Review: Something New



Another interracial love story..............ah yes, strong black male meets liberal Caucasian female. They break down each others social barriers, have some awkward interaction amongst the other's group of friends, encounter a glimpse of prejudice (usually by an older individual), and they transcend the pressures of their race by coming together in the name of love. Awwww! Isn't that special and predictable. Being someone who has actually been in an interracial relationship, I find it pretty insulting when Hollywood tries to make films that are "kid friendly" and dodges the serious issues. Something New actually examines the perspective of the African-American female and juxtaposes that to the Caucasian male. The result is a thoroughly refreshing take on the modern interracial romance.
The first thing that I enjoyed about the film was the fact that the African-Americans were all portrayed well. Every character was intelligent and highly successful. It was kind of nice where none of the characters spoke in a dialect that was insulting or African-Americans were relegated to the common stereotypes like being an athlete or a criminal. Seeing the successful professional African-American is a sight for sore eyes. Moreover, I was able to see the upper class African-American which was even more of a surprise.
Enter Sanaa Lathan's character, Kenya Denise McQueen, who is hoping to avoid the staggering statistic that 42.4% of African-American females have never been married. She is the epitome of the professional working woman. Its almost uncomfortable to watch how uptight she is. Her house is entirely beige and her wardrobe is definitely............lacking. Her friends set her on a blind date, but the potential suitor happens to be a Caucasian. Kenya, like most single black females, is in search for the IBM(Ideal Black Man). I have no ideal what the ideal black man is. I suppose he is personified by someone who 1. is tall 2. has a good job 3. is college educated 4. is physically fit and 5. someone who is not intimidated by an independent and successful black female. Needless to say, the blind date is with Brian Kelly (Simon Baker) who is definitely NOT the ideal or black.
The character of Brian Kelly is not the ideal black man but he definitely has some redeeming qualities. He is an architect landscaper, which lead him back to Kenya after their disastrous first encounter, and he is also pleasing to the eye. The effect he has on Kenya is profound. After a passionate encounter in the woods, Kenya decides to let her hair down......literally. Kenya actually goes through a metamorphosis, both physically and mentally. The film is very color oriented and with the evolution of the romance, so does the level of color increase.
There is a brief interlude where the relationship sours and Kenya is introduced to Mark (Blair Underwood) who is the personification of the ideal black man. He represents all of the goals that Kenya believes she wants. Another aspect about the film that I like is that it doesn't tip-toe around the inevitable questions of interracial dating. Everyone knows that there are difficulties with interracial dating, but there is a trend in cinema that tries to suspend disbelief and cover up said difficulties with nothingness. I will admit that it is not the social taboo that it once was but if you are reading this and believe that interracial relationships can exist without the slightest hint of prejudice than you are highly delusional. What the film points out is that the condition of being black or the condition of being white is just a subjective part of the human condition. People are people for the most part. We all are a pile of neuroses and quirks that help make us the people we are. The key, as the film touches on, is to try to find someone with whom it is perfectly normal to be yourself.
The movie is highly predictable but I don't think that it is necessarily a bad thing. I believe society likes to believe in love and the hope that it can transcend all bounds, even race. The perspective of the African-American female in an interracial relationship presents a new dichotomy to the American consciousness. She has to be strong enough to go after her professional goals yet be supple enough to still be a woman and not be totally restrictive. I would say the movie may help with race relations but I doubt it. Until people realize that there is only one race, the human race, then we as a society are fated to coexist as strangers in a strange land.

Review: Match Point


I recently went to go see the latest offering from Woody Allen. Most people have been quite harsh on Mr. Allen's films as of late (although I believe that Curse of the Jade Scorpion was very good). They supposedly have been too verbose and analytical, taking the infamous neuroses of Woody Allen and turning them into meaningless rhetoric. I believe that the major problem that Mr. Allen encountered, and something that most "classic" directors face, is the transition from one generation to the next and the subsequent shift of attitude in their audience. The audiences that saw Annie Hall and Crimes and misdemeanors are not the majority of viewing public. Therefore, Mr. Allen had to go back to the basics and augment his approach. With that sentiment, Mr. Allen's latest offering takes on the elitist upper class of London (giving the traditional New York backdrop a hiatus) and proposes a very simple question: is it better to be lucky than good? The question is simple enough but no one ever thinks of its significance. How much of an effect does "luck" actually play in the daily existence of human beings? Some people reject the concept itself, and others, particularly those who are particularly religious, believe that the thought is blasphemous.
The question is tested in the character of Chris ( Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) an Irish import who is serving as the local tennis pro at a country club after retiring from the professional circuit. While instructing he meets Tom (Matthew Goode) who introduces him to his upper-crust family and their ridiculously lavish lifestyle. Tom also pretty much hands Chris his beautiful and amazingly kind sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer). After romancing Chloe for a while they are engaged, and life seems to be on the up and up for Chris. That is until he meets Tom's fiance, Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson), and the seduction begins. Nola is the polar opposite of Chloe. She is challenging, confrontational, self-absorbed, and sensual. The combination is intoxicating for Chris (and most other men with a pulse). The relationship between Tom and Nola eventually dissolves, and therefore, the relationship with Nola and Chris stalls.
When Nola returns from her hiatus in the United States, the passionate affair resumes, and the question of luck returns. To those who want to compare this film to those of Alfred Hitchcock, I would say that this film is not of that caliber. I'm not saying that the film is bad, because its not, but the depth of suspense is not evident. All of the characters are severely flawed emotionally, and therefore, a sense of morality is lost and usurped by the character's obvious physical charms. Beautiful people, particularly those who are aware of their own beauty, often lack the moral fiber necessary to create a clear conscience. In the film, morality takes a backseat to the libido and the basic carnal desires of the character's (Chris in particular). He craves success, both financial and romantic, and is willing to usurp the sanctity of marriage and laws of common decency to accomplish both. Therefore, the conclusion of the film is not entirely a surprise.
The film's biggest asset is also its biggest hindrance. Scarlett Johansson radiates sex appeal as Nola Rice, the pseudo actress and pretentious object of affection for both Tom and Chris. The character of Nola Rice is an unusual dichotomy because her confidence as a seductress is top notch. Her dialogue with Chris is very captivating, yet she always performs disastrously at auditions for potential roles. The imbalance in character takes away from her performance. It was not a major problem but I did find her character to be problematic. The character of Chris was also a problem. Mostly because he was presented with such a cool stoicism that it was hard not to be able to see his true intentions and take him seriously as a dynamic character. The "corruption" subplot is a facade because there is nothing to corrupt. Chris does not seem to feel anything, anything that involves another human being and their welfare at least.
At the end of the film, the question on the value of luck is posed to the audience one more time. I personally believe that people create their own good luck. I always believed that those whom believe everything is fated have just taken every ounce of excitement out of the human experience. What is the point of living if you can't feel alive? Mr. Allen answers the question of luck very honestly and examines the upper class with a mastery that his garnered him the reputation he rightly deserves. The transition from New York to London works well for the film and the scenery is very appealing. The only problem I saw with the film is that it tried to be a morality tale but did not feature any semblance of morals. But then again, as the film says, morality is irrelevant, it is only the end result which is consequential.

The Upside of Anger



Well it is upon us once again, the day of days. Oh yes, Singles Awareness Day AKA Valentine's Day. How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways. Its not that I am totally opposed to the idea of love or being in love. I believe in love very much but I do not believe in marketing the ideal of love around a religious holiday. The last time I checked, the scope of human emotion did not come to its zenith on just one day. More than the marketing, its the asinine regurgitation of the same bullshit every fucking year. The man has to buy the flowers (roses usually), the man has to buy the candy, the man has to take the woman out to dinner and entertain her every whim. I have no problem in showering gifts on someone if you are in love, but my ideal of love is predicated on reciprocity. Valentine's Day emasculates men in its effective marketing ploy in which we are deceived into believing that not only is it valid to commercialize affection but it is deemed fashionable. I'm not being a cheap bastard, but what the fuck is the deal?! What does a man get for all the artificial romance he gives his beloved? If he is lucky, he gets a card and a genuine statement of affection. But then again, men understand that the day is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They spend money in order to satisfy their mates and prove their feelings are genuine. I thought that materialism was out of fashion and that it was superficial to try to deceive women with "gifts". I suppose that on the one blessed day a year women forget their moral obligation to themselves to uphold the sanctity of relationships and not compromise said obligation to get the same dozen red roses and a giant heart shaped cookie. I suppose many have asked the question why the commercialization exists and why people are perpetual pawns in Hallmark's and Russell Stover's empire. After careful deliberation, I came to a concise answer. People, all people, want to be in love. It is a hard truth to admit. Even us bitter cynics, behind the seeming corrosive rhetoric want to feel something, however brief it may be. Love is a universal emotion, and it is with that rationale that Valentine's Day will forever be popular, for better or for worse. Love songs always sell and romantic comedies prosper because people like to see the guy get the girl. It makes the majority of society feel really solid that they can identify with a positive sentiment. That coupled with the fact that love has the capacity of transcending a lot of barriers. What I mean is that people who are in love, in the truest sense, have a connection that can cross oceans of time and distance.
I just wish that the day would be slightly more private. Relationships are a dichotomy, not a public display. Two people in love is something that is rare and said rarity needs to be preserved, not put out as an exhibitionist display. I try to think that there is a time and a place for voyeurism. I just never accepted the logic that privacy and intimacy were mutually exclusive terms. If you are in love then why share your gift. Maybe I'm a little selfish, but I would never want to share the gift of love that someone would have the confidence to give me in a public setting.
To all those couples experiencing first love, new love, or rekindled love more power to you. Enjoy the day tomorrow with that person that makes you feel special. If you express your feelings through flowers and candy then do that. Ladies, please remember that all those presents you are getting are quite expensive. It might be a nice change of pace to get your man something better than just a card. Couples, please be aware of those who are not as fortunate as you are and don't exchange saliva, and possibly other fluids, in front of those who are dateless. But then again, if you really love the person they should already know it before February 14.
To those who are experiencing unrequited love, lost love, or just don't have any concept of love at all, I say that Valentine's Day is a ridiculously overrated and superficial day and you are far more secure financially because of it. In 24 hours the frenzy will be over and couples will return to the regular routine of bitching at each other over trivial matters and the universe will be as it was. I have been told that if one looks for love then they will never find it. I don't know if I agree with that but I do believe that good people generally get what they deserve so rest assured that if you desire "the other" your time will come one day.