bibhabmishra

[bibhabmishra]

Steel Magnolias Women Are Interesting

Of all the many extraordinary qualities that eighties Hollywood movies pos- sess—the glorious hairstyles, their respect for power ballads, the endearing amount of confidence they had in the acting abilities of Steve Guttenberg— their depiction of women is not generally cited as being among their strengths. Eighties movies, the theory has long gone, were absolutely awful when it came to women, and no one argued this more vociferously at the time than feminist critics. “The backlash [against feminism] shaped much of Hollywood’s por- trayal of women in the eighties,” Susan Faludi writes in the 1990s Backlash, in her famous chapter looking specifically at mainstream eighties movies and how they expressed the social backlash against second-wave feminism. “Holly- wood restated and reinforced the backlash thesis: women were unhappy be- cause they were too free; their liberation had denied them marriage and moth- erhood . . . [whereas] in the 1970s, the film industry would have a brief infat- uation with the feminist cause.” Faludi is right about one thing: between the seventies and the eighties movies did change their attitude toward feminism.

In the seventies there was a slew of overtly feminist films about independent women, such as Private Benjamin, My Brilliant Career, Norma Rae, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. Marriage was shown to be a prison for women in films such as, most fa- mously, The Stepford Wives. Of course, not all movies were so charmed with feminism: in 1979’s bafflingly much-lauded Kramer vs. Kramer, feminism is portrayed as something kooky and selfish. It is explicitly blamed for the break- down of Ted (Dustin Hoffman) and Joanna’s (Meryl Streep) marriageI and, the movie insinuates, will probably result in the couple’s doe-eyed son spending the rest of his life hating women BECAUSE FEMINISM RUINS EVERYTHING. But it is fair to say that movies weren’t as explicitly interested in feminism in the eighties as they were in the seventies—with the noted and glorious excep- tion of 1980’s 9 to 5. In this still very funny film, Dolly Parton, Jane Fonda, and the glorious Lily Tomlin fight their sexist pig of a boss (Dabney Coleman) for equal pay, flexible working hours, and an in-office nursery. (Come back, Dolly, Jane, and Lily! We working women of the twenty-first century still need you!) The popular argument that the eighties were terrible for women in movies is primarily based on one ridiculously OTT and all-dominating piece of evidence: Fatal Attraction. Directed by British former adman Adrian Lyne, Fatal Attraction was so clearly designed to needle liberal women that it might well have been written by Fox News. The film’s message is that women who work and aren’t married by the decrepit age of thirty-six are pathetic, crazed with baby hunger, and deserve to be shot by good and humble housewives (I am not exagger- ating—this is literally the message of the movie). Along with S&M romcom 91/2 Weeks, which was also directed by Lyne, Fatal Attraction tends to skew all discussions about women in eighties movies, and that’s a shame. Sure, Lyne and his fantasies about how all women are masochistic bunny boilers are pretty attention-grabbing, but to let them grab all the attention is essentially doing Lyne’s work for him.II Because, contrary to what Lyne seemed to think, there is a lot more to eighties women than stalkers and masochists. There were so many interesting female film characters in the eighties, and so many great movies about women. Not all of them were explicitly feminist, but the fact that these films were made at all, with largely female casts, featuring fe- male stories, feels so feminist compared with today’s movies they make An- drea Dworkin look a bit watered down. So much so, in fact, that feminist critics—ones who grew up reading Faludi—now look back to the eighties as the last high point for women in movies: “The status of women in movies has gotten worse since the 1980s,” wrote journalist Amanda Hess, in a 2014 dis- cussion of Backlash and eighties films. “Just look at 1983, for example. I don’t know what was going on but you had Yentl, Terms of Endearment, and Silkwood—all big films for women. Then there were movies like Frances, Places in the Heart, Gorillas in the Mist. . . . But now, well, we know what’s happened now,” says film writer Melissa Silverstein. This is all true, and it is dismayingly impossible to imagine these films being made now. But let’s not underestimate perhaps an even more main- stream depiction of women in eighties movies, and one that is equally difficult to envisage existing today: the classic women’s movies. Most people know about the Bechdel Test, which was coined by the car- toonist Alison Bechdel to ascertain how well represented women are in a film by posing the following rubric:  1. It has to have at least two women in it . . . 2. Who talk to each other . . . 3. About something besides a man.  Well, I’d like to coin the Magnolia Test, named for a movie that is partic- ularly close to my heart, which judges whether or not a movie is a proper wom- en’s movie:  1. The cast is largely, maybe even solely female . . . 2. The female characters talk to each other about a million things other than men and genuinely like each other . . . 3. And the relationship between the women is far more important than any they have with a man . . . 4. Bonus points if any of the following are in the film: Shirley MacLaine, Dolly Parton, Bette Midler, Olympia Dukakis. Triple for Sally Field.  In an ideal world, these films would just be known as “movies,” as opposed to “women’s movies.” But as the ongoing success of Michael Bay proves, we do not live in an ideal world. And so, for too long, when it comes to leading roles in movies, women have been seen as the exception rather than the norm. Movies that focus on women’s stories are—now more than ever—dismissed as “niche,” even though women make up more than half the human race and (arguably more to the point) cinema audiences. So the gendering is, gratingly, necessary, just as, apparently, Michael Bay is to Hollywood’s current financial success. Some people snark about women’s movies and dismiss them as “domes- tic,” as though that were a negative thing. Home is a place most of us know and to write off “domestic” as an embarrassment is to dismiss the lives that millions and millions of women lead as worthless. I’ve also heard complaints that whereas men get action movies and westerns, women “only” get domestic dramas and big ol’ weepies. Well, if I want to see movies set in jungles or outer space, I will, and thanks to eighties movies I can see those movies starring kick-ass women in the form of, respectively, Romancing the Stone and Aliens. What I love about classic women’s movies is that they tell women that their daily lives are interesting. Westerns and action movies and other genres con- sidered to be the area of menfolk do not, because they do not depict lives led by most men, although heaven knows there are plenty of other movies out there that depict nothing but the daily lives of men. Women’s movies show women living normal daily lives—raising their children, dealing with breast cancer, laughing with their friends, contending with unfaithful husbands, fight- ing sexist bosses: in other words, things that women around the world deal with every day. These movies also respect the value of women’s emotional lives and show women talking to each other about things other than men. Men see this about themselves in pretty much any other movie. Women? Not so much. In wom- en’s movies, women exist in their own right, not as appendages, not as lonely spinsters, or idealized quarries, or someone’s wife or someone’s mother, but as funny, sad, angry, kind, supportive, independent human beings—and how many movies can claim that? So yeah, sure, men have their westerns and their stoicism and tumbleweed. But women get to bond over cheesecake with Dolly Parton. If men make sneering comments about women’s films, it’s because they’re jealous, and I really can’t blame them. 9 to 5 amply passes the Magnolia Test, as do those ne plus ultra eighties women’s movies, Terms of Endearment and Beaches, two of the most classic women’s weepies of all time. These movies starred women, were made for women, told distinctly women’s stories involving breast cancer, straying hus- bands, and motherhood, and the few men on-screen are repeatedly shown to be a disappointment, whereas the women are there for one another until death. Beaches comes with the obvious added bonus of being the last film to provide truly great hairbrush-microphone-in-front-of-the-mirror singing, thanks to Bette Midler’s irresistible soundtrack, a quality frustratingly lacking from movies today, and it serves as some distraction from Barbara Hershey’s lips seemingly inflating and deflating during the film. Terms of Endearment is probably not a film you’ve seen recently, but you should—it is as delightful as you’d expect a movie to be featuring Shirley MacLaine as a crotchety busybody and Jack Nicholson as her astronaut (!) lover. But the real heart of the film is the rela- tionship between MacLaine and her charmingly daffy daughter (Debra Winger), who, while married to one useless man (Jeff Daniels) and being wooed by an- other (John Lithgow), develops breast cancer. These two films are both sad but, like the best weepies, they are also very funny, and this brings me to a quick defense of women’s weepies. American feminist film critic Mollie Haskell, writing a decade before the eighties, was very dismissive of women’s movies and, in particular, women’s weepies in her classic text From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies:III “The woman’s film,” she writes, “fills a masturbatory need, it is soft-core emotional porn for the frustrated housewife. The weepies are found- ed on a mock-Aristotelian and politically conservative aesthetic whereby women spectators are moved, not by pity and fear but by self-pity and tears to accept, rather than reject, their lot. That there should be a need and an audi- ence for such an opiate suggests an unholy amount of real misery.”

[bibhabmishra]

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off The Impact of Social Class

The eighties, goes the general thinking, was the decade of venality. No one in America—heck, in the WORLD—had been interested in making money before the 1980s came along and corrupted us all. It was, apparently, the era in which everyone walked around in gold lamé and regarded Ivana Trump as the last word in understated chic. Seriously, you couldn’t take the dog for a walk in the eighties without tripping over a giant Versace gold logo. And a pair of giant shoulder pads. And a massive pile of cocaine. And cocaine plays absolute HAVOC with one’s Armani stilettos. Maybe it was—far be it from me to cast aspersions on lazy descriptions of an era—but a little-remarked-upon truth is that this is not, in fact, the mentality depicted in many mainstream eighties movies. Many Hollywood movies ar- gued for, if not actual class warfare, then certainly a suspicion of wealth. Re- peatedly, wealthy people are depicted as disgusting, shallow, and even mur- derous, while working-class people are noble and good-intentioned, such as in not exactly niche films like Wall Street,I Beverly Hills Cop, Ruthless People, Rais- ing Arizona, and Overboard.

Contrast this with today’s films like Iron Man, in which the billionaire is the superhero (and is inspired by actual billionaire Elon Musk), and the deeply, deeply weird The Dark Knight Rises, in which the villain advocates the redistribution of wealth—HE MUST BE DESTROYED. But the eighties films that were the most interested in issues of class were, of all things, the teen films. The motivating force of almost every single classic eighties teen film was not, in fact, selling soundtracks, watching an eighteen-year-old Tom Cruise try to get laid, or seeing what ridiculous hairdo Nicolas Cage would sport this time round. It was social class. There’s The Karate Kid, in which the son of a single mother unsuccessfully tries to hide his poverty from the cool kids at school who make fun of his mother’s car; Dirty Dancing, in which a middle- class girl dates a working-class boy, much to her liberal father’s horror; Can’t Buy Me Love, in which a school nerd gains popularity by paying for it; Valley Girl, in which an upper-middle-class girl dates a working-class boy; Say Anything, in which a privileged girl dates a lower-middle-class army brat and her father turns out to be a financial criminal; The Flamingo Kid, in which a working-class kid is dazzled by a wealthy country club and starts to break away from his blue-collar father; and all John Hughes’s teen films. Of course, issues of class can be found in the undercurrents of pretty much any American movie, from The Philadelphia Story to The Godfather. The differ- ence with eighties teen films is that they were completely overt in their treat- ment of it: class is the major motivator of plot, even if it’s easy to miss next to the pop songs and Eric Stoltz’s smile. All these films stress emphatically that the money your family has determines everything, from who your friends are, to who you date, your social standing in school, your parents’ happiness and aspirations, and your future. They, to varying degrees, rage against the failure of the American Dream. They stress that true class mobility is pretty much impossible, and certainly interclass friendships and romances are unlikely, for the simple reason that rich people are assholes and lower-middle-class and working-class people are good. Which was unfortunate because according to the vast majority of eighties teen movies, the only way a teenager could truly move up out of their socioeconomic group was if they dated someone wealth- ier than them, Cinderella-style. The one exception to this rule is Back to the Future, which definitely does

not rage against the American system; instead, it concludes that, yes, money does buy happiness and that’s just great. When Marty returns from 1955 to 1985, he realizes that he has inadvertently changed history so that now his par- ents, formerly poor and therefore miserable and barely on speaking terms, are now rich and therefore happy and cheerfully smack each other’s backsides: “I remember how upset Crispin [Glover, who played George McFly] and Eric [Stoltz, who was originally cast as Marty] were about the ending of Back to the Future: now that they have money they’re happy,” recalls Lea Thompson, who played Lorraine Baines McFly. “They thought it was really outrageous. It went right over my head, of course. Maybe because I was poor and when I got wealthy I was happy!” This is indeed a subject that still riles Glover enor- mously. For decades he has spoken out against what he describes as “corpo- rate movies”—that is, studio movies—that peddle “propaganda” and he is cur- rently writing a book on the subject addressing, he says, “the Back to the Future issue in great detail.” “The main idea was that the family was in love and I felt that if there was any indication that money equals happiness, that was a bad message to put out,” he says, the exasperation still palpable in his voice thirty years on. “I was not given the screenplay before we shot the film because Universal and Spielberg were at the time making it apparent that they needed to keep their movie under wraps. Which I understand but as an actor you have to investigate the psy- chology of the character, and you can’t do that until you’ve read it. Now I would be very insistent [about reading a script before committing to a film], but I was twenty years old at the time and it was a Universal movie; of course I was glad to be in it. So I wasn’t given the opportunity to read it before I was hired and so it was fair for me to be asking these questions but they did not think it was fair. When you raise questions people say ‘You’re crazy, you’re weird,’ because you’re questioning the authority that people have been brought up to think is the only correct way to think, when there are many correct ways to think.” Ultimately, Glover says, he was so disgusted with the message of Back to the Future he refused to be in the sequel.II, III “The point [of making the McFly family wealthy] was that self-confidence and the ability to stand up for yourself are qualities that lead to success,” says Bob Gale, cowriter of Back to the Future. “So we showed George and Lorraine had an improved standard of living, we showed them loving toward each other, and we showed that George was a successful author. It was the way to show the audience that George had indeed become a better man. And, of course, in the beginning, we depicted George as a loser, Lorraine as a drunk, with a ter- rible car and a house full of mismatched and worn-out furnishings.” Back to the Future is such a charming film that it’s easy to be swept along by it and not notice this equation of lower-middle-class status with being a “loser.” But it does echo precisely the same message that other eighties teen films sent: the class you are born into dictates every aspect of your life. “Class has always been the central story in America, not race—class,” says Eleanor Bergstein, the writer and producer of Dirty Dancing. “And when you’re a teenager you really start to notice this.” And there was no teen filmmaker who felt this as deeply as Hughes. David Thomson complains in his majestic Biographical Dictionary of Film that in Hughes’s teen films “the fidelity of observation, the wit and the tender- ness for kids never quite transcend the general air of problem solving and putting on a piously cheerful face. No one has yet dared in America to portray the boredom or hopelessness of many teenage lives—think of Mike Leigh’s pictures to see what could be done.” The first thing to say is that to complain that John Hughes isn’t enough like Mike Leigh is like getting annoyed that a chocolate cookie is not trying hard enough if it’s not a roast chicken. But it isn’t fair to dismiss Hughes’s movies as devoid of “hopelessness” since his repeated depiction of class issues in his films definitely shows the “hopelessness” in these American teenagers’ lives. Pretty in Pink (lower- middle-class girl falls for wealthy boy) and Some Kind of Wonderful (lower- middle-class boy falls for lower-middle-class girl who has gained acceptance among the rich kids through her looks) are the most obvious examples of Hughes’s teen films that were obsessed with class injustice and how difficult it is for kids from different classes to connect (Hughes, despite his inherently romantic nature, apparently thought they couldn’t, really). But it’s there in all his teen films, including Sixteen Candles (Jake’s house is notably bigger and flashier than Samantha’s) and The Breakfast Club (Bender’s somewhat implau- sible-sound-ing home lifeIV is compared to pampered Claire’s world, in which she can give out diamond earrings on a whim). But the film that really empha- sizes how unfair he thought the system is is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. There are many reasons to love Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and I’ve gone through all of them. As I said in the introduction, this was the first what I called REAL MOVIE (that is, neither animated nor a musical) I was allowed to see and it instantly became my first love and Ferris my first crush. It represented every- thing to me, everything I wasn’t and didn’t have and wanted: teenagehood, freedom, coolness, sexiness. Every day after school, for a whole year, I would come home, go straight to the TV room, carefully close the door to keep out my dorky parents and Jeanie-ish younger sister, and watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Every. Single. Day. I carefully transcribed the script into my diary, which I still have, and at some point I decided my sister was sufficiently acceptable to allow her to reenact scenes from the movie with me, using my transcribed script. That summer, I taught my sister about making out, using the scene in which Ferris makes out with Sloane in the museum as a guide, and the two of us would duly writhe around on the living room, making out with our imag- inary boyfriends (Ferris for me, Marty McFly for her), while our parents, watch- ing from the doorway, wondered what new game their innocent little nine- and seven-year-old daughters had invented. This is perhaps the only time in my sister’s and my lives that our parents underestimated us. As a kid, I loved the film and Ferris because I thought Ferris was so cool— he was cute, he was funny, and, most thrillingly of all, he could drive a car. I fantasized about him driving me to school, holding my hand all the way. (Yes, that was my sexual fantasy. Like I said, I had a pretty sheltered childhood.) When I finally, and contrary to all my expectations, became a teenager and realized driving a car wasn’t quite as rare a skill as I’d believed as a nine- year-old, I decided that the real reason to love this film was that it was so weird. Like all of Hughes’s teen films, it has a simple premise (boy skips school and brings his best friend, Cameron, and girlfriend, Sloane, along for the ride) and takes place over a tiny period of time (like The Breakfast Club, Fer- ris Bueller’s Day Off doesn’t even cover twenty-four hours). But it is a much stranger beast than anything else Hughes ever wrote. While all Hughes’s other teen films deal with the emotional minutiae of being a teenager, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off doesn’t make even the slightest pretense to realism. The characters are all surreal exaggerations of recognizable characters—the teenager, Ferris, is just that little bit too cocky, the principal, Ed Rooney (Jeffrey Jones), is defi- nitely too demented—and the situations it depicts are, quite clearly, impos- sible.

[bibhabmishra]

Ghostbusters

I’ve read a lot of film books and they’ve taught me a few things about how film books should be written if they are to be taken seriously, and these are lessons that I feel are as useful in life:  1. Drop in random French phrases wherever possible so it looks like you’re quoting from the French film magazine Cahiers du Cinéma, because even if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, nobody will be able to tell; 2. When in doubt, start waffling on about Godard; 3. Never describe a film as your “favorite film.” This looks unprofessional and childish. Instead, claim—in ringing tones comme les écrivains de Cahiers du Cinéma—that it is the Greatest Film.  Zut alors! Malheureusement, not all the French in the world could convince any- one that I am more interested in Godard than The Goonies, so that’s a non- starter. But I shall make use of one of these handy life lessons and state that the best, most brilliant, most extraordinary, the most deftly created piece of au- teur film work of all time is Ghostbusters. For pretty much most of my life, I’d assumed that this was a fact accepted by everybody: Ghostbusters is the greatest movie ever made. Sure, people tend to say random words like “Citizen Kane!” and “Vertigo!” when asked by Cahiers du Cinéma for their favorite film.

But I thought they did this just as, when asked who they’d like to have at their dream dinner party, they say, “Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela!” as opposed to who everybody would actually like, which is, obviously, Madonna and Bill Murray. Now, one could take my massive assumption that my tastes reflect those of everyone else on the planet two ways:  1. I have an ego the size of Asia coupled with a narcissist’s complex and incipient sociopathic tendencies; 2. Ghostbusters is so good that even if it’s not everyone’s FAVORITE movie, it is probably in their top ten and so whenever I mention my love of Ghostbusters people say, “Oh yeah, everyone loves Ghostbusters.”  For the purposes of this chapter, we will go with option 2. I never thought of my Ghostbusters obsession—and it is, I fully admit, an obsession—as remarkable. If anything, I saw it as a perfectly natural response to a great work of art. Devoting an entire shelf to books and articles by or about the people involved, however tangentially, in the making of this movie? Com- mendable intellectual curiosity. Spending two hundred dollars on a book about Ghostbusters that came out the year the film was released, just because it finally explains why the character of Winston is squeezed out of the movie? Hey, that’s an investment piece! Refusing to go on a second date with someone be- cause they failed to recognize a completely random (and not, to be honest, wildly relevant) Ghostbusters quote over dinner?I Well, why waste time with losers? It wasn’t until I found myself awake at 2 a.m. at the age of thirty-three on a Tuesday scrolling through eBay in search of a rumored copy of Bill Mur- ray’s original Ghostbusters script, which obviously was not going to be on eBay, that I felt it might be time to look at what, precisely, was going on here and why, after all this time, Ghostbusters still feels so special, maybe even more spe- cial, to me. There is sentimentality, for sure, not exactly for my childhood but for the city of my childhood. Ghostbusters is as much a love letter to New York as any- thing by Woody Allen, and a less self-conscious one at that, showing New Yorkers reacting with relative normality to an invasion of the undead.II Many of the jokes in Ghostbusters stem from the idea that, ghosts aside, Manhattan it- self is an out-of-control Wild West place, a Gotham city where a man could collapse against the windows of the Tavern on the Green, the ritzy restaurant that used to be in Central Park, and the diners would simply ignore him. Trash is piled on the sidewalks and Checker cabs whizz around corners: this re- creation of New York, 1984—the New York of my childhood—is still how I think of the city, even though it has, for better or worse, changed a lot since then. Even the hilarious anachronisms give me a sentimental frisson: Louis being mocked for his love of vitamins and mineral water; Ray and Peter snarfing down cigarettes while toting nuclear reactors on their backs; Larry King in a cloud of cigarette smoke while chatting drily on the radio; the bad guy being the man from the Environmental Protection Agency. These all look particularly out of date in the Manhattan of today, and I can’t help but feel the city is a little poorer for it. But my absolute favorite New Yorky moment in the film is at the end, when a doorman brings Ecto1 round after the Ghostbusters have saved the world—or at least Central Park West—from destruction. Despite having battled a giant marshmallow man, Dan Aykroyd still has a couple of dollar bills in the pocket of his ghost uniform with which to tip the doorman. You cannot get more New York than that. But there is something else in Ghostbusters that makes me sentimental, something else that I love in it that doesn’t exist anymore. That is, its depiction of how a man should be.  •  •  •  Just in terms of sheer variety, one could do a lot worse than turn to eighties movies for lessons in how to be a man. When most people think of mas- culinity in eighties movies, they probably think of that strange genre that sprouted and bulged up in that decade like Popeye’s biceps after eating spinach, consisting of men who look like condoms stuffed with walnutsIII speaking their lines in confused accents and emphasizing random syllables, strongly suggesting they’d learned the words phonetically: Schwarzenegger, Lundgren, Stallone,IV and, toward the end of the decade, Van Damme. Chuck Norris, too, can be included here, despite his lack of walnutness, but he earns membership in this group with his similar lack of obvious acting talent and strong fondness for right-wing messages in his films.V But there is more to eighties men than that. For a start, there are the men who raise babies and children (Mr. Mom, Three Men and a Baby, Uncle Buck), which some feminist critics argued at the time was a backlash against femi- nism because the films seemed to mock the idea of feminized men. In fact, in retrospect, these films look more like movies awkwardly coming to grips with feminism (Tootsie, too, can be included here, with a man pre- tending to be a woman, and occasionally looking after a child, and becoming a better person for it). Mr. Mom (1983), in which Michael Keaton loses his job and looks after the kids while his wife works, is clearly none too sure what to make of this “feminist” thing: the movie’s message is that the swapping of traditional gender roles will probably destroy the marriage and almost certainly the house (somewhat dismayingly, the film was written by John Hughes). But by 1987, Three Men and a Baby was getting much more of a handle on things. The men (Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson) are unex- pectedly lumbered with a baby girl and, by the end of the film, very much want her to stay with them in their bachelor shag pad, even after the baby’s dippy English (foreigners—tchuh!) mother turns back up. It turns out that, unlike Mr. Mom, they are capable of looking after a baby without causing havoc to domestic appliances (men—amirite??). The men in Three Men and a Baby are

notably much less obnoxious than les mecs in the original French version, Trois Hommes et un Couffin, who have a pact never to let a woman stay more than one night in their flat and have a tendency to call the baby “a swine” when it has an accident on the sofa. Ahh, les Français—ils sont tres masculins, ooh la la!VI Which is not to say that the American version is without its anxieties. Three Men and a Baby goes to such lengths in order to reassure audiences of the übermasculinity of the three guys, despite their TERRIFYINGLY FEMINIZED baby-raising skills, that they become hilariously camp. Peak camp is reached, for me, when Selleck goes out jogging wearing little more than a tiny pair of shorts and an enormous mustache, and he picks up a sports magazine full of photos of muscled-up half-naked men. Now, if that isn’t the definition of throbbing heterosexual masculinity, I don’t know what is. Yes, the eighties were a different time and American movies in that era seemed to think that homosexual was merely Latin for “psycho killer or flouncy interior decorator.” But nonetheless, whenever I watch this movie (which is more often than I’m going to commit to print) I think it’s a shame the director (who was the late Leonard Nimoy, very pleasingly) didn’t just go with the obvi- ous option here and make the guys gay, living in a happy yuppie ménage à trois. After all, this would explain why three apparently very solvent guys in high- flying careersVII in their thirties would choose to share an apartment in mid- town Manhattan as opposed to getting their own American Psycho–style bach- elor pads. And for heaven’s sake, have you looked at that Broadway-themed mural Steve Guttenberg paints of the three of them in the atrium of their apart- ment? No amount of references from Selleck to his love of sport can obscure the fact he and his two friends are living in the campiest New York apartment north of Fourteenth Street. These guys—the actor! the architect! the car- toonist!—are basically the eighties yuppie version of the Village People. And let’s talk about that homoeroticism! Accidental homoeroticism is yet another one of the great joys of eighties movies, and it was the last decade that would be blessed with the pleasure because from the nineties onward, gay cul- ture and references would be too mainstream and recognizable to slip past studios unnoticed. The plethora of eighties buddy movies easily and frequently tip into acci- dental homoeroticism, with the female characters being explicitly excluded from pretty much the whole film and all sorts of intense emotion between the two male leads. Lethal Weapon is one example and an even more obvious one is Stakeout, in which Emilio Estevez and Richard Dreyfuss spend an entire movie living together in faux domesticity and, in the case of Estevez, voyeuris- tically spying on his male partner’s sexual encounters. The Lost Boys is the most blatantly homoerotic mainstream movie ever made for teenage boys. In this film, young Michael (charisma vortex Jason Patric) is initiated into the manly life of a new town by going into a cave with Kiefer Sutherland and his male buddies (none of whom seems the least bit interested in the fact that a half-naked Jami Gertz is wandering around drunk- enly in front of them) and drinking their body fluids. Sure, why not, right? Vam- pires are inherently homoerotic and the director Joel Schumacher (who later homoeroticized Batman—not difficult, admittedly—by sticking nipples on the batsuit) revels in the connection in this movie in a way Twilight later deter- minedly, somewhat dismayingly avoids. Michael does at some point have what looks like deeply unsatisfying sex with Jami Gertz, but the person he gazes at with the most intensity is young Jack Bauer. And I haven’t even mentioned that Michael’s little brother Sam (Corey Haim), who dresses like he’s trying out for Wham!, has a poster on the door of his closet of Rob Lowe lifting up his shirt. Because sure, why not, right?

[bibhabmishra]

The Princess Bride

It feels downright inconceivableI to devote only one chapter in a book about lessons gleaned from eighties movies to The Princess Bride. Why, just off the top of my head, while standing on my head, I can name five life lessons that this movie teaches you that you don’t learn anywhere else:  1. “Never go against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!” 2. “Love is the greatest thing—except for a nice mutton, lettuce, and toma- to sandwich when the mutton is nice and lean.” 3. “Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.” 4. Eventually, you learn not to mind the kissing parts. 5. And most important, “As you wish” = “I love you.”  Such is the depth of wisdom in this film that in 2013, twenty-six years after its release, BuzzFeed devoted a listII to the lessons gleaned from it. A BuzzFeed list! Who needs the Oscars, Princess Bride, when you have that ultimate of mod- ern-day accolades? The Princess Bride is so adored that it’s probablyIII now a clichéd response on Internet dating websites: walks on the beach, an open fire, sunsets, and The Princess Bride. And yet, despite this, love for The Princess Bride is not seen as desperately hackneyed or cheesily safe. The Princess Bride is what you’d need a prospective love interest to cite as their favorite movie for the relationship to progress,IV it’s the one film that would make you rethink a lifelong friendship if you found out your best friend “just didn’t get it”—not that they would ever say that, because I honestly don’t know a single person of my generation who isn’t obsessed with this film.

And not just my generation: in As You Wish, a very enjoyable book about the making of The Princess Bride, Cary Elwes—who played Westley the farm boy, of course—recounts being told by both Pope John Paul II and Bill Clinton how much they loved the movie, proving that The Princess Bride appeals to saints and sinners alike.V Now, having said all that, I have a confession to make. I was not the big Princess Bride fan in my family when I was growing up. That title instead went to my sister, Nell. Our mother took us to see it at the movie theater when I must have been nine and Nell was seven, and even though the film was— incredibly—something of a commercial disappointment when it came out, the cinema was absolutely packed with kids like us. In my mind, everyone in the audience was utterly in thrall to this tale of Buttercup (Robin Wright), her true love Westley (Elwes), and their battles against Prince Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon), Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), and Count Rugen (Christopher Guest), and their eventual assistance from the brave swordsman Inigo (Mandy Patinkin), the giant Fezzik (the professional wrestler known as André the Giant), and Miracle Max (Billy Crystal). Afterward, we stood in the cinema atrium as our mother bundled us back into our coats. “Did you girls like it?” she asked. Standing there in her corduroy dungarees and T-shirt, Nell looked in a state of semi-shock. “I LOVED IT. I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN RIGHT NOW!” she practically shouted. Now, The Princess Bride is wonderful, but in order to understand how unex- pected this proclamation was, you have to know a little bit about my sister. Ever since she was old enough to throw a tantrum, my sister refused to wear dresses. She never played with dolls. She refused to let my mother brush her hair and had apparently no interest in her physical appearance. She did not like mushy stories—she didn’t even like reading books. In other words, she was the complete opposite to me. How much of that was a deliberate reaction against me, a younger sibling defining herself in opposition to the older one, and how much of it was simply an innate part of Nell was already a moot point when we went to see The Princess Bride: Nell’s parameters were so firmly set by then that her nickname in our family was “the tough customer.” She would consent to drink only one kind of fruit juice (apple), and buy only one brand (Red Cheek), and only if it came out of a can (never a carton), so there was absolutely no negotiating with her about mushy princesses. Lord only knows how my mother got her to see the movie in the first place. She must have hid- den the title from her. And yet, like the grandson in the film, Kevin Arnold,VI Nell found that, against all odds, she did enjoy the story, just as Kevin’s grandfather, Columbo,VII promises. I think Nell made my mother take her to see the film at the cinema at least three more times. As she wished. When it came out on VHS, we bought it immediately and it was understood that the videocassette was officially Nell’s, just as the videocassette for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off was officially mine. When she found out that the film had originally been a book by William Goldman, who also wrote the screenplay, she asked my amazed mother to buy that, too. Nell read it over and over until the pages fell out, so she stuck them back in and then read the book again. The Princess Bride was the book that taught her to like books, as much as the movie taught her to relax some of her other rules. She developed a lifelong crush on Westley and, not long after, she started wearing dresses, too. The reasons why Nell loved this film so much exemplify, I think, why it is universally adored in a way that, say, the vaguely similar and contemporary The Never-Ending Story is not. It’s a fairy tale for those who love fairy tales, but it’s also a self-aware spoof for those who don’t; it’s an adventure film for boys and—for once—girls, too, but without pandering to or excluding either; it’s got a plot for kids, dialogue for adults, and jokes for everyone; it’s a genre film and a satire of a genre film; it’s a very funny movie in which everybody is playing it straight; it’s smart and sweet and smart about its sweetness, but also sweet about its smarts. Unlike, say, Shrek, there are no jokes here for parents that go over the kids’ heads: all generations enjoy it on exactly the same level. It’s a movie that lets people who don’t like certain things like those things, while at the same time not betraying the original fans. But most of all, The Princess Bride is about one thing in particular: “The Princess Bride is a story about love,” says Cary Elwes. “So much happens in the movie—giants, fencing, kidnapping. But it’s really a film about love.” This might seem like a statement of the obvious, but it isn’t, actually. Yes, the film is ostensibly about the great true love between Buttercup and Westley, and their most perfect kiss that leaves all the other kisses in the world behind. Both Elwes and Wright were so astonishingly beautiful when they made the film that, watching them, it’s hard to believe any love ever existed on this plan- et other than theirs. And they, rather pleasingly, were quite taken with one an- other. In his book, Elwes talks at length about how “smitten” he was with Wright, and she says precisely the same about him: “I was absolutely smitten with Cary. So obviously that helped with our onscreen chemistry. . . . It doesn’t matter how many years go by, I will love Cary forever.” Disappointingly, however, Elwes insists that they remained just friends. “Everyone asks if there was more!” he says, sounding a little exasperated, apparently unable to see what everyone else can: namely, that it seems against the laws of nature for two such beautiful people not to have had sex at least once. The last scene that Elwes shot was of him and Wright kissing on horse- back, creating “the most perfect kiss” of all time against a sunset. Surely that was romantic. “Well, not really. Robin and I were friends by that point so we kept laughing, and [the director] Rob [Reiner] was going, ‘Touch her face, touch her face!’ ” He laughs. But Westley and Buttercup’s love is only a part of the film, and only one of several love stories in the film. There is also, for a start, the great love between Inigo and Fezzik. The scene in which a drunken and broken Inigo looks up into Fezzik’s face in the Thieves Forest and Fezzik says a simple, smiling hello is much more moving than the moment when Buttercup realizes the Dread Pirate Roberts is actually Westley (not least because she’s just pushed him down a hill). Even if Inigo does become the Dread Pirate Roberts at the end of the film, as Westley suggests he should, it is as impossible to imagine him going off without Fezzik as it is to imagine Buttercup and Westley being severed. This love between the two men is at the root of one of the film’s subtlest lessons. Bad guys teach audiences how to think of opponents in life, and this is especially true of bad guys in books and films aimed at kids. Because stories for kids tend to be relatively simple, villains in these films are almost invariably evil, and that’s all there is to be said about them. Cruella de Vil, Snow White’s stepmother, the witch in Rapunzel: WHAT a bunch of moody bitches. This is also certainly true of movies for children in the 1980s, from the frankly terri- fying Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd) in Who Framed Roger Rabbit to the enjoyably evil Ursula in The Little Mermaid. It’s a pleasingly basic approach, and one that validates most kids’ (and adults’) view of the world: “I am good and anyone who thwarts me is wicked and there is no point in trying to think about things from their point of view because they have no inner life of their own beyond pure evil and a desire to impede me.” The Princess Bride, however, does something different. It’s easy to forget this once you’ve seen the movie and fallen in love with the characters but Inigo and Fezzik are, ostensibly, bad guys. When we first meet them in the movie, they knock our heroine, Buttercup, unconscious and kidnap her for Vizzini. We are also told they will kill her. Our princess! In the eyes of children, you can’t get much more evil than that. They are hired guns in the re- venge business, which is not a job for a good guy in any fairy tale. But Gold- man flips it around. We quickly see Inigo and, in particular, Fezzik being ex- tremely sweet with each other, doing their little rhymes together and trying to protect one another from Vizzini’s ire. Their love for one another shows us there is more to these villains than villainy. Goldman then ups the ante even further by having Inigo describe to the Man in Black how he has devoted his life to avenging the death of his father, thus giving him the kind of emotional backstory kids can definitely understand, as well as adding another mission to the movie. Soon after beating (but not killing) Inigo, the Man in Black fights with Fezzik, who we already know has a similarly sad past (“unemployed—IN GREENLAND”). Plenty of villains were once good before crossing to the dark side: Darth Vader, many of Batman’s nemeses, Voldemort. The point in those stories is that the difference between true evil and true greatness comes down to one wrong decision, one wrong turn, and there is no going back from that. But The Princess Bride does something more subtle: it suggests that good people some- times end up doing bad things, but are still good, have stories of their own, and are capable of love. Inigo and Fezzik both killed people in the past for Vizzini, but they’re all still good people. This is quite a message for kids (and adults) to take in: not everything is clear-cut when it comes to good and bad, even in fairy tales. In the original novel, William Goldman goes into much greater detail about Fezzik and Inigo’s friendship, and this is one of the reasons why I—in all hon- esty—pre-fer the book to the film.VIII But the film alludes to it enough in order for audiences to understand the real bond between the men, and partly this happens through the script and partly through the actors, especially one actor in particular. At one point, Arnold Schwarzenegger was considered for the role of Fezzik, but, thank heavens, he was already too expensive by the time the film finally started shooting. Where Schwarzenegger is all jarring rectangles and jut- ting jaw, André the Giant was all soft circles and goofy smiles. Where Schwarzenegger palpably punished himself to a superhuman extent to get the body he clearly wanted so badly, the man born André René Roussimoff suf- fered from gigantism due to acromegaly and had no choice about his size, just as Fezzik didn’t, much to the latter’s misery (“It’s not my fault being the big- gest and the strongest—I don’t even exercise”). It would be a patronizing cliché to say André was born to play Fezzik, but he was certainly more right for the role than Schwarzenegger. By the time he made The Princess Bride, André was seven feet, four inches and weighed more than 540 pounds. Easily the sweetest stories in Cary Elwes’s book come from the cast and crew’s memories of the wrestler, who died in 1993 at the age of forty-six, and this is not mere sentimentality. Quite a few of The Princess Bride’s cast have, sadly, since died, including Mel Smith, Peter Cook, and Peter Falk, but none of them prompts the same kind of fondness as that felt for André. “It’s safe to say that he was easily the most popular person on the movie,” Elwes writes. “Everyone just loved him.” Partly this is due to the extraordinary nature of the man. Robin Wright re- calls going out to a dinner with him where he ate “four or five entrees, three or four appetizers, a couple of baskets of bread, and then he’s like, I’m ready for seconds. And then desserts. I think he went through a case of wine and he wasn’t even tipsy.” But it was André’s innately gentle nature that made him so beloved. His “compassion and protective nature,” Elwes writes, helped Wallace Shawn over- come his almost paralyzing fear of heights when they were filming the climb up the Cliffs of Insanity. When Robin Wright felt chilly when filming outdoors, André would place one of his huge hands on top of Wright’s head. “She said it was like having a giant hot water bottle up there. It certainly did the trick; he didn’t even mess up her hair that much!” Elwes writes. When he died, William Goldman wrote his obituary in New York magazine. The last lines were as fol- lows: “André once said to Billy Crystal, ‘We do not live long, the big and the small.’ Alas.” Next, on a smaller level, is the love between Miracle Max (Crystal) and his aged wife, Valerie (Carol Kane). Initially they seem simply like a squabbling old couple, playing purely for broad comedy (and their scene is the broadest comedic one in the film). But it soon becomes clear that Valerie is needling Max only because she wants him to get back his confidence in his work after Prince Humperdinck destroyed it by sacking them, and her little cheer when her husband agrees to make a miracle for Inigo is really very touching. By the end of their scene, they’re working together, finishing one another’s sentences, holding each other arm in arm, and whispering little asides to one another. As a portrait of elderly marriage goes, this one is a pretty lovely one. Finally, there’s the great love story that frames the whole movie: the one be- tween the grandson/Kevin Arnold (Fred Savage) and the grandfather/Columbo (Peter Falk). In the beginning of the movie, the grandson is irritated by his cheek-pinching grandfather and can hardly believe that he has to stop playing his adorably primitive-looking computer baseball game to listen to grandfather read a book.IX As the film progresses, the relationship between the grandson and grandfather progresses almost like a traditional love story: the grandson slowly gets more interested, clutching his covers anxiously when Buttercup is almost eaten by the Shrieking Eels; then he gets angry, banging his bed with his fist when it seems like Westley has been killed; and finally, he comes around entirely and tells his grandfather to come back the next day to read the book again. “As you wish.” His grandfather smiles, and the film ends. “That wasn’t actu- ally in the script,” Elwes says. “They came up with him saying that on, I think, the last day, and it really captures the love between the grandfather and grand- son. You can also see the tenderness between Fred Savage and Peter Falk.”

[bibhabmishra]

Horror Movies :Poltergeist III

An adopted kid once tormented by spirits suspects the high-rise she lives in is haunted.  We’re moving from suburban horror to interior shots of a metropolis’ sky- scraper. We focus on teenagers partying to follow current genre trends. Carol Anne, who the first movies centered on, returns as an adopted child presumed mentally troubled and supervised by professionals while trying to live a normal life. The rest of the cast couldn’t make it, so this is the best the writers could do. We see more of what she sees and through her vulnerable eyes, this time around; when she’s alone, precisely. Soon, her world merges with the other dimension, creating a dense and spooky ambiance. Because the villain, the old man from the second film, uses mirrors and various reflections to manifest, and because the place is covered with them, we never feel safe from a jump scare. The limited cast and amount of sets work as an advantage. The story is simple but entertaining. Some characters have a rushed story arc and some are un- derdeveloped. They are sometimes disposed of and unexpectedly brought back, but with little impact on the plot. Or perhaps something got lost in post- production. Regardless, Poltergeist 3 is another refreshing sequel to a contem- porary classic.

[bibhabmishra]

Horror Movies :Fright Night

A teenager suspects his neighbor is a vampire.  Despite a vintage approach, this is a film of its time and is edited as such. This isn’t your typical vampire flick. The subplots that made the original good have been scrambled and restructured. Unique, visionary; this is an outstanding suburban take on Dracula and Nosferatu as much as it is a re-imagining of 1985’s film by the same name. The bare bones of this screenplay date back to Hitchcock. Directed, written, shot and lit to perfection, this is Hollywood’s successful at- tempt at rebooting a franchise that relies on one of the oldest monsters in film history. You get plenty of character exposition. The camera likes Colin Farrell’s vampire act. In fact, you get the cream of actors, here; all delivering their lines with conviction and having visibly worked on their persona. This is a horror movie that is accessible to a relatively wide audience. Like both previous entries in the franchise, it can be considered a “safe scare”: the vam- pire is a bully, looks good and has an eye on the hero’s mother; an ongoing in- side joke that doesn’t get old. There are constant twists and turns, yet no time is wasted on details. It’s comedic, sexy, tense, scary and one in its kind.

[bibhabmishra]

Horror Movies :Pet Sematary II

A man and his son move into a house located near a haunted cemetery.  There was no sign of or urgent need for a sequel to the masterpiece 1989’s Pet Sematary was. It was a self-contained but dense horror story published as a novel then adapted for the screen by Stephen King. It was directed by Mary Lambert who also tackles this one. Post-production effects aside, the film looks great and gets frightening, though it never matches the eeriness felt in the original. It has the grunge vibe of the new decade. Teen concerns and angst have re- placed family drama. The protagonists are authentic, compelling and played by familiar actors who carry a sometimes wobbly but always tense script on their shoulders. By tradition, the antagonists are downright creepy. The ambiance is thick and benefits from calculated dialog, pacing, blocking, photography and camera work. Though Pet Sematary 2 seems meant for a teen audience, it contains a

[bibhabmishra]

Horror Movies :Village of the Damned

A small town’s women give birth to hostile children with psychic abilities.

This is based on a novel and, more precisely, on a 1960 horror film by the same title. It is a faithful remake in that it hits the same notes and depicts the same events. This said, 1995’s Village of the Damned is more emotionally driv- en than its predecessor. It also feels more complete when it comes to action and gore. Furthermore, it keeps the procedural light in order to preserve the mystery. Actors Christopher Reeves, Kristie Alley and Mark Hamill are perfect for their parts. They do a convincing job with pivotal roles. John Carpenter directs, so we’re in good hands when it comes to crafting an ambiance, pacing and light- ing a scene, or for turning thriller into horror. He can capture the atmosphere of a small grieving community like no one else. The movie doesn’t rely on effects, but we do get a few and they look decent. In- stead, it focuses on drama and exposition. There is an aura of sadness, despite the supernatural threat, that is truly poignant. We care deeply for the townsfolk we learn to like, the parents and, to a degree, the miracle children as well. Vil- lage of the Damned is a slow burn with bursts of tension and a brilliant arc.

[bibhabmishra]

Movie Ace in the Hole

Ace in the Hole Also known as The Big Carnival. (1951)—Billy Wilder produced and directed this box-office failure right after Sunset Boulevard and just before Stalag 17. Some people have tried to claim some sort of satirical brilliance for it, but it’s really just nasty, in a sociologically pushy way. Kirk Douglas is the big-time New York reporter who is so opportunistic that when he gets to where a collapsed roof has buried a man in New Mexico, he arranges to have the res- cue delayed so that he can pump the story up. The trapped man dies, while Douglas keeps shouting in order that we can all see what a symptomatic, cyn- ical exploiter he is. With Jan Sterling as the trapped man’s wife, Porter Hall, Richard Benedict, Ray Teal, and Frank Cady. Script by Wilder, Lesser Samuels, and Walter Newman. Filmed on location near Gallup, New Mexico. Paramount. b & w Across the Bridge (1957)—Graham Greene’s protagonist is a crooked interna- tional financier (Rod Steiger) who runs to Mexico, and the film is one long chase after this disintegrating quarry. Ken Annakin directed this English pro- duction, photographed in Spain, which some English critics regarded as their best thriller since The Third Man. (There may not have been much compe- tition.) If the film had sustained the tension of its opening scenes the compar- ison with The Third Man might be apt, but the middle of the picture (and it’s an extended middle) falls apart. It was invented by the screenwriters, Guy Elmes and Denis Freeman, who filled out Greene’s 1938 short story. Steiger gives a dominating performance; Bill Nagy plays Scarff, whose identity the financier takes, not knowing that Scarff is a revolutionary, who is wanted in Mexico. Noel Willman is the vicious police chief; David Knight and Marla Landi are young lovers (she is beautiful, he is dreary). b & w

[bibhabmishra]

about Angel (1937)

—The only Marlene Dietrich movie directed by Ernst Lubitsch (though the year before he was the producer of Desire). One might expect them to bring out the scintillating best in each other, but the picture is too prettily contrived, and the craftsmanship is right on the surface. Dietrich plays the lonely foreign wife of an eminent English diplomat (Herbert Marshall); she skips off for a day to Paris and visits a house of assignation (euphemistically called a salon) presided over by Laura Hope Crews. There she meets Melvyn Douglas (another government official), and he falls passionately in love with her. Naturally, he turns up at her London home. This is one of Dietrich’s stiffest, most impassive performances; the role doesn’t give her anything to do but look blankly frightened that her husband will discover her guilty secret. Boredom must have set in for her, because when she has to express emotional turmoil she rattles off her lines without conviction. For want of action, the movie keeps cutting to what’s going on among the fleet of servants, which in- cludes Ernest Cossart and also Edward Everett Horton, who playacts as if to an audience of fey 3-year-olds. This movie isn’t essentially different from the best of Lubitsch, but it’s attenuated. It’s the sort of cultivated triangular love affair in which each of the three has a turn at the piano, and Marshall and Douglas, whose acting is a matter of lifted eyebrows and the smallest shifts of inflection, have the affable man-of-the-world conversations that were a feature of “pol- ished” 30s comedies. With Herbert Mundin, Ivan Lebedeff, Dennie Moore, and Herbert Evans. The screenplay is by Samson Raphaelson, from a play by Mel- chior Lengyel. Paramount. b & w

[bibhabmishra]

8 movies that really got science wrong

Science has been a dependable companion to Hollywood, giving the hereditary enchantment that breathed life into dinosaurs back, the errant medication that gave our planet to the gorillas, and the radiation that helped man become bug.

In any case, has Hollywood regarded science consequently?

In the tallness of summer blockbuster season, we asked everybody from George Church to Dr. Richard Besser to specialists went government officials to certainty check the big-screen science behind some paramount films and detail the scenes that made them squirm in the theater.

What's more, we'd prefer to give a cap tip to @TheSciBabe otherwise known as Yvette d'Entremont, a previous systematic scientific expert, for rousing this rundown. Her own pick is 2012's "The Avengers."

"Jurassic Park" (1993)

Featuring

Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum, and Laura Dern

IMDB plot rundown

During a review visit, an amusement park endures a significant force breakdown that permits its cloned dinosaur displays to go crazy.

Master truth check

One of my preferred bloopers was "Jurassic Park" utilizing "Lysine Contingency" for biocontainment. [Editor's note: Lysine Contingency was a presented hereditary change that made the dinosaurs reliant on lysine supplements from the staff so they couldn't get by outside the recreation center, as indicated by Jurassic Wiki.] But lysine is available in all nourishments on the planet.

— George Church, geneticist and manufactured scientist who instructs at Harvard Medical School and helped found the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. Among his many research activities, Church and his associates at Harvard effectively put wooly mammoth qualities into the genome of an Asian elephant.

I love the special visualizations. I went to see it with my then beau (presently spouse) on the big screen and it truly caught my creative mind. However, even in those days, I realized eradication isn't reversible!

— Dr. Reshma Kewalramani, official VP and boss medicinal official at Vertex Pharmaceuticals

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979)

Featuring

William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley

IMDB plot outline

At the point when an outsider shuttle of tremendous force is spotted moving toward Earth, Admiral James T. Kirk resumes direction of the upgraded USS Enterprise so as to capture it.

Master reality check

In the old "Star Trek" motion pictures, it used to trouble me a great deal when a character was shot with a phaser. The individual was killed down to their shoes however it left the ground underneath totally immaculate.

— Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), previous physicist

"Episode" (1995)

Featuring

Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo, and Morgan Freeman

IMDB plot synopsis

Armed force specialists battle to discover a solution for a dangerous infection spreading all through a California town that was brought to America by an African monkey.

Master certainty check

"Episode" was dreadful. How on the planet did they get enough plasma from a solitary monkey to spare a great many individuals from a destructive Ebola-like infection? How is it conceivable the first flare-up in an African town slaughtered, obviously, 100 percent of the populace, but then there were survivors when it arrived at white people in the U.S.A.? … Some fear inspired notions asserting HIV was "made in a CIA lab" refer to that film. It has demonstrated unthinkable, on account of Hollywood, to get the world to comprehend that Richard Nixon shut down the U.S. hostile bioweapons program during the 1970s, and there is no CIA bioengineering mystery lab.

— Laurie Garrett, Pulitzer-prize-winning columnist, creator of "The Coming Plague," and specialist on Steven Soderbergh's 2011 film, "Infection"

The revealed motivation for Dustin Hoffman's character in the motion picture additionally had a few musings.

In all the time I was in the Army or at CDC, we never "nuked" an African town to contain a flare-up. The monkey that carried the sickness from Africa to the U.S. was a capuchin or Cebus monkey, which is a South American animal categories. To spare a town passing on from the illness, they plasmapheresed [Editor's note: removed antibodies from the blood of] said monkey and this around 20-pound monkey yielded a unit of plasma for each inhabitant of the town — a serious accomplishment. The monkey more likely than not been drained a while later.

— Dr. C. J. Subsides, a virologist who took a shot at Ebola and other lethal pathogens at the U.S. Armed force Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and at the CDC

"Frenzy" (2018)

Featuring

Dwayne Johnson, Naomie Harris, Malin Akerman

IMDB plot rundown

At the point when three unique creatures become contaminated with a perilous pathogen, a primatologist and a geneticist collaborate to prevent them from decimating Chicago.

Master certainty check

"Frenzy" messes around with CRISPR quality altering, however makes large, George-sized errors en route. CRISPR could speculatively be utilized to attempt to give animals new highlights like wings, however you'd almost certainly need to begin with one-cell undeveloped organisms. Additionally, even in some popular, weaponized structure making an infectious quality drive, CRISPR couldn't influence the genomes of a sufficiently high level of cells to cause changes in an entire existing creature and it'd to be too moderate a procedure for Hollywood. You'd presumably get a great deal of asymmetry, as well, with the end goal that that wolf beast in the film, for example, could simply have made them wing and flew around and around, or developed that wing out of its nose or butt. An animal growing up mixes of inconsequential attributes like wings and a porcupine tail from CRISPR is much harder to clarify. At long last, the possibility of a cure or on-off switch for quality alters is less absolutely outlandish and the last is really being investigated in the lab, however most likely couldn't influence only one characteristic like hostility and wouldn't take 10 minutes.

— Paul Knoepfler, immature microorganism researchers at the University of California, Davis

Two STAT correspondents additionally went out to see the films to check whether "Frenzy" got the study of CRISPR right. Peruse our audit.

"Skyfall" (2012)

Featuring

Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, and Naomie Harris

IMDB plot rundown

Bond's dependability to M is tried when her past causes issues down the road for her. When MI6 goes under assault, 007 must find and pulverize the risk, regardless of how close to home the expense.

Master actuality check

The scoundrel in the James Bond motion picture "Skyfall" is a disenthralled previous government agent whose jaw was as far as anyone knows liquefied away by a hydrogen cyanide suicide pill turned sour. With the exception of … hydrogen cyanide is most popular as a toxic gas and hydrocyanic corrosive, from which it very well may be inferred, is less destructive than lemon juice. On the off chance that it was that destructive, it would have liquefied the container itself some time before. I was irritated to such an extent that my child later said he could never go with me to a decent government agent film again.

— Deborah Blum, chief of the Knight Science Journalism program at MIT, writer of "The Poisoner's Handbook" and the up and coming "The Poison Squad"

"Excursion to the Center of the Earth" (1959)

Featuring

James Mason, Pat Boone, Arlene Dahl

IMDB plot outline

An Edinburgh teacher and arranged partners follow an adventurer's path down a wiped out Icelandic fountain of liquid magma to the world's inside.

Master truth check

I still can't seem to experience any individual who has visited the focal point of the earth, cruised an underground ocean in a mushroom vessel, or wellbeing drifted on of magma — or all the more precisely, magma.

— Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), previous specialist

"Disease" (2011)

Featuring

Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, and Jude Law

IMDB plot rundown

Medicinal services experts, government authorities, and ordinary individuals wind up amidst an overall plague as the CDC attempts to discover a fix.

Master Fact-check

From multiple points of view it gets the science right, yet I was struck by the speed by which they made another antibody and spared the world. That is deluding. As we've seen with HIV, Ebola, Zika, jungle fever … making immunizations that are protected and compelling can take quite a while and can be slippery. The quick making of an immunization in "Infection" can add to the bogus desire for what science can do during a general wellbeing emergency.

— Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and previous acting chief (during the beginning of the H1N1 flu pandemic) of the CDC

"Prometheus" (2012)

Featuring

Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green, and Michael Fassbender

IMDB plot outline

Following hints to the starting point of humanity, a group finds a structure on a removed moon, yet they before long acknowledge they are not the only one.

Master truth check

I need to state the film that truly irritated me was "Prometheus." The cartographer gets lost promptly, and when the scholar sees an outsider creature he needs to snuggle with it. At that point the entire team just keeps on doing numbskull things to place everybody in harm's way.

[bibhabmishra]

10 Movies to Watch with Your Daughter and Teach Her She Can Change the World

These movies send motivational messages to young ladies all over the place.

With Netflix, Hulu and everything in the middle of, there's an abundance of motion pictures for families to watch with each other—yet there are a chosen few that guardians should assuredly plunk down to see with their girls.

Some are works of art and some are later, yet the one thing the 10 motion pictures on this rundown all share for all intents and purpose is that they instruct young ladies that, with steadiness and regard for both themselves as well as other people, they can change the world.

1. Moana

In addition to the fact that Moana boasts the most karaoke-commendable soundtrack, but on the other hand it's apparently one of the most women's activist Disney films in Disney history. It's the narrative of a bold 16-year-old who is acutely inquisitive about the world past the reef, much not at all like those on her island who've become careless. At the point when the island starts to gradually pass on, she heads out on an intense crucial secure her kin while wrangling mythical being Maui (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, no less) to direct her on an activity pressed journey to cross the untamed sea and return a stone he'd taken that would spare mankind. Moana offers rest from the customary Disney account in light of the fact that at its middle is a valiant lady of shading whose story has nothing to do with finding a sovereign yet, rather, a ton to do with insubordination and autonomy. It's intersectional third-wave woman's rights in a child's motion picture.

Maui and Moana Meeting

Moana

There's no sovereign or romantic tale right now—and that is reviving.

R/R

2. Marvel Woman

Lady Gadot's interpretation of Wonder Woman tells the story of Diana, an Amazonian warrior who understands her maximum capacity when she embarks to battle for what she has confidence in, notwithstanding that leaving her island is verboten. A lot to her mom's consternation, she begins preparing youthful—and she develops into the most proficient warrior of her property. In the wake of sparing a pilot who crashes close by and discovering that the outside world is racked by struggle, Diana escapes home to battle for the individuals. Persevering in her quest for harmony, she is persuaded she can discover Ares, the God of War, and spare the world. It's an engaging story of one lady's responsibility to a reason, her perseverance and her inward and external quality that, at last, changes the world.

Miracle Woman

Miracle Woman

The Amazons were genuine! Subsequent to watching this motion picture everybody feels like a superhuman.

R/R

3. Recollect the Titans

Recollect the Titans may be one of the most particularly American movies out there—it's about interracial cooperation during a period of exacerbated racial strain. What's more, it depends on the genuine story of the 1971 Virginia state football champions from T.C. Williams High School. The neighborhood educational committee had to coordinate an all-dark school with an all-white school, and the very establishment of football's convention was put to a definitive test when clogged pore mentor, Herman Boone, was contracted to lead the group. Highly contrasting colleagues much of the time conflicted in racially spurred clashes, however after thorough rushes to the Gettysburg burial ground and an inspirational discourse on regard, the group accomplishes racial amicability and, together, an undefeated season as well. Their encounters demonstrate that achievement comes when we regard each other and work together, reasonably.

Recall the Titans

Recall the Titans

Two words: Interracial cooperation.

R/R

4. Solidified

Solidified is the story of a women's activist, Anna, whose realm is caught in an unending winter when her sister, Elsa, throws a frigid spell. Anna collaborates with mountain dweller Kristoff and his reindeer to discover Elsa, break the spell and spare the realm, doing combating mysterious trolls and unforgiving conditions en route. In any case, when Elsa inadvertently freezes Anna's heart, as well, the main fix to spare her is a demonstration of genuine romance. From the outset she thinks a kiss from her smash, Prince Hans, could restore her, yet he ends up being both manipulative and deadly. In trust plot-contort design, the demonstration of adoration that at last spares Anna is bouncing before Hans' sword when he attempts to kill Elsa. Anna needn't bother with a sovereign; it's the genuine romance between sisters that spares them both and the realm.

Solidified

Solidified

This film pick is especially charming in the event that you have two young ladies.

R/R

5. Wild

This true to life experience dramatization depends on Cheryl Strayed's 2012 journal Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail. Reese Witherspoon, who plays Strayed, leaves Minneapolis, MN to climb 1,100 miles of the 2,650-mile Pacific Crest Trail on an excursion of self-revelation and mending following an ongoing separation. She has no climbing experience, so the 94-day excursion to the Bridge of the Gods on the Columbia River among Oregon and Washington is brimming with important experiences, difficulties and triumphs that both truly and genuinely fortify her. It demonstrates that a lady can make it all alone, without relying upon any other individual.

Wild

Wild

She does everything all alone.

R/R

6. Matilda

This 1996 adjustment of a Roald Dahl work is about a talented young lady compelled to endure unrefined guardians and a domineering jerk of a school head, Agatha Trunchbull. Be that as it may, Matilda Wormwood is a wonder with the intensity of supernatural power and, when she understands her forces, she guards herself and her companions from the rage of Trunchbull. Matilda's name alone is a Germanic Gothic inference of the words quality and fight, and she's evidence that "battling like a young lady" signifies battling like a virtuoso.

Matilda

Matilda

She wants to peruse, confronts menaces and can make things fly.

R/R

7. The Bad News Bears

The Bad News Bears, a 1976 American games satire film, is to a great extent about how one young lady takes a young men's baseball crew from sad to stopless. Morris Buttermaker, a profane previous small time baseball player and a heavy drinker, is placed responsible for the Bears baseball crew at the command of legal advisor councilman Bob Whitewood, who has a feud against the class for barring his possibly skilled child. Be that as it may, the Bears is made out of a lot of mavericks who can't dominate a match ... until Buttermaker enrolls pitcher Amanda Whurlitzer, who has a serious arm. Out of nowhere, the group begins turning their losing streak around and everybody understands that anything young men can do, young ladies can do as well (and frequently far superior).

The Bad News Bears

The Bad News Bears

They all ought to figure out how to "play like a young lady."

R/R

8. Rudy

Rudy is a 1993 American true to life sports film about the life of Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger, who harbors fantasies about playing football at the University of Notre Dame yet has neither the cash nor the evaluations to get in. He additionally isn't certain that he has the ability or the physical stature to play for a significant intercollegiate program in any case, after his closest companion who constantly upheld his fantasy is slaughtered in a blast at the factory where they worked, Rudy chooses to pull out all the stops. He enlists at Holy Cross College, a close by junior school, and, following two years and three dismissals, he is at last admitted to Notre Dame during his last semester of move qualification. His commitment to his fantasy at last grounds him a spot on the training squad and, later, the dress program. He's guaranteed to play in one home game his senior year to show his family he made it at the same time, after his mentor is supplanted by another one, he faces difficulties. He needs to stop however wins in any case and, at the film's end, is carted away the field on his colleagues' shoulders. Rudy shows the exercise that anybody can do anything to which they set their psyches, in any event, when it appears to be incomprehensible.

Rudy

Rudy

Sports films have such huge numbers of significant exercises.

R/R

9. The Help

The Help is a 2011 American period dramatization film adjusted from Kathryn Stockett's 2009 novel of a similar name. It's set in 1963, Jackson, MS and recounts to the tale of Aibileen Clark, an African-American house cleaner who thinks about socialite Elizabeth Leefolt's dismissed girl, Mae Mobley. Aibileen faces racial shameful acts, which she later offers with a yearning creator, Skeeter, the girl of a white family who claims a cotton ranch outside Jackson. During the social liberties development of the 1960s, Skeeter chooses to compose a book specifying the African-American house cleaners' encounters working for white families—she'd thought about what ever befallen her servant, Constantine, who helped raise her, yet she needs to procure the trust of Aibileen and different house cleaners to get the genuine story. The film is about trust among ladies who originate from very surprising foundations yet are in any case ready to encourage a fellowship and help each other make change.

The Help

The Help

Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer are strict blessed messengers.

R/R

10. Rough

Each young lady should watch the clothes to newfound wealth story of the oppressed, kind nature fighter Rocky Balboa. A common laborers Italian-American obligation authority for a credit shark in the ghettos of Philadelphia, Rocky gets an amazing chance to battle heavyweight boxing best on the planet, Apollo Creed, for $150,000. He prepares for a little while utilizing whatever he can discover—even meat remains as punching packs—until he acknowledges an idea from previous bantamweight warrior Mickey "Forceful Mick" Goldmill. Paving the way to the battle, his certainty begins to diminish, however he turns into the dark horse for whom America wants to root, and his hounded refusal to be taken out acquires him the regard of the whole field. While he doesn't really win the battle, the sportscasters call his presentation "the best display of guts and stamina throughout the entire existence of the ring." And, therefore, Rocky demonstrates that triumphant isn't all that matters—the exertion checks when one gives it their everything.

[bibhabmishra]

THE 10 BEST MOVIES

1. Moonlight

ES A romantic tale, a mother-and-child story, a tale about being shut off from the world until you understand it is extremely unlikely forward except if you go along with it. Barry Jenkins' Moonlight connects on numerous levels, but on the other hand it's a work of shocking delicacy, an image that scopes you up like a wave and drops you, tenderly, in a spot you never expected to be. Three great entertainers play a solitary character, Chiron, at different stages throughout his life—from his childhood in Miami to his adulthood as a road toughened street pharmacist—yet the image flaunts an off-the-diagrams number of wonderful supporting exhibitions as well, from any semblance of André Holland, Naomie Harris, Mahershala Ali and Janelle Monáe. Each little, wrapping subtlety includes right now.

2. Paterson

Adam Driver gives a wondrous exhibition as a transport driver exploring the avenues of Paterson, N.J. He additionally happens to be named Paterson, and in the extra bits of his day, he composes verse. Executive Jim Jarmusch has composed an adoration letter to our stirred up, stunning American urban areas, and he shows how the things we do in our extra opportunity can arrive to characterize what our identity is.

3. Loving

Servitude was nullified in the U.S. in 1865, however as of late as 1967 it was as yet illicit in certain states for interracial couples to wed. Jeff Nichols' film recounts to the narrative of Richard and Mildred Loving (played by Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga), a white man and a lady of shading who battled the antimiscegenation laws in their home state, Virginia, and won. Nichols' flawlessly controlled methodology causes the Lovings' story to feel quick and essential. It's likewise an update that change regularly occurs in the edges.

4. Elle

Paul Verhoeven can't let it be—which is one explanation, regardless of whether you love him or loathe him, to focus. Isabelle Huppert, in the entirety of her harvest time magnificence, stars as a privileged Parisian who's assaulted and assaulted in her home and lives to tell the story. The image is a minefield of complex sexual governmental issues, and Verhoeven and his star creep to the edge of the limits of good taste (and possibly past) in their investigation of the wild mysteriousness of ladies' sexual want. This is one of the boldest, most testing films of the year—and, when you wouldn't dare hoping anymore, of the most interesting.

5. Loving

Adjusted from Shusaku Endo's epic, Martin Scorsese's Silence is a grave, beautiful motion picture about the idea of confidence and the significance of God. That is a great deal to handle, however on the off chance that anybody can deal with it, Scorsese can. Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver give finely created, exceptional exhibitions as seventeenth century Portuguese Jesuits who travel to Japan to spread Christianity. Their story, as Scorsese tells it, is reflective and melancholic, an intricately lit up supplication book of ruthless excellence.

6. Manchester by the Sea

Casey Affleck stars as a disenchanted, lamenting maverick who out of nowhere ends up endowed with the consideration of his high school nephew. That is the "what occurs" of Kenneth Lonergan's Manchester by the Sea, however the film's tough, unobtrusive enchantment lies in the "how"— the way Lonergan and his entertainers catch the manner in which individuals talk, and what they care about, in a way so itemized, it's practically Dickensian. Like the entirety of Lonergan's motion pictures, this one permits you to live with characters until they feel like individuals you know. In some cases they're individuals you don't care for without question. In any case, by one way or another, before the end, they're your kin.

7. Tower

Keith Maitland's true to life record of the Aug. 1, 1966, University of Texas shootings, in which 16 individuals were executed by a shooter roosted in a clock tower, is not normal for some other narrative at any point made. Maitland consolidates documented film, observer declaration and liveliness to striking and alarming impact. However, the image is significant for another explanation: What does it intend to have a more odd hazard their life to spare yours? Tower brings that feeling home.

8. La La Land

A few days, this world simply doesn't appear to be sufficiently large or liberal enough for a cutting edge melodic. Yet, with La Land, Damien Chazelle has cut space for one, and the world is better for it. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling play singing, moving sweethearts with all of Los Angeles as their dream play area. Nothing turns out precisely as they plan, yet that is the clashing appeal of this glowing, kind picture. It's a film in affection with a city and with adoration itself.

9. Everybody Wants Some!!

Richard Linklater has called this happy curve of a film—an in depth of the misfortunes of a gathering of school baseball players in the days going before the fall semester, around 1980—a "profound continuation" to his 1993 Dazed and Confused. It's that and that's only the tip of the iceberg, a friendly and light parody that catches the quintessence of a wide range of young wants, both those that are effectively recognizable and the all the more hurting, unnameable kind.

10. The Shallows

In Jaume Collet-Serra's shrewd, tense lady versus.- nature spine chiller, pro surfer Blake Lively outsmarts an extraordinary and horrendous animal of the profound. Some of the time the best motion picture joys have nothing to do with grants lure. To ruin one of Jean-Luc Godard's preferred adages: All you requirement for a motion picture is a young lady and a shark.