthetic value, but the cultural points such as the gangster film or talkie-powered musical.

And, in these “extra” films was where the true value of this mission lay. Sure, it was great in finally getting us to watch such classics as It Happened One Night, Rules of the Game, Battleship Potemkin, and Gone With the Wind. We certainly had a better appreciation for them by watching them in the context of their time (very few people nowadays probably have our absolute thrill at Sunrise’s camera movement). But, ultimately, as fledgling film geeks, we probably would have encountered these greats at some point or another in life. However, there are other films that, while we knew enough about them to put them on the list and therefore might have seen them eventually, might not as certainly made their way to our DVD players in life. They could have languished in our Netflix queue for years, always hanging around spot 73 as newer or more important films took precedent. Man with the Movie Camera, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, My Man Godfrey, Scarlett Empress, Le Jour Se Leve, Strike!: I’m looking at you. Hell, even films like Greed (i.e. those that are deemed among the top, but just seem too long or boring to wallow through) make me more indebted to this list.

Naturally, we also learned a lot about film. Such as the fact that camera movement is really exciting. And that, if a silent film is boring, the benefit is that you can talk through it. And “What’s the idea?” is akin to “What the hell?” whereas “What’s the big idea?” is more like “What the fuck?” And most silent Russian films are exactly the same, many of them being excruciatingly dull. And, over fifteen years later, Pinocchio is still as horrible as when I first saw it. And, while most famous for Intolerance and Birth of a Nation, Griffith’s true achievement is Broken Blossoms. Oh yeah.

We also learned a lot about camera and things like that, but you really don't want to hear that.

As time passed and the months went on (this whole trek started on June 8 of last year), a slight worry began to emerge: what if Citizen Kane was a letdown? While we consoled ourselves with the aphorism of a journey exceeding a destination (and, with over 100 films and 10 months of movie watching, there was no way it could not), we still wanted a big finish. After all, what is a great movie without a great ending, be it a line or a shot? Casablanca, Psycho, and every Wilder film seem to know this to be the case.



This past Friday was judgment day. Film Forum was screening Citizen Kane as part of their Newspaper Picture festival and we knew that nothing could rival a 35mm print on a big screen with an audience.

I can gush about Kane for pages now. But what’s the point? I’m now on the other side and either you’re on my side of the line and already know what I mean or you would just take my word for it. All I will say is this: mission accomplished. Sure, I could have read essays about Citizen Kane beforehand or listened to a film professor, but ultimately, I experienced it. From the opening shots, I saw Welles tearing up the rules of cinema and joyously creating a whole new vocabulary (or at least turning Middle English into early modern English). The whole movie was thrilling; I had goosebumps and a grin with every shot, every technique that seemed new because it surpassed and undid every expectation I had.

So this marks the end of a mission and an abnormal entry. I’m not pessimistic, not even all that thoughtful, but I thought I should share it all with you (and not just to end my two week hiatus). What’s the moral of this tale? Create assignments for yourself. Give yourself homework. And do it with a class or at least a buddy…because that’s the only way you’ll get it done.



Er, no, that’s not the best moral. Um, realize that to watch movies in the context of your time, you should create really long lists and –

No.

There is no moral. I don’t know if anyone would or could replicate this experience. For starters, you need a Nick to your Devin or Devin to your Nick, someone willing to sit through all those movies with you and set time aside for double features and marathons. Someone who can get high just off of a transcendent film experience and who is willing to laugh at Eisenstein’s October. Someone to whom you can comment on how crisp* a movie is or isn’t and note that the inevitable “everyone running” scene has come at the end of a silent movie.

One film we watched was Murnau’s Tabu. We hated it (except for an awesome dance scene). Watching it was the most fun I had that week and one of my favorite memories from last fall. Why? Because it was silent, and I already said what you can do during boring silent movies. Even my mom, who was in the other room, remarked that she was jealous of how much we were enjoying that dull film. A companion like that is hard to come by. I could continue rambling about how this story is less a story about a film or even one about a list of movies, but about a friendship, but this blog is called “Pop Culture Gone Bad,” not “Mass Bromantic.”

But if you want to try, let me know and I’ll post the list. But yeah, aside from that, just another day in the life of a movie geek.

*Have you ever watched an old movie (particularly a really old silent one) and found it almost impossible to believe that at one point, the action on screen was real life people in front of a camera, who looked and sounded just like real-life people? Our blanket term for the level of believability was crispness. A modern movie, such as The Hurt Locker, would be about a 10 on the crispness scale. It loses a point or so with 40s or 50s Technicolor or really, well, crisp black and white. Typical black and white loses another point or so. But, most cases, you can still imagine. As you watch though films from the early 30s or earlier, they tend to get more and more uncrisp (particularly when a silent film is tinted) and you find yourself less and less able to believe that 80 or 90 years ago, all these people looked quite crisp. There is a sound counterpart to “crisp;” we call it “crackly.” Though, whereas crisp increases with modernity, crackly decreases.

The BAH!scars #8: Salute the Shorts

In a supreme act of nerdiness and/or unemployedness, today I watched all the shorts that were nominated for Oscars, both live and animated. A local Clearview was playing both and since I get two free tickets to Clearviews thanks to my Optimum account, I decided I might as well watch.

Watching shorts in a theater is a bit odd. You are both less cogniscent of time (since you’re following smaller story arcs) and more aware of time (since after each short you know that X amount of minutes have passed, as they tell you the length of each short beforehand). Overall though, it was an interesting, different experience and something I’d like to do next year as possible. Now, for my thoughts on the nominees (in order they showed them):

Short Film (Live Action)

“Kavi” — Gregg Helvey

This felt a bit like Slumdog Millionaire (abridged), though I probably preferred it to its chai-walling predecessor. Granted, there’s no gameshow and the kid doesn’t grow up, but there’s still the adorable young boy amidst that distinctly horrid poverty that only India can supply.
Thankfully, this time there’s no great tale of half-assed romance and a lack of fetishization on how exotic such Indian destitution looks. The movie hits a bit hard with its message, but at least it’s so blatant and honest about it, that I can’t fault it too much. Overall, this movie feels, well, exactly like a movie I would expect to be nominated for best short film (Live Action). This was also the first one they played and I was almost certain I was in for another ninety minutes of this. This film stands a great chance of winning though because of A) the coattails of Slumdog and B) it has such a nice, relevant Academic message and the whole Academy can feel like they made a difference.

Where I’d rank it: 3 of 5
Where it stands in chance of winning: 2 of 5.

“The New Tenants” — Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

I loved this short film/one-act play. I loved loved loved it. It occupies the same territory as In the Loop: it’s so rude, vulgar, well-written, odd, and untidy in its ending that I am still in shock that the Academy nominated it. I’d go again (though 15 minutes late to skip Kavi) just to see this film again. It’s funny, tense, surprising, and engrossing. I can’t remember the last time I found something that dark that funny (and because it got so dark). Furthermore, lo and behold: well-written gay characters! They exist!

Of course, this same adoration also comes with the price tag that this does not stand all that great of a chance of winning. It doesn’t stand a horrible chance (I’d be it just behind Miracle Fish…to the point where I almost had it in 3), but the two front-runners are indeed quite the front-runners.

Where I’d rank it: 1 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 4 of 5.

“Miracle Fish” — Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey

I just was not feeling this film. It was horribly slow (of course, where I say “drawn-out,” others say “Kurosawa”) and did not seem to have much of a point or pay-off. The child protagonist did not attract as much empathy as he required and I really did not see all that much of a reason to the final confrontation. But, it seems dark and brooding and contemplative and "hurray for child actors!", so I’m placing it at three for odds.



Where I’d rank it: 5 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 3 of 5.

“The Door” — Juanita Wilson and James Flynn

This film was beautifully done. The first minute or so, nearly every shot wowed me. The job remained strong throughout the rest of it. I would love to see the director and cinematographer work on a full-length film.

The script, however, was not the best. So, I’m tempted to say “SPOILER ALERT,” but I think this film would actually be better if you knew the twist at the onset of the it. But, if you want to see it as the filmmakers intended it, please skip down to the next entry.

I'm in the midst of post-apocalyptic exhaustion. Or at least, with very run of the mill stories of what happens after the end of the world as we know it. Yes, the apocalypse sucks. Yes, it shows a dissolution of society and your bonds are stripped down to a few people who truly matter/you can trust and something about materialism. I blame The Road. It felt so abysmally standard that I think it obliterated my ability to enjoy an entire genre. Or maybe, on a more positive level, Jasper Fforde’s own post-apocalyptic setting in his novel Shades of Grey was so odd, unique, and refreshing (his theory is that the end of the world will be very British and vanish in a poof of politeness) that I now find it difficult to buy into catastrophic works that take themselves so seriously.

So, this short film leads us down a, er, road where we first believe it’s a totalitarian, post-apocaltypic futuristic society. Then we flash back to an incident that seems increasingly Chernobylish. At the end, we discover it was about Chernobyl. I really don’t think the movie gained all that much from hiding such information. If anything, it got itself lost in an increasingly hackneyed genre before finding its way out.

But this film is both beautifully shot and has a nice important message. One is a good reason to choose it, another is an Academic one.

Where I’d rank it: 2 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 1 of 5.

“Instead of Abracadabra” — Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström

This was mildly funny, mildly clever, but overall felt like a forgettable mini-indie film. This by all means is the winner of the “Littler Little Miss Juno Award.” Also, the “failing magician” joke is so much harder to make after Arrested Development. I’m not saying you can’t make that joke…but if you do, you have to realize it’s like writing a novel about a man in love with a 12-year-old girl…you have gargantuan clodhoppers to fill.

Where I’d rank it: 4 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 5 of 5.



Short Film (Animated)

Before I go into the nominees, I’m going to describe a few thoughts on the overall experience. Firstly, unlike the live action ones, these nominees also came with three “highly commended” short animated films. I’m guessing this was because of the fact that three of the nominees were six to eight minutes long and one of the longer two was for Mature Audiences only, so if you were a parent who came with children, you would’ve shelled out about 10 bucks for under an hour of viewing time. One of the shorts was the Pixar one that came before up ("Partly Cloudy"), the other two ("Runaway" and "The Kinematograph") were clear cases of “interesting but not great.” While I would have put "Partly Cloudy" in the running, the Academy actually chose wisely with the other two.

I noticed that all of the films were either wordless or in English. “French Roast,” “The Lady and the Reaper,” “Runaway,” and “Partly Cloudy” were all silent, which I appreciated. Such a choice really allowed for the emphasis of animation as a truly visual medium and also hearkened back to Chuck Jones's toons such as “One Froggy Evening” or the majority of “Rabbit of Seville.” I’m wondering if the other ones (as in, “The Kinematograph” and “Logorama”) were simply dubbed (since there would be more children in the audience) or if they were made for an English-speaking audience despite being made around the globe. I assume the former.

“French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert

This film was cute. I literally have nothing else to say about it that deserves mention.



Wait, I was wrong. I did like how the “camera” was placed in pretty much one location/dealt with the window/reflection. That was interesting and nifty.

Okay, that’s it.

Where I’d rank it: 5 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 3 of 5.

“The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia

This cartoon truly felt like the lovechild of Tex Avery and Chuck Jones. It had the craziness you can only get in a cartoon but tempered a bit by the higher concepts of animation to which Jones was partial. I mean, I can’t give this film higher praise than to say that it felt like it would belong in the good ol’ days when animated shorts preceded any movie.

However, the morbid nature of this film will probably be its undoing in voting time.

Where I’d rank it: 1 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 4 of 5.

“A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

This felt like standard “Wallace and Gromit” fare. Which is still very good. Okay, I’m going to attract some hate now. I like Wallace and Gromit. I really respect what it is and what it does…but I don’t love it. This case is not even one of “I don’t get the love/adoration.” I get it. I can’t even say I disagree with the logic behind it. But something in "Wallace and Gromit" doesn’t click as much with me as it does with others. I enjoyed this film, I found parts very clever and enjoyable, but overall it did not make too great of a lasting impression on me.

The namebrand nature of this short is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is definitely the safe pick for those who do not know anything about animation. They at least know it’ll make a lot of people happy and no one will really denounce them for it (of course, no one really cares all much about this category anyway). On the other hand, it may have the Meryl-Streep curse. Wallace and Gromit are always in the public mind that voting for them does not seem all that special.

Where I’d rank it: 3 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 2 of 5.

“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell

This movie was delightfully odd. Even in the frantic category of animation, it stood out like a cellphone playing Monty Python's "Sperm Song" going off in the middle of a eulogy. I was guessing this film would go one way, and it sort of did, but in the way that one orders a cheese burger and gets a halfpounder triple stacked burger with four types of cheeses, bacon, and barbeque sauce. It took “fairy tale retelling” to a whole new level. Six minutes of insanity.

As for odds, this is one of those cases where I’m surprised it was even nominated.

Where I’d rank it: 2 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning:5 of 5.

“Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin

There’s a part in Romeo and Juliet where one character keeps asking questions to a group of musicians. After each witty response, he exclaims “Pretty!” and “Pretty too!” Everything is very clever, an enjoyable little trinket that is nothing of real substance by the point in the play when corpses are beginning to pile up and the stars are really starting to cross.

I fear that my reaction to much of this short was “Pretty!...Pretty too!” Every use of a logo was clever and cute and enjoyable…but I felt an overall lack of substance. Now, were I to suspect that the overall message of this film was that, in the face of all this need for meaning, there is none and all you need is a bunch of “Pretty!”s, I’d be much impressed. However, I could not help but think that this was trying to make a point. And I worry that the majority of its point was a tired one about corporate America or globalization or the evils of the prevalence of marketing. It huffs and puffs with much gusto, but does not blow me over.

This movie has the pretentions and the buzz. Game, set, and match.

Where I’d rank it: 4 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 1 of 5.



I'm sorry. I know I promised a lighter entry for the BAH!scars. That'll come on Thursday.

Caught in a Bad Romance

Sunday’s Valentine’s Day. You know what that means: every restaurant is booked. Dammit! In honor of the event and to spite everyone who is being wined and dined, I present 10 movies that fuck with love and show how love fucks with you.

Note 1: SPOILERS. If you haven’t seen a movie and don’t want it spoiled, skip to the next one.
Note 2: These are not the top ten movies that do so. Only 10 from across time and genre. Though, I admit that two are only a year apart.
Note 3: Any of these movies are DEFINITELY worth a look. Many of them are among my favorites.

The Little Mermaid (1989)

“So much for true love!” – Ursula

Things you will have to give up for love may include any or all of the following: your voice, your family/life-long friends/acquaintances
with whom you’re able to have decent conversations at the supermarket, your kingdom, and your life.

Yes, love makes Ariel go stupid to an exponential degree. She forsakes her family, imperils her people and her kingdom, and abandons her friends all to go after a pair of legs and a dick that she has only seen for the grand total of probably a minute. Well, she also has a statue of him, but that just summons up Pygmalion allusions, all of which do her no favors.

Imagine for a second that you’re a merperson living under Trident’s sovereignty or even someone residing in the coastal town of the movie. You’re sitting there, eating your seaweed salad, and suddenly it's the climactic battle of the film and an enormous fat drag queen with a trident starts causing storms and spreading desolation. All thanks to Ariel's sex drive. Your wife may be fried to a cinder by a stray trident bolt, your home may be annihilated by some eighty foot tall waves, and you may have permanent psychological scars that will never fully heal…but at least it all ended with the spoiled little princess getting her man.

And yes, it’s totally healthy to leave everyone you’ve known and who has loved you your entire life (except a fatuous seagull) all for the sake of getting married.

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Betty Schafer: Come on, Joe.
Joe Gillis: Come on where? Back to a one-room apartment that I can’t pay for? Back to a story that may sell and very possibly will not?
Betty: If you love me, Joe.
Joe: Look, sweetie -- be practical. I’ve got a good thing here. A long-term contract with no options. I like it that way. Maybe it’s not very admirable. Well, you and Artie can be admirable.
Betty: Joe, I can’t look at you anymore.
Joe: Nobody asked you to.

Which relationship am I even talking about here? Norma and Joe? Norma and Max? Joe and Betty? Betty and Artie? Us and Hollywood? Whatever the case may be, none of these are healthy, fulfilling relationships. Joe is with Norma for money; Norma with Joe in a delusional attempt to feel young and attractive still. Betty is with Artie because it’s the “right” thing to do. Max is with Norma because of some misguided, blind devotion…or because no one wants to hire him as a director. Norma is with Max because right until the movie started, she needed someone to clean up all that chimpanzee poop.



Love is selfish. Love is a ploy created to get what you really want: be it money or fuel for your vanity or even just purpose. And even then, it still sucks. You get stuck in an old house with a crazy lady or worry that your lover is sleeping around or, worst of all, you can be Betty and Artie. They are the only couple who stay together at the end. Yet we know that Betty “loves” (or at least feels passion for and can get a good screenplay/job out of) Joe. Instead, she has to run off to Artie at the end – Artie who wants to get married for cheap and skip a honeymoon and probably whisk Betty away from the world of movies that she grew up in and loves and trap her in her own Hollywood mansion (albeit a tinier one). That’s the happy couple at the end.

L’Atalante (1934)

[I can’t find quotes online]

Roger Ebert calls this movie “poetic.” I guess it is…if you are alluding to a dreary, humdrum "way of life" poetry style that you can find in modern or post-modern works. Quite frankly, this movie is one of the most depressing movies ever made. We begin with a marriage (the traditional end to a narrative). But the movie only shows us that this coupling, this happy ending, is really neither happy nor the end. After the blissful union that is the typical “Hollywood ending,” what are we left with? Fights about feline hygiene and laundry. A husband jealous to the point of abusive and a wife who may be giving him reason to be. Marriage is like the ship L’Atalante, a small, claustrophobic world that we can’t wait to escape, if only for a few hours.

Sure this movie ends with the lovers reconciled and happy…but that’s just where we started. And there are many, many more trips on L’Atalante still in store for these two.

An Education (2009)

“You have no idea how boring everything was before I met you.” – Jenny

In this movie, Jenny, a nice British schoolgirl, meets David, a “bad Jew” who tries to indoctrinate her into a world of thievery, deception, and promiscuity. She is tempted, but in the end, good perseveres over not-so-good and Jenny leaves David. By the epilogue, we are informed that she’s met a nice British boy who has never been to Paris and who probably is a virgin and who will be Jenny’s rather darling husband.

YAWN. Yes, David may have been a shyster and an attempted bigamist, but I’ll be damned if he also was not one of the most attractive, seductive, and fun characters on screen in a long time. An Education manages to show us an actually “good romance,” but it also tells us that what is good for romance is bad for everything else. To have a happy life, you must choose the boring guy, the one you would never bother making a movie about. The only romance worth having is the one that can’t last and the one that will eat away everything else around you like corrosive acid.

David did not save Jenny from her boring life, he only showed her how boring the rest of her life would be. And the worst part is – that was the better of the two options she had.



Vertigo (1958)*

“Too late. It’s too late. There’s no bringing her back.” – Scottie Ferguson

Imagine the perfect mate; he/she’s stunningly attractive, magnificently cultured, and only has eyes for you. Are you imagining him? Good – because that’s the only way you’re ever going to see her (oh look at me being all gender-inclusive). In Vertigo, Scottie will for a few brief days get to know Madeleine, a woman so sublime and ethereal that he cannot help but fall madly and hopelessly in love with her. We ourselves can’t help but fall in love with her and want to see Stewart and Novak make mad passionate love on screen (since that would be the closest we’ll ever come to getting in on the action).

But of course, Scottie loses her. And then, thanks to an enormous (apparent) coincidence, he finds a girl who looks remarkably like her and tries to recreate his love. He doesn’t really care that he’s mentally tormenting a seemingly innocent woman and, really, neither do we. For love, sacrifices must be made.

Except there’s one problem: Judy, the girl off the street, was Madeleine. Which means that there was no “real” Madeleine, at least in so much that we ever knew her. Scottie’s dream girl was a lie. For all we know, the “real” Madeleine Elster farted constantly and got chili stains all over her grey suits. Of course, there’s no “real” Madeleine Elster since this is just a movie, but don’t think too hard. The more you think about Vertigo, the more you feel like you’re precariously holding onto the increasingly slipping ledge of your sanity.

In short: perfect mate = nonexistent. The best you can do is try to dress someone else up as him or her, but in the end, you’re being abusive or s/he’s deceiving you or you’re deceiving yourself. Love is a lie. A lie that hurts like a cold, blonde bitchslap.

*With eternal gratitude and apologies to my Hitchcock professor Lee Edelman. I’ve taken about 3 hours of brilliant lecturing and mutilated it into a few paragraphs in a blog and most likely did his whole argument a great disservice in the process.

The Sheik (1921)

“When an Arab sees a woman he wants, he takes her.” – Ahmed

Hurray for Stockholm Syndrome! This movie teaches us all that the best way to get the woman of your dreams (especially if she’s an independent free-thinking woman in the early part of the twentieth century) is to kidnap her and force her to live with you until she tries to escape and realizes that you aren’t the worst guy out there. Oh, and if she’s repulsed by the prospect of marrying a Middle Eastern man when she herself is white, simply inform her that you’re adopted and are as white a Klansman’s hood. True love truly is triumphant!

(Also, I just realized that this plot is a bit like that of Beauty and the Beast. Just changing “Middle Eastern” to “furry” and “white” to “not furry”)

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

“I wish I knew how to quit you!” – Jack Twist

The typical reaction after seeing Brokeback Mountain is to bemoan homophobia and think, “Alas, alack, and Alaska! If only those two could have loved each other openly and gotten married in California without fear of their heads being bashed in!”* But can’t we also just say, “Man, wouldn’t these two have been so much happier if that incident never happened on Brokeback?”

Yes, it’s technically not the nice thing to think…but it’s true. Ennis seemed suppressed enough that he never would have succumb to his urges without some Twisting of his arm (and pulling of his fifth leg and…okay, I’ll stop now). He would have gotten married, probably not gotten divorced since his wife would have no infidelity to suspect and everyone would be happier and Daddy would just occasionally buy Men’s Fitness magazines and disappear into the bathroom with them every once in a while.

As for Jack, he might have just had a lot more hookups over the years before still being turned into a human piñata. Even if this were the case, he’d be better off. More sex and less angst makes Jack a content homo. And hey, without the emotional ties of Ennis, he might’ve even just decided to move out of Montana/Wyoming/whatever useless state they were in and head out to San Francisco instead. Then not only might he have lived, but he would have had the opportunity to guest star in another Oscar nominated film, Milk!

As the poster said, “Love is a force of a nature.” It’s a big fucking hurricane that blows you off course and makes you stupid and miserable and eventually kills you and leaves the other guy with only a shirt to cry over.

*Granted, homophobia is worth much bemoaning and gays should be able to get married without fear of cranial restructuring, but that’s not for this entry.

Love & Death (1975)

Sonja Grushenko: You were my one great love!
Boris Grushenko: Oh, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm dead.

I know most people would say Annie Hall might be a better candidate, but as Alvie says at the end, “We need the eggs.” It might be one of the better defenses of love and the inevitable heartbreak. Love and Death’s title shows that while we put the love first in our mind, ultimately death is what matters. Sonja’s overly romantic remark, which would be the emotional triumph of most other films, is sarcastically and rightfully retorted with Boris’s reality-check. Love isn’t a great powerful force that can overcome all in this movie; it’s a distraction from the real force: human mortality. And, as you watch the movie, you see that people will get their distraction through any means necessary: power, deception, money, and guilt trips. One great love is like a very shiny penny – it’s charming but ultimately worthless. The only real, eternal coupling is between Boris and the Grim Reaper.



City Lights (1931)

The Tramp: Can you see now?
A Blind Girl: Yes, I can see now.

There really is no more touching way to finish a love story than with the uncovering a ruse and the realization that the man of your dreams is just a dirt-poor ex-con. I guess this is sweet; she finally sees him for who he is and realizes how much he sacrificed for her. But he also deceived her into thinking that he was well-off enough to support her and her mother and who knows what she turned down waiting for Prince Charming? Let’s not even get into the fact that these two probably aren’t going to have all that happy of a marriage as they struggle to get by and she brings up his chicanery whenever they get into a fight.

Imitation of Life (1959)

Steve Archer: I've been trying to do something with my pictures. It's meant everything to me. Every minute, for a long time now.
Lora Meredith: No, it hasn't. Or you wouldn't give it up to sell beer.
Steve: I gave it up for something much better, something right now: You.
Lora: But you're asking me to give up something I've wanted all my life, ever since I was a child, and I can't do it!
Steve: If you grew up, you could.

You know what I like? Having to choose between the man I love and my career plus all my dreams I’ve had since my earliest recollection! Once I find that relationship with a guy, I’ll be set for life! What? No? Not every girl dreams of being carried off by Prince Charming who will then tell her that her own ambitions are infantile compared to her responsibility to him and his need to sire an heir?

The particularly horrifying thing about this movie is not simply the fact that Steve does not stray from his position that a woman cannot have it all; no, the most disturbing facet of this movie is that it endorses Steve’s ultimatum and wants the viewer to both validate it and condemn Lora as self-obsessed for simply not surrendering to the throes of her libido. The rest of the movie after this confrontation will obsessively create a world where Lora must be wrong and must be taught a lesson.

Also, this movie shows another danger of love: falling in love increases your risk of having children. And children, as illustrated by the duo of the insipid Suzie and the prickly Sarah Jane, are ungrateful little brats who will not realize all that you did for them until you’re in a coffin being pulled by four white horses. Fuck children.

(Okay, don’t literally fuck them, but you get the idea)

So for those of you not going out to dinner on Valentine's Day, I highly recommend any of these 10 movies. They will make you feel better about your current lack of a significant other.