Sunday, July 22, 2007
do you see it, too?
Just watched Time to Leave (2005). It was the first time Melvil Poupaud reminded me of Gavin Rossdale, my first rock star crush. I dunno how to describe it, but it's something in the shape of their mouths and jaws. In any case, as I have matured, my tastes in men have changed. Thus, I find Melvil much more attractive than I find Gavin now. I don't even think about Gavin anymore. Besides, it doesn't hurt that Melvil's also French.
happy birthday rhys ifans
Stephanie's taken a page out of my book and has already gone and wished Albert Brooks a happy 60th birthday. Doesn't mean I can't, too, I know. So happy birthday, Alby.
Truth is, so many people were born today. And it hit me last night as I went to bed at two in the morning. "Franka Potente is 33 today. And a boatload of other people celebrate their birthday today, too."
My favorite, of course, is Rhys Ifans. He's too cool. Shame whenever I mention him to my dad, I have to describe him as Hugh Grant's roommate in Notting Hill (1999). I remember him for other things.
Truth is, so many people were born today. And it hit me last night as I went to bed at two in the morning. "Franka Potente is 33 today. And a boatload of other people celebrate their birthday today, too."
My favorite, of course, is Rhys Ifans. He's too cool. Shame whenever I mention him to my dad, I have to describe him as Hugh Grant's roommate in Notting Hill (1999). I remember him for other things.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
as corny as it sounds
I wish someone would say to me, "We belong together. Like traffic and weather." Like traffic and weather.
Friday, July 20, 2007
the most uncinematic disaster movie
Two nights ago, I watched World Trade Center (2006). Haven't written about it in my film journal yet, but I feel the need to elaborate here on how awful a movie it is.
I guess the way I want to approach this is to take its director Oliver Stone as a guide. Stone, as we all know, loves to court controversy. Even his Alexander (2004) was controversial. In any case, I think this flag-waving waste of celluloid is his least controversial film. In fact, it's not controversial at all. For this reason, maybe I should see United 93 (2006) to compare. While the films are not about the same thing, they deal with well-connected instances. But I digress.
What I am trying to say is that I couldn't believe Stone made this. And please don't take this to mean that I am a fan of his films. I'm indifferent to them; take them or leave them, I say. It's just kind of hard not to see that the (albeit light) cynicism exhibited in Platoon (1986) has been completely erased and replaced with hokey sentimentalism parading around as a "true story of courage and survival."
It has been suggested that it is too early to make films about 11 September 2001. There's not enough hindsight. There are so many perspectives out there (then and now) that any filmic treatment of that day's events really should be more sophisticated than a good vs. evil narrative. Oh, this movie avoided that. Instead, it just opted to tell a nationalistic and triumphalist narrative. Never too early (or too late) for ones of those, eh?
At the core, I had a problem. World Trade Center is based on the true-life accounts of Port Authority police officers John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno, two of the five cops from that station who went into the complex after the second plane hit the other tower. When the buildings collapse, all five get trapped under concrete and other heavy and sharp material. But only McLoughlin and Jimeno make it out alive. Just barely. In any case, they had not begun to save any lives when the towers crashed and buried them. And all of this happens within the first half hour.
I do not mean to make light of the situation, but I do not exactly consider McLoughlin and Jimeno heroes. Instead, they are metaphors for the country. (Oh, I guess the filmmakers did use hindsight!) They don't really know what is going on and why it has happened. They don't know if they'll make it (read: recover). In fact, McLoughlin, played by a heavily-accented mustache and a receding hairline called Nicolas Cage, very nearly dies just as he is being rescued. What gets him through it? His wife, who appears to him and says he has to survive because he hasn't finished refurbishing her kitchen. (Life must go on.) There were some lines, which I now forget, that really serve as proof of this theory that they are stand-ins for all Americans. The use of a lot of archive footage includes clips of then-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani trying to bolster some patriotic spirit, too.
Another problem I had was with the subplot of an ex-marine from rural Pennsylvania or something. He watches the events unfold with his coworkers in the office. He is so angered that he storms off, saying something to the effect of: "They don't know it yet, but a war has just begun." Such an intensely delivered over-the-top statement only makes more sense once we viewers learn that he is a former marine. I cannot remember now, but I think this tidbit about him is revealed when he goes to church (the place he stormed off to). From there, he drives down to NYC and lends a helping--and creepy--hand. See what I mean? There are others who also contribute during the crisis. I do not mean to say it isn't wonderful that people came and helped, but please. The cheese is so hard to cut it's so thick.
In fact, the scene with the marine going to the church was the only scene that overtly reminded me of anything by Stone. Yes, he's dealt with recent American history before, but here he brought in religion. And religion played a large role in Platoon. The battle over Chris Taylor's soul. Elias's Jesus-like pose just before he dies. I point this out because before this scene, there was no religion talk or iconography. As I can recall from this time in my life, the discussion about religion only became more heated once fundamentalism was brought up, as it related to the identity of the perpetrators.
Other than these issues, the other major problem I had was that it was almost completely uncinematic. I admit that, not knowing about McLoughlin or Jimeno before seeing the film, I did not know who would make it. I didn't think both would. So in this way, it was a bit of a suspense. But it was boring, and watching their families react was just like watching any other melodrama. Other than the few moments when the filmmakers actually acknowledge that there are more than just two families in distress, the film never really seems monumental. And certainly not as monumental as that day was for those of us who remember it. It was just like any other disaster movie, but with bright red, white, and blue in the background.
As this is the narrative (and some would say, myth) that most Americans have accepted about 9/11--of all Americans banding together to survive and triumph against anyone who tried to destroy the American way of life--how could anyone call it controversial? It is totally mainstream, and the most mainstream movie Stone has ever made.
I ask myself: why did he make this? Hasn't hindsight convinced him even a little bit that there are connections between the Vietnam War and the American-led "War on Terror"? I mean, the triumphalism was missing with Vietnam and definitely from his three movies centered round it. Other than these guys fortunately surviving the attack, what is triumphal about 9/11?
I guess the way I want to approach this is to take its director Oliver Stone as a guide. Stone, as we all know, loves to court controversy. Even his Alexander (2004) was controversial. In any case, I think this flag-waving waste of celluloid is his least controversial film. In fact, it's not controversial at all. For this reason, maybe I should see United 93 (2006) to compare. While the films are not about the same thing, they deal with well-connected instances. But I digress.
What I am trying to say is that I couldn't believe Stone made this. And please don't take this to mean that I am a fan of his films. I'm indifferent to them; take them or leave them, I say. It's just kind of hard not to see that the (albeit light) cynicism exhibited in Platoon (1986) has been completely erased and replaced with hokey sentimentalism parading around as a "true story of courage and survival."
It has been suggested that it is too early to make films about 11 September 2001. There's not enough hindsight. There are so many perspectives out there (then and now) that any filmic treatment of that day's events really should be more sophisticated than a good vs. evil narrative. Oh, this movie avoided that. Instead, it just opted to tell a nationalistic and triumphalist narrative. Never too early (or too late) for ones of those, eh?
At the core, I had a problem. World Trade Center is based on the true-life accounts of Port Authority police officers John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno, two of the five cops from that station who went into the complex after the second plane hit the other tower. When the buildings collapse, all five get trapped under concrete and other heavy and sharp material. But only McLoughlin and Jimeno make it out alive. Just barely. In any case, they had not begun to save any lives when the towers crashed and buried them. And all of this happens within the first half hour.
I do not mean to make light of the situation, but I do not exactly consider McLoughlin and Jimeno heroes. Instead, they are metaphors for the country. (Oh, I guess the filmmakers did use hindsight!) They don't really know what is going on and why it has happened. They don't know if they'll make it (read: recover). In fact, McLoughlin, played by a heavily-accented mustache and a receding hairline called Nicolas Cage, very nearly dies just as he is being rescued. What gets him through it? His wife, who appears to him and says he has to survive because he hasn't finished refurbishing her kitchen. (Life must go on.) There were some lines, which I now forget, that really serve as proof of this theory that they are stand-ins for all Americans. The use of a lot of archive footage includes clips of then-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani trying to bolster some patriotic spirit, too.
Another problem I had was with the subplot of an ex-marine from rural Pennsylvania or something. He watches the events unfold with his coworkers in the office. He is so angered that he storms off, saying something to the effect of: "They don't know it yet, but a war has just begun." Such an intensely delivered over-the-top statement only makes more sense once we viewers learn that he is a former marine. I cannot remember now, but I think this tidbit about him is revealed when he goes to church (the place he stormed off to). From there, he drives down to NYC and lends a helping--and creepy--hand. See what I mean? There are others who also contribute during the crisis. I do not mean to say it isn't wonderful that people came and helped, but please. The cheese is so hard to cut it's so thick.
In fact, the scene with the marine going to the church was the only scene that overtly reminded me of anything by Stone. Yes, he's dealt with recent American history before, but here he brought in religion. And religion played a large role in Platoon. The battle over Chris Taylor's soul. Elias's Jesus-like pose just before he dies. I point this out because before this scene, there was no religion talk or iconography. As I can recall from this time in my life, the discussion about religion only became more heated once fundamentalism was brought up, as it related to the identity of the perpetrators.
Other than these issues, the other major problem I had was that it was almost completely uncinematic. I admit that, not knowing about McLoughlin or Jimeno before seeing the film, I did not know who would make it. I didn't think both would. So in this way, it was a bit of a suspense. But it was boring, and watching their families react was just like watching any other melodrama. Other than the few moments when the filmmakers actually acknowledge that there are more than just two families in distress, the film never really seems monumental. And certainly not as monumental as that day was for those of us who remember it. It was just like any other disaster movie, but with bright red, white, and blue in the background.
As this is the narrative (and some would say, myth) that most Americans have accepted about 9/11--of all Americans banding together to survive and triumph against anyone who tried to destroy the American way of life--how could anyone call it controversial? It is totally mainstream, and the most mainstream movie Stone has ever made.
I ask myself: why did he make this? Hasn't hindsight convinced him even a little bit that there are connections between the Vietnam War and the American-led "War on Terror"? I mean, the triumphalism was missing with Vietnam and definitely from his three movies centered round it. Other than these guys fortunately surviving the attack, what is triumphal about 9/11?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
oh well
This post says nothing, means something.
Ooh, I can see the TV behind me reflected in my computer screen.
Ooh, I can see the TV behind me reflected in my computer screen.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
just a tiny little prick
Unbelievable. I was just washing up. And I stabbed myself. With my own thumbnail. Twice. Once on the very tip of my left middle finger. And then on the top side of my left index finger. As they are bleeding profusely right now, I am typing this one-handed.
By the way, I didn't realize I had stabbed myself until I saw the blood on the paper towels I was using to dry the glasses I had washed. Oh, no, I felt each stab as it happened, but I didn't think it was that serious.
I'm thinking I should invest in an emery board.
By the way, I didn't realize I had stabbed myself until I saw the blood on the paper towels I was using to dry the glasses I had washed. Oh, no, I felt each stab as it happened, but I didn't think it was that serious.
I'm thinking I should invest in an emery board.
Monday, July 16, 2007
the poor man's eddie murphy isn't eddie murphy?
I have known for a while that they're coming out with a sequel to Daddy Day Care (2003): Daddy Day Camp (2007). That's no biggie. But what I didn't know until seeing a commercial today was that Eddie Murphy, Jeff Garlin, and Steve Zahn are not returning.
This doesn't exactly surprise me. I admit that at first I figured that the sequel would just follow new characters. Not so. Instead, Cuba Gooding Jr. is replacing Murphy as Charlie Hinton. Cuba's career has been punctuated by Boyz n the Hood (1991), Jerry Maguire (1996), Pearl Harbor (2001), Snow Dogs (2002), and Boat Trip (2002). And now he's that guy they call when Eddie Murphy says no.
What else is surprising about Daddy Day Camp? Fred Savage (aka Kevin Arnold) is directing. Doesn't that just make you giggle?
This doesn't exactly surprise me. I admit that at first I figured that the sequel would just follow new characters. Not so. Instead, Cuba Gooding Jr. is replacing Murphy as Charlie Hinton. Cuba's career has been punctuated by Boyz n the Hood (1991), Jerry Maguire (1996), Pearl Harbor (2001), Snow Dogs (2002), and Boat Trip (2002). And now he's that guy they call when Eddie Murphy says no.
What else is surprising about Daddy Day Camp? Fred Savage (aka Kevin Arnold) is directing. Doesn't that just make you giggle?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
if i were a number, what number would i be?
Stephanie took the Enneagram test by OkCupid, so I thought, why not I? This test, which Stephanie found was spot on when it called her an EIGHT (aka "The Asserter"), proves that we are not exactly the same. I'm most of what this says a FOUR is. But I don't know why we're called romantics. I'm not romantic. Just because I like Jane Austen doesn't make me romantic, does it? By the way, I comment on my results in italics.
My score on The Quick & Painless ENNEAGRAM Test: 4 - the Individualist
My Enneagram type is FOUR (aka "The Romantic")
"I am unique"
Romantics have sensitive feelings and are warm and perceptive.
How to Get Along with Me
* Give me plenty of compliments. They mean a lot to me. Only when I deserve them, please. And yes, they do mean a lot to me. So much so that I won't forget even the littlest one.
* Be a supportive friend or partner. Help me to learn to love and value myself. Please.
* Respect me for my special gifts of intuition and vision. I guess this could refer to my hyper-observance?
* Though I don't always want to be cheered up when I'm feeling melancholy, I sometimes like to have someone lighten me up a little. True dat. I much rather laugh than cry, I think. I mean, I cry a lot. Whether it's because of a movie or just because I'm thinking about sad things.
* Don't tell me I'm too sensitive or that I'm overreacting! Why? Because I already know this.
What I Like About Being a FOUR
* My ability to find meaning in life and to experience feeling at a deep level. Uh, I haven't found the meaning of life. 42 didn't work out.
* My ability to establish warm connections with people. There's only a few.
* Admiring what is noble, truthful, and beautiful in life. I dunno if I do that.
* My creativity, intuition, and sense of humor. I don't consider myself creative or intuitive. I don't think I am funny, but I get things.
* Being unique and being seen as unique by others. I have to admit, this is pretty important to me.
* Having aesthetic sensibilities. I do like the aesthetics of things. I do.
* Being able to easily pick up the feelings of people around me. I'm not very intuitive, but I think I can tell when someone's feeling happy or shitty. Or uncomfortable.
What's Hard About Being a FOUR
* Experiencing dark moods of emptiness and despair. This is the worst of it all.
* Feelings of self-hatred and shame; believing I don't deserve to be loved. Or maybe this is the worst.
* Feeling guilty when I disappoint people. I do, yeah.
* Feeling hurt or attacked when someone misunderstands me. No. It's the other way round. I feel misunderstood when someone hurts or attacks me.
* Expecting too much from myself and life. I think this is how people close to me see me.
* Fearing being abandoned. Yeah, but I don't freak out too much when it happens. I get over it. Eventually. I'm used to it by now. But I still hate it when it happens.
* Obsessing over resentments. I obsess over everything.
* Longing for what I don't have. Not materialistically. And not spiritually. I just want to be happy.
FOURs as Children Often
* Have active imaginations: play creatively alone or organize playmates in original games. This is a tricky one. I don't think I had a particularly active imagination as a kid. Except I did and still do pretend my life is a movie. This, however, did remind me that I invented a stupid game based round a large circle with numbers 1-30 in it painted on the asphalt at my elementary school's playground. There was nothing we could do with it, so I invented a game. That almost no one played with me.
* Are very sensitive. True dat.
* Feel that they don't fit in. Uh-huh. Still feel this way. Probably always will.
* Believe they are missing something that other people have. I'm not a particularly jealous person.
* Attach themselves to idealized teachers, heroes, artists, etc. I don't hero worship.
* Become antiauthoritarian or rebellious when criticized or not understood. I dunno.
* Feel lonely or abandoned (perhaps as a result of a death or their parents' divorce). Yeah.
FOURs as Parents (If and when I become a parent...)
* Help their children become who they really are. Definitely.
* Support their children's creativity and originality. Absolutely.
* Are good at helping their children get in touch with their feelings. Always.
* Are sometimes overly critical or overly protective. Probably.
* Are usually very good with children if not too self-absorbed. Jury's still out.
From:
Renee Baron & Elizabeth Wagele
The Enneagram Made Easy
Discover the 9 Types of People
Harper
San Francisco, 1994, 161 pages
My score on The Quick & Painless ENNEAGRAM Test: 4 - the Individualist
My Enneagram type is FOUR (aka "The Romantic")
"I am unique"
Romantics have sensitive feelings and are warm and perceptive.
How to Get Along with Me
* Give me plenty of compliments. They mean a lot to me. Only when I deserve them, please. And yes, they do mean a lot to me. So much so that I won't forget even the littlest one.
* Be a supportive friend or partner. Help me to learn to love and value myself. Please.
* Respect me for my special gifts of intuition and vision. I guess this could refer to my hyper-observance?
* Though I don't always want to be cheered up when I'm feeling melancholy, I sometimes like to have someone lighten me up a little. True dat. I much rather laugh than cry, I think. I mean, I cry a lot. Whether it's because of a movie or just because I'm thinking about sad things.
* Don't tell me I'm too sensitive or that I'm overreacting! Why? Because I already know this.
What I Like About Being a FOUR
* My ability to find meaning in life and to experience feeling at a deep level. Uh, I haven't found the meaning of life. 42 didn't work out.
* My ability to establish warm connections with people. There's only a few.
* Admiring what is noble, truthful, and beautiful in life. I dunno if I do that.
* My creativity, intuition, and sense of humor. I don't consider myself creative or intuitive. I don't think I am funny, but I get things.
* Being unique and being seen as unique by others. I have to admit, this is pretty important to me.
* Having aesthetic sensibilities. I do like the aesthetics of things. I do.
* Being able to easily pick up the feelings of people around me. I'm not very intuitive, but I think I can tell when someone's feeling happy or shitty. Or uncomfortable.
What's Hard About Being a FOUR
* Experiencing dark moods of emptiness and despair. This is the worst of it all.
* Feelings of self-hatred and shame; believing I don't deserve to be loved. Or maybe this is the worst.
* Feeling guilty when I disappoint people. I do, yeah.
* Feeling hurt or attacked when someone misunderstands me. No. It's the other way round. I feel misunderstood when someone hurts or attacks me.
* Expecting too much from myself and life. I think this is how people close to me see me.
* Fearing being abandoned. Yeah, but I don't freak out too much when it happens. I get over it. Eventually. I'm used to it by now. But I still hate it when it happens.
* Obsessing over resentments. I obsess over everything.
* Longing for what I don't have. Not materialistically. And not spiritually. I just want to be happy.
FOURs as Children Often
* Have active imaginations: play creatively alone or organize playmates in original games. This is a tricky one. I don't think I had a particularly active imagination as a kid. Except I did and still do pretend my life is a movie. This, however, did remind me that I invented a stupid game based round a large circle with numbers 1-30 in it painted on the asphalt at my elementary school's playground. There was nothing we could do with it, so I invented a game. That almost no one played with me.
* Are very sensitive. True dat.
* Feel that they don't fit in. Uh-huh. Still feel this way. Probably always will.
* Believe they are missing something that other people have. I'm not a particularly jealous person.
* Attach themselves to idealized teachers, heroes, artists, etc. I don't hero worship.
* Become antiauthoritarian or rebellious when criticized or not understood. I dunno.
* Feel lonely or abandoned (perhaps as a result of a death or their parents' divorce). Yeah.
FOURs as Parents (If and when I become a parent...)
* Help their children become who they really are. Definitely.
* Support their children's creativity and originality. Absolutely.
* Are good at helping their children get in touch with their feelings. Always.
* Are sometimes overly critical or overly protective. Probably.
* Are usually very good with children if not too self-absorbed. Jury's still out.
From:
Renee Baron & Elizabeth Wagele
The Enneagram Made Easy
Discover the 9 Types of People
Harper
San Francisco, 1994, 161 pages
out of context
OK. It doesn't look like I am going to do much work around the house today. This means I have time to concentrate on writing an argumentative blog post. The topic? I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007).
There are several problems with this movie. I know, I know, can I or should I even complain since I haven't even seen it yet? I think I can.
The film is about two firefighters--friends Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James). According to the commercial, Larry is trying to ensure that his pension is passed along to his kids. The best way to do this, he figures, is to form a domestic partnership with his very straight friend, Chuck.
Now I don't know anything about pensions really, but some things are missing from this. It doesn't make sense. Where is Larry's wife/companion/mother of his children? Is he a widower? What about life insurance? You're a firefighter! (Then again, perhaps it's his high-risk job that prevents him from getting life insurance. This is not just.) More to the point, have the makers forgotten that same-sex marriage, while still a hot-button issue (that has cooled considerably), has not been resolved, for lack of a better word? I mean, I don't think in Brooklyn there are laws in place to protect the financial rights of gay couples. Perhaps it would make more sense if the movie were based in Boston?
Anyway, the film is apparently an "unauthorized" remake of the little Australian film Strange Bedfellows (2004). Now I don't know much about Australian politics or Australians' approach to gay marriage, but somehow it is more believable that Paul Hogan and Michael Caton would have more to gain from putting on the charade (which I do not advocate at all). In other words, I could see Australia having tax laws that finally include gay couples. I just don't see them here.
Another problem I have with the film derives yet again from the commercial I see all the time on TV. It sets up the premise. Understandable. Necessary. But it also introduces an unexpected setback in their plan. Looks like Chuck will fall for a case worker or lawyer or something. Anyway, he falls for Jessica Biel (surprise, surprise; and what's the age difference?). My point here is the commercial/trailer spelled out the whole movie. Heterosexuality gets in the way. It shows that the only reason to see this is to see them make fun of homosexuality because two masculine firefighters not all that secure with their sexuality are going to pretend to be homosexuals. Just for laughs. I may be wrong. It may be that the film has good intentions, to educate the usual Adam Sandler moviegoer about gay people (because let's face it, most of his other stuff is homophobic). In other words, the film may be more sympathetic, but I doubt it. If they wanted to do this, Sandler would play in earnest a gay character in a movie. (Shit. I can't remember the representation of the gay couple in Big Daddy [1999].)
I specifically take offense to the scene in the commercial where they're shopping together. Larry picks up a box of tampons or sanitary pads. Chuck reminds him: "We're gay! Not transsexuals!" This statement, while pointing out the difference, ultimately is just another joke, another gag. I can't explain it, but it doesn't sit well with me. Nevermind the fact that male-to-female transsexuals wouldn't need that kind of personal hygiene product.
Here's another thing that bothers me. Freaks me out, rather. And I just found out about it. Director Alexander Payne and his longtime co-writer Jim Taylor have co-written the script. Maybe this means it would be better than it looks, but I am just shocked that they wrote a fuckin' Adam Sandler movie!
OK. I think I've said my piece.
There are several problems with this movie. I know, I know, can I or should I even complain since I haven't even seen it yet? I think I can.
The film is about two firefighters--friends Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James). According to the commercial, Larry is trying to ensure that his pension is passed along to his kids. The best way to do this, he figures, is to form a domestic partnership with his very straight friend, Chuck.
Now I don't know anything about pensions really, but some things are missing from this. It doesn't make sense. Where is Larry's wife/companion/mother of his children? Is he a widower? What about life insurance? You're a firefighter! (Then again, perhaps it's his high-risk job that prevents him from getting life insurance. This is not just.) More to the point, have the makers forgotten that same-sex marriage, while still a hot-button issue (that has cooled considerably), has not been resolved, for lack of a better word? I mean, I don't think in Brooklyn there are laws in place to protect the financial rights of gay couples. Perhaps it would make more sense if the movie were based in Boston?
Anyway, the film is apparently an "unauthorized" remake of the little Australian film Strange Bedfellows (2004). Now I don't know much about Australian politics or Australians' approach to gay marriage, but somehow it is more believable that Paul Hogan and Michael Caton would have more to gain from putting on the charade (which I do not advocate at all). In other words, I could see Australia having tax laws that finally include gay couples. I just don't see them here.
Another problem I have with the film derives yet again from the commercial I see all the time on TV. It sets up the premise. Understandable. Necessary. But it also introduces an unexpected setback in their plan. Looks like Chuck will fall for a case worker or lawyer or something. Anyway, he falls for Jessica Biel (surprise, surprise; and what's the age difference?). My point here is the commercial/trailer spelled out the whole movie. Heterosexuality gets in the way. It shows that the only reason to see this is to see them make fun of homosexuality because two masculine firefighters not all that secure with their sexuality are going to pretend to be homosexuals. Just for laughs. I may be wrong. It may be that the film has good intentions, to educate the usual Adam Sandler moviegoer about gay people (because let's face it, most of his other stuff is homophobic). In other words, the film may be more sympathetic, but I doubt it. If they wanted to do this, Sandler would play in earnest a gay character in a movie. (Shit. I can't remember the representation of the gay couple in Big Daddy [1999].)
I specifically take offense to the scene in the commercial where they're shopping together. Larry picks up a box of tampons or sanitary pads. Chuck reminds him: "We're gay! Not transsexuals!" This statement, while pointing out the difference, ultimately is just another joke, another gag. I can't explain it, but it doesn't sit well with me. Nevermind the fact that male-to-female transsexuals wouldn't need that kind of personal hygiene product.
Here's another thing that bothers me. Freaks me out, rather. And I just found out about it. Director Alexander Payne and his longtime co-writer Jim Taylor have co-written the script. Maybe this means it would be better than it looks, but I am just shocked that they wrote a fuckin' Adam Sandler movie!
OK. I think I've said my piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
