Certified Copy - 2010 - 5 Stars

Actors: Juliette Binoche, William Shimell

Director: Abbas Kiarostami

Spoilers Below - This is a movie that's plot is so light that it's almost impossible to talk about the movie without having seen it. Anyone reading this should trust me and see the movie immediately, it's on Netflix WI in Canada.

Certified Copy opens with William Shimell's character lecturing about his book, Certified Copy, which discusses replication and authenticity in art. Why is a counterfeit less valuable than an original? What is the difference between being inspired by someone and copying someone? These sorts of questions are constantly asked in visual art in exhibits like Sherrie Levine's "After Walker Evans". Personally I find those pieces of visual art to be smart-alecky and cold. At points Certified Copy feels like it might just be a formalist exercise, which can be intolerable over the course of a full length feature: once you understand the filmmaker's thesis you don't want to watch any more of the movie.

Fortunately CC is such a well executed film that it doesn't feel clever even though it is. This is my first Kiarostami film and he is an excellent technician, each shot is purposeful and showcases the themes of the movie, especially an early shot where the streets of Tuscany are reflected through the windshield of a car driven by Binoche. CC is so successful because the performances by Binoche and Shimell, the latter an opera singer who has never acted before brings the regal iciness one would expect from a British baritone, are so strong that you need to be made of stone to not emote during the film. As the film ends I thought to myself they are just people projected on a screen, why do you care what happens to them? Exactly.

Good News Everyone!

This blog is active again. My good friend at http://thewhat-have-you.blogspot.com/ made me realize that when you watch a lot of movies you tend to forget what you liked/disliked about them and creating a journal that captures your reaction to films is worthwhile.

I will be ranking films from 1-5 stars and will generally be reviewing whatever film I saw most recently, but occasionally digging back into my netflix queue to talk about movies i saw in the last year or two. Unfortunately the incredible TV allusion in the title of this blog is now useless; life is tough.

So you can get a general idea of my taste here are the movies with 5 stars of my netflix queue in no particular order.

La Pianiste (Haneke, 2002)

Monty Python's: Life of Brian (Jones, 1979)

Fitzcarraldo (Herzog,1982)

Toy Story 3 (Unkich, 2010)

The Conversation (Coppola, 1974)

Rashomon (Kurosawa, 1950)

Groundhog Day (Ramis, 1993)

Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976)

Annie Hall (Allen, 1966)

The Incredibles (Bird, 2004)

Certified Copy (Kiarostamii, 2010)

The Wrestler (Aronofosky, 2008)

Five Easy Pieces (Rafelson, 1970)

Hating Hamlet

I recently watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for kind of the first time; I had already seen several scenes and thought I had good grasp of the general narrative because of parody/montages/general cultural awareness. I thought the opening scene with the apes was a prologue to the story about HAL 2000 taking over a ship in a nearly perfectly executed Sci-Fi thriller. Clearly I inferred too much from my general pop culture knowledge as it is surprisingly hard to capture surreal existential symbolism in a 3 minute montage that also attempts to summarize The Godfather and Star Wars. Though I expected a completely different film 2001 exceeded my expectations. It was intellectually and viscerally stimulating in a way that most art is incapable of and is a technical masterpiece. As I was watching the movie I was given a lot of time to think (which tends to happen when you watch long scenes of satellites orbiting the earth to a score of classical music), but a couple thoughts were persistent, specifically "What the fuck is going on?", "How did Kubrick get that shot without CGI?" and "There is no way in the hell this movie would ever get made today."

The latter is not the precursor to hifalutin anti-populist rant, about movie studios inability to discern quality,* but a matter of fact. I doubt many largely plotless, dialogueless expensive movies are getting greenlit and for good reason; they will likely lose money. However 2001 did get made in spite of it's lack of commercial viability and it is considered one of the best films of all time and it has become part of the canon(and therefore is shown in montages). Despite this cultural consesus as I watched 2001 I felt very confident that most people would hate this film. They would not hate it in a reactionary way like the recent Avatar backlash or on moral grounds or because it offended their basic sensibilities, they just wouldn't find it captivating. Without the cultural awareness of its greatness I think most people would stop watching the movie within 30 minutes and aggressively warn people to never see it. With cultural context 2001's reputation supersedes most negative reactions from people who actively dislike it or would dislike it as they assume it is a "quality" film and criticizing it would be like criticizing Dickens or Shakespeare and seen as a pillar of ignorance.**

*well I hope it isn't.

**Note that exception for this is among hipsters who can sincerely argue things like Christopher Marlowe is better than Shakespeare in an attempt to express their individualism through knee-jerk contrariness.

It takes time before for any art to gain classic status; in the present we are more inclined to judge it solely on it's transient merit. In the present the illusion of quality seems more significant than actual quality, which makes speculating about current films timelessness difficult. In 1996 The English Patient won 9 Oscars, the DGA and The Golden Globe for best drama; Seinfeld made an episode where Elaine became a social leper for not instantly loving this film. It was tangibly the best film from 1996. 15 years later it seems like the lasting legacy of The English Patient is that Seinfeld episode, while movies like Fargo and Jerry Maguire are much more culturally significant.* Granted this may have occurred because the proliferation of cable channels have made those two movies ubiquitous, but I think a large reason for this was because The English Patient dominance in major award categories gave it an illusion of quality.

* It seems like I know no one who has seen The English Patient. I can very loosely prove this by the fact I haven't seen a single person mention that Sayid from LOST had a large supporting role in it.

Earlier I mentioned that a lot of people wouldn't be entertained or even like 2001 if it didn't have its reputation and while I cannot prove this, I can compare it to relatively similar films that don't have its pedigree. When There Will Be Blood was released I talked to a lot of people who hated it one even derisively (and cleverly!) referred to it as There Will Be Bored. Obviously TWBB is not a clone of 2001 but it has a lot of similar elements, such as long dialogueless sequences that focus on barren landscapes. However it is much more accessible because of an incredible performance by Daniel Day Lewis and because its subtext is unambiguous. One word I frequently heard from TWBB detractors was pretentious, which has slowly morphed from an adjective into a brand. It is the one word that can destroy the illusion of quality. It used to say the only people that like this movie are smug overly analytical intellectuals of which I don't belong. Calling these people pretentious indiscriminately allows people to rationalize their own taste when they disagree with experts, who they will gladly defer to when share opinions.* Words like pretentious are rarely used to describe 2001 and instead are replaced by words like confusing or forward thinking.

*Sort of like how comedy is only described as misogynistic or racist when people don't find it funny.

The illusion of quality benefits accessible films in the present. After it was nominated for best picture and Sandra Bullock won best actress at the Oscars. The public started to believe The Blind Side was "good". When they watch it they aren't enjoying a shallow feel good Disney film they are enjoying an Oscar-worthy film. 10 years from now people will be surprised that it won all these awards, but for a short period of time it was considered a quality film. Conversely 2001 is a very inaccessible film, but as time and passes less people see it.* As less people see the movie its pretension will slowly morph into merit or importance. Older people who grew up with the film will likely only remember scattered details, but they will want to support their generation's art so they will fondly remember it even if they actually found it ponderous. The younger generation will grow up seeing 2001 in the list of best films of all time from the day they are born and never have a sufficient reason to dispute that claim. In the meantime films like There Will Be Blood are scrutinized, since a lot of people have seen the film recently enough to remember specific details and it has yet to reach a canonical status that makes it above reproach.

*It wouldn't surprise me that much to discover that more people have already seen Iron Man 2 then 2001

I don't think that is unfair; timelessness is an important quality when judging art and instantly anointing anything one of the greatest films of all time would probably be premature. However what if the greatest film of all time were released tomorrow? How long would it take for that to become cultural consensus? I suspect it would take at least 30 years and this is what intriguing about the dichotomy between TWBB and 2001. The elements that people hate about TWBB aren't acknowledged by those same people when they watch 2001, because of 2001's reputation. There is an anti-recency bias that effects how art is viewed, I noticed this on a smaller scale when I read best of the decade lists last year. These lists had a disproportionately small amount of films from 2009 on the list and while 2009 may have just been a weak year for movies; I think it is a reflection of society's reticence to prematurely add something to the canon. Films are in canonical purgatory are subject to more criticism by the public and this lack of consensus causes best and favourite tend to converge in the present, but once these films leave purgatory they evolve from best to Best and valid or not most people don't want to criticize Hamlet.

Format Change

When I first started this blog I wanted to limit the scope of it fearing it would become unwieldy if I just documented my ephemeral thoughts. While I still think that is true, I did create this blog as a relatively productive hobby and I didn't enjoy writing a lot of entries. Writing about TV shows as they air creates a deadline, which I'd rather avoid in a leisure activity. Other people do better and faster jobs of posting their immediate thoughts on TV shows as they air and I only really enjoyed writing longer posts that touched on more abstract issues, then if I liked the finale of 30 Rock. I am going to attempt to write longer pieces that will be about things I feel are interesting and unique and hopefully will not become instantly dated, as those are things I actually enjoyed writing thus far.

SNL Gabourey Sidibe/MGMT

Last weeks SNL was a pretty typical bad SNL episode and par for the course from the rest of the season. Probably not any worse than the Blake Lively/Taylor Lautner or January Jones episodes. The only saving grace was Bill Hader and John Mulaney on weekend update. However there was something about this episode that really bothered me and that was that it seemed like everyone on the show/audience were Gabourey Sidibe's parents hoping she would do well. A disclaimer I have not seen Precious and don't plan on watching it, I am sure it is a very good movie, but I don't feel like watching a movie where the best case scenario is it succesfully tells a tragic story and makes me unbearably sad. My problem was not that the audience was behind Sidibe I am not such a cynic that I dislike the idea of a live audience supporting a green host. My problem is that it felt like most of the support came out of pity or guilt. During this episode I was reminded of all the pre-Oscar coverage, where everyone*kept saying how beautiful Sidibe is. When I saw Sidibe on SNL and talkshows I was surprised at how bubbly and charismatic she was and it is endearing, but she is not beautiful* by any stretch of the imagination.

*Everyone including reporters for shows like Access Hollywood who are possibly the most vain people in the world. As far as I can tell there job is too look pretty and read a teleprompter without shouting offensive statements.

*Yes I realize beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but a large percentage of both the population would not consider her beautiful. I also realize that beauty can be used to describe inner beauty, but there are several other adjectives that can be used to describe that and don't have the same connotation of aesthetic beauty.

This sentiment is such a bullshit Hollywood feel good thing where people with nice hair and fake smiles get to pretend that they aren't in an industry where aesthics superficiality is rewarded. It's almost as if Hollywood is surprised that someone who isn't a 9/10 can add value to society and Sidibe overcoming obesity is the equivalent of making the NFL with a fake leg. If Sidibe is truly as intelligent and grounded as people have said I am sure she is not delusional enough to sincerely believe the claims of her beauty. Patronizing someone doesn't change the truth. This brings me to this weeks SNL. Last week I watched the SNL in the 2000's documentary and one of the segments was about SNL's willingness to make fun of anything, because they are a comedy show and being as funny as possible should be the priority. Alec Baldwin joked about his divorce weeks after it happened, they have had a recurring joke making fun of David Patterson's blindness, etc. however when Sidibe hosted SNL they bent over backwards to not make any jokes at her expense and throughout the episode that was the elephant in the room. I am not suggesting that the episode should have turned into 90 minutes of fat jokes, but if you are trying to make a comedy show it might make sense to have some sketches where the host is the butt of some jokes. People may argue that she is an innocent child and making fun of her on national TV is cruel. That is a fair point, but that hasn't stopped SNL in the past. They made fun of Britney Spears claims of virginity when she was a teen sensation, but I guess questioning someone's fidelity is funny so long as they are sufficiently beautiful that people are jealous of you and won't feel guilty about it after the fact. Others may say they didn't have any good jokes or sketches that would acknowledge Sidibe's appearance, but given the quality of the episode a couple token fat jokes probably would have been a welcome addition. If people actually read this blog, I think some people would get up in arms about this post, but my primary contention is this. SNL you are a admittedly a comedy show first, so you should be willing to make fun of everyone and everything patronizing someone because she is one of the few people in Hollywood who isn't drop dead gorgeous is insulting to that person and a bane to your craft.

South Park "200"

When I saw my first episode of South Park I was so young that I needed to ask my parents what a dildo was. So if you had told me 13 years ago that it would evolve from a show about 2nd graders who swore a lot into a cultural institution, my first response would have been "What's a cultural institution?". However if an 8 year old version of me shared my critical thinking skills, I would have scoffed at that suggestion, thinking that South Park would be nothing more than a funny offensive cartoon that would attract a cult following.

South Park eventually evolved from a show about foul mouthed children into one of the best satires on TV. Some have correctly suggested that South Park satire is too overt. That they often pick at low hanging fruit or lack subversion. I think all those criticisms are fair, except they are missing the point of South Park's satire. The ethos of South Park is that 8 year olds kids (albeit incredibly precocious 8 year old kids) frequently notice how bullheaded adults are about important while ignoring common sense. That ethos requires overt satire. Satire that even an 8 year old could understand, which is why South Park doesn't attempt to be more subversive.

Like most shows that reach 200 episodes South Park has been slipping in the last couple of seasons. It has had a couple classic episodes (Super Fun Time), but recently the episodes have felt derivative and sloppy. For those who don't know every episode is written the week before it airs, which I think has led to some incomplete episodes. In recent seasons many episodes have had no real B plot and those episodes have been one or two jokes repeated for 22 minutes. South Park has ceased being much watch TV and has turned into a show that has 3/4 episodes a season worth watching.

Going into the 200th episode I was very wary; anniversary shows need to strike a weird balance between not acknowledging the anniversary and turning into a clip show. I feel this show hit the sweet spot pretty well. It was not the funniest or most poignant episode they have ever done, but it was funny and brought back enough characters to make the fan boy in me ecstatic. While some jokes were gratingly meta, I think the premise of the episode worked a lot better than I would have initially guessed and they had a real B plot for the first time in weeks. Once you put yourself in this world everything that followed actually made a lot of sense and the show did a good job of using callback to make jokes instead of just having a carousel of former characters or celebrities appearing on screen. As for now I am really looking forward to the conclusion next week and hope it is as strong as this week.

Stray Thoughts

- Stone and Parker have both referenced showing Mohammed in "Super Best Friends" several times in interviews over the years, but it is nice that they mentioned it in the show. And while this satire is a rehash of what they have done before, I still think it is relevant.

- I never really liked Hennifer Lopez or Fat Butt and Pancake Head but I love Mitch Conner.

Treme "Do You Know What it Means?"

Despite or possibly because of its pedigree I was not particularly excited for Treme David Simon's HBO show that premiered tonight about post-Katrina New Orleans. After Season 5 of The Wire I read a lot of interviews with David Simon and one thing became abundantly clear; he wanted everyone to see his world view. The Wire's subtext was fairly overt, but as I read more interviews with Simon where he spelled out the show, I began to worry that he didn't think the subtext was overt enough. When I heard he would be doing a show about post-Katrina New Orleans I was very worried that he would rail against the incompetence of the managing of Katrina with the bitterness and bluntness of the newspaper arc in season 5 of The Wire.

Now that I have seen the pilot, I am able to reform my baseless speculation and I was very pleased with how it turned out. When reviewing Treme I will try to limit my Wire comparisons, but I am about to make one. Like The Wire Treme foregoes exposition in earlier episodes to maintain the shows verisimilitude. The lack of exposition did make the dialogue tough to follow at times, especially since the pilot was 90 minutes. It did require a lot of focus and it definitely could have been a little tighter. Given the depth of previous Simon shows it is possible that nothing was superflous, however right now we only know snippets about these characters and while longer arcs were set in motion to me the pilot felt a series of a vignettes. I doubt I would watch a series solely composed of vignettes in post-Katrina New Orleans, but I think it was a great idea for a pilot. The pilot felt like a series of urban legends and like all urban legends the truth is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a DJ broke into Tower Records or an activist tried to throw a camera into the canal or a restaurant owner served a pre-packaged desert from her purse, what matters is we believe these things happened in this world. Once we believe the stories are true we are immersed into that world. Simon has once again managed to create a living breathing city and I trust that the rest will follow.

Stray Thoughts

- Tons of little stuff that was perfect or near perfect like having the characters speaking over the noise caused by passing-by helicopters as if they didn't' even notice it. This is especially jarring as an audience member who is accustomed to hearing the fluttering of helicopter blades almost solely in action movies.

- As someone who lives in a French speaking city I was very ashamed that I had been calling the show trem instead of tremay for the past 6 months.

-When season 5 of The Wire wasn't in HD I thought there was a chance it was because Simon was a luddite. I don't really care why Treme is in HD, but it is a welcome change.

-It was a shock to see Clarke Peters menacing scowl after growing so accustomed to the mild mannered Lester Freamon.

- Maybe the theme song will grow on me, but right now it feels like it would be more apt in Ethnic Mismatch Comedy 644.