1

The Oscars, James Franco (did I tell you he’s my cousin?) and me.

OK, I guess it’s time for me to weigh in on Sunday’s  Oscar ceremonies. My friends R,  A and I could not help but notice that  many of the be-gowned stars had bad hair: it was  either stringy,  in their faces or matted down, in patches.  Watching  from anything-goes Cambridge, even we were shocked. We liked Jennifer Hudson’s red dress and new figure and Oprah’s hair and straightforward presence (if not the boxiness of created by the stiching in her black  bodice). We  were a bit creeped out by Kirk Douglas and relieved when he made it through.  I thought Anne Hathaway was great in Love and Other Drugs, did a great job with her song,  and was a clear winner in the   best  gushiness category.

Which brings me to the point: James Franco. (Full disclosure–which I repeat whenever I get the chance–he is a cousin. Don’ t ask me how–but my mom grew up in Cleveland with Mitzi, his grandmother, and somehow, their  grandparents were related or perhaps two and the same). James’ Oscar appearance has been the topic of much discussion.

As my friend D wrote on Facebook: Can’t help it — after seeing Bob Hope and Billy Crystal, who can take Anne Hathaway and what’s-his-name seriously as Oscar hosts? At least bring back Alex Baldwin.


I wrote: That’s my distant cousin James Franco you’re talking about. I thought he did pretty well…considering the awful material they gave him. Had the sense that he thought it was a load of BS and couldn’t bear Anne Hathaway’s gushing. (I’ve never met him…tho he was at our family reunion, in Cleveland before he got famous).


D.  OK, Anita. I guess I stepped in it on that one. My wife has admonished me that James Franco is in fact a “Renaissance man” with many varied accomplishments to his credit. My apologies. And I promise to see “127 Hours”.
R Chimes in: Yeah she was way too ‘enthusiastic’ if I hear one more ‘whoo hoo’ I’m turnin it off.

Then S: I think James Franco was way stoned.

Me: I thought he seemed way bored, anxious to the point of distancing himself or able to see the ridiculousness of it all. Maybe he was stoned…or just exhausted. The guy has published a book of short stories, is a painter studying at RISD and is getting his PhD in English at Yale.

His grandmother, Mitz, is yet another story. She’s on twitter, of all things, and, when I searched for her on Google, found she heads an art museum and is going to appear on Oprah! I tweeted her an invite to my mom’ 90th/our family reunion in July. I’m hoping she’ll bring what’s his name. But NOTHING could induce me to see 127 hours.

Still,  I am a total fan. My friend Ray thought Franco’s “can you believe this?” shtick played well against Hathaway’s over-exhuberance.  And I  thought  his appearance in the red dress and blond wig was  funny.
Franco was especially wonderful when he appeared on John Stewart, who asked  if he were nervous about hosting the Awards.
James said, “no.”
Why not?
“Because the expectations are so low. Everyone will be wondering why HE”s doing it.”
And so, like my friend D and thousands of  viewers and self-anointed critics,  they WERE!
James: the reunion is at my mom’s on July 3.  Dressing in drag is optional.
—Anita M. Harris Anita  Harris is president of the Harris Communications Group, a  marketing communications firm in Cambridge, MA. And a  cousin of James Franco.



Love and Other Drugs: Funny but Difficult

The pharmaceutical industry and especially Pfizer will hate Ed Zwick’s forthcoming movie–Love and Other Drugs–which portrays drug reps  as money-grubbing sex fiends.  

But while the  film, starring   Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway,  is loaded withsex scenes and Viagra jokes, don’t be fooled: it’s funny and enjoyable for the most part but deals with some very difficult and provocative themes.

In the film,  neer-do-well salesman  Jamie Randall (Gyllenhaal) takes up with the beautiful and insightful  Maggie Murdoch (Hathaway) who, at age 26, has been diagnosed with Stage 1 Parkinson’s Disease. Like Erich Segal’s 1970 Love Story, the film portrays the joys of love but also the anguish that comes with any incurable illness– here, in the context of seemingly uncaring pharmaceutical and medical industries.

Hathaway is convincing, even mesmorizing as the artist and activist who brings old people to Canada to buy drugs. Gyllenhaal is believable and fun as a manipulative salesman who seduces, in one way or another, every woman he meets. The two portray their characters’ evolving realization/questioning of what’s important in life.

I enjoyed the film, but I left feeling unsettled and a bit disturbed–a result of tension between the funny and sad parts, worry about the future of the characters—and wonder about how I myself might deal with a loved one’s serious health issues

My friend K commented that while he liked the film, he felt it was opportunistic –that Zwick and the actors will make a ton of money–while people with Parkinsons and other incurable, debilitating diseases will just go on struggling. 

But I thought Zwick did a great job of personalizing and making more manageble what can sometimes seem like overwhelming problems,  and that he has performed an important service by asking serious questions in a way that will be palatable to a  mass audience.

I recently met Zwick– who was having a publicity photo  taken at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge–and asked why he made the film. It wasn’t for money, he said. He’d been impressed with Jamie Reidy’s  non-fiction book Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman, on which the movie is based,  and had personal experience with a situation like the one the movie describes.

For the pharmaceutical industry…it’s not a pretty picture. But I guess they’ll have to–and have the resources to –fend for themselves.

The film is to be released in late November. In the meatime, here’s a link to the official site and a trailer:  http://www.loveandotherdrugsthemovie.com/

—Anita M. Harris
New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group of Cambridge, MA.




Eat, Love and Pray you don’t have to see it again

Went to see my cousin (James Franco) in Eat, Pray Love with my 89-year-old mom, last night. It was so boring she wanted to leave BEFORE her second? third? cousin Mitzi’s grandson from Cleveland even came on. And he was only the FIRST boyfriend.

I made her stay to see him, at least, and we agreed, James  is VERY cute. (The server in the restaurant next door told us she wanted to KISS him).  When James got dumped, my mom asked me if I wanted to leave. (I didn’t–I wanted to see how they handled the ashram scenes).

At one point, Mom handed me a kleenex because we were supposed to be feeling sorry for the Julia Roberts character, who was really wallowing. I apologized  for making Mom stay. She told me no problem, she was enjoying the scenery (not sure if she meant James Franco or Rome) but, really, how many spaghetti closeups can one 89-year-old enjoy?

Made it through the ashram (which I thought was the best part of both the book and the movie, tho it’s not clear how Julia managed to have a spiritual conversion, her guru being a rather annoying Texan. ), then on to Bali.  Not clear how, in book or movie, Julia managed to have a spiritual converversion, her guru being a toothless medicine man who didn’t have much interesting advice except to go for the Brazilian.

My mom could not understand why she would go for such an old guy if she wanted to have children.  Especially when I pointed out that Julia Roberts is 42–but Mom said the character was supposedly in her 30s. She was very surprised to learn that it was a true story and that Elizabeth Gilbert, who wrote the book, ended up marrying the Brazilian. So he could stay in the US.

My mom, who is getting a bit forgetful, told me that if she forgot the title and went to see it again I have her permission to put her in a home.

The upshot: James Franco is hot. Eat first, love the person you see it with, and pray you don’t have to sit through  it again.

–Anita M. Harris

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group of Cambridge, MA.




Mao’s Last Dancer–breathtakingly beautiful

Photo from Mao's Last DancerLoved Mao’s Last Dancer, a new film based on the true story of ballet dancer Li Cunxin, who, as a child, was pulled from his poor family in the Chinese countryside to train in Beijing during the Cultural Revolution–and through his own quest for freedom  wound up an international star.  

Directed by Bruce Beresford (Driving Miss Daisy, Tender Mercies)  the movie was filmed in China, Houston and Australia–and stars  Birmingham Royal Ballet Principal Dancer Chi Cao, Australian Ballet dancer Chengwu Guo  and Huang Wen Bin, who play Cunxin at different ages. 

Mao’s Last Dancer showcases many beautiful–even breathtaking–ballet sequences from acclaimed Australian choreographer Graeme Murphy and co stars  co-stars Bruce Greenwood, Kyle MacLachlan and Joan Chen.

The story is so moving that I even teared up at times–despite a bit of clunky acting ( foregivable because the artists are dancers, first, of course).

Mao’s Last Dancer premiered on 13rd September 2009, at the Toronto International Film Festival and will be opening in theaters Oct. 1, 2010.  I’d give it 3 and 3/4 stars–and a great recommendation for anyone who likes dance and US patriotism.

–Anita Harris

New Cambridge




Wiseman's La Danse: Three-and-a-half stars

Url for  LaDanse Trailer on U-Tub: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iU2l0XFrek&feature=player_embedded

My friend E. and I made it a point to sit in on the aisle in the last row when we went to see Frederick Wiseman’s latest film, La Danse, last night at the Brattle Theater in Cambridge–in case we needed to leave in a hurry.  We’d heard it was very long (120 minutes) and that it needed some editing.

But we ended up staying through to the end–partly because we wanted to take part in the question and answer session with Wiseman,  but mainly because, despite the film’s  length and some imperfections, we found it quite beautiful.

It’s cinema verite, shot by Wiseman with a handheld 16MM camera, of  practice, dress rehearsals, and behind the scenes discussions  at the Paris Opera Ballet, over 13 weeks in Paris in 2007.

I was fascinated by the sessions in which choreographers and coaches viewed and critiqued dancers  such as  Nicolas Le Riche, Marie-Agnès Gillot, and Agnès Letestu, among others.  In those scenes,  Weisman provides the rare opportunity to understand what emotions the dancers are asked to convey and how they do it; the  detailed movements that go into that; and  the occasional difficulty some dancers have in translating direction into specific action.

A photographer myself, I enjoyed the interspersing of arty still views of stairwells, window casings but,  because some outside shots of Paris and the Opera House seemed to repeat, I wondered if Wiseman had come away with too little covering footage.

It was also great to see some of what happens behind the scenes: the painstaking sewing of sequins into costumes, one by one; the serving of  apparently overcooked broccoli and fish with sauce in the cafeteria; the cleaning of the performance hall, and,  especially, meetings of administrators discussing their fundraising efforts–which, combined,  give some sense of what’s involved in producing some 250 performances a year.

Wiseman did a wonderful job of filming rehearsals for seven ballets: Genus by Wayne McGregor, Le Songe de Mede by Angelin Preljocaj, La Maison de Bernarda by Mats Ek, Paquita by Pierre Lacotte, Casse Noisette by Rudolph Noureev, Orphe and Eurydice by Pina Bausch, and Romeo and Juliette by Sasha Waltz.  Some of the more modern pieces seemed to go on  and on but most  were mesmerizing–and unlike any I’ve seen in the US.

Wiseman could, perhaps, have left out a few–and, because it’s hard to stare at a screen for three hours straight,  I’d have appreciated an intermission. (And,  no doubt, so would those who got up to go to the rest room in the middle, blocking our view of the screen).

I  found Wiseman’s fly-on-the-wall technique a bit disturbing–mainly because it showed almost no verbal interaction among the dancers, who were portrayed as objects to be molded and by teachers and administrators.  But perhaps that’s how it is in the dance world and in the company, described by artistic director, in one segment, as  “hierarchical.”

In the Q&A, Wiseman seemed reluctant to answer questions about content or meaning.  (When someone asked why he’d included a scene involving beehives on the roof of the opera house, he said that’s for the viewer to figure out–perhaps, I thought,  because it’s too obvious a metaphor).

Nor was Wiseman  forthcoming about his thought processes (or lack, thereof)  in structuring or editing  the film.  He spent a day looking around the building, then started shooting, he said. After 13 days, he returned with 130 hours of film; spent a year reviewing, culling, editing, reviewing, adding, cutting–and here we were.

It seemed to me that  the film could use more structure and that some scenes were repetitive–but given the beauty and grace of the dancers, I’m hard-put to say which sequences I’d leave out.

—–Anita M. Harris

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group of Cambridge, MA. We also publish HarrisComBlog and Ithaca Diaries Blog.