Sunday, January 27, 2013

Remembering Watson

 I knew that at some point this blog would move from being just a media journal to a greater record of my life; I just didn't think I would need to make it happen so soon.


Last spring a student named Nellie was given a box of three kittens by a fellow teacher. The kittens had been found only two days old, abandoned on a boat in a cardboard box. No one knew where they came from or who the owner was, so Nellie, who had a way with animals, agreed to try and nurse them back to life. She'd raised several wounded animals--including a possum--before, and so she began the process of caring for them, feeding them, and giving them attention. The kittens had to be fed several times a day, so by arrangement withe the science teachers at the school Nellie brought them each day in a laundry basket filled with towels, stowed them in the science lab, fed them between classes, and then took them home at night.

For those in the know the cats became unofficial mascots of the school, and several times Nellie brought them to my room and just outside of it to play. One kitten in particular, whom Nellie was calling Treyvon in a show of poor political correctness, stood out to me. He was all grey, and quiet, but with wide blue eyes. I liked him, and I started wondering whether our home was in need of a cat. There had been rats in our shed, it's true, but the rats weren't really what was on my mind when I started playing with the kitten. Instead, I was smitten with his personality, with his seeming timidness, with his inquisitiveness, and I thought about how lonely our dog Finn often seemed to be when I came home from a long day at school.

I hatched a plan.

Clementine has never been a big fan of cats, having grown up with a mean calico who never seemed to like her. But I knew that Treyvon was different. I began suggesting that we take him a couple of weeks before school ended, as Nellie was searching for homes for the kittens, but it wasn't until I brought him to Clem's office with a bow around his neck that she started to think about keeping him.

We renamed him Watson, and for the first couple of days we kept him secluded in our guest bedroom--a problem for our guests with allergies, perhaps, but we read that keeping pets apart and letting them get used to each others' smells was the best way to get them to know each other. We would walk in, shut the door behind us, and play with this little grey kitten who soon stopped being quiet and reserved and started being crazy and fun, pouncing after strings and generally doing cute kitten-y things. Nellie had socialized him well, and he was not skittish, but bold and curious.

Soon Finn could wait no longer. He pushed his way into the room one day and began nosing this little grey ball of fur. He chased him under the bed, then on top of the bed, then stole his food and chewed up his toys. We worried he was being too rough, but our fears were ridiculous. The two were fast friends, and as Watson began to develop more and more kitten energy Finn finally found the playmate he'd been waiting for. They would wrestle together, Finn mouthing Watson's head and tummy, Watson pouncing at his feet, his tail, his head. More than once he dive-bombed him and landed on top of Finn's back, as though he were Ahab trying to land the White Whale.

Watson became an indispensable part of our family. He was catlike in all the usual ways--dominating the house, doing what he felt like when he felt like it--but he was also social in a way I haven't often seen in a cat. He didn't run away from people when they came over, he ran to them. He never hid under the bed, though he often went and slept on our pillows. He loved to go outside and play in the yard, and soon he was roaming the neighborhood with the best of them. I think he knew he was the smartest one around--and he clearly was smarter than the dog--and so Clementine and I decided he probably talked like Bane from The Dark Knight Rises. Every time he looked at me after knocking my contact case off the counter, I could hear Tom Hardy's voice in my head: "Do you feel in charge?"

He loved shiny things, and stuffed toys, and bells, and though that may describe every cat ever there is a special connection to watching your cat play and frolic and run through the house. He was fascinated by water, and every night when I turned on the sink to brush my teeth he would come stand on the edge of the sink, batting at the running water with his paws, putting his head under the stream to drink from the water pooling above the drain. He hated getting submerged in water--which I did early on at Clementine's insistence that he smelled bad and needed a bath--but he loved to see moving water. He even sat on the edge of the tub each morning and watched Clementine take a shower.

I admit, I feel like he had a special connection with me. When we got him it was the summertime, so I was home all day, and I became the human he knew best. In some ways I think he thought I was his mother. He would nestle on my stomach or along my arms and put his head in my hand, suckling on the skin between my thumb and forefinger (though admittedly, he also suckled blankets, so perhaps I was not as special as I felt). As he grew he became insistent that I give him attention. When I got out a book he would jump into my lap and then onto the book, obliterating my reading so that he could get more pets in. At night he would push on the book with his head until I moved it, and when we eventually stopped putting him in his own room at night, he decided he liked to sleep on my neck. He loved all of us, of course, but I think Finn, Clem, and I all secretly thought he liked us best. 

I think that's the power of a good pet. I don't know how animal minds work, and maybe there are great explanations for how what we interpret as animal emotion is really just instinct or trained behavior or whatever else, but I do know that animals bring love into a home, and personality, and affection, and the feeling of being needed. I never thought I would be one of those people that treats a pet like a child, and I try to resist those tendencies as much as possible, but at the same time the lack of children in our home is a void we have tried to fill in different ways. We have an incredibly strong marriage, and we love each other as much as any two people can, but our lives were still enriched and blessed and just flat out made better by Watson's inclusion in our family. Maybe that sounds crazy, but it's true.

Last Monday Watson was hit by a car and killed--I think on impact, since he was still lying in the road when Amelia found him. I try not to blame myself for letting him roam the neighborhood--which he loved--or for not making him come inside that morning when I left for work (I saw him sitting in the neighbor's lawn). I tell myself it was an accident, that he's grey and the road was grey and the dawn light was grey. I tell myself that we gave him seven months of a happy life that he never would have had if he hadn't been found on a boat that morning. And all those things are true. And none of those things make me miss him any less. None of those things make me feel any better when I walk Finn and he looks behind the bushes in front of our house for Watson, since that's where he would wait for us in the mornings. None of those things make me wish I hadn't gotten annoyed when Watson had attacked my feet in the mornings, since I know he was just looking to play. None of those things make the house feel any less empty now that he is gone.


Rest in peace, Watson. You are missed.

Film: Jane Eyre

Director: Cary Fukunaga
Genre: Drama
Source: UK/USA (2011)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Blu-Ray
Grade: A-

Jane Eyre is shot with a spareness and simplicity of an indie film with a higher budget, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Fukunaga uses washed out and desaturated colors to evoke the emptiness -even the coldness--of Jane's life that contrasts nicely with the blossoming flowers of her later romance with Rochester. The novel Jane Eyre was one of those classic novels that surprised me in how much I liked it (a feeling I'm currently experiencing again while reading Moby Dick for the first time) and I think the film does an excellent job capturing the feel of the Victorian book in a very modern way. This doesn't look like your typical staid British period piece. Fukunaga uses handheld cameras to create a feeling of intimacy, he cuts sound to show emotion, he uses close-up to create meaning. 
The visual appeal of this film was really heightened by the blu-ray, and it was a sparse but beautiful film to look at.

It was also helped a lot by a trio of great actors in key roles: Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, Mia Wasikowska as Jane, and the always great Michael Fassbender as Rochester. These three inhabited their roles effortlessly, and while I was worried about Waskiowska at first, she held her own admirably with the two great Brits. Her conversations with Rochester, her wit, her honesty, made their growing love easy to understand. She managed to be both completely charming and completely appropriate as a servant in the same breath. It helps that she is attractive but not distractingly beautiful, as it makes Jane's appeal understandable but not over-stated.

My only problem with the film was how they presented the revelation of "what's really  happening at Thornfield." It seemed very anti-climactic, and though I may be overly influenced by my reading as an English scholar (where "the madwoman in the attic" is such an essential trope there are even key books written about the social, cultural, and moral implications of the hidden wife in 19th century life) that somehow that scene felt flat and not significant enough. 

That said, the film was a pleasure. The story is quintessentially Victorian, but it still has great impact today.

Alternate Film Title: "Your Life Sucks But Everybody Loves You"

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Film: The Do-Deca-Pentathalon

Director: Jay and Mark Duplass
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Streaming
Grade: A

On our way to see The Silver Linings Playbook, Clementine and I were talking about how our different roles in the family shaped our personalities. She is the oldest child of three, with a sister two years and a brother five years younger than she is. She and her sister were and are close--best friends, even. They had different interests, but they loved being together.She asked me what it was like being the youngest of three brothers (and in this particular conversation my sisters didn't come up). I struggled to find the right words.

I love my brothers completely. In fact, as a child, I think I idolized both of them. Both of my brothers were popular and successful in their high school careers, though in different ways. My oldest brother was (and still is) incredibly smart. School valedictorian, National Merit Scholar, eventually going to to Duke University and Princeton. He was a brain, and his confidence and intelligence amazed me. My middle brother was a football star in junior high, moving on to theater, where directors called him one of the most talented actors they'd worked with. Now granted, this was in a moderately sized town with only one high school, but still. The accolades both of them received made them idols for me as an elementary school kid.

As I grew up, I wanted to somehow prove I was just as good, just as smart, just as talented as they were--that I hadn't been left out of the family talent pool. I pushed myself in school, becoming valedictorian (well, one of 14, since my school didn't weight GPAs, but of a class of over 400, it was still an achievement) and a National Merit Scholar as well. I wasn't particularly interested in sports, but I followed my middle brother into the arts: particularly singing and theater, making the school's elite performance choir my senior year and gaining starring roles in theater productions as a junior and senior. I still love the theater today, and I still get the desire to act.


As we walked into the theater, I tried to explain to Clementine that complex brotherly relationship: love, adoration, respect, idolization, tied up inexorably with competition, a desire to win, to prove myself, to be seen, in some weird way, as the best brother. Now, mind you, I don't really think I am the best brother. I look up to my brothers too much to think I'm the best brother. But somehow, perversely, I still want others to acknowledge how smart, how talented, how great I am particularly when compared to my brothers. I have no false assumptions that my brothers feel the same way; this is all my ridiculous psychology--a younger-brother-inferiority complex I never grew out of because I love them so much.


I think that's why The Do-Deca-Pentathalon appealed to me so strongly. Made by two brothers and about the two brothers, the film takes these feelings I can recognize so wholly but not quite explain and then exaggerates them to an absurd-yet-still-real degree. Two brothers engage in a competition--a re-do of a battle they'd had 22 years before--to determine who the "best brother" is. Twenty-five events, from laser tag to arm wrestling to swimming, force them together to confront their damaged relationship.


My relationships aren't damaged, my brothers and I are still friends, but that rivalry, born of love and antagonism, is something the film nails perfectly. It's a typical Duplass brothers' movie--understated in an indie-film-way, human, and absurd--but the tone made the whole movie shine, and it earns its ending without resorting too much to Hollywood sentimentalism. I want to find brothers I know just to recommend it.


Alternate Film Title: "I Thought Your Son Was a Girl For The First Twenty Minutes"

Monday, January 21, 2013

Film: Silver Linings Playbook

Director: David O. Russell
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: B+

Silver Linings Playbook is exactly what you would expect if you hear "David O. Russell romantic comedy." Looking over his IMDB page it seems that he's done other romantic comedies in his past, but I know him as the director of The Fighter and I Heart Huckabees. This movie pretty successfully combines the awkward/dysfunctional family drama of the former with the silly (and absurd) comedy of the latter, and for the most part its pretty successful at it. That said, though this is a fine little film, I do not understand why it's gotten the Oscar attention it has this year. This is really not a film that will stand the test of time, especially since the third act forgoes the complex relationship/psychological drama of the first two acts in favor of standard romantic comedy shenanigans (yes, there is a big dance at the end, and yes, Jennifer Lawrence actually says the line, "But we have to practice the big move!"). Lawrence, Cooper, DeNiro, and Weaver are all solid, but do they ALL deserve Oscar nominations? I don't think so. Take Bradley Cooper, for example: He's great and scenery chewing and lots of fun, but in what world is this performance more worthy of recognition than Liam Neeson's fantastic turn in The Grey? It's not, in my humble opinion. (Though for some reason a quick look at IMDB lists The Grey as a 2011 movie even though it's got a January 27 2012 release date. I don't get release schedules.) Or how about a real dark horse, like Jack Black in Bernie?

I guess it doesn't matter too much anyway, since the category this year has to be a dogfight between Hugh Jackman's Jean Valjean and Daniel Day Lewis's Abe Lincoln.

Best Director is the same. David O. Russell is solid, and there is some fine work here, but the film is also disjointed in a lot of ways. I don't understand why he gets the nod over Wes Anderson for Moonrise Kingdom (though in my opinion Wes Anderson could be nominated for pretty much every movie since he's one of the most distinctive and focused directors working), Sam Mendes for Skyfall, Tom Hooper for Les Miserables (one of the best directed films I've seen all year), and of course Kathryn Bigelow for Zero Dark Thirty or Ben Affleck for Argo (my pick for best film of the year). 

As I said, I think the movie has a few problems (pacing, for example, and the aforementioned weak third act). The film desires to engage in issues like the effects of psychiatric disorders, but then it pretty much disregards them. And the therapist who seems to be a voice of reason early on later becomes just "a pal," basically ignoring all issues of appropriate doctor/patient boundaries.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is a lot of fun. The chemistry between Lawrence and Cooper is  excellent, and both have some great comic moments (typically tied to the sexual tension between them). Also, Chris Tucker makes a surprise (and enjoyable) return to the screen, though in a character that adds nothing to the advancement of the plot. It's a funny movie, but it's not an eight-Oscar movie. It's a good time, and not much more. 

Alternate Film Title: "Everybody Is In Everybody Else's Business"

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Film: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Director: Benh Zeitlin
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: B

I have to admit, I have a very difficult time judging the quality of Beasts of the Southern Wild because of the timing of our viewing of it. Here's a piece of advice: don't watch a film you're wanting to pay close attention to when you're dealing with the death of a beloved family pet.

That said, it's easy to see what's likable about this movie, and that basically boils down to Quvenzhane Wallis, the young actress who leads, narrates, and shapes the film. Wallis is a real find as Hushpuppy, dominating her scenes with a childish ferocity that cows children, her family, and the audience. Hushpuppy is a force of nature, which is a good thing given the odds stacked against her: a beloved but dying (and at times frightening) father, a flooded home, and centuries-old aurochs headed in her direction. Part quest-movie, part typical indie-fare, part children's fantasy, the movie does paint a magical world (though not the type I would want to enter, since living in the Bathtub still looks awful).

It's that magical realism that gives the movie punch and visual panache, but still it's Wallis who is hard to look away from. While I don't think she'll win the Academy Award for Best Actress, I can see why she got the nomination. This is her film, and she does a convincing job making the audience believe she really could emerge out of this semi-tragic lifestyle and make something of herself. The story is, as I said, basically a quest, and I'll bet if I had been able to focus on the film a little more clearly I could even draw some connections to Joseph Campbell and all that jazz. Unfortunately, the loss of our cat Watson meant the film only got about 60% of my attention. Maybe I'll watch it again down the line and try and analyze it a bit more. But either way, it was a good little film, and it's always good to see an indie film trying something different.

Alternate Film Title: "Somebody Really Needs to Call Child Protective Services"

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Film: Zero Dark Thirty

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: A

Zero Dark Thirty is definitely one of the most well-made films of 2012. In some ways it's a hard movie to make the year after Bin Laden's death, because the dramatic tension of the chase is very much sapped when you know exactly how the chase ends. So it's a credit to Bigelow and the film's screenwriters that "tense" is still one of the most fitting adjectives for the film. From the opening scenes of Jessica Chastain watching a detainee be tortured by the CIA (a truly harrowing scene) to the documentary-like raid on Bin Laden's compound at the end, the film does an excellent job presenting the question of how the most wanted man in the world was finally found and drawing the drama out of that. It's a credit to the film, and to Chastain's focused portrayal of Maya, that questions such as whether torture is a moral method of obtaining information or what political policies are most expedient in conducting a war are not really addressed. Those are certainly questions worthy of debate and fit subjects for films themselves, but Bigelow does not want to get bogged down in the morality of war. For Maya, the search for Bin Laden is beyond politics, and torture is just another tool in her arsenal. The audience has time to stop and contemplate those bigger questions, but she really does not.

Just as Lincoln was anchored by Daniel Day Lewis, so too is this film absolutely elevated by Chastain's performance. The film is so tightly executed that Bigelow has no time for much characterization beyond Maya's professionalism, drive, and determination, but Chastain does bring greater weight to a role that could otherwise get lost in the bigger picture. She makes it her own story, not just a political history, and so the fire and speed that propels the film along seems to come from her.

That said, I wish we had had time for some deeper characterization. Why is she so driven when so many others in her position are able to move on to other aspects of the job? Where does she come from? And how the hell do you get recruited to the CIA out of high school?

As with the moral questions above, I know that's not really the story the film is interested in telling, so I can't fault it too much, but the lack of character depth for so many of the figures in the film are what stopped it from being one of my favorite 2012 films. I can't criticize the filmmaking--the opening audio of 9/11 phone calls being played over a black screen was many times more effective than replaying the planes crashing into the World Trade Center, and I feel like there are no wasted shots, most evidently in the astonishing final 20 minutes or so of the film--so I would not be surprised or disappointed if the movie won the Best Picture Oscar in February. But for me Argo and Les Miserables both top it in terms of being films I can't wait to watch again.

Still . . . this is how you make a movie.

Alternate Film Title: "Hey, You Got Your Comedians in My Bin Laden Movie!"

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Video Game: XCOM Enemy Unknown

The older I get, the less time I have to play video games, so I find the time I spend on games going primarily toward two types of games. The first type is a game that is story-driven and draws me in. The best example of this from last year is The Walking Dead, a game that sucked me in completely, though the "gameplay" is relatively bare bones: press a button here, turn your mouse there, etc. There's not a lot you can do to "fail," and even when you do mess up, there's no real penalty other than repeating the mission. The narrative and the characterization are what drive you forward. I guess I'm drawn to this type of game because I'm an English guy: I spend all day long thinking about stories, what makes them work or fail, how they affect us, why they matter.

The other type of game I seem to be drawn to are, for lack of a better phrase, games that make me feel like I'm using my brain: I like strategy and sim-type games way more than I used to, as well as games that reward creativity. I don't think that's a sign of maturity or anything--there are plenty of Modern Warfare players who are good because of their strategic thinking, in addition to their hair-trigger reflexes, but that's not the kind of skill or strategy that interests me really. Plus, I'm just not good enough at shooters to hang with the big dogs, so unless there's an engaging story, I find myself shying away from them (even though I still see the attraction).

XCOM is clearly the second type of game--the "narrative" is nothing more than 'Aliens are attacking; don't let them win'--but it's so good at making the player think about resource management, strategy, and tactics, that I didn't really worry at all about the story. XCOM requires thought, planning, and dedication, and though the mode I played in allowed for easy recovery from mistakes by allowing unlimited saves, the game ramps up to an Ironman mode where every choice you make--and loss you suffer--becomes permanent. I'm not there yet, but I can easily see that this is a game I will come back to for at least one more round now that I've beaten it once.

The game has two main phases. The first phase is a base management game in which you decide how to spend money (options include weapons, equipment, base improvements, satellite coverage of the world, and fighter jets), what technologies to research, and how you will help train your soldiers. The game does a nice job of limiting the money, since some of the resources you could sell will also be needed later for building equipment, and since money never flows too freely. You have to make tough choices; often providing a better gun for a strong squad member means not being able to launch a satellite or having to stick with weak armor. At the same time, you can do SOMETHING each month, so you never feel like you're completely stuck either. You also have to manage the "panic" levels of countries around the globe, and fulfilling a mission in one country (and thus lowering their panic level) means ignoring others, to poor effect. You can even have countries stop supporting the XCOM project, which not only decreases your income but can raise concern among the rest of the world as well.

Where the game really shines, however, is the turn-based strategy of the missions. In your base you recruit soldiers and take them on missions, where experience allows them to specialize and level up over time. Each mission is played on a limited number of "boards" (one of my few complaints is that I felt like I saw the same environments a few too many times), and each squad member can perform different actions, from moving to firing on an enemy to healing a comrade to going in overwatch mode or hunkering down. The result is that I felt like I was playing a visually compelling and tactically challenging game of chess with my alien attackers. Do I rush in and try and make more of the location "visible"? If I do and I spot aliens, I might be stuck out in the open, away from cover! Do I hold back and move from cover to cover? What if I get flanked by the Thin Men? Or how will I avoid having my strongest player killed by a psionic attack?

As your squad members gain experience and skills, they also become more valuable to you, but XCOM has no problem in allowing you to lose your men--in fact, it even has a shrine built to them that you can visit in your base. I found that as I named my squaddies (First Marty, Doc, and Biff, then branching into the Batman family) and grew their skills, I became genuinely taken aback when they die. Despite their lack of personal character, they do matter to your success in the game, so you really do care. Missions became infinitely more intense when a massive attack meant having to make my support medic decide who would live--my high level sniper, or my only assault soldier? Those sort of choices make the game addictive and compelling.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown is the first turn-based strategy game I've played in a long time, but it instantly makes me want to play more. My only worry is that I'm aware of all the accolades this game has gotten--Game of the Year or runner-up (behind The Walking Dead) on a number of game sites--means that my next experience won't be as fulfilling. Either way, I'll keep playing, whether that means increasing the difficulty or buying the DLC. I don't want the XCOM project to end yet.