200 Movies, 1 Woman, 1 Blog

This blog post has been a long time coming, so please, forgive me for getting on my soap box. What I need to say is important.

I’m angry that Chris Brown is still a household name, and that he’s still making millions of dollars. If there were any justice, that man would have been forgotten the day he beat up his girlfriend. Instead, he’s a Grammy award winner, and he continues to post petulant tweets hurled at his “haters”. What he doesn’t understand is that people rightfully dislike him because he is an abuser, and that not everyone is going to forgive him. Instead of throwing temper tantrums, his best course of action would be to show the world that he has “changed”. By losing his temper, I see that he has not learned a thing from what he did.

Chris Brown in court.

What is worst is that there are women out there who make light of his actions. It makes me so sad. These women simply don’t understand what it would be like to be hit or abused by someone you love and trust. How being abused emotionally, physically or sexually sticks with you, and impacts your self-esteem. Domestic violence by either gender is NOT RIGHT. And by allowing this man to perform at an awards ceremony and make millions of dollars, we are telling young, impressionable people that domestic violence is acceptable. The women who tweeted that they want to be beat by Brown are, by and large, very young. Someone needs to talk to them, and teach them that they are worth far more than a man who will abuse them. They are worth being loved and treasured. You do not hit someone you love. Period. I think part of the problem is that young women often find something romantic about “bad boys”. I get it, and I think all women (and men, I’m assuming) go through that phase. But people need to realize that they deserve a life partner who loves them and will treat them with respect. Don’t stay with someone who talks down to you or tells you that you aren’t good enough. And if someone hits you, leave for somewhere safe immediately, and call the police.

Brown’s genre of music is far from my preferred music, so this may not mean much coming from me, but I have not listened to a single song of his since his arrest. I also have not watched any program where he makes an appearance. I steadfastly refuse to support the man in any way, shape or form. I’ve been involved in several debates about the merits of his career, and I find that it gets my blood pressure up real high. Just the fact that he still makes millions of dollars makes me so angry.

This article is the best I’ve read about this whole debacle, and sums up my feelings perfectly.

A note regarding the coming week:

I will be on a “business trip” of sorts this week, and I will not be able to update my blog until Friday (likely Saturday) at the very earliest. So don’t worry if I disappear from the online world this week!

One Day, 2011, USA/UK

If you’re a fan of the book, skip this movie.  I mean it.  I read the book, by David Nicholls about a year and a half ago, and it moved me deeply.  It was a beautifully told story, and the two protagonists were rich, complex characters.

The movie removes everything that was beautiful about the book.  It’s a hollow shell devoid of any complex emotion.  One of my favourite scenes from the book (“I love you, Dex, but I just don’t like you anymore”) is a melodramatic, sappy and pathetic scene.  This scene was meant to be heart wrenching.

The story takes place over the course of two decades.  The same day of each year is shown: the anniversary of when Dexter (Jim Sturgess) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) first met.  Dexter is a hard-partying womanizer; Emma is a struggling writer.  They’re polar opposites, but they become best friends, and deal with the underlying feelings they both have for one another.

Hathaway is a major problem in the movie.  She never should have been cast, period.  Her English accent is an embarrassment.  At times she drifts back into her American accent, and at other times she seems to slip into some sort of vague Scottish accent.  She was not convincing as Emma and an English actress should have been cast.

Based on the structure of the story (one day a year for two decades), adapting it into a workable film would have been difficult, if not possible.  This adaptation failed spectacularly.  While the novel gets into the heart and emotions of the character, each year whizzes by in the movie, like an awkwardly placed commercial.  Despite the year being announced on screen, it can be difficult to tell when one year ends and another begins.  The movie doesn’t flow, and there’s no connection between the years.

I guess what I don’t get is how a story that plays so heavily on the emotions of the reader is adapted into this emotionless dreck.  I suppose it’s because the book has so much more space (and, as a result, time) to elaborate on what the characters are feeling, and explore inner nuances of their personalities.  The characters in the movie were so flat.  It was extraordinarily disappointing.

Aging the two actors was the one thing that they did a halfway decent job at.  When one looks at a photo of the characters at the beginning of the movie and at the end of the movie, there is a significant difference.  Over the course of the movie, it is very subtle, which is how aging should be.  I’m not sure if they looked 20 years older by the end, but they both looked at least a decade older than they did.

The movie gave me one thing: I’ve decided to reread the novel.  I want to experience the emotion I felt when I first read it once again.  Please don’t see this movie: pick up the book instead.

Last night, I was searching the TV listings looking for something interesting to watch, and I came across an episode of CBC’s Doc Zone that sounded like it would be interesting. It looked at the role public apologies have in society and how crisis communications works in our society.

As someone working in the communications industry, I have a ton of respect for people who can do crisis communications. I’ve, luckily, never been put in a situation where I have to enact any type of “crisis plan”. I know that working in crisis communications would be unbelievably stressful, and it’s not something that I would want to do as a full time job.

One of the major news stories examined was the BP oil spill. It was a PR catastrophe for BP, in part, because of a number of gaffes on the part of the former CEO, Tony Hayward. The BP brand has likely been tarnished forever by the oil spill. Frankly, the best thing they could do for their brand is to scrap their brand and start fresh as something else.

The documentary also looked at celebrity apologies. Even when the general public hasn’t been directly “wronged” by a gaffe, most celebrities or politicians apologize as a way of restoring good will. It’s essentially an “I’m sorry I didn’t live up to your expectations” sort of thing. Good celebrity apologies and poorly organized apologies were looked at. Celebrities and politicians are put under the microscope, and our society tends to take things personally when they screw up. It’s a bit silly, but, due to the nature of media, we often feel like we know these people personally. We mourn public figures when they pass away, and we get angry when they behave poorly.

My first thought as I was watching the documentary was that this would have been a great documentary to watch when I was in school. It really looked at crisis communications and apologies in depth, and I learned a lot about many cases I was unfamiliar with. I knew little about how Michael Vick’s public redemption was handled, and, while I personally still think he’s a deplorable human being, I have to respect his PR team. Their crisis communication plan was really solid, and he has certainly come further than I ever thought he would. That being said, I’ll never support a thing he does.

Vick making his public apology.

You can watch the full episode here.

I love CBC. I’ll write a dedicated blog post about CBC and how important I think it is for Canadian culture and society one of these days. Their documentaries and investigative journalism programs are fantastic, informative, and so valuable.

I’ve had Netflix for a few weeks now, and I’m really enjoying it.  The selection is better than I had expected it to be – particularly in the documentary category.  I’m a huge fan of documentaries, so I am looking forward to exploring that category further.  I’m also hoping to catch up on TV shows that I missed when they first premiered on television.

There are a few weaknesses, of course.  I’ve noticed that the animation section is extremely weak.  The other day I was looking for an animated film to watch for a school assignment, and there were only two that I had any interest in watching.  I’m hoping this genre gets better in time.

One thing I do like about Netflix is that it takes my preferences into account.  I rated as many movies as possible, and I do appreciate the recommendations.  It isn’t a perfect system, though: I’ve noticed that when I dislike a popular film in a genre I usually enjoy, it does affect my recommendations – generally in a negative way.  It is also limited when the selections themselves are limited.  Many of the romance movies available tend to be romantic comedies, and I don’t care for most romantic comedies.  I love romantic tragedies and romantic dramas, but those selections are a bit more limited.

My one month trial will last another week or two, and I will be continuing my subscription.  Netflix seems to be great for older movies, less popular movies, documentaries and Canadian films.  Netflix also has a few titles that Apple TV doesn’t!  I’m really happy to have access to both.  Since Netflix is unlimited, it also gives me the opportunity to “test” a movie I am unsure I want to watch.  If I’m not impressed with it after a few minutes, I can turn it off without wasting any money.  This also makes me more likely to watch a movie I’ve never heard of, based solely on the description offered by Netflix.

Do you have Netflix?  What do you think of it?

The Station Agent, 2003, USA

This is one of those movies that I should have watched years ago – quite literally. Before it was released in theatres, I won passes to a preview screening of the movie, but the studio had sent the wrong print, so I saw The Human Stain instead. Now I know that The Station Agent is the far superior movie.

It’s a beautifully simple film. Upon the death of his only friend, Fin (Peter Dinklage), a man with dwarfism, moves into the property he inherited from his friend: an old train station. Fin is a recluse who was seeking a life of solitude, but quickly meets the chatty hot dog salesman, Joe (Bobby Cannavale), who parks his truck nearby. Joe wants to be Fin’s friend, but Fin is reluctant, at first. Fin and Joe also meet Olivia (Patricia Clarkson), a woman mourning the sudden death of her son. Dinklage is a gifted actor and I’d love to see him in a leading role again. I’ve always appreciated Clarkson, as well.

While it was a very simple character study at first glance, it was very rich and complex. The characters are so beautifully developed and portrayed. The three lead characters are all outstanding. Fin was a man who had clearly been burned badly by people in the past, and was reluctant to let others in. Olivia was depressed and lost following the death of her son. And Joe was open, loving and accepting towards everyone. They were all lovely and beautiful characters.

The film itself is very thought-provoking. There is one scene, late in the film, that had me questioning whether what happened actually happened, or if it was a hallucination. I can see it going both ways. That particular scene added so much to the movie, and created another layer to the character it happened to.

I felt very moved by the film. Thomas McCarthy wrote very beautiful and genuine characters. I felt like I was watching the lives of three real people unfold. It’s difficult to make the audience feel that way, and it’s also difficult to make a successful character study like this one. It takes great skill as a writer and director in order to make a film like this one. He did an excellent job.

I highly recommend this The Station Agent to people who are interested in a character-driven film featuring some truly amazing performances. It’s outstanding.

I watched the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man the other day. Admittedly, Spider-Man is not my favourite of Marvel’s superheroes. I don’t mind the first two films in the original franchise, but I am far more interested in many of Marvel’s other characters. But the first Spider-Man really started the superhero trend in Hollywood, and we’ve had so many amazing superhero films since 2002.

This adaptation looks like it could be darker than the original franchise. It is another origin story, but I’m hopeful that this film takes a darker turn than the original franchise, which could add interest. Since it hasn’t been long since the first franchise, people may still be “burned out” on Spider-Man, so there’s always the risk of it not doing well. It really needs to differentiate from the original franchise, so only time will tell if they’re able to do that.

What did you think of the trailer?

The other night I watched an episode of The Nature of Things that looked at “American” tigers.  These tigers are the descendants of tigers taken from the wild in order to satisfy the desire for exotic pets.  There are more captive tigers in the United States than there are wild tigers.

It is unclear what will happen to these captive tigers.  A federal ban may be brought in preventing the backyard breeding of these tigers.  Laws regarding the ownership of exotic animals are becoming stronger.  These are laws that I strongly support, because I do not feel that dangerous exotic animals should be pets.

Tigers with rare markings and coats like this “golden tabby” tiger have become more common because of backyard breeding.

That being said, this documentary offered an interesting alternative perspective.  The genetic diversity of tigers in the wild is very poor, and American tigers offer a wider genetic pool to choose from.  What if American tigers were reintroduced to the wild?  Or their offspring?  I’d never actually thought about it that way, but it could offer hope for the species.  Not everyone feels that it is a viable option, though.  Some feel that American tigers are too far removed from the wild.  They’ve become sedentary creatures too used to captive life, after generations of being bred in captivity.

Even if the genetic diversity of the captive population provides hope for the future of the wild species, I still can’t support keeping them as pets.  Backyard breeding needs to stop.  People have no business breeding tigers without any professional training in biology and wild animal care.  The conditions these creatures are kept in are often deplorable and abusive.  Tigers are roamers in the wild and should not be kept in three metre wide cages.  It’s disgusting.

I recognized one of the interview subjects from another documentary I watched on this subject, The Elephant in the Living Room.  The woman owns six tigers and is a strong supporter of the rights of those who own exotic pets.  I don’t agree with her opinions, or with what she is doing with her pets, but she does seem to be caring for her tigers as best as possible in a home environment.

This documentary was so interesting.  I really respect documentaries that can challenge my perspective on an issue.  I feel very strongly about exotic animals as pets, but this documentary managed to make me consider these pet tigers may have.  Admittedly, I had no idea the state of all wild tiger populations were as dire as they are, nor did I know the extent of the American tiger population.  I thought that tiger ownership was a rare fringe hobby; the fact that up to 10,000 tigers live as pets in America blows me away.

You can watch the episode on the CBC website.

I was lucky enough to get a ticket to the sold out Avenue Q after signing up for the wait list.  I’m really glad I was able to go, because it was a fantastic show.  It was put on by District Theatre Collective, who are based out of Winnipeg.

Avenue Q is a musical comedy mixing puppets and human characters.  It’s a beautiful and hilarious look at life in your 20s and the disappointment and disillusionment that can occur when one searches for their purpose in life.

Princeton (Aaron Pridham) is a young college graduate who majored in English and is struggling to find his way in life.  He moves to Avenue Q – the “rough” area of town, and befriends his neighbours, who are all young and trying to find their way in life.  Kate (a very talented Paige Pooley) is a young kindergarten teacher assistant who finds Princeton intriguing.  Christmas Eve (Stephanie Sy) and Brian (Scott Forbes) are a young couple who are trying to find stable employment.  Them, and Gary Coleman (Connie Manfredi) are the only “human” characters in the musical.

In contrast to Beauty and the Beast, which I saw the other night, the Avenue Q set was very bare bones.  It was obviously a low budget production, but I got the sense that the set must have been very simple on Broadway, as well.  Almost all of the interaction between the characters takes place on the single street, so there is no need for an elaborate set.  The simple set added charm and intimacy to the production. I’m curious to know whether the intimacy would be retained at a larger venue.

I was quite familiar with many of the songs going into the musical.  The songs have become part of popular culture, and most people are aware of at least a couple of them.  That’s the true sign of success.  This musical really speaks to people, because so many of us grew up watching Sesame Street, and being told how special we are.  As people grow up, they inevitably face hardship in one way or another, and it’s easy to feel insignificant.  There’s something so charming about taking that feeling of insignificance, and writing a musical about it starring puppets similar to the ones telling us how special we were when we were growing up.

Unfortunately, the musical only ran from February 2 to 5.  Was extending the run due to its popularity an option?  It will be interesting to see the future work from this talented group of individuals. They hit it out of the park during their first show, so I will be watching out for their future work!

Last night I went to go see Beauty and the Beast. As a huge fan of the film, I was really excited to go see it. It was based on the film, but many plotlines are expanded, and there are new songs (in order to create a two and a half hour musical out of 90 minute movie).

Belle (Emily Behny) is the young daughter of an inventor (Christopher Spencer) who doesn’t fit in, in their small town. She is tired of Gaston’s (a brilliant Logan Denninghoff) constant advances and the mutterings of the town people. After her father goes missing, she finds him at an enchanted castle where Beast (Dane Agostinis) has taken him prisoner. She offers herself in exchange, and Beast must try to woo her, as the only way the spell against him will break is if he learns to love and is loved in return.

In contrast to the Beast portrayed in the film, Denninghoff portrays Beast as more of a awkward and bumbling teenager in the form of a Beast. He does initially have a temper problem, but his attempt at romance are the result of heavy encouragement and instruction by his staff. It did lead to a more humourous production. Lumiere (Michael Haller) also provided much of the humour. Haller was an excellent and powerful presence on the stage. His role was a supportive one, but he stole the show whenever he was on stage.

My mom and I noticed that the play was slightly more “adult” than the film is. There are more slightly “naughty” jokes, and my mom thought that the children may be bored (or scared) during the production. While I did see the film when I was young, it was far from my favourite Disney film at the time. I think it’s one of Disney’s most mature films, and that it is truly more for adults than children. Many of the kids who did attend the production were in princess dresses, which was really cute.

The stage itself was beautifully designed. The stage sets are moved throughout by individuals in what looked to be a monster costume. They all moved elegantly, and I thought that they were part of the show, itself. They could have been a reference to the gargoyles that sit on the castle in the film.

I loved all of the songs from the film. They were beautifully performed. “Be my Guest” was a stand out, as it was the most dynamically performed, and all of the actors truly looked like they were having a ball on stage. I didn’t enjoy the original songs quite as much. Maybe it’s because I knew that Howard Ashman had passed away shortly before the film was released, and that they likely weren’t written by him. I also wasn’t familiar with them, of course.

If you’re a fan of the film and you get a chance to see this production while it’s on tour, I suggest you go! It was a fun, well done, and touching musical.

The other day I was reminded of one of my more embarrassing moments as a film fan. I was 14 and I’d just seen Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I like the movie a lot better now than I did back then, even though I do recognize that it still isn’t a perfect film. It was my favourite Harry Potter book at the time, and I felt very strongly about the film adaptation.

One of my bigger issues with the movie was the fact that I felt that Gary Oldman was miscast. I was unfamiliar with his work at the time, and I felt he had the wrong “look” for the part. I had always imagined Sirius with very long, straight black hair, and a clean shaven face. In retrospect, I imagine shaving would be pretty low on the list of priorities for an escaped wizard prisoner. As a huge Johnny Depp fan, I felt that he was more suitable for the part. This was entirely ridiculous because Depp is American and J. K. Rowling was very firm about British actors being cast in the British roles.

Oh no – not a beard!

In my youth, I had mistaken an “incorrect” look with being incompatible with the part. I also felt that Sirius Black was very underused in the film (and in the subsequent films). This, of course, was not Oldman’s fault, but in my head, I felt that Depp would have solved that problem. It was very silly of me.

Nowadays, I have a ton of respect for Oldman’s performance in the Harry Potter series. The writers didn’t always give him a whole lot of screen time, but he makes the character stand out. He was excellent. I’ve also discovered Oldman’s other work. He’s a very gifted actor, and hasn’t ever received the accolades he deserves. I really respect how he can be very over-the-top, or very quiet and subtle. He’s rarely been the lead actor in a film, but even as a supporting character, he always leaves a mark on the audience. He’s one of those actors I’ll watch a movie for, even if I wouldn’t otherwise be interested in watching it.