A couple of hand-held "docu-style" films (61 and 62) Plus 63
It's fun to know that my facial hair has become a topic of discussion among those around me. I'm not one to shy away from the attention, some might say, and I usually grow my facial hair as an attempt to become the topic of discussion for people. It's weird because, if people are looking at me, I get self-conscious, like "what? do I have a booger or something?" but I do enjoy attention...if I create it for myself. My appearance or how I act is usually how I create it. And I couldn't exactly grow facial hair until I was probably 23 or 24 years old. In high school I heard comments about my "peach fuzz" while other guys at school had 5 o'clock shadows by noon. Anyway, I will admit, my beard is becoming slightly unkempt, but I enjoy it. I feel like, if you're going to grow a beard, you should just let it grow naturally. No, "man-scaping." Besides, the idea of a beard is anti-maintenance. I've decided to "give back" a bit. My school is doing a fundraiser for children with Special Needs. I've decided to put myself on the line, so to speak, in an attempt to raise awareness of this great foundation for children as well as help give the students at school the incentive to raise some money. Our goal is to raise at least $1000 dollars. I'm hoping for more, though. And I've put it out there that if the school can meet the goal, I will get shaved in front of the school at one of our Monday Morning Assemblies. It's a win-win situation, I think.
Overall, as I look back, high school was not generally a good time for me. "The best days of your life!" Ha! That's a big joke. Whoever determined that, anyway? It's not that I hated high school. I was just very disinterested with the entire concept of "school." I didn't hate the experience, because I got what I wanted out of it. I had many friends, or acquaintances, probably a better term to use for someone who considered himself a "floater" among his peers. I don't believe I had anyone who disliked me (that I know of), because since I can remember I've always attempted to be likable. I like to think I give off a positive vibe, an inviting sense. I don't think I ever isolated myself from others except for Freshman year when I was quite awkward and shy. I had terrible acne as a teenager. When I came out of my shell, I discovered humor as not only a defense mechanism (for all the shit I was going through at home, a way to mask the pain I was feeling, pain or emptiness, hmm, rather existential, now that I think about it), but also as a way to get attention (from girls) because I never felt attractive. Hell, I never had the attractive self-confidence until I was about 23. I can remember having some great times in high school and causing some trouble, but I was never a party-goer. I don't think I ever went to a high school party. In fact, I don't think I was ever invited to one, anyway. And believe me, I'm not looking for sympathy or pity. I think I survived high school rather well and I'm rather thankful that I never partied. It might've led me down a completely different path in life. I hear people's stories about high school and college, all the shit they did, and I feel two things: 1) I never did enough throughout my teenage and twenty-something years to really "live" and 2) did I, in fact, live more having not done all the shit they did?
It may seem like I've focused on my past quite a bit in this blog, but I cannot help but think about it when I watch some of these movies. Looking, retrospectively, at your life kind of helps explain where you are today anyway. And I seem to be watching a lot of films that focus on "coming-of-age" moments, because I think I was growing up too fast to actually recognize my own coming-of-age.
I recently watched a couple of faux-documentaries with the handheld camera style that was made rather famous by "The Blair Witch Project" except with less shakiness.
The first one was called "Sex and the U.S.A." which follows a 14 year old girl named Audrey as she attempts to live and film her pledge of abstinence, along with her abstinence-only friends, which leads (as one would expect) to a dangerously, slippery slope of semi-sexual encounters. The film starts with President George W. Bush's speech to Congress about the push for abstinence-only education programs in high schools in order to prevent youth pregnancies and a continuously rising STD epidemic. It seems rather ironic to me, because abstinence-only programs, in my opinion, only breed more danger (if not pushing teens towards sex, by telling them what they shouldn't be doing). So, Audrey embarks on this journey with the help of an opposite sex friend, who sometimes holds the camera while she "experiments." She interviews her parents, as well. And she quickly befriends a beautiful blonde girl in her abstinence-only course (?) names Krista whom she seems to idolize or be in love with. In fact, Audrey states her obsession at one point to another girl: "I don't know if I want to be her or be with her." Anyway, Krista pushes Audrey into the adventures of save-your-virginity-for-marriage-but-experiment-with-everything-else-lifestyle. They attend bizarre anything-but-sex parties where bracelets are given and wore which represent different sexual acts that the bearer will perform (blue is for oral orange is for fingering, etc.). Now, I may have been rather sheltered in my teenage years, or perhaps oblivious to all this, but I don't think these kinds of parties were happening when I was growing up. In fact, when I got to the introduction of teaching middle school in my program in college, we discussed how different the culture is these days, the pressures kids are put up against, especially when it comes to sex. I can still remember being told that the newest craze was "giving blow jobs in the back of school buses" and also, in high school, at dances "having sex on the dance floor while being surrounded by a group of students in a circle." Really? I never attended high school dances and I did go to Catholic school, but I'm fairly certain this wasn't happening. When did teenagers get so adventurous? And why? Doesn't that show a complete lack of self-esteem? Why do girls, in particular, feel a need to "impress" others by being so sexually adventurous or exhibitionists? I know that everyone experiments. But, call me a romantic but I'd rather experiment with love, not meaningless sex, where others share it, too; others who quite frankly don't deserve to experience it. It's not for bystanders or onlookers, in my opinion. It's not "sacred" as the teens in the faith-driven group describe it, either, which by the way, seems rather hypocritical. I think it's just private. I won't necessarily share my encounters, boast and brag about it. It's not a bragging rites contest. I think kids these days are desensitized to almost everything now, and I almost feel bad for them.
Audrey seems very jaded by the entire idea of sex and she doesn't want to be a participant, until Krista pushes her to join in the "fun." Audrey wants to be the filmmaker, along for the ride. She certainly gets to witness and be a part of an interesting ride. Her friend Krista takes things too far (we've all had a friend like that) and she ends up getting drunk/drugged at one of the parties and then raped by another boy from school.
As a film, it wasn't necessarily believable, although I enjoyed the dialogue, it seemed authentic, but the story, as it was written, felt flat to me. The situations they characters are put into doesn't seem real. And yes, rape is terrible and nobody should ever have to experience it, but when Krista goes through it, I knew it was coming, given how the story was laid out and how they were presenting her. She's not necessarily a sympathetic character and she should've been, if that was the climax of the film. If there was a lesson to be learned, or an epiphany to be had, it should've come with her perhaps through Audrey. But, maybe that's the thing about teenagers- they don't necessarily learn lessons.
Other films have tackled serious teenage struggles a lot better. "Thirteen" is one of my favorite films of this genre. I would watch that again, instead of this one.
..............................................................
"Zero Day" is another faux-documentary told with handheld cameras and two protagonists (teenage boys) who are plotting a massacre at their school (re: Columbine). The story is their year of preparations and well-thought-out plan of destruction at their high school where one of the boys has been tormented by ever-present bullies. Bullying is a very real and consistent problem at any level of schooling these days and it seems to be getting worse and worse (in terms of its degrees and persistence). Some kids are resilient, others bottle it up until it explodes and the end result is something like this film. Except, the twist here is that the two boys want to make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no ulterior motivate, nothing driving them to their decision to create a "zero day." They doing it simply because they can. And I want to believe them, in a sense, because, hey, that's never been done before, but everyone has a motive, for everything they do. This film wants to be an existential crisis, but again, it falls short. It has moments of Albert Camus and "The Stranger" in regards to hitting upon existentialism...but these boys are not smart enough to pull that off.
In the end, they do shoot up their school (in the library), in a terrifying climax where the two boys come into the library shooting. I think I counted at least 9 students shot and killed, before the two boys take their own life in a pact fulfilled. I think, unfortunately, the climax was the best part of the film, because the main characters talk about their "zero day" for the entire length of the film, so the build up is there, and I just wanted to see it played out. Is that sick of me? Watching it through security cameras from inside the school was jarring and a complete "rip off" of the footage we saw of Columbine back in 1999-2000 after that tragedy struck. But, that was the most intriguing part of the film, because they seemed to change into these nasty villains, and again, if that was the point for the filmmakers, I think they fell felt just like the previously mentioned film. I didn't feel a connection or a sense of empathy (and maybe I shouldn't, in either case).
I did enjoy this film, though, perhaps more than the preceding one. But, if you're looking for a film that builds up to an unexpected tragedy at the end, may I suggest "American History X." That is perhaps my favorite and the best film to get you interested in the characters and their stories, only to rip out your heart in the end.
......................................................
I wasted my time with a tragedy of a film tonight. "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" stars Daryl Hannah (using an annoyingly high-pitched, dumb-blonde, squeaking voice...is that really how she talks or was she hamming it up for the role of the dimwit stripper she plays). The film focuses on the lives of five strippers at a club called the Blue Iguana. This film had nothing of interest and was entirely too long. There is even some subplot of a hitman that goes absolutely nowhere and the character just sort of disappears by the end. None of the girls are interesting. Jennifer Tilly and Sandra Oh are two of the strippers in the film. Daryl Hannah is a stripper looking to adopt a child in the hopes of "finding more purpose in her life." Really? Good luck! No, wait! I don't even care. That's the trouble. I don't care about anyone in this film.
Everything about this film was a trainwreck, which led me to ask myself "Is every movie about strippers terrible?" Look at the class we are working with: "Striptease" and "Showgirls" were both disasters. I could name a few more, but I don't even think I need to. I think you know what I'm talking about. So what is it about this subject matter that just seems to breed disaster on the screen? Is it that strippers are actually very uninteresting characters/people? Is it that they have very predictable stories? I'm not sure, but I'll continue watching them, perhaps in this project of mine, to perhaps and hopefully figure it out.
Here's hoping I watch some better films soon!
Overall, as I look back, high school was not generally a good time for me. "The best days of your life!" Ha! That's a big joke. Whoever determined that, anyway? It's not that I hated high school. I was just very disinterested with the entire concept of "school." I didn't hate the experience, because I got what I wanted out of it. I had many friends, or acquaintances, probably a better term to use for someone who considered himself a "floater" among his peers. I don't believe I had anyone who disliked me (that I know of), because since I can remember I've always attempted to be likable. I like to think I give off a positive vibe, an inviting sense. I don't think I ever isolated myself from others except for Freshman year when I was quite awkward and shy. I had terrible acne as a teenager. When I came out of my shell, I discovered humor as not only a defense mechanism (for all the shit I was going through at home, a way to mask the pain I was feeling, pain or emptiness, hmm, rather existential, now that I think about it), but also as a way to get attention (from girls) because I never felt attractive. Hell, I never had the attractive self-confidence until I was about 23. I can remember having some great times in high school and causing some trouble, but I was never a party-goer. I don't think I ever went to a high school party. In fact, I don't think I was ever invited to one, anyway. And believe me, I'm not looking for sympathy or pity. I think I survived high school rather well and I'm rather thankful that I never partied. It might've led me down a completely different path in life. I hear people's stories about high school and college, all the shit they did, and I feel two things: 1) I never did enough throughout my teenage and twenty-something years to really "live" and 2) did I, in fact, live more having not done all the shit they did?
It may seem like I've focused on my past quite a bit in this blog, but I cannot help but think about it when I watch some of these movies. Looking, retrospectively, at your life kind of helps explain where you are today anyway. And I seem to be watching a lot of films that focus on "coming-of-age" moments, because I think I was growing up too fast to actually recognize my own coming-of-age.
I recently watched a couple of faux-documentaries with the handheld camera style that was made rather famous by "The Blair Witch Project" except with less shakiness.
The first one was called "Sex and the U.S.A." which follows a 14 year old girl named Audrey as she attempts to live and film her pledge of abstinence, along with her abstinence-only friends, which leads (as one would expect) to a dangerously, slippery slope of semi-sexual encounters. The film starts with President George W. Bush's speech to Congress about the push for abstinence-only education programs in high schools in order to prevent youth pregnancies and a continuously rising STD epidemic. It seems rather ironic to me, because abstinence-only programs, in my opinion, only breed more danger (if not pushing teens towards sex, by telling them what they shouldn't be doing). So, Audrey embarks on this journey with the help of an opposite sex friend, who sometimes holds the camera while she "experiments." She interviews her parents, as well. And she quickly befriends a beautiful blonde girl in her abstinence-only course (?) names Krista whom she seems to idolize or be in love with. In fact, Audrey states her obsession at one point to another girl: "I don't know if I want to be her or be with her." Anyway, Krista pushes Audrey into the adventures of save-your-virginity-for-marriage-but-experiment-with-everything-else-lifestyle. They attend bizarre anything-but-sex parties where bracelets are given and wore which represent different sexual acts that the bearer will perform (blue is for oral orange is for fingering, etc.). Now, I may have been rather sheltered in my teenage years, or perhaps oblivious to all this, but I don't think these kinds of parties were happening when I was growing up. In fact, when I got to the introduction of teaching middle school in my program in college, we discussed how different the culture is these days, the pressures kids are put up against, especially when it comes to sex. I can still remember being told that the newest craze was "giving blow jobs in the back of school buses" and also, in high school, at dances "having sex on the dance floor while being surrounded by a group of students in a circle." Really? I never attended high school dances and I did go to Catholic school, but I'm fairly certain this wasn't happening. When did teenagers get so adventurous? And why? Doesn't that show a complete lack of self-esteem? Why do girls, in particular, feel a need to "impress" others by being so sexually adventurous or exhibitionists? I know that everyone experiments. But, call me a romantic but I'd rather experiment with love, not meaningless sex, where others share it, too; others who quite frankly don't deserve to experience it. It's not for bystanders or onlookers, in my opinion. It's not "sacred" as the teens in the faith-driven group describe it, either, which by the way, seems rather hypocritical. I think it's just private. I won't necessarily share my encounters, boast and brag about it. It's not a bragging rites contest. I think kids these days are desensitized to almost everything now, and I almost feel bad for them.
Audrey seems very jaded by the entire idea of sex and she doesn't want to be a participant, until Krista pushes her to join in the "fun." Audrey wants to be the filmmaker, along for the ride. She certainly gets to witness and be a part of an interesting ride. Her friend Krista takes things too far (we've all had a friend like that) and she ends up getting drunk/drugged at one of the parties and then raped by another boy from school.
As a film, it wasn't necessarily believable, although I enjoyed the dialogue, it seemed authentic, but the story, as it was written, felt flat to me. The situations they characters are put into doesn't seem real. And yes, rape is terrible and nobody should ever have to experience it, but when Krista goes through it, I knew it was coming, given how the story was laid out and how they were presenting her. She's not necessarily a sympathetic character and she should've been, if that was the climax of the film. If there was a lesson to be learned, or an epiphany to be had, it should've come with her perhaps through Audrey. But, maybe that's the thing about teenagers- they don't necessarily learn lessons.
Other films have tackled serious teenage struggles a lot better. "Thirteen" is one of my favorite films of this genre. I would watch that again, instead of this one.
..............................................................
"Zero Day" is another faux-documentary told with handheld cameras and two protagonists (teenage boys) who are plotting a massacre at their school (re: Columbine). The story is their year of preparations and well-thought-out plan of destruction at their high school where one of the boys has been tormented by ever-present bullies. Bullying is a very real and consistent problem at any level of schooling these days and it seems to be getting worse and worse (in terms of its degrees and persistence). Some kids are resilient, others bottle it up until it explodes and the end result is something like this film. Except, the twist here is that the two boys want to make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no ulterior motivate, nothing driving them to their decision to create a "zero day." They doing it simply because they can. And I want to believe them, in a sense, because, hey, that's never been done before, but everyone has a motive, for everything they do. This film wants to be an existential crisis, but again, it falls short. It has moments of Albert Camus and "The Stranger" in regards to hitting upon existentialism...but these boys are not smart enough to pull that off.
In the end, they do shoot up their school (in the library), in a terrifying climax where the two boys come into the library shooting. I think I counted at least 9 students shot and killed, before the two boys take their own life in a pact fulfilled. I think, unfortunately, the climax was the best part of the film, because the main characters talk about their "zero day" for the entire length of the film, so the build up is there, and I just wanted to see it played out. Is that sick of me? Watching it through security cameras from inside the school was jarring and a complete "rip off" of the footage we saw of Columbine back in 1999-2000 after that tragedy struck. But, that was the most intriguing part of the film, because they seemed to change into these nasty villains, and again, if that was the point for the filmmakers, I think they fell felt just like the previously mentioned film. I didn't feel a connection or a sense of empathy (and maybe I shouldn't, in either case).
I did enjoy this film, though, perhaps more than the preceding one. But, if you're looking for a film that builds up to an unexpected tragedy at the end, may I suggest "American History X." That is perhaps my favorite and the best film to get you interested in the characters and their stories, only to rip out your heart in the end.
......................................................
I wasted my time with a tragedy of a film tonight. "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" stars Daryl Hannah (using an annoyingly high-pitched, dumb-blonde, squeaking voice...is that really how she talks or was she hamming it up for the role of the dimwit stripper she plays). The film focuses on the lives of five strippers at a club called the Blue Iguana. This film had nothing of interest and was entirely too long. There is even some subplot of a hitman that goes absolutely nowhere and the character just sort of disappears by the end. None of the girls are interesting. Jennifer Tilly and Sandra Oh are two of the strippers in the film. Daryl Hannah is a stripper looking to adopt a child in the hopes of "finding more purpose in her life." Really? Good luck! No, wait! I don't even care. That's the trouble. I don't care about anyone in this film.
Everything about this film was a trainwreck, which led me to ask myself "Is every movie about strippers terrible?" Look at the class we are working with: "Striptease" and "Showgirls" were both disasters. I could name a few more, but I don't even think I need to. I think you know what I'm talking about. So what is it about this subject matter that just seems to breed disaster on the screen? Is it that strippers are actually very uninteresting characters/people? Is it that they have very predictable stories? I'm not sure, but I'll continue watching them, perhaps in this project of mine, to perhaps and hopefully figure it out.
Here's hoping I watch some better films soon!
Comments
Post a Comment