So, you may have heard of this little thing on HBO called GIRLS. It’s directed, written, and stars Lena Dunham, who previously made the film TINY FURNITURE (that just happens to be in the Criterion Collection despite its 2010 release date.) You couldn’t have avoided the post-premiere frenzy of the last week. “It’s racist/elitist/the result of nepotism!” screamed the Internet. Everyone’s got an opinion on GIRLS; It doesn’t really matter if they watch the show. It’s the best/worst show on television; the second coming and the seventh seal of the apocalypse. Like it or not, though, this Judd Apatow produced comedy has a full run on the HBO locked down.

So, let’s put together the pieces of what happened this week on GIRLS, whether you enjoyed it, were indifferent or indulged in some hate-watching.

Girls‘ second episode began with a cold open to Hannah and Adam (also known as Douchebag) engaged in some HBO rated sex. It’s excruciating to watch, and that’s exactly what Dunham wants. Unfortunately, her relationship with Adam is about 50% of everything we know about Hannah up to this point, and I’m really quite tiring of her willingness to put up with him — and it’s only the second episode. It doesn’t help that Adam gives her an STD. After leaving Adam to his apparently condomless (and tactless) existence, Hannah’s got a job interview! Yes! But she bombs! No! Her interview is an excellent run of dialogue, and her rape joke is unexpected, completely in-character, and Dunham’s attempt to save the conversation and make the joke seem flippant was palpable with regret.

The A-story of the night was Jessa’s abortion, with Marnie organizing a pseudo get-together at the abortion clinic for support/STD testing. Where Marnie and Hannah (though less successful in all endeavours) confront their problems head on, Jessa, chronically sleepy and aloof, has indulged in a life of international travel and pot. Commitment of any kind, even to make the decision between having an abortion or not, is difficult for Jessa. Her default reaction is inaction. It’s, therefore, not suprising to see Jessa skip the abortion party — it turned into a party when Shoshanna brought Dylan’s Candy Bar snacks — and down a few drinks with the crotchety old men Hannah praised during her unfortunate job interview. Then, of course, in walks some stranger who vaguely looks like Cillian Murphy in the shadows, and it’s a given sex will be had, and, oh, the pregnancy just solves itself. Apathy works sometimes, kids. This sentiment is later repeated with Hannah’s fear of AIDS, where she starts almost daydreaming about not having to pay her rent or keep a job; She could use AIDS as an excuse to get out of her commitments. This little deferment fantasy is probably the most telling portrayal of Hannah’s mindset thus far in GIRLS.

Marnie’s become bored with her relationship with Marnie’s Boyfriend. He has a name, but it doesn’t really matter.  All the audience needs to know is the Marnie’s developed a distate for her “too great” boyfriend of four years. It looks like he’s been dumped, but the scene lacked a finality for a relationship of that length. Maybe he’ll return, or maybe Marnie will move on quickly to a better storyline. She really is the least developed of the characters. I still don’t quite understand what Marnie does for a living; She does have a scene where she’s in an office (But was it an office?) and could have been working. She was blatantly taking a personal phone call and talking about the gynecologist though. So, let’s not jump to conclusions. She’s probably employed, is all I’m saying.

Shoshanna, as a character, is in a very precarious position on GIRLS. She’s representative of everything I personally believe Lena Dunham despises: the “Girl Power,” yoga class-attending, SEX AND THE CITY-watching, hand-me-down view of young female adulthood that’s still very much prevalent — the image Girls is attempting to subvert. Shoshanna has grown up with these expectations and idolizes this culture of stilettos, bestfriendship, and sexual freedom — “I heard you were getting an STD test. Fun.” — but she doesn’t participate. Not really. Shoshanna’s a reluctant, twenty-year-old female virgin on an HBO series, and isn’t that surprisingly refreshing?

Oh, and another thing:

• “So good. I almost came.”
• I thought there’d be a title sequence this week, but there was nothing. I really hope this was just because of time constraints on this particular episode. If I had an HBO show and didn’t get one of their elaborately beautiful titles sequences, I’d be angry.
• “I could not be more proud of you for getting this abortion.” I predict that Jessa and Shoshanna will probably be my favourite characters.
• “Have you seen your nuts? Ew.” And then wait for it — “Ew.” The delivery of that last “Ew” was perfect.
• I kind of want all of Hannah’s clothes in this episode.
• “I am not a character from one of your novels. Stop staring at my face so hard.” At least Hannah’s not scribbling in a notebook like in KICKING & SCREAMING. I might need to reference Noah Baumbach in every GIRLS recap.
• The underwear stains thing.
• I really did think that guy that called his mother with Jessa’s “cellular phone” was Cillian Murphy. I honestly did. But it was just a hipster.
• Marnie’s response to Shoshanna’s virginity is that she hit a dog with her car and only has a learner’s permit.
• “It’s more of a FORREST GUMP based fear.”

[Article originally published at Dork Shelf on April 23, 2012.]

“Oh, Max. What do you do? Oh, I do nothing.” (KICKING & SCREAMING)

I can’t recall the last time a television series or film so directly and unabashedly pandered to a demographic of which I was a member. Like, it was probably MULAN.

HBO’s new comedy, GIRLS, is produced by Judd Apatow, and written and directed by Lena Dunham, who also stars as the series’ protagonist, Hannah Horvath. The first episode of GIRLS is currently available on HBO’s YouTube channel. Boasting laugh-out-loud moments mixed with painful truth, GIRLS will be compared to CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM, Louis C.K.’s LOUIE, and a plethora of other uncomfortably hilarious television shows. These comparisons are apt, though maybe a bit stunted.

Hannah is a 24-year-old English graduate who, in the cold open, is cut off from her parents’ financial support. Dunham and Jemima Kirke, who plays Hannah’s transient best friend Jessa Johansson, essentially reprise their roles from Dunham’s film TINY FURNITURE. Allison Williams and Zosia Mamet round off the girls of, well, GIRLS. Much like in the film, Dunham’s character is somewhat aimless, with a year’s worth of thankless interning and four humour essays as the only product of her post-graduate life. I cannot relate to her in any way.*

*This is a lie.

With GIRLS and Tiny Furniture, Lena Dunham is clearly in that faction of nerds who could reenact scenes of Noah Baumbach’s KICKING & SCREAMING if prompted. (We perform at the Annex Wreckroom on Wednesdays.) It’s no wonder that Chris Eigeman, Baumbach’s and Whit Stillman’s leading man of the 1990s, has a cameo as Hannah’s internship supervisor. He accepts her resignation, removing all possibility for him to be a regular cast member. I found his presence here reassuring, however tragically brief. With GIRLS, Dunham is more interested in the often uncomfortably real yet stylized post-graduate, twenty-something existence depicted in the films of Baumbach and Stillman, the heyday of 1990s upper-middle-class, well-educated malaise, rather than that other late-90s, women-in-NYC thing. You know.

Wherein I talk about the pink stilletto-wearing elephant in the room: SEX AND THE CITY –

Before the Tumblrs are all aglow with gifs of this, I accept that GIRLS could be seen as reinterpretation of SEX AND THE CITY, but without the easy money and success that was often found and celebrated in the late 1990s. The context is familiar — four women figure out their love lives in New York City — and so are the broad strokes of the characters. There’s the English graduate protagonist (Hannah, Carrie); the ambitious best friend (Marnie, Miranda); the more worldly, nonchalant freedom child (Jessa, Samantha); and the naive, uptight waif (Shoshanna, Charlotte). After the first episode of GIRLS, we know very little about these characters, but it’s still enough for comparisons to be made.

Now, I’ve seen a handful of episodes and understand the gist of SEX AND THE CITY, but I (like the characters in GIRLS) largely missed that phenomena, and was pre-pubescent when it premiered. Most twenty-something girls discovered the show in their teenaged years and binged on DVD collections, downloading obscenely high expectations and catchphrases in bulk. To me, SEX AND THE CITY is dated, a relic, and based on her script, I believe Lena Dunham thinks much the same.

For better or worse, Dunham does hang the lampshade on the inevitable comparisons between her show and Sex and the City. Shoshanna, Jessa’s hyperactive cousin and roommate, blatantly points out the SEX AND THE CITY movie poster on her otherwise bare walls before she allows Jessa to even sit down. And of course, Shoshanna goes on and on about how she’s a “Carrie at heart” or some other nonsense. Jessa deadpans, “Oh, is that a show?”

This is where GIRLS attempts to distance itself from SEX AND THE CITY and the perceived image of women on television that Carrie Bradshaw and co. birthed. In her all-pink yoga wear, very much the product of borrowed SEX AND THE CITY “culture,” Shoshanna talks quickly, irreverently, and “liike” about nothing. We’re openly invited to mock Shoshanna — to hate her even — and throw our lot in with the sleepy, bohemian Jessa, and two girls eating cupcakes and shaving in a bathtub. Lena Dunham is screaming “This isn’t SEX AND THE CITY!” as loud as she can, but then, she sure goes out of her way to talk about it, doesn’t she?

Oh, and another thing:

• “Avert your eyes.” In Mickey Mouse pyjamas. Yes.
• SAY ANYTHING references are always appreciated.
• Everyone keeps walking in on each other in the bathroom! This is not acceptable behaviour, people.
• Chris Eigeman should be in the background of every scene playing the crossword and/or on Mescaline.
• The Totem of Chat was a nauseating bit of dialogue. I know you can do better, Dunham.
• “Oh my god, you’re so hip I could puke.” “You’re so fucking classy.” Shoshanna, I like your one-liners, but loathe your entire being. Way to go, spawn of David Mamet. (Yes, Zosia is the playwright’s daughter.) You did well tonight.
• Wouldn’t it be great if knowing Adobe Photoshop was a guarantee for employment?
• Hannah’s friend-with-benefits (actor, comparative literature major, carpenter, collector of bicycles, douchebag) was immediately hated by everyone, ever, the moment he opened the door to his apartment.
• The sex scene showed off Hannah’s really great boots!
• You say “I’m not really into eating this week,” and then you slag off CLUELESS? Where did these people come from? They should not be invited back to future dinner parties.
• I like the dynamic between Marnie (good influence on Hannah) and Jessa (bad influence), and their competition for Hannah’s “bestfriendship.”
• “Coffee’s for grown-ups,” Flaubert, and “Don’t look at me!” — all with her hand over her face in distress? Ms. Dunham, you’re precious.
• Biggest Laugh: “When I look at you, a Coldplay song plays in my heart.”

[Article originally published at Dork Shelf on April 17, 2012.]

This March 10 to April 13, Toronto’s TIFF Bell Lightbox presents “Spirited Away: The Films of Studio Ghibli,” a retrospective of Studio Ghibli, the legendary Japanese animation studio. Newly-struck 35mm prints of fifteen of the studio’s most beloved films will be screened in both Japanese with English subtitles (S) and dubbed English (D).

If you are unfamiliar with Studio Ghibli, I’ve written up a handy “Beginner’s Guide” after the jump!

What is Studio Ghibli?

Studio Ghibli, Inc. is a Japanese animation and film studio based in Tokyo, Japan. It was founded in 1985 by directors Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata and producer Toshio Suzuki after the success of their 1984 film Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. The studio has mainly produced films by Miyazaki, but also those of Takahata, Yoshifumi Kondo, Hiroyuki Morita, and Gorō Miyazaki, Hayao’s son. In 2002, Hayao Miyazaki’s Spirited Away won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.

Often referred to as the “Disney of Japan,” Studio Ghibli is distributed internationally by the Walt Disney Company and maintains strong creative ties to Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios. John Lasseter, the Chief Creative Officer of Pixar, calls Hayao Miyazaki not only a longtime friend but also “the greatest animation director living today.” Much like Pixar, Studio Ghibli enjoys critical adoration, box office success, and a near-perfect reputation.

The films of Studio Ghibli and, particularly, Hayao Miyazaki are celebrated for their universal, affecting, fantastical storytelling; their strong, young heroines; their reverence of the environment; and the stunning aesthetic of their animation.

What Studio Ghibli Films Should You See?

If you only buy one ticket to “Spirted Away: The Films of Studio Ghibli,” it should undoubtedly be the film TIFF Bell Lightbox chose to represent its retrospective, Spirited Away.

Spirited Away [dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 2001]

Winner of the 2002 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, Spirited Away is the perfect example of everything Studio Ghibli gets right. The story is simple — a young girl is separated from her family — and, simultaneously, insane — her parents are turned into pigs. Chihiro, the film’s protagonist, is as charmingly naive and overly-respectful as she is clever and tenacious. Studio Ghibli never skimps on the personalities of their heroines, and Chihiro is no exception. As she searches for a way to reverse what has happened to her parents, the adventure had by Chihiro in Spirited Away is endlessly memorable, featuring some of the most creative animation produced by Studio Ghibli. Spirited Away is, easily, one of the greatest animated feature films ever made. Actually, that sentence does not need “animated” as a qualifier; It’s one of the greatest feature films full-stop.

Screenings: Sunday, March 25 at 7p.m. (S), Sunday, April 1 at 7 p.m. (S), Saturday, April 7 at 1 p.m. (D)

If you have seen Spirited Away and enjoyed the film, below are recommendations of other Studio Ghibli films playing at TIFF Bell Lightbox based on age-appropriateness (though like Disney and Pixar, Studio Ghibli films can be enjoyed at any age!):

Seven (7) Years Old and Younger:

My Neighbor Totoro (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1988)

Though somewhat light in content for those familiar with Spirited Away and Studio Ghibli’s more ambitious films, My Neighbor Totoro is a nice entry point into Studio Ghibli for younger viewers. It follows two young sisters and their father as they move into a house that may be haunted by spirits. My Neighbor Totoro, instantly recognizable, also provides the image for Studio Ghibli’s logo with the titular character Totoro.

Screenings: Tuesday, March 13 at 10:30 a.m. (D); Wednesday, March 14 at 2 p.m. (D) and 6:30 p.m. (S); Saturday, March 17 at 1 p.m. (D); Sunday, April 8 at 12:30 p.m. (D); Monday, April 9 at 6:30 p.m. (S)

We Also Recommend… Ponyo (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 2008)

Eight (8) to Twelve (12) Years Old:

Kiki’s Delivery Service (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1989)

The ultimate realization of precocious preteen female fantasy, Kiki’s Delivery Service, a film which promotes self-confidence, should really be distributed by the government prior to junior high school. Kiki, a thirteen-year-old witch, leaves home for a year with her talking cat as a rite of passage and runs a delivery service to pay for room and board while developing her magical powers. If you (or your favourite precocious girl-child) enjoy Kiki’s Delivery Service, you may also enjoy the television series Cardcaptor Sakura by CLAMP, another animation juggernaut in Japan.

Screenings: Thursday, March 15 at 1 p.m. (D); Saturday, March 17 at 10:30 a.m. (D); Monday, March 19 at 6:30 p.m. (S); Saturday, April 7 at 10:30 a.m. (D) and 4 p.m. (S)

We Also Recommend… Castle in the Sky (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1986)

Thirteen (13) to Seventeen (17) Years Old:

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1984)

Establishing the Japanese animated feature film as an artistically credible work, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is an accomplished allegory whose success cemented the career of its director, Hayao Miyazaki, and led to the founding of Studio Ghibli. In the film, Nausicaä is a warrior princess of the Valley of the Wind, one of the last safe ecosystems in an otherwise lethal “Toxic Jungle.” She soon finds herself in the middle of an apocalyptic war between the Tolmekia, a kingdom that tries to use an ancient weapon to fend off an insect race called the Omhu. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind proves that Studio Ghibli’s now iconic touchstones — strong female protagonists, respect for the environment, inventive animation, and fantastical storytelling — were strongly present at the studio’s conception.

Screenings: Saturday, March 10 at 10:30 a.m. (D); Monday, March 12 at 2 p.m. (D); Thursday, March 15 at 3:30 p.m. (D); Saturday, March 17 at 7 p.m. (S); Sunday, April 8 at 6 p.m. (S); Friday, April 13 at 6:30 p.m. (S)

We Also Recommend… Whisper of the Heart (dir. Yoshifumi Kondō, 1995)

Eighteen (18) Years Old and Older:

Howl’s Moving Castle (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 2004)

Nominated for the 2005 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, Howl’s Moving Castlemaintains the fantasy and friendliness of Studio Ghibli’s previous films, but steps forward, approaching themes of jealousy, covetousness, vanity, and prejudice that all seem a bit beyond the audience of My Neighbor Totoro. Howl’s Moving Castle‘s protagonist is a beautiful young woman named Sophie who encounters Howl, a notorious flirt and feared wizard. Jealous of the brief affection Howl showed Sophie, an evil wizard curses her, turning Sophie into an elderly woman who could never be loved by the vain Howl. On paper, Howl’s Moving Castle sounds like a straightforward love story, but Studio Ghibli infuses the narrative with surprising complications, both physical and emotional, and imperfect characters who don’t hit the notes of a love story in quite the order you’d expect.

Screenings: Saturday, March 31 at 10:30 a.m. (D)

We Also Recommend… Princess Mononoke (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1997)

TIFF Bell Lightbox’s “Spirited Away: The Films of Studio Ghibli” also includes the films Only Yesterday,Porco Rosso, The Ocean Waves, The Cat Returns, My Neighbors the Yamadas, and Pom Poko. The retrospective runs March 10 to April 13, 2012. Tickets can be purchased in person at the TIFF Bell Lightbox box office or online.

[Article originally published at the 'Shelf on March 8, 2012.]

GREASE, the highest grossing movie-musical of all time, is back on the big screen this February 24-26th at TIFF Bell Lightbox for four “Sing-a-long-a” screenings hosted by comedian Shawn Hitchins.

Sing-a-long-a GREASE is the second partnership between TIFF Bell Lightbox and Sing-a-long-a following December’s THE SOUND OF MUSIC screenings. Created by nurses in a seniors residence home, Sing-a-long-a was developed for London’s Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in 1999. The Sing-a-long-a experience is more than just singing along; Every screening begins with a warm-up by a Sing-a-long-a host who lets the audience know when to cheer and/or jeer at the screen, and explains the seemingly random contents of their complimentary goodie bag of “props.” (Think ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW midnight screenings, but much more family friendly.) For the GREASE Sing-a-long-a, the host also teaches the audience how to hand jive!

If you attended this past December’s Sing-a-long-a THE SOUND OF MUSIC screenings at the Lightbox, you will be familiar with the structure of the evening and the giddy, infectious enthusiasm of host Shawn Hitchins. Much like December’s sing-alongs, the subtitles during the musical numbers serve no purpose to an audience donning Pink Ladies and T-Birds jackets, but I’m sure they’re useful to the few less-enthusiastic friends and spouses who are brought along. Unfortunately, the GREASE screenings do have less props and interaction (read: jeering at the screen,) and Sing-a-long-a does try to make Rizzo out to be a villain, which doesn’t go over very well. But the film itself is more enjoyable and consistent with its musical numbers than THE SOUND OF MUSIC, to be frank. Basically, Nazis don’t take Danny away to join Debate Club, and that yields a more upbeat Sing-a-long-a experience at the Lightbox with your poodle-skirted best friend.

You will never want to sing “Beauty School Dropout” without a paper bag on your head ever again!

Screenings:
Friday, February 24th at 7:00pm
Saturday, February 25th at 1:00pm and 7:00pm
Sunday, February 26th at 7:00pm

Tickets can be purchased in person at the TIFF Bell Lightbox box office or online.

[Article originally published at the 'Shelf on February 24, 2012.]

In The Wanting Seed by Anthony Burgess, overpopulation is suppressed through the promotion of homosexuality and a one child per family policy. Here it is “Sapiens to be Homo” where heterosexuality and fertility are, at the very least, frowned upon. Oh, and then there’s the cannibalism. The Wanting Seed is a well-written dystopian novel, boasting Burgess’ special flair for vocabulary, and is mostly engaging. There is, however, something fractured, unkind, and twisted about the novel. The Wanting Seed often reads like it’s trying to say something about humanity, gender, sexuality, and race, but it is difficult to sift out exactly what Burgess is trying to say — and because of that, you’re left uneasy and uncomfortable. You’re not quite sure if your shaming should be directed at Burgess’ characters, the society he has created, or Burgess himself. However, The Times Literary Supplement called The Wanting Seed ”wildly and fantastically funny” and the back flap of the book itself called it a comedy. I didn’t discover the novel’s apparent humour while reading it though. I was distracted by all the police brutality and schoolchildren eating their classmates. So, let’s all just assume I didn’t fully get The Wanting Seed. [Book 7/50]

I read The Day of the Triffids over the holidays this year, and I was greatly impressed by John Wyndham’s mixture of the sensible and extraordinary in his science fiction. Brian Aldiss, a contemporary of Wyndham’s, disparagingly labeled Wyndam’s novels as “cosy catastrophes.” Though this term was intended to be an insult, it does reflect the atmosphere of Wyndham’s science fiction well, as the author rightly focuses on the dynamics of a small group of people when they are suddenly transplanted into extraordinary circumstances. In Chocky, Wyndham presents the story of an ordinary British family that is concerned when their eleven-year-old son, Matthew, befriends “Chocky,” who is imaginary. Throughout the novel, Matthew’s parents become aware that Chocky is unlike their daughter’s now-passed imaginary friend Piff, a girlhood fancy that was a nuisance and little else. Instead, Chocky appears to be an alien consciousness that communicates directly to their son’s mind, more of a “possession” of Matthew rather than the result of imagination. Matthew’s parents don’t know what has happened — but they know that the physics behind a cosmic-radiation powered space craft did not originate from their son. Wyndham’s Chocky is an inventive and heartfelt depiction of science fiction, a welcome relief from the gaudy overindulgence of the much popular space operas and epics. I’m looking forward to re-reading The Chrysalids, which I have not read since I was in grade school, but remember fondly. [Book 6/50]