ReportWire

Tag: Charlie Kaufman

  • Charlie Kaufman Holds Hollywood Responsible for Today’s ‘Terrible’ World

    Filmmaker Charlie Kaufman’s got a lot to say about the state of the world—and why he thinks Hollywood is at least partially to blame for it.

    In a new interview with The Guardian, the mind behind 2004’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and this year’s short How to Shoot a Ghost said the film industry has “everything to do with [why] the world is in a terrible, terrible situation right now.”

    As part of said industry, Kaufman considers it a personal responsibility to “not put garbage into the world,” which for him, means doing his own thing and not giving into the urge to use AI in filmmaking.

    A massive selling point for the technology is its ability to give people exactly what they want, fast. But Kaufman argues that, in Hollywood at least, that predisposition has been present long before AI exploded onto the scene: “If you start trying to figure out what it is that people want, you’re doing what AI does. It’s why Hollywood remakes the same five movies every 10 years, and it’s why they have a formula for what a movie is.”

    More critically, Kaufman said the “greed and acquisitiveness” in the industry stems from “damaged people doing so much damage.” His comments feel particularly potent in the wake of reporting on Thursday that Paramount will attempt to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery—a merger that itself has seemed, well, catastrophic, to put it nicely.

    Kaufman argued that Hollywood executives are “really lost and don’t have anything, so they’re desperately trying to make themselves better by acquiring, by lording it over people, being powerful and wealthy.”

    Notably, Kaufman did not spare his criticism for himself: He described himself as another damaged individual, but suggested that his coping mechanisms are healthier than others’ in the industry. “[I read] a poem, see a painting, or listen to music which speaks to me and breaks me for a moment, and where I feel an experience honestly and delicately portrayed,” he said.

    AI, he added, is doomed to fail in art because it can’t create the feeling of being alive, which Kaufman said was now more vital than ever: “If we don’t allow ourselves to connect with other humans who have the experiences that we have, then I think we’re lost.”

    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    Justin Carter

    Source link

  • Naturally, Imposter Syndrome Is Tackled Through the Lens of “Being A Screenwriter” in Only Murders in the Building’s “Adaptation” Episode

    Naturally, Imposter Syndrome Is Tackled Through the Lens of “Being A Screenwriter” in Only Murders in the Building’s “Adaptation” Episode

    When it comes to wanting to emulate a certain screenwriter, the biggest “douchebag cliché” veers toward Charlie Kaufman worship. In the screenwriting world, it almost amounts to the same thing as a literary writer worshipping David Foster Wallace—who, yes, is mentioned within the first two minutes of Only Murders in the Building’s fifth episode in season four, “Adaptation.” (Specifically, “I can quote David Foster Wallace AND Ace Ventura.” Which is not exactly something to be proud of.) Obviously named as such in honor of Kaufman’s grudging homage to the masochism of screenwriting in the 2002 film of the same name.

    To convey the masochism and imposter syndrome that’s particularly unique to screenwriting, Marshall P. Pope (Jin Ha) opens the episode with the age-old question, “What makes a writer a real writer?” For most, whether writers or not, the answer, tragically, remains: being paid for it. Because being paid for things is what’s supposed to make you feel like a “real person” in general. But that sensation magnifies tenfold when you’re a writer—and, unfortunately, just one of many in the competitive cesspool of overall mediocrity that often actually allows only the mediocre to rise to the top.

    After selling his script to Paramount (with producer Bev Melon [Molly Shannon] at the helm), Marshall fears that he might be just that sort of “success story” as he applies a fake mustache and beard in front of the mirror (an Antonioni poster looming in the background for added pretentious, pseudointellectual flair) to make himself appear more “writerly.” More “worldly,” as he calls it. And, as most people in New York will maintain, “It’s about convincing the world and, honestly, yourself that you have the goods.” The old “fake it till you make it” chestnut. A vexing platitude that was much easier to execute back during a time when absolutely every embarrassing and/or compromising detail about your past couldn’t be dredged up somewhere on the internet and used against/to discredit you.  

    Even so, Marshall tries his best to evoke the “Kaufman look” (a picture of Charlie tacked to the mirror, in what could be called Single Asian Male-style) in the hope that said screenwriter’s own “brilliance” might rub off on him. Because, as Marshall also adds, “The look only gets you so far.” Theoretically, you’re supposed to have some talent, too. But that theory seems quaint now, rooted in the days before the Kardashians landed onto the scene. Marshall then instructs, “It comes down to what’s on the page.” Alas, if that were truly the case, movies like Madame Web would never be made.

    While OMITB’s “Adaptation” never bothers with getting meta in quite the same intense, envelope-pushing way as Kaufman’s movie (though, on a related note, Meryl Streep was in Adaptation just as she’s in season four of OMITB), the episode’s own writers, Steve Martin, John Hoffman and J.J. Philbin, are sure to drive home the meta aspect that stems from Charles-Haden Savage (Martin), Oliver Putnam (Martin Short) and Mabel Mora (Selena Gomez) being forced by the studio turning their podcast into a film (rather than the movie-within-a-movie genre, OMITB seeks to embody the less-trodden movie-within-a-TV-show genre) to be photographed with their so-called doppelgangers: the actors playing them. For Charles, it’s Eugene Levy; for Oliver, it’s Zach Galifianakis; for Mabel, it’s Eva Longoria (who tells Mabel she’s been “aged up” to make her relationship with two old men seem less creepy). This serves only as more creative fodder for Marshall as he delves into additional rewrites on the script after spending more time with the trio (thanks to being questioned by them as a suspect).

    As Mabel and Charles wrap up their questioning of their “suspect,” Mabel can’t resist the inclination to ask, “Is your beard…fake?” An embarrassed Marshall replies, “Oh god, is it that obvious? This is supposed to be costume-grade human hair.” When Mabel continues to probe about why he has it, Marshall admits, “I can’t really grow facial hair and… I wanted to sell myself as a ‘real writer.’ This is the look, right?” Charles and Mabel both regard him as though he’s the saddest creature in the world before Charles gently inquires, “How could a writer of your talent have imposter syndrome?” Mabel, however, can immediately relate to knowing what it’s like to be good at what your passion is, yet still not really believe in that talent even after being accepted by the Establishment. Indeed, for Mabel, Establishment acceptance seems to be another sign, to her, that she’s an imposter. Particularly after Bev laps up every half-cooked idea she offers as Bev’s next adaptation-from-a-podcast movie.

    As for Martin (even if playing Charles while saying it) asking the abovementioned question, he’s no doubt speaking from his own experience in the screenwriting field, a métier that makes most of its pursuers feel like a fraud. Especially if they’ve never even sold a script. That one-in-a-million chance befalling only so many aspirants—and it’s typically only the most annoying, least talented ones who are willing to openly say, “Yeah, I’m a screenwriter” despite having no evidence other than an ego and a spec script to back it up.

    But what this episode of OMITB aims to do (apart from introducing a pair of new lead suspects) is assure those billed as “amateur” artists that said word is not a bad thing. That, in fact, it proves one is doing it for the love of the art rather than the quest for commercial “glory.” Marshall initially serves as a representation of both sides of that coin, albeit one who only really wants “success” because he’s been conditioned his entire life, like everyone else, to believe that art has value solely if it’s being in some way corporately subsidized. Therefore, “sanctioned” by a “higher power.”

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    Although it’s easy to shit on Sex and the City in the present, there are occasional moments in the show when one realizes how truly visionary it was for its time. You know, going to a tantric sex workshop and vaguely acknowledging white privilege while you’re getting a pedicure—things like that. But one thing Sex and the City rarely gets credit for is providing the kernel of the idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This occurred in season four of the series; specifically, episode six: “Time and Punishment” (the same episode where Charlotte York [Kristin Davis] was shamed for having “free time” instead of working). Which aired three years before Eternal Sunshine… was released in 2004.

    But back in July of 2001, when “Time and Punishment” first aired, Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) had the sudden “revelation” that cheating on Aidan Shaw (John Corbett) back in mid-season three was the worst mistake of her life—or at least her romantic life (which, in truth, embodies one hundred percent of Carrie’s existence). Therefore, narcissist that she is, Carrie obviously believes it’s within her power to get him back…just because she decides on a whim that’s what she wants. And apparently, she’s not wrong in her assumption, wearing Aidan down with her seduction methods (however stalker-y) until he concedes that, sure, he wants to get back together.

    But before that glorious (for Carrie) moment, Bradshaw gives us one of her signature voiceover “insights” from the column de la semaine she’s writing, ruminating on a person’s inability to forgive if they can’t really forget. So it is that she tell us: “Later that day, I got to thinking about relationships and partial lobotomies. Two seemingly different ideas that might be perfect together, like chocolate and peanut butter. Think how much easier it would all be if there was some swift surgical procedure to whisk away all the ugly memories and mistakes and leave only the fun trips and special holidays.” Yes, Carrie is perfectly describing what Charlie Kaufman would call “Lacuna Inc.” in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Minus the part where even the fun trips and special holidays are remembered. For, in Carrie’s ideal version of relationship memory erasure, you still at least remember the person existed in your life prior to the “procedure.”

    Kaufman and Michel Gondry did that concept one better by making it key for all traces of the person to be forgotten. Even though it only set up someone like Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) for the trap of gravitating right back toward the person they ended up finding toxic in the first place. Which is also something that Zoë Kravitz’s Blink Twice addresses in a more ominous way. But what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind prefers to do is position the inevitable “re-attraction” between two people who were already unable to make it work before as something with a more hopeful tinge. Not just more hopeful than what Blink Twice does with the concept, but also with what ends up happening to Carrie and Aidan by the end of season four (hint: total emotional catastrophe/an even more painful breakup than the first time around).

    However, before the reasons for their first breakup are proven yet again (and tenfold), to conclude her thoughts on the matter of “forgiving and forgetting,” Carrie adds, “But until that day arrives, what to do? Rely on the same old needlepoint philosophy of ‘forgive and forget’? And even if a couple can manage the forgiveness, has any[one] ever really conquered the forgetness? Can you ever really forgive, if you can’t forget?” In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there’s no need to forgive because all has been forgotten.

    As for setting up the premise for “Time and Punishment,” the episode that precedes it, “Baby, Talk Is Cheap,” also refers to the “unforgettability” (therefore, unforgivability) of what Carrie did to Aidan. An egregious sin he feels obliged to remind her of when she has the gall to come to his door late at night and plead her case for getting back together. None of her “logic” trumps the fact that, as Aidan screams, “You broke my heart!” But Carrie sees that only as a “minor detail” when presenting him with the “argument,” “Look, I know that you’re probably scared and I would be too, but it’s different now. Things are different. I-I’m different.” She then tries to prove it by taking a pack of cigarettes out of her purse and declaring, “Cigarettes, gone.” Of course, if they were really “gone,” they wouldn’t have been in her purse in the first place.

    Nonetheless, Carrie continues to insist that this “new” her was clearly not responsible for the actions of the old her and, thus, shouldn’t be punished by being denied another chance. She assures Aidan, “Seriously, all bad habits gone. This is a whole new thing because I miss you. And I’ve missed you.” As though her desire for him alone should be enough for him to want to forget about all the pain she caused him. And when Aidan screams the aforementioned line at her audacity, Carrie displays the kind of immaturity and embarrassing behavior she’s known for by simply running away instead of staying to face the firing squad, as it were.

    Ultimately, though, she gets what she wants: for Aidan to submit to her. Granted, not without an initial bout of passive aggressive behavior in “Time and Punishment” that finally prompts Carrie to say of the co-worker he’s been openly flirting with, “Why don’t you just fuck her, then we can both be bad.” When he comes to her door at the end of the episode, Carrie tells him, “I know that you can’t forget what happened, but I hope that you can forgive me.” But she was onto something before in her column—the idea that no true forgiveness can be attained without forgetting. Ergo, her wish for a Lacuna Inc.-like enterprise that wouldn’t “exist” until three years later…perhaps after Kaufman caught sight of Carrie’s column. And while Carrie might not have been the first to wish for this form of a “relationship lobotomy,” she was the only one to say it out loud in such a crystallized way before Eternal Sunshine… came along to perfect the notion.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    Romy Schneider once said, “Memories are the best things in life, I think.” But are they, really, if some of them serve only as a brutal, triggering source of trauma? In both Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice, that’s the main type of memory being dealt with, therefore suppressed. But while one is a “rom-com” (Charlie Kaufman-style), the other is a horrifying thriller with a #MeToo slant. Both, however, do center on “the necessity” of memory erasure as it pertains to the relationship between men and women.

    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, of course, is much “lighter” by comparison. Even though, in its time and its place, it was considered just as “bleak” as it was “quirky.” It’s also more hyper-focused on one relationship in particular, in contrast to Blink Twice speaking to the overall power dynamics between men and women as it relates to sex rather than “romance.” More to the point, the power dynamics between rich men and “regular” women. In Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman’s narrative, the main “sufferers” (or beneficiaries, depending on one’s own personal views) of select memory loss are Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey). But it is the former who “brings it on both of them,” as she’s the one to initially enlist the memory-erasing services of Lacuna Inc., run by Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson). Joel merely follows suit after comprehending what she’s done, deciding that she shouldn’t be the only person in the relationship permitted the luxury of forgetting about all that they shared together. Good and bad.

    So it is that he, too, undergoes the procedure, briefed on the ins and out of it by Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst), the receptionist at Lacuna, and Dr. Mierzwiak before opting to excise Clementine from his brain as well (in a scene later to be repurposed by Ariana Grande for the “we can’t be friends [wait for your love]” video). Of course, this isn’t to say he’s not extremely hurt by her “whimsical” decision to “remove” him. Alas, by way of explanation, Dr. Mierzwiak can only offer, “She wanted to move on. We provide that possibility.” One can imagine that Slater King (Channing Tatum) tells himself something similar about his own nefarious operation on a private island that might as well be referred to as Little Saint James (a.k.a. the former “Epstein Island”).

    Sex and the City, incidentally, provided something of a precursor to the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind “idea kernel” (de facto, the Blink Twice one) in the form of the season four episode, “Time and Punishment.” This due to Carrie’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) theme for her column of the week being whether or not you can ever really forgive someone if you can’t forget what they did (to you). The answer, in both Eternal Sunshine… and Blink Twice, seems to be a resounding no. Though, in the former, there appears to be a greater chance for redemption even after the couple remembers everything that happened between them (and still decides to give it another shot). This courtesy of Mary, who not only unveils the truth to all of Lacuna’s clients (or “patients”), but also unearths her own bitter truth vis-à-vis memory erasure: Howard did it to her (per her request) after the two had an affair. And yet, just as it is for Frida (Naomi Ackie) in Blink Twice, it’s as though we are doomed to repeat the same behavior/gravitate toward the same toxic person regardless of whether the slate (a.k.a. the mind) is wiped clean or not.

    In Blink Twice, Zoë Kravitz’s directorial debut (which she co-wrote with E.T. Feigenbaum), that gravitation proves to be much more harmful for Frida, who drags her best friend, Jess (Alia Shawkat), along for the ride after infiltrating Slater’s fancy benefit dinner for his requisite “foundation.” Although the two are initially working the party as cater waiters, Frida has them both switch into gowns (which scream “trying too hard” while still looking embarrassingly cheap). Naturally, Slater invites them to accompany him and his entourage back to the island where he’s been sequestered in order to “work on himself” as part of a grand performance of a public apology for “bad behavior” past (there’s no need to get specific about what that might have entailed, for there’s a whole range of bad behavior [typically, sexual abuse/harassment-related] that female viewers can easily imagine for themselves). Though, usually, if one is truly working on themselves, they do so by not buying a private island to retreat to. By actually trying to exist in and adapt to the world around them, rather than creating an entirely new one that fits their own “needs.” But that’s the thing: Slater and his ilk don’t want to adapt, don’t want to acknowledge that things have changed and so, too, must their old ways. Instead, they’ve set up a “paradise” for themselves that happens to be every woman’s hell.

    The only requirement to keep them there? Scrubbing any memories they have of being sexually assaulted every night on the island. In lieu of Lacuna, Slater needs only a perfume called Desideria, conveniently crafted from a flower that’s only found on that particular island. It’s, in many ways, a slightly more implausible method for making someone forget a traumatic experience than all-out memory erasure through a “scientific procedure” like Lacuna’s. But, for Kravitz’s purposes, it works. Those purposes extend not only to holding up a mirror to the ongoing and new-fangled ways that men, even post-#MeToo, still manage to behave like barbarians, but also to the ways in which women “self-protect” by conveniently “removing” memories that are too painful to deal with, especially when it comes to men and their egregious comportment. This, in part, is why the Desideria is so effective. There’s a sense that the women of the island are only too ready to forget/ignore what horrors befell them the previous night.

    In the abovementioned Sex and the City episode, there’s a scene at the end where Carrie repeats (seven times) to Aidan (John Corbett), “You have to forgive me” in different “Oscar-worthy” manners. Just as Slater repeats, “I’m sorry” in different dramatic ways until he then askes Frida if she forgives him yet. Seeing (and expecting) that she definitely doesn’t, it only serves to prove his point that, no, you cannot forgive without forgetting (though, to be fair/in this case, maybe just don’t act like women owe you unfettered access to their bodies/treat them like disposable objects designed solely for your amusement and there won’t be any need to forgive).

    Thus, he considers himself in the right (or at least that he “had no choice”) for doing what he did in order to get what he wanted out of her and the other women he lures to the island with his charm (and, of course, the allure of his wealth). In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there is also a belief, on Clementine’s part, in being “in the right” for willingly expunging her own memories without any man needing to do it for her. In this sense, one might say that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is all about the importance of agency in having certain aspects of your memories erased for the sake of self-preservation.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Ariana Grande’s “we can’t be friends (wait for your love)” Video: A Postmodernist’s Wet Dream

    Ariana Grande’s “we can’t be friends (wait for your love)” Video: A Postmodernist’s Wet Dream

    It’s safe to say that, of all the pop stars working today (apart from, of course, Madonna), Ariana Grande is the one most blatantly enamored of postmodernism—wherein no distinction exists between high and low art, and references galore are placed in a “pastiche blender.” Even more than her contemporaries, Lana Del Rey and Taylor Swift, Grande is the most obvious in how she’ll take a piece of pop culture and “reinterpret” it. Though perhaps some would say she’s merely recreating it, shot-for-shot, à la Gus Van Sant with Psycho. That much can practically be said of the video for her second single from Eternal Sunshine, “we can’t be friends (wait for your love).” This following her other pastiche-drenched video for “yes, and?,” which is a knockoff of Paula Abdul’s “Cold Hearted” video

    As with “yes, and?,” Christian Breslauer also directed “we can’t be friends (wait for your love),” marking their second collaboration. Perhaps they didn’t end up working together sooner due to Grande’s long-standing devotion to Hannah Lux Davis, who has brought us so many Grande music videos over the years, including “Bang Bang,” “Love Me Harder,” “Focus,” “Into You,” “Side to Side,” “breathin,” “thank u, next” (also filled with movie-related pastiche), “7 rings,” “break up with your girlfriend, i’m bored,” “boyfriend” and “Don’t Call Me Angel.”

    But “we can’t be friends (wait for your love)” has a different vibe from all of those aforementioned light-hearted videos (of which, even “breathin” was more light-hearted than this). Suffused with the kind of melancholia and restraint that comes in the wake of a breakup, Grande and Breslauer take what Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman did in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and distill it down to four minutes and forty-three seconds (something Kaufman would likely be horrified by). Starting with Grande being in the waiting room of “Brighter Days Inc.” (dumbed down from the more “esoteric” company name in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Lacuna Inc.—lacuna meaning “an unfilled space; a gap”), Grande’s penchant for pastiche might even extend to the 2004 (also when Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was released) video for Gwen Stefani’s “What You Waiting For?” In it, Stefani also finds her in a dubious, nondescript waiting room filling out a form filled with odd questions (e.g., “Do you like the smell of gasoline?”). Except it isn’t to help erase her memory, but rather, “be inspired” a.k.a. get rid of her writer’s block. Grande doesn’t tend to have any issues with that, especially when she’s in her “after a breakup/new relationship” phase. 

    Riffing on Clementine Kruczynski’s (Kate Winslet) look, Grande sits in the waiting room of Brighter Days Inc.—an air of uncertainty about her—styled in a fur-trim coat, tights with knee-high boots (featuring a 70s-esque flower pattern) and a flower flourish drawn in white around her eye. This particular detail gives more Katy Perry than Clementine vibes (especially in the former’s hippie-dippy “Never Really Over” video), but it’s part of Grande’s own spin on the character. Which now also incorporates some version of herself thanks to her recent experience of wanting to erase the memory of a botched relationship. Namely, the one that resulted in her two-year marriage to Dalton Gomez. Hence, like Joel Barish (Jim Carrey, who Grande is a well-known fan of), we see Grande-as-“Peaches” (a none too subtle allusion to Clementine) filling out a form that basically denies Brighter Days Inc. any legal responsibility for what might happen after the procedure—including a lingering and barely dormant sense of regret. 

    So it is that we see “Peaches” checking the “Yes” box under the statement, “You have given extensive thought behind your decision and give Brighter Days Inc. the exclusive permission to remove this person completely from your memory.” Clementine herself, of course, didn’t give much extensive thought to it, later telling Joel, “You know me, I’m impulsive.” Peaches is likely the same way, simply wanting to rid herself of the pain that comes from remembering a failed relationship. Thus, despite seeing the anxiousness radiating from her as she resolves to go through with the decision, Peaches knows that it’s “for the best.” 

    Watching the “technicians” remove key mementos of the relationship from the box she brought in (the same way the patients in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind do), viewers soon see the wall of the “operating room” open up behind her (kind of the way the wall opens up behind Miley Cyrus in the “Used To Be Young” video) to reveal the first memory to be scraped. The one that relates to the tiny teddy bear in the box. A bear plucked from what the Brits (and Arctic Monkeys) call a teddy picker by Grande’s ex, played by Evan Peters…who is labeled simply as “Lover” where credited (how Swiftian). The memory then starts to black-out around her (the same way it does for Joel just as he’s remembering all the “good stuff” he loved about being with Clementine). Startled by the abyssal nature of the process, this is the moment where the lyrics, “Me and my truth, we sit in silence/Mmm, baby girl it’s just me and you.” And as the very “Dancing On My Own” by Robyn beat swells again, the blackness around her is replaced by another memory, one in which Lover’s back is turned to her in bed. While she sits up in the place next to him, it’s as though the two are at the point in their relationship where things have become strained, and words have lost all meaning. 

    From this memory, Grande runs out to open the door, leading her into a snow-filled landscape where “Brighter Days” of them making snow angels together exist. This being Grande’s version of Joel and Clementine lying on the ice of the frozen-over Charles River (though, in actuality, that scene was filmed in Yorktown Heights). A “cut” is then made by way of a sheet falling over the scene to transition us from Peaches lying on the snow to Peaches lying in bed with Lover (side note: the sheets’ pattern gives off a decidedly “hospital bed” feel—maybe an unwitting allusion to how love makes you crazy). And in the same way that Clementine is literally yanked away from Joel while they’re lying on the ice together, so, too, is Lover while he and Peaches are looking at each other with the same loving fondness in bed. 

    In the next scene, Breslauer cuts to the memory box again, as a technician picks up a framed photo of the two arranged in “Samantha Baker (Molly Ringwald) and Jake Ryan (Michael Schoeffling) pose” with a cake between them, exactly as it was in John Hughes’ Sixteen Candles. It is at this moment that viewers might realize Grande is incapable of sticking to just one movie as a visual reference point (even with “34+35,” she couldn’t “only” refer to Austin Powers with her fembot aesthetic….there had to be a Frankenstein premise as well)—something we saw at a peak in “thank u, next.” A video that, although it wields Mean Girls as its primary inspiration, also sees fit to devolve into nods to Bring It On, Legally Blonde and 13 Going on 30

    While it’s unclear if Lover is doing this Sixteen Candles homage deliberately because he knows how much Peaches adores the movie or it’s simply another instance of Grande incorporating a pop culture reference apropos of nothing (which is understandable, as many women and gay men’s minds function that way), the point is that Lover disappears from the picture just as they lean into kiss one another over the birthday candles (something that was just as stressful to watch in Sixteen Candles for those fearing a fire hazard). Sitting there alone as the lyric, “So for now, it’s only me/And maybe that’s all I need” plays, Grande blows out the candles before we see the map of her brain again. In the style of Joel freaking out when the “eraser guys” manage to find Clementine hidden within a memory of his childhood (a suggestion made by Clementine so that he could hold onto her in some way even after the process), Grande starts panicking and crying before the computer flashes a sign that reads, “Relinking.” 

    In another memory still, we see Grande on the couch with Lover as he presents her with a necklace that then turns into a dog collar before Lover himself is transformed into a dog (for, as Birds of Prey taught us, dogs are the animals women are most likely to replace men with). This is where Grande takes the most liberties with her reinterpretation of the movie, for it seems that Brighter Days Inc. isn’t just capable of erasing memories, but also reworking them entirely. As such, the interior decor around her continues to, let’s say, shapeshift, while the TV in front of her plays back the memories one last time before we see Peaches shaking hands with the doctor and nurse for doing their job, the procedure now over. 

    The image of the box of memories, teddy bear and all, being incinerated then leads into Peaches walking down a street with a new boyfriend and passing Lover with his new girlfriend, neither party registering any kind of recognition. And just like that, Peaches forgets all about her pain. Just as viewers might forget all about the original Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But that’s what pastiche is about: subverting collective memories for the sake of consumption.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Lily Gladstone Books Their Next Role!

    Lily Gladstone Books Their Next Role!


    Lily Gladstone is the frontrunner for the Best Actress Oscar, and fans are excited to see where they’re going next! Gladstone will lead Charlie Kaufman’s adaptation of The Memory Police with Reed Morano directing. The film will reunite them with Killers of the Flower Moon director Martin Scorsese, who is onboard as an executive producer.

    The announcement comes after Gladstone made history this week as the first Indigenous American actor from the United States to be nominated for an Academy Award. We are excited to see what Gladstone brings to this new role!

    Scorsese is executive producing the film alongside Yoko Ogawa, who wrote the novel that Kaufman will be adapting. Both Morano and Margot Hand of Picture Films will produce, according to The Hollywood Reporter. This adaptation is particularly exciting because it puts Gladstone in a completely new genre that they seem to love: science fiction.

    Gladstone has talked about how they wanted to be an Ewok when they were growing up. More than that, The Memory Police, which was released in 1994, is a fascinating story to see come to life on screen.

    According to the synopsis on Amazon, the novel is described as follows: “On an unnamed island off an unnamed coast, objects are disappearing: first hats, then ribbons, birds, roses—until things become much more serious. Most of the island’s inhabitants are oblivious to these changes, while those few imbued with the power to recall the lost objects live in fear of the draconian Memory Police, who are committed to ensuring that what has disappeared remains forgotten.”

    It sounds like a perfect fit for both Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) as well as Morano (The Handmaid’s Tale). More than anything though, I’m eagerly anticipating what Gladstone brings to the story.

    I’m just excited for more of Lily Gladstone

    While Gladstone is an acclaimed actor, Killers of the Flower Moon has put them on the map in a major way. Movies like The Memory Police work because we’re often obsessed with themes of memory and reminiscence. Gladstone’s excitement for the genre is just icing on the cake.

    Gladstone discussed the films that inspired them while growing up in Montana. During a roundtable for The Hollywood Reporter with fellow awards season actresses, Gladstone expressed their love for movies and how they connected back to life growing up on the Reservation.

    Watching Gladstone dive into the science fiction genre is perfection. I can’t wait to see what they bring to The Memory Police! Until we know more, we can just bask in the knowledge that we have another Lily Gladstone project to look forward to. In the meantime, you can get your Lily Gladstone fix in the third and final season of Reservation Dogs currently streaming on Hulu.

    (featured image: Lionel Hahn/Getty Images)

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]





    Rachel Leishman

    Source link

  • Don’t Be Afraid of Beau Is Afraid—Unless the Overbearing Jewish Mother Trope Is Your Worst Nightmare

    Don’t Be Afraid of Beau Is Afraid—Unless the Overbearing Jewish Mother Trope Is Your Worst Nightmare

    As one of those movies that has so much psychological buildup surrounding it before one even goes into the theater (or rather, if one goes into the theater at all to watch movies), Beau Is Afraid has as many things working against garnering audience attention as it does attracting it. In the latter column, of course, is that it’s directed by Ari Aster, the writer-director slowly but steadily being groomed into a modern auteur by A24. Then there is the cast, an impressive coterie of actors, including Patti LuPone, Nathan Lane, Amy Ryan and Parker Posey, led by Joaquin Phoenix. But there in the “repelling” column is that the movie comes across as “weird”—deliberately “off-putting.” Especially to the layperson. This, of course, is compounded by the two hour and fifty-nine-minute runtime of the film. In effect, Aster is saying, “This movie is not about people-pleasing.” Some would be hard-pressed to see it as being about anything at all. Those people have perhaps never suffered from the crippling anxiety and paranoia involved in simply leaving the (semi-)safety of their abode. In that sense, one can look at the first portion of Beau Is Afraid as being like What About Bob? on steroids, complete with Bob’s (Bill Murray) extreme phobia of leaving the apartment. Except that, in Beau’s case, that fear is entirely merited.

    Living in the fictional city of Corrina, CR, it reads visually like a combination of New York and San Francisco (and yes, SF gets far more flak for its violent, erratic homeless population than NY—though perhaps NY simply has a greater number of ass-kissers at its PR disposal). Beau’s apartment building is situated next to a sex shop called Erectus Ejectus and across the street from the Cheapo Depot, a bodega run by a take-no-prisoners proprietor who isn’t liable to give you any kind of discount when you happen to be short on the amount just because you’re a regular. After all, he can’t afford such niceties in a hostile climate like this. One that, in the end, seems entirely manufactured by Mona Wasserman (Patti LuPone), Beau’s corporate maven of a mother. The type of woman who far exceeds a cutesy, demeaning term like “girlboss.” This is a woman who puts all previous known masterminds and manipulators to shame. To this end, Aster, born into a Jewish family, can now easily be characterized by this film as the proverbial self-hating Jew. No longer a title that Woody Allen alone can claim as a result of his affirmed cancellation in the film industry (essentially capitulating to that cancellation by admitting his next movie would be his last…until backpedaling on that statement soon after).

    As such, Aster’s presentation of a Jewish mother as so overbearing and controlling that she would go to such lengths to hyper-manage her only son’s life definitely one-ups any self-hating depictions Allen ever offered (see: Annie Hall, Deconstructing Harry). Or Allen’s nemesis, for that matter: Philip Roth. And yes, there are plenty of Portnoy’s Complaint elements in the mix here (chief among them the giant penis locked in the attic intended to represent Beau’s father).

    It would also make one remiss in their cinephilic tendencies to overlook The Truman Show as a major influence on this particular work. With that “I’m being watched” kind of revelation occurring in Part Two of the movie, as Beau finds himself in the “care” of a sinister couple of means named Grace (Amy Ryan) and Roger (Nathan Lane) after being mowed down by their truck while in the midst of running through the street outside his apartment naked. This occurring as a result of the homeless population outside finding their way in as a roundabout result of Beau’s keys being stolen from his door. After they party all night with Beau watching from some scaffolding outside, he awakens the next morning to find his apartment empty. Or so he thinks. However, upon taking a bath after learning of his mother’s death from a UPS guy (voiced and briefly cameo’d by Bill Hader), the sight of another crazed “unhoused” person clinging to the ceiling above him ultimately sends him running outside in his birthday suit. Oh yes, and there’s also an errant serial killer in the neighborhood called Birthday Boy Stab Man, likely dubbed as such because he “operates” in his birthday suit. And, of course, he ends up stabbing Beau a few times after he’s rendered immobile and barely conscious due to the truck hitting him. Therefore, all of Beau’s worst fears and anxieties are realized—and then some.

    It’s not a coincidence that all those fears and anxieties start to reach a crescendo after Beau has “rejected” his mother by telling her he’s not going to make it to the airport in time for their scheduled visit because someone stole his keys and he doesn’t feel comfortable heading out until the locks have been changed. But Mona has her ways and her machinations for coaxing Beau into an Odyssean journey to make it back as soon as possible so that her funeral can proceed. Because, that’s right, she’s faked her own death to inflict the amount of guilt she thinks he feels deserving of (and here, the trope of a Jewish mother’s guilt is on full blast). Per Mona’s lawyer, “Dr.” Cohen, she’s stipulated in her will that the ceremony cannot take place without him. Unfortunately for Beau’s guilt quotient, it gets upped by the fact that Jewish law dictates that a body must be buried right away. So it is that Beau is both a bad son and a bad Jew. A fate that seems irreversible to all male Jews, if we’re to go by literature and film. Grace and Roger, the epitome of a white-bread Christian couple, could never know Beau’s torment, even as they conspire to be a part of it. It’s not as clear whether their surviving teenage daughter, Toni (Kylie Rogers), is as “in on it” as her parents, who have been trying to fill the void left in the absence of their dead son, Nathan, a soldier that died in combat. Caring for his fellow battalion member, Jeeves (Denis Ménochet), an unhinged man requiring many meds, is the obvious way for them to “make up” for the loss of Nathan. But with the arrival of Beau comes a new opportunity to “nurture.” Even if it’s as smothering and oppressive as Mona’s version of “nurturing.”

    Early on in the movie, some would immediately say the world Beau inhabits is cartoonish and absurdist—at one point literally becoming animated as he imagines himself as the protagonist of a play he’s watching. Or that all of his fears are a result of the kind of hyper-neurotic nature that Jews are frequently stereotyped as having (of course, who can blame them with anti-Semitism alive and well even after the extermination of six million of their kind?). But, in the end, the one fear he doesn’t think to have is actually not so far-fetched: being monitored constantly. For it’s not hard to believe that someone (especially someone with enough money) could track, record and/or film your every move, and then use it against you when they finally want to render you totally paralyzed by the paranoia you thought you had overcome. Worse still, use it to play into all your worst senses of guilt. After all, it’s no coincidence that the billboard outside Beau’s building bears the Big Brother-y tagline, “Jesus Sees Your Abominations.” More like Mona does.

    And, talking of taglines, Beau has been part of Mona’s advertising campaigns for most of his life. She being the head of a multi-faceted conglomerate that has its hand in everything from pharmaceuticals to film production. With Mona’s company name for the latter being Mommy Knows Best. An eerie assertion from a woman who has her eye in every possible surveillance pie. This going hand in hand with “security,” for which MW (which stands for Mona Wasserman) also has a tagline: “Your security has been our priority for forty years.” Beau’s own age is forty-eight (same as Joaquin Phoenix’s) as we come to find at the end, when a god-like voice (Dr. Cohen’s) announces his date of birth as May 10, 1975. So perhaps the key root of all Beau’s issues is that he’s a Taurus. But no, it’s being born to a Jewish mother, if Aster would have us convinced of anything. It’s also a very deliberate word choice for Mona to use the phrase “claw your way out of me” to Beau during their ultimate showdown in what can be called Part Four of the film. For it is with that “clawing” out of her womb that Beau Is Afraid begins, with the audience seeing his birth from Beau’s perspective.

    From the first moments of his existence, anxiety permeates everything as his mother frantically demands to know about the state and health of her child, who appears not to be breathing normally. But with a requisite slap on the ass, Beau is prompted to cry. This slapping cue turning more metaphorical as his repressed life wears on. For every time he is lashed in one way or another by his mother’s various cues, Beau snaps to attention and grudgingly “performs.” His life is not his own—it belongs to his mother. And this is made no more apparent than in her financial control over him. Indeed, Beau’s credit card is “mysteriously” deactivated after he tells Mona he can’t make his flight. Whether or not Beau was as willing a participant in his own infantilization as Mona is up to the viewer to decide. However, those with parents who have infantilized them are likely aware that being irrevocably handicapped by the crushing weight of “safety and security” eventually feels like an unavoidable fate rather than something that can be fought against. Surrender Dorothy, as it is said. Or, in this case, Surrender Beau. That’s what Mona, in the Wicked Witch of the West’s stead is undeniably saying. And she’s saying it because she knows she has all the resources necessary to take him down and debilitate him.

    In this regard, Jacobin’s take on Mona as a cold capitalist machine that it would be impossible to receive any unconditional or pure love from is right on the money (no pun intended). Jacobin, too, points out certain similarities between Citizen Kane and Beau Is Afraid in that it’s “a character study of a boy whose ‘parents were a bank.’” Or, for Beau, “parent.” And what kind of love can really be received from someone who has to be clinical and cold enough to be able to make millions (or billions) of dollars? It bears noting that Jacobin’s critique of the film isn’t favorable, writing Beau off as the product of a writer who gets off on “trauma tourism”—but if he had really suffered from that much genuine trauma, Beau/Aster wouldn’t have the luxury of portraying it at all. Maybe, to a certain extent, this is a fair assessment. The people given a megaphone to talk about trauma still tend to be people who grew up middle-class, white and male. Read: Aster. And yet, as Bob Dylan said, “I’m helpless, like a rich man’s child.” This simile is not without its value in considering a being such as Beau, given a surfeit of tangible tools as a result of having a rich progenitor, but no real ones he could actually use to cope in a life outside of “the nest.”

    And what could “real life” possibly be to a boy who ostensibly grew up in a fishbowl town called Wasserton (named after his mother), anyway? This, again, channels The Truman Show vibes, when it’s not also smacking of something pulled from the mind of fellow Jewish auteur Charlie Kaufman (think: Synecdoche, New York). And, like Kaufman, Aster is concerned with the futility of attempting to alter one’s preordained fate. Because no matter how we try to fight it or “rewrite” it (as the artist so often does in their work), in the end, “it is written.” That much is made obvious when we see Beau fast-forward through the surveillance footage of himself at Grace and Roger’s to the final scene in the movie. The final scene is his life. One that will be quite full-circle in terms of comparing it to the opening scene: his birth.  

    As for the mother-son dynamic that serves as the central anchor of the narrative, the classic Oedipus story is also constantly in motion, with Mona clearly wanting to keep her son’s love and desire all to herself—hence, the urban legend she scares him into believing about his father that keeps Beau as well beyond a forty-year-old virgin. With the epididymitis to prove it. That means huge, swollen balls, to the unmedically trained. Ironically, of course, Beau’s “big balls” don’t translate to the idiomatic version of that phrase inferring bravery and “chutzpah.” Quite the opposite as he spends most of the movie quivering and cowering in fear (the movie title is there for a reason). Not just of what could happen, but what has happened already. Which is where Aster’s knack for horror melds seamlessly with the psychological trauma of memory, and remembering. That’s all Beau does, as we seem to see him existing in multiple planes of time via perpetual reflection (such is the luxury of not having a job apart from existence itself).

    In this way, viewers will be allowed to question how much of what happens is “just in his head” versus how much is “reality.” Which, as most know, is totally subjective. This being a large part of why Mona can manipulate Beau’s “reality” for her own controlling ends. Ends that appear to be more sadistic than altruistic, as she would like to tell herself. For example, when he’s born and arrives out of the womb in silence, her demand is: “Why isn’t he crying?” In other words, doesn’t he know how painful it is to exist (nay, for Mona to bring him into existence) and what the according reaction should be? This later translates to another question she asks of Beau: “Is he afraid enough of the world?” No? Well then Mona—rich Mona—will make it so. With this in mind, although Beau is firmly Gen X, we have an undeniable commentary on millennial-baby boomer relations contained in Beau Is Afraid as well. For was it not the boomers who wanted to give their millennial spawn the pristine, protected childhood that they never got? Resulting in the manufacture of a generation consisting mostly of scared, confused man-children just like Beau.

    Initially billed by Aster as a “nightmare comedy” (like something in the spirit of Martin Scorsese’s After Hours in which all the protagonist wants to do is go home, but his prewritten destiny has other tortures in mind), how the genre of Beau Is Afraid comes across is more about how the viewer themselves sees life: as a comedy or tragedy. Here, too, it’s hard not to think of “Jewish representative” Woody Allen, who based an entire movie on this premise—the subpar Melinda and Melinda.

    For the seasoned neurotic and those accustomed to even the most basic of tasks in life being herculean to achieve without incident, the accurate takeaway is that it’s an absurdist tragicomedy. And so it goes without saying that any Marvel-loving gentile normies likely won’t bother with wandering into this film at all. And if they do, the criticism and balking is to be expected.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link