In 1990’s, A Home at the End
of the World, Michael
Cunningham, the Pulitzer Prize-
winning author of The Hours,
brings to life the trials, triumphs,
loves and losses over a dozen
years in the lives of two best
friends, Bobby and Jonathan.
The book opens in suburban
Cleveland in the 60s and after
chronicling the two boys’ early
childhood, the lonely Jonathan
meets the introverted and
inarticulate Bobby. Their
friendship soon crosses over
into something more as the
pair blur the line between
friends and lovers.
After going their separate ways,
the two reunite in 1980s New
York City when a now
heterosexual Bobby moves in
with gay Jonathan and soon
falls in love with Jonathan's
eccentric roommate, Clare.
Bobby and Clare's relationship
develops, spoiling Jonathan's
plans to have a baby with her.
Feeling like he has become a
third wheel, Jonathan is ready
to return home when Clare
declares her unexpected
pregnancy.
The trio forms a sort of family,
moving to upstate New York.
This happiness is short lived,
however, when Clare takes her
daughter and leaves. Now
alone the two childhood friends
face their past relationship and
attempt to navigate their lives
together.
This book was made into a
movie starring Colin Farrell a
few years back. I went all the
way down to lower Manhattan,
for the sole reason of seeing
this film, and made my way to
the only theater it was playing
at, in the pouring rain (in pants
that turned almost see-through
btw. I admit that it was worth it,
Farrell was outstanding as was
the supporting cast, but do
yourself a favor and read the
book. Sure you can go down to
your local Blockbuster or watch
it instantly from Netflix, but even
if you do that, read it too. Along
with getting some much needed
leisure, you won’t have to deal
with scenes the FCC deemed
inappropriate being cut out.
(One in particular that involved
a steamy love scene that Farrell
did full frontal nudity-NOT FAIR)
Even worse, if you catch it on
TV, it’s been chopped apart to
fit commercials. So find a comfy
chair, get some hot chocolate
(or coffee), and curl up with a
novel that’ll all but read itself.
CANDY
I’m not talking about the sweet, delicious, run around screaming in people’s faces from sugar kind; I am actually referring to the little seen 2006 (at least in America) movie starring Abbie Cornish and Heath Ledger.
The film (based on the Neil Armstrong novel of the same name) centers around a young couple, Dan and Candy, who dream of a perfect, utopian life. They are young and they are in love, with both each other and heroin and the longer the love affairs go on, the more devastating they become. The story is broken up into three parts- Heaven, Earth, and Hell- in which viewers experience the downward spiral of addiction and watch as the two beautiful people slowly turn darker; doing anything and giving up everything for that one more hit. If you have ever seen The Basketball Dairies (1995, starring Leonardo DiCaprio,) the depiction is even more real. When I was a tween (though that phrase had yet to exist) most of my friends were in love with Leo and therefore I was exposed to many viewings of that movie and let me tell you watching that was a better Anti-drug message than anything, anyone could ever tell me. Candy is more intense, more real, and I think it should be shown to ever middle school and high school child. That will never happen unfortunately, but I’m not getting into PTA type practices at this time.
Back to Candy. The reason the movie is so good, writing aside, is the talented cast, which along with Ledger and Cornish, also stars Geoffrey Rush (this year’s Best Supporting Actor for THE KING’S SPEECH) as Casper, a college professor who acts as a surrogate father to Dan as well as mixes his own heroine from the chemistry labs. It is fun, if also heartbreaking, to watch Rush try and balance between being caring while still maintaining the “cool uncle” status. The truth, we know, is that an addict can never really control their own life let alone help others but somehow you want to believe Casper will save all three characters.
As for the role of Dan, Ledger does some of his finest work as the poet who really never meant to do any harm to Candy. The character also acts as the narrator so he gets to explain himself, “I wasn't trying to wreck Candy's life. I was trying to make mine better,” as well as show how easily it is for someone to slip into a life of excess, “We'd found the secret glue that held all things together. In a perfect place, where the noise did not intrude, our world was so very complete.” This performance got overlooked because the movie had the unfortunate timing to be released almost immediately after Brokeback Mountain, for which Ledger received his first Oscar Nomination. It didn’t get the press, or the wide release, of its predecessor because it is easier to see the art movie about the ranch hand with complicated feelings than the one that might make you sympathize with a junkie. However, if you thought Ennis Del Mar lived a tragic love story; you need to see how he brings to life Dan.
Then there is Candy herself, Cronish. She more than holds her own on the screen with the two Oscar winners. Her performance is so real, as she plays strong and fragile at the same time she (along with Ledger) makes you root for the junkie, feel for the junkie, and think to yourself, “maybe that could be me.”
If you like fluff movies, this is not a film for you but if you want to think and watch a truly good film, go rent Candy.
The film (based on the Neil Armstrong novel of the same name) centers around a young couple, Dan and Candy, who dream of a perfect, utopian life. They are young and they are in love, with both each other and heroin and the longer the love affairs go on, the more devastating they become. The story is broken up into three parts- Heaven, Earth, and Hell- in which viewers experience the downward spiral of addiction and watch as the two beautiful people slowly turn darker; doing anything and giving up everything for that one more hit. If you have ever seen The Basketball Dairies (1995, starring Leonardo DiCaprio,) the depiction is even more real. When I was a tween (though that phrase had yet to exist) most of my friends were in love with Leo and therefore I was exposed to many viewings of that movie and let me tell you watching that was a better Anti-drug message than anything, anyone could ever tell me. Candy is more intense, more real, and I think it should be shown to ever middle school and high school child. That will never happen unfortunately, but I’m not getting into PTA type practices at this time.
Back to Candy. The reason the movie is so good, writing aside, is the talented cast, which along with Ledger and Cornish, also stars Geoffrey Rush (this year’s Best Supporting Actor for THE KING’S SPEECH) as Casper, a college professor who acts as a surrogate father to Dan as well as mixes his own heroine from the chemistry labs. It is fun, if also heartbreaking, to watch Rush try and balance between being caring while still maintaining the “cool uncle” status. The truth, we know, is that an addict can never really control their own life let alone help others but somehow you want to believe Casper will save all three characters.
As for the role of Dan, Ledger does some of his finest work as the poet who really never meant to do any harm to Candy. The character also acts as the narrator so he gets to explain himself, “I wasn't trying to wreck Candy's life. I was trying to make mine better,” as well as show how easily it is for someone to slip into a life of excess, “We'd found the secret glue that held all things together. In a perfect place, where the noise did not intrude, our world was so very complete.” This performance got overlooked because the movie had the unfortunate timing to be released almost immediately after Brokeback Mountain, for which Ledger received his first Oscar Nomination. It didn’t get the press, or the wide release, of its predecessor because it is easier to see the art movie about the ranch hand with complicated feelings than the one that might make you sympathize with a junkie. However, if you thought Ennis Del Mar lived a tragic love story; you need to see how he brings to life Dan.
Then there is Candy herself, Cronish. She more than holds her own on the screen with the two Oscar winners. Her performance is so real, as she plays strong and fragile at the same time she (along with Ledger) makes you root for the junkie, feel for the junkie, and think to yourself, “maybe that could be me.”
If you like fluff movies, this is not a film for you but if you want to think and watch a truly good film, go rent Candy.
HOW DARE THEY REMAKE ARTHUR!!
That was my reaction when rumors started to circulate that the drunken millionaire with a heart of gold may return to theatres. In my opinion, not that it should be a surprise because you know I love me some Bits, Dudly Moore is simply irreplaceable. I was livid! BEDAZZLED was bad enough; replacing Moore and Peter Cook, but ARTHUR (and its sequal) rank high on my favorite movies list. Whoever it was they tried to make Arthur, I refused to let myself get caught between the moon and NYC with him.
Serendipitiously, ARTHUR just happened to be filming around the city right after I saw its star, Rustle Brand in GET HIM TO THE GREEK and, though not Moore, he did almost get me to pee myself laughing so I thought, "whatever, it will suck but if it is free I guess I will go."
Having read reviews in which people complained how different the remake was from the original, I began to get excited and when I saw it, I was pleasantly surprised with how good it was. The key is to look at it the way I believe the filmmakers intended it, as a reimaging not a remake. Liza was amazing as Linda and nobody could top her which is why the lead character, who I like to think of as a completely different millionaire with the same name by chance, falls for a completely different girl named Naomi (Greta Gerwig.) The leads, both brilliant, are joined by Helen Miran as Hobson, a female nanny not male butler, and Jennifer Gardner as Susan Johnson, Arthur's mentally unstable (in a way that is only funny in film not life) exgirlfriend/ fiance (the original Susan role was dry and boring, but never psychotic.)
So if you are looking for the same ARTHUR with new actors, don't go see this film, you will be disappointed and angry. However, if you are in the mood for something new and funny, go for it. Either way, see the original too.
Serendipitiously, ARTHUR just happened to be filming around the city right after I saw its star, Rustle Brand in GET HIM TO THE GREEK and, though not Moore, he did almost get me to pee myself laughing so I thought, "whatever, it will suck but if it is free I guess I will go."
Having read reviews in which people complained how different the remake was from the original, I began to get excited and when I saw it, I was pleasantly surprised with how good it was. The key is to look at it the way I believe the filmmakers intended it, as a reimaging not a remake. Liza was amazing as Linda and nobody could top her which is why the lead character, who I like to think of as a completely different millionaire with the same name by chance, falls for a completely different girl named Naomi (Greta Gerwig.) The leads, both brilliant, are joined by Helen Miran as Hobson, a female nanny not male butler, and Jennifer Gardner as Susan Johnson, Arthur's mentally unstable (in a way that is only funny in film not life) exgirlfriend/ fiance (the original Susan role was dry and boring, but never psychotic.)
So if you are looking for the same ARTHUR with new actors, don't go see this film, you will be disappointed and angry. However, if you are in the mood for something new and funny, go for it. Either way, see the original too.
TEN THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU
I have a confession to make; I despise ‘80s teen flicks. I mean the soundtracks are great-ish but the movies do nothing for me. For me if Molly Ringwood is in a movie, it’s off faster than Jude Law’s pants at a Victoria Secret fashion show. I don’t get them and I don’t think I am supposed to; they are campy and trashy and allude to a world I will never know anything about, being a teenager at a time when I was still in diapers. It always seemed to me that the teen genre got better as I got older. An advancement in the field if you will; a sort of work in progress that was ever evolving and that, lucky for me, neared perfection right around the time I hit puberty.
This theory looses validity, however, when you look at the movies geared toward teens today. I am, just for a moment discounting anything involving vampires, werewolves, or wizards- not that their lives and afterlives aren’t important but I really doubt anyone ever thought to themselves, if only I found the right supernatural man, and I know he’s out there somewhere, everything else will fall into place. On second thought, many probably have but I don’t have time to get into that kind of crazy today. I’m talking about things like High School Musical, Camp Rock, or anything that involves Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, and the dreaded Justin Bieber. High school is not about everyone signing together and embracing the differences because deep down inside we all just want to dance and watching such crap makes me want to scream, “Where are the mean girls? Some dude better start talking about stealing a girl’s virtue soon before I vomit.”
The truth is no decade’s movies were better, they are just what I knew which is why, if you were born in the ‘70s you’ve lived a John Waters life and for people like me, you know what it was like for the students in Ten Things I Hate About You (not the TV show.) I wore those clothes, I listened to those songs, and most importantly, I grew up with those actors. I have dealt with academic staff members who are just as incompetent as Ms. Perky (sitting in her guidance office ignoring students while she works on her sex novel) or as uncaring and self involved as Mr. Morgan. I fully believed (who am I kidding, still believe) that two of the teachers at my high school were hooking up in the TV closet and my best friend once injured herself in PE because the teacher read a magazine while we taught ourselves Tai bo from a video. While it is true that a cute foreign boy never hijacked the PA system and serenaded me in front of the student body (clearly this was because I went to all girls catholic) I did see a fist fight that not only matches Larisa Oleynik’s but might even beat it.
So while I can’t understand the sex appeal of Charlie Sheen or Judd Nelson and just plain can’t understand Bieber, it doesn’t matter, you can keep your washed up or future burn outs because I will always have Patrick Verona, and he will always be too good to be true.
This theory looses validity, however, when you look at the movies geared toward teens today. I am, just for a moment discounting anything involving vampires, werewolves, or wizards- not that their lives and afterlives aren’t important but I really doubt anyone ever thought to themselves, if only I found the right supernatural man, and I know he’s out there somewhere, everything else will fall into place. On second thought, many probably have but I don’t have time to get into that kind of crazy today. I’m talking about things like High School Musical, Camp Rock, or anything that involves Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, and the dreaded Justin Bieber. High school is not about everyone signing together and embracing the differences because deep down inside we all just want to dance and watching such crap makes me want to scream, “Where are the mean girls? Some dude better start talking about stealing a girl’s virtue soon before I vomit.”
The truth is no decade’s movies were better, they are just what I knew which is why, if you were born in the ‘70s you’ve lived a John Waters life and for people like me, you know what it was like for the students in Ten Things I Hate About You (not the TV show.) I wore those clothes, I listened to those songs, and most importantly, I grew up with those actors. I have dealt with academic staff members who are just as incompetent as Ms. Perky (sitting in her guidance office ignoring students while she works on her sex novel) or as uncaring and self involved as Mr. Morgan. I fully believed (who am I kidding, still believe) that two of the teachers at my high school were hooking up in the TV closet and my best friend once injured herself in PE because the teacher read a magazine while we taught ourselves Tai bo from a video. While it is true that a cute foreign boy never hijacked the PA system and serenaded me in front of the student body (clearly this was because I went to all girls catholic) I did see a fist fight that not only matches Larisa Oleynik’s but might even beat it.
So while I can’t understand the sex appeal of Charlie Sheen or Judd Nelson and just plain can’t understand Bieber, it doesn’t matter, you can keep your washed up or future burn outs because I will always have Patrick Verona, and he will always be too good to be true.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)