Shutter Island and this weekends Top Movies

Being a five dollar contributor to the $40.2 million in tickets that "Shutter Island" brought in this weekend, I feel the need to comment on the flick and this article. I did enjoy the movie. Granted it was a little hokey at times and predictable, DiCaprio did not disappoint. The film had a lovely, although at times somewhat frightening setting.

I did not know that this movie was originally supposed to come out in the fall. I agree with this article that it was probably in the best interest of the film to postpone the premier until now. Not only was it more appropriate financially, but I believe the films success is probably due partially to the timing. The other part of its success is because it is a Martin Scorsese film starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

I was shocked in this article to find that "Valentine's Day" made the second most money in the box office. I think the ONLY reason this film made such high marks is because of its star studded cast, however, that is the main reason that a lot of films are presently making copious amounts of money. I am also surprised that "Avatar" is still so high at the box office. And who would have thought that "Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightening Thief" would come in fourth? The top four films in the theaters this weekend are of various genres and financial statuses. I suppose that is to be expected, however, considering the different types of films that different types of people enjoy.

Revised: Pauline Kael Critical Essay

Film criticism is not about raving the most popular and expensive pictures and panning sure misses. It is about making an informed personal decision about a picture and relaying that to the public. An effective critic must be thorough, brutally honest, and have a distinct voice. Pauline Kael was this type of critic.

After graduating from the University of California at Berkeley, Kael began her writing career. By 1967 she was a prominent movie critic for “The New Yorker”, where she worked for approximately 24 years, typically reviewing one movie per week. Kael’s reviews are very comprehensive. In her review of “My Left Foot” Kael discusses acting, plot, screenplay, directing, and cinematography. Her commitment to covering all aspects of a film speaks to Kael’s credibility and sincerity.

In her review of “Funny Girl”, Kael states that Barbra Streisand “…conceals nothing; she’s fiercely, almost frighteningly direct.” Kael might as well have been describing herself. When describing multiple aspects of film, Kael’s candor is refreshing. With an acerbic tone, Kael describes “Say Anything” as “…a lovely piece of work—despite a dumb idea at its center”. This type of honesty is present in all of Kael’s pieces and contributes to her integrity as a critic.

In the book “Afterglow”, Francis Davis questions Kael on her desire to write the way people actually speak. Kael wanted to write using the language of movies, not in academic English “…in an attempt to elevate movies, because [I think] that actually lowers them. It denies them what makes them distinctive.” Kael’s vast and varied vocabulary is highlighted with colloquial and crude language that is common outside of a theatre. Employing words like “snub-nosed,” “crummy,” “nuzzles,” “high gloss,” “tootsie,” and “surfer accent,” she is equally as effective as if she used five-syllable, Latin-based SAT terms. Kael wrote for the average audience, nondependent on the color of their collar. By not attempting to elevate her own critiquing, Kael stylized a unique type of critique that became artistically undeniable.

A conversational air comes through with Kael’s use of rhetorical questions. Although they are often seen as a weakness in critical prose, Renata Adler, in a negative critique of Kael (“House Critic”), even admits, “it is difficult to convey the effect of…these questions.” Kael uses rhetorical questions to allow the reader a chance to speculate on her point and the process by which she arrived there. In her review of “Hiroshima Mon Amour”, Kael asks her audience “Where did he get this metaphysical identity with Hiroshima?” If the reader has already seen the film, they can consider his or her own thoughts on the matter. If the reader has yet to see the film, he or she can be prepared to ask that question upon seeing it. Kael’s abundance of rhetorical questions presents an everyman conversation.

Kael’s crisp, frank and unrefined voice brought a new aspect to film critiquing; a strong and lasting aspect that has revived film review as an art form.

Final Pitch

I would like to write my social/cultural critical essay about the growing rate of teen pregnancy in America and how it is tied to pop culture and media. This subject is relevant now because for the first time in over a decade the teen pregnancy rate is on the rise. The argument I will make is due to the glorification of teen pregnancy and the fact that it is no longer incredibly uncommon or particularly shameful, as shown in pop culture and media, teen pregnancy rates are rising.

I plan on using multiple newspaper articles to provide context for my thesis. To support my argument, I will use popular movies and television shows that contain teen pregnancy including “Juno” (2007), “The Pregnancy Pact” (2010 a made for television movie), “The Secret Life of an American Teenager” (ABC Family), “Glee” (Fox), “Teen Mom” (MTV) and possibly an ABC Primetime Special that featured a girl from my high school. I will be using “Juno,” “The Secret Life,” and “Glee” to show the unrealistic way that television and movies illustrate teen pregnancies. My plan for “The Pregnancy Pact” is to use it as an example of the types of repercussions that the glorification of pregnancy can have. I will use “Teen Mom” and the ABC Special as examples of real life teen pregnancies.

I am a prime person to write an essay about the growing rate of teen pregnancy in America because of the huge percentage of teen pregnancies in my hometown, including multiple friends.

Olympic Language...

I found this article about Shaun White at the Olympics very interesting. Not because the coach used obscenities on live television, but because the network didn't catch it before airing it. I was under the impression that there is some kind of delay with television programs that allows room for errors such as inappropriate behavior. Either the network missed their window of opportunity...or I am mistaken. Either way, on world-wide television an American Olympian's coach was showed using inappropriate language.

I agree with the article that the network shouldn't have apologized for Bud Keene, but he should still have to apologize. Even if he is a grown man who can use whatever language he wants, it is painting Americans in a bad light. At the same time I can understand the excitement that a coach and athlete would feel after being successful in their arena. I think it is a complicated issue, but both the network and Keene himself should apologize for the inappropriate language.

Pauline Kael Critical Essay

Being a film critic is not about raving the most popular and expensive pictures and panning the ones that are sure to be box office misses. Critiquing film is about making an informed personal decision about a picture and relaying that to the public. A critic must be thorough, brutally honest, and have a very distinct and original voice. Pauline Kael was this type of critic.

Kael began writing after graduating from the University of California at Berkeley. By 1967 she was a prominent movie critic for “The New Yorker”. Kael worked at “The New Yorker” for around 24 years and generally reviewed one movie per week. Kael’s reviews are very comprehensive. In her review of “My Left Foot” Kael discusses acting, plot, screenplay, directing, and cinematography. Her commitment to covering all aspects of a film speaks to Kael’s credibility and sincerity in film critiquing.

In her review of “Funny Girl”, Kael states that Barbra Streisand “…conceals nothing; she’s fiercely, almost frighteningly direct.” Kael might as well have been describing herself. Kael’s candor is refreshing when describing multiple aspects of film. For example in her review of Cameron Crowe’s “Say Anything” she states it “…is a lovely piece of work—despite a dumb idea at its center”. This acerbic tone carries through and contributes to the integrity in most of Kael’s pieces.

In the book Afterglow, Francis Davis, in a conversation with Kael, states, “You once said that you wanted to write about movies the way that people actually talked about them on leaving the theatre.” Kael’s response was “Yes, the language we really spoke—and the language of movies. I didn’t want to write academic English in an attempt to elevate movies, because I think that actually lowers them. It denies them what makes them distinctive.”

While Kael does use a vast and varied vocabulary, her writing is highlighted with colloquial and somewhat crude language that is common outside of a theatre. She employs words like “snub-nosed”, “crummy”, “nuzzles”, “high gloss”, “tootsie”, and “surfer accent”, all of which are equally as effective as five-syllable, Latin-based SAT terms. Kael wrote for the average audience, nondependent on the color of their collar. By not attempting to elevate her own critiquing, Kael stylized a unique type of critique that became socially undeniable.

Kael’s reviews also take on a conversational air through her use of rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questioning is often seen as a weakness in critical prose; however, Kael uses questions to allow the reader a chance to speculate on what she is telling them. The process by which her came conclusion is also illuminated by these questions. In her review of “Hiroshima Mon Amour”, she asks her audience “Where did he get this metaphysical identity with Hiroshima?” If the reader has already seen the film, they can consider his or her own thoughts on the matter. If the reader has not already seen the film, he or she can be prepared to ask that question upon seeing it. Kael’s abundance of rhetorical questions provides an appearance of a modest, conventional person chatting with a friend.

Kael’s crisp, frank and unrefined voice brought a new aspect to film critiquing. A strong and lasting aspect that has revived film review as an art form.

"The Dream, WIthout the Drive"

On the front page of the Weekend Arts (Movie Performances) section, I was instantly drawn to the photo of four friends at a bar in New York City and the large caption below that says "The Dream, Without The Drive". As I read the review I found myself really wanting to watch this show. Granted I've never seen Entourage so I did not understand a lot of the allusions, but I was still intrigued by the idea that this television show seems to be portraying.

I really enjoyed the way this review is written. Although the critic did not rave about the show, she touches on important aspects of the show that made it seem very appealing to me. For example her statement "The series has great music (the theme song is Aloe Blacc's "I Need a Dollar") and there are some snarky asides about hipster New York" makes the show sound like a witty and stimulating show.

I also found it interesting that Kid Cudi has a role in the show. Usually musical artists in television shows annoy me because their acting skills are so lacking, and I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that Kid Cudi is going to be an exception, but that strangely draws me more to the show to see if he is an exception or if he is just another big musical artist trying to make it in another medium.

Also having seen Bryan Greenberg in multiple other shows (One Tree Hill, October Road, and various movies) attracts me to the show. I find his acting to be charming and understated which is always a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately this show plays on HBO so any hope I have of watching it will either have to be fulfilled online or when the season comes out on DVD and I have the opportunity to rent it.

Arts/Media/Culture Piece

As I was stumbling around on the Yahoo! website in the music section, I came across this video of Justin Bieber. Bieber is a 15 year old new pop artist who was "discovered" on Youtube. I'm not going to lie and say that I don't find his songs catchy and fun to dance around to, but I am appalled by the message that he conveys about the youth of the U.S.

My little brother recently turned 14. He is a normal 14 year old boy; he likes to play video games and hang out with his friends. However, he does not have an iPhone (as a matter of fact he doesn't have any type of cell phone), and is not hanging out in a lavish "crib". Two things that Bieber has in this video. It is so ridiculous to see a boy who can't even drive yet holding an iPhone inviting all of his little buddies over to Usher's pad and talking about how much he loves someone. I think by creating this image of what the life of a 15 year old should look like, our society is limiting the possibilities of its' youth.

When I was 15 I was still walking over to my girl friends houses to sit around and talk about school and our friends. (Keep in mind that these plans had to be made on a home phone, not one of the nicest most expensive cell phones available). I find it deplorable how early children are growing up now. There is nothing wrong with still playing outside or playing house at 14 or 15. The constant interaction that society has obtained with technology is detrimental to our progress as people. I babysit two little boys that have trouble carrying on a conversation because a person responds and asks questions. Our society would benefit hugely from less importance placed on technology and more on personal interaction.