Happy endings

Lately I have realized that I have developed a different understanding of film. I’ve always been the type who would go for the unconventional ending–the remarkable twist, or the unexpected disaster at the end of a blissful romance. I’m probably one of the very few who thought that Jack should have totally let Rose drown, only because if she hadn’t been too heavy to begin with, both of them would have been able to float around on that wooden door all night after the sinking of the Titanic. But then again, I always wanted Watts and Keith to end up with each other in Some Kind of Wonderful, and I always rooted for Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle. So my enjoyment of the fateful twist may in fact be limited, and though I sometimes hate to admit it, I’m a sucker for happy endings.

Consider this post a follow-up to what seems to be my most popular post on this blog (I don’t know why, but that’s what the ticker says) “Decisions We Never Got Over”. In that post I listed some of the TV decisions (usually from the finales, or something leading up to it) that I thought audience members (namely me) never got over. In this one, I will be talking about what I feel about endings in general. For instance, let me start by saying that I’ve always thought that a movie is best represented by how it starts and how it ends. I feel the same way about books. When I am perusing the local book store for a new read, I usually know how good the book is just by reading the opening lines or the ending lines. Yes, I skip to the end, but only to read the very last few lines. For instance, Jeffrey Eugenides’ The Virgin Suicides had me from that very first line:

“On the morning the last Lisbon daughter took her turn at suicide-it was Mary this time, and sleeping pills, like Therese-the two paramedics arrived at the house knowing exactly where the knife drawer was, and the gas oven, and the beam in the basement from which it was possible to lie a rope.”

And they say don’t judge a book by its cover, but Chris Cleave’s Incendiary had me just at the title. When it comes to movies, the movies I love are usually the ones with the best openings or endings. For instance, Fight Club. Who starts off a movie with a barrel of a gun down someone’s throat, with Ed Norton’s eloquent voice-over to match? Only David Fincher. Trainspotting is an awesome movie altogether, but that parting shot of Ewan McGregor running for his life is just perfect. But what about endings? What makes the audience tick?

Could you imagine if this cute couple never got their happy ending? Let me see, I picture a whole lot of tomatoes flying.

You all probably know that Pretty Woman was originally slated to not have a happy ending. In fact, the original ending did not have Richard Gere cruising up Julia Roberts’ pad in his limo, with a bouquet of roses in hand to profess his undying love for her. It was screen-tested. And we know what the outcome of that was. Audiences hated it. It’s a given that American audiences love their happy endings. I think everyone in general does, too, but I feel like French films in general and maybe even some Chinese movies, rarely end happily. I don’t know why that is. Could it be because the French have a better acceptance of the ups and downs of life, hence why they coined the phrase C’est la vie - “such is life” or “that’s life”? Who knows? But the reality is, movies that end happily resonate more with average moviegoers. Who wants to pay 10 bucks to be depressed? Some of us, yeah, but the lot of us? Truth is, people go into theaters to take their minds off the everyday. Escapism is the new drug, and movies like Iron Man and Indiana Jones serve to lift our spirits up; make us laugh, make us gaze in awe at the visual effects and the intense car chases. It makes us feel like something extraordinary is happening to us other than the dull and dreary in our life. I’m sure any one of us would give anything to be in Tony Stark’s shoes.

Now let me get down to the nitty gritty. The reality is, we can’t all have happy endings. I like how a lot of movies showcase that. Some of us embrace realism better than others. To tell it like it is in movies is immensely difficult. It means sacrificing what could be a Hollywood blockbuster, and making it something more of an art form. Let’s take for instance The Bicycle Thief [Ladri di Biciclette]. Although the lot of us felt incredibly bad for Antonio and Bruno, the reality is what was depicted on screen: people rarely ever get their stuff back after it’s been stolen from them, and though they are the protagonists of the story, the story isn’t about triumph against adversity-it’s basically about shit happening to good people, and how no matter how good you are, it doesn’t mean you’re gonna get a good ending. Now, I had heard from my film teacher that America had wanted to adapt The Bicycle Thief and make it a full-length feature film, with Cary Grant, who was the hottest leading man at the time. I feel like it’s a blessing that this American adaptation never got made, because really? Cary Grant? How believable would he be as a completely hapless man, with his only means of livelihood stripped from him?

Tom and Jane argue about why they can't have their happy ending : James McAvoy and Anne Hathaway in Becoming Jane

Another movie whose ending I have never gotten over, and which I have blogged about here: Becoming Jane. Now, the fact of the matter is, Jane Austen never got her happy ending, and she chose to make her characters get them anyway, only because she thought, if I can’t have it, they will. It was like she was writing her own story, pretending that the reality had never occurred to her, and instead, making everything work out for the better, when in fact, in her own life, it didn’t turn out very well. Becoming Jane is one of my favorite movies, even though everytime I watch it, I feel like my heart is being twisted in my chest over and over again. It’s so heartbreaking to watch this talented and inspiring young woman, with everything ahead of her, not get the ending she deserves. It makes you think, and it makes you realize that you could feel like you deserve everything, but like the Stones song, “you can’t always get what you want”. But I think deeper about it, and I feel like although I would have loved more than anything else to see Tom LeFroy and Jane Austen end up together, the truth is that it would have been just another movie if that had happened. Had Becoming Jane ended on a much happier note than it did, I probably would have detested it.

Sorry Robin and Marian. No happy ending for you either.

A recent not so happy ending that totally befuddled me: Robin Hood on the BBC. In its second season, I felt like the series was growing really old, due to the fact that it still feels like season one, and it felt like we as audience members were just going round in circles with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Every single time the episodes showed Robin and his merry men getting out of scrapes and showcasing episode after episode of this exhausting cat and mouse game between Robin and the Sheriff. I was growing tired of the Robin and Marian storyline as well; I felt that it was about time the two of them got together already and fought the Sheriff together or whatever. I had predicted it would be this way. See, with a series such a Robin Hood that you can count on for lighthearted fun and predictable moments, when they deliver a season finale that’s an absolute opposite of what the whole show has been, as an audience member you can feel quite shocked, and even betrayed. Marian dies! No, I know she was “brought back” in season one, but in the ending for season 2, she really dies! For realz for realz this time! When it happened, I thought, hmm they’re going to find a way to resurrect her, just you wait. But they didn’t! She really, really died! And this ending completely blew me away that I felt like I had underestimated the legitimacy of this show. I kept thinking, how the fuck do they kill off Maid Marian? What is Robin Hood without Maid Marian? I just totally raged about it for ages. But then I figured, people die all the time, and why can’t it be Marian? Marian’s death means several things about the show: it makes the show “not just another lovey dovey everyone-lives-happily-ever-after piece of garbage on the telly”, but it means wonders for Robin Hood’s character. This time, he has absolutely no excuse not to stab the Sheriff through the heart (cue music…I shot the Sheriff, but I didn’t shoot the Deputy…oh no…), and even Gisborne. It means there will be more depth, more violence, and more character for the next season. So although the ending was gut-wrenching, I feel like it was done for a purpose that would only be good for the show.

To wrap this post up, let me end by saying, some movies are better with their happy endings, others are not. What sets Casino Royale from every other Bond movie is the fact that Vesper actually died. She didn’t just disappear into oblivion like every other Bond girl. It gave a whole new meaning to Bond as a character, and as a franchise. Would No Country for Old Men have gotten such rave reviews had Anton Chegur been captured and dealt with justice? In short, like it or not realism is a powerful thing to have in movies. And though I personally am a fan of both realism and escapism, a girl tends to like her happy endings even more.

It should be a criminal offense…

…to adapt a classical work of literature and serve it up being absolutely short of excellent. Needless to say, this was what happened in Prince Caspian.

So I’m writing to express my utter disappointment in the newest Narnia film: Prince Caspian. When I saw the trailer a year ago at San Diego’s Comic-Con International, I was filled with excitement and anticipation at seeing another one of my favorite books come to life on the big-screen. I was excited when Andrew Adamson, the director, said he would be taking a darker approach to the story, because Prince Caspian is indeed a much darker tale compared to The Magician’s Nephew or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Now, Prince Caspian has never been my favorite book in the series, but I always enjoyed reading it. So it was no question how excited I was for the movie.

Fast forward a year later in May and I have finally seen the movie after a long and agonizing wait, and I have to say, I’ve only ever walked out on a movie once before, and that movie was The Brothers Grimm, but only because it was so boring I didn’t feel like sitting through the whole thing. I never thought I would say this regarding a Narnia movie, but I felt like I was betrayed. I felt like someone had promised me something spectacular, and I got something completely and utterly unlike what I had expected, and what I had deserved.

The thing with adapting classic books onto the big screen is that you usually have no license to go about changing things. In essence, you already have your brilliant script. As a film crew, your task is to translate the story onto the screen, and only modify scenes as necessary for the characters and the story to develop. Basically, you’re tweaking an already well-written script to make sure audience members who are not fans of the book can follow. Usually sequence is not a big restriction–you are usually welcome to change the ordering of scenes as you like. But where you are restricted as a filmmaker is in the translation of the story–your understanding of the characters’ motives and personalities, and your interpretation of the spirit of the story–that’s almost set in stone.

Prince Caspian did nothing of the sort. Andrew Adamson had professed that he was a fan of the books, fan enough to try and give it justice on the big screen. He did nothing of the sort. To me, he did not translate the book onto the screen–he created his own story, and merely slapped the name Narnia in front of it. The film barely resembled the book. The gist was there–Prince Caspian flees his murderous uncle, King Miraz, and enlists the help of the Old Narnians to reclaim his throne. In the heat of this battle, he is forced to blow Susan’s magic horn and summons the Pevensie children back to Narnia to help him. The film delivers on the gist, all right, but it misses the mark on everything else. Not only did the script writers take extreme liberties in inserting totally new scenes that completely altered the meaning of the story, but they also underscored some of the major characters, who I had expected to play bigger roles in the film.

I would like to enumerate the mistakes:

First off, they did not tell the history of Prince Caspian. I felt this was an important part of the story, because how are we supposed to sympathize with a boy if we barely know his character? I thought the relationship between Caspian and Dr. Cornelius was something essential to understanding Caspian’s character, and yet it was almost nonexistent in the film. Without giving us Prince Caspian’s childhood, there was no sense of rapport established between the audience and Prince Caspian. We just knew he was trying to avoid getting killed, which is hardly anything special. I also thought the use of “Professor” by Caspian in addressing Dr. Cornelius was stupid. This is not Harry Potter, and you should know better, Andrew Adamson, than to let this slip by. The title of “Professor” has no place in Narnia–it is uncharacteristic.

Another thing that bothered me was the accent. They had made Prince Caspian and the rest of the Telmarines speak with an accent reminiscent of Inigo Montoya of The Princess Bride. I thought this was silly and it all seemed forced. Yes, the Telmarines were a different race from the Old Narnians, sure, but they were human, and I don’t see why there was a need to give them Spanish-sounding accents. I felt it was absolutely unnecessary and it took away the seriousness of the story and seemed like a burden on Prince Caspian himself. If they wanted to convey that they were different, they could have done it by character and not by forcing the use of accents on their actors. It was absolutely laughable and excruciating to watch.

The scene at Cair Paravel was immensely lacking as well. The children should have been more puzzled, more disturbed and more time should have been devoted to their realization that the castle they once presided in as kings and queens of Narnia was reduced to a pile of ruins. That way, it would have established that sense of wonderment and need in the audience to know what the hell was going on.

Third, Susan’s horn. It was a vital part of the story, and yet it was severely underscored in the film. Not only was its importance not showcased properly, it was also used differently than in the book. In the film, Prince Caspian uses the horn after he hits his head on a tree trunk and in an attempt to defend himself from Trumpkin of all people (once again, a scene not in the book). This is a grave error, because it once again misrepresents one of the main parts of the book. Susan’s horn was only meant to be blown in grave circumstances. And yet in the film Prince Caspian blows the horn only to save himself–not to save his army, as in the book. It made Caspian out to be a selfish person, and made the horn out to be less magical and less important than it really was. Also, the use of Trumpkin as some sort of villain completely goes against what his character was intended to be. He and Trufflehunter were both trying to help Caspian, not attack him. Sure, Trumpkin was probably less trusting of Caspian than Trufflehunter, but he did not attempt to attack him in the book, and to make this so in the film is confusing and takes away from the sense of urgency in Caspian’s blowing the horn at the most extreme time of need.

The Pevensie children gaze in awe at the scenery around them as Trumpkin leads them through a drastically changed Narnia.

I also didn’t like how underscored Trumpkin was in the film. In the book, Trumpkin and Trufflehunter are one of the defenders of Prince Caspian, because they know he is well-intentioned, but Trumpkin remains to be a little wary of him because he’s a Telmarine. Instead, Trumpkin was never shown to interact with Caspian, except to actually attempt to attack him (which was not in the book, and I’m assuming was dreamt up by the writers for what reason I don’t know). It was uncharacteristic of Trumpkin. Next, there wasn’t enough of Trumpkin doubting whether Aslan existed, and whether he was really in the presence of the kings and queens of Narnia. I felt like this was another important part of the book that the writers missed.

Fourth, Prince Caspian himself. A few things: So I already talked about how his accent was unnecessary and bothersome, and how his premature blowing of the horn seemed to communicate a selfish Caspian rather than a Caspian looking out for the good of his army of Old Narnians. Another thing that bothered me is that Caspian was also made out to be less fit than he really was to be King of Narnia. In the book, it was written that he was well-learned in various things: archery, swordfighting, hunting, academia–in the film there is none of that. We have no way of relating as to how this boy can simply become King of Narnia only because it’s his birthright. It also made it seem like he was only imploring the Old Narnians for aid because it was his birthright to be King. Caspian never wanted to be King. In the book, the only reason Caspian feels like he needs to fight Miraz is because he sees the beauty of Old Narnia–its creatures, its dense forests full of magic, its history…Caspian as a child was always fascinated with Old Narnia, and to find out that his people (the Telmarines) were responsible for the decay of Narnia, to him was simply heartbreaking. He vows to protect the Old Narnians and restore Narnia to what it used to be. In the film, there is none of that. It only seems like Caspian wants to get the throne for himself, because of his birthright–a mistake that greatly affects viewers’ perception of Caspian.

Another thing the film made up that was not in the book was a rivalry between Prince Caspian and Peter. There was no such rivalry, and there’s a completely good reason why. Caspian was never a proud boy. He was always in awe of Narnia and how it used to be in the olden days. He was always fascinated by the stories of the kings and queens of Narnia. To have him challenge Peter is unbecoming of his character and it paints him to be a childish and proud person, not the humble, well-intentioned Caspian that C.S. Lewis painted him to be in the books. His character was underscored in the film because he was supposed to be in charge of the whole army before Peter comes along. His bravery spurred on the rest of the Old Narnians, until of course the very end, where we see Nikabrik plot to resurrect the White Witch, which then leads to the Pevensie children’s appearances. Instead, they make the Pevensie children responsible for the army’s choices in the film, something I felt totally changed the story. I really disliked Peter in the film, which is a lot to say because in the book, I admired Peter for being able to work cooperatively with Prince Caspian, even though he had been High King long ago. Instead, I saw Peter asserting his power and authority on Caspian, something I am absolutely certain C.S. Lewis did not intend in his writing.

Fifth, King Miraz and the Telmarines. They were well-cast, I will give them that. But once again, I detest how they were given accents, and I detest that their roles in the film were tragically altered. For instance, there were all these unnecessary and made-up scenes about Miraz pretending that Caspian was “abducted”. This is so stupid, because once again, it showed how much liberty the writers took with the book. Miraz was a cold-blooded usurper, simple as that. When it no longer became convenient for him to have Caspian around, he intended to dispose of him. They did not show that in the film. By not doing this, it did away with the sense of urgency in having Caspian flee from him. As for Miraz’s right hand men Glozelle and Prosepius (sp?), they were the better part of the film. Their betrayal was shown in the film, but there was also this strange fabrication by the writers to make Glozelle seem like he was a good character, rather than the haughty, power-hungry man that he was in the books. In the end, they make Glozelle one of the people to step through the portal back to the human world. Instead of the one who really betrays King Miraz.

One of my favorite characters from the Narnia series, the fearless Reepicheep!

Another thing that angered me, sixth, was the portrayal of the Old Narnians. I loved the part in the book when Prince Caspian goes around the forest collecting friends and allies in his battle. I loved meeting the bears, the squirrel Pattertwig, and of course, Reepicheep and the rest of the gang. However, there was none of this. What they did in the film was to have Caspian presented amid a throng of angry Old Narnians and then yelled at and jeered at like he was a fiend. It was wrong. It was a wrong scene because it painted the Old Narnians out to be unreasonable and jeering, not the friendly, lighthearted Narnians we know and love, that the book depicted. I felt that the importance of the ally-collecting scene with Caspian in the book is that it gave him the opportunity to interact with various creatures in Old Narnia, and to establish a rapport with them, so that they would feel like he was indeed their king and that he would fight for them. However, it just seemed like the Narnians were fighting to give Caspian his throne back and nothing else. It was a stupid scene, and I abhor it. I dislike that they ignored the giant’s role in the film, and the bears.

The Pevensie children were a huge disappointment for me. For me, this was Peter and Edmund’s time to shine. Edmund has a new personality in the book, because he knows better after being under the wiles of the White Witch. He knows to trust Lucy, because she was right before. Peter also is supposed to shine in the film because he was once again able to summon the courage of High King Peter and rally the Old Narnians behind him for Caspian. Instead, they were portrayed like ugly, irritable children. Peter was painted as a proud and stubborn leader–someone who would say it’s his way or the highway. He wasn’t supposed to be like that at all. The film painted Peter as someone who kept trying to shove his royalty down the Narnians’ throat, and he was absolutely not like that.

Susan takes aim at foes amid flight during a siege on King Miraz's castle that was never in the book.

Edmund, on the other hand, was good in the film–however, I felt he wasn’t given the credit he properly deserved. Edmund has a newfound wisdom that he seemed to lack in the earlier book. He is now much more mature and much more capable. Instead, we see yet another shadow of Peter. He was supposed to shine in the film, just as he did in The Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe. However, this was not so. Another thing that angered me was yet again another fabrication: Prince Caspian and Susan having some kind of romantic connection. First of all, it’s a good idea, but one that I felt they could have done away with and focused instead on the essential parts of the film. Instead, they added it in as some kind of afterthought. It seemed contrived, and to me it felt like Prince Caspian only snuggling up to Susan because she was a Queen. There was no back story at all–it just popped out of nowhere, much like the rest of the fabricated scenes in the film. Also, I think this is hilarious: Andrew Adamson probably responded to the criticism from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe of Susan not showing off her bow and arrow skills all that much. His response? Let’s overdo it! Have her shoot at anything that moves! It wasn’t as big of a deal as the film’s other crimes, but I felt like once again, this was something that distracted away from really delivering the story properly.

A scene that particularly angered me in the film was the totally fabricated scene that the writers made: Peter forces the army to stage a siege on King Miraz’s castle–something once again, not in the book and completely fabricated, and I don’t know why they did it, except perhaps to show off the special effects. This siege to me was extremely out of character for Peter, because it paints him to be an inexperienced king and a megalomaniac. He wasn’t. When he was High King, he and Edmund shared battle victories that C.S. Lewis made a point to mention in the book. The reason he mentioned it was to establish the kings and queens of Narnia as people who worked to get the esteem and glory they deserved. Instead, we have a different Peter, one who is bossy, arrogant and foolish. The siege is a disastrous part of the film because it is a radical departure in what Lewis intended, and it was a long scene, too, which could have been devoted to other things. In the scene, they show Caspian going into Miraz’s bedroom and wanting to kill him. This is WRONG and out of character. It angered me so much I wanted to vomit.

Another thing that upset me immensely was the escape from the siege. In it we are shown the offensive y the Old Narnians going disastrously awry and they have to retreat. The gate starts to close, Peter and the others escape but they leave behind some Old Narnians, who are trapped behind the gate and end up being slaughtered. To me, this was the most scandalous and gut-wrenching mistake that the writers made. It made out Peter and the Pevensies to be cold-hearted and stupid. Peter would never leave Narnian creatures to die like that, and he would have never suggested such a risky maneuver in the first place, because he as never one to consider risking lives okay. This decision sealed the deal for me that this movie was beyond salvation.

The Pevensie children are transported from the train station to a changed Narnia. From left to right: Skandar Keynes (Edmund), William Moseley (Peter), Anna Popplewell (Susan) and Georgie Henley (Lucy).

Ben Barnes wields the sword of Prince Caspian

Last but not least, their interpretation of Aslan. Aslan was absent in the books for a reason. They did not convey this reason accurately in the film. The message that C.S. Lewis was trying to say with the book went largely missing in the film. Here, the religious undertones resurface, but perhaps that is why the writers completely avoided Aslan in the film, to avoid backlash from oh, atheists who feel like there had been too many Jesus references in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The reason Aslan was absent was because Narnia was no longer the place he had known. It was rife with evil from the Telmarines; once talking animals were now reduced to dumb creatures that devoured anything that moved. When the Pevensie children came, the reason Lucy was the only one who was able to see him was because she was the only one who truly believed he would come. It was a question of faith; Susan and Peter did not see Aslan because they were grown-up, and believed that to accomplish something, they had to rely on what they know is absolutely certain, and they had begun to doubt Aslan.

Here’s what I feel the overall story was in the book and should have been in the film: Prince Caspian was raised in a world of lies fed to him by his uncle, King Miraz. When Miraz attempts to kill him, he is forced to flee for his life. He discovers on his own that there is a world out there that exists and that Miraz had told him it was dead. He encounters the Old Narnians, who befriend him instead of demonize him. At first they are suspicious, but after he proves himself worthy, they befriend him. After listening to the Old Narnians, Caspian feels that Miraz and the Telmarines are committing a grievous thing by trying to erase Old Narnia. He is empowered and he feels like he needs to fight for them. He doesn’t want to be king, he just wants to protect Old Narnia. Old Narnians suggest that they should do battle to reclaim what’s theirs, and Caspian vows to do aid them because he loves Old Narnia and wants to defend it, not because he wants to ascend to the throne. In the midst of battle, due to harsh circumstances, Caspian is forced to call for help by sounding out Susan’s horn. The Pevensie children are summoned. They trek through unrecognizable land to find Caspian in order to aid him. However, they are puzzled as to why Aslan has not shown himself, as he had before. They are confused, afraid and unsure of themselves. However, when they learn that Narnia has been invaded by the Telmarines, and that their beloved friends have been subject to such hideous experiences, they vow to help Caspian to restore the Old Narnia. There is no power struggle between Caspian and Peter. Peter lends his help to Caspian as best he can, and Caspian feels nothing but reverence of a High King of Narnia who seems to be the same age as him but has achieved so much. The Narnians claim victory against the Telmarines, but only because they have a strong desire to restore Narnia to the beauty it once was. They are brought together not by the desire to crown Caspian, but to give the magical world back to the creatures who it belongs to. In the end, the reason Caspian is acknowledged by Aslan as a true king of Narnia is because he really does have a love of its creatures, and he has no desire to rule them, but simply to lead and protect them.

The spirit of Prince Caspian is one of love for the earth and all its creatures, cooperation and faith. There are themes of brotherhood, friendship, understanding and a desire to break through tyranny and restore peace. There’s nothing of the sort in the film, which is why I came out of the theater horrified and devastated.

In summation, I felt that the writers and the director took some extreme liberties with the film. They did not understand the characters properly, and they inserted scenes that were unimportant as well as destructive to the spirit of what C.S. Lewis intended of Narnia. I felt that the movie only served the purpose of blockbustering, and that it seemed like a totally different story, with simply the Narnia name slapped onto it. It was barely recognizable, indeed, and I felt betrayed. It’s the feeling one would get when someone, for instance, adapts The Catcher in the Rye, and it turns out be a movie like Mean Girls or something. It’s the same feeling one would get if say, The Lord of the Rings was horribly made by Peter Jackson. Only, Peter Jackson executed The Lord of the Rings perfectly. He understood The Lord of the Rings just like a real fan would, and he made sure that he did it justice. Andrew Adamson and his pathetic crew did nothing of the sort. They simply made a fan fiction version of the book and put in special effects and employed WETA work shop just to generate revenue. It was not the Narnia we fans know and love, and it is an unforgivably made film that I will never watch ever again.

I feel a huge sense of loss and devastation. Like I mentioned earlier, someone has defiled one of the best works of literature in history. It should not have been allowed, and it should not be tolerated. Unfortunately, the box office tells otherwise. Because the film will gross big at the box office, people will see this as a success, and people will forget that C.S. Lewis’ masterpiece had nothing to do with that film. I am angry and I feel cheated. Andrew Adamson, I hope you never make another Narnia film again.

So there.

A journey to self-discovery

It’s a shame that Christopher McCandless had to venture so far to find the answer to happiness: The true happiness is the one that is shared.

Into the Wild is a film written for the screen and directed by Sean Penn, based on the book by John Krakauer, which chronicled the adventure of Christopher Johnson McCandless, a 22-year-old fresh grad who decided to leave everything he knew–his family, belongings, money–behind to explore the great American wilderness. Along the way, he meets some pretty amazing characters who influence his quest for finding himself. His goal was to reach Alaska, and that he did. Unfortunately, after ingesting some poisonous plants, he died of starvation in a beat-up, old Fairbanks Transit System bus in the middle of nowhere, where 4 months later, some moose hunters would find his body, and his journal.

I thought Emile Hirsch displayed such a range of talent in this film. I’ve always been a fan, and I knew that given the right movie, he could outshine any young talent out there. Sean Penn saw something in this guy, and I’m so happy he was given this role to fill, because he did it flawlessly and with such respect for the character that you have to admire him. Apparently the criteria that Penn was looking for in the actor to fill McCandless’ shoes was the same “disarming idealism” and physical resemblance to McCandless himself. He made the absolute perfect choice. The path to becoming the character, however, was treacherous. Hirsch had shed 41 lbs of his body weight from simply being out in the wild and doing things he had never done, such as river rafting and steep rock climbing. Quite the method actor, really. But you only learn from the best, right? Penn was adamant about recreating the intensity and atmosphere that McCandless faced in his journeys.

I liked the movie and thought it was a successful delivery on the parts of the actors. Except Jena Malone. I think I’ve expressed in previous posts how I simply dislike her. It’s just that I don’t think she has a very big range as an actress. I’m also angry because she has had a very long career and started really young, and you would think she would show more facets when performing. She’s been in movies probably longer than Hirsch and he outperforms her in just one scene, even though he is the star of the movie. Kristin Stewart was also annoying to watch. She looked really disturbing–extremely thin and scantily-clad, although I don’t really know if that was the intended portrait the producers wanted to draw of her character. Her portrayal of the character was a little hollow–there was no depth. William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden once again delivered, despite being in the film for oh, a total of 15 minutes maybe. Catherine Keener was especially great, and of course, who can miss the beautiful performance by Hal Hollbrook? I wish he had picked up an award for this role, because he was just brilliant. Restrained, precise and heartfelt, his performance drove me to tears! Also, the soundtrack by Eddie Vedder was amazing and it definitely helped create that yearning atmosphere that the movie was going for.

McCandless (Hirsch) gets emotional at the sight of a herd of deer leaping beautifully across from him.

I thought the film’s message was profound and meaningful, yet I thought the ending didn’t seem quite resolved, even though it was probably precisely what had happened to Chris McCandless. This movie is one that every twentysomething person should see, because it’s an accurate depiction of what it’s like to go through your quarterlife crisis or fresh grad crisis. You have this education and you’re probably going to secure a white-collar job for yourself, but what does it all amount to? What does it all mean? Is life as mundane as simply getting a job, making enough money to buy more shit we don’t need? The movie did an excellent job in showing the beauty of the wild, and it did an excellent job showing the suffocating atmosphere of the city. The thing about this movie is it awakens the dormant idealist in you. I used to be so idealistic. But due to circumstances that you sometimes feel like you can’t get out of, I succumbed to the routine of life. Sometimes it gets sickening to get up and work, get up and go to school, eat, sleep, shower, repeat. It all gets so monotonous and they don’t mean anything. They don’t help you understand yourself, which is what this movie is trying to explore.

This movie left me with two warring emotions: anger at McCandless for being so selfish, and a quiet peace at knowing that the world is out there, waiting to be discovered–shown to us by a daring, thoughtful 22-year-old named Alexander Supertramp. I was angry because McCandless had met all these wonderful characters, and he touched their lives immensely. But because he was so driven, and he was so intent on reaching his goal, he made them second priorities. I thought that on his journey to self-discovery, he devalued the meaning of human interaction. However, he had every reason to. We all encounter problems in human relationships, and he’s right: I don’t understand why people treat each other so badly, too. But when you meet people who are magnificent, and who treasure you just as you are, you can’t throw them away because they only come along once in a lifetime.

I believe this movie accomplished what it set out to do: pay respects to a great hero whose life has taught us that there is nothing more challenging and fulfilling than leaving all your material possessions behind in search for yourself (Fight Club has that same message somewhat: you’re not your khakis, or the amount of money you have in the bank; You have to find out for yourself who you are) and to bring back that sense of idealism that great lives are made of. It asks us to think about what our lives are supposed to mean, and to not settle for anything less than what we dream about. Emile Hirsch said it in the movie: “If you want something, don’t be afraid to grab it.”

But it’s such a touchy subject!

It appears America wants pregnancy to be something you can laugh at. Something a sitcom would center its show around, or something family-friendly, Gilmore Girls-esque and an all-around good time. America doesn’t want to be depressed in the movies. America has too many problems as is to have to deal with depression being shoved in their faces at the movies. I mean, who wants to pay $10.50 to be depressed for an hour and a half, right?

Unwanted pregnancies, obviously, aren’t fun. You know, it’s a given. But America makes it fun! I mean, hey. If you can’t laugh about your boyfriend accidentally getting you pregnant, then you’re doomed, right? I’m just amazed at all these feelgood pregnancy movies that are all about these cool characters, and yet the social implications of their situation is a stark contrast to what is going on around the world. What I mean by this is, for example, films like Knocked Up and Juno make comedies about getting pregnant seem trivial. Like, it’s a big deal, sure, and your life could potentially be over once you see that plus sign on the stick. But it’s not even about the pregnancy per se, but audiences enjoy the woman and her boyfriend’s bantering and the little quirks that come with being American and pregnant. It’s about being able to retain your coolness points and score with the yuppie populace that counts in these films. What audiences fail to realize is how lucky Americans are to have this kind of society where people are more socially accepting of pregnancy, and they actually find humor in it. The best thing is that these comedies don’t even highlight the fact that Americans are lucky to even have abortion clinics. In other countries, abortion clinics are composed of a little hut in the middle of nowhere, with some disheveled old hag sticking a piece of metal into the woman and thrashing it around to kill the fetus. Almost always these things end badly, with either too much hemorrhaging during the act or later health complications. Emerging from Knocked Up or Waitress does not make you feel relieved that America is blessed with so many institutions that value the well-being of mother and potential baby. In most countries, there’s no such thing as an equivalent for Planned Parenthood. It’s simply amazing. What American mainstream film has failed to highlight is the social issue. Sure, there have been films that deal with serious issues like The Constant Gardener, Syriana, Fast Food Nation, Babel and The Last King of Scotland. But these films don’t resonate with the regular moviegoer. A teenager downing a gallon of Sunny D in her vintage tee and Moldy Peaches background seems more entertaining than real issues. Mexico’s The Crime of Padre Amaro is a perfect example of a film that delivers in its message and paints a vivid portrait of the tumultuous relationship between a priest and a young woman.

What set me off on this was when I saw 4 Weeks, 3 Months, 2 Days, a film set in 1987 Romania, a time where infrastructure is crumbling, students are hard at work trying to make a better life for themselves, and having an abortion is an utter travesty, you can be thrown in jail and quite possibly killed for it. Written and directed by Cristian Mungiu, it is a gripping tale of two friends who try to pull off an abortion in secret. There are some pretty awesome performances, and a very well-written script, I thought.

For those who are used to action-packed and fast-paced films, this is not your movie, because the film relies a lot on atmosphere and gravity rather than showmanship and gesture. I was most dazzled by the enormity of the film’s scope. Not only was it about Romania itself and the society that these characters live in, but it was also about relationships and how these people have only each other in this tension-filled petri dish where everything is forbidden. See, the thing about a film like Juno is that the title character spends most of the screen time trying to wow us with her proclamations of Sonic Youth suckiness and beating the world record of most-wit-injected-into-one-sentence that you don’t even see vulnerability or quiet character in her until really late into the film, with that scene with her dad. 4 Months has shown more character and more depth in a single shot. This shot, actually. And several more, which show tremendous strength and vulnerability at the same time, that you can’t help but feel empowered and yet saddened at the same time.

Otilia [played by the fabulous Anamaria Marinca] is a heroine. She’s a 1987 Romanian superhero. She’s awesome and she doesn’t even know it. Although the audience never really knows why her character is compelled to help out her friend Gabita get an abortion despite the serious risks, you believe her and you root for her. It doesn’t matter if you don’t know the background between these two friends. Some people might say that the relationships in this film were completely nonexistent, because it seems the film is all about the abortion and no background or side story is presented as to the nature of these two friends’ relationship. Why is Otilia so protective of Gabita? And why is Gabita such a helpless bitch? Yet I thought that this was one of the most fascinating film relationships I’ve ever seen.

Usually American films have a cute little cookie dough cut-out of relationships. Friends in film almost always have back stories. Emile Hirsch and Ryan Donowho’s characters in Imaginary Heroes have been friends since they were kids, and they are neighbors as well. Their moms were once best friends. And when one of the characters does something completely astounding for the other, you can justify that because you know their background. You know that they have this past that solidifies their relationship. In 4 Months, you don’t even have to know the back story. The director feels that the audience is intelligent enough to pick up on implications; you don’t have to be spoonfed back story for you to grasp the fact that these two friends would give their limbs for each other. Why would Otilia go through so much just to help her friend, Gabita, who got herself knocked up in the first place? These questions aren’t answered, and they don’t need to. The story is about inner strength at a time when weakness is not permitted. Weakness will be the death of you, and for these two characters, one of them has to be strong so the other can be weak. And in this case, Otilia is strong for the both of them, and Anamaria Marinca does a fabulous job portraying this strong female with confidence that parallels no other and yet with a quiet desperation, as if the whole world is on her shoulders and it is up to her to defend it, even when she could just as easily shrug it off and say, “Fuck this.”

It’s such a complex movie that I found myself thinking about it on the car ride home. Another good thing about this film is that I’ve never seen such a volatile yet romantic relationship between a man and a woman. Otilia and her boyfriend Adi have the most interesting relationship. Adi is totally whipped by Otilia. Otilia obviously wears the pants in the relationship, but at the same time, even though she’s trying to be strong on the surface, it’s only with Adi that she can really let her guard down. I love their argument in this movie, too, because I thought it was the most accurate depiction of what a real couple’s argument would be like.

Overall, such a tremendous film. Personally I probably won’t be seeing this again, as it was excruciating enough to watch the horrors of underground abortion. But it’s an important film that I think everyone should see, because it makes us all appreciate what we have in this day and age.

Oh the tragedy of unrequited love

I knew there was a reason why I wanted to see Becoming Jane. Okay, so I wanted to see it because I have a giant crush on James McAvoy (I know, I know, I pine for him way too much on this site, but whatever), but I didn’t expect it to be such a good movie. I’m usually a snob when it comes to Jane Austen films. Either it’s perfect, or it’s utter crap [MTV's adaptation of Wuthering Heights was a travesty, and the lovely Katherine Heigl was in it. Oh, the shame!] I thought it was going to be another one of those ridiculous Jane Austen films that was all star quality and no substance. God knows the most recent remake of Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley was all about Knightley being an It girl at the time than it being an Austen film. A real Austen movie? The BBC’s Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth. The BBC version and the Joe Wright adaptation cannot be compared. Look at it this way: Maybe it’s just me, but if you had to pick between reading the classic or buying the Cliff’s notes, which would you go for?

Anyway, so Becoming Jane was a pleasant surprise. Anne Hathaway was pretty convincing as Jane Austen. I know she was an English major in college, and usually actresses who are English majors tend to exhibit that in the roles they choose. Take for example, Julia Stiles. English major at Columbia, and a complete Shakespeare fangirl. She’s done O (for Othello), 10 Things I Hate About You (which is an adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew) and Hamlet with another English major, Ethan Hawke. We get it, Julia Stiles, you’re ga-ga over Shakespeare. Please stop. Apparently, Miss Stiles has indeed moved on. Except, she now plans to star in yet another classic book adaptation, Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar. Pfft.

Anne Hathaway is more of a general classics fangirl. I mean, to begin with, her real name probably isn’t Anne Hathaway. We know that Shakespeare’s wife was named Anne Hathaway, so being the fangirl she was, probably wanted to go with that stage name. She’s done Nicholas Nickleby, based on the Dickens novel. She and Julia Stiles kind of have the same range. They’ve both done the silly romantic comedies and chick flicks and have graduated to more serious roles. The main difference? Hathaway’s breast-baring extravaganza in Brokeback Mountain. Not quite sure about that career move, but I’m sure that was eventful for Jake Gyllenhaal.

Anyway, so Becoming Jane. My favorite new movie. I had waited forever to rent it on Neftlix, and I was so pleased when I finally got it. It doesn’t have the sweeping dramatic atmosphere that Joe Wright put into the recent Pride and Prejudice with Knightley, but this movie’s strength is in its lead characters. Hathaway and McAvoy have really good chemistry on screen, and the intensity was just leaping off the TV. McAvoy in particular demonstrated a wide range of emotions in this film. He played Tom LeFroy, Jane Austen’s real love of her life, and the said inspiration for Pride and Prejudice’s insufferable Mr. Darcy. Tom LeFroy is an interesting character to play, because you have a combination of a boy who just wants to have fun, squander his Uncle’s money on merrymaking and gallivanting with the ladies, and on the other hand you have a man who’s trying to live up to his Uncle’s expectations at the same time, and displaying his education and snobbishness to those he deems below his stature.

I’ve always thought I was an Elizabeth Bennett. When I read Pride and Prejudice, her character just seemed like it was written for me. A lot of women are the same as Ms. Bennett, and they will not settle for anything less than their standards, yet they are absolutely intrigued by those who would spurn their affections. Jane Austen had a lot of suitors, but she would not settle with any of them because she wasn’t attracted at all. And here comes this guy who’s completely obnoxious to her, and you find her immediately drawn to him. It’s the bad boy thing. To inject a bit of Lost into this post, a lot of women are more attracted to Sawyer than to Jack. Jack’s everything you need, but Sawyer’s who you want. In some ways, Tom LeFroy is both to Jane. He is her equal in mind and spirit, and she’s fascinated by how opposite from the ideal he is, yet how drawn she is to him. And McAvoy pulls this role off effortlessly. His acting is just so precise and so complete, that as an Elizabeth Bennett or a Jane Austen, you can’t help but feel like he is the character.

The overall story is excellent. Just watching the banter between Hathaway and McAvoy on screen is fun to watch, especially when McAvoy flashes that devilish grin of his and you’re immediately smitten. What cinched it for me as the best movie ever at the moment? The scene between him and Hathaway, when they meet for the first time after breaking up (LeFroy’s Uncle did not permit him to marry Austen, and they split). LeFroy is now engaged, and Austen is heartbroken (she had hoped that something would change). He comes to see her and she is just indignant. This is a scene that I keep replaying over and over in my head because it’s so powerful. I can’t describe the scene completely here so you’ll just have to watch it for yourself.

Anyway, I keep thinking about this movie over and over so I am just going to have to get it on DVD. It’s so worth it. To those of you who like your happy endings, this probably isn’t your movie. But if you’re like me, and you’re a cynic on the surface and a hopeless romantic at heart, you’ll enjoy this. There’s just nothing more heart-wrenching yet endearing to watch than the tragedies of unrequited love. Austen thought she could write about real life, but her real life was too painful to pen, so she opted for the alternative: happy endings galore for her characters. It’s such a sad life, and yet she’s given us so much wit and wisdom in her works that you can’t help but be thankful that she had that experience. Otherwise she probably would have written something like freakin’ Confessions of a Shopaholic or some shit had she ended up happily ever after with Tom LeFroy.

Okay, I have to put a period on this post, otherwise I’ll keep writing. Although I love writing about adaptations of my favorite books because they’re usually ones you really relate to and feel passionately about and you’ll always have fresh ideas that pop into your mind that you feel is interesting in regards to the perspective presented in the film. Anyhoo, I’m going to go doodle “I heart James McAvoy” now.

The green light for SAG

The WGA has allowed the Screen Actors Guild Awards to go on. This is a very good thing, considering if it was a no-go, the best films of the year (or our time, even) would not have been honored.

The winners:

Daniel Day-Lewis [There Will Be Blood] - Best Actor

Utterly deserving, in my opinion, although for me it was a tough one between him and Emile Hirsch in Into the Wild. However, Hirsch is young, and he’s got a bright future ahead of him so he has plenty of time to win awards. But Daniel Day-Lewis dedicated his award to Heath Ledger, and this just makes us all think that you can be at the prime of your life, young and successful, and you can be taken away instantly, so really, if you need to be appreciated, it’s now or never.

Javier Bardem [No Country for Old Men] - Best Supporting Actor

Duh. This was a no-brainer.

Julie Christie [Away from Her] - Best Actress

Haven’t seen the movie, but I have heard a lot about this directorial debut by Sarah Polly. Christie beat out some pretty stiff competition from Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose, Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth: the Golden Age, Ellen Page for Juno and Angelina Jolie for A Mighty Heart.

No Country for Old Men - Best Ensemble Cast

Basically the best drama award went to the well-lauded film by the Coen brothers. No surprise there also.

Tina Fey - Best Actress in a Comedy for 30 Rock

Finally! Miss Fey deserves the award, but the way she sees it she’s merely a “hat rack” that Alec Baldwin dances around with like Fred Astaire. We disagree, Tina. You’re awesome in 30 Rock.

Alec Baldwin - Best Actor in a Comedy for 30 Rock

When they were doing the in memoriam slides and at the end, a muted screen flashed with Heath Ledger on it, I almost cried. He was such a talented actor, and it’s so sad to see a really fine talent meet such an untimely demise.

All mellowed out?

It’s weird to think that it’s been a year since I moved to the States. When you spend 18 years of your life somewhere else, waking up in a completely different place can sometimes feel surreal. Tonight I have the house to myself, which means my riotous siblings are out and about and my mom is fast asleep, enjoying a rare night of quiet. It also means I have an awful lot of time to think. Time to think + Starr = bad.

It feels like a lot has changed, but not really. My tastes are pretty much the same. I still listen to the same music, although nowadays I tend to gravitate to the less emo. I guess I got tired of the screaming and whining in the form of clever lyrics. I haven’t been to a lot of movies. I saw Transformers last weekend with my cousins and brother, and that was a blast [awesome movie, by the way. Shia Labeouf rocks my socks].

I’m just not as cynical as I used to be. Tonight, as I was watching TV, I saw that A Walk to Remember was on. If this were me a year ago, I would have switched channels immediately, maybe even threw up in my mouth for a second or two at the sight of a Nicholas Sparks-based film on TV. But I actually sat through this one. I finished the whole movie, felt really sad for Mandy Moore for a little bit, and then realized that romantic comedies, romantic dramas, they’re not all rubbish. The Notebooks and When Harry Met Sallys of the world exist for the sole reason of creating the illusion that love is, well, basically a figment of the imagination. Okay, that sounds like a cynic speaking, but think about it. Where would we be without Tom Cruise ever uttering the immortal words, “You complete me”? The world would be a complete disaster had Julia Roberts and Richard Gere not ended up together in Pretty Woman. We would all be cynics if it weren’t for the Meg Ryans and the Tom Hankses of our world. We need these sappy movies to give us hope that however much we act like blathering idiots, there’s always a possibility that we might get our very own real life scene off of Pride and Prejudice. And isn’t ignorance such bliss?

I know, right? Who am I and what have I done with the real Starr?

Well, let me put it this way: sometimes Jessica Zafra should shut up and quit bitching. Not everything is a crisis, not everyone will acknowledge some obscure book or band you’re in love with, and no, liking Sylvia Plath does not give you license to gripe about how sick of your life you are. Sometimes it’s just good to relax and go with the flow, while always keeping in mind that you’re not sheep, they are.

Holy crap. I just read this entire post and it looks like that stupid A Walk to Remember movie totally got to me. This entire post reeks of cheese. A Walk to Remember? For crying out loud, talk about a predictable teen-friendly storyline. Shane West is cute but looks like he’s laughing when he’s actally crying, Mandy Moore’s exaggerated lip movement is downright annoying, and for chrissakes leukemia? Where is the originality in this movie?

There you are, Starr! Haha that’s more like it.

They made him do it

Dude. My little cousin is pulling some serious Donnie Darko shit. I’m completely freaked out. He wakes up in the middle of the night, crying and making whining noises, and he can barely talk. He doesn’t want to sleep, and he says he’s afraid of something, but he won’t tell me why.

If he’s seeing things, I hope he sees a giant bunny rabbit instead and not something else. Gah. Fucking Halloween.

They just don’t make movies like they used to

My previous post was one of my little tirades again, and to continue on that road, here’s another reason why it’s just easier to fall in love at the movies: a bunch of quotes from unforgettable (read: sappy) films that never fail to make hearts melt.

The Notebook
“I am nothing special; just a common man with common thoughts, and I’ve led a common life. There are no monuments dedicated to me, and my name will soon be forgotten. But in one respect I have succeeded as gloriously as anyone who’s ever lived: I’ve loved another with all my heart and soul, and to me, this has always been enough.”

A Beautiful Mind
“It’s only in the mysterious equations of love that any logical reasons can be found. I am only here tonight because of you. You are all I am. You are all my reasons.”

The West Side Story
“Maria. I just met a girl named Maria, and suddenly that name will never be the same to me. Maria. I just kissed a girl named Maria, and suddenly I’ve found how wonderful a sound can be. Maria. Say it loud and there’s music playing. Say it soft and it’s almost like praying. Maria. I’ll never stop saying Maria.”

As Good as it Gets
“You make me want to be a better man.”

Shakespeare in Love
“I will have poetry in my life. And adventure. And love. Love above all. No…not the artful postures of love, not playful and poetical games of love for the amusement of an evening. But love that overthrows life. Unbiddable, ungovernable, like a riot in the heart, and nothing to be done, come ruin or rapture.”

The English Patient
“Swoon. I’ll catch you.”

Bridget Jones’s Diary
“What I’m trying to say, very inarticulately, is that, um, in fact, perhaps despite appearances, I like you, very much. Just as you are.”

Casablanca
“We’ll always have Paris.”

Music From Another Room
[on what love is like]
“You know how when you’re listening to music playing from another room? And you’re singing along because it’s a tune that you really love? When a door closes or a train passes so you can’t hear the music anymore, but you sing along anyway… then, no matter how much time passes, when you hear the music again you’re still in exact same time with it. That’s what it’s like.”

Pride and Prejudice
“I love you…most ardently.”

Jerry MaGuire
“You complete me.”

All together now: “Awwwww!”

Love is just a four-letter word

Bob Dylan wrote Love is Just a Four Letter Word expressing every bit the romantic he has in him while being able to smirk at how gullible we can sometimes be when we fall into that so-called rut. I can’t help but agree with what he has to say, considering that i’m kind of a closet romantic–cynical on the outside, secretly loving When Harry Met Sally on the inside.

Everyone secretly wishes their romantic pursuits would turn out to be something worthy of being translated into film. We all want that unusual yet fateful meeting between boy and girl–something extraordinary and memorable. We want the blissful, quirky getting-to-know-you phase. We pray for the climactic slump in the middle of the relationship where boy and girl fight over something as pointless as remembering to put the toilet seat down. We want the movie script ending: boy runs through the airport complete with a Coldplay song playing in the background; suddenly everything grows quiet and all is in slow motion. Boy sees girl, girl dramatically turns around, both stare at each other for what seems like eternity…And then, then there’s always that one line which just grabs the audience. It’s the part where the boy says exactly what the girl wants to hear. Something exactly like what Billy Crystal says to Meg Ryan at the end of When Harry Met Sally:

“I love that you get cold when it’s 71 degrees out. I love that it takes you an hour and a half to order a sandwich. I love that you get a little crinkle above your nose when you’re looking at me like I’m nuts. I love that after I spend the day with you, I can still smell your perfume on my clothes. And I love that you are the last person I want to talk to before I go to sleep at night. And it’s not because I’m lonely, and it’s not because it’s New Year’s Eve. I came here tonight because when you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.”

Well, something shorter than that one, maybe. After which they both rush into each other’s arms and engage in a more graceful version of tonsil hockey.

Sure, we all want something like that. But then we catch ourselves right when we feel like grinning like complete idiots…right when Harry proclaims his love for Sally and we’re about to melt like butter from the oozing romance of this film (or for some people, cringing due to the numerous cliches pitched by this film), we catch ourselves. We wake up and realize that we’re living in the real world. We’re living in the real world, where guys don’t say cute, eloquent phrases like Harry’s or run wildly through airports with Coldplay playing in the background a la Josh Hartnett in Wicker Park. This is the real world, where everyone is a closet romantic masquerading as a cynic.

In the end, we all just wish that we could avoid relationships–just so we can forget about dreaming up our own perfect date movie. To cure our hopeless cynicism, we go see a Woody Allen flick, like Annie Hall, in hopes that Allen’s wit and Diane Keaton’s ridiculous feminine wiles will get us to renounce all love and devotion. But as always, at the end of the film, the boy always says something that makes us all believers once again in the twisted system of the romantic endeavor. Woody Allen says:

“I thought of that old joke, y’know. This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, ‘Doc, uh, my brother’s crazy; he thinks he’s a chicken.’ And the doctor says, ‘Well, why don’t you turn him in?’ The guy says, ‘I would, but I need the eggs.’ Well, I guess that’s pretty much now how I feel about relationships, y’know. They’re totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd, but I guess we keep goin’ through it because, uh, most of us…need the eggs.”

And just as soon as we’ve sworn never to wish for our own real-life Cameron Crowe story, we’ve been pulled in again. We once again put ourselves up for disappointment. And yeah, Bob Dylan wrote the words to this universal predicament: we all do not really need to be assured that love is just a four-letter word.