Search Results

Jack and Robert, with guest Mike Burdge, look upon the latest (and final?) X-Men film spin-off of Wolverine and see that it is good. But are they left wanting and what for? #Newsletter #Podcasts #Logan #HotTakes #JackKolodziejski #RobertAnderson #MikeBurdge

Jack and Robert get down with Get Out and discuss just exactly what the hell is going on in their freshest Hot Take. #Newsletter #Podcasts #RobertAnderson #JackKolodziejski #GetOut #HotTakes

Fuck Shakespeare. Haddaway (one of the greatest philosophers of the 1990’s) posed the question best: what is love? To this, you’ll get a variety of answers: a chemical reaction in the brain, compassion without judgment, finding someone you can’t live without, etc. Finding love seems to be the ultimate quest in life, to the point where it drives people mad, so it’s really no wonder we as a society love to watch movies about love. In fact, my mom is such a fan of the movie Ghost, she scarred my sister and I for life by giving us both the haircut Demi Moore’s character Molly has in the film: If asked to rattle off the names of ten Rom Coms (Romantic Comedies), odds are most of us could do it without even thinking about it. But to name ten good Rom Coms proves to be a more difficult task. We, as viewers are repeatedly subjected to the same over-used tropes and poor character stereotypes, which are subsequently leading to the death of the film genre as a whole. How many times can we see the frigid bitch? The gold-digger? The aloof, cool, hipster Manic Pixie Dream Girl? The desperate one? The cool, successful career guy? The rich dude? There are so many films that fall into the shitty, boring, deja vu void. From 1995 to 2017, there have been 534 Romantic Comedies released, and while many follow the same, tired archetype, every so often we’re blessed with a gem. If I told you The Wedding Singer was one of the best romantic comedies of the last twenty years, would you believe me? Back in 1998, Adam Sandler (RIP his career) and Drew Barrymore starred in the aforementioned film that was virtually ripped to shreds by Roger Ebert. Giving it one measly star, he declared The Wedding Singer as “One of the byproducts of the dumbing down of America.” Don’t get me wrong, the film follows the very typical and expected formulaic guidelines for a romantic comedy: boy meets girl, friendship arises and they secretly pine for one another, love is realized, circumstances tear them apart, turmoil at three quarters, resolution, happily ever after. To be categorized as a Rom Com, there needs to be a few, “he hees” and “ha haas” here and there. What separates this particular film from its genre-mates is that it exists as a parody of itself. Rather than eliciting so many laughs that it errs on the side of comedy alone, the romantic element is still strong and present enough to bring the viewer back to the original storyline without subtracting from its value. The 80’s were clearly an era of excess and bad choices, especially in terms of aesthetics. Everything is so extreme, from the hair to the personalities, to the celebrity cameos (shout out to Jon Lovitz and Billy Idol), that it elevates an ordinary movie into a unique realm of complete absurdity. Even the most hated characters, like Glenn Gulia, the cheating, arrogant rich boy, or Linda, the gold digging runaway bride, are likeable because they become a comedic and ridiculous pastiche of everything we all hate. Most importantly, the lead characters, Robbie and Julia, are equals - a wedding singer and a waitress, a dichotomy often overrun by financial and social status bias. One of the most common issues psychologists and analysts have with Rom Coms is that they fuel unrealistic expectations about love and relationships that ultimately have an unhealthy impact on viewers, with some even arguing that mimicking over-the-top gestures seen in these movies normalizes stalking behavior. Whether you believe that or not, one thing most of us can probably agree on is that those fairy tale endings can piss us off, or make us feel like shit about our own love lives. And my emphasis on The Wedding Singer’s absurdity isn’t unfounded. The whole film is a tongue-in-cheek reference to its genre as a whole, like the scene when Robbie meets Billy Idol in the first class section on a plane, they see Julia and Glenn in coach, and Robbie then serenades her and they live happily ever after. Did I mention how amazing the soundtrack is on it’s own? “Somebody Kill Me” by Robbie Hart is an unforgettable classic that’s unfortunately all too relatable. Rather than leaving the viewer feeling sappy yet self-critical, or envious as many romantic comedies do, The Wedding Singer’s straight up ridiculous and blatantly unrealistic plot makes for a light-hearted, feel good movie that defies expectations and goes beyond the confines of its genre. In layman’s terms, The Wedding Singer is a great movie about love, so fuck you, Roger Ebert. RIP. Amanda Spinosa Amanda is an artist/writer with a degree in visual and critical studies from the School of Visual Arts, though 90% of her day is spent looking at pictures of dogs. Instagram: @spin.osa #Newsletter #Articles #AmandaSpinosa #TheWeddingSinger #RomCom #Love

Writer/Director Mike Mills has received some Oscar buzz for his 2016 film, 20th Century Women, so as February draws to a close, I decided to re-watch his 2011 film, Beginners. Mills' work as a graphic designer shows up in this semi-autobiographical film. He uses images, like flashcards, to evoke and create the various timeframes for his story: the year 2003, the year 1955. Within the first five minutes of the movie you "know" the story: Oliver, played by Ewan McGregor, portrays Mills himself. Hal, played phenomenally by Christopher Plummer, is his father. After 44 years of marriage, Hal's wife dies from cancer, and he announces to Oliver that he is gay, saying, "I don't want to be theoretically gay, I want to do something about it." Five years after coming out, embracing a new lifestyle and growing closer with Oliver, Hal himself succumbs to cancer and passes away. In the film's opening sequence, we watch as Oliver, having inherited his father's dog, Arthur, a scruffy Jack Russell terrier, gives him a tour of his new home. Speaking to Arthur in the current year 2003, serves as a way to speak to us, the audience. Occasionally Arthur speaks back to Oliver through limited subtitles. Throughout the film, Mills (and thus Oliver), vacillates between present-day 2003, (post Hal's death), the five year period after Hal came out, and memories of his mother (played by Mary Page Keller) during his childhood. These flashes of memory - cut between scenes of Oliver trying to navigate his life post parents - influence and shape his current actions and emotional responses. As a saddened Oliver gets dragged to a costume party by friends complete with Arthur in tow, (he won't be left behind), we watch him meet Anna, a french actress played by Melanie Laurent. Oliver, dressed as Sigmund Freud hides behind the persona, and yet is able to connect with party guests who lay on the couch next to him for a "therapy session." Anna, silent with laryngitis, uses a notepad to communicate with him asking, "Why are you at a party if you're sad?" When asked how she knew, (he thought he was hiding it so well) Anna replies by drawing a doodle of his eyes. That's it. Our characters have made a connection and Oliver, (and Mills) cuts back to memories of his parents: a montage of chaste kisses each night when his father returns home from work over the years. This is contrasted by a memory of his father exuberantly calling Oliver after a late night outing to a gay bar, asking about "House music." These memories both temper and embolden present-day Oliver to reach out and make a connection with Anna. He asks her to dance, and later for her phone number. She calls almost immediately and the evening continues, flashing to a more loving montage of Hal receiving kisses and embraces from his new boyfriend, Andy (an awkward and heartfelt performance by Goran Visnjic). These new interactions - the highs and uncertainty of Oliver's new love story with Anna - are inter-spliced with scenes of Oliver and Hal, father and son, dealing with Hal's diagnosis of cancer after he comes out. The reality of measuring out Hal's pills and writing up a schedule of doctor's appointments falls to Oliver, while Andy continues to visit Hal to cheer him up, often being very silly. Hal explains to Oliver, "I like Andy because he isn't like me. He's fun." This could easily be the same case for Oliver and Anna. He is drawn to her in a time when he is mourning the loss of his parents. Anna explains that a career in acting and travel often makes it easy for her to leave people, and to end up alone. Oliver verbalizes that, "You can stay in the same place and still find ways to leave people." He could be talking about Hal or his own past relationships which he draws in a series of doodles like mugshots at his graphic design job. His relationships with women are often transposed against Oliver's own memories of his childhood spent with his mother. They are a team up against a father that worked long hours at an art museum and showed little physical affection toward either of them. In Oliver's memories, his mother often acts out in small ways, being eccentric or silly when they visit the museum, pretending to fire an imaginary gun at Oliver and demanding a better performance of his death. In these small ways, she rebels against her compliant marriage of 44 years to a gay man. Mills uses the technique of photos or images throughout the film at various points. He shows photos and images of 1938, the year his 13 year old father realized he was gay, and his Jewish mother realized she was an outcast and needed to leave Germany. When his parents later married in 1955, they "turned in their gay badge and Jewish badge," and married each other to conform to American life in California in the 50's. While the memories of their marriage seem stark to Oliver, the flashbacks of his own time with Hal post coming out are a warm contrast. There is true tenderness in the scenes between them, Oliver reading to his father in the hospital, or overseeing him take his medication, even in times of obvious frustration and trepidation, like when Hal asks if Oliver ever knew his father was gay: Hal: "Did you know about me?" Oliver: "I just thought you weren't in love." Once 2003 Oliver realizes his time with Anna is short, - she is only in LA for a month - he takes a chance and asks her to move in for the rest of her stay. When giving her much the same tour of his home he initially gave to Arthur the dog, he finally reaches the bedroom and pulls open two drawers he has emptied for her. This small act brings Anna to tears. But days later she is still living out of her suitcase and the silent pauses between the two lovers have lengthened. Without hearing their actual conversation, we watch their breakup unfold. "I don't think this is what I'm supposed to feel like," Oliver finally says before Anna leaves to go back to NY. This ending is juxtaposed with another finale. We are finally faced with Oliver's memories of Hal's end of life: finishing his cancer treatments, putting a hospital bed in his home, Andy moving in, and finally Hal's death. The intense emotion of this sequence is then cut short by Mill's use again of a flashcard montage showing the nitty gritty of post mortem arrangements: death certificates, cremation, forwarding mail, canceling credit cards. 2003 Oliver brings Arthur to stay with friends and then finally to Andy, the only other person that prevents Arthur from howling and crying when Oliver leaves, so that he can go to NY and attempt to win back Anna. But once he arrives, Oliver calls her, learning that she is actually still in LA. She never left. Using a hidden key, he tours her NY apt while she speaks to him from California, asking, "Why do you leave everyone? Why did you let me go?" Oliver is finally honest, stating, "Maybe because I don't really believe that it's gonna work. So I make sure that it doesn't work." Those flashbacks of his parents have stayed with Oliver, and the audience, throughout the film. But little by little, the latter memories of Hal in his 70's: openly gay, joining groups, making new friends, dating Andy, and finally being intimate with his son, have helped change both Oliver's outlook and our own on love. When Oliver returns to pick up Arthur from Andy's house, Andy asks if it is is because he is gay that Oliver never called or came to see him after Hal died. "No," Oliver replies, "It's because my father loved you so much." They finally hug. When the film ends we see Anna return to Oliver's house. He shows her a photo of Hal, along with a handwritten personal ad he submitted to meet gay men at the age of 78. "He didn't give up," Anna states. That, more than anything, seems to be the point of Mike Mills' film. We are not given a tightly wrapped up story by the end of the film. Our lovers do not know what happens next. But that's not the point. We are given the love and memories of both his parents to help guide him, along with a glimpse of connection and hope for Oliver. He is a beginner after all. Diana DiMuro Besides watching movies, Diana likes the great outdoors, drawing and reading comics, and just generally rocking out. She has a BA in English Literature and is an art school drop out. IG: @dldimuro #Newsletter #Review #Love #Beginners #DianaDiMuro

From Passengers to La La Land, and everything in between, Bernadette, Robert and Mike talk about what they expect from the 89th Oscars and retouch on some of the best films 2016 had to offer. #Newsletter #Podcasts #AcademyAwards #Oscars #BernadetteGorman #RobertAnderson #MikeBurdge

Three geeks (Mike, Jeremy and Brian) attempt to only talk about the love stories in the Star Wars saga and end up not knowing where to draw the line. They even talk about the Ewok movies, for goodness sake... #Newsletter #Podcasts #StarWars #AttackoftheClones #TheEmpireStrikesBack #JeremyKolodziejski #BrianCastellano #MikeBurdge

David Fincher’s underappreciated Gone Girl, while marketed as a mystery thriller, has a core focus on the relationship between its two main characters, Nick and Amy Dunne. To be fair, it is not the typical kind of love story we here at Story Screen have been covering and screening this month. The relationship of Nick and Amy Dunne is dark, vile, twisted, pulpy, manipulative, and the dictionary definition of unhealthy. However, that’s not the reason I find the film unique. About halfway through the film, Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) pays Desi Collings (Neil Patrick Harris) a visit to see if he can get information on Amy’s (Rosamund Pike) previous relationship, and why they broke up in high school. Desi is confused why Nick drove such a long distance to ask him these questions, to which Nick replies, “I thought there would be another side to this story.” That sums up the entire movie’s method of storytelling. Instead of focusing on a single character, David Fincher and Gillian Flynn present both sides of Nick and Amy’s story. This is not something you see in a lot of movies about relationships. It’s much more typical to only view one character’s perspective - how they feel, what they want to say, and how they react when the relationship faces turmoil. Can you imagine how different 500 Days of Summer would have been if you actually saw Summer’s side? When taken separately, Nick and Amy’s perspectives are woefully unreliable. The idea of trusting someone solely on what they say versus tangible evidence is a big theme of the film. When both unreliable sides are shown simultaneously, the shocking truth is revealed. If Fincher and Flynn just focused on Nick throughout the entire movie, we would think he’s a far more evil and conniving person than he really is. We would see through Nick’s shit eating grin, that he’s a nasty husband who abused and murdered his wife, and he’s doing his best to lie to everyone so he can get away with her murder. He’s a cheater and a liar, for sure, but he’s not the murderous bastard everyone thinks he is. That’s because Fincher and Flynn do something brilliant with Amy: not only does Amy fool all of the characters in the movie, she fools us, the audience, via her journal. At first, Amy’s journal is presented as fact. The movie even goes as far as showing a scene where Nick pushes Amy to the ground with the intention of hurting her even more. This flashback was to show Nick as an abusive monster and to display Amy as sympathetic. It’s later revealed, via Amy’s perspective, that this scene was total bullshit, (or was it? It is kind of ambiguous). This reveal completely turns the tables on Nick, and shows him, while still a cheater, to be just an oaf who’s in way over his head, dealing with a completely psychotic wife. It’s almost like when you’re shown both sides, your bias towards who you want to side with completely changes. How about that? What David Fincher and Gillian Flynn are trying to say with Gone Girl is that humans are complicated folk, and relationships aren’t completely black and white, like those movies on the Lifetime channel seem to convey over and over. The movie takes the story of one of those typical films and puts actual human characters inside of it, making you decide if Amy is justified in her actions against Nick, or if Nick is a sympathetic character who has a manipulative psychopath for a wife. “Sometimes I find the correct answer is the simplest,” says Officer Gilpin halfway through the film, “I’ve never agreed with that,” replies Officer Boney. The film leaves you cold, confused, conflicted, and angry, and I believe the best films - and this applies to art in general - are supposed to leave you with many emotions to consider in the end. Jeremy Kolodziejski Jeremy is younger than he looks, and has passionately studied the art and craft of filmmaking for as long as he can remember. He is currently a freelance wedding videographer, and is also heavily involved in Competitive Fighting Games. IG: jeremyko95 #Newsletter #Review #Love #GoneGirl #DavidFincher #JeremyKolodziejski

Story Screen has been operating in Beacon, NY for over the past two years, showcasing films from all walks of life at various businesses and locations throughout our bright and ever-growing city. We’ve screened love stories, science fiction epics, groundbreaking documentaries, timeless classics, hidden independent gems, life-changing foreign films and so much more. We have created a community built around watching and appreciating films together, and celebrating them for the true works of art that they are. We’ve come a long way from the small makeshift screen at the once Main Squeeze Juice Bar, to the cleared backwoods just off Fishkill Creek, to a permanent screening room in More Good on Main Street, and finally to transforming over a dozen businesses into one night only screening events. And that doesn’t even include our hard work outside of screening amazing films: creating a website featuring articles, reviews and podcasts from local lovers of all things film. Our design department has commissioned original artwork for each of the movies we’ve screened, created by local artists from all different mediums and walks of life. We’ve listened to punk rockers perform before the showing of Green Room, enjoyed burgers and fries especially prepared for our screening of Reservoir Dogs, supported #52FilmsByWomen, handed out slices of cheese pizza at Home Alone, distributed wrapped presents at all of our December screenings, and even hosted a live piano player and lounge singer at our Casablanca event, just to name a few of the things we are the most proud of during our 2 ½ years of operation. We at Story Screen have sought to elevate the community film watching experience using all the materials and opportunities available to us, and we are not too modest to say that we think it has turned out pretty fantastic thus far. Now it’s time to take the next step, (more of a gigantic leap), into the world of film exhibition. We are proud to unveil our plans for transforming part of the once Beacon Theater into the future home of Story Screen’s very own cinema. Teaming up with More Good and Small Town Drama, Story Screen will open its doors to film lovers of the Hudson Valley and beyond. We have so much magic and fun planned for our permanent space: live music, speakers, Q&A’s, performance art, conventions, movie marathons, immersive art exhibitions, private parties, game competitions, live podcasts, open discussion forums, and of course, multiple screenings every week of new, old, foreign and arthouse films. We are insanely excited to bring this platform to Beacon, the city that has helped us grow from a small 15 seat room in a juice bar showing Groundhog Day, to selling out a packed house of over 50 guests at Oak Vino Wine Bar for Casablanca just last week. While the plans to open our permanent space are being developed, rest assured, we will continue our programming at local businesses and special events over the next few months. We have an amazing program of seven films lined up for March. (You can check out the trailer here) We will be donating all proceeds from these screenings to some organizations that are currently fighting on the front lines of some of the most topical issues facing our culture and society in this ever changing world. We hope to help in the best way we know how: by educating and uplifting others through film. The celebration of film has always been, not only the key driving force of why we started Story Screen, but also the reason it has become so successful. In a time where virtually any media can be sourced, streamed or viewed at home, film still serves as a particularly powerful form of art, one that has the strength to break down cultural barriers and generational differences, and the ability to make you both laugh and cry within ten seconds of each other. (You can learn more about our thoughts on that here). We want to continue this pastime - that is as exciting and timeless as any other - of gathering together in a dark room with a group of fellow film lovers, and enjoying everything a movie has to offer. We hope you are just as excited as we are to watch some stories together. Mike Burdge Founder of and programmer for Story Screen. Lover of stories and pizza in the dark. When he isn't watching movies, you can find him reading things about people watching movies. He lives in Beacon, NY with his cat who is named after Kevin Bacon's character from Friday the 13th. #BeaconNY #StoryScreen #BeaconTheater

Robert and Jack venture back into the world of Wick. Can a sequel to lightning-in-a-bottle raise the bar? #Newsletter #Podcasts #JohnWick2 #JackKolodziejski #RobertAnderson #HotTakes

Story Screen, for those of you who may not know, is currently operating in Beacon, NY as a pop-up film exhibitor. Our website: StoryScreenBeacon.com features film reviews and articles written by local film lovers and filmmakers alike, as well as amazing, original artwork made for beloved movies by some of Beacon’s most talented artists, using all sorts of mediums. We are currently working on an educational platform that we will be making available to the public very soon, centered around the concept of film as an art form. Using this, we hope to engage with people through film in an entirely new and exciting way. But first, I’d like to explain why I believe film is art: Film is THE collaborative art form. From hundreds to thousands of people, all working around a cohesive vision, to the billions of people who choose to experience that vision, the art of film is a seemingly never-ending cycle of contemplation, hard work, extraordinary skill and unified artistry. Film combines the beauty of multiple art mediums: performance, writing, music, design and much, much more. It is a major contributor to culture, as many consider it to be the most easily accessible approach to communicating a story. Some even argue that film was the dominate art form of the Twentieth Century. And why shouldn’t they? We’ve watched film grow as a collected culture throughout our entire lives, and some of us have even chosen to look beyond our years to the incredible stories of its origins and evolutions. Film is a marvel. It's sometimes hard to choose between the vocabulary of “film” or “movie.” They are, by their very definitions, one and the same. But the term “movie” can so easily lead to thoughts of popcorn, soda and candy, crowded rooms full of strangers in the dark, and the excitement and thrills of date night. Large corporations and studios have learned to make the big bucks on movies by streamlining them and making many of them identical (creating a larger platform of accessible audiences), but that does not mean that films that are considered slow moving or boring by some are not successful or “good.” These films choose to challenge, to inspire. Many people do not see this problem, or even the difference, because of a lack of education in what a “movie” can truly offer the viewer: escape? Yes. Distraction? Absolutely. But also, perhaps, a form of momentary transcendence and enlightenment. Change. It can be hard to remember that there is a healthy selection of “movies” that ask for contemplation, review of philosophy and the possibilities of ourselves and the world. Writer Jeff Goins put it perfectly: “Art surprises. It wounds. It changes. Entertainment makes us feel good. While entertainment generally leaves us unchanged, art breaks our hearts, causes us to cry and reveals our own inadequacies.” Classic Cinema, Art Cinema and Blockbuster Cinema differ greatly, but they all want to tell us a story. And it is what we gain from that story, and how it may or may not change us, that is the true power of the art of film. Even the act of watching film can arguably be labeled as its own art form. Critiquing and the review of film can expose beauties that a single viewer may not have noticed. Film criticism, in all its variety, holds proof to the power of film as both art AND entertainment. So this brings me to education, and the place film holds in that field, not just in educating those about film itself, but by using it to educate culturally. Film breaks down barriers, teaching information on an emotional level, while engaging intellect through imagination and repetition. Young people are becoming increasingly visually literate, and this is a great thing to nurture. Film literacy can speak to cultural aspects of life that some would otherwise have a hard time fully comprehending, such as racism, political injustice or homophobia, to name a few. Like documentaries, the story of a film is meant to engage and inform, to cause a reaction. People in general can relate to film no matter their family background or learning abilities. Film provides a gateway to other peoples' experiences, and it can reshape how we perceive and think about the world. Even children with moderate to severe learning difficulties and disabilities have proven a stronger relation to film when learning about any subject. It’s part of what the magic in “movie magic.” It transcends. Film is a universal language. We at Story Screen want to use this language, not only inspire but to specifically educate the next generation of filmmakers and critics in the Hudson Valley. This is where Story Screen originally spawned from: wanting to share great movies and talk about how they work and how they don’t work and why? We want to find that spark and where it comes from. That’s how you learn to start your own spark. Making your own film is a monumentally different feeling than anything you can ever feel. Seeing an effort that takes so much time and so many people and such a variety of skills up on the big screen is soul warming. It gives its creators a level of validation that I liken to being in love and being loved in return. And it’s not just for the jobs behind and in front of the cameras that we wish to educate; it’s for the ones in front of the screen too. Film, specifically, can allow the nervous aspiring writer/reviewer an easy start. A book may be too intimidating at first, however film is considered a recreational activity by many, not so much an artistic experience worthy of dissection on a story and theme level. But it is. And we can show you how. But it’s rough out there. Unpaid internships for filmmaking, like many professions of today, are becoming a problem for young people looking for experience in the field. We hope to create a difference in the standard for our students. Film studies must continue to build consideration that it is just as viable an option to our youth as fine art or music. Allowing the next generation, from all walks of life, the opportunity to learn and understand film is paramount. Moving forward, diversity is key. We need diverse minds and lives to create diverse stories. Building a community for film lovers and makers to learn about and discuss their passion for a shared medium of art is a HUGE part of why Story Screen exists and what it aims to do, not just as an entity, but also as a business and educational resource and alternative. And it can be entertaining, too! Stay tuned as we begin to release articles and theories that will help broaden the scope of how film can help us learn, not just about itself, but about each other and ourselves. Mike Burdge Founder of and programmer for Story Screen. Lover of stories and pizza in the dark. When he isn't watching movies, you can find him reading things about people watching movies. He lives in Beacon, NY with his cat who is named after Kevin Bacon's character from Friday the 13th. #Articles #Newsletter #MikeBurdge #StoryScreen #Education

The first time you watched Django Unchained, did you make it all the way through? I didn't. About 44 minutes in, I pressed the pause button on my controller and thought twice. Immediately the sight of Black men and women in chains turned me off, even with the preconceived understanding that this film was about slavery. This led to my thoughts about historical inaccuracies being depicted: like a freed slave bounty hunter, and how it didn't quite make sense. But what I wondered most about, was the film’s over usage of “the N word.” It offended me. Filmmaker Spike Lee was quoted in an interview with Vibe, saying he would not watch the film, explaining, "All I'm going to say is that it's disrespectful to my ancestors. That's just me.... I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody else." Tarantino made sure to accurately depict that part of our ugly history. I remember speaking with Black, Spanish and White friends who loved the movie, who saw it for what it was "meant for:” entertainment. They weren't surprised that I didn't make it through the film, but didn't want to partake in the reasons why. Why saturate the film with such a negative word, taking away from an artform so well written, directed and acted? In this regard, I wondered why Tarantino hadn’t been as creative as he was in Inglorious Basterds? You see, Samuel L. Jackson defended heavy use of “the n word,” stating, "Tarantino using 'nigger' too many times is like complaining they said 'kike' too many times in a movie about Nazis.” However, actor Jesse Williams is noted saying, "These anti-semitic terms were not used nearly as frequently in Tarantino's film about Nazis, Inglorious Basterds.” He was suggesting that the Jewish community would not have accepted it. “The N word,” has been accepted and used as a term of endearment by a growing percentage of African Americans. It's associated with the culture. Some would say it's cool to be able to say the word, that if you're not Black and get away with it, you are given a pass. Now, more than ever, it's become a word that millennials have adopted in similar endearing ways, as well as the original definition of an ignorant or stupid person. Coming from a culture that embraces a word that, when I showed my parents The Chappelle Show for the first time - it was the episode with Clayton Bigsby, the Black white supremacist - they asked me to change the channel. It was more of a demand, actually. More pressing is why is it acceptable to offend one race, even if there has been great efforts to disassociate the word from the African American culture? I couldn't get over this, so I didn't indulge in the movie. The second time I attempted to watch Django Unchained I succeeded in my attempt. I was finally able to get over myself, and watch a lot of my favorite actors perform extremely well in a production by a director whom I don't admire, but give credit where credits due. The set, the red blood splatter on white sheets, roses, and walls. It’s good! They also perfectly captured the institutionalized hatred between slaves and other slaves, the way blacks have treated other blacks systemically, like crabs in a barrel. When our protagonist, Django, is first introduced to Stephen at Candyland, they're immediately combative. Stephen’s view of seeing a slave on a horse was a metaphor for the theme of the movie, like seeing something you've never seen before and being able to achieve that. “Freeman.” Slaves were taught to hate one another based off skin pigmentation. Of course, jobs weren't based solely off of complexion, but it played a significant roll. It became first nature to try and drag the next slave down, which maintained divisions even though there were many efforts to unite as slaves. Django was at odds with Stephen immediately and because this had nothing to do with why he and Schultz were at Candyland, it almost put our heros’ plan at risk. Something else that needs noting: Django’s growing ego. This was a glimpse into what many call nowadays “Black Entitlement.” He was allowing his stature and mission to overcome his humanity, simultaneously forgetting where he came from. According to Bob Hoose, a critic with Plugged In, "This flick is far more concerned with foul-mouthed Grindhouse chatter, revenge-filled rage, skin-tearing bullwhips and bullets, and slow-motion geysers of meat and blood, than in communicating anything truthful and enlightening." Let’s not pretend, this wasn't a film about slavery. It would be dishonest of me to not mention how great of a job Tarantino did recreating our country’s deep horrible history in a Spaghetti Western, not a "big issue" movie. Education through entertainment. What is really meant to entertain us in Django Unchained is violence. Slavery is just the pretext of what is meant to entertain us. Many people appreciate the level of heightened cinematic cruelty and violence Tarantino goes to in most of his films in order to open discussion on very singular concepts: the mentality of criminals in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, the passive misogyny in Kill Bill, the morality and immorality of mental illness in Natural Born Killers and the normalization of genocide in Inglorious Basterds. In this regard, I have always admired his consistency to treat slavery with the same pulpy eye he is known for, but whether or not this is disrespectful, is truly in the eye of the beholder. Great controversial movies invite individual perspectives from each viewer to form contrasting opinions. That’s why they’re so controversial! "I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to." -Quentin Tarantino Richard Brody backed up the director’s claims when he wrote in the New York Times that Tarantino's, "Vision of slavery's monstrosity is historically accurate.... Tarantino rightly depicts slavery as no mere administrative ownership but a grievous and monstrous infliction of cruelty." Django Unchained was released in 2012 as an American revisionist film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, as a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns: a cheaply produced movie about the American Old West typically made in Europe by an Italian producer and director. In 2007, development of Tarantino's version came about while writing a book on Sergio Corbucci, the director of 1966’s Django. The star-studded cast includes Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, and Samuel L. Jackson. The film grossed $425 million worldwide in theaters, tripling their $100 million budget, making it Tarantino's highest grossing theatrical release. Although the movie is depicting slavery - and treading water on introducing a fictional Black superhero to mainstream audiences - the irony is: the White director and actor were winning the film industry awards. Waltz, who did a tremendous job, won several awards for his performance, among them Best Supporting Actor at the BAFTAs, Golden Globes, and the Academy Awards. Tarantino won an Academy Award, a Golden Globe, and a BAFTA Award for writing the film's original screenplay. Having given the movie 1 1/2 chances, I figured it would make sense to watch it again with some friends, and discuss the movie afterwards to capture some real life reactions and commentary. Invoke real emotion. A close friend asked if I viewed the main character as a superhero? It hadn't occurred to me that Jamie Foxx's performance transcended the role that he was playing. A free man on a horse that looked like the Black boy in chains. The free man on a horse wielding a gun and killing outlaw White men for fun, while receiving a profit to do so. It hit home, especially at the end, when you see how empowered he makes the other slaves feel. A Black superhero slave who would do anything for his Black slave wife. A Black man standing up for his Black woman, and going to the world’s end to protect her, in a time when that beautiful kind of love was being customarily destroyed. Reality check: filmmaker Michael Moore praised Django Unchained, tweeting that the movie, "is one of the best film satires ever. A rare American movie on slavery and the origins of our sick racist history." And still, in reality, I see no changes. All I see is Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz and Quentin Tarantino receiving awards and accolades. It's not surprising that a film on "slavery," or anything else I've touched on in this review, or any other critic has for that matter, that the two African American leads didn't receive any awards for their roles in what was arguably the best film of the year, and one that made millions think twice. The film grossed almost 4x as much as it was budgeted for, which leads me to my last question: Who exactly was this movie made for: Black people or White people? Off first glance, and even after the first time watching Django Unchained in its entirety, the case could be easy to make that this was for White America, those willing to view something graphically entertaining. After analyzing and rewatching this film, speaking and listening to others who have taken similar actions, I've come to believe that this movie was made for Black America. Black love. Black superhero. Black history. Black excellence, which is quite marginalized throughout world media. What do you think? Ali T. Muhammad Watching movies is one of the few moments that he's able to get out of his own head and into someone else's. He believes that there is a serious educational proponent used in making and watching films. As an avid reader, he's learned to appreciate what one can get from reading books and watching movies. Westerns, suspense thrillers and sci-fi are his favorite genres, but Legends of the Falls is his favorite movie of all time, followed by Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, Interview with the Vampire and Malcolm X. #Newsletter #Articles #DjangoUnchained #Love #BlackHistoryMonth #February #AliTMuhammad

“What came first, the music or the misery? Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?” This chicken and egg question sets up High Fidelity as a case study in how frequently we internalize media as a shared experience. A fan culture snob’s dream, High Fidelity is a film about heartache, kismet, and romantic maturity, all layered in vinyl at 33 ⅓ RPM. As a thirty-something record storeowner, Rob Gordon is obsessed with top five lists; they categorize everything: from top five side-one track-ones, to his, “desert-island, all-time, top five most memorable breakups.” These lists function as guides to help us better understand his connection to others around him, including the women that have romantically come and gone in his life. Over the course of the film, Rob chooses to revisit this top five of breakups, culminating in the one currently taking place. With each relationship postmortem, he learns an integral lesson on how to love. Alison Ashmore “It would be nice to think that since I was 14, times have changed. Relationships have become more sophisticated. Females less cruel. Skins thicker. Instincts more developed. But there seems to be an element of that [rejection] in everything that’s happened to me since. All my romantic stories are a scrambled version of that first one.” Rob considers Alison to be his first girlfriend, even though they only made out for two hours, after school, for three days in a row. But on the fourth day, much to Rob’s chagrin, he catches Alison on the bench, swappin’ spit, with Kevin Bannister. That experience is Rob’s first unwilling foray into romantic betrayal and deception. As the film progresses, it’s clear that Rob has not grown up to be a man of action. He passively experiences life through music, film, and television. Stemming from this initial experience with heartbreak, he fashions himself to be a man that life happens to, rather than a man in charge of his own life. Upon reconnecting with Alison’s mother, Rob reevaluates his entire importance in Alison’s life, and that his perception of it, has been a lie. Alison didn’t even consider Rob to be her first boyfriend, and she ended up marrying the “home-wrecking” Kevin Bannister. Rob’s relief cannot be any more palpable. Tween love is fickle, and while the betrayal was painful at the time, he now determines that it in no way spoke to his shortcomings as a three-day “boyfriend.” Rob’s first lesson in love is to understand that it can drive the narrative in anyone’s life, and it isn’t beholden to only his plot. This revelation does not completely solve Rob’s hang-ups on love (he’s only getting started), but it does set him on the path to not harboring a subconscious animosity towards love that others share around him. It doesn’t have to be Rob vs. the world. Penny Hardwick “I started dating a girl who everyone said would give it up and who didn’t... and Penny went with this asshole named Chris Thompson, who told me he had sex with her after something like three dates.” Penny is the quintessential high-school girlfriend: she has the smarts, the looks, and the charm. Rob, however, is only interested in expanding his carnal knowledge. At that current moment in Rob’s life, it’s all about competition and rounding the bases. Unfortunately, he fails to appreciate Penny’s internal attributes. Her wishes to keep the relationship a steady PG-13 result in his decision to pursue someone who seems to be an easier conquest. Much to his dismay, he finds out shortly after their split that she has changed her mind and decided to go “all the way” with someone else. This, of course, plants a seed of self-consciousness that manages to work its way into every subsequent one of Rob’s relationships. When Rob and Penny reconnect years later, Rob is excited to find out they share a lot of similar interests. Bolstered by the positivity of the evening, he feels confident asking what went wrong in their relationship, and why she wanted to sleep with Chris Thompson and not him. Of course, Rob doesn’t even begin to consider that her experience will differ greatly from his one-sided memory. She tearfully recounts that she had wanted to sleep with Rob, but not while in high school, and that she had felt pressured in the relationship with Chris. Fearful that all relationships would follow the same pattern, she gave in. Her decision to sleep with Chris, in turn, led her to live a celibate four years in college, due to her own personal shame and dissatisfaction. She reminds Rob that HE left HER because she was “tight,” and that it was unfair for him to rewrite history and bring up rejection. This repainting of the past is more than unflattering for Rob’s character. It demonstrates that he was shortsighted and hadn’t given a second thought towards Penny’s feelings. The truth, however, does reveal a second lesson in love for Rob. For one, he learns (or is reminded) that he had not been cast aside, as he had so long held true. Secondly, if he would have put his own desires aside, he could have recognized how decently matched they really were. Keeping such a narrow focus in a relationship, no matter what that focus is, prohibits a full appreciation of what the union can achieve. Charlie Nicholson “And she liked me. She liked me. She liked me. At least, I think she did. We went out for two years. And I never got comfortable.” After surviving the hells of high school anguish and self-doubt, Rob graduates to the next level of romantic pursuits in college. As an art design major, Charlie has opinions on anything and everything. Rob hangs on her every word and cannot help but pinch himself that a girl this cool chooses to hang around him. For two years Rob convinces himself that he’s a fraud and fears that Charlie will wake up and realize he’s not nearly hip enough to keep around. His hang-ups about the relationship cause a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Charlie ends up leaving him for the, “dreaded Marco:” one of the men in her design department. Out of all the reconciliations in the film, Rob is the most hesitant to get in touch with Charlie. To him, she should be, “living on Mars,” instead of being listed in the phone book. But, strangely enough, his fears should have been ignored, because when Charlie invites him to a dinner party, Rob realizes that she’s terrible. She spouts off uninteresting opinions all evening long, all but ignoring what others have to say, and strives to make herself the most heard. What Rob remembers as eloquent speech is corrected as ridiculous jargon, as if Charlie believes she’s the first to have opinions on any given subject. With her cool-girl facade demolished, Rob takes solace in knowing their whole relationship can now be chalked up to a poor judge of character. He learns a little lesson in self-value and in turn gets a boost of confidence. He’s slowly, but surely, learning to turn away from his self-saboteur ways. Sarah Kendrew “Only people of a certain disposition are frightened of being left alone for the rest of their lives at 26. We were of that disposition.” Rob meets Sarah while he is still reeling from the breakup with Charlie, while Sarah is also recovering from an equally destabilizing breakup. Instead of the both of them wallowing alone in their respective miseries, they decide to be together while staunchly agreeing to be “alone.” They share a mutual disdain for the opposite sex while living together, and they continue to operate as two single adults... until Sarah unexpectedly meets someone else. How can he, Rob, be rejected by a woman who was his partner in anti-rejection? So, not only has he been dumped - he’s been duped! It is clear from the beginning of Rob and Sarah’s reunion that while Rob may be a mess romantically, Sarah has a much wider array of issues. She’s unemployed, she’s just been put on a new medication for an unnamed condition, and she’s woefully single. The man she left Rob for turned out to be a dud, and she not so subtly hints she would like to get back together with Rob. In this new light, Rob sees Sarah for the dramatically messy and unguided person she is. He’s now glad she had left him, because at least when she looks back on her life he can be a good memory and not another problem she had to cope with. Now that he’s beginning to become more self-aware, he can see the damage that fostering negativity in a relationship can cause. The basis of their relationship was a crumbling foundation from the start. Laura “She didn’t make me miserable, or anxious, or ill-at-ease. And you know, it sounds boring, but it wasn’t. It wasn’t spectacular, either. It was just...good. But really good.” Laura is the catalyst for Rob’s entire journey of self-discovery. At the very beginning of the film, they have just split up, and Laura has packed up the majority of her belongings and is moving out. This prompts the: “desert-island, all-time, top five most memorable breakups” list, and Rob is loath to include her. He claims she just isn’t capable of delivering that kind of heartbreak, but changes his tune once he discovers she has begun a relationship with a former neighbor of theirs. These events wake Rob up and give him the drive to reexamine what has caused his relationships to fail and why he has been deemed so unlovable. Instead of seeing these women as just characters in the story of his life, he begins to view them for the people that they are. One of Rob’s greatest qualities, (and one of his greatest faults), is his super fan nature. He has no problem connecting deeply and emotionally with music, television, or film, but he has a tremendously difficult time transferring this passion to those around him. His nostalgia and appreciation of music tend to cloud his memories with peaks and troughs of romanticisms that rewrite his own history. Over the course of the film, Laura corrects Rob’s interpretation of their relationship. She explains: it became too difficult to watch Rob move through life without so much as changing a pair of his socks. Her career had evolved, her friend group had grown, and he hadn’t been making an effort to evolve with her. It is no question that Rob is a critical thinker, but he had always hindered himself by never being fully present in a relationship, not until his and Laura’s reunion, post love-life rehab. As a “professional appreciator,” he had never taken on a creative role in his own life, living only passively from experience to experience. After approaching the top five breakups as an adult and better understanding the course of his romantic life, he and Laura reconnect in a healthier and more levelheaded union. He learns a final lesson when he meets an attractive music reporter, with whom he instantly connects. His time apart from Laura taught him to be comfortable with others in relationships, to not focus on self-interest, to be confident in himself, and to not foster negativity; all of which aid him in loving Laura more fully. But upon meeting this reporter, he realizes that the ultimate reason his relationship with Laura failed was because he always had one foot out the door. And with that realization, he decides to fully commit to Laura. Instead of imagining the fantasy of what could be with someone else, he accepts his happy reality with Laura. Choosing to live in the now, allows him to accept Laura’s love. “The making of a great compilations tape, like breaking up, is hard to do and takes ages longer than it might seem…Anyway, I’ve started to make a tape...in my head...for Laura. Full of stuff she likes. Full of stuff that makes her happy. For the first time I can sort of see how that is done.” Bernadette Gorman Bernadette graduated from DePauw University in 2011 with a Film Studies degree she’s not currently using. She constantly consumes television, film, and all things pop culture and will never be full. She doesn’t tweet much, but give her a follow @BeaGorman and see if that changes. #Articles #Newsletter #BernadetteGorman #Top5 #HighFidelity #Love