Lame Mathematics

David Auburn brought his play “Proof” (2001) to the big screen in 2005, and boy was that a mistake. The story follows Catherine, a young woman (Gwyneth Paltrow) questioning her sanity after her genius father’s death; the brilliant mathematician Robert (Anthony Hopkins) who is seen only in hallucinations and flashbacks.  Catherine fears going crazy because she inherited the same mathematical genius present in her father.  Her sister Claire (Hope Davis) waltzes into the scene convinced that her little sister is nuts – and rapidly makes herself the most memorable character in the film. Claire’s annoying clinginess pushes Catherine to the edge. But it’s the doubting of her sanity and intellect that throws Catherine over.

Meet Hal (Jake Gyllenhal), a math student who is driven to discover the last evidence of sanity and brilliance in Catherine’s father in order to preserve the memory of his genius. Catherine offers him a proof from her father’s study – but here is the hitch - she was the one who wrote it.  This proof is world changing, life altering, astounding amazing brilliance. And everyone believes that she in no way could have had anything to do with it.

This is Catherine’s last straw. Clearly the trauma of taking care of her father in addition to her own debatable sanity has taken its toll. “How many days have I lost? How can I get back to the place where I started? I'm outside a house, trying to find my way in. But it is locked and the blinds are down, and I've lost the key, and I can't remember what the rooms look like or where I put anything. And if I dare go in inside, I wonder... will I ever be able to find my way out?”

Now, this movie potentially could have been something great. But the emphasis on the love story detracts from the quality of the film. After Catherine and Hal have their falling out, Catherine is left with nothing but her annoying sister and a grey future in New York. But at the end of the film Hal comes back in begging for Catherine’s forgiveness and love. This film about finding sanity turns into a weird romance. Catherine is vulnerable because her father just died and this grad student comes in and suddenly she becomes far too dependent on him. Alright, so Catherine does have some trouble trusting this smooth-talking math nerd, but in no time suddenly Hal becomes her long awaited love, a love who does not think that she is at all intelligent. Gyllenhall’s performance leaves the audience questioning his motives; does Hal believe it’s Catherine’s proof? Or does he like her even though she could be nuts but maybe he can piggy back off her brain?

 I have mixed feelings about turning plays into movies. Something gets lost –the flesh and blood immediacy of the stage becomes flattened on the big screen. Movies take away the imagination that comes from reading and someone else’s interpretation takes over. A play comes alive (literally) in way that is different from a movie; plays perform in three dimensions where actors can physically interact with the audience, the performance hinges on the execution of the actors skill and if they fail there is no play, so much depends not on the scenery and props but the ability of the cast to convey meaning through their actions. Movies are the same performance every time; there is a screen separating the audience from the world of the film. Don’t get me wrong – there are great films out there that have great vision. But the personal relationship that a reader can have with a play will always be compromised by the movie adaptation.

The story of the play is lost in the movie. “Proof” the play focused on a lost young woman, questioning her sanity after her father’s death. The movie, featuring big stars, turns the story of a young woman losing her father and replacing him with another man who will take care of her. This is a girl who has spent the last three years of her life taking care of her father- but in the movie she is portrayed as bratty kid who has lost a toy. For example, at her father’s funeral she screams “I am glad he’s dead.” Then she huffs off the stage like a child.

Anthony Hopkins stands out by illustrating a brilliantly crazy man. Truly a master of his craft, Hopkins is able to show the two different Roberts – the father that Catherine loves and his addle-brained counterpart. Gyllenhal barely makes an impression in the film, he is far too pretty of a man to be a math nerd but he is oh so good at being the love interest for a movie. Paltrow does a good job at playing a sulking, depressed teenager with a facial tick even though she is supposed to be playing a twenty-eight year old. Gyllenhal and Paltrow were just too cute for their roles, but without these big names this movie would not have made money.

Undoubtedly turning a play into a movie allows for a story to open up – the audience gets to see colorful sets plus the added bonus of musical cues that tell us how to feel. But when plays move on to the big screen compromises are made. Catherine ultimate loses out to Hollywood-ization and we have just another movie featuring a girl who can’t figure out her own problems and needs a man to fix everything. In this case, the math doesn’t add up.

Moving Between Worlds

On Sunday I checked out that new theater on 206 West 23^rd street in the city.  A place called the Irish Reparatory Theater. I picked up my ticket and walked in. They got a small, square stage with two walls. It’s a tight space, pretty intimate in the audience. I sat and waited for the lights to go black.

“Beyond the Horizon” is an example of typical Eugene O’Neill writing – he’s covering the middle class and its struggles with a tasty side dish of extreme family dysfunction. 

Here we have the Mayo family – father James (David Sitler) and son Andy (Rod Brogan) are real salt of the earth men, farmers who live with the land. The other brother, Rob (Lucas Hall), is the sickly dreamer about to go off to sea to fix his health and make a fortune.

In the first scene comes an admission of love from Ruth (Wrenn Schmidt), the only girl around. She makes her move – she tells Rob that she is in love with him. Ruth’s potential motivations are infinite; Rob could be her escape from farm life or his idealism gives her hope for the future. First clue that their relationship starts off pretty shakily is when Ruth admits “we’ve never really talked too much.”

Andy can’t handle Ruth choosing his brother over him. So he goes off to sea in Rob’s place. Lucky for him too. He has wide success in the world – breaking out of the middle class to become an almost millionaire in South America. But one taste of success and he gets greedy – Andy loses everything.

Rob and Ruth’s romance is short lived. His total devotion is eclipsed by her deteriorating affection. Rob is a terrible farmer – as the vitality of the farm diminishes so does Ruth’s love. Rob is no farmer, but he chooses the field and Ruth over going to sea. As soon as Ruth tells Rob she loves him, he instantly becomes whipped. She becomes an excuse for Rob to not go out into the wide world and he gets the romanticism of farm love. Problem: the farm deteriorates – Rob has no feel for the earth. And Ruth does a 180 and turns into a harpy. All through the play he suffers her nagging and her anger and coldness. But Rob never complains about the course of life that he chose.

This play is a synthesis of realistic and naturalistic theater. Realism during the 19^th century bases its drama in reality and common sense – the problems that the characters face are based on problems that followed the zeitgeist of the time. The zeitgeist primarily being made up of the struggling lower classes looking to survive, while the upper classes enjoy an opulent life style. O’Neill has written several plays about the plight of immigrants in America – which makes sense because he was writing during the prime of the naturalism movement. The naturalism movement took place during the 19^th and 20^th centuries, this style of play writing attempts to create a perfect illusion of reality.  

 These plays always have a central theme focusing on the inability of the lower classes to overcome socio-economic barriers to the upper classes. For example, in the play Andy and his father are used to struggling on the farm – which is why when Rob takes over, he lacking a green thumb, the farm fails. Andy, on the other hand, becomes successful in his farming endeavors in South America.

Overall the production was pretty good. Although keeping the play within the time frame of the nineteenth century was an interesting choice – it would have been a really creative move to put the play into a modern setting. Maybe replace the farm seen with a blue collar workers home, send Andy off to college and then have someone die of AIDs. The problem with the keeping this play in its current time period is that it becomes difficult to relate with the characters. No one who is going to see this play makes their living off farming, no one would contemplate become a sailor as a way to become wealthy. Most people with the time to see this play will be college students and people who can afford to spend an afternoon at the theater. While the acting and scenery is all very nice the audience is going to have trouble connecting with what is happening on stage.

However, if you’re going to see this play because Eugene O’Neill is a fantastic writer and a real shaper of the American style of play-writing, go for it. The sheer literary content of this play is fabulous – as an example of O’Neill’s early writing the potential of his writing is prevalent throughout the piece. 

Here's a love story.

Wristcutters: A Love Story.

Hold on, it’s not what you think.

It’s not about the act of suicide. It’s about finding love. And there is a happy ending.

          Let me talk about indie films before we get into “Wristcutters.” Indie films are these wonderful things that are made for a nickel with the potential to make millions. Indies color outside the lines – “Harold and Maude” toys with romances of the soul that exist outside the boundaries of age, “TiMER” shows us a world where someone can predict the exact moment their true love will simply walk into their life – a traumatizing thought if  the love of your life won’t meet you for fifty years. These movies star actors as equally skilled as those featured in the headlines, but never get taken to the prom by Disney or Castle Rock Entertainment. Straight to TV or DVD production kills these edgy films that have so much to offer.

Now back to “Wristcutters.”

Meet Zia (Patrick Fugit), he’s a boy, and he’s dead. He finds himself at the way-station of the afterlife after a traumatic break up. A place reserved specially for suicides. Zia finds that the afterlife is not much better than the real world - colors are bland, no one can smile and there are no flowers or stars, and yeah, you still have to work. His fellow suicides, including best friend Eugene (Shea Whigham), waste their lives away working mundane jobs and drinking away the night. The tone of this place is characterized by a bored Zia, who says one night “I’m not going out tonight. It just makes me depressed.” And Eugene replies wonderfully, “so what you gonna do? Kill yourself?”

(See it’s funny, because they are already dead).

After a while, Zia hears that his ex-girlfriend Desiree (Leslie Bibb) has recently committed suicide. Following his strong desire to be reunited with the girl that broke his heart, Zia persuades Eugene to help him find her. They pick up a hitchhiker, Mikal (Shannon Sossamon), a girl, also dead, who insists that her being there is a mistake and that she wants to see the People In Charge aka the P.I.C. so she can get back to real life. Mikal’s character is beautifully defined by this quote: “Who the hell likes being stuck in a place where you can't even smile? It's hot as balls, everybody's an asshole. I just wanna go home.”

The trio travels down the highway in Eugene’s beat up car. Under the seat is a black hole where anything that gets dropped on the floor just disappears. It’s that place in everyone’s car where favorite sunglasses get lost and where all lost change falls.

Zia learns from another hitchhiker, Kneller (Tom Waits), that miracles are possible – people have the ability to make objects float or change color. The key is to not care about it. While Mikal is able to make miracles happen, Zia becomes obsessed with his constant failures.

Eventually they hear about “Messiah King,” a leader of a cult who promises to make a real miracle happen – separating his soul from his body. Zia finds that his ex, Desiree, is working with King.  They talk. In a public performance King takes his life – and then the party gets raided by the P.I.C.

Long story short, Mikal leaves with the P.I.C. and gets sent back to life while Zia sits around waiting for her in a lonely panic. In a desperate move to get back to Mikal he forces himself through the black hole under the seat of Eugene’s car. He wakes up and finds himself in the hospital next to Mikal. Returned to the world of the living.

This is a weird romantic comedy. Unlike more mainstream films “Wristcutters” actually has more than just comedic failure and weird coincidences that bring the main characters together.

I mean, this movie is really weird. Like there are objects levitating and all the characters are dead. But it doesn’t feature a klutzy protagonist tripping his or her way through the movie in a wild romantic romp. What I love about this movie is that it’s Mikal that makes it all happen. She has a goal – to get back to life. If she wasn’t there, there would be no movie. No conflict. No push to do something, to fix a mistake. Mikal and Zia are looking for different things, but find that they work well together. Zia (dead boy), follows in her trail trying to find his ex-girlfriend but ends up falling in love with Mikal (dead girl), at the same time.

What makes these indie movies stand out is that the main characters don’t have to play dumb or rely on slapstick humor to get the girl (or guy). Characters are drawn to each other by intelligence or circumstance, and stay together because of mutual goals or attraction. They’re more realistic and relatable – when they fail it’s a real event that destroys them totally.  These characters have not only contemplated killing themselves, in some cases they have already done it. So as members of the audience we are asked: who hasn’t been depressed after a break up? Who hasn’t contemplated suicide after life changes for the worst? Who hasn’t thought of spilling blood in the bath tub at least once? Or thought of picking up a razor to make a personal suicide’s highway? But in the end, even though Zia has lost Mikal, he breaks out of his character’s norm and chases her. He stops thinking and does what he needs to do.

 It’s refreshing to see movies where the story is not about stupid characters. Look at that movie “Knocked Up” (2007) starring Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl. Romantic comedies like this one rely on one person either acting childish or trying to dupe someone. True, these movies show that the immature guy eventually grows up and becomes capable of being in a mature relationship, but the audience always has to suffer through the boy’s stupidity first. Meanwhile the girl is clueless to the guy’s advances (or if you look at “Fifty First Dates” the girl can’t even remember who the guy is). These movies scream that guys are immature and girls are dumb or won’t be interested until the guy proves himself.

Let’s look at “Fifty First Dates” (2004). First of all, you get a scumbag played by Adam Sandler marking this pretty girl, Drew Barrymore, to seduce and then ditch. The movie makes a point of illustrating Sandler’s womanizing ways. When she daily rejects him, Sandler’s character gets drawn in and cannot resist this pretty girl who just says “no.” Then we find out this girl lives the same day every day, she’s brain damaged and literally cannot retain information past twenty-four hours. This movie follows the typical rom-com plotline “ohhh I think I like you” “Oh no, my heart is broken” then the guy grows up and changes his ways “now lets be together forevvver.” Giving hope for every girl who wants to fall in love that the guys she sets her sights on will change himself when he realizes he’s a scumbag. This movie ends with the heart-touching realization that Barrymore’s character wakes up on a boat to find out that she has somehow produced a child and lives a completely different life from yesterday.

Enough of this white-bread message that “guys are dumb and have to be lead along to find love.” Enough of this “women are targets for seduction.” Let’s move on to films that show reality – that men and women are people, who have thoughts, who grow and change. Who fail sometimes, but pick themselves up. 

Dinosaurs Banned

Read this article from the Huffington Post website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#es_share_ended

This is an article that talks about how the New York City education system is removing words and changing the language used for tests in order to avoid offending or emotionally traumatizing students.  Words like "dinosaur" because it brings up the idea of evolution, or "Halloween," because this is a holiday celebrating pagan rites.


This action is going to weaken the emotional strength of students. Let's make sure kids can't handle difficult situations. What's school for nowadays? Simply passing tests? What about learning how to handle life? That'd be something useful. Seriously, how is a twelve year old supposed to understand the complex relationships and ideas that are in the world if they don't learn in an environment that is secure enough to discuss these issues in an objective manner?

Educational institutions should bring up controversial issues specifically to get students exposed to how crazy things are in this world so that they have some basis to understand current events.


Seriously - dinosaurs?

See Things Unfold

I held my breath watching the BBC’s new Sherlock Holmes series. You can’t get more English than the name Benedict Cumberbatch, and this guy plays the eccentric detective alongside Martin Freeman’s Doctor John Watson in Sherlock. You almost expect them to be holding scones the entire time, but it’s just as good following them around London as they chase criminals.

So far only three episodes have been seen – “A Study in Pink,” “The Blind Banker,” and “The Great Game.” Each is based at least partially on an original story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Right now these 90 minute episodes are available on DVD, with series two and three in production.

Holmes and Watson

As Sherlock deduces his way through crimes, we start to get a feel for the cold mind of Holmes.  “The Great Game” starts off with a bang. A bored Sherlock is presented with a challenge by a true opponent worth his attention – a series of five mysterious deaths. If he fails to figure out who did what at the crime scene a victim will be blown up, making the game for Sherlock deadly fun.

 Entranced, Sherlock follows the clues to the murders while simultaneously piecing together his opponent’s identity – “we are dealing with something new.” Tensions rise as Sherlock chooses to chase the identity of the bomber over of the welfare of the victims.

In the end, the criminal mastermind has a face to face with Sherlock – a tense scene where everything is put on the table. The bomber reveals himself to be Sherlock’s utter opposite – Professor Moriarty. The show ends with Moriarty’s dark promise - "I'm going to kill you anyway, someday. I don't rush it though. I'm saving it up for something special. No, no no no. If you don't stop prying...I will burn you. I will burn...the heart out of you."

Sherlock Holmes is brought into the modern world with seductive performances. The calmly crazy Sherlock – that brilliant, bohemian, and extremely odd man - lives in a world defined by logic and reason. Watson is a stalwart veteran doctor out of Afghanistan misses the battle. Surprisingly these two social misfits fit together like peanut butter and jelly, or like jam on a scone. You cannot take your eyes off them.

Holmes gives Watson something that he desperately needs – danger and adventure, while Watson keeps Sherlock tethered to the real world. In between the dark seriousness of their occupations we watch the budding friendship develop. This is Sherlock and Watson as their story begins – and this is way better than your usually buddy cop show. 

FIRST

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the place of anonymous commentary on things out there in the world.


The peanut gallery has arrived.