Britt's On

I’ve talked about Degrassi way, way too much in here lately, but I will say that I’ve been rewatching the earlier seasons of the new series (you could call it V1.0 of The Next Generation, we’re now in V2.0) and have been working on a drinking game to accompany my original series drinking game. If you google ‘Degrassi Drinking Game’ the majority, if not all drinking games, are dedicated to the new series. I haven’t looked at any of them in eons (last time was when I was trying to find an original series game), so my list is as original as I can be based on my own observations. I plan to update this list in future posts as I continue to spot patterns on the show.

So my friends, take a sip, or a shot, every time:

- There’s a confrontation in the bathroom (a bizarre replacement for ‘confrontation in the stairwell’ of the original series)
- Characters talk about one another using their full first and last names
- Emma protests something
- Kid Elrick is mentioned
- A teacher is totally incompetent at catching a misbehaving student
- An original series cast member makes a guest appearance (this excludes regular cast members like Snake, Mr. Raditch, and Joey, but includes Emma’s mom Spike / Christine when not credited as a regular)
- Paige says ‘hun’
- Somebody gets stuffed into or slammed against a locker
- Downtown Sasquatch or Studz plays
- Whenever someone brings up Heather Sinclair
- Sean talks about being poor
- Anytime there is a reference to Bollywood
- Someone brings up how something didn't happen on school property
- A dance is held
- Someone makes a joke about how slutty / skanky Manny is
- Emma talks about the environment
- A Degrassi couple breaks up
- Paige & Spinner call each other Honey Bee
- Spinner gets a new hairstyle
- Anytime Marco or someone else talks about Marco being gay
- Terri has a storyline or scene regarding her weight
- A new character with speaking lines shows up
- Ellie does something related to journalism
- Jimmy develops a new talent
- Holly J has a clipboard in her hands

In other news, my other random summer fixation is a pretty terrible one. I’ve become addicted to TLC’s “Say Yes To The Dress”. Although I find the show mostly horrifying – capped off most recently by a Jersey bride buying a HIDEOUS $27,000 dress – it does make me want to go wedding dress shopping. Just not at New York’s Kleinfeld’s.

I tend to like the Atlanta incarnation a little better. Although the two main stars of the show, Monte and Laurie (?), keep on using the same phrases, primarily “Jack Her Up” (to describe when they throw on a veil and some gems to give people a glimpse of the bride to be), I generally find the people that work at Laurie’s place a little more relatable. Also the prices are far more reasonable – most of the people come in with budgets of $1000 to $2000, while only a handful have spent closer to $5000, and nothing over that (again, unlike some of the horrifying episodes I’ve watched of the original series).

This isn’t the place to get into it, but I’m pretty ambivalent about the wedding hoopla that exists out there these days. I feel like its become such an ‘industry’ and that you only do all these crazy things because there’s this expectation that it’s ‘what’s done’. I went from wanting to be a wedding planner as a kid to recoiling at the thought of being a bridesmaid at least 2 or 3 more times in my life. Other than shopping for a pretty dress, getting married to my boyfriend, and having some hot damn photos, I’m not really excited about the whole wedding thing. I’ll admit though, of all the wedding concepts TLC has tried to float over the last decade (remember that terrible “do your wedding on $5,000! And your friends will plan it for you!” one?), Say Yes To The Dress is the only one that makes me the tiniest bit excited, if simultaneously repulsed. At least their staff is probably paid pretty damn well.

- Britt’s On

The title of this post is a reference to the supreme cheese documentary segments the original Degrassi series ran in the 80s, featuring Caitlin Ryan (Stacey Mistysyn) singing the theme song. "Degrassi taaaaalks!". Anyway it's summertime, so there isn't much to talk about. Summer movies are balls this year (I've written about the only two worth seeing - Toy Story 3 & Inception), and the only other good shows worth talking about - Mad Men and Friday Night Lights - were covered in my last post.

But really, I have to give kudos to Degrassi for the best week to date of this summer's jam-packed soap opera style scheduling (and oh god do I wish the show were always on four times a week). Or perhaps, just the two best episodes to date. The nice thing about the series this season is they aren't just giving a storyline two episodes and letting the after-effects sort of flutter along. Instead, they're allowing a story to percolate across several episodes, and you get the sense that things aren't really over when the show indicates they might be.


For example, Fiona's abuse storyline earlier this season led into her trying to buy Holly J's friendship which led to Holly J not liking Declan trying to buy her affections which led to Holly J and Sav's illicit affair which was played out to nice effect in last night's episode. And oh yeah, Fiona's abuse storyline is still going to come back later this season. Noice!


I have to say though, I'm pretty impressed at how they've handled this transgender storyline that was the big to-do about the summer series. For the first few weeks when Adam was on screen, they didn't really explain his situation, although I was well aware of it from the online promos / blogs I've read. It helps that the actress that plays the character is named Jordan. I asked my boyfriend if he would have realized if Adam was a girl had I not told him and he said it was pretty close.

Anyway here's the thing. I'm not part of the LGBT community, so I'm sure there will be some dissenters out there who will complain about Degrassi's oversimplification of the issues at hand or not like the treatment of the storyline in one way or another, but to be perfectly honest, I think the show did a fantastic job of enlightening me about the struggles of transgender people, especially young ones.


I never realized how complicated the whole situation was - that you are mentally one gender but born into the opposite body. Adam's mom's struggle to accept that her daughter was long gone, the whole-hearted acceptance from his jock strap brother, changing his identity to appear as a girl to make his grandma and classmates more comfortable, using the special needs bathroom, the self-mutilation that occurred when Adam tried on his Gracie identity again - just everything made me go Wow. That is seriously tough. I sympathized with everyone involved, but also respected the way the actress played the role as someone who managed to be both 100% confident and comfortable with themselves, but also 100% aware of how many people weren't. I fully believed in Jordon Todosey's performance, especially during the scenes when Adam looked fully uncomfortable dressed up in girls clothing. I believed in and understood Adam over Gracie, and that is pretty impressive for a half-hours serial to do.

I hope this relatively groundbreaking plotline is embraced by the LGBT community out there, and I hope Degrassi doesn't drop the ball on this in future episodes. Kudos to them for tackling an entirely new, complex situation with such grace, empathy, and honesty.

Other quick points: Anya finally getting a non-Sav storyline was a refreshing change of pace. The scene when she finally cracked down after Holly J's not-so-big confession felt very honest and one of the actress' best moments on the show to date.


Also, Eli has quickly become one of my fave characters on the show. There is something entrancing about the actor that plays him (he's not nearly as creepy as the previews for the season made him out to be, but there is something enigmatic about his performance) and I look forward to every season with him. Double kudos for the vast improvements to Clare's character this season. I've always liked the actress that plays her, and now she's finally got a developing personality of her own. The natural chemistry between her and Eli has been a highlight this season, and their involvement with Adam this season has been fantastic. Love!

- Britt's On

It's funny that two of the best shows on television right now air in the summer, at least on network television for one of them (some might argue True Blood also stands strong as another summer entry, although Emmy voters may disagree). I'm talking about two programs that are inherently, dramatically different, yet find ties in their collective strengths.

The first just ended over the weekend, DirecTV's / NBC's brilliant Friday Night Lights. To be fair, the show is the more flawed of the two, often sacrificing realism for my most hated plot technique, 'slate wiping', but it's still one of the best things on the small screen these days. I honestly don't get why it doesn't have more of a following, particularly in the US of A - it's a show about football with plenty of hot dudes and dudettes to drool over! Regardless, FNL remains one of my most-looked-forward to programs on a weekly basis, and this last season still delivered with another tally in the 'W' column.

The other show is the much more publicly lauded Mad Men, which airs on AMC in the summertime and fall. Set in the 1960s world of advertising, the show plays out like a film, sometimes at an oppressively tedious and dense pace, although it still manages to provide plenty of watercooler chat every Monday. I've found the people that are the most fervent supporters of the show are the ones that watched early on - I caught up with Season 1 in a very short period of time so I could start watching Season 2 immediately. I've noticed many of the people who joined up for Season 3 (or afterwards, due to the hysteria around it) are less enthusiastic about Matthew Weiner's attention to minutiae, and how the show is really about more than just some pretty faces acting out dramatic scenes.

There are flaws to both shows to be sure, but they are ultimately two of the best written, best paced shows on television (I only wish they had a few more episodes each per season). But what does a show about present-day small town Americana have to do with a show that is diligently obsessed with 1960s culture set in the Big Apple? Plenty:

Ensemble Casting - this is a 21st century trend, to be sure. Over the last decade we've seen a plethora of shows flourish with the stream of thought that there is safety in numbers, a big turnaround from the earlier decades where stars named shows after themselves (translation: if a show aired called The Mel Gibon Hour, you probably wouldn't watch it). A few of the more famous examples include Degrassi: The Next Generation (a format they piloted in the 80s), Gilmore Girls, and Lost, and the failed drama FlashForward that was cited as 'too broad' of an ensemble. Both FNL & MM have thoroughly embraced the ensemble cast, or in the case of Gilmore Girls, the 'community' cast wonderfully.

On FNL, we have a core couple - Coach Taylor and his wife Tami Taylor - played with brilliance by Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton, both finally earning Emmy nods this year. From there the tendrils spiral outwards: football players on Coach Taylor's multiple teams and their families and their girlfriends and their friends, members of the cheerleading squad, pushy booster club members, school administrators, and even the city's mayor are all part of the narrative here, even if they don't all have major storylines. The show does an excellent job at providing you with a familiar cast of faces that populate the town of Dillon beyond a core cast, and make it seem more wholly realized (something Gilmore Girls 'Stars Hollow' did perfectly).

On Mad Men, we have the natural office setting for a range of core, mid-level, and fringe characters. Although Bert Cooper (one of the founders of the show's agency) has never had a standalone storyline, the show wouldn't make sense without him. Beyond the office we also get glimpses into the personal lives of the office workers (and even further beyond that through the eyes of leading female Betty Draper's relationships with friends, family, and various men). Matthew Weiner is smart though, as the majority of his storylines outside of the office still tie into what's going on in the office: Don Draper's constructed lifestyle is enabled by the very fact he is in advertising. Weiner demands you remember characters that may have only appeared once in the last few seasons when they randomly pop up again years later (as Anna, Don's pseudo-wife / sister did in this last episode).

Either way, both shows are fantastic at creating a pyramid of characters that don't hog the spotlight - they each get their times to shine while quietly developing their major moments with small moments episode to episode. FNL this past season struggled a little with letting their increasingly diverse cast have equal playing time, but overall I still felt a connection with the new characters while satisfied with the resolution of the old ones.

Moving Forward, Moving On - Another major hallmark of both of these series is their ability to let characters move on with their lives (and leave the narrow nexus of the show's focus).

Friday Night Lights stumbled with this a bit by having some of their early regulars stick around a year or two past when they should have presumably graduated high school, but for the most part, when you leave Dillon, they give you a nice swan song and goodbye. It's very much like real life - there are reasons why someone might come back to their small hometown, just as there are reasons we might not have seen the last of Smash, Jason, Lyla, Julie, Tyra, Matt, Tim, and Landry (the original cast of teens that have since moved on). Although the show strained against letting go of its stars early on, I give it kudos for working hard this transitional year to introduce new faces while saying a long goodbye to old favourites.

Mad Men is perhaps a more jarring version of this rarely seen phenomenon. When Sterling Cooper dissolved itself into Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, a slew of beloved second-tier characters were caught in the crossfires. Smug accounts man Kenny Cosgrove, second-rate creative guy Paul Kinsey, and closeted graphic designer Sal (among a few even more minor characters) were on the chopping block. In some ways, it's been a creative coup for Weiner - instead of chipping away and stringing out Sal's homosexuality, he was able to write him off the show with ease and relative legitimacy, while still providing a bookend to his primary storyline. Rather than ride out the tensions between an increasingly bitter Pete and chockful of goodness Kenny, the writers sagely let Pete prevail...for a day or two anyway.

Going back to my earlier point about Mad Men's community cast, some might argue it has a smaller cast of leads than FNL, and I would agree to a certain point - at the end of the day Don Draper takes way more prevalence over anyone else (unlike Coach Taylor, who is always present, but doesn't always have a lot to do). Weiner will let his regulars lapse (see: Joan in Season 3, who, as expected of her, quit her job when she got married only to find she really actually needed the money and disappeared for about half the season) for episodes at a time, because the real true focus is Don, and to a degree Betty, but even she can disappear, as she has so far in this season. The amount we see a character largely has to do with their orbit around Don Draper.

I could go on and on about the strengths and similarities between these two seemingly different shows - great casting, fantastic writing, authenticity - but at the end of the day, the two reasons above are what makes each show really special. They are willing to break the television rules - and while I doubt we'll ever see Don Draper leave and the show continue on (ahem, The Office), or that Tim Riggins will be a non-entity on next year's FNL, I don't doubt the creators will continue to entertain us by making surprising, sometimes hard choices and deftly deleting people from the lives of our stars...just like in real life.

Orbiting around,

- Britt's On

I know I’ve talked about it a few times on here already, but I am an admitted Degrassi fan. I watched the original series after school in the 90s (during its first set of reruns) on CBC, and was eager for the reboot at the turn of the Millennium. I lost touch with the show around season 6, but after a chance viewing of ‘Degrassi Goes Hollywood’ last summer I scooped up all of the original and new series, and caught up with TNG just in time for Season 9.

Some people have complained the show isn’t as fresh as it used to be, but I’ve enjoyed the majority of the new characters and felt like they have broached some new topics, while taking different approaches on others they may have tackled in the past. This summer’s daily dose of Degrassi has been a welcome treat as I sit down for a bite-sized portion of Canadian teenage drama, and I like the gradual introduction of the new characters, who so far have only played second fiddle to our (also relatively new) main stars.


In the last week in particular we’ve been introduced to a new villain in town, Drew Torres, a transfer student that came to Degrassi with hopes of snagging the QB1 spot on their supposedly awesome team (the fact they are the Degrassi Panthers cast an ironic light on the lack of football or its importance on the show in comparison to the Dillon Panthers on Friday Night Lights).

In his first week, Drew blackmailed his fellow teammate with a secret about his sexuality in order to (more or less) take over as QB1. He also established himself as the school’s new resident eye candy as various extras fawned over him, and supremely shallow sophomore Alli threw herself at him with a game of strip ‘Would You Rather?’, and was rewarded with a post-school booty call.

I kind of hope Degrassi will keep Drew a villain. Because here’s the thing. Every character EVER on the show that has been introduced as a villain, or even a slightly offbeat dark house, eventually evolves to become a downright likable, interesting, ‘lite’ version of their badass former selves. In fact the show is more successful when it lets its straight edge kiddies dip into the dark side (Sean, Ashley, Spinner, Craig) versus having someone come onto the scene, guns-a-blazin (not literally) and stay that way.


My one quasi-exception to this phenomenon is Ellie Nash, introduced early on as the punky alternative playmate for outcast former prepster Ashley Kerwin. Although Ashley’s edginess lost its teeth, Ellie always remained slightly offbeat (albeit with better hair and less Hot Topic accessories) and dark in the social schema that was Degrassi. Although...much like Jane of the second next generation, she got a bit of a glamover / personality upgrade by the end of her time on the show. As for everyone else? Let’s review.


Jay Hogart was sort of the proto-Degrassi villain. He led a band of misfits that appropriately looked too old to be in high school (they always do!), got into fights, bullied people, stole things, and coerced our cleaner, greener students to behave badly. He also spread an STD throughout the school, in a truly inspired villainous move. The show let Jay have his moments of redemption – the odd one-liner, his acceptance of Alex’s sexuality – while also continually using him as the fallback bad boy totem whenever they wanted a character to do something ‘wrong’ with an enabler by their side.


Then came Manny in Season 7. By this point Manny was one of the alpha females, which automatically meant her relationship would get a lot of airtime. To my surprise and delight, they paired Jay and Manny together in an unlikely sham of a relationship that blossomed into something genuinely sweet. In fact by the time I got to ‘Degrassi Goes Hollywood’ when Jay and Manny finally got their sh*t together, I was desperate to find out what had made Jay become the ultimate ragamuffin with a heart of gold, and their storyline over seasons 7 and 8 was one of my favourites. After that, Jay’s appearances were mainly to facilitate the Jay and Manny show, and to give Spinner someone to talk to.

And thus, Jay Hogart the villain was more or less destroyed. To the show’s credit, they’ve never let Jay do a complete turnaround (as per Spinner’s brief stint as a Christian born again virgin), as per one of the main reasons for his split with his major split with Manny had to do with theft, but his persona certainly softened from ‘ravine guy that gives out STDs’ to ‘Manny’s true love’.


While we’re talking about Jay, one of his top cronies, the female Jay and his early-on h-core girlfriend, Alex, also got the soft and sweet treatment. This was developed through her seemingly random but partially honest lady friend relationship with alpha girl Paige, but also in the episode where former bully Alex was bullied by younger kids when she came back to Degrassi to upgrade her marks for college. Suddenly we had the bully getting pelted with carrot sticks, and we were meant to felt bad for her. Again, to the show’s credit, Alex always maintained her tough girl streak, but she was also a big melodramatic softie when it came to Paige.


So those are the original ‘bad kids’, and how they evolved. Their second ‘next’ generation counterparts were kids from the merger between Degrassi and some other randomly named high school that possibly involved the words east, side, woods, or river. When Johnny DiMarco and his buddy Bruce were introduced, they were sort of Jay and co 2.0, in fact there is a great, misleading promo of Johnny doing a voiceover about taking over Degrassi. Well, that didn’t happen. Johnny wasn’t ever quite the enabler that Jay was (perhaps too easy for the show), and his conflicts with others were mostly reserved to menacing glares and snide comments. His most compelling, realistic storyline was his relationship with Alli and what it meant for his hard-edged persona. Unlike Jay, he never quite opened up and showed his inner muffin to the world (or did, and broke up with his girlfriend when it happened), but the fact his biggest storylines were about dating should tell you how much of a non-badass he was. Bruce in comparison was there for comic muscle relief.


Technically speaking, Jane was originally introduced to fill the gaping void Ellie and h-core Alex had left (although she was never mean). If you watch Season 7 when she is first introduced, it’s stunning how transformed she became as the seasons went on. Gone are the ugly dreads, boy-ish clothing (now reserved for transgender characters like Adam), and off-putting makeup. In its place we gifted with the alternative to the popular alpha girl, a bright, strong female character – although one whose controversy often stemmed from her facing her weaknesses over having some sort of badass reputation. Jane was one of my fave newer characters though, so I won’t complain too much.


Now, in comparison to the above, the prototype for Drew is pretty different. We’re talking preppy jock a-hole. The closest comparison we’ve got can be found in the charmingly awkward Peter, who appeared around season 6 in a memorable episode where he convinced Manny to strip for a video that was then broadcast on the internet. During that season Peter was persona non grata, causing him and Emma to have a clandestine relationship. Peter to me is one of the most interesting characters on the show because he has filled so many random roles. It’s like the writers never really knew what to do with him, and thus Peter had many an identity (and girlfriend) crisis. He was more of an example of a socially awkward menace that burned a few bridges over an actual villain. Drew in comparison to Peter has given us someone who is much more confident in following through with his arrogance, although he hasn’t exactly made any friends yet that will help him overcome the awkward social situations to come once his initial antagonism phase is over.


There are other people I could mention here. For the girls, think about Ashley Kerwin, the original mean girl, was taken down many a peg by the end of Season 1 and was given a slightly whiny but mostly sympathetic character during the rest of her tenure. Ditto to Paige, whose early rape storyline made it hard to ever see her as much as a villain as the show sometimes liked to paint her as. Even Holly J, who started out as a brownnosing snot but has become one of the show’s most dynamic characters has revealed a heart of gold under that ambitious shell.


For the guys, obviously there is Rick, he of the school shooting. Rick wasn’t introduced as a villain however, and it was mostly (aside from his accidental abuse of Terri) through his final act that he has been remembered as one, but even then, moreso as a troubled, bullied student. Declan was somewhat of a cocky villain (in the same vein as Drew) when he was first introduced last season, however these days he sits around pining for Holly J and avoiding twincest. Derek, the curly-headed pal of Danny’s in the middle years of the series, was sort of a jerk through and through, but not exactly a villain.

I get that Degrassi is trying to show multiple sides to each character, and I appreciate that they don’t let the kids who have a badass introduction completely transform to become one of the ‘good’ kids (although Jane is a notable exception here, based on how she was portrayed at first). Holly J and Paige still have their mean streaks, Jay was still an enabler to his last days as a regular on the series, and Peter was still ruining friendships last year…but ultimately every person that is introduced on the show as a villain softens once their initial antagonistic plot point is resolved. I wouldn’t mind seeing Drew go on a testosterone-fuelled rampage of antics on the football team and with the ladies, although I suspect his relationship with ‘Adam Torres’ (the transgender character I can only presume is Drew’s sibling) will give him his entry into the softer, sweeter side of Degrassi.

Finally for the record, Degrassi is by far not the only show where this phenomenon occurs. As one of TV's longest running youth-oriented programs, it just happens to be the most obvious one. Think of Luke, the hyper-aggressive Drew-esque villain of Season 1 on the OC, and how he became almost comically sad by the end of that season when his dad turned out to be gay and he sat around trying to strum a guitar backstage at a Rooney concert. Or for that matter, one of TV's most realistic shows, Friday Night Lights, where Tim Riggins has been continually toed the line between saintly and sad, a far cry from his Season 1 womanizing and extreme boozing antics. It's natural for a show to want to make their characters sympathetic, and taking them out of their villainous comfort zones seems to be the only way they can think to do it. I guess there are two sides to every archetype.

Ah well,

Britt’s On

I have to say that I am rooting for little Ellen Page. I love all Canadian actors (and hold an extra special place in my heart for ones that still live here, Rachel McAdams!), and it’s nice to see them land increasingly high-profile roles and accolades (like marrying Scarlett Johansson, Ryan Reynolds!).

I recently, along with the rest of the world, tuned into Christopher Nolan’s mindbending ‘Inception’ which featured Ellen Page in the odd-named role of dream architect, Ariadne (Are-ree-ahd-nay), a role Evan Rachel Wood turned down. Page seemed like a slightly odd choice given her age, and her glibness, next to the other characters, but she performed well enough and added a new genre and type of role to her belt. The role was a bit thankless at times – Ariadne had to be the one to deliver a ton of exposition as the newest member of the pack – but in general I found myself relating to her as a fellow noob to the world of dreamwalking.

That being said, I think Page is a bit of a polarizing character. Like Kristen Stewart, a lot of people don’t necessarily dig the way she shys away from excessive media attention, ditto to her tomboy persona (and those lingering ‘is she gay?’ rumblings). Ariadne, relatively speaking, was a departure for a girl who is best known for playing smart-talking upstart teenagers with funny names.

Cases in point? I loved Juno, where Page played the title role of Juno MacGuff. Diablo Cody’s hipper-than-thou script was a bit ‘much’ sometimes, but not so much that it ruined the film for me. In fact I felt like Page was born to play this character – the words tumbled so naturally out of her mouth it never felt as contrived as it would if you were just sitting there and reading the screenplay. A lot of my contemporaries however, particularly ones over the age of 35, shared less than rosy feelings towards the film. They argued the love story between Juno and Michael Cera’s character was unbelievable (no chemistry, they said, sparking the first of the lesbian rumours), the screenwriting was irritating, and the story wasn’t particularly original. I disagree on the last point in particular – show me another American-made film that so deftly handles teenage pregnancy as heart-warmingly and honestly as this film does.

Page also played an upstart Republican to the extreme in Smart People (with the relatively normal name of Vanessa), an indie-princess-turned-riotgrrl named Bliss in Whip It, and a handful of other indie film roles. Part of me kind of groaned when I heard her character names in Whip It and Inception. There’s no better way to foster that pretentious indie reputation than by listing Juno, Ariadne, and Bliss on your resume.

Still, I’m on team Ellen. Regardless of whether she’s a lesbian (“Why can’t I just hug another woman with my legs in friendship” a la SNL), plays cutesy indie types for the rest of her life, or tentatively ventures into grand-scale arthouse fare a la ‘Inception’, I’m rooting for this Canadian girl and her niche place in the industry to keep on rolling. Girl has already done WAY better than the last major indie hilarity better known as Napoleon Dynamite (as portrayed by Jon Heder) and I don’t see that stopping anytime soon. So jump on the Ellen Page train with me people!

- Britt’s On

American Beauty
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening
Costarring: Thora Birch, Mena Suvari, Chris Cooper, Peter Gallagher, Allison Janney
Times Watched: In the 7-10 range
Genre: Drama / Black Comedy
Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic: 88% / 86

Road To Ownership: I remember there being this endless pool of buzz about this movie when it came out. My sister and I were late to the party, but loved it. I bought it as a two-pack with Almost Famous several years later. Unsurprisingly, when the boyfriend and I combined movie collections, this was a double.

The Plot: Lester Burnham is going through a mid-life crisis. His marriage is a sham, his uptight wife Caroline forever obsessed with image over substance. His daughter Jane won’t speak to him, as she becomes involved with their new drug dealing neighbour. And his job is a total joke, and ready to boot him out the door. So he does whatever he wants. He yells at his wife, he tries to reach out to his daughter (and by extension, harbours an intense crush on her friend Angela), quits his job, and basically starts living – in a series of events that ultimately leads to his death. That’s not a spoiler by the way, it’s established in the opening scene that he’ll be dead by the end of the film.

The Good & The Bad: When you’ve watched this movie – or any movie, really – frequently enough, you begin to stop getting absorbed in the story and instead start slotting in the scenes in your head. You know each scene so well, you’re already thinking ahead to the next one, versus being as immersed in the dialogue and action of the current one. So, admittedly, last night’s viewing wasn’t quite as enjoyable as the first few thrilling times I watched the movie.

That being said, the fact I’ve watched this movie as often as I have is a testament to its quality. The casting and performances are pitch perfect, with a well-deserved Oscar win for Kevin Spacey. Every single character is just so ‘right’ (including the heartbreaking performance by Allison Janney), but in an almost cartoonish satirical way. Actually watching this movie now reminded me of the first (brilliant) season of Desperate Housewives, with Caroline being the proxy for Bree Van De Kamp. It’s also nice to see a small, smart film get such honours. In regards to that, the writing is pretty solid. It’s a clever mixture of black, glib comedy and heartbreaking delivery (particularly in the house of Fitts). The thing I appreciate about this film is the fact that every scene is meaningful in the overall conclusion of the film. It’s a backwards murder mystery with an incredibly surprising but not out-of-character result. The fact that Mendes is wise enough to leave some things out (via dialogue) and let you see them via Ricky’s camera is also a brilliant choice in a film that’s all about misguided perceptions.

And lets circle back to Mendes, a favourite director of mine and the boyfriend’s (in fact we own all his films). His cinematic style is developed here with the slow-moving zooms, a likely product of his background in theatre where you are always taking in the whole scene versus close-ups. The imagery is stunning throughout, particularly the continued symbolic use of the colour red and the roses. And Thomas Newman’s brilliant score, one of the best in recent cinematic history, punctuates every scene perfectly. In fact I’m flabbergasted Newman didn’t win best score at the Oscars. Who remembers the Red Violin score? NO ONE. Anyway, the harmony of beautiful, unique cinematography with the pitch perfect score makes a small movie become a sensational one, especially in the final montage of whodunit scenes.

There are a few notes for improvement of course. Many people mock the plastic bag video scene, and to be fair, Ricky’s acting in it is pretty stilted, ‘So-much-beauty’. Also the large gap without Angela makes Lester’s behaviour sort of random when you’re originally led to believe he’s doing what he’s doing to attract her. And upon rewatching the film at an older age, I found Ricky’s behaviour downright scary. I always found him a bit creepy, but if I were Jane I wouldn’t be gobbling it up, nor would I run away to New York with him.

Best Scene: I’ve always enjoyed the scene when Caroline comes home to find Lester has sold his Corolla for a Firebird and gets her foot run over by a remote control car. ‘I Rule!’

Worst Scene: Although I find the score and the video of the bag enticing, the writing in the plastic bag scene is terrible, and Ricky has no hope of delivering it particularly convincingly.

Best Character: Although her part is decidedly small, I’m tempted to say Allison Janney. I think she’s the unsung portrait of what life in the Fitts household is like. Really though, every character is fantastic.

Worst Character: Peter Gallagher as Buddy, the real estate king. Those eyebrows! That smarminess! Although well played, I feel squeamish when he’s on screen.

Soundtrack of our Lives: One of the best scores in motion picture history. Beyond that, a bunch of suitable Americana classics that are used in memorable ways.

If You Like This You’ll Like: Road to Perdition (also by Sam Mendes and Thomas Newman), Life As A House (a bit more heavy on the sentiment), and season 1 of Desperate Housewives.

FINAL GRADE: 5/5

It was about a year ago that I saw Pixar’s tenth effort, Up!, their first 3D feature film that surprisingly ranked pretty low in my overall rankings of all Pixar movies. Watching it again in February I am still firm in my convictions that it’s not quite as strong as other Pixar movies. Although the story of Carl (the old man) was bittersweet and well played, and there was plenty of comic relief, much of the film is a little wacky to the extreme. The combination of giant elusive dodo birds, chatty boy scouts, floating houses, lost blimps, talking dogs, and venomous adventurers was a little obscure for my ultimate tastes.

I was a tiny bit nervous in the year leading up to the release of Toy Story 3. I had the same hesitant feelings going in that I did when Ratatouille came out. The pre-film buzz and industry news was that the films were wrought with drama behind the scenes. TS3 was delayed several times as horrible scripts were rewritten. Ratatouille sidelined the project’s leaders in an attempt to salvage it. And you know what? Both films were incredible. By the time I actually walked into the theatre to see TS3 I knew it was going to be good, and I wasn’t let down (as Pixar never does).

Entertainment Weekly has written at least one piece about TS3 in the month since its been released, and I’ve been keeping on top of it online through reviews, box office takes, and news. There are only 3 negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes at last check for the film, and I bothered to read one of them, on what felt like a hack website (seriously RT, you’ll include El Random internet writer and not the big newspapers in every major Canadian city?) called Movie Martyr.

I was surprised to find that I agreed with a couple of points the reviewer made. Mostly, he drew the quite similar parallels between Toy Stories 2 & 3. He argued that Lotso Huggin Bear was a retread of Toy Story 2’s ‘Stinky Pete’ – the forgotten, angry, manipulative toy. He focused on the fact that the plot of being left behind and growing out of toy ownership was the exact same between the two films.

After contemplating this last point in particular, I agree. However, unlike the writer, I disagree that TS3 was an unnecessary sequel to TS2 (or for that matter, TS1). The issue at hand in Toy Story 2 was that Woody could give up the emotions and love of being played with now in exchange for admiration from afar forever. Woody decided by the end of the film that he wouldn’t give up being played with by Andy for anything, and opted to return home.
Toy Story 3, in contrast, plays out this last point. Although Woody is fully aware in TS2 that an inevitable time will come when he just won’t be played with anymore, he still accepts it, even in the heartbreaking opening scenes of the movie when the characters resolve themselves to a life in the attic. What transpires from there is a serious look at how to resolve the emotional attachments we have to our youth (the toys serving primarily as a metaphor) as we grow up and move on.

Had Toy Story 3 never existed, I doubt the majority of us would have ever thought about that day when Andy would give up his toys. We would have been to content to with the happily ever after in the blissful frozen state Andy was in at age 8 when we last saw him with Buzz, Woody and the gang. But Pixar sagely revisits things for the few that question “What about when he gets older?” and manages to find a bittersweet ending that resolves that question, and brings things full circle.

If Jeremy Hielman really had a problem with the overriding linking themes between the Toy Story films, he probably doesn’t like Pixar films in general. Why you ask? Because at their core, Pixar films are about a very similar topic that is bent and reshaped in so many different directions, it’s hard to call them one-trick ponies.

That theme is ‘a sense of place’, or home. Every single Pixar film tackles this, often creating ‘adventure’ stories that see their primary characters leaving home as they know it to find a place for themselves in a bigger social system. Cases in point (with the exception of A Bug’s Life, which I can’t comment on since I still haven’t seen it!):

Toy Story – Woody’s place is threatened by Buzz, so he eliminates him. When he does so, he realizes his place is further jeopardized and leaves home to try to save his position as most favoured toy in Andy’s life, and amongst the other toys. When he comes back, he realizes he doesn’t need the top dog spot exclusively, as long as he belongs to Andy.

Toy Story 2 – Woody debates whether it’s better to be admired from afar forever, and loved intimately for now. He decides the latter and heads back home to spend another carefree couple of years with his best friend Andy.

Monsters Inc – The introduction of a human child he’s contracted to scare has Sully the monster questioning whether what he’s made a proud life doing is really ‘right’. He leaves his post as top monster to try and find an alternative while subverting the system he’s grown so accustomed to, and like Woody, manages to find a compromise.

Finding Nemo – Emotionally damaged by his own defect, Nemo heads into the deep sea to prove his friends wrong. When he’s captured, his own cautious-as-can-be clownfish father must brave dozens of different sea environments to rescue his son, and realize no matter how hard he tries, he can’t protect Nemo from everything, and that perhaps that’s not such a bad thing.

The Incredibles – After years of fitting into a restrained place in society assigned to them, a family of superheroes flexes their super powers to see whether they can publicly mitigate their private strength with their public lives.

Cars – After spending his whole life dreaming of nothing but being a champion race car, Lightning McQueen learns to appreciate the simple things when he makes a wrong turn too many in life.

Ratatouille – Growing up in a colony of foraging rats, Remy knew his love for fine cuisine was abnormal. When a chance encounter separates him from the pack, he embraces the opportunity to get his paws into cooking, in a world that traditionally wants him to have nothing to do with their food.

Wall-E – Being designed for one simple purpose, to clean up Earth, Wall-E evolved to be a curious and empathetic robot. His exposure to the slick, glossy life beyond the grim realities of Earth reveal to him that despite the destitution that awaits, the possibility of a brighter future for Earth is enough to fight hard to save it.

Up! – Carl always dreamed of being an adventurer with his wife Ellie, but life always seemed to get in the way. He embarks on the great adventure they never took, only to realize through Ellie’s eyes their actual life was the greatest adventure they’d ever need to embark on.

As you can see, all of these stories involve a journey to self-discovery, and finding a way to negotiate who you were and who you should be. They often involve subverting a system of 'the way things are' to find alternatives and compromises. I believe Toy Story sagely took the three movies its story spanned across to create one collective message on this: it’s not about how many people who love you, or even (to a degree) who, it’s simply about being loved and appreciated.

I heart Pixar. I hope their move to two movies per year doesn’t over saturate the market or hurt their storytelling abilities, as Hollywood continues to gape at the longest-running hit streak in movie-making memory, but from what I’ve heard and know about the Pixar wizards, I imagine they’ll be producing nothing but magic for years to come.

I feel like I could write a University paper on this, but there you have it: my Pixar thesis in blog form.

- Britt's On

Almost Famous
Starring: Patrick Fugit, Billy Crudup
Costarring: Jason Lee, Kate Hudson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Frances McDormand, Zooey Deschanel, Jimmy Fallon, Fairuza Balk, Anna Paquin
Director: Cameron Crowe
Times Watched: About 4 or 5
Genre: Drama
Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic: 88% / 90

The Road To Ownership: I wanted to buy American Beauty really badly (ironically, the next movie in my roster) and HMV had a twopack sale on - $20 for two movies. Almost Famous, which I knew my parents loved, was sandwiched in with AB.


The Plot: William Miller is perpetually uncool, in part because of his libertarian mom's socialist views, but also because he's crippled by being two years younger than his fellow classmates. When his sister gets fed up with their mom, she hits the road - but leaves William her record collection. Soon he unlocks the the key to coolness - if only internally - through his passion for music, and begins writing articles. A chance run-in with the band Stillwater while attempting to write about Black Sabbath launches his career as Rolling Stone asks him to write an article on the band, which involves him touring with them for awhile. Soon William is thrust into the crazy world of 1970s rock and roll, complete with groupies, drugs, and infighting.


The Good & The Bad: I find I enjoy this movie the more I watch it, but I still hold by my essay that Jerry Maguire is Cameron Crowe's best film. That being said, the hallmarks of what makes CC such a great writer/director/maestro of the cinema is well in play here. To wit:
- Fantastic casting. This is how you use an all-star cast to your advantage. Dress em up and reinvent them. Make them into the characters, not into a parade of celebs. Use character actors and make them special. Conveniently, also make fun of being rich & famous.
- Great soundtrack. Along with Zach Braff, Cameron Crowe should just produce mixtapes for me to make me happy. The soundtrack here is pure classic Americana rock - from Elton John and Simon and Garfunkel to Zeppelin and Bowie. Stillwater's tunes slip in seamlessly, as does Nancy Wilson's always impeccable scoring.
- Amazing vibe. The thing I appreciate MOST about Cameron Crowe films is the fact they don't fall into the classic pattern of beginning/middle/end. There are many downfalls and hardships for the characters, to the point where you almost ask yourself when is it going to end? HOW is it going to end? Happy or sad? Bittersweet?


Crowe's movies are first and foremost about the vibe, and he completely 100% successfully draws you into an authentic-feeling rock and roll scene through the eyes of a naive, uncool, bright-eyed wannabe journalist poser - a voyeur so hapless, yet someone we still feel jealous of compared to the blank-eyed shots of the fans that are farther removed from the action. A good CC film masters the art of vibe, and Almost Famous is perhaps Crowe's best film for it.

There are some problems with the film however. It gets a bit draggy and disorganized in the last third, although watching it this time around, I sort of appreciated that a bit more. If the film is truly meant to be wide-eyed William's story, the film is successful at sweeping you away in the mayhem and magic of rock and roll in the beginning, the good times. The last third of the film, in contrast, feels like a bit of a dragged out hangover, the sparkle lost (as it has been for William). Suddenly the myth is broken down and you feel a little lost as well.


Sometimes the film gets a bit over-exaggerated with its minor characters, but all of Crowe's films do that (Susan Sarandon in 'Elizabethtown' comes to mind). I also get really distracted by the fact that I still don't know to this day how old Penny Lane is supposed to be. Is Kate Hudson - who is perpetually frozen in time, making it harder to determine her age - playing with William? Or is she genuinely tour jailbait? I always felt like the Band Aids were around the 20-year-old mark. Old enough to feel like they created the rules of the road and had been allowed to leave their parents, but young enough to not know any better. I don't know, it always bothers me, because if you're going to cast a kid like Patrick Fugit, your other characters that are supposed to be his age better LOOK it.

I guess my problem with this film is that for as much as it gets right, for the length, I just want MORE. I want more resolution, more detail, more depth, more of everything. The movie just feels fragmented a bit in the end, and after the two hours and long emotional journey, I always feel, as I said, like I just came off a bit of a bender and am recuperating, and not entirely loving the investment I just put into watching the film (or to use my metaphor, getting hammed). Although I will say, this latest go-round provided a few casting Easter eggs. Namely, Rainn Wilson as a decked out Rolling Stone exec!

Best Scene: I kept on trying to figure this out as I watched the movie, and it was really hard. I like the actual acting in the plane scene, but the horrible FX of the whole thing bother me. I enjoy Jason Lee's t-shirt hissy fit but that's cause he's awesome. I like William's first entre into the world of rock & roll, backstage at his first Stillwater concert. I love the house party William and Russell attend. I enjoy pretty much every little bit from Rolling Stone. Gah. I'm going to go with the tee hissy fit. It's just a brilliant piece that lets you see more than a snippet of the loose ends amongst the members.

Worst Scene: The whole Penny/William bathroom/pee scene is just a big no. Same with the devirginizing melee right after.


Best Character: Jason Lee is my fave. He's a great actor, especially when playing the chip-on-his-shoulder frontman / villain (see: The Incredibles). I can't get enough of his self-serving shallowness in this movie, although I also miraculously sympathize with him. It's like Pete Wentz and Patrick Stump!



Worst Character: Maybe it's the horrible hair they give him, or the fact I feel squeamish whenever they talk about his magazine, but I never liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's 'Lester Bangs' in this movie. He plays a good smarmy, holier-than-thou former loser, but given that I can't stand those dudes, he drives me nuts.

Soundtrack of our Lives: As said earlier, great soundtrack from the legendary Cameron Crowe. The music is used as both emotional cues, plot devices, and background filler in perfect harmony.

If You Like This You'll Like: Any Cameron Crowe movie.

FINAL GRADE: 3/5

Title: Baby Take A Bow
Starring: Shirley Temple, James Dunn
Costarring: Claire Trevor, Alan Dineheart
Director: Harry Lachman
Times Watched: 1, but potentially 2
Genre: Comedy

Road To Ownership: I used to watch Shirley Temple movies a LOT as a child. My parents were always taking me to the video store to rent them, and I was beyond delighted when I came across one that wasn't available at my local video store. I did away with my VHS tapes some time ago, and came across a 10-disc special gift set at Costco a year and a half ago which included Baby Take A Bow. Now...I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it before, but not 100%. I'm being swayed by the trailer at the beginning of all my VHS tapes that had the title line of this movie as the opening scene to it. Hm.


The Plot: Eddie is an ex-con that has been straight for six years - married to Kay, with a five-year-old named Shirley. He's also been dogged by a hack job investigator named Welch, who has kept the family from their dreams of owning a custom-built house in Yonkers. Another ex-con named Trigger Stone wants to work with Eddie and his fellow ex-con on getting rid of some recently lifted stash, but Eddie protests. Trigger still gets his way by pawning a set of pearls onto Shirley, who proceeds to play hide and go seek with them in a cat and mouse game between her, Welch, Eddie, and Trigger.

The Good & The Bad: It's so hard to watch these films with an objective eye because this was really the birth of filmmaking. It reminded me of playing 'The Movies' and how crappy the movies you make are in the beginning of the game - very plodding pace and predictable. The earlier Shirley Temple features (I've also seen 'Stand Up & Cheer') - the ones that served as prototype and training grounds for the child star - tend to be the most boring because they're able to do 'less' with Shirley, and focus more on the adults. The hallmarks of a ST film - dance numbers, singalongs, fantasy sequences, fun costumes, etc. - are few and far between here, with just one lame rooftop father/daughter number (where the title line comes in), a snippet of Shirley in a dance class, and a random exercise scene with her and Kay. Shirley's storyline just feels mashed in with the actually relatively compelling and humorous (were it handled differently today) storyline between Eddie, Welsh, and Trigger. It's like a caper film gone wrong basically. It just wasn't particularly spectacular at the end of the day.


Best Scene: By default, Shirley's rooftop birthday party because it's the only part that contained a musical number. Plus Shirley's birthday dress was cute, and iconic. Fun to see the film in colour in this instance at least.

Worst Scene: I was going NUTS in the scene when Eddie realized he had the pearls and was trying to figure out where to stash them. Logically, he should have kept them right in his pocket since Welsh had already rejected the idea that the men were carrying them on them.

Best Character: Shirley of course.

Worst Character: Welsh was just annoying. If they had established a Javert / Valjean rapport between them earlier on more clearly - perhaps that Welsh had been 100% responsible for sending Eddie to jail under wrongful terms, then it would have been a bit more spicy. It didn't make sense for him to have been as hung up on the guys as he was.

Soundtrack of Our Lives: god this movie could have used a score. The only musical number as I said, was a father/daughter tune sung and danced to on the rooftop, although Shirley had a surprising amount of trouble keeping up compared to what I'm used to.

If You Like This You'll Like: Other early Shirley movies, like 'Stand Up & Cheer'.

FINAL GRADE: 2/5

(500) Days of Summer
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel
Costarring: Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz, Matthew Gray Gubler
Director: Marc Webb
Times Watched: 3
Genre: Romantic Comedy
RT / Metacritic: 87% / 76

Road to Ownership: I had a precognisant notion I would love this movie, and I did when I saw it in theatres. I convinced my dad to go hunting for it at the video store one night just so I would hang out with my parents a bit longer when I was over for dinner. And finally I scored it on eBay for about 30% less than I would have paid otherwise, and it arrived in my mailbox this week. Seeing as how I just finished the #'s section of my DVD collection I thought it only appropriate to watch it ASAP.


The Plot: To quote the narrator, the movie is a tale of ‘Boy Meets Girl’, but it is not a love story. Indeed, within minutes of the opening scene, you are transported to the day the love story is over. Tom is a hopeless romantic working as a greeting card writer when he meets the enigmatic and aloof Summer, a perpetually independent type of gal. The movie takes you through the 500 days Tom is preoccupied with Summer on one level or another through a ‘flipbook’ style that jumps back and forth at different points in their relationship to point out the bitter, the sweet, and everything in between.


The Good & The Bad: I have so few bad things to say about this movie. It’s original, so original in fact, it almost feels mean to give it the nasty Romantic Comedy label. The flipbook format allows you to see the writing parallels in the rise and fall of a relationship. In fact, the brilliance of the flipbook lies in the fact it's very representative of how our memories DO work when remembering the pitfalls and peaks of our relationships. The leads easily carry the film on their shoulders: regardless of how you feel about Zooey Deschanel as one of Hollywood’s most polarizing actress, she fits the role of Summer so well it’s hard to tell if she’s really even acting. The film isn’t afraid to go off on silly tangents like the intro to Summer and what makes her spectacular, Joseph Gordon Levitt’s showstopping musical number, or the little documentary-style interview session towards the end, or the random film noir in the middle.

What else? The writing was wicked, the wardrobes were spot on, the setting and locations used inspired (I saw a new, real side of LA), and the cinematography was beautiful. I commented last night that watching it this time reminded me of the way wedding photographers shoot things. They find beauty in the ordinary things in life, but also know what shots to include for capturing that magic moment perfectly. The use of blue throughout to remind you of Zooey's distinctive eyes was also magical. Although there were certainly some fantastical moments in the film, overall it felt very genuine, especially compared to the more-real-than-most premise of the last flick we watched, ‘All About Love’.


I’m racking my brain for things to dislike about the movie. Some people might not appreciate the complicated flipbook format and having to keep track of what happened when. Others might not like the indie hipster vibe of the leads and the film as a whole. I guess my only issue with the film is the timeframe post-break-up for Summer’s life. It all feels a little fast for the girl she purports to be at the beginning of the story, although by the same thread, she does explain herself pretty well by the end.


Best Scene: I’m partial to Joseph Gordon Levitt’s musical extravaganza. It’s catchy and he totally pulls it off – unlike some of the other tangents, it doesn’t take away from the ‘reality’ of the story, it simply serves as an amazingly hilarious and entertaining metaphor for Tom’s feelings, in comparison to the glimpses of much more restrained feelings we get from Summer.

Worst Scene: Really none, although the film noir is a bit random and distracting. It plays for good laughs at least, but unlike the other sidebars, it makes you go “WTF was that?” versus “Brilliant!”


Best Character: Chloe Moretz is a bit of a scene stealer in this film with her tough little sis attitude. I love Tom & Summer but I can’t pick, so I’ll go with Chloe’s character.

Worst Character: Tom goes on a blind date in the film with Rachel Boston, who I liked on American Dreams. However her character in this movie is pretty implausible, as the way too tolerant but still straight talking chick of eternal patience, until it’s just too, too much in one of the other more awkward scenes of the film.

Soundtrack Of Our Lives: I’ve been thinking of doing a post on my fave movie soundtracks, and last night solidified this one as definitely being in contention. Predictably for a movie with two characters that are quite hipster, the soundtrack follows suit with a bunch of great tunes. However part of what I appreciate most in a good soundtrack is the actual use of music in a film. (500) Days expertly uses all of the music to allow you to have recall of each song’s place in the movie when you listen to it. Simon & Garfunkel’s ‘Bookends’ and the dual-use of Temper Trap’s ‘Sweet Disposition’ come to mind in particular. One knock though – where the hell is Jack Penate’s brilliant ‘Have I Been A Fool’ which is used throughout one entire scene? Hmph.

If You Like This You’ll Like: Other movies that subvert the rom com label…About A Boy and Juno spring to mind.

Final Grade: 4.5/5