Turn It Up! Trailer Music Takes a Front Seat

Adèle Exarchopoulos and Léa Seydoux in Blue is the Warmest Color.

Music enjoyed quite the spotlight in not just its idiom with the barely there videos for Blurred Lines and Wrecking Ball, but also in cinema as well. Just in trailers, filmmakers and their editing team showed us they're still hipsters at heart and though the film itself might have an original score, they are going to draw you in with some hip indie shit so you'll watch their hip indie film. 

August: Osage County (2013) even got on the bandwagon, where I'm sure some idiot was thinking ok, a film about domestic dispute and general tension within a family, where have we seen that before? The Lumineers! They're not annoying the shit out of the whole population yet (yes they are) get them on the phone...worked for Silver Linings Playbook (2012), so what if it's 2 years later and no one cares nor ever wants to hear another song by The Lumineers ever again (can you say overexposed?) let's stick that in the trailer. I'm sure Meryl draped against the background of a light-hearted Lumineers ditty will convince people that this is actually a pretty dark story about a family falling apart with a biting comic edge. They'll think it's a fun flick for the whole family to enjoy. I'll take morons for 300 Alex.

I could literally hear every song Sleigh Bells ever wrote over this image.

But everyone else seemed to have the right idea, even people that do nothing but accentuate the soundtrack, never bothering to hire someone to write an original score so that the whole world is force fed their exceptional knowledge of music in general. I'm talking to you Sofia Copolla. Every single goddamn film of hers is saturated with indie hits and long forgotten tunes from eras we no longer care about just so that people can leave the film going 'wow, that was a really long music video we just sat through', but even I was on board after watching both the teaser and the trailer for The Bling Ring (2013) against which the punishing beats of Sleigh Bells were 'ringing'. I was like fuck it, I'll watch the damn thing; I mean it really was the perfect track for a film about spoiled LA trust fund babies going on a robbing spree in the Hollywood Hills, I was even watching the film mouthing the words 'set set that crown on the ground...bitches' I ad libbed that last part. 

Blue is the Warmest Color (2013) didn't disappoint either, it's a dark Euro film filled with heightened emotion, lots of shakey steady-cam, and lady-tears, don't get me wrong, I loved it, and they did choose the best artist to sing in the background of all of this draaaama in the trailer; miss Lykke Li. The new Bjork as it were. She's Euro, she's emotional, she's saturated in feminist lyricism, and haunting grooves, she's perfect, and her song 'I Follow Rivers' which was used in the trailer was pitch perfect to describe the film to me in a matter of two minutes.

Not only does Harmony Korine give us a glimpse into Alien's headspace, but his ipod shuffle too.

But as ever, the winner this year is (surprise, surprise) Harmony Korine, I'm sorry I know you know by now my feelings about Spring Breakers (2013), but I'm going to sing it's praises once again. Perhaps the best use of music this whole year, combining a chilling and ominous score with some iconic pop ballads and new hits from edgy artists like Skrillex and Gucci Mane (one of the actors in the film btdubs) was bloody brilliant. In the trailer, it begins with the girls just talking about making it to Spring Break, and getting 'the fucking money' to get there, and once they do, crank up the Gucci Mane as they twerk up on each other and ride scooters like champions into St. Pete's. Gangsta's fo life. Once James Franco shows up, they change it up to a dark remix by Skrillex, which jumps with the clips from the film; from the surreally magical to the deeply horrific. It worked on me immediately. It's perhaps the trailer of the year. (Although I was a big fan of Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)) TRAILER-WISE. 

Here's a film that really fucked up on their trailer...Inside Llewyn Davis (2013), excellent film, what the fuck, trailer? Instead of using original music from the film (which one would argue was smart as it would give too much away and lord knows that the Coen Brothers are awesome with music considering O Brother, Where Art Though? (2003) made more on the soundtrack than the film did itself) but instead they went for a little known Bob Dylan ballad called 'Farewell' and considering the topic of the film, in Eisenstenian theory (calm down bleeding heart film students), one would assume this is some kind of 'based on actual events' retelling of Bob Dylan's life a la I'm Not There (2007) not a totally original piece about a folk singer living in New York with a ginger cat trying to make it by during the neo-bohemian scene and resurgence of folk music in the West Village. I would still elect to use original music from the film, or at least part of the score, just nothing as recognizable like Dylan because that's going to confuse people, so fail there Coen Brothers, but not to worry the film still kicked major ass. Well...that's about it for me, I mean the trailer for Gravity (2013) was smart in using classical music, a lesson learned from Lars Von Trier I'm sure, considering there's I believe little to no music in the film at all, and classical music always heightens up the drama, I mean I think I've heard Mozart's requiem used over 20 times in trailers from the past 2 years alone. So anyway enjoy your new iTunes purchases and I'll leave you with the trailers and maybe some music videos. Cheers! 

Why Spring Breakers is the Best Film of The Year and Deserves an Oscar

Let's get shit straight. I've seen almost all of the big contenders for this year's Oscars, and I know that Spring Breakers (2013) is so goddamn controversial it won't even be nominated for the bullshit MTV Movie Awards, but you know what? In 1969 Midnight Cowboy won Best Picture, and it was Rated X, back when they had a 'Rated X' title and not a bullcrap NC-17 title. 

Remember a time when a film about a man-whore and a drug dealer won Best Picture? Me neither.

Yes, 12 Years a Slave (2013) is a masterpiece and if you read my blog you know I sing its praises, but for crap's sake people, if you look back on what defined our culture of the past year, Spring Breakers has got to be in there. It basically encapsulated not only our sad state as idiots in limbo in an unforgiving world in the midst of a financial crisis, war, and recession, but also basically touched on what that has reduced us to as human beings. And it does it in such a profound and unapolagetic bite-your-tongue and slap-your-cheek way that it's impossible to overlook it's relevance. 

All of the 'against-type casting was genius, we all knew Franco would jump on the bandwagon, but it was surprising to see Disney moguls like Hudgens and Gomez partake, I guess they're smarter than we thought.

Yes, 12 Years a Slave is a history peice full to the brim of great performances so it will probably take home the top honors, and Spring Breakers won't even be looked at seriously because it's cynical, full of transgression, nudity, and hedonism, (all of which the Academy frowns upon) but mostly I believe that it will be ignored because it's a blatant spit in the face/middle finger to society and all of the 'social norms' that we accept in order to convince ourselves that we are good people when we are soooooo not. There is no redemption, ascention, or even any kind of forgiveness to this movie. It's brutal, farcical, and violent as fuck. At least with 12 Years, while being violent as fuck as well, it portrays the violence as if to say; hey remember white people, this is something that actually happened. In Spring Breakers, the violence comes from a totally unnecessary and non-sensical place. It's violence for the sake of violence, and that is something that we as a society can't understand, so why should we expect the Academy to? 

My favorite contemporary filmmaking genius, yes above Aronofksy, Fincher, Cuaron, Bigelow etc. An auteur among pretenders. 

But here's the thing, it fucking happens all the time, and it's incomparably painful. Harmony Korine in all of his genius is utilizing every aspect that defines our stupid contemporary culture to bring it to it's massive decaying zenith and throwing it back into your face as if to say 'this is all that's left of you, pathetic morons' and he does it so effortlessly and subliminally that yes, he deserves not only an Oscar but a fucking parade in his honor. Why? Because he's the only one brave to do so. His films never end on a high note, they always end with people walking out going '...why' and then having a few shots and reflecting on it thinking 'fuck, we really ARE that horrible as a species'. 

He doesn't give you any answers...much like Spike Lee always refused to, and do you know why? Because some times in life there are no fucking answers ok people? Sometimes we all do stupid shit and get into trouble for the bad choices we make, and no one is responsible for it but ourselves. Some times we don't win, and some times we don't triumph, and sometimes life is shit until the bitter end. But the genius of Korine reminds us that until we get to that bitter end there are some absolutely fucking amazing moments that though irrational, we know we all have in ourselves to act upon and that's what's so goddamn scary. And...that's exactly why the Academy won't give him shit this year. They will never admit that they are not the classy, robustly moral, paragons of this brave new world, when we all know that of course they are not, and neither are we. So all I can really say is; Thank you, Harmony, don't ever stop pushing our hypocrisies right back into our stupid bloated faces until we choke on it like we deserve to. Thank you sir.

Trailer below.

Borat No Longer Playing Glam Legend Freddie Mercury

Darling of the British theater, and British cinema in general and overall well-respected actor Ben Whishaw to replace Sacha Baron Cohen in Queen bio-pic, he actually does resemble Freddie in his younger years.

I don't know if ya'll have heard, but beloved prankster and general threat to the peace and quiet of our dull society, Sacha Baron Cohen has been officially replaced with chameleon androgynous, is he gay, is he bisexual, skinny tie aficionado Ben Whishaw. I have mixed feelings. I remember telling my mom like way back when Borat (2005) first hit theaters that Sacha Baron Cohen was going to get cast as Freddie Mercury in the eventual bio-pic of his life which has been in the works mmmmm 20 years. I almost got thrown out of a moving car, but hey it made so much sense, still does. 

Not only was the resemblance uncanny, but Sasha had the charisma in order to carry a role like that if not the acting pedigree, but that can be taught, as can those crazy high notes.

Why not? He's charismatic, he's outrageous, he's tall and basically looks a great deal like the legendary glam rock front man of my favorite band in the whole world. And after Les Miserables (2012) we all know he can sing, probably not like Freddie, because let's face it, no one can, but there's auto-tune for that. The look of Freddie was actually what worried me the most because no one has looked like that before or since, and I'm not talking about the black glitter fingernail polish nor the outrageous caped spandex onesies, or even the later mustached tight eighties dad jeans, with the leather bands everywhere look either, just the face, and that crazy mouth of his that he basically could unhinge like a snake so that he could hit all of those crazy notes. Also, Sacha's British, and when you hear him speak his dialectical accent is almost identical to Freddie's so I basically you know thought...mission accomplished. It will be great for him too, he'll be able to show off his acting range, and you know everyone and their mother would pay overpriced tickets at the multipex to watch Borat sing 4 bars of 'Seven Seas of Rye'. 

Then again looks and personality similarities aren't everything. An icon like Mercury is always going to be almost impossible to cast for.

So who do we have instead? Ben Whishaw from Skyfall (2012) fame, Hamlet on stage fame, and general British pouty lipped fame. I have a feeling they went to the totally opposing side of the spectrum. My friend is telling me that Queen (all both of them) fought really hard to get Sascha removed from the project as to not have their name 'sullied', seriously? And they decided to instead cast the most existentially sensitive crier in cinema today? Ok I'll bite. I'm curious to see it. After all, Whishaw is a hell fo an actor, though he's going to have to beef up considerably even though when Freddie and Queen started out first in the early 70's, he was pretty svelte, but Whishaw always looks like he just conquered a hunger strike. I still have somewhat of an amount of faith in this casting decision because Whishaw has a quiet fire to him; you're never really sure what he's capable of, and even though he seems to lack the charisma on the surface, considering how outgoing and extroverted Freddie Mercury was, he will definitely hit those high dramatic notes without effort, so I say more power to him, but that doesn't mean I still won't be imagining what it would have been like had Sacha been in the role, and hey if the movie as a whole sucks to high heaven, I'll start writing my own version the minute I get back home, and guess who would be my first casting choice?

I'll leave you with some music videos: They are my favorite band after all: 

Girls with Bows and Arrows are the New It Thing in Cinematic Fetish

Poster for Catching Fire (2013) 'More pouting Jennifer!'

I guess it all started a few years back when Keira Knightly was on every billboard dressed in little but leather straps standing next to Clive Owen who's wielding a giant sword in promo's for the awfully executed King Arthur (2004). They had the audacity to fuck with Arturian legend so much that they made Guinevere a leather-clad pouty lipped borderline porn star who shoots to kill with her rickety bow and arrow. 

Basically this suggests that women when put into ancient fighting situations can't do much in terms of strength, as in they're not good with a sword, ball and chain, or any medieval weaponry but damn it are they accurate at shooting a bow and arrow, that's how them bitches defend themselves. Is this a feminist concept or is it pandering? Probably the latter, because I've taken archery courses (Jew camp, 1996) and I sucked at it, it's way harder than it looks people. But apparently all a girl's got to do is work up some estrogen courage, breath in and release (no pun intended) she'll hit her mark every time. Right in the perp's heart where the arrow belongs. Take that fake vikings. 

promo still for King Arthur (2004) Look familiar?

Right now of course the huge deal is Jennifer Lawrence as the 'good at hunting' Katniss Everdeen, and driving past a billboard for Catching Fire (2013) this morning I couldn't help but notice that she's angled in almost the exact same way as Keira was, with her hair blowing in the wind, and her airbrushed face focused on whatever she's aiming at, and for some reason, even though we all know that the tributes of the hunger games wear plenty of clothes to protect themselves and keep themselves warm while they try to you know not get killed, she's barely wearing anything. Mulvey would have a field day with this. It is the utmost in visual pleasure and castration theory, for all you know boys, she could be pointing that thing right at your balls. And watch out then because Katniss never misses her mark. 

Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel in the upcoming Hobbit film. She does not look awesome.

And what do we have coming up next? The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) where a new character is introduced as a love interest for Legolas (the archer elf) who let's face it might as well be a girl. But no, it's Kate Austen I mean...Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel another goddamn archer elf. I mean, do elves do anything else? Or is it like a rule they made up in MiddleEarth; Dwarves only get axes, humans use swords, hobbits get comically tiny swords that glow in the dark, and elves get the gayest attire ever complete with a bow and arrow. 

Behind the scenes of Catching Fire (2013) I do believe Jennifer's bow has gotten bigger. It's like when you're given a bigger gun to use in the sequel than you had in the original. I remember the late great Steve McQueen used to complain about that on the set of The Magnificent Seven (1960) saying that Yul Brynner's gun was bigger than his and he wanted something done about it. Nothing ever was.

Why is it that women get to defend themselves only with bows and arrows, is it because it's the ancient version of a gun which is really sexy for a woman to know how to use. But it's usually in the sense that 'awww how cute, she knows how to aim and shoot a gun...ouch!' Or have we given too many guns to women in films of late. I mean, in The Heat (2013) Sandra Bullock literally shoots a man (Taran Killam) in the dick. Did I just give the movie away, sorry about that (not). So now we need something more subdued, something sexier, and just as deadly. Nun chucks and throwing stars are clearly out because they have a nerd derivative, and women need something elegant and yet sexy, also we all know that woman have terrible arm thrust capacity so swords are out as well, but we all know women are smart and can concentrate so a bow and  arrow seem perfectly logical, makes them less passive and gives them something to do, but while we're at it, let's dress them in half of what they should be wearing and give them long wavy hair. It's a new cinematic symbol, and trust me, it won't be long until Tarantino works this into one of his films, even though it's going to be completely anachronistic and thereby won't make any sense, but let's face it, what DOES make sense in a Tarantino film. If Zero Dark Thirty (2012) wasn't directed by a woman, I'm sure Jessica Chastain would have been walking the halls of the CIA with one. Ok that might be too unbelievable a conjecture, but you can't deny the fact that a bow and arrow adds to a woman's hottness factor these days. It's a recent trend but it looks like it will be around for a while. Gives totally new meaning to the term 'sex as a weapon' doesn't it?

Trailers below and some Zizek for you Film Studies buffs out there: 

Why 12 Years a Slave Will Win Best Picture and Gravity Won't

Basically these are the two main contenders at the moment, and it's really not that hard to see why my title is accurate here. To whomever watched both, if you actually think Gravity (2013) will win top honors maybe you should go back to film school for a semester. Both actually have similar underplots; which is the story of survival against immeasurably difficult odds and circumstances. But here's where one triumphs over the other. What's that thing that's really important in a film that has to be nuanced and explored and worked on before principal photography even starts? Oh yeah, the fucking story. What's the story of Gravity? The plot? Two astronauts are stranded in space trying to get home safely. The end.

Both Alfonso Cuaron and Steve McQueen are auteurs in their own right but you have to admit that McQueen's work, though less prolific than Cuaron's is far superior. Here he's taking on a story that basically enormous in scope and emotion, it has to be dealt with delicately and with finesse, and he accomplishes that task beautifully. 

Visual effects don't equal Oscar gold no matter how awesome, didn't we learn that with Avatar?

I may not be a 'big player' in the film business but I did graduate (with honors I might add) from two of the top film studies programs in the country and was taught by some of the best professors in the academic world so excuse me but I know a thing or two about these things. Also, I pride myself in knowing what wins Oscars and what doesn't. A film based mostly on gimmick and technical tricks will not win anything but technical awards. Like anyone gives a shit about those anyway. Oh Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects awards are coming up, time for me to freshen my drink and use the bathroom. That's where Gravity will hit home runs.

Three huge contenders for acting nods this year, (L to R) Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyoung'o and Chiwetel Ejiofor)

On the other hand we are blessed and I truly mean blessed with a film like 12 Years a Slave (2013) which doesn't come out every so often, it will definitely be in that category of There Will Be Blood (2007), The Social Network (2010), and others that granted didn't win Best Picture honors but that was mostly due to politics, but it's a film that 50 years down the line film schools will make their students study.

It's basically the Slavery version of Schindler's List (1993), which I have to say while watching I saw so many similarities between. It was a no-holds-barred account of the story of a man through whom we saw the atrocities of what people are capable of doing to other people that actually happened in our human history. It is brutal, and yet so sincere, that's how you approach making a movie about such a delicate subject. 

the brutality and visceral nature of Schinder's List made people appreciate and understand the content in ways they'd never had before, same goes for 12 Years a Slave.

Really all you have to look at is the history of the Academy Awards, yeah they're political, yeah they're just dumb show and a fashion 'meat parade' as George C. Scott famously quipped but who wins Best Picture? Perfect example is when The Hurt Locker (2009) triumphed over overblown bullshit gimmicky crap film Avatar (2009)...in 2009. Here's a few things that matter to the Academy; Scope, brevity, STORY, and pathos. Usually a film has to have all to win. Some times they miss the mark, but I think there's nothing about this film that they can use against it. It is literally perfect Best Picture material. A better film couldn't have been fitted for that category. And they LOOOOOOOVE it when a true story is brought to life. My friend and I are talking about this as we speak and she said the following about 12 Years a Slave; 'it's dark and violent and hard to watch', all good points. But that's never stopped the Academy. Sure Passion of the Christ (2004) didn't even get nominated, but that was largely due to controversy of antisemitism and a valid one at that, and also lest we forget the same director won a decade earlier basically every award for the 'dark, violent, and hard to watch' epic Braveheart (1994). And what else fell into all those categories? One of the greatest films of all time that as difficult to watch as it was we all still did and we were better people for it, that's why all awards went to Schindler's List (1993) the year prior. 
This film to me is basically the new version of that, it has all of those things I spoke of earlier; heart, pathos, humanity, tragedy, redemption, and it makes us FEEL rather than sit there going 'woah that was cool'. So it's no question in my opinion, and if you want to put money on it, I'm ready. 12 Years a Slave to win, Steve McQueen to win, John Ridley to win, Chiwetel Ejiofor to win, Michael Fassbender to win, Sarah Paulson to win. I'm putting all my eggs into this basket this year, and though it might not turn out as I want on some of them, the first two are a sure thing in my mind. 

Trailers below: 

No I Haven't Read the Fucking Book

'This special effect was way better in the book'

Seriously ya'll, there are certain books that I refuse to read because they are either 'Children's Books' or 'Young Adult Books' or 'Stupid'. But you know what? I'll still make it out to the theater and watch Hunger Games: Catching Fire (whistling noise). Not to blow my own horn or anything but I tend to gravitate towards books that Stanley Kubrick once turned into a film in fact, my favorite book of all time was turned into a film by Kubrick...I'll give you a hint, the author's Russian. I mean I gave The Hobbit a glance through while stoned in high school, and once at the Columbia Bookstore I actually picked up a copy of 'Twilight' before screaming and running out of the store like a mad woman, after which, taking a series of cold showers. But that shit doesn't wash off people. That's why I was hesitant to pick up the 'epic' books that The Hunger Games are based on. First of all, it gets so much criticism for basically being an amalgam of all kinds of shit, specifically the film Battle Royale (2000). 

I found it to have a little touch of Ayn Rand dystopianism, a dash of Shirley Jackson's 'The Lottery', and basically every gladiator film that's ever been out since the camera was invented. But I finally watched it, I did, and though every extra of Panem looks like they're late for a Lady Gaga concert, and the narrative was somewhat fuddled I enjoyed myself. J-Law strikes again.

And I am looking forward to the sequel. And no I won't be reading the second book before I watch it so there. You know what I like about some movies? No reading involved. And you know what I hate? The phrase 'the book was so much better than the movie you guys', tell me you haven't wanted to punch the lights out of that pretentious assmunch. 

Aesthetically the marketing is fabulous, it appeals to the serious fashion crowd, and we know they don't read shit...unless you count Vogue...which I do.

You can see that the story is very 'Young Adult' and clearly not the model of post-modern dystopia and communist allegory we all know and love as literate individuals who once took an English class (O, Captain, my Captain), but hey, it's a children's book for fuck's sake. Girls that are no older than 15 will dress up like Katniss Everdeen for Halloween. Girls over 20 will go for 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', which I HAVE read (oh holy shit). 

The worst example of film or literature ever. Like ever. Also the best example of accidental marketing.

So basically what I'm saying is that some books are not worth reading, just watch the effing movie and get off on Peeta and Katniss having moments of awkward teenage love as they try to not kill each other. Don't read the motherfucking 'Notebook', in fact, don't read anything by Nicholas Sparks nor watch any movies that his books are based on. Just get your popcorn on and hush up screaming teenagers sitting next to you when you shamelessly as an adult over 25 buy your ticket to Catching Fire (2013) rather than something actually thought provoking like 12 Years a Slave (2013), also based on a book and a really good one, but let's face it how many of you are going to watch 12 Years a Slave and exclaim that you know all about Solomon Northup, slavery in America, and the Civil War. A lot of you, and I will be super annoyed. So let's put on our Katniss pins, do the three finger salute, and just have a little bit of illiterate fun while we still don't get judged for it.

Trailer below.

Crazy Love, Crazy Film.

Burt and Linda Pugach today.

 “If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." –Burt Pugach

Documentaries usually move me for a good afternoon or couple hours following their end. I’ll bring them up over dinner to get intellectual points, and recommend them to friends, but generally leave them on the back burner lest the topic on which they are based resurfaces and I can say ‘Oh, I know about that, I watched the documentary.’

Considering how blasé people get due to the volume of documentaries with a message, it’s more difficult to find one that truly sticks with you since its inception. I have found such a one. It is a sensational and bizarre tale of an obsessive, fanatical, and hysterical love between two other worldly personalities.

Crazy Love (2007) directed by Dan Klores and Fisher Stevens follows attorney at large and professional eccentric Burt Pugach who was a swarthy, egocentric and somewhat maniacal wealthy man on the Staten Island scene in 1959 when he met 21-year-old pretty girl Linda Riss. He showered her with gifts, courted her persistently, and propositioned her until she relented and they began dating. Their turbulent relationship eventually ended when she found out that he was already divorced and had a child. Unable to deal with Linda leaving him, Burt paid three thugs to knock on Linda’s door one fateful day and throw lye in her face, permanently blinding and scarring her. 

There was almost a Burton-Taylor glamor to their crazy, if it wasn't way of the Richter scale.

You would think that this is where the story ends, but this is actually where it starts to get interesting. This is just the build up to the eventuality that rocks you to your core and completely blows your mind.

You quickly realize that these two people might exist in a realm of the insane and surreal that to them seems perfectly normal and find yourself immersed in a story you would have never consciously believed could have happened.

Pugach was sentenced to 14 years in prison during which time he wrote his only love letters every day professing his undying passion for her. After he was released they were married, and to this day are still together.

The film allows access not only into the lives but into the minds of truly unique individuals whose shocking attitude towards romance and love might just leave you speechless, but will never let you forget.

Tamara Straus of The San Francisco Chronicle wrote about the film saying that it was "among the weirdest explorations of connubial relationships since Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?’.

This film is inspirational on a few levels. It makes us all remember that truth is often stranger than fiction and to find a story that sensationalizes one doesn’t need to go much further than the headlines. It’s ‘sick’ in that strange way that is enthralling and inescapable, and is compelling and memorable at the same time. It’s funny yet heartbreaking, visceral yet surreal, sardonic yet sincere, and on the whole a completely unforgettable film experience.

Watch the Trailer for Crazy Love (2007) here.

You Don't Have to be NC-17 to Be Bought By Criterion

Thank you von Trier, we all so desperately need to see this, in the longest take ever known to man kind, and if it's not definitely feels that way.

So my friend sent me this interesting link up on the Criterion website about the grossest films in its roster of otherwise respectable and timeless cinematic triumphs. So like right next to The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir) you can buy a copy of Antichrist (Lars von Trier) where the cover is Willem Defoe doing Charlotte Gainsburg up against a tree of protruding limbs. So hot. Here's the list if you're interested and haven't eaten anything this morning yet. Criterions Greatest Gross Outs.

Now, why should Criterion be so high and mighty? I mean they bought films like Armageddon (1999) and The Rock (1996) for eff's sake, but I will say this, they do own a few in their catalog that would make even the person with the strongest stomach squirm in their seat. Antichrist (2009) is a perfect example of this. Now, if I was to eat an egg salad sandwich that had been siting in a hot car that I purchased and the worst deli in New York City and then did 18 jumping jacks, I'm still not exactly prone to vomit. It's rather difficult for me? TMI? Deal with it. But not even at the end, in the MIDDLE of this film, I had to excuse myself out of the theater to blow chunks. And I will never trust Von Trier again. I mean, I had to take a klonopin just so I could watch Melancholia (2011) because I was so nervous. And I honestly have no idea why Criterion would invest in such crap. Even by pretentious euro-standards Antichrist is terrible. And yet that's not why I lost my lunch that day. I just couldn't deal with the fact that von Trier saw the need to assault every one of my senses until I felt like I couldn't breath. It's like 'how far can I go with this? I don't want people just to walk out in anger, I want them to be heaving and dialing the emergency room. Get Willem Dafoe on the phone.' 

Just one of the NSFW scenes from Caligula (1979), though seemingly alright on the surface, you should know that the girl in this scene is playing Caligula's (Malcolm McDowell's) SISTER Drusilla.

The other films all totally deserve to be up there, but I've seen way worse that Criterion refuses to touch. Dino De Laurentis' Caligula (1979) is a perfect example, also any work by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Watch The Holy Mountain (1973), I dare you. I double dog dare you. People think you need to be within a horror genre and sub-genre of blood and guts to be seriously offensive to all the senses, but it's not true. You just have to put people into very uncomfortable situations. Also, you have to be pretty innovative and an ancient Roman contraption that slices off peoples heads because of a shredding like locomotive on it's bottom layer can do so when you bury people with just their heads sticking out is pretty innovative. It's just one out of many beyond disgusting and yet fascinating films in Caligula (1979) so don't fret I didn't give too much away.

Eyes Without a Face (1960) is actually pretty terrifying in that French solipsistic type way, and that's not to mention the amount of gore that is involved in the surgery scenes, even in black and white it's more visceral than your average slasher film.

I guess what I'm saying is that the disgusting is also innovative, and doesn't have to be 'horrific'. If you look at another film on the list; George Fanju's Eyes Without a Face (1960) it's absolutely captivating. Probably because it's based on actual events and it's directed brilliantly. What is it about? Exactly that. This girl is born without a face, just a pair of beautiful big blue eyes, and her father, the ever present surgeon experimentation extraordinaire keeps kidnapping young girls so that he can take off their faces and try sewing them unto his daughters, and womp womp, none ever really work. And this was decades before 'it rubs the lotion on it's skin' so it was pretty innovative. Also, it's French, so, points there. Anyway, I would say if you're have a thick skin watch some of these films, they are in the Criterion roster for a reason, most of them (I said MOST) are not gross because of a sexual content that is displeasing....of course that's MOST again, people. But yeah, throw on some Cronenberg and have a barf bag ready just in case. Maybe you'll be richer for the experience mentally even if your stomach will empty.

Some trailers below: 

You're Just a Katy Perry in A Gaga World

The ladies in photoshoots for their next album.

My whole office has been abuzz with the rivalry between two pop-culture giants in music that each have enough moon men and Grammy's as Meryl has Oscars. But let's talk about these two in terms of a Mulveyian skew if we might. Or even Molly Haskell, to me, one is synonymous with the other. If you don't know who they are really quick; Laura Mulvey wrote the seminal film essay 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' which people read to this day in they Intro to Film class all over the country, and yes I met her once at a conference. It was awesome. Last thing she wants to talk about is that essay :P and she loves red wine. Molly Haskell is Andrew Sarris' widow, who's most famous work is an book, also seminal in its own way and much more incendiary; 'From Reverence to Rape; The Treatment of Women in Movies' basically both of these scholars had the same idea and different ways of getting there. In pure layman's terms; the female, when manifest on the screen creates a somewhat dangerous relationship with her viewer, presumably male. Meaning that she puts herself in a context in which she is desired, which at first light, one might assume the facade of being symbiotic, and actually healthy, but both argue that it is tricky territory because as the object of desire, the woman is both threatening in her symbolism of castration (Mulvey) and as the object of desire ignites caveman DNA in the male who wishes to possess her (Haskell). 

Ok with all that academic jargon out of the way, let's talk about Perry and Gaga. What's happening right now? They are both releasing new albums; Gaga has 'ArtPop' (which might be a nod to Warhol, I'm not sure) and Katy Perry has 'Prism', and both of their new singles suck I'm sorry but they do. So let's just objectify them and treat them for what they are, though both are innovative, they are both living gimmicks, let's just be honest. 

ArtPop single cover.

Here's the thing, I've watched Katy Perry's latest video for 'Roar' and my god was it the worst piece of shit ever. I don't even think she qualifies as being desirable on screen, except igniting my desire to be gone from it.But Katy Perry has always objectified herself by playing on words and gestures in order to keep innocence while maintaining a level of absolute sexual prowess. She's maintained a certain level of 'girlhood' while clearly being a sexually aware woman...kind of like Britney, but she's obnoxious with it and suggestively eats marshmallow pops and has fireworks shooting out of her tits like anyone is going to be turned on by that. 

Katy Perry in her single 'Roar'

Gaga on the other hand, has been such a chameleon it's really difficult to put her into a Mulvey or Haskell context, but probably easier with the former because of her androgyny and yet very clear acknowledgement of her womanhood. And before we go any further, Gaga had sparks flying out of her bra long before Katy Perry decided to do that so, nyah. Because she's clearly a woman but does not play coy, but plays exactly the opposite which is her strength and 'empowerment' she is more threatening to the male viewer because of that (unless of course you're in her little monster gay man fan base (of which I'm an honorary member)), thereby toying with both ends of the spectrum. She is threatening and desirable at the same time. Forget the meat dress, the cigarette sunglasses, all of the fashion LSD she's on; and think that for that she's actually ahead of the curve on this one, because a woman is always either one or the other. Also it doesn't help that her music are basically anthems for the LGBT community and that in her mid-20's she's accomplished more than it takes some a lifetime to do. Katy recently has been criticizing female pop-stars for being 'hyper-sexulaized' I'm assuming she's talking about Miley Cyrus naked writhing on a wrecking ball, but hey, until you stop performing with your comically over-sized boobs out and simulating fellatio on candy I'm going to keep calling you a hypocrite. I guess what I'm trying to say is I hate Katy Perry.
But then again I was never a huge fan of Gaga either (I had to pretend for my gay friends), but I would say like Christina Aguilera who is very much an original and a traleblazer in every sense of the world, she was likened to Gaga when she put out her 'Bionic' record, and hunnies she lost. Gaga built a protective shield around herself where her antics actually paid off, and she doesn't look no where near stopping, and even though she's probably already tried everything, that's what they said of Bowie after his Ziggy Stardust days were over and everyone said he was washed up.
I think what a huge difference is that Katy is always seemingly surrounded by guys who want to fuck her, while Gaga is surrounded by well...that, but also guys that want to embody her in a sense, that want to be 'castrated' as Mulvey would put it just so they can be fabulous for a few minutes and wear that sideways crown. 

If you want to read 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' and I highly suggest you do, you can find it here: Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema

Below I'm putting two videos from each starlet that I think perfectly encapsulate their identities as pop stars and also as women: 

Really Distasteful Halloween Costume Ideas

Yes, we are all aware that just like Sarah Palin in 2008, this year Miley's VMA outfit is going to be everywhere this Halloween. But did you ever think to dress up like Sarah Palin's child with downs? Didn't think so? Or perhaps just Miley's tongue? Here are some ideas that are sure to be not PC at all and really work as a conversation starter.

1. Amy Winehouse's Ghost. If you're into really looking terrifying for Halloween what better way to start. Amy looked like a walking corpse a long time before she kicked the bucket, so you wouldn't even have to work so much on the 'undead' look. Just pale yourself up a bit, it helps if you're seriously thin, and then do the beehive hairdo and the Cleopatra eyes. Or you can come as her date and bring a beehive wig duct taped to a broomstick. 

2. Casey Anthony. Now this is going to get even the liveliest, friendliest party all riled up. Get the big fly-eye sunglasses, a notebook, and a smug look on your face and if you want to go balls to the wall tasteless you can get a doll, cover it with death paint and scream 'not guilty' into people's faces. 

3. Melissa Gorga. For those of you not in the know, Melissa was a new edition to the Real Housewives of New Jersey clusterfuck being Teresa Guidice's sister-in-law and also the youngest and prettiest of all of them. So this one is easy, as much body glitter and fake tanning as you can find, a really skimpy outfit and try to self-autotune your voice whenever speaking. Also, it really helps if you carry around a book that you've made a hard cover of that reads 'I Advocate Marital Rape'

4. Don Draper's Conscience. This one is easy. Just wear all black, or a cape and say it's an invisibility cloak because he doesn't have one. Get it?

And I just had to leave you with this...

Enough with the Open Letters! French Films are Exploitive. We Get It.

Lea Seydoux in Blue is the Warmest Color (2013)

So if you religiously check Indiewire.com every morning like I do, you'll see that the director of the sleeper hit Blue is the Warmest Color (2013), Abdellatif Kechiche has penned an open letter to its star, France's new 'it' girl Lea Seydoux, who called the filming of said film an experience that was both trapping and disrespectful in terms of dealing with its racy sex scenes. Guess what folks, without racy sex scenes there would be no French cinema to speak of let's just be honest here. Especially now-a-days with directors like Christophe Honore and Catherine Brellait leading the charge of how-much-gratuitious-nudity can we cram into a 2 hour film and the answer is...a lot. But you know what? With such content comes responsibility, and I'm going to side with Seydoux here. To be fully nude surrounded by grips, electricians, script supervisors and who else is no fun, and to have to do it take after take, can be exhausting, not like I would know, but I'm sure at this point shooting porn is a more wholesome experience than going full on French.

Kechiche basically blamed her for trying to destroy the very same film she helped make into a success and also not to mention helped to win the Palme D'Or. He writes, "Miss Seydoux, who after having repeatedly thanking me publicly and privately and having wept in my arms at Cannes for allowing her to take on this noble role … has, against all odds and all personal coherence, radically changed her attitude towards me." 

In his letter Kechiche calls Seydoux 'spoiled and opportunistic' um, exaggerate much?

So why don't we just calm the fuck down and take a look at the mistakes we might have made as directors. Actors are by definition fragile individuals who look to directors not only for guidance but for comfort, and not exploitation, unless of course you like that sort of thing. And now, I'm going to name a perfect example of someone who refuses to follow these guidelines and has the balls to blame his actors for not 'being comfortable'. 

20 year old Maria Schneider and Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris (1972)

One, Bernardo Bertolucci has been accused of this very thing on several occasions. The first and most infamous case I can remember is when Maria Schneider, Marlon Brando's co-star in the then X-Rated Last Tango In Paris (1972) famously said that in the scene where Brando's character sodomizes her with butter lubricant (there's honestly no wholesome way for me to describe this folks, sorry) that she felt that not only was she being raped by Brando, but by Bertolucci himself who just let it happen without asking her not even once if she was comfortable, if she wanted to stop and catch her breath, if it was all too much, you know, everything we as girls would like to be asked in scenarios like that...even if it's simulated. It's just polite.

This misogynistic behavior on Bertolucci's part continued up until The Dreamers was released in 2004 and sex-pot Eva Green basically said the exact same things. It's a film I've seen on a few occasions and I can tell you that yeah, the sex is pretty gratuitous, and no one had to work harder at it (no pun intended) than Eva Green, she had the most nude scenes, the most sex scenes, the most bodily fluid involving scenes as gross as that sounds, and she said that sometimes even though she's a seasoned professional and full fledged Frenchie, it was hard, and she felt that she received no guidance or comfort from her director who basically sat behind the camera and watched like some perv with a box of donuts and a pair of night-vision goggles. 

Eva Green in one of her most erotic scenes in The Dreamers (2004)

 I believe that Bertolucci is someone who makes gratuitously sexual films for his own personal pleasure, kind of like the James Spader character in Sex, Lies and Videotape (1989) so he can whack off to them later, he just happens to be really good at it and call it art, and let's face it a lot of French directors seems to go down that road.

So in conclusion; Kechiche - You should be thankful that Lea Seydoux who is huge not only in France but currently in America even participated in that film, and without her quite honestly I don't think the Palme D'or was within your reach. Enough with the open letters, there's this cool devise called the telephone, pick it up after a bottle of Bordeaux and go nuts. But also realize you are not blameless here brother. Here's a link to his open letter: 'Blue is the Warmest Color' Filmmaker Pens Enraged Open Letter; Slams 'Spoiled,' 'Opportunistic' Star Lea Seydoux

Trailers below: