Overreaction City

 I'm not really on social media all too much. I do check Reddit more often than I should. But, I deactivated my Twitter account months ago, I'm still on Facebook but I rarely visit the site, and then there's Instagram, which I do check daily. You know, when I started this blog, kenoncinema, in 2010, it's because I had a deep love for movies. I also loved reading about upcoming movies and following movie news in general. So, naturally, I've followed quite a few different film/entertainment sites on my various social media accounts over the years. Even now, on Instagram for example, I'll get some update about a trailer that just came out, or an announcement of an upcoming movie. It feeds into my excitement. "Oooh, a new trailer for Napoleon? I can't wait to see this!" That's generally how it works for me.

But, there's another aspect that comes with that. I just need to scroll Instagram for about five minutes until I come across controversy over an upcoming movie. It truly seems to me that every major movie that comes out these days has some sort of controversy attached to it. It's rare for a movie to get released without it. "Barbie" had angry men and conservatives attacking it. "Oppenheimer" has a sex scene or two. Oh, the horror! 

I just saw "Killers of the Flower Moon" and I really wish I hadn't checked any social media for months before seeing it, because unfortunately, I did. I'd see reports like "Martin Scorsese defends Brandon Fraser's performance" or I'd read an angry reaction about the content of the film, or that some theaters put in an intermission in the middle of the movie which upset some people. Or the lack of intermission upset people. Holy shit. Why does everything piss us off these days?

Coming away from the movie, the 3 1/2 hour movie that I was able to sit through without getting up once (I'm not trying to brag, it's really just... if you're gonna see a movie like that, plan ahead. Don't drink coffee beforehand if coffee gives you the shits. Things like that. Use your head.)----All the complaints I had heard all seemed to be for naught. Brandon Fraser... a bit too histrionic? Well, he's barely in the movie and his over-the-top performance seemed to fit with what the filmmakers were going for with that character. I couldn't help but think... "That's it? Martin Scorsese needed to defend this??"

I don't really want to get into too much else with regards to the movie, because I understand we're all different and we have our own opinions, but I'll just say my peace, which is this - I feel firmly this is a story that needed to be told. If Scorsese wasn't involved, it doesn't get made. It certainly doesn't get made with a $200 million budget. And Scorsese did about as much as he could to get approval from the Osage community. Bottom line is, we need to hear these stories. We all need to do a better job of fully  understanding the ugliness that is American history. Some already know how ugly it is, but we still need to tell these stories. I had no idea about the history of the Osage people and what was done to them. It's absolutely horrifying and the movie does a masterful job of capturing it. It's really ugly, disgusting stuff and really makes me ashamed of how awful and cruel we can be, both in the past and in the present. 

Anyway, I just wanted to get that across. I'm tired of overreactions to movies. There is obviously real shit going on in the world, too many things happening in the real world... let's let movies be movies, for crying out loud. Either see them or don't. That doesn't mean you can't complain about shitty movies. My point is, if every movie has controversy attached to it, then the word "controversy" really starts to lose its luster. 

Yeah this is hard.

 I blinked and nearly two months passed by. Here's the thing, I freakin' write for a living, 40 hours a week. It's hard to write outside of that, it really is. So uh, that's all I'm gonna say now cause I'm tired.

Guys, I Think Comedies Might Be Dead

Comedies might be dead, guys. I don't know. There are still funny shows, I guess. Funny stand-up comics, of course. But what about comedy films? Barbie would be a shining example of one of the great recent comedies to come out in theaters and actually be successful. But, let's be real here: it's a movie based on a hugely popular product. If it was called anything else, would it have had a chance? If The Hangover came out today or 40 Year Old Virgin or Step Brothers or Tropic Thunder... wouldn't they all likely flop in the box office? Other than Barbie, it just doesn't feel like your average comedy could make much noise and/or become the cultural touchstone that Barbie has become.

And while I'm happy to see Barbie do so well, my god is the backlash annoying. That's another reason why I think comedies are generally dead. When one comes along and gains major attention, there has to be something about the movie that's deeply problematic and drives a portion of the population crazy. In the case of Barbie, it's... men. #notallmen, but the people complaining all happen to be men (I'm using that hashtag facetiously, I promise). What's funny is that a lot of the men complaining are the same ones that tell you to relax when, say, people get up-in-arms about a Dave Chappelle comedy special. I'm really disappointed with how my gender has reacted to the movie. There are plenty of cool guys out there who dig it, but man, the others who are so mad about it... you're freakin' embarrassing. If you can dish it, you have to be able to take it. Yeah, there are a lot of jokes at our expense in Barbie, but if you're seriously offended by any of them, then goddamn are you sensitive. 

That type of reaction will plague all comedy films. Thing is, if you're making a comedy film that doesn't really say much of anything, it's probably not going to gain much traction in pop culture. It would have to be a super quotable movie with a major star or a star-making performance that gets everyone talking. Otherwise, the only other way to get attention from a comedy is to pull no punches and when you take that approach, people will be offended... loudly... all over social media and in media general. The fact that we've had someone like Bill Maher "speak up" on Barbie like it's such a serious issue that needs to be addressed... that's where we are with comedy! 

I just don't see a way out of that bullshit. I'd love to see a rise of comedies, a new wave of comedies taking pop culture by storm. Whatever the 2023 version of the Frat Pack or the Apatow-universe is, I would embrace it. But, it seems comedy writers are... well... on strike right now, but if they're not on strike, they're working on something TV/streaming-related or they're on YouTube or Tik Tok. Come to think of it, there was another big studio comedy that came out this year... No Hard Feelings with Jennifer Lawrence, but I swear the only thing I've heard about that movie is the fact that J-Law gets naked in it. That's it. Also, when you check the movie's wikipedia page, there's a whole section dedicated to "controversy". Underneath: complaints that J-Law's character is grooming the 19-year-old main character. This part really struck me: 

           "Feldman, who plays Percy, said in an interview regarding the controversy that, "The film never condones the things that Jennifer's character does or that my character's parents do. This is a movie about flawed people and it's a cringe comedy. You're meant to cringe! You're meant to sit with those uncomfortable feelings." He also noted that the film normalizes "wanting to find love and connection," not pressuring young males to have sexual relationships."

When people have to explain the jokes afterwards, then you know it's true: comedies are dead. Because what do you need in comedy? People to laugh. And while, yes, there are still some audiences who do have a sense of humor, they are drowned out by the loud, angry, offended crowd. I hate to be the guy complaining about people being offended, but my complaints stem from the "Barbie is anti-male" crowd. What those guys don't realize is, the more of a stink they create about Barbie, the more other comedy films will be open to criticism. What we should be doing is making some sort of pact. You can have Barbie, can we have another R-rated This Is The End-type comedy with zero backlash attached to it and then we can be even?

But in all seriousness, we all know how risk-averse major studios are, so I gotta imagine they hear about the backlash to a movie like Barbie and all of a sudden, the leash on other comedies (if they even manage to get made) will be even tighter. 

You know what's coming out tomorrow? Strays. An R-rated movie with foul-mouthed talking dogs. I got to see it a little while ago and I thought it was hilarious. On Rottentomatoes, it has a 54% approval and I've heard zero buzz on the movie despite Jamie Foxx, Will Ferrell, Will Forte, and Randall Park all voicing characters in the movie. I have no faith it's gonna do serious business. Why? Because comedy is dead. (Please prove me wrong, world.)

The Elephant in the Room

 

I started writing this on July 30th, then I had work, then I went outta town. Goddamnit guys, it's hard for me to maintain a blog! So anyway, I'll just keep this brief so I can finish this blog post and move on... 

Of all the times to want to get back into writing about movies, we just so happen to be going through the most tumultuous time in the history of Hollywood. Maybe "tumultuous" is an overstatement, but I don't know about you guys... I don't see a solution to these strikes anytime soon, do you? Both the Writers and Actors striking at the same time? And it sounds like the studios aren't even willing to negotiate, let alone meet the actors' and writers' demands? This thing could last a long, long time. I'm curious, too, if the actors could come to an agreement before the writers, or would it have to be a joint thing. Because it feels like they're both asking for roughly the same thing: fair compensation, residuals from streaming services, assurances they won't get replaced by A.I., etc. 

And yeah, an end doesn't appear to be in sight. What I find interesting is, technically, there are indie productions that can continue working with actors because they've agreed to the terms of the strike, indie studios like A24. I wish actors and writers can just forget about the main studios altogether and go independent. There's precedent for this: the creation of United Artists over 100 years ago saw Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, D. W. Griffith coming together to make their own studio thanks to growing frustrations with the studios in the late 1910s. I don't think we'd get anything quite as drastic in 2023. I also think that the old school studios probably want to settle eventually but streamers like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple may be less willing to do so. The Silicon Valley types aren't really known for negotiating with unions. 

I'm thinking some sort of break-up is due to occur down the line. Paramount+, Disney+, and Peacock have been largely unsuccessful streaming ventures for those parent companies. Max seems to do ok for Warner Bros, but I wonder if most of the studios would eventually rather just partner with Netflix, Amazon, and Apple, selling off rights to streaming libraries and maybe collaborating on future TV and movie projects. That seems like the only way to successfully have those Silicon Valley-types be able to work with what actors and writers are demanding.

Anyway, yes, this will be an ongoing thing for the foreseeable future. I fully support what the actors and writers are doing and the way I see it, with Hollywood essentially "pausing" this is a good time for me to play catch-up on the last few years of cinema. I didn't want to continue blogging as if I wasn't aware of what was happening in the present. So, this felt like a necessary blog to get off my chest so I can move on and talk about movies. 

That said, I do hope all this gets resolved in a way that favors the writers and actors. It really is ridiculous these studio heads really don't seem to want to budge or even negotiate. What the WGA and SAG are asking for isn't really all that complicated. Fight on SAG and WGA! But yeah, I still wanna talk about movies and what not... so... I'm gonna do that... as long as I have enough time in my schedule for it, anyway!

KenonCinema plans

 I've promised I'd be back before on this blog and I've gone back on that promise. The main problem has been the combination of having two children and a full-time job. That means there's just not much time for many more hobbies. Even right now, I've had more time than usual to write in this blog because I took a few days off from work. But this time, something feels different. I really do feel a need to "return to my roots", so-to-speak. I do still love movies, but that love had been dormant for awhile, particularly during COVID. But now I'm feeling more comfortable returning to the cinema. Just in the last month or so, I've seen Asteroid City, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning: Part One (mouthful of a title), Barbie, and Oppenheimer. Understand - between March 2020 and May 2023, I think I went to the cinema a total of 5 times. I didn't even get to see Licorice Pizza in theaters. I'd seen every PTA movie in theaters dating back to There Will Be Blood in January 2008. On my way back to Penn State, I made a stop at Princeton University and saw TWBB at the Princeton Garden Theater. It's crazy, there were two movies showing there, TWBB and No Country For Old Men. Man, I wish I just saw both films there. I ended up seeing No Country months later on DVD. Love the movie, but it's not the same experience, as you know.

And that's kinda been the problem these last few years. The cinema is my hub. Going to the cinema is the heart of my movie fandom. I go to the movies and it makes me want to watch more movies at home. But if I can ONLY watch movies at home, I... kinda lose interest? I don't know, maybe my TV isn't big enough. Maybe I don't have a nice enough setup. There's something about ONLY seeing movies at home that just kinda stales the whole experience for me. I need the ability to go to the movie theater. I need that full experience. I talk about it in my Oppenheimer review, but the experience of being totally rapt in a movie is unlike anything else for me. I don't get quite the same experience watching one at home. There's just something too casual about watching movies at home. I'm still able to enjoy it, but it's always going to be a better experience at the theater. That's just how I feel about it. I don't need to see a movie in the theater ALL the time. Just enough to fuel my love for it. So then when I'm home, I want to carry that experience with me by watching more movies. But the longer I go without watching a movie in theaters, the less inclined I feel to pop on a movie at home. It doesn't help that there are a plethora of viewing choices at home that I can make. Too often, these last few years, I'd opt to watch a bunch of dumb Youtube videos instead of watching a movie. Something about committing to something for 90-120 minutes at the end of a long work day... just doesn't feel worth it. But that lackadaisical feeling isn't there if I'm attending the cinema on, at least, a somewhat regular amount. My overall enthusiasm for the art of cinema cuts through any exhaustion I might feel after a long work day. 

So, the fact I've been going to the movies more often is one thing. but I was going to the movies pretty regularly from 2016-2019 and I still wasn't updating the blog. Grad school and starting my 9-5 job played a big part in that. Particularly from 2017 to 2019, I was commuting to work every day and it'd often take 90 minutes to get there and back. So a 9-5 job with a total of three hours commuting. That's 11 hours of my day everyday! I still went to the movies to unwind, but I sure as hell didn't have the energy to write about those movies.

Do I have the energy back? Right now I do. I think I'm getting there. There's a simple pleasure that I'm missing by not updating the blog. I write for a living, but sometimes it's nice to just... write for myself. To say whatever I want however I want. Don't have that kind of power at work, but I would with this blog. I don't think I'll be the kind of reviewer I was in 2010 to 2015. Back then, I think I was trying to be "professional". There's going to be a heavy use of first person in my movie reviews and I want to share more thoughts on the industry and other stray thoughts here and there. 

That brings me to my plans. The title of this blog post is "KenonCinema plans" - so what does that entail?

-    I want to review new releases, like I used to.

-    I also need to catch up on a bunch of movies that I missed between 2020 - the first half of 2023. So I'm gonna go back and watch releases from the last three years and write reviews on them.

-    BTW: no grades on new releases. I don't like grading movies anymore. I'll rank them at the end of the year just to have some perspective on the year in film, but I don't want my entire review to be about the grade I give it. I feel like it diminishes the whole point of writing a review in the first place. Did I like the movie? Read and find out!

-    That said: I also wanna do an overview on notable directors from the last several years. I didn't review any movies from 2016 to 2019 and a way to cover that is to go back and do an overview of directors like Fincher, PTA, Greta Gerwig, etc... Now the onus is gonna be on me to go back and watch these directors older movies. I also want to catch up on some newer directors like Ari Aster. I only saw Midsommar from him, which I liked a lot. I'd also love to watch all of Bong Joon-ho's films and, for some reason, I've never watched a single Hirokazu Kore-eda film. There's a few directors like that where I really wanna dive into their filmography and write about them, so I definitely want to do a regular feature like that on this blog. And, when I do these overviews, I will grade those films since I'll have a bit more perspective on a lot of their movies and I can rank their movies and determine which of their movies I liked best. A director, like Kore-eda, maybe I'd refrain from grading since I haven't seen any of his films, but others, like Wes Anderson? I actually did a blog post on Wes Anderson ten years ago or so, it'd be nice to revisit that topic.

-    ...should I get into video content? Podcasting? I briefly had a podcast from 2014 to 2016 called The Long Take Movie Podcast, I don't know if I'd revive that, but I may start making videos on Youtube. I have no audience for this blog. Like, none. Zip. Nada. It'd be nice to have, at least, a small following. I'm basically writing this long blog post to myself. When I debated about coming back to kenoncinema, one thought I had was... there are a lot of shitty "film critics" who have big platforms. Why not me? I actually studied film in college, I have a Master's in screenwriting, I've reviewed hundreds of movies, I've contributed for The Playlist for several years, I've written screenplays, I made a no-budget feature film and a few more short films. I feel like I have a pretty solid-ass background and I'm older and wiser now that I'm in my mid-30s. This is starting to sound like a bit snobby, but that's another thing: I'm totally not that guy. I generally hate myself! Ok, not really, but... generally speaking, I have self-loathing tendencies. I've curbed those tendencies as soon as I became a dad, but there's still there, deep down. I don't take myself all that seriously, but that's been kinda the problem. There's a balance. For too long, I haven't taken myself seriously enough (which is why I stopped writing all together: a crippling sense of self-doubt). So, I'm trying to reach that balance of making well-written reviews and engaging video content, while also not making it seem like I know more than anyone else. Anyway, I got off-track. I think I wanna make video content. I may start a Youtube channel in the hopes that people will visit this site. Maybe podcasting will soon follow, we'll see, but for now, I'm just trying to gain some semblance of a following. If it's ten people, that's enough. I'm getting too old to be writing and not getting any eyeballs on what I wrote. I'm also confident enough to know that I'm at least a decent writer. 

I'm thinking of making a video component to the "director overview" segment I want to do. I think I want to call it "Director Progress Report" or something, where I talk about a director's filmography and give them a grade. Another idea I have is called "Was that bait?" Basically, I talk about a movie released in the last 15-20 years and debate whether the movie was pure Oscar bait. I'll get into that idea at a later date, I've had that idea for like 2 years and have done nothing with it. Lastly, for the youtube page - brief, instant-reaction reviews. Like 1 minute reviews designed for Youtube shorts. It'd just be a plain ol' shot of my face giving my opinion.

I'm a bit nervous about doing a youtube page. It feels late in the game for me, right? Like, it's 2023, can I really get a following going that route? I don't know, but right now I have 0 followers so, gotta start somewhere.

One last idea: I kinda want to dive into my ol' blu-ray/DVD collection. Some of those movies I haven't even watched yet, somehow. Some I haven't watched in over a decade. I wanna break out the ol' collection and give my thoughts on the movie and maybe the blu-ray/DVD and the features. I don't know... everyone streams these days and it'd be nice to make some content on the giant collection I have that's just sitting on the top shelf of my closet gathering dust.

These are a lot of ideas. I'm gonna start slow for now, but that's just where my thought process is for now. I'll keep trying to update this blog on a regular basis and implement some of the above ideas along the way. That's all for now! Good night.

Oppenheimer review

 

The greatest thing about the movies, for me, is the feeling of awe I get when I'm forced to reckon with a truly great film. A film that challenges, spellbinds, confounds, and overwhelms me. A film that doesn't leave my mind hours after watching it and makes me speechless. No other art-form does that for me, especially now that I'm in my mid-30s. As you get older, you can feel jaded. Great cinema makes me feel like a kid again. There's nothing like it. and too often I forget just how powerful a film can be for me until one day, I sit down at the cinema and it happens all over again: pure joy. I can't find that kind of joy anywhere else. Being a husband and father? Sure, there's a lot of joy in that, but I find that fatherhood is more rewarding, the more I put into it. I have to work to find joy. With cinema, it almost feels like stealing. I'm just sitting in my seat watching a collective of dozens of artists making something special. Yeah, I spent money for that experience, but you don't always get that kind of experience with every movie. It doesn't happen every time. That's why, when it does happen, it really does bowl me over. "Oh yeah, I love movies!" I say to myself. Sometimes it's nice to get that kind of reminder every once in awhile.

With Oppenheimer, what writer/director Christopher Nolan pulled off is nothing short of a miracle. Think about what it is for a second. It's a 3-hour biopic! We've had biopics on famous scientists before (remember Theory of Everything? Imitation Game?), but none felt as BIG as this movie did. Somehow Nolan took Oppenheimer's life and work during the Manhattan Project and turned it into a major summer blockbuster. And while it does have a big, "bomb"-bastic sequence with the Trinity bomb test, a large majority of the film is just people in rooms talking. And yet, the frenetic pacing, the intensity of the soundtrack, the intricate sound design in general, the switch between black-and-white and color, and the incredible performances from a cast that's really an embarrassment of riches --- it all helped to amplify what was happening on screen. Every moment felt vital and I was hooked from the jump.

Oppenheimer is framed around two events: the interrogation of Oppenheimer in 1954 by the FBI and a Senate confirmation hearing for the Secretary of Commerce. From there, we dive into two separate timelines: 1) Oppenheimer's rise through the ranks, going from student to professor to director of the Manhattan Project 2) Oppenheimer's relationship and history with Lewis Strauss, the man who was appointed by Eisenhower to become Secretary of Commerce. The first timeline is in color; the second one is in black and white. Eventually these timelines collide and we come to find out how they link with each other.

I don't want to get much deeper into plot details. But what I will say is, when you read the above paragraph, it doesn't exactly sound all THAT "thrilling," right? In lesser hands, this movie would be "just another biopic" (remember Theory of Everything? Imitation Game?) and yet, it's filled to the brim with energy and is pure cinema from start to finish. Nolan uses all the cinematic tools at his disposal to make a truly immersive experience. By the end, I didn't even know what to say. Hell, I barely know what to say right now. I'm still in awe of what I just saw. Lately, I've been up and down on Nolan. I loved all his work in the 2000s all the way to Inception. After that? Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar were... decent. Dunkirk was amazing. Tenet was... ok. So here we are with Oppenheimer and... holy fucking shit! I've always been in the camp of referring to Memento as his best film, even after all the major blockbusters he's made since, there's something so original and clever about that movie. Well, he just may have topped it. 

Cillian Murphy's performance as Oppenheimer had the perfect light touch. It wasn't bombastic, he wasn't loud, yet he still carried gravitas. You could believe this man was a great theoretical physicist AND a celebrity. Moreover, Murphy nailed the constant inner conflict this man must've felt knowing his impact on the world. Basically, Oppenheimer is a very layered, complicated character and Murphy nailed all the nuances a performance like that needs. 

Robert Downey Jr. definitely got the "showier" performance playing Lewis Strauss. Man, I've heard some complain about the final hour and I'm completely confused as to how anyone could not be blown away but what is basically the Robert Downey Jr. show during the final act. We finally got to see RDJ really sink his teeth into a role that isn't Iron Man. How long has it been since he played someone this smarmy? A guy who makes you wanna punch him in the face? And when it's found out the kind of man Strauss really was, Downey Jr. leans into it and it's so very satisfying. 

I could spend all day talking about other performances, whether it's Jason Clarke as Roger Robb, Emily Blunt as Kitty Oppenheimer, or what about Florence Pugh? What about Benny Safdie?? Matt Damon as General Leslie Groves? The cast list just goes on. To me, Oppenheimer is Christopher Nolan's JFK. It's an obsessive look at a period of history with an editing style that's sometimes disorienting. But also, JFK had pretty much every important actor from 1991 appear in that movie. Oppenheimer is like that too. Just a ridiculous cast, which Nolan uses as a secret weapon. The constant surprise appearances from various famous actors kept me guessing and it was like a trick. Oh, Rami Malek is in the background of this scene? Oh, that character must be important, I'm gonna remember his face. Then you have an actor like Josh Hartnett show up and it's like, shit, when's the last time I've even seen Hartnett? And he gets to have a meaty role in this movie? Especially in light of the SAG-AFTRA strike, there's something gratifying seeing all these actors bring their A-game to this movie. 

I wish I could dig deeper into the cinematography and editing, but I was so immersed with the story and characters that it's going to require a second viewing to get into all that. I'll just leave you with some thoughts about what I feel the movie means thematically. Nolan has been pretty upfront about how he views the main character and the movie, in general, that this is meant to be a cautionary tale. I definitely got that impression, walking away from the movie. Oppenheimer was a very complicated man. That Time magazine cover hailing him as "the father of the atomic bomb"... yeesh. Knowing the sheer amount of damage and destruction that bomb did to two cities in Japan, that's not exactly a title one could be proud of, and yet that bomb was a culmination of a life's work. Everything that Oppenheimer was building towards in his career lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The interrogations that followed from the FBI and Oppenheimer's unwillingness to really fight back the charges that were levied against him (despite his wife pleading for him to grow a pair), it speaks to the guilt he was experiencing and the martyrdom he felt necessary to indulge in.

All the renown scientists portrayed in the movie, whether it's the title character, Einstein, Niels Bohr, etc... it's crazy to think they spent their whole lives knee-deep in "theory". Oppenheimer, to me, shows the dangers of what could happen when theory can be put into practice. When great minds can be used as weapons. How the H-bomb could be concocted in a room full of scientists spouting theories back and forth. It's exhilarating to see these great minds at the top of their game in the moment, but then we soon see what can happen when these scientific achievements can get to the wrong hands.

There's a naïveté about Oppenheimer that's heart-breaking. Throughout the movie he talks about how he feels the creation of the atom bomb could be the key to ending all wars, yet we know that its creation and use would, instead, set the stage for a decades-long Cold War between the US and the Soviets. Threats of nuclear holocaust would dominate people's lives for several decades to follow. To think, all that started in those rooms in that makeshift city of Los Alamos, New Mexico.

And again, I'm not quite sure how Nolan did it. I'm not sure how he was able to take all this material and make it feel like a summer blockbuster despite there being no action set-pieces or CGI. This movie has more in common with A Few Good Men than The Avengers, but I think it's good to have a reminder that you don't need explosions to make a blockbuster movie. A great script, a collection of great actors, and a director using a wide array of cinematic tools---that's really all you need. Oppenheimer was worried about a chain reaction that could happen if an atomic bomb was detonated ---- could it destroy the world? Well what about the atomic bomb that is this movie? Could it set a chain reaction of more great big budget films to follow? We can only hope.

Why I Stopped Writing (And Why I'm Trying Again). Also a brief Barbie movie review?

I've been writing, to some degree, since I was 5 years old. Back then I was writing songs under the stage name Johnny Gutts. I don't remember all the songs I wrote but I do know one of the songs I made was called "Football" and the song started with me shouting "I have boobs!" I don't know what I was going for, but then again... I was 5. Also, why was I saying 'boobs' at 5 years old? Who taught me how to say that?

Through my adolescence, I was still writing songs. Sometimes I'd just write song lyrics. Pages and pages of song lyrics. I'd invent bands, invent their discography, come up with a track list full of made-up song titles, and then I'd write lyrics for each of the songs. I remember one of the band names I came up with was called Braindead. Another was called Soup. All the bands were either signed to Geffen Records or Interscope. I'd draw a CD case, put the track list on the back of the "case" and add a little Geffen or Interscope logo at the bottom, since a lot of my favorite bands at the time were signed to those record labels.

I spent hours writing as a kid. I say this as an old man lamenting on how my son seemingly only ever plays video games in his spare time. I could cut down on the amount of time he spends playing games, but the thing is, I also played video games back in the '90s. Tons of 'em! But I still spent a lot of time listening to music, making up bands, and writing song lyrics. I don't want to force my kids to try to do the things I did. They're doing the things they do. I could probably do more to inspire my son to want to do other things. Maybe that's something I need to get better at. I'm coming to that realization in real time, as I write this. Wow! What a breakthrough.

Something happened in high school. I think the catalyst was actually trying to start bands at that time. My attempts were mostly unsuccessful. The one band I did manage to form broke up within a month. In that month, I wrote like 80 songs for the band, but I only shared, like, 2 with my friend and we broke up before we explored anything. Thing is, I was really frickin' prolific at the time. I'm not trying to brag, it was just reality. In general, I had several notebooks full of lyrics and a multitude of song ideas. I still have song ideas buried in my head and now that I'm in my mid-30s, I wonder if there will ever be an outlet for me to get them out. I don't know. I'm not too old to form a band, am I?

I think the unsuccessful attempts at forming a band kinda shifted me away from writing song lyrics. Also, my growing interest in movies. By the age of 16, I had transitioned from an avid music head to a budding cinephile. Summer of 2004 - I wrote my first ever screenplay. A 135-page script titled "Dick Travis", which was about the trials and tribulations about a fictional actor. I really don't know where the story came from, but the script was definitely inspired by the likes of Quentin Tarantino. It was broken up into multiple chapters and I shifted the film's POV at various points.

Concurrently, I had started my first blog. It was actually in March 2004 where I started up a livejournal. I was 16, a junior in HS, and I was a very angry teen. I'm not going to link the livejournal here (it still exists) because I'm not proud of certain things I wrote on there, but if someone found it, so be it. Yeah, I said some dumb shit when I was a teenager. I used the word "gay" to describe things that were lame. Embarrassing stuff like that. I guess in some ways it's interesting to see how I evolved over time, but overall, if you wanna find my livejournal, you're gonna have to search for it. I'm just a bit too ashamed to share it.

My point though, is that the blog and the interest in movies carried over for the rest of the decade. But I never considered myself a "writer". When I got into Penn State, the goal was to make movies. Unfortunately, two years into being a student, my application to become a film major was rejected and I ended up getting a degree in Media Studies. A degree which really didn't help me all that much. I wish I put more thought into a back-up plan. Or, better yet, maybe they could've just accepted my application. Part of my application package included a ten-page script that got an A+ in my one film class, and yet, I guess that wasn't enough. I probably should've submitted a short film or something, but the one I made for that film class was... uh, not very good. 

The fact that my script got an A+ should've told me something. When I took a creative writing class the fall of 2006 (my sophomore year) and I ended up getting an A and my professor gave me high marks on the short stories I wrote, that should've been a signal to me as well! It wasn't. I was still, in the back of my head, thinking I was going to make movies. Not that being a writer and being a filmmaker were diametrically opposed. It's just funny because I was still writing. At that time, I was writing blogs and screenplays all through college. But I never considered myself a writer, nor did I think writing was something I could do professionally.

After I graduated college, I stuck around in the State College, PA area for a few years while I waited for my now-wife to graduate. Those two years I stayed in State College, I started up this blog, KenonCinema, and I continued writing screenplays. I eventually wrote a movie called "Roommates", which I turned into a no-budget feature film with the help of strangers I met through Craigslist. The movie took a long time to make and I was using really lousy equipment. It ended up not coming out all too great. I remember a conversation I had with someone who was interested in being the cinematographer for my movie. He had a Canon 7D camera, which would've definitely made my movie look better, but he wasn't interested in making a feature film. "Why don't you make short films?" he asked. Yeah, why didn't I? ...I don't fucking know. I was so gung ho about making a shitty feature-length film, I probably could've made much better short films and I would've gotten somewhere. Instead, my feature-length film came out shitty and I couldn't use it to help my career. Fuck!

Still, I was keeping up with this blog the entire time. This blog was rather active circa 2010-2012. By summer of 2011, I moved to Brooklyn, NY with my significant other and we got married. I mentioned it in a blog a year ago, but I eventually was able to use my work on this blog as a way to write about movies for different websites. I wrote for The Playlist, whatculture, and very briefly wrote for another website but I can't remember its name. 

Let me fast forward a bit. I had my first child in September of 2013 and we moved to Southern California in the summer of 2014. I got accepted to Chapman University as a screenwriting grad in the Fall of 2015 and that's when I stopped blogging. Before I stopped blogging, I was finally getting paid gigs to write for The Playlist. They'd have me go to Q&As for film screenings that were happening in Los Angeles. I'd write an introduction to the Q&A, then I'd transcribe the Q&A. The highlight was when writer/director Rian Johnson re-tweeted a Q&A he was involved in that I transcribed. Oh my god, Rian Johnson read something I wrote! 

But yeah, I did stop blogging gradually. And I did stop writing for The Playlist. Oh, the website I forgot was called wegotthiscovered.com. Very briefly, like a month, I wrote for that site, but I was just way too busy being a dad to write for 3 different websites so eventually I quietly quit. Going to Chapman University, I fully immersed myself back into the world of screenwriting. I finally came to terms with the fact that... maybe I wasn't a filmmaker, but a writer. A screenwriter. The written word always seemed to be my strongpoint. I wrote several screenplays, I even made a pilot for a web series (which I think turned out well and is definitely my best work as a "filmmaker"). But ever since I graduated Chapman and got a full-time job working as an audio describer, my writing/screenwriting career had gradually come to a halt. And remember, I had already stopped blogging at this point. I had poured all my energy as a writer into my 9-5 job, where I was writing 40 hours a week, mind you. By the time I was done at 5, I didn't have the mental energy to spend on writing anything else. I still tried. I've written a few pilots and one or two screenplays, but I graduated Chapman in 2017. It's 2023. I'm almost 36 years old. What the hell am I doing? 

But there's another factor in this whole thing. The pandemic, black lives matter, the Me Too movement----all these things contributed to this mindset I had where, even if I wanted to write, what did I want to say? What did I have to say about the movies I watched? What about the stories I had in my head? Did I just want to write about white guys and their problems? I mean, that wasn't exactly that kind of stories I was writing, not always. Ok, sometimes. But my point is, by the summer of 2020, I really started to think about these things. What was it that I wanted to say, at this point? Did I have any value as a writer, beyond the job that I had? Do I have an interesting voice? My blog never got any readers. My screenplays weren't being read. I don't have a big social media following. Where was this going? 

Sometimes I'd get a dash of inspiration and all-of-a-sudden the prolific writer inside me would come up and - voila! - I wrote 30 pages in a day. But between those moments were just months of inaction. Not just laziness, although maybe that had something to do with it. There was something more profound - I didn't think I had anything interesting to say. So, I decided what I should do instead was listen. 

For the last three years, I just tried to take everything in. All the problems, the outrage, the anger --- all of that which has been simmering in our society these last few years, especially since my second child had been born during this time, I felt it was better to just take it all in and listen. Really listen and understand what was being said around me before I felt the need to spout my own opinion. 

Now, I don't know. I feel like maybe I'm ready to just write again. Write for myself, or hopefully, write with an audience reading me. I always felt a strength of this blog, Kenoncinema, was I tried to keep knee-jerk reactions to a minimum. I try to be honest in my approach to writing film reviews, but I also try to consider the thoughts and opinions of everyone around me. What can I add to the discourse? I hope, I can add levelheaded-ness. Film discourse can be really toxic. Every big release has to have a degree of outrage surrounding it. I don't want to be a part of that. I want to listen and I want to understand where outraged people are coming from. Hey, maybe they have a point. But, I hope I can approach topics with a measured perspective. Would that be interesting to read? I guess we'll find out.

That brings me to Barbie. Holy shit this blog post isn't over. 

Greta Gerwig kicked off her directorial career with Ladybird in 2017. It's a shame I wasn't blogging at the time because, not only was that movie my favorite of 2017, it'd probably still be in my top 10 of the 2010s. What I loved about that movie was how brisk the pace was. The writing was sharp and witty. I'm basing this off memory, it's been awhile since I watched it, but I remember it having a formal structure as well. There was a balance between having a formal structure mixed with an off-beat sense of humor and the movie just moved at a breakneck pace. It was character-driven. Lots of details. It was also very personal. Personal, but accessible. Having been familiar with Gerwig up to that point, I was surprised with just how not-mumblecore the movie was. Technically her directorial debut was Nights and Weekends, which she co-directed with Joe Swanberg, who was one of the heads of the mumblecore movement. To go from that to Ladybird ten years later - the growth and the leap she took as an artist was just staggering.

And then there's Little Women. Look, I consider myself a pretty open-minded, progressive guy (uh oh...), but I never thought I'd ever be excited about a Little Women adaptation. I vaguely remember the 1994 version being on TV back in the day and it never drew me in. I was also a boy who liked sports and fart jokes. So, I was never going to embrace the 1994 film. But, circa 2018/2019, when I found out Greta Gerwig was making a Little Women adaptation, I was definitely curious what she could bring to the material. All this to say, I was absolutely floored with the 2019 adaptation. Blown away. The way she goes back and forth in time and the overall energy that movie contains drew me in from the beginning. The performances are fantastic. But more than that, the whole thing felt effortless. It didn't feel like a stretch of Gerwig's artistic abilities. Coming out of that movie, I couldn't help but think, "Is there anything she can't do?"

Nearly a week after seeing Barbie, I still don't know the answer to that question because... she fucking nailed it. What struck me was just how different Barbie is visually and stylistically to her previous two films. And also just how goofy, funny, and irreverent it was. Lady Bird has funny moments. Barbie is downright goofy and I loved every minute of it. I can't believe people (angry men, the GOP) came away angry after seeing the movie. Yeah, it has a lot on its mind. Yes, it's very open and upfront about its feelings about how women are treated in the real world, but it's also funny and it doesn't take itself too seriously. So if the movie doesn't take itself too seriously and it rags on the patriarchy for a small chunk of the movie, why do certain men have to have a stick up their ass about it? Fucking relax.

It's funny and subversive. Margot Robbie is literally perfect as the "stereotypical Barbie" and Ryan Gosling just kills it as Ken. Absolutely slays. It's simply a good time at the movies, but also, it does have a lot of substance. It does have a message. And during those moments I just went back to what I'd been doing the last 3 years - I listened. I took it in. Look, it's a weird fucking time. I just don't feel the need to inst-react to every fucking thing that happens in the world, including a movie. But you know what, the movie very eloquently makes its point and I totally get where it's coming from. I get that it can be difficult and nearly impossible to be a woman in the modern world. And as evidenced by how men, at least on the internet, have reacted to the movie, it's clear we have a long way to go in this society, no matter how much it feels like we've moved forward.

I write all that about Barbie and that long autobiographical preface to say this: I think why I want to try writing again is because I think my sane, white male cisgender voice could actually be worthy voicing? I don't know if I'll come away from every movie with the most progressive viewpoint. But honestly, when I watch a movie, I don't really think about its politics unless the politics are as upfront as they are in Barbie. I don't feel the need to shoehorn my political beliefs into every topic. If the time comes, however, where a political discussion must be had, I hope I can at least approach it in a levelheaded away and we can just... fucking talk. Like people. I don't know, is there any value in that? If not, maybe I should stop writing after all. But for now, I'm thinking I'm back

I'm Gonna Write About Ted Lasso, Maybe

 Hey,

It's me, Ken. I used to write about movies on this site. Now, I... don't write movies at all. I have a 9-5 job where I do a lot of writing and it's pretty much zapped my energy when it comes to writing anything else, but enough about my personal "problems".

I'm thinking, maybe, if I have enough motivation, I might write about this final season of "Ted Lasso". Yes, I'm a "Ted Lasso" fan, or... was. Or... I'm not sure where I'm at anymore. First two seasons were fantastic. This season... has been a meandering mess, in my opinion. There've been high points and low points. There have been befuddling moments and moments that make me pump my fist. I want this show to be good. I root for this show like Richmond roots for its football club. But, man, why does it feel like things have gone flat this season?

I don't like to check my phone while watching a TV show or a movie. I'll do it more often during a TV show, though, and I did it during episode 10, season 3 of Ted Lasso. Midway through the episode, I had to check... is this really the final season? Like, there's only three episodes left and this is third-to-last one? There's only two episodes after this one?

If so, why doesn't it feel that way? All the plotlines in the episode do not give me the impression that this show is about to wrap everything up for good. The first thing that threw me off was AFC Richmond taking a break for international play. Fine. But, shouldn't that be like... an episode 3 thing? An early season thing? This team has started to master this triangle-style of play, which is one of the things I've found fascinating about this season, and yet episode 10 is an example of what's been frustrating me.

These episodes are too long. There are too many characters. We follow too many plot lines. We often lose characters along the way so we can spend an inordinate amount of time on the 10th or 11th lead of the show. We get it, you like your characters. You think you have a great cast on your hands. And you do! But this show is about to wrap up. There's two episodes left and we barely see Ted Lasso at all. We focus on Rebecca's relationship with her ex... why exactly? Nate quit coaching West Ham United, or got fired, or whatever... because he wouldn't fuck around on his girlfriend? So that storyline is just over? Or is Nate gonna magically get that job back in one of the last two episodes?

Seriously, what the fuck did these writers do to Nate? Much respect to all writers during these times as the WGA continue to strike, but Ted Lasso writers, I'm sorry... what the fuck? Season 2 ends with Nate with a full head of gray hair wearing a West Ham United uniform. Holy shit, Nate's joined the dark side! And he's become a real heel for the show! Except... no. Whatever rivalry between Nate and Ted dies a few episodes into season 3. What was that all for? Nate and Ted have a real heart-breaking conversation in the season 2 finale and now Nate is back to being a puppy dog again. We've focused more on this budding relationship he has with this Polish waitress, which... great. I'm glad he's found love. Isn't he supposed to be the villain of this season? Villains can find love, that's fine, but this whole storyline has completely gotten in the way of whatever was going in between him and Ted. They've barely interacted. There's no confrontation. When the two teams played each other, Nate wanted to apologize to Ted more than fight him. That felt too soon. We barely got to see hard-ass Nate in season 3. We barely got to see him at work. I'm stunned by how unsatisfying that storyline became. I'm not saying Nate has to become a one-dimensional asshole, but I thought the whole point of his dissolution with Ted was to show an alternative style of coaching. Nate's "wunderkind"/hard-ass style of coaching... maybe his players don't like him as much, but maybe it gets the job done too? Considering he actually knows the game? Ted's stumbled upon this triangle style of play for his team, which is great, but now Nate no longer coaches West Ham, so what now? He's gonna re-join AFC Richmond and he and Ted are gonna have a nice "diamond dogs" chat and cry together?

I loved the character of Ted in the first two seasons. He was a lovable, positive presence in season 1 that slowly won everyone over. In season 2, we got to see there's a darkness, a sadness behind that facade. In season 3, he's just... kinda here. He had that epiphany about triangles and he misses his son, but it feels like there's a third step missing. I feel like there's been an elephant in the room this entire season and now there's two episodes left and I feel like there's not gonna be a payoff. I'm not saying Ted needs to lose his cool, but it'd be nice to see him have a backbone and it feels like he's missing one in season 3. The way he handled Zava, the pressure Rebecca puts him under about really needing to win, his ex-wife dating somebody else, his estrangement from his son, that video of Nate ripping the "Believe" poster... at a certain point, it starts feel like... is he incapable of getting angry? I'm not saying he has to flip a table, but Nate's confrontation with him at the end of season 2 made me think that Ted's buttons might really get pushed this season. We come to find out that his style of coaching isn't for everyone, and that there are imperfections inherent in his philosophy. Nate felt left out and unimportant. Maybe Nate's big speech to Ted was unwarranted, maybe he was completely in the wrong. But Nate wearing that West Ham United uniform at the end of season 2 made me believe we were in for a big confrontation, a clash of styles. Ted really getting his philosophy put to the test. His buttons finally getting pushed too much. 

I'm not saying Ted has to yell. He doesn't have to shout. A simple "Hey, that's not cool" would be nice. He did have that kind of conversation with his ex-wife about her new relationship, and that was good. But that hasn't been built upon. We haven't seen him confront his players, his coaches, his former assistants, rival coaches, rival owners... no one. We have two episodes left and I'm worried that there isn't enough time to put a nice enough bow on this thing. Loose ends can't get tied up because there's too many of them now. Sure, they can all get tied up in one big montage or whatever, but I'm worried that's not gonna feel satisfying either. I'm just straight up worried about this show and what it's turned into. There's no reason for 60+ minute episodes. It's always been a comedy-drama, but this season seldom has been funny and it really isn't that dramatic. There's a lot of pleasant conversations with people who are nice to each other. There are some unpleasant conversations... which are still wrapped up rather nicely. Everything is... nice. Ted Lasso season 1... only Ted was nice! And Keeley. Sure, Keeley was nice too, but her storyline... look, I'm glad she's become a successful businesswoman but we spend A LOT of time on her this season and on her new relationship and then that storyline just goes nowhere too. 

Here's how I feel, plainly... the time we spend away from the football club is time wasted. It's like the writers don't give shit about soccer/football at all. But it's not even that, a lot of the drama has nothing to do with the team, either on the field or behind the scenes. Instead we're spending time with Nate and his girlfriend, Keeley and her girlfriend/business, Sam and his restaurant... these storylines can exist, but my god, we spend way too much time with each of them and it does the show a disservice. We've gone way off course. We've lost focus. If this was the penultimate season or season 3 of 5, I wouldn't mind any of this as much. But this is the FINAL season. Can start to act like it? We gotta get back to business here. This football team, their progress, Ted's progress as a coach, Ted's home life, his rivalry with Nate (though that seems like it's over), Jamie and Roy's training turning into Jamie becoming an elite player on the field (isn't that what that excess training is supposed to be about? Why are we not seeing any of the results of that? Are we really waiting for the finale for Jamie to do something really cool and then we're supposed to say "wow, the training... finally... paid off... now. I'm glad we waited 'til now to see if Roy's training actually helped Jamie in a meaningful way!"

Ok, I gotta stop there. It's getting late. I have two more episodes left to watch. The finale is this Wednesday. I think I'll watch it when it gets released and then I'll give my final thoughts. But... yeah... I'm worried. Like I said, I do like some stuff about this season, but there's a part of me that wonders if this show just kinda sucks now. Cause if so, we only had 3 seasons and for the show to wrap up this way, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Please put my fears to rest and nail the finale, Ted Lasso writers.

Subtext in "Space Jam" (This Is Really Stupid and More of a Sports Take, Just Go With Me On This)

 

In "Space Jam", aliens want to enslave the Looney Tunes or whatever. I don't remember the plot of "Space Jam" and don't feel like looking it up. I've seen the movie twice in the last 20 years and the point of this blog post isn't to re-hash the Looney Tunes-specific plot. Aliens want to enslave Bugs Bunny and his friends, right? But the Looney Tunes come up with a plan: they challenge the aliens to a game of basketball. These aliens have no fucking idea what basketball even is, but as soon as they do, they're smart enough to know that they should go to North America on planet Earth, specifically the United States of America and visit NBA arenas. They scouted the league's top players and decided to steal the talents of Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Muggsy Bogues, Shawn Bradley, and Larry Johnson. 

When I re-visited "Space Jam" a few years ago, as a man who has much more knowledge on basketball, I remarked out loud to my child (who wasn't paying attention nor cared) that a line-up of Bradley, Ewing, Barkley, Larry Johnson, and Muggsy Bogues doesn't really work on the basketball court. That's two centers, two power forwards, and a point guard. None of those players can guard Michael Jordan. 

But therein lines the rub, right? Michael Jordan was in retirement when the aliens scouted the NBA. If we're to believe this movie took place circa 1994/1995, who were the best 2-guards back then? Particularly in the absence of Michael Jordan? Clyde Drexler was nearing the end of his career, though he did end up winning a championship with the Houston Rockets. Mitch Richmond, Reggie Miller,  Latrell Sprewell, and John Starks were all really good players at the time too. None of them could hold a candle to MJ. 

The Looney Tunes made the deal with the aliens during the luckiest time in NBA history. If they had coerced the aliens into a game of basketball (a game in which, if the Looney Tunes lose, would have grave consequences for them all) in the years prior to 1994-1995 OR the years immediately after that (1996-1998), the aliens surely would've found out about Michael Jordan and he'd have been the first NBA player they'd steal talent from. With Michael Jordan retired in the mid-90s, that wasn't an option the aliens were aware of. Bugs Bunny must've been following the league at this time. He must've known Michael Jordan was retired or he wouldn't have made this deal. Because the Looney Tunes immediately "recruited" Michael Jordan to join his team (they forced him into their world via a hole in a golf course). All the Looney Tunes needed was Michael Jordan and that was enough to defeat whatever talent the aliens were able to steal.

Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls dominated the league in the early '90s. They won championships three consecutive years from 1991 to 1993. He stopped Ewing's Knicks from the making the finals during that run. In the '93 finals, he was a thorn in Barkley's side, preventing him from winning a ring with his Phoenix Suns team. Meanwhile, Shawn Bradley, Larry Johnson, and Muggsy Bogues had no hope of any real playoff success with their respective teams. But, it wouldn't have mattered who the aliens stole talents from. No one could get past Michael Jordan and the Bulls during that time. 

"Space Jam" represents where the league was at that time. There was a giant void when Michael Jordan retired. The Houston Rockets were able to win two consecutive championships in Jordan's absence (he played toward the end of the '95 season, but wasn't in game shape until the year after). Playing against Michael Jordan during those days was like getting robbed of your talents. It didn't matter how hard Barkley and Ewing worked. MJ worked that much harder and always came out on top. So, the aliens could summon their talents and the talents of other notable players at that time, but still wouldn't matter. None of them could get past Michael Jordan. None of them could beat Jordan, especially in a world where basic physics or laws of gravity don't apply. Jordan could play on a team of literal Looney Tunes and still beat an awkwardly-crafted all-star team consisting of the NBA's best players during a short era when Jordan was missing. 

At the end of "Space Jam", the talents of Bradley, Johnson, Bogues, Barkley, and Ewing are all restored and they're back to being the players they used to be. Great news! Except, Michael Jordan was coming back to the league too, ready to win three more consecutive titles before retiring a second time. Barkley and Ewing ended up having Hall of Fame-caliber careers, but people will always point to the fact that they were never able to win a ring when they played. And that's all thanks to Michael Jordan.

Although Ewing's Knicks DID make the finals twice, and in both years, Jordan wasn't in the league. The Knicks still blew it anyway. And Ewing was hurt during his second finals trip. So, whatever. Anyway, I don't know if any of this will end up making sense or if I made a coherent point. Goodnight.

A Rare Movie Review: The Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker

 

February 2nd, 2013 - a local news station from Fresno, California interviews a young man who refers to himself as Kai. He claims he was picked up by a heavyset man who claimed to be Jesus Christ and, later, crashed into a pedestrian - pinning them against the rear of a parked truck. Kai promptly pulled a hatchet out of his backpack and whacked the driver across the head with it several times. In Kai's words, he went "Smash, smash, Suh-MASH" on the driver's head. Before recounting this story, Kai addressed the camera directly telling whoever's watching that they "deserve respect" and are "worthwhile, nobody can ever take that away from you." This interview went viral and made Kai an internet celebrity. He even managed to become a guest on the Jimmy Kimmel show, a little over a week after the video went viral. Kai's interview with the local Fresno reporter was watched by millions, who saw him as a lovable, free-wheeling, kind, carefree surfer/skater, who's completely unfiltered but contains a heart of gold. Hollywood caught wind of this man and immediately wanted to make him famous. The world was Kai's oyster. Three months later, Kai becomes the primary suspect of a murder and gets sentenced to jail. What the hell happened?

That's what the Netflix documentary "The Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker" attempts to unpack. Interviewing the reporter from Fresno, a man who works on the Jimmy Kimmel show, a woman who wanted to give Kai his own reality show, Kai's mother, his cousin, and a few other people who knew Kai----the documentary attempts to piece together the type of person Kai was,  the events that occurred directly after that interview went viral, what really went down between him and the murdered attorney, and how this all could've happened in the first place. 

But while watching this doc, one can't help but wonder about some of the people that were interviewed. This video goes viral and suddenly there's a number of people in the television industry that want to do business with Kai without attempting to do any sort of background check or research on the person. Other than the local reporter who genuinely seemed concerned for Kai's well-being, it was hard to take the people who wanted to make Kai famous seriously. 

Let's get something crystal clear - after that video went viral in February 2013, this is what we knew about Kai: he hitchhikes, he doesn't have a home, he likes to skate/surf, and he carries around a hatchet which he used in a very violent, and possibly excessive, way. It's understandable why his interview went viral  - it's the same reason why the "Hide yo kids, hide yo wife" guy went viral a few years before that. Off-the-cuff, unfiltered, unpredictable interviews with the local news can often lead to funny soundbites. It's five minutes of entertainment, which ends up becoming a meme and leads to parody videos and re-enactments before everyone gets sick of it and moves on. Did people in Hollywood really think this man was going to become a national celebrity? A reality TV star? Especially without knowing anything about him?

The guy from Jimmy Kimmel tells the story of how Kai pissed on a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and the guy got Kai a room at a fancy Hollywood hotel, a hotel "Marilyn Monroe used to live in", Kai walks in, grabs liquor bottle from a minibar and immediately chugs it. How baffling! How odd! Yes, this person whom you've never met just might have some mental health issues! Think about what this person's life was like before that viral video. Is it possible for a homeless hitchhiker to be mentally stable? Yes, 100%. But there's a reason why people generally don't like to pick-up hitchhikers --- because the opposite can be true. Either way, when you meet a hitchhiker, you can't really be surprised about anything the person ends up doing. If you decide to pick them up, or in this case, invite him onto the Jimmy Kimmel show, you will have to deal with whatever consequences that might arise.

That said, obviously nobody could've predicted that this would be the same man that would end up committing a murder three months later. It's chilling and unsettling, learning about the details of the murder. Yet, all the reality TV show producer can think is "I can't believe I let him spend the night at my house once!" 

Is this an effective documentary? If you want to learn about the story behind Kai's interview, his appearance on Kimmel, and the gruesome murder of the New Jersey attorney---you will get that from this movie. But, this movie is called "The Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker" and hearing the baffled bemusement of some of these interview subjects will really make you scratch your head... hey guys, what do you expect from a guy who's nickname is "the hatchet wielding hitchhiker"? This is a guy with no home and a history of violent behavior and instead of attempting to find the person help, you throw him back on the streets when he ends up being too unstable to become a star. I'm just saying, if I brought this guy to my home and he exhibited the behavior they were describing, my FIRST reaction would be "This guy needs help." How do none of these people come to that conclusion? Is this me on a high horse? Me saying that? Am I out of line here? I don't know too many people who piss on public property the first chance they get, or chug a bottle of alcohol as soon as they enter a hotel room. This guy clearly had problems and he was chewed up and spit out by the Hollywood machine and committed a murder months later. 

It's like the documentary has all this information. It's all there for you to see, but it seems unaware that there's a surface-level story (the story of Kai) and an underlying second story beneath the surface (sketchy Hollywood people trying to take advantage of Kai for personal/financial gain, discover he has mental health problems, and promptly cast him aside). It's just weird. Roger Ebert once said, "It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it." I feel like that applies here. Kai's story? The murder? Very interesting and unsettling. For that reason, the documentary is worth a watch. But the way this documentary decides to tell Kai's story? It left a bad taste in my mouth.

Maybe it's not easy to tell a guy like Kai, "Hey you need help". All I'm saying is that, I'm surprised NONE of the Hollywood people interviewed in this movie came to that conclusion. They all just seemed baffled and disgusted by him when it all just seems so obvious. Hope y'all understand where I'm coming from.

And how about that? My first movie review in, like, 6-7 years (letterboxd doesn't count). How'd I do? I know, I know. I'm kinda rusty. I might do more write-ups like this in the near future. We'll see.