Oscar Feels 2016

Loved Chris Rock. Lady Gaga's performance was amazing and made me cry. I'm not convinced Mad Max deserved all those awards. I'm thrilled Brie Larson won (I haven't actually seen any of the best actress nominated movies, so all I could do was root for actresses not performances). Jacob Tremblay was adorable all night.

But most importantly:

(Thank you, Buzzfeed for this photoshopped FB update)

The Ethics of Movie Watching pt 1: Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown

***Minor Chinatown spoilers but the move is over 40 and often both boycotted and quoted and I'm not giving a lot of context to the spoilers. You'll live***

My brother asked me if I had a copy of Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974) a few days ago, I told him no but last time I checked it was available on Netflix (apparently it isn't anymore). This got me thinking about something that comes up every so often for movie goers (and pretty much all consumers of art), whether casual watchers or studiers like me: what are the ethics of consuming something created by someone you don't like?

To start with, my basic answer, just for me personally, is I will only study a film made by someone I'd prefer to boycott (Polanski, Woody Allen, etc). I do not watch those movies for fun (although Polanski films in my experience are there to make you think, not to enjoy...). I do not spend money directly on the film. For instance, I do not own Chinatown. I've seen it twice, both times were for classes and both times I managed to not have to rent a DVD (thank you, Netflix and professors with big DVD collections). I will not buy it, at least not in a store. If I ever come across it used at a garage sale or something, maybe, but I don't want to be in the statistics of people buying the movie. I also will not stream it illegally. I have my morals and just won't do it. I do not want to support Roman Polanski. It's very simple. But I also don't want to steal from him.

Before I get too far into this, I want to make something clear: I do not have an answer to this question. I am incredibly glad that I've never been a big Cosby Show watcher so now I don't have to decide if I can still watch it. I've managed to never have a chance to study any Woody Allen movies so I've been able to stand by my boycott.

Polanski is the hard one for me. I hated Chinatown. The ending frustrated me. The good guys all end up sad or confused and the bad guys get away with everything. I get that that was the point, given the "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown" thing but it still bothers me.

The second time I watched it was in a summer course while I was also taking a Shakespeare class. In the Shakespeare class, we summed up the endings to Shakespeare plays quite succinctly: they end with a slide to ever after. Either they all get married or they die. The good guys will mostly die in the tragedies, but you don't leave frustrated because the bad guys die too.

I'm going to say that again: THE BAD GUYS DIE TOO.

In classic Hollywood, when you're dealing with the Hays Production Code, there was a rule that characters couldn't get away with murder (possibly other crimes too, but I've gotten into too many online debates lately and don't feel like looking up the exact rule. That's why I'm not referencing specific things in this post. I looked up what year Chinatown came out. That's the best I can do today. All my info here is coming out of the many many film courses I've taken). Thus, murderers get arrested or killed (self defense is okay though I guess, since swash buckling heroes get to survive even though they always kill Basil Rathbone. Or Rasil Bathbone, if you prefer).

In the '60s-ish, the Code starts to switch to the rating system we have now, which means suddenly, you can blatantly admit that your not married characters are having sex and you can have your bad guys get away with whatever they did. And suddenly, we can have frustrating movies where people do terrible things and there isn't a comeuppance. Like in Chinatown.

So yes, Polanski has a really great example of 1970s movie freedom. It's a good film to study.

But no art is created in a vacuum. There are important things to remember:

Like how Roman Polanski survived the Holocaust. How his wife, Sharon Tate, was one of the Manson family murders (and while you can probably name a bunch of murderers and serial killers, she is probably one of the only victims you can name. Food for thought). That's a lot of trauma for a person. But he also was convicted of the rape of an underage girl and fled to France before he could be sentenced.

I think it's possible to make good art and be a good person. These things are not mutually exclusive (John Green and JK Rowling make pretty decent stuff and are pretty good people....). We cannot excuse someone from being decent just because they're an artist.

But what do we do with the stuff they've already made?

I really have no idea. Personally, in my own life, I avoid them. I don't buy their stuff, I don't watch their stuff. If I'm in a class, I watch what I'm told to watch (and I make damn sure that everyone knows what the issues with them are).

The film I have the most trouble with, however, isn't Chinatown. It's The Pianist (2002). It's the best Holocaust movie I've ever seen. It's also Roman Polanski and it doesn't frustrate me, even if it made me cry. It's the only movie that challenges my "don't buy the DVD" rule. Keep your eyes open for further ethics discussion re The Pianist. This deserves more than one post.

And all this is just the question of the filmmakers. What about when the film itself advocates something? Stay tuned for when I finally turn my notes from 50 Shades of Grey into a post...


***obligatory special shout out to my brother, who has listened to my Polanski rant more than once, and Poof, who made my preposition sentence structure issues better***

I Swear I Really Did Like This Movie, Even If It Seems Like I Didn't

A Christmas Kiss is a made for TV movie from 2011. It tells the story of an aspiring interior designer, Wendy (I love having characters share my name... Especially when I don't hate the character-I'm looking at you, girl in the animated Disney Peter Pan!), who accidentally kisses her boss's boyfriend in an elevator. Then, of course, she falls in love with him.

I'm not going to lie, this movie is kind of bad. Okay. It's, like, really bad. The writing is often quite sad sounding, stilted, unrealistic. The story is supposed to take place in Boston and a good chunk of it revolves around a local ballet company's annual performance of The Nutcracker Suite (the main character used to design sets for the ballet and her roommate is currently head of hair and make up. The romantic interest is a rich guy from an old family whose foundation is throwing a big party to celebrate opening night of the show), but it's pretty clear they couldn't get permission from Boston Ballet or the Opera House because the company in the movie is called "City Ballet" and the theater is not the Opera House.

Obviously, it doesn't matter to the movie whether they used a real or fictional ballet company, but as someone who likes to find movies that really create the illusion of being in Boston (when I get homesick I like Boston movies... My favorite is usually the first Legally Blonde), it was disappointing.

Now for my two big issues with the movie:

Number one: Wendy's boss, Priscilla Hall, played quite brilliantly by Elizabeth Rohm. I actually kind of liked Miss Hall. She's incredibly type A, has incredibly high standards, and is, by her own admission, quite calculating and ambitious. Except for a few exceptions, she is not, however, a bitch. The plot description wants you to hate Priscilla Hall. You are supposed to think she is forcing Wendy to do all kinds of menial tasks and isn't letting her live up to her potential. You are supposed to think she is suffocating Adam, her boyfriend, and is completely wrong for him.

But she isn't. She isn't always a nice woman, she is calculating, ambitious, and a perfectionist. But she isn't a bitch. The few times she does something bad, I found it very out of character. She knows what she wants and goes after it.

My other big issue: WENDY AND ADAM'S ATTEMPT AT HIGH BROW FLIRTING. Wendy mentions that she worked on a Shakespeare production out in the Berkshires. He's impressed. That's fine. Then he goes to say goodnight to her. He says, "goodnight, goodnight. Parting is such sweet sorrow." She responds (obviously), "that we should say goodnight till it be morrow." He then says "you really do know your Shakespeare."

Except, that is impressive how? It's not. It's a famous line from Romeo and Juliet. If you didn't pay attention in high school English class and didn't bother reading the play you probably STILL know the line. It's that famous. It's not impressive and it's not proof of knowing Shakespeare.

To be clear, I think their goodnights are relatively cute (although I'm hesitant to call R&J cute. I don't like R&J. It's not romantic. But that's a review for another time), and certainly quoting some lovey dovey goodnights from Shakespeare makes sense (and as a Shakespeare dork I promise anyone can quote R&J when they're saying goodnight, regardless of whether they're a couple. If you start saying "good night, good night" you'll wind up finishing the quote. It just happens. So it's not weird that a guy in a relationship with someone else would say this). My issue is exclusively with how he says "you really do know your Shakespeare," as though being able to finish the line is impressive.

But that isn't the only time this comes up. The first time Wendy is in Adam's home, she looks at his bookshelf and sees four Shakespeare volumes. They are very pretty, leather bound with gilded lettering. Gorgeous and I'd love to have them. Wendy, however, does no comment on how gorgeous they are. She says, "you have the complete Shakespeare!" She sounds excited and surprised. This from a girl with a background in theater. With two roommates in show biz (there's the hair and make up for the ballet girl and an aspiring actress). She doesn't say "oh my goodness, I only have the Norton collection! Yours is so pretty!" She says "you have the complete Shakespeare!" She says it as though it's rare to have the complete Shakespeare.

I personally have two complete Shakespeare collections. One that is fairly nice (four volumes, old, onion skin, I love them), one is the Norton one. I also have a bunch of Folgers. My Shakespeare collection is not impressive.

You know what is impressive? A rare edition. A special edition. Collecting every Folgers Shakespeare (you can organize them in a rainbow. They're very pretty...). Having a First Folio would be impressive.

Having "the complete Shakespeare" Is Not Impressive.

Thing that I hate number three as a little asterisk: her roommates ship her with Adam completely thoroughly. Why do none of them object to her being into a guy who kissed her when he was dating someone else (and was, in fact, planning to propose to another woman)? And why is "well his girlfriend is a bitch" a valid argument?

Now that I'm done hating on this movie, let's talk about what I liked:

The acting was surprisingly good for a TV movie. I'm always impressed when acting shines through bad writing and this was no exception.

The costuming was gorgeous. The make up was pretty.

Basically, it's a really fun movie to watch. There are just a couple minutes that make me angry and the writing is kind of blah.


***Obligatory special shout out to Poof, who totally backed me up on how to be impressive with Shakespeare***