Life is precious. And God. And the Bible.

Silly me, I thought the gay marriage issue was dead. Guess not- I received a telephone message while I was at the gym today asking me to sign a petition requesting that Congress approve an anti-gay-marriage amendment. Naturally, I deleted the message, but it has pissed me off most of the afternoon. I wonder how much of this renewed effort by the right wingers has to do with the fact that the Intelligent Design push has stalled out, leaving them without a cause to whine about.

This issue has been kind of talked out, so I won't say too much. Personally, I don't mind gay marriage any more than I mind straight marriage. I say any two people can marry (or, failing that, commit to a lifelong relationship) provided that both are mindful and accepting of the commitment they're making to each other. Hell, I've known a pair of women who have been together nearly forty years. How their love is somehow less legit than a couple of people who hook up in Vegas and go to a wedding chapel is beyond me.

Which brings me to the laughable idea of the "sancitity of marriage." Give me a fucking break, people. From what I can tell, straight people have been destroying the sancitity of marriage for years. Spousal and child abuse, rising divorce rates, adultery, no-fault divorce laws, the aforementioned Vegas wedding chapels- what do these things have to do with two men holding hands in the park? Not a goddamn thing. But morality is UNDER ATTACK!!!!, say the thumpers, and since Americans love a quick fix, homosexuals are a convenient scapegoat. Better we go after a not-very-popular subculture than deal with problems that are closer at hand.

More so than the CRASH victory, I'd have to say that the real issue here is deep-seated homophobia. Now, some of the more reasonable-sounding fundies might not admit it, but they're hiding behind the Word of God in order to air out their own prejudices. And the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous- how does gay marriage lead to such things as bestiality? It's a long stretch to connect a loving relationship between two fully-aware members of the same sex and a one-sided one between a person and a far-less-cognizant animal.

What really bugs me about this whole thing is that the self-appointed moral arbiters of society use their discomfort with homosexuality as an excuse to deny them certain rights the rest of us have. How exactly does it affect you if two people love each other, even if they are of the same sex? Lest we forget that previous generations weren't comfortable with minorities and women having the right to vote either- but that's legal now, isn't it?

That the government takes any of this seriously is troubling. Hell, we're spending hundreds of billions on a war that has no forseeable end, and the job situation hasn't improved one bit, but hell, I can live with my relatives getting shipped off to Iraq and having my hours at work scaled back, just as long as them homos don't get married, right? For most reasonable people, gay marriage isn't that important to them- they're not necessarily for it or against it, and they don't think about it that much because it doesn't affect them like some of the more important issues do. But you know how it works- it ain't how much you're hurting, but rather how loud you cry.

Also, some tiny reviews:

JARHEAD (2005, Sam Mendes)- some compelling ideas at work here, with a few good performances (Sarsgaard in particular) and impressive effects sequences involving the burning oil wells (the best we could have hoped for, outside of simply using footage from Herzog's LESSONS OF DARKNESS). Still, not all that interesting as a whole, as the soldiers' realization of their own obsolescence doesn't make for particularly good drama. Rating: **.

WHERE THE TRUTH LIES (2005, Atom Egoyan)- a step in the right direction after Egoyan's overly serious, needlessly convoluted ARARAT, here the director manages to class up the tabloid-fodder source material- it never becomes art per se, but it's more than the throwaway it could have been, which is a credit to Egoyan's filmmaking chops. Colin Firth seems ecstatic to play a role other than the stern-yet-sensitive Brit that's become his stock in trade, and this comes through in the performance. Rating: **1/2.

RUNNING SCARED (2006, Wayne Kramer)- I'll certainly take this over Kramer's last film, THE COOLER. This hallucinatory gangland fairy tale is definitely unhinged (never more so than in the scene with the child-molesting couple), but it's also highly watchable, although my stomach for movies like this (and DOMINO, which is better than this) is stronger than most other people's, so take my assessment with a grain of salt. The film lacks a strong narrative through-line to make it seem like something more than one-damn-thing-after-another, and while Paul Walker had to welcome the chance to play vulgar and scruffy, the jury's still out on his acting. Rating: **1/2.

CRASH wins. We lose.

It actually happened- the upset-happy hypesters have gotten their way. Sometimes there's a tendency in the entertainment press to turn the Oscars into two-horse races, if for no other reason than to drum up interest- did anybody really think Clooney wouldn't be getting that statuette? But this time around, it actually happened- the underdog vanquished the champ. The question of the day is- why?

Was it the much-ballyhooed homophobia of the voters that caused the BROKEBACK defeat? Was it that CRASH was set in Los Angeles? Were the voters just sick of hearing about BROKEBACK? Did they (heaven forbid) just like CRASH more? I'm not sure. But there's another possibility that hasn't been mentioned much, and this dawned on me last night, during the "issue movies" montage, when I first began considering the possibility of a CRASH victory. The voters thought that CRASH was a more Important movie.

Now I realize that most of the winners lately haven't skewed this way- most of the winners from the past decade have been large-scale entertainments, and the others were melodramatic. But Hollywood, as many presenters reminded us last night, has had some hard times lately. With box office down and more potential moviegoers taking their entertainment dollar elsewhere, movies don't matter to people like they used to. So voters began thinking about how future generations would regard their picks- as Clooney stated, Hollywood prides itself on being progressive and ahead of the curve when it comes to important issues. The nominees this year were unusually heavy on issues-heavy fare- homosexuality, terrorism, freedom of speech and the press, and racism carried the day. And more than the other nominees, CRASH wore its issues on its sleeve, the kind of socially concerned work that deserves to be honored, in their eyes.

BROKEBACK, on the other hand, treaded lightly in this department. Yes, its heroes were the victims of an intolerant era, which wouldn't allow them to love they way they could have, but it didn't preach. Much like last year's winner, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, it was about telling a story first and foremost, and any issues it raised were kept as subtext. That both BABY and BROKEBACK got the more vocal righties in an uproar due to their storylines is a subject for another time.

The only competition that CRASH had in the preachiness sweepstakes was GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. But whereas Clooney's film was safely in the past, CRASH oh-so-boldly took place in the present. And yes, CRASH took place in Los Angeles, which was probably not lost on Hollywood voters. So CRASH, in spite of having characters foam about in elaborate speeches about racial issues on the streets of a big city (rather than keeping their damn traps shut at least until they closed the car doors), was interpreted by many as "reflective of the way we live now." The film became a sleeper hit this past summer. The phrase "CRASH moment" briefly entered the vernacular. Oprah, that eternal arbiter of pop-cultural significance, even invoked the film after she was denied after-hours entrance to an upscale Paris boutique to buy a $3000 purse for Tina Turner. I mean, we've all been there, right?

To my recollection, there was never any uproar over the film like there was over BROKEBACK. Maybe because CRASH comforted us with the idea that, deep down, we all have prejudices, but we need to learn to live together despite them. Awwwwwww, ain't that nice? But does being provoked then salved excuse the manipulative dramaturgy and jaw-droppingly shameless scenes given us by writer-director-Scots delicacy Paul Haggis? Obviously, to many, it does. Though not to me, and certainly not to this guy. But my opinions on the film itself aren't the issue here. It's not about who I would've picked, but why CRASH won. And I can't help but feel like a lot of voters forgot that the category was called Best Picture. BEST, as in most good, not most socially-concerned or most Important.

In one of his acceptance speeches last night, Paul Haggis quoted Brecht, saying that art should not be a mirror to society, but a hammer. That he considers his art a hammer goes a long way toward explaining how unsubtle CRASH is.

Youthful and Serene

THE BEST OF YOUTH (2003, Marco Tullio Giordana)- I can't help but feel like many of the accolades for this film have a lot to do with the fact that it's six hours long and doesn't ever really get boring. And yeah, that's certainly an achievement, but in the end this is a film I admired much more than I enjoyed. Some of the more mainstream critics have celebrated the novelistic feel of the film (it takes place over forty years, for one thing), but storytelling is kind of low on my list of important factors to enjoy a film. I think that viewing the long version of ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA just last weekend kind of throws this film into perspective- whereas Leone's work is endlessly cinematic, Tullio Giordana's direction is fairly prosaic, and subservient to the screenplay, which feels like a fastidiously faithful adaptation of a never-published novel. I was pretty enthusiastic after the first hour, which establishes the primary players in the film in a relaxed way, but once the brothers Carati are separated, it's off to the races. The narrative caroms from major event to major event in an attempt to follow the characters over four decades, but there are precious few character vignettes that help us really understand them (nothing on par with, say, the scene with young Patsy and the pastry in ...AMERICA). There are some elements that did register strongly with me (the Giorgia storyline, the New Year's Eve sequence), but just as many that weren't as effective as they might have been (in particular Giulia's Red Brigade experience, which was hurt by the presence of Sonia Bergamasco, easily the film's least expressive performer, as Giulia). I can see why this was a sensation in Italy- many of the country's major events from the past half-century come into play here- but some of this may get lost in translation for American viewers. But I have a feeling that my tempered reaction to the film had less to do with historical context than the uninspired nature of the film itself. Rating: **1/2.

SERENITY (2005, Joss Whedon, seen on DVD)- I'm a newcomer to the "Firefly" universe, but I certainly see the challenge Whedon faced bringing it to the big screen- how to satisfy the intensely fanatical (and vocal) followers of the original series while making it palatable for newcomers? For about an hour, I was totally into the film, which in its first half is chock full of storytelling verve (no fewer than three reveals in the first ten minutes) and sassy, engaging characters (you can't manufacture the kind of chemistry the cast has attained). Alas, once that first hour has passed, the film devolves into a more straight-faced kind of space opera, in which the scrappy rebels discover that they need to fight after all. Frankly, I missed the more irreverent tone in the opening reels (something which no doubt distinguished the series), and although the second half of the film isn't badly done, it's just a tad disappointing in light of what has come before. Still, I'm certainly intrigued (the series is going in the ol'Netflix queue), and the acting is quite good all around- Nathan Fillion makes a charismatic antihero, Adam Baldwin gets most of the good punchlines, and Jewel Staite is the most successful at delivering Whedon's sometimes convoluted dialogue ("goin' on a year now I ain't had nothin' twist my nethers weren't run on batteries!"). And casting Chiwetel Ejiofor as the icy baddie was a pretty genius move, as the film perks up whenever he's onscreen. Rating: **1/2.

Thanks buds

I'd like to thank those who wrote in regarding my last post about getting a gym membership. In retrospect, I just pushed myself too hard that first day (I'll lay off doing the front crawl stroke for a while) and now that I've gotten a better handle on my limits I can work on gently nudging them rather than obliterating them. I've been back since every day save yesterday, when the gym's abbreviated hours coincided with my movie-road-trip (see below). Sadly, the pool is closed through this weekend for heating system repairs, so I have to compensate in other ways. I did half an hour on the treadmill today, followed by twenty minutes on some skiing device and another twenty on the bike. And I was going pretty fast on all three, so I think I did pretty well. I've decided I like using the treadmill at the gym more than walking on the track, not least because nobody gets in the way on the treadmill. I'm happy with my routine of going during the daytime- it's not nearly as busy, and there are fewer preening, strutting gym jocks and more elderly folks, which helps my own body image. Also, I've come to the conclusion that locker room modesty exists in inverse proportion to age- the younger folks are more likely to change discreetly, while it seems every old guy feels the need to hang out with his wang out.

And now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's move on to the real business at hand...

CACHÉ (2005, Michael Haneke, seen in theatre)- in some ways this is Haneke's most mainstream effort (the relatively large number of shot-countershot dialogue setups took me by surprise), but the master has hardly gone soft. For one thing, this mofo is really insinuating- I recently read a comment that nearly every still you could take from CACHÉ is mundane-looking, but it's exactly these boring-looking images that make it tense, as they situate the action within a recognizable real-world space. Haneke, among other things, is a master of shot duration, and every shot in this film is held precisely as long as it needs to be to attain full effect, and no longer. Consider the film's opening shot- a daytime view of an upper-middle-class Parisian home, seen from down the street. The opening credits roll, and the shot continues. Then the credits disappear, but the shot remains onscreen. Nothing happens, and the audience gets to thinking- something is afoot. Finally, we hear Georges and Anne Laurent (Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche, both excellent) in voiceover, talking about what we're watching, which turns out to be an anonymous video of their home that was left on their doorstep. Only then does Haneke cut away. They receive a number of other videos within the course of the film, and Haneke is canny in his use of digital video to shoot the entire movie, not simply the footage that is sent to Georges and Anne (this is the closest I've ever seen video emulate film, which makes me think the death of celluloid may be nigh after all). I also liked the way that, once we see a setting in one of the videos, Haneke will show it later from this angle. So whodunit? Click here and see... (Warning: SPOILERS) Rating: ***1/2.

Also, I recently watched Rohmer's TRIPLE AGENT on UK DVD, but it really didn't register. Well-made, with the typical Rohmer touch, but perhaps it was a tad too low-key to register when watching at 2 AM. I'll catch it again in the future, I'm sure. Rating: **1/2.

Not quite stabbing yourself in the eye, but it's still self-inflicted...

So my birthday was last weekend. Per my request, my parents paid the registration fee for me at the local gym, and today was my first time there. I still have to pay the monthly fees, but since that averages a dollar per day it's not too bad. Now, I'm pretty out of shape, so I was really overdue to start working out regularly. And honestly, a gym is a better idea than just going downstairs and walking on the treadmill for a while and riding a bike when it's nice out. I guess that in a way I'm motivated by money, in the respect that I'm more likely to do something when I'm paying for it. Add to this that if I have to make time to go to the gym, I'll do it, instead of being able to say "oh, I'll just do the treadmill thing later" and putting it off indefinitely.

Anyway, I knew it'd be, um, interesting, since I am somewhat overweight and could stand to lose some pounds. I'm also dieting, so I think a combination of healthy eating and exercise would do me good. But while I had no illusions that my first day at the gym would be a cakewalk, I didn't think it'd be this bad. I jogged a little over a mile and rode the stationary bike for a few miles, but while this got me a tad winded it didn't get rough for me until I went swimming. After half a dozen lengths of the pool, I was done. I shuffled back to the locker room and crouched by the terlet for at least five minutes, expecting to throw up (I hadn't even eaten recently either). Eventually, I was able to get back to my feet, take a shower and change, but my body still feels like a strand of cooked pasta.

I guess the lesson here is to know my limits. Lesson learned. I'll be going back tomorrow, but I may just forego the pool for the time being.

Also, I'll be making an addition to My Top 100 List this afternoon, so keep an eye for it.

!!!!! (vague spoilers)

INNOCENCE (2004, Lucile Hadzihalilovic, seen in theatre)- Three words: Ho. Ly. Shit. I haven't been wrapped up this much in the spell cast by a film since, well, since THE NEW WORLD. The setting here is a mysterious, secluded school for girls ages 6 to 12, and the film follows several of them over the course of one year. The girls are divided into "houses", with one girl for each year (years are denoted by differently colored hair ribbons), and the film begins with the youngest, Iris, who arrives in a coffin and finds herself having to cope with the new surroundings and the strict rules that govern it (no contact with the outside world, etc), going to classes (science and ballet are the only curriculum taught) and flowering under the mentorship of seventh-year group leader Bianca. After we learn the rules and routines of the school, we then follow fifth-year student Alice, who yearns for the outside world and prepares for a dance recital that could be her ticket out. Finally, we finish the year with Bianca. I could see this narrative playing out in seven short subjects, one for each year, but I think Hadzihalilovic is wise to distill them into one year, so that we can connect the dots in our mind. It's rare these days to see a film so unabashedly symbolic, and the film's thoughts on girlhood are fascinating. The ages taught by the school aren't an accident- while the story that inspired the film made the girls older, Hadzihalilovic is wise to focus on prepubescent years, with the final year (I'll tread lightly) is the girls' first realization that men are watching them and that they have an effect on the opposite sex. But while it's compelling on these terms, I actually prefer it as a strange fairy-tale creation. While it clearly takes place in the modern world (there are electric lights hanging in the forest, for example), the school's traditions make it feel unstuck in time, "somewhere to the left of the twentieth century," as BABE: PIG IN THE CITY put it. And what to make of the coffins? The film has been attacked by some critics for being pervy material for the raincoat crowd, but the film hardly gawks at the girls. I believe that what these critics find uncomfortable is how closely Hadzihalilovic follows the girls, and how firmly we become ensconced on their world (we never leave the school grounds until the very end). I myself became a little uneasy because I felt like an intruder into this closed society, and this is the point- the theatre scenes near the end underline this. But, made-up controversy aside, INNOCENCE is a beautiful film, chock full of miraculous moments- I loved, for example, the resentment second-year student felt toward newcomer Iris due (presumably) to the loss of her old mentor, something I expect was a yearly occurrence. And near the end of the film, when ballet instructor Marion Cotillard lit up a cigarette and said, "don't worry, you'll soon forget us," it was impossible for me not to think about how much of my own childhood has been forgotten.

In Lili's petite shoes

IN HER SHOES (2005, Curtis Hanson, seen on DVD)- very nearly a great movie, instead of being a noteworthy example of its genre (the chick-flick dramedy), and it's the most genre-friendly stuff that drags down the rest- the caricatured stepmom character, the tart-mouthed best friend (not Brooke Smith's fault- she plays the character well, it's just not written in a very inspired way). But I almost feel like I'm nit-picking, when there's so much good here. Of paramount importance was that Diaz and Collette were instantly convincing as sisters, and their relationship is a palpable one (doesn't hurt that Collette's in top form, and Diaz has never been better). Keeping them separated for most of the story is a bold idea that pays off because when we see one sister we feel the absence of the other. I also liked that Mark Feuerstein's character never felt like a fantasy figure, but rather a quirky individual with passions (eating out, the 76ers) but a lack of understanding (and admittedly, context) for Collette's complex relationship with Diaz. And thankfully, MacLaine reins it in here, making her grandmother character life-size instead of outsize, thereby grounding her scenes in an elderly woman's reality. And of course Hanson remains unparalleled at location shooting, although I'm not sure we needed Collette running a bunch of dogs up the stairs of Philly's art museum. Rating: ***.

LA PETITE LILI (2003, Claude Miller, seen on DVD)- this well-acted but forgettable drama is my first exposure to Miller's work, and what I've seen here doesn't really inspire me to watch the rest right away. I liked that he doesn't blindly celebrate Julien's artistic temperament- he prattles on about purity and not compromising, but he's young and kind of priggish, so this has just more to do with his romanticization of the artistic process than it does with any real life experience. Meanwhile, others around him are much more pragmatic- famed filmmaker Brice (Bernard Giraudeau) listens to Julien's rantings with a mixture of nostalgia and bemusement, and Lili herself (Ludivine Sagnier) is starstruck in Brice's presence, ambitiously hoping to parlay it into a career for herself. However, the film's final third is less interesting- Julien reuniting family and friends to make an semiautobiographical film isn't the stuff of great drama. Still, some good performances (Giraudeau especially) and naked Ludivine doesn't hurt either. Rating: **.

4 things meme

Jason tagged me under penalty of, erm... well, he did say "OR ELSE!" And me being a big wuss, that's threat enough for me. Anyhoo...

4 jobs I've had:
1. Grease merchant at McD's (high school)
2. Cancer merchant for Philip Morris (one summer during college- I was responsible for setting up displays at gas stations and the like)
3. Projectionist at various AMC theatres in Columbus (since graduation)
4. Manager at AMC West Market Plaza 7 in Akron (since September '05)

4 movies I can watch over and over:
1. BELLE DE JOUR (my favorite)
2. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (perfect audiovisual wallpaper, plus I make sure to see it anytime it's playing locally on the big screen)
3. ANNE HALL (almost certainly the movie I've seen the most- near-weekly viewings during high school kinda skew its tally though)
4. M. HULOT'S HOLIDAY (laid-back and relaxing like no other film I've seen)

4 places I've lived:
1. Akron, OH (birth through eighth grade)
2. Jackson Township, OH (outside of Canton, high school)
3. Columbus, OH (college through July 2005)
4. Suffield, OH (July 2005 to present)

4 television shows I love (decidedly comedy-heavy):
1. FREAKS AND GEEKS (my favorite)
2. MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS (great for sampling, and of course endlessly quotable)
3. THE OFFICE [UK version] (hilarious, sometimes uncomfortably so)
4. GOOD EATS (the only current show I watch religiously; Alton Brown is lots of fun, and is the only Food Channel personality who doesn't try too hard)

4 places I've vacationed:
1. France (spring break, junior year of high school)
2. Germany (part of OSU Men's Glee Club tour, junior year of college)
3. New York City (several times, most recently for NYFF 2005)
4. Florida (several times, most recently in January 2005)

4 of my favorite dishes (two of which I don't eat now that I'm dieting):
1. Big bowl o' Cheerios (can't start the day off right without it)
2. The White Pizza from Leonardo's in Akron, with tomatoes, bacon and ham (the ultimate comfort food from my youth, and the only pizza I've tasted yet that's as good cold as it is hot)
3. Fish'n'Chips from the Old Bag o'Nails, Columbus (another comfort food, this one more recent)
4. Cherry pie (preferably homemade with fresh cherries, but even when it's canned filling I eat it up)

4 places I'd rather be:
1. At the movies (come on, like you didn't see this coming)
2. In the Loire Valley region of France in late spring or early summer, sitting under a tree, drinking a good bottle of wine and writing (think Rohmer's CONTE D'AUTOMNE)
3. In a cavernous old library, not reading books or writing, but walking through the maze-like stacks of books or sorting through the microfiche of decades-old newspapers (another weird thing I enjoy all too infrequently)
4. In bed with Eva Green (sorry, couldn't resist)

4 books I could read over and over (twentieth-century-heavy):
1. THE LONG GOODBYE, Raymond Chandler (Chandler was a master, and this is his finest work)
2. UNCLE FRED IN THE SPRINGTIME, P.G. Wodehouse (hilarious)
3. CASINO ROYALE, Ian Fleming (deserves mention as one of the great pulpish novels)
4. IF CHINS COULD KILL, Bruce Campbell (also hilarious, and surprisingly informative about seat-of-the-pants filmmaking and the movie industry seen through the eyes of a non-A-lister)

4 albums I couldn't live without:
1. FOREVER CHANGES, Love (what else can be said)
2. BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, Bob Dylan (my favorite Dylan, edging out BLOOD ON THE TRACKS)
3. GIANT STEPS, John Coltrane (my favorite jazz album; Miles was more innovative and influential, but I listen to this one way more)
4. MOONDANCE, Van Morrison (a recent addition, but a worthy one, I think- darn close to perfect)

4 things I'd like to do before I die:
1. Make a feature film (like you couldn't have guessed)
2. Teach a high school course in film studies (so as to mold/warp young minds with my oddball tastes)
3. Be in an all-consuming, at times frustrating, but nonetheless emotionally- and creatively-stimulating long term relationship (have I had relationships? Yes. Have they lasted very long? No. Have they been interesting enough to write about? Meh.)
4. Live overseas (see "4 places I'd rather be", #2)

4 people I'm tagging:
1. Donna
2. Tosh
3. Jay
4. Mark

Sometimes I hate being right...

- I'm not what you might call a football fan. Back when I was living in Columbus, I'd volunteer to work during Buckeye games figuring, hey, easy money. So when it came time for my boss to schedule managers for Super Bowl Sunday, I told him I'd work during the game. "After all," says I, "it's not like anybody will come, right?" (see title of post). I figured that the theatre wouldn't be busy- I wisely scheduled a skeleton crew for this shift- but the fact is that for the 7:00 round we had around twenty customers and absolutely NOBODY came after 8 PM. Our last movie was scheduled to start at 10:15. On the off chance someone actually showed up, I threaded and started the final set of movies beginning at 9:45, sent the entire staff save one home, and then waited. And waited. Finally, a little after 10 I called my boss at home and got permission from him to close up early. Then I stopped all the movies, spliced them back into one piece, closed the business day, and went home nice and early (a little before midnight compared to my usual 12:45). Moral of the story: you can't compete with the Super Bowl, especially not in football-mad Northeast Ohio, so why even bother trying?

- Rules of the road inquiry: when is it considered acceptable to turn on one's brights? If you're driving behind someone, you're supposed to turn them off. If someone's coming toward you, you turn them off. When it's foggy out, you're not supposed to use them (since they're only good for lighting up the fog). So what's the point of having them at all? Meanwhile, I've come up with a feature that's actually practical- a device that prohibits the car from driving over a certain speed (say, 15 mph) unless the driver's seat belt is buckled. I'm not a fan of the seat belt laws, not because I don't think it's a good idea to wear seat belts, but because it makes more sense to me as a public health issue than a legal one. So by combining an effective ad campaign (bring back "Blood on the Pavement"!) with safety measures such as this one, the legal angle would become redundant, which it sort of already is anyway, since a cop can't pull you over just because you're not wearing your seat belt. It's only enforceable as a rider ticket on top of some other violation.

- SYMBIOPSYCHOTAXIPLASM: TAKE ONE (1968, William Greaves, seen in theatre) - sweeeeeeeeeeet. What this guy (scroll down) said, pretty much. What's most impressive to me is how cleverly the circles-within-circles construction is executed here, while never seeming pleased with itself. Offhand ingenuity is so much more charming than the smarmy, self-impressed variant. Rating: ***1/2.

Seeking advice, etc.

- So I've had some trouble lately with a guy who keeps calling about his job application. While I normally might think it a welcome change that anyone actually WANTS to work at my theatre, the truth is that this guy has been calling roughly every other day for the past couple of weeks, and I'm getting really sick of it. If a prospective employee calls once to follow up, it's fine- he's interested in the job, nothing wrong with that. If someone calls twice, no sweat- he's just following up. If he calls more than half a dozen times, then it's crossed the line from tenacity to outright badgering. So here's my question- how do I make him go away? How do I say, "because you won't leave us the hell alone you've made every single manager here sick of you and there's no way in hell we'll ever hire you now" in a way that lets him down easy while still conveying the point? He's a high school kid, and doesn't seem terribly bright (to wit: in the "county" space on his application he wrote "USA"), so I don't think he means to be annoying, but if I never speak to him again I will be happier for it. So? Thoughts?

- Random observation: why do radio station use deejays' faces in their advertising? Makes no sense to me. This is radio, guys- what does it matter what they look like? Do you think people actually pass billboards advertising their programs and say, "wow, that guy looks pretty cool- I should listen to him." I doubt it, since the two have absolutely nothing in common. I know, they're supposed to be "personalities," but it still seems pretty stupid to me.

- I'm looking for a second job to supplement my income. I still plan on working my five shifts a week at the theatre, but another twenty hours of work on top of that could only help my financially.

- Spelling follies: a local bar advertising karaoke night spelled it "kaerokee". It's been that way for months now. Has nobody mentioned it to them, or would that be construed as intellectual elitism?

- Captain Obvious, Rock'n'Roll Critic: "Bringing It All Back Home" might be on my as-yet-undetermined Desert Island Album List. Much as I love all Dylan's classics, I think this one might be the best in a listen-through sense (as opposed to a skip-around-to-the-classic-tracks sense). It's impossible to listen to "Subterranean Homesick Blues" without picturing Dylan holding cue cards, and other greats such as "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" still work their magic. I desperately want to use "Gates of Eden" in a movie, and I think I found a project of mine where it fits. Finally, "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream" may very well be the funniest song ever written. Even Bob himself found it hilarious (I love that they kept his laughing on the album), and who am I to say it isn't?

- A second viewing of THE NEW WORLD confirmed its transcendental fawsomeness in my mind. When I write my addendum to my top 100, expect it to be present.

- OR [MY TREASURE] (2004, Keren Yedaya, seen on DVD)- I mostly tuned out of this when I noticed that it was in the by-now-clichéd static-camera master-shot style that has become so prevalent in world cinema today. Sure, the film makes some valid points about the limited roles for women in Israeli society, but Yedaya's style (anti-style?) felt uninspired to me- planting a camera and saying "action" isn't always the right way to go in my opinion, and if you do choose to go that way, do something interesting instead of simply having the actors walk in and out of the frame (almost as much of a cliché as the static camera itself). Also becomes a bit of a wallow after a while- mother Ruthie (2002 Coveted Opal Award winner Ronit Elkabetz, Late Marriage) is sick and frankly looks like crap but she still wears miniskirts and walks the streets, and Or (Dana Ivgy) ends up quitting school and becoming a prostitute like her mom. By the time the film ended on Or's "won't you please help" pleading look directly into the camera, I was ready to shrug this movie off, which I don't think was Yedaya's intention. Rating: *1/2.

Untitled 1

TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE (2004, Mark S. Wexler, seen on DVD)- sort of works as a companion piece with 2003's MY ARCHITECT, as both docs combine examinations of inimitable artists with first-person perspectives on the artists by their sons. The major difference is that while Kahn senior was dead and MY ARCHITECT was mostly his son investigating his dad's past, Haskell Wexler is still very much alive, and being a seasoned and highly outspoken filmmaker, he wants to have some say in how the film is made. Or is it all an act? More than one of the talking-heads rounded up by Mark Wexler state how difficult it can be for someone who is acting all the time to let down his guard, and one gets the impression that Haskell could just as easily be putting on a show for his son (this is borne out by his taking Mark to a meeting with a group of Cuban ambassadors, which Mark wants no part of considering it could jeopardize his new project working with President Bush). My biggest objection to the film isn't Haskell's ongoing attempts to wrangle control of the film from his son (which are pretty interesting) but rather that the final product feels sort of formless. Just when Mark seems to be probing deeper into his dad's life, he'll digress again and talk to others about his work as a cinematographer. Sometimes all the pieces come together (as when he examines his and his father's relationship with Conrad L. and Conrad W. Hall), but just as often Mark backs off from a point just when it's beginning to show promise (Haskell's lefty politics are never quite integrated into the film except as contrast to Mark's conservatism). Perhaps it's a case of being too close to the subject? And how will this play to, say, the two Walk of Fame tourists who don't know who Haskell Wexler is? Rating: **.

THE MATADOR (2005, Richard Shepherd, seen in theatre)- much more engaging than its synopsis might indicate. The highlight of the film is the dynamic between Brosnan (never looser or funnier) and reliably shlubby Kinnear- playing a hitman and a salesman, respectively- and Shepherd's jazzy direction wisely never gets in the way of it (kudos, also, to Hope Davis, who never allows Bean to become a standard-issue concerned wife). I also enjoyed the chronology of the film, which saves until the climax a key scene which is revealed to be the linchpin of their friendship. In the end, each of these men is called upon to preserve the self-image of the other in a time of crisis (more I shall not say). Could have been one of the year's best with a punchier ending, but nonetheless a pleasure throughout. Also, does anybody know the punchline to Brosnan's midget joke? Rating: ***.

NO DIRECTION HOME: BOB DYLAN (2005, Martin Scorsese, seen on DVD)- Dylan is one of the key cultural figures of the late 20th century, largely because of his career between 1960 and 1966, which is the focus of this film. This doc is largely a found-footage and talking-heads affair, but the footage (including work by Jonas Mekas, Murray Lerner, and of course D.A. Pennebaker) and the heads (such Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Allen Ginsberg, Peter Yarrow, and Dylan himself) are impeccably chosen, which allows the film to rise above most of its kind. Years from now, when a kid asks you what Bob Dylan was about, this will be the film to show them. Rating: ***.

GOOD MORNING, NIGHT (2003, Marco Bellocchio, seen on DVD)- my first exposure to Bellocchio, a true-crime story of the kidnapping and killing of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro by a group of left-wing activists of the Red Brigade, is compulsively watchable and often fascinating. Much of the action takes place in the apartment where Moro is held, and the central character and audience surrogate is Chiara (Maya Sansa), the only woman in the apartment, who keeps up a front for the group by working a day job. She seems to stand outside the rest of the group (for example, she doesn't take place in the kidnapping), and her moral ambiguity is the film's also. While there are moments of suspense (the elevator scene, which was used for the Italian trailer, is a highlight), the film isn't a thriller, and indeed the true-crime nature of the story makes the final ten minutes of the film feel inevitable, and robs the ending of some of its potential power. Still, I'm curious to see more of Bellocchio's films. Rating: ***.

SEX IS COMEDY (2002, Catherine Breillat, seen on DVD)- films about filmmaking aren't really my thing- they tend to reek of navel-gazing wankery, for the most part, and the last thing Breillat needs is yet another excuse for navel-gazing. This film is a fictionalized re-creation of her experiences making FAT GIRL, or at least a couple of scenes in FAT GIRL, since the titular overweight female is nowhere to be seen here. Instead, most of Breillat's story here deals with her relationship with the preening male lead, who jokes around with the crew but can't turn on that charm when the camera is on him. Anne Parillaud is clearly enjoying herself as the Breillat surrogate, but the film lacks a compelling reason for being, unless Breillat's thoughts on love, sex, penises, nude scenes, and the like do it for you. Might have had some interest had Breillat focused on the shooting of one scene in particular, but since it shows her shooting several different scenes there's no real depth about any of them. There is some to-do about the actor (Gregoire Colin) wearing a prosthetic member for the film's sex scene, which I suppose is where the comedy of the title comes into play, but the film doesn't really do anything with that either. Note: perhaps if Breillat wants to really stretch, she could try writing a screenplay that doesn't contain the word "detest," which she tends to REALLY overuse. Rating: *1/2.

Oscar nominations

The only real surprise is that there aren't any real surprises. MUNICH got in after all, which tells me something political is in the air out in Hollywood- something that says we need to address serious worldly issues instead of worrying about crowd-pleasing hits. Oh man, are the conservative pundits going to have a field day...

Hey, I just noticed... One awesome surprise is that "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" got a best song nomination. Not that it's that great a song ("Whoop That Trick" is much cooler), but it's still pretty awesome that they went for it. Hope Terrence wears his wife-beater and DJay pendant when he's onstage.

BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Munich
My thoughts: Guess it didn't matter that MUNICH wasn't a big hit, or that it wasn't as huggable as Spielberg's previous Oscar-nominated films. Maybe they just realized that WALK THE LINE, music and performances aside, just wasn't anything special.

BEST DIRECTOR
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Paul Haggis, Crash
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller, Capote
Steven Spielberg, Munich
My thoughts: Wow, how creative- all five best picture nominees also got nominated here. No "critic's choice" shout-out like we've had pretty much every year for the past decade. Were they even trying? Also, I really wish people would stop saying that CAPOTE is a debut. Bennett Miller directed a documentary called THE CRUISE in 1998. Sure, it's not a respectable Hollywood movie, but it doesn't matter- he's made a feature before CAPOTE, so stop acting as though he didn't. And hey, I called the Spielberg picture/director combo- just not, ya know, officially.

BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Terrence Howard, Hustle and Flow
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
My thoughts: Just because I didn't predict Howard here doesn't mean I didn't have a good idea he'd make it. The guy's been out there, making the rounds, pressing the flesh, showing up in magazines and the like. And it's worked. Crowe didn't really do this, so he's out. My Daniels prediction was as much an attempt to shake things up as anything else. I hate predicting cookie-cutter nominations, but the voters don't seem to mind them at all. At least Howard got nominated for the right movie.

BEST ACTRESS
Dame Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman, TransAmerica
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron, North Country
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
My thoughts: So they went with Charlize. Whoopdie frickin' doo. At least I called Keira. And yeah, Allen was a long shot (early release, low on precursors), but again, couldn't bore myself with obvious picks.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt, A History of Violence
My thoughts: Good job Academy only giving CRASH one nomination. Good job Hurt (and the hype-sters) on getting the Beatrice Straight Award for memorable acting in five minutes. I love the movie, but I thought Harris was worthier than Hurt. But that's just me.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, Junebug
Catherine Keener, Capote
Frances McDormand, North Country
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
My thoughts: Looks like the early screeners for JUNEBUG did the trick- voters received DVDs back in November for it, and they got to watch them early before the others rolled in, for a movie that might otherwise be consigned to the bottom of the stack. Smart thinking, guys. In other news, McDormand gets nominated for supporting a lead actress nominee (and, admittedly, for playing a very bait-y role). And what does Maria Bello have to do to get recognized here? Hurt turns up for five minutes and gets in, while Bello gives one of the year's most searing performances and she stays home? Was it the 69 scene, guys? Was it the cheerleader getup?

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Match Point
The Squid and the Whale
Syriana
My thoughts: Hey, look at me predict them all. I'd feel prouder if this category wasn't so easy to predict.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
The Constant Gardener
A History of Violence
Munich
My thoughts: Once again, an easy 5 for 5.

More analysis/armchair quarterbacking to come, probably.

Oscar nomination predictions

Well, I actually intend to get up around 8 AM tomorrow, which is pretty unheard of for me, but I always like to watch the Oscar nominations get announced and then write about them on the blog. As such, I figured it would be good to put my predictions up, to serve as more grist for tomorrow's piece. Nothing like waiting until the last minute. I included a few "surprise" nominations, mostly because they always seem to have a few. If they always went for the obvious then they'd be the BFCS, and there'd be no need to predict.

The predictions are in order of how sure I am they'll be nominated.

BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night, and Good Luck
Crash
Walk the Line
Capote
My thoughts: 1996 redux! Modestly-budgeted critics' faves dominate in the absence of world-beating Hollywood fare. WALK THE LINE makes it, since it's a crowd-pleaser, but how much love is it getting? I honestly can't see what might sneak in... A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE? Awesome as it is, it's "edgier" than they go for, even in a year like this.
Where's Munich?: If the movie was a bigger hit, I'd include it here, but it's not doing especially well at the box office. Also, it's not a very huggable movie- BROKEBACK may be controversial, but it's also a movie fans can embrace emotionally, whereas MUNICH fans are more apt to engage with that film in a political or intellectual way, or to groove on the Spielberginess of it, Armond White-style. The Academy only recognizes a Spielberg movie when it's a mainstream AND critical success. Another thing is that it's not an actor's movie- considering most of the AMPAS is comprised of actors, that's a problem. Plus Spielberg already has three Oscars as well as an honorary, so he isn't exactly overdue.

BEST DIRECTOR
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Paul Haggis, Crash
David Cronenberg, A History of Violence
Peter Jackson, King Kong
My thoughts: Lee and Clooney are the only real locks here (look for a possible Clooney upset for director come Oscar night). Haggis could fall by the wayside if the film is perceived as primarily an actors' showcase (much like AS GOOD AS IT GETS in 1997), and if this happens I can see Bennett Miller getting bumped up for CAPOTE. Cronenberg is in the critics'-fave spot previously occupied by Lynch (MULHOLLAND DR.), Almodovar (TALK TO HER), Meirelles (CITY OF GOD), and Leigh (VERA DRAKE), although I can see Allen possibly taking the spot too- though without a Weinstein behind him a la BULLETS OVER BROADWAY it'll be tough. Jackson is an out-of-nowhere prediction- they clearly like the guy, and KONG is an ambitious epic production that was miles better than it had any right to be. When they choose two non-best-picture nominees in this category, the second tends to be more mainstream. Spielberg only gets in if MUNICH gets picture, and I don't see that happening (see above); likewise, Mangold contents himself with a best picture nod. Although if they'll nominate Peter (THE FULL MONTY) Cattaneo anything's possible...

BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
Jeff Daniels, The Squid and the Whale
My thoughts: Hoffman has it sewn up, barring a late minute surge by Ledger (star of the best pic frontrunner) or Phoenix (the only previous nominee in the bunch, and who could possibly be a safe, "straight" choice for older voters). Strathairn makes it on the GOOD NIGHT groundswell, although he could pull a Giamatti and end up staying home, since Murrow isn't an especially deep or show-offy role. Crowe and Howard are possiblities, but Crowe may still be seen by many as a phone-throwing thug (who already has gotten plenty of Oscar love) and Howard is playing a pimp/rapper (Eminem's best song win in '02 aside, are they ready for rap?). I predict Daniels (despite category fraud) for being hilarious and for making the most of a quasi-comeback role, although he would be a surer thing if he had a studio with a proven Oscar track record behind him, instead of Samuel Goldwyn films.

BEST ACTRESS
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Felicity Huffman, TransAmerica
Dame Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Joan Allen, The Upside of Anger
My thoughts: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... so many good female performances this past year, and none of them are listed above. Anyway... Reese, Felicity and the Dame are in, given their dominance of the critics' and guild awards thusfar. It gets tricky after that, but even then it's not all that interesting. I'm getting Knightley gets the PYT nod over Zhang Ziyi, since in the clips I've seen of MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA I've yet to see anything from Zhang that would justify anything but a nomination for Best Art Direction. And this category is typically friendly to previous nominees and comedic performances, and Allen fits in both aspects. Charlize Theron could make it instead, but NORTH COUNTRY didn't make much of a dent in the public consciousness. Still, you never know.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
Terrence Howard, Crash
My thoughts: Some have predicted Gyllenhaal to get snubbed here, but I don't think so- I say he rides BROKEBACK's frontrunner status to a nod here. Giamatti and Clooney are givens- the former as a consolation prize for last year, the latter as a "best in show" for SYRIANA as well as an attaboy for a good year all around. And I'd have to say Dillon's pretty safe too, since he tends to get singled out from the CRASH cast for his performance. Howard gets singled out quite a bit, though he's here just as much for HUSTLE AND FLOW as for the Haggis film. Although I can see anyone from Bob Hoskins (MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS) to William Hurt (A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE) to Donald Sutherland (PRIDE & PREJUDICE) sneaking in there. Why didn't they campaign Jeff Daniels in this category? He could've cleaned up.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Catherine Keener, Capote
Maria Bello, A History of Violence
Thandie Newton, Crash
My thoughts: One thing to remember with the supporting actress category is that voters tend to favor supporting female turns that "support" another nominate-able performance, so this category is heavy with nominations for films that feature multiple Oscar-worthy actors. Who benefits here? Williams has critical plaudits and showy scenes in her favor, but Keener's role is much more low-key (not usually the Academy's thing), so playing a real person in a movie that stars the best actor front-runner is of great help. Newton also benefits (I hate to call it "coattailing") since she gives the most notable female performance in an actor- and Oscar-friendly film, despite a lack of previous awards this season. Weisz and Bello (along with Williams) have garnered much of the critical attention of late, squeezing out Amy Adams, whose film might be judged too small, and whose performance might be seen as the film's whole raison d'etre, to make the cut here. Frances McDormand could always get nominated for NORTH COUNTRY (she has a history with the Academy, after all), but unless Theron gets a best actress nod I don't see it happening.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Match Point
The Squid and the Whale
Syriana
My thoughts: CRASH and GOOD NIGHT make it on the virtue of being best picture nominees, and MATCH POINT gets in for being Academy-fave Woody Allen's "comeback" effort. SQUID has gotten the lion's share of critics' awards, which means more in this category than it would in one of the higher-profile ones. SYRIANA seems the tenuous of the lot, given the 11th-hour category switcheroo ruling- who knows how many adapted screenplay votes got invalidated as a result? If SYRIANA suffers, expect CINDERELLA MAN or (wouldn't this be awesome) THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN to step into its place.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Munich
A History of Violence
The Constant Gardener
My thoughts: The Academy likes when acclaimed authors write screenplays (Arthur Miller, anyone? John Irving?), so BROKEBACK (Larry McMurtry) and MUNICH (Tony Kushner) ought to get nominated on that basis alone. Likewise, CAPOTE gets the nod to match its best picture nomination, and HISTORY OF VIOLENCE its best director. Finally, THE CONSTANT GARDENER steps into SYRIANA's spot as the political, convoluted liberal-guilt offering in the category (although I like both films a great deal, which doesn't hurt). If the writers wish to go another way, there's always PRIDE & PREJUDICE, which distilled the classic novel into a workable two hours, although much of the attention has been given to the direction and performances rather than the adaptation. Beyond that, I just don't know...

How will I do? Tune in tomorrow and see!

When the lights go down (Spoilers!)

BUBBLE (2005, Steven Soderbergh, seen in theatre)- after OCEAN'S 12, which was little more than a swagger-fest, Soderbergh heads for the heartland (southern Ohio, to be precise) for this small-scale gem. I was particularly taken by the director's use of non-actors in his cast. Debbie Doebreiner as Martha is especially good as the kind of overweight, middle-aged woman we don't often see in movies- a plain but nonetheless cheerful woman who (and this is the real difference) lives a largely unexamined life. She works, cares for her father, works at her job, eats without fretting over her weight (compare to, say, LOOK AT ME's Marilou Berry struggling with her body issues), and takes her religious faith for granted. She's the sort of person, whose life is on the straight and narrow, who is seen all the time in real life but rarely onscreen. It's the matter-of-fact way that Soderbergh portrays her, as well as others in her life, which makes the film special. In fact, I was a tad disappointed when Soderbergh introduces a murder mystery into the story, although my misgivings melted away when the film portrayed the subsequent investigation in the same low-key way (a scene where the police detective questions a clearly zonked-out witness is particularly well-done). There are a few stylistic flights of fancy taken by the film (which make sense in context), but it's this level of realism, which never rubs your face in squalor or segues into miserablism, that is Soderbergh's real triumph. Rating: ***1/2.

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF (1980, Jean-Luc Godard, seen in theatre)- I'm still not entirely sure about my reaction to this one, given that it feels like a gap-bridger between the early Godards I love and the later Godards I don't care quite so much for. It's chock full of great moments you'll only find in a Godard movie, from the seemingly random freeze-frames and slow-motion to the sexual non sequiturs (love the "ow"/"oh"/"hey!" scene). As a whole, it's sort of impenetrable, with very little in the way of a narrative arc- what story there is is composed of interlocking character vignettes, but it's not readily apparent how they are meant to connect. Still, fascinating viewing, and Jacques Dutronc's impersonation of filmmaker "Paul Godard" is a hoot. Now if I only knew what it all meant... Rating: ***.

THE CONFORMIST (1970, Bernardo Bertolucci, seen in theatre)- obviously awesome, even more so for having experienced it on the big screen in a nice subtitled print instead of dubbed on cable. Still, bad luck for me having a headache and tummyache during the movie, which kept me from really grooving on it. But now that there's a good print out there how long will it be until there's a DVD for me to buy? Rating: ***1/2.

Z CHANNEL: A MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION (2004, Xan Cassavetes, seen on DVD)- pretty much what I was expecting (awesome film clips interspersed with interviews), but there's nothing wrong with that. I certainly wish I could've experienced Z Channel firsthand, and if nothing else it compelled me to add a bunch of titles (THE SICILIAN, TURKISH DELIGHT, LA MAGNIFIQUE) to the ol'Netflix queue. In fact, here's an idea for some enterprising DVD distributor: put out a "Z Channel Classics" series so that we can see all the great forgotten titles Harvey loved, or at the very least some movies starring the gorgeous Laura Antonelli. Rating: **1/2.

MATCH POINT (2005, Woody Allen, seen in theatre)- didn't watch this again or anything, just had a few second thoughts re: my high initial opinion of the movie. I still enjoyed it (being a Highsmith lover, how could I not?), but some problems I had with the movie grew upon reflection. To begin with, the film's treatment of Chloe's baby fever feels clumsy- Allen has always had a love-hate relationship with neurotic women in his films, but while in his self-starring comedies they clash with his own neuroses to priceless effect (never more so than Janet Margolin's siren-inspired coitus interruptus in ANNIE HALL), here they clash with the more cultivated level of behavior. Also, Scarlett Johansson's performance is pretty uneven- as seductress, she does a good job combining hunger with emotional neediness, but when she acts the role of the spurned lover she turns shrill, and consequently less interesting (still, she's not THAT bad, Lee). Still dig the movie overall, but not as much as before, and the change is certainly worth mentioning here. Rating: *** (was ***1/2).

The guy on Friday

THE GIRL FROM MONDAY (2005, Hal Hartley, seen on DVD)- I'm not a huge Hartley fan, HENRY FOOL aside, but I am a fan of thinking-person's science fiction, which this certainly is. Here Hartley has on his mind the pervasiveness of media and advertising in our society- the film takes place in a near-future after MMM ("Multi Media Monopoly") has assumed power. Legal citizens are implanted with bar codes, and all that is valued by the society is linked to one's "buying power," even sex. Certainly an intriguing premise for a film, but the final result is less than satisfying. I was more intrigued by the ostensible subplot involving Sabrina Lloyd, an MMM exec-turned-counter-revolutionary, than I was with its main plotline, with Bill Sage as Lloyd's colleague, a double agent for the counter-revolution who discovers the titular Girl (Tatiana Abracos), an extraterrestrial who has fallen to Earth in search of another of her people. It's fairly obvious who this person is from the get-go, which I'm not sure is a deliberate decision on Hartley's part, but either way it's distracting. Although not as distracting as the smeary DV photography last seen in Hartley's BOOK OF LIFE- I'm certainly down with Hartley's refusal to make DV look like film-on-a-budget the way most indie filmmakers do, but here it mostly gets in the way of the film. Still, of interest as a think-piece, and who could hate a movie that contains the line, "you are hereby sentenced to two years hard labor, teaching high school"? Rating: **.

More viewing at home

LOOK AT ME (2004, Agnes Jaoui, seen on DVD)- beginning to think that Jaoui's not my thing, given my tepid reactions to this and her previous film, THE TASTE OF OTHERS. But then, low-key comedies of manners centering around the lives of cultured artistic types don't hold a great deal of interest for me in general- while I aspire to a life similar to characters in Jaoui's films, I need there to be something more interesting about the characters and the narrative than how cultured they are. Compare this film to say, most of Arnaud Desplechin's filmography- while Desplechin's deepens his characters by allowing them to surprise themselves (and the audience), LOOK AT ME plods along. Not a whole lot of character development, Jaoui's character aside, as she learns to disdain the lifestyle her husband learns to enjoy. Meanwhile, the overweight Lolita (oh, what irony! ), played by Marilou Berry, doesn't so much deal with her deep-seated issues with daddy and her body as she constantly prattles on about them, and though Jean-Pierre Bacri gives the film's most interesting performance as famous author/Lolita's dad Etienne, he can't manage to escape the boorish nature of his character as conceived by Jaoui. All rather harmless, I guess, but I don't anticipate remembering much about it in a month or so. Rating: **.

Also, more thoughts on FORTY SHADES OF BLUE- one thing I didn't mention last time was how the film never quite gets the feel of the music-industry world in which it's set. In one sense, this could be deliberate, as we largely see the industry through outsiders' eyes- Laura (Dina Korzun), a Russian immigrant, and Michael (Darren Burrows), estranged son of music producer Allen James (Rip Torn). Yet even bearing this in mind, I thought the film dropped the ball by failing to convince me that Allen was the giant in his field who his colleagues insist he is at more than one point in the film. Had the film convinced me, it could have more successfully contrasted this image with the more human-sized one seen by Laura and Michael, making the film's final twenty minutes or so more emotional affecting, if still low-key. Also, the film's final scene (which is given away by the trailer) is your standard-issue Sundance-movie half-ending, which isn't always a bad thing but has become a rather annoying cliché of late.

Back in the saddle

FORTY SHADES OF BLUE (2005, Ira Sachs, seen on DVD)- the kind of intimate character drama that Sundance champions and sea-level audiences largely ignore, and while I'm certainly not averse to "little" movies, this one just didn't grab me. Fine performances by Rip Torn and especially Dina Korzun keep it watchable, as does Sachs' off-kilter compositions, but Darren Burrows doesn't hold up his corner of the girl-dad-son love triangle, which certainly contributed to my lack of interest (sure, Torn's an asshole, but he's at least an interesting asshole, whereas Burrows is just a tool). Also, it's high time more filmmakers find ways to make movies that are sixty- or seventy-odd minutes long, because Sachs really pads the story to get to 110, and the film suffers as a result. Rating: **.

NINE SONGS (2004, Michael Winterbottom, seen on DVD)- speaking of sixty-odd-minute-long movies... Anyhoo, who would have thought a movie about fucking and rock concerts could have been so listless? Might have improved had Winterbottom actually made a movie that alternated fuck scenes with concert footage, as a kind of statement about modern relationships, but the characters are just fleshed out enough (so to speak) for me to realize that I didn't much like either of them. Also, the Antarctica framing device was a mistake, in particular the film's use of it as a metaphor for memory. Rating: *1/2.

EROS (2004, Wong Kar-wai, Steven Soderbergh, and Michelangelo Antonioni, seen on DVD)- the problem with so many big-name-filmmaker omnibus projects is that the masters in question don't usually bring their A-game, and the results feel like trifles. Which is not to say that the abbreviated periods in the company of Wong and Soderbergh are unpleasant- Wong's short feels like a gap-bridger between ITMFL and 2046, and Soderbergh's is a diverting bit of (mostly black and white) nonsense- but you kind of wish they'd try harder. Of course, perhaps Antonioni was trying TOO hard, making a film that seems to take it cue from old fragrance commercials and stars the most insipid bickering couple I've had the misfortune to witness in years. I perked up a bit when another (hotter) woman entered the scene, but even some nudity towards the end of the film couldn't keep it from being one of the worst offerings of 2005. Still, two-thirds are pretty good, and it's never a waste of time to gaze upon Gong Li or bear witness to the oddly perfect pairing of Robert Downey Jr. and Alan Arkin. Rating: ** (WKW and Soderbergh: **1/2 each; Antonioni: *).

2005 in review (a half-hearted grab for your renewed affection)

So I'm back. Now that I've finished my grad school applications and taken care of work- and family-related holiday concerns, I can devote more time to you, my adoring fans. And what better way to rekindle the love than by summing up the past year in cinema (don't answer that)? Much of this was taken from a piece I wrote for the Cleveland Cinematheque as part of their best-of-05 poll, although there have been some changes since the 'Theque's due date of New Year's Eve (notably my #1). I still want to write a bit about other films besides these, but this is a start, anyway.

Best New Releases:

1. THE NEW WORLD
I've only seen the shortened wide-release version, so I can't say what has been edited out of the previous cut. All I know is that the film I saw was just about perfect. As I've grown to expect from Malick, the film is so visually gorgeous it's like having your eyes kiss by a woman with pillowy-soft lips, but that alone can't justify its presence here. What makes THE NEW WORLD a masterpiece is how it enables the audience to gaze through the eyes of its protagonists- first John Smith (Colin Farrell), then the unnamed Pocahontas (Q’Orianka Kilcher)- so that we see both of the film’s New Worlds as if for the first time. Kilcher’s performance feels so natural and affectless that I almost hope she never does another film, lest the illusion of the performance be ruined, and the spell be broken.

2. KINGS AND QUEEN
The most significant cinematic discovery I made this past year was the work of French filmmaker Arnaud Desplechin, and my favorite Desplechin film thusfar is his latest, KINGS AND QUEEN, in which two lives are examined and contrasted. Nora (the exquisite Emmanuelle Devos) puts on the guise of a strong mother as a reaction to the long history of tragedy in her life, whereas Ismael (Matthieu Amalric) is a perpetually kvetching musician who finds himself committed to a mental hospital. Nora’s story plays out as a dark chamber drama, as she deals with her father’s impending death by fixating on the idea that she will die too, and must find a way to provide for her young son after she is gone; meanwhile, Ismael’s story has an air of oddball comedy, particularly during his misadventures in the institution. Desplechin is a fearless filmmaker, uncowed by wild tonal shifts (a harrowing scene involving Nora’s father’s illness might be followed by Ismael doing an impromptu hip-hop dance) or unexpected stylistic quirks (dig the theatrical nature of Nora’s flashback to her first husband’s death). One of the film’s (relatively few) detractors once sarcastically described it as being "chock full of fruity goodness," and I suppose that’s one of the primary reasons I love it.

3. GRIZZLY MAN
Werner Herzog has made a career out of finding characters on the fringe of society, and Timothy Treadwell is one of his great discoveries- a self-styled adventurer who fancied himself the protector of grizzly bears, and who journeyed to Alaska every summer for over a decade to live among them until he was mauled to death by one. Combining copious amounts of found footage shot by Treadwell himself (in which Treadwell is nothing if not a shameless self-promoter) with interviews of Treadwell’s friends, Herzog paints a vivid portrait of his subject. But what makes the film great is Herzog’s presence, offering his own perspective on the events and even disagreeing with Treadwell’s beliefs. It’s Herzog himself that keeps the film from becoming simply a tribute to a unique kindred spirit, and instead turns it into a parable about the need for proper respect for the natural order.

4. TROPICAL MALADY
In which two young men, a soldier and a townie, fall in love, after which the townie disappears into the forest and turns into a shape-shifting shaman who terrorizes small communities in the form of a tiger. Got that? The story itself matters little to the effect of Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s latest, a strange but somehow romantic film filled with some of the most unique visuals I’ve seen all year. The sweetness of the romance in the film’s first half gives way to something much more primal, as the soldier hunts down the tiger/lover in the woods, and is faced with a decision to kill the tiger and "release his soul, or be consumed and become a part of him forever." In a way, isn’t that what true love is about?

5. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
The opening passages of David Cronenberg’s chilling film have a fascination much like FAR FROM HEAVEN did, of an idealized small-town life that feels too good to be true. And sure enough, it is, as family diners and varsity-jacketed school bullies give way to more sinister threats when Tom Stall (played cannily by Viggo Mortensen) quickly dispatches with some out-of-town stickup men. From there, Tom descends into the abyss of his past, as some gangsters show up claiming to know his true, violent identity. In the end, is he Tom Stall or Crazy Joey Cusack from Philly? Or is he both? The film’s most tantalizing mystery is that, even when the film is over, it’s impossible to separate the two.

6. 2046
Eye candy. Wong Kar-wai’s follow-up/quasi-sequel to IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE plays like nothing so much as variations on a theme, as Tony Leung copes with having lost Maggie Cheung in the previous film. In pure Vonnegut fashion, the story becomes unstuck in time, jumping into a future world of Leung’s creation and then getting borne back ceaselessly into the past as he remembers those women he has loved. And what women! Gong Li, Faye Wong, Zhang Ziyi (playing a grown-up for a change) and a few fleeting glimpses of Maggie Cheung, to tease us, I suppose. What is 2046? What does it mean? I look forward to watching the film again and again to figure it out.

7. KING KONG
So few filmmakers anymore are capable of creating spectacle that Peter Jackson has to be commended just for thinking big, but that’s just one of the many reasons why KONG is the rare remake that does the original justice. Much like Tarantino did with grindhouse movies in KILL BILL, Jackson distills all the Kong-fueled flights of fantasy he’s had since he first saw the 1933 classic into one souped-up package, combining state of the art effects and classical Hollywood storytelling. But Jackson’s masterstroke is his conception of Kong himself, and his relationship with Naomi Watts’ Anne Darrow, a relationship built on mutual understanding, protection, and a most curious kind of love.

8. TONY TAKITANI
The phrase "good small film" so often comes off as qualified praise, as if a movie can’t compete with the epics just because it doesn’t contain a cast of thousands and millions of dollars worth of effects. But TONY TAKITANI is a great small film in the best sense- like an absorbing short story (the film is based on one by Hakuri Murakami), director Jun Ichikawa traffics in muted emotions and snapshots of a character’s life. Star Issei Ogata makes an perfect Takitani, his almost cartoonishly withdrawn presence ideally suited to the character’s tentativeness, and Ryuichi Sakamoto’s plaintive score is the year’s best.

9. KEANE
The best performance I saw all year was given by Damian Lewis in Lodge Kerrigan’s film. Lewis plays the title character, a schizophrenic searching for his long-lost daughter, and Kerrigan follows him as he searches, wanders, and suffers through the highs and lows of his illness. As the film progresses, we begin to see through Keane’s eyes, and when he becomes a friend to a down-on-her-luck woman and her young daughter, the film generates suspense from Keane’s struggle to stay sane in their presence.

10. SYRIANA
Steven Gaghan’s tapestry of oil-industry corruption is the year’s best overtly-political film, painting the issues surrounding its subject as a vicious circle of greed, subterfuge, and violence. SYRIANA contains memorable performances from everyone from the henceforth little-known Alexander Siddig to de-glammed superstar George Clooney, but the real star is Gaghan, who is unafraid to tackle the thornier aspects of the topic, to turn to didactic speechifying when it’s necessary to make his point, and who manages to juggle the various plot strands in a way that always keeps the audience aware of where they stand.

11. (tie) NOT ON THE LIPS, THE STORY OF MARIE AND JULIEN, and NO DIRECTION HOME: BOB DYLAN
With theatrical exhibition getting more competitive (and expensive), three of the year’s best films, from three masters of the medium, mostly bypassed theatres entirely, although I had the good fortune to see two of them on the big screen. NOT ON THE LIPS is a charming adaptation of a 1920s operetta from Alain Resnais; MARIE AND JULIEN is director Jacques Rivette’s haunting yet erotic love story with a supernatural bent; and NO DIRECTION HOME is a made-for-PBS tribute to one of the past century’s most iconic artist, as made by another (Martin Scorsese). It’s a double-edged sword: while I’m sad that more people can’t see films like this on the big screen (especially when theatres are crowded by the likes of CHICKEN LITTLE), I’m grateful that DVD allows American audiences to see them at all.

Honorable mention: THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (Judd Apatow), DOWNFALL (Oliver Hirschbiegel), GAMES OF LOVE AND CHANCE (Abdellatif Kechiche), KUNG FU HUSTLE (Stephen Chow), MATCH POINT (Woody Allen), NOBODY KNOWS (Hirokazu Kore-eda), OLDBOY (Chan-wook Park)

Worst: THE ADVENTURES OF SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL IN 3D
Robert Rodriguez, drunk on DIY movie-making, has made a film based on a story by his 8 year old son. This tells me that, as a director, Rodriguez is a cool dad. The resultant movie, a semi-coherent mush of bargain-basement effects and mugging kids, would be hard enough to watch, but add low-quality 3D presentation and it’s murder on the eyes. 3D was once advertised with the phrase "it puts you in the movie;" Rodriguez hurt my eyes to the point where I could swear he put me in the most infamous shot in UN CHIEN ANDALOU.

Best Trend in Filmmaking: "The Resurgence of Low-Cult":
I’m as much of a art-film nerd as the next guy, but sometimes even I get an itch that can only be scratched by a down’n’dirty genre movie. Luckily, after several years of glossy, shallow "entertainment," 2005 was a banner year for "disreputable" cinema. Some highlights were (in rough preferential order): THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (the funniest and best sex comedy since, well, ever), KUNG FU HUSTLE (a hilarious Tex Avery-styled chopsocky romp), OLDBOY (about the ugliness of vengeance, with a great performance by Choi Min-sik), THE DEVIL’S REJECTS (Rob Zombie’s thrilling take on grindhouse may out-geek even Tarantino), KISS KISS BANG BANG (an uproarious riff in detective movies- welcome back Shane Black), LAND OF THE DEAD (ditto George A. Romero), DOMINO (see below), and UNLEASHED (S&M meets Jet Li, with Luc Besson’s patented makeshift family dynamic thrown in for good measure).

Most Underrated: DOMINO
Few films released this past year were reviewed so negatively, with critics focused on Tony Scott’s jackhammer editing, the endlessly convoluted storyline, and the level of violence. I’ve never been a big Tony Scott fan, and while it seems to be that those naysaying critics could be describing just about anything he’s directed lately, it’s precisely those things that made the film work as well as it did for me. Domino Harvey (played with great gusto by Keira Knightley) is a Scott character for the ages- a sexy rich girl who yearns to escape her life of privilege by embracing the gritty life of a bounty hunter, and complaints that Knightley isn’t convincing as a bounty hunter are beside the point- the fact that Knightley weighs about one-hundred-and-nothin’ pounds just underline the disconnect between the character’s two lives. Richard Kelly’s screenplay is convoluted, yes, but there is more to the film than one would expect. DOMINO is a meditation (what an odd word to associate with Tony Scott) on social stratification in America today, in which impoverished minorities, violent criminals, the Mafia, and television bigwigs all have to converge sometime, and in DOMINO, it’s at the DMV. The year’s most unexpected great supporting performance has to be given by Mo’Nique, who plays "the world’s youngest grandmother" (her Jerry Springer appearance is a hoot) but also finds unexpected reservoirs of feeling and poignancy amidst the twisting and turning of the story.

Most Overrated: CRASH
Many critics found screenwriter Paul Haggis’ directing debut to contain trenchant observations about race relations in America, but to be honest I mostly found contrivance and writerly self-congratulation. With all the diatribes and hand-wringing CRASH felt more like a writer’s exercise than a fully-realized film. I was a little annoyed that Haggis’ conception of the story seemed to be predicated on the idea that there were roughly a dozen people in Los Angeles, but I could have forgiven this if only he really explored his themes rather than paying them lip service (in short: all races maintain preconceived notions about other races, except for Latinos, who are saints. Thanks for that, Paul). Yes, some of the performances are good, especially Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, and Terrence Howard. But that doesn’t make up for the handful scenes that were so misguided I wanted to throw something at the screen. CRASH may have been anointed as an "important" film by a media hungry for relevance in pop culture, but that doesn’t mean it’s good.

Best DVD release: RAN (Criterion Collection)
Finally, someone got it right. Kurosawa’s last true masterpiece looks better than ever on the jam-packed Criterion release, and the extras do the film justice. The filet of the set is Chris Marker’s documentary A.K., but the featurette that shows the master’s painting and sketches for the film is a treat as well. Other contenders: KING KONG, NAKED, Lucas Belvaux’s THE TRILOGY.

Best Retrospectives and Re-issues:

1. Orson Welles retro (Cinematheque)
I wasn’t able to make it to the first half the series, but most of the unearthed treasures were in the second half anyway. How many other chances will I have to see, say, THE IMMORTAL STORY or FILMING OTHELLO in my lifetime? And the program of rarities featuring Gary Graver was the capper- Japanese whisky commercials, TV appearances such as "The Fountain of Youth" and "I Love Lucy," even a recipe for an alcoholic beverage invented by Welles himself. And the opportunity to see footage from THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, with the tantalizing possibility that the whole enchilada might soon see the light of day? Priceless.

2. Maurice Pialat retro (touring)
Pialat never got a lot of attention in the U.S. until after his death, but this retrospective of his work revealed that he was a major filmmaker throughout his career. I wasn’t able to drive up to Cleveland for A HOUSE IN THE WOODS, but I did make it to the rest, and my favorite of the bunch was UNDER THE SUN OF SATAN, a sober but vital examination of faith that deserves comparison with Bresson.

3. Jacques Demy films (Wexner Center)
As my friend Chris said, "the more I see of his work, the more canonical he becomes." This year the Wex showed three of his films, two of which I’d never seen before. The 1969 film MODEL SHOP was Demy’s sole American effort, the final installment of the trilogy that included LOLA and THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG. Lola is a low-key sort-of romance set in Los Angeles, a full 180-degree turn from the fairy-tale world of DONKEY SKIN, his Cocteau-inflected odd fantasy starring Catherine Deneuve, Delphine Seyrig and Jean Marais (to drive the Cocteau comparison home). And I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the wonderful opportunity I got to see the classic UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG on the big screen again.

4. Morgan Fisher program (Wexner Center)
In my continual effort to educate myself in all aspects of the cinema, I was thrilled to attend a program of avant-garde shorts from a legend in the field. Fisher’s work deals with aspects of filmmaking and exhibition that are often locked behind closed doors, never more explicitly than in his short PROJECTION INSTRUCTIONS, in which a series of directions are displayed on the screen for the projectionist to follow. Also noteworthy was his early film PRODUCTION STILLS, a witty short about the making of itself, and his latest film ( ), in which Fisher spotlights the craft of insert shots by editing together a film entirely out of inserts from old movies. The best of the program, however, was STANDARD GAUGE, ostensibly about aspect ratios, but also embracing such phenomena as "China Girls," low-budget movies, and the demise of the three-strip Technicolor imbibition process.

5. BLUE MOVIE (Views From the Avant Garde)
This year was my first experience with the New York Film Festival and the concurrent Views program, and while the selection in Views was spotty at best, I certainly enjoyed being able to see this long-unseen film by Andy Warhol. The film itself is quintessential Warhol, not so much crafting cinema as allowing it, for better or worse, to happen. The dead spots and indulgences in the film are just another element of Warhol’s style (such as it is), and while I’m not sure how I feel about BLUE MOVIE, I don’t think I’ll forget it anytime soon. The film was introduced by Warhol "superstar" Viva, who proved an endlessly engaging and salty mistress of ceremonies, which certainly made the experience of the film that much more memorable.

Best Festival Films (that may or may not open in 2006): A TALE OF CINEMA, THROUGH THE FOREST, THE WAYWARD CLOUD, and MANDERLAY

Still need to see: THE BEST OF YOUTH, CACHE, CINEVARDAPHOTO, FORTY SHADES OF BLUE, GILLES’ WIFE, IN HER SHOES, INNOCENCE, THE INTRUDER, NINE LIVES, THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA, and WHERE THE TRUTH LIES.

Flag-waving schedule monkees

- Pet peeve du jour #1: improperly displayed American flags. OK, I can understand wanting to put a flag out in front of your business. Support our troops and all that. And if you have a flagpole installed, it would look dumb NOT to have a flag out. But if you want to be patriotic, you can't just hang a flag and leave it indefinitely. As I recall from my Scouting days, there are certain rules that are to be followed when displaying a flag. First, the flag is to be lowered after dark, unless you have a spotlight. Second, if it's raining/snowing/sleeting, the flag should be taken down. Third, the flag is not to be flown half-mast without a special decree by the President. Now, I might have missed the memo, but I always thought that flying the American flag meant that these rules were to be followed, but I guess nobody cares anymore. Least of all the owner of the business I passed on the way home from work the other night, who was flying the flag after dark, unlit, in the rain, at half-mast. I've got a salute for you, buddy, but I don't think you'll care for it much.

- Pet peeve du jour #2: it happens at least once on every weekday at the theatre that I'll get a customer who insists that the showtimes I've displayed on our box office marquee are incorrect. "But the paper said 12:30, not 1:45, the paper said so," he'll protest, almost always with a snotty, superior look on his face. I invariably counter with a question- "did you look in today's paper?" This is often followed by a few seconds of silence, then a sheepish "no, I looked in Sunday's... you mean you changed them?" Yes jackass, we changed them, I think but do not say. Why should it be such a shock that we change showtimes between the weekend and the weekdays? Why run a full-tilt afternoon schedule when most of the audience is either (a) at school, or (b) at work? And honestly, why would you look at the Sunday's paper for showtimes for any day other than Sunday? Would you check Sunday's paper for Tuesday's weather? I thought not. Think, people. It ain't hard, if you put forth a little effort.

- Had a weird dream the other night about something that might have made for a crazy awesome cult movie, but it's impossible now, methinks. The pitch: The Monkees meet THE OMEGA MAN. The basic story takes place half a decade or so after HEAD, when the Monkees have split up and the four band members are doing their own thing. Meanwhile, the roving hippie/pinko baddies from OMEGA MAN are beginning to terrorize LA. One day, Davey gets a brainstorm to have a one-night-only reunion special on TV, and calls the other guys, who are up for it, although Mike takes some convincing. Anyway, they're in the studio, planning and rehearsing for the special, but Davey gets kidnapped by the OMEGA MAN dudes and taken back to their hideaway to be indoctrinated into the group. So the other three go searching for him. Groovy, hallucinatory shenanigans ensue. A lot of the details of the dream are fuzzy, but I distinctly remember them chasing up and down lots of stairwells, and also some swooping camera shots as the boys rush through streets while riots are going on. Also, there's a harp solo for Peter, probably because he was the most musical one in real life (there always seems to be a harp solo in my cinematically-styled dreams- must be all the Marx brothers I've watched). What really struck me about this dream is that, reunion story and rioting aside, this almost could have worked as a real episode of THE MONKEES. I don't know if I could have taken this story when I was a kid though- it's a little heavy for children. Still, am I weird for dreaming about The Monkees?

5 weird habits of mine

The original topic for this ongoing meme is "Your Five Weirdest Habits," but since I'm positive that I've overlooked some (and don't wish to mention some of the more embarrassing ones online), I've modified it slightly here.

Thanks to Donna for tagging me.

1. Ever since I was young, I've been in the habit of getting into bed before turning out the light. I guess this comes from a youthful fear of creatures under the bed, which would emerge and crawl around on the floor once the lights went out. I recall a time when there was no light next to my bed, and I actually practiced a technique by which I would jump, hit the switch on the way up, and sail toward the bed. I missed more than once before getting the bright idea to move the bed.

2. Unless it's completely unfeasible, I try to be at least fifteen or twenty minutes early for wherever I'm going. No matter whether I'm heading to work, a movie, or just a meeting with a friend, I can't stand the thought of being late. Even now that I have a cellular phone, I'd rather work my schedule around so I'll be early than have to call the person I'm meeting to tell them I'm running late.

3. Even at the height of summer when it's ninety-some degrees out, I insist on wearing long pants whenever I leave the house. Maybe this has something to do with my less-than-friendly relationship with sunlight.

4. I've saved every notebook I've used since I first started college over nine years ago. I can't explain why. What do I think I'll need them for?

5. Every time I use the bathroom, I turn on the fan (yes, there's a separate switch). I'll turn on the fan even when I'm just washing my hands or combing my hair.

I hereby pass the mantle on to... um... Jason, Tosh, Jay, Mark, and Lee.