Precious Jones, the protagonist of the movie, is an obese, illiterate, abused, neglected teenager. She is verbally and physically abused by her mother, was raped by her father since she was a small child, which resulted in two pregnancies – her first child being born with down syndrome – and she is constantly teased and treated with malice at school and in her neighbourhood. She feels invisible and unloved. Yet, even with all the hardships she has and continues to endure, she still has aspirations for a better life. Even in moments of hopelessness and dire, the film cuts to sequences of her dreams of being a glamorous star, showered with loving attention by her mom, the public and a boyfriend “with real nice hair”.

After being called into the principal’s office, just to be expelled from school for getting pregnant a second time, she starts class in an alternative school where she ultimately meets a teacher named Ms. Rain (played by Paula Patton). This is one of those teachers that are typical in movies about underprivileged children who just need some guidance to make something of themselves, the kind of teacher that get really involved in their students’ lives and tries to really make a difference. Each day, the students are asked to write in a journal, whether it be fictional stories or about their own lives, and Ms. Rain would write back with her thoughts. Slowly but surely, Precious comes out of her shell and a special bond quickly forms between her and Ms. Rain. It is somewhat a clichéd story plot but this isn’t to say that this aspect makes the film any less powerful and engaging. The other students in the class are definitely characters, providing much of the comedy in an otherwise dark and disturbing film.

Performance wise, newcomer Gabby Sidibe and Mo’Nique, who plays Precious’ mother, are outstanding. Their performances are raw and poignant. Even though Mo’Nique portrays a vile and abusive mother, at the end when she is explaining why she sat idly by while her husband raped her child, she’s actually able to incite some sympathy and compassion from the viewer for a character so despicable, so heinous. Mariah Carey also is in the movie, playing a case worker assigned to work with Precious. Surprisingly, especially considering the train-wreck that was Glitter, she does a pretty good job. Not being afraid to “get ugly” (i.e. not glammed up in Mariah’s case), she is almost unrecognizable in the film. Lenny Kravitz makes a cameo in the film too.

The take-away from the film is a feeling of hope. After seeing Precious persevere, in trying to get her life together for herself and her children, even with the odds stacked up against her and the significant baggage she has in her life, it made me feel empowered. And while Precious is a fictional character, there are girls like her everywhere, albeit invisible to most, and I think this ultimately serves as inspiration for anyone feeling downtrodden and pessimistic. Yes, it’s dark, it covers some really serious and upsetting issues, and it doesn’t necessarily end off on a “happily ever after” note nor it is by any means a feel good movie — but it offers a glimmer of hope and that’s just one of the reasons why I found Precious so inspiring.

Trailer

Introductions to Precious

Part 1

Part 2

Photos

Dr. Andrew Bagby, depicted through numerous home videos, photos, and interviews with family and friends, was by all accounts a great guy who had a lot to live for. In 2001, after graduating Memorial University of Newfoundland Medical School in St. John’s, he was on his way to becoming a family doctor, starting his third year residency program at Latrobe Area Hospital [source]. Things were going well for Andrew. That is until his ex-girlfriend, Dr. Shirley Turner, whom he met in medical school, took it all away in one cruel act of violence. He was shot to death in the park on November 5th, 2001.

The film doesn’t really dwell on that one moment though. That moment, sad and horrific as it is, is the catalyst for the rest of the film and there is a greater focus on Andrew in life than in death. Home videos juxtaposed with interviews with family and friends make up most of the film. In particular, the footage with his adorable yet visibly heart-broken parents make the film incredibly moving, tugging at your heart strings and reaching for a tissue. You can’t help but ache for their lost of their only child and it makes you want to reach through the screen to embrace them in a hug. Ultimately, these snapshots of who Andrew Bagby paint a portrait of a guy who you’d just want to be friends with and had you been friends with him, you’d feel lucky to have him in your life.

After the murder, Shirley Turner fled the United States for Newfoundland, Canada. The family tried to lure her back to the U.S. with an invitation to the memorial service but she didn’t take the bait. Finally, on December 12, 2001, she was charged and arrested in St. John’s, Newfoundland… but let go on bail the very same day. The bail was for $75,000 — $65,000 of which was posted by her psychiatrist. The rest of the restrictions and requirements of her release included surrendering her passport, signing in once a week at the local police station, promising not to leave Newfoundland, and avoiding contact with certain people friends and co-workers’ of Andrew involved in the case investigation. Which brings me to one word: ludicrous. A person, who is charged with premeditated, cold-blooded murder, who has already fled the scene of the crime, is given such lax treatment by the Government of Canada? My own government’s judicial system? It’s quite disconcerting.

Then we find out that Shirley Turner is pregnant with Andrew’s child. The film swerves off its original course and takes on a whole new meaning. It becomes a time capsule of sorts for Andrew’s unborn son to get to know his father. Kurt Kuenne then sets off to all over the globe to interview all of Andrew’s friends and family, from all corners of the globe, intent on rescuing his friend’s history. Andrew’s parents, Kate and David, on the other hand, quit their jobs and dig into their life savings to move to Newfoundland in order to fight for their grandchild’s future. Meanwhile, Shirley is still awaiting trial, her court date constantly being adjourned and pushed back again and again. Justice hits a standstill.

On July 18th, 2002, a beautiful baby boy named Zachary, as the title references, came into the world.

Kate and David, the doting grandparents they were, try to spend as much time with Zachary as the family court allowed. Unfortunately, to spend time with their grandson, they had to fraternize with the woman who killed their only son. And yet, under such difficult and emotionally charged circumstances where an average person could easily lose it, these two people were pillars of strength — they do it all for this innocent child. A child who was their last living connection to their lost son. And so, they trudged on and kept all their meetings with Shirley civil. Zachary developed a very strong bond with his grandparents, even at times purposefully choosing Kate over his mother, thereby making Shirley incredibly jealous. On the justice front, the extradition hearing finally began and evidence presented. Everything was seemingly running smoothly but Shirley’s lawyer held it up with some legalese and so the case was on the precipice of being thrown out altogether. It didn’t get thrown out of the court, but it got delayed time and time again.

November 4th, 2002: Shirley is sent to jail, while awaiting a decision from the Ministry of Justice to surrender her to the United States, and Kate and David got custody of Zachary. Finally. During which time, with Shirley behind bars, Kate and David made a weekly 2 hour drive to the prison to honour Shirley’s visitations rights. Rain or shine, they made that lengthy trip so she could see her son and fulfil their end of the bargain, fair or not.

January 10th, 2003: The unthinkable and truly incomprehensible happens. Again. Shirley is released from jail due largely in part to the judge who wrote back to Shirley with explicit instructions for how to write her own appeal of the decision to incarcerate her while waiting for a decision to be made to extradite her to the United States.

This judge, Judge Gayle Welsh:

This judge simply asked Shirley to promise to “behave herself” and not “attempt to flee”. She deemed her to not be a threat to public interest as the crime she allegedly committed was not directed to the public at large and there was no indication of a psychological disorder that would put the public in danger; therefore, with that, Shirley was free again. Again, she was let go with a $75,000 bail, not a cent had to be paid. The Bagbys had to give back Zachary. And again, they had to go back to the scheduled meetings with Shirley and set up a schedule to pass Zachary back and forth.

Now, I don’t want to ruin the rest of the film for you. The ending, so powerful and provoking, is best left unspoiled. Needless to say, the judicial system, as of what you’ve read so far, obviously has visible and substantial cracks in it. Who exactly is the system supposed to protect? Understandably, one is innocent until proven guilty — but in this case, there are obviously errors of judgment that have caused monumental consequences. Most shockingly, the behaviour of the judge who, according to Kate, “fawned” over Shirley and seemingly showed her preferential treatment, setting her free on bail with virtually no strings attached. This for a person charged with premeditated first-degree murder. The whole ordeal is just mind-blowing and saddening.

If you are interested in bail reform, I suggest you visit the official Dear Zachary site which includes a section for supporting bail reform.

May 30, 2008 felt ages away.

When it was finally May and pre-order tickets were available, I pounced on presale tickets like a crazy, rabid fan (reminiscent of my younger days when Spice World first came out and my friends and I insisted on going on opening day, all giddy and hyper as we counted down the days). And on the evening of May 30th, you can bet your fancy Jimmy Choos that I was lined up in front of the theatre. However, unlike some more rabid or, erm, “dedicated” fans in attendance, I did not do so while wearing stilettos.

Now I have the movie on DVD (find out how you can get the DVD for free below), a great companion to my collection of DVDs of the series. One word: FABULOUS!

Similar to other movies that draw upon the notion that the audience has some sort of background knowledge on the overall narrative, it starts off with a nostalgic flashback of where the girls were since we last saw them. Charlotte is still with Harry, Samantha is (shock!) still with Smith Jarrod, Carrie is still with, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Mr. Big and Miranda is still with Steve but seems to be in a “relationship rut” between the two. Things aren’t exactly the same though: Charlotte is now embracing family life with Harry and their adopted child (the one she broke news of to Harry in the last season of the show) and Samantha is now a one-man lady, not to say she doesn’t feel weighed down by the ball and chain of monogamy — she is, after all, still Samantha Jones. Within the last few years in the world of Sex and the City, the dynamics of their relationship with their significant others has evolved –for better or for worse, in Miranda’s case– and so has their friendship. Nonetheless, seeing the four girls together and talking over breakfast about anything from gossip to taboo topics (i.e. “colouring” which takes on a whole different meaning now), it’s just like putting on a comfy sweater… as cliché as that sounds. It’s a familiar feeling and you know I get a kick out of nostalgia.

More than one storyline is interwoven throughout the movie, but the main storyline and the one that was most engrossing is about Mr. Big’s proposal to Carrie and the subsequent wedding. Just when you thought that Mr. Big simply wasn’t the committing type, he goes and proposes. This is not to say it was something done without any cajoling from external factors (it began with apartment hunting, Mr. Big’s purchasing a luxurious apartment for him and Carrie and then Carrie’s paranoia about “not sealing the deal” after hearing about another woman who was kicked to the curb after her relationship went south). Still, even if Mr. Big initially nonchalantly agrees to make it official, it’s nice to see Mr. Big is ready to commit to Carrie. Aside: I’ve always been a Mr. Big fan and while Aidan was, by all accounts, the perfect boyfriend/husband, I just never liked him with Carrie. And don’t get me started about Aleksandr Petrovsky… although I did like Jack Burger, even if he was a ginormous jerk in the end.

The other storylines involve the other girls, each dealing with their own issues: infidelity, sense of loss of self, and infertility. The movie also brings back familiar faces from the show, including Candice Bergen (Carrie’s boss at Vogue) and Willie Garson (the always entertaining Stanford Blatch). New to the Sex and the City-verse is Jennifer Hudson, who plays Carrie’s assistant. She doesn’t really add much to the story, though she has a storyline of her own, but her performance was decent.

The movie doesn’t really require the viewer to be a Sex and the City aficionado, knowing every reference to the television show and every character’s background stories. It is still enjoyable on its own merits but being a fan of the show, or at least familiar with the characters, does make the experience much more entertaining. There are parts, such as the mini fashion show Carrie puts on of memorable outfits from the show, that were surely added as a gleeful homage to the show, much to the delight of fans. But while we’re on the topic, let’s not forget the fashion. If you missed seeing the outfits fashion maven Patricia Field put together for the characters back when the show was on, the ensembles you will see in the movie will definitely not disappoint. 

Get the DVD for free! Special offer at Sears

Timeless. Feminine. Chic. An exclusive gift, available only at Sears. Beginning October 18th, visit your nearest Sears fragrance department and with the purchase of a Lovely Sarah Jessica Parker Eau de Parfum Spray 100 ml/3.4 oz, you will receive a copy of the much anticipated DVD release, Sex and the City The Movie. Limit one bonus per customer while quantities last. This gorgeous perfume is a beautiful blend of mandarin, rosewood, lavender, apple martini and bergamot. The heart is of orchid, patchouli and finishes off to cedar, white amber, woods and musk. It is a lovely, sophisticated scent that is not very overpowering. “Lovely” was also ranked the second runner-up fragrance in Glow’s Readers’ Choice 2006. Click here to view promotional poster.

DVD Special Editions And Features:

Widescreen Bonus Features: Audio Commentary by Director Michael Patrick King
Full-Screen Bonus Features: Audio Commentary by Director Michael Patrick King
Unrated Widescreen 2-disc Extended Edition Bonus Features:
Disc 1: Audio Commentary By director Michael Patrick King
Disc 2: Additional Scenes; A Conversation With Sarah Jessica Parker And Michael Patrick King; The Fabulous Fashion Of Sex And The City; Fergie in the Studio: The Singer recording Labels Or Love For The Soundtrack
Blu-ray Edition Bonus Features: Audio Commentary by Director Michael Patrick King; Additional Scenes; A Conversation With Sarah Jessica Parker And Michael Patrick King; The Fabulous Fashion of Sex And The City; Fergie in the Studio
Blu-ray Exclusive Content: Two Interactive Features (Games): Sex and the City: The City; Dish It!

The free DVD with purchase at Sears is the Widescreen, one disc version.

As far as DVD features go, and I am a huge fan of watching special features on DVDs, a mere audio commentary track is kind of lacking — especially for those who have been anticipating the release for home entertainment. Even as a one disc DVD, I would have loved to have seen more bonuses, in the way of bloopers, deleted scenes and interviews with the cast (not just Sarah Jessica Parker) about reuniting after all these years. Perhaps even a feature about shooting in New York City, with the crowds and fans that would go to the filming locations to check out the movie in process. Maybe they are “bonus featured-out” after all the DVD releases of the show (I’m still rather bitter that season 6 was split into two parts, thereby causing me to have to pay twice to get the full season).

The story is told through the lens of an old school VHS camcorder, a Christmas gift purchased by Gord, the patriarch of the Cooper family. It’s with the video captured through the hand held video camera that we see just what happens with the Coopers on Christmas Day in 1985 (so yes, there is great, if not memorable, 80s fashions and hairstyles to be witnessed). As the camera switches between family members, the audience begins to uncover the family dysfunction within the family. There’s Gord (Jason Jones), the clueless, weak-willed but well-meaning father. His pregnant wife, Nancy (played by Jones’ real life wife and fellow Daily Show correspondent, Samantha Bee), appears to be in a rut, particularly when it comes to their marriage, and is just overall frustrated that Gord acts oblivious to the fact she is pregnant. Teddy is the younger son and Marcus is the older, gloomy and rather dorky teenage boy. Together, along with Nana Gert (Nancy’s surly mother, played by Jayne Eastwood), they live in what you’d expect a typical 80s suburban house to look like. Clearly, they are a family with issues but well, doesn’t every family?

The Coopers are joined by other quirky family members, including the other married in real life couple of the film and stars of Billable Hours, Mike Beaver and Jennifer Baxter who play Uncle Nick and Aunt Bev.

This particular Christmas, Gord announces that he’s invited his estranged brother Tim (Peter Keleghan) to the festivities. But the invite aside, there’s obvious tension there, between Tim and Gord. As well, there’s discernible uneasiness from Nancy about this news. Past history of epic proportions is evident by each party’s demeanour once Tim arrives. Tim is smug, righteous and overly confident — pretty much the polar opposite of Gord.

With every drink consumed, guards are let down and hijinks ensues. Drunken tobogganing being one of the more memorable and entertaining parts of the film. The drunken stupor also results in family secrets being revealed, including the truth about just what happened between Gord, Tim and Nancy.

At the heart of this film is the idea that through the good times and bad, through thick and thin, your family is your family — so deal with it. It’s a sentiment that expressed in similar films that deal with family dysfunction in a comedic way (i.e. Little Miss Sunshine). In fact, Coopers’ Camera reminded me quite a bit of Little Miss Sunshine, in terms of look and feel and the way the story arc concluded. Of course, this film used the hand held video effect and while this effect usually makes me a bit nauseated, I felt perfectly fine throughout the movie. It actually enhanced the storytelling in some parts; since the camcorder was traded between family members (though usually operated by the youngest son, Teddy), you sometimes weren’t quite sure who exactly was behind the camera and overhearing the conversations they were filming, until they were actually acknowledged by someone else. At one particular point, when Gord comes to realize his wife’s discontent, this actually creates a poignant effect and allows for the storyline to move along.

Coopers’ Camera can be a tad crude, to put it lightly (i.e. piss shots, boners, Jason Jones’ character on a toilet, vomit, underage striptease, etc). But it is an all-around laugh out loud kind of film, with plentiful gags and memorable scenes and dialogue. Not to mention the great job on making the film look as authentically 80s as possible, with the god awful haircuts and tacky sweaters. And hey, there’s also a cameo from The Kids in the Hall‘s Dave Foley’s penis — so that alone is probably worth the price of admission.

A few pictures from the Q & A session after the second screening (unfortunately, I was not able to go to the first screening which included the entire cast).

Alvin and the Chipmunks starts off with the back story of how the chipmunks came into Dave Seville’s (Jason Lee) life. The film opens on a snowy forest, where we see the [CGI created] chipmunks singing Daniel Powter’s “Bad Day” on top of an evergreen tree and storing away food for the winter when suddenly, the tree they are perched upon is chopped down. With the chipmunks still hidden within the branches, the tree is transported into the lobby of JETT Records where it will serve as the Christmas tree and also, coincidentally, where Dave Seville is scheduled for a meeting. Dave meets with Ian (David Cross), a JETT executive, to go over a new song he has written but Ian informs him that he will never find any Justins or Britneys to sing that song because, frankly, it sucks. Dejected and rejected, he leaves the building but on his way out, he steals a huge basket of muffins. Kind of getting his comeuppance for the blow to his ego in the form of baked goods. And just as Dave is making his way out of the lobby, the chipmunks have gotten out from the tree and are making their big escape. They spot the muffin basket and jump right in. Long story short, and a rendition of “Funky Town” later, they become a part of Dave Seville’s life.

Blasphemy, I say!

As other Chipmunk aficionados will attest, that does NOT hold true to the origin of the Chipmunks tale. Not by a long shot! Those familiar with the cartoon will remember that the chipmunks’ mother had to abandon her three babies one winter because she had to leave her home in the forest and they would not survive if she brought them along. So with their best interest at heart and with much sorrow, she left them on the doorstop of Dave Seville, a man who was kind to the forest animals. She had intended to come back for them in the spring but she saw how happy they were with him, so decided it was best to leave them in their new home. Even years later, I still distinctly remember that scene of the mother chipmunk leaving Alvin, Simon and Theodore on the doorstep and me, a wee youngin’, getting all weepy over the sentimentality of the whole thing. I can understand changing some parts of the “Chipmunk-verse” to adapt to the audience of today, but to rewrite history so much that it somehow loses its authenticity and what made the story heartwarming? Not impressed.

Speaking of Chipmunk performed songs, besides “Funky Town” and “Bad Day”, Alvin and the Chipmunks also sang the classic songs fans of the television show will remember, “The Chipmunk Song (Christmas Don’t Be Late)” and “Witch Doctor“. The first rendition of “The Chipmunk Song” sung along to the piano was similar to the original version but then eventually, after being put on JETT Records, it was completely remixed to reflect the songs of today’s top 40 with the end result being this, errr, Fall Out Boy-esque ditty. And don’t get me started on what they did to “Witch Doctor”. It’s now, like, some sort of lame Kidz Bop fusion of Pussycat Dolls meets The Black Eyed Peas on a lot of helium! Apparently I am the only one who finds these remakes somewhat disturbing because those Youtube comments from the kiddies are almost all positive. Maybe I’m just too old for this. I guess this is just one of the ways the movie makers were trying to make the Chipmunks “cool” for the youth of today. In any case, those Chipmunk songs, man are they hard to get out of your head after listening to them. It’s worst than getting that darn Chumbawamba song out of your head (you know the one!).

And even more creepy was hearing Alvin say “what’s up, playa” in the movie. That just felt offputting, even though I know Alvin is the cooler, “rebel chipmunk” and in today’s world, I suppose that would equate to using “gangsta speak”. But the 10 year old inside of me couldn’t help but cringe upon hearing that.

Another one of my qualms about the movie may be a bit hard to explain but perhaps if you were a fan of the television show, you would know what I am talking about. In the cartoon, it was explicitly understood that the chipmunks were, well, chipmunks but it was also implicitly understood that they were like deformed children due to their stature and somewhat similar appearance. I mean really now, they were as big as regular kids when compared to Dave! As you see from the picture to your left, they really just look like chubby cheeked children with strange hair ‘dos that matches their skintone and with an unfortunate wardrobe of nightgowns. With this perception and frame of reference, I took in the stories when I was young. Now, it’s actual (CGI’d) chipmunks that are the size of regular chipmunks (i.e. really small as opposed to the giant, kid-sized Chipmunks I am used to) alongside actual humans and real scenery. With the live-action adaptation, it’s really a suspension of belief and reality when taking in the story whereas before, it was simply preposterous all around and that was fine because it was just a cartoon, if that makes ANY sense at all. In other words, it was just a different experience back then, regardless of the age difference.

It was, however, nice to see David Cross in the movie as Ian the evil music exec who steals the Chipmunks away from Dave. But maybe I am just too used to seeing him as Tobias Fünke, former analrapist turned actor, to be able to see him as anything “evil”. (Sidenote: I really miss Arrested Development!) The quirkiness he brought to the storyline was a nice added touch to the movie and made it that much more entertaining.

Alvin and the Chipmunks is surely a movie targeted at a brand new generation, a generation who, according to the Youtube comments, are not familiar with the “old school” Alvin and the Chipmunks and thus have nothing to compare the movie to. It’s definitely not for those of us who are looking for a nostalgic experience that lets us reminisce on our wistful childhood memories. Ultimately, if it’s an audience that’s purely watching the movie without any preconceived notions about what exactly the Chipmunks were in its heyday, it is actually quite enjoyable. However, if you are one of those children of the ’80s who watched Alvin and the Chipmunks so much as a kid that you will immediately start singing along to the theme the second you hear the familiar riffs, then this 2007 version of Alvin and the Chipmunks will be rather disappointing.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

Some may criticize The Bridge on the basis of it perceivably glorifying suicide or perhaps, in some ways, encouraging it by romanticizing it. In reality, I think any film that undertakes such a taboo topic as suicide will invoke strong feelings on either end of the spectrum. It really depends on your perspective on it going into the film. For me, I thought the movie was disturbing, yes, because it’s surreal knowing that these people you are watching on your screen, as they plunge into the murky water, are no longer living and you are a virtual witness to someone’s death. One can even call it a snuff film. However, albeit disturbing, it still offers a candid and thought-provoking view on the topic. In some of the interviews with the family members, while you can see their hurt in losing a loved one, there’s also a sense of acceptance, that they are happy that their loved one is finally at peace and even an understanding of the reasons behind the act of suicide. These sentiments are also juxtaposed with an interview with John Kevin Hines, a survivor of the Golden Gate plunge. He tells his tale of how he struggled with bipolar disorder and one day, just snapping. He left school and took a bus to the bridge, where he later stood crying and contemplating taking his own life (even taking a photo for a tourist oblivious to what he was planning to do). Soon thereafter, he climbed over the barrier and jumped. As he was taking the 220 foot (67 m) plunge into the water below, a fall that takes just 4 seconds at 75 miles per hour (120 km/h), he almost instantly regretted his decision and decided to try his best to fall in a position that allowed him to live. And he did, surprisingly and miraculously.

The protagonist of this documentary, if you will, as he is the suicide victim prominently featured, is 34 year old Eugene “Gene” Sprague. Throughout the film, it shows him nonchalantly pacing back and forth on the bridge, with his long black hair blowing in the wind. We are also given insight into the life of Gene, shedding light as to who he was as a person in life and accentuating the fact that he, like all the other suicide victims, is more than just another statistic of Golden Gate Bridge suicides. His friends and those close to him tell of how he was severely depressed after his mother died and as a result, how he was feeling lost in life. Some of those interviewed seemed at peace with his decision, some were angry, but all wished that things could’ve worked out differently. At the end of the film, Gene sits on the ledge of the barrier and without any hesitation, he gets up to stand on the ledge and falls backward into the Pacific Ocean. The water ripples and then few seconds later, it is as if nothing had happened.

Another one of the memorable jumpers featured in the film is this older guy in what appears to be a matching sweat suit. He’s casually on his cell phone, talking and laughing as if having a grand old time. Watching his behaviour, it never occurred to me to think that this is one of the jumpers as the footage on the bridge does not include just suicides. After he finished talking on the phone, he puts his phone down and sits up on the ledge, facing the body of water below. With a quick sign of the cross, he jumps over. Meanwhile, as with a few other of the suicides captured on film, there are people in the background walking by or standing around appreciating the sights and sounds. There was even a couple within a few feet of Gene when he got ready to fall but they didn’t notice him or just didn’t do anything. However, there are a few instances of intervention by a by-stander in the film, including a man who managed to grab a girl standing on the beam on the outer edge of the bridge and pull her back to safety.

As you’re watching these people on the ledge or on the beam, getting ready to jump, you really wonder what’s going through their heads. What are they thinking as they step off or fall back into the unknown? Are they scared? Are they intoxicated with joy to be released from their mortal pain? And as they are free-falling, do they instantly regret it like John Kevin Hines did? Sadly, while the interviews to shed light on the suicide victims were interesting, the film itself feels lacking and dissatisfying as to addressing the inner-depths of the topic of suicide. As to what could be done to make The Bridge better, I don’t know, short of impossible notions such as bringing back the dead to truly understand the experience and the decision.

What I did ascertain from watching this film wasn’t necessarily a complete change of attitude toward suicide, nor do I believe that was the filmmaker’s intent, but rather two main ideas. One being the need for a suicide barrier for the bridge because while I am sure that those determined to end their lives will find a way to end it, making it that much more difficult will help deter some. The accessibility of the Golden Gate Bridge for Bay Area residents, the fact that there’s a small survival rate and it being relatively “unmessy”, are what makes the bridge such an alluring spot for suicide. Apparently, it’s a matter of economics and aesthetics that is causing the delay to erect this barrier to save lives. Secondly, one of the most moving parts of the film that really stuck with me was when they talked about a man who left a note in his apartment that said he would not jump from the Golden Gate Bridge if, on the way to the bridge, he met one person who smiled at him. The man jumped because no one smiled at him or greeted him and that was all it took to save his life. Living in our fast-paced and alienating world, where we are so consumed with our own lives, it’s moments like this when a light-bulb goes off and you realize that one small gesture toward another human being, a stranger even, can make all the difference. Sure, a meaningful smile or friendly word may not be all it takes to save a person’s life; however, maybe if we all took a moment out of our day to give a stranger a smile or a “hello”, the world could be a better place. One can imagine…

It should be noted that Eric Steel and his film crew had the bridge authority’s number on speed dial so that whenever they observed a person they deemed high risk to jump, they would call it in right away. As Steel noted, they were human beings first and filmmakers second. During that time of filming, Steel and his team saved six people, and one person more than once (ABC News).

The Bridge’s voyeuristic approach may be effective in revealing another dimension of suicide but for me, the result is mostly a feeling of inexplicable uneasiness, which can be expected considering the last scene. It might not be as enlightening as one may hope, but it may still be worth watching if not just for satisfying a morbid curiosity.

The Official Site

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Original Chipmunks > this new, bastardized version

Well, the first trailer for the movie has come out. From what I’ve seen, it reminds me of what they did to Garfield, which is to say, it just seems… off. Whenever they decide to make a cartoon into a live-action movie, with digitalized characters but actual actors and background, it just doesn’t feel right. Or I may even go as far as to say it simply ruins the original and ruins childhood memories in the process. As much as I am unimpressed by how they seem to have digitally rendered the Chipmunks, I have to admit that the movie version of Theodore is pretty darn cute. I might watch the movie when it’s released at the end of the year if the reviews are decent though, mostly for the sake of curiousity. I really hope they do it justice.

They’ve already ruined Inspector Gadget. I say, they better stay away from my Babar, Muppet Babies and Duck Tales. And anyone else remember the short-lived Denver the Last Dinosaur and My Pet Monster? Those were awesome shows with even more awesome theme songs. They had some good cartoons back in my day.

And just for old times’ sake…

The documentary begins with footage of the infamous words uttered by Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks and follows them through the fallout and eventual rebuilding of the Dixie Chicks, as a musical group and as a brand. The words, you may remember, were: “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas”. Watching the actual footage from the concert, it was easily discernable as a statement said in jest but it was still obviously a sentiment that echoed true to what she believed. The crowd cheers after she says it and they continue on with the concert, oblivious to what will soon transpire because of those few words. It’s not until the press back home (mostly due to Fox News, of course) pick up on the story on what Maines said, that it becomes an out-of-proportion political controversy. Even Maines muses, at one point in the film, that she is surprised that all this is over something she said. And she’s not some great political figure or anything, just an entertainer. An entertainer who happens to be a public figure but also happens to be a citizen in the United States with the right to freedom of speech, the First Amendment.

It becomes the centre of debates and discussions on all the news outlets. There’s questioning about where the Dixie Chicks’ loyalties lie and their patriotism. There’s even boycotts of their music and public trashing/crushing with a bulldozer of their CDs and paraphernalia. One lady interviewed, as she was throwing away her CDs, says that she likes them but for what they said, they are trash. Country radio has turned against their once country darlings. In other words, the reaction is strong and fierce by at least a certain demographic in America.

You can see the anguish and dismay felt by the Chicks throughout all this. And despite the fact that it was only Maines who said it, the group continued to band together to form a united front. Emily Robison and Martie Maguire, the two “other” Dixie Chicks, could’ve easily turned on Maines and tried to distance themselves from her but they didn’t. That was nice to see, especially since Robison and Maguire are sisters and original members of the group before Maines came along in 1995. The PR folks were working overtime during all this too. The Dixie Chicks went on the cover of Entertainment Weekly addressing all the attacks against them, although against the advice of their PR people, and went on an interview with Diane Sawyer. As the boycotts and backlash continued, so did their Top of the World Tour. When the tour finally reached Greenville, South Carolina, the Dixie Chicks anticipated angry mobs and a hostile reception. While there were protesters outside and “fans” who went only because they had already bought tickets before the big ol’ calamity happened, the audience inside was for the most part supportive. Maines went out of her way to give the haters a moment in the concert to “boo” to their heart’s content, but instead, the stadium erupted into cheers and applause.

The tour trudged on and things seemed okay, under the circumstances. That was until the date neared for their Dallas, Texas show on July 6, 2003 when Natalie Maines received a death threat. Yes, a death threat! In it, the writer said they were planning to kill her at the Dallas, Texas show. However, the show must go on and needless to say, security was beefed up for the show. O the night of the show, the girls are visibly anxious and fearful for their lives but they try their best to keep things light (or light as can be, considering). Luckily, a suspect is apprehended before the show so their nerves are at least somewhat calmed by this fact.

All this, I think, speaks volumes about the political climate at the time.

The documentary also flashforwards to 2005-2006 as they work on and eventually promote their album “Taking the Long Way” (2006). Some of the songs, such as “Not Ready to Make Nice” and “The Long Way Around”, directly respond to the controversy. In the lyrics of “The Long Way Around”, they sing, “It’s been two long years now / Since the top of the world came crashing down / And I’m getting’ it back on the road now” and “Well, I fought with a stranger and I met myself / I opened my mouth and I heard myself / It can get pretty lonely when you show yourself / Guess I could have made it easier on myself”. They show how the ramifications from “the incident” in 2003 persist as they are still being looked over by country radio stations even if there isn’t an explicit boycott. Yet after all that and the lack of support from the country music sector of the music industry, their album still manages to win five awards at the Grammy’s, go three times platinum and garner critical acclaim.

Initially, when I came across this movie, I wasn’t really a Dixie Chicks fan. I wasn’t a fan of country music and I only heard their songs when they happened to be on the radio. But I knew I admired the group (namely, Natalie Maines) for 1) having the gumption to voice their opinions at a time when challenging the status quo was frowned upon and 2) for not backing down and retracting or altering what they said after everything erupted. They stuck to their guns and I love that. I respect Natalie Maines for having the courage to speak out against the war and against Bush at a time when it wasn’t a popular thing to do. I do, however, wonder if the Iraqi war had turned out to be a success, how things would have turned out for them and if this movie would ever have been made. While Shut Up and Sing does give us an interesting insider perspective of everything that happened during those tumultuous times, it also seems like it could be perceived as a kind of “I told you so” statement now that the American public has started to realize the out of kilter Iraq situation.

What’s really interesting about this movie is that it illustrates just how hyper-patriotism can easily turn into an abominable and destructive entity. Dissent, once an ideal cherished in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, now provokes threats, verbal attacks, the brandishing of the title “un-American”, etc. The Dixie Chicks aren’t the first, nor the last, public figures to receive backlash for speaking out against the war or Bush. I don’t know exactly when or how speaking out against either became equated to hating America (and its values) or not supporting the troops. Can’t these things be seen as dichotomous areas? Nevertheless, I find it sad that some people will so quickly and viciously turn on other people for having a different stance or political belief. It’s highly, highly ironic that these are the same folks who pride themselves on their patriotism and Americanism but refuse to respect that part of the constitution that guarantees free speech. It is like we’re suddenly in a communist regime. Not to mention, they were just words. Words that weren’t to be construed as hate speech in any way. In the grand scope of things, the actions did not fit the aftermath. You have all kinds of celebrities doing reckless behaviour, like the DUIs reported almost every week, but there’s no huge uproar over that even though driving impaired is not only illegal but dangerous to the population. Yet you don’t see boycotts and media attacks against those public figures. There’s no one sending Paris Hilton death threats. Where are people’s priorities? DUI = acceptable. Dissent = very, very unacceptable.

In the end, I am just glad to see that the Dixie Chicks were able to prevail in the times of despair and get back on top, even after the hurdles they faced. Regardless of your feelings on the war and the Bush administration, I think the ability to stay true to yourself through thick and thin should be admired.

Below are two of the songs off “Taking the Long Way”. I must say, they are pretty catchy and are now on my iPod.

“The Long Way Around”

“Not Ready to Make Nice”

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

An opportunity to study abroad at the Baraka School in Kenya, East Africa for two years.

It’s not only miles away from home, with all its drugs, violence, despair, but it’s also a whole new environment in every sense. The school is a far cry from the schools in the inner-city; the Baraka School focuses on “cleansing” the spirit of these youth, if you will, by instilling values and responsibilities that will carry them far in the long-run. The regiment is strict, of course, with none of the home comforts they are all used to. They have to get up bright and early to exercise, there’s no TV, nor GameBoys or CD players except during a pre-defined “free time”, no junk food (in fact, one kid, in the first video diary home, requests for “some gum, some soda, some chips and some candy”), no girls, and strict discipline being enforced for bad behaviour. It’s a huge culture shock, to say the least. It seems overwhelming at first, not remotely representative of the norm back in Baltimore, but they can see it is for the greater good.

They can’t leave everything behind though. As they go through their exciting, new experience at the Baraka School, the woes and tribulations emanating from home continue to hang over the heads of the young boys. Devon, for example, has a mother who is addicted to drugs and the entire family is immensely worried about her future. A Christmas video message sent to the all the boys from their families brings Devon some repose and hope when he sees his mother on the road to what appears to be in the right direction. Appearances do lie, however, he will soon learn.

The documentary follows them for their entire stay at the Baraka School. They seem to be making leaps and bounds in the right direction — good grades, changes in behaviour, a new outlook on life. Unfortunately, there are extenuating circumstances way beyond their control that changes everything for the worse. The Baraka School is forced to close its doors just one year into the boys’ two year program due to terrorist attacks and the closure of the American embassy in Nairobi. They must all return to Baltimore, a discernably huge setback in everything they have been working towards.

Once they return home, you can see how much these boys needed the Baraka School. Many of them regress back into the same old aimless lives they led before going to Africa. They return to the inner-city high schools, which lacks disciplinary measures and structured curriculum, and the run down parks. However, some of the boys have seen what they can accomplish and make strides to continue down the path set out by the Baraka School. Montrey, who is seen in the film as the one with the worst behaviour problems, scores top marks on a math test and is admitted to the most competitive high school in Baltimore. Devon works towards his life-long dream: to become a preacher.

The Boys of Baraka seems to do two main things. First, it sheds light on the need to restructure the educational system in inner-cities. These schools have long been swept under the rug, along with its students, and it is doing more a disservice to the youth than anything. This film proves that even under the worst circumstances and all the odds piled against them, these kids just want to learn in order to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty, drugs, violence, etc, representative of “urban ghettos”. The U.S. policy of “No Child Left Behind” seems kind of ironic, really. They aren’t just leaving them behind, they are not even giving them a chance to catch up with the rest of the kids of better socio-economic status. It really is time to rethink how to deal with schools in troubled neighbourhoods because indifference begets indifference and if we have kids with blase attitudes towards education, you can imagine what avenues they turn to.

Second, if the systematic approach is not feasiable or has failed, it illustrates how understanding the problem in idiosyncratic ways can be helpful. Maybe an upheavel of the educational system is too big of a task or logistically impossible, so let’s start with tailored programs for at risk youth. One changed individual may incite positive change all around, goes the theory. What I found amazing about the Baraka School program was that each child was dealt with in specific ways according to their problems or strengths. When problems arose, there were sanctions but they were also taught the errors of their ways. For example, when Montrey and another boy got into a physical fight, they were both sent (along with an instructor) to repent and reconsider their actions upon a gazebo type place outside, quite a distance away from the camp. They are encouraged to talk out their differences during the hours they spend there, until they finally reconcile. Had this happened in school back in Baltimore, they likely would’ve been dealt with in a whole different manner. Perhaps a suspension to punish the behaviour/actions, without really addressing the underlying conflict.

A few years have passed since it was filmed, but if you are interested in reading the update to the boys featured in the film, you can visit the official website.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

The family is comprised of idiosyncratic and somewhat out-there characters. Greg Kinnear and Toni Collette play Olive’s father and mother, Richard and Sheryl Hoover. He’s a high-strung father who’s trying to make it big in the business world with motivational program, which he is working hard to sell to a buyer. She is a mother that acts more like a mediator, trying to keep the family together and thwarting conflicts. Since her husband is obsessed with getting his motivational program marketed, she’s had to keep the family afloat — both financially and emotionally. And it obviously takes a toll on her. She’s also has a son from a previous marriage named Dwayne (Paul Dano). Dwayne is your typical, angst-ridden teenager who apparently hates everyone, including his family, and keeps to himself most of the time. Except, not quite so typical, as he’s taken a vow of silence and is a Nietzsche aficionado. His dream is to be a pilot for the Air Force one day. There’s Grandpa (Alan Arkin), father to Richard but plain old grandpa to the kids (well, more so, Olive). He’s delightfully inappropriate, which is the best way I can describe him. He likes the porn, he likes to talk about inappropriate things in inappropriate language, he likes snorting heroin, and he likes to live in the moment. Frank, played by Steve Carell, is a gay Proust scholar who fell in love with with one of his grad students. However, the young lover eventually leaves him for, of all people, his academic rival — the second highest regarded Proust scholar in the U.S. Distressed by his love life, the fact that he was fired from his job and his academic rival being awarded a genius grant in literature, he attempts suicide. Well, he wasn’t successful and so after he’s released from the hospital, he stays with his sister Sheryl and her family as he gets back on his feet (also, to watch over him to make sure he doesn’t attempt try #2). Lastly, there’s Little Miss Sunshine herself, Olive Hoover (Abigail Breslin). She’s a precocious little seven year old who has found joy in beauty pageants ever since she was introduced to them by an aunt she was visiting.

After Olive gets a call about qualifying for the regional Little Miss Sunshine pageant, the family takes the old yellow VW van and sets off for Redondo Beach, California, where the pageant is held. Hijinks and hilarity ensues on the roadtrip, some of which is result of the ramshackle van they are traveling in. On the surface, the family seems like the typical dysfunctional family but beneath the surface, they are just a regular, loving family who happen to have their quirks. And that is what makes this movie entertaining and heartwarming. For example, in the scene where Dwayne’s dream of becoming a pilot is suddenly crushed when he realizes that he is colour-blind, the family bonds together to offer whatever support they can. As he’s screaming in frustration at his family, the first point in the movie we hear him speak, Olive runs out to comfort him by simply putting an arm around his shoulder. During the roadtrip there are several moments of discord and setback (a.k.a. “the plot twists”) but nonetheless, the family bond remained strong and united under the common goal of getting Olive to the pageant on time. As far as dark comedies go, this one still had its share of laughs. The scene in which Olive performs her talent, which is a rather risque dance to Rick James’ “Super Freak” taught to her by her Grandpa, is both aghast and hilarious.

Little Miss Sunshine is movie with an interesting premise that may seem a bit peculiar at first, but it works, largely in part due to the strong characters created. The actors chosen to portray these characters were right on the money. As a huge Steve Carell fan, I found his way of mixing the depressive attitude and dry wit one of the more entertaining parts of the movie. And let’s not forget the “star” of Little Miss Sunshine, Abigail Breslin, who does a great job playing the kind of dumpy yet adorable Olive. Wearing the fat suit she had to wear for the movie and donning a pair of round plastic glasses, she makes the character sweet and compelling in such a way that, in some scenes, you almost forget that she’s just seven. As far as child actors go, she gives a brilliant performance in that she doesn’t resort to hamming it up to muster up cutesy-ness. Her performance seems natural and meshes well with the other performances. All in all, the ending was great and it will surely leave you with a smile.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars