This is a bit off topic from my normal theme of the lady-faire in films, but it is funny how sometimes themes become a constant in one’s life that are then highlighted upon through various outlets, like film.

It has been ages since I have seen “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and has now jumped over many to be in my list of favorites.

About a month or so ago, I started reading “Unbearable Lightness of Being” by Milan Kundera which starts off by explaining a theory of being - eternal recurrence of the same, as put to pen and paper by the philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche.  The eternal recurrence of the same, is described by Kundera as  the thought that “everything recurs as we once experienced it, and that the recurrence itself recurs ad infinitum!”  Kundera continues in saying “[i]f every second of our lives recurs an infinite number of times, we are nailed to eternity as Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross.  It is a terrifying prospect.  In the world of eternal return the weight of unbearable responsibility lies heavy on every move we make…Conversely, the absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into the heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements are free as they are insignificant.  Which then shall we choose?  Weight or lightness?”

This theme of eternal return was brought again to my attention while watching “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”  The title itself has a significance to the film which is explained through verse:

How happy is the blameless vestal’s lot!  The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!  Each pray’r accept, and each wish resign’d. - Alexander Pope

The film is about a couple: Clementine (Kate Winslet) and Joel (Jim Carrey) who both choose, Joel after Clementine, to go through a procedure to erase each other, Clementine for Joel and Joel for Clementine, and their memories as a couple from their minds.

Clementine is a creature of spontaneity.  She is constantly changing her hair color: red, orange, blue, green.  She is loud.  She is passionate.  She is a person who tries to squeeze the most out of every moment of her life.  She is quick tempered.

Joel is the complete opposite of Clementine.  He is uneasy.  He prefers drawing and writing in a journal as opposed to talking.  He is awkward.

But somehow, Clementine and Joel work.  The film shows the memories of their relationship as they are being erased from Joel’s memory (so only from Joel’s perspective).  Some of them are happy and others are torturous to watch as they show the darkest moments of their relationship.  And it is somehow in this process of erasing his memories of Clementine, that he suddenly realizes that he does not want to erase her or the memories and the film continues as if Joel is in a lucid dream in which he is trying to escape with Clementine from memories of them together to memories far distant from memories with her in order to hide from being erased.

The only way to continue this entry is by discussing the film in greater detail than just a synopsis so fyi **spoiler alerts** ahead!

In watching “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” for the first time, it is the storyteller’s objective to have the audience believe that the opening scenes are about how Clementine and Joel first met.  Joel has spontaneously decided to skip work and go to Montauk for the day.  There, he sees Clementine dressed in an orange hoodie on the ocean’s edge but does not speak to her.  They are then seen in the same diner and then seen waiting for the same train together to go back towards the City.  Once on the train, Clementine sparks a conversation with Joel.  It is awkward.

At the end of what is believed to be their first day together, the audience sees Joel crying his eyes out in his car, at night, in the rain, listening to “Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime” by Beck on his tape deck.  You have no idea if this is at the end of the day, two months later, a year later, or more.

What you come to find out in watching the film, is that this first meeting, is technically a first meeting, as Clementine and Joel do not know each other, but not the first time they have met.  This is Clementine’s and Joel’s post-erase first meeting.

Their post-erase first meeting is continued at the end of the film.  Clementine is being dropped off at her apartment by Joel.  She has fallen asleep.  Joel wakes her and a decision is made to go back to his place.  She just wants to get her toothbrush from her apartment.  She also picks up her mail.  In a manila envelope there is a letter which explains that enclosed is Clementine’s file held by Lacuna, Inc., the company which assisted her in erasing Joel from her memory.  Inside the file is a tape, which she puts into Joel’s tape deck.  The tape is Clementine’s narration of who she wants to erase from her memory (Joel) and why.  He thinks it is a sick joke.  She doesn’t understand what is going on.  They party ways.

The audience next sees Clementine going to Joel’s apartment where he himself is listening to a tape in which he is narrating the reasons as to why he wants to erase Clementine from his memory.  They are hurtful reasons.  Clementine decides to leave.  She believes that it is pointless to continue interacting.  It is not entirely described as to why, but I assume that it is because they have seen the bitterness and end to their relationship.

But —- They decide to do it again!

When I saw this, I think my eyes widened as wide as they could get and my mouth kind of dropped open a little bit.  Nietzsche poses a question in his book “The Gay Science” which goes:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more’…Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?  Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.’

The film itself is a slightly flawed version of Nietzsche’s theory and a flawed answer to the posed question, as Joel knew, while his memories were being erased, that he did not want to lose her.  Thus, he did not deliberately go through the relationship pre-erase and at the end believe that if he had to do it all over again, he would do.  When thinking about this, I wondered to myself if this made my excitement for this film diminish?  In thinking about it more, I found that it does not albeit it does make for a slightly different analysis.  In assuming it is spot on to Nietzsche’s theory, it assumes that the audience knows that the tapes they listened to, told every single thing about their relationship: all of the good and the bad.  I think that is too much for the audience to assume.  Therefore, the audience must only know that the tape at least shows why they want each other and each other’s memories to be erased.

In only showing that, then they really do not know what their relationship was like and are making a decision to do it all over again only on what they know of each other in this first post-erase meeting and the conclusion of their relationship.  So they have only seen really the potential for really awesome moments and know that there are some worst-of-the-worst moments (even to the point of erasing memories).  This is okay with me. They are not in their loneliest loneliness but they have heard what could possibly be described as their loneliest loneliness and still choose to say “okay,” let’s do this again.

It is possibly hard to understand or watch this film if you are not in a relationship as even the idea of eternal recurrence of the same in this film is only analogized to Clementine and Joel’s relationship.  But I believe that it is an interesting way in which to show this idea of eternal return.  At times a relationship can be the catalyst in which an individual is catapulted into their loneliest loneliness.  The individual is raw and exposed.  They are feeling this more as they have not determined this feeling on their own.  It has been determined by another.  The individual might even think, if I had not been in this relationship, I would not be feeling so raw and exposed.  Thus in a way, a relationship and as more specifically addressed in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” the relationship between Clementine and Joel is a great example in which to address the questions posed by Nietzsche and also shows that the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, is not what Clementine and Joel want.  They choose the weight of the eternal recurrence of the same.  Even knowing that their relationship will end and in a not so pleasant way.

A week ago or so, I was talking with my boyfriend about films that I used to watch as a kid. Specifically, “Labyrinth,” starring Jennifer Connelly and David Bowie. Ever the classic in my mind as it has been a film that I have revisited over the years ever since my first viewing when I was just a little girl and I still love it. Fascinated and scared I was when I first watched it as a child: a weird Jim Hensen creation, with unusual puppet friends and a David Bowie score.

“Labyrinth” is a story of a child, Sarah, who is on the cusp of adulthood - still awed by fairytale stories and playing dress up. One evening, Sarah is duty bound to take care of her baby brother, Toby, while her parents go out for the evening. In a youthful rage, she takes a page out of one of her fairytale stories, The Labyrinth, and calls upon Gareth the Goblin King (played by David Bowie in all his 80s glory with ridiculous hair, make up and tight pants) to take her brother away from her. Her wish is granted and she begins a journey through Gareth’s labyrinth in order to save her brother before Gareth turns him into a goblin.

When I told my boyfriend about the premise of the story (as he had never seen it before), it reminded him of a class discussion he had had in undergrad concerning labyrinths, coming of age, and mythology and had watched “Pan’s Labyrinth” as an example of this theme. As I had grown up watching “Labyrinth” it never really crossed my mind to watch it with this theme in mind. My objective always when watching and re-watching “Labyrinth” is its nostalgic effect and to see David Bowie sing awesome songs like “Dance Magic Dance.”

I first watched “Pan’s Labyrinth” when it came out in 2006. Set in post-civil war Spain in which the fascists ruled and the last remaining rebels were still fighting against them, the film tells the story of a girl named, Ofelia, a child still caught up in fairytale stories, who must learn to grow up as she moves with her remarried pregnant mother to a countryside town to live with her step-father, an evil army captain. To escape, Ofelia creates this fictional world, in which she eventually must save her infant brother from her evil step-father. When I first watched the film, I also watched it with a rather shallow motive - to see if it was really true that this film was as darkly beautiful as I had heard (and it was).

So for the first time recently, I watched “Labyrinth” as well as “Pan’s Labyrinth” with this coming-of-age theme in mind.

It is interesting to me the use of the labyrinth in these stories of coming of age. A labyrinth is defined as “a complicated irregular network of passages or paths in which it is difficult to find’s one way.” It has sometimes been recognized that a labyrinth denotes the intricate maze of the female reproductive organs. This therefore, sets a bit of the backdrop of these films - this idea of becoming women while having to go through a labyrinth, their sexuality, to discover it.

In Greek Mythology, the story of Persephone is also quite important to know when watching these films. Persephone was the daughter of Zeus and Demeter, the harvest goddess. Her life was peaceful until Hades, god of the underworld, fell in love with her. One day, while in a field, Hades came up from the underworld and abducted her. Her mother, Demeter, searches for her and it is said that she causes nothing to grow in the world because of her despair. Helios, the sun, finally tells Demeter what happened to her daughter. Zeus, hearing the cries of hungry people, forces Hades to return Persephone. However, prior to leaving the underworld, Hades tempts Persephone to eat pomegranate seeds in order to require her to visit him in the underworld, as it is prohibited for anyone to eat or drink in the underworld or they will be forced to stay there forever. Persephone eats the seeds and every year, she is forced to return to Hades and the underworld. In eating of the seeds, it is told that this was Persephone’s first encounter with sexuality and loss of maidenhood. The myth goes, that every year when Persephone returns to Hades, Demeter makes the world dry and barren. (Perhaps interesting, it has been said that this story is the origins of the seasons.)

Persephone’s story of temptation is analogous to both the “Labyrinth” and “Pan’s Labyrinth.” Respectively, Sarah and Ofelia are tempted by fruit.

In the “Labryinth,” Sarah’s companion, Hoggle, is given a peach by Gareth the Goblin King to give to Sarah. When Sarah eats the peach, Sarah forgets her original motive, to save her brother, and is transported to this garish ball in which masked maidens and men are dancing together, often in groups of three or more, often in a very sexual manner. She has instantly been changed from her jeans and long sleeved shirt to an intricate ball gown, with make up on and her hair done up with ribbons and glitter. Since arriving in the labyrinth she has shown nothing but distaste for Gareth and when transported to the ball, she is seen searching the ball for Gareth. Through her mannerisms, the audience sees that she is somehow enticed by this ball, learned sexuality and Gareth, this man who sings to her a song “As The World Falls Down.” In this scene Sarah is beginning to discover her sexuality, but it is a struggle. A piece of her is taken by Gareth in eating this peach, but in her struggle in becoming a woman, Sarah also remembers her original task and brakes away from Gareth and this ball in order to continue her journey. However, in direct juxtaposition to the ball, Sarah is immediately brought back to what she believes to be her bedroom at home. She thinks that her journey has been nothing but a dream. A motherly (puppet) woman takes her to her room and gives her Sarah’s toys in order to remind Sarah of those things which were important to her at the beginning of the film. Sarah is not the girl she used to be. She is again reminded of her task and has now distinctly changed from girl to the beginnings of a woman.

In “Pan’s Labyrinth,” Ofelia has to accomplish three tasks by a certain time so that she return to her original world, in which she is told by a faun (the director of her journey to womanhood), that she is a princess, Princess Moana. She must accomplish the tasks in order to prove that she is truly Princess Moana. In the second task, she is required to encounter a white being which the audience, and Ofelia, find out during the task, kills children. The faun warns her that while she is accomplishing her second task, she is not to eat any food. In performing her task, Ofelia encounters a table which is exquisitely laid out with food and drink. At the head of the table sits the white being. Once she accomplishes her objective, Ofelia stops at the table and eats two grapes. The white being, more like monster, awakes and Ofelia barely escapes death. Here, this task is Ofelia’s first encounter with becoming a woman. Prior to this task, she has still not had to make a choice really. She has been taken on this journey to the country by her mother. She has had minimal independent thought previous to this point in the film, and in making a childish decision to eat the fruit, Ofelia is much closer to womanhood. This white being almost literally takes her childhood away from her.

It cannot be said that the “Labyrinth” shows much depth in Sarah’s journey to womanhood. A lot of time in the film is spent developing relationships between her and other characters. It is in some ways very analogous to the “Wizard of Oz” where Dorothy meets three men along the way to help her in her journey to the Emerald City- the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and the Lion. Sarah meets, Hoggle (a coward), Ludo (a gentle giant) and Didymus (a fast-talking dog) who help her get to her brother. One could even say that Dorothy’s story is also one of coming-of-age. She is assisted in her journey by men who help her become a woman. Dorothy learns responsibility and compassion through her friendships. Those friendships in and of themselves help her become an adult. The assistance of Sarah’s friends also help her to learn responsibility and compassion and assist her on her already made decision to grow up.

I definitely recommend watching the “Labyrinth” with this theme in mind as it will probably make the film mildly more thought provoking than just watching David Bowie sing in spandex (which is also enjoyable).

“Pan’s Labyrinth” should also be seen with this theme in mind. Ofelia’s story is told differently and better than Sarah’s. Sarah becomes more maternal very close to the beginning of the film when she chooses to face her sexuality and womanhood by going on the journey through the labyrinth to save her brother. Ofelia’s journey to womanhood is not as pronounced and takes much more time in “Pan’s Labyrinth.” She is not made maternal at the beginning of the film. She is still a child. A child whose ultimate goal is to stay youthful. She reads fairytales. She tells her unborn brother fairytale stories. She stays in the same bed as her mother, afraid of the unfamiliar countryside sounds. Her fairytales and imaginary world are an escape from the horrors of her real life: specifically her evil step father. It is the journey itself that makes Ofelia grow up and makes her become more maternal and more of a woman. She does not choose it, like Sarah does. It is a sad film in its showing of lost youth: Ofelia is forced to grow up by living in a cruel world. However, the film is also bittersweet. If you have not seen the film, I will not ruin the ending. Just watch!

In a perfect world, a comparison post of various films of similarity was my thought – however, as my film viewings have taken a back seat a bit these days I envision a two/three-parter regarding what I like to call “Lady Revenge.”  This idea came to mind after watching a film recommended to me by a friend specifically with my blog in mind – “I Spit on Your Grave” (2010).  This film is about a woman writer, Jennifer Hill, who goes to the country to begin her second novel and the events that unravel in this secluded, rural town in which she is sexually harassed and raped by five men and her revengeful wrath.

I will begin with my conclusion – this film would never be one that I would recommend if someone were to ask me – “Hey, I am looking for a film about revenge of the lady-faire.” The film is nothing more than a glorified thriller/horror film where the violence is nothing more than gratuitous.  And although her revenge could be called poetic justice, I found that the extent as to which it was shown was unnecessary.  Even taking a liberal stance as to why the makers of the film decided to show all the graphic violence, in which I imagine they believed that the audience was to put themselves in the place of Jennifer Hill when she takes revenge on her assaulters, one by one, in a similar way in which she was brutalized by each of them, I was still not satisfied.

This film immediately made me think of other films that deserved a viewing for this theme of lady revenge – specifically, “Monster” starring Charlize Theron.  It also made me interested in watching the original “I Spit on Your Grave” which came out in 1978 to see if it did a better job of telling Jennifer Hill’s story.  One could even add “Batman Returns” with Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman.

Stay tuned for more on this topic of lady revenge.

t wasn’t entirely a lie-in - I spent part of the weekend making place cards for my friend’s wedding this weekend and drinking leftover margarita fixings from Cinco de Mayo.  Angelina Jolie factored in as my actor of choice for the entertainment component to my place card duties (I guess margaritas would also factor into the entertainment part as well).  In choosing Angelina Jolie films, I decided that they would be all within the action genre, not really counting whether she was the lead or supporting role.

When I started college, I became besties with a girl in my dorm who loved Angelina Jolie.  As I recall, her first cigarette was a Parliament Light, because Angelina Jolie smoked them.  Her fascination with Angelina Jolie, became my fascination with Angelina Jolie.  We watched a majority of her movies,  there was an attempt to find and purchase the perfect pair of leather pants (which my friend acquired) and we often quoted her lines in “Playing By Heart:”

I, uh — like your tight body.  It looks like it would do what I tell it.  What? - I said - No, I heard what you said. And I’ll admit that “What?” was a rather banal, cliche, non-colorful response.  What I really meant to say was, “Why don’t you do the world a big, fact fucking favor…and crawl back into your mother’s womb?”  Some girls like men to say things like that to them.  Some girls like men to take a dump on them.  I’m not either one of those girls.

Classic.  When “Tomb Raider” came out in the theater, we saw it.  When it came out on DVD we both ran to the Blockbuster to purchase it.  New.  A big deal for us poor college students.

So during my weekend lie-in with Angelina, I decided to backtrack to 2001, when “Tomb Raider” first came out and decided to take a look at why I liked her in the role of Lara Croft.  Which led me to “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” of 2005 and eventually “Wanted” of 2008.

I think I finally figured out what fascinated me about Angelina Jolie - she exudes a confidence that is sometimes lacking in other female action lead roles (in my still very small world of action films watched with female leads).  I have seen a few Milla Jovovich films since I began this blog (“The Messenger: The Joan of Arc Story” and “Resident Evil”) and in my opinion her roles lack luster.  She always seems scared and a bit ditzy and not a confident crazy, just crazy.  Angelina Jolie on the other hand, is quiet, subtle and has this air about her that just exudes confidence.  Her chin is lifted and she kind of stares down her nose, with her eyes slightly closed and a little smirk.

Out of the three films I watched, I think my go-to Angelina Jolie action flick would have to be - “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.”

Putting aside the alleged pandering between Jolie and Brad Pitt during the making of this film, it is a great film.  It juxtaposes this quaint lifestyle, set in present day, but resembles a 1950s family and the secret life of two competing assassins - who happen to be married to each other (and seriously if you haven’t seen the film, this was only a mild spoiler alert).  The choice of music, set design, costuming and actors are impeccable.  I chuckle every time I see the film for its play on man vs. woman, bigger gun vs. smaller gun, who beats out over the other.  It is obvious in the film.  The writers obviously wanted there to be a play on the man vs. woman theme.  And who better to capture the female lead than Angelina Jolie. In the role as Jane Smith, she still exuded that same confidence that she had when she portrayed Lara Croft.  That same chin up, stare down her nose, with eyes slightly closed and smirk.  Did I feel like I was gypped by her presenting herself similarly as Jane Smith as she was as Lara Croft?  No.  Nearly 4 years later, I was still intrigued by her.  Nearly 6 years after that, watching it again this weekend I also felt the same way.  I still wanted to be like her.  Have her confidence.

My friends and I were having drinks over the weekend and it was asked, what is the best lead female action role?  No one named Angelina Jolie.  Nearly 11 years later, since I started watching more of her films, she still is held pretty high in my book.  I do however, wish for the day where she would go back to the style of her earlier films - moving away from the suave and back to the crazy.

Kathryn Bigelow’s Osama Bin Laden Project Getting Fast-Tracked? - Screen Rant.

Screen Rant states:

Social networking sites around the Interwebs just about suffered a meltdown last night as word got out that Al Queda leader Osama Bin Laden – the purported mastermind behind numerous terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombings on September 11th, 2001 – had at last been hunted down and killed by U.S. military forces.

Oscar-winning filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow has been actively developing a movie tentatively titled Kill Bin Laden, so news of the infamous terrorist’s death is sheer lucky coincidence; however, chances are good that the based-on-a-true story project will be fast-tracked and put into production very soon, given recent events.

It has recently come to my attention that “Cheers” is available to be viewed on Netflix instant.  All eleven seasons.  (Now if only they could add at least the first season of “Murphy Brown” I would be a happy person.)  I remember watching episodes of “Cheers” here and there when I was younger with my parents.  I remember laughing along with the audience but not really understanding it as a child of 8 or 9.

Now, being close to 30 I decided to give “Cheers” another go.  The jokes are now understood, and the laughs genuine.  However, in understanding the show, I was surprised, as I was when I first watched “Murphy Brown” a few years back, the use of strong female characters.  Maybe the error, and therefore the surprise, lies with me, as I seem to focus on women’s issues presently, without looking to the origins and history of the women’s liberation movement.  (Which admittedly, is a pretty silly.)

I grew up in a household in which my father worked and my mother was a stay-at-home mom.  In the 80s and 90s, my mom would work from the home here and there babysitting other children in the area but, generally my siblings and I had her all to ourselves.  In the late 90s/early 2000s, my mother began focusing more on her path in the work world, partially out of passion and partially out of necessity.  As such, my mother’s words of wisdom on female strength and empowerment were out of her experiences in the working world during that time (90s, 2000s), but her media references were a bit outdated (80s, 90s films like, “Thelma & Louise,” “Baby Boom,” “The Goodbye Girl” to name a few).  And as a teenager, I did not really pay attention to when the films were made or actually watch the film with that thought in mind.  Meaning, I never thought “Oh, that film was ahead of its time” or “Man, this film is dealing with a relevant issue for year [blank].”, etc.

As I get older, apparently these are issues that I think about more.  Perhaps that means I am getting wiser? (Don’t answer that.)

So, back to strong (or seemingly strong) female characters - Diane Chambers (Shelley Long) in “Cheers.”  I say seemingly strong for now, because I have only watched a handful of episodes so my thoughts could change.

Diane is a smarty pants by nature and she is purposefully placed among the patrons and workers at “Cheers” to be the complete opposite in character to Sam Malone (Ted Danson), “Cheers” owner and a Casanova.  Diane, is the intellectual woman whose brainy ideas and passions are the butt of a lot of jokes at “Cheers” but I like it.  She does such a great job of busting Sam’s chops, which is what the writers want the audience to see as it is seemingly the best formula for on-screen chemistry (think “Moonlighting”).  In Season 1, Sam and Diane are continuously playing devil’s advocate against each other as to their like and/or dislike of intelligence in a significant other.

Sam: I’ve never met an intelligent woman I’d want to date.

Diane: On behalf of all the intelligent women in America, may I just say: whew.

I recommend, at least giving Season 1, Episode 4 “Sam at Eleven” a watch.  There is a fantastic part which I will not spoil, that was the most surprising, laughable and amazing scene I have seen as of yet on “Cheers.”

It is interesting to me, to go back and watch this show and other samplings, and look to the “change in times” and whether things have really changed.  ”Thelma & Louise” falls into this era as well.  I know that I stated a little while back that I was going to re-watch this soon.  I promise sooner rather than later.  Another film on the list would have to be “Baby Boom.”  In “Cheers,” Coach (Nicholas Colasanto) states when he is discussing his daughter’s new found interest in getting married -

Sam: You know, she always told me that she was married to her work?

Coach: Well, you know, like most women she wants both.  This is the…19, what…80s?

Cue in, “Baby Boom.”  Another film, that my mother bought me prior to going off to college.  A film about the working woman, married to her job, and no time for family and she is okay with that.  Add an unexpected child person to the mix and you have a film about a conflict of interest relevant to the women of the late-80s/early-90s and I would say, still seemingly relevant today sans the shoulder pads.  ”Baby Boom” is another film that I have not watched in ages, but definitely on the list to watch stat.  If you have not seen it, I recommend a watch - you just have to overcome the tacky 80s wear.