Trees and Nerds.

I finally caught up with the rest of the world. I finally saw The Social Network.

It was great. And it was great for a whole bunch of reasons, the actors, the directing, the writing [yes, I have a celebrity writer crush on Aaron Sorkin]. I didn't have a problem with the portrayal of women. Maybe that's because it's a true story, and if there weren't really any women involved, then there weren't any women involved. [I've noticed something about people who objectify women anyway. Usually they just have a problem with objectifying everyone. Everyone is reduced to what they can offer instead of being recognized and treated as real multi-faceted people--male and female alike.] Besides, Erica Albright was spunky and I liked her.

I think my favourite part of the movie, though, was this surprising mystery element. The film jumps between three different storylines--what happened and the two lawsuits that followed. And the entire time, as accustations were made and explanations were offered, I was trying to figure out what really happened, if Mark really stole Facebook or not. If I was on a jury, what would I conclude? It was like a who-dun-it. It was excellent mastery of story that completely engaged me.

If you haven't seen it, I completely and highly recommend it. I wish I had seen it before Aaron Sorkin's lecture. I'm going to see if I can get my hands on a copy of the script.

My dad put this sheet of metal around the trunk of our tree in the backyard. It's to prevent the squirrels from building nests in the tree and taking over our backyard. I feel kinda bad for the squirrels though. Can you imagine one day you're out at work, winning bread for your family, and you come back to find a sheet of metal preventing you from every returning to your comfy bed? Eviction without notice. I'm not sure if I'm cool with that.

For the Record

If you have not seen Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, you should. It's wonderful. It's hilarious. It's maybe the most entertaining movie I've seen all summer. And I've seen a lot of movies.

So please. Do yourself a favor. Do good movies a favor. Go see it.

Something for Everyone

My brothers are away for the weekend and I am home, so I slept in their room last night. In typical move out fashion, *my* room as already been repurposed. Into my brother's podcasting studio. It's kinda ok with me, because I have only a futon chair in my room to sleep on and they have actual mattresses, but it was pretty weird to wake up in the middle of the night... in my brothers' room. This morning my mom asked me if the mattress was comfortable. I reminded her that I spent most of last year sleeping on a two inch piece of foam supported by a frame of wooden slats.

Well, I was going to write about how cool it is that there are so many diverse movies opening at the theatre this weekend, but then I read Nikki Finke's Friday BO review. She rips on so many of them I'm nearly ashamed to be excited.

1. The Expendables - Hello, macho big budget action movie. HW Guy has been talking nonstop about this movie for a week and even sent me a text at 3 AM about how mind blowing it was. I would not be opposed to go seeing this movie *with* someone, but it's definitely not one I'm trying to persuade my friends into. I love how blatantly the marketing appeals to guys, including a tagline that says "Guys, don't let Julia Roberts win." Way to appeal to guys' inate competive nature. That's all fair because...

2. Eat Pray Love - ...this movie appeals to a woman's desire for freedom [yeah, I just got all Braveheart on you]. But seriously, I think this movie markets a lot of what American women want -- risk, first class adventure, and international love interests... all from the safety and security of their local theatre. I just started reading the book because I have a girl date to go see this movie next weekend. I'm about 10 pages in and am pretty excited about it. Maybe because I'm a writer who loves to travel... as is the author of the book. Also, I just sorta feel for Julia Roberts. Duplicity was way underrated.

3. The Other Guys - I feel like this Will Ferrel comedy is the date night compromise between The Expendables and Eat Pray Love. [Sorry, some other actor is in it to, but if you're going to do a comedy with Will Ferrel, prepare to be forgotten half the time.]

4. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - The other date night compromise. Some weird hybrid between a comic book and a romantic comedy. I really want to see this movie, but I feel like you have to find someone just as excited about taking a risk on cheese as you are. I have not yet found that person, but then again I'm spending the weekend in Jersey and typically have a much more difficult time conning people into going to the movies here than I do in Michigan. Hey, Micheal Cera, what about that Arrested Development movie?

Scary

This weekend Roommate J and I watched Paranormal Activity. I thought it was great, but I didn't really find it that scary. Here are some reasons why --

1. Always watch scary movies with someone who is more scared than you are. I watched Blair Witch Project with BFF D. That way I can alleviate tension by teasing them for being scared.

2. Analyze the filmmaking while watching. I kept thinking about how the budgetary constraints made any special effects near impossible, which limited the amount of scary things they could do.

3. Check how long the movie runs before starting, then keep watching the timer on the DVD to see how far you're into the movie and how much time you have left. This helps you determine when the third act, and therefore the really scary parts, are coming.

4. Know the ending before you start watching. I mean, I didn't know *everything* about the ending. But I knew the basic idea.

5. Watch while hugging a pillow and through your fingers.

Surefire ways to make a scary movie seem not scary.

I started working on a film on Monday (and by working, I mean I'm paid in connections and relationships. Which is actually what I want right now. Though some money wouldn't be bad either). I'm having a wonderful time. These next few weeks are going to be super educational, super hard sometimes, and super fun.

Pancakes and Princes

Let's talk about the best pancake place in the world. I went there today with my girl friends from high school. Pancakes the size of your face and over 100 types to choose from. It's where the girls from Sex and the Suburbs would go.

Firefighter Friend and I went to see Prince of Persia last night. Last minute he tried to persuade me to go see Sex and the City instead. I refused. The whole point of going to the movies with boys is to see those flicks your girl friends won't go see. And did he honestly want to go up to the box office and say, dressed in his firefighter's t-shirt, "Two for Sex and the City please"? I don't think so.

I know that it's the third weekend for Prince of Persia, but the movie theatre was virtually empty. There couldn't have been ten people there. When FF and I went to go see Robin Hood, he tricked me into not getting to the movie theatre as early as I would have liked for seats by slowing me down with ice cream. Since there always seem to be plenty of seats when we go to the movies, I no longer have a reason to show up to the movie theatre early other than I like movie theatres.

Prince of Persia was fun. It was just - so - long. I think it was longer than Robin Hood. And FF and I had the "surprise" bad guy pegged three minutes in. Still was glad to go see it.

Happy about the US-England tie, since I support both teams. Wish our goal had been more about our skill and less of the goalkeep's blunder though.

I leave in two and a half weeks. Well guess who has two thumbs, speaks two words of French, and has done zero packing.

Mio.

At the Theatre

About a month ago I saw a couple of movies that I was pretty excited about, Date Night and the Joneses. Mostly because they were not 1. remakes, 2. sequels, or 3. franchise spinoffs. I meant to blog about them weeks ago, but - obviously - I did not. However, if they're playing near a theatre near you still, I'd recommend going to see them. The Joneses especially. I hadn't heard about it before we went to see it, but it's an interesting dramedy about consumer culture. And David Duchovny's in it.


On the other hand, over the past two weeks, I've seen two major summer tentpoles. I went to see Iron Man 2 last week with my brothers, and Firefighter Friend and I went to see Robin Hood this past Friday. So, 1. a sequel and 2. a franchise.


Iron Man 2 was awesome. I haven't heard a negative thing about it from anyone else either. I love the characters. And Scott Myers has linked to an interview with screenwriter Justin Theroux here.


I was probably more excited about seeing Robin Hood than I was about Iron Man 2. But you guys didn't see that coming, right?

Any reason...

And it was good, but it was way different than I thought it was going to be. I didn't realize how much of the story they were rewriting or that they were starting their story before Robin became an outlaw. I don't want to say I was disappointed, because it was a great movie and I would recommend it and will definitely see it again myself at some point, but it didn't really match my expectations. I don't want to say more because I don't want to spoil anyone else's expectations. Loved Crowe and Blanchett though, more than I expected I would. Ok, I'll stop.


However, it's nice to be able to recommend the last four movies I've seen in theatre. That could be because I've stopped letting people drag me to movies like Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants 2.

Patrick Dempsey cast in Transformers III

'Dempsey told reporters in Brazil this week that it's a 'dark character.'"

Seriously? Now they're just making a farce.

Good things come in 3s

Billy Mernit has a wonderful post about the return of romance. Hollywood Friend A (like that?) was just expounding to me this afternoon about the excess of cynicism in romantic comedies, and I thought Billy's post was a nice complement.

Someday I will demonstrate my domestic charm by making some very lucky boy this. Right now, it's too much effort.

Also, I'm for Team Tenley.

Amy Goes to the Movies

First of all, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is looking more and more amazing. And last night I found out it's going to be in IMAX 3D. Not gonna lie, I might be more tickled about Alice than I ever was about Avatar.

Of course, when they make a biopic about me, I will be played by Helena Bonham Carter. Because, you know, that makes sense, considering she's about 15 years older than I.

Curly hair sisterhood. Never mind that she plays mostly twisted characters.

Last night I went to see When in Rome. It was free movie night, so no, I did not go out of my way and pay to see this movie. It was actually a second choice anyway. We were going to see Up in the Air, but it was sold out. When in Rome was actually funnier than I expected, though still absolutely ridiculous. Let me tell you, the audience did not laugh like that when I saw Leap Year. And I had difficulty distinguishing Will Arnett from the magician character, especially when Jon Heder used "illusions!" instead of "tricks."

versus --

Alliance approved

Since I'm (sorta) writing a rom com right now, I've been thinking a lot about the stereotypical characters that seem to be really tired from running the gambit recently. I think this especially concerns female characters, who are often writing flat or shallow. As When in Rome opened, HS Friend L leaned over and whispered to me, "Let me guess -- another anti-love uptight workaholic." And yes, Kristen Bell even monologued about how she didn't need a relationship because she was married to her job.

I haven't done any hard research, but I'm pretty sure most of the Hollywood produced rom coms of the past few years have featured career-driven female leads. These numbers radically peak when you examine Katherine Heigl films alone. But what's on the flip side? If Katherine Heigl can be the spokesperson for the female rom com lead stereotype, who represents the male characters? I used to think that women were being short changed in this laziness of character development until I realized that the boys don't fare much better. They are the models of man-boyhood for every teenage boy who sees Knocked Up to aspire to. The "opposites attract" model of the last decade has been workaholic uptight responsible woman clashes with laid back fun loving man boy. Billy Mernit is really the guru here. He talks a lot about it - and with much more eloquence than I - on his blog.

I understand why. I understand that the biggest transformation will occur if you have one character who's focus is not on love but on their work. I understand that the female audience being targeted is increasingly more educated and professional (and the corresponding cultural question of whether or not a career is just a woman's placeholder for a relationship). I understand that having an oppositional female character allows the female audience to play into the wish fullfilment of being pursued. I understand this is the easy way to write a rom com because that's the way I want to write mine and it's a real challenge to figure out how to flesh out my characters so that audiences will see something new.

Maybe this is why films like (500) Days of Summer are so refreshing. Finally -- the audience is introduced to someone new.

Called it when I saw it

Avatar and Pocahontas

Women in Film: Bridget Jones

I've been puttering through "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi for a while now. It's a really interesting memoir on life in Iran and I'd recommend it to anyone, even though I'm not finished with it. However, what I have to say has nothing to do with life in Tehran.

Nafisi was commenting on one of her literature classes in which they discussed Washington Square's heroine Catherine Sloper. Nafisi writes that "She is the inverse of our ideas of what a heroine should be: hefty, healthy, plain, dull, literate and honest... James strips away from Catherine the qualities that make a heroine attractive; what he takes away from her he distributes among the other three characters." I have a lot to say on women in film, and this analysis brought to mind a question I've had for a while now -- Who is a heroine? What is she made of? What qualities does she have? What does she want? What makes her different than a hero?

The definition of a heroine in literature is difficult enough, but I would argue that film has a more difficult time not only in defining their heroines, but in having heroines. Female characters are often functions of the plot, created to entice audience demographics, or simply romantic distractions.

Which brings me to Bridget Jones.

Bridget Jones. I love Bridget Jones. And while Bridget Jones is a modern take on Pride and Prejudice, Bridget Jones and Elizabeth Bennett are quite different characters. When I read Nafisi's description of Catherine Sloper, hefty, plain, dull, honest, the "ugly" heroine, I thought of Bridget Jones. She is very similar to Catherine. She is plump, stuck in a frustrating job, alone with a destructive fixation on a complete jerk, awkward, bumbling, and very unspecial. Bridget Jones is not Kate Beckinsale or Angelina Jolie because she is not the male fantasy character. She is a real heroine who is accepted with all her mundane qualities. Darcy likes her, just as she is.

I find Bridget Jones to be a satisfying heroine not only because of her realistic protrayl and the refusal to Barbie-fy her but also because of the way she deals with her life situations, not the least of which is her mangled love life. Bridget learns she has to either accept her life situations or commit to improving them, that it's not use wallowing but it's not use pretending to be someone she's not, either. When Bridget is interviewing for a new job in television, she botches every interview where she tries to appear more informed or passionate than she really is. But when she is honest about the reason she's looking for a new job, she finally scores it.

How a character handles the ever present problem of love is a large indicator of whether or not she is a true heroine. "Women's pictures" have often been criticized or mocked because they focus so much on love. Well most of life does too, so I'm perfectly content with that. However, I am critical of characters who find their happiness in love, especially when finally getting together with that special someone sweeps away all other problems. Well, if that special someone was Colin Firth, maybe I would feel the same way. But I love the scene where skeezy Daniel Cleaver has come back and got into a terribly awesome street fight with Darcy and he tells Bridget he wants her back, that if he couldn't make it with her how could he make it with anyone. And Bridget, even though she's been mad about this guy for ages, has enough self respect and courage to tell him that's not good enough. Just because Bridget Jones is an average girl doesn't mean she settles for an average (below average, really) man. In the end, she's the one who stands up and in all her awkward glory chooses Darcy, right in the middle of his parents' ruby wedding anniversary and his engagement announcement. Like Shawna recently expounded on in her blog, the heroine calls the shots. Bridget Jones definitely learns to call all her shots in her story and she does it her own way.

I love Bridget Jones. It's one of my go-to movies. And it's a bit of wish fulfillment, I know that. Watching this movie will be the closest I ever get to Colin Firth. But it's realistic wish fulfillment, if there's any such thing. I can't be many of the women in film these days. But I can be Bridget Jones, the woman who takes on life and falls in love, just the way she is.

Just hit replay

I'm a terrible cinephile.

We used to joke that I was an embarrassment of a film major because I'm not very well versed in every film ever. How I have never seen classics like The Godfather, Jaws, or Home Alone. I always retorted that my weekly screenings for class, including such classics as The Seventh Seal, The Gleaners and I, and Tout Va Bien (gaaaahgg), more then makes up for my lack of "commercial" classics.


The thing is, I did feel secretly guilty. As much as I love film and TV, I'm not the person at the library who grabs the first fifteen DVDs at hand and just pops them in the DVD player one after another. I don't really have a desire to watch film history unfold on the celluloid itself. I don't have favourite directors. I can barely name actors, let alone connect them to more than a couple of movies. Generally, I have to watch any movie twice to be able to remember enough of it to discuss, while all my film peers were running around impersonating the New Hollywood of the 60s and having esoteric discussions on the standard repertoire of films every cinephile should know.


I love going to new movies in the movie theatre. But when it comes to home viewing, I will nearly always pick a beloved favourite over a new film. Even today, I went to the library and came back with a recent film I haven't seen yet. Tonight, I will most likely watch P.S. I Love You or Walk the Line. My Netflix instant queue is full of unseen movies. I would rather watch Bridget Jones' brilliant life transformation for the umpteenth time instead.

What? Why is that?


Well, I finally found out the reason. After months of secretly feeling like a poser, I know why I like certain movies better than film. There are a lot of facets to film, and I would love to increase my understanding of all of them over time. But my favourite part of film, the one that drew me in the first place, is storytelling. Sure the film can be shot beautifully. It can be innovative. It can be exciting and thrilling and controversial. But what I love best about film is its ability to tell a story. The emotion, the drama, the humor, the characters, their lives. How it makes me feel about my life. I don't think every film-lover can really say that's their favourite part of film - nor should they. Someone's gotta lovingly describe their favourite camera motion or short average shot length versus the long take. As for me, straight up story. IV it into me. And I don't feel guilty for rewatching my favourites, the movie I know inside out, how it will unfold, how it will connect with me, which parts I'll cry at, when I'll sing along, which lines I've had stuck in my head for weeks. Because these stories are so artfully told, they don't unfold just themselves. They unfold my life too.

And I know. I really should get on watching The Godfather.

(1) Great Summer Movie

Billy Mernit already had a great post on (500) Days of Summer, so what else can I add, but...

One of the first things the narrator says is, "This is not a love story."

I've known people with different reactions to this movie. I say, this is not the best movie ever.

But it is pretty great.

Also, I want to dress like Zooey Deschanel in this movie.

This was one of my most anticipated movies of the summer. Maybe it's because I love Zooey Deschanel. Maybe it was because I saw this Ikea clip and thought it was amazing - "Sink's broken." "Well that's ok. That's why we bought a house with two kitchens!" Maybe I loved it because I recognized the Bradbury building in LA (thank you, film education!). It's the kind of movie I wish I had written (or maybe did, with The 4:05).



But I think why this movie was so refreshing, even with it's faults, is that it is a true movie. I don't mean true as in autobiographical (though there is a lot of that). I mean it's not the Katherine Heigl rom-com of the month. The characters were different than the ones we typically see in rom coms (think of the other rom coms of the summer and compare).

The wonderful thing about this film is that everyone has been in this movie. Everyone has had an amazing relationship that turns out... less than amazing. It's part of life - and if you hadn't had it yet, you will. It may not be a romantic relationship. It may be a friendship or a family member even. It's also very subjective and very much from Tom's point of view. Which is great, because it allows so much personal ranting on love and relationships and what exactly happened, which is exactly what everyone does when perfection doesn't pan out. Someone once said that as artists our responsibility is not to answer questions but to ask them. (500) Days of Summer asks the all time important question - What do you do with a perfect relationship that doesn't have a perfect ending?

If you want to know more, you can listen to the Creative Screenwriting Magazine Q&A with co-screenwriter Scott Neustadter here. He actually has a legitimate reason for the parentheses in the title.

"Our aim was not having a happy ending but a hopeful ending." - Scott Neustadter

Angels & Demons

I heard a radio spot for the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, Angels & Demons. You know what their biggest selling point was? "Audiences and critics agree, it's better than The Da Vinci Code." At least they're admitting that The Da Vinci Code was a big disappointment.

How to Watch a Movie

I hate when I'm sitting in the movie theatre and someone pulls out their phone to text. It lights up like a solar flare in the dark room. It's not like I don't understand that sometimes pressing issues come up that people need to address - but I know all y'all aren't texting about top priority situations. Can we seriously not unplug for two hours?

However, I have difficulty unplugging sometimes too. My mom has commented more than once about how she needs to get a laptop so she can fit in with me, my dad, and my two brothers as we sit there with our computers, surfing or playing games at the same time as we're watching movies or TV. I get very restless, sometimes, and having my computer allows me to multitask while watching a movie, especially helpful during the slow parts.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to stop this. When I watch a movie, I want to actually watch the movie. If I "multiask" (which at this point in my life means playing games or Facebook stalking), I really don't get the "full movie experience." Do I sound like a snotty film student? I secretly don't care - this degree cost money, baby.

But seriously. I don't care about multitasking during My Boys reruns or Sweet Home Alabama, but there is something to be said about focusing all your attention on the film, every nuance, every small choice the filmmakers made. Learning how to watch movies takes a certain degree of focus and concentration, and that is a habit I need to cultivate a little more intentionally.

I'm very excited about this movie

500 Days of Summer

I think in the same way I was excited about The Fall. I love fantastic realism in movies. I think it's beautiful.

Still something's missing - Are we speaking the same language?

There are some things people should know about the City. One of them is that it creates this weird time/space vortex, which makes going around it, through it, or under it more tricky than it would be to cross that distance in any other situation. We forget that we live near any ocean. When the City is in the middle of two destinations, you should think long and hard about what it is that is so great about the thing on the Other Side. Some people will never understand why in movies and TV shows people are chagrined and slightly frightened when they have to move from Manhattan to one of the other boroughs. These people will also never understand how the City two opposing points long distance automatically. On the flip side, the City is the most amazing American city there is.

Speaking of the City...

I had two very different movie experiences last week. I went to see Sex and the City with one of my best friends, and then the next night took my two brothers to go see Prince Caspian. I thought the City was well done and delightfully entertaining and true to the tone of the TV show (probably more like the uncut version, not like the TBS version that I watch). Prince Caspian was amazing, though. Incredible movie that I would definitely pay (a reasonable amount) to see again in theatres.

But one of the most interesting things didn't have to do with the film itself. My friend and I went early to the theatre for The City, about half an hour, and there was already a line to get in. In Prince Caspian, there was only a man and his little daughter who kept saying "Zombie!" during the previews (friend of yours, Emily?). There are a couple of variables here, location of theatre, release date, day and time, but this, I think, is the real reason why The City showing was packed and Prince Caspian was not.

Optimum is giving away free tickets. If you have Optimum Triple Play, you can get two free movie tickets to Clearview theatres every Tuesday and six dollar tickets every other day. In an area where the going ticket rate is $10.25, that's reason enough to use Optimum. I know that I wouldn't have gone to see The City in theatres if my ticket wasn't free. And my friend reports that the crowds at the Clearview on Tuesdays have been crazy. When we went the parking lot was more full than on a Friday night.

I'm not a business major or economics major or anything - but this is a theatre going behavior worth noticing. Who's making the money here? Are these free tickets being counted toward box office totals? How many paying theatre goers have been stolen away from weekend premieres to see a movie on a Tuesday? Are the theatres making loads from selling concessions to packed out theatres on a Tuesday night? Are people more willing to buy concessions after saving money on a free ticket? How many of those full houses were people who had gotten free tickets and how many were friends that came along for the discounted price?

My family just switched to Optimum again today. My dad said a door to door salesman came by with an offer he couldn't refuse. He also told me that the same company - Time Warner - owns Optimum, Clearview, and all the other businesses that rewards are offered for. So the money stays in the family. I am just pleased that I will be getting "my own" Optimum card.

Still, there's something worth thinking about here. If the price of movie tickets dramatically dropped- maybe from ten dollars to six dollars like Optimum customers get - would that bring more people back to the theatre? Or are people going to go regardless? I wasn't going to pay to see The City in theatres, and I didn't. But that extra person in the theatre increased the potential that concessions were going to be sold, that the free ticket holders were going to bring extra friends, guaranteed that they were going to be exposed to advertising for more movies. On the flip side, I was going to pay to see Indiana Jones. But tomorrow we're using the passes to get our two free tickets and one discounted one, from thirty dollars to six. Maybe it evens out. Maybe there's not enough of a dramatic change in movie going trends to warrant a change in the theatre business. But when Tuesday nights are packing out better than Friday night premieres - it's worth thinking about.

PS. I'm glad Susan got to cause some serious damage in those battle scenes.

The Trouble with Love Is

Not that we're talking about my love life, dear Reader. Only once in the past six months have I let myself spill anything relating to that and was subsequently ridiculed by dear friend A. So now I'd blush to think of doing such a thing again - at least for another six months.

No, I am talking about the trouble with love in movies. Have you ever spent time thinking about the relationships in movies - whether or not they're realistic or well supported or even written well? What about when you're writing a relationship - ever realized how incredibly difficult it is to do, especially without resorting to the stock montage of dinner-movie-walk on the beach? I was thinking about how it pops up in my writing, and here's what I realized:

Nobody ever falls in love before the midpoint in any of my feature length specs. In 2 of my specs, they've known/had feelings for the person since before the movie started, in 1 nobody falls in love, and in The 4:05, the only spec where characters first meet and then fall in love, it's not until the very end of the movie. It's also incredibly difficult to establish why two people are in love. I don't think we can blame that on writing, necessarily; I think that's more the fault of love. I'm trying to write a webseries, and in the first five minute episode I have to establish the history of a long and loving relationship between two characters who are currently going through a rough patch. That's tough. What sort of three minute scene can you write to show the history of trust and care between two people? Love is difficult stuff to write. Especially in the constraints of two hours.

But let's reflect on the plethora of romantic movies out there.

Catch and Release - This movie didn't get great reviews. However, I was impressed with the writing - because for some odd, inexplicable reason, it had me thinking that Timothy Olyphant was ultimately better for Jennifer Garner than Sam Jaeger was. Frankly, I should have been outraged that she didn't fall for Jaeger. He had been secretly in love with her all along and he was a much sweeter guy than Olyphant. And as a friend pointed out, there wasn't much support for a real love developing between Olyphant and Garner. I'm not saying there wasn't a relationship there, but there definitely needed to be more of a friendship.

Walk the Line - Brilliant. Why? My guess is because 1. it spanned several years and loads of heartbreak for both characters but 2. more importantly, the relationship between June and John went outside of mushy love feelings to grace, forgiveness, caring, and real devotion.

27 Dresses - Another cute movie. But even though Marsden helped Heigl with problems outside of their tense relationship, it just didn't ring "great true love" to me. So he pointed out that she had some major wedding issues and gave her a Blackberry. I don't know, maybe I just disliked the advice he gave after the rehearsal dinner and that tainted the entire thing for me.

Atonement - Look, I loved Atonement. It was beautiful and depressing and James McAvoy would definitely be able to get any woman to fall in love with him. But, I'm sorry, when was it that he and Knightley fell in love? Was it when they were twelve and still talking? Or at college when she avoided him like the plague? And her show of devotion and faith in him was truly moving - though I kept wondering why she had such faith in him. If it was because she loved him, well, I could have used a little more convincing on that.

Dan in Real Life - Cute movie, but I do not remember the last time I got hit on by a random stranger, felt comfortable enough to spend a life-sharing hour over tea with him, then been so tormented by that unfinished conversation that - even though we were under the eye of his entire family and therefore had to play distance games the entire time - I had to abandon my current relationship and run away.

Definitely Maybe - I liked this one, because I felt like there were very many real aspects of relationships there. Or maybe it was more about how relationships fall apart than how they stay together. I'm not saying it didn't have its quirky moments, but I think the relationship between Reynolds and Fisher had a very honest quality - people who care about each other for years, who are invested in each others' lives, who make mistakes, hold on, and finally get forgiven.

Garden State - This should scream disaster movie for me. At the end Zach Braff tells Natalie Portman, "You've changed my life and I've only known you four days." That doesn't happen in real life, are you kidding me? When was the last time your life was changed by someone you met four days ago? However, anyone who knows me knows this is my favourite movie in the world. While I'm generally skeptical about any movies where the characters have just met before falling in love, there are some that work. In Garden State, like in Trust last night, the characters who fell in love were looking for life change. I think that makes a life changing relationship a heck of a lot more believable, because there's an openness and honesty that comes when a person is looking for life change. The second reason why Garden State works is that, in those four days, Braff and Portman actually talk. About a lot of things, about their views on life, about their pasts and how it's screwed them up, about their present. If you're looking for life change, and you're going to be honest, and you find someone who is willing to be just as honest with you and care about you, you've totally sold me on their relationship.

Pushing Daisies - This is a great example (albeit being TV), because Chuck and Ned can't touch each other. There goes the storyteller's easiest method of expressing love.

An Officer and a Gentleman - I'm not going to analyze this one. I just like it.

Why worry about this so much? Why draw up theories about the relationships in your own writing and do case studies on produced movies? Why spend so much time on this?

Because you can't just expect that you can just slap the romance label on your movie and the audience will buy it. If you want me to believe two characters are in love, you've got to sell it to me. You can't just write the "falling in love montage" or stick in a little cutesy joke when they're snuggling or write that scene where the female protagonist finally breaks her emotional barriers down for the boy while Benny and the Jets is playing in the background. How do you express in a three minute scene the commitment, passion, history, devotion, and respect between two people? How do you take something that's often so very internal, especially the moment when you realize you love someone, and put that on the screen to be seen clearly and without question? There are a lot of standard methods, a date, a kiss, a conversation. But those alone don't demonstrate love. Maybe that the characters are having fun or that sparks are flying or they're finding each other trustworthy, but so often those motifs that we commonly think of as expressing love can express something else, feelings or emotions that can belong to just plain fun or happiness or companionship. Maybe we need to stop relying on motifs that can express something lower than romance to support the characters' love.

Maybe the problem is that we don't know what love is. I was looking for something to watch, and I stopped on "Platinum Weddings" for a few minutes, because it's wedding season here at home for the next year. The featured couple was talking about their relationship, and the girl said, "I love him because he makes me happy. Whether it's getting me ice cream or playing tennis, he always puts a smile on my face." I felt a little frightened for this girl. Because what happens when he no longer makes her happy, either because he doesn't want to or because she's gotten bored of it? That's not love.

Maybe it's not a problem of story telling. Maybe it's a problem of misdiagnosis.

Typically I don't like movies and music from the 80s...

Luckily, "Trust" was released in 1990. On the recommendation of my screenwriting professor, I watched it tonight. It was cute - I really liked it (and that's all the review you will get from me). I was reminded of "Say Anything" (1989!) during it - another great movie. I think because they are both super dramatic love stories about teenagers. If you think about "Juno," it took the whole movie for her to admit that she liked Bleeker. Of course, that's wasn't what the movie was about, really. But early in Act II in "Trust," Maria and Matt are defining love. In "Say Anything," John Cusack is letting nothing get in the way of him and his girl. There's just a level of beautiful and yet unbelievable amount of dedication in the romances of late 80s, early 90s teen movies. What are our teen romances now? Transformers and The Date Movie.

"I respect and admire you."
"Isn't that love?"
"No, that's respect and admiration."

- Trust

Horror vacui

I went to the beach Thursday. I have a rare problem, Reader. I don't understand how to sun bathe. After we got back from our little foray (by the by, the beaches are lovely this time of year. Empty because it's not yet summer but still warm enough to enjoy), I stepped into the bathroom and was surprised to see that one side of my face was more burnt than the other. A couple of years ago (shows how often I go to the beach, huh), I accidentally tanned one arm more than the other. But it's worse when it's your face that's uneven - oh the wonders of make up.

I've been pretty busy the past week, which is a little strange considering that I have nothing to do. I've decided that I'm going to redecorate my room. When we moved into this house a year and a half ago I just sort of threw my stuff into my room and left it there. My drawers are full of clothes I never wear and my bookshelf holds CDs and books I haven't touched since high school. And the wall paper in here - yuck. I mean, I may not spend a lot of time here at my parents' house, but there's no reason why I need to be living out of a duffle bag in the dining room since my closet of a room only has space for the clothes I never wear. Besides, it will give me something to do, and whenever my parents decide to sell this house, potential buyers need to see how this space can actually be utilized as more than just a walk in closet.

Iron Man - So I saw this movie last night. I really liked it. It was entertaining, I liked the casting, good effects. I think their decision to start the movie where they did was interesting; it was the only time they shifted the timeline, and it was obviously done to start the story off with an intense action sequence. I think it also helped make Tony Stark likeable. Because, let's face it, in the first act he's sorta a jerk. He ignores appointments, disregards his friends, and is superficial. But in those first few minutes with the soldiers, he jokes around with them, and the audience can see that his edge isn't necessarily threatening or mean. I thought it was very well written. Perhaps the best superhero movie since Batman Begins, no?

It was my worst theatre experience in a while, though. At least half of the near full theatre (it's been a long time since I've been in a theatre that full, actually) were middle school aged kids who would not be quiet. I'm really surprised the people sitting around them didn't complain. Also, I think we need to make a new rule about theatre etiquette. No cell phone use - whatsoever. No matter if it's on silent or you're just texting or whatever - how hooked up are we that we can't just leave them in our pockets for a couple of hours. Heaven forbid someone not be able to get ahold of us, like we might have a life or something. It's just so distracting when someone in your row or in the one in front of you whips out their phone and this insanely bright spot of light pops up on the corner of your vision. When we went to go see Jumper there were four people sitting in front of this, and three of them were constantly pulling out their phones. I'm sorry that I'm old fashioned.

Actually I'm not, really.

It's been almost a week since I said I wasn't going to write without feeling passionate about a story. A couple of days after that, I got a great idea for a story. I haven't written anything down yet, but I summarized it for a few of my friends and have been thinking about it. I think I might start taking down notes this week. I like it enough to deem it my next Current Draft. The other idea I'm playing with is a concept for a webseries that I plagiarized from myself. I'm hoping to shoot a webseries next year at uni. It's just up in the air still if it'll be my self plagiarized series that I'll write and direct or if it'll be a series in collaboration with others also writing and directing. I'd love to do both, but we've only go so much time.

We're working on the Lives Agape website. My computer hacker (in the best way) brother is helping me out, because if it's not prefabricated for me, I'm pretty useless with the internet. I'll let everyone know once it's up and running and "Join This Group?" has premiered world wide.