Film Fluff

Sometimes cotton candy can be good for you too. It may not have the nutrients you need, but that satisfying feeling of contentment can't be beat.

I usually like my films, plays and other forms of entertainment with a bit of substance or at least something analyze. However there comes along a bit of fluff, which, when done well, can be ever so consuming.

Enter Hairspray.

I first heard of the movie a long time ago, which is only right since it's an old movie. It starred trash talk show dive Ricki Lake as a (as many people like to quote) "pleasantly plump" teenager in early 60's Baltimore.

I ignored the musical version which came out on Broadway a few years back, brushing it off as bubblegum Broadway. When they annoucned a movie version of the musical that was based on a movie, I became curious enough to buy the soundtrack of the Broadway version.

It's bubblegum all right, but oh what fine chewy, pliable, delicious bubble it is.

It has rubbed away all the pretense from me and has taken over my iPod (don't worry it's tempered by another oft played musical, the indie musical about a divorce The Last Five Years).

And so I present to you the racially integrated finale of Hairspray as seen on the Today Show.

"You Can't Stop the Beat"

Those people are dynamite! I can only hope that the younger cast of the film can catch up, but with a stellar cast which includes Allison Janney, James Marsden, Michelle Pieffer, Christopher Walken, Queen Latifa and John Travolta (as a rotund mother no less!), I can't help but get a little bit giddy with Hairspray anticipation.

Preview of the film musical Hairspray on TRL

Oh yeah, it also features that amazingly not-so-annoying-anymore actress, Amanda Bynes and the "it" boy of 2006, Zac Effron.

I never really like the jock look of Zac Effron in "High School Musical" (now THAT is pure fluff) and he sort of annoyed me then (though I have to admit his shirtless scene in the locker room was easy on the eyes). Now, I just think he's the "bee's knees" or whatever they'd say back then. His hair looks good. Then again, I might just be a sucker for guys with black hair.

A pseudo teaser trailer can be seen here.

Brazil? Brazil!

And I pop back online.

I've barely taken the time to actually continue this blog simply because there isn't anything happening to me that is worth noting. Or at least anything that I really want to be talking about.

After much brooding (and working - as work really took its toll on me this month), I've mustered up all my thoughts into a coherent theme - Brazil.

Unfortunately, if you ever saw this gem of a film, you'd know that it's anything but coherent (in a conventional sense at least). I'd hate to sing praises for this movie and sound like a poseur, so I won't. At least I won't pretend to like parts that I didn't really understand.

I bought the DVD on sale at HMV in the UK (Thank God for Generic Region-Free Players). I hadn't really had the time to watch it until this month. I had half my brain focused on something else and early on it was a struggle to focus on somethings. However the visuals tickled my fancy. I couldn't really feel for Sam Lowry's (Jonathan Pryce) flight sequences but his mom's facelift scene early on is definitely priceless!

A hodgepodge of the futuristic 20th century and a bit of the old-fashioned 50's look mashed into one proves that Terry Gilliam is one sick, sick genius. The question what is "Brazil"? Is not answered at all. The title is just there, freely available for you to pick apart. Gilliam offers the best explanation, to paraphrase, it's Walter Mitty meets Franz Kafka. Or something like that.

A lot of explanation runs along that line: something like that. It's not quite definite and it is precisely this lack of certainty that "Brazil" plays around with. The dystopian utopia which is mildly reminiscent of the world that "V for Vendetta" presents, but unlike that 2005 release this Nineteen-Eighty-Four for 1984 film has no real menace. Except maybe for the bureaucracy which is a tangled mess of a paper trail much like the ducts which undulate and snake through the film. Untouchable and inscrutable by all except those who dare to do so.

And to dare to dream is what Sam Lowry (a pun? a relative of Willy Loman perhaps?) does. At least in his dreams.

An in mine as well. Or something like that.

Much like his character I live in the fantasies of my mind. No, I'm not dabbling in dirty talk. I just have these bouts of daydreams of incredible images and situations. Things that make my regular life, well more liveable. It's not that is that ill-lived. It's just that the inner-child, someone I've repressed throughout childhood is trying to break free.

And break free it must. To the rhythm of Rio's deep and throbbing beat if possible.


If Terry Gilliam has his way, the torture of everyday life will be underscored by saucy samba music. And in many ways, that's the story of my life.

Minus the samba dancing.

"Aquarela do Brasil" (Watercolor of Brazil)

The Twizzle of Blogs

As I sit here tonight, I wonder once more.

Why do I think too much? Brood, brood, brood.

For some reason, I feel very, very lonely. It's not that I don't have friends around. They're there, fluttering about, but something just got to me today.

I just finished watching "Memento"; you know that Christopher Nolan flick. Yeah I spent two long entries babbling on and on about "The Prestige" - a decidedly inferior according to some people (probably because it's more "mainstream") and one would probably correctly assume that I'd babble on and on about "Memento."

Not really. It was good, no doubt. Maybe it was my mood today or the fact I just saw it in my room with the distractions of the people outside my door, the PC and books. Memento didn't draw me in that much. None of the twists really surprised me nor did they beg me to unravel them.

Maybe I'll need to process it some more.

Right now I feel like dried shit that attached itself to the bottom of your shoe and couldn't be scraped or hosed out.

Like my entire life was headed for this moment: the big giant BLAH.

Of course the irony of the blog is that as I sit here, hours and hours trying to be all profound and shit about my life, the sun has come and gone and I'm still alone.

It measures nothing.

More than just Prestige

What is it more to the Prestige?

The more I think about it, the less important it is that which Angier clone is killed. Then again maybe not.

Since they share the same memories, I like the idea of Angier being uncertain of which of him is going to die. I think it doesn't really matter to him that much because of a couple of things.

1. Angier wants the Prestige applause for himself. Does it really matter who dies since there is no way to distinguish the two anyway? He didn't have to keep on killing his clones. He could have simply just made one clone or two or three. He's rich; he can pay for their lives. Heck, legally, they all could be Lord Codwald or whatever his name is.

Killing I suppose can be or as been attributed to two things. One being the stronger argument or could simply be a combination of both.

A. Angier keeps killing himself, waiting for Borden (Freddy) to come backstage to be framed for his murder. Cutter wouldn't have gone down anyway if Freddy hadn't gone backstage. The problem with this is that how did "prestige" Angier know that that was the show that he was supposed to die? Is there any hint in the film that suggests that "prestige" Angier was watching Borden (Freddy)rush into backstage?

B. Angier just simply wanted the applause all to himself. Rather Angier has become so consumed by revenge and the "art" that he would kill himself every night. I don't think this was Angier doing penance for his wife's death. I think his wife's death isn't the primary conflict, but just a catalyst. He is more obsessed with Borden by the climax of the film.



Hence, more meat for the twin argument. Does it matter which Angier dies? Not really, since they're all the same person. They only become different because one dies and the other lives. This again is a strong point for the Bordens are twins argument. That fact that we (and Sarah as well) can distinguish between the two. This is why the cloned Angiers are such important contrasts to the twins. Angier is unwilling to share the Prestige with the other Angier. It's not about the trick or the applause anymore. It's about Borden.

Apparently a Borden he did not expect, because like us, Angier believed the pledge, that Borden is just one ordinary person. They shared the Prestige, a critical difference between the twins and the clones.

What bothers me is the apparent willingness of each Angier to perform the trick, knowing full well that he will fall into the trapdoor. The whole scheme's in his head as he delivers his patter. He knows one will die. How could he do that knowing what he knew? Especially if he knows it will be him. I suppose that's where the mourning reading comes from, but again it's much more (albeit less noble) than that. I suppose that's the risk that Angier talks about in the end.



So for the last time, does it matter which Angier is which? I think not. I feel that since they are exact genetic, emotional duplicates of each other, there is no way to tell them apart. On the other hand, the X-factor of the Borden twins is that they're just that, twins. Genetic duplicates, but clearly not the same emotional person.

A further, more disturbing implication, is the consciousness of Angier is unaware of who he is. It simply boggles that mind to try to draw the line somewhere between, original and copied (maybe this is really a statement on the state of piracy in the context of a developing society!). RnnBys on the imdb The Prestige boards, makes an excellent point:

When Angier is waiting for his machine to be built by Tesla, he is treated to a demonstration. First with his hat, then with the cat. In the original construction of the machine, there was no trap door. The original stayed inside the machine, and the clone was outside (which needed to be "calibrated" by Tesla later so he could place those clones where he wanted). So, to be clear, the original stays inside the machine, clone reappears somewhere else.

Now you must think of the mindset of that clone. Suppose it is you or I that is being cloned. Also assume that all of the memories and idiosyncrasies are copied and given to that clone. That would mean when the clone reappears at some other location, he would believe he was the original and he was merely transported. The real one inside the machine would [correctly] believe he is the real version. So now you have 2 seperate entity's believing they are the original.

This is why the clone who falls into the water struggles and doesn't appear to want to commit suicide. He doesn't at all. The night before, he was the one who appeared off stage on the balcony. And as we already established, he believed he was the original. So when he steps into the machine tonight, he believes he will be the one who is transported, since he was convinced the night prior that he gets transported. He doesn't. The original falls through the trap door he set up for the clone, but it does not turn out that way. Every night one gets to experience the prestige, and the next night unwittingly dies to allow his clone to repeat. Proof: Angier says that he does not know whether he will be the man in the box or the man who recieves the applause for the prestige.

If I am correct, then the particularly tragic part is the original, unadulterated Angier (the one we see most of the movie until Angier starts performing the trick) is the only one of all of his versions to have never seen the Prestige, because he was never actually teleported.

We, as an audience, are meant to deceipher which Borden twin is which, possibly not meant to tell the two Angiers apart. Each and every Angier had the same expeirence and the exact same motivation. Freddy and Fallon, on the other hand, clearly have different goals on one level as shown by Olivia and Sarah. However all three (or four or five or dozen) men share the same goal of delivering the definitive performance of the Transported Man. Their methods were different, but ultimately only one gets transported to the end to take part in the prestige and that man is Fallon.

The Prestige: the Magic of Filmmaking in Three Acts

If you haven't seen "The Prestige", which is Christopher Nolan's new film, stop reading this spoiler-filled entry and WATCH IT NOW.

Of course a great reason to watch this is to fawn over Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, but the real meat to this is the masterful storytelling that Nolan achieves.

If you've seen it, proceed and let the melting pot of ideas brew.



Many people have discussed the merits of the film, but the most baffling aspect of it is the nature of the character/s of Borden.

I don't believe in a "good" or "bad" twin, simply because it's too simple, for a person to be black and white.




I see this movie as having three inherent themes:

1. MAGIC: The movie itself as a magic act, wherein Nolan is the illusionist- many reviews have already said this, but what takes it further is that, the movie itself has it's own Pledge, Turn and Prestige.

It's easy to talk about the Turn and Prestige.

The Prestige for each character is when Angier appears as Lord, "coming back from the dead" and when Fallon appears to shoot Angier. From a narrative point of view, it's when the two "come home" or apparently reveal their true selves.


The Turn is when the "ordinary" object, in this case the film (or the journals, as these are the ones that tell the bulk of the story) do something extraordinary. I think this is shown for both characters when each character discovers the end of the "self-aware" journals. It is when the audience is left baffled after being led to believe that film was going down this one road.

The Pledge is this one road, we are led to believe, initially that Alfred Borden is guilty of murdering Angrier. Most of us probably never questioned that idea, because all that is revealed to us initially is how Angier perceives the events.

However, remember that as a magic act, the audience believes what we want to believe.

Nolan's genius is that scene where the young boy cries at the disappearance of the bird in the cage. "He killed it!" the boy cried. I don't know about you, but the majority of the audience in the theater, myself included, chuckled at that ridiculous thought. After all, it's only magic right?

Cut to the reveal of the bird carcass being thrown to the rubbish bin.

We are instantly revealed of being guilty of believing what we want to believe. It is the innocent, "ignorant", young boy who was right all along. This is because he values the bird inside the cage, or the man inside the box.

In our desire to want to see magic, we believe many things. I think Nolan pulled this off throughout the entire film, not just in the plot itself, but in the characters.

2. OBSESSION/PASSION: It depends on how you want to look at it, if it's healthy it's a passion, but the moment it becomes scary, it is an obsession. This idea is also pretty obvious as the idea is thrown around a lot. How far would you go to achieve your goal?

The movie clearly presents Angier's answer. He would kill himself, or rather sacrfice other people. I don't think he really cared that much about those other Angiers. I have entertained the thoughts of the original Angier being killed off initially or when he presents himself to the producer, but for the strength of this point does not depend on what really happens, but rather why they happen.

He was willing to get his hands dirty. Ultimately, I think Angier is more selfish than Borden. He willingly kills people. Now I'm not saying Borden's a saint, but the respect that was unwilling to give his double. Borden's in it for the applause. He's a showman after all. Borden's in it for the illusion itself.


3. IDENTITY: This hasn't been discussed yet, but is an important point when you consider the nature of all the discussions on the twin/clone agruments.

What is the nature of Identity? This is especially important in the parting words of the condemned Borden to Fallon. Live for the both of us.

What kind of a brother would do that? What kind of a clone would do that? In both cases, the answer is still unclear. Either way, the answers will be unclear, unless you consider one possiblity.

There is no such person as ALFRED.

Let's re-examine the Pledge of the film. Most of us entered the cinema knowing that the plot involved two rival magicians. Of course in the end, we realize that there are actually three. It is the nature of the third one that is in question.

We are definitely sure that there is a Rupert Angier/Lord Codlow. I don't think there will be many arguments on this point. However what about Borden?

Most people look at it this way, there is Borden and Fallon. Two distinct people, but both of them have been played by both individuals.

What then would drive a person, or rather two persons to carry on this burden? The answer of course is Obsession/Passion. To live your art.

I believe that many of those vaudeville Chinaman/Oriental (forgive me Edward Said) performers ham up their acts. They capitalize on their "exotic" features and force themselves to live heavily altered existences. Their lives have become an act.

The great act is not so much the Transported Man, but the character of Alfred Borden. He is the shared work of two magical geniuses, who share an obsession with their art. The only thing that they don't share is their love.

I personally believe that the distinct difference between Borden and Angier is that Borden has always been a "natural magician" and Angier a "nurtured magician." In addition to this, I think clones, seeing that they share memories, will also share the same tastes. So right now in my head, the clone theory (which was the one I leaned towards initially) doesn't hold water.

For their magic act to work, and for them to share the glory as well (as shown by them switching disguises), they must create a new character. Angier does this as well, hence the adopting the name the Great Danton or something like that. The twins, must create a new person whom they can both play and live out. Assuming that Freddy is the one that loves Olivia and Fallon is the one that loves Sarah, one can take the first syllables of their name and they can be combined to form one name. FAL-FRED. Cut the F, and you get their alter ego, Alfred. Someone they can both control, unlike the stand-in that Rupert Angier had.

What's important to look for in a second viewing of the movies is who is who? Who is Freddy (the dominant one) and who is Fallon (the subdued one)? I don't think this overanalyzing (if this is overanalyzing, then we'd all have been long guilty of it) because there have been many texts, films, books, studies that have dealt with twins assuming one personality and with twins having dominant and subdued personalities. Much like Chung Ling Soo, their magic will only work if the public believes what they want them to believe.

Why then did Freddy ask for Fallon's forgiveness? How could Fallon let Freddy die? This is because at this point, they've become individuals. The magic act is over. Freddy is apoligizing because his death is the death of their act, or rather their final act of "The Transported Man" - from gallows to theater. It's "all right" for Freddy to die because it was his "fault" for nibbling on the bait that Angier dangled. It doesn't make it just, but if the trick requires one brother to die, then so be it. The difference between the Bordens and Angier is the consent (or at least acceptance of his fate) that Freddy has as opposed to the Angier clones who were esentially trapped into the water tanks.

The limitation to this theory is that since they both played Alfred and Fallon, then Fallon himself must be a character as well. I think that the series of events, particularly the suicide of Sarah and the execution of Freddy, lends credence to the idea that Fallon could have been based on the personality of one of the twins.

The questions of identity is this, what is one's the real identity? The one we show to other people? Or the one we are inside?

In magic, it doesn't really matter. It's the trick that entertains and enthralls us, not the secret.

Oh yeah, and what would you do in bed with two Christan Bales?

And so we continue to discuss.

Me Likey...

I like sexually explicit indie movies. Maybe that speaks volumes of my repressed state or secretly liberated state of mind, but a crappy film cannot hide behind oodles and oodles of sex. The sex might make the unwatchable servicable, but it will bring about more than a passing fancy.

I've seen so many "gay" movies that try to mean more but just end up piling on one cliche after another. One film that transcends this is "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" by John Cameron Mitchell. It is quite difficult to swallow (or follow) at times because of its very surreal...everything, but a worthy watch nonetheless.

John Cameron Mitchell's new film, Shortbus, takes on a similar challenge of exploring sexuality but this time it's heralded by the hype of it's real sex scenes. As with anything that is similarly promoted, there will always be two kinds of viewers, those who just want to see the sex and those who think they're above the sex aspect.

The truth is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to dissociate the two. Given that the topic, wait not the topic but rather the treatment, is so taboo the curiousity of one person is what will usually entice a viewer, no matter what his or her values are, to give this film a try. What remains to be seen is if the film itself will take the viewer away from the erections and cumshots to find the very real and very ordinary struggles with sexuality.

If you anyone hears of this movie playing locally, give me a ring.



If you somehow felt shortchanged by that, another trailer exists, but it's not good for public consumption. However, if you're brave enough and are in a safe place, click here for the uncensored trailer.

Pirate's Booty!

This post is long overdue, by a week at least. I saw "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" twice the other week. What can I say? I'm a huge Jack Sparrow fan. Johnny Depp really deserved that Oscar nomination for the first flick.

However, this won't be me fawning over the artistic (or commercial) merits of the movie. I can do that in my real life. I'm here for fawn over the men. Actually, at the risk of sounding like a teenage girl, I'm just talking about one guy here.

I *Heart* Norrington!

In "Curse of the Black Pearl", I was too busy being enthralled by the brilliance of Depp's Jack Sparrow and the tantalizing promise of a glimpse of Legolas-excuse me- Orlando's pectorals to pay poor Jack Davenport any attention.

I suppose when you look all prissy and proper, one does look a bit too sanitized and a tad boring. Heck, I didn't even realize he was Jack Davenport (who was the real reason I loved The Talented Mr. Ripley).

Fast forward to "Dead Man's Chest" (which thankfully was not literally that literal as like most people, I'm not really into necrophilia) and Jack Davenport swaggers into the scene as the rugged, unshaven and drunk James Norrington.

Hubba! Hubba! Now that's what I call a man! Sort of like something out of Lost or something, isn't it? Jack Davenport looks like he's a mix of a bit Ralph Finnes and Christian Bale (a fantasy pair up I'd love to see), but to be fair to him all thoroughly Jack Davenport.

He's dastardly and still oh so sexy. I've never really been into Johnny Depp (probably because I was still too young during the height of 21 Jumpstreet), so I've never really been attracted physically to Jack Sparrow. He is however still a force to be reckoned with and this movie really moves around him.

Poor Orlando Bloom's Will Turner is the only honest man in the entire adventure. He's become so boring that unless he does something underhanded, I'd be cheering on Keira Knightley's Elizabeth Swann to end up with Norrington or Sparrow. Will's a eunuch. Although I must say the whipping scene was bit hot - if not a bit too contrived to turn the cranks of those Orlando Bloom fans. True, he's romantic, but in a film littered with fleshed-out, double-crossing characters, he's as flat as paper Ken doll - the token boytoy.

Here's hoping that in the third movie, Will Turner will become "curious" and do something dastardly. And that Norrington will take his shirt off.

Then again, most likely he'll go back to the distinguished lemon turd that he was. Shame.