Review

The Great Gatsby

Released: 2013
Director: Baz Lurhmann
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Leonardo DiCaprio & Tobey Maguire

Grade: A-

While no one in their right mind would call Baz Lurhmann’s The Great Gatsby a romantic comedy, it is a film obsessed with romance and relationships: lost loves, familial affections, infatuated friendships, unhappy marriages, and passionate affairs. It’s a sumptuous adaptation, one which depicts the roaring twenties as a stylized, saturated era in which the upper crust live in houses the size of museums, socialites are enchantingly blasé, and the parties rival the biggest Vegas show. There’s nothing subtle in Lurhmann’s world, and many reviews have criticized him for focusing on the glitz, glam, and romance while ignoring the book’s larger condemnation of all that opulence. I would argue, however, that the intention of Lurhmann’s film is not to romanticize the era, but to examine the subjectivity of the human experience.

Rather than depict the reality of New York in the 1920s (something a period piece like Downtown Abbey tries to do in England), the camera depicts the perception of New York in the 1920s. The colors aren’t really that bright, the cars aren’t really that fast, the houses aren’t really that large. That’s just how Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), the film's narrator, drunk on booze and elation, experiences them. All human beings are limited to experiencing life from one specific point of view. While we can try to empathize with others, we can literally only see the world through our own two eyeballs. Nick claims to be able to see things objectively, but his perspective is still a subjective one.

Nick is fascinated with perspective. Ever the watcher and perennial outside, Nick views himself as both a part of and outside of what happens to him. During a rousing bacchanal, Nick enjoys the liberating feeling of being drunk, but remains aware of the party as part of the larger New York milieu. That age-old literary trope “the unreliable narrator” manifests itself visually in the look, feel, and tone of the film. Things are bright, loud, and glittering because that's how they look to a college boy who has never seen decadence like this before. It’s only in the background, in quick shots of a butler dumping half-empty martini glasses into a bucket, or fishing champagne bottles out of a pool, or chipping away at an ice block in sweltering heat, that Lurhmann hints at the reality Nick chooses to ignore. Once the party is over, someone has to clean up the mess. Only Lurhmann’s camera, seemingly accidentally, captures those moments of drudgery that make the glamour possible.

Understanding this subjective presentation of the story is crucial to understanding Gatsby himself (a charming Leonard DiCaprio). The movie doesn’t condemn Gatsby’s flaws because our point of view character doesn’t see them. When Gatsby reunites with Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), we see a romanticized version of their reconnection. The film depicts their love in a soft glow because Nick, won over by Gatsby’s dedication to his former love, sees their romance as tragic, beautiful, and passionate. Gatsby gives Daisy a scrapbook of her life, containing letters, pictures, and newspaper clippings; he is so infatuated with her and she is so infatuated with herself that they both see it as a testament to true love. Lurhmann doesn’t knowingly introduce an ominous music cue to let us know something is deeply, deeply wrong with this relationship, and that makes it easy to assume Lurhmann doesn’t think there is anything wrong with it. Yet the film’s ending assures us Lurhmann is aware of the dark side of the decadent coin.

After her secret affair with Gatsby is brought into the open and Daisy accidentally kills her husband’s mistress in a car accident, only Gatsby remains under the powerful illusion of true love conquering all. Daisy returns to her husband, selfishly fleeing East Egg, and Gatsby is shot in retribution for her crime. Both Daisy and Gatsby are absurdly childlike, two adolescents playing at being fancy adults. Gatsby dies with the idealistic notion that Daisy is ready to run away with him, unable to deal with the idea she ever loved anyone but him. Daisy refuses to attend Gatsby’s funeral or say goodbye to her cousin Nick, as always taking the easy way out when things get hard.

Nick is so infatuated by Gatsby, so sure of his friend’s moral righteousness, that he is literally driven to a sanitarium after he dies, unable to cope in a world without Gatsby. As the winter of his unhappiness fades and the flowers of spring blossom around him, Nick finishes his novel, initially titling it Gatsby, then adding a few words to make it The Great Gatsby. From Nick’s point of view, this is a moment of triumph. He’s found catharsis in telling the story of the summer he spent with his enigmatic neighbor. Yet there’s something troubling about Nick’s hero worship. He claims Gatsby is completely innocent in the tragedy inflicted on him. While he may not have been driving the car that killed Myrtle or had an affair with her in the first place, Gatsby is still deeply disturbed. He’s a man who erased his identity, fabricated a new persona, based his entire self-worth on his bank account, and dedicated his life to creating a fantasy world for a former love interest. From Gatsby’s point of view, dedicating five years of your life to becoming rich and building a dream life for a woman who is married to another man is a sweeping romantic gesture. The ultimate tragedy of the film is that Nick never realizes that isn’t true.

So is Lurhmann’s film a perfect adaptation? No. I was rather uninspired for the first twenty minutes or so when the telling-a-recent-tragic-story conceit made the film feel too much like Moulin Rouge. I enjoyed watching the over-the-top party scenes in the way I enjoy watching music videos, but they didn’t elicit anything deeper than visual appreciation. The CGI is used so abundantly in the first world-building portion of the movie that I was sure I was watching scenes from The Great Gatsby: The Video Game. (I was much more appreciative of the tour of Gatsby’s house that seemed to take place in a physical space with huge walls full of paintings, two story closets, and winding staircases.) And while I understand the desire to preserve Fitzgerald’s prose, I found most of Nick’s narration to be both distracting and unnecessary. The cast perfectly conveyed the emotions Nick so carefully explained in voiceover, and I wish Lurhmann had trusted his actors to tell the story without all the exposition.

The film only begins to sing once Gatsby appears and the main ensemble is allowed to bounce off one another without the CGI tracking shots and elaborate production numbers. DiCaprio is equal parts boyishly charming and unsettlingly insecure, finding a way to display both Gatsby’s social awkwardness and the way that awkwardness comes across as charm. (Just look at his first meeting with Daisy where DiCaprio plays everything with a stone-faced earnestness that makes the whole sequence absolutely hilarious.) Carey Mulligan is a fantastic match for him, her Daisy not exactly jubilant but all the more alluring for the sadness she exudes with every sigh. She wants her daughter to be a fool because she isn’t one. She may play at being girlish and stupid, but she’s smarter than she lets on, she’s just too self-centered and too cowardly to use her intelligence to produce anything good. Maguire doesn’t make much of an impression as Nick (he’s a bit too smiling and cheerful for such an introverted figure), but it’s a hard part to capture and Maguire is by no means a huge burden on the film, he just doesn’t find the complexity Elizabeth Debicki (as Jordan Baker) and Joel Edgerton (as Tom Buchanan) bring to their smaller roles.

Perhaps most importantly, what Lurhmann presents on screen made me think. So much so, in fact, that I was motivated to write a (slightly off-topic) review about it. Part of this is due to the strong source material: Fitzgerald’s themes of class privilege, upward mobility, the past vs. the present, and the shallowness of the American dream remain scarily relevant today. And yet Lurhmann deserves his credit too, for crafting a film in which his trademark opulent style compliments rather than overshadows those themes. The film idolizes Gatsby the way Nick does, and Lurhmann leaves it up to the audience, each with their own unique point of view, to determine whether Gatsby is a figure of everlasting optimism or one of decadent delusion.

Reality factor: As a huge fan of British literature from this era (Mrs. Dalloway is my favorite book) it is so bizarre to see the limited role WWI played on the American consciousness in the 1920s. While Gatsby mentions the war a few times, the story mostly focuses on the boom and decadence of the postwar period. British literature set in this era, on the other hand, is fixated on The Great War: how it affected the men who fought in it and how it destroyed the 19^th century worldview forever. America, with its geographical distance and limited time spent in the war, just didn’t experience that level of cultural destabilization. Instead we just threw parties. [2 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: I’m sure a lot of people went gaga over Leo in his well-tailored suits, but I was all about those comfy sweaters he wore when bumming around with Daisy. Also that one-piece bathing suit was pretty great. [4 out of 5]

Aww factor: The scene where Gatsby shows Daisy the house he essentially built for her is delightful to watch because DiCaprio just seems so damn happy. The utter glee as he throws his shirts at her is infectious, and I think it would be impossible to leave the theater without understanding why Nick idolizes him as the epitome of optimism.  

[3 out of 5]

Review

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING

Released: 2012
Director: Kirk Jones
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Banks, Anna Kendrick and some dudes

Grade: B-

 

Let’s talk about expectations. A lots of things build up expectations around a film: an actor (when I go into an Adam Sandler movie I expect lowbrow humor), the source material (the Harry Potter films are probably going to be magical), a trailer (previews for Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby are as heavily stylized as the film), or a director (an Alfred Hitchcock movie is going to serve up a healthy dose of suspense). It’s human nature to form expectations about a film before you see it. In fact these expectations usually determine which films you chose to see. They can also dramatically impact your opinion of said film. Go in with high expectations, and you are more likely to be disappointed. Go in with low expectations, and it’s easier for a film to surprise you.

Before seeing the 2012 rom com What to Expect When You’re Expecting what might our expectations be? The film is crammed full of celebrities, many of whom have starred in other rom coms, and most of whom have a background in loud, brassy comedies. The film is based upon a nearly three-decades-old pregnancy guide, meaning it has no specific narratives or characters to draw on, but does have a general theme that clearly links everything together, namely pregnancy and the challenges surrounding it. The trailer? Well that pretty much matches with what we’ve pieced together so far. It seems particularly enamored with the idea of “The Dudes,” a group of dads who offer up a badass demeanor while changing diapers and pushing strollers. The director? Here’s where things get interesting. Kirk Jones’ other works include two well-received character pieces, Waking Ned Divine and Everybody’s Fine, and the delightfully whimsical family comedy Nanny McPhee. Not exactly the man you’d expect to direct a slapstick-y, celebrity filled rom com. And yet even with this curious directorial anomaly (more on that later), I went into the film with very low expectations. And that might have been its saving grace. 

 What to Expect When You’re Expecting follows five couples through the trails and tribulations of their first pregnancy. High-strung workaholic Jules (Cameron Diaz), a coach on a Biggest Loser type reality show, is shocked to discovered she’s pregnant with the child of another reality TV star Evan (Matthew Morrison, a dancer on a Dancing With the Stars stand-in). Perky baby-boutique owner Wendy (Elizabeth Banks) is overjoyed to find herself pregnant after trying for two years with hubby Gary (Ben Falcone). Gary’s father, racecar driving superstar Ramsey Cooper (Dennis Quaid) is also going to be a dad again, this time with his young, blonde wife Skyler (Brooklyn Decker). Food truck owner Rosie (Anna Kendrick) gets knocked up after a one-night stand with her food truck rival Marco (Chace Crawford). And photographer Holly (Jennifer Lopez) is ecstatic about adopting a baby from Ethopia with her slightly-reluctant husband Alex (Rodrigo Santoro). Did you get all that? 

What To Expect works hard to meet its “edgy” rom com cliché quota: someone calls a minivan a “vagina on wheels,” Cameron Diaz throws up on live TV, and Elizabeth Banks constantly pees herself. There’s product placement galore, the female cast are all highstrung in that rom-com-heroine way, and there are a lot of jokes about how crazy women are when they’re pregnant. For the first third of the film my notes were filled with scathing commentary (after a prolonged scene of a food truck battle I wrote “I’m someone who actually watched the Food Network’s The Great American Food Truck Race and even I don’t care about this”).

But once the film moves past its initial goofiness (and all those women got knocked up), things became a bit more grounded. It’s like director Kirk Jones put in as many broad comedic scenes as he needed to in order to please the marketing team, then filled in the rest of his movie with characters that actually resemble human beings. It helps that the film’s segmented structure allows each storyline to have a slightly different tone. While those tones range from broad to understated, each piece mostly maintains a consistent world (expect for the Banks story which makes a sharp turn into life-and-death drama for a brief moment).

Banks’ plot is by far the broadest followed closely by Diaz’s. Lopez gets a more thoughtful relationship piece, and Kendrick seems to be in a small indie drama that accidentally got inserted into this film. The “Dudes Group,” which I expected to be the film’s nadir, actually manages to balance its humor and pathos better than I expected. There seems to be some truth behind the insights that men and women have different parenting styles, although I wish the movie didn’t have to do so much women-bashing to make that point. Plus there’s just something adorable about a line of five grown men carrying four strollers down a flight of stairs in perfect unison.

I was surprised (and pleased) that the film attempts to give its supporting players a bit more nuance than your typical rom com stereotypes. Particularly Skyler (Dennis Quaids’ young bride) who at first appears to be just another bimbo trophy wife but actually turns out to be a family-driven, compassionate person. Rebel Wilson brings her trademark dry delivery as Banks' boutique assistant; she's equal parts slacker and confidante and Wilson acquits herself well (as she always does). Alex (JLo’s husband) is not an asshole roadblock to Holly’s happiness (I was expecting a Juno situation), he’s just a nice guy who’s scared shitless about being a parent (Santigo’s lackluster performance doesn’t really sell the nuance, but it’s there). Giving the supporting characters a bit of depth helps compensate for the broader plot mechanics around them, and I wish more rom coms fleshed out their worlds with characters who don’t feel like stepped out of a JC Penny catalog. (No Strings Attached is another example of a well-used ensemble.) 

While there is consistency to each of the five individual stories, they still feel ridiculously out of place when juxtaposed against one another. After I watch a woman lose her baby and break up with her boyfriend, I don’t want to laugh at a man driving a golf cart through a Margaritaville and into a pool. And once I see a pregnant woman collapse from overwork, I don’t really care if your wife calls your baby “Ahn-ree” and you prefer Henry. Juxtaposing the mundane and the monumental might make sense in a movie that deals with the creation of life, but it’s done so haphazardly there’s nothing to be gained. There are just too many plots (I would have cut Dennis Quaid altogether), and many of them are too broad to exist in anything resembling reality, something the rest of the film seems to want to do. I almost wish these had been five separate movies so I could skip the ones I wasn’t interested in, and delve deeper into the ones that genuinely intrigued me (the stories involving Kendrick and Lopez).

And yet expectations are everything. I went in to this movie expecting to hate it, and the fact that I genuinely enjoyed 2/5 of it and found moments to like in the rest was a lovely surprise. Is What To Expect When You’re Expecting great? No. Is it better than most of the mass produced, celebrity filled rom coms out there? Absolutely. While I can’t say for sure whether or not the film’s marketing strategy was designed to lower my expectations and thus make me like the movie more (alright I can pretty much say that wasn’t the intention), the technique went a long way towards making me enjoy a film I was ready to write-off. 

Reality factor: I’ve gone on long enough about how this film’s reliance on broad comedy is its downfall, and yet it’s all a matter of degrees. Elizabeth Banks excitedly waving five positive pregnancy tests and jumping into a pool to tell her lap-swimming husband made me laugh out loud. See, I’m not a total Scrooge! [2 out of 5] 

Eye-candy factor: As a long time Gossip Girl fan I have to give this film’s hottest guy award to Chace Crawford. Boy-oh-boy is that guy a wooden actor. Boy-oh-boy do I not care one bit. [4 out of 5] 

Aww factor: I’m not gonna lie, I actually cried when JLo finally got her adorable Ethiopian baby. [3 out of 5]

Review

ROCK OF AGES

Released: 2012
Director: Adam Shankman
Starring: Julianne Hough & Diego Boneta (and Tom Cruise)

Grade: C-

 

As a big fan of guilty pleasure movies I had high hopes Rock of Ages would fall squarely into the so-bad-it’s-good category. Sadly, the movie is not so-bad-it’s-good, so much as so-bad-it’s-boring; a shiny, sleek, dull tale of 1980s hair metal that gets so bogged down by lifeless performances that not even the best Journey songs can save it.

Admittedly, I’m not exactly the right demographic for this film, a jukebox musical set in 1987 with a score made entirely of ’80s power ballads. Like The Wedding Singer, The Carrie Diaries, and the upcoming ABC sitcom The Goldbergs, Rock of Ages relies heavily on ’80s nostalgia to make its audience feel warm and fuzzy. Which means we get jokes about men with long hair, references to Michael Jackson getting pale, and riffs on Dirty Dancing. As a child of the ’90s, I recognize the songs, but don’t have memories of belting them out in my wild and crazy youth (if there were a musical made up of Spice Girls, Hanson, and Britney Spears songs I would be all over it). For better or for worse, I can't watch this movie with nostalgia-colored glasses. At its best, the film uses one song to unite characters in different locations with different problems all belting out the same lyrics. At its worst, people just stand around and sing songs you kind of like.

Probably indicative of how much thought went into these characters, the film’s DVD cover prominently displays the most famous cast members with superlatives like “The Puritan,” “The Diva,” “The Dreamer” and “The Legend.” The characters are one-dimensional archetypes you've seen in countless movies before. Alec Baldwin and his friend Russell Brand own a famous but financially struggling club called The Bourbon Room on LA's Sunset Strip. It’s where aspiring musician with a heart of gold Drew (Diego Boneta) works as a barback It's also where he helps our heroine Sherrie (Julianne Hough) get a job as a waitress as soon as she steps off the bus from Oklahoma (after getting her suitcase full of records stolen, LA is the worst!) Catherine Zeta-Jones is a moralizing Christian (wed to philandering mayor Bryan Cranston) determined to rid Los Angeles of moral corruption. Tom Cruise is as a legendary rockstar named Stacee Jaxx who is leaving his band for a solo career with the help of his greedy manger Paul Giamatti. Malin Akerman is a mousy Rolling Stone's reporter who falls for Stacee. And Mary J. Blige is a strip club owner with a hardened but charitable heart.

Following in the footsteps of pioneering movies like Coyote Ugly and Burlesque, Sherrie is a small town girl with big city dreams who wants to be a famous singer but ends up working at a strip club. Meanwhile Catherine Zeta-Jones crusades to shut down The Bourbon Room, Stacee tries to figure out who he is as a solo artist, Drew falls in love with and then dumps Sherrie (he thinks she cheated on him with Stacee) before selling out for his own musical career (he joins a preppy boy band). Elsewhere Alec Baldwin struggles to keep The Bourbon Room afloat and Russell Brand proves he can land a joke no matter how weak the material.

Like Hairspray, director Adam Shankman’s previous attempt at a movie musical, Rock of Ages can’t quite seem to find a way to blend the songs and book scenes. My current theory is this has something to do with the lack of applause. In live theatre applause is a natural button to a song and a transition from the fantastical production numbers to the more grounded book scenes. On screen, high energy songs just end and people start talking again. I've yet to see a modern day movie musical that makes the transition work seamlessly. It doesn’t help that while Rock of Ages' dialogue may have played well in a big Broadway stage, it feels hokey when it takes place on a real street. (Upon seeing The Bourbon Room Sherrie exclaims, “I have like 10 record that were recorded there.” “Don’t you mean had?” Drew quips.)

The movie is based on a highly successful 2009 Broadway musical which quickly became a critical hit and fan favorite (it’s still running today). In contrast, the movie adaptation tanked both critically and at the box office. How can you explain that disparity? I think a lot of it comes down to tone.

Diego Boneta and Julianne Hough are just too earnest in their roles as star-crossed lovers. (Which is unsurprising given that Boneta’s previous roles include a telenovela and a stint on 90210, and Hough was a dancer on Dancing With the Stars before finding greater success as Ryan Seacrest’s beard.) The film is bogged down by their by-the-numbers romance and perpetual duets. Weirdly, it also seems no one told Tom Cruise he was in a comedy (even though Stacee has a Scotch-carrying monkey named Hey Man). Cruise plays everything like he’s in an indie drama about an aging rocker (and he’s not bad in that film, it’s just not this film). His voice (or his autotune) is pleasant, but he can’t find the humor behind Stacee Jaxx’s stoic, serious performer. Instead he just comes across like a stoic, serious performer.

Although I never saw it myself, I suspect what made Rock of Ages so successful on Broadway was its fun, self-referential attitude. The characters may take themselves seriously, but the actors are in on the joke, allowing the audience to see the humor in all that commitment to rocking out. It’s a tricky tone to pull off on film (something like Baz Lurhmann’s Strictly Ballroom does it remarkably well, and Glee is occasionally successful at it as well). Russell Brand, doing his Russell Brand thing, Catherine Zeta-Jones as the vampy villain, and Malin Akerman as the dowdy reporter who experiences a sexual awakening come closest to finding the right balance, but sadly the film’s three leads are not up to the task. What could have been ridiculously stupid-fun ends up feeling dull and plodding. There's no denying the music is infectious, and that alone saves the movie from becoming a total drag to sit through. In trying to parody an era, Rock of Ages captures the glam and glitz but forgot to be funny along the way. 

Reality factor: I know that we’re not supposed to be too concerned with character motivations, but Sherrie’s desire to be a singer is weirdly dropped for most of the film. At one point Mary J. Blige informs her, “It’s not fame and fortune you’ve been looking for, it’s love.” Umm, I’m pretty sure she came looking for a career, but okay. [0 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor:  Yes he makes us all uncomfortable, but Tom Cruise does have a great body. Now let’s never speak of this again. [3 out of 5] 

Aww factor: Baldwin and Brand’s third act love confession set to “I Can’t Fight This Feeling Anymore” is both funnier and sweeter than anything Hough and Botega do for the rest of the film. It’s a glimpse of what Rock of Ages could have been with the right cast of actors, rather than a random collection of pretty faces.   

[5 out of 5 for them; 1 out of 5 for the movie as a whole]

Play-By-Play

BEAUTY AND THE BRIEFCASE

Released: 2010 on ABC Family
Director: Gil Junger
Starring: Hilary Duff

There's a whole industry of made-for-TV rom coms that flood the airwaves on an almost daily basis. While there might not be enough actual content to these films to warrant critical analysis, I wanted to find a way to explore the utter ridiculousness of how rom coms have manifested themselves on television. In Play-By-Play, I take a detailed (and humorous) walk through the utterly ridiculous plots of some of TV's worst excuses for romance. I watch this stuff so you don't have to!

Grade: D 

“I just got hired by Cosmo, the world’s greatest magazine, to go undercover and date hot men in suits. Does it get any better than this?” 

I’m not saying Beauty and the Briefcase is the worst thing to ever happen to feminism, but I do think it probably cracks the top ten. To be fair, I’m talking about an ABC Family movie produced by/starring Hilary Duff so it’s my own fault for going in with any sort of expectations. Beauty and the Briefcase is shallow, stupid, and entirely devoid of emotional resonance. It’s the elevator music of movies, a bland film with so little soul it hardly even merits critical thought. So let’s just make fun of it, shall we?

The script for Beauty and the Briefcase was most likely written in one night as the screenwriter downed a box of wine and marathoned Never Been Kissed, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and a handful of Sex and the City episodes. Presumably thanks to the producer cred, most of the movie is just Hilary parading around in sexy outfits. The script is about 95% narration and the characters are so thinly drawn they are practically invisible.

Our little Hil stars as Lane, a would-be fashion writer determined to work at THE BEST MAGAZINE IN THE WHOLE WORLD Cosmo. (I’m assuming Cosmo singlehandedly funded this movie based on how much product placement they get.) Lane’s life is, like, so hard because there are no guys for her to date. After all, “The guys in fashion do wonders for my wardrobe, but they do nothing to help me find my magic man!” Lane has standards, you see, namely a checklist of the rom-com-qualities her “magic man” must possess:

1. Puts passion above common sense

2. Sexy accent

3. Spontaneous

4. Fashion sense

5. Fearless in the face of danger

6. Same taste in food

7. Travels to exotic locations on a whim

8. Plays sexy musical instrument

9. Witty statements on the tip of his tongue

10. Public fights and torrid make up sex

The list is so adorably twee that you can already figure out she’ll learn to ditch it in favor of a “real man” who is better than any “magic man” ever could be. Unfortunately this movie is 120 minutes long so we’re not quite there yet.

After praying to a Cosmo shrine (I wasn’t kidding about the product placement thing) Lane heads off for her first ever pitch meeting with the magazine (conveniently set up by her fashion photographer friend Joanne, the kind of rom com best friend who is weirdly 100% invested in the life, love, and woes of her bestie. Where can I find one of those?).

After casually passing by some ads for other ABC Family programing (intended to brainwash you into watching 10 Things I Hate About You and Making It or Break It) and only falling over once (those Lizzie McGuire roots will never really go away), Lane arrives for her meeting with Cosmo editor Kate White (Jamie Pressly). Lane pitches such riveting articles as “Fashion trends for the elite.” (Isn’t that what all fashion trends are?) and  “Wearing boyfriend jeans when you don’t have a boyfriend. Fabulous or faux paus?” (Kill me now.) Thankfully Kate has enough sense to turn down Lane’s terrible pitches and send her out the door. As you often admit to potential employers who have just rejected you, Lane sighs, “I guess I’m going to rush home and cuddle up to my imaginary boyfriend.” She’s such a shining example of professionalism. Suddenly bowled over by Lane’s insightful commentary of what it means to be a woman in the 21^st century, Kate exclaims. “Wait! There’s a story here, joining the business world to find love!”

Thus sets off the actual plot of Beauty and the Briefcase. Lane will sneak her way into the business world and see what it’s like to date in an industry not compromised almost exclusively of gay men. Coming from a theatre background myself (a similarly straight-male-lacking-industry) this premise did make me laugh. But in a “haha, that’s funny” way, not in an “I want to watch a 120 minute movie about that” way. The things I do for this blog.

Lane gets a job in the “business world” with surprising ease after lying on her resume and scheming her way out of a software test. There’s no logical sense as to how she would actually do this job, but according to her impressive resume she is proficient in excel and powerpoint, so that’s something. She gets hired as an assistant to “businessman” Tom (Michael McMillian), but who cares about actually working when you can stare at men all day?!?! (“Men with ties, men without ties, men with ties tossed over their shoulders.”)  Lane is so distracted she can’t even pay attention during her orientation. (“I nod a lot and look impressed as I survey the men in suits situation.”) She also totally has the upper hand because “The few women here, they’re not even trying.” (Yeah remember that whole anti-feminist thing I was talking about?)

After drooling her way through the tour, Lane gets settled in. “My own cubicle? It’s paradise!” she exclaims as she sits at a desk that is blatantly not a cubicle. “I’m like Ann Hathaway in the Devil Wears Prada.” We’re treated to a prolonged scene in which men ogle her and she looks pleased. Seemingly every man in the office asks her out including office hottie Seth (Matt Dallas, of Kyle XY fame, that show where he didn’t have a bellybutton). “They’re drawn to me like moths to a flame.” This firm is a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.

As Lane flirts here way around the office, she gets to know Tom, her dorky boss who creates hand signals for efficient communication, buys six of the same shirts, and eats an identical lunch everyday. He’s got a girlfriend and doesn’t fit anything on Lane’s list. And the fact that he is featured on the movie poster means nothing about who Lane is ultimately going to fall for. No way. Not at all. Their banter is just embarrassing and also kind of troubling. Tom calls her a “smartass” on her first day and then nicknames her “Ab Fab” since she likes fashion. Maybe keep things a little professional, Tom?   

Lane proceeds to wear inappropriate workplace clothing and decorates her desk with cute accessories because it’s not like a woman writing in the fashion world is actually intelligent or anything. Well, she does add some bullet points to a memo and everyone loses their shit because she is SUCH A GENIUS when it comes to visuals. Remember that everyone, it will be important later. Lane=visual genius. Got it?

Ugh, enough with this boring office stuff, am I right? While out with Joanne, the eternally self-sacrificing best friend, Lane bumps into Liam (Chris Cormack) a British hottie who she meets in the most adorable way when she spills a drink on him. He counters, “Lane I’m not leaving this seat until you agree to have dinner with me next Thursday night.” Making aggressive demands upon first meeting someone is such a turn on.

Even a toddler would have a sneaking suspicion that Liam is not who he seems to be (flirty British men who claim to own record labels are like that), but assuming Lane has the intelligence of a toddler might be too generous. Liam fits almost every item on her checklist. Plus who wouldn’t be smitten with his horrible accent and totally believable British slang like, “Sounds like you’re dashing off to meet another bloke!” and “That dress you’re wearing? A bloke doesn’t stand a chance.” At this point I’d like to inform you that Chris Cormack’s previous roles include “Douchbag Boyfriend” in the 2010 short filmed called Masturbate for Life. You’re welcome.

Anyway, Lane is in so much trouble because she is supposed to only date guys from the business world, and Liam is a tortured artist who theoretically owns a record label, which sounds like a business to me, but whatever. She goes to Kate and tries to pitch a new story about meeting the perfect guy when you least expect it, but Kate is all “This is an actual magazine and you can’t just change your story so please try to be professional. Also break up with Liam and date everyone in your workplace.” Bosses are just the worst, right?

Speaking of bosses, Tom finds out that Lane lied on her resume and is totally pissed about it. Which leads me to wonder what Lane’s plan was for actually staying in the business world for more than a week, but whatever, he doesn’t actually care that much and she keeps her job so it’s fine. You know what’s not fine? The scene in which Tom is on a video conference call with a client and Lane comes in to do some filing and ends up bending over a lot and the client is so distracted by her ass he literally cannot finish his sentences so Tom sends Lane away. She’s referred to as a “distraction” and then she apologizes for it! But Tom is so charming and laughs the whole thing off, “Don’t worry about it. It took a bit to get Mr. Belmont’s concentration back, but it was the highlight of the meeting.” Haha sexual harassment and the objectification of female employees is so hilarious. Sometimes I can’t stop laughing thinking about it. Maybe the constant creepiness of their male coworkers is why those female employees “stopped trying.” Maybe they, I don’t know, wanted to protect themselves from the scumbag clients who cannot complete a thought when in the vicinity of a female? Idk. Sounds like they’re probably total bitches anyway.

Lane, meanwhile, has decided to ignore Kate’s demand that she dump Liam and date around her office. (Is this prostitution?) How can Lane continue to date these boring businessmen when Liam texts “YOU NAUGHTY MINX” in all caps? How could any woman resist that? Plus, “He’s pretty skilled in the chocolate and love making departments.” Ew. But Kate is totally set on Lane finding her magic man in the business world so our brilliant little Lane decides to continue to write about dating Liam but call him “Seth,” that guy from the office that we all forgot about by now. (“Now that is creative writing.”) Because I guess just fabricating the idea that a British guy named Liam worked in her office would be too convoluted? Ugh, Lane is such a genius when it comes to making things up. And visuals. Don’t forget about the visuals.

Oh wait, but we have to get back to Tom because this movie somehow needs three male love interests for Lane. Half of her conversations with Tom are about recycled paper and the other half are weirdly personal. (After learning Tom and his girlfriend broke up Lane says “We could have gotten drunk and thrown eggs at her apartment.” Not an inappropriate thing for a boss and his assistant to do at all.) Lane takes Tom SHOPPING to improve his wardrobe which then proceeds to look exactly the same because Tom was actually pretty good at dressing himself before Lane arrived, but I guess now he owns a more diverse collection of shirts, so, huzzah!

The big confrontation scene where Tom finds out about the article (because she left it in her printer, doh!) is weirdly nondramatic. He says things like “I thought I knew you Lane!” and Lane is angry as well for some reason, even though I’m pretty sure she’s 100% in the wrong here for faking her way into a company in order to write an expose on dating in the business world. But she worked so hard on those visuals for the big presentation and Tom is totally ignoring that. Ugh. Boys are the worst.

So Lane calls Liam and is all like “I want you to come over and hold me and hand me tissues.”  (I’m not kidding, that is an actual line she says to him.) Liam claims to be in London so Lane heaves a heavy sigh and settles for going out to dinner with Joanne. Lane complains the night away, and Joanne looks at her, her eyes slightly bugged out, and you can tell the voice inside her head is screaming “I love you so much. Don’t ever leave me. I want to crawl inside your skin and become you. You are my BEST FRIEND.”

In a totally shocking turn that no one saw coming except everyone who was watching this movie, it turns out Liam is actually an American waiter not a British mogul!! Ugh. Again. Boys are the worst. (At least the accent was supposed to be fake.) Lane catches Liam and his fellow waiter-cohort in the act of seducing another helpless girl in the very restaurant she and Joanne were eating at! (Joanne’s internal monologue: “Finally a chance to prove my love for Lane! I will kill this man for betraying her! And then eat him!”) Lane accuses Liam  of tricking her into sleeping with him and then she and Joanne throw drinks in his face. Girl power! Amiright? I mean there is no way having the person you are dating turn out to be a total fraud would be emotionally devastating. Let’s not give Lane any time to process that one, just power through it, girl. (I’m really just curious what Liam’s plan was here. It’d be one thing if he used this trick in a one night stand capacity, but he was kind of seriously dating Lane for a while. Was he just going to keep it going forever? Were they going to get married? Would he have to use that terrible accent until he died? It never occurred to him that she might go to the restaurant where he worked? Oh Liam, I guess you’re just a beautiful, dumb bloke.)

That officially puts Liam out of the picture and since Seth was never really in the picture, we’re left with just good ole Tom. Even though she thought she was fired, it turns out Tom still needs Lane for her AMAZING VISUALS for the BIG MEETING, so she rushes over with some giant cardboard cutouts that look like they were made in Word and totally Vanna White’s the shit out of the meeting. And she also convinces Tom to stand up for himself and introduce a green initiative that will save the company a ton of money and protect the department. Random environmentalism! Huzzah! Then Lane admits to Tom, “I didn’t deserve to work for a guy like you.” It’s like Legally Blonde without the message of female empowerment!

Lane ’s finally learns that having a checklist of perfect qualities isn’t so helpful after all, so she takes a big risk and writes about her personal journey rather than the business-world-meet-cute story her editor wanted. Except it turns out her personal journey is exactly the story her editor wanted all along! In fact, Kate had so much weird foresight on where all of this was going, she already designed the cover of next month’s Cosmo with a giant picture of Lane on it. Because I guess every first-time Cosmo writer does a super fancy photoshoot for no reason? And Cosmo is always putting unknown writers on their covers. Kate even has one of those big cardboard versions of it all ready to go in her office, hidden behind a cloth, just waiting to be revealed at the most dramatic moment. (I’m assuming Joanne has a similar giant cardboard cutout of Lane in her bedroom, but for other reasons.) Because Kate is starting to reach Joanne-levels of investment in Lane’s personal life, she painstakingly talks Lane through the fact that Tom is actually the perfect guy for her After all, he fits none of her checklist qualities. Don’t worry, they go through them one by one in case you forgot!

So Lane goes running through the hallways of her old office (because I guess time is weirdly of the essence here?) and declares her love for Tom in front of a conference room full of people. Turns out he loves her too! They kiss and everyone in the conference room literally gives them a standing ovation. And then he weirdly carries her out of the meeting in his arms like she is a baby. It’s an appropriate last image for a film that argues that a woman’s role in the work place is to look super cute, find a boyfriend, and do the arts & crafts projects. 

Romance: 1
Feminism: 0

Theatre Review

BIG FISH: The Musical

I’m taking a break from my usual rom com reviews to share some thoughts on a new musical adaption of Big Fish that’s currently playing in Chicago (gotta put that theatre degree to use somehow!) Big Fish is playing at the Oriental Theatre through May 5^th. Ticket information is available on their official website.

Grade: C+

The new Broadway-bound musical Big Fish, currently in tryouts in Chicago, attempts to juxtapose the fantastical with the mundane by crafting two worlds onstage. Sadly only one of those worlds actually works, creating a bizarrely uneven night of musical theatre that achieves moments of greatness and moments of tedium that smell awfully fishy. It’s not a total flop, but it’s a misstep that leads this big fish swimming in circles instead of moving forward in a satisfying way.

The musical, based on the 2003 Tim Burton movie and the 1998 book by Daniel Wallace, centers around Edward and Will Bloom, a southern father and son whose relationship struggles when it comes to communication. Edward is famous for recounting epic, magical tales of his life, including the time he caught the titular fish using his wedding ring. The more pragmatic Will knows the tale of his father befriending a giant and joining the circus, but feels like he’s never connected with the man behind the stories. With his own baby on the way and Edward’s health in jeopardy, Will tries to understand what his father is hiding behind all of his tall tales.

As I mentioned, there are essentially two halves of the show. One half is the “real world,” the scenes between adult Will and his father that start at Will’s wedding and continue a couple of years into the future (Big Fish places fast and loose with time and place, jumping from location to location with remarkable fluidity). The other half of the show is “Edward’s fantasy world,” the visual manifestation of the tall tales Edward recounts to everyone around him. These stories start when Edward meets a witch as a young boy and continue on to depict him as high school hero, giant tamer, circus worker, romantic wooer, soldier, and father to a young Will. It’s not quiet as confusing onstage as it sounds on paper, but there’s still a lot to keep track of (not to mention a totally superfluous fantasy sequence set in the Wild West). The musical bounces back and forth between its two worlds in a way that never feels particularly purposeful.

Somewhat surprisingly, it’s the realistic portion of the show that works beautifully. The staging is simple, the scenes are well written, and the acting is solid. Book writer John August (who also penned Burton’s film) and director Susan Stroman find a quiet intensity in these scenes that still manages to fill a big Broadway-sized stage. They are helped along by their fantastic cast, particularly Bobby Steggert as Will who is doing incredible work in a role that requires very little singing and a whole hell of a lot of acting. The music, by Andrew Lippa, isn’t particularly memorable, but the best songs all take place in the “real world.” The show’s best number “Fight the Dragons” (available for free download here) does more to establish Edward’s character than all of his fantastical stories put together.  

The problem lies almost entirely in the “Edward’s fantasy world” portion of the show. The intention here is create a unique visual landscape for Edward’s stories that feels entirely different than the more somber real world. Unfortunately that visual landscape seems to be based around the terms “hokey” and “corny.” There’s clearly a lot of money being pumped into this show, but it all ends up feeling cheap and cutesy in a way that undermines the show’s central themes. I think the intention was to make Edward’s stories feel like something out of a children’s book, but the production aims too low and the stories end up feeling like The Wiggles instead of The Lion King (the stage version). There are a few hints of creativity (cowboys emerging from a TV screen, ensemble members hidden amongst the set, imaginative elephant costumes), but the majority of the time the fantasy sections rely on slow motion and hammy acting. Instead of feeling creative or magical, this section of the show just feels like bad musical theatre. The songs are dull, the choreography isn’t innovative, and the actors seem to have been directed to chew the scenery as much as possible. Instead of feeling like a triumph of bravery, the scene where Edward befriends the fearsome giant is played like a friendship lesson from a PBS cartoon. (It's also pretty much identical to this scene from the stop motion Santa Claus is Coming to Town.) There are no real stakes so Edward never seems like a hero so much as a cast member on Sesame Street. It's fun to watch a talented ensemble put on a USO show and I enjoy confetti as much as the next person, but there's nothing beneath the glossy surface of Edward's stories that links them thematically to the lovely real world scenes.

What saves the production is its incredibly game cast lead by Norbert Leo Butz as Edward, Kate Baldwin as his wife Sandra, and the aforementioned Bobby Steggert as adult Will. While a child actor portrays Will in his youth, Baldwin and Butz are called upon to play their roles from teenagers to empty nesters. It’s a slightly strange choice given that they are either too old or too young for their characters for the majority of the musical, but the actors are so spirited they mostly make it work. Baldwin in particular does an amazing job transforming herself from wide-eyed teenager to mature adult. Butz doesn’t seem quiet as comfortable as the younger iteration of Edward (although he’s certainly energetic enough to be a teenager), but absolutely nails the older wisecracking version of his character. He perfectly captures the Southern charm and slightly sardonic sense of humor that endears Edward to everyone except for the son he’s trying to impress. As a young father Butz is loving but slightly distant in a way that betrays an uncertainty about the nature of fatherhood, and as the elderly, cancer-ridden version of the same character he manages to capture an ornery spirit worn down by disease. It’s a great central performance and it’s a shame that the musical’s bifurcated structure never allows Edward to coalesce as a character the way he should.

There are some great things happening on the Oriental Theatre stage right now, it’s just too bad they are only happening half the time. I wouldn’t be surprised if Big Fish ends up being a big commercial hit (my audience certainly seemed thoroughly entertained by the spectacle numbers), but there’s a wasted opportunity here for some really groundbreaking storytelling. The cast and director prove their worth in the realistic scenes, but fail to find a creative way to tell the stories Edward is famous for. The show is slick, energetic, and colorful, but there’s an emptiness behind the fantasy that robs Edward’s stories of their heart.

Review

Because I Said So

Released: 2007
Director: Michael Lehmann
Starring: Mandy Moore & Diane Keaton

Grade: C-
 

I have been procrastinating on this review for weeks; every time I open the page to start working my eyes glaze over and my mind goes numb. I could blame this on writer’s block or generally laziness, but I think at least some of the blame falls on the dreadfully dull Because I Said So. It’s not a secret gem like The Decoy Bride, it’s not so-bad-it’s-good like Kate & Leopold, and it’s not offensively bad like Something Borrowed. It just kind of…exists. The characters are broad, the humor is forced, and there’s nothing particularly compelling about the plot. Enough halfway decent scenes prevent the film from becoming a total disaster, which means it falls into the middling range of mass-produced rom coms that leave little-to-no impression. Clearly very little critical thought went into making this film and it’s awfully hard to discuss it critically. But, dear readers, making sense of the bland is my cross to bear so let’s dive in, shall we?

Really the best thing I can say about this movie is that it’s not Love, Wedding, Marriage, the truly god-awful Mandy Moore vehicle I reviewed a few weeks ago. While Love, Wedding, Marriage seemed to have no understanding of the basic art of filmmaking, Because I Said So makes some attempts at consistent characterization and logical plotting. Like some other films I’ve reviewed (Sleepless in Seattle springs to mind), this film looks not just at romantic relationships, but at familial ones as well.

Successful caterer Milly (Moore) and her mom Daphne (a shrill Diane Keaton) have a weird kind of codependent relationship that the film both criticizes and idolizes. After being dumped by her loser boyfriend, Milly declares she’s going to stay single forever like her role-model-mother. Daphne, ever the meddler, decides she knows best and secretly sets up an online dating profile for her daughter in order to prescreen candidates for Milly to fall in love with. (This comes after a scene in which Keaton accidentally stumbles onto a porn site; Because I Said So seems to think that putting Diane Keaton in embarrassing situations is the same thing as comedy. This ain’t exactly Annie Hall.)

A largely underused Lauren Graham and a totally underused Piper Perabo play Milly’s older sisters. Graham is a psychologist in a stable marriage. Perabo is, I don’t know, I think she’s married and I think she’s supposed to be the “wild one,” but she only has about three lines which means she barely makes an impression. Graham’s profession is largely an excuse for exposition and she feeds the audience helpful lines explaining that Milly can’t settle down because she never really knew her father.

One of the central conceits of Because I Said is that three grown sisters and their mother spend a large portion of their lives hanging out and doing stereotypical-girl things (going to the spa, buying shoes, trying on clothes, making conference calls). Which means we’re treated to a scene in which Lauren Graham, Piper Perabo, and Mandy Moore stand around in lingerie and tease Diane Keaton for her granny-panties. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Back to that string of events Because I Said So calls a plot: After a truly offensive montage of all the ugly/crazy/weird guys that answer Daphne’s ad (because people don’t matter at all outside of their appearance and first impression), Daphne finally meets a diamond in the rough, a rich-architect-type (aren’t they always?) played by Tom Everett Scott. I know Scott as Guy Patterson from one of my all time favorite films That Thing You Do! I’m sure his character has a name in Because I Said So, but I’d prefer to refer to him as Shades. (For the uninitiated, Shades was Guy Patterson’s nickname. I realize I’m starting to descend into madness, but it’s the only way I can get through this review.) Shades seems like the perfect guy for Milly, but to add a hitch in the proceedings, Daphne also meets Random-Musician-Man (Gabriel Macht; his character’s real name is Johnny, but again, let me have my fun). Random-Musician-Man has watched Daphne go on various blind-dates all afternoon and decides he wants to be the one to court the daughter of a crazy person. (He explains, “I like you. I have an odd instinct I’d like her too.” Yeah, that makes sense.) Thus we have the central conflict of the movie: rich, boring architect vs. poor, soulful musician. Take a wild guess as to which one Milly is going to fall for. I have to admit, at this point the film pretty much lost me as there is no situation in which I’m not rooting for Shades to get the girl.

In an impressive show of restraint, it’s a full 25 minutes into the movie before Keaton utters the titular line (during an excursion to the mall where the girls again strip down to their underwear). Most of the film’s second act consists of Keaton dropping things, tripping, and otherwise embarrassing herself. One of the film’s most repeated jokes is that women carry a lot of stuff in their purses (talk about cutting edge!) Milly ends up dating both men simultaneously (unbeknownst to either of them). Keaton meddles some more. It turns out Random-Musician-Man is also a doting-single-dad (the ultimate sympathy trump card) which inadvertently gives the film a bit of a creepy undertone: Milly never knew her father and now she’s attracted to a man who is raising a child. Freud would have a field day!

Even as a person with a high tolerance for shitty rom coms, the middle portion of this film is nearly unwatchable. Instead of wish fulfillment romance, we get lots of flustered, anxious fights between an unlikable mother and daughter who are enabling each other’s neuroses. There’s a weird frantic energy to the whole thing. Moore in particular (whose work I’ve enjoyed elsewhere, I don’t think it’s her fault she keeps landing these horrible roles) is constantly wringing her hands and rushing her lines. The physical comedy continues to have a slightly desperate air as the gags grow more and more ridiculous. Keaton walks in holding a cake, it’s bound to be only a few moments before it gets thrust into her face. By the time she’s driving down the road, hitting her malfunctioning GPS with a shoe, I was about ready to quit.

Things thankfully pick up about two-thirds of the way through. Daphne gets laryngitis and decides to move-in with Milly to recuperate (because, that makes sense). Once Keaton is silenced, some of the franticness calms down and the film takes time to breath. Moore brings a certain flustered sweetness to a scene where she describes an orgasm to her mother (who's never had one) and keeps the whole thing from becoming cringe-worthy. Daphne falls for Random-Musician-Man’s father, played by Stephen Collins (aka Mr. Camden from 7th Heaven), and they have a first kiss that feels awkwardly-charming rather than unwatchably-awkward. Tony Hale (aka Buster Bluth from Arrested Development) has a cameo as one of Lauren Graham’s patients that nearly steals the movie; you can tell he and Lauren Graham probably had a lot of fun on set. He’s more funny in two minutes than Keaton is the entire movie.

To its credit Because I Said So takes a surprisingly serious approach to its central premise. I made quite a few notes as I watched this film about Milly’s manipulative behavior in dating two guys at once (that isn’t gendered, I’d say the same thing if it were a guy in her situation). Both relationships are pretty serious: she’s sleeping with both men, has been introduced to both of their families and one even hints at marriage. For such a frothy rom com, I had a lot of moral concerns about the main heroine. Thankfully the movie deals with those concerns head on, as Random-Musician-Man catches Milly with her other beau and essentially reads the above paragraph to her. There’s a hint of a decent movie in their fight scene, but it’s unfortunately not the movie we get to see.

But I’m all for celebrating the small victories and the movie at least takes a stab at showing some consequences to both the romantic relationships and the mother/daughter one. Milly dumps Shades (I’m honestly not sure why she continued to date him for so long when it was pretty clear she didn’t really like him. Sure it injects some drama into the film, but it also makes Milly seem remarkably selfish and unhealthy indecisive). To punish her for the meddling, Milly stops speaking to her mother, which gives Keaton’s character a chance to have a bit of an arc and sort of learn a lesson. There’s even a montage of people being unhappy for an extended period of time and not just immediately getting over their concerns.

If this praise seems lukewarm, that’s because it is. Any movie that relies consistently on reaction shots from a dog probably has issues that can’t be resolved with one or two decent scenes. Because I Said So ends with one of the absolute worst romantic reunions in any rom com (in a cooking-for-one class Milly teaches to senior citizens). Random-Musician-Man’s declarations of love feel super creepy and non-romantic. Then a lot of old people start kissing each other and any goodwill Because I Said So earned in its third act evaporates.

The whole dull venture ends at the wedding of Daphne and Mr. Camden (which means Milly and Random-Musician-Man are step-siblings. Weird). The girls sing, Keaton does some more desperate physical comedy, and then a cake flies off a cliff and lands on Tony Hale because fuck it. Honestly I don’t have much more to say. It’s bad, but it’s not atrocious. There are enough halfway decent scenes that I can’t write it off entirely, but then again it’s certainly not worth sitting through two hours of dreck for a few engaging minutes. So there you have it dear readers, I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to write this and hopefully the next rom com I watch will inspire a little more critical thought. In the meantime let’s just end this the way Because I Said so would want us to, by imagining an adorable dog tilting its head inquisitively. That’s enough to save this review, right? 

Reality factor: Purses are messy! People on dating sites can be creepy! Old people will kiss other old people when given the chance! Thanks for the insights Because I Said So.  
[1 out of 5] 

Eye-candy factor: There are plenty of shots of girls in underwear and none of Shades in his skivvies. I’m all for equal opportunity eye-candy, but give me something here.  
[2 out of 5] 

Aww factor: Surprisingly Diane Keaton and Stephen Collins’ romance is the sweetest thing about this film. Too bad it’s only given about 10 minutes of screentime.  
[2 out of 5]