Melodramtic Insanity

Shawn Donoghue

RTA HN 3/1/11

Jim DeRogatis

“Girl, Interrupted” (Directed by James Mangold 1999)

Based on Susanna Kaysen’s novel, “Girl,Interrupted”, tells the story of a young woman just out of high school who, instead of choosing a fancy four year Ivy League school like that of her class mates, tries to commit suicide by taking a bottle of aspirin followed by a bottle of vodka. The year was 1967, and mental illness and suicide attempts were not as understood as they are today, so this young woman (Susanna) is admitted to Claymoore, a mental institute, where she is by far the least troubled of all the women also residing there. Rather than confining herself away from the clinically insane women, Susanna befriends them and rebels against the system with them. This is where she runs into trouble, because instead of receiving help for her mental state, Susanna begins to make a mockery of the system, treating it more like high school than a psychiatric hospital.

Winona Ryder plays Susanna as she explores the mental constructs of her perceived illness, is she really crazy or is she just a, “lazy, self-indulgent little girl, who is driving herself crazy” as the head nurse Valerie (Whoopie Goldberg) explains. During times of intense drama, Ryder is excellent. Her deep, dark eyes accurately convey the thoughts and emotions expected of the suicidal. But it’s when Susanna progresses, becomes healthier, that Ryder disappoints. The scene where Susanna is well enough to leave Claymoore and is saying her good-byes, is one of the sappiest the film has. Ryder has a difficult time portraying the transition from cynical, depressed Susanna to happy, healthy, “normal” Susanna, and instead of it be a touching, inspirational transition- it comes off as melodramatic and bathetic.

One of the women befriended by Susanna while at Claymoore is Lisa, a sociopath, played by Angelina Jolie. Jolie’s icy blue stare aids in the ferocity needed for this character, and she creates the film’s most intensely dramatic moments. Her monologue to Daisy (Brittany Murphy) gave the impression of someone the feeling who was truly hollow and without conscious. But she too disappoints when it was time for her character to shift mindsets and get better. When Susanna comes to say good-bye to her, her crocodile tears and far-away look detract from the fierce character she had just built, making getting well seem like something for the weak, as opposed to one of the hardest things a person could ever face.

Whoopie Goldberg plays Valerie, the head nurse on the second floor, and arguably the strongest character of the bunch. “Val” breaks down sanity so that it’s not something that it’s not mocking the women, but something they can and desire to achieve, even in the face of ignorance and racism. Whoopie gives her character a very den mother-like feel, comforting or stern when necessary, but the transition between the two feelings doesn’t feel fake like those of Ryder or Jolie. She uses humor to break up the film’s constant mood of depression and angst, a much-needed relief, and her character is the best of this film.

While the film made achieving mental health feel like a melodramatic adventure, it did accurately portray the general lack of knowledge and understanding of mental illness in the 60’s. The hospital’s therapist Melvin (Jeffery Tambor) stupidly lets Daisy go home, only to have herself commit suicide, and falls asleep during therapy sessions. Susanna’s parents can’t handle what is happening to their daughter not just because it causes them emotional distress, but because they’ll have to tell all of their snotty friends (one of which makes the poor decision to yell at the women in public, to which Lisa brilliantly says, “Some advice, okay? Just don't point your fuckin' finger at crazy people!”) In this area, the film succeeds- but is unsuccessful at representing the struggles and triumphs of the mentally unstable.

Half the Story: Copyright Criminals Review

Creativity rarely just creates itself. It takes inspiration from other creative works to influence others, and so on. But when does inspiration breathing life into new forms art bleed over into theft? That’s the topic explored by Benjamin Franzen and Kembrew McLeod’s documentary, “Copyright Criminals”.

The documentary focuses on the sampling of DJ’s of 80’s and 90’s of music acts that came before them. Examples include iconic groups Public Enemy, De La Soul and Beastie Boys who sampled primarily from funk musicians like George Clinton and James Taylor’s drummer Clyde Stubblefield, the inventor of “The Funky Drummer”, as well as more current artists like Eclectic Method, who sample from TV and movies in conjunction with music to create their art.

Experts in all fields were questioned for a wide range of information. Lawyers, the sampling musicians and the musicians that were sampled were all interviewed. Those that sampled were asked about why they felt they could sample, and those that were sampled asked about how they felt about it. Also, Lawyers explained the legality behind copyright laws and how they applied to the music industry. Clips from shows and music videos were also shown in a split-screen with the interviews, giving an additional visual aid to what the interviewees were talking about.

The film also delved into the potential racial inequality. It’s no secret that most hip-hop artists are predominantly black, especially ones in the 80’s, so the notion that they were being prejudiced and sued because of racial discrimination isn’t out of line. But this idea was more or less touched upon, not really explored.

The opinions of those interviewed were organized so that while juxtaposed against each other, they weren’t in direct contrast or ping-pongy; everyone had an equal opportunity to speak their mind and share their story. But, while it was all fair and balanced- there was little to no indication on how the documentaries felt about the subject. While objectivity is valued, one would assume that to go out of their way to make the film, they would have an opinion on the subject and want to share it.

The film did manage to get angles from all, if not most, sides of the issue- but its lack of opinion and general feeling of ambivalence made it feel like it had no point, except for perhaps a shallow look into the world of sampling music.

Disappointing Dylan

The Grammys are infamous for meshing different artists together for mega-superstar performances; such is the case with the collaboration of Mumford & Sons, The Avett Brothers and the great Bob Dylan. In doing so, they brought together the newer “folk-rock” bands, as well as the legendary ground-breaking hero himself. In theory, this is an excellent idea.

The performance started out strong, Mumford & Sons opened the set with a rocking performance of “The Cave”, head-banging and foot-stamping away. Although, their sound and rock-out ability felt confined by the limitations of their tiny 2x4 cubicle of a set.

As they were finishing (as in still playing), The Avett Brothers began. “Head Full of Doubt, Road Full of Promises” while powerful, made the mood much more somber than the previous light and energetic one set up by Mumford. Sean Avett looked restricted in his ability to perform by the keyboard in front of him, but still the band’s performance was a solid one.

And then, out comes Dylan. Old-school mic in hand, the two bands formed a huge chorus-line behind him in anticipation of the icon. A general, informal survey was taken and the results stated that it took about an average of 30-45 seconds to be able to identify what song Dylan had chosen to sing. His torn-up vocal chords warbled out “Maggie’s Farm”. As he threw his arms about, Dylan had Elvis’ confidence, but barely the harmonica playing skills to back it up. The man may be a legend, but this lack-luster performance was anything but legendary.

The whole performance felt cramped; cramped on the small stage and cramped by the show’s demanding schedule and time constraints. And wasn’t this supposed to be the acoustic trio performance? The set strayed further and further from acoustic as it continued, especially when Dylan didn’t even play guitar. For those expecting a truly ground-breaking performance of a melding of new and old, contemporary and antiquated, they were left disappointed by Dylan’s apparent inability to perform up to the standards which he himself had previously set. It’s been said that it is better to go out on top, as opposed to a steady decline- or worse yet, a huge flop of a performance. Dylan may want to consider going back into his reclusiveness, coming out for the occasional interview or biography, as it appears his performing days are long gone.

Nathan Rabin

Shawn Donoghue

Time-Out Response: Nathan Rabin

Nathan Rabin is the head writer for The Onion’s A.V. Club, a non-satirical yet humorous newspaper and website that reviews books, films, games, TV, and DVDs. He was also a panelist on the show, “Movie Club with John Ridley” , and written a critically acclaimed memoir. He also writes a book called, “My Year of Flops” where he gives movies that were shunned by popular culture and critics a second chance. He also writes Silly Little Show-Biz Book Club, which looks at bad books.

Nathan’s approach on reviewing and critiquing seems to be one striped with humor. But, while his work is funny, he doesn’t seem to be making fun of the work or those that made it, per se. His willingness to look into cinematic flops and trashy books shows that he believes all things deserve to be looked more than once to not gloss over any of its potential finer points. Few things are ever entirely awful and Rabin seems to understand that and wants his readers to as well.

In the Time-Out article, Nathan mentioned that because of the comment box on the A.V. page, the website’s readers seemed much more real and accessible. Not only does this help keep his ego afloat, we assume, but it shows that he appreciates his readership and that his readers that feel strongly enough to voice their opinions, even if they may disagree with him. He also mentioned that his father considers him to be “brave” because he puts himself and his views out for the general public, making him vulnerable to others’ criticisms, but Nathan said he doesn’t even think about it because “if I did I’d have a hard time to putting anything to page.” So while he appreciates his readers potential negative commentary, he feels just as strongly about what he writes to defend it and to keep writing. So passionate in fact that, like the other critics interviewed, Nathan said he would continue writing even if he wasn’t bringing in an income from it.

In a Chicagoist interview, Nathan commented on the shift to the new digital world, and how the Internet has affected the exchange of information and ideas. “You don't have to be Peter Bogdanovich and interview Hitchcock and Welles and Ford to learn how they made films. Now you can just watch an audio commentary. You go online and there's information everywhere.” I think this quote shows that while excited about the vast amount of information and the accessibility to it, Nathan sort of mourns for the past. Because when he was growing up, you had to have passion to know all of the things that my generation could discover with the click of a mouse. Now everyone’s an expert, no one really has to have the same amount of fervor or enthusiasm that he had to have, to get to here he is today.

Good and Bad Review

Marc Hogan’s (seen in Spin) review of Nicki Minaj’s Pink Friday is a good review because it encompasses the entire album as well as her career. He references songs on the album, and lyrics from those songs, but also work she’s done in the past and how the two compare. A good album review should be a review about the album in question and should include comparisons to albums past so that the reader can understand how the new album matches up, or doesn’t, to previous works. He also specifically referenced songs and lyrics so that consumers can be sure to pay attention to those songs or lyrics. Hogan’s criticisms aren’t over the top harsh or uncalled for, and are seemingly appropriate for this body of work. He also references other sources outside of the album, (Rob Sheffield’s book) making it an informed review. In his conclusion, he addresses what someone might be able to expect from Minaj in the future, while leaving her room to grow as an artist independent of one critic’s opinions. I consider this review to be a good one because while he doesn’t praise Minaj, he also doesn’t forget to find the good in it as well; his appreciation is on par with the rating he gave the album.

Sam Bathe’s (seen in Fan the Fire) review of The Mechanic is a bad review because it just describes the plot and little else. There is no description of actor’s ability, and little talk of director’s style. It also starts out biased against the movie, when he claims its remaking a movie that was “rubbish in the first place.” This review is really a plot summary, tainted with preconceived opinions and notions. A good movie review would review all aspects of the movie, not just the screen writers’ ability to create a story. To be honest, I’m not even really sure who is acting in this movie, or who directed it, both of which I believe to be major points of a review and should be crystal clear. Just because the piece of art you may be reviewing is bad doesn’t mean that the review itself has to also be bad. In fact, the review should outshine the art if it is in fact “bad art.” The conclusion is like a last-ditch effort to find something positive in the movie, and seems rushed and not very well thought out. This is a poor review because it doesn’t really review the work as much as it does summarize it, does little to find both the good and bad about it, and isn’t that easy to follow or understand.

http://www.spin.com/reviews/nicki-minaj-pink-friday-young-moneycash-moneyuniversal-motown

http://fanthefiremagazine.com/blog/film/film-review-the-mechanic/