The artistic, political, familial, conjugal, critical, social, quizzical, spiritual, sexual and psychological creatively intermingle in Julie Delpy's 2 Days in New York, wherein free-spirits lackadaisically/audaciously/petulantly/mendaciously contend with both the pretentious and the vituperative, in the pursuit of playing a specific role.
These roles themselves, when abstracted, transformed into symbols, placed within a fluctuating in/determinate semantic matrix, in/determinate depending upon the rhetorical convictions of the urges to clarify (and the resultant multi/bi/lateral counter-clarifications), fluctuating inasmuch as difference guarantees the establishment of multiple points of view (many of which temporally fluctuate within themselves [unless you write this kind of thing]), can produce multilateral takes which nurture an inclusive body politic wherein manifold outlooks survey their surroundings, i.e., Web 2.0.
The film itself isn't really my style but I appreciate the dynamic complexity within which it's exoterically expressed.
Employing the spice mélange.
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Monday, August 27, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
A Dangerous Method
Usually I'm a big fan of David Cronenberg's films but A Dangerous Method didn't work for me. Which is surprising considering that if someone had suggested that I could go see a movie that blends Sense and Sensibility with Blue Velvet I would have responded with glee and eagerly anticipated an upcoming screening.
Oh well.
While Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) become acquainted with one another their dialogues are sound enough. Both are working within a traditional framework and trying to modify its rigidity in order to make room for modern theories. Freud's disciplined innovative approach is contrasted with Jung's emphasis on the hyper-experimental and both confidently support their differing yet supportive points of view (they're working within a new theoretical paradigm which calls into question various institutional bulwarks but coming at it from different practical angles). Their analytic proclivities and formidable egos squander the potential of a prolonged working relationship, however, and eventually their productive bond is ruptured.
The main problem with the film comes from the interactions between the two and patient/student/love interest/colleague Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). As her and Jung start having an affair, the dialogue becomes increasingly maudlin and precludes any chance of a sharp unifying disruptive climax. When it suddenly jumps to scenes displaying their raucous lovemaking, the movie takes on a comedic aspect whose carnally cerebral concupiscent dexterity playfully problematizes/extends its focus on professionalism.
Classic Cronenberg.
But while the rigorous carnivalesque dreamlike fortitude radiates Method's formal elements, the melodramatic sentimental tedious exchanges surficially complicate things.
Perhaps Cronenberg is simply trying to say that it's the dreamwork that's more important?
Who knows.
Oh well.
While Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) become acquainted with one another their dialogues are sound enough. Both are working within a traditional framework and trying to modify its rigidity in order to make room for modern theories. Freud's disciplined innovative approach is contrasted with Jung's emphasis on the hyper-experimental and both confidently support their differing yet supportive points of view (they're working within a new theoretical paradigm which calls into question various institutional bulwarks but coming at it from different practical angles). Their analytic proclivities and formidable egos squander the potential of a prolonged working relationship, however, and eventually their productive bond is ruptured.
The main problem with the film comes from the interactions between the two and patient/student/love interest/colleague Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). As her and Jung start having an affair, the dialogue becomes increasingly maudlin and precludes any chance of a sharp unifying disruptive climax. When it suddenly jumps to scenes displaying their raucous lovemaking, the movie takes on a comedic aspect whose carnally cerebral concupiscent dexterity playfully problematizes/extends its focus on professionalism.
Classic Cronenberg.
But while the rigorous carnivalesque dreamlike fortitude radiates Method's formal elements, the melodramatic sentimental tedious exchanges surficially complicate things.
Perhaps Cronenberg is simply trying to say that it's the dreamwork that's more important?
Who knows.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
MacGruber
Rejected from the toilet bowl and then re-submerged for an attempted reflush, Jorma Taccone's MacGruber salivates and regurgitates its lewd, moronic humour in an occasionally funny ridiculous big penis joke. Starting slow and then slowly improving, if you happen to find it endearing when a bad joke doesn't work and then the writers try it again anyways, making light of the fact that it didn't work the first time with each subsequent rehashing, MacGruber keeps plugging away with charmingly impotent precision and blunt extreme distaste. A nuclear warhead has been hijacked by a politically connected thug who hopes to use it to blow up Washington, D.C. The only person who can stop him used to be an exceptional counter-terrorism operative who retired after his wife was killed during their wedding. Convinced by Col. James Faith (Powers Boothe) to come back for one more round, MacGruber (Will Forte) returns from Ecuador to put a unit together to recover the warhead. But after accidentally blowing that unit up with homemade C-4, he has to do his best with everything he's got, which, as it turns out, is much more competent than he is.
Borrowing heavily from Live Free or Die Hard, Austin Powers and Team America World Police, MacGruber situates a blast from the past within the present and then forces those familiar with contemporary dynamics to follow his antiquated guidance. Frustrated and confused while not shying away from consistently augmenting their criticisms, MacGruber's new team does their best to deal with his chauvinistic narcissistic improvisations. As the plot unravels, it turns out that just about everyone can be considered one big happy family, cohesively united through scatological sentiments, an important characteristic of this type of comedy's aesthetic. The film does improve as it progresses, mostly due to its intelligent stupidity and the ways in which it champions new members of the workforce, but if you don't like narratives where each consecutive piece of smutty dialogue becomes more and more lascivious as time goes by, there's more than a slight chance you will not like MacGruber.
Note that I watched the unrated version.
Borrowing heavily from Live Free or Die Hard, Austin Powers and Team America World Police, MacGruber situates a blast from the past within the present and then forces those familiar with contemporary dynamics to follow his antiquated guidance. Frustrated and confused while not shying away from consistently augmenting their criticisms, MacGruber's new team does their best to deal with his chauvinistic narcissistic improvisations. As the plot unravels, it turns out that just about everyone can be considered one big happy family, cohesively united through scatological sentiments, an important characteristic of this type of comedy's aesthetic. The film does improve as it progresses, mostly due to its intelligent stupidity and the ways in which it champions new members of the workforce, but if you don't like narratives where each consecutive piece of smutty dialogue becomes more and more lascivious as time goes by, there's more than a slight chance you will not like MacGruber.
Note that I watched the unrated version.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Do Communists Have Better Sex?
André Meier's “Do Communists Have Better Sex?” playfully examines the cold war sexual dynamics of Eastern and Western Germany. The film consists of interviews with prominent intellectuals, newscasts, theoretical observations regarding the ideological motivations promoting different sexual attitudes within the two countries, propaganda, and contrasting Christian and Trade Union viewpoints concerning birth control (with comedic cartoons interspersed throughout). The contrasts are strikingly manufactured and Meier's film doesn’t try to solve anything. Instead, it places different approaches within a light-hearted yet provocative frame that gives both sides the chance to display their motivations. In the East, there isn't as much to buy, but there's all kinds of room for the development of one's imagination.
The screening I viewed at Cinema du Parc was followed by two American educational films. In the first, an Italian who speaks English with an accent awaits the birth of his child. However, his child is born dead and his purebred American doctor (who speaks perfect English) informs him that the cause of death was syphilis (purebred Americans never get syphilis!). Fortunately for this noble savage, a cure for syphilis exists, enabling him and his wife to have more children in the future. The end of the film vilifies brothels and who is shown operating these brothels but an African American woman? Racist ethnocentric propaganda at its best cunningly indoctrinating the land of the free. No mention is made of the costs associated with the required medical treatment. Fortunately, this humble Italian-American baker was likely free to receive an additional mortgage.
The second video chronicles the sexual development of a caucasian American teenage girl. She is interested in sex but confused. Her father has no advice and quietly reads the paper while his wife cooks dinner and takes care of the family. After a disastrous encounter with a nogoodnik who is only interested in one thing, she falls for a beautiful caucasian American boy. The quarterback of their high school football team no doubt! Afterwards, their relationship flourishes because they decide to have their sexual union sanitized by the bonds of marriage, legitimizing the purity of their future. Note that they come from the same social class, revel in their popularity (in moderation), and only have jealousy confronting their happiness. No mention is made of material sexual realities because everything is perfect, and only people who have something wrong with them could possibly not know how to naturally engage in healthy sexual activity. Propagandistic drivel, straight from the puritanical pulpit, idealistically scoring another touchdown for one-dimensional conservative points of view. Came close to throwing up my popcorn. With laughter!
The screening I viewed at Cinema du Parc was followed by two American educational films. In the first, an Italian who speaks English with an accent awaits the birth of his child. However, his child is born dead and his purebred American doctor (who speaks perfect English) informs him that the cause of death was syphilis (purebred Americans never get syphilis!). Fortunately for this noble savage, a cure for syphilis exists, enabling him and his wife to have more children in the future. The end of the film vilifies brothels and who is shown operating these brothels but an African American woman? Racist ethnocentric propaganda at its best cunningly indoctrinating the land of the free. No mention is made of the costs associated with the required medical treatment. Fortunately, this humble Italian-American baker was likely free to receive an additional mortgage.
The second video chronicles the sexual development of a caucasian American teenage girl. She is interested in sex but confused. Her father has no advice and quietly reads the paper while his wife cooks dinner and takes care of the family. After a disastrous encounter with a nogoodnik who is only interested in one thing, she falls for a beautiful caucasian American boy. The quarterback of their high school football team no doubt! Afterwards, their relationship flourishes because they decide to have their sexual union sanitized by the bonds of marriage, legitimizing the purity of their future. Note that they come from the same social class, revel in their popularity (in moderation), and only have jealousy confronting their happiness. No mention is made of material sexual realities because everything is perfect, and only people who have something wrong with them could possibly not know how to naturally engage in healthy sexual activity. Propagandistic drivel, straight from the puritanical pulpit, idealistically scoring another touchdown for one-dimensional conservative points of view. Came close to throwing up my popcorn. With laughter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)