Getting back to the roots of mergemovies tomorrow with Part I of a five-part series featuring movie theaters in the Cincinnati, Ohio area (a fellow blogger over at Our Medium was kind enough to indulge my movie theater exploration habit while I was in town).  Before I launch into a look at some truly amazing vintage Ohio movie theaters, I wanted to quickly touch on something that had laid dormant in the back of my mind until a recent Slashfilm and JoBlo posting made me ponder the issue once more.

The conundrum at hand: What is the future of movie theaters, especially those in the Midwest? Part of the purpose of this blog is to attempt to answer that question and today’s post is just a scratch on the surface of the issue.

Russ Fisher’s Slashfilm post examines The New Beverly Cinema, a movie theater in Los Angeles that would have closed in 2007, had it not been for the financial support of Quentin Tarantino.  Fisher notes a handful of other repertory/revival  theaters–including the Brattle in Camridge, Massachusetts–that have undergone financial struggles over the past few years.  The Midwest has a great cinema culture–a unique mix of everything from backyard screenings, festivals and vintage neighborhood theaters to college lecture halls, multiplexes and IMAX theaters,  but the reality is (especially in the Midwest where the cinema culture is not as ingrained into society as, say, California), there are just not enough Quentin Tarantinos to go around.

There is no question the rise of television, followed by the rise of VHS, DVD and now Netflix has taken much out importance and necessity of actually going to the theater.  But the “crisis” facing movie theaters (not to mention video stores, opera houses and symphony orchestras) is also a generational issue.  I try to watch movies at a theater whenever possible.  I am lucky to live in the Detroit area where (surprisingly to some) there are so many quality cinema venues.  The Redford Theatre shows the classics.  The Detroit Film Theatre is known worldwide for its top-notch foreign films.  Even the new kid on the street, The Burton Theatre, has attracted local and national buzz (see The New York Times – Detroit Entrepreneurs Opt to Look Up) with its mix of forgotten, foreign, cult and independent film.  The problem–and the exception here is the Burton Theatre–is the demographics, specifically the age, of people actually watching the movies.  There is nothing wrong with an “older” crowd attending these films, but as I sit in theaters that have been screening motion pictures since the 1920s, I sometimes catch myself wondering if these places will be open when I reach the golden years.  As generations of kids grow up streaming Netflix from their X-Boxes or watching television on Hulu, how many will venture beyond the confines of their room to even walk down the street to the local neighborhood movie theater?

Multiplexes are banking on 3-D to bring in the masses, but what about the theater that seeks to educate people about the huge variety of film that exists or simply show an old flick?  Children’s shows and family-oriented movies are a couple ways that theaters try to attract kids (example: the My Fair Lady Sing-A-Long at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor on February 28).  A new program by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra also provides a possible model that cinematheques could use to attract the younger generation.  The DSO 37/11 program allows anyone under the age of 37 to purchase tickets a week in advance to select shows for only $11.  People that enroll in the program can purchase up to two tickets for the special price and are given best available seating.  I know the profit margin for movie theaters can sometimes be tight, but a discounted ticket program or some special treatment to the younger folk might keep them coming back, even after the discount ends.  In other words, if you start someone on a movie-watching tradition at a theater every Friday night, they will keep coming back–even after their discount is up.

The next five posts, each one examining a different theater in the Cincinnati area, will provide a good look at what has been happening to theaters over the past few years in the Midwest and what they are doing to keep their doors open to the public (even if it means not showing films).  Check back tomorrow for Part I.

Oh, and if you are interested in movie theaters and have the cash of Quentin Tarantino, I have a nice fixer-upper for you on Michigan Avenue in Detroit: The Senate Theater.

At 11:30 a.m. on a Sunday, five weeks after Avatar’s initial release, I sat in a sold out IMAX theater (AMC Livonia 20) waiting for the movie to begin.  This was my second time watching the film and the excitement of the audience was no less palpable than it had been opening weekend.  One thing was certain: the controversy surrounding the movie has in no way deterred people from heading out to theaters in droves to catch this 3-D spectacle.

Many people have asked me if I liked the movie, to which I have replied with an unequivocal “yes.”  The more interesting question, however, is WHY I liked the movie, something that I believe sheds light not only on the popularity of James Cameron’s epic, but the larger question of why people like the movies they do.

One of my favorite aspects of watching movies is that fact that everyone takes something different away from the experience.  If two people go into a movie theater and watch the same film, regardless of  similarities they might share in their taste for movies, they will come out with different opinions.  Sure, they might both like the film, but the degree to which they like certain elements–characters, story, cinematography, lighting, sound, etc.–is determined by a number of factors.  Everything from how hungry a person is to their emotional state can play a part in their enjoyment of a film.  The element I want to concentrate on and what I believe is the factor that dominates all others during the moviegoing experience is something I call Background Influence.

Two concepts combine to create Background Influence:

1.) The culmination of an individual’s movie watching history up to a certain point in time (the point in time usually referring to the movie they are about to watch), with more weight given to films watched during the early years of one’s life.

2.) How an individual actually watches the movies that comprise their viewing history.

To demonstrate just what Background Influence really means and to show how it has an effect on a person, I will use my own moviegoing experience as an example.  Movie watching in my younger years was spent on classic Disney films, ranging from Fantasia to Dumbo.  One film in particular though stood out–The Great Mouse Detective.  Although almost every Disney movie has its dark moments, the rainy, dismal streets of London in The Great Mouse Detective, seemed even more sinister and a great deal more brooding than anything my young self had ever encountered.  As I look back on it today, this film was the precursor for my interest in dark, post-apocalyptic films that are so popular today (see Children of Men and 28 Days Later for the best examples of this genre).  It may seem strange or far-fetched  to pin my enjoyment of this genre of films on a classic Disney movie, but the tone of the movie and especially the colors–even with an animated style–share quite a bit in common with its more modern brethren.

From the Great Mouse Detective to Children of Men: Background Influence at Work

As I moved on from Disney movies, I discovered a new, exciting genre–the space epic.  Spending Saturday afternoons watching Sci Fi Channel Star Wars marathons with my dad and brother  is one of my first and most memorable movie experiences.  I remember getting chills down my spine the first time I watched the movie and having those same chills return when I saw it for the first time in theaters during the “Special Edition” re-releases.  The classic good vs. evil struggle, sense of adventure, worlds that are both familiar and exotic, epic scope and powerful score set the bar for how I judged movies for years to come.

Thus, as I sat waiting for Avatar to start, the first part of Background Influence came into play.  Every movie I had ever watched was about to have a significant impact on my enjoyment of James Cameron’s epic, especially those that I watched in my younger years.  In others words, I was predisposed to like Avatar–it shares many elements with the grand, epic films I had been watching thoughout my life, Star Wars being the precursor to the films that comprise my personal movie history.  This isn’t  to say that one’s taste in film cannot change–mine certainly has.  College and post-college life has changed my taste in movies significantly and I have branched out to films all over the cinema spectrum.  The reason for this and another factor in my enjoyment of Avatar is where the second part of Background Influence comes into play.

How an individual watches the movies that comprise their viewing history is an essential part in determining if a person will ultimately like a film.  The cinephile that lives next to a movie theater is going to have a different view of movies than someone who makes it to the theater once every couple of months.  The year before I started high school, I moved up to the Upper Peninsula (U.P.) of Michigan.  Although I enjoyed the stunning natural beauty that the U.P. offered, the move presented a problem for the budding movie enthusiast in me.  The nearest movie theater–Varsity Cinemas in Sault Ste. Marie–was an hour drive.  Mind you, this was before Netflix came onto the scene and even the local video store (i.e. gas station) didn’t have much that my entire family could agree on (we have notoriously different tastes).  After the move to “da UP,” movie watching became an event, something I looked forward to during the week.  Going to “The Soo” (as Sault Ste. Marie is known to the locals) was an all-day affair and included shopping, going out to eat and, at long last, watching a movie in a theater.  There was nothing casual about going to movies during this period in my life, and the choice of a film was an important, almost excruciating decision to make.  An arthouse venue, Varsity Cinemas was not, but that is to be expected considering it is one of only a handful of multiple-screen theaters in the U.P.  Sporting ten screens, with each movie shown 1-2 times on a weekday and 3-4 times on the weekend, Varsity Cinemas offered what you would expect from a typical chain theater–new films playing a few weeks before giving their spot up to the next round of new releases.  This type of movie theater, combined with the driving distance, unpredictable winter weather and the culture of the U.P., lent itself to the type of film you might expect–the big budget, epic, blockbuster-style movie that is so prevalent during the summer months.

The availability of a weekly film program on campus (Wells Hall is the best kept secret in the Lansing area–movies are only $2 for non-students) and two large movie theaters (NCG and Celebration in Lansing) expanded my gusto for films while in college, but I still attended the big-budget Hollywood extravaganzas with no less excitement than before (albeit with a more critical eye–something like Ridley Scott’s underrated follow up to Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, was more likely to stir my interest than Oliver Stone’s forgettable Alexander).  College is where I really started to appreciate film and had the resources available to explore different genres and directors.  My interest in film continued to grow after college when I discovered the astonishingly beautiful and well-preserved theaters in the Detroit area.  Cinematheques like the Redford Theatre, Detroit Film Theatre and even the new Burton Theatre have changed my taste in cinema so completely that even I have a hard time believing it.  Looking at my top films of 2009, I now realize that only a handful–Avatar, The International, The Hangover and possibly Whatever Works–could really be considered mainstream.  With that said, I am still the first to watch (and re-watch) a good blockbuster when it comes out.  I watched the latest James Bond adventure, Quantum of Solace, at a midnight screening, saw Avatar opening night and plan to see the next big 2010 release–Clash of the Titans–the minute it is released to the multiplexes.

What, then, does this all mean?  It means that even though my taste in movies has undergone a massive transformation over the past few years, my love of big event, epic, Star Wars-style movies still remains strong, thanks in part to the second part of Background Influence.  Whether it is walking a block to the local one-screen independent theater, driving to the nearest cineplex or just simply watching movies on TV, how an individual watches movies throughout their life is an essential part in determining their overall enjoyment of a particular film.

To sum it up (and kudos to anyone that has made it this far in the post): I liked Avatar because somewhere deep inside of me was ingrained a love for big budget action pictures.  The films I watched when I was young, combined with a variety of other environmental factors (i.e. the distance, length of time between watching movies in a theater, etc.) create a sort of heightened moviegoing experience, one in which the concept of Background Influence adds to the already high level of excitement surrounding a film like Avatar.

My Commentary on Avatar

Quite honestly, I feel the argument over Avatar as political or social commentary is inane.  It doesn’t really tell us anything that we didn’t know (humans are destroying the environment, war is bad, white people still feel guilty about horrible things they did over the course of human history, everyone roots for the underdog) and when it does give the viewer a message, it bludgeons them with it.  In my (very limited) experience, unless a film is a non-fiction documentary, subtly is often the best way to convey commentary on a subject (example: George Romero’s 1968 film Night of the Living Dead ).  With that said, Avatar is the pinnacle of cinematic eye candy and deserves much of the acclaim it receives because of this fact.  No other film has turned attention to 3-D technology the way Avatar has.

I will leave you with this:  Even though I put Avatar on my list of favorite films of 2009 and consider it an extremely important film, it is NOT the best film of the year.  When I watched Avatar for the first time, I was astonished by the beauty of the world the filmmakers were able to create.  The vibrant colors, seamless use of 3-D and James Horner’s fitting score, made it truly an experience for the senses.  The second time I watched the film, my brain kicked in.  I still enjoyed the sights and sounds, but I was also able to concentrate on the dialogue and more closely examine elements of the story.  The plot–a “classic” David vs. Goliath showdown between the Na’vi and the humans–does borrow liberally from other stories (Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas and…dont laugh…FernGully), but it is the shaky (and sometimes clichéd) dialogue that keeps it from reaching “Film of the Year” status.  In the post-Return of the King Oscar era, the only blockbuster that had the elements necessary to win Best Picture–and was ultimately snubbed–was The Dark Knight.  Here was a movie that had a tight script, epic story, great music and an actor (Heath Ledger) that carried the film, as opposed to Avatar, where many times (the exception being Sigourney Weaver) the film carried the actors.  Slumdog Millionare deserved to win the Oscar for Best Picture in 2009, but had The Dark Knight been on a Avatar-like release schedule (building up hype before awards season), we might be examining this year under a different light.

For an interesting compilation of themes in Avatar, be sure and check out this New York Times article: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/opening-pandoras-box-the-arguments-over-avatar

Just finished watching The Book of Eli at Emagine Novi, so I want to post about the film while it is still fresh in my mind.  Denzel Washington plays Eli, a man on a 30-year, God-inspired quest to find the West Coast and bring the last bible on earth to people that desperately need its message.  Along the way, he stumbles across a town oppressed by the evil Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who, as it happens, is also looking for a bible–albeit for less noble purposes.  For the cliff notes version, think of the film like this: A stylish, pious, post-apocalyptic western.

The Book of Eli works mainly because it incorporates all of these elements, but it’s at its best when it borrows from westerns.  As Eli strolls into town, people stop their activity to gaze upon the stranger.  Its as if a new sheriff just walked into town.  Later, after a tense gun battle in which Eli slays more than just a few of the town goons, the camera pans to show tough-guy Redridge (Ray Stevenson) still standing showdown style in the middle of road.  The film doesn’t use Sergio Leone-style closeups, but it’s obvious who star of the film is.  With the exception of a few scenes, the camera never strays too far from Mr. Washington.

While the beginning of the film might seem eerily familiar to moviegoers who caught the much-delayed (and in my opinion, overrated) John Hillcoat film, The Road (read the book instead), the stylish elements presented by the director-duo Hughes Brothers keep the film from going too far down that path.  The forest where Eli hunts his meal at the start of the film has a green tint, something that is continued later in the sky and clouds.  This effect gives the world in The Book of Eli a surreal and alien feel, an element that other post-apocalyptic films attempt by simply shrouding everything in darkness.  At other times–like when Eli is ambushed under a bridge–the film almost has a comic book feel to it,  with Eli shrouded in shadow as he fights.  The film also has a quirky side, as demonstrated by the encounter Eli and Solara (Mila Kunis) have with George (Michael Gambon, known to the rest of the world as Albus Dumbledore) and his wife Martha, an elderly couple with a thing for guns and tea.

The only issue I really have with the film is Mila Kunis.  Don’t get me wrong–I think she is a fine actress–but she just seems a little too shiny for a post-apocalyptic world.  Gun battles, desert sand and even a car accident never deter Kunis from providing audiences with perfect hair and stylish aviator sunglasses to boot.  The movie could have been greatly enhanced with someone known for grittier performances, as the Solara character plays an interesting role in initially detouring Eli’s divine journey.

While it doesn’t hold up when compared to other similar films in the post-apocalyptic genre (see Children of Men and 28 Days Later), the mishmash of elements and a surprising plot twist help make The Book of Eli fresh enough to check out again when it hits DVD.

At long last…the mergemovies Favorite Films of 2009!  Enjoy this list of some great films I was able to catch on my cinema travels over the past year:

12 – Theater: Detroit Film Theatre (Detroit, Michigan)

The first movie I ever watched at the Detroit Film Theatre (DFT) and the reason I came back for a second visit (aside from the DFT being an amazing venue).  12 is a Russian remake of the classic American film 12 Angry Men.  Just as in the original, the film features a lone juror standing up against a majority, only this time the legal implications are tied in with some rather sticky moral dilemmas as well.  The film manages not only to make each and every character interesting, but also highlights the cultural anxieties and prejudices that run through Russian society.  Although the original 12 Angry Men is an undisputed classic, in this instance, director Nikita Mikhalkov took the themes from the original and improved upon them by adding additional layers of depth and complexity to the source material.

Avatar – Theater: AMC Livonia 20 (Livonia, Michigan)

I plan on expanding a little bit on Avatar in a future post, but for now I will briefly sum it up like this: regardless of your take on the film’s themes, (take your pick of the myriad that are presented) it is a cinema event unlike anything the world has ever seen.  James Cameron has managed to integrate 3-D into a movie so seamlessly that for the first time ever, it feels natural to watch movies this way.  And regardless of the claims made by naysayers that the plot is simply a combination of other films (Star Wars and Dances with Wolves are the two that I have heard most frequently), the story actually feels like a classic (albeit familiar) tale as opposed to rehashed concept.  This movie has possibly (for better or for worse) changed the future of moviegoing, both at the cineplex and in the home.  Evidence of this can be found in announcements made this past week by television manufactures and the Blu-ray Disc Association detailing the push to incorporate 3-D technology into new TVs (Television Begins a Push Into the 3^rd Dimension, New York Times, 1/5/2010).  So in a few years when you are lounging in your recliner enjoying a 3-D image in your living room, remember, Avatar had a hand in making it possible.

Bright Star – Theater: Emagine Novi (Novi, Michigan)

This film is probably the biggest surprise on my list.  I was absolutely blown away by the acting, particularly that of Abby Cornish as Frances “Fanny” Brawne.  To create a story about the love between two people, something that just oozes passion without so much as a kiss for the majority of the film, is a testament to the performances of the actors and the excellent direction from Jane Campion (The Piano).  When I say this film centers on a love story, I mean that as a complete understatement.  Bright Star is a love story so pure that it makes run-of-the-mill $3.99 rom-coms (yes I mean you The Ugly Truth) blush with embarrassment and even makes something like Titanic seem tame.  Focusing on the short three-year romance between poet John Keats (Ben Wishaw) and Fanny Brawne (Cornish), the film can’t be said to be about anything but love.  The passion that is so evident between Keats and Brawne was best desribed by New York Times film critic A.O. Scott in his At the Movies review: “Wishsaw and Cornish barely touch and never disrobe, but the sexual charge between them is palpable and feverish.”  The film is also visually stunning with excellent period costumes, lush greenery and vibrant flowers, all which seem to enhance the poetry read by Keats.  Aside from being one of my favorite films this year, it is also my vote for “most likely to get the shaft” during award season.

The Hangover – Theater: Emagine Novi (Novi, Michigan)

Bachelor Party.  Vegas.  Missing Friend.  Missing Teeth.  Tiger.  Chicken.  Baby.  Stripper.  Police Cruiser.  Hospital.  Mike Tyson.  Naked guy jumping out of car.

The list above contains just a few of the ingredients for a pure, unadulterated and unabashed comedy, and as it happens, one of the funniest movies to be released in 2009.  Part bro-bonding adventure (think Superbad) and part reverse mystery (think How I Met Your Mother, the “Pineapple Incident” episode), The Hangover lives up to every part of its R-rating and has fun doing it.

The International – Theater: Emagine Novi (Novi, Michigan)

The International knows its strengths and sticks to them, as evident in the film’s teaser poster that features the Guggenheim Museum in the background.  Serving as the site for one of the most blazingly intense gun battles found in any movie this year, the museum for all practical purposes should probably be listed as a character in the credits alongside Clive Owen and Naomi Watts.  Aside from building up to and crafting an excellent action scene, director Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) and writer Eric Singer have created a surprisingly timely tale about corruption in the international banking world (what is more astonishing is the bank in The International is based loosely on a real-life bank).  Clive Owen plays Interpol Agent Louis Salinger and Naomi Watts plays Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Eleanor Whitman as they go deep down the investigative rabbit hole into a world of money laundering, arms trading and destabilization of governments.  It was one of the first movies I saw in 2009 and was one that stuck with me the rest of the year.

It’s Not Me, I Swear! – Theater: Detroit Film Theatre (Detroit, Michigan)

Part Les quatre cents coups (The 400 Blows) and part Home Alone, It’s Not Me, I Swear! provides a simultaneously heart wrenching and comic look into the life of 10-year-old Léon Doré, a boy growing up in a troubled 1960s  Montreal suburb.  Thievery, vandalism and general mayhem are all part of Leon’s repertoire, but even at his worst, Léon is someone the audience can almost always sympathize with and, at times, even root for.  This film, hands down, packed the biggest emotional punch of anything I watched this year and judging from the audience (people were literally in tears) had the same effect on almost everyone that had the opportunity to view it.  When I watched the film at the Detroit Film Theatre as part of the Windsor International Film Festival’s outreach to American audiences, I was fortunate enough to hear an introduction to the film from Bruno Hebert, the author of the book upon which the film is based.  In his intro, Hebert explained there is a very fine line between the juvenile and the delinquent (referring to the nature of Léon’s character), something the author felt the film conveyed correctly to the audience.  The film deals with a variety of heavy issues including suicide, family dynamics, adolescence and the fragile psychological state that children can find themselves in.  However the real stars of the film and the reason it shines is the performance of Antoine L’Ecuyer as Léon and Catherine Faucher as Léa.  How an actor and actress so young can convey such complex emotions so naturally is beyond me.  In fact, the performances were so engrossing and the adventures (and tragedies) of Léon so gripping that by the end, I had forgotten the movie was entirely in subtitles.

Moon – Theater: Main Art (Royal Oak, Michigan)

To give a point of reference, the closest thing I can compare Moon to is Danny Boyle’s foray into sci-fi, Sunshine.  I say this more to convey the fact that Moon is an original sci-fi story rather than point out any plot similarities (which there are few, if any).  Duncan Jones directs and Sam Rockwell stars in the film, which features astronaut Sam Bell (Rockwell) as the lone astronaut on a moon base, placed on our celestial neighbor for the sole purpose of extracting some much needed helium-3 (a key element in the continued effort for clean energy we are told).  There are a couple of impressive things about this film.  The first is that it marks the feature length directorial debut of Jones.  The second is the fact that it was filmed entirely on a bare-bone, 5 million dollar budget (1/60^th of what it cost to make Avatar).  While I loved Avatar, Moon is a throwback to the sci-fi films of old (2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Alien) when the story blew moviegoers minds just as much as the special effects did.  The voice of Kevin Spacy is perfect for the helpful (and ultimately less malevolent than other sci-fi computers audiences have come to know) GERTY and Sam Rockwell gives one of the better acting performances of the year.

O’ Horton – Theater: Detroit Film Theatre (Detroit, Michigan)

From the moment the train sped across the wintry Norwegian landscape in the opening sequence of O’Horten, I knew the film was going to be something special.  Director Bent Hamer crafts a quiet and subtle tale about Odd Horten, a train engineer on the eve of his retirement after 40 years of service.  As we follow Odd through a series of post-retirement adventures (perhaps mishaps is a more appropriate word), the film shows us just how quirky and interesting this thing called life can be.  The film may not seem like much at first, but its imagery, themes, music (composed by the Norwegian group Kaada) and characters will stay with you long after the theater screen or television has gone dark.

Still Walking – Theater: Detroit Film Theatre (Detroit, MI)

A conversation about food.  Recalling stories of loved ones past.  Children innocently playing outdoors.  Worries about the future.  These routine activities may seem trivial and prosaic for a film, but it is with these mundane and ordinary details that Still Walking draws viewers into its world, a 24-hour snapshot in the life of the Yokoyama family.  I dare someone to watch this movie and not remember moments from their own family get-togethers.  Although the film is set in Japan and the characters follow traditions that may not be familiar with American viewers, the movie captures the joys, annoyances and idiosyncrasies that can arise in families so well that it transcends any cultural barriers.

Tulpan – Theater: Detroit Film Theatre (Detroit, Michigan)

As Roger Ebert put it in his review of Tulpan, “there has to come a time in everyone’s life when they see a deadpan comedy about the yurt dwellers of Kazakhstan.”  When I first watched Detroit Film Theatre curator Elliot Wilhelm give this introduction to the film, he billed it as part love story, something I used to convince my fiancée to accompany me.  Hindsight is 20-20 and, while I might owe her countless romantic comedies and chick flicks for making her watch a subtitled film where the closest thing to action is chasing down sheep, I left the theater amazed at what I had witnessed.  Like Still Walking, Tulpan is able to transcend culture and demonstrate that families have some of the same concerns, hopes and dreams as everyone else, regardless of their place in the world.  Whether you’re a struggling college student trying to figure out what to do with your life or a young man like Asa (the main character of Tulpan), who struggles with the decision to abandon the life he had dreamed about for so long, everyone is united by a common humanity.  This theme—a common humanity—is what makes the film so memorable and why it is one of my favorite films of 2009.

Whatever Works - Theater: Penn Theater (Plymouth, Michigan)

Disclaimer: This movie will mentally exhaust you.  After years of watching action films and special effect extravaganzas, something like Whatever Works is almost like boot camp for the moviegoer brain.  In the very first scene, director Woody Allen sets the stage for what to come when Boris Yelnikoff (Larry David) breaks the fourth wall and launches into a rant aimed specifically at the audience.  Be prepared for a lot of dialogue, material that is preachy, funny and a little crazy—what else would you expect from Woody Allen?  When pissed-at-the-world Boris finds the runaway (and forever optimistic) Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Even Rachel Wood) at his doorstep, he reluctantly agrees to take her in.  The innocent charm of Melodie grows on Boris and despite their vast intellectual (and age) differences, get married.  What this extremely short and vague description lacks is the hilarity that ensues almost from the get-go and the message the film provides for its audience: we may live in a crazy, chaotic and random world, so sometimes you just have to accept things the way they are and keep on living with whatever works!

See this picture above?  This is the reason why the website has been neglected over the past few weeks.  Since mid-September, I have been attending a film class that meets weekly down at the Detroit Film Theatre (DFT).  Attached to the Detroit Institute of Arts, the DFT specializes in films that you probably won’t see anywhere else in Michigan (and very few places in the Midwest).  Besides getting to watch some GREAT films and kicking it one of the coolest film venues in Michigan, this class has really opened my eyes to what the moviegoing experience is all about and, on a more personal note, made me reevaluate what I want to do with my future (aka grad school).  Because my grade in the class is based primarily on the papers I write, I have been churning out film analysis instead of articles for the website.  The class is winding down, so I should have an elaborate look at the theater, as well as select segments from some of the analysis I have been working on soon.

Until next time, I leave you with a short quote from Laila’s Birthday, a Palestinian film that I watched twice this weekend and has really stuck with me despite its short 71-minute run time.

But if I cannot understand it myself…how could he understand?  How do you manage my friend?” -Palestinian man talking to his donkey and Abu Laila about the chaos that surrounds him after a missile explosion nearby.