Final-- Our Superficial Society: One Tatum at a Time

Former fashion model, Channing Bryan Isaac Tatum, has made a controversial impression on moviegoers today. Born on April 26, 1980 in Cullman, Alabama, 30-year old Tatum is the oldest of eight siblings. He attended military school and received a college football scholarship, only to drop out shortly after. His casting in Ricky Martin’s “She Bangs” music video launched his modeling career with agencies such as Abercrombie & Fitch and Armani. In 2004, Tatum began his acting career on the set of “C.S.I: Miami” as well as starring in numerous commercial ads. Nonetheless, his performances over the years have personified emptiness, which are emphasized through his cold body language and indifferent facial expressions. His dull acting is regurgitated in every one of his films, as he plays particularly similar roles as a misfit badass. However, society’s predictable infatuation with such films encourages Hollywood to employ such superficial actors such as Tatum. Thus, the vicious cycle of shallow film production keeps spinning in a feeble and terrifying direction.


Channing Tatum is an extremely unversitle actor. He always playing the same tough guy in either a drama or romantically categorized film. He plays Jason Lyle in “Coach Carter” (2005), a wanna-be gangster with a jail-bound father. Jason is a character who is too cool for everyone; walking around with his shirt off, backpack over one shoulder, and his hands in his pockets. Likewise, Tatum plays Antonio in “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” (2006) where Antonio’s natural instinct on the streets is fighting after his abusive father goes to prison. Antonio walks around like a “hot shot” with unbuttoned shirts, big muscles, and anger issues. Pin 2006’s “Step Up”,” Tatum plays a very similar character—Tyler Gage. Troubled and defiant, Tyler struts around in baggy pants, hooded sweatshirts, and wife beaters stealing cars for money until he finds a better outlet of dancing. His character in “Stop Loss” (2008), Steve Shriver, is a hard-core military fighter whose rough and hostile nature led him through a successful armed forces career. Tatum is also portrayed in an afflicted and mysterious light in “Dear John” (2010) as he plays John Tyree, a soldier who maintains a strained relationship with his father. Overall, Tatum is consistently playing the distressed and burdened character who seems mad at the world given his difficult upbringing. His steadily guarded nature makes him appear rigid and overdone in film, and such redundancy conveys him as an inauthentic actor. Interestingly, Tatum is usually in strong movies with a strong cast but even in his small supporting roles, he fails to live up to basic expectations. It wasn’t until recently that Tatum was cast playing main roles such as in “Step Up” and “Dear John”. Nevertheless, Tatum’s lack of versatility reinforces his surface-level acting.


As Tatum refuses to branch out and test new ranges within the acting field, he limits himself to a one-dimensional actor. His insecure body language confirms his awareness of the camera. Primarily, he offers very little eye contact with other actors making him distant to his own character and his audience. Secondly, he is generally standing at an angle to the camera, looking at others in the corner of his eye, over his shoulder (if he is looking at them at all). In addition, his face expressions are tight and unemotional making him extremely uncaptivating. This impersonal demeanor makes him a very unconvincing actor and character. This is especially clear in one of this year’s top box office films, “Dear John” (2010). Typically, a classic romantic film is known to thrive off of connections between characters as well as deep emotions. But instead, Tatum seems bored and distracted appearing interested in everything but his co-star, Amanda Seyfried. This naturally causes a lack of chemistry between the two lovers and ultimately causes a fake relational bond. Tatum’s very few face expressions are usually centered on a very focused and serious one. Most commonly, Tatum adopts an angry and intense attitude throughout his films. He often seems in deep thought with pointed eyebrows, his chin turned up, jaw muscles pulsing, with his head held back, gazing. But don’t let him fool you into thinking he is multifaceted when in fact he stares so intently out of narrow talent and fake confidence. He appears to be looking through people rather than actually looking at them. This blank and frozen face is a clear example of him trying too hard, eventually coming across as ingenuine and un-relatable. If he ever looks slightly happier than usual, transforming into what Tatum thinks is a charming a half-smile, it often comes across as awkward and out-of-place. It seems that everyone except Tatum understands that in the end, it shouldn’t look like acting, because with him it almost always does.


As Tatum seems to use one overarching facial expression for numerous types of emotions, so is the case when he speaks. He embodies a monotone voice for all types of emotions—whether it is two extremes such as excitement and depression. It is obvious that he doesn’t believe what he is saying because his words and expressions don’t coincide. While many good actors pride themselves on their ability to maintain a hold over their audience, Tatum does not have such an ability to express human emotion that would allow for such a connection. His actions and words say nothing and everything about his acting career—that he makes a better model than he ever will an actor.


However, his re-appearances in films are not entirely his fault. Society appears to crave Hollywood’s endorsements of such poor performance. Consumers today seem to value good looks over good acting. In her interview with Francis Davis, Pauline Kael comments that “what you see is a movie industry in decay, and the decay gets worse and worse”. Unfortunately, with the support of society, Hollywood is becoming less and less authentic and more and more superficial. In fact, it took the author of “The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer,” Phil Carlo, to recognize Tatum’s lack of fit for his casting as the main character of the film. Carlo called for the production to be cancelled. He explained, “I had to turn him down. I really hated the idea of Channing Tatum. I told [producer] di Bonaventura that this is not the guy to play one of the most feared killers of the 20th century”. Fortunately, someone was able to stall Hollywood and Tatum’s circus show, even if just for a short while.


Therefore, Tatum is one perfect example of Hollywood’s weak and pompous system. While Hollywood proves ignorant of recognizing skill, society positively reinforces such mediocrity by continuing to make actors like Tatum repeatedly rise at the box office.

An Eye on the Oscar's

The Academy Awards Ceremony that we all know today as the Oscar’s is the eldest awards ritual in media, as it dates back to its first ceremony in 1929. Eighty-one years later, the Oscar’s are still going strong, although today it is a little less modest. Sunday night’s broadcast of the 82nd Annual Oscar Awards Ceremony, held at Hollywood’s Kodak Theater, offered an array of admirable awards, yet embodied a strange presentation.

With interviewers Kathy Ireland, Jess, Cagle, and Sherri Shepherd, the red carpet began the night with superficial confrontations and awkward conversations, catering very much to the viewing audience. The interviewers succeeded in barely offering anything intelligent to say. For example, when Sherri Shepherd pulled Jeff Bridges aside and addressed his wife exclaiming, “Your husband looks so… yummy!” In addition, many of the actors and actresses seemed distracted and obligated to do a few minutes of “face time”. Thus, last night, the red carpet seemed a forced introduction to the awards.

Live music, bright lights, and a huge stage set the glamorous mood. Neil Patrick Harris unveiled the Oscar’s with feathered dancers, glitter, and tuxedos in his showgirl-styled song and dance performance. Co-stars Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin from “It’s Complicated” were the humorous hosts of the night. The at-home audience was further addressed in the graceless spotlights on celebrity stars. Baldwin excitedly shouted “Hey there’s Woody Harrison!” and Martin announced “Oh look, its James Cameron!” Name-dropping was then followed by a snapshot of the actor. There’s a reason audience members looked un-amused and bored. However, Baldwin and Martin worked off each other in a fairly comical manor otherwise, but also made some slicing jokes that were borderline insulting to the stars.

The first award of the night, Best Supporting Actor, went to the very deserving Christof Waltz who played a malicious Jew hunter in “Inglorious Bastards”(2009). Following Waltz, first-time nominee, Mo’nique, from “Precious” (2009) gave a heavy speech after her award for Best Supporting Actress.

“The Hurt Locker” (2008), to many peoples’ surprise, stole the show with its dominating winnings. It won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing. Conversely, it was no surprise that “Avatar” (2009) won Outstanding Cinematography and Outstanding Visual Effects, as well as Outstanding Art Direction.

“Crazy Heart” (2010) won its well-deserved recognition receiving Best Original Song by Ryan Bingham and T-Bone Burnett, while Jeff Bridges took home the award for Best Actor. Sandra Bullock also won some acknowledgment for “The Blind Side” (2009) in her award for Best Actress.

Given the results, it is evident that deeper-rooted films with a real life inspiration were most successful in 2009. From the heart-wrenching true stories seen in “Precious” and “The Blind Side” to the violent and dark frontlines of Iraq in “The Hurt Locker,” prove emotional yet moving, and audiences have come to respect such relatable films.

A wide variety of presenters including the Penelope Cruz, Kate Winslet, Steve Carrel, Robert Downey Jr., Cameron Diaz, Ben Stiller, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Rachel McAdams offered fresh voices and familiar faces to the monotonously long ceremony.

As the Oscar’s are annually hyped up, entertainment purposes exceedingly overshadowed the award giving. From the red carpet to reminiscence, the tacky and exaggerated entertainment was amusing for unintentional reasons.

Draft: Our Superfical Hollywood, One Tatum at a Time

Former fashion model, Channing Bryan Isaac Tatum, has made a controversial impression on moviegoers today. Born on April 26, 1980 in Cullman, Alabama, 30-year old Tatum is the oldest of eight siblings. He attended military school and received a college football scholarship, only to drop out soon after. He accepted various jobs as a construction worker and a cologne salesman. His cast in Ricky Martin’s “She Bangs” music video launched his modeling career for agencies such as Abercrombie and Armani. In 2004, Tatum began his acting career on the set of C.S.I: Miami as well as in numerous commercials ads. Nonetheless, his acting over the years entails emptiness, while being emphasized through his cold body language and indifferent face expressions. His monotonous acting is regurgitated in every one of his films as he plays particularly similar roles as a misfit bad ass. However, Hollywood’s encouragement towards actors such as Tatum keep the vicious cycle spinning in a feeble and terrifying direction.

Channing Tatum is always playing the same tough guy in either a drama or romantically categorized film. He played Jason Lyle in “Coach Carter” (2005), a wanna-be gangster with a jail-bound father. He is too cool for everybody, walking around with his shirt off, backpack over one shoulder, and his hands in his pockets. Likewise, he plays Antonio in “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” (2006). The film takes place in Queens, New York where Antonio’s natural instinct on the streets is fighting after his abusive father goes to prison. He walks around like a hot shot with unbuttoned shirts, big muscles, and anger issues. Playing Tyler Gage in “Step Up” (2006) was also nothing new for Tatum. Troubled and defiant, Tyler struts around in baggy pants, hooded sweatshirts, and wife beaters stealing cars for money until he finds a better outlet—dancing. His character in “Stop Loss” (2008), Steve Shriver, was a hard-core military fighter whose rough and hostile nature led him through a successful armed forces career. “Dear John” (2010) also portrayed Tatum in a bad boy and mysterious light as John Tyree who maintains a strained relationship with his father. His distressed and guarded nature was all too familiar. He is always the afflicted and burdened character who seems mad at the world given his horrible upbringing. His rigid nature is over the top and redundant in all of his films, making him a very inauthentic actor. Interestingly, Tatum is usually in strong movies with a strong cast but even in his small supporting roles, he fails to live up to basic expectations. It wasn’t until recent years that Tatum was cast playing main roles such as in “Step Up” and “Dear John”. Nevertheless, Tatum’s lack of versatility reinforces his surface-level acting, as he never branches out nor tests new ranges.

Channing Tatum is a one-dimensional actor. His face expressions are tight and unemotional making him extremely uncaptivating. He offers very little eye contact with other actors making him distant to his own character and his audience. His insecure body language confirms his awareness of the camera and uneasiness of it. He is generally standing un-square to the camera, looking at others in the corner of his eye over his shoulder (if he is looking at them at all). This impersonal demeanor makes him a very unconvincing character. This is especially clear in his role as John Tyree in “Dear John” (2010). A classic romantic film is known to thrive off of connections between characters as well as deep emotions. But instead, Tatum seems bored and distracted seeming interested in everything but his co-star, Amanda Seyfried. This naturally causes a lack of chemistry between the two lovers and ultimately causes a fake relational bond, easily spotted by audiences. Tatum’s few face expressions in a movie are usually centered on a very focused and serious one. If he ever looks slightly happier than usual, modifying what Tatum thinks is a charming a half-smile, it often comes across as awkward and out-of-place. Most commonly though, Tatum adopts an angry and intense attitude throughout his films. He often seems in deep thought with mean eyebrows, his chin turned up, teeth grinding, with his head held back, dazing. But don’t let him fool you into thinking he is multifaceted when in fact he stares so intently out of limited talent and fake confidence. He appears to be looking through people rather than actually looking at them. This blank and frozen face is a clear example of him trying too hard, eventually coming across as ingenuine and un-relatable. It seems that everyone except Tatum understands that “in the end, it can’t look like acting”, because with him it almost always does.

As Tatum seems to use one overarching face expression for numerous types of emotions, so is the case when he speaks. He embodies a monotone voice for all types of emotions—whether it is two extremes such as excitement and depression. It is obvious that he doesn’t believe what he is saying because his words and expressions don’t coincide. He has never proven an effective actor that maintains a hold over his audience as Tatum has no ability to convey human emotion. Between both body language and words Tatum verifies himself a fool of acting.

However, his re-appearances in films is not entirely his fault when Hollywood endorses such poor performance. What has Hollywood come to today? Do consumers really value good looks over good acting? With Tatum, this seems to be the case. In her interview with Francis Davis, Pauline Kael comments that “what you see is a movie industry in decay, and the decay gets worse and worse”. Consumers seem to use Hollywood films for their own self-indulgent purposes, living in a dream world. Unfortunately, Hollywood is becoming less and less authentic and more and more superficial, offering jobs to unqualified actors such as Tatum. Thus, his muscles, smooth skin, and defined jaw line are actually paying off. In fact, it took author of “The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer”, Phil Carlo, to recognize Tatum’s lack of fit for his casting as the main character of the film. Carlo called for the production to be cancelled. He explained “I had to turn him down. I really hated the idea of Channing Tatum. I told [producer] di Bonaventura that this is not the guy to play one of the most feared killers of the 20^th century”. Fortunately, someone stalled Hollywood and Tatum’s circus show, even if just for a short while.

Therefore, Tatum is one perfect example of Hollywood’s weak and pompous system. His actions and words say nothing and everything about his acting career—that he makes a better model than he ever will an actor. Not only is Tatum ignorant for not acknowledging his own lack of talent, but Hollywood also proves ignorant of recognizing skill. Then again, looks can be deceiving. Nonetheless, audiences everywhere are just a few Tatum movies away from seeing Hollywood’s downward spiral themselves if they haven’t already. And the actors will eventually fall down with it.

Crazy for "Crazy Heart"

With the scent of warm, whisky breath and the soundtrack of country music, “Crazy Heart” tells a captivating story about being strong enough to never give up on life. This charismatic and down-to-earth new film is truly refreshing in today’s excessive-driven film industry. Based on a novel by Thomas Cobbs, this film naturally fulfils its tagline stating “the harder the life, the sweeter the song”. Its simple yet deep plot is remarkably captured through vivid aesthetics, light-hearted language, powerful acting, and soulful music.

“Bad Blake” (nicknamed “Bad”), played by Jeff Bridges, is an aged and washed-up Western country singer who plays small gigs in bars and bowling alleys, while drinking away his troubled past. His main attire of sloppy casual visually emphasizes his unkempt personality with unbuckled pants, unbuttoned shirts, rolled up sleeves, a cowboy hat, sunglasses, a potbelly, and cowboy boots. His scruffy white whiskers and long greasy hair further enhance his untidy appearance, which ultimately earn him the reputation of a professional mess. He is never without a cigarette and religiously carries a flask, drinking and stumbling around at all times of the day.

However, his witty and carefree charm wins him numerous interviews with reporter Jean Craddock, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. The two soon pursue a romantic relationship, where their chemistry is surprisingly stunning and invigorating. The close camera angles and deep acting performances truly bring the characters alive and allows for a sincerely emotional connection between characters and audience.

In addition to the touching character portrayals, the script proved beyond riveting. Unique musical lyrics and relatable plot points made it an easy and beautiful film to watch. With expressive and moving lyrics like “funny how fallin feels like flyin, for a little while”, it is no surprise that writer and director Scott Cooper has been nominated for “Best Screenplay” as well as “Most Promising Director” for this film.

As “Crazy Heart” introduces Bad in the midst of the most drowning part of his life, it is rewarding as an audience member to see his linear progression as he retraces the steps of his past. The hardships seen in Bad ’s life are most likely relevant to most viewers, ranging from divorces and neglected children, to new relationships and sustainment of a career. This commonality forms a strong bond between film and audience, making the film a very meaningful experience.

For Bad, Jean is the motivation he needs to combat his chain-smoking and alcoholic crutches that have previously blurred the important things in his life. Their hopeful relationship, illuminated by outdoor sun-lit lighting eventually contrasts and overpowers his dark and gloomy-lit relationship with bars and Budweiser’s.

Thus, country fan or not, “Crazy Heart” is phenomenal and affecting, provoking a great reminder of what film industries should admire and aspire to. Merely, pure words and emotions energize the look and feel of the movie, making life seem just a little more manageable and encouraging. Hence, whenever at a loss for inspiration, Bad says it best, don’t underestimate the power to “pick up your crazy heart, give it one more try”.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugliness of "The Cripple of Inishmaan"

Martin McDonagh’s “The Cripple of Inishmaan” presented at Kalamazoo College’s Festival Playhouse over this past weekend, was clever yet disappointing. Directed by Kevin Dodd, a theater arts educator at both Kalamazoo College and Western Michigan University, this black comedy takes place on the sheltered island off the coast of Ireland during the early 1930’s. It’s characters, script, and humor is delightful, yet its high attempts to be witty took this play one step too far, for far too long.

The scenery was ideal. Plaid skirts, vests, aprons, suspenders, tights, slacks and heavy-heeled shoes all of neutral browns, oranges and reds provided a perfect tone for this antique Irish setting. Wooden barrels, shelved canned foods, lanterns, and food crates also added an effective old fashion touch.

The characters of this play were also captured extremely well. “Cripple Billy”, played by senior Michael Chodos, is first introduced through his gossiping aunts Kate, played by senior Laura Fox, and Eileen, played by first-year Sierra Moore. Eventually he shuffled in with a crippled arm, dragging his left foot. Chodos magnificently conveyed Billy to the point where viewers immediately felt sympathy for Billy with his hunched shoulders, sullen face expressions and slow movements. Johnny Patten, played by second-year Sam Bertken, was a nosy and bitter old man who always seemed up-to-date on the latest news of the island and offered daily “pieces of news” to chat about. Helen, played by first-year Rudi Goddard, was one of the stronger and buoyant characters who seemed a natural flirt. All of these personalities and even other minor personalities always remained true to their character, which was very refreshing to watch.

The script was unique and authentic. Words such as “arse” and “feckin” reined consistent of the Irish language as well as stirred good laughs from the audience. The characters’ high held value of their country was also portrayed through language: “Ireland mustn’t be a bad place if sharks want to be comin’ to Ireland”. The dialect, however, was not so successful in this particular production. The Irish accent was barely mastered by the majority of the actors. Instead of rolling the words naturally off their tongue, their speech sounded nasally and forced, making me question if we were still in Ireland or if we went traveling to a mix of some other European countries. Unfortunately, this began taking away from the authenticity of the McDonagh’s script as well as the characters.

The successful integration of harmless humor is really what kept the play upbeat through its drudgingly long duration. Everything from Billy’s fascination with cows and his overly frantic aunts, to Johnny trying to kill his Mammy with alcohol and Kate talking to stones made the Inishmaan community seem all the more blameless and fruitful.

However, not everything in this play was so humorous. The style of dialogue presented alternated between two extremes: light-hearted and heart breaking. The two together played on the emotions of audience members in a frustrating way. Things that were meant to be funny such as playing jokes on humble “Cripple Billy” and talk of stomping on a cat until its dead were demoralizing. McDonagh definitely took the black humor too far, especially when the audience finds out that Billy has believed all his life that he is cripple because his father punched his mother’s womb while she was pregnant with Billy, which is why is was born with a handicap.

Additionally, the play was a few hours too long with its exhausted conversations, discomforted silences and awkward transitions. This play was also often stretching for entertainment. For example, when Helen was cracking eggs over another character’s head, it became clear that the actors where anticipating a laugh that never actually came. The unrealistic action such as a few slow motion punches reminded me that I was in fact in an auditorium. All of these small technical faults added up fast and quickly overshadowed the tremendous character portrayals and detailed aesthetics. The longer I watched, the more I had to struggle to pay attention. I would have much rather watched cows in a field with Billy than watch this play again.

Profile Pitch Piece: Channing Tatum

I hope to be writing my final piece for March 2010 on 30 year-old actor, Channing Tatum. This “celebrity profile” will be analyzing Tatum’s ineffective and one-dimensional acting skills, if you can even call them “skills”. I truly believe that Tatum should have maintained his career as a model as he really only has his good looks going for him. He is the perfect example of why Hollywood is downward spiraling.

I will be using numerous films staring Tatum as my primary sources. These will include movies such as “G.I. Joe”(2009), “Stop Loss”,(2008) “Step Up” (2006), and his recent debut “Dear John” (2010). I will also be using a wide range of secondary sources including biographies and blogs of Tatum. Additionally, I will be contrasting him to articles describing qualities of good actors. All of these sources will support my case of Tatum’s lack of talent. It is interesting that in his wide-range of movies, he is always playing the same mysterious and afflicted character.

As an avid moviegoer of both action and romantic films in which I feed off emotional connection between actor and viewer, I believe I am the perfect candidate to speak on this topic with my ultimate frustration. It will be a witty and biting piece that Americans need to hear to bring them out of their Tatum dream world, seeing him for what he is not.

Revision: Kael's Criticism

Pauline Kael’s choice to become a writer over a lawyer was one big mistake. Although Kael is obviously very intelligent graduating from the University of California, Berkley and well acclaimed through her long career at the New Yorker, Kael’s reviews embody a subjective approach filled with strong emotional reactions and extremely polarized opinions. As a critic, Kael’s stubbornness, straightforwardness, bold claims, outdated expectations and exaggerations all confirm that she clearly takes her job too seriously.

Kael always prided herself on her independent standpoints. These, however, are the very things that have caused a lot of resistance and hostility towards her work. Her pieces undoubtedly capture attention from the first sentence, but her long rants were known for rarely saying anything constructive. In a review of “The Witches of Eastwick”, Kael claimed that “nothing is carried through; about half the scenes don’t make much sense and the final ones might as well have a sign posted: ‘We’re desperate for a finish’”. In this example, she is excessively brash and straightforward, while also inflating the producer’s alleged intentions. Maybe Kael should have spent less time evaluating and more time enjoying the film. It seems to me that Kael is a critic merely to criticize, offering very little genuine analysis.

Kael’s overemphasized claims also carry over into unnecessary questioning within her reviews. Her numerous questions prove degrading and insulting to not only all efforts of the film, but also to the readers that might have enjoyed what Kael doubted. For example, in reference to an actor’s performance, she cynically asked “Why didn’t anyone explain to him that he needn’t wear himself out with acting?” and another actor, “How can you have any feeling for a man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren?” Kael self-assuredly asks these questions hoping to intrigue her readers, but it actually comes across as Kael having an un-stimulating conversation with herself. She tries so hard to be witty and overly sarcastic for entertaining purposes, but it seizes to impress.

She even goes as far as to make high assumptions about her audience with her recurrent use of “you”. An example of this is when she is talking about “Hiroshima Mon Amour” and she remarks, “I don’t know how many movies you have gone to lately that were made to sell soap, but American movies are like advertisements”. She does this in a generalizing and manipulative way that really means, “If you don’t think like I do, you are clearly not as intelligent as me”. Evidently, Kael personifies the grandmother figure that knows best. However, she would have made a better case in court.

Additionally, Kael fails to astonish with her un-riveting endings. It is obvious that she is trying too hard in many of her assessments. She tries to sound intelligent and credible when she ends her “Hiroshima Mon Amour” review by musing, “And the question I want to ask is: Who’s selling it?” My question is “Who cares?”

Kael’s retirement came at a good time. Her stubborn nature and her inability to adapt to change were definitely a few determinants. She remarked in Davis’s “Afterglow” that “I am a mechanical idiot…I wrote by hand…but I think it was an excuse so I wouldn’t have to learn to operate machinery”. As Kael had little desire to keep up with modern day innovations, it is evident that she has no desire to keep up with modern day movies. Nonetheless, as times change, movies change, and her bitterness and pessimism noticeably increased over the years given her hostility toward current-day Hollywood. She expresses “I suddenly couldn’t say anything about some of the movies. They were just so terrible”. It seems like it finally got to the point where she inadvertently went to the movies with outdated expectations instead of seeing the film for its own uniqueness.

Kael is clearly not up to contemporary day challenges and her black-and-white thinking was inevitably going to dead-end her writing sooner or later in this new generation of film. An authentic critic should be less stubborn and self-centered, and more objective and open-minded—all of which Kael had no intention of embracing.

Kael’s Criticism

Pauline Kael’s choice to become a writer over a lawyer was one big mistake. Although Kael is obviously very intelligent graduating from the University of California, Berkley and well acclaimed through her long career at the New Yorker, Kael’s reviews embody a subjective approach filled with strong emotional reactions and extremely polarized opinions. As a critic, Kael’s stubbornness, straightforwardness, bold claims, intolerance for ignorance, outdated expectations and exaggerations all confirm that she clearly takes her job too seriously.

Kael always prided herself on her independent standpoints. These however are the very things that have caused a lot of resistance and hostility towards her work. Her works undoubtedly capture attention from the first sentence, but her long rants were known for rarely saying anything constructive. In a review of “The Witches of Eastwick”, Kael claimed that “nothing is carried through; about half the scenes don’t make much sense and the final ones might as well have a sign posted: ‘We’re desperate for a finish’”. She is excessively brash and straightforward while also inflating the producer’s intentions for the ending. Maybe Kael should have spent less time analyzing and more time enjoying a film. It seems to me that Kael is a critic merely to criticize, with very little genuine analysis.

Kael’s overemphasized claims also carry over into her unnecessary questioning within her reviews as well. Her numerous questions proved degrading and insulting to not only all efforts of the film, but also to the readers that might have enjoyed what Kael doubted. For example, in reference to an actor’s performance, she cynically asked “Why didn’t anyone explain to him that he needn’t wear himself out with acting?” and another actor, “How can you have any feeling for a man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren?” Kael self-assuredly asks these questions hoping to intrigue her readers, but it actually comes across as Kael having an un-stimulating conversation with herself. She tries so hard to be witty and overly sarcastic for entertaining purposes, but I am personally unimpressed.

She even goes as far as to make high assumptions about her audience with her recurrent use of “you”. An example of this is when she is talking about “Hiroshima Mon Amour” and she remarks, “I don’t know how many movies you have gone to lately that were made to sell soap, but American movies are like advertisements”. She does this in a generalizing and manipulative way that really means, “If you don’t think like I do, you are clearly not as intelligent as me”. Evidently, Kael personifies the grandmother figure that knows best. I don’t buy it. She would have made a better case in court.

Additionally, Kael seizes to impress me with her un-riveting endings. It is obvious that she is trying too hard in many of her reviews. She tries to sound intelligent and credible when she ends her “Hiroshima Mon Amour” review by pondering: “And the question I want to ask is: Who’s selling it?” My question is “Who cares?”

Kael’s retirement came at a good time. Her stubborn nature and her inability to adapt to change were definitely a few determinants. As Kael had little desire to keep up with modern day innovations, it is evident that she has no desire to keep up with modern day movies. Nonetheless, as times change, movies change, and her bitterness and pessimism noticeably increased over the years. It finally got to the point where she inadvertently went to the movies with outdated expectations instead of seeing the film for its own uniqueness.

Kael is clearly not up to modern day challenges and her black-and-white thinking was inevitably going to dead-end her writing sooner or later in this new generation of film. An authentic critic should be less stubborn and self-centered, and more objective and open-minded—all of which Kael had no intention of embracing.

Writing, Reading, & Alliteration

With fresh ideas and charm, Kalamazoo College’s English Department offered a well-rounded reading in the Olmstead Room Wednesday night. All speakers have obtained an MA, MS, MSW, or PhD within the field of English. Between pieces of creative non-fiction, memoirs, and poetry, as well as works of history and stream-of-consciousness, it made for a very intellectually stimulating and entertaining experience. No matter the subject, all the authors’ compositions were intriguing, as they are clearly experts of diction in their field.

The reading was bookended with the only two male writers in the department: Andy Mozina and Bruce Mills. Mozina began with his piece, My Nonsexual Affair, which used compelling imagery through a narrative structure to portray the innocence of “hot fudge sundaes” in contrast to sexually implied descriptions of “thick”, “dribbling” and “sticky” sauce on the front of his shirt that pegs him guilty of indulgence.

As strongly as Mozina opened the reading Wednesday night, Mills closed it. His excerpt from An Archeology of Yearning described his personal battle in coping with an autistic son. Compassion and hope interjected and stole the story with his delicate use of adjectives (“crescent moon of fingernails”) and sensory imagery (“the taste of compressed air”).

Glenn Deutsch’s piece was one of wonderment and humor. Beth Marzonie’s colorful perspective of The Tate Modern in London was vibrantly captured through her concise language and use of alliteration. Babli Sinha’s piece stretched backward to her heritage on a “new woman” in India. Amelia Katanski’s Noble Truth was one of suffering with “sticky patches of puss”. Amy Rodger’s personality shined through in her very descriptive stream-of-consciousness piece of self-exploration. Marin Heinritz’s use of clear, short sentences and childhood thoughts in her autobiographical piece about her mother proved very emotional and affecting, allowing that connection to be mutual among her audiences.

Diane Seuss also strived to reach out to her audience with her un-failing confidence and poetic voice that can’t help but inspire. Her engaging line breaks and sexual undertone make audiences gripping for more of her dark and violent imagination.

In a similar way, Gail Griffin is sure to influence. If Griffin ever wished to pursue a job as a motivational speaker, she would be extremely successful. She fully understands the meaning of emphasizing the most important words at the most important times. Griffin’s memoir piece revisits the shooting of a Kalamazoo College student many years back. It was gloomy yet spiritual. Her precise imagery of a sky “gathering dark” and of the “earth darkening black” brought her piece alive. Her emphasized words, such as “he was marked”, can’t help but stick with audience members.

Words truly do fill the gap in experience and these writers took the risk of detailing those gaps in attempt to bring forth more meaning. As all of these writers clearly had their own individual interests and strengths, it offered a wide-range of literature that could be appreciated by all types of audiences. Though there were naturally stronger speakers than others, all the works recited were extremely vivid and overall brilliant.

Haynes's Personal Goldmine

As celebrity icons have always had a major influence on society, the characters of “Velvet Goldmine” play a vital role in changing the world’s view of homosexuality and do so energetically with the help of openly gay director and co-writer Todd Haynes. Haynes is most well known for his productions of “Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story” and “Poison”.

Given his history, it is no surprise that Haynes created such a disorienting yet self-indulging film. Released in 1998, this British glam rock film takes place in England in the early 1970’s. It portrays Brian Slade, played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers, a bisexual rock star icon who falls in love with Curt Wild, played by Ewan McGregor a rebellious homosexual rock star. Reporter Arthur Stuart, played by Christian Bale, is assigned to revisit Slade’s death 10 years later to uncover the truth.

“Velvet Goldmine” similarly parallels the lives of David Bowie (Brian Slade) and Kurt Cobain (Curt Wild). There is also an evident tie to Oscar Wilde as well as many quotes cited from his work throughout the film. This film is set up in a storytelling, classic mystery structure that makes viewers work backwards to find answers. This type of structure as seen in many detective films such as “Citizen Kane”, effectively keeps the attention of numerous audiences. “Velvet Goldmine” ’s spirit and canning visual pictures are empowering, however the performance doesn’t tie together at the end causing frustration and confusion.

Music alone could carry this movie. The soulful yet lively soundtrack of this film sets a very eccentric and intensified pace with electric guitars and hard drums. The music adds so much depth to the plot and the overall mood of the film. It also tends to move with the actions and emotions of the characters, making the musical aesthetic extremely meaningful. The music not only smoothly transitions from one scene to another, but it also productively builds up these scenes as well. In effect, this film creatively appears to be one on-going music video; a music video about love, hope, dreams, relationships, and heartbreak.

Images of striped knee socks, blue eye shadow, thick mascara, pig tails, lipstick, sparkles, stilettos, long bangs, brightly colored scarves, camera flashes, dyed hair, and metallic body suits make the visuals very appealing and stunning throughout the film. Such dramatized costumes and over-done makeup not only emphasize the theme of unending possibilities during this hippie era, but also a theme of self-discovery alongside a vibe of loud-and-proud erotically aggressive statements about sexual identity. Nudity and pelvic poses also produce an intentionally seductive and sexually rebellious theme throughout this particular film. In fact Brian Slade even goes as far as to say that “rock and roll is prostitute”. After seeing “Velvet Goldmine” it is obvious why Haynes received the Artistic Achievement Award for this film.

However, the acting was a bit overshadowed by the musical energy and ravishing visuals. More emotional acting would have made the characters seem much more realistic and compelling. The close camera angles provided the perfect opportunity for intimacy and relation between the characters and the audience, but the actors seemed a bit guarded and blank-faced. Nonetheless, the characters themselves accurately personified their real-life icons in both their attitudes and appearance.

All in all, this is an exhilarating and entertaining film that is well worth seeing for all adult audiences.

Sources:

http://movies.nytimes.com/person/93836/Todd-Haynes/biography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Goldmine

http://www.moviemartyr.com/1998/velvetgoldmine.htm

http://www.nyrock.com/movies/1998/velvet_g.asp

NYT Defense: Why Honesty is Well Appreciated

Defense written on Anthony Tommasini’s “Moon as Setting for Earthly Foibles"

(Thursday, January 22, 2010)

No wonder Anthony Tommasini remains the chief music critic of the New York Times today. He grabs attention and posses authority right from the very first few sentences in his review. His introduction is not only unique and bold; it is also informative offering context and perspective of director Goren’s initial idea for the show. Tommasini jumps immediately into his personal opinion in the second paragraph with unimpressed descriptions of the performance: “bizarre sci-fi costumes” and “lame overacting”. This is also where his “but” statement really begins to shine.

His tone is very disinterested as well as passive aggressive and sarcastic. Tommasini uses words such as “eager-to-please” “makeshift platform” and “straining for laughs”. This tone is even clearer when he wittingly dedicates the last paragraph to the planetarium, giving it credit for putting up with the performance. It is obvious in all his negativity that Tommasini felt bad for the audience as well as the actors.

The structure of this article makes Tommasini’s argument even stronger as it offers his personal opinion prior to the summary of the performance. This almost naturally causes readers to look down on the storyline because he tears down so much of its legitimacy in the beginning. This is a particularly clever trick.

Tommasini writes this well-rounded review by including a great amount of evidence on many aspects of the show. He touches on the acting, the singing, the band, the script, the special effects, the costumes, and even the musical score all in a matter of a few concise words. Tommasini is an extremely credible source for doing so, as he has a very strong background in music and theater, graduating from both Yale and Boston University. He has been working for the New York Times since 1997.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/business/media/09askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all

A for "Avatar"

At the age of 22, after watching George Lucas’s “Star Wars”, director James Cameron was inspired to rise above Lucas’s special effects. Cameron had always been an avid science-fiction fan and began working his way up the Hollywood ladder building miniature spaceships for “Battle Beyond the Stars”. Within a matter of a few short years, Cameron earned a position as a director. While directing some of his earlier films such as “The Terminator” and “Titanic”, he became known for always pursuing “risky ideas” in cinema. This characteristic became true in his filming of “Avatar” as it took over 300 million dollars to make. However, “Avatar” was an idea Cameron had been brainstorming for over 12 years. Thus, to Cameron, “Avatar” was fully worth the risk.

Australian actor Sam Worthington plays Jake Sully, an ex-marine outsider who finds himself searching for a new identity throughout the film. He meets the Na’vi tribe on the moon of Pandora and falls in love with Neytiri, played by actress Zoe Saldana, while learning their way of life. There is not only a struggle within Jake’s personal identity, but also between worlds: the competitively hostile “real world” and Pandora’s incandescent “dream world” as both have contrasting end goals in the film. The valued relationships and strong bonds among the Na’vi tribe creates a loyal community atmosphere, while in contrast, the characters of the “real world” have power-hungry and machinegun-happy resolutions to any problems or obstacles they face in overtaking Pandora. Overall, the breathtaking scenery created by up-scale special effects makes this film excitingly unique, however, the storyline proves very much like a predictable fairy-tale.

“Avatar” exceedingly offers audiences heart pounding excitement and dazzling pictures. The cinematography is extraordinary. The glowing and illuminating aesthetics in this film bring forth a warm and serene mood throughout the dream world of Pandora. In addition, the 3-dimensional enhancements not only effectively place the audience in both worlds, but also bring each of the worlds’ surroundings alive: water looks like glitter and flies stick to the back of your neck. The close camera angles create an intimate relationship between the audience and the movie characters. The music of flutes, drumbeats, and whistles seems to move simultaneously with the feelings and movements of the characters, allowing audience members to feel empowered alongside the characters.

All of this combined makes this film even more realistic and compelling. Audiences step into the beautifully unknown yet highly imaginative world of Pandora involving brilliant colors and creativity, which makes audiences resistant to waking up from the “dream world”. Dr. Grace Augustine says it best when she advises Jake to “just relax and let your mind go blank”.

Aside from the beautiful lights and sounds this film portrays, the dialogue and computer-generated characters seem to touch merely on a surface level rather than a deeper level. The script was unoriginal following a similar storyline to Disney’s Pocahontas and the Avatars’ tight face expressions proved very inexpressionate and more creepy, making it hard to connect with both the character as well as the actor.

However, “Avatar” is still a “must see” in theaters for the full experience. By the end it comes down to machines versus nature and a cutthroat battle is fought between both worlds. Although the storyline was a bit of a disappointment, this film’s fast-paced, spiritual journey and magnificent luminosity is sure to capture the attention and compassion of audiences of all age groups. As Colonel Quaritch puts it: “You’re not in Kansas anymore. You’re on Pandora, ladies and gentlemen.”