"Even when it's bad (film), it's good (film)."

The world of unemployment and job-hunting has left me with way too much time on my hands. I find myself fluent in cat, taking my time to match my socks, and revisit many films (especially those that make you question whether or not you are a true masochist for enduring them).  Sitting through a bad film (especially one you paid an arm and a leg for to see in theatres) is frustrating.  Even though the investment of time was small, you can’t get it back. What only exacerbates the situation is if you take a date with you and they subtweet about the uncultured swine (YOU) that dragged them to see The Hangover Part III.  

(Small anecdote, I did go see that on a date, but got IHOP after which balanced things out).

A couple weeks back, I rewatched American Hustle (which I had picked for a date when it first came out, because it was Oscar Season and I really liked Bradley Cooper’s hair in the film) because I could not stop raving about how bad it was to my boyfriend (and he kept asking “why should I see it then if it’s so bad?”).  So, we watched it, laughed at the science oven lighting on fire, and went on with our lives.  So, I started to wonder, why do we watch bad movies?

Actual pic of me reacting to Christian Bale's hairpiece

Why do we knowingly put ourselves through watching them? Is it because we like to critique them over how awful they were, and pull them apart and piece them back together in our own imagination?  Because, let’s be real.  Anyone and everyone who has sat through Baz Luhrmann's Gatsby has wanted to do their own remake.  But I'll muse about that another day.

Or is it because it’s a coping mechanism, like eating a tub of Ben & Jerry’s, or running seven miles after a bad day. You can sit back, point at the screen, and say “well at least I didn't make THAT.” Or, are some movies so bad we declare that they are good simply because of Uses and Gratifications theory, which states that as long as a certain media fulfills a need, they have a satisfactory impact.  Entertainment in several forms can do this, and mindless films can fill the niche of unwinding after a long day, or satisfy an audience we didn't even know existed.  Sharknado, anyone?

Part of watching and trying to appreciate bad movies also comes from studying films and trying to become a better filmmaker. “Films of questionable quality, on the other hand, usually make it incredibly easy to pick apart the individual elements and determine what is and isn't working” writes Robert Hardy. “More importantly, these films make it easier to understand why those specific elements aren't working within the larger context of the film.” Instead of always focusing on well-crafted cinematography, onscreen chemistry, and the way a soundtrack reflects the narrative in, say, The Godfather, it is important to be critical of bad films and think about what you can do as a filmmaker in order to improve.

Maybe there is a subconscious anatomy to film that we are so aware of, that watching a bad film fascinates us, whether it is from bad acting to a nonlinear plot-line.  Even though some bad movies make us turn off our minds, we also turn them on to see other sides never before considered.  

People who will put themselves through bad movies need to have a good sense of humor and an overall appreciation for film. Those who only like the biggest Hollywood blockbusters are undeserving of a bad movie. Paradoxical yet incredibly true. We need bad movies not to set a standard as filmmakers and filmgoers, but we also need to feel superior to what we are watching.

Here are some movies that are so bad but somehow still deserve a rewatch every now and again.

AMERICAN HUSTLE.  Yes, it was a total wash at the Academy Awards after receiving ten (ONLY. TEN.) nominations and winning none.  And it left people leaving the theater unsure of how to tell their date that the two hours they sat through was absolute crap.  The plot was confusing, Christian Bale’s comb-over didn’t get a proper end credit and not even the Robert De Niro cameo could lift my spirits. When brought up in casual conversation, everyone would wince and avoid saying how much they hated it because of the high anticipation it received.  However, I’ve argued that the film is not so bad if broken down and looked at wholistically at an aesthetic level.

Its saving grace? When you break down the movie scene by scene it's not awful. The  vignettes and banter always pull me back with the banter and improv dialogue. I loved every minute between Bradley Cooper and Louis C.K. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence is hysterical and the soundtrack is pretty amazing.  Who DOES start a song like that, Duke Ellington?

ROMEO + JULIET. Throwback to high school English class when the VHS player didn’t work so instead of Zeffirelli's masterpiece, you had to suffer through this version on DVD since that wasn’t outdated yet.  My condolences because you missed out on a beautifully adapted Shakespeare tragedy. There are ways to make modernized versions of classics, but the way Baz Luhrmann went about this particular play (Shakespearean tragedy, no less) was awful. I don't want to go into the costumes, the fool of Mercutio that was made (a plague o' all your films, Baz), or the gunfight that happened on Venice Beach. I cried at the end only because the credits were rolling and the film was over.

Its saving grace? Not for nothing, Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio shine as the titular leads. They bring Shakespeare's words to life with such an eloquence. Their performances alone make you forget about the Venice beach setting and the rave Romeo and his friends crash to meet Juliet in the first place.

NATIONAL TREASURE (both of them).  First, I think that the correct pronunciation of treasure would be “tray-sure” as far as Nic Cage is concerned.  Second, his melodramatic personality lends itself to this film, but not enough.  Did anyone else get lost in the second him by the way that proved Nic Cages family didn't help kill Lincoln? I got a 4 on the AP US History exam and I still don't understand the connection. I would also like to add that I am still waiting for the next film so I can find out what's on page 47 of the President’s secret book.

Totally unreal pic bc he's not melodramatic enough here for National Treasure.

Its saving grace? There is no denying that the film pulls at your curiosity with all the possibilities of an undiscovered treasure out there.  Disney did a solid job in making a live action film of the genre, but it's no Indiana Jones by any means. If I find it, I’m definitely using the money for grad school. Shout-out to Riley (Justin Bartha) who has given me aspirations to open up a jam and jelly shop, calling it the “Preservation Room.”

THE GREAT GATSBY.  There are so many arguments for why this movie is so bad.  However, there are so many arguments for why it's so good and worth another watch. When I originally reviewed the movie, I was unsure of what to make of it. The soundtrack in particular threw me off since I was hoping for music that was more aligned with how The Aviator sounded, but I guess that's what you get when Jay Z is your music producer.

Its saving grace? Once again, Leo makes us not hate the movie, along with the rest of the cast.  Pretty spot-on representation of what I would hope for in a Gatsby adaptation.  There is also so much going on in the party scenes, along with the grandeur all the homes in East and West Egg have.  The soundtrack does give jazz a modernized spin; I particularly appreciated the 1920esque Crazy in Love track.

I'll end with this regarding Gatsby: when the film came out I grabbed coffee with a couple film buffs and we all commiserated about how much we didn't like the remake (have I mentioned that I hate him as a filmmaker?) One of my friends, however, posed this question: if there was no source material, how bad would the film really have been? Just some food for thought.

Mad Men: "a moment before you need more happiness"

Even though it has been more than a year, I am still mourning the end of probably the smartest show television will ever see, Mad Men. Anyone who has indulged in this show can understand and empathize with my grief.  Those who have not, well, you are missing out.  What was originally just a series I thought I could get into in order to better understand the anatomy of a television show as opposed to film turned into a passion for good story-telling, along with the paradoxical disappointment that there will never be another show I love as much as this.

Actual pic of me trying to cope with no more Mad Men.

Like many addicts (I shamelessly binge-watched the series twice already) I constantly search for a new media high to keep myself entertained.  The 1960s aesthetic is a new-found favorite of mine, thanks to Mad Men. For those of you who are searching (or may want to dip your toe into the cultural ocean of the revolutionary 60s), here are some TV shows and films that can fill the void of Matthew Wiener's brain child.  

I am Don Draper at the movies.

11/22/63.  The Hulu original series (along with the well-detailed novel by Stephen King) is no Mad Men, but its aesthetic, soundtrack, and costume choice are right on the money. High school teacher Jake Epping (James Franco) is transported back in time through a rabbit hole in his local diner to September 9, 1958. His mission is preventing the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (hence, the title of the book as the date he gets shot). However, he must establish a life for the five years, all while remaining undercover. During this time, he falls in love, tries to change the past for others, and learns how certain things are meant to be. The historical events that occur in the TV series do coincide with the history mentioned on Mad Men. This series is a must-see for anyone interested in time travel, the John Kennedy assassination and James Franco.

Revolutionary Road.  The beautifully tragic film (and book by Richard Yates) follow Frank and Alice Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, respectively), as they experience the pressures of Connecticut suburban life in the 1950s. Their roles are similar to Don and Betty Draper, as the men take the train to work in Manhattan all day and have shameless affairs, while their blonde housewives tend to the homes during the day, longing for more. The impulsive decision of moving to Paris rocks their relationship for the worse, as they try to maintain their suburban family image, while starting anew elsewhere. The book and film are not for the light of heart, but the maintenance of the perfect family facade is a common theme throughout Revolutionary Road and Mad Men.

John Cheever’s short stories.  The American novelist and short story writer was known for his tales of suburban Westchester and the bustling world of Manhattan. His stories are a great pairing to Yate's Revolutionary Road. Cheever himself led a tortured double life similar to Don Draper filled with drinking and marital issues. The Ovid of Ossining was a master of the shorter narrative, and some of his best stories were "The Enormous Radio", "The Swimmer" and "The Five Forty-Eight". Matthew Weiner in fact made it a point to read one alloud to his writer’s room at the start of every season in order to create the tone he wanted the season to have.  

The Apartment. This 1959 film was a major office aesthetic influence for Wiener. Director Billy Wilder (the man who also gave us The Seven Year Itch) wove a tale that could definitely have been a major subplot in Mad Men. C. C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) allows executives at the insurance company he works for use his apartment for their own extramarital affairs. However, his own social agenda gets thrown into the mix when he falls for Fran (Shirley MacLaine), one of the building's elevator operators. Now, it's a matter of fighting for a promotion (or just keeping his job) and winning the girl. Of course, chaos ensues with comedy throughout. Some may even consider the film as tender. It won the Best Picture Academy Award, and the cavalier vibe executives have in this film are reflective to those at Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce.

I make this face whenever I grab my laptop and cardigan to find someplace in a crowded Strarbucks to job-hunt.

North by Northwest. Once again, the era's aesthetics are on point here. Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint could easily be mistaken for Don and Betty (I guess blondes and businessmen were a major thing back then?). Grant stars as an ad executive Roger Thornhill, who gets mistaken for a government agent. Along the way, he falls for counterspy Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint), gets chased down by airplanes, and climbs Mount Rushmore in the suspsenseful penultimate scene. The costumes and makeup are on point with the late 1950s/early 60s look, and the suits Grant wears could also belong to Draper. Overall, North by Northwest is definitely worth checking out, Mad Men aficionado or not. This film is regarded as one of the best Alfred Hitchcock films, along with films of all time.

Betty and Don? Look again...

Inside Llewyn Davis. No, I agree. I wouldn't make the immediate connection of Mad Men to this film, either. But the connection comes from the emergence of the counterculture, which is what the underlying tones of Mad Men showed from day one. Remember Don's hippie/struggling artist girlfriend Midge? How about later in the series where Roger's daughter leaves her life behind to join a hippie commune? The 2014 film follows Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) was inspired by musician Dave Van Ronk who was a major figure in the American Folk revival movement in 1960s Greenwich Village. The film was nominated by the Academy for Best Sound Mixing, as all the music in the film was recorded live. This is less of a head-on look at the world of Mad Men, but the subculture becomes more important as the series goes forward, especially to the last two seasons the come out of the 1960s and into the 70s.

I make this face whenever I think about paying my college tuition and providing for my cat.