blue valentine: thinkin' 'bout love in the 21st century

as opposed to my earlier post, DEREK CIANFRANCE's BLUE VALENTINE is a fine example of minimalist storytelling. we aren't presented with overwrought structure or unnecessary supporting characters, but simply the future, the past, the actors, and the camera. it leaves one trying to understand love and marriage through looking at the good, the bad, the kindling, and the ending.

in a day when the pre-marriage counseling is hardly taken seriously and love's feeling is more important than sacrifice and commitment, this is the tale of many love stories (though, yes, this is much more indie). here, love is not a spiritual thing.

CIANFRANCE seems to compare love's feeling to love's commitment and the selfless dedication that a marriage asks of both its members. he doesn't point out the important moments to us, though in the film's wake, we are left to study the characters and see what moments explain the disillusionment at hand. cindy (played by a terrific michelle williams) lives for feeling. dean (a well-studied ryan gosling) found his life's one true mate. her fairytale fades, his continues. what happens when a couple first loses that feeling of love? and what if one also loses the desire to keep the flame flickering?

the performances are top-notch, the filmmaking great. one complaint: too many close-up shots in the film's first hour make the audience feel unpoetically / inappropriately claustrophobic. not a good date movie, but a great one to see. oscar bait? i'm not sure, but this one sure lives up to its title.

melvin sokolsky's fly girls

mo' melvin, for harper's bazaar, 1963.

somewhere?

sophia's not my cup of tea, but i can't say i didn't enjoy watching it. with SOMEWHERE, her latest effort in directing, she not so much tells a story as captures a snapshot of a lifestyle and its implications.

many critics have compared this to european cinema, and this comparison makes sense. the film is quiet. the script is not full of words. the acting is generally genuine and not forced.

but if film directors are storytellers, one should expect them to tell a story. instead, miss coppola presents many prolonged snapshots from the perspective of an unassuming observer, seemingly expecting her audience to hyper-intellectualize the subject matter of her chosen moving images in order to reach a conclusion or formulate their own version of a storyline.

from my experience, good european cinema doesn't do that... so why the comparison? this is narrative minimalism to an extreme, and although it can be mildly entertaining to peek into the life of a fictional hollywood star and his lack of a family life, this seems to be less of storytelling and more of studying character in the form of a feature film.

saturday night slow jammin'

Desert Island Feeling by Mutual Benefit from Nathaniel Whitcomb on Vimeo.

holy costume party, batman!

nico and andy warhol as batman and robin for esquire, 1967.

melvin sokolsky's bubble girls

in 1963, melvin sokolsky snapped his famous "bubble" series depicting fashion models chillin' midair inside of a bubble.

the kids are all right: the film's just a'ight

there was one moment during this film when i felt like there was dramatically intriguing stuff. otherwise, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT offers an interesting look at the levels of sacrifice necessary in a long-term "marriage," gay or not. the story's stituation is unique to lezzie partnerships, however, for breadwinner mom one (annette bening) and dykey mom two (julienne moore) bore children together thanks to one hippie sperm donor (mark ruffalo). the resulting children, now of age, search the hippie down, and his brief addition to the family catalyzes a long-comin', bedrock-shakin' fight between moms one and two.

for conservative theatre-goers, director LISA CHOLODENKO highlights what is probably one of biggest problems in a lesbian marriage: the need to feel sexually fulfilled by something only a man can provide. it's interesting to see that play out dramatically, though in the end i'm not sure it provides the argument it's necessarily going for in proving the absolute viability of gay marriage between women when compared to marriage between man and woman. what it does prove is that this group of people under the "momses," as one character describes, is a fully functioning, alternative family unit.

again: there's one moment that makes this movie absolutely worthwhile, but i can't in good mind spoil it. the filmmaking at that point is great. otherwise, the movie's pretty indie and the performances are generally good, though not oscar-worthy as many people are labelling it. this is simply the mainstream gay movie of the year.