It's been an even longer time

I have really been bad about this whole writing thing and I'm just not sure how to buckle myself down and get to it. I so enjoy it once I do it and am constantly reminding myself to get something out there for whomever it is to read. But time and time again I find that I get side tracked with something else, usually something self serving like reading, eating or watching a movie.

Recently I did see a movie I rather enjoyed. Frost/Nixon, who sadly won nothing at the Oscars (it was nominated in something like five categories) was I thought a stellar achievement of historical re-telling. Not being around for the Watergate scandal myself or any of the subsequent after math it was interesting to watch not only how the people of America felt about the situation, including Nixon's resignation, but how Nixon and those aides close to him felt when it all went down.

Frank Langella who played Nixon did a phenomenal job portraying Nixon’s idiosyncrasies, his tonality, and his intonations. He made Nixon seem jointly paranoid, money hungry and truly disturbed by the way things had turned out. It was as though Nixon believed that what had transpired was done in the best interest of the country and it's citizens.

Michael Sheen who played Frost also did a wonderful job, though I'm not sure how demanding the role really was for him. Don't get me wrong, playing someone who truly existed during events that actually happened is probably harder to do than playing a fictional character because you always have people telling you what really happened or how it was really said instead of letting the actor have their own creative flow. However, Sheen has chosen roles similar to this in the past when he played Tony Blair in the Queen. Granted he was playing a more serious character but both movies were about British role models (in a sense) and both of them had something to prove. Again, I was captivated by his performance as well.

The movie documented not only the interview that took place between the two men over four days in a house somewhere in LA but also what led up to it; Nixon's resignation, Frost's idea to get Nixon to do an interview where he discuses his presidency, his actions in office, and of course Watergate, and the way the team that brought Nixon to this unofficial public trial-- as it were-- came together and formed what was to become a historical event. What was asked and said in the interview, I have heard, is factual and some of the lines, including one of them that was in the trailer for the movie, gave me chills to think that not only did Nixon say them, but he believed them. Lines such as:

Frost: Are you really saying the President can do something illegal?
Nixon: I'm saying when the President does it, it's not illegal.

Now of course there were things that Nixon said after that one line, that I won't give away, which didn't necessarily exonerate him but it did make him seem a little bit more human. That was something that I found so compelling about the film was how human Nixon seemed. Before he was just a man, a former president who for the first time in history had resigned for a lie. He wasn't, I am sure, the first President to have lied, but he got caught and the only way to "save face" was to resign. That was all I knew of this man, his tarnished reputation. Ron Howard showed that Nixon was a man who wanted to do right by his people and his country but his ideologies weren't always the most clean and his execution wasn't always the right path. Nixon was socially awkward and yet somehow became President. Interesting how it all turned out.

I guess I should still think about forming my own Academy, vocalizing how I truly feel about movies and hope people will follow because although Frost/Nixon was nominated it got nada, and I found it to be one of the most enjoyable films out there. I guess I'll have to start writing more and more just so I can show that movies aren't always what they say they are...but then again sometimes they are.

It's been a long time

I recently watched Rachel Getting Married and the Wrestler. I feel an obligation to watch movies that have prominent Oscar nominations, these being two of them with critical acclaim. With all the hype surrounding both of these movies I tucked myself in for what I expected to be a moving and breathtaking experience. Neither of these movies, I felt, delivered.

Now when I say moving or breathtaking I don't just mean that the movie is beautiful to look at or the dialogue is so intense that I well up immediately but I do expect to feel something and crave more from the movie as each minute passes.

Rachel Getting Married was a realistic portrayal of a woman who has been in and out of rehab for much of her life and her sister is getting married. The interaction between each of the family members as they struggle to reconcile a tragic past of one daughter with a bright and happy future of another was well done in its fidelity to such a stuation. I, however, felt uncomfortable for much of the film and was anticipating the end of the movie like a person after a long day of work anticipates a strong drink. The destroyed sister, as it were, was self indulgent and pretty selfish as much of her family accused her of being. Her monologues were filled with self loathing and stories of her troubled past. It made me want leave the room immediately and I wondered why anyone would pay to feel this way when they can feel it for free in life.

The Wrestler on the other hand was a look into a small niche of society. A man, who used to be a legend in a circuit like the WWE and has found he has reached a time in his life where he isn't relevant to anyone, including his own (surprise surprise) estranged daughter. The film was poignant in its character portrayal of a man whose life has figuratively come to an end but yet he continues to eat, drink and breathe. While the film did a good job with its long takes and minimal dialogue, of showing a man who's down on his luck and life I didn't feel I gained anything by watching the movie. Now some would say (*cough cough- a friend of mine who I work with) that I always feel I have to gain something out of a movie, whether it be a profound experience, to escape, or to learn something new. And I say, well why the hell shouldn't I expect that? I pay almost 12$ to see a movie in the theater. I expect to get my money's worth. While the Wrestler certainly took me to a world I have never experienced or seen (either on TV or from the inside) at the end of it I didn't feel like I learned anything more than I had at the beginning of the movie; either about wrestling or the main character. And while I certainly felt for the guy I didn't see any evolution in the character, either upwards or downwards and I wondered, what the hell is the point then of those two hours?

Some would say I'm crazy for not appreciating either of these movies but my boyfriend--who will subsequently be known as Joosh Man (or JM when I'm lazy) brought up an interesting point: Why is it that the Academy feels that all these indie, pseudo-realistic films are the ones that are worth merit? It seems to be the case year after year that these small films with their shaky camera work and their character investigations get all the clout and movies that take you somewhere you never imagined, like Wall-E get shoved into the assumed Animation category and never thought of again. Maybe someday I'll create a new Academy that will have clout with the public and re-invite this whole idea of "good movies". Until then, I'll have to be satisfied with the movies that thrill me like my new peach "Bye Bye Birdie" (classic!).