Poster courtesy of Pulse Films

April 2, 2011. Madison Square Garden. James Murphy, the 41-year-old frontman of the synth-disco-pop-rock-uncategorizeable band LCD Soundsystem plays his final show to a sold-out stadium crowd.

That’s pretty epic.

Yet much of Shut Up and Play the Hits, the documentary about the 48 hours before, during, and after LCD’s final concert (directed by Will Lovelace and Dylan Southern) focuses on Murphy’s highly un-rock star behavior.

We see scenes of Murphy shaving, feeding his dog, and walking around an empty office intercut with footage from the final MSQ show. The whole point is that the guy pouring dog food into a bowl had tens of thousands of people screaming and crying not twelve hours earlier—and that is why Murphy felt the need to put an end to LCD.

In a 2011 interview on The Colbert Report, Murphy told Stephen Colbert that he was ending his band because it was getting “embarrassing.” Murphy was referring to his age, and in the documentary he goes on to explain that any time he and the band would go on tour, his face would physically age several years after only a period of months. Murphy was just tired. It’s evident in the scenes showing the morning after the concert (he’s very hungover then too), but no one would ever know that watching the concert footage that makes up nearly 2/3 of Shut Up and Play the Hits.

At around 90 minutes, Hits only shows a fraction of LCD’s final set, which lasted about four hours. Murphy and the gang played every song from their three LPs and had to take a few intermissions to get through all of it. The film nicely weaves the chosen songs into the storyline—when someone mentions a track in conversation, we start to hear the intro rise and are suddenly thrust into the Garden on that fateful night. Most of these songs are shown in their entirety (such as the group’s cornerstone “All My Friends”), yet the generation-defying “Losing My Edge” is cut short, and crowd favorite “Daft Punk is Playing at My House” is left out entirely. Luckily, Murphy is working on his own DVD full-length version of the concert in all its four-hour glory. Murphy was also involved in mixing the sound for the film’s music scenes, which do sound better than any other concert movie. It is like watching a live album.

Lovelace and Southern have stated that they were not trying to make an “Introduction to LCD Soundsystem” movie. It offers very little insight into the band’s background, Murphy’s upbringing, favorite memories, etc. Instead, it is a psychological profile of James Murphy’s most boring moments intercut with some really terrific concert footage. The directors said that they specifically sought camera operators with film experience rather than concert experience. One of the chosen cameramen: Spike Jonze, director of Where the Wild Things Are and Being John Malkovich.

The title comes from a moment in the concert when Murphy brings on members of Arcade Fire to help him sing “North American Scum.” As Murphy rambles about a time the two massive indie acts toured together, Arcade Fire frontman Win Butler cuts him off and shouts, “Shut up and play the hits!” That’s the essence of the movie. Murphy thinks that no one cares what he has to say—they just like his music.

Shut Up and Play the Hits does not portray its rock-star subject as any sort of extraordinary person. He’s just a regular dude who made a few cool albums. While we see the banality of his daily life, we also get a top-quality concert movie—just not quite enough of each. In the end, my friend sitting next to me in the theater said, “I was at that concert, and that movie was awesome.” B+

No related posts.

Sundance London promotional poster.

The House I Live In (directed by Eugene Jarecki) is a manipulative, preachy, heavy documentary about the persecution of drug addicts in American society.

I know, I rolled my eyes when I saw the synopsis, too…but what the synopsis doesn’t tell you is that The House I Live In is one of the best American documentaries in recent memory.

Jarecki embarked on the project of examining the failure of the War on Drugs after taking a look at the family of his childhood caretaker, actually named Nanny. As Nanny’s family has been riddled with problems of drug addictions (one of her sons died from AIDS due to sharing heroin needles in the early ’90s), Jarecki takes a personal initiative to see what is going on with this crisis in America.

Interviews in the documentary vary from David Simon (creator of HBO’s The Wire) and columnist Charles Bowden, to judges, narcotics officers, inmates, and even drug dealers. Simon is the most articulate of all the interviewees, offering choice sound bytes like “Nobody jails their population like we do. It’s Draconian and it doesn’t work.”

The House I Live In’s main argument is that drug addicts in America are an oppressed minority—Jarecki draws many parallels to the Holocaust and the Civil Rights Movement, which seem heavy handed at first but appropriate by the time the credits roll. Essentially, he is saying that in all of these cases, political leaders have placed the blame for social ills on one group of people—people thought to be “different” and “threatening” by the rest of the population.

According to Jarecki, politicians use the War on Drugs to gain votes. No one will win an election by not being hard on drugs. The cycle started with Richard Nixon, who actually allocated 2/3 of the narcotics budget to treat suffering addicts (a policy that Jarecki seems to think would have been a great help), but by the 1972 election, Nixon abandoned the treatment route in favor of a crackdown of arrests on addicts and dealers. David Simon goes on to explain that in the flawed law enforcement system—which values “stats” over actual law—a narcotics officer could make upwards of 30 nonviolent drug arrests in one month, whereas a regular officer may only make 1 or 2 arrests a month solving a robbery or rape (things Simon refers to as “real crimes”). Simon goes on to point out that in this system,when one officer makes 30 times the arrests of the other, “Who do you think is going to get the promotion?”

Jarecki doesn’t just point out everything wrong in the system; he also offers solutions. One of the main targets of the failing policy is the use of “mandatory minimums”—that a certain drug charge carries a mandatory prison sentence, with no chance of appeal. Even worse, crack cocaine sentences are set to a 100:1 ratio to regular cocaine sentences. That means that someone caught with 5 grams of crack receive the same sentence as someone caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine—and 90% of the people charged with crack-related incidents are black.

The film certainly draws attention to an issue plaguing our inner cities. While other documentaries such as Waiting for Superman have presented an entitled white man’s point of view of how inner city youths should be treated, The House I Live In strikes right for the emotional core. It never claims that drugs aren’t bad, just that America’s handling of drug addicts for the last 30 years has been a failure.

The House I Live In is a dark, fascinating, upsetting documentary that digs deep into the drug war in America. Because of its in-depth interviews, masterful editing, beautiful camerawork, and rock-solid research, it may just be the best documentary I have ever seen. A

No related posts.

Poster courtesy of Filmdistrict

Safety Not Guaranteed (directed by Colin Trevorrow) is unique among Sundance entrants. First off, it is essentially a fantasy film. Second, it revolves around Aubrey Plaza (April in Parks and Recreation) not being a sarcastic youth…as much. Third, it takes place in Seattle instead of Brooklyn. Good ol’ Seattle: Brooklyn of the ’90s!

But all these things that make Safety stand out from the average Sundance pack are also what make it one of the most enjoyable films in this year’s roster. We see Darius (Plaza), a down-on-her-luck magazine intern treated to a work trip by her skeezy boss, Jeff (Jake M. Johnson). Jeff wants to write a profile on someone who took out a classified ad in a local newspaper looking for a companion to travel back in time (see poster). The ad advises that applicants “must bring [their] own weapons” because “safety not guaranteed”—hence the title. Darius is intrigued by the ad, and isn’t looking to make fun of whoever took it out. In a bout of investigative journalism, she becomes his perfect sidekick, and Kenneth (Mark Duplass)—the guy wants to travel back in time—may not be so batty after all.

Whereas these characters seem to be ones we’ve seen all over movies and TV before —the ironic hipster with no real emotion or loyalty; the sweaty, vest-wearing icky boss; the crazy guy with a crazier scheme—it only takes a few minutes to realize that Safety Not Guaranteed is filled with real three-dimensional people. Even the entirely unlikeable Jeff becomes sympathetic halfway through—he’s like if Brett Ratner was a human being.

Plaza’s performance (her first leading role) is a breath of fresh air. She’s great on Parks and Rec, and had small parts in movies like Mystery Team and Funny People (and can be seen in the first season of 30 Rock playing an NBC page!), but this is the first time that she really gets to show her full potential. She’s endearing, funny, slick, and sad—but not too sad. The movie has no major mopey moments (as many independent films these days do), but it is jam packed with emotion.

In the end, what makes Safety work is that as we see a group of cynics become enraptured with a weirdo’s plan to build a time machine, we are sucked in as well. Darius and Jeff present every logical argument that any audience member may bring up, but everyone is rooting for Kenneth to break the space time continuum by the end (or beginning? Dun dun dun!).

Safety Not Guaranteed is a unique low-budget sci-fi adventure with very little sci-fi. Aubrey Plaza’s slight break of type allows her to shine in a role that really could not be played by anyone else. It has a bit of action, lots of laughs, and even some awkward sexual encounters. A-

if you like this...

• Sundance London: ‘Liberal Arts’ Review
• Safety: A Gift, and a Privilege
• Orienting to BU: The Safety Dance

Poster courtesy of IFC Films

The very first Sundance London Film Festival took place April 26-29. It showcased 14 movies shown at the flagship Sundance Festival in Utah back in January, combining screenings with concerts and talks from directors and industry insiders.

Sundance movies have a distinct style. They usually feature a mopey, attractive main character looking for himself/herself in some sort of quirky locale. Sure, many movies defy this stereotype (see: Pulp Fiction), but Josh Radnor’s Liberal Arts is a quintessential “Sundance” movie in almost every way—and it’s one of the better ones, at that.

The story revolves around Jesse Fischer (Josh Radnor—Ted in How I Met Your Mother—who also wrote and directed the movie), a Brooklyn-based college admissions counselor. He gets a chance to go back to his alma mater in Ohio (at a school that is all but blatantly called “Oberlin”) to attend his favorite professor’s (Richard Jenkins) retirement party. There, he realizes that he never grew out of college and gets a thing for a wily undergrad named Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen).

Sounds simple enough, right? But the beauty in Liberal Arts is how close to Radnor’s heart the story is. He’s not the best actor, and as he serves as the director there’s really no one to hone his emotions, but he has enough feeling, charm, and wit to carry the movie. He even makes the 16-year age gap between himself and Zibby seem not that creepy. There is, however, one dreadful montage of back-and-forth love letters. It starts being possibly ironic and funny, but quickly falls into cliché and almost painful. (It’s almost as disorienting as ZAC EFRON’s cameo. I could tell you what sort of character he plays…but that would ruin the fun.)

Liberal Arts’s main theme is the desire to never grow up. Professor Hoberg desperately wants to be un-retired, Jesse desperately wants to return to school, and yet Zibby wants to be mature—despite her love for a Twilight-esque book series called “Lunar Moon” (and its hinted sequel, “Solar Sun”). It certainly tugs at heartstrings, especially those of graduating seniors who cannot believe that college is already over and just want to stay.

Liberal Arts is a heartfelt comedy with a great cast and a plot to break down any current undergrad with a soul. It is cute without being schmaltzy (most of the time), and puts a new spin on the “attractive sad boy meets attractive sad girl” story. B+

No related posts.

Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Whit Stillman certainly keeps up the trend of deadpan heroines in his newest film Damsels in Distress. The eccentric comedy, set on the grounds of a college campus, is anything but conventional. Greta Gerwig stars as Violet, a neurotic college student who, along with her three like-minded friends (Carrie MacLemore, Megalyn Echikunwoke, and Analeigh Tipton), aims to educate the ignorant members of the male species on campus.

In true Whit Stillman style, the characters found within this world are not relatable at face value: they speak as if they were from the early 20^th century and are accompanied by a soundtrack that could have been taken from Sandra Dee’s personal collection. From the characters’ interactions with the “Romans” (Stillman’s version of “Greek” life), to tap dancing as a form of suicide prevention, Stillman satirizes college life in a way that is simultaneously dramatic and poker-faced. Underneath the surface, however, he attempts to address important issues of personal identity, group dynamics, and happiness.

While it does have its moments of cinematic harmony, the film is driven by snappy dialogue as opposed to visuals. The dialogue is a little too dry at times, but effectively delivered. Stillman can be commended on having created a set of characters that are both caricatures and are all flawed in very believable ways.

The film’s deadpan nature is brought out in its pacing, which begins to feel monotonous beyond a certain point. The characters might come off as being a little too blasé even at climatic points which is only underlined by the lack of attention to certain subplots and character arcs within the story. While this might be a part of the movie’s intentions, it is hard for a certain type of audience to accept.

All the same, the leads, Gerwig, MacLemore, Echikunwoke, and Tipton deliver believable, humorous performances punctuated by moments of true wit which had the whole theatre in splits. While I wasn’t exactly raving on exit, I could appreciate Stillman’s refreshingly absurd portrayal of an environment that has been stereotyped in films one time too many.

No related posts.

The Independent Film Festival of Boston, while not as widely known as Sundance or SXSW, is the only festival that brings indie heroes to this city. Celebrating its tenth year, IFFBoston will be showing some of this year’s finest films at the Somerville, Brattle, and Coolidge Corner theaters from April 25-May 2. Any of the 66 feature films and 32 short films are worth seeing, but I’ve comprised a short list of buzzworthy films to suit any taste.

Image courtesy of IFF Boston

2 Days in New York

Following 2008’s 2 Days in Paris (a short review can be found here), 2 Days in New York is Julie Delpy’s love letter to New York. Delpy, aka the female Woody Allen, plays slightly neurotic Marion, who has just moved in with her boyfriend, played by Chris Rock (yep, I’m surprised too). Similar to the first film, the comedy centers on miscommunication between different cultures. It’s a concept we can all understand and it’s a joy to watch. As an added bonus, Delpy will be making an appearance at the screening.

Saturday, April 28 at 6:45 p.m., Brattle Theater.

Trishna

Following in the footsteps of fellow Brit Danny Boyle, director Michael Winterbottom’s Trishna is set in the cities and slums of India and stars Freida Pinto as the leading lady. However, this film isn’t Slumdog Millionaire, which began with hopelessness and ended in joy. Based on Thomas Hardy’s classic Victorian novel Tess of the d’Urbervilles, Trishna is a tragic love story between people from two different worlds set in contemporary India. Trishna is the daughter of a poor rickshaw owner whose circumstances change she meets wealthy businessman Jay (Riz Ahmed). Drawn to a life she could never have, she falls for Jay and moves to the city, but the dream of a better life is not what it seems.  Sweeping imagery and compelling score heighten the drama.

Sunday, April 29 at 8:15 p.m., Somerville Theater.

Liberal Arts

This one’s for all you romantics out there. Jesse Fisher (Josh Radnor, How I Met Your Mother) is a 35-year-old  still pining for his college days. When an opportunity arises to return to his alma matter, Jesse can’t turn it down. While “back at school” he meets sophomore Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen) and forms strong feelings for her, despite their age gap. Veteran actors Richard Jenkins and Allison Janney star as two professors Jesse admired while he was at school. It’s a coming-of-age story built for fans of sweet romantic comedies, but it’s also a look (accurate or not—you decide) at college life in general. What’s so appealing about it anyway?

Thursday, April 26 at 7 p.m., Somerville Theater.

The Queen of Versailles

Excess in America– lavish homes, multiple cars, and several nannies. The Queen of Versailles deals with the subject of hedonism but with a sour twist. A documentary directed by Lauren Greenfield, it follows billionaire couple David and Jackie Siegel as they build the largest home in America before the recession hits. While most of us would just roll our eyes, the rags-to-riches story of the Siegels is not to be missed. They followed the American Dream, after all, and who can blame them? Closing the festival, Lauren Greenfield will be in attendance. A heated discussion about American consumerism is inevitable after watching this.

Wednesday, May 2 at 8 p.m., Coolidge Corner Theater.

A full schedule and ticket information can be found here.

if you like this...

• ‘Like Crazy’ Review: Indie Gold

The project is also something of a test run for Tugg.com, a new web-based company that offers a way for film enthusiasts to bring unique titles to their city. It’s a novel process: individuals propose and curate a film event at a local theater through the website’s library of films, fans help spread the word among friends and their community, and, if enough people reserve tickets on Tugg, the screening is approved. Tugg approached the BUFS in January to see if it would be interested in helping pilot the new service.

“Of course we said yes,” said Justin Weimer, vice president of the BUFS, in an email.  He and the rest of the film society are excited to work with Tugg to try and bring a film to Boston that would otherwise be difficult to find in theaters. “The plan is to have film studies professor Charles Warren introduce the film and answer a few questions afterward.”

The 400 Blows stars Jean-Pierre Leaud as Antoine Doinel, a young, Parisian only child who, misunderstood at home and in school, slides into a life of petty crime. The simple and touching film is Truffaut’s debut feature, heavily inspired by the director’s early life. The 400 Blows is also a landmark in the art-cinema movement known as the French New Wave and is regarded as one of cinema’s greatest films. The BUFS needs 50 reservations by April 28, otherwise the event will be called off.

Composed of about 30 film enthusiasts and hundreds of online followers, the BUFS is devoted to sharing and discussing quality films like The 400 Blows. The student group is growing and hopes to coordinate more screenings with professors and student groups next year. Tugg may be a valuable resource for making these events happen, according to Weimer. Next, the group will be presenting the 2009 Greek drama Dogtooth in room 522 of the College of Arts and Sciences this Wednesday, April 25 at 7:45 pm.

Tickets for The 400 Blows are $9 and can be reserved here. More info on the BUFS can be found at their Facebook page. 

No related posts.

On the set of "At the Home." | Photo courtesy of Kevin Anton

Boston University is a big school indeed. Within our microcosmic universe, the different colleges are somewhat like galaxies, each existing independently of each other and only vaguely aware of the other entities alongside which they exist.

When I transferred into the College of Communication as a film major, the only thing I knew about COM was that students did not have to take math. I had questions. Did film production majors get to go beyond the classroom? Or were my next few years going to be a scramble to absorb every bit of technical information thrown at me? My real question, though, was what set COM students apart from everyone else. As another academic year came to a close, I got to be a part of something in which most film production majors can only hope to partake before their college careers end. My questions were answered.

Production III is the highest level film production class that can be taken at the undergraduate level here at BU. Offered every spring semester, production students apply to the class as a director, producer, cinematographer, editor, production designer or sound designer. The production faculty then selects eight directors, based in part on the scripts they submit, and a team of every other position that will work to make eight thesis-quality films over the course of the semester. Students are chosen based on their work in previous production classes as well as their collaborative abilities. “All things being equal, we’ll select the student who can offer advice, suggestions and constructive criticism,” says Professor Sam Kauffmann, who facilitates the class. “We expect them to produce films that are amongst the best student films of the year.”

On the set of "The Perimeter." | Photo courtesy of Aanchal Khaneja

“As a production student you ‘grow up’ hearing about Prod III. It becomes mythical, and then finally being a part of it is very empowering,” says Dan Salgarolo, a senior in Prod III who wrote and is now directing his film Simulacrum for the class. “It’s just like in real life: you work hard, you network, you get to know people and you build a solid reputation. All of those things contribute to getting in to Production III,” he adds.

“There’s a difference between going into the class intending to make a great film and loving it so much that you put extra time and money into it because you put it before everything else,” says Kevin Anton, writer and director of his film At the Home.

The group, which consists of 27 this year, goes through a process that begins when they workshop all eight scripts. Then they start pre-production, which flows into the actual film shoot. They finish with post-production. “The emphasis of the course is on thorough pre-production and a greater attention to detail at every stage of the process than is generally possible in earlier film courses,” says Kauffmann.

The beauty of the course’s setup is the involvement of the entire group in every one of the eight films. “As teams go scouting, looking for actors, etc. they are thinking about all eight films, not just the one or two they are directly working on,” Kauffmann states. This is probably the most unique aspect of the class, as it brings together a spectrum of student filmmakers who work in close proximity with one another for four to five months.

On the set of "At the Home." | Photo courtesy of Kevin Anton

“We all have different creative styles and ideas that compliment each other in the best ways,” says Kim Rideout, writer and director of The Doghouse, winner of the 2012 Adrienne Shelly Production Grant at this year’s Redstone Film Festival. “Our class has become a family, one that feeds off each other’s passion and drive and motivates each other to succeed.”

Given the risk that comes with applying for the class, they share in the classic dilemma most production major seniors go through: to stay or not to stay. “I could have done the BU in LA program and worked at an internship in LA that could potentially have turned into a job. I decided to stay here and take my chances trying to get in to Prod III. My gamble paid off, and now I have a great film to put on my resume and real and invaluable experience that I can take with me as I move on to my career,” Rideout explains.

Making the actual film is no walk in the park; each team is responsible for raising funds with which to back their projects. Most turn to funding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo for help, while simultaneously looking for other sources of backing. Additionally, the class itself only takes up four to five positions on each film’s crew as the projects are done on a larger scale than most other ones at BU, so they turn to people outside the group for help.

“Our films couldn’t be realized without the help of people outside of our class,” says Salgarolo. “It’s valuable to younger students because it gives them a first taste of what it’s like to work on a bigger and (generally) more organized crew.”

This year, the group organized a workshop for people interested in being production assistants on the films. “I’ve been working on them since freshman year,” says Anton. “I wanted to give the same opportunity to the underclassmen that I was offered.” Being a PA on the set of a Production III film is a great way to gain hands on experience in the various aspects of production. It was a defining experience for Anton and also how he formed his closest friendships at BU.

The cast and crew of "At the Home" | Photo courtesy of Kevin Anton

“We aim to make films that are worthy of winning awards,” Anton states. True to this mission statement, a number of Production III films have been contenders in the Redstone Film Festival over the years. Cowboy Café, one of last year’s Prod III films, has also gotten into the upcoming Boston International Film Festival. “Overall, the whole process from script to film festivals will be about a year. It’s a long process that sometimes feels like it will never end, but over each hurdle is a rewarding feeling of accomplishment,” says Rideout.

The course culminates in a final screening, open to the public, of all the completed films. This year it’s May 18 at the Tsai Performance Center.

“This has been the training wheels that I needed before graduation,” Anton states. “Hopefully I’m prepared now to ride the two-wheeler on my own.”

“So many personalities and so many creative ideas come together, that what comes out is bound to be beautiful,” adds Salgarolo. “It’s how I continue to learn and grow as a person and a storyteller.”

“I think the bonds these students form with each other will last for a lifetime,” Kauffmann sums up. “I know they will look out for each other both professionally and personally for many, many years.”

 For more information on “Simulacrum,” go to their Kickstarter.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                For more information on “The Doghouse,” go to their Indiegogo page.

if you like this...

• Side Streets: Mass Ave
• Life On The Other Side: Reflections From a Native West Coaster
• ‘Just Like Us’ and ‘A Better Life’ Reviews: Lives on the Other Side

Look for "Bully" at Landmark Kendall Cinema on April 13. | Photo Courtesy of Flickr user SafeAndCaring

Bully is a documentary about vulnerability and trauma. It is about instilling compassion instead of animosity in the next generation, a relevant and important goal in today’s violence-obsessed society. Why, then, is it being shown on only a select few screens, when the message is so clearly needed? Why would this film receive an R rating, restricting it from reaching the widest possible audience, when another recent film, The Hunger Games, shows teens fighting to the death and received a PG-13 rating?

To put it bluntly, it’s because the young subjects of Bully say a couple bad words, which, according to an archaic rating system, might offend some people more than the violence the movie is trying to dispel. The language in the documentary has provoked an R rating by The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in accordance with their system, last updated in 1984 to include PG-13. Such a rating restricts anyone under 17 from seeing the film without adult supervision, but more importantly, it prevents the film from being screened in U.S. middle and high schools “where it might otherwise reach a mass national audience of students and be used as a tool to stop an epidemic of physical, psychological and emotional violence,” according to a Weinstein Company news release.

The rating controversy has garnered national attention. An online petition to change the R to a PG-13 has, at the time of this writing, over 500,000 signatures. Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-Mich) has spoken about the merit of the rating, saying “The hypocrisy is that the very movies that contribute to violence can be seen by teenagers because they get a PG-13, and the one film that actually teaches them to respect others is given an R.” Clarke is referring to The Hunger Games, which, to be clear, in no way promotes or advocates violence. Still, its rabid fans are lining up to watch kids murder each other, and let’s be honest, they’re probably not coming away with a strong message of anti-violence.

Bully follows the lives of several high school students who are bullied daily, and offers deep insight into the traumatized psyches of adolescents abused by their peers. It shows how traumatizing alienation can be on a young student’s psyche, leading to depression and even, in the cases of Tyler Long and Ty Smalley, suicide.

The producers of the film, The Weinstein Company, have decided to release Bully unrated. Certain theater chains, such as Cinemark, never show unrated movies. However, the two biggest chains (Regal and AMC respectively) have decided to treat Bully as R rated, although AMC will let minors in with a signed permission slip. Hopefully, age restrictions will not prevent the film from spreading its message: that bullying in schools has a devastating effect, and must be stopped.

Bully was released in U.S. Theaters on March 30th, making $115,000 its opening weekend despite being screened in only 5 theaters. The first screening of the film in the Boston area will be Friday, April 13 at the Landmark Kendall Cinema in Cambridge.

if you like this...

• New Documentary by BU Professor Tackles Flawed Family Court System
• Suarez Racial Controversy Shakes Soccer

Holly Collins with her American children in the Netherlands in 2005. | Photo courtesy of Garland Waller and Barry Nolan

On March 28, I saw No Way Out But One for the second time. This time the screening was sponsored in part by the CAS Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies Program as a part of Women Take the Reel, a film festival celebrating Women’s History Month through screenings of films written, directed, and/or produced by women.

The 6 p.m. screening included a Q&A featuring Professor Waller; Barry Nolan; Lundy Bancroft, an author and consultant on domestic abuse and child maltreatment; Dr. Eli Newberger, the Collins children’s former pediatrician at Children’s Hospital in Boston; and Holly Ann Collins herself. Robin Young of WBUR’s Here and Now moderated.

Since last December, the documentary has been screened at the Institute on Violence, Abuse, and Trauma (IVAT) Conference. It has also won several awards including an Award of Excellence for Feature Documentary from the Accolade Film Awards. At the end of the evening, it was announced that copies of No Way Out But One would soon be distributed to every member of Congress.

Throughout the Q&A, the panelists stressed that while Holly Collins’ story is unique, the situation from which she and her children escaped is not. A few of the panelists cited corruption in the family court system as a key problem; others pointed to lingering traces of misogyny in court practices. They all agreed, however, that we need to first raise awareness of the injustice in the family courts if we want to find a practical solution to the problem.

And Holly Collins? She wants to do more to help others who have been hurt by the family court system, but for now she’s enjoying the wonderful life she’s always wanted.

if you like this...

• New Documentary by BU Professor Tackles Flawed Family Court System

Promotional poster courtesy of Lionsgate

I’ll admit I was late to join the Hunger Games bandwagon. In fact, I didn’t want to read it at all. After my sisters begged me, I brought the book on a spring break bus ride to New York City, hoping that its presence would make me do homework. An hour into an essay, I was bored and started to read. Of course, I was instantly addicted like almost everyone else. I’m so glad I read it, especially because I was just in time for the movie, which I went out and saw as soon as possible.

For the most part, I was satisfied. Author Suzanne Collins, who used to write for children’s television shows, had a huge part in writing the screenplay, so the details that were included were almost completely accurate. There are elements that were left out that make it harder for readers to connect with the movie as much as they connected with the book.

One major element that got lost was the emotional attachment to the characters. The audience never really meets the tributes as they did in the novel. In the movie, characters that readers get to know very well in the book seem to be thrown into the Games and killed off very quickly before the audience can get attached, and quite frankly, it’s disappointing.

The readers in the audience do have to be sympathetic to the screenwriters for some choices they made. The entire book is written as first-person stream of consciousness from Katniss’s point of view, so of course the movie can’t be as emotional and not as much can be explained. It could only be closer to the book if the movie were narrated and much longer. The only change I don’t understand is why they cut out Madge Undersee’s character completely. Although she’s not necessarily important to the plot of the second book and soon to be movie, her contribution is interesting and significant.

Then there’s the matter of non-readers in the audience, whose problems with the movie also deal with a lack of narration. For them, the sequence of action and all the details are great, since they don’t know the actual plotline.  However, they lose explanations of some simple things that make the movie and novel interesting. I saw the movie with a non-reader and found myself explaining some of the basic plot.

Little details about the world they live in get lost without narration. I had to explain District 12’s three-finger salute, why everyone in the Capitol was dressed the way they were and even where everything in Panem was. Also, the film doesn’t transition into the second movie very well for non-readers because they don’t understand just how seriously Katniss betrayed the Capitol. Her crimes seem very nonchalant.

In the end, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the movie. The acting was good (who knew Lenny Kravitz could act?!) and none of the actors cast strayed too far from the descriptions in the novel. All the shots and scenery were well composed. I understand for the most part why some details were included and others were not. Now I’m at the point where I hope seeing the movie doesn’t make me picture the actors as the book characters while I finish reading the series. Because that is not what President Snow looks like.

No related posts.

"Girls" HBO show poster

HBO, in collaboration with Xfinity and COM, screened an advance showing of its new series “Girls” Monday night. The screening included the first two episodes, free white-cheddar popcorn, a pamphlet on how to get Comcast cable and a surprisingly powerful mini flashlight (you have to remove the plastic thing on the battery!).

The swag was unnecessary because the show was good enough to make you forget, or at least ignore, your hunger and your fear of the dark, but it wasn’t overwhelmingly amazing enough to make you want to pay through the nose for premium cable.

To quote the second episode, “Is that painful?”

“Yeah, but only in the way it’s supposed to be.”

The show features four girls either in or a few years out of college trying to make it in New York with varying degrees of success. Hannah, played by director/creator/writer/producer Lena Dunham (of Tiny Furniture fame), is the main girl. She lives with her tall, beautiful best friend Marnie, played by Allison Williams. Jessa, played by Jemima Kirke (Tiny Furniture), is British, and her cousin Shoshanna, played by Zosia Mamet (United States of Tara, The Kids Are Alright), is 21.

While each girl could be described in one word – awkward, Type-A, stoner, cousin – they aren’t only that one characteristic. Each girl is just that – a girl, a human being. And none of them are particularly good humans, either.

“They’re not wholly good,” said COM senior Kari Koeppel. “They have flaws.”

Which is, according to Koeppel, what makes it so good. The show captures several very real slices of life.

But that’s also what makes it hard to watch. CAS senior Nora Conroy said, “You could see the situations happening to yourself or situations that you’ve already been in.”

Think Arrested Development, only instead of being painful in its hilarious absurdity, Girls is painful because it’s so relatable. At several points, Hannah won’t shut up. Your stomach hurts because you feel so bad for her, but the interactions are also riddled with intricacies that make the viewer want to keep watching the series, if only to find out what’s lurking in the back of these characters’ souls. Also it would make a lot of us feel better about our terrible decisions if the characters actually end up okay, considering we’ve done most of the same things.

One thing to look forward to is Chris O’Dowd (Bridesmaids, The IT Crowd), who won’t appear until later in the series, but is, according to one devout fan, a recurring character.

if you like this...

• Dum Dum Girls Live at Paradise Rock Club
• The Sudden Rise of the 76ers: True or False?
• Roblog: Unfortunately, Tacocopters are Too Good to be True