OVP: Song of the Sea (2014)

Film: Song of the Sea (2014)
Stars: David Rawle, Brendan Gleeson, Finnoula Flanagan, Lisa Hannigan
Director: Tomm Moore
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Just over five years ago Tomm Moore became something of a household name amongst Oscar aficionados, when his Secret of Kells stunned in the Best Animated Feature race, gaining a nomination over more likely contenders like Ponyo and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.  This was the start of what is now an expected trend, when a major studio release (Tangled, Cars 2, The Lego Movie) gets upended by a small or foreign-language nominee in the animated feature race.  This happened again this past year, though not nearly with the same "whoa!" punch that it did five years ago, when Moore's latest film Song of the Sea managed a nomination in the Oscar race.

(Spoilers Ahead) As you'll see in the above link, I wasn't wild about The Secret of Kells when I first saw it, and it hasn't worn as well in my memory as it has others.  The animation in parts was absolutely beautiful, with a sea of really great tans, golds, and greens, and a distinctive color palette that rivaled almost no other nominees that year save Coraline (which, as you may or may not recall, won the OVP that year).  However, the plot itself was razor thin, and switched moods too frequently for my liking-you can't be fanciful and dour in the same breath, and that's what the movie tended to do.

And quite frankly, while I saw improvement with Song of the Sea, that's still what happened here.  The film too often relies on the impetuous nastiness of main character Ben, a young man who has lost his mother and takes this out on his younger sister, who adores him.  Ben, however, must learn a powerful lesson throughout the movie, which is sort of Animation 101, but it doesn't resonate in a way that feels authentic, and I think that's key for animated films, particularly when they're competing for Oscars.  His moods swing too ferociously and his good graces are given truly randomly, without any sense of the character.  The same can be said for Brendan Gleeson's portrayal of his father, Conor, who goes through moods of pure sadness and pure anger without much sense of reason, except when it feels expositional and aids the thin storytelling (the reality is that myths and fairy tales are not great sources for movies if only because the original is only a couple of pages long).  Finnoula Flanagan, as both the grandmother and later the petrifying Macha, is the one vocal actor really bringing down the house, and her Macha scene (where she plays a witch who locks up emotions) is easily the standout.

Animation wise it's hard to argue with the beauty on display here, even if the there it occasionally seems to rely too heavily on the dark atmosphere of the nighttime plot.  The indigo and again, shades of brown (Tomm Moore is very good at this very rich but under-utilized color) stand out, along with a really beautiful focus on the white contrast of the Selkie coat.  In my opinion, while nothing quite approaches the majesty of the Book of Kells scenes in his previous scene, this is a more succinct and lovely veneer, and I see why animators in the branch tend to fawn all over him for it, though I do truly wish that plot was more of a point when selecting nominations in this category, since this surely was the film that scored The Lego Movie's nomination and while it's not the fifth place of the actual nominees (we'll get there with the OVP after I track down Tangerines and Glen Campbell), it's the inferior to that awesome-blast.

Those are my thoughts on Tomm Moore's latest-how about you?  Did you enjoy Song of the Sea as a whole, or were you just enamored with the animation like moi?  And where does it rank on your Animated Feature list of 2014 (I've got one more to go, and it's sitting in a Netflix envelope within my eye-line, so it's coming quickly).  Share in the comments!

The State of the Governors

Gov. Pat McCrory (R-NC), the most vulnerable governor in the country

Last week we did a rundown of the top Senate races in the country for 2016, so it seems more than appropriate to do a similar take on the governor's races.  While the governor's races aren't nearly as prominent in 2015 and 2016 (most states had their elections in 2014), there are a few states that will be holding extremely competitive-looking contests come this and next November.  We'll go through the Top 5 below!

Honorable Mention: I'm still waiting for races to form in Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon.  All three have Democratic incumbents that could potentially be vulnerable, but they don't quite feel competitive yet. Steve Bullock in Montana is a Democrat in a red state, which was toxic in 2014 but might not be in 2016 and his top potential opponent, Attorney General Timothy Fox, declined the race.  Maggie Hassan may well run for the Senate in New Hampshire, opening up the governor's mansion in a swing state, but she could also run for reelection in which case that race won't be competitive at all.  And Gov. Kate Brown recently took over in Oregon after John Kitzhaber resigned, so even though the state is pretty damn blue it's wait-and-see on how she does since she's never won the office in her own-right.  Until the dynamics in these races change, however, I'm leaving them off the list.

5. Indiana

Gov. Mike Pence (R) got into some massive hot water recently with news of a religious rights bill that he stood behind that is perceived as anti-LGBT, and potentially doing a number on the business community in the state.  Companies such as Angie's List and the NCAA have withdrawn or considered withdrawing expansions into the state, which could do a number on the governor's approval ratings, which until this scandal were pretty solid (unemployment in the Hoosier State remains in the Top 20 highest across-the-country, so loss of job expansions would be a thorny subject).  It appears likely that former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg, who came very close to besting Pence in 2012, will get a rematch against the governor next year.  There's also potential for Pence to skip the governor's race and run for president, but these rumors have started to die down in the past month.

Matt Bevin (R-KY)

4. Kentucky

The only race on this list that will be happening in 2015 rather than 2016, this is one of several races that the Democrats will have to hold to not see their already anemic governor's seat count dwindle.  Gov. Steve Beshear (D) is term-limited, and it appears to be a cleared field for the Democrats around Attorney General Jack Conway, who is making what may be his last stand at higher-office after several failed attempts to enter Congress.  Republicans have a pretty second-tier primary waging, with Agricultural Commissioner James Comer and 2014 Senate challenger Matt Bevin representing the establishment and the Tea Party, respectively.  Conway leads in most polling, but this will be a tight race regardless, because as we witnessed in places like Arkansas and Georgia last year, the South is not fond of electing Democrats statewide anymore.

3. North Carolina

Though, I suppose, there are exceptions.  The most vulnerable Republican governor up for reelection in 2016 is certainly Gov. Pat McCrory, who won this state in 2012 by a solid margin though he faced a second-tier challenger.  Since then his approval ratings have been sketchy (though they are better now than they were two years ago) and that makes Democrats think they could have an opening with Attorney General Roy Cooper.  Cooper is certainly the best candidate the Democrats could come up with here, and polling so far is close-McCrory is leading, but not by much and no polling shows him at 50%.  This is the only state on this list that is considered a presidential swing state, so expect a lot to depend on how the national candidates are running in this state-if one side is in the lead, that side will probably win this seat.

Attorney General Chris Koster (D-MO)

2. Missouri

The death of State Auditor Tom Schweich, once a frontrunner for the nomination here, has overshadowed what is expected to be an extremely competitive race to succeed term-limited (and unpopular) Gov. Jay Nixon.  The Democrats and Republicans both seem to have their candidates, with Attorney General Chris Koster (D) and House Speaker Catherine Hanaway at the top of the heap for the candidates.  This race probably starts out favoring the Republicans considering what the Show-Me State's politics have done in recent years and Jay Nixon's unpopular reactions to the events in Ferguson, but Hanaway doesn't have the statewide experience that Koster does and is still an unproven candidate.

1. West Virginia

After 2014's massacre of Democrats in the Mountain State, this starts out as the Republicans' to lose considering that Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is term-limited.  Perhaps the best shot the Democrats have is through Sen. Joe Manchin, who is still exploring a run for the seat after frustration in Washington.  Considering the dearth of Republican contenders (most candidates seem to be far-fetched, like Reps. David McKinley and Evan Jenkins, or Olympic gymnast Mary Lou Retton), Manchin could probably stampede through to win a non-federal race, though he'd surely be sacrificing his seat in 2018 (he's the only candidate in the state who could possibly win for the left), but if he doesn't run the lack of serious Democrats remaining in the state would seal this as a GOP pickup.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015)

Film: The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015)
Stars: Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, Celia Imrie, Penelope Wilton, Dev Patel, Richard Gere
Director: John Madden
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I will admit right up front that I wasn't planning on seeing The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  It just wasn't on the To Do list, to be honest.  I had already added it to the Netflix queue, to pursue at my leisure, and will admit that the initial film hadn't worn particularly memorable in the old cranium.  The film seemed fine, but forgettable, a weird conundrum of a hit that I have to celebrate (I love living in a world where Maggie Smith and Judi Dench can open art house hits in a major way).  However, I have been desperate for quality films in recent weeks.  Seriously-what is going on at the movies lately?  Home and Get Hard are expected to drive whom, exactly, to the movies?  Bored parents and people who aren't sick of Kevin Hart or Will Ferrell?  So with my art house cinema slate almost completely viewed (Landmark Theaters, let's get on this, and let's all pray Women in Gold is a good movie), I ventured forward to see a sequel to a film I didn't love the first time around, but merely liked.

(Spoilers Ahead) I will admit that the film had more confidence in being memorable than it actually was in my memory, as the first twenty minutes were spent more on trying to recall exactly where the last film left-off.  Who was which character, and quite frankly I was flummoxed as to what had happened between Judi Dench and Bill Nighy's characters, as they clearly were romantically involved in my memory and yet they still hadn't quite sealed the "girlfriend/boyfriend" card yet in the film.

The movie is really just a check-in on the characters as we last saw them, and for the most part nothing really changes from there other than continued "moving on with life."  The film chronicles the lives of people who are getting on in India, though sadly without Tom Wilkinson (whose presence was much-missed).  The movie is refreshing in many ways.  For starters, death doesn't hang in the air nearly as ardently as it could have, or which is typical of people over the age of 70 in films.  The only character who has the linger of death in the air is Maggie Smith's Muriel, who gets distressing medical news offscreen but doesn't actually die onscreen.  Quite frankly, since they had dealt with this already in the first film and because Smith's character already had an arc to work here (becoming an entrepreneur so late in her life, and impressing with her candor), I kind of wish they had skipped that all together as it was unnecessary and took away from the other refreshing stories.

Some of those included Judi Dench's brilliant move to sales for a fabric distributor.  There's a marvelous scene when she gets a job offer where she says, "but I'm 79!" and the woman, at least 25 years her junior, proclaims, "it doesn't bother us if it doesn't bother you."  I thought this was brilliant, particularly because you so rarely see new career options so late in life in film (or even more sad, in real life), and because she clearly has a knack for this job, so why not hire her?  This was one of many touches in the film that I enjoyed-you also had the confusing but fascinating take on monogamy modeled by Diana Hardcastle's Carol and Ronald Pickup's Norman, the sexual awakening of Celia Imrie's Madge, and perhaps best of the side characters, the challenge of Penelope Wilton's Jean.  Really Wilton deserves special honors for taking a character that occasionally seemed too sharp to be believable in the last film and giving her a lonely humane edge.  There's a scene late in the movie where Dench confronts her about her imaginary fiance, and she admits that life hasn't been kind to her, and she's trying desperately to make it look the way that she wants.  There's something deeply honest in that that you rarely see in movies-we're not supposed to admit failure or loneliness or quite frankly even effort in real life, and I loved this moment as Dench's character doesn't view it as a victory or even a moment of pity, but one of recognition of a shared feeling.

This is really where the film works-it's quite frankly better as an adult drama, something we almost never get in cinema today, not unless it also revolves around being a parent (which is almost never an issue for even the parents seen onscreen in Second Best Exotic).  The movie falls apart when it focuses on Dev Patel's ludicrously over-the-top Sonny, who is constantly making a fool of himself, and while he's adorable, between Tina Desae and Freida Pinto it does appear that casting directors may be overestimating his sex appeal.

Overall, then, I will say that while it shares so much with its predecessor that I can't really go above three-stars, I actually found this trip more enjoyable.  Without character flaws to cling to and more fully-formed personalities we saw more realistic human beings in front of us, and I rather enjoyed my second stay at the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel better than the first.

Why Are There No Good Movies?

There's a problem going on at your local multiplex and it's nothing to do with the projector.  Nor is it to do with the unfathomable amount of calories in the popcorn.  Nor is it even to do with those arcade games that tween boys play that are at like every movie theater and yet as an adult you totally forget exist.  No, the problem is and has been for weeks now that there are no good movies in theaters.  It's kind of staggering.  Honestly-look at this past weekend, where Home and Get Hard, two films with abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores somehow ended up being massive hits.

And this isn't surprising at all.  It's not just that these are bad movies making a lot of money-that happens all the time (Michael Bay has made a career out of it), but it's also that the movies are really the only option.  I'm going through my local AMC lineup, and the only movies that are there are either tripe or films you would have seen weeks ago if you're an avid moviegoer.  Along with the top two from the Box Office, the only other films playing a full showing and not one of those random-4:00 viewings are Do You Believe?, Insurgent, Run All Night, The Gunman, Cinderella and It Follows, the latter two being the only ones with a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and if you're a film fan at all you've already seen Cinderella if only to stop the movie theater shakes.

Usually my cinematic respite at this time of year is the Art House cinemas nearby, but even they have their limits and they appear to be reached.  Many of the films playing there have been in theaters for weeks like Still Alice, Wild Tales, and The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (the latter of which we will review this afternoon-I'll hopefully get to Wild Tales, which I saw a bit ago, later this week).  Other films include movies that seem largely uninspired like Danny Collins (does anyone need to see Al Pacino go through yet another mid-life crisis-can't someone stretch this once stunning actor again?) or Serena (which is more of a "curio in awfulness" right now than a film anyone actually wants to watch).  Largely none of these films are movies that are worth the price of admission, and unless you live in a New York City or Los Angeles, your options beyond your local art house cinemas (presuming you even have one) are to stay home or go to a film like Get Hard just to see some decent trailers.

Some may respond, "but it's March!" which is the equivalent of complaining about TV sucking during July, but the reality is that television by-and-large has gone to great lengths to address the Summer doldrums.  For starters, this is when a lot of people will launch some of their edgy, ratings-starved or brand new shows in hopes of building an audience in a time when no one is focusing on broadcast.  Recent critical-hits like Penny Dreadful, Halt and Catch Fire, and The Leftovers all premiered during the summer last year, and I suspect this will continue as major networks like Showtime, AMC, and HBO continue to churn out more critical/commercial hits than they have room for on the schedule.  No longer is Summer a total suck of energy on TV's schedule.  Plus, Summer is when you give shows a chance on Netflix, which still feels new since you haven't seen them before, a solution movie theaters don't really have (though with all of the sequels, remakes, and re-releases there they sure are trying).

And this is bad for the movies, because like it or not, TV and movies are in a bit of an eyeball war lately.  I am sick-to-death of the constant laziness of writing about the "Golden Age of Television" (sorry, but that ended a bit ago, probably with the end of Breaking Bad).  Television, especially if you were to take HBO out of the equation, doesn't really have the critical cache that it did five years ago, though there are of course lots of good program options in the same way that there are a lot of good movies each year if you actually look for them.  However, the more dreck you see at the movies, the less you're going to shop there; it's Consumer Behavior 101.  The movies cannot afford to have such a bleak season for months on end, not restarting again after the Oscars until May.  Quality counter-programming is probably what you need here.  I'm not asking for an Avengers to launch in March (though I think you'd be surprised at how well a quality B-Grade action film that's still fun would do in an atypical slot-just look at Guardians of the Galaxy last year for proof).  I am, however, asking for some more adult dramas.  The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is making a very tidy profit with that argument, and you saw last year that this time of year isn't a death knell for your awards chances if you want to go that route (The Grand Budapest Hotel cleaned up at the Oscars, the Box Office, and was a March release).  There's no reason not to make quality risks this time of year instead of just making K-Mart bargain bin titles.  Because you're losing money by not getting in the game-as Home and Get Hard proved this weekend, people still want to go to the movies in March.  Just imagine how many more would go if the movies you made were, you know, actually worth seeing.

The Emoji Challenge!

So, it's now Sunday Funday here on the blog (scratch that-that's too cutesy, even for what we're about to do).  It's really GTKY Sunday, where I go-ahead and try to do some random GTKY activity, and today we're going to be doing the Emoji Challenge.  For those of you who haven't been watching videos from YouTubers desperate for a new tag video in the past month, the Emoji Challenge essentially is this: you find five Emojis that describe your interests, your personality, your likes, or just you.  I am kind of an Emoji addict if you ever text with me, and so I thought this would be appropriate.  Without further adieu...

1. Unimpressed Emoji

Okay, I'm not hip enough to know exactly what all of these are called, but this one is my favorite to use.  Seriously-so much idiocy happens in texting and on the internet, that if I'm looking at my iPhone, this is surely going to be my face half of the time.

2. Clapper Board Emoji

I mean, I couldn't skip the one about film.  Obviously movies are a major part of my life, and while I don't use this one as often as I should, it's a favorite if only because it's cinematic.  Plus, it's oddly detailed, with production, director, and everything listed on it.

3. Statue of Liberty Emoji

I mean, it's kind of a snooty-looking Statue of Liberty, isn't it?  If this was a selfie, it wouldn't get particularly high marks.  Still, though, this is clearly the NYC emoji and I couldn't skip that because I love everything about the Big Apple.

4. Mount Fuji Emoji

I'm a weird conundrum, in that I love the heart of busy cities like New York, but also have a huge penchant for the wilderness, particularly the mountainous wilderness.  While Mount Fuji isn't the first mountain I think of when I think of great mountains (that'd be the Himalayas or the Rockies), it's still wholly iconic and I love this serene emoji.

5. Orange Heart Emoji

Wait, you're saying this isn't an actual emoji?  That they somehow have red, yellow, green, blue, purple, and pink hearts but for some reason left out the orange heart?  That can't be possible!!! #stillnotlettingthisgo

And there you have it-my emoji challenge!  What five emojis represent you?  Share yours in the comment or tweet me them on Twitter!

Just Call Her Dame Joan Collins

Don't you love how cheeky Joan Collins looks as she becomes Dame Joan?

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

It's Saturday-huzzah!!!  And with that, we get back into our old "Everybody's Linking for the Weekend" write-ups, where I link to some of the articles and stories that I've been following all week.

On Entertainment...

-Lena Dunham continued to stir up controversy with her article about "Dog or Jewish Boyfriend?" for The New Yorker.  I know that Lena may do things like this on occasion just to see where the uproar flies (I love her, but she occasionally trolls the public a bit), but in this case it was just a cute article playing on the ridiculousness of stereotypes that isn't dissimilar to the humor of Sarah Silverman or Larry David.  Plus, the reaction to it seems wholly predictable and no piece I've read seemed particularly genuine other than knee-jerk.  As a result I'm not going to link to the outrage articles, but occasionally provocative speech is just that and while I get where people are coming from, I don't quite agree with them.

-Tim Brayton over at the Film Experience finished up his fascinating take on the Rise and Fall of Dreamworks animation, whose Home premieres this weekend amidst a tumultuous time for the studio.  Honestly-this is one of the coolest articles I've read in a while with an in-depth look at a Hollywood studio (recalling Entertainment Weekly before the magazine just became a series of photos with pun-inflected captions to them).  Do yourself a favor and check it out.

-Loved this article from Buzzfeed recounting one person's look at the One Direction break-up, and particularly the part about the double standards employed on girls (who are silly for loving a band so much) and boys (who can mourn and weep over LeBron leaving Cleveland without any public mocking).

On Politics...

-The big story out of Washington yesterday had to be the retirement of Harry Reid.  The chips fell quickly and Politico has an account of how Chuck Schumer swiftly assumed the mantle of next Senate leader, while The Hill looks through the contentious Democratic Primary that could emerge with Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto seeming the frontrunner but Rep. Dina Titus and former Secretary of State Ross Miller both also appearing interested.  I'd like to remind both Titus and Miller that the Republicans have an open governor's race in 2018 and Sen. Dean Heller running for reelection, so if we all learn to share we might have a clear primary and everyone gets a prize.  Meanwhile every Republican in the country is salivating over the prospect of Gov. Brian Sandoval taking a shot at the open seat, as seen in the LA Times, but he seems more intent to wait and see if Jeb Bush picks him over Rob Portman for the veep slot.  In a presidential year, a Republican field without Sandoval would probably start as the underdog considering the uptick in Hispanic voters and recent trends in Nevada regarding presidential elections.

-National Journal included an article about potential fractures for the Democrats headed into the 2016 cycle.  Indeed, with Nevada, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Maryland, and Pennsylvania all seemingly poised to have contested (and theoretically bitter) primaries, the weird streak of Democrats clearing the field for their preferred candidate appears to be over.  Speaking of Illinois, Rep. Tammy Duckworth, the preferred candidate by many for that state, appears likely to enter the race against Mark Kirk (see this article from HuffPo for more details).  Between Duckworth (or her congressional colleague Robin Kelly) in Ilinois, Kamala Harris in California, Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, and Donna Edwards in Maryland, a record number of women of color could be entering the Senate in 2017.

-One other story yesterday came out from the EPA.  Bloomberg reports that at least one unidentified chemical was used by most companies while fracking, which comes amidst an all-out war against the practice by environmental groups, including a ban on the practice in New York.  This occurs at a time when we seem to have too much oil in reserves and nowhere to put it.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

Ansel Elgort is the prettiest of all of the pretty people.

My Favorite YouTube Video of the Week:

My beloved Grace Helbig has her own show that premieres next week, and in preparation for that jump to the mainstream, she was on Jimmy Fallon.  Here she is discussing her mom:

Just One More...

-I cannot believe that this is happening, but my beloved Suze Orman Show will be signing off tonight after 14 years on the air.  The Washington Post did a beautiful piece on Suze, her show, and her legacy (the good and the bad), but I will say that the way those teenage girls felt up-top about One Direction, I feel about Suze leaving.  I met her once at a book-signing (she was bound-and-determined to talk with every last person), and she referred to me as adorable when I came up for an autograph.  I told her that her book Young, Fabulous, and Broke had changed my entire perspective on money and had become my "financial bible."  She smiled, said she "loved that" and indicated that The Money Book was "my new financial bible" (which it has become).  I will miss our Saturdays together, and while I always follow her on Twitter and am excited to see where her new talk-style show takes her, I'm going to miss our Saturday nights together.

OVP: Timbuktu (2014)

Film: Timbuktu (2014)
Stars: Abel Jafri, Hichem Yacoubi, Toulou Kiki, Pino Desperado, Kettly Noel, Fatoumata Diawara
Director: Abderrahmane Sissako
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Foreign Language Film-Mauritania)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I'm always excited when a country gains its first nomination at the Oscars in the Foreign Language film category, as it's usually my first introduction to that country and its filmic output.  This was certainly true for Mauritania, which enjoyed its first nomination with the controversial and provocative Timbuktu.  The film, which is hard to follow for those who don't have a regular study of the politics of the region, is still a difficult and haunting film that stands out in a way that not only keeps select scenes highly memorable, but makes you want to take the plunge further in the country's cinematic output.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film takes place over a series of vignettes, slowly linking together as the film progresses.  Character names are dropped, but rarely picked up, and really the characters end up being more like descriptions rather than specific people, human characters hidden amidst a terrorist Jihad group similar to Boko Haram.  The humanity in that though, the fact that there is something so unknowable about these characters, allows you to project a lot of your personality and feeling toward the characters, making certain scenes hauntingly real.

Because brutal doesn't begin to describe the difficult nature of this particular film, steeped in torture and death.  For starters, the heat is unrelenting.  There is a scene late in the film involving cattle in a river that feels almost cooling for a second-we see the water rushing and are given some respite from the sand, but then we still have to deal with the death.  We see an original sin-style scene, where a seemingly innocent man is pushed too far, killing a man over his most beloved cow being slaughtered.  This death ends up coming back to haunt him and his family as the film progresses, with his wife eventually trying to end his death at the hand of the Jihad, only to die herself and leaving their young daughter an orphan in the sand.

The film frequently comments on the humanity of the villains, leading to the supposed controversy surrounding the film, but like Downfall a decade ago, this is just creating a situation behind villainy.  There's no condoning the actions of the terrorists, but perhaps just questioning their decisions.  They are still human, frequently discussing women and soccer despite strict rules against such things, but they also clearly have a choice in the torture and death they impose, and even they sometimes question the why, and most meaningfully, the "what for" of the tyranny.  What purpose does all of this death and destruction, this extreme violence (the stoning scene in the middle of the film is certainly the most brutal thing I've seen onscreen in a long time-I almost had to leave the theater until it was over and was certainly watching through cupped hands)?  It's a question that Western audiences might find alien until they realize that some of their citizens are prepared to run off to join ISIS and realize that this sort of horrible decision-making and celebration of destruction reaches to every corner of the globe.

Those are my thoughts on this thought-provoking but very tough film.  I am curious A) if any of you have seen it (I saw it at the Walker Art Center, which is generally code for this being in like ten theaters in America) and B) what you thought?  It's a blank slate sort of movie, frequently beautiful even when it's more a series of ideas and essays than an actual cohesive film.  Share your thoughts below if you were a fan (or not so much)!

Ranting On...the Backwards Beliefs of Mike Pence

Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN)

I don't always agree with certain politicians, but I usually understand their point-of-view.  That wasn't the case this past week with both a decision that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence made regarding religious freedom laws and his dragging-his-nails decision regarding needle-exchange programs, and I thought if ever there was a reason for a rant, this was it (plus, it fits nicely with the focus this past week on the blog regarding Indiana politics).

For those of you unfamiliar, the governor signed a religious freedom bill that could allow businesses to reject gay/lesbian/transgender customers in their stores based on their own personal beliefs.  While there are multiple ways that one could interpret the religious freedom bill, that's really what it's boiling down to, and from almost every standpoint I just don't understand how someone could think this is a good idea.  For starters, it's clearly legalized discrimination-the reality is that if someone comes into your shop or building, wants to pay you for a service, you shouldn't be able to say 'no' to them because of whose hand they happen to be holding while they are buying the product.  For me this is complete and utter common sense.  It is literally the EXACT same thing as telling someone who is black or a woman or older or unmarried or Christian that they don't have the right to purchase something because of who they are.  The only time that someone should be refused a service is if there is a potential public safety risk, such as a 12-year-old buying cigarettes or a convict trying to buy a gun.  There is no safety risk in selling any services to someone just because they are gay, and as a result it's just being discriminatory.

This is wrong for many reasons, but the reality is that religion should not be a reason to justify discrimination, and since it is the last card left in the anti-gay marriage/anti-gay rights deck of arguments, I think someone needs to say that out-loud: Freedom of Religion is a freedom for you to practice your religion.  That's it.  Whether you want to be Catholic or Baptist or an Atheist or a Belieber, it's up to you, but that's where it ends.  You can say anything that you want about other people's lifestyles, but you shouldn't be able to hinder their freedom.  That's what this really is all about.  Your freedom of religion doesn't extend to my freedom, end of story.  And that means you cannot decide whom I should be able to marry in a state-sanctioned marital ceremony.  You can say "not in my church" since that falls under Freedom of Religion but you cannot say that I can't get married, and you cannot legally deny me a right to a florist or a caterer or a photographer-that's discrimination, and it's wrong.  It's that simple, and also just because you use religion as a shield card doesn't stop you from being a bigot.  Religion is not a get out of being a homophobe free card, and I say this as a gay man who regularly attends Catholic services.  Decisions in life are not easy, but the law shouldn't be encumbered because you don't want to make difficult moral choices.

The other part is that I don't get why this is the avenue that Republicans want to take against the gay rights movement.  Of all of the ways to attack gay people, the best you can come up with is the free market?  The capitalistic business model that you worship as the be-all, end-all solution to why the government shouldn't be anything more than a sea of tanks and a couple of embassies?  That's the weirdest thing about this-why would you want to hinder businesses making more money?  Why would businesses want to hinder growth and the ability to pay the bills?  You see most companies are bending over backward to try and attract new gay clientele. Every major corporation in America (well, 98% of them-Chick Fil-A and Hobby Lobby need not apply) is trying to shore up gay dollars and loyalties because they are a new and emerging market, which is not only great for business, it's kind of the fun part about being in business.  Hindering growth in states like Indiana is going to potentially have new companies questioning expansion or moving into your state, which is awful for your state's economy (as there is no state with zero-unemployment, least of all Indiana which was still has one of the higher unemployment rates in the country).

Finally, before I exit, I do want to say something about the Scott County needle exchange program.  For starters, while I think he took too long and isn't doing enough, Mike Pence made the right decision to try and curb the frighteningly high increase in HIV-infections in the county due to needle-sharing.  The reality is that needle-exchange is just one of many programs that we need to institute to try and curb HIV-infection amongst intravenous drug users.  We also need to get to the root of the problem (drug suppliers, addiction treatment), as well as increase awareness through HIV-testing, and hopefully, work to find a cure to a disease that has ravaged communities for decades.  Throwing in the towel when your state starts seeing insanely above-normal HIV-infection rates and doing it with the authenticity of a five-year-old sharing her toys: not really a step in the right direction.

Ranking the Members of One Direction

We are interrupting our regularly-scheduled review today to bring you the news that, if you have a Twitter account, you saw your feed explode with yesterday (and if you do have a Twitter account, why are you not following me?).  Yes, Zayn Malik has decided to break the hearts of fourteen-year-old girls and gay men everywhere by leaving the band One Direction, and all jokes aside (and boy did the jokes come flying, particularly from those over 25), this is a bummer.  One Direction wasn't The Beatles or quite frankly even the Spice Girls, but they are definitely the biggest band on the planet right now and I enjoyed a lot of their music.  So in honor of this being the beginning of the end (we all saw what happened after Geri Halliwell adiosed herself from the Spice Girls), I figured I would rank the five members of the band, from most to least favorite:

5. Louis Tomlinson

Pro: Umm...he arguably has the best nose of the group?  I'm kind of at a loss here...

Con: Louis is not the best singer in the group, and as Pewdiepie frequently quips, "no one cares about Louis."  Louis is cute, but definitely not the cutest, and he's not the worst singer, but he never gets the lead.  Also, he's ridiculously bad at handling the gay rumors that have surrounded him.  I get that you don't like that people say you're gay when you say you aren't (I could insert a Lance Bass joke here, but I'll attempt the high road), but your reactions border on homophobia and that's really sad from a group that has done a lot to deter homophobia in a major way amongst its fanbase.

4. Niall Horan

Pro: He's definitely a charmer, and I'm a sucker for a blond with a cute accent.  Also, my friend Abby loves him and I think she would have something to say if I put him in last.

Con: Again, he's not the best singer in the group, and I like my boy band members to be a bit edgier-without the tattoos and the like he's sort of the choir boy, the nice guy that parents encourage to be on the posters rather than one of the tattooed-to-the-hilt fellas, but I like the bad boys, what can I say?

3. Liam Payne

Pro: He's a good singer, frequently adding at least a verse to most songs and always being a major part of the chorus.  He's one of the taller guys (I like taller guys), and has the smoldering eye thing down pretty clearly.  Also, he's got a bit of that bad boy thing going on, but still with the "you-can-change-him-vibe" (don't give me that look-I know this is all marketing and shallow-I dissected electoral battles in the Senate this morning, what more do you want from me?).

Con: He's kind of moody seeming, and he's not particularly charming in interviews like Niall or Harry are.

2. Zayn Malik

Pro: I put this on my Tumblr, but Zayn is definitely the prettiest, and quite frankly the best singer (whenever there's a "high note" happening in a song, it's Zayn).  Plus, he's got the bad boy/misunderstood artist thing going stone-cold.  

Con: He broke up the band.  He was Number One on this list on Monday.

1. Harry Styles

Pro: Pretty much everyone agrees that if there's a breakout/Justin Timberlake, it's Harry.  He's got that ridiculously devilish-smile that is impossible to deny.  Seriously-watch him charm the pants off of basically everyone that interviews (when Tyler Oakley interviewed the band the flirting was off-the-charts).  Plus, he's a good singer and has the hair of a Greek poet.

Con: Isn't it kind of cliche to pick Harry as your favorite?

And there you have it-my compilation of my favorite members of the band.  Who are your favorites?  Share them in the comments!!!

The State of the Senate

With quite a bit of movement in the Senate races, I feel like it's time for another "State of the Senate," where we count down the most competitive races in the country, with Number One being (in my opinion) the most likely to change parties.  Without further adieu:

Honorable Mention: It's worth noting that while I don't think either are particularly competitive here, it's still not out-of-the-question that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) could either retire or lose in a primary, opening up a challenge from a moderate Democrat like former Surgeon General Richard Carmona or that Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) could be vulnerable if Hillary Clinton is competitive in Missouri to a challenge from Secretary of State Jason Kander, who was by far the best candidate the Democrats could have hoped for in the Show-Me State.  However at this point it appears these are competitive on paper, but not in reality, so they stay off the top ten.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)

10. North Carolina

The Tarheel State is playing a game of wait-and-see right now, as everyone is wondering what will former U.S. Senator Kay Hagan do.  Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) appears likely to run for a third term despite retirement rumors to the contrary last year, and would probably be the frontrunner against any Democrat (despite its swing state nature, North Carolina is still slightly Republican nationally and that should help Burr eek out those crucial final couple of points).  However, Hagan ran a pitch-perfect campaign in 2014 and nearly won despite the entire national tide being against her (she would have won and handily had the race taken place in 2012).  She's a proven fundraiser and I would imagine that the DSCC is pretty much begging her to run right now.  Were she to skip the race I suspect that the Democrats would turn to State Treasurer Janet Cowell, who is a formidable opponent but nowhere near what Hagan would be if she ran.  This is also a question of whether Hagan is done with electoral politics (I cannot imagine she'll ever have as strong of an opportunity to re-enter the political fray, particularly with a competitive White House and governor's race also on the ballot).  If she does, this race moves up, but until I hear more from her I'm keeping it right at the bottom of the list.

9. Indiana

This race moves onto the list with the announcement that Sen. Dan Coats (R) will retire rather than seek a non-consecutive fourth term.  His announcement sets up an all-out war within the Republican caucus, with Reps. Jackie Walorski, Martin Stutzman, Todd Young, Todd Rokita, and Susan Brooks (as well as Coats' Chief of Staff Eric Holcomb) all considering a race here (it's worth noting that some will probably sit out and wait to take on sitting Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly in 2018, but a sitting senator is not the opportunity that an open seat in a presidential year would be, and they all know this).  The Democrats have an incredibly thin bench after the 2010 elections, though I would imagine that despite some refusals late Tuesday that former Sen. Evan Bayh will be asked pretty hard by the DSCC to re-consider running considering that he's only 59, has likely seen his chances at ever running for the White House disappear (he was once the Golden Boy of the Democratic Party, but returning to the Senate is probably the best he could do at this point), and most importantly has $10 million still left in his campaign account, giving him an almost insurmountable financial advantage.  Were he to refuse we'd see either former Rep. Baron Hill run or perhaps State Superintendent Glenda Ritz, who is the only statewide-elected Democrat other than Sen. Donnelly and is in an ugly public brawl right now with Gov. Mike Pence over her job (and may want to leverage Democratic anger in the state to a higher position).  Either way, this race got considerably more competitive this week even if the Republicans maintain an edge.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)

8. Ohio

The good thing for the Democrats is that they have perhaps their best candidate possible, but the bad news is that that still might not be enough.  Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) got what may be the best the Democrats have to offer (former Governor Ted Strickland), but he's still a very well-respected senator that probably fits his moderate state just a teensy bit better.  Plus, Strickland's age (he'll be 75 on Election Day) may affect his performance even if he's about as close to an incumbent as a non-incumbent can be (considering his decades of public service).  Strickland also needs to dethrone a potential up-and-comer in PG Sittenfeld (a City Councilman, not a mystery novelist), though he should be able to dispatch him.

All this being said, if Hillary Clinton can approach the numbers that Barack Obama did in 2008, taking on the Republican by 5-points or more in the Buckeye State, all bets are off.  Vote-splitting is an endangered species in America, and to expect very partisan swing voters to go off-base that much for a man they elected statewide in 2006 and almost did in 2010-that's a stretch.  All things being equal I'd bet on Portman, but a wind for the Democrats could turn this seat to Strickland.

7. Colorado

With Sen. Cory Gardner currently occupying the Senate seat that Mark Udall won in 2008, the Democrats recent run of good luck (three Senate elections, three governor's races, and two bids for the White House all going blue) finally ended, and Colorado started to look more like the swing state it is supposed to be.  Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) doesn't seem to have the same poor campaigning skills as Mark Udall, though, and will probably benefit from higher Hispanic turnout in the 2016 election (one of the big question marks is will Hillary Clinton be able to duplicate the high turnout of Hispanic voters in 2016 that Barack Obama did in his elections, and that's doubly important when we see who is going to carry the Centennial State).  The leading contenders for the seat appear to be, oddly enough, a married couple: Rep. Mike Coffman and his wife Attorney General Cynthia Coffman are at the top of the NRSC's recruitment efforts, though considering that Mrs. Coffman just won her office it appears that Mr. Coffman may be the more likely contender.  Mike Coffman represents one of the most liberal seats in the country held by a Republican, so were he to make a stab at the Senate, he would almost assuredly be giving the DCCC one of the thirty seats it's looking at to win the majority.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)

6. Pennsylvania

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) has not been the conservative firebrand he was once billed when he was in the House, taking a much quieter approach as Pennsylvania's junior senator, which is a good thing considering that this is a state that Hillary Clinton is likely to do well in next year (Pennsylvania has gone Democratic every year since 1988).  The Democrats are obviously not satisfied with former Rep. Joe Sestak, who lost this seat in a nail-biter six years ago and is reportedly not a team player, but there's not a lot of options yet.  Several of their top contenders either have shown no interest (Rep. Allyson Schwartz, Montgomery County Chairman Josh Shapiro) or are embroiled in scandal (Attorney General Kathleen Kane).  Alleghany County Executive Rich Fitzgerald is frequently mentioned, but Sestak has such a lead right now and is such a ferocious campaigner (he did oust a legend and sitting senator six years ago in Arlen Specter) that I wouldn't bet against him.  The DSCC and Pennsylvania Democrats will probably get over their aversion to Sestak pretty fast if he wins the primary, as with 4-5 seats needed to win the majority (depending on who is Vice President), Pennsylvania is too important to not go full throttle, regardless of whether or not someone is seen as a maverick.

5. New Hampshire

Every Democrat worth his or her salt is waiting on the decision of Gov. Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire.  While races in Wisconsin, Pennyslvania, and Ohio have started to form and we have a decent idea of whom our candidate will be, New Hampshire is a wait-and-see game for Democrats, as the popular governor will have to decide whether or not she will pursue the Senate or run for re-election.  Republicans (and some Democrats) seem to think it will be the former, and have already started to campaign on behalf of sitting Sen. Kelly Ayotte.  An early poll in the state showed that Hassan led the incumbent by four-points, and while New Hampshire has shown a weirdly sporadic nature in its elections recently (just ask Carol Shea-Porter, who has won 60% of her House races depending on the waves), they've been pretty damn blue in presidential years, being the only state that went for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.  If Hassan passes, Democrats will try their luck with either former Gov. John Lynch (who seems reluctant to re-enter the political world), Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, or perhaps even Shea-Porter (who seems more likely to once again seek her old seat but may not want to have to acquiesce to the Granite State electorate every two years).  But none of them would start out with the positioning that Hassan would, and considering that she's been rumored to want even higher office than governor or senator, the national platform that a Senate seat provides may be too appealing to pass up.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-FL)

4. Florida

This one goes way up the list for me for three reasons.  The first, and most important, is that it appears that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) will be forgoing a run for reelection in favor of a play for the White House (or more likely, Number One Observatory Circle).  Rubio isn't invincible, but he surely would be the favorite if he had run for reelection, while an open seat election in a year where Florida will be critically important for both parties means that this will be high turnout, helping the Democrats in a way they weren't able to be six years ago.  The second is that with Rubio out there is going to be a grand march of Republicans running for the seat, ranging from Reps. Vern Buchanan and Curt Clawson to Lt. Governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera to State CFO Jeff Atwater-this could turn bloody and could result in a Tea Party style candidate winning in a state where Republicans cannot afford one.  And third, the Democrats seem to have coalesced around their best possible candidate: Rep. Patrick Murphy.  While there are still rumblings that someone like Rep. Alan Grayson may run, these seem much adieu about nothing, and Murphy has the moderate (and relatively bland) profile that someone like Sen. Bill Nelson has coasted on for years to win statewide and he's a voracious campaigner.  It's worth noting that in an inverse of Mike Coffman, the Democrats may be sacrificing a House seat to win a Senate seat here, as Murphy represents one of the only districts in the country won by Mitt Romney but currently held by a Democrat.

3. Nevada

Nevada is in a weird position right now.  On a presidential level, its results are looking less like a swing state and more like simply a light blue state, but thanks to poor performance in Midterms and a nail-biter Senate race in 2012, they still have statewide races that look very competitive.  The Democrats appear to be running Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who is wildly unpopular in his home state but is the sort of fighter that you should never totally bet against.  The grand matchup against the state's wildly popular Republican Governor Brian Sandoval and Reid seems not to be happening, as Sandoval is more likely to wait and see if he'll be asked to the Vice Presidential Prom (or to run on his own for the White House in 2020 if Hillary wins), so the Democrats will likely have to contend with either Lt. Governor Mark Hutchison or State Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson.  I am on record as saying that, with Sandoval all but out of a Senate race regardless of Reid's stance, the Democrats would be better off if Reid just retired, as he is too much damaged goods and we could go with Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who is Reid's chosen successor without all of his baggage, but that plan doesn't appear to be happening, so it's very possible the Democrats win the 4-5 seats they need to take the majority but still cannot take the majority because of Harry Reid's stubbornness.

Rep. Robin Kelly (D-FL)

2. Illinois

The Land of Lincoln is currently sitting, waiting for the popcorn to start popping in the Democratic Primary.  At the moment four Democratic members of the House (Reps. Cheri Bustos, Robin Kelly, Bill Foster, and Tammy Duckworth) are all exploring a Senate bid against Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).  There's a good reason for this: Illinois is the most liberal state in the country currently represented by a Republican, and is Hillary Clinton's home state.  The Democrats are sure to win the state on a presidential level, likely by double-digits, which means that Kirk will need an insanely high number of crossover votes which simply won't be possible with a decent Democratic challenger.  With Attorney General Lisa Madigan likely to clear the field for the gubernatorial election in 2018 and Sen. Dick Durbin seemingly staying in the Senate forever, this is probably the best shot any of these ambitious pols have to win a promotion for a while, and they know it.  Expect a pretty bloody primary, which will only help Kirk, but for the Democrat to start out with an advantage in the general.  My personal preference would be Kelly, whose seat isn't a risk to go red (like Bustos's) and hasn't recently lost a high-profile race just to come back and win (like Foster and Duckworth, the latter of whom is clearly the DSCC's favorite).

1. Wisconsin

It's become a running joke at this point, but it appears that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has not been told that he is a Republican in a blue state, because his staunch conservative voting record clearly doesn't imply he is aware of this fact.  Johnson appears to be getting a rematch from former Sen. Russ Feingold (D) who can clear the field and has passed on potentially easier races (the 2012 Senate race, the 2014 governor's race) probably with a bit of bitterness against Johnson, so expect this race to get nasty and quick.  The big question for Democrats is how will Feingold, most famous for his crusades for campaign finance reform, operate in a post-Citizens United world.  Either way, it may not matter-this is a state that Hillary Clinton will probably start as a frontrunner in (with or without Scott Walker) and that may be enough for Feingold to get across the finish line similar to Tammy Baldwin in 2016.  It's worth noting that with Feingold, Hagan, and Bayh all potentially running in 2016 the Democrats may well have a lot of very familiar-looking freshmen in 2017.

And there you have it-my look at next year's Senate elections.  What are your thoughts?  How would you change the order and what race are you most looking forward to?  Share in the comments!

The Babadook (2014)

Film: The Babadook (2014)
Stars: Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman, Daniel Henshall, Hayley McElhinney, Barbara West
Director: Jennifer Kent
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I have to admit, first-off, that I'm a bit obsessed with this quality horror film movement happening in theaters the past few years.  After years of slashers without substance you have movies like The Conjuring, Let the Right One In, and my personal favorite Cabin in the Woods that are totally adding substance and occasionally even a damn metaphor into the mix, and I couldn't be happier.  Horror films are always more meaningful and scary when they have something scary to sink into as a result of the movie, and this is surely the case with the cleverly-told Babadook.

(Spoilers Ahead, and this is a film that's filled with them, so bookmark here, see the excellent movie, and come back to discuss) The film is about a woman named Amelia (Davis) who is raising a troubled son named Sam (Wiseman).  Amelia's husband has been dead for months, and neither of them are handling it particularly well, with Sam behaving like a truly horrible child, frequently prone to lying and tantrums, while his mother is overly indulgent, and clearly suffering from horrible sleep deprivation.  The film takes a turn into the world of horror when Amelia reads Sam a story about Mister Babadook, who is a monster who tortures all of those who are aware of him.  Sam fully believes in the creature, but Amelia resists until the monster starts to drive her mad and begins tormenting her with bumps-in-the-night and allusions to her madness and insinuating she will eventually kill her son.  The film has a climactic showdown with the creature, where Amelia, after nearly killing Sam in madness, eventually subdues the Babadook and keeps him at bay in the cellar.

The film works both as a pretty opaque metaphor for grief as well as a straight-up horror film.  The movie clearly wants the creature to be a metaphor for grief, and Jennifer Kent's screenplay mirrors The Yellow Wallpaper, the classic Charlotte Perkins Gilman short story about a woman's struggle with depression and madness.  This works really well, and doesn't feel particularly heavy-handed even when  such metaphors in horror films oftentimes feel more like school lessons than creepy entertainment.

The more interesting aspect of the film to me, however, was that the movie really examines something that we are loathe to discuss in modern society: the mother who hates her child.  Sam is presented, especially at the beginning of the film, as a child that is impossible to love.  He's annoying, he's cloying, he's constantly disappointing.  As an audience we are normally trained to have sympathy for him-after all, he's just lost his father and is dealing with it as best he can with a mother who clearly doesn't know how to handle a trouble child.  However, the further we get into the film we see that he's in fact a child really difficult to love, and in our heart-of-hearts we wonder how much we could take in such a situation.  Essie Davis does a marvelous job (someone please give her more leading parts please) by never making her character into a saint or a gorgon, giving that creepy undertone of "being stuck in an impossible situation."  In many ways this recalls some of the nastiest episodes of The Twilight Zone-what do you do when you have a child that you hate?  The film doesn't have the guts to continue this line of thinking, perhaps because it was too uncomfortable that it would never get past even in an independent studio executive, but Kent has the question positioned prominently enough that her message is clearly pushed across.  You'll squirm in your seat as you realize you've come to hate a little boy.

The film also works, though, as a straight horror film-the Babadook is nasty, frequently striking in the daytime (messing with the psychology of horror films which usually give that as a calm for the viewers), being relentless and seemingly unbeatable, and having no motive.  He's just a creature that brings torment and death, and working in the world of pop-up books, it's a wonderfully-infused throwback to nasty childhood nightmares.  Really, while the film isn't quite perfect (I think that the hated-son angle could have been pushed harder or the handsome dead husband angle brought forward a little sooner), this is really a great film and another wonderful installation into the recent run of quality horror fare.

What did you think of The Babadook?  Are you with me thinking this is another high-water moment for the horror genre or did you get lost in the metaphors?  Why hasn't Essie Davis been headlining films  for years?  And who wants that pop-up book on their shelves?  Share in the comments!

Looking for a Gay Audience...and a Third Season

As of this writing we're still waiting to see if Looking, which just ended its second season this past Sunday, will get a third such season on HBO next year.  The ratings were not on-par with something like Game of Thrones or even Girls, so the question mark hangs there quite nervously for fans, though we can take comfort in knowing that HBO is not entirely about the ratings, but about the overall branding of the channel in order to entice subscriptions, so quality does occasionally trump quantity (that's what we tell ourselves potentially in vain...just ask Enlightened fans).

That being said, I think it's worth discussing the season at hand and how Looking Season 2 was even better than the first season, and how it really became one of the biggest event shows on TV this past year.  The show smartly tried to acquiesce to some of the complaints (that Agustin was the worst human this side of Marnie Michaels, that the show's supporting characters frequently overshadowed the leads) while still saying "shove it" to other concerns (that gay viewers didn't see themselves in the characters).

That sort of bridging to the gay community has been one of the more fascinating wars to see offscreen in regard to Looking.  For starters, I didn't get it, since I saw myself in many, very uncomfortable ways with Patrick, played by Jonathan Groff.  While we don't look at all alike (actually we might a little bit if I lost thirty pounds and gave a damn about my hair), Patrick was weirdly reflective of my single, antsy, Type-A but occasionally self-destructive self.  But secondly, I also was wondering why this was such an important aspect of a show about gay people.  We don't go into Game of Thrones or Mad Men or The Walking Dead demanding that the show give us characters "just like us," because by-and-large they don't, and if you're like Joffrey Baratheon you probably should take a cold, hard look at yourselves and start therapy immediately.  Why is it that we demand so much from gay characters on television?  Is it simply because there are so few of them on TV?

Jack Falahee as Connor Walsh
in How to Get Away with Murder

This may be part of it.  The reality is that while gay characters have come a long way in TV, it's a rare day when they are a major character on TV or when they are anything other than a sassy gay friend.  Connor Walsh has made such a stir on How to Get Away with Murder precisely because he's more than a token cliche gay-he frequently gets not only the sex scenes on the show, but the sexiest scenes, indulging in scenes that wouldn't make us blink twice if it were a straight couple but since it's a gay couple the entire social media-sphere gets lit on fire.  By-and-large, though, most shows with gay characters turn them into Will Truman.

I bag on Will & Grace so much that I want to point out that at the time I was a fan (a closeted fan where I would watch the show away from my parents for fear they heard me watching it, only discussing it with my brother in hushed circles of our house's upstairs), but if you watch it now you know that it has aged terribly.  It was incredibly important in its day and along with Ellen probably did more to move the gay rights movement than a thousand marches and petitions possibly could do, so we should be forever grateful in that regard, but Will Truman in hindsight seems obnoxiously neutered as a character.  Most of the jokes are either of the mincing variety or him opining for a boyfriend, despite him being a successful and handsome lawyer in Manhattan (where meeting a guy would be ridiculously easy, even 15 years ago).  Years later we should be better, but now the gayest characters on television frequently won't even admit to being gay, like Raj on The Big Bang Theory.

And so part of expanding gay culture is going to be to see gay characters that aren't all Connor Walsh, because I've got news for you-not all of us are Connor Walsh.  Not all of us are gorgeous, constantly having sex with Abercrombie extras, and consistently spouting urbane quips, and I say this not to straight audiences but to gay audiences who complain about not enough representation within gay TV.  Even the people who think they are Connor Walsh are not (believe me, I've been on OKCupid enough to know that there is a lot of variety in the gay community, and almost none of it looks like Jack Falahee).  Looking is a lens into a certain subsection of gay culture: those who are in their 30's and 40's but still trying to figure out what they want.  They're established in a traditional sense (well, at least Patrick, Kevin, and Richie are), but they haven't found "the one" yet and they have different attitudes toward sex, trying to jive what traditional society wants of them with the insane pressure not to conform to social norms.  It's a cool idea for a show, and Andrew Haigh has made it seem insanely relevant-we see aspects of single culture we don't oftentimes see (how we become reliant on what is comfortable, like Dom and Doris's relationship, even when it's unhealthy or the specter that our parents cast long after we leave the nest, like Patrick's constant need for his mother's approval even when he says he can't stand her ideals) and makes it insanely human.  People on Looking make bad choices, and like real life no one is a Manic Pixie Dream Guy (part of why I'm on Team Kevin even though Team Richie is clearly the saner choice is that Kevin and Patrick have more in common and if they set aside their issues, that's what marriage is about).  It's also insanely interesting-every episode I can leave and have something meaningful to say about the series.  There's few shows on television worthy of that sort of time (for all of the talk about the Golden Age of Television, it seems like most of the interesting commentary is relegated to a select set of shows, and not always the ones that dominate the zeitgeist).  This is thoughtful and fascinating, and worthy of renewal, but more to the point, it's worthy of the praise of the gay community and awards bodies at large.  We should be thankful that such a show showed up and on HBO, the Grand Teton of quality television.  And while television desperately needs to be more inclusive of gay characters and programming, we're not helping our cause by ignoring what may be not just the best gay show on television, but perhaps the best show on TV period.  If HBO can offer something as special as Looking and the collective gay male audience ignores it, despite the fact the number of gay guys with HBO subscriptions should easily equal renewal for the network, then why should we expect any better from the other networks?

'71 (2015)

Film: '71 (2015)
Stars: Jack O'Connell, Richard Dormer, Jack Lowden, Charlie Murphy, David Wilmot, Sean Harris
Director: Yann Demange
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

One of the hardest aspects of foreign films, regardless of whether or not there is a language barrier, is the context.  I frequently find this is true in exporting American cinema, where films that are mammoth hits here like The Help don't translate as well overseas due to the film's history not being as accessible to your common viewer as it is to someone from that country.  I kept thinking this thought when I was watching '71, a film set during the height of The Troubles, a turbulent time in Irish history, and how I was trying to deduce what parts I was confused because of my lack of knowledge and what parts were being thrown asunder through the film's minimalist character development.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Gary Hook (O'Connell) as he is drawn into first the world of the military and then into a random chase across the streets of Belfast, where alliances are continuously shifting.  The film is very well-paced, which is absolutely its best attribute.  The film doesn't go for many big moments, so when they happen (particularly a chilling and unexpected death scene about halfway through the movie, as well as the climactic moments when Hook is found by everyone who has been chasing him) they pay off.  The movie has so many characters that it's a bit hard to follow and feels more like something that you'd see on a lower-grade cable network (gritty, lots of talking between seemingly non-descript character actors) than an actual film, and in service to the characters you feel like the movie should have trimmed some fat in that regard, but you never quite feel that way while watching the movie, just after when you're trying to remember who was loyal to whom.

The film's history is probably part of this lack of character development.  I frequently talk about how books should never have to be read to see a film, and I feel a similar way with history (though one man's common knowledge is another's new discovery, so this is a slippery slope).  All-in-all, though, this movie probably needed a bit more of a spelling out as to exactly why these alliances kept shifting-we get that everyone is corrupt, but since no one seems to have a name that stands out and so many people are just surface-level characters, it's hard to connect with the actual plot that's being thrown at us.  Again, the pacing fixes most of this so there's no confusion over whether this is a bad movie (it isn't, though I don't know if it's really a good one either), but the editors can only do so much and without stronger stand-out work from the supporting characters we get a bit lost in who is backstabbing whom.

The film also does not do enough with Jack O'Connell in the central role.  O'Connell, now an actor I've seen in a couple things, is still not connecting with me as other than a moody young James Franco (at best)-he's weirdly attractive (more so than his very angular face should allow), and he was charming in the comic moments of Unbroken, but sullen is not a color worn well on him, and he frequently relies on too minimalist of instincts.  He's not bad, per se, but he's not great and I am starting to have my worries about his rising star.  Particularly in the late parts of the film, where he has to jump into being a war-torn broken man (yelling and screaming at random people), this feels very inauthentic and doesn't jive with his character work earlier in the movie.  His Gary remains unknowable, and considering he's in 80% of the film and us relating to the character is crucial to the film's devices, this is a pretty solid miss.

Those are my thoughts on this movie, one of the few films in theaters right now that I'm genuinely excited about-what are yours?  If you haven't seen it, chime in on your thoughts on Jack O'Connell, who seems destined to be a star in the next few years regardless of what we think.