Post Bang Conference or How 'Comics & the Lit Establishment' raised some questions

Post Bang: Comics Ten Minutes After the Big Bang!
Friday, June 6 2008
An all-day symposium on the growing cultural significance of comics curated by Art Spiegelman and Kent Worcester

Blogging about an academic symposium - it seems like an attack on everything I get taught in grad school, but I do feel that the more interesting part of a panel like this is the interactions and the personal reactions from the audience (consider it [retroactive] liveblogging in an academic setting).

3:00-4:15 Comics and the Literary Establishment
Jeet Heer (moderator, co-editor of Arguing Comics), Hillary Chute (Associate Editor of the forthcoming MetaMaus - and you might remember her from this), David Hadju (author of The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great American Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America) and Douglas Wolk (author of Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean and you can read some of his work at The Savage Critic(s)).

This was the panel I was most looking forward, mainly because, out of all the panels offered this seemed to be the most attuned to my current critical questions.

Kicking off the panel was Jeet Heer: "Hi, I'm Jeet Heer and I write on comics... [pause/laughter] It kind of sounds like we're in an AA meeting!" - and that pretty much set the tone for the panel; light-hearted and well-meaning throughout. Heer set up the panel with a quote by Art Spiegelman, who in a recent interview had said that he felt that comics were becoming 'too academicised.' Chute, who currently works with Spiegelman took this up: "I constantly hear anti-academic stuff from Art, sometimes jokingly, sometimes not," she said and went on to elaborate on what she thought was actually lacking in academic responses to the graphic narrative medium (and what probably prompts Spiegelman's suspicion of it): quality - or as she put it, "intelligent discourse." [ed note: in trying to find good resources to work with for a paper this past term I found a lot of unintelligent comic book academic articles, so I can't help but agree with Chute on this one]

This sparked a more interesting discussion on the role and value of academic discussion when it comes to comics. Hadju asked: what does an intellectual/formal inquiry on a vernacular/informal art such as comics offer us? Does it deepen it? Contaminate it? These seem to be the questions floating around and it is a shame that they got lost among in the related but not quite as probing question of 'why do people write on comics?' Wolk quipped that he did it for the money [cue laughter]. If, as we are seeing, more and more people are writing 'academically' about comics (Chute cited at least five journals publishing graphic narrative special issues in the past couple of years), then what is it that they want in doing so? The panel suggested that, in beginning to create an academic body of work what we'll be seeing is an expansion of the very vocabulary necessary to discuss comics. Commenting on the literary criticism coming from the academy, Chute added that what was lacking was an attention to the way the form of comics work, suggesting that most comics-criticism tends to shy away from visual analysis and focus instead on plot-details, disregarding the distinct language of comics. 'How do we read comics?' is a question that, to Chute, has not been exhaustively answered. [Heer helpfully pointed to the fact that the work of all three panelists tried to overcome the logocentric academic responses in the field: Hadju's book tries to convey the art through his prose; Chute's analysis focuses on the way image and word collaborate to narrate a story and Wolk's pieces highlight the artwork as well as the writing of comics].

At this point the conversation veered in two separate but altogether complementary ways: the production of comics and the insider/outsider feel to the comics environment.

Production: while Wolk, Hadju and Heer seemed to look positively on the amount of work being produced right now in the realm of comics (The 'Golden Age'), Chute voiced her skepticism: true enough, we have more comics being published right now, but is any of it good? Heer put it best anecdotally: before you'd go to a party and hear everyone talk about how they were working on their 'novel' but now, everyone's talking about the graphic novel they're currently working on. That is precisely the type of work Chute was dismissing: everyone is churning out graphic novels they make in 3 months, but if we look at quality graphic novels, they take years citing Spiegelman's Maus and Alison Bechdel's Fun Home as examples. This of course speaks to the conversation of canon-formation which had taken place earlier; but not just in terms of comics but also - and this is where the 'new-ness' of the field exposes itself - of comics criticism. Not only do we need better material out there, but better criticism and academic attention of it.

Insider/Outsider: This, just like the canon-conversation, brought up then the role of fans. Wolk spoke of the schism between the insiders and the outsiders (a binary that he himself suggested should be thought of as a Venn Diagram): between the fans/shopkeepers and everyone else, or even between the mainstream comics circle and the indie/academic one (glibly speaking Batman vs Persepolis). Hadju spoke of the heat he had gotten from comics-fans who didn't take nicely the fact that an 'outsider' was writing The Ten-Cent Plague, and of the recurrent question of 'Can you draw?' that he got while researching and interviewing for the book. These anecdotes, Hadju went on to explain, are indicative of the sort of sheltered and defensive (if ever so well-meaning) attitude that currently exists in the 'Comics world.'

While the panel didn't quite reach an answer to any of these questions (and I'm not saying it should have) it was still fruitful to see intelligent discussion surrounding these issues. To end, a comment that really stuck with me from Wolk: talking about how he catered his work to different audiences, he said that sometimes he just had to work with the assumption that his readers knew about comics even if they hadn't: "If you're not making the assumption that your readers don't know comics, it becomes easier and it makes readers aware that they should know about them." Isn't that nicely put?

Check back for commentary/'retroactive liveblogging' of the rest of the panels:

11:00-12:15 Comics and Canon Formation
1:30-2:45 Comics and Kid's Lit
3:00-4:15 Comics and the Literary Establishment
5:30-6:45 Comics and the Internet
7:00-8:00 Art Spiegelman and Gary Panter in conversation
8:15-9:30 Hillary Chute interviews Lynda Barry

Post Bang Conference or How 'Comics and Kid's Lit' was fun!

Post Bang: Comics Ten Minutes After the Big Bang!
Friday, June 6 2008
An all-day symposium on the growing cultural significance of comics curated by Art Spiegelman and Kent Worcester

Blogging about an academic symposium - it seems like an attack on everything I get taught in grad school, but I do feel that the more interesting part of a panel like this is the interactions and the personal reactions from the audience (consider it [retroactive] liveblogging in an academic setting).

1:30-2:45 Comics and Kid's Lit
Françoise Mouly (moderator, Art Editor of the New Yorker and founder of TOON BOOKS), Lisa von Drasek (Children's Librarian of the Bank Street College of Education), Leonard Marcus (historian and critic of Children's Lit, author of The Wand in the Word), Mo Willems (author of Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus! and Knuffle Bunny: a cautionary tale) and Sara Varon (author of robot dreams and chicken and cat).

The second panel for the Post Bang symposium, held at the Cantor Film Center @ NYU last Friday dealt with the relationship between Comics and Children's Literature. After introducing the panelists, Mouly put forth the very simple (albeit provoking) question: IF children like comics, can we ponder, WHY?

What followed was a conversation mainly dominated by Mo Willems and Lisa von Drasek, whose strong and colourful personalities were no match for the quiet demeanour of Leonard Marcus and the subdued and straightforward answers of Sara Varon ("I just make things I like" seemed to be the only thing Varon could muster when asked if she wrote for a particular young audience). "Nobody suspected the comic strips" began Willems when trying to convey the freedom the medium allows for and answering Mouly's question; "When people take comic strips seriously,"he added, "I'll have to sculpt pooh-pooh or something." [what difference in tone and in subject matter, I thought, from the initial panel on comics and canon-making!].

What was really interesting about this panel (the one I was least interested in, as I hadn't really given this particularly subject a second thought) was the way the panelists handled their different takes on the issues raised. Case in point: in the liveliest part of the conversation, Mouly and her panelists took to answering the question of whether Children's Literature (condescendingly dubbed Kid's Lit) was ghettoized by the publishing companies and whether in that ghetto the picture-book was looked down upon in contrast to its wordier counterparts. Willems and von Drasek spoke to the way Children's books (and by default it would seem, picture books - which as Varon pointed out, need not be, but are marketed as, kid's 2-4+ books) are indeed ghettoized, sometimes causing its authors little freedom to 'move up' as it were to produce 'adult-oriented' material ("Jim Henson couldn't have made Goodfellas" joked Willems).

Despite differences among the panelists (Mouly stressed several times how she had experienced first hand a certain dismissing attitude from publishers when it came to picture book, in their manuscript-based system; while Willems and von Drasek seemed much more optimistic about the situation, for example), the panel as a whole suggested that things were changing when it came to the way picture-books and comic books were seen by publishers, teachers and libraries. Von Drasek shared many an anecdote regarding the way her work had indeed breached the way for picture books to be picked up and bought at her library; yet her anecdotes also (as did Willems' points at times) pointed at the inevitable censorship inherent in the cultivation of early readers.

Time and time again, the panel faced the very crucial point of is the word more important than the image; but then, if what we want to nurture is quality readers and quality work, why would it seem (as Mouly pointed out) that such renowned Children's Classics are remembered as much for their images as for their language (think Cat in the Hat, Goodnight Moon, Curious George)? The consensus seemed to lie in the apparent 'readability' and 'accessibility' of picture/comic books, which the panel concluded was as much a strong as well as a misleading label. But this is inherent in all 'All Ages' products, it indeed broadens the audience, but it need not intrinsically be limited to just kids. If we are seeing a revival of the 'funny books,' Willems said, it is because 'funny isn't scary anymore' and pop culture has embraced it, and if in this time and age, it gets the kids reading and sponsoring a self-selective reading practice, well so be it!

Check back for commentary/'retroactive liveblogging' of the rest of the panels:

11:00-12:15 Comics and Canon Formation
1:30-2:45 Comics and Kid's Lit
3:00-4:15 Comics and the Literary Establishment
5:30-6:45 Comics and the Internet
7:00-8:00 Art Spiegelman and Gary Panter in conversation
8:15-9:30 Hillary Chute interviews Lynda Barry

Post Bang Comics, Art Spiegelman, Mo Willems, Sara Varon, Françoise Mouly

Post Bang Conference or How 'Comics and Canon Formation' was up first

Post Bang: Comics Ten Minutes After the Big Bang!
Friday, June 6 2008
An all-day symposium on the growing cultural significance of comics curated by Art Spiegelman and Kent Worcester

Blogging about an academic symposium - it seems like an attack on everything I get taught in grad school, but I do feel that the more interesting part of a panel like this is the interactions and the personal reactions from the audience (consider it [retroactive] liveblogging in an academic setting).

11:00-12:15pm Comics and Canon Formation
Rob Storr (moderator, was curator of MOMA, including its High and Low exhibition), John Carlin (Masters of American Comics) and Dan Nadel (Art Out of Time: Unknown Visionary Cartoonists, 1900-1969, also check out his PictureBox)

Kicking off the Post-Bang Symposium and its first panel, Rob Storr started us off with a few introductory remarks regarding the question of the 'Canon' as it relates the Comics-medium. "If we have the problem of canon formation," he said, "it is because we can argue we need one." True enough: add in the fact that criticism has proliferated and we find ourselves going back and forth between Carlin and Nadel on the issue of canon formation.
And, following up on Storr's lighthearted boxing match language, I offer a brief match recap:
On the one hand we had John Carlin, a Yale graduate who got his start as a Comp Lit student before moving on to Art History [this of course was information he offered, though a keen listener would have been able to discern his Yale/theory roots, particularly in the form of Bloomian remarks), who put forth the sort of institutional impetus towards canon-making arguments that are so common place it was hard for me not to be suspicious of them.
On the other we had Dan Nadel, who Storr posited as 'anti-canon' or pro an 'alternate canon.' If Carlin was advocating the creation of a canon so as to give a sense of what the best of comics were/had been (think Matthew Arnold, though he later softened this argument), Nadel was giving us a wider version of the canon, and trying to think of ways of (re)conceiving what the 'canon' might mean in a medium such as 'Comics.' For Nadel, the concept that comics deserve 'special treatment' and the continuing battle that comics have waged for themselves and for 'legitimacy' has done more harm for the medium, especially in the last couple of years, which - according to him - have seen the battle become non-existent.
For every 'the canon is merely an instructional tool' Nadel had a 'yes, but canons tend to calcify'; for every 'canons are made to be rethought, critiqued and expanded' Nadel had a 'yes, but we need to remember that the Comics canon has been made and perpetuated by and for fans, who says we have not left people behind in that initial step?' and for the very intriguing 'canons are strawmen to be torn apart; its just how they work: someone creates them and then other people attack it and make it broader/better' Nadel had a 'but can't we skip that step? Comics aren't literature and if anything, we should learn about the 'mistakes' in canon-making which disciplines like Literature have seen.' Overall I found Nadel's insights provoking and much more rooted in the medium at hand: Carlin all too often (as did Storr) ventured into analogous arguments (Jazz and American Film being their favourite counterparts) that did little to elucidate the Comics part of 'Comics Canon.'
But what we saw at work was basically a difference in approaches and methodologies. Carlin, due to his academic background kept bringing up such notions as 'discouse,' 'Apollonian taxonomy,' and 'Benjaminian Mechanical Reproduction' that did little to ground his Bloomian and Arnoldian arguments: the canon is a list of exemplars that can be used to map out the influences and trends in comics history, in something other than institutional jargon. Carlin does have a point - we work (with)in canons - in classrooms, museums, galleries, etc. which rubs up against Nadel's very insouciant 'let's keep looking back at archives trying to continually (re)discover talents to add to what would look like a web-like pantheon of examples ("__ was very good at __").' That said, the conversation was ripe with possibilities and you can't really have a Nadel without a Carlin, and ideally, a Carlin without a Nadel.
And yet, they both seemed to agree on the fact that what makes hard for us to think/conceive of a comics canon is the hard-to-come-by archives due to the very ephemeral nature of comics themselves. Sure, there is TCM for movies, but what would a TCM for comics look like? And how does that reflect on the very nature of canon-making we were discussing?

Altogether, the panel was very lively and ripe with interesting and thought-provoking questions - a great start to what was a great event.

Check back for commentary/'retroactive liveblogging' of the rest of the panels:

11:00-12:15 Comics and Canon Formation
1:30-2:45 Comics and Kid's Lit
3:00-4:15 Comics and the Literary Establishment
5:30-6:45 Comics and the Internet
7:00-8:00 Art Spiegelman and Gary Panter in conversation
8:15-9:30 Hillary Chute interviews Lynda Barry

Post Bang Comics, Art Spiegelman

Happy Birthday Donald Duck Day! or How [insert unintelligible quacking here]

(June 9th 1934)

Because here, we celebrate diversity, and if a pantless, cantankerous sailor duck isn't 'diversity' I don't know what is.

[PopWatch source]

Kung Fu Panda, or How There IS no Secret Ingredient!

Kung Fu Panda
Dir. Mark Osborne & John Stevenson
Voicework: Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Jackie Chang, Lucy Liu, Ian McShane, David Cross & Seth Rogen.

I am such a PIXAR fan (and used to be such a die-hard Disney fan in the 90's) that it has always been hard for me to find movies outside of those two studios that made for real feats in animation. Shrek of course comes to mind, as does Antz. Sure, Ice Age and Madagascar were fun, but they were no Monsters Inc. or The Incredibles. Which is why I was hesitant to go into a movie that (like Shrek and so many animated movies recently) relied heavily on its voicework actors - has any character since that green ogre looked as much as its voice actor as Po does to Jack Black?

And yet, minutes into the film I was very much at home. The initial 2D Animation sequence that opens the film was inspired and sets the tone for this action-adventure family film which follows Po, a noodle-cooking Panda who dreams of becoming a legendary Kung Fu fighter. Little does he know that luck (and maybe a deluded old tortoise and some fireworks) end up crowning him the Dragon Warrior, the legendary warrior said to have enough strength and valour to unveil the secrets of the Dragon Scroll which will help him defeat Tai Lung (that Anakin Skywalker-esque character who after being trained by Shifu - the hilarious Dustin Hoffman red-panda style, turned against his master after being denied the scroll for himself).

What follows is of course a story about trusting yourself, finding your place in a world that seems to be against you and realising that Life is what you make of it. Like we learn later in the film: there IS no secret ingredient. You are. But in between we get great humour (how refreshing to have taken everything I hated about Jack Black - his awkwardness, his boyish and buoyant looks, his immaturity, his 'I am rock star in a Buddha' outfit - and found the great vehicle for finding them funny), astonishing action sequences (the fight between the legendary Furious Five: a mantis, a crane, a tiger, a monkey and a viper, and Tai Lung on a bridge was breathtaking) and impressive visuals (the textures! the action! the martial arts!). This movie was truly a treat, including the greatest chopsticks-related martial arts training scene since Karate Kid. I enjoyed it so much that at times I forgot I was listening to the voices of Tootsie, Lara Croft, Tobias, O-Ren and Mr Jackie Chang himself! A

I loved...
-The training sequences (especially the aforementioned chopsticks scene)
-Any scene with Po's noodle-making dad. "You had the noodle dream!"/"We are noodle-making folk... it's in our blood!"
- The end credits (where did Monkey's cookies go?!)
- The acupuncture scene. "That was me! I hit a facial nerve! And I think I might've stopped his heart!"
- The fact that only in an animated movie Ms Jolie wouldn't kick more ass than Jack Black.
- The character designs. I particularly loved the approach in creating Oogway and Master Crane.

Kung Fu Panda, Animation

Presto! WALL*E, or How I can't wait!

As if I wasn't looking forward to WALL*E enough, I found some new stills over at Slashfilm and a still from the short that will premiere right before it ("Presto" directed by Doug Sweetland):

From the clips I got to see at NYComic Con the character joining WALL E here is pretty much hilarious: a neat freak who keeps cleaning and scrubbing after WALL E (that being his job: to de-contaminate whatever comes into the ship):

Aw, look at EVE and WALL E - in Tokyo. Or something...

And here's the still from Presto about a rabbit who gets tired of his magician boss and angles to get even. It looks so Pixar-ey I'm tres excited.
Wall E, Pixar

Heartthrobs Next Door, or How AfterElton.com's Hot 100 List is out! (pun!)

You know a Hot 100 List is gonna be mighty fine when Jared Leto is #100 (and no, there's no sarcasm in that sentence at all! - I may not be a fan of 30 Seconds to Mars, nor can I name a recent cinematic outing by Mr Leto, but all I have to say to you is: mascara + Alexander. I rest my case).

Go check out AfterElton.com Hot 100 List here. Jake 'Jack Twist' Gyllenhaal took the #1 spot. And it reminded me: "Jack-Twist" (v.) ie. 'I have just been jack-twisted' needs to happen; that and after watching SatC I want to start using 'colouring' as an euphemism.

Glad to have seen on the list: Christopher Gorham, Robert Downey Jr., Ricky Martin, Eric Mabius, Lee Pace, David Boreanaz, Ryan Gosling, Heath Ledger, & Neil Patrick Harris. (Funnily enough... I've blogged on every single one of 'em except for the two Ugly Betty hotties, but there was enough love for their show here)
Made me wonder why they were on this list: Matthew McConaughey (Why?), Shia LeBoeuf (for more on my Shay-ya thoughts) & especially T.R. Knight (c'mon, his character is a wimp, and he's not even that hot).
Pleasant Surprises: David Tennant (Scrumptious Doctor Who?), Jake Siberman & Van Hansis (who knew Daytime soaps had gay hotness?) & Luke McFarlane (do I really need to keep up with ABC's B&S now?).

And, of course, my faves:

Paul Rudd

What's sexier than a funny man? A sexy funny man who can rock the facial hair and whose name rhymes with thud. Clueless might be long-gone (in people's minds... I still watch it from time to time - by that I mean every Wednesday, of course) but Mr Rudd has aged into his looks and looks better than ever, n'est-ce pas?

Jamie Bamber

What is there to say about Lee 'Apollo' Adama that has not been said in the form of comments in gay and straight blogs/ forums/ list-servs/ bathroom stalls right after the infamous 'towel scene' on arguably one of the best (sci-fi) shows ever, Battlestar Galactica? Exactly. Just drool on.

James Marsden

I love that GAP ad. I really do. James looks so comfortable in that awkward pose that I'm going to pretend like I wasn't (re) watching Heights on TV yesterday. Cause I wasn't, I mean I don't watch Lifetime... unless James is macking on Jesse Bradford while Glenn Close rehearses for Lady M that is.

Christian Bale

Yes, I know POP COLONY has this one covered, what with his stunning Details cover, but I just had to include Bruce Wayne in here because if there's something I love in a man it's talent, and Mr Bale - with projects like American Psycho, The Machinist & 3:!0 To Yuma has shown he has plenty of it! Good thing he's not hard on the eyes.

Zac Effron

You know I had to include Mr T(w)een Heartthrob. Just look at him! And it's legal... right? Meh, who cares. The guy can sing! (well, when someone else isn't recording the HSM 1 soundtrack for him) and dance! (Oh Link!) and can make you swoon with low-rise trunks! Now that's talent, I say.

AfterElton.com, Hot 100 List

Sex and the City, or How I'll have another Cosmo please!

Sex and the City (The Movie)

Dir/Writer: Michael Patrick King

Starring: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon & Kristin Davis.

As any other self-respecting SatC fan, I was hesitant about Carrie & co.'s move to the big screen. I mean, what where they gonna do: set up everything from 6 seasons, tear it apart and then re-build it? True enough, Michael Patrick King's screenplay does just this. In the first minutes we get a recap of all four of our girls and then the movie moves forward towards a wedding, a pregnancy, a breakup and separation. But, sure enough, Carrie and friends manage to elevate the material from pure fluff (which it is), rom-comm-y (which it's full of), chick-flicky (which envelops it) and campy (which it always was) and make it 'Sex and the City.' It's got everything we loved about the show: drinks, labels, Carrie's voiceover (and puns!), objectified men and a love-story plot to boot. For the first 3/4 of the movie, Ms Parker (with her expressive eyes and self-aware comedic timing), Ms Cattral (with her insouciant wit and bravado), Ms Nixon (with her spark and cynicism) and Ms Davis (with her ingenuity and lovable naivete) had me hooked. I mean, it finally gave me what I always wanted for Carrie, to be rid of Big (::ducks for cover!::) - but more importantly, it used this pivotal plot point (the wedding) as a showcase for great comedy and great tragedy; arguably the back bone of the show's 6 year run: that moment when Carrie runs to Big to hit him with the flowers - while a bit over-the-top (but who here hates that?) - was painful and heartbreaking, but then an equally heartbroken (and hysterical) Charlotte yells at Big and then zig-zags back into the car as she scolds. Moments like this fill the entire movie; where you feel and you laugh, where you go 'aw' and you laugh, and then; just like Carrie and Charlotte's incident in Mexico, sometimes you ... just laugh out loud.

One should never judge a movie by uttering such things as 'I wish the character would have just...' (cause really, they're not real people!) so instead I'll just say: I wish King and Parker would have driven Carrie towards a better and more fulfilling finale. I mean, Miranda learns to take down her guard around Steve and swallows her pride and embraces her love for him; Charlotte... well, dear Ms Charlotte had little to worry about the entire movie; Samantha learns that she comes (no pun intended) first in her life... but Carrie, I wish Carrie didn't end up on square one. But alas... the first 3/4 of the movie more than make up for it, with big laughs, great outfits, fabulous shots of New York and a big load of the L-word to throw around: Love. Oh and J-Hud, yah, she was okay. True, her character was a bit too 'Carrie' circa 20 years ago (if she had been a 'sistah') but whatevs. At least her song at the end was much better than Fergie's at the beginning of the film.

In a nutshell, it was the SaTC movie I wanted to see: one that I didn't regret watching and wished had never existed. But more than that, it was a treat to watch and hey, if in the process it gave us full frontal male nudity, well... all the better. A

And now... favourite moments [Spoilers Alert!]:

Charlotte.

Funny: Her encounter with Big when she's incredibly pregnant. "I curse the day you were born!" ::hand movement::

And of course: ALL her time in Mexico. Hah-larious.

Sweet: Tearing up while furniture shopping with Carrie over her newly found pregnancy.

Samantha.

Funny: Two words - sushi, naked. (As well as her wedding dinner party toast - mainly when she yells at the d-bag at the table)

Hot: All the hot-tub scenes with Dante. Okay, she wasn't with Dante, but they were still hot.

Miranda.

Funny: (even if racist) - Walking down Chinatown looking for an affordable place downtown ("Oh, White guy with a baby! Follow him. Wherever he's going is where we need to be...")

Heartbreaking: Watching her while Steve tells her he cheated on her.

Carrie.

Funny: SJP parading her Take/Toss/Store dresses (including the credits-sequence tutu) was priceless.

Heartbreaking: when she gets Big's call at the Public Library. Gasping for air, letting the cellphone fall, screaming to be gotten out of there asap. Teared me up. (Though I did enjoy the iPhone scene right before this "Someone get me a phone! [gets iPhone] ... I don't know how to work this! Give me a real phone!").

Awesome: the bridal dresses Vogue shoot.

Oh, and to all those male critics who are hating on SatC's b.o. numbers, Vulture I think got it right: Carrie & co. are superheros!

Sex and the City Movie

NYC Pop Cultural Geography, or How TV puts things on MY map!

As a little ongoing project, I have decided to spend a couple of posts thinking of the different places TV has put on my imaginary global (but mostly North American) map. We'll do the big ones first (NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, San Fran, etc) but I also want to add smaller (and/or imaginary) places that I wouldn't have even cared for, if it hadn't been for people like Rory (Stars Hollow, CN), Dawson (Capeside, MA), and Buffy (Sunnydale, CA).

But first (and because I live close to it):


NEW YORK CITY
- This is the "City" in 'Spin City,' 'Caroline in the City' and 'Sex and the City'
- It has housed a blond witch, a Big Bird, some cool turtles, a sewage inhabiting Beast, a girl who talks to dead people and flashes back in time, animated gargoyles and lately some overhyped 'heroes.'
- It has produced iconic places that I wish I could hang out at like 'Central Perk,' 'Monk's Cafe,' 'Riff's,' & 'McClaren's.' Oh. And of course 'Central Park West.'
- This is where Betty, Felicity, Lucy, Carrie and Jerry live!
- This is where Will lived with Grace, where Ted met the 'Mother,' where Ross and Rachel were not on a break, where Jamie met Paul, where the Cosbys were a family, where the Wayans were brothers, where Veronica had her closet and where I just wanted to shoot David Spade.
- This is where Tina Fey, Lucille Ball, Felicity Huffman, Amanda Bynes, Dick Van Dyke and Fran Drescher comedically shined.
- This is where CSI, Law & Order, Without a Trace, Thirdwatch, etc. get their kicks.
- And of course all boros are accounted for: there's a King in Queens, someone's Grounded for Life in Staten Island, a certain Becker lived in the Bronx, a couple of Honeymooners in Brooklyn and of course an Apprentice in Manhattan.

View Larger Map

I could keep going but it should be no surprise to anyone why NYC is one of the most famous city in the world: it's a blank canvas where you can paint any story you want: what other city can say they house Samantha Jones as well as Spiderman, 'That Girl' and 'The Odd Couple,' a Real World season as well as SNL...?

And now, we put the first pin in the map - New York City:


View Larger Map

[Wikipedia article]

Faster Better Harder Stronger, or How, is Daft Punk gay?

- Is he gay?
- He listens to Daft Punk.
- Yeah, but is he gay?
- Did I fail to mention Daft Punk?

Sunday in the Park with George, or How Sondheim is kind of Awesome

Sunday in the Park with George

Who?
Daniel Evans (George)
Jenna Russell (Dot / Marie)
Michael Cumpsty (Jules / Bob Greenberg)
Alexander Gemignani (Boatman / Dennis)
Jessica Molaskey (Yvonne / Naomi / Eisen)
Mary Beth Peil (Old Lady / Blair Daniels)
Ed Dixon (Mr. / Charles Redmond)
Santino Fontana (Bather / Soldier / Alex)

Why?
Because Daniel Evans and Jenna Russel sparkle in this Sondheim classic about a fictional (re)telling of George Seurat's famous A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte painting (see below).
Or because the staging - so modern yet so Romantic, is wonderful and really gives you the sense of watching a picture come to life (I particularly enjoyed the initial moments in Act I when George sees two trees and decides to erase one, as the one on stage disappears, only to be mourned by another character minutes later: "Where's our tree?" she bemoans).
Or because the music and lyrics manage to be bubbly ("The collar is damp/Beginning to pinch"), insightful (" I cannot divide my feelings up as neatly as you, and I am not hiding behind my canvas-I am living in it"), heartbreaking ("Changing...It keeps changing I see towers Where there were trees") and altogether brilliant in conveying the complexity of artistic inspiration, love, muses and everyday life.
This was definitely one of those shows where, the more I think about it, the more I love it: how the picture comes to life by making its actors stand still (oh the paradox!); how 20thC George becomes

Highlights
- I particularly enjoyed the seamless weaving of special effects and technology into the production.
- The soldier. So funny. So simple and so inspired!
- The fact that this is actually a thought-provoking musical.
- The music and lyrics. Oh Sondheim, you spoil us:

Overall, this is a beautifully crafted production that uses audiovisuals, talent and great music to tell a moving story about the whys and wherefores of artistic creation. See? It even elicits wholly inappropriate poetic language in attempting to critique it... that must say something, right? A

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, or How - Wouldn't they die?

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, John Hurt, Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent... and, oh yeah that kid.

Let's play 5 questions (20's pushing it, really):

Is Indiana Jones and the Longest Title in the World not belonging to a Johnny Depp Franchise a great movie? No. While it has great moments (any time Ms Blanchett is on-screen!) the entire movie seems a bit too-contrived (especially that horrible paternity thing, which other than making Harrison the new Conner, does little else than introduce a greaser who (given Spielberg and Ford's A-okay) might take over the franchise (god forbid!).

Is Indiana Jones and The Fonz a good summer popcorn movie? Perhaps. It has thrills, it has laughs, it has effing CGI monkeys for god's sakes! This is definitely not Iron Man territory but the 124mins went by swimmingly fast - always a good sign for a summer movie.

Is Indiana Jones and the 'Apocalypto meets Shyamalan's Signs' character designs a memorable Spielberg movie? Far from it. Steven (yes, we're on a first-name basis, stop asking!) can direct a movie like this in his sleep. Actually he probably did. 'Beautiful establishing shot here... ::snore:: Wildly choreographed (though not less enjoyable because of it) fight scene here ::snore:: Witty humour here...::snore:: ooOoh! Jews! No. Wait. Other Spielberg-ey staple: Aliens! Yeah... aliens!'

Is Indiana Jones and the Improbable Death-Defying Action Sequences worth your money? I think so. I mean, think of all the life-lessons you're taught:
- Harrison at any age is more bankable than Ashton+Cameron, or Brits in weird accents, or Dempsey+Monaghan... isn't that reassuring? Viva Han Solo!
- Cate Blanchett can and will kill you. Creepy and good-looking with gorgeous eyes and skin - all in spite of a horrid Eastern European hairdo - not even Javier could work the bob, but Cate... she's in a different league altogether!
- Never underestimate the power of Brit-casting. Shaa-ee-aah at least got some acting lessons from John and Jim. Take notes kid.
- Russians have a different sense of fashion. But then, so did the Greasers... Discuss.
- South Americans didn't really create awe-inspiring Nazca lines or anything like it... Aliens did. See how that's more believable?

Is Indiana Jones and Natasha Fatale a good addition to the Indy franchise? That one's harder to answer. Indy IV has everything an Indy movie should have: wit, whips and world-traveling. It also has a couple of things Indy didn't need: a son (wtf?! Please, can someone explain to me Shai-ah's appeal? Seriously...), a wife (Really? Marion?), and people who live in the space in between space (huh?).

Sure, it was crazy. Sure, I hated every moment 'Shaya' was on screen (he irks me more than I convey really, which is probably why I loved that Harrison kept him in line and didn't take any of his 'I'm the new It-boy' crap), but I still thoroughly enjoyed Indy 4 - I mean, how can you not enjoy a movie which is constantly winking your way?
'Yeah, this is a nuclear testing facility, but see how this Lead-poisoning/made fridge saved me? Improbable? C'mon! ::wink!::'
'I might be old enough to be your grandfather, but I can still crack a whip like it was 1981! ::wink::'
'Yeah, I am Cate Blanchett and I have a hurricane in me! Wait? Sha-e-a is competition in a sword fight? haha ::wink wink::'

Did I mention Cate's the best thing about this movie? B+

Prince Caspian, or How I'm Seeing Double

Dollhouse, or How I can't wait!

Trailer's up here.

Desperate Housewives, or How Wisteria Lane was better than ever!

Desperate Housewives Season 4 Finale (with additional 5 Years Later ending!)

As if they hadn't cemented the whole 'Season 4' is D-Hoe's comeback!/as good as 'Season 1'! raves, the writers and actors of Desperate Housewives proved in the finale that things, indeed, have rarely been this juicy since their freshmen year. The two-hour season finale showcased what the D-Hoes do best: catty banter (any Gaby line, really), suburban drama (highbrow: Lynette in jail for child abuse; lowbrow: Bree catering Lee and Bob's commitment ceremony); marital drama (Bree and Orson, Lynette and Tom), slapstick humour (Mike calling Susan's son 'Maynard') and in the midst of it all dark deep (criminal) secrets (Catherine/Dylan's past finally revealed!). And not one aspect of the story lines was without its moments of brilliance. 

I could go into detail about the things I loved (Bob and Lee's commitment ceremony and the hilarity that ensued, Susan's actually funny story line about 'Maynard'), or about the things that made me laugh out loud (Bree telling Lynette how horrid her napkin swans are, Carlos yelling for help at the closet), or about the things I enjoyed (Susan and Julie's reverse 'I'm going to college' conversation, Kayla finally leaving), or about the things I gasped at (Catherine's secret: no one killed anyone! Wayne going all '24' on Adam! and of course the '5 Years Later' bit!) but instead I'll just give a short commentary on the 5 years later bit (the thing everyone's yapping about!) and jot down my fave lines from the episodes (more for keepsake than for anything else):

Bree.

Husband? Still with Orson, Check.

Kids? Andrew's still around. We can easily suppose Benjamin's in the house. Who knows where Danielle is?

Job? Cookbook author (and 24/7 suburban housewife and mom we suppose).

Looks? Just as uptight and beautiful as we remember.

Lynette.

Husband? Still with Tom, YAY!

Kids? If you mean juvenile delinquent twins, yes. We assume the rest of the pack's still around, sans Kayla of course (thank god! - creepy kids, not cool. See Julia Stiles' The Omen)

Job? Not mentioned. Do we think Scavo's survived?

Looks? Sporting a not so hot cut, but we'll take anything over 'em Cancer scarves.

Catherine.

Husband? We don't know. 

Kids? A marrying Romanian girl who she calls Dylan but isn't 'Dylan' of course.

Job? Still mysterious as ever that Catherine ("aloof" might be a good word to describe her)

Looks? Only housewife I thought looked better in the flash-forward actually.

Gaby.

Husband? Still with Carlos, we assume? Or was she just gonna 'fix' dinner for the girls?

Kids? HA! Two girls! Who love ravaging her closet.

Job? Full time mom? I'm elle oh elling too much at the thought.

Looks? I will miss Ms Longoria-Parker's lovely looks, as she was sporting a horrible sweatpants and no makeup combo, but oh the things Latinas do for their men...

Susan.

Husband? Yes: NOT-Mike! Hooray! The weakest link in the show has been removed! Instead she's now married to Brian Kinney er... Gale Harold. Hot.

Kids? We assume poor Maynard's still around, and Julie must be somewhere...

Job? Full time Gale Harold-loving? I want her job.

Looks? Thankfully the flash-forward allowed Teri Hatcher to finally look her character's age (ouch... just had to!) 

Favourite Lines:

Carlos: Gaby don't go up there, it's dangerous.

Gaby: Not as dangerous as poverty!

Lynette: You know I like giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Bree: No, you don't!

Lynette: Okay that's true, but let's say I did...

Bob: Lee, remember how you said I should tell you when you're acting like Faye Dunaway in the boardroom scene from Mommy Dearest...?

Lynette: That's not a cherub. It has no wings.

Bree: And the David has no arms, deal with it.

Bree (to Orson): Don't you dare throw your calligraphy skills at me when you know I'm at a low point!

Gaby (to Carlos): Come on, we're never gonna have kids. Shoes are my kids! Let me be the mother I was meant to be.