While We're Young

Earlier this year, I made a mental note to check out the film "While We're Young" when it came to theaters. Then life happened. I got busy and never got around to seeing it. But thank god for Redbox, always saving the day! I was excited to see "While We're Young" in stock, and eagerly rented it. I didn't have high hopes for this movie, honestly. It is a cute quirky Noah Baumbach film about a forty-something couple who feel trapped in their orderly, routined lives. Then, they meet this wild and exciting young millennial couple who give a new light to their lives. 

This movie has the charm of Woody Allen, but goes beyond swishy romances and cliched storylines. Not only is Baumbach emphasizing the generational gap evident in the twenty first century, but overlays an entirely captivating plotline about filmmaking, ethics, and independence that will put you on the edge of your seat. The contrast between the middle-aged couple, Josh and Cornelia, and the in-your-face hipster couple, Jamie and Darby, highlights the differences between two generations. Every cliche imagined about the millennials and New York hipsters is brought to life on-screen. This sounds like it would be dreadfully annoying- think again. While this notion of throwing shade at our modern youth could have been done distastefully and without style, Baumbach allows young people to laugh at their own ways. 

As a 19 year old, I felt obligated to relate to the youthful couple. However, my traditional ways and love of order left me relating to Josh and Cornelia. I saw how the past generation views the current one- and ultimately realized that my viewpoints on my peers are not that different! I found myself rolling my eyes at the minor character wearing a T-shirt that spells "Some Crappy Band", because that's the reality of modern hipsterdom! 

While this film sometimes feels as if it's trying too hard to be different, ultimately it was a light and fun film that didn't leave you unsatisfied. It didn't seem to spell out messages obviously to the viewer, however you are left with the reminder to follow the beat of your own drum. When you're in the mood for a cute indie film, or are curious about the current generational gap, give "While We're Young" a shot. You will be pleasantly surprised! 

Maria Full of Grace

For years, I have had a sweet spot for foreign films. Sure, sometimes it's hard to get my friends to agree to watch a film that has -gasp- SUBTITLES, but sure enough some of my favorites fall under this category. Whether I'm watching Amelie or Y Tu Mama Tambien, I feel as if I am not only watching a fascinating plot unfold, but am nearly experiencing life abroad. One film that I've recently seen, Maria Full of Grace, resonated with me for weeks after the viewing. This is a film produced between Columbia and the US about a teenage Columbian girl forced to resort to employment as a drug mule in attempt to keep her life afloat.

Trying to refrain from any spoilers, I want to explain to my readers why this film needs to be immediately added to your to-watch list. There are some films that are fairly passive experiences- you watch a story develop, but never truly feel an impact on your own life in any way. There is a detectable barrier between your own life and the life of the characters portrayed before you. Maria Full of Grace is not one of these films. Before popping the DVD into my computer, I knew absolutely nothing about this film. I knew it was Columbian, and that it received positive feedback from audiences. I knew nothing of the plot, the acting, the script. As the scenes appeared before me I felt a connection between my self and the protagonist, Maria. Sure, she is a young girl dealing with hardships many young girls deal with. But the connection went far deeper than this. The main actor, Catalina Sandino Moreno, was able to convince me so deeply of her character that I felt as if I was going through her experiences with her, feeling what she felt.


Not only were the plot developments raw, emotional, and extremely intense, but the twists and turns completely capture the attention of the viewer. What truly sets this film apart from others of the same category are the heartfelt and powerful acting performances, as well as the sheer believability of the storyline. The main actor is clearly the most convincing and has the most developed character, however every character is vital to the intensity of the film. Although the experiences Maria goes through are unlike the average person, the way events occur on-screen make it evident that these situations are a reality for some people in the world. The film is very humbling, and will leave you with gratitude for your own life, and disbelief at the misfortune of others.

Greenwich Village: Music That Defined a Generation

The 2012 documentary, "Greenwich Village: Music That Defined a Generation", explores the depths of the greatest generation of musicians. This documentary is unique, delivering commentary from the singer-songwriters that were a part of this time.

To provide some background information, music created in Greenwich Village in the 1960s was powerful enough to change the world. Folk musicians gathered in this leftist neighborhood, where activism and art went hand-in-hand. Music was a tool utilized not only as a sociopolitical commentary, but as a means to drive people to action. Singers such as Arlo Guthrie, Bob Dylan, and Pete Seeger performed songs in coffee shops in famous cafes such as Cafe Wha? and The Gaslight Cafe. They wrote songs that addressed their viewpoints on the world at that time and provoked social change. There were countless movements in that time period, ranging from issues on civil rights to to the protests on the Vietnam War. Greenwich Village was a place where people with similar ideologies came to promote their ways of seeing in innovative ways, such as with music. Singer-songwriters in 1960s Greenwich Village made a global impact by promoting messages through art.

This documentary allowed many of the participants in the Greenwich Village music scene to reflect on their lives there. Many famous singers shared their thoughts on the impact folk music had not only on their lives, but on the world as a whole. The consensus is a true belief that folk music changed the world. Folk musicians were able to create a voice for the new generation in their music. Songs were written highlighting the social and political turmoil in the 1960s, and sparked a desire for change. Music was able to define and promote the ideals of a new generation. Folk singers were more than musicians- they were activists. The folk scene is Greenwich Village did not merely display their disgust in politics at the time- folk music displayed the hope in change.

The documentary told the story of Greenwich Village across a decade or so. It weaved the history of what was happening with commentary from participants. It also showed footage of performances and moving photographs from the sixties. There is an impressive collection of folk singers featured in this documentary. Throughout the entirety of the documentary, I was wishing I was in Greenwich Village in this revolutionary time. There isn't exactly a new take on this point in history brought to the table, however that did not bother me. Many people agree that this was a wonderful time in history for musicians and liberals alike. There isn't much risk taken with this documentary, but it does highlight the beauty of this part of American history. I would recommend it to anyone with a passion for cultural, political, or social awareness- and of course music lovers. 1960s Greenwich Village- I can't think of many topics as fascinating as this one. Although this documentary doesn't break many boundaries in the world of cinema, it is certainly worth checking out.

"I'd Like to Thank The Academy" -Review and Commentary on the 2015 Academy Awards

The Academy. A professional honorary film organization, or a bunch of old white men in monkey suits? This question sparked a huge controversy in the 2015 Academy Awards. The Academy is a collection of people responsible for deciding the recipients of the most prestigious recognitions in the film industry. In order to become a member of this elite group, one must have done production work in film. In theory, these people know what they are doing. They are able to analyze and critique films from the year based on the experience they have had in the field. However, the Oscar buzz went far beyond film, addressing diversity.

All 20 nominees for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actress were white. This lack of racial diversity did not go unnoticed by the public. Selma, a film by Ava DuVernay, was rightfully nominated for Best Picture. However, many believe lead actor David Oyelowo was snubbed by the Academy. His portrayal of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. showed the viewer a new side of this leader. Oyelowo chillingly tapped into the personal aspects of King, demonstrated in scenes with Coretta, his wife. He beautifully represented how this powerful leader and activist dealt with moments of extreme vulnerability, making him a relatable figure. Frequently, people who make a significant impact on nations can be placed on a pedestal. While this type of recognition is truly earned, sometimes their hardships and raw characteristics can be overlooked. Oyelowo effectively reminded the viewer that King was more than a hero- a father, a husband, a friend. This type of performance earned more recognition by the Academy than it was given.

Many people speculate that Oyelowo's Oscar snub was because of the lack of diversity among the Academy. However, national controversies were brought up in several ways during the Academy Awards. The modern-day focus on gender equality was very apparent at this year's Oscars. Support for gender equality was evident from the start at Red Carpet interviews, right through to the acceptance speeches. I noted right away that Ryan Seacrest asked celebrities "Who designed your dress?" instead of the dreaded "Who are you wearing?". Generally, the Red Carpet gets a bad rap because it focuses too much on the appearance of women instead of the quality of their work. It was nice to see celebrities respond to interviewers in more meaningful ways than stating the label on their gown. For example, when asked about her jewelry, Laura Dern discussed how her turquoise ring was chosen to support lung cancer awareness in honor of her character Bobbi in Wild. Women's equality was further addressed in Boyhood's Patricia Arquette's acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actress, saying "It is our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America". It was a nice change in this year's Academy Awards to see notable public figures in Hollywood draw further awareness to important issues.

The word "acceptance" was brought to a new light by many Academy Award winners. Along with Patricia Arquette's moving gender gap recognition, many award recipients shared their two cents on a variety of issues. When Selma won for Best Original Song, John Legend connected civil rights to the unbalanced racial demographics on incarceration in this country. The incredible J.K. Simmons encouraged viewers to call their parents to tell them you love them. Graham Moore mentioned his suicidal past, telling viewers to "stay weird, stay different". Much positive attention was brought to this year's Academy Awards because of the memorable, sincere, passionate acceptance speeches.

In that regard, 2015 was a great year at the Oscars. However, this year had the lowest viewer ratings since 2008. Initially, viewers were probably deterred due to the controversial lack of diversity. I thought there were many problems with the Oscars this year- due in part to Neil Patrick Harris' sub-par job of hosting. He had a tough act to follow, after Ellen's show involving pizza and selfies, and even the job done by Amy Poehler and Tina Fey at this year's Golden Globes.  Harris made one too many puns and unfunny jokes. He tried his best, but it takes more than a comedian to do a good job of hosting. The hosting could probably go smoother with a seasoned host, someone more familiar with working in film. I did think, though, that Harris' bit incorporating material from Birdman and Whiplash was hysterical. It will be interesting to see who the choice for host will be in 2016.

There is a large objection to the choices the Academy makes when picking film nominations. People complain that only indie films are picked, and they aren't widely seen by the public. While this may be true, the show is not about pleasing the public. This particular award show highlights true accomplishments in film in the past year. Generally, many indie films are the ones breaking the norms of the film world. They are creative and risk-taking, making them ideal for critical review. How else will the film industry continue to develop and prosper, if not for a little risk? I personally viewed all the nominees for Best Picture with the exception of The Grand Budapest Hotel, and agree that each film nominated earned its spot. The Best Picture winner, Birdman, delivered beautiful cinematography and powerful cast performances. While many films promised these characteristics, there was a uniqueness about Birdman that set it apart from the other contenders. The incorporation of Ray Carver's short story, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, showed a new way of incorporating various mediums, such as plays, into the world of cinema.

So many aspects to this year's Academy Awards can be touched upon, however these aspects stood out to me the most. I will be curious to see the direction cinema takes in the next year, leading up to the 2016 Oscars. Will changes in show direction be made? Only time will tell. Regardless of whether you thought the Academy Awards went right or wrong this year it was a memorable show. I am excited for the year of film we have ahead.