Hi. Been a while.
So, tonight, I watched, relatively, the last 40 minutes of Story-Tellers with John Mayer. I like John Mayer, sorta.
Here's the problem. John Mayer is an above average singer/song writer. I mean he's pretty good, and he deserves a lot of credit for being talented. I could see a world where he wasn't as famous as he is, but he's extremely marketable. At least, unlike some famous musicians, he actually has the talent to be there. The issue is with his attitude.
He's not mean, and he doesn't punch babies. He just comes off as being particularly arrogant. He lauds himself, and sees himself as someone who is important. In many ways, this is narcissistic, and in some ways, it's sorta refreshing. While no one likes anyone who takes themselves too seriously, we often get sort of disheartened when someone, usually an artist type, doesn't take seriously what they do. Or they make it seem like they stumbled on it. Mayer really believes in the importance of what he's doing - which is good, though sometimes he does take himself too seriously.
What do you think?
-cjfer-
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, March 2, 2009
Nonsense
Hmm. There really hasn't been anything up here for a while. Keeping the dream alive, here's something from my side. This is just a bunch of silliness that just hopped into my head. It pretty much makes no sense, but I like the name Retro Dog:
Retro dog is doing the hula across the universe while inferiority llama sings his blues, but they aren't his blues. He sings for a generation lost, in pain, looking for some star to hang its hope on. But the starry eyed Hipsters have taken the taste right out of his mouth, and there’s nothing but a husk of his hope. He sings for them, for the ones never had and never were, and he sings for that hope to return. He sings alone.
But retro dog, he don’t care. He’s rolling high and dry on the PCH down to Mexico, a world of troubles left behind him in flames. He could have taken her with him, but now there’s no time or place for her in his life. That’s all over, and as he vanishes into the electrified evening, he winks to her in his mind. His third eye says everything that she could ever want to know.
She doesn’t here it though, or see it. Her chakras are cloudy, her karma pure. She’s lived a life of lies and deceit that would make a lawyer brushle. He was the one good thing in her life, but the fire and the flames have broken them. What once was whole is now two pieces, two isotopes exploding in a Hiroshimatic ejaculation of broken dreams and desires.
And yet inferiority llama sings on. He’s doing his thing, and his thing is good. Some cry when they hear the llama’s song, when they hear of the hope he sings about. Not retro dog. That guy is on his way out. He’s gone so far west, he’s south. The devil’s domain. Downtown where the daisies grow. And she’s on his mind. But the llama sings on, for them, for the dog, for himself, but mostly for you.
And you don’t even know why.
Retro dog is doing the hula across the universe while inferiority llama sings his blues, but they aren't his blues. He sings for a generation lost, in pain, looking for some star to hang its hope on. But the starry eyed Hipsters have taken the taste right out of his mouth, and there’s nothing but a husk of his hope. He sings for them, for the ones never had and never were, and he sings for that hope to return. He sings alone.
But retro dog, he don’t care. He’s rolling high and dry on the PCH down to Mexico, a world of troubles left behind him in flames. He could have taken her with him, but now there’s no time or place for her in his life. That’s all over, and as he vanishes into the electrified evening, he winks to her in his mind. His third eye says everything that she could ever want to know.
She doesn’t here it though, or see it. Her chakras are cloudy, her karma pure. She’s lived a life of lies and deceit that would make a lawyer brushle. He was the one good thing in her life, but the fire and the flames have broken them. What once was whole is now two pieces, two isotopes exploding in a Hiroshimatic ejaculation of broken dreams and desires.
And yet inferiority llama sings on. He’s doing his thing, and his thing is good. Some cry when they hear the llama’s song, when they hear of the hope he sings about. Not retro dog. That guy is on his way out. He’s gone so far west, he’s south. The devil’s domain. Downtown where the daisies grow. And she’s on his mind. But the llama sings on, for them, for the dog, for himself, but mostly for you.
And you don’t even know why.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Night Flight
Back when I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn my parents exposed me to something that changed my life: cable tv. From an early age I watched Mtv and USA Network, while they (and I) were in their infancy. There were things I saw which I didn't understand. There are things that I saw that I remembered as odd memories. Thanks to youtube I've been able to revisit these.
One such gem is "Night Flight". It was a late night show, kind of like a proto "Liquid TV". It ran in the 80s, and was really an anything goes kind of show. Devo and Frank Zappa would get a lot of air time, as well as the Church of the Subgenius. Tom Waits would get interviewed, and Ultraman would get redubbed. It was right up my alley, and really explains a whole lot about me. To give you an example of what they would do, here's probably their most recognizable clip. Remember, this was in the 80s, where doing something like this was not only edgy, but high tech.
As I find more things like that, I'll post them. Hell, someone's gotta bring the postmodern back to this little blog, right?
One such gem is "Night Flight". It was a late night show, kind of like a proto "Liquid TV". It ran in the 80s, and was really an anything goes kind of show. Devo and Frank Zappa would get a lot of air time, as well as the Church of the Subgenius. Tom Waits would get interviewed, and Ultraman would get redubbed. It was right up my alley, and really explains a whole lot about me. To give you an example of what they would do, here's probably their most recognizable clip. Remember, this was in the 80s, where doing something like this was not only edgy, but high tech.
As I find more things like that, I'll post them. Hell, someone's gotta bring the postmodern back to this little blog, right?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Affect
It's a weird thing to be affected by things.
I feel like I'm someone who is greatly affected by everything and everyone. My failing sometimes is that I assume that other people are unaware or don't take the same things seriously that I do. Something infinitely meaningful for me can be a regretted moment for someone else. In reality, everyone is affected by things, I know this, but I don't have an outside perspective on it. This is where hurt feelings come from.
A perceived anything can be taken to mean anything. It's impossible to go a day and get every single reaction you want and everyone to respond promptly or at the right time. Still, I end up very sad for no reason a lot of the time.
-cjfer-
I feel like I'm someone who is greatly affected by everything and everyone. My failing sometimes is that I assume that other people are unaware or don't take the same things seriously that I do. Something infinitely meaningful for me can be a regretted moment for someone else. In reality, everyone is affected by things, I know this, but I don't have an outside perspective on it. This is where hurt feelings come from.
A perceived anything can be taken to mean anything. It's impossible to go a day and get every single reaction you want and everyone to respond promptly or at the right time. Still, I end up very sad for no reason a lot of the time.
-cjfer-
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Amedment
I think I spelled Gordon wrong in my Batman post. This is because I had seen it written by a friend who has poor spelling, but a great love of batman, and figured he knew more than I. Retraction. Gordon.
-cjfer-
-cjfer-
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Dark Knight: A Review
So, I finally saw "The Dark Knight" last night, about a week after most of my friends saw the movie.
What I've heard from most people is that it's very very good, but just shy of perfect. Or that it met very high expectations, but didn't necessarily surpass them. Having not seen it at that point, I'm sure people didn't want to ruin the movie by going in to too much detail. I'll do my best to share my thoughts.
What was effective -
1. The story. Often times we're told as students, that the most important thing is the story. I agree, though, understanding the visual language of cinema is important too. The story of this film is superlative, and reminded me much of many Shakespearian tragedies. Our hero is put in situations where he is forced to make choices. This is what we want from movies because when the character we're asked to identify with is put it situations where he must make choices, we ourselves ask "What we do in that situation." Therefore, we are more personally invested in the story on screen. It's us in that situation. What would I do?
Batman, unlike other comic movies, and indeed unlike other movies, posits a notion of good and evil that is not black and white. Yes, we want our hero to do the right thing, but we come to realize that there are consequences with acting righteously, and that doing good isn't simple, or easy. There are always complications in life. The joker is an effective villain because he only believes in chaos and destruction, yet, he is grounded in a sense of reality - as is the whole film. Make no mistake though, this is not the real world. Ultimately, it's a wonder we don't kill ourselves more than we do, but we all have choices we make every day on how we should act. Doing the right thing is not easy, or simple, but it is necessary and must be endured.
2. The acting. Everyone is going to talk about the masterful performance of Heath Ledger and they'd be right to do. I believe it to be Oscar worthy. Because I have nothing new to offer, I might offer some thoughts on the other actors. I think Christian Bale's Batman, is made very interesting here because we have deal with his choices (yes, i use that word a lot). His very character becomes more interesting because we're watching him wondering what he'll do. He leads the film in a very steady, sturdy direction. His Bruce Wayne is sarcastic and a little dickish, which proves a wonderful foil to his Batman who will sacrifice to save the people and city he really loves, but will be a jerk to protect. Aaron Eckhart turns in a solid turn as Harvey Dent. He had much more screen time than I anticipated, and Bale less, but he carries it with action, decisiveness and a complicated aggressiveness that I haven't seen in other incarnations of Two-Face. He is not simply a do-gooder, he wants to do good, but will take the law into his own hands if necessary. The idea of "Two-Face" or doppleganger is an important one to the film. Batman has two sides as well. In truth, the human condition often has more than one side (and sometimes more than 2). The film asks us, are we willing to do evil in order to do what we think is right? Is acting right more important than living?
Also, Maggie Gellenthal is a much stronger actress than Katie Holmes. And he is faced with complicated choices that are nearly impossible to make. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are thoughtful mentors and are certainly not sleepwalking through this movie, though they could easily have done so. They are not featured players, but they give the film weight and plant it firmly in the ground.
3. The screenplay/direction of theater. The heists, the complicated situations, the fact that everything comes back into play when you didn't necessarily see it coming is really cool. These are some of the most complex, thoughtful crimes that I've ever seen on film. There are some very good moments. I give Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan all the credit in the world for being master storytellers. These guys are playing on a different level. Some of the joy in this movie is that these guys are smarter than we are, and we're trying to out think them, but it's hard to. This is the storytelling in a superhero movie that I've ever seen.
What could be improved
1. The pacing. This is good and bad. The movie is 2.5 hours but feels way short of that. This movie went by incredibly fast. I want to see the three hour + version where there's more time to go into characters (which are great), and where the movie has more time to breathe. It is unlike Hellboy2 that rushes through the movie, this movie doesn't do that. But still there are scenes that could have been played more slowly and developed more. Instead we feel like we're always on edge, which diminishes the effectiveness of playing with it, because we're constantly saturated with fast-paceness. Sometimes we're struggling to figure out what happened a scene before when we should be in the moment of the current scene.
2. The dialog. The dialog is not helped by the pace of the film, or technical aspects of the film making. It often goes by too fast and it's hard to really understand what's being said.
3. The direction of the camera/problems with cinematography. There are a few scenes that stood out to me as cinematic issues that could have been improved. Note: These may be issues that I have, that are not shared by others.
A. Problems with exposure. There were two scenes in particular where characters are sitting in front of a bright object in the background. One is Harvey Dent in front of a window in his office, the other is a 50-50 between Morgan Freeman and the Chinese accountant. In both scenes, the exposure is set to the background object. The object in the background is exposed normally, while the characters in the foreground are underexposed. I have no problem with want wanting to light the show darkly, and make our characters in shadow. Yet, when the object in the background is so massive, it takes our focus off the characters and places it on the thing. Our eye is directed out the window or through the characters in a 50-50. Ultimately, I feel that this effect should be done with lighting and not with exposure. Use a tighter shot, don't stage it in that location, or expose for the characters, not the background, and then light them the way you want them. (With my limited knowledge I realize that I may be wrong about the cinematic process, though I stand behind my feelings of the way the it looks.)
B. The scene when the Joker crashes the fund raiser. Much of the steadi cam work here seemed out of focus to me, where it shouldn't have been. Either the focus puller messed up, I saw it wrong, or it was shot at such a low stop that it was impossible from the jump. Either way, because this is the only time it happens, and because it happened so quickly, I saw it as a mistake.
C. A scene where Batman meets Harvey Dent and Gordin on the roof of the police station near the Bat signal. The camera moves wildly around in a circle, but seems to be motivated on Gordin's movement and not Batman's. This needs to be Batman's movie, no Gordins. We should be involved with Batman, and not seem him as just a participant in the scene. We don't get his point of view strongly enough.
D. The scene where Batman interrogates the Joker. The camera jumps the 180 degree line. I don't really know why, other than to be jarring. Yes, having the Joker on the right side of the screen makes him feel more uncomfortable, but start with him there. Don't just jump it, because it takes us out of the movie. Heath Ledger's performance is so strong that we don't need the Camera jumping around in order to heighten it. Still is scarier than movement. Let him work. The camera moves so much in this movie that it's hard to focus on what they're saying or what's going on. There are some moments where we could slow down a little here. These scenes would be emotionally powerful, and then highlight the scenes where the camera is moving more. Trust what you're doing is good.
E. Rachel's death. This moment is never really drawn out, she never gets a real close up before she dies. Therefore, it is not as emotional as it could have been. This and the fact that we have a new actress mean that we're not as emotionally attached to her. We don't want her to die, but her death happens off screen in a way that is less powerful than if she happened on screen. In general there were a few moments that could have been stronger - ie. the scene where the people on the boat decide not to kill each other. I think there could have been more of a moment there - and indeed some other places. This all gets back to the fact that the movie feels like it's rushing.
I think that's it for now. I would give the movie the highest rating I had, if I had a rating. It's the best of it's kind, and even better than most "oscar" type movies. It's a movie that should be recognized for how brilliant it is, and it's odd to think that there were a few things that could have could have made it even better.
-cjfer-
What I've heard from most people is that it's very very good, but just shy of perfect. Or that it met very high expectations, but didn't necessarily surpass them. Having not seen it at that point, I'm sure people didn't want to ruin the movie by going in to too much detail. I'll do my best to share my thoughts.
What was effective -
1. The story. Often times we're told as students, that the most important thing is the story. I agree, though, understanding the visual language of cinema is important too. The story of this film is superlative, and reminded me much of many Shakespearian tragedies. Our hero is put in situations where he is forced to make choices. This is what we want from movies because when the character we're asked to identify with is put it situations where he must make choices, we ourselves ask "What we do in that situation." Therefore, we are more personally invested in the story on screen. It's us in that situation. What would I do?
Batman, unlike other comic movies, and indeed unlike other movies, posits a notion of good and evil that is not black and white. Yes, we want our hero to do the right thing, but we come to realize that there are consequences with acting righteously, and that doing good isn't simple, or easy. There are always complications in life. The joker is an effective villain because he only believes in chaos and destruction, yet, he is grounded in a sense of reality - as is the whole film. Make no mistake though, this is not the real world. Ultimately, it's a wonder we don't kill ourselves more than we do, but we all have choices we make every day on how we should act. Doing the right thing is not easy, or simple, but it is necessary and must be endured.
2. The acting. Everyone is going to talk about the masterful performance of Heath Ledger and they'd be right to do. I believe it to be Oscar worthy. Because I have nothing new to offer, I might offer some thoughts on the other actors. I think Christian Bale's Batman, is made very interesting here because we have deal with his choices (yes, i use that word a lot). His very character becomes more interesting because we're watching him wondering what he'll do. He leads the film in a very steady, sturdy direction. His Bruce Wayne is sarcastic and a little dickish, which proves a wonderful foil to his Batman who will sacrifice to save the people and city he really loves, but will be a jerk to protect. Aaron Eckhart turns in a solid turn as Harvey Dent. He had much more screen time than I anticipated, and Bale less, but he carries it with action, decisiveness and a complicated aggressiveness that I haven't seen in other incarnations of Two-Face. He is not simply a do-gooder, he wants to do good, but will take the law into his own hands if necessary. The idea of "Two-Face" or doppleganger is an important one to the film. Batman has two sides as well. In truth, the human condition often has more than one side (and sometimes more than 2). The film asks us, are we willing to do evil in order to do what we think is right? Is acting right more important than living?
Also, Maggie Gellenthal is a much stronger actress than Katie Holmes. And he is faced with complicated choices that are nearly impossible to make. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are thoughtful mentors and are certainly not sleepwalking through this movie, though they could easily have done so. They are not featured players, but they give the film weight and plant it firmly in the ground.
3. The screenplay/direction of theater. The heists, the complicated situations, the fact that everything comes back into play when you didn't necessarily see it coming is really cool. These are some of the most complex, thoughtful crimes that I've ever seen on film. There are some very good moments. I give Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan all the credit in the world for being master storytellers. These guys are playing on a different level. Some of the joy in this movie is that these guys are smarter than we are, and we're trying to out think them, but it's hard to. This is the storytelling in a superhero movie that I've ever seen.
What could be improved
1. The pacing. This is good and bad. The movie is 2.5 hours but feels way short of that. This movie went by incredibly fast. I want to see the three hour + version where there's more time to go into characters (which are great), and where the movie has more time to breathe. It is unlike Hellboy2 that rushes through the movie, this movie doesn't do that. But still there are scenes that could have been played more slowly and developed more. Instead we feel like we're always on edge, which diminishes the effectiveness of playing with it, because we're constantly saturated with fast-paceness. Sometimes we're struggling to figure out what happened a scene before when we should be in the moment of the current scene.
2. The dialog. The dialog is not helped by the pace of the film, or technical aspects of the film making. It often goes by too fast and it's hard to really understand what's being said.
3. The direction of the camera/problems with cinematography. There are a few scenes that stood out to me as cinematic issues that could have been improved. Note: These may be issues that I have, that are not shared by others.
A. Problems with exposure. There were two scenes in particular where characters are sitting in front of a bright object in the background. One is Harvey Dent in front of a window in his office, the other is a 50-50 between Morgan Freeman and the Chinese accountant. In both scenes, the exposure is set to the background object. The object in the background is exposed normally, while the characters in the foreground are underexposed. I have no problem with want wanting to light the show darkly, and make our characters in shadow. Yet, when the object in the background is so massive, it takes our focus off the characters and places it on the thing. Our eye is directed out the window or through the characters in a 50-50. Ultimately, I feel that this effect should be done with lighting and not with exposure. Use a tighter shot, don't stage it in that location, or expose for the characters, not the background, and then light them the way you want them. (With my limited knowledge I realize that I may be wrong about the cinematic process, though I stand behind my feelings of the way the it looks.)
B. The scene when the Joker crashes the fund raiser. Much of the steadi cam work here seemed out of focus to me, where it shouldn't have been. Either the focus puller messed up, I saw it wrong, or it was shot at such a low stop that it was impossible from the jump. Either way, because this is the only time it happens, and because it happened so quickly, I saw it as a mistake.
C. A scene where Batman meets Harvey Dent and Gordin on the roof of the police station near the Bat signal. The camera moves wildly around in a circle, but seems to be motivated on Gordin's movement and not Batman's. This needs to be Batman's movie, no Gordins. We should be involved with Batman, and not seem him as just a participant in the scene. We don't get his point of view strongly enough.
D. The scene where Batman interrogates the Joker. The camera jumps the 180 degree line. I don't really know why, other than to be jarring. Yes, having the Joker on the right side of the screen makes him feel more uncomfortable, but start with him there. Don't just jump it, because it takes us out of the movie. Heath Ledger's performance is so strong that we don't need the Camera jumping around in order to heighten it. Still is scarier than movement. Let him work. The camera moves so much in this movie that it's hard to focus on what they're saying or what's going on. There are some moments where we could slow down a little here. These scenes would be emotionally powerful, and then highlight the scenes where the camera is moving more. Trust what you're doing is good.
E. Rachel's death. This moment is never really drawn out, she never gets a real close up before she dies. Therefore, it is not as emotional as it could have been. This and the fact that we have a new actress mean that we're not as emotionally attached to her. We don't want her to die, but her death happens off screen in a way that is less powerful than if she happened on screen. In general there were a few moments that could have been stronger - ie. the scene where the people on the boat decide not to kill each other. I think there could have been more of a moment there - and indeed some other places. This all gets back to the fact that the movie feels like it's rushing.
I think that's it for now. I would give the movie the highest rating I had, if I had a rating. It's the best of it's kind, and even better than most "oscar" type movies. It's a movie that should be recognized for how brilliant it is, and it's odd to think that there were a few things that could have could have made it even better.
-cjfer-
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Our Changing World
Our series about "our changing world" continues this evening with two looks at how our world is changing from the new york times.
the first article is here - apparently europe has adopted a "back door" policy, and their population is declining.
Secondly, we have a read here - which is about US air carriers having to cut down on the number of flights they make.
It's a scary thing to live in the world today. The 1990's a decade of relative peace and prosperity brought us a lot of things without really providing a decent enough infrastructure for it. The bubble as they say is bursting. But this may not be such a bad thing, as the first article reminds us (last two pages). Perhaps we've built something huge and unsustainable and now we're in a period (maybe years) of readjustment. Perhaps it's better to start scaling things back as a globe, start using less, starting having fewer people.
It wasn't until native americans had over hunted certain animal populations that they developed their sophisticated approach to using the land. Maybe we're at the start of a period where we begin to rethink how we treat the world and ourselves. Maybe we'll have fewer people, less pollution, less hunger, less unemployment, etc, because things will naturally balance themselves out. We'll see.
-cjfer-
the first article is here - apparently europe has adopted a "back door" policy, and their population is declining.
Secondly, we have a read here - which is about US air carriers having to cut down on the number of flights they make.
It's a scary thing to live in the world today. The 1990's a decade of relative peace and prosperity brought us a lot of things without really providing a decent enough infrastructure for it. The bubble as they say is bursting. But this may not be such a bad thing, as the first article reminds us (last two pages). Perhaps we've built something huge and unsustainable and now we're in a period (maybe years) of readjustment. Perhaps it's better to start scaling things back as a globe, start using less, starting having fewer people.
It wasn't until native americans had over hunted certain animal populations that they developed their sophisticated approach to using the land. Maybe we're at the start of a period where we begin to rethink how we treat the world and ourselves. Maybe we'll have fewer people, less pollution, less hunger, less unemployment, etc, because things will naturally balance themselves out. We'll see.
-cjfer-
great interview with glen phillips.
Listen here - (copy and paste it into your window)
http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/shows/show_190022.mp3
great thoughts about music and art in today's world from my favorite singer/songwriter.
-cjfer-
http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/shows/show_190022.mp3
great thoughts about music and art in today's world from my favorite singer/songwriter.
-cjfer-
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Two differing versions of what it means to go "around the world"
The old high school Jam.
If it doesn't kill you, it might make you stronger. Or it might kill you slowly.
And...
I echo the same sentiment.
-cjfer-
If it doesn't kill you, it might make you stronger. Or it might kill you slowly.
And...
I echo the same sentiment.
-cjfer-
Monday, June 23, 2008
Emerson essay on Nature
This is the first paragraph of the introduction to Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay on Nature. I looked back to it for an earlier blog post.
"Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship." -RWE
To read the rest of the essay go HERE.
-cjfer-
"Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship." -RWE
To read the rest of the essay go HERE.
-cjfer-
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The not so secret life of the American Teenager
Soon, the ABC family channel will debut a new series called, "The secret life of the American Teenager."
You can read about it at this Website.
The show deals with a teenage girl, affluent and white, who becomes pregnant while in high school. While it is not stated, this girl is no doubt 16 years old. Why would I venture that guess? Well, this isn't a story that we haven't seen before, let alone see recently.
See
Gilmore Girls
Saved
Juno
(and who can forget Mr. and Mrs. Bo Jo Jones)
In fact, one can venture a guess that this new series is on the air because the success of Juno. I just wonder what it is about this same story that needs a constant retelling. Teenage pregnancy is a serious issue in our society and I in no way intend to make light of it. Two things. One, the teenager in these films are white and affluent. Two, they are often the smartest characters in the show. These same circumstances keep appearing because for whatever reason you can't deal with this issue with minority or poor characters. Would it then become too real? Too serious?
To that end, I also offer an addendum. Juno owes a lot to 90's female TV icons Buffy Summers, Joey Potter and Rory (and Lorelei) Gilmore. The idea that a teen girl in a tough situation could be witty and smart and quick is really nothing new. For some reason it's new to movies, but in fact, this character has been a staple of American television for years now. Yet there is no mention of the debt owed to these characters of the people who created them. Juno offers nothing particularly new, which is fine, what irks me is that it makes the appearance of being singular when it is not.
As serious as teen pregnancy is, we always see it occurring in a comedy. Why is that? Is it that it would seem like a lifetime movie (fifteen and pregnant) otherwise?
-cjfer-
You can read about it at this Website.
The show deals with a teenage girl, affluent and white, who becomes pregnant while in high school. While it is not stated, this girl is no doubt 16 years old. Why would I venture that guess? Well, this isn't a story that we haven't seen before, let alone see recently.
See
Gilmore Girls
Saved
Juno
(and who can forget Mr. and Mrs. Bo Jo Jones)
In fact, one can venture a guess that this new series is on the air because the success of Juno. I just wonder what it is about this same story that needs a constant retelling. Teenage pregnancy is a serious issue in our society and I in no way intend to make light of it. Two things. One, the teenager in these films are white and affluent. Two, they are often the smartest characters in the show. These same circumstances keep appearing because for whatever reason you can't deal with this issue with minority or poor characters. Would it then become too real? Too serious?
To that end, I also offer an addendum. Juno owes a lot to 90's female TV icons Buffy Summers, Joey Potter and Rory (and Lorelei) Gilmore. The idea that a teen girl in a tough situation could be witty and smart and quick is really nothing new. For some reason it's new to movies, but in fact, this character has been a staple of American television for years now. Yet there is no mention of the debt owed to these characters of the people who created them. Juno offers nothing particularly new, which is fine, what irks me is that it makes the appearance of being singular when it is not.
As serious as teen pregnancy is, we always see it occurring in a comedy. Why is that? Is it that it would seem like a lifetime movie (fifteen and pregnant) otherwise?
-cjfer-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)