Which is Dirtier — ‘Land of the Lost’ or ‘Hangover?’ (Spoiler Alert)

Posted on June 8, 2009 at 3:58 pm

The Hangover and Land of the Lost opened on the same day. Other than that, they have little in common. The Hangover is a raunchy comedy about the aftermath of a Las Vegas bachelor party that would have been unforgettable if any of the attendees could remember any of it. The movie has male and female nudity, substance abuse, and many different kinds of very bad behavior. The movie is rated R, just barely (no pun intended). The still photos over the closing credits merit an NC-17.
Land of the Lost is based on a classic — if cheesy — 1970’s children’s television show. It has dinosaurs and time travel but it is “rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, and for language including a drug reference.”
Both movies are silly comedies with no aspiration to be anything else, but I would argue that it is the superficially raunchier film, “The Hangover,” that is more moral and a more entertaining film as a result. “Land of the Lost” treats its female character (played by the talented and beautiful Anna Friel) as a prop. She is there to provide exposition, to be literally pawed by an ape-boy, and to gaze adoringly at Will Ferrell. Although she is the only intelligent and capable person in the film, she is treated as an afterthought. The other characters behave badly and treat her badly and there are no consequences of any kind.
“The Hangover,” on the other hand, is a movie entirely about consequences. The bachelor party guests spend the whole film piecing together the bad choices they made the night before and paying for them financially, emotionally, and even spiritually. They all learn something important and we leave confident that they will be unlikely to repeat their mistakes (except that they have already agreed to a sequel). Furthermore, legally and morally they are not completely responsible for the worst of their behavior because they were drugged, two of them inadvertently.
No one is arguing that either of these films is any kind of morality tale. They are both helium-weight comedies. But I think “The Hangover” is a better film because it fits the innate audience desire for justice and lessons learned. The vicarious thrill of the transgressive behavior is not nearly as satisfying as seeing the characters learn some painful lessons and pay for their mistakes.
For a little more insight into the MPAA’s approach to ratings, take a look at what they have to say.

(more…)

Nancy Drew: Sotomayor’s Childhood Influence

Posted on June 3, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, like Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a big Nancy Drew fan when she was a young girl. I’ve been touched by the reports of Judge Sotomayor, growing up in a housing project, devouring books about the strong, capable, curious, honest, and courageous Nancy Drew. The Girl Sleuth is a fascinating book about Nancy Drew and other heroines of series books for girls, written by novelist Bobbie Ann Mason, who was also inspired by these feisty fictional heroines, a potent reminder of how important the media influences on our children can be.

The Last of the New York Jewish Movie Comedies?

Posted on June 3, 2009 at 8:00 am

New York Magazine uses the upcoming release of a new film by Woody Allen to consider whether this may be the last of the kind of comedy he exemplifies, the New York Jewish schnook, nebbish, and shlemiel comedy, focusing on “a brand of Jewish humor that has, in recent years, been all but scrubbed out–neurotic, depressive, abrasive, excluded.”
The movie is “Whatever Works,” directed by Allen and starring Larry David, like Allen a witer/director/performer specializing in being “neurotic, depressive, abrasive, excluded.” The film is a throwback to Allen’s earlier films. It is his first movie in years to be set in New York, the location for his best-loved movies. Allen not only named one of his most acclaimed films “Manhattan” but made the city one of the most appealing characters in the movies. Often his lead characters’ only unconflicted affection is directed at the city.
And those nostalgic for Allen’s earlier work have a special treat in store.

Whatever Works, which opens June 19, is both a greeting and a farewell, a film that marks Allen’s return to the city he abruptly abandoned, cinematically speaking, several years ago, as well as a reminder that a certain kind of comedy of which he was once the undisputed master has vanished and is being resurrected only because of an unlikely convergence of circumstances. Remember the Woody Allen of the seventies, the guy who several generations of New Yorkers decided was the comedic poet laureate of their era of the city? The man with whom they had a great first date (1973’s Sleeper) that deepened into a full-on relationship (1977’s Annie Hall) and then further enriched itself into true love (1979’s Manhattan), because we always fall in love with the one who makes us laugh? Whatever Works is, in essence, the missing movie from that period–the film that would have rounded out the New York phase of Allen’s early career if only he had made it.

The whole article is well worth reading and I especially enjoyed the chart with the history of almost 6000 years of Jewish humor.

Related Tags:

Understanding Media and Pop Culture

BFCA Summer Movie Predictions

Posted on June 2, 2009 at 10:00 am

The Broadcast Film Critics have announced their predictions for the movies of summer 2009:
Summer Blockbusters:
Star Trek
Up
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Summer Sleepers:
Away We Go
500 Days of Summer
The Hurt Locker
Outstanding Performances of the Summer:
Johnny Depp in “Public Enemies”
Meryl Streep in “Julie and Julia”
Brad Pitt in “Inglorious Basterds”

Related Tags:

Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Jon and Kate: Can Their Marriage Be Saved?

Posted on June 1, 2009 at 8:00 am

Why do we care so much about Jon and Kate?

Why is the show about these two people and their twins and sextuplets so popular? And why are their marital problems getting so much attention?

I feel terribly sad for the entire family. Jon and Kate were a young couple with twins who wanted another child and so had fertility treatments which resulted in sextuplets. They now support their 10-person family by allowing television cameras to follow them everywhere and they have become celebrities, with Kate spending a lot of time on the road promoting her book and giving talks. The younger children, who just celebrated their fifth birthday, have grown up on camera. Their show is popular because people enjoy seeing how they cope with the unimaginable challenge of feeding, bathing, transporting, and listening to eight children under the age of seven. The children are cute and Kate’s unfazed normalcy seemed to be grounded in her Christian values, though many people commented on her harsh on-camera treatment of her husband. She once memorably told him he was breathing too loud.

Before the new season of the show began, there were supermarket tabloid headlines that Jon and Kate were becoming estranged and possibly having affairs. The couple addressed these questions on the season’s first episode, but what was most important was what they did not say. They did not deny the rumors but they did not say that they were committed to staying together.

Here is a clip from happier days, but even there, you can see some stress between them. Look at the body language as Kate leans away from Jon and compare it to the light-hearted home movie footage of their engagement, wedding, and honeymoon. It is impossible not to be touched by the tenderness of their vows and not to hope that they find their way back to one another.

Jon and Kate have experienced enough stress to drive a dozen couples apart. They got married very young, they very quickly produced eight children, and then, and this may be the most stressful of all, they opened up their lives 24-7 to the viewing public. Any parent of very young children knows what it feels like to see your romantic partnership turn into an endless series of logistical demands. It can be very difficult not to feel frustrated and impatient, and parents often feel they are losing a sense of themselves as separate, functioning, and appealing adults. Jon and Kate may find it difficult to resist whatever reminds them that they merit adult approval. That could be a flirtation with another person or with the audience as a whole — Kate appears to enjoy her glamorous makeover and the attention from audiences.

Jon and Kate will have to work out what is best for them and for their family. But we, too, should give some thought to the part we have played as their audience — whether for the show or for the salacious gossip. Were we too ready to believe the best about them? Are we too ready to believe the worst? Think of poor Susan Boyle, that gentle, unassuming soul who just wanted to sing and who has been almost crushed by overwhleming adulation and scrutiny since her appearance on “Britain’s Got Talent.”

We need to understand that it is absurd to think that “reality” shows give us any real sense of what truly goes on It is a fantasy to think that Jon and Kate could handle all of these children as the show made it appear. And it is an even bigger fantasy to think that the show itself does not fundamentally change the dynamic and relationships it depicts. We need to understand that just as Heisenberg proved that sub-atomic particles behave differently when they are observed, so the very fact of our watching people changes their lives, often for the worse. Look at the Jon and Kate who are so tender in reciting their wedding vows. If they knew what they would have to give up in exchange for the money and product placement and notoriety, would this be what they would have wanted for themselves? For Aaden, Joel, Alexis, Hannah, Leah, Collin, Cara, and Madelyn?