Posts tagged as:

Date Night

Two months ago, the Liberian Girl and I were lying in bed trying to fall asleep. The TV, which was trying to watch us, spit out a 60-second spot for a movie called Hanna. After the ad concluded, I mumbled something to the effect of:

“I may be half sleep, but I’m pretty sure I just saw a commercial that told me there was a movie where the Incredible Hulk was gonna teach the Lovely Bones how to be an assassin…”

The Liberian Girl lifted her head and nodded, “Well…that is kinda what just happened…so…when are you taking me to see it?”

Two weeks ago, the Liberian Girl and I saw a matinee screening of Limitless in Georgetown. It was a decent film built on an intriguing idea about drugs, brainpower and acts of extreme brilliance. While I had modest expectations for it, I was a bit worried by the collection of trailers that preceded the film: Fast Five; The Hangover, Part II; Scre4m; Arthur; Thor and X-Men: First Class. One, or some, of those films could be good. Hell, maybe all of them will be. But none of their trailers demonstrated much of an imagination. Each felt so much like a property. Almost like they were commercials for commercials. The meta was pretty uninspiring. Appropriate, I suppose, to set up a film adapted from a novel. As the opening credits for Limitless began rolling, I second-guessed that day’s movie choice. For just a moment. Thankfully, the intriguing premise we gambled on kinda delivered. At the very least, it didn’t feel like a waste of money. Or time. (Thank you, Bradley Cooper, for not making crap movies.)

Two days ago, the Liberian Girl and I bought tickets for a matinee screening of Hanna. In Georgetown. As we took our seats, I remembered the pack of trailers that set up the last movie we saw in that theater. And I grew very curious about what kind of preamble we might get this time. It was a bit more eclectic: The Conspirator; Crazy, Stupid, Love; Captain America; Anonymous and Fast Five. What that said about the anticipated audience for Hanna was anyone’s guess. Mine would be that some marketers believe there’s still room for acts of art to mingle with acts of commerce. Show business is ever the paradox.

Hanna, the main feature, was equal parts character study and semi-classic chase film. The titular character still wears a training bra when we meet her. She is also finishing training with her father to be capable of killing any creature or any combination of creatures. We know that her father did something, that the something involved the CIA and that he needed to hole up somewhere way off the grid to avoid CIA detection. That’s how Hanna and her Papa ended up living somewhere deep in the Arctic woods. Hella far from any kind of civilization, Papa (played by the first feature-length Incredible Hulk) raised Hanna (played by the Lovely Bones) with only the aid of his own warrior expertise and an encyclopedia. Consequently, when Hanna fully matures as a warrior, she is also ill-equipped socially for the modern world.

The chase begins after Hanna flips a switch daring the CIA to come and find her. (You may have seen that part in one of the ads for the film.) The pursuit dashes and dips through Northern Africa and Eastern Europe as a CIA agent and her flamboyant Neo-Nazi operatives inch closer and closer to Hanna. Along the way, Hanna befriends a civilian British family and has to deal with alien appliances like coffee makers and remote control TVs. Lurking at the end of the trail is Papa and…well…we don’t quite know what. I probably shouldn’t say any more for fear of spoiling it.

The quickie analysis is that Hanna is a really well made film. It’s got a solid cast. (In addition to the Hulk and the Lovely Bones, Cate Blanchett plays the CIA lead.) The script gives them plenty of room to explore and discover in the midst of the chase. It also has enough lightness and humor to offset the intensity of the 100-minute chase. The cinematography alternates appropriately between frenetic and patient. The Chemical Brothers score is pretty sick. But the smartest thing Hanna does is to resist the temptation to play up the sexuality of its teenaged female lead. She is presented instead as very icey, yet believably naive. While Hanna has been trained to do battle with the CIA’s best, she has no clue how to go about kissing a cute boy. (The Liberian Girl said he was cute. I wasn’t so sure.)

While watching the film, I found myself thinking, “There’s no way an American made this.” When I mentioned that notion to the Liberian Girl after the movie, she whipped out her Blackberry and quickly discovered that director Joe Wright is British while screenwriter Seth Lochhead is Canadian. We sat at the bar contemplating what that meant exactly. Neither of us was sure. Smart, mature American filmmakers aren’t extinct. Nor are their domestic audiences. After all, the auditorium we sat in for Hanna was at about 70% capacity. Still…something just felt weird about all of it.

Maybe the ultimate takeaway from seeing Hanna had something to do with the gross necessity of marketing. I kept thinking back to the contrasting sets of trailers–and the ad that inspired us to choose to see Hanna in the first place. I understand that studios (or the corporations that own them) need to make sure consumers are A) aware their films exist and B) sufficiently excited so as to go out and see them. But who decided it was a good idea to spend as much marketing a film as is spent to make the thing? I know that Fast Five is coming soon to a theater near me. I been knowing that, actually. And I suspect I’ll spend the next few weeks trying to escape that damn’d movie. (Although I may go see it with the homie if he buys enough bourbon to make it worth my while.) The way the average medium-to-large-budget film is marketed implies there is a fifth (ironically) silent P in the Marketing Mix: Pulverize. As in: “we need to pulverize the sensibilities of our potential consumers.” To what end, I’m not sure. I think I grew numb to all of it some time ago.

[Post-Script: The screenplay for Hanna was selected as one of the best unproduced scripts of both 2006 and 2009. That's a dubious distinction to earn once. Let alone twice. Why it took so long to get made, I don't know. Go figure.]

{ 0 comments }

The Liberian Girl and I were running 20 minutes late for a late Sunday Brunch on U Street with our favorite lesbians. After the light at 12th Street turned green, I whipped into a parking spot. We tumbled out of the car and stumbled into Creme. Our favorite bartender had already poured our drinks. The brunch was chatty, laughy, delicious and drunk like it usually is. We lingered lazily until the dinner menus emerged and our favorite bartender had to clock out.

The E Street Cinema had two early evening show times for Blue Valentine that night: 7pm and 8:15pm. The Liberian Girl suggested that we grab a quick drink at Lounge of III before heading to the theatre for the 8:15. With several ounces of gin swirling around in my belly, that sounded like an act of genius. So we hugged the lesbians goodbye and walked a few blocks up U Street to visit our other favorite bartender–who is known for making the drunkest drinks in the neighborhood. He happily obliged us as we continued on a pre-movie, mini-bender.

I think we scored two seats in the theatre while the first trailer began rolling. Or maybe it was the third trailer. It was definitely before the film started. And it was definitely the E Street Cinema. Also, it was for a screening of Blue Valentine. At least, I think that’s the movie we saw. There was a lot of alcohol involved, so this writer’s memory is probably not to be trusted. (His opinion, however, is always to be trusted. Unless you’re the Liberian Girl. Then you tend to trust it about 40% of the time.)

A bit about the film shall we? Two people from the New Jersey-york-ylvania area meet and become entangled in a working class love affair that…well…the most succinct way to relay the plot of the film is to call it the lovechild of a Bon Jovi song and a Bruce Springsteen song. That may be a lazy summation, but it is apt. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play Tommy and Gina, respectively. (Although I believe the film’s lead characters had names that weren’t chosen by Jon Bon Jovi.) Their relationship plays out via a highly fractured timeline (kinda like 21 Grams). The costuming and make-up departments do a brilliant job of making clear exactly what point we’re at in the relationship continuum so the film is remarkably easy to follow. The two lead actors perform with similar deftness in representing their characters at different ages. More than merely playing assorted ages, both leads deliver performances that pull you into the screen where you are forced to walk alongside them as they take their journeys.

As in all relationships, there is a crisis point in the film that threatens the very fabric of Tommy and Gina’s warm and fuzzy union. After that crisis point, things got a bit fuzzy for me. You could attribute that to the alcohol. But I think it had just as much to do with one sequence where an unplanned pregnancy leads to the contemplation of having an abortion.

The general rawness and intensity of the film would make anyone squirm in their seats. It’s really a two-hour confrontation that challenges the viewer to embrace a fairy tale and a great torment in parallel. But the way it interjected the pregnancy episode with both hindsight and foresight took me to a place I wasn’t prepared to go.

Years ago, there was a different girl who sat next to me at the movie theatre and let me put my arm around her. Early in that relationship, she peed a plus sign onto a home pregnancy test. After she visited her doctor, we did some math and calculated that whomever was growing inside her belly didn’t belong to me. After consulting her ex, they decided to abort. The girl and I decided to carry on with our fledgling affair. I felt a combination of relief and remorse. It was the first and only time I ever personally faced a scenario involving that type of choice. Things didn’t work out with that girl. She and I both moved on. I think she eventually married and had a couple of kids, but I can’t say for sure. I haven’t spoken to her in a few years. And I hadn’t thought of that moment where she made that choice in nearly a decade.

Yet there I was in the E Street Cinema covering my eyes and swallowing tears as Tommy and Gina chased their dreams and wrestled with their nightmares. The Liberian Girl squeezed my knee and whispered to me that it was only a movie. It was only a movie. But it made me think about the real kid who didn’t make it way back when I was cast as a supporting player in a scene where real people had to make unspeakably heavy decisions. And I felt this odd sense of loss that I just couldn’t shake. Thankfully, there was still some alcohol in the plastic cup hanging from the end of my armrest. I gulped that down and excused myself to buy another round for the Liberian Girl and I. She got a single. I got a triple. I’m not sure what part of the film I missed, but I settled very quickly back into both my buzz and the zigzagged narrative.

After the film ended, the Liberian Girl and I peeled ourselves out of our seats. As we crawled up the escalator toward the cinema’s exit, I slapped my forehead and leaned desperately toward the Liberian Girl’s ear. “Um…I have no idea where we parked.” She laughed. “Hon, we didn’t drive.”

She was right. We found the car the next morning right where we had left it on U Street. Before Sunday Brunch. Back when we were stone sober without the help of any of the films playing at the E Street Cinema.

*A lot of facts–along with a number of brain cells–were irreparably harmed in the making of this post.

{ 3 comments }

When you go to the Fairy Tale Store, there’s no aisle you can walk down to assemble the ingredients for a scenario where Party A lives in New York, Party B lives in San Francisco and the two parties live happily ever after…in their long distance relationship. That’s not a situation little girls dream of. And it’s not a situation little Michael Sorrentinos have enough willpower or patience to endure.

(Long distance relationships can work. Of course they can. But their success rate hovers around the Mendoza Line. Or, if you prefer to be more current, the Jeter Line.)

So…Going the Distance is not a fairy tale. It is, in fact, the rare romantic comedy that generally avoids the fantastic machinations intended to make single women feel less bad about being single.

Going the Distance is on some real shit. Plain and simple. It feels as if it were written and produced by adults. Granted, “adult” is presently a very loose life status given that we live in the age of 30-year-old boys and women who behave as if 32 is the new 16. Maturity, however, is not completely extinct. And it is a prevailing theme, for the most part, in Going the Distance.

Drew Barrymoore and Justin Long star. They’re together in real life.(*) She plays the party who lives in San Francisco. He plays the party who lives in New York. They meet while she’s interning for a newspaper in New York and decide to have a thing while they share a zip code. Their mutual attraction hinges on 3 factors: 1) they’re both hipsterish 2) they’re both very candid in expressing their intentions and 3) they have legitimate chemistry. When she has to return to the West Coast to complete grad school, they decide to keep doing their thing even as all of the purple mountain majesties and thousands of amber waves of grain stand between them. Hence, our conflict.

There are other people in the movie. Charlie Day. Jason Sudeikis. Christina Applegate. You even get a cameo from Ron Livingston. (He’s the guy from Office Space.) Each of them is pretty effin’ funny. Particularly Charlie Day, who delivers the best line in the movie. Perhaps the best line in any movie so far this year. (I won’t spoil it for you.)

The Liberian Girl and I saw Going the Distance last week. Coming out of the theatre, we were both surprised that such a film showed respect for its audience. We didn’t have to watch Jennifer Aniston pretending she wasn’t Jennifer Aniston. And we didn’t have to watch Jennifer Lopez pretending she was some regular chick worth less than $12 million. We got to see real people–really funny people–doing things that real people do.

Real people play trivia games in bars with strangers then try not to get caught sneaking out of the cute one’s house the next morning. Real people also hate on the dude/chick who appears to treat their partner so awesomely that every other relationship sucks by comparison. And real people, believe it or not, have cinematic moments in the airport.

Many years ago–when Osama bin Laden was merely a recalcitrant scion and not a world-class villain–I was in a long distance relationship with a woman who lived two time zones away. We had found ourselves tiptoeing through a rather delicate moment and made plans for a rendezvous in a city equidistant to each of us. The rendezvous was not nearly as randy as we had hoped it would be. It was quite the opposite. And, at the end of the weekend, we chose to end our relationship. We did so during a cab ride to the airport. Checking in was very quiet. Clearing security was awkward. Sitting at her terminal waiting for her flight to board felt interminable. Eventually they called for her section to board. We hugged one last time. Said the things you’re supposed to say when it’s over and neither of you is happy about it. Then I watched her walk up a ramp and disappear into a 757. Part of me wanted her to turn, run back to me and say what you want people to say when you want the relationship to keep going. The rest of me knew she was too headstrong and too smart to even glance over her shoulder. There was no glance.

I shared that story with the Liberian Girl after we exited the screening of Going the Distance. She did not have one of her own to respond with. Nor did she ask a bunch of superflous questions about my previous relationship. (The Liberian Girl is too smart to be so petty.) I think both of us understood that the people on the screen were genuine avatars and that either of us could have been either of them.

When you’re in a long distance relationship, something very good develops to delude both parties. It convinces them to choose that arrangement despite the obvious obstacle. Sometimes, the good thing overcomes the miles. More often, the miles make the good thing wilt. And the two parties find themselves inside a bottle of gin. At least that’s where I found myself after my good thing walked away from me several years ago.

I won’t tell you how Going the Distance ends. I will tell you that it felt very genuine to me. Watching the two parties in that film fumble so candidly and struggle so earnestly felt like reliving the good parts (and the bad parts) of my own story. The film was not hopelessly romantic. It was not whitewashed of the unfortunate circumstances that happen in real life. And it found a way to keep a sense of humor amidst the pursuit of the impossible. Even when I wanted the film to stop being so real and to divert into fairy tale territory…well…I probably shouldn’t finish that sentence. Good, bad or otherwise, I wouldn’t want to spoil it for you. Although I will tell you there is far more that is good about this film–just as there is far more that is good about the relationships you remember most–than there is anything else.

Besides, the film should be at the cheap movie theatre in your neighborhood next week. And a cheap date is better than no date, right?

DYL MAG SCORE: A 6 point something that rounds up to a 7.

*You’ll have to check with Us Weekly to be sure. I’m no authority on those matters.

{ 3 comments }

“I remember so many beginnings, but I don’t know which one goes with this story.”

– Benjamin Esposito, El secreto de sus ojos

Unlike the lead character in the film the Liberian Girl and I saw on Sunday night, I do know which beginning goes with this story. It occurred last Friday and the scene starred familiar castmates scotch and Mr. Jared Wade (who may be known to some as Lights Out).

I had been dispatched to Newark, NJ to work a conference on behalf of my daytime employer. After the conference’s Friday proceedings concluded, I PATHed it to midtown Manhattan to connect with Lights Out at a bar that had an excellent selection of scotchy scotch scotch. The night ended pretty late. Saturday morning began quite early. About two hours separated that ending from that beginning.

The Saturday proceedings of my conference concluded late that evening. But not late enough to prevent me from sneaking into a Prince versus Michael Jackson party in SOHO where I met a painter who explained his theory on how the vibrations of the Purple’s music differed from the vibrations produced by the Bad’s catalog. The painter caught me studying a young woman’s undulating hips from afar. He was studying them, too. They oscillated slowly to a Prince song anticipating the man who was bringing her another drink. They were hungry hips. The painter claimed we should thank Prince for inciting the scene.

The Purple, he postulated, vibrated in a way that inspired the urge to engage in the intimacies exchanged between adults (and some teenagers). The Bad, he theorized, vibrated in a way that beckoned people to commune en masse in pursuit of the unpolluted joys most often associated with childhood. You could tell both of these things, he said, by the way the blob of bodies contracted and expanded depending on whose music was being played. When “Darling Nikki” oozed out of the club’s speakers, couples pulled each other close and grinded as the subject of the song was reported to have done. When “Wanna Be Startin’ Something” jumped off the DJ’s platter, people parked at the bar suddenly sprinted to the dance floor where everyone — including the people without much rhythm — danced with everyone else and every mouth opened to sing every word of the song. I was a little bit drunk — and a lot bit tired — but mine own eyes witnessed what the painter was talking about. His argument was quite convincing. It also suggested strongly that the ultimate winner of the 20th Century clash between the Purple and the Bad was … the rest of us.

After the last notes of the last Michael Jackson song closed that Saturday night party, I had just enough time to PATH back to Newark to board a Sunday morning AMTRAK train bound for DC. I closed my eyes as soon as I found a seat. The next time I opened them the sign said Union Station — which is a $5 cab ride from the Liberian Girl’s house in Northwest DC.

I had parked my car at her place before I left town for the conference. I had also made a bargain that I’d spend some time with her on Sunday. After a nap and the Lakers first NBA Playoff game versus Kevin Durant’s team, we scanned the listings for the E Street Cinema and designed a simple evening for ourselves.

Over heaping bowls of noodles at the Noodle Bar on U Street, the Liberian Girl shook her head at my drooping eyes. “You’ll never make it through this movie,” she said. “You’ll be asleep before the last trailer is over.”

“What? Nuh-uh. I’m good.”

“Bet me, then.”

“Okay. Bet. What’s the wager?”

The wager we settled on is not the kind of thing you describe on the internet where your family may someday stumble across it. Let’s just say that no matter who lost, both of us were gonna win.

(Yes, I know. Get to the movie already.)

El secreto de sus ojos translates as The Secret in Their Eyes. The secret — in this Argentinian picture that won Best Foreign Language Film at the 2010 Oscars — is twofold. There is, firstly, the mystery of a 25-year-old unsolved rape-murder. And there is the mystery of why two co-workers — who crushed on each other pretty egregiously — never chose to be more than co-workers to each other. One co-worker, the male lead, is a retired investigator. The other, the female lead, is a lawyer. They shared an office for many years before the investigator retired. As the investigator squirms through an itchy retirement, he scratches the urge to write a novel and peels back two scabs that become the twin conceits of our story.

The primary conceit is the rape-murder. A young banker finds his young wife’s body bloody, beaten and very not alive. The investigator promises the banker he will find the perpetrator and he will bring that dirty son-of-a-bitch to justice. Despite his best efforts, the investigator failed to do either of those things — a shortcoming that continued to haunt the investigator into his retirement. It haunted him to the point that it provided a convenient excuse for the investigator emeritus to visit his former colleague slash would-be lover (the lawyer) to inquire about the unsolved tragedy. The investigator wanted to write about the case. He also wanted to finally solve it. He also also wanted to revisit the love that never was — the secondary conceit.

Both conceits unfold deftly via flashback. There’s a lot of jumping back and forth between present-day and back-in-the-day. The same actors are used in both the present-day and the back-in-the-day scenes. Apart from costuming and set design, the key signifier for what point in time you’re seeing is hair and make-up. The make-up, it seems, is intentionally underwhelming to enable us to clearly connect all of the characters to their former selves. You may find the low-fidelity make-up work to be appalling. You may find it to be charming. Either way, there’s no doubting that its … low-fi. There also isn’t much doubt as to where you are in the timeline.

I was glad for that level of certainty as I struggled to stay awake. That is no indictment of the film. It’s a good story and it is well told. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says so. If you don’t believe them, you should take the Liberian Girl’s word for it as she liked it a lot. She also liked that she may have won the bet. I’m not sure I dozed all the way off, but I spent a fair part of act two working hard not to succumb to the fatigue I had accumulated in New Jersey and New York. At one point the English subtitles started to split like two taunting cells and they formed a second line of unintelligible text. If hallucination counts as falling asleep, then I suppose the Liberian Girl was right. (Either way, I paid off the bet. She liked that, too.)

I saw enough of the film to know that it was very worthy of the Oscar it won this Spring. Frankly, it could have been recognized for its cinematography as well. Shots are cleverly composed throughout, and close-ups are used to imbue the film with an intimacy that underscores the weight of the two secrets. In one sequence when the investigator is closing in on the rapist/murderer, the filmmakers take us into a crowded futbol stadium via steadicam to search the fans for the lead suspect. There’s some frantic scanning and a chase that ends on the field of play. During the scene, the motion of the camera laces up the audience’s sneakers and forces us to join the chase. It was one of the more poignant uses of steadicam I can remember. Perhaps the most.

I’d like to say more about the story and the secrets. But I’m leery of spoiling it because El secreto de sus ojos is one of the better films of the year and you  should definitely see it. I can tell you that its journey through the past and deeper into the present is not without rewards — or an eye-opening twist.

DYL MAG Rating: 8

{ 0 comments }