"Gayin'" up the Ol' Blog

Note: I wrote this for a class, but it is still an intersting take on the shows, in my humble opinion

Having watched way too much “Will & Grace” and “Ellen”, I think I’m in a pretty good position to discuss them at length (and I apologize in advance, because I definitely will). I’m just not sure if my eyes will allow me to focus on the screen long enough for me to know exactly what I’m typing. Still, I’ll give it a shot.

Let me provide a little background and then get into the criticism, starting with “Ellen” first. It ran for five seasons, from 1994 to 1998, and for a sitcom this would have to be considered pretty successful. It was aired on ABC and produced by Touchstone, both Disney companies, which must have made the fourth season an interesting sell (the season Ellen comes out). In fact, a big concern ABC and Disney had was not so much about her coming out, but what the show would be like afterwards (the fear being that now she would be going out on dates with women and kissing women and basically being a regular lesbian).

“Ellen” is the story of Ellen Morgan, played by Ellen Degeneres, who works and then runs a bookstore. She has a group of eclectic and zany friends, and there are mishaps and hyjinx (Note that hyjinx is apparently not a word. Am I spelling it wrong? Someone let me know). It’s, you know, a sitcom. In the first few seasons, Ellen is mostly a lovable loser – the girl who can’t get the guy, but always seems to be okay in the end. It is only by the fourth season that we begin to get hints that maybe she doesn’t care that she can’t “get the guy.” By this time, rumors were going around that Ellen Degeneres was gay and that she would be coming out on her show that season. So throughout the season, there were a number of “hints” that allude to this. One plot device they use throughout is Ellen seeing a therapist. Each situation that arises in her sessions always ends up pointing back to Ellen herself, and if she is comfortable with the way she is. The doctors never ask if she’s gay, but the way they question her and the answers she gives, the audience, who is in on the joke, gets to chuckle at the innuendos. For instance, when Ellen complains to her therapist that her friend might be pregnant, it eventually comes out that Ellen feels “different” from her friends. When asked how, she can only respond that she doesn’t know. At another session, she jokingly mentions a K.D. Lang dream (makes me wonder if K.D. Lang jokes were clichéd back in the late nineties?).

Other moments add to this eventual coming out. While making a dating-service video in order to view the tape of the man dating her mom (at this point I feel it necessary to once again reiterate: it’s a sitcom, so don’t ask), she is asked “What do you look for in a man?” to which she replies “Nothing . . . special.” Obviously the pause tells us everything, and as the live studio audience laughs we know this assumption is correct. At the end of the Christmas episode, while the credits are rolling, the characters are exchanging gifts, and the all get Ellen Degeneres’ new comedy album. It’s clearly a shameless plug, and they play it like that: Ellen says “I love her show.” However, she follows it up with “Do you think the rumors are true?” Tongue firmly in cheek, she knows that the audience knows, and the game keeps being played. It’s almost disappointing though, that the moment she chooses to be most disingenuous, it is during a part of the show that could easily be missed. It’s like a tidbit for devoted fans, a little something extra to keep the interest going until the winter schedule-hiatus was over.

One of the most telling allusion/illusions was when Joe, played by David Anthony Higgins , is telling Ellen about the woman he is seeing. She is much older than him (the woman is played by Florence Henderson, and yes there’s a “Brady Bunch” joke in the episode), and he describes it as being an “odd relationship.” When asked why he never told Ellen before, he says that he was “scared of what people would think.” He also says he is “tired of living a lie.” The writers are using Joe to say Ellen’s lines, but we all know what’s going on.

One thing that struck me as I watched this season was how much funnier it is knowing that she is gay, and that she will be coming out later in the season. If that information wasn’t there – for example, if a viewer just didn’t watch E! or read People or lived in a cultural bubble – then the comedy wouldn’t have been as clever. Some of the laugh-track would have seemed off, or excessive. The secret, and being in on the secret, made it funny. Which is a little sad, in a Soul Man kind of way (small world alert: that C. Thomas Howell vehicle and the first seasons of “Ellen” featured the talents of Arye Gross). More on this “sadness,” later.

Ellen finally comes out in an episode toward the end of the season - and yes, by that point, it is “finally.” At the beginning, her friends are waiting impatiently as Ellen prepares for a date an old friend from college, Richard. They cleverly ask her to “come out already.” Even during her therapy sessions, her psychiatrist, played in this episode by Oprah Winfrey (her psychiatrist changing is in the same mold as Murphy Brown always having a different secretary – Ellen even makes this an opening “will she come out now?” joke during a previous episode when she goes “First it was a guy, then a girl, then it was a guy again . . .” etc. until you realize she’s talking about doctors), points out to Ellen that she can’t keep living the same lie over and over, because it gets tired. By this point, the audience is still laughing, but we’re laughing because we know it’s almost over. We know we can put up with it for a little while longer.

She meets Richard, and they are having a great time. He’s a reporter, and so at one point his producer interrupts their dinner to let him know something has changed in the next day’s schedule. The producer, Susan, played by Laura Dern (who is not a lesbian in real life, was chosen exactly for this reason, so that it is natural for Ellen to have “no idea”), is clearly smitten with Ellen, and they have a great deal in common. After the meal, Ellen goes to Richard’s hotel room to keep reminiscing, where he divulges that he has feelings for her. She extricates herself from that situation, but while standing in the hallway, runs into Susan. Ellen goes to Susan’s room, and they realize they have even more in common, at which point Susan tells Ellen that she’s gay. Ellen is disturbed by this, and feels even more so when Susan says she thought Ellen was gay, too. Ellen of course denies this, asks her how she knew (which goes into a whole thing about gaydar that I’m curious to know about myself), and then jokes about the “problem with gay people is that they are always trying to recruit new members” (which reminds me so much of that wonderfully homophobic yet politically correct way that heterosexuals will say “I don’t care if your gay, as long as you don’t do anything to me!”). Susan replies “I guess I’ll have to tell headquarters I failed. And I’m only one away from the toaster!”

Ellen then does something that I wonder if every gay person goes through when they are struggling to figure out what their orientation is: she tries to prove she’s heterosexual by having sex with Richard (and I’m not saying that all gay people try to have sex with Richard . . . never mind). In “Will & Grace,” Will does the same thing during the flashback episode in season 3. In both cases, they can’t go through with it, an in Ellen’s she reverses gender-roles by sitting at the edge of the bed, shaking her head, and saying “This has never happened to me before.”

Eventually, after struggling with it, Ellen is asked by her therapist if she has ever “clicked with anyone” and what was his name. She pauses, and says “Susan” (Followed by what would have been a commercial break. I mention this because while I was able to watch the DVDs – and this is true of all television on DVD – I lost all those little cliff-hangers and suspense that would have made this show the water-cooler event it was. This must have been agony for some people, like “Lost” used to be). With her newfound truth, she confronts Susan at the airport, and you can tell what a cathartic experience it must be. She knows she wants to say it, and Susan knows what she wants to say, but the excitement and the fear are tangible, and Ellen stumbles over herself in a rush of words. How much of this was her and how much of this was script is hard to say (the story was definitely hers, but there were writers), but the reactions on her face, Laura Dern’s face, and the audience’s cheering were clearly genuine. It’s a pretty powerful moment.

One of the most important things that this and subsequent episodes show is that although coming out is a big deal, it is not a one-time event. Ellen then has to tell her friends, her parents, and her co-workers, and this allows the writers to really dig into how different people feel and react to such news. Ellen, when asked by her therapist why she never did it before says “If I just ignored it, you know, it would just go away, and I could lead a normal life.” There is an emphasis on this, on a “normal life,” that carries over into discussions with her parents and her boss. Her parents are confused, and there are some incredibly moving scenes with her mom at a support group. There are also the obligatory “disappointing” scenes, as her bigoted boss, played by Bruce Campbell, won’t let Ellen baby-sit his children anymore, because he’s raising “his kids right” and “thinks homosexuality is wrong.” The great part about this is that these are those moments of honesty that we rarely see in real life, an idea that struck me with the Tim Hardaway comments (see previous post).

“Will & Grace” is practically a product of these episodes. The series began in 1998, and although very funny, probably would not have made it onto network television without Ellen coming out (and possibly the ratings that ensued). Seeing that “gay worked” on television, “Will & Grace” flourished. Essentially a buddy sitcom, it is the story of Will (Eric McCormack) and Grace (Debra Messing) who are best friends, and their two “whacky neighbor” friends, Jack (Sean Hayes) and Karen (Megan Mullally). In reality however, it is a “gay” sitcom, and this is an important distinction. This show is incredibly funny, well-written, and well-acted, but it is also, paradoxically, a rather generic blend of gay-jokes, drunk-jokes (Karen) and insults. At the time it came out, I’m sure it was edgy, but watching it now, it can be a little tired. Will and Jack’s relationship is completely love-hate, with Will, the more “straight-laced” one constantly belittling Jack, the flamboyant one. Jack is practically a walking stereo-type, but revels in it, whereas Will seems more like an “assimilationist homosexual,” if there is such a term. Will isn’t calling for the revolution, he just wants to live his life.

What bothers me, and seems to have bothered some critics, is that the humor gets its power from making fun of gays. Sure, it’s gays making fun of gays, but is that really any better? Is it empowering, such as the way some black people appropriated “nigger?” In the “South Park” episode where they said “shit” a hundred-something times, the newly out Mr. Garrison is delighted that he can say “fag” because he’s gay, whereas other characters find they’re bleeped out. It brings up the idea: just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should do something. After watching a great deal of “Will & Grace,” I found myself fast-forwarding through Grace-heavy plots, because they were standard, cookie-cutter situations. The fresh stuff was the “gay” stuff, and after a while, even that became predictable. You could see the same thing happening in “Ellen.” Before the fourth season, the show was episodic, with no real story-arc at all. With the fourth season there was a message, a purpose, and the repetition, while necessary, could also be tiring. And all the funny was coming from gay jokes. Now imagine that for 8 seasons, and you have “Will & Grace.”

There are some notable moments on “Will & Grace,” especially the first openly gay male-on-male kiss on network television. I would also point out, though, that just like Ellen’s coming out, although it was an important moment on television, it was also a sitcom moment, and therefore played for laughs as well. The genre is always important to note, because it showed you that no matter what, they were still limited. For instance, this kiss took place in the second season, and by the end of the third, there still hadn’t been a gay kiss again.

It would be weird to call “Will & Grace” a truly gay show then, because it doesn’t fully portray gay men. For example, in the first three seasons, you never see two men in bed together, even just talking. You see Grace in bed with men, but never Jack or Will. You rarely see Jack on a date with anyone, although he tells you that he goes on them all the time. Rahul Gairola, a cultural reporter wrote this at the end of the second season: “At the same time, however, queer-aware viewers might enjoy Will & Grace with ambivalence, for its delineation of a "liberated" homosexual identity also confines it. While the sitcom does portray gay men, it confines that portrayal to gay, white, upper-middle class men who only represent a fraction of the queer folks living in the cosmopolitan hub of New York City where the sitcom takes place. I have been known to visit New York City, and can say without a doubt that Will & Grace basically erases the queer melange one finds on every block.” The show is hilarious, but at what price? (It should also be noted that Eric McCormack is openly straight, and Sean Hayes has never disclosed his sexuality, preferring to be known as a good actor than as gay or straight).

To wrap this up, I also watched some of Ellen Degeneres’ talk-show, and I have to say I was disappointed for some reason, and I believe the reason was this: the show is not queer. Now I’m not saying she should act flamboyantly gay or uber-dyke or whatever, because that wouldn’t be her personality. But she seems to almost downplay her sexuality into a non-issue. Why is this bothersome? Probably because I’ve close-mindedly regarded Ellen as a gay icon, and find it disconcerting when icons don’t hold up their end of the bargain. Beyond that though, there seems to be a part of her personality she is actively surpressing. She’s quirky and funny, but she doesn’t promote her sexuality, and although I know sexuality is not a definition of a person, I do know that male talk-show hosts, when interviewing attractive women, will flirt with them – it’s entertainment. Maybe the fact that it is daytime television that restricts this (I don’t know if Oprah flirts with her male guests or not), but even without the flirting, during one of her opening segments, Ellen shows a mug-shot she got taken because of “a hot tub, a no trespassing sign, and George Clooney.” Now maybe I’m reading too much into it, but why wouldn’t she have said a female’s name there? I’m guessing because her audience is middle-American white women who like that she’s funny, but don’t need to be reminded she’s gay.

And that’s ultimately what network television does. It reaches a wider audience than “The L Word” or “Queer as Folk,” but it maybe presents a less accurate portrayal of gay identity. Perhaps because it was original and the first, “Ellen” did the best job, because the show was established and could get away with much more “honesty.” The shows are all pretty funny though, and at the end of the day, it’s probably important to realize that sitcoms are not inherently political statements, regardless of their content.

Because Artistry isn't Everything

If you're reading this blog, chances are you already read web-comics. If you don't read web-comics, then why are you reading this blog?

Circular logic, you win again!

Really, though - there are a lot of good things going on that you won't find in the newspaper funnies. Oh sure, you have some great strips that will get your hands all black and inky, but amazingly, you can read them on the internet, too. That crazy Al Gore and his wonderful invention.

For example, I keep up with Dilbert, Zits (the heir apparent of Calvin and Hobbes if there ever was one) , and the new strip Retail (which is the most spot-on look at the retail industry if there ever was one - if you've ever worked in the customer service industry, or if you've ever shopped, you'll find this amusing) via the Seattle Press-Intelligencer web-site.

I used to read Get Fuzzy all the time, but I find it's not as consistently amusing as it used to be for me. Don't get me wrong, I love the art in this, especially the way that Satchel, the dog, is quite possibly the saddest, most adorable thing ever drawn, but it's not always funny. Much of the humor comes from the art, and in dialogue-heavy strip, that's a disappointment. You might give it a try, though, because there are some genuinely funny moments.

For some reason, I keep up with two soap opera-like comics. The first is For Better or For Worse, a strip that has corny humor, but that's not why I read it. It's weird, but sometimes when you grow up with a certain habit, you will continue it even though you don't get a whole lot out of it. That's what this strip is like for me. For example, I "watched" as April grew up. So I guess I just want to know how everything turns out.

The second is an actual web-comic, Penny and Aggie. I'm not exactly sure why I started reading this, but I do know that I enjoy the artwork a lot (there is definitely a Anime influence), and the stories were pretty interesting, at least at first. Perhaps it was because I was first able to read them in a continuous fashion that the stories seemed so much more coherent, because now that I'm caught up, I'm usually unsure exactly what's going on all the time. Still, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (a web-comic standard, for the most part), I tune in.

The first web-comic I really got into, my oldest brother tipped me off on: PvP. It's very geek-oriented, in that it is chock-full of pop-culture references that video game and sci-fi nerds would enjoy, but I think it has enough appeal for the masses. Considering he publishes the strip in comic book form through Image has to mean Scott Kurtz, the author, has gained some popularity. His blogs are sometimes amusing, too, if only because he's got a little bit of an ego (because he's been successful in a highly unsuccessful industry, money-wise). And hey, this guy does a daily, so maybe he deserves some props.

Another great strip is Full Frontal Nerdity, by Aaron Williams. This is straight-up nerd-time, very much dedicated to the gaming community (and if you don't know what I mean by "gaming", then it's probably not for you). But it's hilarious if you get the references (or, rather, the tongue-in-cheekiness). This strip is only a weekly, because Williams has a few other projects. His blog, as opposed to Kurtz's, is great, and he is a link-finding master. I plan on reading his other comics as well: PS 238 and Nodwick. You can access them both through his home page (use the "blog" link).

A couple of other good ones: Todd and Penguin, Queen of Wands, and Irregular Web-Comic are all very good. The first two have atrocious art, but they're very interesting, and the last one is made with Lego mini-figs and has a number of different story-lines. Queen of Wands is no longer being made, sad to say, but it is loosely tied to a very popular web-comic, Something Positive that I plan on checking out, too. Both of these, and Irregular, were recommended to me by my cousin, so I'm giving him his propers.

That's about it for now. If I find any more, I'll keep you posted.

All three of you.

It's Been a While

Sorry to all my devoted readers, but I've been immersing myself in school-work, and really haven't had time to read/watch anything interesting (let alone post).

But I just saw two movies, while wildly different, fall into a category which I hold near and dear to my heart: Sports Movies.

To me, there is no such thing as a bad sports movie. More to the point, I enjoy all sports movies, regardless of the sport, the actors, or the "outside" plot that writers think makes the movies interesting. If it has a focus on sports, I like it, and not only that, I can watch it repeatedly. I can also pick it up in the middle and watch it.

There are of course classics, movies that are both good sports movies and good movies: Bull Durham, Raging Bull , Caddyshack, Hoosiers. But I don't necessarily care if it's a "good" movie. Here's a list of "good" sports movies, right off the top of my head: The Replacements; Varsity Blues; Major League I & ,II; Remember the Titans; Mystery, Alaska; Sunset Park; Tin Cup. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I can watch any of these movies, anytime, and enjoy myself completely.

Here are two more to add to that list: The Greatest Game Ever Played and Ice Princess.

Like I said, two wildly disparate movies. The former is actually quite well made, with some interesting special effects that make the golf interesting. Shia LaBeouf is an actor I like a great deal (recalling his career making performance on Even Stevens or actually better, Holes), and he does a good job in a movie with not a great deal of dialogue. Stephen Dillane, as Harry Vardon, is also excellent. Even though it's about golf, a sport I cannot watch, I can watch this movie. I haven't given it too much thought, but I'm guessing that I'm just a sucker for those inspirational endings that is the hallmark in good sports movies: if they win, it was against the odds, (Eddie or Little Big League) and if they lose, they played the best they could (Friday Night Lights). If it's a true story, like Greatest Game, it makes it even more enjoyable.

The other movie, Ice Princess, is something I'm sure I could lose my guy credentials simply mentioning, let alone watching. It's a Disney movie, it's aimed at teen-aged girls, and it's about figure skating. But none of those things bother me, because, no matter what, figure skating is a sport (and besides, who can forget the D.B. Sweeney classic, The Cutting Edge?). The competition is what makes these movies enjoyable too, even if it isn't a "traditional" sport (Searching for Bobby Fischer; The Hustler). If you ever watch professional sports, listen to the announcers, and how they describe the game: "dramatic," "theatrics," "entertaining," "mesmerizing." Throw some production on that, fill it with beautiful people, and now you have a movie. I won't lie, and say I didn't have an ulterior motive in watching Ice Princess - Michelle Trachtenberg is very, very cute. But despite that, it's a sport movie, and I like it. If it comes on again, I'll watch it.

I can't think of any other kind of movie that is like this for me. There are specific movies I can pretty much watch whenever it's on (Pulp Fiction comes to mind), but no genre of movie.

So Sports Films: I salute you! Keep doing your thing and allow me to lose brain cells devoting my time to your cliched plots.

Wandering Interest for Wuthering Heights

I don’t know if I exactly “like” Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, but I do know I read it. Unlike with Jane Eyre, a book I loathed immediately, but came to appreciate, I definitely did not hate Charlotte’s sister’s book. But I also wouldn’t say I liked it as much as Jane Eyre. Weird how things work out.

If you don’t know, Heights is about two families in an isolated region of England whose lives are severely disrupted by the introduction of a vagabond child, Heathcliff, by Mr. Earnshaw. The two Earnshaw children have wildly different relationships with the boy: Catherine, comes to love him, and Hindley comes to hate him. This dynamic, coupled with the interaction between the Earnshaw’s and the Liptons, creates a rather convoluted mess of the social relations in this neck of the woods.

The plot then is one of love and hate, revenge and reconciliation. It is, therefore, fairly standard stuff. There really aren’t any twists or surprises, unless you can be surprised at how grotesque (in both meanings of the word) these people can be. Heathcliff in particular is kind of a master of psychological torture, and he’s a little depraved to boot. He is a sadist of the top order, but a little bit of a masochist as well. In all, he’s one of the more interesting characters I’ve come across in literature, as he is practically evil, but with a heart of gold. Sorta’.

There are a few interesting things to look out for in this book, and the first is how the story is told. Emily does a very good job of layering narration in such a way as to immerse you in the story, but also question the story that is being told. I have some issues with the overuse of “unreliable narrators” in literary criticism, because too often we have to go out of our way to prove they are unreliable (in which case I would think that either the author did a bad job providing us clues, or we are in fact digging entirely too deep). But in this case, there are some important issues with the narration that makes you question the veracity of the story.

In theory, we have Lockwood, a tenant of Heathcliff’s, hearing the story as told by Nelly, a servant who has served in both the Earnshaw’s and Lipton’s homes. One person in my class that I read this book in mentioned it reminded him, in a way, of Heart of Darkness in this regard. I would beg to differ, but my difference is really inconsequential for this analysis: use Conrad’s book more as a reference of style, as opposed to a reference of substance. Nelly, in turn, tells the story often with the use of other narrators, such as letters she remembers or physically can read to Lockwood. With so many layers, it isn’t hard to believe that something might be missing in the translation. There are also hints that Nelly may herself be unreliable (the overdramatic actions of every character might hint at that, or it might be sign of the writing period Bronte was in (I tend to feel it’s a bit of both)), which is something you should look out for.

What is interesting is why an author would tell us a story where we might be being lied to? I think this also illustrates the overuse of “unreliable,” but I think it also might show the nature of the character of Nelly. Lockwood himself interacts with many of the characters in the story Nelly narrates, so we can see that she is not so far off the mark. Still, if it does show her character, it also doesn’t paint her in the best light. So you have to wonder how much of the author’s commentary is coming through in Nelly’s voice. Basically, if you are interested in the subject of narrators, this is an excellent text to play around with.

There are other issues that might make this book interesting to read, but they are even more literary-analysisy than the above, so you can see why I am hesitant to mention them. Overall, I found the book decent, but if I hadn’t had to read it for class, I don’t think I would have picked it up. Having read it, I feel that the feeling was justified – Heathcliff is interesting, and you want Nelly to finish her story to see how things turn out, but for some reason these two things don’t seem to mesh to make a great story. Perhaps if I try again in a couple of years, it might grow on me, but for now I’ll admire the writing, but pass on the re-read.

I suggest if you want a good Bronte to read, go for Jane Eyre.

The Man-child Goes to the Movies

Children of Men was much better than I was led to believe, but just as good as I originally thought.

Sound confusing?

For some reason I went in with the idea that the movie was not incredibly well-received by the critics. I know I had read people praising Alfonso Cuaron, the director, but not the movie. So there was a slight apprehension in shelling out $7.50 (can you believe that’s how much a matinee costs! I just don’t get out to the movies enough, and maybe I know why) for something that might not be that good. But then I realized, of course, that this is true regardless of what critics say, and that my individual tastes would be the final arbiter, at least for me.

An interesting side-note about me (okay, maybe it’s only interesting to me, but whatever): I try very hard to not read criticisms or watch trailers of movies I want to see, because I don’t want to go in with too many preconceived notions about the movie. Does this make it hard for me to decide which movies to watch? Of course. But I find that if I haven’t watched a trailer, I won’t be disappointed that after watching the movie, I had already seen all the good scenes and/or heard all the funny jokes.

So back to this movie. It is very, very good. It’s a dark, grim look at the future where there is universal, unexplained infertility for the past 18 years. It’s a movie about rebellion and redemption (always great themes), and it is carried off well by a cast that carries name recognition, but not necessarily star-power, at least in the U.S. Clive Owen has made a career of being excellent in more independent-feeling movies (Gosford Park, Closer, Sin City, and Derailed), and failing slightly short in his bigger movie,the awful King Arthur (yes, awful). He’s great in this, in that he his perfectly believable in the role he’s in. Michael Caine, who of course is well-known, gives us something you wouldn’t expect in a very familiar role. And Julianne Moore, an actress I personally can’t abide (and not so much for her acting abilities, but for the fact that people think she’s so beautiful, but I don’t see it), also doesn’t stray beyond the role of her character. I feel casting an American in a movie about Britain (and a Britain that is completely xenophobic) might be a bit of stretch, but I can live with it.

The two stars in my mind are Claire-Hope Ashitey as Kee, and Chiwetel Ejiofor as Luke. Ashitey is a newcomer, but having the pivotal role in this movie, she does it well. She is affable and scared, and puts in a wonderful performance. Ejiofor, an actor I first encountered in the movie Serenity, is great. He has the suave sophistication one would associate with his British accent, and he uses that to great advantage when playing cold yet philosophical bad guys. It’s quite compelling to watch him on the screen, and I will not be surprised that he becomes a major star in the near future.

The last thing about this movie that is so amazing is that it is science fiction. Science fiction does not often do well on the big screen, even a movie that is more about dystopia rather than “the deep future.” It is problematic because trying to get a large audience to disconnect and reconnect so quickly is usually quite jarring. I think this movie does it well, though, by creating a setting where the facts of the world around them are integrated seamlessly. There is no opening narration, because that would be trite. You get what you need to know throughout the course of the movie, no more, and often much less than you would want. For example, no one will ever explain why there are no more babies. They don’t know. Maybe someone, somewhere knows, but not these people. And therefore, neither do you. I think this enhances the movie, because it adds a layer of mystery and the sinister to the story. Also, what explanation would be plausible enough to an audience that they would accept it immediately? Probably none. So instead of wasting time trying to do the impossible, they just allow for it to be, which is good, because it’s rather central to the plot.

I don’t think this movie is for everyone. It’s dark and harsh and requires some leaps of faith that you might not be ready for. The ending might be disappointing to some. The direction is very good, although I think the scene where there is blood on the camera is poor – we are not in this movie, Cuaron, so please maintain the fourth wall. I think it’s worth seeing, and worth the $7.50 I paid to do so.