Make a Narrative About Falling in Love in Pittsburg the Summer After You Graduate College and Everyone Will Love It

This past Sunday night I saw Adventureland(this post may act as a pseudo-spoiler, you’ve been warned). The movie was relatively enjoyable (especially the fact that the discoteque the characters go to called Razzmatazz had a marquee that read: “A Sophisticated Meeting Place”. For some reason this absolutely killed me) and I left the theatre thinking the film was ok but nothing special. I also felt like the movie should have been better, but I often feel that with these types of films. And by these types of films I mean the slow moving, indie, coming-of-age-and-falling-in-love flicks that allow their soundtracks to do the heavy lifting for the plot and characters (See: Juno, Garden State, Igby Goes Down, etc.*)

When I got home I couldn’t sleep so I started reading some reviews of the film. I always read reviews in hindsight, whether it’s a music, book, film or any other sort of review. Before I see, read or listen to something all I need is a nice, concise rating to let me judge whether or not it might be worth my time. Reviews should always be read after the fact, I feel pretty strongly about this. Anyways, as I read multiple reviews, everyone seemed to really like this movie. This didn’t surprise, but the reasons everyone really liked it did. Countless reviews I read from several credible writers talked about how the film was extraordinarily ‘deep’ for a teen comedy, and how great it was that even the side characters all had their own heartache and trauma outside the main storyline. Now I’m not a film critic, but it seems that the nation’s critics unanimously decided that this film was layered with subtext that quite frankly didn’t exist.

I think the main reason for the critical praise this film is receiving is because the vast majority of American film critics graduated from or were in college around the time this film was made. Or at the very least they remember this time period enough to properly empathize with the characters. The characters in this film are the types of people that film critics want to be, i.e. hip kids who live their lives with a sort of confined wreckless abandon, smoke lots of pot and listen to Lou Reed and the Replacements. And in fairness, this type of carefree lifestyle, at least ideologically, does sound pretty great. So there’s that, but this film is also cleverly shallow.

Just about every review I read went out of its way to mention the complexity of the supporting characters and how they all had their own little story. On the surface, this is true. In most teen comedies the characters are just archetypes with no real depth. In Adeventureland these characters are still archetypes, but they also have effed up home lives! Literally every character in this film, including the main protagonists, have some sort of travesty going on in their family lives. However, none of this personal drama is ever really expounded upon, it’s just casually mentioned or hinted at, even in the main characters case. So really all these supposed subplots are little more than a cheap way to give your characters some perceived depth. When looked at analytically, this film is little more than some shallow, self-serving nostalgia for its writer/director Greg Mottola (also known as the guy who directed Superbad). And yet, just about every critic failed to see that, which in my mind, seems kind of obvious. I think this actually the first film I’ve ever seen that I actually liked less after I saw it because of the positive reviews I l read about it post-viewing.

In some ways, this film reminded me of Michael Chabon’s first novel The Mysteries of Pittsburgh. Now this novel is different from Adventureland, but they have several similarities. Both are set in Pittsburgh and follow the misadventures of a male hero in his first summer after graduating college in which he does nothing but party, fall in love and learn a little bit about himself along the way. Like Adventureland, I thought this book was marginally ok, yet it also received tons of critical acclaim. Perhaps American critics just have a soft spot for narratives that take place in Pennsylvania steel towns. Or maybe they’re just suckers for decently written coming of age stories. And maybe I’m just bitter because I’ve clearly never experienced this type of summer. Who really knows?

Until We Meet Again
* I’ve seen and enjoyed all the movies I just mentioned. F*ck

A History of Viggo Mortensen’s Penis

(Full credit for this title goes to my main man Aaron Wallace who came up with the title after seeing Viggo in all his glory in ‘A History of Violence’)

I’m pretty sure all of you know by now that I found employment at my neighborhood Starbucks. As with any restaurant, we have our share of peculiar regulars. There’s one customer in particular who’s really, um, interesting. This guy resembles a much older, fatter version of the Gorton's fisherman. Every time he comes in and orders his coffee he’s leaves a couple of butter toffee hard candy cream savers to whichever barista is assisting him. The first time he did it to me I just assumed he had left them on the counter by accident so I altered him to his misplacement. He turned around and explained that those were for me. I’d like to think that I then thanked him, but odds are I was too awestruck to actually get any words out. Now whenever I’m working and this guy comes in he gives me two pieces of hard candy, so as to avoid any confusion. Because one piece of left behind candy could just be a mistake, but two pieces left behind, well that’s clearly a gift.

So why do I bring up the antics of this mystifying old man? Well in a strange way it reminds me of the movie I saw this last Sunday: “Eastern Promises” and its director David Cronenberg. You see normally people wouldn’t give you a piece of hard candy as a tip. They see such a gesture as a joke or a sort of eff you to the person they bestowed it on. But the Gorton’s fisherman look-a-like sees the world differently from others. Like wise, a normal director wouldn’t cast Viggo Mortensen and then put his penis on display for a good 5 minutes in their films. But David Cronenberg isn’t a normal director.

First off, let me just say that the movie is really good. It’s one of the most intense films I’ve ever seen. Through out the entire films there’s just a tension that’s never fully resolved. Even with the aforementioned Viggo and my future wife Naomi Watts on the screen, I never really felt like I was watching a movie. It felt like I found some sort of portal to look into a world I wasn’t supposed to see. To say the movie is eerily realistic is one hell of an understatement. I fully understand that you’re trying to make an overtly realistic film here, but you still could have left Viggo’s penis out of it. Although I’ll give Cronenberg credit for one thing: the fact that you keep seeing glimpses of Viggo’s ‘endowment’ is like the 4th most disturbing part of said scene.

Now before you all get on your high horses and call me a peni-phobe, just slow down. I realize it’s a natural part of the male body, but still. Nobody’s goes to the movies to see a penis. On the contrary, most people go to the movies not to see a penis*. What’s arguably more disturbing the sight of Viggo’s genital on screen is the fact that Cronenberg is now batting a 1.000 for times he’s shown Viggo’s penis in movies he’s directed with Viggo in it.

I mean honestly, you do something once it doesn’t prove anything. You do it twice, well that right there’s a pattern. Especially when it comes to cinema. Most talented directors only do a film every couple of years, so they have a much smaller sample size to draw from. So much the same M. Night Shyamalan is know for twists in his movies, Cronenberg is starting to be know for Viggo’s penis being shown in his. Maybe the guys got a serious problem and we should all be trying to get him some help. I mean what if he gets signed on to direct Hidalgo II. Would he have to put in a scene in which Viggo’s ‘manhood’ is exposed? Would the viewers be treated to countless scenes of Viggo riding the horse wearing nothing but a smile? Does this obsession carry over into other aspects of his life? Does he constantly mention how great Viggo looks nude in his interviews? Does he go home and say things like “You should have been on set today honey, Viggo’s balls looked great!”?

In the end, I guess it really doesn’t matter, but over reacting to pointless things is kinda what I do best. Although I’d still prefer not see another man’s ‘johnson’ on a 20 foot movie screen. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going go ice my hand, I think I’ve gotten carpel tunnel from typing penis so many times.

Until We Meet Again
* It’s true on so many levels.
** Stats: # of times penis was used = 13; # of euphemisms for a penis used = 5; # of times I cringed at what I was writing = 3

King Kong or Why All Women are Inherently Evil or Finally a Movie Character I Can Relate To.

Before we get started today I need to warn you all that this post/essay/column/whatever the hell it is contains spoilers of King Kong*. It should also be noted that if you have yet to see this brilliant piece of cinema you’re a complete and udder (expletive deleted). So now that we’ve got that out of the way let’s get started.

Here’s a brief synopsis of King Kong. A film crew finds an uncharted island in which they hope to film a movie at. Unfortunately for the film crew this island is inhabited by these creepy looking dark skinned natives**. The natives end of capturing Ann, who is the “heroine” of this movie. The film crew and actors panic and don’t know what to do. Eventually the natives sacrifice Ann to a 24ft gorilla (King Kong) who appears to be just a big bowl of wrong. The film crew then embarks on a rescue mission to save Ann from this extremely bad (expletive deleted) and apparently evil gorilla. The film crew has to trek across a vast island/jungle to find Ann, so it takes them awhile to do so. Before they find her they run in to all sorts of trouble, all the while we see several scenes of Kong and Ann interacting. The more we see Ann and Kong spend time together it becomes readily apparent that Kong is in fact not just an evil beast, but he's kind and loving to Ann while also being innately human. Before the film crew can find her and bring her back to the ship so they can return to America, Ann and Kong fall in love. This love may or may not have stemmed from Kong laying the smack down on not one but three (expletive deleted) T-Rexes. Whether or not their love is merely platonic or romantic love is unkown. I choose to believe their love was the latter. Kong and Ann have something special between that can’t really be described (now before we start to head down the bestiality road lets just get back to the summary). So eventually Ann is saved by Jack, a film and theatre writer who is also in love with Ann. As Ann and Jack flee back to the ship Kong follows in hot pursuit. Before Kong can reach Ann he is captured and chloroformed***. Kong is captured and taken back to America where he can be put on display for money. Of course this plan back fires and Kong breaks free and rampages through New York. He searches the streets for Ann, but can’t find her. She eventually finds him and the two of them then go ice skating. And yes the movie was so incredibly good that I actually bought this scene. They seem to be headed for a fairy tale ending before the National Guard (NG) shows up and wrecks their (expletive deleted). Eventually the NG chases Kong to the top of the Empire State Building where he eventually is killed and falls off in dramatic, slow mo fashion. As the camera pans over Kong’s dead body Jack Black (who is really good in this film) tells us why Kong died. Some cops note that the airplanes finally got him. Jack Black disagrees, he knows (and says) “that it was beauty that killed the beast.”

WHHHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTTT!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yes folks I’m afraid it’s true, that awful last line carries with it a lot of validity. Kong died the way so many great man (and perhaps animals???) die. He died because he fell for some c*ck teasing hussy who eventually let him down. Is Ann really to blame for Kong’s death? YES, an emphatic yes. A French philosopher, whose name escapes me, once said that men search for God’s face in the brothels. This is also true for King Kong. Kong was looking for a savior. And he found one, unfortunately she was unobtainable. Ann ruins a lot of lives in this film. Kong for one, and Adrien Brody’s character: Jack. Jack is also in love with Ann, but how the heck is he suppose to measure up to kicking the living (expletive deleted) out of three T-Rexes? The answer friends is that he can’t. Jack is just as doomed as Kong. Only his fall/death will be from some metaphoric Empire States Building. Which brings us to the point of this whole deride. I have several things in common with King Kong (and to a lesser extent Jack the playwright).

Like Kong (and to a lesser extent Jack the playwright) I too am doomed when it comes to women****. I always fall in love with an unobtainable girl. This said girl is unobtainable for one of a couple of reasons. Either she’s in a relationship, hopelessly in love with someone else or thinks I’m gay. This always happens to me, and it always ends the same way. I, like Kong (and to a lesser extent Jack the playwright), will eventually fall in love with someone and end up falling of my own metaphoric Empire States Building. Women will eventually ruin me. In the end it’s beauty that ends up killing us all, isn’t it. (expletive deleted) women.

Until We Meet Again

* I’m referring to the Peter Jackson epic version that came out about a month ago.
** Make your own inference here, I’m just writing about what Jackson decided to show us.
*** It should be noted that this was the point in the movie in which I told myself I wasn’t going to cry at King Kong. Seriously it was a very emotional movie. Or maybe it’s just because it was Christmas Night. I really don’t know.
**** For space purposes I declined to go into the physical and mental attributes Kong and I share.