30DayMovieDiveChallenge

Day 11: My teenage movie crush

Josh Hartnett

By Ciara Midreé — October 12, 2017

(The actual poster that hung on my bedroom wall. All I had to do was google “Josh Hartnett milk”. X’s, O’s, and hearts added by me. Thanks, Internet!)

As a kid, I had many screen loves– Freddie Prince Jr. in “She’s All That”, Jesse Bradford in “Bring it On”, even Harry Potter for a hot second. But none of them could hold a candle to Josh. Hartnett. From “Pearl Harbor” to “Lucky Number Slevin”, he was my jam. I watched “Hollywood Homicide” because he was in it. “40 Days and 40 Nights” was a major part of my [awakening as a woman]. Later on, when I got older and got over my fear of “The Mummy” (1999), I fell for Brendan Fraser in “School Ties” and “Encino Man”. I had reached peak film fanatic adolescence– I started watching older movies that came out before I was old enough to watch them or before I was born. I discovered Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn (together, apart, don’t matter!). I entertained ideas of Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Peter O’ Toole, Shah Rukh Khan, Colin Firth, and Orlando Bloom (only in that blonde wig tho).

But I’ll always have a special place in my heart for Josh. He can still get it.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

Even though Josh Hartnett was mah main squeeze, teenage me had many loves:

Freddie Prinze, Jr. in She’s All That

Jesse Bradford in Bring It On 🎧

Oliver Wood from the Harry Potter and the Scorcer’s Stone movie

Orlando Bloom, but only in the wig. 💁🏼😄

My options really expanded after we got TCM, adding Katharine Hepburn, Michael Caine, Peter O’Toole, and Shah Rukh Khan to the mix. And of course I can’t forget Cary Grant and Colin Firth, my last teenage crushes and my forever loves. I adore them in everything they’re in; my love will never die.

Day 10: My rebellion movie

Dogma (1999)

By Ciara Midreé — October 11, 2017

I was a very hard-headed kid, a habitual line stepper. But the biggest thing I ever challenged in my life was my religion. I was raised Roman Catholic, and when I was little I believed in prayer and God and all that. But life can show you things that counter belief. And one of those things was writer/director Kevin Smith’s Dogma. It’s not like it’s a stunningly revolutionary film, but it spoke truth to teenage me, right when I needed it. It was definitely a big part of what helped me to finally say, “You know what, I’m not a Catholic.” #stillgotthatguiltthough

Day 9: My favorite film adaptation

Clueless (1995)

By Ciara Midreé — October 10, 2017

There aren’t many adaptations, in any form of media, that can both evoke the themes and character traits of the original material AND be wholly their own entity at the same damn time. Writer/director Amy Heckerling’s Clueless does exactly that as it transports Jane Austen’s Emma (1815) from Regency England to 90s Beverly Hills. At its core, Emma is about how people, more specifically women, navigate through the strictures of social status. Clueless translates this class system to modern times by setting the story in a high school. Not only is high school generally governed by clique groups and social status (SEE: just about every high school movie ever). At the very least, you can expect an intense division between the popular crowd and not so popular people. Clueless is set in a predominantly wealthy Beverly Hills high school, making it even better able to imitate the upper-class world that Emma inhabits in the novel.

Of course, being teenagers in the 90s, there are a lot of differences between the film and the 19th-century novel. For one, marriage is not even a concern for Cher, Dionne, and Tai, whereas it’s the end-all and be-all for their novel counterparts Emma, Mrs. Weston, and Harriet Smith (though not so much for Emma– she is rich enough to not need a husband for security and upper class enough to not desire social advancement).

The film does away with the 19th century social mores and limits on women, which colored much of the character interactions in the novel. The girls in Clueless are frank about their sexuality and able to have friendships with men without there being the implication that they are courting. This makes the most positive change in the film possible: the character Christian, Clueless’s version of Frank Churchill. Christian is gay and it’s not a problem– they hint at it a lot in the visuals and Murray’s big reveal in the car is played for laughs (“disco-dancing friend of Dorothy”), but mainly in the sense that Cher was so blinded by her attraction that she didn’t pick up on her friend’s sexuality. It’s not a problem, it’s not overplayed, he’s not some cliche gag character– he’s Cher’s friend. And he stays Cher’s friend, which is more than can be said for Frank Churchill. In the novel, after Frank’s engagement to Jane Fairfax is revealed, he and Emma don’t interact. He’s actually made out to look like a bad guy for not revealing his engagement, like he was playing Emma. But in the movie he’s just a guy who appreciates Cher’s style and wants to be friends, and he ends up being one of her closest friends. There may be unfortunate implications– it may look as if the movie is updating the subtext from “men and women can’t be friends” to “men and women can only be friends if one of them is same-sex attracted”– but I think Cher’s friend group interactions with Murray and her growing friendliness with Travis at the end balance that out.

This film is my favorite adaptation not because it’s my favorite film that was adapted from something else— there are other movies, like The Color Purple (1985), which I must say I love and feel more for when rewatching. But Clueless is special in that it took a property that was almost 200 years old and updated it so that it felt completely contemporary, and it did with such flair that it became iconic. All those teen movies based on classic plays that we were subjected to in the late 90s/early 00s— The Taming of the Shrew (1590/92) dressed as 10 Things I Hate About You (1999), Othello (1565) truncated into O (2001) — wow, Julia Stiles was in both of those?— Pygmalion/She’s All That (1999), A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1595/96)/Get Over It (2001), Romeo and Juliet— Romeo + Juliet! (Not to say that modern day teenagers can’t have a tragic love, but faking your death so you could be together— a girl in the 90s would’ve found another option or another boy.) Let’s not even going to get into Cruel Intentions (1999)/Les Liaisons dangereuses (1782). Not to knock these adaptations (and the countless others that have been done), some of them are fun to watch, but so many of them faded. But not Clueless. It ate up its iconic source material and spat out brilliance. It made the 90s, in fashion, in lingo, and it’s still relevant and entertaining today.

Day 8: My favorite downer movie

The Prestige (2006)

By Ciara Midreé — October 9, 2017

The Prestige follows two jerks who only care about magic and professional glory, and it ends on what I think everyone can agree is a bummer note. But it’s so good though! Using his trademark talent for non-linear storytelling, director Christopher Nolan manages to make a thrilling drama out of what is really a tragedy. Somehow, I’m so busy piecing together the action (and Christian Bale’s scenes) that I forget how heartbreaking the story actually is. I won’t spoil it for those who have not seen it because it really is one of those movies that you have to watch (and watch again, and again).

It’s interesting that this was one of three movies to come out in 2006 that revolved around magic, The Illusionist and Scoop being the other two. There were some who reviewed The Illusionist and The Prestige as if they were competing against each other, perhaps because both are dark, dramatic tales of magic and both are period pieces. The Illusionist ended up with more accolades, getting Oscar noms and rave reviews. Many considered The Prestige little more than empty high production trickery, with more than one review accusing the two main characters (portrayed by Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman) of being soulless cardboard cutouts. And yet I find there is more to gain in rewatching The Prestige than there is in rewatching The Illusionist. I will rewatch The Prestige just for the side characters, like Sarah and Olivia (played by Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johansson, respectively), who are in someways the most developed of the characters. The way in which the two main characters torment and cast aside these two women in pursuit of ambition, is a large part of what enables me to repeatedly engage emotionally with the story. I can’t rewatch Amadeus endless, though it’s a beautiful film. The rivalry alone is not what sustains the story. It’s the cost.

I’ve seen a good amount of tragic narratives (oh, the catharsis!), but The Prestige is probably the most depressing film that I’ve seen this many times. Probably because it hides its tragedy in tricks and illusions like non-linear storytelling and casting David Bowie.But mostly because there is something w to find there every time I watch it.

Day 7: My relaxation movie

Sense and Sensibility (1995)

By Ciara Midreé — October 8, 2017

For a long time, whenever I wanted to relax or wind down for the night, I would choose between one of two DVDS: Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) and Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility. They were both British and sweet and soothing to me in their familiarity. Sense and Sensibility would win out most nights, with its beautiful score, warm tone visuals, and relatively composed drama (there’s no wacky comedy scenes in this film, though it is very witty at times). After a few hundred viewings, putting the film on became like putting on a cozy blanket.

When I eventually got around to reading the novel, I saw the changes that Emma Thompson made when adapting it for the screen. What Thompson created was a near perfect adaptation— Somehow she managed to drop a couple seemingly big characters and change some events without losing the intent or the tone of the story. Each sequence flows beautifully from one to the next and it never feels as though an element is shoehorned into the movie just because it was in the books.

The actors also beautifully flesh out the characters, especially Alan Rickman, who portrays Colonel Brandon with such subtlety and sweetness. Colonel Brandon easily could have ended up as just a creepy old man in another actor’s hands, but Rickman makes him kind, complicated, simmering with emotion and feeling. You can see how Marianne would come to appreciate him rather than settle for him, and it’s all off of Rickman’s performance.

But what truly sets this film apart, besides the perfect script and the wonderful cast, is the magnificent direction. There are many period dramas that have great scripts and great actors, but few have the visual eye of a director like Ang Lee. The sweeping beauty that Lee brought to films like Life of Pi and Brokeback Mountain is in Sense and Sensibility. Even in its quietness, it’s a strikingly beautiful film.

Day 6: My guilty pleasure movie

White Chicks (2004)

By Ciara Midreé — October 7, 2017

Who am I kidding, this movie is just a pleasure, no guilt about it. But I probably do shrug when I mention it. I probably say something like, “I don’t know, it makes me laugh.” When Marlon and Shawn’s characters get hit on as women for the first time and they react with irrational anger, it’s more than a little problematic. Shades of racism and sexism run through this movie, along with a heavy dose of homophobia.

Buuuut those wigs are laid and those ice blue contacts are poppin, and the movie came out before I knew any better, so it got me! It’s also not as terrible as some other late 90s/early 2000s movies, or even some movies and shows that come out now which wrestle with gender roles.

So I focus on the things the movie got right. First off, I laugh way more at this movie than I do at a ton of recent comedies. I laugh out loud. I also like a lot of the things it does differently than its predecessor, Some Like it Hot (1959). Maybe they balance out the icky bits with the way they change the “love interests” of the main characters. Instead of an old fuddy-duddy pursuing Marlon’s character, they have fine-ass Terry Crews, who is comic gold in every scene he’s in. Instead of a secretly alcoholic Marilyn Monroe, they have a gorgeous investigative journalist for Shawn to woo. She doesn’t exactly have Marilyn’s screen presence, but it’s nice that he’s not just going after some airhead (or one of the White women— that’s for Crews to do, and he does it for laughs so it doesn’t look like Black women aren’t appreciated).

They also have the main characters impersonating specific women, which lessens the idea of them impersonating or mocking all women or, worse, mocking drag queens or transgender women. They then play up the absurdity of all the characters insisting that six foot-whatever Marlon and Shawn are actually two skinny White girls. In Some Like it Hot, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon were both 5’9”— in dresses they look like tall, slightly muscular women (Especially Curtis, who arguably didn’t even need a wig to bring out his feminine allure; he was a very pretty man). They pretend to be typical women, whatever that was supposed to be back in 1959. Apparently just high pitched voices, limp wrists, and navigating sexual assault from every man you meet (there’s a real rape-y vibe to that movie).

Quite differently, Marlon and Shawn intend to become two particular people, two women that they look nothing like— not in height, build, facial features, or skin tone. The fact that everyone “recognizes” these men as the sisters, even though they have a foot and at least 60 lbs of muscle on their female counterparts (and are clearly wearing masks), is what makes this movie— it’s so ridiculous that you’re forced not to take anything else seriously. It’s like Joanne the Scammer but with the race flip set to 11. Just imagine if the Wayans had tried for less realism, a la Dave Chappelle’s

news anchor on Chappelle’s Show— without the thick rubber masks, it might have been even better.

Despite this wonderful layer of absurdity, liking White Chicks makes me a little uncomfortable. In another creative team’s hands, it may have reached absurdist brilliance. It could’ve discussed the implications of middle class Black men assuming the identity of rich White women. Instead it just goes for the cheap jokes, and gets kinda gross and cringeworthy in places. Which I guess makes it as guilty a pleasure as I’m going to get.

“Bask in the ambience!”

Day 5: My favorite propaganda movie

Starship Troopers (1997)

By Ciara Midreé — October 6, 2017

I like thinking about what movies are trying to sell me. Particularly romantic comedies. What standards of heteronormativity did I mindlessly absorb just because I watched The Wedding Planner one too many times? I considered devoting this post to Love Actually and it’s blatant heterosexual propaganda (nine storylines– NINE– and not one of them describes anything other than boy-gets-or-loses-girl. Although I guess technically the one with the guy going to America may have counted as a polyamorous situation). But I eventually had to admit that no movie fits the propaganda bill better than Starship Troopers.

I seem to be a big fan of movies that walk that fine line of satire without explicitly stating their intent. You know, the type of films that may be confusing, upsetting, or even encouraging to those who don’t understand that the movie is actually criticizing what it’s depicting. Starship Troopers is one of those movies. If right-wing politics, fascism, and gung-ho militarization weren’t already on your shit-list, you probably won’t understand that Troopers is satirizing these topics.

For years as a baby film lover, I lumped Starship Troopers in with films like Gigli (2003) and Howard the Duck (1986) as movies that are just the worst– and I hadn’t even seen it. I based my opinion off of the “popular opinion” of people who clearly didn’t get what director Paul Verhoeven was going for. When you see the film, you can see that the actors are ridiculously attractive and they speak mostly in cliches and catchphrases because those are the tools of a propaganda machine, what they use to hook an audience. You later find that the characters are empty shells who engage in ridiculously tragic action, because the most potent propaganda is ultimately a facade for devastating, unreasonable deeds. (You should definitely watch this clip and LISTEN to what the teacher says. Don’t just watch Rico draw— the trick, always, is not to get distracted.)

In one of the most telling sequences, we see the bugs and the humans mirror each other exactly. In an attempt to better understand the bugs, Neil Patrick Harris’s character punctures a bug’s brain to gain its knowledge. Later, we see a bug do the exact same thing to a human, in exactly the same manner. There are some who may have watched this film and seen the bugs only as some monstrous Other, but here Verhoeven clearly points out that the bugs and the humans are one and the same— the humans are just as monstrous, just as destructive, and just as dumb.

The recent teaser trailer for Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) has a similar jingoist feel to the Would You Like to Know More? segments in Starship Troopers, but I fear it has none of the satirical intention. That’s why watching and understanding movies like Starship Troopers is weirdly important. Starship Troopers is horrifically violent not because it looks cool but because mindless, endless killing is horrific. It’s funny not because it’s corny but because jingoistic fascist ideals are like some sick joke. The film is a must-watch especially with the terror of 45 and the rise of alt-right misinformation. #educateyourself

Day 3: My fake life in a movie

Midnight in Paris (2011)

By Ciara Midreé — October 4, 2017

Trying to think of a movie that represents my idea of my life is hard. What is my fake life? It is probably one in which I’m a confident and productive writer who writes all the time while still managing to go out every weekend, meet new people, and make new friends at the drop of a hat. Or does my fake life movie show a world I would like to live in? Multiple people I would like to be? Times I would like to live through?

If so, if my fake life is all of these things, then I would have to say my fake life in a movie is Midnight in Paris. Putting Woody Allen himself aside (it’s difficult, but his work got into my head before I knew anything of his abuses), putting him aside, I look to his art and I see people who are just as tragically human as me, but who somehow manage to function beautifully. Some movies feature characters coping less than others (I tend to look past Interiors in favor of Hannah and Her Sisters, skip Match Point in favor of Scoop, look past the painful Blue Jasmine back to the much more emotionally manageable Annie Hall, so that everything remains happy go-neurotic for longer). The movie that I turn to the most, just for escapism, is Midnight in Paris.

I love this film. Unlike other writer/directors who rely primarily on their dialogue and characters to carry their movies, Allen actually grew in visual expertise, and he presents something truly fascinating here. All warm color, inviting characters, and magical realism, the film drinks you in, much like ideas of nostalgia do. The feeling reminds me of when I was twelve and I started reading The Sorcerer’s Stone. For months, I wished (and waited) for a letter from Hogwarts. Midnight in Paris is Harry Potter for adults.

Just the notion that I could wander around a city, never be seen writing, yet somehow produce a manuscript worthy of Gertrude Stein’s attention— that’s magical. In this world, I could happen upon a random street one night and, quite by chance, be whisked away into a magnificent past that is welcoming, encouraging, and perfectly suited to me. That’s a fake life I would love to lead.

Day 1: My Motivational Movie

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

By Ciara Midreé — October 2, 2017

Let’s kick October off with the spookiest horror of all: capitalism. When I stepped into the theater to watch The Wolf of Wall Street, I figured I’d see a cautionary tale of how an 80s stock broker lost it all.

What I ended up seeing in this movie were the sickening delights of power and excess. There’s too much of this movie– it has a run time of 3 hours and everything that can happen does. You want a midget toss? Done. You want your main character snorting coke off his mistress? You got it. It’s the 80s and Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a Wall Street broker who gets whatever he wants while making millions from defrauding people. Belfort is wealthy, White, and wasted– and man is he inspired. It’s like watching The Godfather if the Godfather was coked up and skanky and never suffered any consequences. It’s like watching the rise of a debauched and glutinous Rome, only the fall never comes.

Somehow I did manage to get the lesson in the movie– power corrupts; bad guys actually have fun even though they shouldn’t; white collar crime is under prosecuted, and even when it is, it’s often just a slap on the wrist. When Belfort is finally prosecuted for his crimes, he gets sent to a prison that looks like club med. He ends up serving only a year and a half and goes on to make millions as a public speaker for, you guessed it, sales. Fairy tale ending, in my opinion. He doesn’t overcome anything. He doesn’t struggle with anything except for the challenges involved in hiding giant amounts of money and doing too many drugs.

Yet, even in my hatred of this person, I’m inspired. Even though Belfort’s privilege is positively revolting, I couldn’t help but feel pumped after I walked out of the theater. The Wolf of Wall Street is a rush to watch. I went to see this movie with my brother and I’m telling you we left that theater feeling like motherfucking lions and tigers and bears. Dammit.