What Joss Whedon's Sudden Absence Means for "Wonder Woman" and other related musings

Is it such a wonder that a brilliant writer/director like Joss Whedon, instead of directing Harry Potter movies and garnering a success ten times that of Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, and Sam Raimi put together, is producing a forty-five minute musical called "Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog" and releasing it for around $5 on iTunes? Or that, five years after Buffy, six years after "Firefly," a brilliant director like Joss Whedon sees little more success than a Nebula for his "Serenity" screenplay and a Buffy comic book entitled "Season 8?" Am I surprised that "Firefly" was cancelled? Or that "Dollhouse" will probably meet a similar fate? And, last but not least, am I surprised that Joss has abandoned the future Warner Bros. project "Wonder Woman," a picture Whedon pioneered several years ago, due to creative differences? 

One word: No.

None of this surprises me. Joss Whedon is a feminist. You can read his incredibly moving comments about Dua Khalil's horrific death last April here, and you can watch how these comments evolve into a poignant questioning of our world, our world's treatment of women, how that treatment leaks into the guts of every facet of society: movies, everything included. 

I think that most people who are even mildly familiar with Joss's work have some sort of understanding that, yes, he's a feminist. He writes strong female characters, but not just strong, commanding female characters that, in addition to conquering whatever world it is they live in, also must deal with the mundane details of everyday life, sexism included. Certainly, Buffy Summers' first purpose as a human being is to slay vampires, kill demons, and save the world. But can we forget about the time when her mother dies? How she puts the pieces together all by herself, gets a job, and works relentlessly to support her sister and her loyal friends? And "Firefly," a show in which prostitution is no longer a game of suffering and humiliation: but a government appointed LOB called 'companionship,' and companions like Inara hold as much power and authority as the most highly ranked government officials. Also, there's River, a fugitive escapee from some government testing agency, who seems a little touched, in the world of a child, but really, she can kill you with her brain.

And it is not only the women that Joss imprints upon, but the men as well. Captain Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) of Serenity will not stand for the inferior treatment of women, an opposing pillar to the more primitive thinking (and surely representative) of cinder block head crew member Jayne. Similarly, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" has Xander, the only member of the Scoobies without a significant power, who is bumbling and human and falls in love with a vengeance demon. His best friends are Buffy, the Slayer, and Willow, a powerful witch by Season 6, who often go to extreme lengths just to rescue him from his own mistakes. You see, with Buffy, Joss has turned an entire master narrative of 'damsel in distress gets rescued by Prince Charming' upside down. It is often the men who need saving in "Buffy," as well as in "Firefly." 

Anyway, these are all just accounts, and I could go on forever giving them to you. In fact, I had to stop myself there before I got into the whole "Buffy was raised by a single mother" thing or "the mechanic on Serenity is a cute little girl" thing or the "Riley in Buffy Season 4 whores himself out to vampires just to appeal more to Buffy" thing...before I got carried away. What I really want to get at is the master narrative (white male alpha) and how it is affecting film today. In my previous article about the HP6 delay, I mentioned recent comments made by Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov, who said that WB would no longer distribute movies with women in the starring role. Of course, this is not entirely true. They will distribute these movies, and this is just something that several producers overheard the d-bag saying over caviar one day, yada-yada. But, is it entirely false? 

Why is Joss Whedon held to the background? What is keeping him from the forefront? Could it be his widely-manifested feminist views, and how often (and strikingly) he brings them into his work? Think about it. I'm going to make a short diversion here. VERY short. Abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood. All issues of 'hot' political agenda, bipartisan issues that have Fox News in an uproar, and why? They are not issues of government. They are medical issues. They are issues between a woman and her doctor, and these issues are protected by a number of confidentiality laws, each one of them unconstitutional if broken (though that word doesn't mean much anymore). It is entirely acceptable for a human being to oppose an abortion, based on religious doctrine or personal preference or whatever. I never argue that. I am pro-choice, and that means I'm pro your choice NOT to have an abortion for whatever reasons (personal, unbiased as they are) you provide (or don't provide). It is, however, unacceptable for politicians (most of them men) to act as conductors of an issue like abortion, or an issue like birth control or affordable women's health care, simply to control the political climate around them. This is a power play: as long as women's issues remain issues of government, hotly debated, in the limelight for people to vote for or against, women are kept at bay. As long as white-haired men (or black-haired, red-haired, or sexist women, whoever they are) continue to manipulate these issues, using them to control their voters, to rope them in or cast them aside, the message is sent that: the decision between a woman and her doctor is not good enough--it must, in some way, be controlled by a man. 

Okay, that wasn't as short as I'd hoped. But what I'm saying is: Do you think it's possible that WB and all of their underhanded glory will stain "Wonder Woman" with a covertly sexist agenda? That the reason Joss was forced to leave, these 'creative differences,' come from his seemingly unpopular writings of women? Would he leave if it were anything less? It is obvious that he will not make do. In the article linked above, Joss writes that he has "snapped," and that he'll no longer stand for the anti-woman doctrine of society. Is his lack of success in the face of men like Christopher Nolan and Sam Raimi, men who write and direct epics about the plight of not women, but men and their charming women counterparts, perhaps a product of the industry's (and society's) inherent distrust in women? Robinov was right in just one respect: movies about women don't sell like movies about men. But isn't this just a symptom? Of, perhaps, the fact that movies about men get multi-million dollar viral marketing campaigns ("The Dark Knight") while movies about women get zilch ("The Brave One," "The Invasion," "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2," even "Sex and the City" which succeeded purely based on its prior acclaim)? Or that, perhaps, too many people are used to a world in which a woman cannot be the hero? That the idea might even frighten them?

I imagine that "Wonder Woman," which was originally to star Morena Baccarin (Inara in the "Firefly"-verse) as Diana Prince, will not do well. I imagine they'll cast some toothy, leggy, busty white woman to play the titular role, even though "Wonder Woman" is somewhat of an Amazon Princess, and they'll do what was done to Elektra, which is to ruin it. Maybe not. I'm  just thinking to the extreme, as I often do, and it would be so wonderful if I'm proven wrong. But one thing is for sure: If Joss left, it was for a reason. Can we trust that reason? I can't. Why? There are only so many things I can list for you here. Otherwise, I could probably go on forever.

Review: "Vicky Christina Barcelona"

I saw "Vicky Christina Barcelona" at the Downer in Milwaukee. There was a bit of a problem with the projector in the beginning; first the picture was squished, then too small, then there was this irritating blue line...idk. Anyway, I felt very passionate about this poor customer service situation, and I was determined to ask for my money back or to complain to the manager as soon as the movie was done. I didn't, however, do either of those things, and I'll tell you why: "Vicky Christina Barcelona" was so very fun and delightful that, well, I completely forgot.

Woody Allen always makes good movies. He is a tremendous filmmaker, one of those writers with a flare for the neurotic, a director who loves his actors. "VCB" was not as good as "Match Point," but it was in a similar vein. It focuses on human nature, how we tend toward the things we want, even if subconsciously, and how the things we want are either right in front of us or perpetually out of reach. It's about how human beings want everything, how we want everything to be the way that we want it to be, and we don't want guilt when it's over, just to feel free, let go, open, and new. How many times have I taken a look at my life and feared that it's flying too quickly? That I'm not living to my fullest potential? Wondering if there's a way I could liberate myself from the societal standards to which we all succumb? I found myself relating to Christina, Scarlet Johanssen's character, and the way that she is constantly searching, how she gets settled into one thing, says there for a while, only then to be plagued with a kind of restlessness, a dreaded yet unavoidable feeling that comes in intermittent waves.

"VCB" does not really have a plot. It is driven by its characters, how they look at and think of one another, how they're affected by the people and situations around them, of the past, the present, and the future. Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina are young, seemingly high society women that have run off to Barcelona in the last months before Vicky's wedding. Vicky is to marry Doug (Chris Messina), the kind of Manhattan yuppy who wears velvet slippers with his boxer shorts, the kind of guy who is able to coast blissfully through life without really thinking about anything. Albeit, he is a nice guy, and he loves Vicky, and she loves him, too...I think. Anyway, she and Christina are approached by the enigmatic artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) who presents them with a daunting proposition: Go to Oviedo with him, drink wine, see sights, and make love. Christina, the childish one, the carefree college grad who is struggling to find her voice, agrees right away, but Vicky takes some convincing. She is the Wood Allen character. She is the neurotic one with a million theories and anal tendencies, and she puts up a convincing argument. She loses, however, and the girls go to Oviedo. Many things happen: beautiful things, sexy things, surprising things with fanciful outcomes. For a while, "VCB" feels like an old movie. Bardem is the dashing Spaniard with no ulterior motives, just a view that life has no purpose but to live. Vicky and Christina are his muses, both very different in both the ways that he loves them and the ways that they love him back.

This is all wonderful, but my favorite part of the movie is Penelope Cruz. Cruz plays Maria Elena, Juan Antonio's vivacious ex-wife who, I guess, once tried to kill him. She is a totally unexpected actress. She's so beautiful. It's a fierce beauty. One would never know she was so talented at just a single glance. But she is wonderful. In the movie, Maria Elena tries to kill herself and, for a time, lives in a strange, somehow pragmatic threesome with Juan Antonio and Christina. Cruz snarls her lines like a lioness, a perfect counter to the nonchalance of Bardem. I'd even go so far as to say that, should there be a shortage of good supporting work this Oscar season, she could easily snag a nod.

This is a good movie: snappy, complete, even a bit old fashioned. It's like a pleasant escape.

A Word About HP6

Yes, it's only too fitting that the moment I start talking about teen movie take-overs, one of them gets pushed back eight months and the other one gets pushed forward one. 

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, it's Warner Brothers' decision to kick the release of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" back from November 21st, 2008 to July 17th, 2009. What is the deal here? According to Alan Horn, Chief Executive Douche over at the WB, the writer's strike delayed several "tentpole" projects that were due for a summer '09 release. This opened up a window (I guess) for finished money-makers (ie: Harry Potter) to move into open summer blockbuster slots. Also, if you'll recall, "The Dark Knight" (honing in on $500 million after just four weeks), was released on July 18th (ring a bell?). Warner Brothers has suggested that this weekend is, perhaps, one of much enchantment (???), that Heath Ledger's tragic, untimely death had nothing to do with the influx of curious movie-goers (while they continue to bid for his posthumous Oscar in an effort to get more butts in the seats--shitty, shitty, shitty), and that HP6 will rake in similar numbers based simply upon a bit of mid-July magic. And I mean, call me a pissed-off fangirl with a raging love in her heart: but I don't think so.

According to a recent article at wenn.com, Steve Kloves, screenwriter for all the HP movies (sans "Order of the Phoenix"), is already fearing for the success of the franchise. "I'm not going to lie to you," he said. "I do have some concern that because the books are over, the anticipation won't be the same. It would be a complete car crash if no one showed up." Ahem...car crash? When I first read this article, I thought that Steve was, possibly, quite insane. People not showing up for a Harry Potter movie? However, I didn't know what I know now, and I assume that he was well aware of the WB's latest debacle. Could it flop? I, personally, plan to boycott the film for at least two weeks. My friends and I talked about boycotting one day for every month the film was delayed; however, this hardly seems enough. And yeah, I'm only one person. We're only six people. But are we alone? I know we all love Harry Potter, and we're all super excited to go see it, but I feel as if a line has been drawn. You simply do not f*ck with an institution like Harry Potter. You just don't. We may be huge nerds, but we're not stupid. We're dedicated, and you just don't f*ck with this kind of dedication. Because, first and foremost, the dedication is to the books, the characters, and J.K. Rowling. The fifth movie stunk, so to delay the sixth is a tragic mistake. I am already wary about the Half-Blood Prince, since they kept David Yates around, and now, I'm downright discouraged. The decision seems very shortsighted. To delay it eight months? With three movies to go? Come on.

By the time the second Deathly Hallows movie is released, the majority of its fan base will be in college, dedicating real time to real, personal endeavors. Will they care anymore? Who knows? With Kloves already concerned for the franchise's popularity (and three movies to go, the closest of which a year away), who's to say that they will? Not to mention the fact that the maturity level of the films is bound to increase (steering away younger viewers and whole families), to mirror that of the books. And I hate to bring it up, but how much of that fan base (especially little girls...aka: solid gold) has already moved on, ready and willing, to another upcoming franchise? 

The "Twilight" saga--Which has already begun its reign. The moment the WB shot HP6 into 2009, Summit took advantage. "Twilight," the first of four possible movies about a teenaged girl in love with a vampire, will now be released on November 21st, 2008 instead of it's original bid for December 12th. Perhaps the WB isn't worried about "Twilight," but I wonder. With its up-and-comers Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson (who automatically draws a swarm of HP followers due to his 2005 stint as Cedric Diggory), a revered director like Catherine Hardwicke ("Thirteen" and "Lords of Dogtown"), not to mention a screenwriter who pioneered the likes of oh...idk...Showtime's "Dexter," the movie is bound to be good. Will it overshadow Harry Potter? Probably not. Well, not right away. By the time HP6 comes out, however, maneuverings for the Twilight sequel "New Moon" will, most likely, be in full swing, and where will the fangirls be then? Probably in front of YouTube, watching backstage interviews with Robert Pattinson, not at their fourth showing of HP6. And call me a blasphemer, but for the sake of the Harry Potter institution, I hope that's what happens. 

Anyway, as for my INCREDIBLE beef with Warner Brothers (yes, incredible beef)...this latest Harry Potter stunt is simply the icing on the cake for many of us. If you'll recall a comment made, not too long ago (somewhere around the release of "Sex and the City") by WB production president Jeff Robinov...something along the lines of...Warner Brothers will no longer make movies with women cast as the main lead. Yeah. You can read the LA Weekly article here. It's some good reading. Anyway, this is another reason I'm super excited for "Twilight." It's a story with a female protagonist. The writer and director are both women. And it's going to do so well. 

So suck that, Warner Brothers. With all the love of Harry Potter and Hermione Granger and Hagrid and Dobby and Severus Snape in my heart, I politely disagree.

...:)

What is it about "Lost in Translation?"

When I think of "Lost in Translation," I think of a movie that pioneered an entire army of ambiguous endings. Family dramas and friendship dramas began to spike in the indie world, at a time when indie movies were suddenly very important, leaving the epic, Spielbergian masterpiece behind. We began to see more movies like "Sideways" and "Junebug," movies that follow a couple of characters through a sort of elongated vignette, revolving not around plot but around individual discovery. Now, I know that "Lost in Translation" was not the first movie to have an overtly ambiguous ending. It was not the first movie to swap the idea of plot with the idea of people. But, it's the first movie that stands out in my mind when I think of the millenial indie drama. Before "Lost in Translation," there was "American Beauty." "The Hours." "A Beautiful Mind."Far From Heaven." Sweeping movies. Handsome movies. Movies with a lofty, dramatic perspective. "Lost in Translation" was one of the first movies to scale it way down. While "American Beauty" looks at people from the landscape of life and death, beauty and prejudice, young and old, now and then, "Lost in Translation" localizes its landscape to one particular, seemingly insignificant friendship that takes place in Tokyo, Japan. While movies like "American Beauty" pontificate on what it means to be alive, using symbolism, multiple story lines, and voiceover from the afterlife, "Lost in Translation" simply shows us one example, one that is not significant at all, and lets us decide for ourselves.

This is also what a movie like "Junebug" does, the 2005 drama in which Amy Adams plays a young, expectant mother with a green outlook on life. In "Junebug," we see one fam

ily and its many relationships, its little tragedies, how the members of the family react to outside stimulus, to things like faith and history. It ends on a sad but uplifting note, and instead of pondering the grandiosity of a movie like "American Beauty," with all of its wondrous interweavings and genius wrappings-up, we find ourselves thinking about our own family. It is then not until much later that we remember we saw a film at all. A similar reaction is brought on by the itty-bitty movie "Pieces of April," or the better-known comedy "Sideways." Movies like this don't become spectacles that we discuss at length over coffee or liquor, but little pockets in our hearts that grow deeper over time. "Lost in Translation" is one of these pockets for me, and I now find myself wondering why.

One of the most important parts, I think, of "Lost in Translation's" success, is that we, the audience members, get to watch the beginning, middle, and end of a friendship. While I can't prove that, there's nothing that proves me wrong, aside from, perhaps, the thing that Bob might have whispered into Charlotte's ear in the end. What could it be? It doesn't matter. It is simply a reminder that most friendships

are made up of the things we can't see, can't hear, can't point out from far away. They're not even made up of the way we feel about each other. They're made up of the things we experience together, as friends. The way that Bob and Charlotte feel about each other seems, in a way, inconsequential. It is never laid out in full. We all must agree that there is some sort of territoriality, though not the hostile kind, simply the kind that keeps us wanting the best for the ones we care about. The movie is made up of Bob and Charlotte's little interactions, the fact that they seem to understand each other at a deeper level than we'd expect. Their friendship almost seems to exist simply upon this notion: that Bob and Charlotte both, at this moment in their lives, need somebody to understand them. Once the purpose is served, and both seem to better understand themselves (for they seem to understand each other better than they understand themselves), the friendship must end. Tokyo is simply the place that it happens, the source of their initial bond, a landscape to influence the decisions they make throughout the day. Once the Tokyo trip is over, so ends the illusion and the friendship that served to teach them that life does not begin or end in any specific order, but instead, is just a series of relationships and the ways that they make us change.

These are just my musings, the things I think about while watching movies. I watched "Lost in Translation" this morning on the treadmill, and I couldn't get it out of my head. What is it with this movie? Nothing seems to happen. The dialogue is so sparse, so rarely the milestone of a scene. Yet, it moves us. It moves me. I'm interested in what other people think. If you have an opinion, let me know.

The Teen Beat

Yes, I was sucked into the "Twilight" saga. I read it in a very brief period of time. That, plus the strange void I seemed to enter after seeing "The Dark Knight" for the first time, seemed to equal a hefty hiatus from the film blog. But I am back now, and I want to write about something different. I know I write about teen movies a lot, but that's only because they seem to be experiencing a strange uplift in the entertainment industry. With the onslaught of "Gossip Girl," the reign of "Juno," the Apatific "Superbad," the unveiling of "Twilight," "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist," "Youth in Revolt," and all of Michael Cera's bumbling glory, the teenager has become an inescapable entity. And the term teenager no longer pertains to a simple collection of years during one's lifetime. It is now a state of mind, an homage to the endless versions of yesteryear, each perception different than the last and often overwhelmingly so.

I wonder at this new obsession. Is it simply Hollywood's latest fad? We seem to have given up on the smart rom-com. That whole thing ended with "Love Actually" and will seemingly never resurface. The superhero movie is in the process of changing its complexion entirely. What was once an action-heavy color-fest is now a psychological dive into the world of alter-egos. The teen movie was abandoned in the early 2000s, at the back door of several loser flicks like "Drive Me Crazy" and "She's All That" and the bygone whimsy of "American Pie," "Ten Things I Hate About You," and "Get Over It." Between then and now, we've experienced the uprise of indie films, watched them disappear into the background, saw a craze in film franchises, and more Pixar than we could probably take. The great resurrector after all these years was probably "Superbad," mid-2007, which reminded us all exactly what it was to be in high school. "Juno" then solidified the trend in teen movies, proving that even the subject matter of a sixteen-year-old can be fodder for the Academy Awards. It also brought us Michael Cera, an actor who, alone, will probably pioneer an entire army of teen entertainment. With him, comes Kat Dennings, Anton Yelchin, Blake Lively, Jamie Bell, Jonah Hill, and Kristin Stewart. Not to mention those "High School Musical" kids. And this is all SANS the two most highly-anticipated movies of 2008, let alone the most highly-anticipated TEEN movies of 2008: "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and "Twilight." Both based off of lucrative fiction for young people. Both starring handsome boys and vivacious girls, kissing scenes and grave situations, gunning in the genre of Fantasy.

The culture of young people, not only teens, but early twenty-somethings as well, has taken on a mind of its own. The days of thirty-year-old boyband members are over. We now have Zack Efron. For the twenty-somethings, there's Robert Pattinson, and for the itty-bitty-tween-base, Daniel Radcliffe. Among the girls, pop stars like Britney Spears who once ruled with pop-innocence, pop-dancing, pop-virginity, and TRL have been replaced by Disney creations like Hannah Montana, whose grasp has reached everything from school supplies to sold-out concerts. Young actresses are beginning to embody a new kind of gravitas. With all of this young person work out there, they're finally taken seriously. Not as child stars or 'younger-versions-of,' but as individual bodies of talent. I refer to Kristen Stewart, Emma Watson, Kat Dennings, and Ellen Page. Of course, there are more, but these are my favorites. They dress elegantly, speak with intelligence, stay out of the tabloids, and challenge themselves professionally. Their success leads to more roles for them to conquer, the more roles for them to conquer, the more success they incur, and so on and so on. More roles mean more movies, more television shows. The product? An influx of teen and young person oriented entertainment, and not just any entertainment, but QUALITY entertainment. Because these young people are being taken seriously, they take their careers seriously. This means that movies like "Superbad" and "Juno" are not the end of distinctive teen cinema. Okay, deep breath. The whole thing excites me.

And now, finally, I get to talk about "Twilight." *Sigh*

With "Twilight" comes the reincarnation of the evisceratingly handsome Robert Pattinson. In case you don't remember, he played Cedric Diggory in HP4, and now he's Edward Cullen the vampire that makes all human boys look like dandelion stems, and he's about to take over the world. OMG. Just wait. The draw, however, to the "Twilight" film, aside from the books' overwhelming popularity, is the quickly rising stardom of Kristen Stewart. Chances are, you've seen her in something, whether it be "The Messengers," "Into the Wild," "Panic Room," or "In the Land of Women." The film, directed by Catherine Hardwicke ("Thirteen" and "Lords of Dogtown") and written by Melissa Rosenberg (um, "Dexter") is bound to impress. Its hefty release date and future-franchise potential will surely brew the perfect amount of delirium. It will also, as I said earlier, launch Rob and Kristen into unbridled stardom. Plus, as the culmination of two other teen-oriented fantasy movies to be released this fall ("The City of Ember" in October and "HP6" in November, both novel adaptations), "Twilight" will mark the exciting beginning (and climactic end) of three film franchises (hopefully) that all revolve around young people: 1) "The City of Ember," book 1 of the Ember Series, books about a post-apocalyptic world in which all light has seemingly gone out; 2) "Harry Potter," which will end in the double-magnificence of Hallows I and II, something the world has been anticipating for over a decade; and finally, 3) the "Twilight" saga, a franchise that will hopefully be completed with three more exciting movies to fully chronicle the desperate love and chilling plights of Bella Swan and Edward Cullen.

Ah, to be young again. At least, deep down, I know that, if I really wanted to become an actor, I could find a very solid place among this new culture of teen entertainment. Meaning: I frequently get carded at R-rated movies. Look out, Blake Lively. Here I come.....;)

i'm sorry here's what i've been doing-->

i am done now. promise. xoxo.