Pages

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

From The Archives - A Love Letter

While transferring files from a flash drive to my external hard drive I stumbled across a journal I wrote while at Columbia that made me giggle.  A letter of breakup to Chicago after my first trip out to Los Angeles.  It's funny how completely opposite I feel about it now.  Flip the cities, and I think it would be more appropriate.  Anyways, here it is:

3/26/07

Dear Chicago,

I've found love.  And before you get too excited I want you to know that it's not you.  I know.  I'm sorry.  I've been deceiving you these past seven months, and another year before that with phone calls, brief visits, and eventually my undivided attention.  It seems pretty cheap of me to make such a firm and excited decision to be with you and then, after only a week of real commitment grow bored.

I know that you've got a lot to offer, and that many who have been with you tell me that you're exciting and unpredictable, dedicated, but you're not for me.  You'll tell me that I haven't tried.  That I came tainted from my last relationship.  That this is my first real commitment that doesn't have my parents fingerprints all over it, and I'm sure you're right, but I also know that this unsettling burning ember in my heart is real, and it hurts.

It's funny, but the more I think about this, about what I want to say to you, about how to say it so that it hurts but only so much, I keep falling back on the over-used cliches, and I'm sorry about that.  It's not you, it's me.  There, I've said it, and now I'll attempt to back it up by some futile means.

You are a very strong and solid person.  You give so much to those who know how to ask, and you take care of your own.  I know that when I'm gone I may be missed, but you also know that you have to go on, and that you will carry on.  Stoic is the word that comes to mind.  I on the other hand am realizing that I am a lot less than that.  Having been so fresh out of a relationship I was on the rebound, and you were the easiest and most visible target.  I took you, used you, and now here I am getting rid of you.  I told myself from the get go that this was going to happen, but being the weak person that I am I just barreled on without really caring, figuring that when the time came that I would be strong enough to just give you the proverbial fuck you and storm out, all debonair and class.  It isn't going the way I imagined.  Wow.  Shit.  I'm doing exactly what I told myself that I wasn't going to do.  Here's me, breaking your heart, or am I breaking mine?  And I'm trying to get pity out of you.  It makes me feel like a loser.  But this is something that I have to do.

I know that your only thought right now is "who is she?" and "what does she have that I don't?"  It's a fair and just question, and I'll tell you, but I'm going to be frank and honest when I say that this one feels more real.  I'm kind of stressing right now, about how to say it all.  How to be honest, while being gentle.  So I'll just start at the beginning and tell you it all.

I heard about her through some friends who went out west.  They told me that she's really ambitious, a little cruel if you don't know how to stand on your own, but that when she gives she gives a lot.  Some of them said that I would really dig her, while others were convinced that she wasn't my type.  Some of them got really close to her, and so for spring break last week I used them as an excuse to get out there, and meet her.

Her name is Los Angeles.  She is an angel too.  I went out west for two weeks and got to know her really well.  She's a little shallow at first glance.  She knows how to dress, and she's all glitz and glamour.  She's got a movie star smile, and a sharp wit.  I know you've talked to people and even been with guys who will tell you that she's fake, that it's all an act she puts on, that she's some sort of siren out there to lure weary traveler's off their path and then swallow their souls.  I won't lie.  She is definitely a little tougher once you get past the surface, but there is something more there too.

She went out west, from New York I can only assume, because there has got to be some Jewish in her history (look at Hollywood).  She had that desire for the American Dream and went chasing it.  She couldn't escape her roots, and wanted to make something like New York, but the guys she met out there had left the east coast for the exact opposite reason.  It was too cramped, she got in a little too close and wouldn't give you enough space.  You're notorious for that, though not quite New York.  I'e got a friend with her and I don't know how he can do it.  Some guys are just made for that sort of thing I guess.  Anywhoo this isn't about New York, she's good in her own sense.  Very much one of those one night stand kinda girls, if I was into that.

The thing about LA is she recognized this early on and gave people space.  She gave them lots of space, but not too much.  She kept them close, and they stayed faithful to her.  She can be a little mess, and a little hard to get around with, but when you get past the city girl, you see that really she is all domestic and suburban.  That's the key right there.  That's what I was looking for.  It's a little more permanent.  A little more dedicated.  I'm a suburban kid.  I love the city.  I love to visit it.  City girls can be a hell of a lot of fun.  I mean look at you.  You're crazy.

Sometimes I feel like I am a little too young.  It's hard to take you out on the town because you want to bar hop, and I can't.  That and it is just too damn expensive.  You want me to spend money on you, and I do.  All the time.  It's getting a little much.  She's just a little more laid back.  I mean, sure to get around is gonna cost a little more, and I'll actually have to drive her places, which means gas money, but also means that I need to get a car, but she is just as happy walking in the park, or watching the sunset, or anything, money is good, but not the be all end all with her.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I'm sorry for stringing you along like this.  Maybe had we met under better circumstances,  You're just not my type.  The people you know I just can't be friends with.  I've tried.  I really have, they're just a little too hard nosed for me.  I mean c'mon, six months now and not a one of them really feel like friends.  That's saying something.  I know that it shouldn't be about that.  I know that it's about you and I mostly.  That friends are a definite factor, but not the deciding factor.  It's saying something when I take a vacation out west for two weeks, and all of her friends mean more to me than anyone I've met here.  They're more respectable.  We've got more in common.

So I've rambled for a really long time and tried desperately to make myself not look like the bad guy.  To try and salvage some modicum of respect before I finally pick up and get the hell out.  I hope that you can understand, and not take things too personally.  I'm sure that once I've put some time and distance between us, and feel a little more stable with myself, that we can be friends.  I want to be, I really do. I want to be able to stop in for a weekend from time to time, but not feel like I have to prove anything to you.  You've been a good and terrible experience, and I thank you for both because you have helped me grow in ways I couldn't imagine.  I'm sorry.

~Nathan

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Sucker Punch - A Review

To save everyone the time of reading my cumbersome reviews, I'll start with a tweet-length soundbyte:

Sucker Punch is a caterwauling visual behemoth that raises some very dark ideas and then fails to address their implications. (that's 125 characters for those counting)

Now the review:

To say that Sucker Punch is excessive is true, but is about as accurate as saying the ocean is full of water.  The point is correct, but fails to capture the true scope of what's being described.  Whether it's shooting at a dragon from the tailgun of a B-25, or mowing down row after row of steam/clockwork German soldiers in a WW1 trench with giant mechsuit that has a bunny painted on the front, Sucker Punch is a movie that does not have any understanding of the concept of reining it in.  In fact it is a true disciple of the Nigel Tufnel school of going to 11.  This is fine, to a point.  A point that is crossed multiple times in the film.  A point that needed to either be addressed or circumvented with a little more compassion.

Since the release of the first teaser, all the way through the credits tonight, I've been ruminating on a very debatable point about this film, which I think, at the heart, is the leg upon which this movie either does or doesn't stand on.  Is Sucker Punch a) an exploitation film in the vein of Lolita-cum-dominatrix male fantasy or b) a feminine-empowering action yarn?  Depending on how you answer it, and your awareness of these thematic elements, I think will color your take on the rest of the film.  As for me, the verdict is still out, and I'm willing to be swayed either way (I'm curious what some females think about it).

Cleverly the story opens with the raising of a curtain and a quick slipping from a framed stage show to the movie, introducing us to the angel-faced, but as of yet unnamed heroine portrayed by Emily Browning (called Baby Doll).  True to Zack Snyder form the film opens with an orienting montage/credits sequence that is true candy for the eyes.  With very few words, and very comic-like frames (compare to the brilliant opening sequence of the Watchmen) we get the story of a broken home, a dead mother, her spurned husband, his revenge, and ultimately how our heroine ends up in the Lennox House, a mental institution for the mentally insane.  We're given a glimpse of the cruelty that is foisted upon her leading all the way up to an important moment that I can't spoil (though you'll hit it in the first five minutes) that defines how the story is told through the rest of the film.  As devices go, it's unique and allows for the liberal caterwauling that are the fantastic action scenes making up about 80% of the rest of the film.

And lordy are there action scenes.  As has been poured on from the advertising, these scenes are like somebody took a thirteen-year-old boy's brain on shuffle, picking random ideas and elements out in no discernible order or method.  In many ways it works.  Watching as our heroes fight through clockwork-German filled trenches with samurai swords and machine guns, while other members of this five girl team tear apart biplanes and triplanes in the skies above (all with astounding accuracy and training and grace) is a treat to be hold.  And in flagrant contradiction to the earthquakey jump cutting that ruined any coherence in films like Transformers, the camerawork is carefully paced and set to allow for a real sense of the geography and movement.  These action scenes have the imagination of a young boy, and I was put in mind many times of the epic games of pretend I would play during elementary school recesses.

This fantasticism is not without its issues though.  For a good 2/3s of the film there is never a sense of challenge or danger befalling our heroine and her allies.  They're able to pilot any vehicle that appears, jump out of planes without parachutes, disable bombs, and precisely gun down wave after wave of faceless characterless villains in the pursuit of five items that will help them to escape.  They take relentless beatings, thrown through walls, punched, kicked and maimed, but never fall.  Because of this the actions scenes are filled with more a sense of inevitability rather than the breathless sense of danger eluded.

But alas, it's not the non sequitur nature of the action sequences where the real, and very dangerous flaw of the film emerges.  Were it just a run-and-gun blockbuster the movie would be enjoyable, and ultimately forgettable until its DVD release and inevitable directors cut (the strategic sound effects bleeping f-bombs the first part to be removed no doubt to let the film revel in all its profane glory).  Its the asides, and the quick moments between action sequences that raise severely darker implications.

Upon entering the asylum Baby Doll immediately falls into one fantasy world, imagining the Asylum as a burlesque bordello for most of the course of the movie.  Doctors take on roles as Pimps and Madams, orderlies as thugs, everyone a grotesquerie of their real self.  The implication is quite disturbing, but is brushed lightly aside, by almost completely ignoring it.  The action sequences come when, already in this first fantasy, Baby Doll enters a second fantasy even deeper within, allowing her to "dance" for targets, while the rest of the girls go in search of the items they need to escape.  There are moments approaching rape, and abuse and serious psychological damaging that are brushed quickly aside in the name of action.  All of which resolve breathlessly with an overly melodramatic conclusion and "sucker punch" that didn't quite jive with the rest of the story.  Again, depending on how you read it based on my criteria above will really determine how you like this movie, I think.

All of this is not to say that I didn't enjoy the film.  As a fan of a good blockbuster I was sucked in, and whisked along on a relentless and ridiculous ride that I ultimately appreciated.  It was great seeing all the major characters as girls, and to allow them the strength, somewhat, to be the ass-kicking name-taking heroines, and that, while the girls were overtly sexualized, they weren't buxom or twiggy idealizations but rather petite, youthful girls.  I can definitely say that I recommend this movie.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Story Week

I'm in Chicago again.  Having a job that allows me to make my own hours and work remote has afforded me the luxury of not having to work from out of my house, and the ability to not miss exciting events.

For instance, this week I am at Columbia College's Story Week.  A week long conference for writers and publishers, students, faculty, and alumni to celebrate the art, craft, and business of writing.  For six days all over the urban campus they have both faculty and students and unaffiliated professionals do readings, speak on panels, meet and greet, and hob knob with each other and generally drum up interest in writing as a job and as a lifestyle.  Every year they feature prominent authors that do readings, and speak about their process.  Over the past few years that's included the likes of Joyce Carol Oates, Jonathan Lethem, Salman Rushdie, and this year Columbia's own Audrey Niffenegger (author of the Time Traveler's Wife).

I came into town yesterday hoping to attend the Alumni Story Workshop, an event that gives alumni the chance to sit in the half circle of the story workshop and basically take another class.  When I was at Columbia the Story Workshop was the bane of my existence.  Since graduating I've learned to love it, and will gladly eat my words for griping about it during the two years I was hear.

The train, of course, was ahead of schedule all the way until about thirty miles out of town.  Then, because of freight traffic, we were stalled for an hour.  I missed the Story Workshop, having to dash up to Logan Square to drop my bag off at my first couch of this couch surfing week, and then rush back to the loop.

That evening was the Second Story reading at Martyr's up in Irving Park.  Featuring Columbia stalwarts like Lott Hill, Patti McNair, Megan Stielstra, April Newman, and Eric May.  Preceding the event at Martyr's was the alumni reception, and for me it was the first time I've seen a lot of the guys I walked with in 2008.

Now I'm sitting in Starbucks next to the library having a quick breakfast of a muffin and a cup of coffee, before dashing over to Columbia's Film Row for the Adjunct Faculty Reading, featuring Mort Castle and Tina Jens among others.  I'll be tweeting about it with the hashtag #storyweek.

Pictures to come.