The Conspirator

Last night I saw a screening of Robert Redford's new movie, "The Conspirator." It's the true story of Mary Surratt, who ran a boarding house in Washington, DC. Her son John Surratt was friends with John Wilkes Booth, who killed Abraham Lincoln. She was arrested and tried for her role in the conspiracy that led to his assassination.

The movie was packed with big names. Robin Wright, formerly married to Sean Penn, played Mary Surratt. She was amazing. And unrecognizable. She sure doesn't look like Buttercup from "The Princess Bride." James McAvoy plays her attorney, who was a captain in the Union army. He starts out not wanting to defend her, but as a lawyer, believing in the rule of law and the US Constitution even in the time of war, really works to make sure the trial is fair and legal.

Since it's a true story, not gonna feel like I'm spoiling anything to say that it does not end well for many characters.

The screening was held as part of the American Bar Association conference. I went with a friend who is attending the conf. So the audience was largely lawyers. Talk about a sympathetic audience.

As I was watching, I wondered if it was filmed in Savannah. The houses where the main floor was on the second, not the easily flooded first floor, seemed familiar. And the fort made me think of Ft. Pulaski. After some internet searching, it turns out that it was filmed in Savannah.

Other big names: Kevin Kline, Alexis Bledel (Rory!), Colm Meaney (O'Brien!), Justin Long (can't stop thinking of him as the Mac guy), Tom Wilkinson. Other actors whose faces I recognized but couldn't place until the credits were Jonathon Groff (Jesse from Glee -- does good smarm), and James Badge Dale from Rubicon. I recognized Norman Reedus right away, who played Darryl in the Walking Dead.

The message was pretty clear that even in the time of war, the rule of law and habeas corpus, etc must be upheld, that everyone deserves a fair trial, and no one should be railroaded into a conviction to satisfy national blood lust. The ghost of Guantanamo Bay and the war of terror was pretty clear. Not a whole lot of subtlety in the movie. The Conspiracy could refer to those who plotted to kill Lincoln and to the Secy of War and the military tribunal that was determined to punish someone.

All in all, it was a good movie. I'd definitely recommend it when it comes out. If nothing else, for Robin Wright's performance.

Avatar and Moff's Law

Saw Avatar in 3-D over the weekend. My thoughts, in no particular order:

1. the 3D use was not egregious. Nothing coming at you to scare you or show off, but used well to literally give depth to the movie.

2. nothing on Pandora looks like it had fur. everything was slick or leathery. very few things were feathery or furry. I know it's hard to make CGI hair because each strand of hair reflects light individually and that's a level of detail that's either impossible to achieve or prohibitively expensive. It make me think about how easy it is to spot a bad hair dye job. The hair is dull and doesn't shine and reflect light the way hair naturally does.

3. the story was subpar. It was like Dances with Wolves with tall skinny Smurfs. I would have liked it more if Neytiri was like a middle status hunter and not the princess of the tribe. And her parents seemed awfully ready to adopt Jake. Why?

4. Jake's progress from Marine grunt to avatar driver to being sympathetic to the Na'vi was well done.

5. Why is the US military working with some corporation to get the mineral unobtainium?

6. Really, could they have been more obvious about the name unobtainium? And was it really necessary to bomb the Na'vi all the hell for minerals underground? Couldn't they just have tunnelled their way underneath and get the minerals that way?

Given that I work with refugees, people who had to flee because their homes were destroyed and their personal safety was threatened, I became really angry at the military/corporation.

Then today I read this post at Racialicious which I think is awesome:

http://www.racialicious.com/2009/12/21/and-we-shall-call-this-moffs-law/

AND WE SHALL CALL THIS “MOFF’S LAW”

In the comments to Annalee Newitz excellent io9 post on racial fantasies in Avatar (and other works of sci-fi), Moff, another io9 contributor created one of the best rants I have ever read on the nature of critique:

Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have toanalyze it???”

If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.

First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.

Now, that doesn’t mean you have to think about a work of art. I don’t know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis — or if I do, they’re pretty annoying themselves. And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art. That should go without saying. Finally, this should also go without saying, but since it apparently doesn’t: Believe me, the person who is annoying you so much by thinking about the art? They have already considered your revolutionary “just enjoy it” strategy, because it is not actually revolutionary at all. It is the default state for most of humanity.

So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less — that not using one’s capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated — you are not saying anything particularly intelligent. And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them and what’s going on in their own heads, you’re not helping anything; on the contrary, you’re acting as an advocate for entropy.

And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.

From now on, we will refer to this as “Moff’s law” and apply it alongside our comments policy here at Racialicious.

Goodbye John Hughes

As a child of the 1980s, the movies of John Hughes were a cultural touchstone. Or maybe so it seems now with the reflections about the passing of Mr. Hughes.

No, his movies really were a big part of the pop culture. It was impossible to miss Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, and the rest of the Brat Pack. But it turns out that I only saw a few of his teen movies. I don't know that I want to see Breakfast Club or Ferris Bueller's Day off again. I kind of want to preserve those movies as they were in my memory. And I refuse to see Sixteen Candles because of offensive depiction of the Asian exchange student.

I have put Pretty in Pink at the top of my Netflix queue. Hughes may not have been good with race relations but he did address class issues in some of his movies and this was one. Plus it does have the love triangle thing going (which romance doesn't?) which I love. I don't know how PiP ends, who Ringwald's character chooses, so I'll be able to watch this movie fresh and try to assess it on it's own merits, without comparison to my teenage memories of it.

And lastly, here's a great post shared by someone who was a pen pal of his and gives a different perspective on his work. Very touching. Get the tissues ready.