One quick thought about HBO's Girls

So, last night I finished Girls' first season. SM and I had started it while in Minneapolis on a quiet night with nothing else to do but peruse my mom's On Demand offerings. Both of us had pretty tepid reactions to the show. Immediately I could tell that it was of high quality, well made in pretty much every respect. And fairly early on I knew that I despised most of the characters. Which is sort of what you're supposed to think, so I hear. We finished one episode, shrugged, and moved onto the next, more out of laziness than a genuine interest in the show. We burned through the first four episodes.

Last night I finished the remaining 6 episodes. I do have to admit I ended up more invested than I thought I would be, but the bar was pretty low. The characters are still incredibly annoying to me, but that's just it. For me, it's not about the lack of diversity or anything — I completely buy that their entire social friend group is white and privileged and living in NYC-normative bubble — it's just that I think I'm at the wrong age to watch the show.

I'm too old to think about these characters as flawed heroes and view the show as a fun but cautionary New York tale, and too young to think back on the mistakes of my youth and view the show from a wiser vantage point. I realize this is totally on me, totally subjective, but I just relatively recently hit a point in my life when I feel comfortable shedding the social burden of obligatory acquaintanceships and hanging around with people I don't like, and I can honestly say I don't like those characters. I think of myself socializing with them, and it kind of makes me vomit in my mouth, or at least concoct exasperated, end-of-my-rope diatribes for each one of them (except maybe Zosia Mamet's Shoshana). It's just too close to home for me (literally and figuratively) to choose to hang out with these people, and I feel like the closest I'll let myself get is to watch their stories unfold with the same interest I have in thirdhand gossip about people I was annoyed with in high school. I'm mildly interested in a sick way, but I have no desire to get more acquainted.

So the writing's great, the direction is good, the craftsmanship is well executed, but it just features too toxic of a group of girls for me to feel completely comfortable.

Movie Diary: Django Unchained

While in Minneapolis for a week, I was sure to take advantage of the cheaper movie prices in my fair city and check out Django Unchained with some friends. I loved it. I'll just give the grade up front and get to my favorite aspects below: A.

So, maybe my opinion of the film carries more weight because I'm black, maybe it doesn't. But I don't think Quentin Tarantino was overly flippant with the subject matter at all. In fact, I this might be the least Tarantino of his films yet, and I think it's better for it. Outside of some western motifs (Tarantino has claimed that this is not a Western, but a Southern), the film is incredibly unique. Unlike some of his other films (I must say of which I am a fan), there is no list of tropes to check off because this is not an homage. Revenge film doesn't even cut it. It's something entirely to itself, and I don't even know if it can be replicated (and if it could be, I don't know if I'd want to see it).

The film is tight where it needs to be. It's really in three parts: 1) Django (Jamie Foxx) and Dr. Schultz (Christophe Waltz) meet and establish their working relationship; 2) Django is good at what he does, and after helping Schultz with his bounty-hunting, they set off to save Django's wife, Broomhilda; 3) Django saves his wife. It's a three hour movie, but Tarantino is succinct when he needs to be, trusting the audience to understand that parts of Django and Schultz's relationship was necessarily built offscreen, and that Django has eagerly picked up on some of Schultz's influence to add to his own strong character.

In fact, one of the strongest parts of the movie to me was the singularity of Django's character. There aren't only white people to whom we can compare his character; there are other types of slaves, too, who see Django with jealousy, hatred, and fear, and rightly so. If I was a slave and saw Django, a free man on a horse with a gun, I'd think he had a death wish, and I'd wonder who he'd sold his soul to to gain that position. I wouldn't trust him with a ten foot pole. And that's just from the field hands' and Mandingos' point of view. One of the really interesting characters is that of Samuel L. Jackson's head house slave, Stephen, who is simpering and sycophantic and blind to the depths to which his owner's disdain of blacks extends. I've read and heard about the peculiar position of the house slave, about how the close relationships between master and slave were perhaps genuine but could only go so deep. We watch Stephen's devotion knowing that if the positions were reversed, the results would most likely be devoid of his effort and emotion.

This brings me to another aspect of the movie I really liked. This was not a self-contained romp, unlike Tarantino's last "revenge film," Inglorious Basterds. There is no vanquishing of a mighty spectre, no cathartic killing of Hitler. Instead, a tension permeates the entire film, the knowledge that Django is stuck, that he is one man in the south, surrounded by people who hate him and a society that systematically degrades him. I was constantly anticipating his capture and his murder knowing that that would be it, all they had to do is kill him and it would be over. The reason I think this film did not treat slavery flippantly is that the scale was just right: large enough for us to cheer for the hero but small enough to remember how far-reaching slavery was (and its legacy is). In the end, Django freed only three slaves outside of himself (the two house slaves and his wife, although I guess there's something to be said for what happens to those on the plantation after the end), and he attacked only one plantation. That there were hundreds of plantations and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of slaves puts a strange twist on the ending of the movie for me and effectively ends the fantasy right where it should. There's no "if only" for me, just some badass triumph for a well-deserved character in a complicated and hateful time period.

I will say, though, that I agree that this movie probably could not have been made by a black person now. After all, how many black filmmakers are there, and of them, who is equipped to take on slavery by the horns, without a maudlin or saccharine lens, with an interest in empowerment and complicated race relations outside of a good vs. evil/black vs. white paradigm? I don't think anyone else out there, maybe even outside of the black community, was ready to give this kind of view to the time period. I've always maintained that Tarantino's movies are love letters to his various interests, and I don't think this entry in his oeuvre is any different. It means he treats his subjects with a care and subjectivity that really shows through in his work. He's less advocating for his subjects than he is showing them a portrait of how he views them, in this case strong, singular, taking one fight at a time to battle something much bigger than oneself. Although this film may be less derivative than his others, I think that's a through-line worth maintaining.

Movie Diary: The Master

SM and I finally went to see The Master on December 22, and the wait paid off because we got to see it in 70mm. Needless to say, it was a gorgeous movie, but I would have to say it was not my favorite P.T. Anderson film.

Don't get me wrong, I thought the film was great, but I found myself a bit less enthusiastic as I left the theater, perhaps just be because it was a less obvious character study than, say There Will Be Blood, and more of a theoretical exploration of leaders and followers. I will say that once I theorized a bit, though, I found the premise really intriguing, if a bit hard to grasp right away.

Let me back up and submit what I think the movie is about. Less focused on religious sects or cults than I'd anticipated, I found the real struggle to be the tension between those who lead and those who refuse to be led. The way SM and I discussed it afterward, believers seem to be set on their own spectrums, on which they have two markers connected by a tether. The first marker is their current position; the second marker is the placed where they want to be spiritually; and their religious life consists of striving to get to that second marker. It seems the stronger the believer, the tighter that tether. This might be true for any religion, but it was certainly so for Amy Adams' character, Laura Dern's character, and the other believers in the group: they saw in the distance a goal they wanted to achieve — whatever The Master wanted it to be — and they believed themselves moving their first marker along their tether to it, picking up slack as they went along.

I posit that Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, group/cult leader Lancaster Dodd, is continually moving not his current marker, but his goal marker (according to his prerogative as leader), and thus the goals of the entire believing congregation. If the controversy surrounding a cult or group of believers is whether or not those set goals are legitimate, attainable, and consistent, as the viewer of the film is given a vantage point outside of the group, it becomes questionable whether Dodd's goals pass this test. But to those following him, if they are invested in their own goal marker, they will be invested in him, and vice versa. Isn't this always so for any religion? You must be sold on the goals and believe you are moving forward (despite struggles to do so; the struggle to stay focused on moving forward is always incorporated into religious doctrine) to keep your faith.

Now, Joaquin Phoenix's character, WWII veteran Freddie Quell, is plagued with all sorts of problems, but the one that is most vexing to Dodd's followers is his lack of a goal marker. If the two markers are tethered, Quell's goal marker trails behind him as he moves along. It makes him directionless in more ways than one, but religiously it makes him unpredictable and worse than a skeptic. A skeptic may have their goal marker set in a different place, perhaps more tied down to this world or perhaps more attainable, but it's still there. Freddie, though, isn't even capable of being convinced of the investment, and thus his current marker can run parallel to the others, but to what end and for how long? For Dodd's followers, Quell inspires fear; for Dodd himself, Quell inspires the utmost interest — he is an enigma. While Dodd has ultimate control over his goal marker and may or may not be yanking it around at will or whim, his faithful followers barely deigning to question, Quell barely even knows he has a goal marker to swing around. Quell may be seen as an challenge to Dodd: he may be the most manipulatable one of the bunch, if only he could tie him down.

The cinematography was beautiful, the performances were impeccable, the story was rich, but a bit hard to pin down. I give this movie an A-.