Big Momma and Madea

Does it disturb anyone else that there are two movies out (Big Momma's House 2 and Madea's Family Reunion) featuring black men masquerading as heavyset older black women? What is this about?

I didn't see Big Momma's House (and I'm planning not to). I did see, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, which is where the character "Madea" (a bastardization of "My Dear") originated. The latter film was an adaptation of Tyler Perry's "chitlin' circuit" stage play. (Perry is a wonder--he's produced, written and directed several plays with Madea and made a ton of money doing it. HIs acting isn't bad either.)

There is a difference. In Big Momma's House, the masquerade is part of the plot. The man playing Big Momma knows he is a man. I'm assuming this is the less interesting film because such impersonations as plot devices are tiresome (Mrs. Doubtfire, anyone? In fact, I under stand that in the sequel, Big Momma poses as a nanny!)

The Madea character is a woman, not a man in drag. The actor playing Madea is a man. As far as the plot is concerned, Madea is a woman.

I'm just wondering why there are no black women who can play these parts--or at least Madea's part. And why are men originating the characters? Are they vaguely reminiscent of Hattie McDaniel's mammy from Gone with the Wind? Maybe. That character was subservient (but she was a servant), almost childlike creature--though she was superior to many of those around her. Madea, at least, is a confident, funny, self-reliant woman. She is a caretaker and she also knows her own mind. She was one of the best things about Diary of a Mad Black Woman, since the main plot was pure wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Now Madea gets her own movie. Good for her/him, I guess.

---

Here are my impressions of Diary of a Mad Black Woman, which I saw almost exactly a year ago today:

DMBW is an adaptation, by the original author, of a very popular play on the “chitlin’ circuit.” These are broad morality plays aimed at an African-American audience. Indeed, that is the audience that was drawn to the movie theater. Union Station has the only theater in NE DC, and usually has a high percentage of African-Americans in attendance, but for this film, I was the only white person in the audience. I’ve been the only white person on the bus in DC many times, but in the movie theater? This was a unique experience. I also did not seem to be the only solo viewer of the film. The audience had the full age range, and there were quite a few men, but there were also a large number of African-American women “of a certain age” on their own or in groups.

How was the film? It was maudlin and funny and sweet. The subplots were more compelling than the main story, whose characters and actions were cut out of cardboard. I can’t really recommend this picture, but it was entertaining. Some of it was very, very funny. The Christianity was heavy—but also realistic. The best outcome for heroine could only be achieved if she got divorced and forgave her ex-husband. (Guess what happened?) The audience was into it, yelling advice at the heroine, deriding some of her decisions and hollering approval at others. They laughed, they commented, they were part of the show. It is my understanding that the same thing happens at live performances on the chitlin’ circuit. Actually, the hootin’ and hollerin’ phenomenon is common at Union Station, and I have friends who refuse to go there for just that reason. As long as you are prepared for it, it’s fine. For DMBW, it was completely appropriate—perhaps it was the whole point.

Transamerica (2005)

Written and Directed by Duncan Tucker

Partial cast
Felicity Huffman......Bree Osbourne
Kevin Zegers.............Toby

I was planning to see something else, but ended up at Transamerica. I figured I'd be getting one more off of my Oscar ™hit list, so that was something. Felicity Huffman grabbed a best actress nomination for her portrayal of a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual. Given that Huffman has a kind of ugly/pretty face to begin with she's probably a good choice, looks-wise, for this part. She is also a good actress, Desperate Housewives notwithstanding.

Was it a good movie? I'm torn. A lot of it was forced and stilted. A lot of it was sweet and good natured. It didn't shy away from some real ugliness (drug addiction, sexual abuse). It didn't try to pretty things up. Yet, the mostly happy ending was perhaps a little too easy. The transformation, of the heroine, a literal and emotional one, came a little too easy.

I have no idea if Huffman's performance was believable. I haven't met any pre-op transsexuals (at least to my knowledge) so I have no frame of reference. I suppose I would cheer more if I saw a man take on this role, but it's a casting dilemma. I keep thinking of John Lithgow in The World According to Garp. He was a very masculine post-op transsexual. I don't remember if I found him convincing in the role, but it sure made a lot more sense.

Nevertheless, Huffman does a good job. And the costume designer was brilliant. Only a man would think that those outfits were something a woman would wear. Like with transvestites in show-girl-esque drag, Huffman's outfits are a hyper-feminized version of how even a prissy woman would dress. The only colors on display were violet, pink and purple. Oh my. And the shoes! Hilariously ridiculous.

Kevin Zegers, who plays her son, was good. Handsome, awkward and conniving. He was convincing too.

I don't know. This was a sweet bit of nothing built on a very ugly foundation. Guess you can turn anything into pap if you try hard enough. Ouch. I guess I didn't like it that much. Still, it was not boring and I enjoyed watching it. I give a lukewarm recommendation.

Something New (2006)

Directed by Sanaa Hamri

Writing credits
Kriss Turner

Partial cast
Sanaa Lathan....Kenya McQueen
Simon Baker.....Brian

While this is technically a romantic comedy, it takes serious aim at racial issues. Which is good. A good romance needs a little conflict, and while this conflict is easily resolved, it is real and interesting. Interesting because I think that it is not confronted very often in film.

A fellow blogger had a great post about why this movie is particularly meaningful for black women. I'd say it's just as important for the rest of us--the movie does a great job of showing why interracial romance is difficult. It's not just because family and friends aren't accepting and night club comedians take pot shots at you--though that doesn't help. The real problems is that it's almost impossible for a white person to understand the casual and overt racism a black person faces in her day-to-day life.

The story is a simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plot. Simon Baker does a fine job despite some unforgivably stiff lines. The effort to make him seem artistic and sensitive as a contrast to Kenya's (Sanaa Lathan) buttoned-up accountant sometimes fell flat--his dialogue needed some work. But, it wasn't hard to buy. The falling in love happened rather too quickly, but it was a slow process in movie-time. It was in the believable realm.

The losing of the girl happens because the boy won't listen to her frustrated complaints about how hard it is for her to advance in the corporate world because she is black (though she does advance). He is tired and doesn't want to hear it. He accuses her of having an ideal man in mind (an "Ideal Black Man" or IBM as Kenya's friends refer to him) and points out that he will never measure up. And they are kaput--at least temporarily.

It is one of the most believable movie breakups I can remember. The substance of their argument is so real. It's not fun to watch (a tiny bit of humor is thrown in to ease the viewer), but you can't blame either one--they both have legitimate points and either one of them could have given. The resolution to their problem takes a little time to roll around, not that you don't see it coming a mile away. It's rather sweet that Kenya's friends and family are won over in the end--it's more important to them that she's happy than that she marry a black man. And they let her know that it's ok to choose love. It's really very sweet.

So, besides liking romantic comedies, I also really like the male lead in this film. At least I thought I did. I used to watch this little show called The Guardian starring Simon Baker. I loved Simon Baker. Now, I think I loved his character on that show. On the show, he was brooding, unhappy, unavailable, tormented. He was a bad man trying very hard to be good. Sometimes he succeeded, but often he backslid.

In Something New, Brian (Simon Baker) is sweet and open. He's rather more blonde and blue-eyed than I recalled. It's not that he's not loveable, but I didn't love him anymore. Who knew I preferred tortured, lost souls to contented, self-assured ones? Uh, me and everyone I know, that's who.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Directed by Ang Lee

Writing credits
Annie Proulx (short story)
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana (screenplay)

Partial Cast
Heath Ledger....Ennis Del Mar
Jake Gyllenhaal....Jack Twist

I have to agree with everyone that this is a good movie, but I'm not sure I would recommend it.

It certainly was a well made movie. The photography is among the most gorgeous I've seen in recent memory. It almost touches the graceful vistas of Days of Heaven. The opening scene of a wind battered tiny, empty western town is so beautifully framed that it makes the ugliness--the rusted trucks and dumpy buildings--seem beautiful.

The pacing of the film is also excellent. One of the hardest things to do in a film is convey the passage of time. At least a third of the film is devoted to one summer. The rest of the movie spans almost 20 years. Yet you are always situated in time. It's not always subtle, but it's clear and believable. (Some may quibble with the make-up used to age the actors. I admit that in the scene where Jake Gyllenhaal appeared with an obviously fake moustache and a tiny gut, I couldn’t suppress a twitter. Heath Ledger's make up was much better.)

The acting is very good all around. Heath Ledger is so good that he almost made me cry before I even knew there was anything to be sad about. I didn't love Jake Gyllenhaal as much, but his character, Jack Twist, isn't as likeable--his acting was just as fine. The women in the supporting roles are also quite good. And the folks who play Jake's elderly parents are totally believable.

So how was the film? Sad. When it ended, I remarked to one of my companions that I thought I would just go ahead and kill myself now. It was all hopeless and completely believable. Those people were so stuck, not just because of society, but because of their own beliefs...I just found it incredibly disheartening. And sad, terribly sad.

The scenery is gorgeous, the filmmaking is high quality and the acting first rate. Should you see it? I don't know. Can you handle the saddest little movie in the world? I sure couldn't. And I don't know that I learned anything either--gay men face prejudice? I knew that. They sometimes cause their own problems by not coming out of the closet? Check. Sometimes the consequences of coming out of the closest are dire? Check. Sometimes coming out is not an option.

But the movie is not trying to teach you those lessons. You need to understand that stuff to know why these two star-crossed lovers are, in fact, star-crossed. But even in Romeo and Juliet there is a sense of "if only." If only Romeo waited a few minutes longer for Juliet to wake up, if only their families weren't so stupid...if only.

In Brokeback Mountain, there was no "if only." Well, if only those fellas had lived in New York City, they might have lived happily ever after. Except these were two cowboys who never would have been happy living in the city. Except they both wanted families. There wasn't that much "if only," which is why it made me so sad. I guess I need a little ray of hopefulness in my hopeless love stories or I'd rather not watch.

The moral? I can't handle sad movies anymore. Bring on the light, preferably romantic, comedy.

Match Point (2005)

Written and Directed by Woody Allen

Partial Cast
Jonathan Rhys Meyers......Chris Wilton
Brian Cox.............................Alec Hewett
Penelope Wilton.................Eleanor Hewett
Emily Mortimer..................Chloe Hewett Wilton
Scarlett Johansson..............Nola Rice

The second half of this review is FULL of spoilers. I'll warn you ahead of time though, but use caution if you haven't seen the film yet. It requires some suspense to be fully enjoyed.

I feared this movie would be a disappointment. It wasn't, not really. I didn't love it, though. I found it thoroughly mean spirited and lacking in human kindness. I'd heard some glowing one-line reviews, but I'd tried not to read anything about the picture. This is definitely "late" Woody Allen. It deals with issues of marriage and fidelity and the approach is close to humorless. Funny lines are spoken but the tone of the film is grave and dour.

The hero (later to become the anti-hero) is played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers, who I thought was supposed to be something of a fox. I whispered to my companion, "He's not very good looking." She agreed and said that he can be handsome or ugly depending on the film. That's probably true--he has one of those flexible faces. In this film, however, he was not handsome.

Early in the film he embarks on a mild campaign of self-improvement, reading Dostoevsky (foreshadowing) and listening to opera. You don't know whether his efforts are sincere or calculated. In fact, the answer to that question is never resolved though I think it's easy to lean towards calculated, both answers are possible.

Chris seems to be getting along swimmingly with an upper-class girlfriend and her family when he meets the woman who threatens to be his undoing, one Miss Scarlett Johansson. She is engaged to his girlfriend's brother. Their meeting is played nicely over a ping-pong table. Tennis pro that he is, he stomps her and she handles it...smoothly.

I expected not to like Nola, the character Johansson plays, because previews led me to believe she was a one-note seductress. That is not at all the case. Until she is transformed into a shrieking harpy at the end of the film she is probably the most sympathetic character. She is complicated, confused, strong and vulnerable. A rather more sympathetic female character than Allen usually lets into his later works.

But things spiral out of control in the second half of the picture.

SPOILER ALERT.






After the affair of Chris and Nola starts to go wrong, the film turns to one of Allen's favorite later tropes: murder and mystery. Though we have the inside knowledge, we don't know what the outcome will be--that is, will he get away with it.

Some viewers may find themselves rooting for the anti-hero as he commits a heinous crime. I found myself cringing and thinking, "No, no, no. Stop now. There is still time to stop." Later, when an Inspector (British style detective) sits straight up in bed inspired by the solution to the crime, I was cheering for him. But he is foiled by a very clever plot twist that looked like it would be Chris's undoing and turned out to be his salvation.

In this movie, the bad guy wins, the innocents suffer or remain ignorant and life goes on. It left me a little queasy.

Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Directed by Otto Preminger, starring Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney. I had never heard of it before, but it was showing at the AFI Silver, so I decided to check it out. It was a good film, though not a great film, which might be the reason. It was no Laura though. Tierney's performance is relatively tiny, though I lover her no matter what. She has almost perfect features, a perfect figure and that silly "Broadway British" diction. She is almost unreal in a way no modern star is. Maybe Faye Dunaway in years past comes closest.

The real draw for me, though, was Dana Andrews. I really love Dana Andrews. Is it because he's not quite as well known today as other stars of his era (1940's-50's)? I don't know how well he was known in his time. But I adore him. The Best Years of Our Lives? Great stuff, I tell you.

He was very good in this. Lots of close-ups and lots of showing. Except for the ending, which was satisfying, but whoever was in charge felt the need to make explicit a few things that were better left to the imagination.

Still, I enjoyed the film. The black and while was gritty and realistic looking, even though the plot was almost but not quite believable.

Definitely glad I saw it.

Last Holiday (2006)

This was not a good movie, not even close, but it was enjoyable, amusing and except for the pat ending, easy to watch (i.e. not cringe-inducing).

I will watch almost anything with Queen Latifa. Unfortunately most of her parts are crap, but she is one of the most commanding presences in contemporary film. I'm not kidding. She is so likeable that she brings joy to almost any role. She seems to be specializing in under appreciated these days, which is a tad absurd. You look at her and it's hard to imagine that this woman, even as a girl, was ever under appreciated. Maybe that's why it works. It's a little joke between her and the audience. You watch, knowing, that in the end she will be the most appreciated person on screen. She will get the man, make the money and fix everyone else's problems. She will never apologize for her color, her size or her gender. We know, she knows, but no one else in the movie does and we get to watch while they learn to appreciate her.

Oddly, her performance in Last Holiday was muted throughout. She begins the film as a painfully shy, sensible shoe wearing retail sales clerk. At the end, she is an international woman of mystery. Yet, she was so quite, so soft spoken, even after her transformation, that I wondered when she was going to shout, guffaw or burst into song. Her performance was an exercise in control and subtlety, which was completely unnecessary in this film. What is Ms. Latifah trying to prove? She is still likeable, though.

I hope she finds a worthier project soon. These lightweight, "feel-good" pictures of hers are killing me.

Yours, Mine and Ours (2005)

I'm afraid there may be something seriously wrong with me because I want to see Yours, Mine and Ours. It has to be bad, doesn't it? Probably full of toilet humor and poorly executed slapstick. Maybe I want to see it because I have a soft spot for the original, which starred Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball. I don't know if my friends realize that I like family-themed films. My mom knows and she doesn't understand. But how can you not like With Six You Get Eggroll, The Parent Trap, or Look Who's Talking? These aren't necessarily good movies, nor are they movies I would put on my Netflix© cue, but if any of them come on TV, I can't turn them off. I sit there and watch to the bitter end each and every time. I'm afraid not even the little sister (not my actual sister) may be willing to sit through this one with me. If I have to go alone, I will. You know what they say: the heart wants what the heart wants. My heart wants to see Dennis Quaid and a million little kids running around. (Oddly, I do not find the remake of Cheaper by the Dozen appealing in the least. The original was ok.)

The appeal of these films, and similar tv shows, is that somehow these wacky blended families make it work. The are meant to be together, they find happiness and the kids all love each other. Or, in the case of "The Parent Trap"it was all a big misunderstanding and true love conquers all. It also provided wish fulfillment: I always wanted a twin sister.

---

I finally went to see "Yours, Mine and Ours" with work friend, Nancy. It turns out that Nancy has the same love of blended family type of films (and the same complete lack of interest in Cheaper by the Dozen, despite the presence of Steve Martin) as I do. Don't know what her excuse is, she comes from an intact family.

We went to see it at Union Station. As we walked to our theater, we were a little concerned by the mobs of small children surrounding us. Apparently, they were all there to see Narnia or Harry Potter because we had the theater completely to ourselves. We chatted and heckled loudly through the entire film. I had very, very low expectations and was completely satisfied by the experience. A pig played a supporting role in the film causing me to say more than once, "Everything is funnier with a pig."

Syriana (2005)

I'm sure Syriana is a fine movie (or maybe not), but all I cared about was getting to the non-subtitled parts so I could close my eyes. Perhaps it wasn't the best movie to see on almost no sleep. I have to say that it doesn't speak well for the film that it didn't get me to perk up at all. And I didn't like it enough to see it again.

I was expecting a satisfyingly complicated plot. I like that. This plot--well, it wasn't complicated as much as it was opaque. I'm not even sure what the point was. To figure that out, I'd need to see it again. And I don't want to. My buddy, Spesh, who is the Political Commissar for film (meaning he decides whether a film has good politics and I argue with him about it), was disappointed in its politics, but I'm not sure why. The Commissar doesn't need to explain his opinions. I was just disappointed. Those high expectations will get you every time.

Walk the Line (2005)

I liked Walk the Line. Reese Witherspoon's performance was one of the best things about the movie. She always good, even when the movie she's in is crap. In this case, she picked a good movie and made it better. She is an interesting actresses to watch, mostly because of the underlying intelligence she brings to every role. Joaquin Phoenix was no slouch either and had the lost, sexy appeal of the real Johnny Cash.

A choice bit of dialogue:
Johnny Cash (to Sam Phillips): Do you have a problem with the Air Force?
Sam Phillips: No.
Johnny Cash: Well, I do.
Cash sings "Folsom Prison Blues" and you get exactly how much he hated being in the Air Force.

The movie is full of light, small touches--and some bombastic ones too. A good amount of time is devoted to showing Phoenix and Witherspoon perform, but their chemistry is as palpable on stage as off, so it works. They did all their own voice work and it was the right way to go. There is nothing inventive or unique in the plot or structure of this bio-pic, but the leads are enchanting and watchable.

The best part of the movie is that it does a lot of showing and little telling. Not much time is wasted on exposition, you are plunged right into the action. The technique allows us to connect the dots, but the guiding hand of the director doesn't leave much room for drawing the wrong conclusions.

Cash was an imperfect man who never pretended to be anything else. His story is worth seeing for that reason alone.

Shop Girl (2005)

Directed by Anand Tucker
Written by Steve Martin

Cast
Claire Danes: Mirabelle
Steve Martin: Ray Parker
Jason Schwartzman: Jeremy

The story is simple. A young women works at the glove counter at Saks in Los Angeles. She is bored. She is from Vermont, which seems to be the explanation for any of her un-L.A. like behavior. She is also an unprolific but talented artist.

She meets Jeremy in the laundry mat. She meets Ray Parker at work. Each of them woos her. Jeremy in a awkward and unsentimental way. Ray in a smooth, older guy way--with nice dinners at restaurants and overnight visits to a designer-furnished personality-free house.

The heart of this movie is cold. The people move around each other but they never touch. The core of the film is Mirabelle's relationship with Ray Parker. They have different ideas of what the relationship means. It's a common trope in all films about relationships. He wants something with no expectations and sex. She wants...well, it's never stated. There is one scene where she describes the relationship to her girlfriends--it's the only time we know that she has a life outside her apartment, Ray's house and Saks--and she seems giggly and excited about the potential of the new romance. But that's it. The rest of the time she says nothing, expects nothing from Ray and gladly accepts whatever he offers without asking for anything.

The film is about the way people don't connect. How sex ties them together, but only in an illusory way. It's an anomic, glum view of the world where real connections don't exist. The acting was fine, the film was slow and the message was vague. There is a happy ending but this is far from a happy film.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

I thought the acting was fantastic. I hate him, but Clint Eastwood is good. I like Hillary Swank, and though some of her dialog was creaky, she was a completely believable character. You felt the pain of these characters. And, did I mention Morgan Freeman? Outstanding. The only thing to criticize in this film was the ending, which was something less than believable. Some of the dialog and the transformation arc were problematic--but still, there was a good deal of humor, some touching pathos and those really fine performances. I didn't love it, but I sure liked a lot of things about it. I would recommend it.

In Good Company (2004)

I knew it wouldn't be great and it had some pretty serious flaws. Topher Grace is fantastic. His face is so fluid and expressive, slipping from sincere to slick to heartbroken in one wipe. He is young and adorable and I wonder if he'll get better looking as he ages, gets weathered, puts on a bit of weight. I prefer the slightly older mid-thirties look these days, but I could live with the extreme youthfulness of Topher (though a more pretentious nickname I can't imagine). Scarlett Johansson is also pretty fantastic. She's got a perfect body and a pretty, blank face--but it's that mouth, her lips that are the unavoidable focus of her face. I also love Dennis Quaid and the almost believably middle-aged Marg Helgenberger.

Unfortunately, the core of the movie is hollow. The theme is to find something in life that is meaningful to you and work at it. Choose to do what you love. That's a great theme and Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid) is the exemplar of it. A company man at the same sales job for 23 years, master of the soft sell, who true believes in his product. Great. But--he's an ad man. An AD MAN. And the movie is holding that up as the ideal job with meaning? Really? His product is ad space in a Sports Illustrated type of magazine--how, exactly, does advertising in Sports Illustrated make the world a better place? Or, is the movie simply saying that if you think advertising in Sports Illustrated makes the world a better place then you are a good person for selling the ad space. Sorry, doesn't track.

Also, Dan acts towards his daughter like a jealous boyfriend. Carter Duryea (Topher Grace), who is Dan's new boss after a corporate take-over, starts a secret affair with Dan's daughter, Alex. That it is secret at first makes sense, but the continuing secret doesn't. He's maybe six years older than she is (her age is not clear, she's either 18 or 20, so he's either 8 or 6 years older), which, while not exactly cool, hardly seems shocking. And, for God's sake, it's Scarlett Johansson, so she acts like she's 40, while seeming as innocent as a 5 year old. The minor dénouement of the picture happens when Dan follows Carter to an assignation with Alex--lunch in a fancy New York restaurant. Wow, that's pretty scandalous. Dan's question to his daughter is, "Are you sleeping with him?" Luckily, she's too smart to answer directly and eventually says, "Dad, what do you want me to say?" Dan then tells Carter to stand up and when Carter does Dan slugs him. Carter falls to the floor and professes his love for Alex. She runs out of the restaurant after her DAD! Is this bordering on incestuous or what?

If it were me, well, my dad might not like the guy and he would let me know, but punching him?? Ridiculous. But, when Carter says he loves Alex, I believed him. I didn't believe Dan punching him. I believed Alex running after Dad. And when Dan says he liked Alex better when she was five she responds, appropriately, that it is a terrible thing to say. One thing for the script--while not a good movie, they don't fool around trying to turn a clever phrase. The characters get to speak in pretty much regular human language, at least the middle class American version of it.

There is also an upside-down morality to the work-place story. Dan several times has the option of quitting in support of his (former) employees. He never does, but he is still heroisized. Maybe because he has two kids, a pregnant wife and a second mortgage he's not expected to make a sacrifice. At the end, when he is restored to his old job and rightful power, partially due to Carter's willingness to sacrifice his own job, he does NOTHING to save Carter. It takes Dan a whole month to offer Carter his job back.

What is the focus of this picture? The romance? The office? The bucolic suburb? The city versus the suburb? (Classic worn out trope of the bad city (NYU) versus the safe country (anonymous SUNY campus). Is it a coming of age story (Alex)? A redemption story (Carter)? A revenge story (Dan)? I like the idea of all of these themes floating around in the same picture, but this one doesn't figure out how to bring them together in a way that resonates.