the groundhog day project

It was only this morning, going into the afternoon, but I cannot recall the exact order. Two things that twisted together into an idea to explain something here in this blog. The first (or second) was someone posting some photo on Facebook and referencing Barthes' punctum . The second (or first) was that I was watching last week's episode of Showtime's The Affair and Noah (Dominic West) is drunk and starts to make out with his publicist and... sure he had an affair throughout the first season (that was the setup for the show, of course), and much of this second season has been about how the various characters circling around the central couple(s) are all imperfect, they make mistakes, and sometimes things turn out okay anyway. But, here--and I've written in this blog before about how I can get attached to characters fairly easily sometimes--I was mad at Noah because this seemed like one mistake too many when he is supposed to be... or maybe I just want him to be a bet

Ginger Snaps 2 Unleashed . Opening credits-- not being a montage created by the characters=trying too hard.         I think they have lost their metaphor.         Unless you get into to the whole concept of "hysterical" and how women were more likely than men to be hospitalized for (supposedly) mental disorders. Historically, I mean. Seriously, though, does it even matter that this main character is Brigitte from the original film?         Ghost (Tatiana Maslany) is pretty funny, though.

"I fear this is going to be offensive to women everywhere." - my daughter Saer as ginger Snaps begins again. Ginger to Brigitte: "Just so you know, the words 'just' and 'cramps' don't got together." Saer" That's true... story of my life. Nurse tells Ginger to expect the blood and pain for the next 30 years or so. Saer says--sarcastically, of course--"Yay!"         And she wandered off. Gotta love that aisle--"feminine hygiene" products opposite condoms and hair dye.   As the film continues, I'm wondering where the line falls between being offensive and commenting on the stuff that is offensive. Like Ginger's line--"A girl can only be a slut, a bitch, a tease, or the virgin next door." Sure, she's referencing what the world-- men --think about girls. But, the film never quite contradicts what she's saying here. Brigitte remains the "virgin next door" while Ginger quite lite

For some reason, Ginger Snaps is one horror film I have just never gotten around to. I just noticed on IMDb that is was made in Canada. That might be why I've been avoiding it, either consciously or unconsciously. Canadian horror films generally do not work for me... But, it starts well enough. Suburban neighborhood. Kid finds mutilated dog's foot in his sandbox. Turn to a couple teenage girls--sisters Brigitte (Emily Perkins) and Ginger Fitzgerald (Katharine Isabelle)--who apparently enjoy staging photos of themselves as dead bodies in various fatal circumstances. (That one of the lead characters is named Ginger makes me wary, like the the title is going to be a bit too literal in its figurativeness.) Brigitte and Ginger are the resident goth girls--they wear necklaces with bird skulls on them--in an otherwise (apparently) cleancut--as if that is inherently a contradiction--school. Requisite outcasts. Quick sidenote: I was looking up an image to use and realized why Em

Sometimes I have very little interest in writing about film because film reminds me of life and life is, of course, more important. I saw Creed tonight (and I'll offer up a brief review in a moment) and it got me thinking about my pet subject here since the Groundhog Day days--identity, how we choose (or don't choose) to be who we are. Creed hinges on both identity and the much simpler--or far more complicated--Hamletian dilemma, "to be or not to be." Or, on a more literal level within this story, "to fight or not to fight." To fight in the ring or--and, not this is not much of a SPOILER because trailers already gave away the film's second "pinch"--to fight cancer. The film hits the same basic beats as the original Rocky , with a few nice echoes of beats from other films in the franchise--notably Rocky III and Rocky IV ... probably the others as well, but I have seen those two entries more times than the others, so I am more familiar, and

Let us stick with rebels , but (semi-)real ones, and we will take them seriously. The Company You Keep references the Weather Underground right away, uses some news footage-- (Though I'm pretty sure it gives people's names that were not actually part of the organization... and, I trust my impulse here. I've written four papers (one published) about (at least in part) Weatherman (aka the Weather Underground Organization), the most recent just this past spring and I've been meaning to look into getting that one published. Thing is, there a few things I know a lot about in recent years-- Groundhog Day and Weatherman are two of those things. Got a copy of the FBI file and everything. Anyway, my impulse on the name Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon) proved correct when we jump forward in time and that's one of our main characters. So, fictional.) --lets us know that this is going to be about the past coming back to haunt the present. A common enough theme. Solarz is ar

Screw this movie. I say that because I saw it back in 1986 and I know how it ends none of this is even going to happen... Must I warn you of SPOILERS for a film that is nearly 3 decades old? ...because the end of this movie lets us know that none of the movie happens. Movie starts with John (Emilio Estevez) in the tub and ends with John still in the tub, imagined the whole thing. More narration as the "fantasy" (i.e. the plot) gets going. Oh, the movie is Wisdom . Came out at the end of the year, tied for #1 at the box office with Witchboard (which I would later see on video. Movies I'd seen in the theater in the top 15: Platoon , #5 in its 3rd week; Little Shop of Horrors , #7 in its 3rd week; Lady and the Tramp (reissue) (maybe; I'd seen it on video for sure, may have seen it when it was reissued), #8 in its 3rd week; Heartbreak Ridge , #12 in its 5th week (and which was the first movie I saw at the then new United Artists Marketplace in Old Town Pasadena, whic

The Night Before --the new movie starring Seth Rogan, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anthony Mackie, not the 1988 classic starring Keanu Reeves and Lori Loughlin--is fairly straightforward as to how it is marketed and what you're going to get for your money. That is, if you want to see it, you will probably enjoy it. In fact, I don't feel that there's much to say about it that isn't painfully obvious. It's funny, it's entertaining, it's crass, occasionally ridiculous and ultimately quite heartwarming. It's the kind of Christmas movie that makes you want to spend time with the people who are important to you. So, after I saw it, I came home and hung out with my kids. The message is simple--figure out who matters to you and spend time with them.

Allow me to get the obvious out of the way after last week's Hunger Games marathon : in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 , Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence, in case you're living under a rock) actually does stuff throughout most of the film. Almost all of it is even her idea. The interesting thing, though, is that the story still manages to let Katniss kill almost no one. She kills some Mutts--and not the dog-type like in the first film, but some naked albino 28 Days Later -style zombies instead... In fact, that sequence does a great job of building some real tension and giving weight to an otherwise obvious set of deaths to winnow down the main group in the film--oh, SPOILERS will happen in this entry. If you want to see the film and have not read the book, you probably should not be reading this. My complaint regarding that sequence is that the score suggests action film when the sequence plays more like something out of a horror film. Actually, that sequence is one of severa

(Before we get into this sixth and final day with Ex Machina , a note on something I will not be talking about: There's a line of music that plays as Caleb first enters the house, and again as Ava is leaving it, that reminds me of the theme to Jurassic Park . My son, who knows music better than I do, listened to it and said something along the lines of, if they wanted to reference Jurassic Park , they would not have put the line in a different key. Me--I still think it sounds like it. Plus, both films involve locations accessed by helicopter... Seriously, the structure is the same in that regard. Brief intro ( Ex Machina 's being far briefer than Jurassic Park 's), then helicopter ride to the location, a location where a scientist has perhaps taken things a bit too far, eventually endangering lives (note: in the novel of Jurassic Park Hammond dies in the end just as Nathan dies here), then the survivor(s) leave(s) on a helicopter. As a movie blogger, I gotta say, I think

Despite some of the wiggle room I might have created (or tried to create) yesterday regarding Nathan's motives, I think we can safely assume that the character of Nathan is misogynist. The big problem in the film, in terms of the men, is how much worse than Caleb is Nathan, or how much better than Nathan is Caleb? I already wrote about how Caleb makes no effort to include Kyoko in his escape plans, how he simply tries to save the girl who is willing to put out. (So to speak; there is no actual indication toward the sexual between Caleb and Ava, except explicitly by Nathan. But, that information--that Ava is capable of sexual intercourse--is offered why? Because Nathan wants Caleb to fall for Ava. Modern sexist parlance requires that sex be on the table or Caleb will not care about Ava at all. And, Nathan clearly subscribes to such parlance.) Now, there are two paths we can take at this point with this discussion. 1) That Caleb has no (apparent) interest in also saving Kyoko,

Caleb, what's your type? Of girl? No, salad dressing. Yeah, of girl. What's your type? You know what, don't even answer that. Let's say it's black chicks. Okay, that's your thing. For the sake of argument, that's your thing, okay? Why is that your thing? Because you did a detailed analysis of all racial types and you cross-referenced that analysis with a points-based system? No. You're just attracted to black chicks. A consequence of accumulated external stimuli that you probably didn't even register as they registered with you. Did you program her to like me, or not? I programmed her to be heterosexual, just like you were programmed to be heterosexual. Nobody programmed me to be straight. You decided to be straight? Please! Of course, you were programmed. By nature or nurture or both. And, to be honest, Caleb, you're starting to annoy me now because this is your insecurity talking. This is not your intellect. One could assume that Nathan

Let us interrupt the argument regarding gender and sexuality for a for-instance: Two for-instances, I guess. A comparison—Ava putting on clothes, Ava putting on skin. With a brief follow-up to both. WARNING : there will be some naked female flesh in the skin scene. I considered making those images only visible if you click to see them, but I felt that would actually undermine what I am trying to say about that particular scene, especially when compared with the clothing scene earlier in the film. On to the first scene. For context, Ava tells Caleb to close his eyes and then she leaves to a closet, where she selects a dress. She picks out a dress. She models it in the mirror—but we do not see that mirror; we remain close on Ava. There is a very tactile and sensual thing going on here as Ava slides the dress up one arm… …before bringing it down over her body. And, we follow it down her body. Then, it is time for the stockings, and I am reminded of that bit in The Private