My Gleedictions

DO YOU LOVE GLEE??? Me either. Do you watch it religiously? Me too. So here's my gleedictions (Glee preditions) on what's gonna happen in season 3 episode 15 when the show returns after THE MOST INTENSE CLIFFHANGER EVER!!!

1. Quinn isn't gonna die, but she'll be severely injured and it's gonna make the gang question life and choices or some sappy shit like that. And Rachel will blame herself because she was texting Quinn, distracting her so that she got in the accident. She will go visit Quinn alone and LEA MICHELE WILL GET ANOTHER SOLO YAY!!!

2. Rachel is gonna throw the wedding, because it's the dumbest idea ever, and, oh, because QUINN IS SEVERELY INJURED. 

3. Sebastian is gonna transfer to McKinley High and join the New Directions so he can compete in the states competition. The gang is gonna be pissed off about it, but Mr. Schu will be like "We have to let everyone in, you guys. That's our policy. And I'm an idiot and a gigantic pussy.)

4. Rachel, Mercedes, and Santana will be pissed because Sebastian will be taking all of their solos.

5. Blaine and Sebastian are going to elope, because they're both hot and Kurt is NOT HOT.

6. Sebastian is suddenly going to disappear because Grant Gustin is going to get clubbed to death by the gleeks who love the Klaine story line. 

7. Finn is going to break up with Rachel and start dating Sugar.

8. Sam is gonna....WHAT DOES SAM EVER FUCKING DO ON THIS SHOW ANYMORE? Sorry Chord Overstreet, they probably fired you before because they didn't know what to do with you. And now that you're back they still don't know which lines to give you now that they have that Iris kid to worry about. They'll probably fire you again.

9. That Jesus kid (who apparently won the Glee Project? I don't know because I didn't watch that show) will join the New Directions. This is the dumbest gleediction ever because it's not dramatic in any way. So maybe he will get in a fight with Puck and Artie?

10. Mr. Schu will find out Mrs. Schu is pregnant RIGHT BEFORE Sue has a miscarriage, creating more drama and turning Sue against Will YET AGAIN!!!

It's plausible that none of these will actually happen. The writing staff on Glee is capable of coming up with all sorts of stupidity that exudes my expectations. And with so many insane characters, many of whom I didn't make any gleediction about, the show could really go anywhere.

I don't love to hate Glee. I genuinely wish the show were better. I think it has a lot of talents and potentials, but it fails solely because of the lazy writing. But, who cares, it's still hugely popular. Kids these days don't know what good musicals are so that they don't mind eating up this garbage. It would be nice to have a great musical TV show, but since such a thing has yet to exist, I guess having Glee around is better than nothing. 

"Les Choristes" (2004)

Wanting to improve my French and expand my movie watching experience, I decided to dedicate this entire month of March to watching French movies. And instead of browsing the Netflix catalogue and choosing the selections myself, I had asked my friends on Facebook to give me some suggestions. The first selection was suggested to me by Heather: LES CHORISTES directed by first-time director Chirstophe Barratier.

I remember when this movie came out. I meant to go see it but didn't for whatever reason. I was still in high school and it would have spoken to me then, though in a different way from what it does now. It's about a new teacher in a boarding school for troubled children, who uses choral singing as a way to inspire the kids. I had thought this kind of plot was tired. We've seen it over and over and it has become sappy rather than inspirational. But this film is so heartfelt that it convinced me. I was thoroughly entertained and moved. It helped that I used to sing in choirs when I was in high school. It made me quite nostalgic.

Aside from the music, the setting of the film makes it even more moving. The school is situated in a countryside, which enhances the sense of isolation. Despite the picturesqueness of the scenery, nobody seems to take notice of it. It goes to show that the beauty that surrounds them doesn't compensate for what these children lack. While we don't get detailed accounts on what had brought each of them to the school, there is a sense of abandonment and loneliness in all of them. And without remarking on it, the film shows in a very powerful way how healing is the music the make together.

There are people who enjoy hearing the same story over and over again. There are people who find inspiration only in something innovative. For the most part I don't care what kind of story gets told as long as it's told well. LES CHORISTES works because it doesn't rely on familiarity but, instead, on honesty.

Oh! And here's me singing in my high school choir. I'm the guy who blows the pitch pipe at the beginning of the song!

"Jane Eyre" (2011)

I have mixed feelings about this version of JANE EYRE, one of three that I have seen. I'm not one to reread his favorite books before watching the films, and so I didn't for this one. It has been years since I read this Charlotte Brontë's classic, and I was excited to sit down and let this heartbreaking love story unfold before me again.

A lot of the novel is missing here. Many story lines and important characters are omitted. Are they necessary?--that's what I'm trying to answer. I feel like my brain was doing a lot of filling in the gaps, drawing from what I remembered from reading the book. I wonder, would I have felt like the story was too thin or somewhat incomplete had I not read the book? The actors are so well cast. Jane is supposed to be plain, and Mia Wasikoska is plain here, but she makes plain interesting. Both her innocence and her idealism are believable. And who can resist Michael Fassbender? Rochester isn't supposed to be attractive. Fassbender is, but can act otherwise. Both actors look unconventional, but in the context of JANE EYRE they are captivating and compelling. It is beautifully filmed, too. I don't think it is as bold as it wants to be, but it is far from the much more mainstream version in 1996, as if its main goal is to resist being anything mainstream audiences would want it to be.

I had a great time. It captured my attention all the way through. I found it fulfilling. Is it a great film? I still can't make up my mind about that.

"The Shop Around the Corner" (1940)

It's not uncommon that people go to see romantic comedies to oohs and ahhs, to laugh and maybe cry a little when the guy finally gets the gal. But that doesn't mean there's no room for intelligence in these films. My theory isn't that the studios aren't capable of writing romcoms the way they used to, but because they don't see the need to. No matter how bad these movies are, there are still far too many people who will flock to the theater to see them. Why make the effort when it's not necessary? Well, I for one wish I lived in those days where, regardless of the genres, movies are supposed to be smart and teach you something. 

After that long rant, let me tell you that THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is one of those movies that will make you oohs and ahhs in all the right places, yet still deliver great writing and stunning performances. It stars James Stewart as a shop clerk who falls in love with a girl he hasn't met but only communicated via letters. It's no surprise that the girl turns out to be one of his co-workers, played by Margaret Sulavan, with whom he doesn't get along. Aside from these two, the film introduces us to many fanciful characters with story lines of their own. The shop itself is a character, which takes us to the fictional Budapest that is just as alive as the people in it. We know the lovers would get together in the end, but Stewart's comic talents just make the journey so much fun to watch. By the end you will have had a good time and your brain still intact. 

"The Long, Hot Summer" (1958)

What makes this movie so captivating is the way it twists the many clichés it serves us with. It has many familiar characteristics and characters--a small town, a rebel with a past, a prudish leading lady, a good-for-nothing brat, and a rich and powerful patriarch. Yet it keeps surprising us by rounding out the characters so that each resists his or her archetype and becomes sympathetic. Ben Quick, played by Paul Newman, had been kicked out of his town for allegedly burning down the barn. The rumor follows him to the new town where Will Varner, played by Orson Welles, offers him help and later, desperate to have a grandson, plots to wed him to his older daughter, who is destined to become an old maid. There are many colorful characters here, played by a great cast of actors. Joanne Woodward plays the daughter, with Anthony Franciosa as her brother and Lee Remick as his wife. Broadway legend Angela Lansbury plays a feisty lady who can’t wait to get Varner to marry her. The movie offers the kind of familiarities that make us like comfort food, but at the same time delights us with fresh, lively writing and performances. THE LONG, HOT SUMMER is directed by Martin Ritt and based on short stories and a novel by William Faulkner. 

"Adaptation" (2002)

What a trip this movie is. And what a great performance by Nicholas Cage. He plays two characters, one a struggling screenwriter and another his twin brother, a good-for-nothing who is apparently an up-and-coming screenwriter. At the start of the movie, both brothers are losers, but Cage beautifully shows us that there can be more than one way to portray a loser while making them both heartfelt and sympathetic. Not once did I get confused about who is who, even though both characters look very much the same. Meryl Streep also gives a moving and brave performance--what else could you have expected from her?--as a successful but unhappy writer who falls in love with an eccentric orchid thief, played by Chris Cooper. But the merits of this film go beyond great acting. The script by Charlie (and Donald) Kaufman is both surprising and captivating from beginning to end. This film has been on my Netflix queue for years. I remember it being suggested to me after I gave BEING JOHN MALKOVICH 5 stars. Well, I’m also giving Spike Jonze’s ADAPTATION five stars, because isn’t just a great movie but also very inspiring. 

"The Lady Eve" (1941)

Henry Fonda is handsome and adorable as Charles, a clumsy and gullible ophiologist who fall in love with Jean, a conniving gold-digger played by Barbara Stanwyck. A series of deceits follow as the two learn more about each other. THE LADY EVE is a charming comedy directed by Preston Sturges. I always have a hard time with stories where people fall in love too quickly, even in something like Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet." But this film goes on to show a some what realistic consequences of what happens when you lose your head and give your heart away too soon. After the whirlwind affair ends, you may not even recognize the person when you meet again. The writing is thoroughly entertaining and full of great comedic scenes.The use of disguise as a plot device reminisces Shakespeare quite a bit. What I like the most about the film is Fonda's performance. He trips and falls and bumps into things constantly, and does it all so naturally. Stanwyck does what she's supposed to do, though I find her performance average and lacking charms. If you're looking for a classic comedy, this is a good choice.