This entry should really be on the critic blog, I guess, but it kinda spans the content of both so I'm gonna splat it here...
I watched "Kissing Jessica Stein" tonight. I'd meant to see it in the theater but some how missed it. Thanks to my friends at Netflix I'm starting to catch up on movies I missed when I was sick in the spring. Quick aside - does anyone else use Netflix? Their service has gone from good to bad and newly phenomenal. They have a warehouse now here in Stamford and my movies come super, duper speedy. But I digress...
I loved it as a New York movie. It owes a lot to Woody Allen and "Sex in the City" in that it makes the city a crucial character in the plot. From my favorite little antique market on Houston to the roof of the Met, the scenery was all very familiar. The only complaint, as I've mentioned before, were their apartments. Jessica had a gigantic place in the UES on a copy editor's salary? Uh, no.
Obligatory spoiler alert - skip the next paragraph if you haven't seen the film. You can pick up in the para after that just fine.
I had a really depressing response to the plot, I have to say. I mean, I was totally buying their happiness and comfort and then blam nothing changes but everything's changed and that, I felt, was just completely glossed over. Are we supposed to now think that it was Jessica's little "experiment?" Is she not gay and it all was a big mistake? Are we supposed to believe that she really would be happy after all with her former boss? I mean, that just seems like a depressing cop-out. Like they're saying "Aw, c'mon. You didn't really think she realized she was gay, did you?" Well, yeah. I was happy for her. They were great together. Damn.
It really made me depressed, though, as these sort of movies often do. At 29 she's "running out of options." Hmm. I'm 33. I guess I might just as well hang it up. That sarcasm, I assure you, but sometimes it feels that way.
I've been reading a lot lately about people using internet dating sites (Nerve.com seems to be the one for artsy folk) and wonder if that's really not as pathetic as it seems. I mean, they're writing about it in New York Magazine. It's almost the mainstream thing to do these days. I don't know. I'll have to think about it.
Cassie and I have vowed to make 2003 a better year. "2003 - The Year For Me" That's our motto. I just have to make sure I stick to it.
Posted by mikewolf at December 29, 2002 11:45 PMActually, I think they glossed over a lot of the real relationship bits. They made it very light, I guess, for a mainstream audience. I was also thinking, would this have been the sleeper hit that it was if it was "Kissing David Stein?" Sadly, I'm positive that it would not have been.
Posted by: mrw on December 29, 2002 11:48 PM"they were great together"
i have to disagree with you. yes, they were great friends, BUT they were never great lovers. jessica never got into the sexual aspect of the relationship. i always felt that she had to be talked into it...even after they were living together.
i both liked and disliked the movie. it was funny. certainly not something that's changed my life, but the now i'm gay, now i'm not aspect of the story was bothersome.
internet dating is no more embarrassing than hoping to find true love at some bar. it's what you make of it. do be careful though. people online have a way of really playing up their assets and i don't just mean physical ones.
heehee. look at me for instance. i'm actually a boring, mean, horrible person but i got people believing i'm quite nice. i call that spin.
ugh. i wish you had smileys. weren't you gonna get around to that? what happened?
Happy Monday!
Posted by: patricia on December 30, 2002 09:56 AMSee, I felt that they just chose to gloss over the sexual aspect because they were shooting for the mainstream crowd. Maybe I'm wrong, I do see your interpretation.
The I'm gay, I'm not was super bothersome to me. Not that that can't and doesn't happen, but it just seemed like a gigantic cop-out for the movie. Like it wouldn't be "feel good" enough if they just stayed together. And there was no explanation as to whether or not she really felt like she was gay or straight at the end. It was just sorta implied. Lazy writing, if you ask me.
I'm fairly wary of the whole internet persona thing. I mean, I have no doubt that you are as super rawkin' in person, but I know a lot of people create a whole new image.
Smileys. Sigh. Yes. I need to do that. I need to do a LOT of housekeeping, as a matter of fact...
Posted by: mrw on December 30, 2002 10:14 AMwhat troubled me (and i admit i'm probably reading too much into it) is that this sort of thing is exactly what most homophobic people are afraid of. that being gay is a choice and you can choose to not be with a partner of the same sex. that it's confusion and not nature that causes someone to love someone of the same gender. that all a woman needs to not be gay is to find that one perfect guy.
this is just my opinion of course. i actually don't know if there was any controversy about the movie or if anyone in the gay community objected to it. it's been so long since i've seen it that i don't know if they played down the sex. i don't recall that they did. i remember it was a very awkward affair all together. maybe i'll see it again.
Posted by: patricia on December 30, 2002 11:03 AMyup, pea, that's exactly what bothered me but said in much more concise fashion than I seem to be able to muster this morning. Back at work after a week sucks, man.
Posted by: mrw on December 30, 2002 11:08 AM