Okay...here's the idea.
Nicolas Cage is in a troubled sleep due to his recent problems with taxes and being a generally shitty human being. In his dream, he is assaulted and ridiculed by all of the characters from his many terrible movies. In order to wake from this dream he must seek the wisdom of the "Three Good Ones." These people are the characters from the only good movies he's been in: Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, and Lord of War.
Each of the "Three Good Ones" gives him clue to find out what will wake him up. The secret given is directly related to why that movie was actually good:
Leaving Las Vegas: (The woman picked you up)...Elizabeth Shue's awesome performance made the movie.
Adaptation: (Geniuses wrote the way)...Charlie Kaufman wrote this, amazing.
Lord of War: (The weaker die first)...Jared Leto, a far worse actor, is in this movie. This makes Cage look better by comparison.
Nicolas Cage then realizes the secret to him waking up...coming to terms with the fact that he's a bad actor. This prompts an internal battle between the "enlightened" Cage and the Cage that's still in denial.
Basically, Nicolas Cage is going to be the only character in the entire musical...
Go dogs,
T
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Movie Review/Analysis the First: Greenberg...aka, The Most Hipster Movie Ever.
Ben Stiller and I have a rather tenuous relationship. I thought he was phenomenal in The Royal Tenenbaums but I also briefly considered genocide when I saw Starsky and Hutch. When I saw the previews for Greenberg, I knew I had to see it firstly because Ben Stiller was in it without Owen Wilson (and I don't think they've made a good movie together since Zoolander), and secondly because it looked more serious and I like it when comedians try to act in serious roles.
I don't believe that one can properly form an opinion on a movie until one has watched it twice. Greenberg is not the exception.
Stiller plays the title character, Roger Greenberg, who has previously suffered a nervous background and is now housesitting in L.A. for his wealthy brother who is vacationing with his family in Vietnam for six weeks. There are essentially two story lines or ways in which the movie branches off. The first, and most important is the *very* awkward relationship that Greenberg forms with his brother's personal assistant and housekeeper, Florence Marr (Greta Gerwig). The second branch, which ultimately ties into the first, has Greenberg trying to reconnect with some of his old friends, Ivan (Rhys Infans) being the main example.
This movie hurts...in both bad and good ways. It is very painful to see the interactions between Greenberg and Florence in how awkward they both are, but this seems to be what director Noah Baumbach is trying to accomplish. Both Greenberg and Florence are, despite their 20ish year age difference, seemingly at a loss on how to form genuine or at least non-superficial connections with people because of their various insecurities. Florence, for example, is in her mid to late 20s and is highly self-doubting because she is essentially a "fish out of water" in that she is a recent college graduate yet through lack of knowledge or drive has really failed to mature into a state where she knows what she wants to do. I would describe Florence, in one word, as "lost." This isn't a bad characterization, I'm sympathetic to Florence yet I find her annoying because of her own passivity at everything, including Greenberg.
Greenberg's chief problem seems to be his own lack of confidence. This is probably due to whatever caused his nervous breakdown to happen, but we're not given much as to what actually happened. He seems to cope with this insecurity by transferring it onto other objects, in that he writes many letters of complaint based on the most trivial of details. For example, he writes Delta Airlines complaining that the reclining button on his seat didn't work. However, most of Greenberg's insecurities are transferred to people. In his attempts to reconnect with his friends, Greenberg is constantly either playfully mocking or outright hostile towards them. This is because he seems to feel completely dissatisfied or let-down throughout the whole movie, like someone didn't make good on their promise. On my first viewing, I was extremely annoyed at this apparent sense of entitlement, but on the second it lessened considerably. Greenberg isn't has entitled as I initially thought he was, his attitude comes from a genuine inability to relate to other people. I feel really sorry for him, even supporting him, but I still can't shake the feeling that he is ultimately a loser.
But this is a movie chiefly about Greenberg and Florence, and that's where the movie really seems to rear its awkward head. Neither of the characters can seem to "work" with the other. Greenberg is far too active in his uncertainty and criticism and Florence is far too passive in her "just go with it" mentality. The relationship is *very* unhealthy, yet you still want it to work and for some reason, it kind of does. Both Florence and Greenberg seem to see in each other what they struggle with themselves. They're not "perfect" for each other by any means, at least yet...
Review
Cinematography (Music included): 4/5
There's nothing that stands out about the movie's cinematography although there's certainly nothing bringing it down either. The focus isn't on scenes or visuals, it's on the characters, and the way they're shot was done well.
Characters: 3/5
This category gets slightly lower marks because of Florence. I don't dislike her, yet I feel that she didn't get a fair enough shake in the dialogue department of the script. Some of her lines sound a little too teenage angsty or maybe cliched. Where Gerwig pulls of the character rather flawlessly is the nonverbal portion; you can actually feel what Florence is feeling through her looks and the way she caries herself on screen. Also, I felt like some of the other side characters like Beth needed to be fleshed-out moreso. Most of the supporting cast, with the exception of Ivan, felt like they were only being used to point out the awkwardness of the film...which might have been the whole point.
Story: 4/5
I've never really seen awkwardness personified. The story, despite being slow-moving in parts, is great. I'm not particularly satisfied with the party scene...but I can understand the director's choice in including it.
Pass/Fail?: Pass, with reservations.
Would I recommend Greenberg to people? Yes, but it's clearly not for everyone. This was the first movie directed by Noah Baumbach that I have seen and I can easily imagine that many people wouldn't like his style. It's a movie about relationships with other people, and about how some people can't make them.
Until next time,
T
I don't believe that one can properly form an opinion on a movie until one has watched it twice. Greenberg is not the exception.
Stiller plays the title character, Roger Greenberg, who has previously suffered a nervous background and is now housesitting in L.A. for his wealthy brother who is vacationing with his family in Vietnam for six weeks. There are essentially two story lines or ways in which the movie branches off. The first, and most important is the *very* awkward relationship that Greenberg forms with his brother's personal assistant and housekeeper, Florence Marr (Greta Gerwig). The second branch, which ultimately ties into the first, has Greenberg trying to reconnect with some of his old friends, Ivan (Rhys Infans) being the main example.
This movie hurts...in both bad and good ways. It is very painful to see the interactions between Greenberg and Florence in how awkward they both are, but this seems to be what director Noah Baumbach is trying to accomplish. Both Greenberg and Florence are, despite their 20ish year age difference, seemingly at a loss on how to form genuine or at least non-superficial connections with people because of their various insecurities. Florence, for example, is in her mid to late 20s and is highly self-doubting because she is essentially a "fish out of water" in that she is a recent college graduate yet through lack of knowledge or drive has really failed to mature into a state where she knows what she wants to do. I would describe Florence, in one word, as "lost." This isn't a bad characterization, I'm sympathetic to Florence yet I find her annoying because of her own passivity at everything, including Greenberg.
Greenberg's chief problem seems to be his own lack of confidence. This is probably due to whatever caused his nervous breakdown to happen, but we're not given much as to what actually happened. He seems to cope with this insecurity by transferring it onto other objects, in that he writes many letters of complaint based on the most trivial of details. For example, he writes Delta Airlines complaining that the reclining button on his seat didn't work. However, most of Greenberg's insecurities are transferred to people. In his attempts to reconnect with his friends, Greenberg is constantly either playfully mocking or outright hostile towards them. This is because he seems to feel completely dissatisfied or let-down throughout the whole movie, like someone didn't make good on their promise. On my first viewing, I was extremely annoyed at this apparent sense of entitlement, but on the second it lessened considerably. Greenberg isn't has entitled as I initially thought he was, his attitude comes from a genuine inability to relate to other people. I feel really sorry for him, even supporting him, but I still can't shake the feeling that he is ultimately a loser.
But this is a movie chiefly about Greenberg and Florence, and that's where the movie really seems to rear its awkward head. Neither of the characters can seem to "work" with the other. Greenberg is far too active in his uncertainty and criticism and Florence is far too passive in her "just go with it" mentality. The relationship is *very* unhealthy, yet you still want it to work and for some reason, it kind of does. Both Florence and Greenberg seem to see in each other what they struggle with themselves. They're not "perfect" for each other by any means, at least yet...
Review
Cinematography (Music included): 4/5
There's nothing that stands out about the movie's cinematography although there's certainly nothing bringing it down either. The focus isn't on scenes or visuals, it's on the characters, and the way they're shot was done well.
Characters: 3/5
This category gets slightly lower marks because of Florence. I don't dislike her, yet I feel that she didn't get a fair enough shake in the dialogue department of the script. Some of her lines sound a little too teenage angsty or maybe cliched. Where Gerwig pulls of the character rather flawlessly is the nonverbal portion; you can actually feel what Florence is feeling through her looks and the way she caries herself on screen. Also, I felt like some of the other side characters like Beth needed to be fleshed-out moreso. Most of the supporting cast, with the exception of Ivan, felt like they were only being used to point out the awkwardness of the film...which might have been the whole point.
Story: 4/5
I've never really seen awkwardness personified. The story, despite being slow-moving in parts, is great. I'm not particularly satisfied with the party scene...but I can understand the director's choice in including it.
Pass/Fail?: Pass, with reservations.
Would I recommend Greenberg to people? Yes, but it's clearly not for everyone. This was the first movie directed by Noah Baumbach that I have seen and I can easily imagine that many people wouldn't like his style. It's a movie about relationships with other people, and about how some people can't make them.
Until next time,
T
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Women: Nature's Clitoris
Ah the clitoris! One of the most sought after yet least understood things in history. The Ancient Greeks are our best sources for information on people who have found it, and it is also from them that we derive most of our information on the clitoris itself. For example, certain sources have an alternative view of the chaining of Prometheus who supposedly gave fire to men. According to these sources, Prometheus was the first to find Hera's clitoris and Zeus, becoming enraged at his own clitoral failure, bound Prometheus to a rock for all eternity. Apparently Zeus was clever enough to defeat his father Kronos and destroy most of the Titans, but failed at the ultimate task of getting his wife wetter than a drowned rat. Finding the clitoris was also the forgotten thirteenth of Herakles' infamous twelve labors that was undertaken before he could be granted immortality.
However there lurks and even greater mystery than the clitoris. Many men have lost their lives and their very souls in the pursuit of understanding women which is why women are, indeed, the deadliest of prey. It is for this reason, that I have written a type of field-primer on the subject of women. But a question still remains: why should a mere mortal like me profess to have *any* knowledge of women when betters have tried and failed?
I DON'T...far from it.
Indeed, one should be suspicious of anyone who professes any knowledge of that most strange of species. So we, as men, are ultimately relegated to the status of only knowing that we know nothing about women. This does not mean that we should quit trying, like the French or my ex-girlfriend at felatio. It means that we must alter our strategy if we are to learn anything about women. Therefore, I propose that we, as men, posit what we think women DON'T want in an effort to garner some shred, however small, of the truth.
Therefore, I shall begin with a list that I hope will be added to by other people. It should be noted that this is an exploratory listing, which is why the conditionals will be included
Women don't want:
However there lurks and even greater mystery than the clitoris. Many men have lost their lives and their very souls in the pursuit of understanding women which is why women are, indeed, the deadliest of prey. It is for this reason, that I have written a type of field-primer on the subject of women. But a question still remains: why should a mere mortal like me profess to have *any* knowledge of women when betters have tried and failed?
I DON'T...far from it.
Indeed, one should be suspicious of anyone who professes any knowledge of that most strange of species. So we, as men, are ultimately relegated to the status of only knowing that we know nothing about women. This does not mean that we should quit trying, like the French or my ex-girlfriend at felatio. It means that we must alter our strategy if we are to learn anything about women. Therefore, I propose that we, as men, posit what we think women DON'T want in an effort to garner some shred, however small, of the truth.
Therefore, I shall begin with a list that I hope will be added to by other people. It should be noted that this is an exploratory listing, which is why the conditionals will be included
Women don't want:
- to be told they are making a mistake. Unless, of course, they know they are making the mistake and are only doing it to make you do it for them.
- to be told what to do. Unless, of course, they don't know how to do it...see above.
- sex. Unless, of course it gets them one of the following:
- A baby
- Clothes/money/status
- Attention
Love- to give blowjobs. Unless, of course, it leads to the above.
- regular soft drinks. Unless, of course, Coca-Cola does a nation-wide recall of Diet Coke and they have literally no other option.
- Matthew Mcconaughey as much as they think they do.
- solutions. Talking about and dealing with problems is what fills up approximately 72% of a woman's waking day...it gives them a sense of purpose.
- buttsex. Unless, of course, you've guilted them into it. Buttsex, after all, does not produce babies.
- to be the last of their friends to get married. Unless, of course, they're lesbians.
It should also be noted that the conditionals attached to each of these points are virtually impossible to determine. A separate post of dissertation-length is required for each of them.
That's all for now.
T
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Thoughts on, and Responses to, Negative Teaching Evaluations
I should probably make it clear from the get go that I believe a large part of how well a student evaluates his or her professor/TA is directly related to whether or not they are satisfied with their grade. Students in the lower echelon tend to write the more negative reviews and vice versa. Where this theory is weak, however, is if the professor/TA did something that made a significant impact on the student during the semester. For example, last semester a student wrote that I should be reprimanded for saying "retarted" so much. Spelling errors and obvious lack of intelligence aside, this is a clear indication that I did something, in this case a negative something, that really stuck with the student. I don't really care about what that student said though; they're going to need to develop a little humor and fortitude to be able to live in the real world.
Roughly speaking, evaluations fall into one of four categories:
1.) Generic, good evaluations-----"OMG breakout was amazing!"
Great! Thank you! What did I do that was "toates adorbs?" I'm glad you thought breakout was great but please realize that this is the equivalent of saying that your favorite flavor ice cream is vanilla.
2.) Negative evaluations about things that I can't control. (TAs ONLY)
Students would be shocked, amazed, and probably a little less turned-on to realize how little power I have as a TA. Saying things like "I would have liked breakouts if they weren't so early" or "Why did we have to talk about those damn articles" assumes that I have quasi-deistic powers on par with the Vicar in Rome, I don't...yet.
3.) Ridiculous evaluations.
Saying things like "he's like a more scholarly version of He-man." These are great for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that they make me laugh, sometimes hard. They are also good because it lets the students flex their creative powers when talking about me...something my vicious ego just loves to melt and rub all over its chest.
4.) (and the rarest of the bunch) Genuine evaluations, either good or negative.
I wish that more students would write these. Despite the appearance, I am *not* perfect and genuinely need and want to know what was going well and what wasn't.
General thoughts about last semester's breakouts.
- I can't control the articles...I wish we didn't have to do them.
- It's extremely difficult to plan for a breakout wherein we have to do the aforementioned articles because 1.) I know that students don't like them, 2.) It makes me have to bring in my own outside stuff because of #1 in order to even be able to write Short Answers, 3.) this leaves significantly less time for more "fun" stuff.
- Overall, I didn't think they went that well. Students were far too quiet on the whole, and a few people dominated discussions sometimes. I realize that it's my job to reign them in, but I feel like no one would talk if they didn't and they often raised good points.
Now I'll categorize some of the more negative evals from last semester and write some responses to them.
"When he explains something he does it so that it is easy to understand. On the other hand, the article discussions didn't help me learn the content."
Category 2. This isn't a bad eval overall, but it highlights the fact that students often have mixed perceptions of performance based on things outside of my control. The professor said that we have to talk about articles in breakouts...so that's what I HAD to do, sorry about that.
"There was rarely any student involvement. Kind of felt like another lecture class."
Category 2 AND 4. First off, I said up front that I conduct most breakouts in a mixture of lecturing with the Socratic Method. I'll admit that there wasn't as much involvement as I would have liked, but this isn't entirely my fault. It's very difficult to plan breakout sessions, especially when three of mine were taken up by the hellacious two-part tests AND we HAD to discuss articles.
"Breakout was pointless in this course. The TA could have slept and I feel like I would get the same grade in the course. It was unhelpful going to breakout sessions."
Category 3. There is a lot wrong here. I actually am slightly sympathetic to the first sentence, but I feel like the rest of it means that the student didn't adequately utilize me as a resource. I'm there to answer questions, go over some new stuff, and, admittedly, to entertain. If the student felt like they were an A student, then great...but I have a feeling they weren't, which only furthers my point. If they had put forth a little effort to talk to me they might have gotten a better grade. Case in point, one student improved his test score from a 68 on the first test to a 91 on the final by coming in to office hours on a regular basis. Besides, around 45 people disagree with you.
"I feel like he's too close-minded and is not open to other opinions...it's hard to learn when you know you're only getting one side of the story." "I think that perhaps the instructor intimidated or alienated those with views separate from his own. He did not denounce others, but he was clearly condescending in the least serious of ways towards certain political entities."
Categories 2, 3, and 4. These two were weird and there's a lot going on here. If I intimidated and alienated people with different opinions then I think EVERYONE would be against me. I'm not sure whether or not I made my own opinions that well known, but I can assure that I'm not close-minded. I think that's where the Socratic part comes in that people don't really understand. If a student made a point that I thought needed to be fleshed-out or was flat out wrong, I would press them on it. This could have been misunderstood as hostility, but I'm not being mean. I'll admit that I condescended towards Sarah Palin on numerous occasions, but I never gave *ONE* side of the story. Besides, this is politics! Bias is a natural part of the game and there should be heated verbal exchanges. This doesn't absolve me of all culpability, however, because I'm in a position of authority so my position in the debate is inherently different. On a *very* slightly humorous note, I don't believe that one should be open-minded to *all* positions. What about those that are wrong?
(part of one) "I felt that he favored some students in breakout--not necessarily academically but personally."
Category 3. Of course I do! If you speak up in breakout, I like you. If you provide original thought, I like you. If you come to office hours, I like you. If you bullshit with me before class, I like you. I see nothing wrong with this. Wouldn't a person in the "real world" like another person more if they actually talked to them more or made some sort of an attempt to get to know them?
"I liked learning the material but it was too time consuming."
Category 3. This is funny.
That's it...until next time!
T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)