All posts by Larry Christopher

Rid of Me -Culture Clash in the Suburbs

Note: This review has recently been re-published on Devtome.

Rid of Me is a good example of the kind of indie film that’s fun to discover, despite its flaws. I cannot say it’s a great film, but it’s certainly original, funny and insightful at times. On the other hand, it’s also uneven and some of the characters are too much like caricatures.

On Netflix, it’s described as a black comedy and this is fairly accurate. It follows the travails of Meris (Katy O’Grady), a housewife who reluctantly moves to Portland with her husband Mitch (John Keyser). As soon as they arrive, things go badly for her. It turns out that Mitch, who is from Portland originally, has a whole clique of friends, as well as an ex-lover, with whom he grew up. These people are immediately portrayed as the worst possible stereotypes of suburban conformists. Meris cannot fit in with these people, and soon her marriage falls apart.

Rid of Me opens in an interesting and somewhat shocking manner. The music and ambiance resemble those of a horror movie as it begins with a rather gruesome (though not violent) scene that is actually from the middle of the film. It’s something you’d never see in a mainstream film, though I’m sure many viewers would be happy to never see anything like it.

The first problem with the whole scenario is that, while Mitch’s friends are wholly unsympathetic -in case we had any doubt how vile they are, they exhibit blatant racism towards an Islamic couple- Meris herself comes across as so socially awkward that it’s difficult to completely sympathize with her. That is, it would be hard for anyone to warm up to someone who only stares and stammers when you talk to them.

I suppose we have to forgive the film, or more properly writer and director James Westby for making Mitch and his friends almost unbelievably obnoxious and insensitive. After all, the film is basically a satire about mainstream suburban America. Yet it’s a little hard to believe that such people in a place like Portland would be quite so narrow minded and intolerant, at least openly.

As the film progresses, it goes in a completely different direction as Meris and Mitch divorce. Meris gets a job at a candy shop, where she is befriended by an ultra alternative girl named Trudy. She soon falls in with a whole subculture of misfits, who dress in black, get wasted and show a thorough contempt for anything middle class -such as Meris’s ex husband and his friends.

The alternative characters in Rid of Me are just as extreme and stereotypical as the suburbanites in their antisocial posturing. Ultimately, Meris manages to find a kind of middle ground when she hooks up with a fellow misfit (albeit a more mellow sort than her new alternative friends), a record store clerk who shares many of her bizarre mannerisms to an unlikely degree. For the most part, however, the film draws an extreme line between the two extremes to make it’s point, and I suppose for laughs. One of Meris’s co-workers at the candy shop, an ultra straight woman who is a stickler for the rules states, “I hate alternative people.” Does anyone really say things like that?

Rid of Me is one of those interesting indie films that works in some places but not others. At a certain point, it sort of drags and becomes repetitive as Meris goes back and forth between missing her old life and embracing her new one.

All in all, Rid of Me is a mostly compelling and funny portrayal of culture clash that doesn’t always hit the mark but is worth watching for the times it does.

Related Blogs

    The Future -Written and Directed by Miranda July

    The Future is the second feature film directed by Miranda July, best known for Me and You and Everybody We Know (2005). While the latter was a popular and well received indie film, The Future is even more offbeat and challenging to mainstream viewers. Nevertheless, it’s well worth watching if you can appreciate movies that are non-linear and that cross boundaries when it comes to genre.

    The Future is kind of hybrid drama, comedy and fantasy. You know it’s going to be something offbeat when it starts off being narrated by a cat. This cat, who is ill and may not live much longer, is scheduled to be adopted by Jason and Sophie, a couple in their thirties who are somewhere in between hipsters and slackers.

    There’s not too much of a plot here. Fans of Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger Than Paradise (1984) may appreciate the scenes of apparently pointless dialog and inaction -though the style of this film is quite different overall. I actually admire movies like this one and Stranger Than Paradise, though, where the characters are allowed to exist in a state of existentialist aimlessness.

    Both Jason and Sophie quit their jobs. Sophie drifts into an affair with an older man for no apparent reason. Jason meanwhile, begins volunteering for an environmentalist group that makes him go door to door selling trees. There’s a kind of randomness to it all. At the same time, like Me and You and Everyone We Know, there’s an underlying theme  of how important and yet tenuous connections between people are in today’s world.

    To make things more complicated and bizarre, Jason apparently has the ability to stop time. This is where the fantasy or paranormal enters into the mix, and where some viewers might lose patience. For there’s no real attempt to weave this into the story in a logical manner.

    If you watch this film on Netflix, as I did, I suggest you don’t even bother to read the customer reviews. Netflix viewers are notoriously mainstream and conservative, and have little patience for oddball indie movies. They will mercilessly savage any script that dares thumb its nose at cinematic conventions (not all the reviewers, to be fair, but a sizable percentage).

    Overall, The Future succeeds at doing something that the better quirky offbeat films manage to do -get you to take a step back from ordinary life and society and realize that the normal and everyday aren’t necessarily all there is and that there may be other, more interesting alternatives.

    Related Blogs

      Exporting Raymond -Russian vs. American TV

      Exporting Raymond is an entertaining documentary about a clash of cultures that occurs over a sitcom. Phil Rosenthal is the creator of the popular CBS show Everybody Loves Raymond. He was recently invited to visit Russia so they could adapt the show for their audiences. The results were a strange and sometimes funny mixed bag.

      I have to confess that I’ve never watched Everybody Loves Raymond and am not a fan of sitcoms. I simply cannot watch anything with a laugh track. It seems like an oxymoron if you have to tell people when to laugh. So, for me the main interest of this documentary was watching the inner workings of creating television and, of course, the cultural issues.

      From the start, there were difficulties in adapting the show in Russia. The show portrays a down to earth, middle class American family, and, as it soon became clear, Russia is not quite the same. This resulted in many frustrating attempts at communication between Rosenthal and his Russian counterparts. For example, a costume designer informs Rosenthal that Russian women like to dress up, but he can’t fathom a housewife looking like she’s going out to a nightclub.

      This type of debate was amusing, though I also found it a little perplexing. Rosenthal seemed unable to accept that the show couldn’t be transplanted “as is” and still be popular with Russian audiences. Why does he care so much about realism when we’re talking about a sitcom?

      Looking at it from the other side of the coin, I wondered why the Russians were even interested in this show in the first place if it was so culturally alien to them. The problems were deeper than simply how the characters dressed. Apparently, the character of Raymond was too passive for Russian audiences, who don’t like to see men pushed around by their wives, even in jest (at least according to the Russians who Rosenthal dealt with on this project).

      There are some interesting insights into how Russian television operates. Apparently, actors must work much harder than in America, and the same people must work around the clock on different sets. We can assume they earn considerably less money too.

      Exporting Raymond is a documentary that will appeal to a variety of people -obviously to fans of the show; those with an interest in culture clashes, and anyone who would like an inside look at the entertainment industry.

      Related Blogs

        Portlandia -Land of Slackers, Bobos and Hipsters

        I recently watched the entire first season of Portlandia on Netflix streaming. Prior to this, I had never heard of the show. It began last year on IFC (Independent Film Channel), which, along with the Sundance Channel, is one of the few cable channels that provides alternatives to the generic Hollywood blockbusters that dominate most of the movie stations. Unfortunately (or maybe not, for the most part), I only have basic cable so I’ve missed out on the latest IFC offerings.

        I immediately found Portlandia to be a funny, refreshing and original series that is way more inspired than the typically bland sketch comedy you’ll find on network shows like Saturday Night Live (even though co-star Fred Armisen is a SNL cast member -but he’s one of the writers and producers of Portlandia).

        While this show is, on the surface, a satirical look at a certain subculture of Portland, it’s really a lot more than that. For one thing, the type of people it mocks are certainly found in many other places. Brooklynites have recognized some of the hipster stereotypes, and, in true postmodern form, a parody of this parody called Brokelandia has already appeared on the internet. You’ll also find the type of slackers, bobos, the tediously politically correct and militant vegetarians in towns like Santa Cruz, Boulder and parts of the Hudson Valley region of New York (where I currently reside), such as Woodstock and New Paltz.

        Most of the skits feature co-creators Fred Armisten and Carrie Brownstein, who are adept at playing everything from obnoxious yuppies to hardcore feminists. There are also notable guest stars. In one episode, indie film favorite Steve Buscemi wanders into a feminist bookstore staffed by Carrie and Fred (in drag), who refuse to let him use the bathroom until he buys something.

        In another great skit, singer Aimee Mann appears as a housecleaner being harassed by the two co-stars, who alternately fawn over her and accuse her of misdeeds such as stealing. What I appreciate about the acting and writing of such skits is that they contain equal parts truth and over-the-top parody. In fact, I can’t recall more sharply written sketch comedy since the Tracy Ullman show (from whence the Simpsons originated) back in the 90s. She also had a knack for capturing the inflections of the tediously hip bourgeoisie.

        Aside from yuppies/bobos and political activists, the series also pokes fun at the chronically unambitious and underemployed. As one character says in the very first episode, “Portland is where young people come to retire.”

        Portlandia does not exactly portray a realistic cross section of Portland, or any other place, nor does it try to. I haven’t spent much time in Portland, but it’s safe to assume that it’s inhabited by regular working folks, conservative churchgoers and even some rednecks along with the bobos, slackers and hipsters portrayed in the show. That’s okay, though, as the point is to hone in on a particular set of stereotypes.

        Although Portlandia is satire that has some bite, it’s unlikely to offend any of the city’s denizens, except perhaps those that are truly humor challenged. I can confess that before watching this series Portland was fairly high up on my list of places I’d consider moving to, and the show certainly hasn’t changed my mind about this. I can only hope that it doesn’t make the place so hip that it drives rents and real estate values through the roof!

        Related Blogs

          Martha Marcy May Marlene

          The title of this film refers to the identity crisis suffered by a young woman (Elizabeth Olsen) who has recently escaped from a cult. The film switches back and forth between the past and present, as Martha (her real name) comes to live with her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and Lucy’s new husband Ted (Hugh Dancy). Lucy and Martha have been somewhat estranged, for reasons never spelled out (much in this enigmatic film is left unstated), making their reunion especially awkward.

          Through flashbacks that intrude in an unsettling way into the present, we see that the rural “community” led by a bearded, guitar playing hippie-survivialist-philosopher named Patrick (John Hawkes) is a lot more sinister than it first appears. Martha is having trouble adjusting to the almost painfully normal bourgeois lifestyle of Lucy and Ted. She strips naked to go swimming, and even jumps into the couple’s bed in the middle of the night as they are having sex.

          Martha Marcy May Marlene is a difficult film to summarize, as it’s a combination psychological thriller, character study and social commentary. Actually, it only hints at the latter, and this is where it fails to deliver the intellectual punch that the early scenes promise.

          At first, the juxtapositioning of scenes involving the cult with those taking place in Lucy and Ted’s serene lake house seem to invite a comparison of the two diametrically opposing lifestyles. Martha criticizes the couple’s materialistic ways -the size of their home, their focus on money and career, etc. Yet the film never really goes anywhere with this comparison. Ted and Lucy never really show themselves as anything beyond a archetypically bland middle class couple.

          The cult, meanwhile, quickly degenerates into another kind of stereotype. It’s hardly shocking that Patrick, with his charming yet intimidating personality, brainwashes his recruits into an ascetic, conforming way of life and “initiates” all of the young women sexually -this is, after all, what cult leaders do. Yet, he turns out to be even worse than your run-of-the-mill cult leader, as he leads his flock into grotesque actions reminiscent of the Manson cult.

          From a sociological perspective, the film could even be seen as a critique of anything countercultural. Indeed, some conspiracy theorists imagine that Charles Manson was “created” to discredit the hippie movement. Not likely, but nevertheless, the way this film depicts a group of people who are attempting to live an alternative lifestyle, it makes even the most mundane middle class existence seem the epitome of sanity by comparison. Yet, I don’t think writer-director Sean Durkin was actually aiming for a Message with this film -which is, in a way, unfortunate, considering all of the interesting variables it introduces.

          If I was slightly disappointed by Martha Marcy May Marlene, it’s only because it promises to cover some truly original and profound territory, and then turns out to be little more than a thriller, albeit a subtle and very well acted one. Elizabeth Olsen is utterly convincing as a cult victim, with her affectless stare that’s occasionally interrupted by outbursts of rage. The other noteworthy performance is that of John Hawkes, who can’t be faulted if his role was written a little over-the-top. He was also outstanding in another impressive indie film, Winter’s Bone.

          Martha Marcy May Marlene has been described as an investigation into the slippery nature of identity. In that way, it’s more of an existentialist than sociological tale. The vagueness that’s sometimes annoying (so many details about the past -such as anything that happened to Martha pre-cult- are left out) can be seen as part of the film’s overall theme. It’s not giving anything away to say that the ending is frustratingly ambiguous.

          Overall, Martha Marcy May Marlene is an extremely impressive debut for both writer-director Sean Durkin and for Elizabeth Olsen.

          Related Blogs

            Burzysnki -Cancer is Serious Business

            Note: I have recently published a slightly edited version of this review on Devtome.

            Burzynski is a controversial documentary about an alternative cancer cure. More specifically, it’s about the work of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who has allegedly found an effective cure for many types of cancers while facing persecution from the FDA and other arms of the medical establishment.

            This is a movie that has gotten lots of grass roots support, and very little attention from mainstream critics. In fact, the majority of the “professional” reviews I read were extremely hostile, no doubt causing the conspiracy minded to wonder if there are powerful forces at work to suppress this film and the topic.

            The movie itself is well done, persuasive and yet completely one-sided. There is no attempt to show things from the FDA’s point of view. This won’t bother people who are firmly entrenched in the “alternative” side of things (I’d have to include myself in that category, to be honest), but is unlikely to win many new converts.

            All of this, however, should be secondary to the real question -has Dr. Burzynski actually found a cure for cancer? After watching this film, I wasn’t completely persuaded. It certainly seems that he’s cured many people who were deemed incurable by conventional doctors, yet even the film admits his success rate is only around 25%. The film, of course, only focuses on cases that were successful.

            Does this justify the FDA and the Texas Medical Board spending years trying to revoke his medical license, prevent him from treating patients, and even trying to get him put in prison? Of course not. The film is far more successful at exposing the corruption, mindless bureaucracy and ultimate heartlessness of the medical establishment than it is in showing us that Burzysnki has found a viable cure.

            As the movie shows, many conventional chemotherapy treatments are deadly in themselves, some even causing other types of cancer, such as leukemia. Burzynski’s treatments, meanwhile, apparently have no harmful side effects. So, even if his methods haven’t (yet?) been perfected, what possible justification can there be to call him a quack or charlatan, while hospitals routinely administer such blatantly toxic treatments every day?

            The documentary also is quick to point out the real motive behind the suppression of alternative cures -pharmaceutical company profits. The fact that these giant companies work in league with the FDA is far beyond a conspiracy theory, as it’s practically done out in the open. For these reasons, I’m a bit perplexed at the reaction of some reviewers who seem all too quick to trust establishment medicine and condemn anyone who’s an outsider.

            My ultimate reaction to Burzynski is little ambivalent. I think the film would have been more effective if it has been a bit more balanced. For example, to show one success story after another, as emotionally effective as this is (in some cases they are young children with brain tumors), gives the impression that Burzysnki’s methods are always effective, when in fact they’re not.

            Overall, Burzynski is well worth watching, especially as it gives some disturbing insights into how the FDA and pharmaceutical companies operate.



            Related Blogs

              Woodstock Film Festival

              There are so many film festivals around these days, and one that’s already ten years old is the Woodstock Film Festival, that takes place in the famous upstate New York town every fall. As Indiewire points out, this is a film festival that has become a showcase for some high quality and well received independent films.

              This year’s festival will be running from September 21 to 25. Aside from running a variety of feature films, documentaries and short films, the festival also has panel discussions, concerts and other special events. It’s not a long trip from anywhere on the East Coast, and often boasts some innovative and ultimately important films.

              For more information, check out the website for the Woodstock Film Festival.

              Related Blogs

                How Do I Make a Movie?

                Nowadays, the question of “How do I make a movie?” is a lot easier than ever before. Who would have though, say 20 years ago, that you could make your own short film on a phone? Of course, a 10 minute “movie” shot on your iPhone may not get nominated for an Academy Award, but it’s closer to the real thing than you might think. Anything that gets you in the habit of pointing a camera and shooting at something is a step closer to making you a filmmaker!

                This video talks a little about the basic equipment you need to make an independent film. I’m not sure when this video was uploaded, but when he says that you have to spend at least $500 for a camera, that’s no longer true. Of course, you should get as good a camcorder as you can afford, but if you can only afford one that costs $100, start with that!

                Related Blogs

                  The Challenge of Foreign Language Films for American Audiences

                  Foreign Language Films Are Dead; Long Live Foreign Language Films

                  Foreign language films have never been popular with American audiences. It’s only a small portion of even art house or indie audiences who more than occasionally watch a film in a language other than English.

                  Americans are notorious for being “American audiences—even sophisticated ones—appear to be insular, provincial and possibly xenophobic,” as the article in ReelPolitik mentions. It’s well known that, compared with the citizens of most other countries, Americans are much less likely to speak any other languages. However, it also seems they don’t like to read subtitles either.

                  Indie audiences certainly go through phases when French, Italian, Chinese and Spanish films are trendy, at least up to a point. However, it’s only a handful of directors who can command any kind of audience for these films. Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and a few other French directors have always held certain American audiences captive, especially in the 70s and 80s.

                  All sophisticated movie fans will have seen a few of Fellini’s masterpieces. More recently, we’ve seen the rise of Spanish language films, most notably by Pedro Almodovar and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (the Mexican director who created Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel).

                  The last few decades have also brought about the rise in Chinese cinema, with directors such as Zhang Yimou and Kar Wai Wong leading the way.

                  Yet, the fact remains that the vast majority of American moviegoers seldom, if ever, watch foreign films. And even theaters that show art house films only show non-English language movies every so often. Why is this the case?

                  It really goes back to the fact that Americans, for the most part, only speak English. And while reading subtitles allows viewers to understand the dialog, let’s face it -it takes a certain amount of effort, and the kind that we’re not used to putting forth when watching a movie. Arguably, the effort it takes to read the subtitles detracts from our ability to take in the medium of cinema as it’s meant to be seen -as visual images combined with dialog. It turns the experience into more of a left-brained experience, more like reading -which, of course it is.

                  This isn’t meant as a criticism of films with subtitles. In my opinion, it’s well worth the effort if the film is good. It’s simply an explanation of why foreign language films will never be hugely successful in the U.S.

                  Related Blogs

                    The Extra Man

                    The Extra Man (2010) is one of those ultra quirky indie comedies that tries a little too hard to be eccentric. Traditional comedies, for example, will typically pair up a bizarre character with a “straight man” who sees the eccentricities of the other character through the supposedly normal eyes of the rest of the world. There are no straight men, or women in The Extra Man -only varying types of weirdness. This film has two directors, Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini.

                    The very able cast consists of veteran Kevin Kline, Paul Dano as his young quasi-protege, Katie Holmes and John C. Reilly. Dano plays Louis Ives, a shy young man who fantasizes about living in a novel like the Great Gatsby. Only his classical demeanor is complicated by a secret desire to dress in women’s clothes -which gets him fired from his job as a teacher.

                    Louis moves to Manhattan in the attempt to become a writer, and becomes the roommate of Henry Harrison (Kline), who is like two or three separate quirky characters rolled into one. Henry is a poverty stricken playwright who is an “extra man,” a kind of refined gigolo for rich, elderly women. He also recites the type of politically incorrect lines (he is against women going to college, and approves of the Muslim practice of keeping the sexes separated) you might expect from a would be Old World bohemian/aristocrat. Henry also collects Christmas balls and engages in a morning dance ritual that has him gyrating like someone having a seizure.

                    Henry recruits Louis into this dubious profession, and it’s not clear what the younger man would find so appealing about this, as there’s no financial rewards involved (nothing sexual either -it’s all strictly chaste).

                    Louis gets a job at an environmentalist magazine, where he develops an interest in Mary (Holmes), who is a stereotypical downtown, vegan, politically active type. In the world of The Extra Man, Mary is probably the most normal character, as her character is fairly believable and only comes across as parody in a very mild way. We can’t see much of a future between Mary and Louis, who represent very different types of naive idealism.

                    Thrown into the mix is Louis and Henry’s downstairs neighbor, Gershon (Reilly), who inexplicably (except to add to the film’s quirkiness) has a squeaky voice, a beard that makes him look like a hobo and an apartment full of random collectibles. The Gershon character really epitomizes the problem with this film -both he and the film itself are like random collections of bizarre traits.

                    The elements of this film don’t really form much of a coherent whole. Louis explores his sexual fantasies by visiting a dominatrix he finds in the Village Voice and, later, a club for transvestites. Meanwhile, he tags along with Henry as a kind of “extra extra” man while half heartedly pursuing Mary.

                    I probably enjoyed The Extra Man more than the above description suggests. I laughed in quite a few places, and all of the performances were good. It’s just that the story wasn’t very cohesive, and a lot of the quirkiness seemed gratuitous.

                    Related Blogs