High-Tech Monster

From the time I saw the awkward pre-show interview with James Franco I knew this show was going to be a big deal:  James Franco was on planet pluto.  His co-host Anne Hathaway tried her darn hardest to impress the Academy and entertain the audiences.  James Franco gave up from the get go. You’ve done all us disinterested misanthropes proud Mr. Franco, I salute you.You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar – quite literally, Franco is working towards his P.H.D at Yale.

Having watched this years show I can safely say that I’ve had an education in what really makes the Academy giddy: old rich men with speech impediments. Oh, that and films like the King’s Speech will almost always clean house.

Not a single Oscar for the Cohen Bro’s or their outstanding True Grit.  Hardened, but not jaded, I’ve learned all too late that the Academy hasn’t given an Oscar for best picture to a western since Clint Eastwood’s excellent Unforgiven. The totally ‘unforgiven’ moment came when Hailey Steinfeld did not win an Oscar for best supporting actress.

Despite the uproar of condemnation for the Academy’s decision to leave the Social Network without any of the major awards, this show is probably a return to form for the Academy.  Based on the amount of positive reviews both the Social Network and King’s Speech are neck to neck in near unanimous acclaim.  Though if that standard of merit is used then clearly Toy Story 3 should have won, being the highest rated film of the year.

Colin Firth did a better job in the King’s Speech than in last year’s A Single Man and certainly deserved his Oscar, though  clearly there  was no competition. Christian Bale had more of a challenge yet still came out on top with an Academy Award for best supporting actor.

Probably the most liked actress of the year, Natalie Portman snagged the Best Actress Awards for her performance in Black Swan.

Inception grabbed up a few audio and visual Oscars as expected, as did Alice in Wonderland.

It was a pretty anemic Academy Awards over all, perhaps because of Franco’s deadpan delivery, or perhaps because the winners were so typical.  For better or for worse the Academy has gone back to form in their selection.  Hell they might as well have aired a re-run of  the 14th Academy Awards.

Even as I write this I still can’t believe that True Grit won nothing.

Ronald Regan famously had a plaque in the oval office that said ‘a man can go far in life if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit. In Barry Levinson’s Wag the Dog, the eccentric producer – played by Dustin Hoffman – tasked with fooling the media by creating a fake war for the President, learns this lesson the hard way, but not –thankfully – before a few laughs. The subject matter shifts back and forth from implausible hilarity to blunt analysis of our political system.  It’s very surreal at times to watch, especially when one considers the events that this too-real-for-comfort black comedy foreshadows. The film, probably created to be comedic dramatization of a possibility, became a mirror of what might have been going on at the end of the both Clinton and Bush administrations.   If only reality was full of such characters – George Bush need not apply.

The films’ plot revolves around a motley crew of film producers, song writers, and presidential aides, all brought together and spearheaded by a mysterious ‘spin doctor’, (played by Robert Deniro) and tasked with the dilemma of keeping the president’s sexual affairs with a firefly girl (think girl-scout) out of the media’s attention for 11 days till his expected re-election. The group comes off as some satirical jab at an Oceans 11 inspired ‘super-team’. The spin doctor cooks up a plan for a fake war with Albania to buy the president time till his upcoming election, and sets out to stretch it out as long as possible with the help of a overzealous producer (played by Dustin Hoffman). The plot takes some comedic liberties in the second half reminding us of the implausibility of the premise – at least in its presented execution – and of the fact that this is at heart a black comedy and not a ‘serious’ look at politics and the media in America. Taking that into consideration, the second half of the film turns up the wackiness to an 11 when the group meets the ‘fake’ MIA soldier they created (played by Woody Harleson), find -out that he has spent the last 12 years incarcerated in a military prison and is on heavy duty psychotics, and subsequently is gets into a ridiculous plane crash. All – including the schizo Harleson – manage to get away unscathed. The film by is now in nearly full throttle Seinfeld inspired comedy.

The chilling thing is how possible the idea of it all is. Certainly not in the comedic and often hyperbolic direction that this particular film took, but in the little things that the movie suggests: exacerbating armed conflict to lessen the importance of an important issue, reporting news that has no factual merit, and most importantly, cronyism that goes all the way to Hollywood and back. President Clinton’s administration dealt with the very issue presented in the film only a year after its release. What’s more is that there was in fact a conflict involving ethnic Albanians suffering genocide in Serbia in 1999, a year after the Lewinsky trial. In the same year President Clinton also attempted the ‘neutralize’ Osama bin Laden with U.S. cruise missiles launched towards terrorist training camps.

Clinton recovered from the scandal, partially because of the media’s sympathy, and partially because there were pressing matters at hand that ‘trumped’ his little sexual fiasco. Unfortunately we never meet the president in the film and therefore can’t have much sympathy for him – the humorous angle of the film wouldn’t allow for much sympathy if the film makers would give an objective portrayal. More so one can’t help grow disdain for the guy whenever the film shows an election commercial imploring the American public to not ‘change horses mid-stream’. Even the president’s own people acknowledge the cringe worthy and unwitting self-caricatures passed off as campaign ads. The president is, in fact, presented very much in the vein of Seinfeld’s George Steinbrenner, reduced to being a voice and a back of the head.

Journalists along with lawyers are considered to be the least trustworthy individuals, sometimes for good reasons – read: Jayson Blair, Steven Glass, and some of those who call themselves ‘fair and balanced’. Wag the Dog asks the viewers to take it a step further and think about the film industry and public relations representatives as other sources of influence and deception.  Regan himself was an actor, his political poise and manner of speaking surely enhanced by his acting experience. After all, we think better of well spoken presidents (JFK, Reagan, and Clinton) even if their time in office is marked by controversy. Perhaps the media doesn’t create our infatuations with powerful people but instead proliferates ideas created by someone else. At one point in the film Dustin Hoffman asks Robert Deniro, “Why are you doing this for the president?” to which there is no response. That is both paradoxically a weakness of the film’s realism and the strength of its argument: sometimes we don’t really know who or what is behind the scenes or why they are there. Particularly after President Bush’s two terms, where the press almost unilaterally supported Bush’s plan to invade Iraq, people lost faith in the press and their reporting on politics. That is quite a harrowing statement.

The film ends with a grim reminder that the powers that be will have their way regardless of the parties involved. A news update comes on a television screen reporting that an Albanian terrorist group is claiming responsibility for an act of terrorism.  The humor suddenly abates and the mirage of a star studded cast acting out ridiculous situations becomes all too real.

People often remember Clinton’s presidency as a fairly successful one by its end and in that sense he very well could have wagged the dog.  By the end of George Bush’s second term many Americans lost their faith in both him and the press that failed to scrutinize him and his administration.  That turning point illustrates how the film’s message of the untouchable nature of backdoor politics isn’t quite realistic.  Still one can’t truly know if the dog wags its tail, the tail wags the dog, or if that the knowledge of either is only privy to some charismatic producer or mysterious spin doctor.  This film is perfect for any conspiracy theorist that needs a good hardy laugh.

Before I go into any real detail about this movie I must say that at times it took me out of my comfort zone, particularly at the beginning, yet somehow kept me laughing and engaged throughout.  The film’s premise – a married lesbian couple dealing with their children building a relationship with their sperm donor father – is not one that I have encountered before.  There is a certain amount of sexuality in the film but surprisingly not from the parents themselves, but from a copious amount of gay (as in male) porn being watched by the various characters.  These very moments were very cringe worthy yet quite funny. Underlying the sometimes subtle humor lies a touching drama exploring the many facets of child-rearing and relationships amongst both homosexual and straight people.  As much as director Lisa Cholodenko tries to paint an accurate picture of this ‘modern family’, what the viewer will take away will ultimately depend on their feeling towards the characters; and as much as we would want to feel good about the family by the end of the journey, there are some things that may hold some viewers back.

A lesbian married couple, Jules (played by Juliane Moore) and Nic (Annete Bennning) are seemingly successful at raising their two teenage children (Josh Hutcherson and Mia Wasikowska) , until one day their world gets turned upside down: The children want to meet their biological father. This is comically misinterpreted by Nic as signs of her son’s budding homoerotic desires for his sociopath best friend.    Played by Mark Rufallo, the laid back, down to earth father meets his biological  children and becomes the family’s third wheel, so to speak.

The parents have a hard time to assimilate to this new change and begin to feel that they are loosing influence with their children. After a not-quite-so-shocking plot twist, the family is torn apart and the Nic and Jules try to piece their family together before their daughter heads off to college.  Unfortunately things don’t go to well for their biological dad who gets left in the dust, his new-found importance shot to pieces.

I certainly emphasized with the lesbian couple and their marital troubles and their children’s growing pains; yet I couldn’t help but feel for Mark Ruffalo’s character and his predicament by the end.  Partially because of Rufallos’ excellent performance and partially because of my own experience of re-kindling a relationship with an estranged father. Jules’ seemingly irrational xenophobia half way through the movie also lends a hand to having somewhat less sympathy for, marital and child rearing  issues aside, is a well-off ‘normal’ family.  Which brings me back to an earlier point: family is a very touchy subject, even more so when it involves such a new – at least in film – concept of homosexual parents raising children. The film is certainly a step in the right direction.

Being a  drama/comedy, the humor is done well enough for most people to find entertaining and sometimes chuckle. The drama is at times  profound although not entirely poignant, at least not in the way of the usual family dramas – for better or for worse. This is definitely meant to be a feel good flick and to that end the film makers certainly have mostly gotten it down.  That said, I can’t help but feeling that film takes a conservative stance on it’s subject matter in order to justify the comedy and portray a positive image of how normal homosexual families are.  While the viewer is ultimately left to decide if the kids (and parents) are really all right: this reviewer feels that the movie certainly is.

8/10