My Stupid Little Life

Jonathan’s Best Films of 2011

Now that the Oscars are around the corner I’m posting my top ten films of 2011!

This year was an interesting one.  An oddly blah one.  But not in an infuriating way.  Almost blah in a good way.  Am I making any sense?  Does anyone else understand this feeling?  Am I just cray-cray, y’all?!

But, you know, for instance, The Artist.  Yeah, it was alright!  Or The Help.  Yeah, not bad!  Midnight in Paris.  Yeah, pretty good!  (Other Acclaimed Film Of The Year).  Yeah, not too shabby!

I guess I can say that the 2011 year of movies simply came and went in a consistently pleasant/not-unpleasant fashion.  Such an odd assessment for a year as a whole.

In any case, I really enjoyed a few films this year.

THE BEST!

Moneyball

What can I say?  I’m a sucker for a sports film.  You show me an underdog, I’ll show you a pair of misty eyes.

Seriously, though, this film is really great.  I just jibed with it.  I don’t quite know why.  Maybe it was that sequence where the A’s get the record for 20 consecutive wins.  Maybe it was Brad Pitt’s great performance, which deserves the Oscar.  Maybe it was Chris Pratt’s under-appreciated supporting role, for which I think he should have been nominated.  Maybe it was that moment where Jonah Hill (who was good!) shows Brad Pitt the video of the player who didn’t know that he’d hit a home run.

I don’t know.  I just liked it.  I love a good sports film!

Drive

You know, let’s call it a tie.  Moneyball and Drive come in at dead even for my number one film of the year.  Because I liked Drive a LOT.

The opening is pure cinema.  Exactly what no other medium but film can do.

And then the film maintains a pretty consistent level of greatness.  From tone to cinematography to acting (Albert Brooks RULES!) to screenwriting to direction.  And the violence that explodes in the second half of the film is, dare I say, totally fitting and incredibly well done.  There I go.  Endorsing extreme, murderous violence.

Sure, the film has some weak points.  Gosling is sometimes a little TOO stoic.  I mean, for real, dude.  During particular conversations there were points where I actually said out loud, “Alright, Gosling, a normal person would have REPLIED to that person’s statement by now!”  And showing two people fall in love simply through montage and some nice music is always an easy way out.

Still, this movie’s strengths are tremendous.

Just Go With It

Silly, predictable, middlebrow, and juvenile.  Also, completely enjoyable.

The film’s the basic comedic premise (Someone doesn’t know something!) has been done to death and the script barely develops Brooklyn Decker’s character beyond her bikini, but I don’t give a shit.

Yes, I have a soft spot for Adam Sandler.  I think he’s actually one of the most soulful actors out there.  Well, okay, I did actually see Jack and Jill so maybe I should hold back a bit.  But he and Jennifer Aniston have an OFFENSIVE amount of chemistry in this film.  Seriously.  I could have watched them for hours.  They made the film.  And I laughed at lots of the supporting work.

If you don’t enjoy your time then I’ll be damned.  See it just to see Dave Matthews handle a coconut.

Bridesmaids

Super funny!  Am I bad for only liking Kristen Wiig’s normal-people-characters instead of her crazy-kooky-characters, which I typically dislike very strongly and for which she’s oddly deemed the second coming of Female Comedy Jesus?

(I hate acknowledging the girls-are-also-funny marketing of this film because that angle is so dumb.  Bridesmaids is just a funny comedy.  THAT’S IT.)

In the special notice department, I have to give Chris O’Dowd and the screenwriters a personal award for taking one of the MOST overdone character tropes — the supporting love interest that we all know the hero should be with (and will be with) in the end! — and making him one of the most likeable and endearing and can’t-do-without characters this year.

The Dilemma

I heard from a friend that this film was surprisingly good…and it was!  Talk about the oddest, most out-of-left field enjoyment I had all year.

Vince Vaughn was great.  That terrific diner scene with Winona Ryder was like the dark, twisted version of the terrific diner scene from When Harry Met Sally…  The proposal in the end actually surprised me.  Channing Tatum’s soft-hearted character twist was good.  Man, so many good choices in this film!  Surrounding a compelling, simple story.  Seriously.  Check it out.

The Kid With A Bike

This film doesn’t actually come out until March but I saw it this year so I’ll include it on this list.

This movie is small and very personal but it grabs you from the beginning.  And the titular kid is great.  A terrifically written, acted, and directed character.  We’ve all known a kid like him.

And the understated ending blew me away.  Never have I seen a one word sentence have so much power.

50/50

I’ve grown to like Seth Rogen more and more.  I really feel like the truest sense of an actor is the one that you get after his or her initial fame-rocket slows down and assumes steady planetary orbit.  Basically, once the actor is simply working.  And I’ve really enjoyed Seth Rogen in this stage.

I also really like Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  I think he’s picking up where Heath Ledger (sadly) left off.

The script isn’t perfect.  The moment the writing intimated that Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his therapist (Anna Kendrick) were going to have a romantic story arc I groaned and thought, “Okay, FINE.  Let’s do this.”

But the script is indeed very good.  And you can tell that it comes from a very real place, which is the kind of idiotic sentence that I would never write.  So kudos to the script for inspiring me to write it.

X-Men: First Class

Whoa!  The first half hour or so of this movie was amazing!  I was so emotionally invested.  The rest of the film was very good, too.

Contagion

So skillfully done.  Understated but tense.  A few missteps here and there, such as when they do the autopsy on Gwyneth Paltrow and set up some crazy thing that happened to her brain but then NEVER follow through on that set up.  But whatever.  The film was really great.

Happy, Happy

Did anyone else see this little film from Norway?  Probably not.  Because it tanked in the art house community, which means it REALLY TANKED in real life.  But, boy, did it have a lot of strengths!  For instance, pretty much every set up you need for the film is brilliantly written into one early, amusing-on-its-own dinner scene between the two main couples.  And the patterns that are promised in this scene are pretty skillfully played out over the rest of the film.

The film DOES have this really stupid subplot involving slavery and the ending DOES struggle and strain to iron itself out.  But overall, very good!

Honorable Mention:

MISS BALA

This film’s strengths are also its weaknesses, but I have to list MISS BALA because the film has a lot of skill and Noe Hernandez as the villain is AMAZING.  One of the best villains I’ve seen in a LONG time.  I’d say he’s as good as Albert Brooks in DRIVE, to which MISS BALA is oddly very similar in so many regards!

Alright, so you know my best for the year.  Now it’s time for…

THE WORST!

The Descendants

The film’s opening is maybe the worst first 15 minutes of a film I’ve ever seen.  Seriously.  ALL NARRATION.  ALL OF IT CLUNKY.  Literally some of the LAZIEST screenwriting I’ve ever seen.

The script then shovels tons of horrible and/or useless dialogue on top of numerous tedious, teeth-pulling moments masquerading as meaningful scenes of characters struggling to vomit the plot.

Honestly, this script is lazier than a dead sloth.

God bless Alexander Payne for casting locals in the tertiary roles and God bless the people he cast…but, as a result, this film has some of the worst acting I’ve seen all year.  I mean, that scene where George Clooney’s daughter has to apologize to a school friend.  PAINFULLY bad acting.

Also, that one goofy character.  What was his name?  Syd?  Shit?  Yes, I think it was Shit.  Because the character was not funny.  And the scene where they tried to humanize him wins the award for Fakest Fucking Scene of the Year.

I feel so bad, too, because the actor who played Shit seems like a nice kid.

I did like one or two sequences here and there.  And I also liked the older daughter.  She was good.

Doesn’t matter.  This film was garbage.

The Ides of March

Self-important shit with a bad screenplay.  Two inciting incidents, with the more interesting of the two clocking in about FORTY MINUTES INTO THE FILM.  They should have just gone with the forty-minutes-in inciting incident and cut the other storyline.  And made it less god-awful boring.

Sorry, Clooney.  Not your year with me!

The Iron Lady

Man, what a stupid structure to choose for this story.

The Shirt

I’m going to tell you the story of a shirt.

“What?  A SHIRT, you say?”

Yep.  A shirt!

I love to preface this story with those lines because, yes, the story that I’m about to tell always seems to amuse people even though it’s about the life of a simple little t-shirt.

So here goes…

Whenever I travel home to Florida my mother insists that she take me out to buy new clothes.  I can’t talk my way around it.  She simply MUST buy me clothes.

Surely, many of us encounter the same maternal phenomenon.  No matter what, even if we’re wearing clothes with the price tags still on them, Mom tells us that our wardrobes are old and tattered.

On one such shopping trip my mother brought me to a surf shop.  The only other occupant besides us was the Sweet Little Surfer Girl behind the cash register.

Now, my mother is super friendly.  “How friendly is she?”  So friendly that she has been known to order items from catalogs over the phone and end up befriending and talking for over an hour with the lady taking her order on the other side of the country.

So, naturally, my mother befriended the Sweet Little Surfer Girl behind the counter.

The two earnest and good-hearted females then took to finding clothes for me.  As usual for this kind of shopping excursion, I’d adopted my too-cool-for-school, super-annoyed bad attitude.  My mother and the Sweet Little Surfer Girl would hold up clothes and I’d shoot most of them down.

Then, my mother held up The Shirt: a cream-colored surf shirt with a trippy design on the front that read Make Art Not War.

My mother asked, “What do you think of this shirt?”

The Sweet Little Surfer Girl and I responded simultaneously:

“I love that shirt!”/”I hate that shirt.”

The Sweet Little Surfer Girl heard my response over hers and she immediately withered in disappointment and shame.

I felt AWFUL.

“You know, uh, actually, it’s a pretty cool shirt.  Yeah, let’s buy it.”

Ugh.  My guilt had gotten the best of me.  Because I felt bad for upsetting the Sweet Little Surfer Girl I was now stuck with The Shirt, which I didn’t like or want in the least.

Eventually, my trip ended, I traveled home, and I tossed The Shirt into the bottom of my dresser, never to see the light of day again.

Time passed.  Life went on.

Then, one day, I found myself with that classic bachelor problem: no clean clothes and no motivation/time to do laundry.

I was headed to a comedy show and I needed something to wear.  I opened my dresser and right there, staring at me, was The Shirt.  I had no choice.  I had to wear this stupid garment that read Make Art Not War in true hippy-dippy regalia.

I parked my car and I headed to the theatre with my head hung low.  I prayed that no one would see what I was wearing and that I could simply slip undetected into the dark embrace of the theatre.

As I walked down the sidewalk I ran into a friend.  The predictably quick and friendly exchange was concluded by a rather strange moment.

“Hey, nice shirt.  You look really good in it.”

“Oh.  Uh, thanks.”

Weird.

Anyway, I continued to my destination.  I ran into another friend.  Our exchange was interrupted even more quickly than the one before.

“Nice shirt, dude.  You look great in it.”

“Um, okay.  Thank you.”

I brushed off the oddness of the compliment and continued.  But if you had passed me on the sidewalk at this moment then you might have thought to yourself, “Hey, now there’s a guy with a spring in his step.”

I watched the comedy show, I hung out with friends, and I went about my usual night out.  However, the night was punctuated by frequent compliments about my shirt and how nice I looked in it.

An odd feeling overwhelmed me.  Was The Shirt quickly becoming my favorite article of clothing?

I went home baffled by the night’s events.  I took off the shirt and gave it a good, long look.  “Maybe I was wrong about you, Shirt.  Maybe you’re kind of amazing.”

Still, I had my doubts.  I could have just been looking great overall that night — my hair swept at just the perfect angle, my face evenly shaven — and the only difference people noticed in me could have just been the shirt.  Hence, all the attention it got, right?

But whenever I subsequently wore the shirt out, without fail, I would garner at least one compliment, sometimes from complete strangers.

Yes, The Shirt was now my favorite article of clothing.

Time passed.  Life went on.

But life was grand because The Shirt and I had finally found each other.  We went everywhere together, and everywhere we went we had the time of our lives.  We were Bonnie and Clyde, Peanut Butter and Jelly, Family Reunions and Drunken Uncles.

One summer two of my friends decided to make a film about four childhood buddies vacationing in Big Bear.  They asked me to play one of the four buddies.  The film was super low budget so we all helped to provide props, wardrobe, locations, and other resources.

My character was a distracted businessman secretly looking to buy out and develop Big Bear for his diabolical real estate boss.  For the majority of the shoot I was comically dressed in business attire in the middle of the woods.

Of course, in the end of the story, my character learns the errors of his money-grubbing ways and he renounces his life of avarice.  A wardrobe change would naturally accompany such a character change.

So, for the final scene of the film, I wore The Shirt.

The production ran behind schedule when we were shooting the scene.  That same day I was planning to hurry back to Los Angeles after the shoot for a writing class.  The class was expensive and the teacher was prestigious so I didn’t want to miss it.

As the production slogged along I realized that crunch time was around the corner.  I finally reached the point where I absolutely had to leave or else I’d be late.  Still, the director needed just one more shot: a crane shot of the four buddies driving off into the sunset.

I asked the director if he could in any way get the shot without me and, sure enough, he was happy to have one of the camera guys who looked somewhat like me wear my clothing and sit in the car in my place.

I’m sorry.  Wear my clothing?

Needless to say, I was not anxious to part with The Shirt.

“Okay, here are my clothes.  You’ll think I’m weird for asking but please make sure that you get this shirt back.  I really, really like it and I don’t want to lose it.”

The director assured me that he’d get my shirt back.  So, I drove off…with one or two glances in my rear view mirror.

A couple weeks later I inquired about The Shirt.

“Oh yeah, let me call up the camera guy and ask him for it.”

Another couple weeks later The Shirt was not back in my dresser.  Slightly worried, I asked again.

“Right.  We’ll get that shirt back right now.”

Another couple weeks later my dresser was still begging to be reunited with The Shirt.  Hoping for the best, I asked again.  This time the director looked at me with wide eyes.

“Yeah.  Sorry.  You’re not getting that shirt back.”

WHAT?

Here’s how the story went:

Because the camera guy had been away so much working on the film his girlfriend had grown suspicious.  One day, after another long weekend of shooting, the camera guy arrived home to his apartment to find his girlfriend awaiting his return.  She glared at him and let it all out.

“You’re cheating on me.”

“What are you talking about, baby?”

“You are.”

“You’re crazy.  I’ve been working.”

“You’re cheating on me and I have PROOF.”

The girlfriend then held it up: THE SHIRT.

“Whose shirt is this?”

“I don’t know.”

“WHOSE SHIRT IS THIS?”

“I swear.  I don’t know!”

“Of course, you know.”

“I don’t!  I’ve never seen that shirt in my life!”

“LIAR!”

The girlfriend then ran outside, held The Shirt in the air, and TORCHED IT.

So yeah.  Sorry.  I wasn’t getting my shirt back.

I was heartbroken.  I felt like I’d lost a part of me.  My moments with The Shirt flitted through my mind: the first time we saw each other, anything but love at first sight; our second reunion down the road, where we first noticed that perhaps we didn’t dislike each other as much as we originally thought; the relationship that eventually blossomed.  I’d lived out the plot of When Harry Met Sally…

With a shirt.

Of course, my version of When Harry Met Sally… ended with Sally getting dragged out into the street and torched into oblivion.

Which makes me laugh.

And such is how I feel about the story now.  Amused.  I look back in fondness at The Shirt, which, after all, was just a shirt.  I tell the story to friends, in some small way immortalizing some ridiculous object.  And mostly I revel in the fact that anything and everything can have a life.

Some Recent Thoughts…

Hey, I’m an optimist.  I’m a positive person.  I love life!  Good times!

Still, I’m writing a downer of a post since these thoughts have bobbed around my mind a bit recently.

Also, forgive me when I speak in generalities.  The topic lends itself to such writing and hopefully I achieve it in an identifiable way.

I’ve learned a certain truth about life: People hurt each other.

Nothing profound, for sure.  Nonetheless, I’m baffled and amazed at people’s ability and willingness to scar for life those closest to them.  I ask myself how people can do it consciously.

Naturally, sometimes hurtful actions are understandably unavoidable.  An employer can only hire one of two great candidates.  One candidate will be hurt.  So the world turns.

Often, hurtful actions aren’t conscious.  We’ll each speak or act without thinking beyond ourselves.  This shortcoming arises easily in day-to-day actions and it’s easy to apologize for and to forgive because it so often accompanies minor offenses.

Ultimately, though, whether the actions are minor and unconscious or significant and conscious, the cause is selfishness.

Now, the word Selfishness certainly has a bad connotation.  However, I’ve found in life that two kinds of selfishness exist: the kind of selfishness where you simply look out for yourself and your own happiness without negatively affecting someone else — with its roots in simple survival and self-protection — and the kind of cutthroat selfishness which hurts others.

The first kind of selfishness is actually a good thing.  As long as you’re fair and honest, yes, go for that awesome job or find that awesome, beautiful mate!  Be picky about your desires!  Never settle for less!  Fight for what you want in life!  Go for the gold!

The second kind of selfishness is the bad kind — the kind defined by ruthlessness and heartlessness.

But even this bad selfishness can be episodic — something we each display once in our lives, only to realize the error of our ways, to learn perhaps one of the greatest lessons of our lives, and to vow never to succumb to such an episode again.

This kind of episode is easy to have.  Selfishness creeps up on us and creates in us its greatest weapon: blindness.

Looking back I’ve tried to allow this idea to characterize a few people in my life and in my friends’ lives.  For many people the idea fits.

But for some it doesn’t.

Some people are great; some people need work; and some people — but they truly are few — are just hopeless.

Before I continue I must consider the flip side: I’m sure, somewhere along the way, I’ve scarred someone for life and I’ve permanently altered the way someone thinks about life, at least in a small way.

I once drove across the country with a friend.  We had something of a schedule to keep and so when I drove past the city where my grandparents live I didn’t stop.  I wasn’t supposed to stop but I wanted to and I just didn’t.  When my grandmother found out I could hear her disappointment.  I regret that moment to this day.

I can also recall breakups from years ago that I initiated where I know that I hurt the girl.  The breakups were fair but, of course, I still regret the hurt that I caused.

I regret these moments and others, but they are those which make up life.  You can’t avoid them.  And I like to think that they are all forgivable.

I’m exceptionally prone to forgiveness.  I think people generally are.  Sometimes I’ll find myself looking back on the people who’ve hurt me and the painful memories will take a backseat to the good ones, almost to be forgotten altogether.  Then, I’ll gravitate towards the past and start to long for it and I have to remember — FORCE myself to remember — that horrible hurt and the reasons I walked away from that situation.  Maybe these forced reminders are a self-defense mechanism?  All I know is that I forge on, secretly and silently working harder and harder to make sure that all future memories are good ones, even perfect ones.

I don’t like to believe in evil.  Even when I encounter what might be it — and seemingly always by surprise or revelation — I try to forgive it and rationalize it away in full benefit-of-the-doubt mode.  But when some people so persistently earn my distrust or disgust I’m forced to face the fact that evil just might exist.

Ah, forgiveness.  I’ve always thought that everyone deserves it.  These days?  Almost everyone.

Maybe I’m petty, but, for me, forgiveness can only be bought with the desire for redemption.  For all my transgressions I’ve sought redemption and, I like to think, I’ve earned it.  I’ve even gone so far in one instance as to dedicate myself to the lifelong pursuit of it, only to realize later, after a harsh dismissal, that I’d achieved it many times over without acknowledgment or regard.

This thought leads me to the question: What’s the statute of limitations for this desire for redemption?  I don’t know, but I think we all know one or two people for whom that time has passed.

Maybe I’m a coward or just not that smart but ultimately the only solution I can ever find is to leave evil alone and walk in the other direction.

So the world turns, I guess.  But above all this indulgent malarkey I know that everything I’ve written is outweighed by the far greater truth about life that I didn’t write about.

People make each other happy.

The Art Is in the Entertainment

Every year critics lament the Academy Awards.  They diminish the Academy’s choices or blow off the institution’s importance because — as usual, though not as much in recent years — their critical darling doesn’t stand a chance against the crowd favorite that the critics must categorically reject because anything that is entertaining can’t possibly be ART.

Well, guess what?

THE ACADEMY LARGELY GETS IT RIGHT.

Of course, my above statement begs an important question: What’s the standard for a great film?

A great question, and a very tough one to answer!  But let’s go with a pretty agreeable definition: A great film is one that you keep watching years later because it continues to entertain you.

Uh oh.  I said the dirty word: ENTERTAINING.  Film critics seem to hate entertainment.  Instead, they champion films that are homework.  Hey, if I wanted homework then I’d go back to school.

They seem to forget exactly what movies are universally categorized as: Entertainment!

In defense of my opinion point I’ve chronicled my thoughts on traditionally contentious Best Picture races over the most recent decades.  Note: I excluded certain contentious Best Picture races simply because I didn’t see enough of the other nominees/the jilted runner-up…but I’m sure I’d probably end up agreeing most of the time with the Academy’s choice!

1976: Rocky vs. All the President’s Men vs. Network vs. Taxi Driver

Holy crap, Rocky is amazing.  The rest are all great, too.  Seriously, though, give me a DVD of all four of these films and I’ll put Rocky in my player immediately.  Endlessly entertaining and moving (a subset of entertainment).  People, there’s no shame in liking Rocky and thinking it’s amazing!  Good choice, Academy.

1979: Kramer vs. Kramer vs. Apocalypse Now

One of these films is a tight, moving, well structured film that I’ve seen numerous times and that I own.  One of them is also great but, let’s face it, an insane mess.  I’ve only seen Apocalypse Now once, and when I was young, but I trust my memory on this judgment.  I like both films, but I wholeheartedly agree that Kramer vs. Kramer is the best choice for this award, regardless of how “challenging” or “deep” Apocalypse Now is.  Kramer vs. Kramer is a great way to spend two hours.

1980: Ordinary People vs. Raging Bull

Give it a rest, folks.  Both films are great.  And if you gave me the choice to watch both right now I’d go with Ordinary People.  I love that film.  So moving.  Raging Bull?  You know what?  Kind of a chore.  But a good chore!  One where you feel good after completing it.

1990: Dances with Wolves vs. Goodfellas

Again, give it a rest.  Both films are great.  They’re both two of my all-time favorites.  I’d watch them both right now.  The simple truth: only one can win!

1994: Forrest Gump vs. Pulp Fiction vs. The Shawshank Redemption

I watched Forrest Gump not too long ago.  Great movie!  So funny and moving!  Yes, The Shawshank Redemption is a true classic now.  Man, who predicted what hours of Turner Broadcasting reruns would do for that film, right?  And Pulp Fiction?  Guess what.  I don’t watch it anymore.  Good movie, but I’m literally never in the mood to watch that film.  Feels like homework.

In truth, 1994 was really an embarrassment of riches.  I still maintain that this lineup of Best Picture nominees is probably the best ever (actually, maybe a tie with the One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest lineup).  Quiz Show is absolutely amazing, and Four Weddings and a Funeral rounds out the top five nicely.  Really, the Academy couldn’t go wrong this year.  They went with Forrest Gump.  Fine choice.

1997: Titanic vs. L.A. Confidential

Let’s be real, people.  Titanic is a MONUMENTAL ACHIEVEMENT.  I still watch and own it.  The last hour alone is worth the Best Picture award.  So tense and affecting and awe-inspiring.  A great film beat another great film.  Case closed.

1998: Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan

Which film have I actually watched sometime in the last ten years?  Shakespeare in Love!  And multiple times, at that, because I own that mofo.  Talk about entertaining!  Man, I love it.  Saving Private Ryan?  Eh, no thanks.  And I love Spielberg, too!  I’m not being insensitive, either.  I know how important the subject matter is and I greatly admire the people who inspired the film.  The film itself, though?  Kind of a Raging Bull-esque chore.

2005: Crash vs. Brokeback Mountain

Crash is such a beautiful film that cuts to the core of who we are…just kidding!  THE ACADEMY SCREWED THIS ONE UP BAD.  I’m with everyone here.  Brokeback Mountain is wonderful and moving.  Crash sucks ass and is actually a crappy film.  I bet Paul Haggis doesn’t even watch Crash anymore.

So the Academy got it truly wrong one year.  Hey, nobody’s perfect.

Anyway, the point of all my self-indulgent huffing, puffing, and list-making is that films are ENTERTAINMENT.  Whatever entertains most deserves the industry’s greatest award.  Films with important, “complex” (code for: muddled and/or unfocused) ideas?  Whatever.  Sounds like homework!  Write an essay!  You chose the wrong medium!

Look back at all the great linear arts out there.  Are they the ones that are most important and complex?  No.  They’re the ones that entertain audiences still, in a universal, timeless way, which is what ultimately creates their importance.  I think Casablanca alone proves this point.  If not, then just consider for two seconds why Spielberg and Hitchcock are perhaps the two most famous, household-name directors of all time.

What should we study about films?  Not the “complexities” or important ideas or societal reflections — all well and good, but always secondary or tertiary in importance and almost always mistakenly focused on, ESPECIALLY by critics — but the structures and mechanics and patterns and simple truths that make them so damn entertaining.

The art is in the entertainment.

Politics and Logic

I recently read an article about how Republicans in South Dakota introduced a bill that would require all citizens of the state to own guns.

“Of course, the five lawmakers who introduced the bill don’t actually expect it to pass.  The point, according to one Sioux Falls Republican, is to prove that the federal mandate to buy health care insurance is unconstitutional.  ‘Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms?  Of course not,’ he says.  ‘But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.’”

No wonder Newser’s subtitle for this article is “Republicans try to make a point with mandatory gun law.”

They try…and they fail.

Why?  Their point sure does seem convincing, doesn’t it?  Liberals out there probably started to shake in their boots a little at the seeming logic of the premise.  I sure did.

Until I thought about it for two seconds.

One simple piece of logic completely debunks the point that these Republicans are trying to make:

Guns and health care are NOT THE SAME THING.

For instance, you can use a gun to kill someone else; you can’t use your health insurance to kill someone else.

This (glaring) difference is just one of many (glaring) differences between guns and health care that shows that the two entities cannot be governed by the same laws or used as comparisons.

These politicians are misleading the public to think that the MANDATE is the crux of issue, a trick that hinges on equating two unequal entities.

3 = 8

Wrong!

These politicians go with it anyway and do whatever “math” they want to the equation to make some bogus point.  But no matter what you do to both sides of the equation the math will never make sense because your fundamental premise is wrong.

3 + 2 = 8 + 2

5=10

Still wrong!

Logic functions in this way, folks.  Simple mathematics.  If these Republicans had started their point with a fundamentally true premise (such as 2=2) then I’d listen to their argument.

These politicians are comparing apples and oranges, and this Apples-And-Oranges trick is very effective.

What if someone posited that all theft crimes should be treated as equal entities and with the same laws, punishments, and prison sentences?  I mean, who gives the federal government the right to discriminate, mete out judgment, or tell me the way things are?  Insanity!  Don’t tread on me!

Great idea.  Hey, shoplifters, car jackers, and bank robbers, you’re all getting the same sentence now!

What’s funny is that I would say shoplifting and bank robbery are more similar to each other than guns and health insurance.  At least shoplifting and bank robbery are both, like I said, THEFT.

The way these politicians make the Apples-And-Oranges trick work is they couple it with that firebrand, anti-“Big Government” sentiment which they know evokes knee-jerk reactionism and pushes aside logic and reason.

Any logical person should be able to recognize that guns and health care are ridiculously different.  But these South Dakota politicians don’t care.  Let’s face it and just be honest with each other: These politicians are stupid.  Or shamelessly manipulative.  Probably both.

Now, I don’t necessarily align myself with any political party.  (Though, I’m clearly liberal and I clearly have never voted Republican.)  At most, I’ll say that “I vote Democrat” (most of the time) rather than “I’m a Democrat.”  I simply have four pillars that define all my political stances:

-Logic

-Fairness

-Empathy

-Kindness

Personally, I don’t see where anyone can go wrong with these four values.  I think they’re pretty great guidelines for deciding the ways of a community!

Of course, they all get thrown out the window far too easily and far too often.

With the above gun/health care example, Logic was not only thrown out the window; it was punted down the street, put on a Greyhound to NASA, strapped onto a rocket, and blasted into space.

Unfortunately, this Apples-And-Oranges trick is rather popular in politics.  I’d put it up there with the popular Bad-Apple Technique, which is demonstrated anytime a politician who wants to dismantle a program like Welfare points out the one guy who scammed the Welfare program and conveniently forgets the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DON’T SCAM THE WELFARE PROGRAM AND SURVIVE BECAUSE OF IT.  These politicians illustrate the one bad apple to imply that everyone in the system is a bad apple.

Of course, they use this technique selectively.  I’m sure some people scam Social Security but polls show that most Americans like the Social Security program because it takes care of Grandma and Grandpa (I like this program and I’m happy to pay taxes to it).  Thus, you don’t hear the Bad-Apple trick employed against this program as much as it is against the Welfare program, which, because of its demographic, is easy to brand as a haven for the listless and unproductive.  Then again, Republicans do want to cut and/or privatize Social Security despite America’s overwhelming support for the program…

But I digress.

Not terribly long ago I heard the Apples-And-Oranges trick used in cases against same-sex marriage.  People who opposed same-sex marriage argued that if we allowed these unions then we’d have to allow polygamy and beastiality.

BEASTIALITY.  Amazing.

Just when you thought the Apples-And-Oranges trick stopped at illogical it stepped into the realm of insulting.

A same-sex marriage is a union between two consenting, civilized adults; beastiality is a union between a civilized person and a non-consenting animal with no ability to convey complex thought.

To call these two unions the same is just…Wow.

The danger is people fall for these techniques.  Don’t fall for them, people!  Train yourselves to see them!

Logic is very important in politics.  I don’t think enough people employ it.  Logic is a VERY powerful tool and, when sharpened, it can dumbfound and leave your opponents speechless.  Use it and use it mightily, friends!

On that train of thought, one last note…

Ultimately, I don’t see why Republicans who are battling this health insurance mandate aren’t also battling car insurance mandates.  Car insurance and health insurance are at least both types of INSURANCE.  They’re infinitely more similar than health insurance and guns.  Where’s the logic, Republicans?  Maybe when politicians on the right battle both mandates simultaneously I’ll listen to a single word they say on the matter.

Regarding My Last Post…

Sasha Stone of AwardsDaily.com loves The Social Network so I couldn’t resist asking her what she thought of my last post…

I love it.

*I will note that she replied very quickly on a busy work day for her (Oscar nominations day) so I kind of suspect that she only looked at the title of the post and didn’t actually read my super long argument, which would make sense because who couldn’t be swayed by my INFALLIBLE RHETORIC?

The Social Network Is the Worst Film of 2010

Hey, guys and gals, guess what?  THE SOCIAL NETWORK SUCKED.

Like you, I fell in love with that amazing trailer.  Critics compared the film to Citizen Kane.  I saw the film opening day.  I was stoked.

…AND IT SUCKED.

When we love movies we quote their memorable lines and we relive their memorable scenes.  But these things are details.  Delightful details, yes, but in great movies what makes the delightful details work is the film’s STRUCTURE.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK HAS NO STRUCTURE.

“Are you kidding, Jonathan?  Critics RAVED about the structure!”

No, I’m not kidding.  This film is horrible mess and, consequently, it is literally about NOTHING.

“You’re crazy, Jonathan.”

Crazy?  Would a crazy person run down the street in his underwear waving bananas in the air and singing showtunes?

“YES.”

Then, SORRY.  I GUESS I’M CRAZY.

But seriously, folks, The Social Network isn’t about anything (and tip your waitresses).  To make my point, let’s start with movies that we ALL know are good.

Jaws, Rocky, and Citizen Kane.  These movies are well-regarded and have stood the test of time.  They are empirically good.

What do these movies, and every movie that is good and remembered, share?  Something I like to call their ONE SIMPLE THING.

The One Simple Thing that all good movies have is just what it sounds like: One Simple Thing, one simple little hook, frequently in the form of a goal, around which EVERY scene in a film revolves.

In Jaws, the One Simple Thing is: KILL THE SHARK.

Rocky: WIN THE MATCH.

Citizen Kane: WHAT IS ROSEBUD?

Simple, right?  All good movies have it!  Just look and see:

When Harry Met Sally…: GET THE GIRL!

The Lord of The Rings: DESTROY THE RING!

Fargo: SOLVE THE CRIME!

The Terminator: PROTECT SARAH CONNOR!

Terminator 2: PROTECT JOHN CONNOR!

Saving Private Ryan: SAVE PRIVATE RYAN!

Kill Bill: KILL BILL!

Could you make these stories any more simple yet specific?  (Remember, SPECIFICITY is essential, as I’ll show later.)

Literally EVERY scene in these movies revolves around these One Simple Things; every idea, every theme, all plot and subplot, and all text and subtext emerge from this One Simple Thing; The One Simple Thing TELLS you what the film is about.

What is so wonderful about this One Simple Thing?  It always begins and ends the film.  ALWAYS.  It begins the film so that you know what the film will be about and it ends the film to show you, yes, this One Simple Thing is what the film you just watched was about!

Jaws: The film opens with the shark’s introduction; the film ends with the shark’s destruction.

Rocky: The film opens with a small-time boxing match; the film ends with the big-time boxing match.

Citizen Kane: The film opens with the set-up to the Rosebud mystery; the film ends with the pay-off to the Rosebud mystery.

From their beginnings and from their endings we know what Jaws, Rocky, and Citizen Kane are about: their One Simple Things!  And, like I said, EVERY scene between the beginnings and the endings of these movies revolves around the One Simple Thing.

Jaws: Scene after scene after scene, all in some way about KILLING THAT DAMN SHARK.

Rocky: Scene after scene after scene, all in some way leading up to ROCKY FIGHTING IN THAT BIG BOXING MATCH.

Citizen Kane: Scene after scene after scene, all in some way leading up to that ROSEBUD REVEAL.

Yes, subplots and character revelations pepper the story and add layers and subtext, but they all emerge from scenes that ultimately ORIGINATE FROM and LEAD BACK to that One Simple Thing.

Am I making sense?  Yes.  And you know it.

So why does The Social Network suck?

Let me answer that question with another question: Can you tell me The Social Network’s One Simple Thing?

No.  You can’t.  The film DOESN’T HAVE ONE.

“Wait, hold on, Jonathan, give me a second to think about it.”

Fine, I’ll ask again later.  YOU SHOULDN’T NEED TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, THOUGH.  Did you need time to think about it for Jaws, Rocky, or Citizen Kane?

In a good movie, the simple, specific answer is OBVIOUS.  And I guarantee you, nothing you think of for The Social Network will be as SIMPLE and as SPECIFIC as KILL THE SHARK, WIN THE MATCH, and WHAT IS ROSEBUD?  But still, I’ll wait.  In the meantime, let’s examine.

Like I said before, good films begin and end with their One Simple Things and, thus, they tell you exactly what the film is about.

Well, hey, The Social Network starts with Mark Zuckerberg trying not to lose his girlfriend and it ends with him trying to get this ex-girlfriend back.  Terrific!  I know the movie’s One Simple Thing:  GET THE GIRL!

Errrrr!  Wrong.  Yeah, right.  That shit doesn’t sound right at all, does it?

One thing The Social Network definitely isn’t about is getting the girl.  In fact, if I remember correctly, only one other scene in the film deals with the character of Erica Albright: the scene where Mark botches his attempted apology to her in the bar.  And I’m pretty sure she’s not the subtext in the rest of the film’s scenes.

So damn, I guess the film was about something else?  I’m already REALLY DUBIOUS since the film wasn’t actually about what it opened and closed with.  And you can’t count those post-scripts in the end.  Post-scripts are storytelling ADDITIONS, not storytelling SUBSTITUTES.  Anyone can slap post-scripts onto the end of a film.  I should know.  I DID THAT SHIT AT THE END OF MY FILM BREAST PICTURE, an awesome little comedy that you should save to your Netflix queue RIGHT NOW!  I’M A SHAMELESS SHILL!

So let’s try to figure out what The Social Network was about.

Well, I guess it was about the fall-out between Mark and his best and only friend Eduardo, right?  That story stands out!

Eh, really?  I mean, sure, the film revolved around that story about 60% of the time.  But if 60% of story were enough screen time to make a film ABOUT that story then Jaws could have been 60% about KILLING THAT DAMN SHARK and 40% about Chief Brody trying to FIX THAT DAMN OIL LEAK ON HIS TRUCK.  How good does Jaws sound now?

So what else could The Social Network have been about?  The fall out between Mark and the Winklevosses?  Meh.  The film revolved around that story about 40% of the time and the whole stupid Winklevoss story went as follows:

1. The Winklevosses find out that Facebook is getting more and more awesome.

2. The Winklevosses get mad and then don’t do anything about it except bitch and moan to various people until…

3. Hey!  They decide do something about it!  The end!

Fascinating.

So was the film just about Facebook in general: the details of how it was made; the interpersonal struggles behind it; its cultural impact?  Yes, all that stuff is there!  THE FILM IS ABOUT FACEBOOK IN GENERALl!

Sure.  And Rocky is about BOXING IN GENERAL.

*Blank* in general does not a movie make.  Good storytelling is simple and specific, not broad and general.  Want me to prove it?

“Hey, what do you want to see tonight: a movie about prison in general or a movie about a female pirate and her companion who race against their rivals to find a hidden island that contains a fabulous treasure?”

“Oh, the pirate movie, definitely!”

Well done.  You just chose to see Cutthroat Island over The Shawshank Redemption.  Enjoy your two hours.

(Actually, just off that summary — One Simple Thing: FEMALE PIRATE SEEKS TREASURE — I already think Cutthroad Island is a better movie than The Social Network.)

For the same reason above you can’t just say that the film was about Mark Zuckerberg because, given how all over the place everything I’ve mentioned so far from The Social Network has been story-wise, could you really say the film was about more than just MARK ZUCKERBERG IN GENERAL?  The film is so generally about Facebook/Mark Zuckerberg that all broad One Simple Things (e.g. GUY CREATES WEBSITE) simply don’t work.  They’re about as effective as describing your awesome vacation as a “trip to the EASTERN HEMISPHERE.”

Here’s my best (failed, of course) guess as to what The Social Network’s One Simple Thing could be, which I will spend a little time on now.  Maybe you could try to phrase the One Simple Thing as IS MARK ZUCKERBERG AN ASSHOLE? since, yes, the first and last scene of The Social Network each end with a woman judging if Mark is an asshole (see, Sorkin, I got the symmetry of your lines!  I’m smart!  I notice things!).

But really, IS MARK ZUCKERBERG AN ASSHOLE? doesn’t work because it’s basically a reworded version of MARK ZUCKERBERG IN GENERAL and it fails for the same reasons.  So much of the movie doesn’t relate to this question AT ALL.

Just one of many examples: that scene about how Mark invented the relationship status, which is really ONLY in the film so that you go, “Hey, so that’s how that fun thing on my website was created — Neat-o!”  Man, this scene (and all the others like it) derails just about every One Simple Thing I can think of except the already-proven-crappy FACEBOOK IN GENERAL.

Also, NO ONE has offered to me a One Simple Thing that sounds even remotely close to IS MARK ZUCKERBERG AN ASSHOLE?

Here’s what really grinds my gears about IS MARK ZUCKERBERG AN ASSHOLE?: I don’t want to spend two hours trying to FIGURE OUT the main character and no GOOD FILM structures itself this way.  I want a film to show me a character and then show me how that character CHANGES, which is what EVERY GOOD FILM DOES.

Jaws shows us that Chief Brody is a fearful guy at the beginning of the film, then we see him change during the rest of the film as he confronts his fears (embodied by the shark) as those fears creep closer and closer to his family.  Awesome!

Meanwhile, The Hurt Locker (another grossly overrated film, save the awesome action sequences) makes me wait around until the end to confirm that the hero is an adrenaline junkie (as hinted at during the opening quote), which is what motivates his actions.  Really?  Your whole hook was obscuring the main character’s MOTIVATION, which is supposed to come at the BEGINNING OF A FILM?  REALLY?

Hey, The Hurt Locker and The Social Network, way to make shitty Shymalan-esque reveals out of things you OWE YOUR AUDIENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF A FILM.

Man, imagine if Jaws had pulled that crap.

“Hey, Steven Spielberg!  Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb here.  We’ve decided to drop this boring old action/adventure storyline and ending.  Instead, the last scene of Jaws will be Chief Brody’s wife talking to her husband over dinner and saying, ‘I knew it, honey, you WERE afraid of that shark the whole time.’”

“Hey, Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb, I’m Steven Spielberg and I approve of that ending!  Way better than seeing Chief Brody BLOW UP A GIANT FUTHERMUCKING SHARK!”

Then they all punch themselves in the faces.

But no, Jaws didn’t pull that malarkey, which is why that film rules, and you did pull that malarkey, The Hurt Locker and The Social Network, which is a big reason why you both suck.  Malarkey!

Alright, back to my argument.  Right now you’re probably thinking:

“Okay, Jonathan, you’re right.  The Social Network was about a bunch of stories.  But, uh, that’s because it was an ensemble film with lots of subplots!”

Errrrr!  Wrong again.  Ensemble films aren’t any different from other movies.  In fact, they do EVERYTHING I MENTIONED ABOVE already.

Boogie Nights starts with a sweeping opening shot that introduces every character and then ends on Dirk Diggler, thereby telling you, hey, this film is about ALL THESE PEOPLE, with THIS GUY at the center.  And how does Boogie Nights end?  With another sweeping shot that shows you ALL THE SAME PEOPLE (EVEN THE DEAD GUY) FROM THE OPENING SHOT OF THE FILM before settling again on DIRK DIGGLER.  And guess what?  EVERY scene in between revolves around this family unit looking for love and happiness in a scrappy porn world.  Yay!

Also, to call all the jumbled, crammed-together narratives in The Social Network subplots is erroneous.  Subplots?  Subplots to WHAT PLOT?  Plot is just the One Simple Thing expanded into the actual movie and The Social Network doesn’t have a One Simple Thing.  Hence, no plot!

So, tell me again, was The Social Network an ensemble film with lots of subplots?

I’ve also heard people say that, well, The Social Network was about the theme of alienation, or the theme of how the truth is subjective, or the theme of blah blah blah.  Sure, a theme is enough for a movie.  Let me ask you this question: which of the following two pitches do you think got Jaws made?

“Hey, Universal, we’re Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb and we want to make a movie about the theme of survival!”

OR…

“Hey, Universal, we’re Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb and we want to make a movie about a guy who’s trying to kill a gigantic, man-eating great white shark!”

I think you know which pitch got picked up.

Again, the One Simple Thing makes a movie.  All else, including THEMES, emerge from the One Simple Thing.

You want to know what’s really terrific about this problem with The Social Network?  This problem isn’t just with the film as a whole; it’s a problem with INDIVIDUAL SCENES, too!

You know that scene where Eduardo learns that his share in the company has been diluted and he confronts Mark?  What happens after the explosive confrontation and Eduardo’s exit?  The scene continues with some RIDICULOUSLY LESS HEIGHTENED conversation (about a party, if I remember correctly) with Sean Parker!

Eduardo storms out!  Mark is devastated!  Drama stock is high, Sorkin!  Sell, sell, sell!  Nope?  Keep the scene going?  Okay.  Let the The Social Network shit parade march on!

Yes, I realize that the point was to linger on Mark’s reaction to the confrontation, but Sorkin should have cut to a new scene and he could have kept the reaction just fine!  As it is, though, Sorkin crams two scenes into one and, consequently, I sat in the theatre (and so did you) literally thinking to myself, “Wait, what was that scene about?  The fight?  The party?  What was I supposed to focus on?”  This scene is just a microcosm for the film’s major problem as a whole.  Even in THIS ONE SCENE Sorkin couldn’t decide what to focus on so he did two things and completely ruined the scene, just like he did with his WHOLE MOVIE.

Also, speaking of ruining scenes/to convey a personal complaint: You don’t “row crew.”  I rowed for nine years, four of which were at one of those hoity-toity colleges depicted in The Social Network, and I won championships.  You just ROW or you’re ON THE CREW TEAM.  Yes, I sound arrogant.  Whatever.  Do your research, Sorkin.

Let me confess something.  I’ve been working on this rant for a while now.  After reading everything above I thought to myself, “Jonathan, maybe you’re crazy.  Maybe you’re just not seeing something.  Maybe you’re not as smart as you certainly overestimate yourself to be.”

So I conducted a little SOCIAL EXPERIMENT about THE SOCIAL NETWORK.  (Can I have my Clever Line Trophy now?)

I told a few of my friends about my One Simple Thing theory and I asked them to provide The One Simple Thing for The Social Network.  Check out their responses.

The Social Network

-The Creation of Facebook

-Win The Court Case

-Pursue Complete Validation

-Outcast Wants Revenge

-Frustrated Douche Creates Revolutionary Website

Now, I know what you’re thinking.  “But, Jonathan, films mean different things to different people.”

I agree!  But I’m not talking about thematic interpretations here.  I’m talking about agreeing on the basic, concrete details of a piece of art’s existence.  Look at this sculpture.

We’ll all have different INTERPRETATIONS.  But I think we can all agree on the basic facts that the sculpture is MADE OF METAL and composed of mostly TRIANGULAR SHAPES.

You see what I’m getting at here?

Still, I knew you die hard contrarians out there would doubt this experiment, so, as a control group, I also asked my friends to provide the One Simple Thing for Jaws.  Check out their responses.

Jaws

-Kill The Shark

-Kill The Shark

-Killing The Monster Shark (from someone who hasn’t even seen Jaws)

-Policeman Vs. Shark

-Save the Beach / Town

Now how about the responses to these two films, huh?  Am I finally starting to sway you?

(By the way, I included EVERY response.  I didn’t tailor or omit any to fit my hypothesis.)

With these responses in mind I want to talk about cupcakes.

Yes, CUPCAKES.

If you make cupcakes then, as a testimony to the fact that you made great cupcakes, you want everyone to say, “Your cupcakes are great!”

But what if you made cupcakes and the responses to them were as such?

Cupcakes

-Your muffins are great!

-Great job on the danishes.

-Thanks for making the pizza.

-You baked these tiny pumpkins?

-Why are you making me eat this cell phone?

Look at these fictional cupcake responses.  The first person came close, the second person is silly, and the other three people are INSANE.

Or are they?

Look back at the responses that I got when I asked people to tell me what The Social Network was about.  I assure you that my friends are not insane.  They are all very smart.  Yet their answers are AS DISPARATE AS THE CUPCAKE RESPONSES THAT I JUST GAVE YOU.  Hell, just look at the responses “Pursue Complete Validation” and “Outcast Wants Revenge.”  They practically CONTRADICT each other!

Now look at the Jaws responses.  They’re ALL EXACTLY THE SAME.  If they’re not all KILL THE SHARK then they are some version of it:

-“Save the Beach / Town” by — d’uh — KILLING THE SHARK.

-Policeman Vs. Shark, in which — d’uh — the Policeman wants to KILL THE SHARK.

So, to complete this point, I’m pretty sure that if not everyone can identify that you made cupcakes then…

YOU MADE SHITTY CUPCAKES, AARON SORKIN!

The fact that so many people have a different answer isn’t a testimony to the fact that the film is complex and multi-faceted; it’s a testimony to the fact that the film is crap!

Okay, Jonathan, calm down.  You’ve proven that The Social Network is garbage.  Not just critically but SCIENTIFICALLY.  Remember, this film will be forgotten in time like that steaming pile of garbage Crash, which beat the wonderful Brokeback Mountain at the Oscars.  And tell me, which of those two films do you still watch?

At this point those of you I haven’t convinced have probably just written me off as someone who only likes mainstream films.  Great.  Enjoy that comfortable write-off.  Just know that I love films of EVERY GENRE.  I don’t dislike non-mainstream films; I dislike BAD FILMS.

Also, guess what?  ALL GOOD FILMS ARE MAINSTREAM.  Am I radical or WHAT?  I’m serious, though.  From your beloved little indie mumblecore films to your big-time studio blockbusters.  The only thing that differentiates them is execution.  Good storytelling is in the structure.  It’s universal.  Like math.  (God, I sound like Robert McKee.)  But this argument is for another time…

Now don’t get me wrong, The Social Network is definitely a Hate-It-Despite-Its-Strengths film for me.  Pretty much everyone involved did a wonderful job.  Great acting, great direction, great music.  (Although, Fincher, you better watch out, bro.  You’ve now made two consecutive films — ahem, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — that had AMAZING trailers but turned out to be real junkers.)

Aaron Sorkin just sucked balls and so the film was a total waste.  He bypassed the most fundamental aspect of structure, he completely disregarded the need for One Simple Thing around which his story could revolve, and he just threw up whatever scenes he wanted, thereby making his film about nothing.  Instead, he wrote some terribly clever lines, put himself in some stupid cameo, and laughed his way to the bank.  Sorkin planted some pretty trees, but trees that were so pretty and so big that you didn’t notice that there was no forest whatsoever.  Yes, his writing SOUNDS super smart, but in The Social Network, the writing is actually phenomenally STUPID.

Hell, this argument for why The Social Network sucked has more of a point than The Social Network itself.  And don’t try to tell me that the movie is CHALLENGING.  The only CHALLENGE is justifying why it’s GOOD.  If you ask me, Sorkin should have focused solely on Eduardo and made him the main character and Mark the villain.  The character of Eduardo is the only person we give a shit about and the Mark character is an asshole.  Now there’s a story with some meat!  Or Sorkin should have just made the film about how details of everyday life inspired the various aspects of Facebook, like that brilliant montage that started the trailer.  Oh well.  I didn’t fuck it up.

Here’s the horrible, frustrating thing about The Social Network: the very thing that makes it such a bad movie is the very thing that so tantalizes all the hyper-intellectual critics who celebrate it.  The film LOOKS and SOUNDS uber-intelligent — what complex and contemporary THEMES and IDEAS!  All empty, by the way — so if you don’t like it then you’re DUMB.  I’m here to tell you that it’s okay: You’re NOT DUMB for disliking this film.  I know that deep down you think it’s crap but you’re afraid to buck the zeitgeist.  It’s okay.  IT’S OKAY.  You’re SMART!

This film is just a bunch of Sturm and Drang goosed up with fancy words.  It’s like some essay by some shithead Ivy League asshole (believe me, I should know; it takes one to know one) about modes of alienation in modern communication: smug and brimming with bullshit, but with enough fancy-pants, condescending phrases that threaten to make you feel inferior if you doubt the work’s brilliance.

We as a nation seem to have been duped by Aaron Sorkin.  Worst of all, his rather gracious and eloquent Golden Globes acceptance speech is now making me feel bad for this post!

So, you’ve had some time.  Have you thought of The Social Network’s One Simple Thing?  Well, I’m waiting…

Jonathan’s Best Films of 2010

Okay, I’m writing my list of Best Films of 2010 and yet I haven’t seen a good many films that I should have seen.  So I’ll just update this post if I see any soon!  There!

And now let’s discuss…

THE BEST!

The King’s Speech

This year’s epitome of Simple Stories, Wonderfully Told.  “What a nice little movie,” I said as the credits rolled.  Weird, right?  A totally epic story and I called it a little movie.  The reason is because, despite the epic backdrop, the film is terrifically intimate.

The story is simple: Fix the King’s Stutter.  But this story blossoms into so many great layers.

Everything about the film is pretty much pitch perfect.  Colin Firth, however, walks away with this one.  He has the Oscar for Best Actor in the bag.  His performance is much like Heath Ledger’s in Brokeback Mountain: so good that you forget that the film is also outstanding.

Also, Geoffrey Rush might have the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in the bag, as well.  However, I hear that that Christian Bale is pretty good…

The Kids Are All Right

Simply magnificent.  Maybe one of my favorite films of the decade.  A few more viewings could maybe put it in my all time favorites.

The Academy HAS to give Annette Bening the Oscar.  THEY HAVE TO.

This film ties with The King’s Speech for my favorite film of the year.

Toy Story 3

I challenge you not to well up when the toys join hands as they face death and then when Andy plays with the toys for the last time.  I challenge you!

Seriously, what a wonderful film and a wonderful film to end the trilogy.  The writing is impeccable, as is everything else.  Pixar has the ability to make perfect films.

Secretariat

Let me first say that I am a sucker for any sports film.  They’re all the same…and I love them.  Show me an underdog overcoming the odds and I’ll show you a blubbering ball of tears named Jonathan.

Let me next say that I only saw the second half of Secretariat.  Just the second half!

Whatever.  I’m choosing it anyway for one of my favorite films of the year because, as I was watching it, I was thinking, “Hey, this movie is actually alright.  Solidly written, well directed, well acted, wonderfully photographed, well edited, exciting and varied races, and…Oh my God, that moment was the best moment I’ve seen all year in ANY film!”

Yes.  Secretariat, of all films, had The Best Moment In Any Film This Year.  What moment?  The final turn in the last race.  That moment will blow you away.  See the film just for that part.

Exit Through the Gift Shop

I guess some people aren’t sure if this film is a documentary or if it is staged and just one of Banksy’s elaborate hoaxes.  After about two seconds I realized that the film is obviously not a documentary but instead a very, VERY well scripted (structure-wise) film in the style of something that a young Spike Jonze would make.  Really, the film is another Banksy piece of art.

But who gives a damn?  This film is amazing.  So well structured, so well written, so wonderfully shot.  The EDITING is amazing.  I’m loving it so far.  Also, I knew so little about the subject matter, which is just wonderful stuff.

Heartbreaker

Watch this film and try not to like it.  Good luck.

She’s Out Of Your League

This movie was sweet and delightful.  Maybe I was particularly in the mood to enjoy it because I was on a date when I saw it but I’ve found something quite interesting about this film: Every time I mention to someone that I actually really enjoyed it that someone replies, “Oh my God, I actually really enjoyed it, too!”  I think this film is the film of the year that we all didn’t know we all enjoyed so much!

And the titular ‘She’ role is far better a character than I ever expected.  Molly is no Lady MacBeth by any means but she’s a surprisingly good female lead character and in the hands of lesser writers this role would have been a shameful, objectified cardboard cutout.  A Tara Reid or a Denise Richards or a Helen Mirren.  Haha!  Just kidding.  You know I think the world of your talents, Tara!

Shutter Island

Just a solid crime thriller.  REALLY solid.  Amazingly directed.  That Scorsese guy is going places.

Restrepo

One of the best war movies ever made.  Not necessarily the most enjoyable or even well structured but I’ll give it a pass because everyone needs to see this film.

You’ll be amazed at what soldiers go through and that two journalists were right behind them in actual fire fights documenting on camera perhaps the most truthful depiction of war EVER.

Also, just try not to get all misty-eyed when that one soldier describes how he had to pretend that everything was just great and dandy, even though a friend of his was shot and killed just days before, while wishing his “hippy” mother a happy birthday over the telephone.  That guy is amazing and that moment is terrific.  Probably The Second Best Moment In Any Film This Year.

Inception

Okay, I’ll go ahead and put Inception on the list, people.  Yes, I liked it just fine.  But I’m mostly putting it on here for that zero-gravity fight between Joseph Gordon-Levitt and that henchman!  What a scene!

I also dug Leonardo DiCaprio’s emotional through-line about forgiving himself for killing his wife.  Although, he had the EXACT same through-line in Shutter Island.  Leo, I know actors play types but yowza!

Now, I like Christopher Nolan.  He’s a very clever and inventive director.  But he makes such convoluted films!  His trick is that he moves so quickly that the audience doesn’t notice the fast ones he’s pulling.  Every time I watch a Christopher Nolan film I’m usually sitting there thinking, “Hey, wait a second, I’m not sure that moment made sense and…nevermind, on to the next thing!”

He’s always changing or inventing new rules or having characters just make up things and voice them real fast to move his stories along at his convenience.  Sometimes he plays on the rules that he sets up just wonderfully, like when Leonardo DiCaprio convinces Cillian Murphy that his defensive mind-henchmen are actually after HIM and Leo is DEFENDING Cillian against them.  Great twist on the rule!  But then other times he just makes shit up, like when Cillian Murphy dies and then Juno makes up some shit and Cillian Murphy is actually alive on some other dream level or some shit and hamburger phone and shit.

What am I talking about here, friends?  Poor script structure!

Still, I really did like Inception just fine.  And I’ll admit it: I kind of have a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  That guy is picking up where Heath Ledger tragically left off.

So there you have it, folks.  My Best Films of 2010.  See them!

Of course, you might be wondering what I disliked this year.  Well, I’m sure you can guess what I thought was…

THE WORST!

The Social Network

But I’ll dedicate an entire post to this one…

Jonathan: Film Critic (A Prelude)

I always thought I’d be a damn good film critic.

My reason is not because I’m a hyper-intellectual critic who can recognize the cultural and social meaning in complex films.  Those critics are idiots and “complex” is just a smokescreen for “crap.”

My reason is because good films are simple, clear, and obvious, and I think about films in those terms.

Moreover, I never forget the ONE THING that ALWAYS makes a good film: the script.  Specifically, the script’s structure.

And witty dialogue does not a good film make, Aaron Sorkin.  Witty dialogue is either one of two things:

1. Witty Dialogue that Is Fortunately Part of a Well-Structured Script.

2. A Clever Way to Distract the Audience from Crappy Structure.

I love films, I make them, and I think that a big part of the reason they’re the most popular art form by far is because they take every art medium — writing, photography (which encompasses drawing, painting, scupture, etc.), theatre, music, etc. — and combine them into one.

People often get caught up in how wonderful one part of a great film is.  Maybe the direction, maybe the acting, maybe the cinematography.  Great.  Awesome.  You’re all correct.  These things are usually great in great films.

However, a film has no chance of being any good unless the script and its structure are great.  PERIOD.

Every one of my personal Best Films of All Time has awesome-to-perfect structure.  Seriously.  Here’s a list of a few of them.  Tell me which of these films has poor structure?

Amadeus, Annie Hall, Casablanca, Jaws, Rocky, When Harry Met Sally…, The Shawshank Redemption, Groundhog Day, Overboard.

Are my tastes too mainstream?  I don’t care.  These films are absolutely amazing.  They will better your life.

On a side note, do you want to know my personal Worst Films of All Time?

Margot at the Wedding, Garden State, and The Social Network.

Margot at the Wedding takes the cake for absolute worst.  The world would be better without that film.

Sure, I could list hundreds of poorly made films that are empirically worse than the ones on my list.  But the three films above are seriously the worst because they act like and think that they’re good films when they’re actually abysmally awful.  I’ll dissect The Social Network in a later post…

So, now that you know how I look at films, here are some things that you should know about me as a filmgoer:

1. I can love a film despite its faults and hate a film despite its strengths.

2. When I judge a film one important question I ask myself, either consciously or unconsciously, is “What does this film want to be and does it succeed?”

3. I’m essentially a classicist but I love films of every genre and type.  As Theodore Sturgeon said, “Ninety percent of everything is crud.”  Anyone who says that a particular genre of any medium is The Best Thing EVER!/The Worst Thing EVER! is just someone who can tolerate and enjoy that ninety percent/mistakes that ninety percent for the whole.

4. When I judge a film another important question I ask myself, either consciously or unconsciously, is “Can the story be boiled down to three to five simple words, usually in the form of the goal of the main character(s)?”  Example: You can basically simply Jaws to Kill The Shark.  Yes, Jaws has way more to it than just that three word summary.  But Kill The Shark is the core of the story.  I’ll elaborate on this point in my post on The Social Network…

5. I look for the motto I live by: Simple Stories, Wonderfully Told.

Do I sound like an asshole?  Great.  I don’t care.  I’m right.

Now you know me as a filmgoer/critic and you’re ready for the Shymalan ending to this post: I wrote it to express my deeply-felt convictions about film but ALSO as a prelude to my next post about…my favorite films of 2010!  Oh, TWIST!

One Day, Jonathan Decided to Share His Thoughts…

Hello,

My name is Jonathan and one of my 2011 New Year’s resolutions was to start a blog.  Boom.  One down.

I’ll likely talk about movies, comedy, and my life — my three favorite things, in that order.

However, I won’t talk about only those things.  Politics will likely arise because they interest me.  Also, I’ll delight you with my personal views and opinions on anything whatsoever.

So, basically, expect any fleeting thought that drifts in and out of the transom of my mind.  On this blog I will simply talk about my stupid little life.

Did anyone catch the two movie quotes contained in that last paragraph?  Bonus points if you did!

Thanks for reading.

Jonathan