Coco avant Chanel

I went into Coco avant Chanel (without my illustrious co-writer, brittak) expecting not much more than a typical melodrama-bio-pic-romance-blah-blah-blah and hoping to see some great production design.

Despite the reservations and nay-sayings of certain co-writer, I was surprised by a thoughtful, lovely, well-produced melodrama-bio-pic-romance-blah-blah-blah.

The production design (both costume and set) did not disappoint. It was beautiful. One of the greatest surprises was how well the actors performed, especially American Amélie favorite, Audrey Tautou. The actors were honest and although the lives portrayed were very different from my own, I easily connected to them. The music was strikingly beautiful, and had an incredible but subtle influence on the tone of the film. It was appropriately sentimental without being overbearingly so. Another surprisingly strong feature of this film was the wit and intelligence of the script. I do not know how well-written the original French was, but I assume it was on caliber with the quick and clever dialogue represented in English onscreen.

The most impressive piece of this film, hands down, was how the director and cinematographer portrayed Coco's growing interest in the details of fashion. There are several scenes in which we see her looking at the clothing around her, obviously internalizing and analyzing. This gave great validity not only to the progression of the story, but also the development of her character. Instead of showing only concern about her own creations and ensembles, the character noticed every detail of the design around her, which, as any designer knows, is key. Brilliant.

No Line On The Horizon

First Impressions:

1. Rad. I'm digging the vocals, and the lyrics are classic awesome U2. Rocking song.

2. Definitely "magnificent" in sound . . . soaring in sound. Feels like a typical sort of bent/indirect love song.

3. Organ! Rad! A slow song with Bono-y lyrics . . . easy to listen to and enjoyable. We'll see if it holds up.

4. Probably the most U2-y sounding song to far. Edge's classic guitar. Not terribly remarkable at this point.

5. Solid.

6. We've discussed this one. Still digging it.

7. Sort of hip-hop sounding, but still very rocky. Sweet classic 1970s sounding guitar riff there, Edge!

8. Whoa, Moroccan inspired intro . . . and what's with repeating stuff from your big single in another song? And, what's with the fast-forward bit? Sorta this odd, experimental piece. Not sure what to make of it.

9. Old style. I'm digging Edge's guitar work and the chord progressions.

10. Interesting rhythm.

11. This feels indulgent.


My first listen elicited the thought, "not as impressed as I wanted to be" . . . but, each time I listen, I get more into it. Is it their best album? No, it's not. It's better than the last one, though . . . maybe the last few. I think this album probably has more important themes than the last several albums . . . probably since Achtung Baby.

The jury is still out.

Follow-up to follow.

Wendy and Lucy

"it might work better as a flickr slideshow of stills than as a movie"


tuesday night:
britta: we decided actually to do wendy and lucy. 7.10.

Jennifer: Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but that movie looked intensely boring to me.

britta: ha!
no, that's fine.
this is a movie that elicits strong opinions.

Jennifer: From the trailer, it just seemed like, "Oooh, look at me! Oscar fodder! Oscar fodder! We're indie! We're cool!"

britta: well, we'll see if it lives up to the hype.
i'll let you know.
maybe i'll sote it.

Jennifer: Oooh! Yeah!
Do it!
You can quote me.
And then determine if I was right.

later that night:
Jennifer: So, how was it?
Or, should I wait to read your post?

britta: hrm.
um.
i don't know.

Jennifer: Well, whichever. I'm pretty easy-going.

britta: no, i mean, i don't know how i feel about it yet.
i kinda hate it and kinda really like it.
but mostly i didn't like it.
it's 70/30 hate.

Jennifer: Only 30%, huh?
Not very high marks, for sure.

britta: yeah.
everything you thought it was going to be, it was.
glacially slow.
practically plotless.
a twelve minute movie stretched into 90 minutes.
but it was also very consistent in style and story.
they picked an aesthetic and stuck with it, much like rachel getting married did.
but i don't particularly care for the aesthetic, is the problem.

Jennifer: Ahhh, I see.

britta: slow, quiet, small.
people mumble and you can't understand them, but it doesn't matter because the dialogue isn't relevant.
lots of long, slow tracking shots of people walking or trains passing or wind rustling the breeze.
which is all fine, but it might work better as a flickr slideshow of stills than as a movie.
no music except what michelle williams hums to herself.
you get the idea.

Jennifer: Yeah, I totally get ya.
Pretty much, exactly what the trailer portrayed.
How would you have improved it?

britta: yup.
i would have sped it up.
i think.
that's all i can think of.
there are some shots where you're on a long shot and you see maybe fifty feet of sidewalk and no one on it. and you just know she's gonna walk into frame and then walk the entire length of the sidewalk. and after a few seconds, she enters frame, and thirty seconds later, she exits frame the other side.
now, i don't know what we're supposed to be thinking during this time, but all i could think about was how long and obvious this freaking shot is.

Jennifer: Hahahaha!

britta: so, yeah, i woulda sped it up.
and i also found the story kinda predictable and obvious.
i don't know what i woulda done with the other hour of time i had after i sped up the movie they made.

Jennifer: Heh, yeah, that was going to be my next question.

britta: maybe get to know the other characters a bit more? we really only know anything about wendy. the others we meet, we leave them, and we never see them again.

Jennifer: So, she's running to, Alaska, is it?

britta: yeah, but that's peripheral.
her car breaks down in portland.
and she's out of dog food.
and she tries to steal some food from a shop, but they catch her and she goes to jail. and then when she gets out of jail, lucy (the dog) is gone.
and the rest of the movie is her trying to locate lucy.
and trying to get her car running again.

Jennifer: So, what would you say is the point?

britta: the point is that some of us are very alone and have no one to turn to for help and that it is hard to be poor.
and they hit those themes well.
she has a hard time being poor.
she is alone for the whole movie.

Jennifer: So, obviously, the format of the film was intended to reflect that.
And you still think the speed was too slow?
Could it have portrayed that message with a quicker pace?

britta: totally!
i think the speed is too slow if they're losing the viewer's attention.
which they did with me, anyway.
but maybe i'm more attention deficient than most folks.

Jennifer: Possibly.
But you don't really give credence to the idea of experiencing the emptiness of the life through the slowness of the picture?

britta: yes!
this is what i'm saying.
i can appreciate that the style of the movie fit the themes.
but if the theme of the movie is boredom and emptiness and silence -- then yeah, she made a boring, empty, silent film.
and as a result, i was booored.
so, i guess, mission accomplished.

less rock, more dance

The Killers seem to be moving away from their sexy, raucous rock that made Hot Fuss such a wild success. Along with the recent covers and compilation release, their newest album, entitled Day & Age, contains mainly fantastical sounding, synthesizer-supported, dream-inducing ballads. They've traded in the last of their grit for more glitter. Maybe they'll bejewel the guitars too.

That said, this new album is not to be thrown away. We may miss the Killers of yesteryear, but this album adds solid work to the land of dance music. Even though I am disappointed that their new music doesn't sink into my veins like their rock 'n roll used to, I must admit that I can't stop dancing! Their music is fluffy, fun, movable, loveable. And of course, Brandon's voice makes it Killersy-sounding no matter what the synth is doing.

True to their roots, the lyrics on the album are a compelling mix of nonsensical and thought provoking. It's up to the listener to decide whether they are brilliant or just messing around.

The album artwork is AWESOME. It was so pretty it made me shriek with glee.

In short? It's cool, I can embrace this. But, when ranking their albums, it comes in as fourth out of four.

you make me touch your hands for stupid reasons.

1. Turn on your speakers.

2. Navigate to: You make me touch your hands for stupid reasons.

3. Come back and tell me you didn't laugh. I dare you.

solid web content.

It may not be a catchy title, but it's a dang catchy concept. I can't get enough good online shows. (To be clear, I'm not talking about good TV that is now easily watched online. This stuff originated online and, barring outrageous popularity, will never live anywhere else.)

The most notable and popular of which is Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog.



Can I mention it enough? Yeah, maybe. But I mention it again here because it drew my attention (in a stylish, funny, and incredibly well-produced fashion) to the trend of creating content for, and only for, the internet.

Wait, what? The internet is sticking around you say? Well how dee do. Dr. Horrible co-creator, and something of a rock star, Joss Whedon, had this to say about why he wanted to make some good online content:

The idea was to make it on the fly, on the cheap – but to make it. To turn out a really thrilling, professionalish piece of entertainment specifically for the internet. To show how much could be done with very little. To show the world there is another way. To give the public (and in particular you guys) something for all your support and patience. And to make a lot of silly jokes. Actually, that sentence probably should have come first.

Whedon sought to make some web content that didn't necessarily LOOK like it was web content. And he succeeded. But what about all those folks who aren't Hollywood mega-players? Who don't have access to the Universal back lot? Who don't have a million of their own dollars to spend?

See: The Guild.



It's hip, it's witty, it's youth oriented, and it's specifically and inextricably internetsy. It's about six WoW-type gamers who, through escalating circumstances, are forced to meet and establish real-world relationships and solve real-world problems. Naturally, they have difficulty. And it's funny.

The Guild creator/star Felicia Day doesn't have the money or resources of Dr. Horrible. It struggles to create a workable aesthetic out of the ugly digital medium. But the writing and acting are spot-on. It's clear that with more money, Day would thrive. But that's not to say that The Guild isn't a success; it completely is.

The internet audience has shown over and over again that it's not the qualit of the image that's important as the content behind it. We seem perfectly content to watch thousands of videos on YouTube's five inch screen; videos too low-res to expand; pirated videos that are clearly taped from inside a movie theater. We'll watch these because image quality isn't a priority for the YouTube generation. But concept quality is. And The Guild has the latter in abundance.

What other web content can we find that shows off the medium like these two examples? Jenn, I'd love to know if you've found anything worth sharing.

jon stewart on hulu.

I think I've made my views on Hulu pretty clear, but in case you've forgotten, let me iterate: I love it.

I'm not sure I've been quite as vocal on the topic of Jon Stewart and his Daily Show, because I think that phenomenon is somewhat more popular, and in less need of my personal testament. But for the record: I love it.

Now, The Daily Show has been online through Comedy Central's new website for some time, but I find their website to be cluttered, bulky, and well, kind of ugly. Hulu, on the other hand, is none of those things. It's clean, streamlined, beautiful, easy-to-use, and has great embedding and sharing features.

So I've been using Hulu to get my four-times-weekly Daily Show fix. (We really need a word for that. I'll bet the Germans have one. Have you ever noticed that biweekly can mean both twice a week AND once every two weeks? That seems like a glaring flaw in the English language that I really can't believe we haven't fixed yet. While we're fixing that, we should really get on that four-times-weekly word thing, if for no other sake than for The Daily Show. Okay, onward.)

Steve Carrell was on last week. I like it when ex-Daily Show correspondents return for a show reunion. Steve Carrell I've always found to be especially gracious, and Jon Stewart especially unable to receive praise. It's always been like that, and it's always been funny. This week was no exception.

Hulu, show me what we can do: