The Center Seat

Lately I've been whining to anyone who would listen that Hollywood seems to be incapable of portraying human relationships, specifically romantic relationships. I alluded to that a little bit on this blog last week.

But I'm good now. Late last Tuesday night, in a deserted parking lot, I lost myself in Before Sunrise. I had seen it ages ago when it was relatively new, but my reacquaintance with this masterpiece was long overdue.

If you're unfamiliar, Before Sunrise is an extremely unique movie: it follows two strangers (played by Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) who meet on a train and impulsively decide to spend an evening together in Vienna. The whole movie is dialogue. Just talking. No chase scenes, no gratuitous sex, no washed-up comedians playing multiple obese characters. I know, it's revolutionary, right?

What Before Sunrise did so well for me was that it perfectly captured the dynamic of a brand-new relationship. You know, how it's all awkward when you know he's looking at you and you just can't meet his gaze or you'll turn tomato-red... or when you're not sure if it's ok to touch him... or that breathtaking moment when you know for sure he's about to kiss you. And at first you have this weird guardedness, but after a few hours you're suddenly telling him stuff you don't usually admit to family.


Another fantastic thing about this movie is that it was made in 1995... but it's not dated. It feels like it could be happening right now. Before Sunrise effectively ignores all the easy tricks that films use to convince us of their cleverness; it just portrays real humans, behaving in a realistic fashion, in a real city, in a situation that is absolutely believable. But for all this realism, the movie is still entirely magical.

Before Sunrise is one of those films that is entirely loved by those of us who love movies... and unappreciated by everyone else. It has a 100% Tomatometer rating... and it grossed only 5.5 million in the U.S. But this brings me to one of the things I love about independent filmmakers: they made the sequel, Before Sunset, anyway.

Granted, it did come nine years later, but it was so cool to see those two characters still alive and doing what they do. It did provide a bit of closure, although the ending of Sunset was nearly as maddening as the ending of the original movie...

But to find out what I mean by that, you've gotta watch 'em. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Is it just me, or have awards shows completely lost their magic? The Emmys last night were just depressing. It could have been the lame humor, the five(!) hosts, or the fact that The Office and Weeds got completely jacked. It could also be that I'm a movie girl, so the TV thing didn't really speak to me.

Whatever. It was a crappy show. Except for two things:

1. Josh Groban's TV-theme medley. It had the potential to be corny--OK, I guess it really was corny. But I lurved it.
2. Mr. Sexalicious Paul Giamatti won his first Emmy for his masterful portrayal of John Adams in the HBO miniseries of the same name. So well deserved. (Everyone else connected with John Adams seemed to rake 'em in as well, but I only had eyes for Paul.)

Even so, I'm skipping the Emmys next year. Unless Justin Kirk gets nominated. (I met him last week, by the way. More on that to come.) ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I've had a growing impatience lately with movies that depict love unrealistically. Like, most of them.

You know what I'm talking about: the couple sees each other, has a few furtive conversations, and suddenly they're "in love" and are willing to move heaven and earth for each other. That is SO NOT how it works. In real life, love is immensely complicated, hard to come by, and requires effort, time, and sacrifice.

So why do I love City of Angels so much, given that it's the textbook example of this "instant love" phenomenon? Easy. I don't accept love as the turning point of the story.

If you don't know the movie, here's a big fat SPOILER ALERT... and now I'll fill you in. The premise of City of Angels is that an angel (Nicolas Cage) falls so deeply in love with a surgeon (Meg Ryan) that he chooses to forsake his immortal life and become a human, just so that he can be with her.

It's a sweet idea, if that was what really happened in the movie. Oh, they definitely feel lust for one another. Longing, too. But I think the real draw for our angel is not love, but life.

Let me explain. There's a lot of imagery in City of Angels of the simple, sensual pleasures of being human: the way a pear tastes; sunlight filtering through trees; the bracing ecstasy of a really hot shower. I get that stuff completely, because as anybody who knows me well can tell you, Nayana is all about the sensual pleasures*. I find it really easy to lose myself in things like dazzling sunsets, light reflecting on water, kickass thunderstorms, cherry cheesecake... So if I were in Seth the angel's position, would I give up immortality and the ability to sit on overhead freeway signs in order to experience all these things? Hells yeah.

I guess my point is that the real romance of this movie is not the Nic Cage/Meg Ryan slobberfest, but the romance between a human being and life itself. Get it?

*OK, perv, that's not what I mean. Sensual. We could talk about the other thing too, but that's not the topic of the day. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I read Nights in Rodanthe when it first came out, and loved it.

Does this mean that the movie, starring Richard Gere and Diane Lane, will also be good? Probably not.

But do I plan to be in the theater to see it the first chance I get? Absolutely I do.

Top 5 reasons to skip this one...

5. That title. Ugh. I can't even type it without a little bile coming up.

4. Have you seen Nic Cage's hair in this one? It's like Billy Mitchell's Jesus hair got together with Tom Hanks' Da Vinci Code mop and made sweet, sweet hair love. In a big puddle of jerry curl.

3. Apparently the Thai movie on which it's based wasn't that good either.

2. They won't screen it for critics. Always a bad sign.

1. This trailer.

...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Truthfully, if Hamlet 2 had come out two months ago, or two months from now, I (and many others) probably would have waited for the DVD. But fortunately for Steve Coogan's quirky little film, it's out in late August/early September, aka Where Bad Movies Go To Die. Seriously, my other choices this weekend included Disaster Movie, The House Bunny, and Babylon A.D. Yeah. I went for the goofy indie flick.

The basic premise of Hamlet 2 is that a God-awful out-of-work actor becomes a God-awful acting teacher who tries to save his school's drama program with a God-awful original play, a sequel to Shakespeare's classic work. Hey, remember how pretty much everyone dies at the end of Hamlet? Not a big deal. Hamlet 2 has a time machine. Which explains the cameos by Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein.

Sounds awful, right? The movie itself is ok; I did chuckle here and there. Supporting performances by Catherine Keener and David Arquette were delicious, although they were drowned out by Steve Coogan's scenery chewing. But to be honest, I wasn't really sold until we finally got to see some of that atrocious play (which, in my opinion, is actually pretty freaking awesome.)

Oh yeah, and Elizabeth Shue plays herself. Exquisitely. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.