Starting over: The Descendants doesn’t go deep, doesn’t try to

Father and daughter stalk the coma victim's lover.

Hollywood is nothing if not prescient. Behind-the-scenes strategists have their feelers out constantly tuning in to the changing demographics and the latest trends. Or maybe they’re just reflecting life back as they see it? Whatever you choose to believe, The Descendants is evidence again that the movie industry is on to what Jane Fonda calls the “longevity revolution.”

It turns out this movie is about a wealthy lawyer (George Clooney as Matt King) whose wife is clinging to life in a coma after a boating accident. His family trust is about to sell a huge piece of oceanfront property in Hawaii that has been in the family for generations, and as trustee, Clooney’s character seems ready to join the majority and cash in on this land windfall, retire and resume his cushy life jetting to and fro across the islands. Although dressed in casual floral shirts and sandals throughout the entire film, make no mistake, he’s enrolling his daughters in private schools and generally living a caviar life. Sure, the character is depicted as a bit of a spendthrift, but come on–he’s enjoying a pretty good time in paradise and I don’t think anyone really believes that he is suffering despite his narrated confession: “I don’t want my daughters growing up entitled and spoiled. And I agree with my father – you give your children enough money to do something but not enough to do nothing.”

Life is good, well maybe not

Life is good except for one small hiccup. His wife is in a coma and he’s just learned that she has no hope of recovery. According to her wishes left behind in a “living will,” she wanted to be “unplugged,” and allowed to die without intervention. Well, maybe there is just one other small hiccup. It turns out his wife has been in love with another man and having a torrid affair. Oh, and it seems that his oldest daughter, Alex (played exceptionally well by Shailene Woodley) knew about the affair, hence the rocky relationship between the two of them. Suddenly, Clooney’s character is a lot more interesting and the movie transforms into something else, entirely. Thank goodness, because it started out kind of boring.

The film cashes in on the demographic of the boomers who are now living almost 30 years longer than the previous generation and are pretty “buff” while doing so. I give you Exhibit A: Clooney, who at 50, looks pretty capable of starting a “second life” after his wife’s accident, whereas he may have been considering retirement and golfing with the geriatric set a generation ago. With divorce rates climbing and economic conditions deteriorating, people are looking at starting over in their 50′s, rebuilding with new relationships and second, or even third careers. Of course, I may be a bit biased here, given my personal experience, but I do think the observation is still valid. This a story that could be inspirational for a whole generation of younger boomers, in particular, and perhaps even Generation X’ers who are notoriously cynical but enjoy a bit of fantasy now and again.

Fresh: Woodley is the best

Prepared to be a little jarred by the family dynamics here. If you don’t have teenagers, you might be horrified by the way Woodley’s character interacts with her father and her younger sister (f-bombs dropping everywhere). Having a fairly straightshooting daughter of my own, I thought maybe they had modelled Alex after her and was pretty impressed by this depiction. Confronted with some harsh adult realities at a relatively tender age and left to fend for herself trying to figure it out, Alex puts on a tough veneer for the world. The beauty of this portrayal is that she manages to rage on about “twats” and bosses her father around, while still appearing vulnerable and fresh-faced. Her optimism takes the form of a boyfriend who she “adopts” into the family and who epitomizes both qualities–props to actor Nick Krause as her sweet sidekick, Sid. This woman is going places, both in the movie and as an actress. Expect to see a lot more of her in the future.

So, King is now “victim” as he unravels his wife’s web of infidelity. It turns out that not only is her lover married with two kids of his own, but he also stands to gain financially by the sale of the family property. Clooney’s performance as the devastated land baron is nuanced and deserves the accolades, but I’m not sure this is Oscar-worthy. I found the movie to be pretty glib about the infidelity, as though it was a “no-fault” occurrence. In fact, when King confronts the guy who bedded his wife (in his own bed, it turns out, as Clooney’s character interrogates him for details), he wants to know how it happened. The realtor, Brian Speer, shrugs and says it “just happened.” King responds angrily, “Nothing just happens!” and the response from Speer is, “Everything just happens.” Everyone is off-the-hook here it seems, except when Speers wife, Judy, discovers the affair and shows up at the hospital to confront the comatose woman who, as she says, “tried to steal” her husband. A very strange moment in the film, as King appears embarrassed by her devastation and tries to protect his wife, gathering up the blubbering woman and pushing her out the door.

King of glib

This is the same guy who decides to tell his oldest daughter that her mother is going to be taken off life support while Alex is doing laps in the pool.  Then, he asks a doctor at the hospital to break the news to his youngest daughter. Huh?!! He appears to be emotionally stunted and totally confused, even turning to Alex’s boyfriend for advice. When it turns out that this young man has recently lost his own father in a drinking and driving accident, King’s reaction is to stare blankly back at him, too caught up in his own problems to even reach out. I guess people are often like this in real life, but this is another reason why the ending doesn’t work for me.

At the end of this film, I felt a little hollow, when I think I was supposed to feel a more hopeful. I’m also wondering if the ending of the movie isn’t overly romanticized. The film is written and directed by Alexander Payne who also directed the wonderful “Sideways,” which is one of my favourite movies. He is quoted as saying that he believes there is an audience out there for literate, “slower, more observant, more human films.” I’d be all in favour of that, but let’s not scrimp on insight in the process. There is cause and effect here, life is not completely random.

Then there’s the final scene with King curled up on the couch with his two daughters watching a documentary on TV. It seemed to suggest that everything was going to be alright and everyone would do just fine. A fine message but let’s not turn Clooney’s character into a SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy). He was no such thing and to end on this note was a little lame.

Tags: movie reviews, George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Descendants, Jane Fonda, film reviews

Alberta Election 2012 — Content curation

Watch for daily curation of content related to the upcoming provincial election in Alberta on my Scoop.it topic.

http://www.scoop.it/t/alberta-election-2012

Here’s a recap, to date:

Feb. 17, 2012 – Ghosts: Healthcare haunts PCs, left-right is a spectre of the past and who are the mysterious donors behind the WRP’s $2.1M? Spooky.

Feb. 16, 2012 - Blow-ups: Explosive tweets, missing middles and blowing up the voting system. The aftermath of today’s election fireworks are summarized here for you.

Feb. 15, 2012 - Hash: Rehashing wait time targets for the ER, choosing a hashtag for the election and just a mess with chief of staff forced to apologize for bullying. Throwing it all together in one place for you!

Feb. 14, 2012 - Bullying: Boycotting breakfast, legalizing firetraps and undignified burials. A banner day in the news for the government. Curating election news for you daily so that you can find all of the news to piss you off easily in one place.

Feb. 13, 2012 - Falling: Facilities falling into disrepair, small business falling out of love with the Alberta government, Green party rises up from the ashes and falling head over heels for new power lines.

Feb. 10, 2012 - Buying time: Redford budget banks on a boom, Alberta party says the govt stole their idea to consult, Daveberta says the PC message is to remain calm.

Feb. 9, 2012 - The Big Deficit: Redford projects 5th straight deficit, shows a deficit in ideas for the future, while the opposition parties point on the deficit in democracy within the PC party.

Feb. 8, 2012 - The Big Reveal: Redford hints at taxes but won’t reveal, students reveal all as they register to vote, Redford refuses to reveal top-up payments, Wildrose candidate reveals too much and the Alberta Liberal Party reveals its report card on membership involvement in policies.

 

 

Tags: abvote, Alberta, alberta liberal party, Alberta Party, Canada, democracy, election, NDP party of Alberta, Progressive conservative party of Alberta, Wildrose Party

Houston inspired a generation — and still does

We’ve seen our share of celebrity deaths recently. The death of Amy Winehouse hit me pretty hard, I was a fan and I wrote about it here on my blog. But after hearing about Whitney Houston, I suddenly feel like I’ve been hit by a truck.

It’s not that I was a particularly big follower of Houston, so I’m struggling to explain it. Sure, I loved her voice, but I don’t have any of her music on my iTunes playlist and would have never listed her one of my favourite performers… And that makes me pretty sad.

As the tributes began pouring in, I realized suddenly how many people she inspired (including some of my other favourite artists) and how she had tried to help so many others move forward in their careers, even though she was clearly struggling in her personal and professional life.

I also began reflecting on how her music really was the backdrop to my own life, like a movie soundtrack that is so subtle, yet, so in tune with the storyline.

Generation X was an intersection of two worlds

She was close to my own age and grew up in an era that many might find hard to understand now. Technology did not play a significant role–schools had no computers, or even calculators (which were not allowed). Gender roles were in flux. Teenaged-girls were bombarded with conflicting ideas about what it meant to be a woman. From the “free love,” Pill-induced sexual frenzy of the 70′s to the more traditional parental encouragement of restraint, chastity and marriage to a “nice boy,” it was difficult to figure out what was expected of you and what success should look like.

Houston’s music had that juxtaposition of sweet vulnerability, tempered with the stubborn realism that was such a part of my generation. Even today, I find myself and others of my age to be very cautious about the future, although deep-down wishing to experience that wild enthusiasm we witnessed in the boomers who went before us. We’re a little jealous that we were robbed of that ability to just let go and be unrestrained in everything (we grew up with the spectre of AIDS, after all).

In 1963, the year Houston was born, the assassination of John F. Kennedy represented a turning point. Here in Canada, we had the FLQ crisis unfolding with bombings and the spectre of political turmoil. The heady ideas of a brighter tomorrow were dealt some pretty harsh blows during these years.  In 1968, when Houston was just starting elementary school, Martin Luther King Jr. was also assassinated. There was an ominous feeling that change, once thought to be imminent, was going to be a lot harder than anyone imagined. Born in the shadow of the baby boomers, we Generation X’ers represented a new pragmatism. We’ve always had a certain caution about the future, knowing the bulge of the generation before us was going to forever determine our own future prospects.

She blew us away

Houston’s music was always epic (with a voice like that, how could it not be?) and even in her mid-20′s she literally blew onto the music scene like a hurricane with her anthems of courage and overcoming challenges — “No matter what they take from me …They can’t take away my dignity” (Greatest Love of All). It’s as if her early songs, filled with an attitude of hopeful innocence, unvarnished optimism and genuine romanticism, were designed to bolster the sagging spirits of an entire generation. I believe she did her best to lift we Generation X’ers up and give us some hope that things were going to get better.

Then, she met Bobby Brown. Now, I’ve got nothing against the guy, but I have a feeling that he wasn’t all that good for Houston. Just a hunch.

Nonetheless, she married him in 1992, their daughter was born in 1993 and they stayed together for 15 years. The 90′s were certainly tumultuous times and Houston’s music seemed to become much less hopeful. There was: “I Have Nothing,” “Why Does it Hurt so Bad?” “It’s Not Right, But It’s Okay,” and “Fine.” Those are just a few samples of her songs from the years post-Brown. Of course, I’m being unfair and who knows what the reasons were for this artistic swing in her music towards themes of loss, pain and compromise?

Despair does damage

In “Run to You,” she sings, “there’s no one there, no one cares for me” and the lyrics are so incredibly tragic. The despair and disappointment in this song are so palpable that it makes me tear up.

When I think about Houston, dying alone in her hotel room at almost my exact age, I’m left with a renewed determination to not let my own life’s setbacks (I’ve had a few lately) get the best of me. Houston is continuing to inspire and motivate this Gen-X’er, even if, sadly, it is by her death. In the words of one of her most recent hit singles:

I look to you
I look to you
After all my strength is gone
In you I can be strong

Tags: baby boomers, Gen-X'ers, Generation X, music, Whitney Houston

Back in the day: Old marketing brochure for Carleton features Fort McMurray newspaper

The Fort McMurray EXPRESS was a weekly newspaper in the northern Alberta town in the early 70′s, 80′s and early 90′s. The newspaper’s publisher, Irwin Huberman was an early mentor of mine and a Carleton graduate, which is why I think the Carleton University School of Journalism featured the newspaper on its cover. This is the promotional brochure from the early 80′s that influenced me to apply for admission!

Tags: Carleton University, journalism

An old game’s revival: Winning and losing your marbles (From June 11, 1986 issue of the Fort McMurray Express newspaper)

Kellie Gauthier (center) and "marble buddies" show off their collections of "plainies," "boulders," "galaxies" and "steelies."

From the archives: One of the first feature articles I ever wrote while working for the weekly newspaper in Fort McMurray, called the Fort McMurray Express.

*******************************************************************

How the circle goes round and round?

In recent years, young consumers have been bombarded by a barrage of high tech toys, computers, designer dolls, war games and robots.

But there’s a “new” game capturing the school yard attention of students throughout the city. To those of older years, it involves a traditional game with a few new wrinkles.

Yes, the age-old game of marbles is back in town — with a passion.

EXPRESS staff writer Jody MacPherson spent Monday lunch at the Good Shepherd schoolyard, learning the vital differences between a steelie, creamie and other characters of the marble trade.

Stories by Jody MacPherson, Staff Writer

The schoolyard is a different world at recess.

It’s a world where marbles are traded and cherished, where a strange language is spoken and where the games are played in the “marble fields.”

At Good Shepherd Community School, kids of all ages clutch their marbles in plastic bags and ice cream containers. They venture out into the schoolyard to play games like “hitsies” and “potsies.”

“You have to hide them when you’re in class,” says Kellie Gauthier, 10, “or the teachers will take them away from you.”

Gauthier says he has 2,605 marbles and that he and his brother are “marble buddies.” Between the two, Gauthier says they have about 8,000 marbles.

He says everyone plays marbles, both the girls and the boys.

“The girls cheat you sometimes,” he adds.

Gauthier says he once had two of his prize marbles stolen by a girl but he had no way of proving it. He says he thought he might have to use tape to mark his marbles, but decided not to.

Marbles usually change hands quickly in the schoolyard. There are a dozen different games and they all involve risking your marbles to win someone else’s.

In “hitsies,” the object is to try and hit a marble resting on the ground with your marble. If you hit it, you win both marbles, but if you miss it, you lose both.

In “potsies,” participants try to be the last marble in the “pot,” a shallow hole in the ground.

There are names for each type of shot and different variations on the games. Everyone in the schoolyard understands the jargon of marbles and they speak it fluently.

Each type of marble has a different name and some are more valuable than others. “Galaxies” and “crown jewels” are the two most valuable marbles.

The marbles are bought in toy stores and some, like “steelies” are ordinary ball bearings obtained from their parents.

Occasionally, someone will get tired of their marbles and yell, “scramble.” The marbles are then thrown into the air and other kids rush to recover them.

In the world of marbles, collections are won and lost very quickly.

When the bell sounds to end recess, the marbles are safely stowed in desks and lunch kits and it’s back to work.

MARBLESPEAK: Talking like the pro’s do

Marbletalk is easy to learn. All you have to do in most cases is add “sie” on the end of normal English and soon you’ll be conversing with the most avid marble collector.

For quick reference, here’s a list and an interpretation of the most common terms in marbletalk.

Hitsies: a marble game where one person tries to hit the other’s marble from a standing position.

Potsies: the object is to be the last marble in a shallow hole in the ground called a “pot.”

Trysies: this is an attempt at a shot, but you do not get to keep the marble if you hit it, similar to a practice shot.

Flicksies: this is a type of shot which involves a tricky flick of the wrist (there are different variations, for example, the Dutch or Newfie flic, although no one knows why they’re called this).

Cheatsies: this is highly frowned upon.

Clearsies: this procedure involves strategic sweeping of the ground around a pot or a marble to clear a path.

Exchangies: this illegal practice involves switching a marble on a person when they won it legitimately.

Blocksies: when a stray rock or bug runs interference, this call can entitle the shooter to another shot.

Lifties: a type of shot which involves lobbing the marble.

Rabbit ears: this is achieved when a person stands with both feet together and pointing outwards in order to provide a rebound into the pot.

Snap, crackle, pop: this is a shot which involves three attempts to get a marble in.

Eyedrops or bombs: a shot taken from directly above and dropped on the marble.

Jumbos: the largest type of marble, quite popular.

Boulders: the second largest marble, about the size of a bubblegum jawbreaker.

Plainies: the ordinary size marbles, which are also the most common.

Creamies: milky colored swirled marbles.

Peewees: the smalled marbles, these are definitely hard to find in a scramble.

Galaxies: one of the most valuable marbles, these are speckled with different colors.

Oilies: the surface of this marble is slick like an oil spill and a rainbow of colors is evident.

Skunks: these rare marbles are black with a white stripe.

Ghosties: a solid white marble.

Bloody Mary: a solid red marble.

Crystal: a clear marble which is often tinted different colors.

Crown Jewels: one of the most valuable marbles, this one resembles a gem, sor of a combination between a crystal and an oilie.

Spiders: clear except for four colored stripes, all the same colour, in the center of the marble.

Cagies: same as a spider except with five stripes.

Pinwheel: usually black with coloured stripes.

Tags: Alberta, Fort McMurray, Fort McMurray Express, games, history, Irwin Huberman, marbles, pop culture, school

Freedom of the press still worth defending, even in small town Alberta

I may be naive but I still believe that freedom of the press is not only possible, but worthy of defending.

That’s why I’ve commented on Facebook and Twitter about the fact that the nominated candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta in the riding of Highwood (John Barlow) has NOT yet stepped down from his job of Associate Publisher of the Okotoks Western Wheel newspaper. The newspaper is THE major newspaper in the riding with a circulation of  13,250–the only newspaper in the town of Okotoks. Barlow has stated that he will step down, but not until the writ is dropped (the last 30 days of the campaign). Until that time, he will remain in a decision-making capacity at the newspaper.

When I speculated on Twitter about the impartiality of the Western Wheel newspaper as it covers the weeks leading up to the official campaign period, Barlow tweeted the following response (using his personal campaign moniker of @Barlow4Highwood):

I assure you it will not change. The Wheel prides itself on being fair and that will continue. (See the original tweet)

When asked on Twitter if he was tweeting on behalf of the Wheel via his campaign account, he didn’t respond directly, tweeting enigmatically instead:

The Wheel has a great reputation and it speaks for itself. (See the original tweet)

For those who are unaware of the important role of the media in the effective functioning of a democratic society, the Canadian Newspaper Association has stated it thus:

Freedom of the press is an exercise of every Canadian’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the right to gather and disseminate information, to discuss, to advocate, to dissent. A free press is essential to our democratic society. It enables readers to use their Charter right to receive information and make informed judgements on the issues and ideas of the time. (Source: Canadian Newspaper Association’s Statement of Principles)

This is not about John Barlow as an individual (he’s a very likeable fellow, by all accounts) or the Western Wheel newspaper in particular (although I’ve taken exception to some of their news coverage in the past), it’s about the Charter rights of the citizens in the riding of Highwood and how they make an informed decision on voting day. They are entitled to an objective source of news, information about their community’s issues and concerns and unbiased coverage of the election in the days leading up to the official dropping of the writ.

Barlow is in a leadership capacity at the town’s only newspaper, while also representing one of the political parties on the ballot of the next election. This raises a conflict of interest question, leaving the community lacking an assured, reliable, and unbiased newspaper to find out what they need to know to make a decision about who to vote for.

The fact that he is representing the party that has been in power for 40 years makes it even more disturbing. Some have countered by claiming that his main opponent in the upcoming election, Danielle Smith, has her own connections (0r at least her party does) in the media. My argument here is that media bias is bad, no matter where it exists.

I’m not going to try and unravel Smith’s media connections (feel free to submit your comments about this but please be prepared to back up with your sources and I’ll consider posting them). All I’ll say is that the voters in Highwood should be even more enraged by the apparent lack of impartial information available to them. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the Alberta Liberal Party and a former resident of the riding. However, at the time of this post there was no ALP candidate nominated in the riding).

So what is the big deal, really?

The Canadian Association of Journalists examined the ethical issues of journalists seeking public office thoroughly in a paper delivered in October of 2010. Their conclusion:

There is irony in all of this careful consideration of political disengagement in that some media organizations and their owners publicly engage in direct and indirect political activity on a regular basis without apparent consideration or concern about it reflecting poorly or otherwise on their organization, its product or its employees.

However, as chroniclers of history who help citizens make well-informed choices, working journalists bear the burden of a higher public expectation that they submit personal bias and political view to the demands and disciplines of their work. And, perhaps that is exactly as it should be. A range of independent, unencumbered and trustworthy media is a valued asset in any democratic society.

If journalists accept that the “objective method” contributes to the public trust, and that “impartiality” is not just a noble ambition but a relevant goal to honour our democratic responsibility, then it is important to strive to preserve the integrity of the ideal – even if it may sometimes mean voluntarily surrendering some personal freedoms.

The paper states that:

The real question becomes: if and when they do exercise their fundamental political rights, do journalists have special responsibilities as journalists to their employers, peers, or the public? The short answer seems to be: “yes.”

Much of what a journalist does is report on, chronicle or comment upon the activities and behaviours of others, including on occasion, the political activities and integrity of individuals, governments or organizations. The journalist’s works are by definition public and therefore can directly or indirectly influence other people and society’s perception of his/her subject.

If a journalist engages in outside political activity or espouses a particular political viewpoint, this activity could create a public perception of bias, or favouritism that would reflect on the journalist’s work as well as on the media organization for which he or she may work. As a result, many media organizations have policies to govern a journalist’s engagement in outside political activity.

Fortunately, there are now many alternative news sources online and other media outlets in nearby Calgary, but this does not change the fact that the local newspaper gives the appearance that it is on side with the current government. The paper’s credibility and brand is now under suspicion. Citizens in Okotoks may feel they have no truly independent LOCAL newspaper to turn to for coverage of the election and beyond.

This is why I believe PC candidate John Barlow should step down immediately (not wait until the writ is dropped), until after the election. To do otherwise is a clear rejection of his own profession’s standards of ethics, is damaging to the reputation of his employer (whether the Western Wheel understands this or not) and does a disservice to the democratic Charter rights of the people in his community.

As Reporters Without Borders states emphatically on its website:

“Don’t wait to be deprived of news to stand up and fight for it”

Further reading:

The Twitter exchange in full here.

Tags: Alberta, Calgary, Charter of Rights, Danielle Smith, democracy, elections, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, Highwood, John Barlow, media bias, Okotoks, Progressive Conservatives, Western Wheel

Film review: Consider Coriolanus from the comfort of your couch

Coriolanus is confronted by his mother, wife and son.

The new film adaptation of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, directed by Ralph Fiennes, offers up a jolt of modern day movie testosterone, while staying true to the original, brilliant play written in the early 17th century.

With all of the dialogue spoken in Shakespearean English, but the setting so completely in the here and now, you’d think it would take a lot more getting used to than it actually does. (Declaration of bias here: I love Shakespeare and may not be in the majority of movie-goers, judging by the number of people who walked out in the first half of the film screening I attended).

The movie opens with food riots in Rome, where rioters clash with police as trucks are delivering goods to the rich and powerful (the 1%?) while the citizenry goes hungry (the 99%?). This is where we are first introduced to Caius Martius Coriolanus (Fiennes at his scariest, which is saying a lot, given his past roles). He emerges from the line of police officers, shields raised against the mob, looking scarred and ominous. I kept waiting for him to whip out a can of pepper spray! With those piercing eyes so vacuous and vicious, he derides the “curs” for even daring to suggest they deserve food, given that he and others of his ilk have so courageously been defending Rome in battle and otherwise.

Go get you home, you fragments (Coriolanus to the crowd, spittle flying out of his mouth to great effect)

This is not a man who cares much about personal popularity and as we are next shown, his bloodthirsty desire to conquer his enemies in battle is his great obsession. Well, maybe his second greatest obsession, his first being to please his mother (played by Vanessa Redgrave with such vigour and derangement that it might give you nightmares). Yes, there are some extremely uncomfortable Oedipal scenes suggesting an unhealthy relationship between mother and son.  Even Coriolanus’ wife feels like she has to back out of the room when encountering the two of them together, mom tenderly bandaging his wounds. Wife Virgilia (played by the lovely Jessica Chastain) retreats to tend to their small son perhaps feeling just a little left out of the equation. Creepy.

Speaking the language

As the story moves into the battle scenes, the historical language seems less of a barrier, given the timeless nature of war. Not much has changed in that regard–the same killing and maiming whether in the 17th century or the 21st. The importance of leadership when going into battle and the clearly demented nature of Coriolanus’ love of fighting are punctuated here with lots of bloodletting, gun play and explosions to satisfy our love of special effects.

On a side note, I found the use of the hand-held camera during much of the film to be a bit nauseating and distracting. The battle scenes and subsequent crowd scenes often switch to hand-held. A little less of this would have been just as effective and a lot less dizzying.

Bromance or Brokeback Mountain?

It is during the battle scene that we are introduced to Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler **dreamy sigh**), Coriolanus’ mortal enemy. Personally, I think there is a somewhat homoerotic subtext to the relationship between the two men as depicted in this film. But then again, my friends suggested to me that it is more an innocent bromance rather than an all-out Brokeback Mountain-thing. Nevertheless, (SPOILER ALERT) there’s no doubt in my mind that as the two mortal enemies join forces later, which leads to the ultimate betrayal by Aufidius, the final scene is the most lovingly delivered stabbing I’ve ever seen. Butler gives a strong performance as Aufidius and forgive me a little swooning but that guy could make you want to be stabbed (tsk, tsk, get  your minds out of the gutter).

My favourite scene in the entire movie is when Coriolanus appears in a live television studio session (some sort of open mic session) where he needs to win over the audience in order to be appointed to a government leadership role. He already has the endorsement of the elite, but he now needs to placate the crowd in order to avoid “banishment from Rome” (the adaptation to modern times is a little weak here). He’s already been prepped by his mother to not reveal his true feelings, but to win them over with words–true or not. Alas, it is not in his nature to lie as he is a man of impulse and emotion. As the crowd chants and challenges him, he loses his cool, reveals his true contempt for “the people” and walks out, not only on the audience, but on his family and his beloved Rome.

With the many months of live Republican presidential debates, many of them stacked with supporters sometimes jeering and shouting, this scene resonated with me. It seems like our political discourse has not changed much over the centuries. Shakespearean language or not, he captures the mood of today’s televised political debates almost perfectly with this scene.

Populism is fickle

As I mentioned earlier, this film is not for everyone, judging by the number of people fleeing the theatre at the screening I attended. It has been critically acclaimed so far, but the reaction from audiences has been a little less enthusiastic (although the Rotten Tomatoes audience rating is over 60% favourable). The monologues require an intense concentration and there are a lot of extreme close-ups, somewhat exaggerated characterizations and abrupt changes in allegiance that might be a little confounding (and yet, it does speak to the fickle nature of populism).

Political junkies will enjoy this movie, I think and, of course, Shakespeare buffs. Given the fast-moving and unsteady camera work (some might find it overly distracting) it might be a little less jarring at home on the television screen. In the comfort of your own home you could also pause and rewind when necessary if the language becomes difficult to follow (or just to appreciate the richness of the verse!).

I know that it may seem trite to suggest that everyone should be exposed to a little of the Bard’s insight but this comment by Robert Graves really sums it up for me: “The remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he is really very good – in spite of all the people who say he is very good.”

Tags: Coriolanus, Gerard Butler, Jessica Chastain, Ralph Fiennes, Shakespeare, Vanessa Redgrave, William Shakespeare

Film review: An addiction that’s not pretty

Fassbender as Brandon just before he goes on a desperate sex binge.

I delayed seeing the movie “Shame” because I thought it would be a horribly depressing and uncomfortable spectacle to witness. I was right.

Having never left a theatre before the end of a movie (at least in the last 10 years), I nearly did this time, but I got so far as the concession, bought popcorn and forced myself to go back. This is a quietly stark and extremely dark portrait of siblings each struggling with their inner demons in their own destructive way. What those demons are, the audience is not privy to because there are only hints, no big reveal.

My discomfort was more around the way the point of the film was “hammered” (excuse the sexual innuendo here) home so thoroughly and completely. Talk about hitting you over the head with an idea. Okay, so we get it. These two are both so filled with self-loathing that they can’t have normal relationships. And one of those manifestations is blatantly sexual, the other more carelessly so. But both seem hell-bent on self-destruction in their own way.

Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of Brandon Sullivan, a seemingly confident and successful New Yorker, is all about his face. He’s not been given a whole lot to say in this screenplay. It’s his face that must tell the story. From the burning intensity of his stare at a flirtatious married woman on the subway, to his teary-eyed witnessing of his sister’s sultry vocal performance at a piano bar, all the way through to his wild pursuit of his next sexual conquest through nightclubs, gay bars and finally, to the apartment where a pair of hookers lazily welcome him (and his wallet). And that was all in one night! (No wonder he is perpetually late for work!)

Carey Mulligan, as Sullivan’s sister Sissy is a real relief against Fassbender’s intense performance. He is so controlled with his jaw muscle twitching and his taut buttocks flashing across the screen (admittedly, not too difficult to watch) and Mulligan is so, well, messy. Even her smile seems a little lop-sided when she sings, and her clothing is a mismatch of vintage hats and clumsy teenaged innocence. Even naked, she appears to be so human and normal that it’s tough not to feel sympathetic (not the perfectly perky body, her dime-store hair dyed roots glaringly obvious). She is the perfect foil for her brother, who tries to appear that he’s got it altogether. She makes no such attempt, begging her boyfriend not to break up with her and drunkenly bedding Brandon’s married boss.

Clearly, his sister’s presence in his life serves as a reminder to him about whatever his dark secret is and when Sissy shows up, he goes on a sexual bender. It turns out that the timing couldn’t have been worse since Sissy also decides to take matters into her own hands and they aren’t there for each other when they need rescuing.

What’s intriguing about this film is how sex may allow someone to become thoroughly disconnected from reality. We understand this with other substances like drugs and alcohol but this story explores how a sex addiction can do the same. There has been a lot of snickering about the movie and in general, about the idea of sex addiction. Some people question whether it is truly an addiction. I have no doubt that some people (ie. celebrities) falsely claim to have a sex addiction, perhaps to make themselves appear more dark and mysterious or just for publicity, but I also think this movie explains what that sex addiction looks like in a real person. And it’s not pretty.

It’s also a tremendous hindrance to having a normal relationship, as Brandon discovers when he develops a rapport with a woman in his office and tries to have “normal” sex (whatever that means). It would be like asking an alcoholic to have just one drink at a social gathering. He knows he can’t do it and in order to spare himself the embarrassment or perhaps spare the woman the trauma (again, his facial expressions during sex are like something out of the Exorcist), he decides not (or is unable) to go through with it. Then, he promptly produces his credit card and pays for it with a willing prostitute.

Don’t expect the sex in this flick to be titillating. Most of it occurs without the benefit of even a mood-inducing soundtrack to break the silence. I think I was holding my breath through most of the movie and the theatre was so hushed it added to the weirdness of the whole experience. Definitely NOT a date movie, by the way!

Do yourself a favour, skip this movie unless you are a real film buff and want to say that you “survived” it. If you know someone with a sex addiction, you might find it an interesting character study, I guess, or you might find it even that much harder to watch, if that’s the case.

Now I need to tune into some lighter fare (just about anything would be lighter than this one) to help me get this movie out of my head. Heavy, heavy sigh.

Tags: Carey Mulligan, film, Michael Fassbender, Movie review, Sexual addiction, Shame, Steve McQueen

The Iron Lady: A revealing look at an unbending approach

As I exited the theatre last week after viewing “The Iron Lady,” I overheard a group of women commenting on the film.

“I’m disappointed,” one woman said, while others chimed in. “I really didn’t like the emphasis on her dementia and had hoped it was more about what she did while she was prime minister.”

I was a little taken aback, having left the screening with a strong sense that the movie was one of the best I’d ever seen.

As a lifelong liberal, I had always believed Margaret Thatcher to be the antithesis to everything I believed in. I had no understanding of her humanity, no appreciation of her accomplishments–until watching this movie. I was walking from the theatre into the blinding light of day and into the realization that this was a woman I should admire and honour for so many reasons I had never considered.

As such, I was shocked to hear others say they were disappointed.

Thatcher reconsidered

But that is–in a nutshell–the wonder of this movie. It presented to the audience, a totally unexpected and unrelentingly human portrayal of a woman, who has largely been regarded (at least from my limited Canadian perspective) as a one-dimensional representation of a political ideology. Thatcher, the queen of conservatism, played brilliantly by Meryl Streep, held no fascination for me prior to this movie. I realized that I had never taken the time to question or challenge my own perspective of a woman who will most certainly go down in history as a great leader, a courageous person who challenged the status quo and broke down barriers.

The fact that she may be struggling with dementia now is, to me, a secondary message. This is a natural outcome of aging. The fact that we find this uncomfortable or don’t want the filmmakers to discuss it, is an indication of ongoing refusal to acknowledge the natural aging process. It’s like saying that we shouldn’t allow the director to depict her with gray hair or wrinkles. Seriously? The fact is that more than 750,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from dementia, two thirds of those people being women. Margaret Thatcher is an exceptionally brilliant woman. That does not preclude her from developing dementia and that is a worthwhile message in and of itself.

As a storytelling technique, the use of the flashback is common and I was not at all disturbed by its use in this movie. The women I overheard earlier said they found the technique to be distracting. I would argue that it was intrinsic to the telling of Thatcher’s story. How better to illustrate the complexity of this woman than to switch back and forth from the rigid youthful Thatcher to the frail woman she is now, wistfully longing for her beloved Denis and worrying about his well-being (although she knows he is long dead)?

Can’t help but compare to Mirren

Unlike the wonderfully astute portrayal of Queen Elizabeth by Helen Mirren (who is one of my personal favourites), Streep’s Thatcher did not aspire to reflect as much as to reveal.

Known for her unflinching (some might say, dogmatic) belief in a conservative view of the world, Thatcher is shown by director Phyllida Lloyd to be vulnerable, idealistic and ultimately, a woman betrayed by her own party. Her “no compromise” philosophy is illustrated throughout. It’s not WHAT she believed in that led to her downfall, but HOW unflinchingly she believed in it. Surely, this is a recipe for disaster.

This is a film that resonates with me and perhaps with others (likely in the majority) who don’t believe in a strict partisanship. I’ve noticed that the average audience member is more favourable to the movie than the critics. I find myself disagreeing with rottentomatoes.com on critics on this one–which rarely happens.

A movie ahead of its time?

The Iron Lady surprises us with a less than “steely” depiction of the Baroness Thatcher. It also reveals her unbridled ambition, hints at some decidedly un-feminine characteristics, including close relationships with several men (other than her husband) and depicts her husband as almost completely and selflessly committed to her success–talk about a complete reversal of stereotypical roles!

One does wonder if perhaps this is a movie that is ahead of its time and if the critics are not quite ready to confront a relationship that literally turns gender stereotypes upside down. There is a scene where Thatcher pours her heart out to her fiance, Denis, revealing to him that she will never be a conventional wife and instead is possessed of a particularly awful “demon” whereby she has no desire to be simply a homemaker and a mother. If he is to marry her, she demands that he recognize and accept this quality (which of course, he does, without hesitation). That scene simply melted my heart, I must admit.

Darkness and despair

The film touches on all of the major challenges to Thatcher during her 10+ years as Prime Minister. The Falkland Islands, the IRA and subsequent assassination attempt, her clashes with the unions and her actions during the Cold War–all are at least touched upon. There are scenes of discomfort and despair (her relationship with her twins is particularly heartbreaking) and the painful isolation she experienced as the only woman in an all-male “club.” Throughout it all, she stuck to her beliefs and rarely strayed. It is left up to the audience to determine if this was the best approach.

At the end of the movie, it is perhaps symbolic that Thatcher seems to dismiss her daughter Carol’s caring attention. Despite Carol’s selfless devotion, it’s her son that Thatcher pines for. And when he telephones and explains that he cannot, in fact, make it home for a visit with her, Thatcher is so visibly devastated that it is painful to watch. A sad situation for all concerned.

Seeking approval at the end of the day

I’m not sure what to make of this latter revelation except to conclude that Thatcher continously sought the approval of men, whether it was her father, her husband or the men who sat alongside her in government. At the end of the day, it was her son’s approval that eluded her and her daughter’s sacrifices that went unrecognized.

All in all, a complex story of a woman, told by women, and likely to stimulate a lot of discussion.

Tags: "The Iron Lady", Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, Meryl Streep, movie reviews, movies, Phyllida Lloyd

University PR offices need to make peer review process clear

Most of us look to academia for a neutral, well-researched and balanced answer to questions in our everyday lives. We assume that if a paper, essay or “study” is released by a post-secondary institution, that it has been thoroughly researched, the conclusions verified and the report reviewed for accuracy.

There are varying degrees of thoroughness in this regard and not all research is created equal. Our university public relations offices need to be vigilant about making the crucial distinction between in-house review and external peer review.

Peer review ensures academic quality

Most of the professional sciences publish their findings in an external academic journal. The research must go through a rigorous process to ensure the paper’s conclusions accurately reflect the discoveries detailed in the study.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. (Source: Wikipedia)

Although not perfect and undergoing some changes with the advent of new technologies, the scholarly peer review process is considered sound and dependable.

News releases often don’t differentiate

In the social sciences at some Canadian universities, academics do release their work via their own newsletters after undergoing internal peer review. In other words, they have NOT been published in external academic journals or undergone external peer review. This would rarely happen in the field of medicine, for example. The vast majority of medical research findings are submitted to external academic journals for review before they are taken seriously.

Central university communications officers need to differentiate between internal vs. externally reviewed research studies (including those in the professional sciences, such as medicine) when they release these studies to the media/public. Similarly, the media needs to recognize this explain this difference to the public. The public doesn’t always know the difference.

Clarity is needed

Any lack of clarity on the part of the university does a disservice to all research. It creates the false impression that all news releases about research should be considered on equal footing. There should be clear distinction between a study that has been internally reviewed and a research study submitted and accepted by a prestigious publication such as the New England Journal of Medicine!

Universities need to seriously consider how they release news to the media and the public, giving clearer indication of the level of external verification.

Follow the money trail

At a time when an ever increasing amount of private funding is going into university research in Canada, we also need to look at who funded the research. This is how we can judge for ourselves what vested interest that funding source may have in seeing the study  go out via the official channels of an academic institution. It may also tell us whether we can trust the conclusions of the research.

But, as individuals we’re not off the hook either. In general, we need to be more discriminating consumers of information and start asking questions of our sources. Universities, given the funding realities, should not get a free ride when it comes to asking these questions.

Tags: Academic journal, Canada, Peer review, Research