For Smurf's Sake: Children's Films and the Lowest Common Denominator

This weekend, the utterly unnecessary "The Smurfs (in 3-D for more money)" opened nationwide, much to the delight of little (age, not size), uninformed children and much to the chagrin of very large (statistically speaking), uninformed adults. Anyone who barely knows me is aware of my negative feelings towards the film industry in America. It is a shallow wasteland of marketing-at-its-best and creativity-at-its-not actually existing at all. True, there are of course exceptions to the rule, and in many ways, the more constructs Hollywood puts up to true creativity, the more experimental and creative one must get to make something actually good, which can lead to some truly amazing movies.

Denzel Washington cries over the lack of ideas...

This is a reason why judging a cinematic era cannot be done by looking at the (critically) best movies of the time. A terrible overall era can produce amazing works of art. Rather, the general trends of the era must be examined, and based on this qualifier, Hollywood sucks. I realize the end of that last sentence wasn't very flowery or even well written, but I don't care. It is a simple idea that should be put simply. The film industry in America today totally sucks it.

Ironically, this picture has been optioned for a film version

That being said, children/family movies seem to be the most fascinating example of this divide between quality and crap. The past decade has seen the rise of Pixar (beginning in the late 90s with Toy Story and A Bug's Life), ushering in an entirely new era of animation that, on the surface, may appear to be about incredible computer-generated graphics, is in actuality a pinnacle of story-telling appealing to all ages, to both the mind and the soul, both in beauty and intelligence.

Oh, and that other company that exists

Then, you have the crap-end of the spectrum, with pre-digested drivel in the form of Yogi Bear, The Smurfs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and all related sequels/squeakquels. These most often come in the form of pre-existing properties being "updated" with new computerized digital effects and splashes of pop culture references, both coming across as desperate attempts to seem current and relevant. The effect, however, makes the films seem dated and disposable, with no need for return visits or deeper insight.

Capri-Sun Grows Up

To be perfectly honest, I don't see a need to belabor this point anymore. None of what I just said is at all revolutionary or even unnoticed to the masses of individuals (especially the smart, beautiful, and endlessly amazing people who read this blog...). What I DO want to belabor (the shit out of) is the idea that this is not simply an epidemic related to slocking out merchandizing machines in the guise of 'movies' aimed at children, but a stepping-stone to the larger culturization and indoctrination of filmmakers towards teaching viewers about the purpose and merits of movies. To put it succinctly, simple children's movies lead to simple movies in general.

Only posting because it is cute, from a great movie, and came up in my image search"

To say that there is nothing wrong with giving young children pure entertainment slop with no deeper meaning or resonance is a disrepectful and misguided stance on the mental capacities of young ones. The concept of these films being "childish fun" is extremely short-sighted, as countless authors in both child development and media studies will attribute to the normalizing effects of media on people of all ages, children most definitely included. In fact, children are much more susceptible to finding behavior/ideas in the media normative due to a lack of critical reasoning. Children who have not reached the crucial stage of "Those big 'adult' people may actually be wrong about stuff" will take the ideas they see as normal, especially with repeated exposure. Sure, parents can warn or explain more to their children, but the reinforcement from several media (which kids are more and more attached to) leads to normalization.

Not exactly what I had in mind

I am not talking about the "Kids seeing violent images makes them commit violent acts" argument news and talk shows like to promote when they have nothing better to do. In fact, I generally disagree with this, as violence in these forms as to come in context. The context is what I am most worried about, and the context for this terrible children films is 'there is no context.' Everything is just there for fun and marketing's sake. Are their lessons to be found? Sure, but only the most banal of kinds, and they are usually not well-developed, thrown in at the last moment as a faux-version of closure.

Why does this image exist, besides to (literally) illustrate my point?

Let's put it this way: all media forms inform/educate the recipient, whether consciously or unconsciously. This does not mean they have a specific message that they are brainwashing into a child (or adult's) head. This is the mistake most people make about media messages. Whenever a news pundit spews something along the lines of "This video game/movie/TV show/breakfast cereal encourages children to kill hookers," they are confusing message and meaning. Just because someone can derive a meaning from some piece of content does not mean that is the intended message. Charles Manson thought "Helter Skelter" predicted an apocalyptic war of sorts, but I'm not sure that was Paul, John, Ringo, and George's intention.

Yet that was nothing compared to the atrocities The Beatles committed after listening to this soft-rock classic

So the meanings derived from a film can be many and varied. This goes for children's films as well. And this is the primary difference between the beauty of classic and Pixar-type films and the Hollywood crap-machine - layers of meaning. This is why classics remain classics and favorites of adults. This is why everyone loves Pixar movies. They contain different meanings for different people. And this layering of meaning is necessary for a maturing child, as repeated viewings or even some first viewings can help the child grow, as they become more in tune with the deeper levels of meaning.

She is so fucking Zen right now

What makes this whole scenario so interesting is the deep divide that is forming between the gold and the crap. Some of the best children's films of all time have been produced in the last two decades, many coming from Pixar. They have received more awards and critical acclaim than most children's films of the past, being raised to comparable levels as other cinematic classics. The stigma of being 'for, or accessible, to kids' is lifting. Yet this has also been a time of massive marketing-driven schlock. And guess what? This is further indicative of the entirety of Hollywood. Amazing, groundbreaking films are still being produced, yet the vast majority seems to be big-budget, star-driven messes based on a pre-existing intellectual property. Fuck, they have started making movies based on board games (Battleship, Candyland, and Monopoly are in the works).

Though I am looking forward to this scene

I fully admit that this entire post is a rant, and as such is subject to my own personal blinders and rose-colored view of the past. But I am not saying the past is better or pure. I am simply talking about now. There is a reason this films keep getting produced: they make money. Simple as that. So no matter how much blame I can try to throw on Hollywood, it really does come down to the people paying to see it. But the process is cyclical: Hollywood produces trash for young people, who come to expect that as the norm, and then are fine paying for trash when they are older. In the end, it is about exposure. In short: I would never take my kid to see the fucking Smurfs movie.

What happened to you, Doogie?

I could go on, but I've already lost myself. Thank you for reading through, as I know the annoyance that can come from rants. Please throw some of your own comments on all this below and maybe, together, we can make the movie theater a better place.

Charlie Must Die: Writing Off A Television Character

It has been known for some time that after the highly publicized, insane media frenzy that was Charlie Sheen 1) Going bat-shit insane and 2) Getting very aggressively fired from his starring role on the #1 comedy show in America (I know, sad) Two and a Half Men, the character he played would be written off the program.

Do'h Indeed.

Being the cash cow that it is, CBS is not content with just canceling the program after its biggest star has left, but is rather going to make bank since the entire ordeal has become a massive interest to the average American television consumer. The return to air will be massively hyped and will most likely do huge ratings numbers, mostly for the curiosity factor of seeing how Sheen will be written off the show, and how newcomer Ashton Kutcher will be written in to replace him. Subsequent episodes will fair moderately, as people become accostomed and still curious as to how the show will function with this new dynamic. Then, it will probably fall below Sheen levels, go on for two more years (at most) and final leave our airwaves, just in time for the "half-man" of the title to be, well, about 1 and a half men all by himself.

His name is Angus T. Jones. How can he NOT be fat?

But this is me getting ahead of myself. What I am interested in is how Sheen's character will be written off the show. If we compare the situation to the recent high-profile show departure of Steve Carell and The Office, we will see why the Two and a Half Men-situation is really quite interesting, and leaves Chuck Lorre and the writers of Two and a Half Men the opportunity to do something truly remarkable...

But they probably won't.

Disappointed Sea Otter is preemptively disappointed

Granted, reports have surfaced revealing the show's producers have been planning on running a scenario where Charlie's character dies, throwing around several possible deaths including the tried-but-true "car goes off a cliff" scenario. I must say, that this is a terrific surprise, and raises my interest slightly in watching this crappy show just to see how this is handled.

I am assuming this is what leads to the crash...

While this is a cool way to write the character off, the unique circumstances of Sheen's departure (the public firing, the post-firing media frenzy around Sheen including but not limited to his failed concert tour, blog, Twitter, intern...) really allow the writers to do something even more spectacular than just killing the character off. Let's look at why by comparing it to the departure of Steve Carrell from The Office, another highly publicized and popular writing off of a major character, though following a more traditional (yet acceptable) route.

Steve Carell deciding to leave The Office was sort of a no-brainer. His film career is taking off with several supporting and starring roles that have made him one of the biggest faces in comedic film today. So Carell left the show that made him a household name under amicable circumstances, and with plenty of time for the show's writers to craft an entire season arc around his departure, filled with guest spots and mystery replacements. All of this added up to a highly rated final episode for Michael Scott, the door open for a return (both in reality and within the show's fiction), and a well-received, satisfying write-off to a truly remarkable television character.

Steve Carell, off to shoot Evan Almighty 2: Ready For Gomorrah?

So what makes Sheen's departure different from Carell's, and how do those differences relate to their respective characters' being written off their shows? Since Steve Carell left on a good note, with hardly anyone really having a right to be angry, his character was given a glorious sendoff, with story options that allow for the character's return to Scranton. Michael Scott is simply moving to Colorado. It seems far too easy for his character to be brought back in some capacity that it will not be done (probably as soon as next season). This also plays into the fact that the show has recently built up a sizable supporting cast, and used guest stars like Will Ferrell, James Spader, Jim Carrey, Ray Ramono, and a bunch of others I really don't feel the need to mention, to help the transition of the show into the post-Steve Carell Era. All in all, the transition to this new phase was relatively smooth and precise, showing care for both the character and the actor playing him all along the way.

On the other, much more emotionally scarred side of the coin is...

Charlie Sheen. The public firing and necessary replacement of Sheen's character is one thing. But it is the fact that he is a character so integral to the (I can't believe I'm using this word for Two and a Half Men) plot, his character's absence cannot just be ignored or even replaced with another actor (both common television tropes for disappearing characters). I mean, Chuck Lorre kind of screwed himself there. Sheen's character is named 'Charlie' for Christ's sake. The 'character' Charlie Harper is basically the real Charlie Sheen, a hedonistic, alcoholic womanizer.

Drugs?.....

Excuse me..?

Are you in here for drugs....

Why are you here?

Drugs

Cool

So both ignoring and replacing were never an option. Also, since he was fired, there is no way for the character to reappear (played by Sheen, at least) to film any sort of departure like Carell on The Office. Once again, this places Lorre and those behind the show at a disadvantage with their options for having the character disappear. Whatever happens, due to Sheen's inability to be used in his own character's departure, whatever the writers come up with will have a lot of exposition. Think of it like this: if they go with the Charlie died route, they have to explain all this in dialogue because they can't show it. There will be a lot of phone calls with Alan going "Charlie did WHAT?!"

This is a major problem. One of the biggest rules in comedic writing and improv is "Show me, don't tell me." Too much exposition is a sure-fire way to bog down a script and completely lose the audience. If you MUST explain things, do show in a clever way with sharp, witty writing. Oh wait, this is Two and a Half Men. Yeah, you guys are in trouble. Allow me to put on my writing hat and help:

Writing Hat

HOW I WOULD WRITE OFF CHARLIE SHEEN'S CHARACTER:

Because lots of exposition is a necessary evil at this point (reasons above), I would embrace this, and go for an all out expositive mind-f&#k, ala Inception and Fight Club. Charlie Harper, or "Uncle Charlie" to Jake Harper (Angus T. Jones), is and always has been a figment of Alan Harper's (Jon Cryer) imagination, another identity he would slip into to combat his increasingly empty and pathetic life. The conceit of the show has always been very simple: Charlie is a womanizing playboy and Alan is his opposite and foil, an uptight, whipped, and cowardly man. The entire 177 episode run (JESUS!!) is based entirely around this fact. These two are polar opposites, forced to live together due to Alan's wife leaving him at the beginning of the series. And the kid is there to be the swing-weight between the two leads, giving stakes to their conflicts. Oh, and also to make fart jokes, I guess.

Not a far cry from Mr. Sheen

Think of how brilliant a move this would be. First, it makes total sense within the framework of the show (with some obvious contradictions, but it is a stupid sitcom, so no one would really care about 'canon'). Both Alan and Charlie as characters are entirely one-dimensional. The grief and stress from the divorce that begins the series leads Alan's character to create the womanizing Charlie. Or, the creation of the 'Charlie' persona of Alan is what caused the divorce in the first place. Either way is fine. Any incoherences in the plot (i.e. almost every character's acknowledgement of both Alan and Charlie as separate people) can be explained away in that the show is viewed through the mind of Alan, so all those occurrences were due to an untrustworthy narrator.

Tell me this man is not deranged?

This also leads to so many ways the show can comment upon the public media blitz surrounding the show and Charlie Sheen. The can make comments (through characters within the show) about how "Charlie never existed," or "You don't need Charlie," or "Charlie was bad for you and for all of us." Turn Charlie into the enemy, just as he already is in this real life scenario! While killing the character off in a car crash will lead to him eventually being forgotten, this scenario allows Charlie to continue as a presence on the show, in a sense. Of course, he will never appear in the flesh, but he can be referenced while Alan is 'rehabilitated' after having come to terms with this horrible truth. Hell, that new character Ashton Kutcher is playing can be his crazy live-in doctor/friend who is trying to make him better. The scenarios write themselves, as Ashton's character goes through various wacky schemes to keep Alan sane and a functioning member of society.

Why is this guy always taking pictures? Is he Peter Parker?

One final, massive advantage to all of this would be an increased interest in past episodes and reruns, currently killing in syndication all over the place. Just as everyone has to watch Fight Club twice to truly appreciate and understand everything, watching old episodes of Two and a Half Men would be an epic experience. Trying to explain away and contemplate how Alan is acting as both Alan and Charlie would be hysterical and add an entire new and deep dimension to an otherwise flat and tedious show.

You know what. That's what I'm going to do regardless of how the character is disposed of. And I ask all of you to do the same. If you ever find yourself watching an episode of Two and a Half Men, please, watch with the idea in the back of your head that Charlie is simply a Durden-esque persona of Alan Harper. This may be the only way I will ever enjoy Charlie Sheen again. EVER.

Famous Teetotalers: Kat Dennings

Welcome to the inaugural edition of Famous Teetotalers! In this feature, I will highlight a celebrity or cultural icon who you may or (more likely) may not realize is a teetotaler, not unlike myself (DOUBLE NEGATIVE!). Kicking off this feature is someone very special, a rising Hollywood starlet and (co-)star of the summer blockbuster Thor, Kat Dennings!

Oh, Hello

WHO?

Kat Dennings entered my life (and thus, mattered) starting with her appearance as the sassy, smart-mouthed daughter of Catherine Keener in Judd Apatow's breakthrough hit The 40-Year-Old Virgin starring Steve Carrell. Apparently, she appeared in several (some) television shows before this, most notably in an episode of Sex and the City, which is only noticeable to me in that in the same episode (Season 3's "Hot Child in the City"), Carrie starts dating a "hunky comic book store owner who still lives with his parents." Besides confusing this episode with the 'also-starring-Sarah Jessica Parker-film' Failure to Launch, it seems the phrase 'hunky comic book store owner' should (like the film Failure to Launch) not exist.

I will take any excuse to post a ridiculous-looking movie poster.

In this one, Matthew McConaughey is about to crush SJP with the weight of his own uselessness.

Other notable films featuring Ms. Dennings include Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (guess who she plays!), The House Bunny (guess who she doesn't play!), Big Momma's House 2 (guess... why she appeared in this film!) and in the upcoming CBS sitcom 2 Broke Girls (guess how many episodes this will air!)

Case-in-point

In this sequel, Big Momma apparently grows even bigger, into the sky, and destroys Tokyo.

WHY?

In a December 2008 interview with "BlackBook" magazine, Kat is quoted as saying, "I don't drink and I don't smoke and I don't like being around people who do." Immediately after reading this quote, I was quoted in an interview with my personal black book (which is, oddly, green) as saying "Holy shit! I have a chance." And this is totally legit, not some crazy celebrity crush. Kat is about a year and a half older than myself, currently not married, and we have so much in common. She, too is an avid blogger (though I need to work on the avid part).* I am not sure where she lives, but living in New York, I am in a major media capital. She is also Jewish, and I... look and act very Jewish. I guess what I'm saying is: Internet, let's make this happen! Spread this blog like the locusts of Egypt until it finds its way....

My previous message-spreading service, but since unionizing, I just can't afford it.

Oh my dear Lord I just made a metaphor for spreading the news of my romantic interest in a Jewish girl with a Biblical plague metaphor!!!!! I mean, in a way, that is good. The plagues were meant to help the Jews by convincing Ramses to "Let Charlton Heston's people go!" Still, part of me feels the connection may be a bit... dangerous.

The Great Biblical Prophet Charlton, holding the lost 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt always be packing."

At any rate, please welcome (my future girlfriend) Kat Dennings as the inaugural member of Drew's Teetotaler Hall of Fame! Look for more entries into this list, and as always, leave comments on what you think of the newest entry or any suggestions for future Teetotaler Hall of Famers.

I swear I am not a creep...**

*This may or may not be the reason I began this blog

**Have you figured out Kat gets bigger pictures? Well done!

Beginnings...

Hello and welcome. To be honest, I have always been reticent to begin a blog. This has nothing to do with me being shy or not wanting people to hear what I have to say. Anyone who knows me will realize how hilariously untrue that is. I am actually quite verbose when I feel the need.

My trepidation towards creating a blog were based mostly around the fear that it would make me appear that I need attention and want everyone to listen to me. But I have come to realize that many blogs are not so much about the people who read them but for the people who write them. That's right, screw you, audience!!!

Oh my gosh, I am so sorry about that. I didn't mean it. Seriously, I only said that because, well, I'm afraid. Afraid no one would read a blog by a 20-something, scrawny, bespectacled white kid with no defining characteristics besides a last name that looks like a character from World of Warcraft. Are we cool? Sweet!

So, in regards to how I hope this blog turns out, I am planning on keeping things conversational (usually with myself) like you have no doubt already picked up. Topics can be anything (but not everything!) that I feel like, and will, like me, fluctuate dramatically between pure silliness to unadulteratedly sensible. I am open to feedback and insight to help make this experience more pleasant for you, the reader (SEE. I do care).

Some segments/installments to look out for:

• My personal escapades through New York City!
• My life as a teetotaler! (someone who does not drink alcohol) and thus the namesake of this blog
• Cool history lessons! - This will usually revolve around odd anniversaries and holidays and the histories behind them
• Current Events! - If something really gets me going, I'll sound off, but this is less likely
• Nerd Culture! - As a fan of video games, comic books, and all things pop culture, look for insights into the hilarious world so many people take way too seriously
• Fitness! - Get weekly tips on staying in shape and eating healthy
• False Segments! - Including, but not limited to, the previous segment "Fitness!"
• Reader's Choice! - When I'm too lazy to come up with something to write about, you just freaking tell me

That is all for now. I have a tendency to ramble, and one of the things I hope to take away from this blog is a bit more conciseness. Thanks for stopping by, and don't be a stranger.