REVIEW: Isn’t It Romantic

Isn’t It Romantic was a charming movie that incorporated satire and witty quotes. It made fun of a lot of motifs in the genre of romantic comedy, like the gay best friend, the attractive guy who turns out to be a jerk, being blind to your ‘true love’ being right in front of you, etc.

Here’s a more specific recurring scene in the genre: have you ever noticed in rom-coms when the characters set up a date but never mention the date or location? One of my favorite scenes in the movie made fun of this: Blake (played by Liam Hemsworth) wrote each digit of his phone number on a different rose petal, and gave the jumbled petals to Natalie (played by Rebel Wilson). I got a good laugh from the ridiculous scene.

Was Isn’t It Romantic the best movie ever? No. Was it a good rom-com? I would say so. I don’t know if I would ever consider a rom-com a film classic bearing in mind the genre’s reputation. People like romantic comedies because they are feel-good movies—albeit sodden with logical fallacies and tiresome cliches. Of course, Isn’t It Romantic had the obligatory storyline of the budding couple having to overcome an obstacle to be together. Originality is not generally the goal of the genre (although nor is it for most genres, like action movies for example, there’s a bad guy and a good guy, the bad guy is defeated and the good guy gets the woman, with exceptions of course. But still, cringe.)

Since the 90s or early 00’s, there has been a decline of rom-coms. With the drop in rom-com production in major film studios, there’s been a rise of budget sources like Netflix originals, Hallmark movies, ABC Family originals, etc. The five rom-coms with the highest lifetime gross were produced from 1990-2005. Number six on the list is Crazy Rich Asians, released in 2018.

Rom-coms aren’t ‘dead’ necessarily, although they are less successful and have had to change over the decades to reflect evolving gender norms and views on premarital sex and matrimony. There’s a scene in the movie where Natalie bursts into a wedding uninvited (another common rom-com trope). But, originally planning on stopping it an professing her love to the groom, she ultimately realizes that she loves herself and doesn’t need anyone else to complete her. This new twist on crashing a wedding crashing is consistent with fourth-wave feminism in regard to promoting self-love and self-sufficiency.

But reflecting new gender norms supposedly isn’t enough for a rom-com to do well, that’s why the movie also has a satirical twist. Similarly, Crazy Rich Asians is not just a rom-com about Singaporean billionaires, it is the first Hollywood movie in 25 years to have an all Asian cast. If new rom-coms want to break the record for highest profit, they need to think of new ways to spice up stale formulas.

 

PREVIEW: How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

How to Train Your Dragon 3 just came out a few days ago. I was surprised that the sequel was as good as it was when it came out. Usually the second or third movie goes down hill, so I’m hoping the third movie will live up to my expectations. The animation looks really good and so does the plot—Hiccup and Astrid now rule over Berk, which has been a dragon utopia. When a female Light Fury suddenly appears while their village faces a looming threat, Hiccup and Toothless are forced travel into a “hidden world” they thought only existed in myth.

So, apparently Toothless has a girlfriend now?…Well, of course. I wouldn’t expect anything different.

Also, I didn’t know that the movie is loosely based on a series by Cressida Cowell. She has sixteen (!!!) books in the series. I wonder how many movies DreamWorks Animation will make.

 

PREVIEW: Isn’t It Romantic

Need a rom-com to brighten up your day? Isn’t It Romantic is playing in theaters right now! Even better, it’s a rom-com with a satirical twist. The story follows a woman named Natalie who’s an unappreciated architect working in New York City. She’s completely jaded when it comes to love. But then one day she hits her head and becomes unconscious while she’s getting mugged in a subway station (the timing couldn’t be worse). When she wakes up, she finds herself in a real-life romantic comedy. The premise sounds hilarious. In order for things to go back to the way it was, Natalie needs to get a dude to fall in love with her. Outrageous storyline. I can’t wait to go and see it. Also, look who’s in the movie. 

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZwgoVmILQU

 

 

 

REVIEW: Love and Information

Like how the actors were bombarded with information, I feel bombarded by the number of vignettes I saw. I am not sure what to make of them. I feel as if I have just read an elusive poem and can not go back to reread it. I recognized that the color scheme of the actors’ clothes were possibly coordinated with different themes. Some of the colors were orange, red, green, and yellow(?). And I noticed some themes that perhaps went with the colors: youth, death/grief, betrayal.

There were some scenes that were incredibly random and just made me laugh. At times, the play felt like an arbitrarily-pieced-together quilt. There were scenes about secrets, schizophrenia, suicide, being a recluse, research on chickens, dance, playing the violin, knowing fear, not knowing remorse, being a mother, infidelity, insomnia, “dog” (this one was random and made me laugh), grief, spies, torture, etc (there were a total of 57 or 60 vignettes). Can you tell why I felt overwhelmed?   

There were several scenes that were particularly memorable to me. In one scene, one of the actors asked if sex was just information. Asexual organisms make duplicates of themselves; sexual organisms exchange genetic information to create a being that (hopefully) has a greater chance of survival. Genetic code is information, so is sex just an exchange of information? Weird.  

Two of my favorite vignettes were about “the kid” who didn’t know pain or fear. How does one explain an innate experience? I remember one of the actors, in an effort to explain pain, said something along the lines of: “It’s like unhappiness in your skin.” It made me laugh, because it’s true! Pain’s unpleasant; it makes you avoid the action or event that causes it. How do you explain such a sensation to someone who does not feel it? In the vignette about fear, a kindergarten teacher sat all the students down and read them a story book. I can’t remember the last time someone read a book to me. The scene was nostalgic and endearing. Kindergarten was so long ago, and yet not that long ago at all—for any of us really. The kid in the book who didn’t know fear was not afraid to spend the entire night in a haunted house. He was incredibly brave. His friends tried to explain to him what fear was. But in the final page of the book, he encountered a lion and got eaten. The vignette ended with the kindergarten teacher abruptly announcing the kid had gotten devoured and slamming the book shut. It was an ironic, grim, and rational story of the consequences of not having the helpful emotion of fear.

Regarding the title of the play, every vignette conveyed “information,” but “love”’s role in the play was more ambiguous to me. The play seemed to interpret “love” as meaning human connection in the broadest sense. Merriam Webster says that “love” is:

  • affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests
  • an assurance of affection
  • to feel affection or experience desire
  • warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion
  • unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another
  • to cherish

Personally, I think “love” is much stronger than “affection.” But the definition of “love”  encompasses so much, perhaps it can mean simply, “to care.” Love and Information. Affection and Information. To care about information. How information informs affection: deepening it, lessening it, complicating it.

The play ended with actors taking selfies with audience members. I wonder if my picture got posted somewhere, or if it’s lost to the cloud…of information. Should I even care? Was this an intentional part of the play? Was the play purposefully enticing me to reach out to cast members—to care about talking to someone on the search for information?

 

*Photos by Peter Smith Photography

 

REVIEW: The Exonerated

The Exonerated was a well-written and evocative play. The six stories were effectively interwoven with smooth transitions, and the music segwayed well between scenes. The unfolding of events was compelling and heartbreaking. To balance out the anger, grief, and hopelessness, the play also utilized elements of religion or the divine to bring hope. I walked away with so many emotions and was unsure of what to do. What can I do to advocate for people who have been wrongfully accused of a crime and imprisoned? I don’t know.

Each storyline had possible “reasons” for why someone was wrongfully accused (because as an audience, consumer of stories, and general human beings we are inclined to look for reason and logic, and the playwrights acknowledged this). In three of the six stories, it was “because of” the person’s race. Most, if not all, of the stories took place in the 1970s (Not to say that racism no longer exists, but blatant racism was more prevalent during that decade.) Even when there was no evidence—or even more despicably, when there was evidence that indicated that they were innocent—they were tried and convicted.

The other two stories were about white men. One man’s parents were brutally murdered, he was convicted, and years later someone found out the murderer(s) were actually members of a gang. The other man was accused of being a “perverted, bloodthirsty homosexual” who took out his anger by murdering a woman. The play did not go into detail about his sexuality; later on, he married a woman, so he may have been straight or bisexual. But his sexuality was not relevant. What was relevant, was the label of being “gay” was put on him to convince people in the court that he was guilty (Remember that the conversion therapy [a recognized form of torture] trend started in the 1970s. It’s still legal in some states, and gay marriage only became legal in 2015). News of his presumptive sexuality was broadcasted on television and he was raped in prison. His perpetrators carved profanity into his skin, so deep that plastic surgery could not repair the damage. Awful, awful stuff.  

 

The remaining story was about a woman who, even after someone else admitted to committing the murder, was left in prison for another sixteen years. She was the first woman to ever be put on death row.

The “reasons” why the latter three people were falsely convicted were less clear. Perhaps because we do not (I did not) generally think of white people being cheated by the justice system (unless they are a female in the context of sexual assault), and the narrative of the illy treated African American is so disgustingly common.

The most important thing I want to point out is that even now, people are wrongfully convicted all the time. This narrative is not unique to the 1970s. Being a victim of systematic injustice does not just happen to African Americans, or women who are sexually abused, or gay white men. It is not unique to a certain race or social class. Plenty of children of all races and social class are under the guardianship of caregivers who abuse them, sometimes for decades, even when Child Protective Services has already been called numerous times.

Of course, being wrongfully convicted is more common for certain demographics because our justice system favors the economically well off (if you don’t have the means to hire a lawyer, you may be assigned one who is overworked, underpaid, unexperienced, or has no intention of looking out for your best interest. It happens all the time.) Or, being of a privileged social status may decrease your chances of becoming a victim. But it does not prevent it. What I have learned throughout the years, is that the court system is all about connections and social status.

Why, when two people commit murder, one is put on death row and the other is sentenced ten years in prison, and then gets out in three? Where is the logic? What do we do in a society that wrongfully convicts the innocent and acquits the guilty? That’s not to say there aren’t any success stories. But I often wonder, do we have a justice system? Or do we have a system that places blame? Personally, I believe it is the latter.

For the unlucky ones—when you come out of prison, you have to learn how to feel again. If you didn’t have problems with mental health before prison, you most likely will have them after being in that kind of an environment.

I feel compelled into action. But I don’t know what to do. The only bandage I can think of for this enormous wound is compassion. Believe someone. Being wronged by the justice system does not automatically mean you lied or did something wrong. Sometimes, the most damaging experience isn’t the traumatic incident itself, but afterwards, when people don’t believe you. Or when your credibility is scrutinized in court. Or when you have to recount every traumatic moment in excruciating detail while prosecutors cross-examine you and question why your description of the events was not precisely the same as the testimony you gave six months or two years ago. Because yes, court cases do get dragged on for that long, and often much longer.

Be aware of our unjust “justice” system. We may not be able to eradicate the unfair and immoral. But we can listen.

 

 

*photos by Peter Smith Photography

PREVIEW: The Exonerated

The School of Music, Theatre & Dance is putting on a documentary play called The Exonerated. The play interweaves six true stories about wrongfully convicted survivors of death row. It was composed from real interviews, public records, letters, and case files. The narrative weaves between first-person monologues and scenes from courtrooms and prisons.

This is a really important example of art exposing relevant problems in our society, legal system, and justice system. This provocative narrative exposes injustice and has sparked public debate. In 2003, it won Drama Desk for Unique Theatrical Experience and the Outer Critics Circle Award for Outstanding Off-Broadway Play. In 2005, the play was made into a movie.

(Photos by Peter Smith Photography)

Date: February 22 & 23 at 8 PM, February 24 at 2 PM

Price: General Admission by Floor $20 • Students $12 with ID

Location: Walgreen Drama Center – Arthur Miller Theatre

More Info: https://events.umich.edu/event/52131