And so it’s inevitable: the top 10 films of the naughts. The last movie I saw of the 90’s was Gavin O’Conner’s The Tumbleweeds, the last film I’ll see in 2009 I think will be yet another film named Nine (the musical this time). A lot has changed, too much to detail here. The official tally assuming I don’t go to the movies tonight (I have plans for tomorrow and Thursday) will be 2428, or 242 films a year, not bad - just over the average of 4 a week I tell average people I see (the real average is between 4 and 5 and probably growing).
A top ten list is cruel, but if your forcing me here goes (in reverse order to build suspense, of coarse):
10.- Goodbye Dragon Inn (2003, Ming-liang Tsai) - An atmospheric work, a study of color, mood, done with humor and insight, at the end of a decade when film might be dying I couldn’t resist kicking off the list with a film about a theater’s closing night. As a sucker for time and place films, this will be a repeated theme here (proving how subjective such a list is). This is a wonderful architecture study with some incredible compositions, hypnotic and nostalgic.
9.-Almost Famous (2000, Cameron Crowe) - Yet another nostalgia trip, perhaps the most entertaining film of the decade, it comes in two flavors - seek out the “director’s cut”, running 3 hours I still want more.
8.-Somers town (2009, Shane Meadows) - A coming of age story, told in London as a study of time and place - two boys living in a housing project fall for the same women, a beatiful Polish immigrant. A great social comment in the form of a sweet and entertaining film about the joys of childhood, wherever you are.
7.-Three Times (2005, Hou Hsiao-hsien) - The story is the same, the politics aren’t and therefore neither are the emotions. Two lovers, played by the same actors are shown in three time period: 1911, 1966, and 2005. You can call this the Hou Hsiao-hsien “sampler” - each period has its own style, each his own style as seen in his other films.
6.-Talk to Her (2002, Pedro Almodovar) - Every Almodovar film is a mini-masterpiece, this is a perfect blend of dark humor and romance - discover it, I won’t ruin it for you.
5.-Vera Drake (2004, Mike Leigh) - Leigh’s best since his masterpiece, 1996’s Secrets and Lies. A period piece about an abortion provider and mother, Vera Drake.
4.-Touch The Sound (2004, Thomas Riedelsheimer) From the director of Rivers and Ties, this documentary follows Evelyn Glennie, a deaf musician and attempts to put us in her shoes. A powerful soundscape.
3.-Wendy & Lucy (2008, Kelly Reichardt) An edge of your seat thriller without violence, Michelle Williams is charged with atomic energy in a Pacific Northwest drama about Wendy, a young women running away from something. That thing is not important, we know so little about her but we know so much about her. This is one of the best films of all times.
2.-The Piano Teacher (2001, Michael Haneke) An instant classic - I remember being a 17 year old scared shitless, driving home, not sure what I just saw - it shook me in a way horror films cannot. A few days later I processed it and realized it was one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Since then I’ve been brave enough to revisit this brutal and painful fantasy - much has been written academically about the film, which is easier to watch for upon review, but the film is best experienced cold, of coarse - see it and be prepared.
1.-Syndromes and a Century (2006, Apichatpong Weerasethakul) A film of the century: two stories, 10 years apart set in a Thailand hospital. Weerasethakul’s films are pure joy, and this is no exception, a light hearted political love story, warm, beatiful and simple.
Runners up:
11.-Beau Travail
12.-Up
13.-Head On
14.-Slumdog Millionaire
15.-The Departed
16.-Since Otar Left
17.-Time to Leave
18.-United 93
19.-ATL
20.-Rocky Balboa
21.-Into the Wild
22.-The Princess and the Worrior
23.-This is England
24.-The Dreamers
25.-In America
26.-Ghostworld
27.-American Psycho
28.-Mysterious Skin
29.-The Circle
30.-Bad Education
31.-Million Dollar Baby
32.-City of God
33.-Nowhere in Africa
34.-Redacted
35.-I’m Not There
36.-Junebug
37.-Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son about His Father
38.-Chop Shop
39.-Nobody Knows
40.-Of Time and City
41.-RR
42.-Our Song
43.-A Searious Man
44.-Stevie
45.-Lost in Translation
46.-There Will Be Blood
47.-Paranoid Park
48.-Palindromes
49.-Downfall
50.-Operation Filmmaker
There are sadly many great films that made the short list - some 200. Enjoy these films with this disclaimer: I could spend years on this list, rewatching, evolving and changing my point of view. I like to think the fact I’ve sent two nights and a few hours on it and no more proves I’m going from the gut. All films are not for all people: but they were for John Fink. I regret the fact that there are no true Bollywood films on this list and not many documentaries (my 2009 list contains documentaries such as Beaches of Agnes, Anvil, La Danse, The Windmill Movie, Carcasses, and The Garden, the shortlist contains the likes of Capturing the Freedmans, Jesus Camp, Standard Operating Procedure, After Innocence, Tupac: Resurrection and Street Fight).
If anything I’m going off memory - some films on here I’ve seen only once, others I’ve relived or written about many times. Even as I write I regret this. Hit - Publish Post - No Turning Back - done.
Let’s meet back here in 10 years.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Top 10 Primer (no actual listings here yet, just some rambling)
The problem with a 10 ten list of the decade is that this is the first whole decade where I was adult, or concious enough to enjoy films although still growing. It’s been a wild ride, “the naughts” - we had the war on terror, the election of the first black president, and a boom and bust economy that I think in retrospect was more of a problem of perception than anything else, but I’m no student of economy, I’ve been a film student. I still am - when does one stop? Certainly the images aren’t going stop.
As for a top 10 I also face enough problem, I have a short list of 200 films, saw roughly about 1500 or so over 10 years (150 a year, light, sure but remember I got a driver’s license towards the end of 2000 and hadn’t gone to my first film festival until 2003). It’s been a wild ride, some films get better with age, others get tainted by reviews I’ve read. Perhaps the gut reaction is the best, but it’s possible to get caught up with a good audience in a movie that might be crap because your in the mood for that sort of thing. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If I were to define the films of the zeitgeist, three easy ones that summarize the aforementioned themes of the naughts would be: Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Chris Rock’s Head of State, and Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. It’s more complicated than that (It’s Complicated won’t be one, I assure you).
We saw films that were escapist, played on our fears, or provided escape in the form of social commentary. Nothing is new, films have always reflected directly or indirectly the spirit of the times, should a top ten list? I suppose no film is divorced for the environment it’s produced in, smarter scholars than I have been providing readings since Cahiers Du Cinema examined John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln.
My reading of a whole century is subjective, how can it not be. I didn’t see everything, there’s a good deal I can’t see. More movies come out now because there are more screens: just look at New York City. IFC Center even added to add two pathetic new theaters (one is a classroom projector sandwiched on a beam above the first row of seats in a theater that sits 35). Now we’re on the subject of IFC we should talk about “day and date” releasing, a strategy I don’t disagree with on principal - show indie films to everyone at the same time national reviewers are buzzing. This worked this summer for Summer Hours, but countless other films are lost at the IFC Center, they come and go, even with 5 screens, and worse when they do play they’re shown on a cheap-o digital projector (I saw noticeable artificating in Ricky, Francis Ozon’s latest family drama which is like the kindler, gentler version of his first feature - Sitcom, don’t worry, it didn’t make the top 10 of year let alone decade, other Ozon film(s) will be there). For $12.50 audiences should demand a pristine, sparkling print (unless the film originated on digital).
It’s been 4 years since digital proved its worth with 3-D. I’m still not a digital convert and I’m young. I like the flexibility but I don’t think multiplexes are harnessing the digital flexibility that is to show a more diverse slate of films. IFC Center does, but a cynic could look at what the theater is doing as Cablevision trying to compete with Film Forum. The newest multiplex to open in New Jersey, Kerasotes Showplace Secacus is 100% digital, while projection is sharp, in focus, some spots looked a little hot to me when we saw Sherlock Holmes on Christmas day. (Fun but a flick that didn’t make the either top ten). Now why can’t IFC team up with Kerasotes and show an indie film a week, one show, say Tuesday nights, 7PM, you show up, pay full price, and you’ll see a new indie film. If it works, great, maybe it can get a booking there or at another art theater, if not, oh well, only one show wasted. They do this with some classics (why anybody would want to see a Classic deserved to be seen on 35MM, projected digitally is beyond me - do they think we’re idiots, that we droll when the letters “HD” are mentioned).
Another flaw of the a top ten list is that I can’t re-watch everything. Were there some movies I wasn’t ready for? You betcha. Were there others that I remember fondly because I saw them on a date, had a great time, was caught up in the energy of the moment, sure. Were there others that age worse? Sure. There were films I remember seeing when younger that I wished would end, some foreign, I admit. These are films that are acquired tastes, tastes acquired through scholarship, repeating viewing and maturity.
I don’t feel bad - Roger Ebert is an idol of mine, the finest critic in the nation but his early reviews reflect the experience of a younger Mr. Ebert and we’re all in flux. This is to say his quality has improved over the years. Same for filmmakers. Atom Egoyan’s earlier work is risky, too ambitious, somewhat lacking focus - then he made two masterpieces back to back: Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter.
Alanis Morissette is right: You Live, You Learn. Film has opened my eyes to the world, permitted me to live 1500+ lives in 10 years. You will have to forgive me when I get defensive of film and critical of theaters that are entrusted to carry on the fine tradition of projecting film. Yes, they are businesses, they sell snacks, ect - but for top dollar ($12.50 in New York) we should demand the best, what the filmmakers intended. Some chains and theaters are better than others: some markets just lost the finest chain in America - National Amusements, half the theaters in its network were acquired by Rave Motion Pictures. In Buffalo, Dipson Theaters is the finest and most reliable theaters for presentation (despite the uncomfortable seats at the North Park - Market Arcade and McKinnely Mall are great mainstream multiplexes). The one AMC in town is also fine, and Regal isn’t bad as well (Dipson has the best popcorn, a deciding factor of coarse). In New Jersey: Clearview is a mixed bag some sites are told notch (SOPAC), others were constructed cheap and major problems never addressed (Kinneleon, Tenafly). AMC is decent, no perfect, neither is Regal. The new Kerasotes and Edgewater Multiplex (one National Amusements sites staying with the company) are both top notch in terms of customer service, seating comfort, projection (although Edgewater has the better snack bar, in fact a full food court, as well as 35MM projection, so they win out).
As for New York City: Film Forum should be declared a national landmark, the premiere art theater in the country (despite small screens and no leg room), IFC Center was pretty good but one senses the standards are slipping with the expansion (avoid theater 5, I think I’ve seen better digital projection with one of those annoying NCM pre-shows), Angelika has its flaws (sound, leg room, high prices), and Landmark Theaters is usually very good.
I fear IFC and Magnolia’s day and date strategy may lead to the end of a traditional theatrical release, further stressing art theaters that are starving for content. I don’t like this idea, an art house in middle america has enough of a hard time surviving, and shouldn’t film be seen in a theater? I know it’s a gamble.
Hopefully the movies will learn from TV: make a better product, people will come. Pixar is a prime example, they tell great stories that create strong emotional connections in viewers. The best commercial films do that, isn’t that “branding 101”. That’s the secret, you make films that good and you’ll have lines around the block - like a soul saving rock concert, good films can change lives. It was film, still images flickering past at 24 frames per second that brought me to this point in my life, had I not gone to Toronto in 2008 and “gotten saved” by Slumdog Millionaire, Adoration, Me and Orson Wells, The Terrance Davies Trilogy (and 20 other films I saw there that week) I might still be in banking instead in an MFA program. Crazy to think about that.
As for a top 10 I also face enough problem, I have a short list of 200 films, saw roughly about 1500 or so over 10 years (150 a year, light, sure but remember I got a driver’s license towards the end of 2000 and hadn’t gone to my first film festival until 2003). It’s been a wild ride, some films get better with age, others get tainted by reviews I’ve read. Perhaps the gut reaction is the best, but it’s possible to get caught up with a good audience in a movie that might be crap because your in the mood for that sort of thing. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If I were to define the films of the zeitgeist, three easy ones that summarize the aforementioned themes of the naughts would be: Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Chris Rock’s Head of State, and Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. It’s more complicated than that (It’s Complicated won’t be one, I assure you).
We saw films that were escapist, played on our fears, or provided escape in the form of social commentary. Nothing is new, films have always reflected directly or indirectly the spirit of the times, should a top ten list? I suppose no film is divorced for the environment it’s produced in, smarter scholars than I have been providing readings since Cahiers Du Cinema examined John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln.
My reading of a whole century is subjective, how can it not be. I didn’t see everything, there’s a good deal I can’t see. More movies come out now because there are more screens: just look at New York City. IFC Center even added to add two pathetic new theaters (one is a classroom projector sandwiched on a beam above the first row of seats in a theater that sits 35). Now we’re on the subject of IFC we should talk about “day and date” releasing, a strategy I don’t disagree with on principal - show indie films to everyone at the same time national reviewers are buzzing. This worked this summer for Summer Hours, but countless other films are lost at the IFC Center, they come and go, even with 5 screens, and worse when they do play they’re shown on a cheap-o digital projector (I saw noticeable artificating in Ricky, Francis Ozon’s latest family drama which is like the kindler, gentler version of his first feature - Sitcom, don’t worry, it didn’t make the top 10 of year let alone decade, other Ozon film(s) will be there). For $12.50 audiences should demand a pristine, sparkling print (unless the film originated on digital).
It’s been 4 years since digital proved its worth with 3-D. I’m still not a digital convert and I’m young. I like the flexibility but I don’t think multiplexes are harnessing the digital flexibility that is to show a more diverse slate of films. IFC Center does, but a cynic could look at what the theater is doing as Cablevision trying to compete with Film Forum. The newest multiplex to open in New Jersey, Kerasotes Showplace Secacus is 100% digital, while projection is sharp, in focus, some spots looked a little hot to me when we saw Sherlock Holmes on Christmas day. (Fun but a flick that didn’t make the either top ten). Now why can’t IFC team up with Kerasotes and show an indie film a week, one show, say Tuesday nights, 7PM, you show up, pay full price, and you’ll see a new indie film. If it works, great, maybe it can get a booking there or at another art theater, if not, oh well, only one show wasted. They do this with some classics (why anybody would want to see a Classic deserved to be seen on 35MM, projected digitally is beyond me - do they think we’re idiots, that we droll when the letters “HD” are mentioned).
Another flaw of the a top ten list is that I can’t re-watch everything. Were there some movies I wasn’t ready for? You betcha. Were there others that I remember fondly because I saw them on a date, had a great time, was caught up in the energy of the moment, sure. Were there others that age worse? Sure. There were films I remember seeing when younger that I wished would end, some foreign, I admit. These are films that are acquired tastes, tastes acquired through scholarship, repeating viewing and maturity.
I don’t feel bad - Roger Ebert is an idol of mine, the finest critic in the nation but his early reviews reflect the experience of a younger Mr. Ebert and we’re all in flux. This is to say his quality has improved over the years. Same for filmmakers. Atom Egoyan’s earlier work is risky, too ambitious, somewhat lacking focus - then he made two masterpieces back to back: Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter.
Alanis Morissette is right: You Live, You Learn. Film has opened my eyes to the world, permitted me to live 1500+ lives in 10 years. You will have to forgive me when I get defensive of film and critical of theaters that are entrusted to carry on the fine tradition of projecting film. Yes, they are businesses, they sell snacks, ect - but for top dollar ($12.50 in New York) we should demand the best, what the filmmakers intended. Some chains and theaters are better than others: some markets just lost the finest chain in America - National Amusements, half the theaters in its network were acquired by Rave Motion Pictures. In Buffalo, Dipson Theaters is the finest and most reliable theaters for presentation (despite the uncomfortable seats at the North Park - Market Arcade and McKinnely Mall are great mainstream multiplexes). The one AMC in town is also fine, and Regal isn’t bad as well (Dipson has the best popcorn, a deciding factor of coarse). In New Jersey: Clearview is a mixed bag some sites are told notch (SOPAC), others were constructed cheap and major problems never addressed (Kinneleon, Tenafly). AMC is decent, no perfect, neither is Regal. The new Kerasotes and Edgewater Multiplex (one National Amusements sites staying with the company) are both top notch in terms of customer service, seating comfort, projection (although Edgewater has the better snack bar, in fact a full food court, as well as 35MM projection, so they win out).
As for New York City: Film Forum should be declared a national landmark, the premiere art theater in the country (despite small screens and no leg room), IFC Center was pretty good but one senses the standards are slipping with the expansion (avoid theater 5, I think I’ve seen better digital projection with one of those annoying NCM pre-shows), Angelika has its flaws (sound, leg room, high prices), and Landmark Theaters is usually very good.
I fear IFC and Magnolia’s day and date strategy may lead to the end of a traditional theatrical release, further stressing art theaters that are starving for content. I don’t like this idea, an art house in middle america has enough of a hard time surviving, and shouldn’t film be seen in a theater? I know it’s a gamble.
Hopefully the movies will learn from TV: make a better product, people will come. Pixar is a prime example, they tell great stories that create strong emotional connections in viewers. The best commercial films do that, isn’t that “branding 101”. That’s the secret, you make films that good and you’ll have lines around the block - like a soul saving rock concert, good films can change lives. It was film, still images flickering past at 24 frames per second that brought me to this point in my life, had I not gone to Toronto in 2008 and “gotten saved” by Slumdog Millionaire, Adoration, Me and Orson Wells, The Terrance Davies Trilogy (and 20 other films I saw there that week) I might still be in banking instead in an MFA program. Crazy to think about that.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Brief Notes on My 25th Year of Life and First Semester of Grad School
Yesterday I completed my 25th go around at a full year of life. A year ago I had been depressed about turning 25, entering my “mid 20’s” feeling beaten, defeated, and mostly bored with life. Now a days, I feel like I’m 19 again, I’m a “freshman” in college in a new city so to speak, except this time around I’m legally allowed to drink and I appreciate it more, the last three years, spent working in banking seem like a distant memory.
This is not to say it was all bad, or even a little bad, a year ago faced with the prospects of an industry that need heavy government support it seemed like a good time to reconsider life: I wasn’t going to get ahead in this storm. Living in New Jersey/the NYC area I feel that it’s either sink or swim, luckily Buffalo has a lot of people floating by, making art and media with the intention of exhibiting it, not to get rich but just to show it and exchange ideas. This sounds ideal but it, like most things is also a bit flawed.
So in my 25th year of life I recall having two lives: well two professional lives that overlapped for a brief period that was the production phase of Hollow Spaces, which was hellish (given how little time we had and other obligations to work around, making a movie would be great if time wasn’t a factor), but then again having a day that the shoot needed to be done by was motivating to say the least, not only was it done but reshoots would be hard to grab living some 350 miles away (Ercan to his credit volunteered to shoot second unit in New Jersey if it didn’t get finished).
25 was a pretty good year in retrospect. I sensed in middle school I was forming an identity that’s still shifting and changing. After the first day of grad school, where I felt maybe a little intimidated I realized something: I had to continue to do what I do, not in a bubble but I had to continue to work on my ideas, techniques, skills, and abilities with the input of like-minded people. The issue I think in the first semester I had was that the DMS MFA program is so diverse, so wide a net of students, some working on projects that I’m not sure I truly understand the value of at all times, others engaging in behavior that scares the shit out of me (legally I’m not sure I can talk about our studio opening).
If anything unlike a traditional film school environment where everyone is competing to be selected to direct a thesis film produced by the school, or to be “the best” or “most well connected” - UB is anything but that. If anything it’s perhaps too academic at times, cynics can chalk film studies up to Grade A B.S. - at times it can be, sure. The work I’ve always been interested in connects the academics and the general audience: I’m interested in getting an emotional reaction out of anybody and everyone - from the guy with the PhD in film to the women with a GED. This isn’t to say that all film or media should do this, play it safe, dumb itself down.
I very much like the philosophy of Participant Media: they make genre films with a social change point of view - studio features with established actors and talent that aren’t Lifetime-style movies or After School Specials, but entertainment films that sneak in a message. Granted one can make heavily experimental work with no entry for non academics to prove a point about structure or form, I’m not dismissing those films. But I’d take a teen comedy over a dry documentary if they’re both asking the same questions and opening my eyes to the same issue (look at ATL, it’s a wonderful film confronts identity, race, and power).
These were nothing new, but at UB I’m learning and am challenged to make work - I needed this even if I feel too old sometimes. I have yet to re-calcuate my “real age” as I had done when I turned 25, but based on my life style I had the body age of a 17 year old. If I’ve aged a year (although I’ve taken the recommended steps of eating less red meat and flossing daily), then I’m really only 18: a college freshman, living the life style of a college freshman. While I’ll avoid the binge drinking, but I’ll gladly partake in the spirt of adventure that comes with the age*.
*Meanwhile everyone else is getting married, having kids, growing up, being adults. Fuck that shit.
This is not to say it was all bad, or even a little bad, a year ago faced with the prospects of an industry that need heavy government support it seemed like a good time to reconsider life: I wasn’t going to get ahead in this storm. Living in New Jersey/the NYC area I feel that it’s either sink or swim, luckily Buffalo has a lot of people floating by, making art and media with the intention of exhibiting it, not to get rich but just to show it and exchange ideas. This sounds ideal but it, like most things is also a bit flawed.
So in my 25th year of life I recall having two lives: well two professional lives that overlapped for a brief period that was the production phase of Hollow Spaces, which was hellish (given how little time we had and other obligations to work around, making a movie would be great if time wasn’t a factor), but then again having a day that the shoot needed to be done by was motivating to say the least, not only was it done but reshoots would be hard to grab living some 350 miles away (Ercan to his credit volunteered to shoot second unit in New Jersey if it didn’t get finished).
25 was a pretty good year in retrospect. I sensed in middle school I was forming an identity that’s still shifting and changing. After the first day of grad school, where I felt maybe a little intimidated I realized something: I had to continue to do what I do, not in a bubble but I had to continue to work on my ideas, techniques, skills, and abilities with the input of like-minded people. The issue I think in the first semester I had was that the DMS MFA program is so diverse, so wide a net of students, some working on projects that I’m not sure I truly understand the value of at all times, others engaging in behavior that scares the shit out of me (legally I’m not sure I can talk about our studio opening).
If anything unlike a traditional film school environment where everyone is competing to be selected to direct a thesis film produced by the school, or to be “the best” or “most well connected” - UB is anything but that. If anything it’s perhaps too academic at times, cynics can chalk film studies up to Grade A B.S. - at times it can be, sure. The work I’ve always been interested in connects the academics and the general audience: I’m interested in getting an emotional reaction out of anybody and everyone - from the guy with the PhD in film to the women with a GED. This isn’t to say that all film or media should do this, play it safe, dumb itself down.
I very much like the philosophy of Participant Media: they make genre films with a social change point of view - studio features with established actors and talent that aren’t Lifetime-style movies or After School Specials, but entertainment films that sneak in a message. Granted one can make heavily experimental work with no entry for non academics to prove a point about structure or form, I’m not dismissing those films. But I’d take a teen comedy over a dry documentary if they’re both asking the same questions and opening my eyes to the same issue (look at ATL, it’s a wonderful film confronts identity, race, and power).
These were nothing new, but at UB I’m learning and am challenged to make work - I needed this even if I feel too old sometimes. I have yet to re-calcuate my “real age” as I had done when I turned 25, but based on my life style I had the body age of a 17 year old. If I’ve aged a year (although I’ve taken the recommended steps of eating less red meat and flossing daily), then I’m really only 18: a college freshman, living the life style of a college freshman. While I’ll avoid the binge drinking, but I’ll gladly partake in the spirt of adventure that comes with the age*.
*Meanwhile everyone else is getting married, having kids, growing up, being adults. Fuck that shit.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
D-ball and D-bags: MTV goes returns to Seaside Heights
“Well at least I’m not from New Jersey where you have douche bags that walk around with spiked hair, fake tans and popped collars” -Josh Parkins, Media Study MFA Candidate (raised in Kansas City, MO)
-----
And it was on this note of random bickering in our the Media Study Graduate Studio that my friend Josh reminded me that MTV’s controversial new series Jersey Shore was bowing tonight. I’ve never been an MTV fan, but the station serves it’s purpose (as Sumner Redstone called it in his book “it has the power to be the voice of a generation”). Ionically enough isn’t really Music Television.
Regarding the new show Jersey Shore - first off, it is awful. It falls into the so bad, it might be good - but good for whom? At a certain point you feel bad, but these people rise to a new level of self centered douche bag, leading to behavior that they write off as being acceptable because they’re young. Sure they are - but I get the sense that the cast members will not be changed by this summer, aside from their new found celebrity. They of coarse will on the final episode cry about leaving and talk about how this summer changed me, then right back into the slutty, high risk patterns you had before you came to Seaside.
While I was never a fan of The Real World, but that show offered up diversity - here the show contains all Italian American cast members, which call each other ‘guido’ and ‘guidette’. This outraged the likes of UNICO - according to New Jersey’s statewide paper The Star Ledger, it’s president “objected to the generous use of the term “guido,” both by MTV’s promotional gurus and the cast members themselves”.
Unlike my pal Josh Parkins, mentioned above - who I don’t think has been to the fine state that brought the world Bruce Springsteen - these stereotypes are all too real. This is a closed society: as one of the girls states Sammi Sweetheart states “if your not a guido then get the fuck out of my face.” She’s like a white girl that only dates black guys.
The show is cold to me, I think because it lacks a perspective while not exactly taking the Cinema Verite high road. This is a fantasy setting, no The Real World. Granted, The Real World, was not all that real either: maybe college is remotely like that, but probably not.
The new show replicates this formula: strangers live together, hook up - there is little diversity that leads to conflicts as in the earlier show - nobody here is gay or has HIV (yet anyway). There is hope for real drama in the form of a positive STD or pregnancy test after random drunk post club sexual encounters Skin Cancerous girls or juice heads. A sure fire risk factor is that “Jenny Jwwan” hooks up with (after promising the same day to not cheat on her boyfriend), he apparently has a Prince Albert (thankfully not shown). (Wait, one character ends up with Pink Eye!)
Further evidence this isn’t The Real World is the environment they’re in: Seaside Heights while sleazy isn’t cheap - if memory serves me a concrete-walled flee bag motel in the high of August goes for the same day rate the Ritz Carlton in a civilized city, and they may not even provide you with fresh towels daily. Therefore these kids, most likely rich kids anyway are living an experience that the middle class can afford once in a while (then again isn’t that most TV shows).
Most to be fair to my home state are imports, including the most obnoxious and narcissistic cast member Mike “The Situation” (“The Situation” is the name for his abs). He goes so far over the top it’s amazing anyone could take him seriously, but drunken slutty girls like that I suppose, and he’s in it to have a good time.
The show is anything but a good time, granted if the whole season just showed the fist pumping, techno-throbing club scene it would essentially be a 200 minute vodka commercial. The drama seems rather natural although clearly performed, it’s the type of drama that you’d laugh at if you were also drunk, but pathetic to watch play out sober. MTV has essentially given a series of obnoxious people their own platform - one even confesses she’s starved for attention, Nicole “Snookie”.
As part of the trade off for an amazing house the group is required to work at a T-shirt shop on the boardwalk (the house is on the street, around back), prime, million dollar property even in a shit hole like Seaside Heights. The most sympathetic I think and prone to corruption is Vinny, a 21 year old from Staten Island who until he starts fist pumping seems the relatable.
So who is this show for? Following Facebook a few friends seem to be watching it, or at least seem aware of it (for my friends in Buffalo it seems like a non-event, then again why watch dumb, boring, tan people have fun when you could go out and have fun on a Thursday night). Here in lies the paradox of the show: it’s not very fun, it’s characters are self centered and not terribly amusing unless in satire. Should we feel bad for these morons? Probably not, they seem to be doing something right, even if it’s staged, but I think this culture as I said is a closed culture, I could go on the D-ball, start tanning, get my hair permed, buy an Ed Hardy t-shirt, ect and it probably wouldn’t really matter.
These characters are mostly young (one I learn from the Star Ledger, Mike “The Situation” is 27 - perhaps a little too old for this shit, one hopes he brings home a 15 year old girl from a club who got in with a fake ID and finds himself in jail). A more interesting show would be cops - how do you regulate this environment with people that aren’t terribly bright for starts, high on ecstasy, drunk and full of roid rage?
With characters claiming “I’m hot, I’m natural” and the like, it’s great that they have confidence (some of the girls aren’t in fact that hot, they’re tan beyond any reasonable measure and have beer guts which flop out of their tight Ed Hardy shirts), but it’s off putting. And just when your thinking that you get the argument about “being a hater” - a morons defense for what could be legit criticism.
Am I hater for this show? Yes and no, I watched it as a sociological experiment hoping to learn something, instead I came to the conclusion that this aspect of American Life (one that would make for a boring ass version of This American Life) is a closed, close-knit community. Everyone in it might know Mike “The Situation” (as he claims) but to those outside of this booze, fake fan, and jacked up subculture he’s unknown.
The drama is forced, based on hormonal interactions, girls calling each other slut, fighting over men, ect. The most curious line of the evening was uttered by Angelina, a girl from Staten Island who leaves her boyfriend for the summer to come to Jersey (poor guy for dating such a stupid girl) - I can’t be sure but I think she said “if a girl’s being a slut - she should be abused.”
And there’s the line that should piss people off more than anything else. Granted girls who call other girls sluts are often times sluts themselves, it’s the “takes one to know one” defense, and I don’t feel sorry for anybody. Her comment though has broader and more disturbing implications, like Precious which Lee Daniels is criticized for showing what some call a “poverty porn” - the Jersey Shore shows what happens when dumb people get drunk and don’t pair up with whom they wished they would.
I’d say the drama is unnessisary, a creation of editing, pop music, and bad performances, the cast members are fully aware of the camera and are performing for it, almost shoving it our faces (after all I’m watching this in the middle of winter in Buffalo).
Yes, they have the right to go have fun, party and hook up - people do these things, as a result I’m thinking of opening a Plato’s Retreat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_YJP0YaGs ) franchise at Seaside, complete with heated swimming pool and that great disco beat*.
(*Plato’s Retreat was an infamous Swingers Club that existed in the late 70’s - just right after AIDS hit, as chronicled in American Swing, a documentary so disturbing it made me want to become a priest, and spawned my idea for a Zac Effron/Ben Affleck road trip comedy called You Were Conceived at Plato’s Retreat)
If I’m cynical about the show it’s because the show itself is cynical about it’s subject. It brings back memories that only exist in Seaside Heights (I haven’t been back since 2003). Perhaps I’m being too rough on it, the show most certainly is crap - where one town becomes like Plato’s Retreat, it tracks a culture of material excess - this is why other countries hate us.
Being a closed society, based sadly mostly in Italian American Communities and areas with night life districts, I don’t think it’ll catch on and these roles will be emulated because these characters are so self-centered they are nearly impossible to identify with or like beyond the surface. Sure they may be attractive, but they speak their own language (I didn’t count the amount of times “vibing out” was spoken) and that creates a disconnect between mainstream viewers and those that fit this stereotype. It’s a stereotype they are glad to live, and live it up they should. If Snookie wants to marry a “tan juice head” as she fantasizes about then she gets what she deserves, and if she’s a slut...well you know what Angelina says she deserves.
(Update: 12/28 - a few weeks after writing this post I received an e-mail from Dave, whose website recalls the memories I had growing up and going to Seaside, with a lot of current information and history, it's the side that MTV isn't showing: http://www.discoverseasideheights.com/about )
-----
And it was on this note of random bickering in our the Media Study Graduate Studio that my friend Josh reminded me that MTV’s controversial new series Jersey Shore was bowing tonight. I’ve never been an MTV fan, but the station serves it’s purpose (as Sumner Redstone called it in his book “it has the power to be the voice of a generation”). Ionically enough isn’t really Music Television.
Regarding the new show Jersey Shore - first off, it is awful. It falls into the so bad, it might be good - but good for whom? At a certain point you feel bad, but these people rise to a new level of self centered douche bag, leading to behavior that they write off as being acceptable because they’re young. Sure they are - but I get the sense that the cast members will not be changed by this summer, aside from their new found celebrity. They of coarse will on the final episode cry about leaving and talk about how this summer changed me, then right back into the slutty, high risk patterns you had before you came to Seaside.
While I was never a fan of The Real World, but that show offered up diversity - here the show contains all Italian American cast members, which call each other ‘guido’ and ‘guidette’. This outraged the likes of UNICO - according to New Jersey’s statewide paper The Star Ledger, it’s president “objected to the generous use of the term “guido,” both by MTV’s promotional gurus and the cast members themselves”.
Unlike my pal Josh Parkins, mentioned above - who I don’t think has been to the fine state that brought the world Bruce Springsteen - these stereotypes are all too real. This is a closed society: as one of the girls states Sammi Sweetheart states “if your not a guido then get the fuck out of my face.” She’s like a white girl that only dates black guys.
The show is cold to me, I think because it lacks a perspective while not exactly taking the Cinema Verite high road. This is a fantasy setting, no The Real World. Granted, The Real World, was not all that real either: maybe college is remotely like that, but probably not.
The new show replicates this formula: strangers live together, hook up - there is little diversity that leads to conflicts as in the earlier show - nobody here is gay or has HIV (yet anyway). There is hope for real drama in the form of a positive STD or pregnancy test after random drunk post club sexual encounters Skin Cancerous girls or juice heads. A sure fire risk factor is that “Jenny Jwwan” hooks up with (after promising the same day to not cheat on her boyfriend), he apparently has a Prince Albert (thankfully not shown). (Wait, one character ends up with Pink Eye!)
Further evidence this isn’t The Real World is the environment they’re in: Seaside Heights while sleazy isn’t cheap - if memory serves me a concrete-walled flee bag motel in the high of August goes for the same day rate the Ritz Carlton in a civilized city, and they may not even provide you with fresh towels daily. Therefore these kids, most likely rich kids anyway are living an experience that the middle class can afford once in a while (then again isn’t that most TV shows).
Most to be fair to my home state are imports, including the most obnoxious and narcissistic cast member Mike “The Situation” (“The Situation” is the name for his abs). He goes so far over the top it’s amazing anyone could take him seriously, but drunken slutty girls like that I suppose, and he’s in it to have a good time.
The show is anything but a good time, granted if the whole season just showed the fist pumping, techno-throbing club scene it would essentially be a 200 minute vodka commercial. The drama seems rather natural although clearly performed, it’s the type of drama that you’d laugh at if you were also drunk, but pathetic to watch play out sober. MTV has essentially given a series of obnoxious people their own platform - one even confesses she’s starved for attention, Nicole “Snookie”.
As part of the trade off for an amazing house the group is required to work at a T-shirt shop on the boardwalk (the house is on the street, around back), prime, million dollar property even in a shit hole like Seaside Heights. The most sympathetic I think and prone to corruption is Vinny, a 21 year old from Staten Island who until he starts fist pumping seems the relatable.
So who is this show for? Following Facebook a few friends seem to be watching it, or at least seem aware of it (for my friends in Buffalo it seems like a non-event, then again why watch dumb, boring, tan people have fun when you could go out and have fun on a Thursday night). Here in lies the paradox of the show: it’s not very fun, it’s characters are self centered and not terribly amusing unless in satire. Should we feel bad for these morons? Probably not, they seem to be doing something right, even if it’s staged, but I think this culture as I said is a closed culture, I could go on the D-ball, start tanning, get my hair permed, buy an Ed Hardy t-shirt, ect and it probably wouldn’t really matter.
These characters are mostly young (one I learn from the Star Ledger, Mike “The Situation” is 27 - perhaps a little too old for this shit, one hopes he brings home a 15 year old girl from a club who got in with a fake ID and finds himself in jail). A more interesting show would be cops - how do you regulate this environment with people that aren’t terribly bright for starts, high on ecstasy, drunk and full of roid rage?
With characters claiming “I’m hot, I’m natural” and the like, it’s great that they have confidence (some of the girls aren’t in fact that hot, they’re tan beyond any reasonable measure and have beer guts which flop out of their tight Ed Hardy shirts), but it’s off putting. And just when your thinking that you get the argument about “being a hater” - a morons defense for what could be legit criticism.
Am I hater for this show? Yes and no, I watched it as a sociological experiment hoping to learn something, instead I came to the conclusion that this aspect of American Life (one that would make for a boring ass version of This American Life) is a closed, close-knit community. Everyone in it might know Mike “The Situation” (as he claims) but to those outside of this booze, fake fan, and jacked up subculture he’s unknown.
The drama is forced, based on hormonal interactions, girls calling each other slut, fighting over men, ect. The most curious line of the evening was uttered by Angelina, a girl from Staten Island who leaves her boyfriend for the summer to come to Jersey (poor guy for dating such a stupid girl) - I can’t be sure but I think she said “if a girl’s being a slut - she should be abused.”
And there’s the line that should piss people off more than anything else. Granted girls who call other girls sluts are often times sluts themselves, it’s the “takes one to know one” defense, and I don’t feel sorry for anybody. Her comment though has broader and more disturbing implications, like Precious which Lee Daniels is criticized for showing what some call a “poverty porn” - the Jersey Shore shows what happens when dumb people get drunk and don’t pair up with whom they wished they would.
I’d say the drama is unnessisary, a creation of editing, pop music, and bad performances, the cast members are fully aware of the camera and are performing for it, almost shoving it our faces (after all I’m watching this in the middle of winter in Buffalo).
Yes, they have the right to go have fun, party and hook up - people do these things, as a result I’m thinking of opening a Plato’s Retreat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_YJP0YaGs ) franchise at Seaside, complete with heated swimming pool and that great disco beat*.
(*Plato’s Retreat was an infamous Swingers Club that existed in the late 70’s - just right after AIDS hit, as chronicled in American Swing, a documentary so disturbing it made me want to become a priest, and spawned my idea for a Zac Effron/Ben Affleck road trip comedy called You Were Conceived at Plato’s Retreat)
If I’m cynical about the show it’s because the show itself is cynical about it’s subject. It brings back memories that only exist in Seaside Heights (I haven’t been back since 2003). Perhaps I’m being too rough on it, the show most certainly is crap - where one town becomes like Plato’s Retreat, it tracks a culture of material excess - this is why other countries hate us.
Being a closed society, based sadly mostly in Italian American Communities and areas with night life districts, I don’t think it’ll catch on and these roles will be emulated because these characters are so self-centered they are nearly impossible to identify with or like beyond the surface. Sure they may be attractive, but they speak their own language (I didn’t count the amount of times “vibing out” was spoken) and that creates a disconnect between mainstream viewers and those that fit this stereotype. It’s a stereotype they are glad to live, and live it up they should. If Snookie wants to marry a “tan juice head” as she fantasizes about then she gets what she deserves, and if she’s a slut...well you know what Angelina says she deserves.
(Update: 12/28 - a few weeks after writing this post I received an e-mail from Dave, whose website recalls the memories I had growing up and going to Seaside, with a lot of current information and history, it's the side that MTV isn't showing: http://www.discoverseasideheights.com/about )
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
In The Company of Men: Homoerotics in Boondock Saints
Until today I had never seen the Boondock Saints, now I’ve seen not one but both films. Watching the first on Netflix (a distracting environment, in which I folded laundry and cleaned up a bit while it was on), I saw why the film inspired a cult following: it’s a low budget, shoot-em-up with a few funny moments, nothing groundbreaking but it’s Boston location is also I think part of what makes it original and the city was well used. (Predating The Departed, of coarse).
Boondock Saints is a classic good verses evil story and a reluctant super hero story: alone one brother could not pull off the crime or become an iconic vigilante - they need each other. This conclusion was of coarse drawn by Capote in In Cold Blood. Like Capote, (and I base my observations of that of Bennett Miller’s film), he begins to develop a close relationship with the subject he’s investigating, that being one of the suspects, Perry Smith. Now consider Willem Dafoe’s Paul Smecker of the Boondock Saints series - he's a homosexual. While I couldn’t find evidence as to why that was relevant to the first film aside from a few jokes and a cross-dressing stunt, it dawned on me while watching the second film - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day - which contains an overwhelmingly gay subtext.
Consider it’s leads: Roger Ebert observes they are unmarried, they live in Ireland with their father. They also show no sexual preference. The films don't help with a curious shortage of women in this world. Throughout the film jokes are made involving prison rape, gay sex, “getting fucked up the ass with an elephant dick” and so forth. Consider the gangsters: there are no token “video ho” type of women hanging around in bars and clubs that add nothing but eye candy to the film, in fact the pubs they hang out in are a strictly male domain - from the corner bar to an elegant gay bar Paul Smecker goes to unwind after a day at the office in the first feature.
Another gangster picture that commented on the abserdity of women that added nothing except for eye candy in these back rooms and VIP lounge where gangster transactions occur was the Vin Diesel action film XXX - where after a deal is settled, a Russian mobster exclaims "Now that business if finished, we party - Bitches, come!" (signaling the entrance of several knockouts).
The lack of sexual preference leads to Boondock Saints II oddest, darkest and most confused passage: an musical montage about masculinity - one might think that if such a conversation needs to be had, doubt about one's identity exists, especially if one is actively aware they are performing their identify. The film contains a Mexican side kick trying to find his way in the world, especially in the dark world inhabited by the Saints - whose masculinity is called in to question when he's given an almost ineffectively small gun. Once can consider for the Saints giving death is linked to giving sexual pleasure, or a substitute for it: they rome around looking to start fights after nights of drinking, instead of hoping to go home with a pretty women they picked up in a bar.
However, there is one female, central to the story, an FBI agent. Although she's introduced in a series of slow tilts upwards, showing her legs and "fuck me boots" - the image of desire quickly fades after this brief sexualized moment, which independent of the narrative feels arbitrary. She's played by the normally very sexy Julie Benz. Recently her career, it suggests has gravitated towards material like this: B-grade action and horror flicks such as Saw V, Punisher: War Zone, and Rambo. I remember her as a high school student in Jawbreaker, and as the “crazy white girl”/personal trainer in the African American centered comedy The Brothers. Here she uses her gender to get her way, but it is clearly performance of gender, aside from flirting required at times, she state no sexual preference as well.
Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day contains no sexual content: that is there is on screen sexualized images, aside from a curious amount of male nudity which seems a bit unnecessary. The film would suggest that “Boston” is a city of male gangsters who have no wives, mistresses (although one goes to a message parlor) - luckily for Boston, a city that was once shut down by light brights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) the film was shot in Toronto which explains it’s bland visual cityscapes.
I really hate that Boston, as a character itself in the Boondock Saints films (and the first was filmed in Boston) is replaced by Toronto, normally I say (as I did in Hulk) why not have the fucking movie take place in Toronto, why does New York always have to get destroyed, Toronto is a worthy world class city.
The problem is architecturally: as the character’s sexuality is an autopilot so is its backdrops - it’s generic. Boston is a city of brick, while Toronto has these neighborhoods they are underused. While it’s a well shot film, it lacks a Boston authenticity that the first flick had. Much like the Rock Hudson melodramas made by Douglas Sirk in the 1950-60’s - this film felt like it was shot on a soundstage, in addition to having its characters hide their sexuality.
Most filmmakers would introduce a gay character in the second film, if comments like this were made about their first film. Troy Duffy does it in reverse, spawning this reading, I suppose (that and the aforementioned dialogue relating to gay sex acts). Ebert, again observes Duffy did it in reverse, I had seen the hilarious documentary Overnight about the making of Boondock Saints, showing Duffy as an out of control, alcoholic hell bent on taking over the world from the outside, after Miramax gives him a deal to make Boondock Saints. Things go downhill from there, Duffy is exsactly the most likable character you could have in a film.
As it would turn out Troy Duffy is a skilled director, sure his films have many flaws, but he’s only made two so far, both the same story, in the same comic book style. Boondock Saints II is a purist action flick: it’s just that - gun fights, a bit of plot, character development that arrives just at the right moments. It’s all thrown together - a bit messy but the Saints are in a messy business, and business is booming, even in a down economy.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not bothered by the Saints being gay, or even asexual - I think it adds an interesting demention to the what could be perceived as a lack of character development. If one gets into patterns: gets married, has children, ect - they will chose to fight for the betterment of their communities not with guns but by running for town council or to an officer position in the development/condo development. With this being said, and the fact that (SPOILER) they’re in jail at the end of II (come to think of it, that’s also the ending of the 4th installment of the Fast and the Furious series - the-dumb-as-it’s-name: Fast and Furious). Let’s see what happens in Boondock Saint’s III.
Boondock Saints is a classic good verses evil story and a reluctant super hero story: alone one brother could not pull off the crime or become an iconic vigilante - they need each other. This conclusion was of coarse drawn by Capote in In Cold Blood. Like Capote, (and I base my observations of that of Bennett Miller’s film), he begins to develop a close relationship with the subject he’s investigating, that being one of the suspects, Perry Smith. Now consider Willem Dafoe’s Paul Smecker of the Boondock Saints series - he's a homosexual. While I couldn’t find evidence as to why that was relevant to the first film aside from a few jokes and a cross-dressing stunt, it dawned on me while watching the second film - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day - which contains an overwhelmingly gay subtext.
Consider it’s leads: Roger Ebert observes they are unmarried, they live in Ireland with their father. They also show no sexual preference. The films don't help with a curious shortage of women in this world. Throughout the film jokes are made involving prison rape, gay sex, “getting fucked up the ass with an elephant dick” and so forth. Consider the gangsters: there are no token “video ho” type of women hanging around in bars and clubs that add nothing but eye candy to the film, in fact the pubs they hang out in are a strictly male domain - from the corner bar to an elegant gay bar Paul Smecker goes to unwind after a day at the office in the first feature.
Another gangster picture that commented on the abserdity of women that added nothing except for eye candy in these back rooms and VIP lounge where gangster transactions occur was the Vin Diesel action film XXX - where after a deal is settled, a Russian mobster exclaims "Now that business if finished, we party - Bitches, come!" (signaling the entrance of several knockouts).
The lack of sexual preference leads to Boondock Saints II oddest, darkest and most confused passage: an musical montage about masculinity - one might think that if such a conversation needs to be had, doubt about one's identity exists, especially if one is actively aware they are performing their identify. The film contains a Mexican side kick trying to find his way in the world, especially in the dark world inhabited by the Saints - whose masculinity is called in to question when he's given an almost ineffectively small gun. Once can consider for the Saints giving death is linked to giving sexual pleasure, or a substitute for it: they rome around looking to start fights after nights of drinking, instead of hoping to go home with a pretty women they picked up in a bar.
However, there is one female, central to the story, an FBI agent. Although she's introduced in a series of slow tilts upwards, showing her legs and "fuck me boots" - the image of desire quickly fades after this brief sexualized moment, which independent of the narrative feels arbitrary. She's played by the normally very sexy Julie Benz. Recently her career, it suggests has gravitated towards material like this: B-grade action and horror flicks such as Saw V, Punisher: War Zone, and Rambo. I remember her as a high school student in Jawbreaker, and as the “crazy white girl”/personal trainer in the African American centered comedy The Brothers. Here she uses her gender to get her way, but it is clearly performance of gender, aside from flirting required at times, she state no sexual preference as well.
Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day contains no sexual content: that is there is on screen sexualized images, aside from a curious amount of male nudity which seems a bit unnecessary. The film would suggest that “Boston” is a city of male gangsters who have no wives, mistresses (although one goes to a message parlor) - luckily for Boston, a city that was once shut down by light brights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) the film was shot in Toronto which explains it’s bland visual cityscapes.
I really hate that Boston, as a character itself in the Boondock Saints films (and the first was filmed in Boston) is replaced by Toronto, normally I say (as I did in Hulk) why not have the fucking movie take place in Toronto, why does New York always have to get destroyed, Toronto is a worthy world class city.
The problem is architecturally: as the character’s sexuality is an autopilot so is its backdrops - it’s generic. Boston is a city of brick, while Toronto has these neighborhoods they are underused. While it’s a well shot film, it lacks a Boston authenticity that the first flick had. Much like the Rock Hudson melodramas made by Douglas Sirk in the 1950-60’s - this film felt like it was shot on a soundstage, in addition to having its characters hide their sexuality.
Most filmmakers would introduce a gay character in the second film, if comments like this were made about their first film. Troy Duffy does it in reverse, spawning this reading, I suppose (that and the aforementioned dialogue relating to gay sex acts). Ebert, again observes Duffy did it in reverse, I had seen the hilarious documentary Overnight about the making of Boondock Saints, showing Duffy as an out of control, alcoholic hell bent on taking over the world from the outside, after Miramax gives him a deal to make Boondock Saints. Things go downhill from there, Duffy is exsactly the most likable character you could have in a film.
As it would turn out Troy Duffy is a skilled director, sure his films have many flaws, but he’s only made two so far, both the same story, in the same comic book style. Boondock Saints II is a purist action flick: it’s just that - gun fights, a bit of plot, character development that arrives just at the right moments. It’s all thrown together - a bit messy but the Saints are in a messy business, and business is booming, even in a down economy.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not bothered by the Saints being gay, or even asexual - I think it adds an interesting demention to the what could be perceived as a lack of character development. If one gets into patterns: gets married, has children, ect - they will chose to fight for the betterment of their communities not with guns but by running for town council or to an officer position in the development/condo development. With this being said, and the fact that (SPOILER) they’re in jail at the end of II (come to think of it, that’s also the ending of the 4th installment of the Fast and the Furious series - the-dumb-as-it’s-name: Fast and Furious). Let’s see what happens in Boondock Saint’s III.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
