BEFORE: OK, so Oscars last night - I guess I screwed up by not working "The Shape of Water" in to my February chain between two other films with Michael Shannon. Of course I regret that choice now, but I'm sure I'll have another chance at linking to it. Some time right around the first of October would be perfect, and I've got the outro film for it, I just need to work on the intro.
But all things considered, my viewing history fared better than I thought it would - "Blade Runner 2049" picked up a couple of technical awards, and I made sure to see that one in the theater. "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" had some nominations but didn't win anything, and I think "Logan" was up for a writing award. Oh, and I saw the animated short "Lou" that preceded "Cars 3", I think. And "Beauty and the Beast", which I watched last week, was up for Production Design, and "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" was a contender for Best Visual Effects. I took a pass on everything else, because there just wasn't time to work everything in to my jam-packed schedule.
Fear not, all is not lost. I went into linking overdrive last month, and as things stand right now, during April and May I'm planning on watching nominees "Get Out", "The Florida Project", "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri", "The Greatest Showman", "I, Tonya", "The Post", and "War for the Planet of the Apes" along with non-nominated 2017 films like "Murder on the Orient Express", "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales", "Table 19", "Downsizing" and "Stronger". Don't even try to figure out the chain, because there's a LOT of connective tissue in-between, including "Black Panther", "Avengers: Infinity War" and "Solo", and tons of other films from this millennium - but first I have to get there through a bunch of classic films from the last one.
For now, Sarah Silverman carries over from "Take This Waltz", and then I'm heading back to the 1960's tomorrow.
AFTER: Oh, I'd just HATE to end the romance chain on this one. That just wouldn't bode well for me, or for you, or romance in general. It's the sort of film that gives romances a bad name, because it's just made up of a few "Mars vs. Venus" stereotypes about men and women, and the rest is just Hollywood contrivances and coincidences.
Take the initial starting point - all women want to get married. It's just not true. On the other side, we've got all men are against commitment. Again, not true. There are millions of people with thousands of varying opinions about marriage, and the facts that people continue to get married and/or have committed relationships that do NOT involve marriage tells me that there's a wide spectrum of experiences and lifestyle choices in this great world of ours, and you can't reduce the human condition to just a few simple rules and traditions where romance is concerned. Answer me this - if all women are commitment-oriented and all men of a certain age are not, how IN THE SAME MOVIE that depicts this, are men shown getting married, one after the other? Did they all change their minds in a similar fashion? Were they all bewitched or brainwashed by their female life-mates? Of course not, it's completely silly to think that - but how can a screenwriter put a simple set of rules out there, say women are THIS way and men are THIS way, then some mysterious undefined process happens, and they all get married. Explain, please.
Of course, this is nonsense, what some writer wanted to do was just put two people together, and then set a number of unlikely obstacles in their way. Obstacle #1 - a man is afraid of commitment. It's simple enough, but why did this writer have to paint ALL men with that same brush, when he knows full well that's not true? Obstacle #2 - once this man does decide to commit, he doesn't know how to propose. Only he kind of does, because he takes her on their anniversary to this "hot spot" restaurant that seems to cater to couples getting engaged there. He clearly knew this, but made the reservation there anyway - so is he afraid of commitment, or not? Apparently the screenwriter was also unable to commit - to a single premise, that is. So he pops the question, pulls out the ring, and then has no good words to go with it.
The only reason I'm not completely ruling against this premise is that proposing is difficult for some, and so is talking about it beforehand with one's intended. A man may want to surprise his lady, and talking about it before-hand would ruin the surprise. So he's GOT to believe that she'll say yes, and if he has any doubt, he's either projecting his own insecurity on her, OR he's reading the situation correctly, and it's not the right time. And it's impossible to talk about getting engaged beforehand without either telegraphing the fact that you're going to propose, or highlighting the fact that you have no intention of doing so. Once you start talking about it, you kind of have to do it.
But let's take this as written here, for a moment, because a botched engagement is a relatively novel situation for a Hollywood film. Naturally Anne, the girlfriend, does not take this well. So they're over, done, finito - only they're not. She hints that the door's not entirely closed, and she MIGHT be willing to reconsider his proposal, provided he does it better, with better words, because the fancy dinner, flowers, the ring, just wasn't enough. I have to conclude here that these are NOT positive characters, because he may be a clueless boyfriend with a fear of commitment and a misunderstanding about what women want BUT she also comes off as a selfish perfectionist, unable to accept her boyfriend as he is, and she also failed to give any clues about what she did want. How was Jimmie supposed to tell the difference between "everything's going fine in the relationship, so there's no need to talk about getting engaged" from "she really wants to get engaged, but she hasn't brought it up or even hinted about it"?
Then comes the big Hollywood contrivance - Jimmie's grandfather dies, and leaves one of those video wills that will ensure that his bloodline will continue, by offering his grandson the entire fortune if he gets married before his 30th birthday, and has 2 kids before his 35th, or something like that. This would also somehow lead to Jimmie's company being taken over, and a lot of people being laid off if he doesn't get this money. Then come more obstacles: Jimmie's 30th birthday is just 2 days away (you'd think the grandfather would have been aware of this, but no...) and Anne is about to leave for Greece on an assignment.
AND since no good ever came out of being open and honest about anything, Jimmie decides to NOT tell Anne about the inheritance, as he rushes to see her before her helicopter (?) leaves, with a limo, priest and best man in tow. A better effort, she thinks, but whoops, gotta catch my plane, let's talk about this in 2 weeks. Because of course she said that. So this leads Jimmie to contact a number of old girlfriends to try them to reconsider him as a husband - so much for romance. Things get so bad that eventually he has to clue them in about the money, creating a business arrangement instead of a romantic partnership. Hey, for $100 million I think I'd marry this guy, but unfortunately women have this little thing called self-respect, so he's out of luck.
NITPICK POINT: It's at this point in the film that Anne somehow returns to San Francisco, though she's seen on a plane heading for Greece, and they never say HOW she gets back. OK, so she saw a couple making out on the plane, so maybe she WANTED to go back, but this is very problematic. MAYBE she had to transfer in Atlanta or something, but if this was a work assignment (BTW, what was her job? I don't think they ever said...) then wouldn't she be FIRED for not flying to Greece as planned? Plus, those tickets were probably NON-refundable, so she just cost her company a lot of money, just so she could see her boyfriend again - so she's out of a job AND she has to eat the cost of those international tickets? Uh, uh, no way - would never happen.
Things get worse - even though Jimmie spots her in San Francisco (which briefly gives him hope that she's back in town) she heads up to Mendocino by train with her sister to see their parents, so there's yet another inconvenient obstacle. (Hey, she's out of a job now, might as well move back to her parents' house...). And then Jimmie's best friend places a classified ad for a wife, and the newspaper turns it into a front page story - which, NITPICK POINT #2, sounds like a breach of journalism ethics, plus reporters never report on what's in the classified section, those are usually two separate offices. But why let reality ruin a story when you need to set up a scene with 100 desperate brides chasing a man down the street?
I can't tell which gender gets stereotyped worse here - probably the women. Someone thought that portraying all women as desperate, annoying gold-diggers was a good idea? Are there even that many single women in San Francisco? Well, there ARE a lot of gay men there, right? Some of those brides looked like men in drag, too - was this making a social commentary, or were there not enough female extras to fill the scene?
NITPICK POINT #3 - If Anne was very upset just because Jimmie didn't propose well, shouldn't she be even MORE upset that he failed to tell her about the inheritance in an open, honest way? Really, he sold her short yet again by assuming that she would assume that he was only proposing to get the money. When the truth is, he should have clued her in on the deal from the start, because a) who makes up a story about an inheritance like that? So there would be no reason to not believe him and b) why should some other woman get a crack at the money, when if he truly loved her, he would give her the first shot at it?
Nothing really makes sense here - again, just a series of obstacles and contrivances.
Wait, I almost forgot NITPICK POINT #4 - Hollywood movies would have the audience believe that all you need to get married on the fly is to drag a priest around with you. Wrong! One of the priest's duties, to make a marriage official, is to sign the marriage license. (Remember "My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2"?) Too bad nobody in this movie ever took the time to get one - not Jimmie, not Anne, not any of the random brides that showed up at the church. No license, no marriage, no inheritance. Therefore, the whole premise of the film is rendered null and void. Hollywood's been pulling this fast one in movies at least since "The Philadelphia Story", maybe longer. And I'm looking at you too, "Mamma Mia!", but at least your wedding took place outside the U.S. - the rules might be different in Greece, for all I know.
Also starring Chris O'Donnell (last seen in "Circle of Friends"), Renée Zellweger (last seen in "Bridget Jones's Baby"), Artie Lange, Hal Holbrook (last seen in "Into the Wild"), Ed Asner (last heard in "Superman/Batman: Apocalypse"), Peter Ustinov (last seen in "Spartacus"), James Cromwell (last heard in "Big Hero 6"), Marley Shelton (last seen in "Planet Terror"), Brooke Shields (last seen in "The Muppets Take Manhattan"), Jennifer Esposito (last seen in "Don't Say a Word"), Mariah Carey (last seen in "Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping"), Katharine Towne (last seen in "Town & Country"), Rebecca Cross, Stacy Edwards, Anastasia Horne, Pat Finn, with cameos from Niecy Nash, Nancy O'Dell.
RATING: 2 out of 10 megaphones
No comments:
Post a Comment