Tiny Audience

Lena Dunham, a 23—year–old filmmaker from New York who has a degree in film studies from Oberlin, plays Aura, a 22–year–old Oberlin grad with a “useless” film studies degree, in Lena Dunham’s first feature as a director, “Tiny Furniture,” written by: Lena Dunham.

“Tiny Furniture” is the story of Aura and her attempt, immediately post–college, to figure out what she is going to do with herself. Aura returns home to New York City after graduation. She moves back into her mom’s apartment. At a party, she re–connects with a childhood friend and meets an aspiring young filmmaker who, like Aura, is a modestly successful YouTube–star. As she unsuccessfully tries to go out with the filmmaker, she gets a job as a day hostess at a restaurant where she meets a “hot” cook. While trying to go out with either of these guys, Aura is also trying to figure out her new place within her family. Her mother, a successful fine-art photographer, and sister, a brilliant high school junior, find the balance of their lives thrown off by the return of Aura.

The subgenre of movies concerned with post–college malaise (Kicking and Screaming, St. Elmo’s Fire) has a tendency toward self–pity that can only be allayed by self-parody. A new movie in that genre by and about an upper–class young woman from TriBeCa who just graduated from college would seem, at first glance, to be destined to wallow in disgusting amounts of self-pity (and not –parody).

“Tiny Furniture” doesn’t. The movie is remarkably witty and wordy. Dunham, who wrote the script, is very funny, able to find humor anywhere; for example, the best running joke in the film has to do with the white cabinets in Aura’s mom’s apartment. At first, the word–heavy humor and upper–class setting of the movie reminded me of the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s. Screwball comedies were a result of the Great Depression; they offered to the movie–going masses a glimpse into the silly, absurd lives of the very, very rich. Their characters were often witty and wealthy but unable to function outside of their limited world. “Tiny Furniture,” made in the aftermath of the economic crisis, about an upper–class young woman whose mother is a celebrity in the art world, is a lot like the screwball comedy in the inaccessibility of the world it portrays to most Americans and its style of humor.

However, there are important differences between “Tiny Furniture” and a screwball comedy like “The Philadelphia Story.” Screwball comedies were made by studios whose audiences would inevitably consist of all manners of movie-going Americans. They had all–star casts and nation–wide distribution. These films showed remarkable class–consciousness, even by today’s standards. The finest screwball comedies were also great social commentaries that would be seen by a huge audience in an economic depression.

“Tiny Furniture,” on the other hand, is destined for a small, niche audience. Its similarities to screwball don’t survive examination. Although it’s style of humor and the economic situation surrounding its production recall screwball comedies, “Tiny Furniture” has neither the social consciousness nor general upbeat feeling of a screwball comedy. On the contrary, one of its strengths is the amount of pain and anxiety it conveys behind all the humor.

The movie won the narrative film prize at the SXSW festival last year, which enabled it to get modest distribution, but it will not be shown in mega–cinemas across the country. After seeing it, I get the feeling that “Tiny Furniture” is the type of movie whose audience will know in advance whether or not they would like it. It takes place in the New York art world, an exotic place by most people’s standards. Yet, because it is her home, Ms. Dunham treats that world with a familiarity that would alienate most. The movie is about a young woman who just graduated from a liberal arts college and doesn’t know what to do with herself; once again, I don’t see that this would appeal (or even attempts to appeal) to a wide audience.

However, limited appeal doesn’t make it a bad movie. There are a lot of things I liked about “Tiny Furniture.” I liked how Aura, the main character, is not a typical Hollywood-beauty; rather, she looks like a real person and is much easier to believe. I liked how Aura was totally confused about what to do with her life. Even though I’m only a freshman (and have comparatively low general–life–anxiety, I imagine), I can easily relate to Aura’s confusion and uncertainty about entering the “real world.”  I liked how the ending of the movie was boldly unsatisfactory; Aura is an asshole.

In the end, though, “Tiny Furniture” is not a “great film.” It’s the kind of movie that could work just as well as a play or a TV show; the story is not told in a cinematically interesting way. It would be really arrogant and pretentious to call it a bad movie for this “flaw,” though. It’s a really good movie, and I liked it.

the roaring, goring 21st century

 

In America there are no gladiators, there is no form of public execution and violence by the state is typically seen as wrong. Only horror might be gained from watching a man slaughtered. Nevertheless, violence still gives the people some form of pleasure. Audiences enjoy, no matter how much they might try dispute it, watching someone die. These fictional stories that litter the silver screen and the television, these action packed flicks and these “torture porns”, these are the things modern man derives a disgusting and powerful excitement from. There is a vast difference between the tragedy of the Greeks and the Tragedy of Seneca, the only Roman tragedian. The Greeks see tragedy (and the violence included) as a way bringing about catharsis and emotional connection, but Seneca suggests the audience should detach itself from the characters and seemingly enjoy the wicked nature of man. Thus, William Calder is right when he states that we are not Greek, but “Roman in our boredom.” Although the audience is not watching real people being killed like gladiators, but they are taking joy out of fictional, and sometimes extremely gruesome, depictions of death.

What Calder does in his essay “The Rediscovery of Seneca Tragicus at the end of the XXth Century” is examine where the modern parallel of Seneca’s Stoic poetry. Being the stoic that he was, Seneca wrote in a way that we might look at as difficult. The whole idea of emotional “detachment” that stoics based themselves in might seem to people now a bit cruel and inhuman, yet some don’t focus on how violence excites them. In Seneca’s Thyestes, the character of Atreus is almost pure evil in his plot to kill his brother Thyestes’ sons and feed them to him. It’s a vile and disturbing act, but Atreus completes it without a single pang of regret or remorse. He has his complete detachment and is prepared to commit the scelus ultimum (“ultimate crime” as noted by Calder 78). Calder speaks in the essay of those who complete this and how much joy they get from doing so. He brings up the British poet Julian Grenfall. Grenfall was a very well educated man, yet when he went to war he took pure pleasure in being a marksman. He wrote of how it was “all the best fun I ever dreamed of”. Atreus is quite like Grenfall in his actions, he gathers pure joy in committing this despicable act and never looks back on it. Those could look at Atreus and feel no connection because he is a stoic’s man, one who separates himself from emotion, but if they look another character in recent entertainment that does the opposite for them, they might see Seneca’s reasoning.

To take a glance at Jonathan Demme’s Hannibal Lecter from his film Silence of the Lambs (1991) would be one example. Hannibal is a serial killer, not to mention he also enjoys eating the flesh of his human victims as well. He kills people because he grasps the pleasure of doing so, the making-a-meal-out-of-them gives him even more joy to work with. He is completely mad, but also everything the modern audiences wants to see. For some reason, within the past 30, 40, maybe 100 years entertainment has taken a huge leap into feeding the modern viewers lust for violence. Although Demme himself makes a Greek argument, he makes his point by giving the viewer Lecter to feed off of. Though we can condemn the acts of Hannibal, he is still loved and accepted for his personality. His charisma draws the audience in and his words and speech of his disturbing acts bestow entertainment in people. He commits this scelus ultimum and explores every bit of the ultimate crime in his actions. In this sense, he is a modern Stoic as Atreus is an ancient one and one that audience adore.

Unlike Hannibal, however, Atreus gives himself the freedom not just from joy, but revenge. Seneca delves into a lot of what Calder calls “libertas” or “freedom from dependance on anything.” (77) There is no obstacle barring Atreus’ on his road to revenge. He will get what he wants and he has given himself the freedom to do so. Once his decision is made, the pleasure in possibly doing so keeps him from backing down. He’ll kill his brother for stealing his wife and taking the crown. Even when his brother Thyestes offers to give up the crown, Atreus still wishes to mutilate his sons and feed them to him. He doesn’t let a single thing hold him back. He is quite firmly prepared for what he is going to do. Atreus afterwards revels in the Libertas that he had to be able to watch his brother die inside. “Crime should have a limit/when you commit a crime,/not when you avenge it.” Atreus says to his brother in lines 1495-97. He fuels himself, as if from the power of the furies, and takes aim at avenging his own perturbed pride.

And no matter the disgust, revenge is still to this day a part of human nature. There are moments in which every human feels the need to enact revenge, but most wouldn’t dream of it. So, instead, there are characters in cinema that do it for them. Directer Quentin Tarantino who says, “Violence is one of the most fun things to watch!” is one man who isn’t afraid to explore extreme, unforgiving violence. His two-part film Kill Bill tells the story of a woman “The Bride” out for vengeance and a multitude of blood. After her wedding was ruined by a group who came in and slaughtered everyone in the church and left The Bride for dead, she has won her own libertas. Just like Atreus, The Bride is out for vengeance and her bloodlust is stronger than anybody else’s. And for most, it is enjoyable to watch her slaughter those who destroyed her lives, every kill yanks at the excited butterfly in the stomach of the modern audience. Is there something wrong with that? No, it’s just pure human nature. Yet, so many denounce Seneca because of his details. They can’t grasp why a man would write about such an evil character. Atreus wanted revenge just as much as the bride did. Sure, he killed his brother’s children and fed them to him, which might still disgust people today (but only if it was a true story), but they still seek that vengeance. It is extremely rare these days that the Greek theory is found on the screen and in the TV. Most popular entertainment takes a look at how just how much joy one can derive from gore and damnation. So why just watch and not do? Its because most choose to ignore their bloodlust and repress it, which is a very good thing, no doubt. Some part of them might also click if they actually took a life, the grief of conscience just wouldn’t allow such a thing. But when boredom strikes, the roman in them comes out.

There are also those who would argue that the Greeks are wrong. In his “loosely based off real events” film My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?, Werner Herzog explores Calder’s idea of the Topsy-Turvy World or “Die verkehrte Welt” in which the world is built primarily on chaos (79). Herzog shows the character of Brad McCullum, a man who, after a traumatic white water rafting trip, pushes himself into an intense psychosis. His complete loss of reality forces him into believing he is Orestes from the Greek poet Sophocles’ tragedy. This depravity causes Brad to murder his mother who he thinks to be some form of Clytemnestra in the flesh. Yet, Herzog is not agreeing with the Greeks in this sense. He is fishing in this chaotic, Roman world that has pushed Brad into committing the heinous crime. He has never been the filmmaker to discuss the beauty of the world and always sees it as nihilistic and uncaring. Thus, the nature of human beings is a mirror of the chaos of the world.

Herzog is saying that there is no exoneration for what he has done, despite what the Greeks Aeschylus and Sophocles would have you believe. People are trailed by the deeds of those before them and cannot easily escape the judgement that is to come. Brad, unlike the famed Orestes in Greek tragedy, is not given mercy for the crime he has committed. Only more chaos will attack him, and potentially those who follow him, for what he has done. “Open your eyes, look! This is the river, this is reality” Brad says to his white water rafting partners, another way of Herzog to state natural chaos. The film is a perfect exploration of this Topsy-turvy World and is a stage for what is true in life. There are no gods that can end the torture and pain, there are only the furies that keep things going the way they are. This beautiful film examines the continuum of chaos and the cycle of natural insanity when a young boy (who resembles Brad himself) grabs a basketball that was left in the tree by Brad. Herzog again emphasizes this idea of king chaos and makes the audience see the pain that the natural way of things causes.

In this whole aspect, Calder is right. Humans are more roman, but only “in our boredom”. Though there are those who entertain with psychos and killers and vengeful spirits, there are still those who entertain us in a Greek fashion. Filmmakers like Clint Eastwood and Sam Mendes explore the effect of the chaotic world in a way that makes people feel less naive. They examine the goodness of mankind and the acquittal and kindness of natural order. However, those artists are few and far between. Anymore, the audience must accept Herzog’s modern thesis on mankind and nature. To look at the top ten box office hits is to examine the popularity of absurd and violent films, to explore that which makes audiences cringe with gratification. It is a sad belief, yet it is still true. The modern viewer is falling apart and his/her intelligent viewpoint is constantly wavering due to this psychotic entertainment. They no longer wish to balance themselves out with something that would make them reconsider this topsy-turvy world, only they wish to free their vengeful demons and find their own pure ultimate crime in the actions of those characters on screen.

“It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.” – Gandhi.

Best of the Decade

1. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy – this trilogy is probably the greatest adaptation of any other novel/series of novels ever made. Peter Jackson Created in these movies a legend. He revolutionized CGI and made three of the most visually appetizing films of all time. I had always categorized these movie as being absolutely brilliant, but I never realized until I went back and watched them recently, just how fantastic they are. The work that Jackson does with his editing (albeit they are 2:35-more hours long) and camerwork is breathtaking. The long shots and single shots he gets of the land that the fellowship walks to destroy the ring are to die for. And the CGI is all too mezmerizing. go back and watch the making of stuff, it will shock you just how tall Elijah Wood is in comparison to Frodo. These movies not only embody JRR Tolkein’s tales, but the embody all that cinema has given us in the past one hundred years.
2. There Will be Blood – This is a brialliant force of biblical proportion with a script like the words of a mericless God that wishes to smite those who come in his way and a raw and brutal portrayl of the main character by Daniel Day-Lewis, who gives what will surely go down as one of the greatest performances of all time. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful and shows us the scope of the world Daniel has conquered.
3. No Country for Old Men – the Coen Brothers’ masterpeice that is a collection of their inspirations, deadly wit and brass originality. the suspense is unlike any other and the use of sound and cinematography in the view make it a cinematically perfect movie.
4. Up – When I first saw the movie (and even the second time) I cried withing the first ten minutes. The opening montage alone makes it one of the best movie of the decade.However, it is the heartwarming sincerity that Pixar puts into the film that makes it one to watch over and over again. It is exactly what it says: a family movie. Not just one the kids will enjoy, but people of all ages.
5. Slumdog Millionaire – Danny Boyle’s beautiful look at an inspiring story of how the good will someday get their due is a awesome peice of cinema that utilizies everything that is correct in the film industry.

   

   His cinematography captures all forms and his art direction could not be more exciting. The inspiration from so many Bollywood films is obvious and Boyle has created a masterpeice of inspiration

6. Superbad/In the Loop – These two movies tie as the funniest films in the past ten years. Superbad is definetely the most sincere and realistic depiction of how boys act and speak in high school setting. Yes, moms, its true your boys talk just like these kids. Jonah Hill and Michael Cera are a perfect combo for these awkward boys trying to get their virginities taken from them and the movie is the best out of the Apatow Crew’s repetoire of the decade. However, In the Loop is the smartest comedy made in the past ten years.

   

   Basing its self as a farce and satire of the war on terror, this movie creates hysterical laughter and witty intelligence. Certainly this is a movie to check out.

7. The Royal Tenenbaums – Wes Anderson has only made one movie I haven’t enjoyed. Almost all of his movies are wonderful, but The Royal Tenenbaums might be his greatest work (or The Fantastic Mr. Fox). The script is original and witty and gives this dark comedy all of its qwirk. Anderson also seems to have an odd way of constantly bringing out the best in each one of his actors, with an amzing ensemble cast of stars.
8. March of the Penguins – must be one of the greatest feats in the nature documentary. The dedication the film had to have taken in order to show us the Journey these crazy creatures take would have been a difficult task. To be in freezing cold weather that even the animals have trouble handling is wild to think about. And the film gives us an entire in-depth look at how these animals breed. It is visually stunning and emotional captivating to watch. At times you can laugh at the penguins as they waddle along and at other moments you cry for their misfortunes. This march is one of the msot heartwarming and breath taking peices of nature cinema ever made.
9. Shaun of the Dead – this is why