Sympathy for the she-devil

I love this very perceptive Salon article by Rebecca Traister about Meryl Streep's richly comic and surprisingly touching portrayal of the title character in The Devil Wears Prada. I thought as I watched the movie about all those Rosalind Russell/Bette Davis/Joan Crawford movies of the 30's and 40's, movies like "June Bride" (Davis is the editor of a magazine with ex-boyfriend Robert Montgomery as the reporter covering a wedding for her) and "Mildred Pierce" (Crawford goes from waitress to CEO of a chain of restaurants, ruining the lives of just about everyone along the way). In those movies, women were strong and capable, if dictatorial and (always) missing what really mattered in life, home and family.




Traister mentions "Woman of the Year," with Katharine Hepburn as a brilliant political columnist who falls for Spencer Tracy (in their first of 9 films together), a sportswriter. He loves her as she is but is disappointed that she does not make their lives together a priority. In an unexpectedly wrenching episode, she carelessly adopts a war orphan and then, when she neglects him, Tracy's character returns him to the orphanage, where he is happy to be reunited with his friends. In an unintentionally awkward last scene that seems more like a rejected episode of "I Love Lucy," Hepburn's character tries to make a Martha Stewart-style breakfast for her husband but it turns into disaster. Still, this is better than the portrayals of working women in the 1950's. Doris Day sees husband James Garner deliver a baby and realizes that she should quit her job as a spokeswoman for a soap company to be a full-time mother in "The Thrill of it All." Polly Bergan resigns her job as the first woman President of the United States because...she becomes pregnant(!) in "Kisses for My President." And, in the movie with the closest parallels to "Devil Wears Prada," "The Best of Everything," Joan Crawford (again) is the witchy dragon lady boss of a publishing outfit whose example shows sweet Hope Lange that she'd be better off as a housewife.

Dana Stevens, one of the best writers in the country on movies and television, makes a similar point in Slate.

To reframe Andy's defense of her boss: What if this were a movie about man—a young man apprenticing himself to a hard-boiled older mentor? I can't help but think that the moral compromises required in order to sully the hero's character would be much greater, and that he wouldn't have to apologize for caring about his job.

Could Streep's character, Miranda Priestly, be just as successful and be less of a monster? Sure, but who would go to that movie? Traister is right that Streep makes Priestly someone who is always the smartest and most dedicated one in the room and someone who is aware of the costs of the choices she has made. It's one of the best and most complex performances of the year.

Also in Slate, Amanda Fortini says that real-life fashion magazine staff don't dress as flamboyantly as the characters in the movie.

You'd ... be hard-pressed to find fashion editors who put themselves together in the fussy manner of the film's characters. With their swarms of gold chains heaped upon embroidered jackets layered over sequined tops, all of it cinched by wide belts and accessorized with knee-high boots, these editors look like conceptual art assemblages. ("More is more" seems to be the film's guiding aesthetic.)

But Fortini's most important conclusion is about what the movie does right in how well the clothes that are the focus of the movie tell the story. Andy's frumpy clothes in her "before" persona and the glam clothes that reflect her insecurity -- she wears full-scale outfits instead of putting something together on her own -- and lack of a personal style -- "On successive days, she approximates Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's (swingy green coat with leopard collar and cuffs), Ali MacGraw in Love Story (long belted jacket with snug knit cap), and Jane Fonda in Klute (minidress and overcoat paired with up-to-there boots).


It is not a documentary.

[S]ubdued, well-edited clothing [like that worn by real-life fashion editors] doesn't play well onscreen. The camera cannot sufficiently capture a sumptuous texture or a nuanced cut. The bright colors and conspicuous logos Field uses serve as visual shorthand for the glamour of a fashion editor's life. To differentiate her characters from regular women dressed up for work, Field had to make their ensembles over-the-top. And if the clothes pander to an outsider's expectation of what fashion should look like, it's hardly surprising; fashion outsiders will no doubt be the film's main viewers.

Love Letter to Lois - Superman's main squeeze -- and mine. By Troy Patterson

I spent a fair bit of time as Lois Lane when I was 7, waiting in my friend Marty's house for him to change from his playclothes into his Superman pajamas so he could pretend to fly into the room and rescue me. And when I got older I loved reading about Lois as much as I did about Supe, especially those "imaginary" stories where she got to marry him. (I know, I know, they're all imaginary, but these were categorized that way so they did not have to act as precedent and have their story lines continued in other issues.) I liked the way Lois had a job that let her be curious and say what she thought -- in print. So I enjoyed this
Love Letter to Lois in Slate by Troy Patterson who shows us how Lois changed over the years (a pill-box hat?) and reminds us that she wasn't clueless in failing to figure out the Clark/Superman connection; she was busy working!

It's a Wonderful List -- more on AFI's latest

In Slate, Bryan Curtis also wonders what the AFI "Cheers" list means: and

First, let's clarify what exactly Hollywood means by inspiration. To judge by the AFI list, we can define it three ways: Frank Capra, Steven Spielberg, and Tom Hanks.

[Most of the films on the list are] testaments to the indomitable human spirit. But apparently the AFI feels that there's more to movie inspiration than the heartwarming. For example, what's Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (No. 47) doing on the list? Its prescient vision and special effects might inspire awe, I guess. That might be the reason the AFI was inspired by Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind (No. 58), a movie in which a man abandons his wife and children to commune with aliens. In fact, the more you peruse the list, the more elastic AFI's definition becomes. Inspiring also means "rousing" (Gunga Din, No. 74), "religious" (The Ten Commandments, No. 79), or simply "well-acted" (The African Queen, No. 48).

Perhaps the most efficient delivery vehicle for inspiration is the sports movie: Hoosiers, Rudy, etc.

As for what these "inspiring" movies actually inspire? "It's just a hunch, but what I think inspiring movies do more than anything is inspire more inspirational movies."

Good advice from Harrison Ford

Harrison Ford makes a very classy presentation at the LA Film Festival. William Goldman famously said that "no one knows anything," but Ford says it better.

Thanks to Jeannette Catsoulis for suggesting this clip.

Reviews: Sandler Clicks and Tyreese goes in Waist Deep

100 Awesome Music Videos

I've been lukewarm about the homogenized institutional lists like the AFI's annual 100, but I get a big kick out of lists made by passionate and knowledgeable fans like this list of 100 Awesome Music Videos from Pitchfork. The commentary is just as much fun as the videos. Warning -- do not click on the link unless you have lots of time to waste.

The Eject Button: Classic Movies It's Okay To Hate | The A.V. Club

The fabulous Onion A.V. Club prepares a list I can get behind -- The Eject Button: Classic Movies It's Okay To Hate. It isn't so much that I agree with their choices -- I'm always going to love "Star Wars" and "Fantasia" and "The Big Lebowski" transcends all categories of love and hate -- it just is, and that is enough -- but the piece itself, with its pro and con arguments, is provocative and entertaining.

The problem with the ''Do critics matter?'' debate

Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman weighs in on the "Hey, studios! Don't ignore us!" cold open issue (I won't call it a debate because the studios show no interest in discussing it). If there was a debate, though, I'd be persuaded by his argument that critics matter not because they can make a good movie profitable or keep people away from a bad one (we all begged people not to go see "R.V" and "United 93" got great reviews but a small audience) but because we serve as "a companionable guide." I'd like to think so.

The notion that a critic's job begins and ends with our power to help films become hits is a specious one nurtured by marketing executives, and I'm always astonished when critics themselves buy into it.

Consider the comparable situation with, say, political pundits. Should an editorial columnist who was stauchly against the Iraq war, and had no discernible influence on either the Congress or political opinion at large, be considered ''irrelevant''? Was the war itself ''columnist-proof''?

My ultimate point, I guess, is that critics should matter not because we're ticker-tape machines of judgment but because we are voices.

AFI's latest list

Lists are silly -- can anyone really make a case why one of these movies ranks higher on the list than any other? That does double when the category is even mushier than "best" -- this time it's "100 Cheers," whatever that means. But the AFI lists are fun to watch on television, with all the clips and commentary, and most important, they are a good reminder of great movies. Every one of these is worth watching -- or rewatching:

1 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE 1946
2 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD 1962
3 SCHINDLER'S LIST 1993
4 ROCKY 1976
5 MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON 1939
6 E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL 1982
7 THE GRAPES OF WRATH 1940
8 BREAKING AWAY 1979
9 MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET 1947
10 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN 1998
11 THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES 1946
12 APOLLO 13 1995
13 HOOSIERS 1986
14 THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI 1957
15 THE MIRACLE WORKER 1962
16 NORMA RAE 1979
17 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST 1975
18 THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK 1959
19 THE RIGHT STUFF 1983
20 PHILADELPHIA 1993
21 IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT 1967
22 THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES 1942
23 THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION 1994
24 NATIONAL VELVET 1944
25 SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS 1941
26 THE WIZARD OF OZ 1939
27 HIGH NOON 1952
28 FIELD OF DREAMS 1989
29 GANDHI 1982
30 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA 1962
31 GLORY 1989
32 CASABLANCA 1942
33 CITY LIGHTS 1931
34 ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN 1976
35 GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER 1967
36 ON THE WATERFRONT 1954
37 FORREST GUMP 1994
38 PINOCCHIO 1940
39 STAR WARS 1977
40 MRS. MINIVER 1942
41 THE SOUND OF MUSIC 1965
42 12 ANGRY MEN 1957
43 GONE WITH THE WIND 1939
44 SPARTACUS 1960
45 ON GOLDEN POND 1981
46 LILIES OF THE FIELD 1963
47 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY 1968
48 THE AFRICAN QUEEN 1951
49 MEET JOHN DOE 1941
50 SEABISCUIT 2003
51 THE COLOR PURPLE 1985
52 DEAD POET'S SOCIETY 1989
53 SHANE 1953
54 RUDY 1993
55 THE DEFIANT ONES 1958
56 BEN-HUR 1959
57 SERGEANT YORK 1941
58 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD
KIND
1977
59 DANCES WITH WOLVES 1990
60 THE KILLING FIELDS 1984
61 SOUNDER 1972
62 BRAVEHEART 1995
63 RAIN MAN 1988
64 THE BLACK STALLION 1979
65 A RAISIN IN THE SUN 1961
66 SILKWOOD 1983
67 THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL 1951
68 AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN 1982
69 THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS 1957
70 COAL MINER'S DAUGHTER 1980
71 COOL HAND LUKE 1967
72 DARK VICTORY 1939
73 ERIN BROCKOVICH 2000
74 GUNGA DIN 1939
75 THE VERDICT 1982
76 BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ 1962
77 DRIVING MISS DAISY 1989
78 THELMA & LOUISE 1991
79 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS 1956
80 BABE 1995
81 BOYS TOWN 1938
82 FIDDLER ON THE ROOF 1971
83 MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN 1936
84 SERPICO 1973
85 WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT 1993
86 STAND AND DELIVER 1988
87 WORKING GIRL 1988
88 YANKEE DOODLE DANDY 1942
89 HAROLD AND MAUDE 1972
90 HOTEL RWANDA 2004
91 THE PAPER CHASE 1973
92 FAME 1980
93 A BEAUTIFUL MIND 2001
94 CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS 1937
95 PLACES IN THE HEART 1984
96 SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER 1993
97 MADAME CURIE 1943
98 THE KARATE KID 1984
99 RAY 2004
100 CHARIOTS OF FIRE 1981

The Norman Rockwell Code

Barney Fife's son has to solve a mysterious murder in the parody The Norman Rockwell Code. It would have been better at 10 minutes rather than 35, but then "The Da Vinci Code" would have been better at 10 minutes than 2 1/2 hours, so maybe it's making a meta point.

Ask the FTC to investigate Baby Einstein

The CCFC has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission about screen media for infants under age 2. To add your name to those who support this request for investigation of the misleading claims made by Baby Einstein, Brainy Baby, and BabyFirstTV, check this site.

Critics -- a thumbs down?

The Hollywood Reporter's Anne Thompson says that Criticism's status quo [is] getting thumbs down --

It took Ebert decades to connect first with a local, then a national audience. He understands intuitively who his followers are and what they want from him; his job is secure.

Not so for most of his peers. That is because daily newspapers are losing circulation, Hollywood advertising and their influence over moviegoers. As publishers struggle to hang on to their readers via online content, blogs and podcasts, some are replacing experienced critics -- many of whom, like Ebert, have built loyal local followings -- with younger, less expensive models. Newspaper editors seem to believe hiring a younger critic will help them build a wider demo. Although they might deny it, veteran critics Kevin Thomas and Janet Maslin were pressured to give up their daily posts at the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, respectively. John Anderson accepted a buyout at Newsday and is now freelancing. Most recently, the
Chicago Tribune's Mike Wilmington and the New York Daily News' Jami Bernard were forced out of their long-held gigs.

But when established critics stop reviewing, they often leave behind a gaping hole.

"When audiences lose faith in a paper," says SPC's Bernard, "they end up doing something else." He contends that theater attendance has dropped in such specialty film markets as Boston, Seattle and Miami that have lost popular critics.

Over at the New York Times, lead critics A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis have yet to establish the kind of bulkhead that Canby and Maslin had during their tenure at the Times, but that is partly because neither Scott nor Dargis has a particularly mainstream sensibility. Both are canny careerists, though, as well as elegant writers who often seem more interested in crafting arcane intellectual arguments than reaching out to their readers. Thus when Scott or Dargis champions a small movie such as "Gunner Palace" or "The Notorious Bettie Page," it has little impact.

At least Scott and Dargis are encouraged to discourse intelligently about movies. Some of their peers are pushed into being entertainers, promoters and interviewers instead of objective reviewers. Perhaps expressing some sour grapes of his own, respected former Daily News critic Dave Kehr -- who now writes a weekly New York Times DVD column -- blogged at Davekehr.com about his and Bernard's former employer: "During my tenure at the News, Jami and I suffered unbelievable interference from editorial higher-ups, all of whom seemed to believe that they were vastly more capable of registering the 'populist' perspective on a given film than the people they'd somehow (and clearly mistakenly) hired as experts on the subject."

Kehr goes on to point out that these days, many younger writers are being hired by the likes of the Village Voice: "Oldsters in the field -- which at this point means anyone over 30 -- may want to start looking for a new gig."

But newspapers might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Aiming at a youthful readership is a fool's errand. Any parent of a teenager knows where young people go for information about anything: the Internet. Which is where Kehr and many less established critics are now expounding on movies. Such aggregate sites as Rottentomatoes.com and Metacritic.com collect and rate film reviews, so that it is possible to check any movie's average score. But they also make it easy to find the critics you like, no matter where they are writing. Punch in "Da Vinci" at Moviereviewqueryengine.com and 155 reviews pop up, from Scott at the top and 13 Ecritic.com entries in the middle to the last citation from Cuttingedge.be -- in Dutch.

One rising cyber-star is FilmFreakCentral.net's Walter Chaw, who writes with a refreshing candor that you would never find in the print world. In his recent review of "X3," for example, Chaw calls director Brett Ratner "a homophobic, misogynistic, misanthropic moron."