No, not to warmer climes (unfortunately) but to Word Press, because my friend Zosia said that blogger is "so 2007."
Find me here at maxthegirl.com
Same great record of arbitrarily posting once every three to four months, with a snazzy new layout! (Just kidding, I'll endeavor to post more. For reals.)
hey, i'm maxthegirl
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Monday, January 6, 2014
Wolf Down: 6 Ways To Improve The Wolf of Wall Street
A funny thing happened after I
filed my 3 star review of The Wolf of
Wall Street. I found myself aligning more and more with the people who
didn’t like the film. It’s not that I don’t think The Wolf of Wall Street is a piece of bravura filmmaking—in fact,
that’s almost all I think it is:
virtuoso technique serving an unworthy story. What’s more, I’m turned off by
the film’s defenders, who seem to think that if you didn’t love The Wolf of Wall Street as much as they
did, you’re either shallow, puritanical, missing the satire chip, or expect
neat moral resolutions in all your art. I don’t expect neat moral resolutions,
but I do think films need to have some sort
of moral compass. And yes, I understand that The
Wolf of Wall Street is unique because it’s told solely from the
(unreliable) narration of a braggart and a sociopath. But…so what? As I’ve said
many times on Twitter (@maxthegirl), what did we learn about the specific sociopathy
of Jordan Belfort? What new thing did we learn about Wall Street, about greed,
about excess? Nothing, as far as I saw. So, understanding the audacity of what
I’m about to put forward (Scorsese is arguably our greatest living filmmaker—I
can’t even get my reviews on Rotten Tomatoes), here are my suggestion for 6 ways
The Wolf of Wall Street could’ve been
better.
1.
Give
Jordan a more interesting backstory (or, for that matter, any interior life at
all). Was he bullied as a kid? Is he a closeted homosexual? Did his father
tell him he’d amount to nothing? Did he witness his father’s humiliation at the
hand of a wealthy neighbor or boss? Does he have a small penis? (Just kidding.
Of course he has a small penis.) Give
me something specific that tells me
what made this character tick and why he made the choices he did. Then, if
nothing else, The Wolf of Wall Street
would work as a character study.
2.
Focus
more on Kyle Chandler’s federal agent. This was a technique that Steven
Spielberg employed, quite winningly, in Catch
Me if You Can. The DiCaprio character (again!) in that film was fun,
charming, rascally—we enjoyed being in his presence. Tom Hanks’ Carl Hanratty, on
the other hand, was grinding his way through a joyless, bureaucratic life,
committed to doing the right thing, no
matter how thankless it may have been. The contrast between the “dullness of
decency,” if you will, and the charisma of DiCaprio’s glamorous conman created
an interesting prism through which to view the film and assess our own moral judgments.
Scorsese hints at that, especially in one of the later scenes, when we see
Chandler’s agent riding home on the subway, but never really goes there.
3.
Have a
dissenting character within Jordan’s ranks. I realize that The Wolf of Wall Street is based on
Jordan’s memoirs and, by all accounts, there was no such character. But “based
on a true story” leaves wiggle room. What if Jordan had an friend/employee who
questioned the excess, the corruption, the greed? Anyone in his midst to serve
as some sort of voice of humanity, to ask Jordan when will it ever be enough? Everyone
in this movie blithely goes along with him. No one quits. Not one person says,
“I can’t live like this.”
4.
Give Jordan
himself some sort of existential crisis. I just finished watching Harmony
Korine’s hypnotic Spring Breakers, so
maybe I’m unduly influenced by it, but there were several moments in that film
where, in the midst of the bacchanal, the camera gets in close on the revelers
and we see their…dread. The parties in that film leave a sickening aftertaste
and not just because we judge the characters harshly—rather because their own
self-loathing is the ever-present but never mentioned party guest.
5. Show us the victims! It’s actually
stunning that we never really see the consequences of Jordan’s actions. We
never see the poor patsies he robbed blind. We see his first wife, in one angry
moment on the sidewalk, when he replaces her for a younger, prettier model. But
we don’t stay with her. We see Jordan’s second wife, who is certainly a victim
of his abuse (in one scene, he actually rapes her), but, like all the
characters in the film, has virtually no interior life—and, in fact, is seen as
a social grasper and clear-eyed accomplice. (If Scorsese really cares about her
pain, he has a curious way of showing it.) We see the face of a woman who works
for Jordan, when in a gleeful hazing ritual her head is shaved by her coworkers.
That is one of the rare moments in the film where Scorsese focuses on the
perspective of someone who is not having fun yet, who has been victimized by
this misogynistic frathouse-on-steroids, and can’t escape. The horror on her face speaks volumes. And again, it’s gone in a flash.
6. Tell us something about Wall Street we
don’t already know. I’ve seen lots of movies about Wall Street and cold-call
salesmen: Both of Oliver Stones films, The
Boiler Room, Margin Call, Glengarry Glen Ross, The Company Men, Too Big To Fail
(a documentary), etc. Each of those films told me something interesting and new
either about the machinations of Wall Street or about the specific
mentality/technique of a salesman. Jordan has a few clever ideas up his
sleeve—creating a phony silk stocking firm is one of them—but beyond that, the
film was much more interested in what he did with his fortune than how he made
it.
I can already hear people reacting to this column with: Why
not add puppies! There were no puppies in the film either! (Or some other
equally snide thing. Trust me, this is how these The Wolf of Wall Street lovers talk.) What I’m saying, again, is
that for me to find the film not just good, but great, I needed a moment to
reflect over, that allowed me to lie in bed at night, chewing over the film’s
content, thinking of the world (or art, for that matter) in a new way. The Wolf of Wall Street basically said: People
are exactly as horrible as you think they are. Here, allow me to beat you over the head
with that fact.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Bad Review
So yesterday my hero Hugh Laurie besmirched my entire
profession, how was your day? :(
Obviously now I’m feeling a little defensive.
So allow me to defend:
Let me start by saying, we film critics mostly use our
powers for good.
Critics have directed people to all sorts of
films—documentaries, indies, back of the rack stuff— that otherwise might go
unwatched or unnoticed.
And while I can’t substantiate this with data, I feel quite
strongly that negative reviews rarely deter a viewer (I wish!), but a passionately
argued, rave review can encourage someone to see a film they might otherwise
not see.
Okay, now let’s get to the meat of his gripe: The fact that
film critics generally only see a film once (or at least have usually only seen
the film once before they post their review.)
I mean, that’s just logistics, right? It’s kind of the
nature of the art/commerce intersection that film has always awkwardly rested
on. A certain number of films are released on Friday, we watch them, we write
reviews on deadline. It’s a living.
But here’s a non-logistical argument: Reviewing a film after
seeing it just once is perfectly acceptable, because that’s how people watch
films.
Yes, the film may have untold layers, a depth of meaning or
purpose that only gradually reveals itself after multiple viewings, but on some
basic level, it just has to work that first time around. With film, the
initial impression is meaningful, because it’s the only impression most people
will get.
(Same was true of Shakespeare, too, back in his day.)
That being said, some films, even great ones, really only do need to be
watched once. They’re not trying to be anything but good, old-fashioned whiz-bang entertainment.
They are meant to be digested, enjoyed, and tossed away with that empty bucket of popcorn, not painstakingly poured
over and analyzed.
Have I been wrong about a film? Sure. Plenty of times. But I
like to think that if a film is ambitious, I acknowledge that in my review,
even if I didn't like the end result. I try not be dismissive. A lot of times an impassioned pan can actually encourage someone to watch a film.
They might say, “Wow. That sounds horrible . . . in an intriguing way” or even
“Max sure hated that film but it sounds right up my alley.” (Critics don’t
mind when that happens; we actually encourage that kind of reader/critic
engagement.)
And yes, great filmmakers (like Scorsese) deserve the
benefit of the doubt. We give them that, but not to the point of being
sycophants. Even great filmmakers make the occasional dud of a film. (See Coppola’s Jack, Levinson’s Toys, Spielberg’s The Terminal, and 1/3 of the films
that Woody Allen cranks out.)
(My thoughts on Cape Fear, for what it’s worth:
Brilliantly acted and directed, but I bristle at any film where sexual violence
against women is brandished as a means to punish a male protagonist. . .But I suppose that's grist for a whole other blog post.)
And finally, Pauline Kael?!? Thems fighting words, bub. Sure she
had her peccadilloes, but she was a trailblazer. One of the first to treat
popular film as art. Her “I got it”
arrogance gave her writing energy, bravado, commitment and, yes,
weirdness. Some critics are flat out fun/edifying/inspiring to read, no matter
how wrong-headed their opinions might be. Kael was definitely one of them.
Okay, end rant.
p.s. Hugh's Twitter account is awesome. You should all go follow it.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Hugh Laurie's Joyful Noise
Courtesy Kelsey Rae via Release the Clackum |
I witnessed a lovefest at the Birchmere club in Alexandria, VA the other night.
It took many forms.
First and foremost, it was a lovefest between Hugh Laurie and the blues. It's safe to say Hugh Laurie would take a bullet for the blues. Yes, he loves it that much.
Second, it was a lovefest between Hugh Laurie and his kick-ass band, The Copper Bottom Band. It's rare that you go to a concert and see such affection among bandmembers. They seem to bask not only in each other's talent but in the joy they share in their communal groove.
Finally, of course, it was a love affair between Hugh Laurie and his audience. That's no surprise, though. The man is just an insanely gifted showman/raconteur/wit. I always describe his public appearances as the detonation of charm bombs.
So can we get something out of the way here, once and for all? Hugh Laurie has every right to be up on that stage. In a world where no one blinks an eye over the latest autotuned pop tart, it works my last nerve that people suggest that just because Hugh is a famous actor he can't also be a talented and committed blues musician. His encyclopedic knowledge of blues alone, not to mention his abilities as a musical curator, should more than qualify him to be on stage. (The guy's taste in New Orleans and Louisiana blues is basically above reproach.) On top of that, he's a world class piano player and a more than serviceable guitar player, too.
(I won't defend Hugh's right as a wealthy British white guy to sing the blues, because he's more than effectively made that case himself: To suggest that only a certain portion of the population can play this great music is to marginalize it, which is the exact opposite of what Hugh is trying to do.)
As for his voice? Well, it's a bit too pure of tone for the blues. He's really more of a natural crooner. But he's musical as all get-out, plus as an actor, he has a natural ability to bring a wide range of emotions to the fore. I'll take someone who embodies and loves the music and sings it in tune over some melisma obsessed screecher any day. But hey, maybe that's just me.
I really can't say enough about the Copper Bottom Band. I saw Hugh in concert last year, in support of Let Them Talk and the band was amazingly tight then. With the addition of smoky-voiced singer Gaby Moreno (a perfect complement to the rip-roaring blues belter Sista Jean) and badass trombone player Elizabeth Lea (my new hero), they're even better now. Really, ever single member is so tight and so damn musical, they're a joy to watch.
My only objection: As mentioned, Hugh adores his band (and they adore him right back). As such, he gives them lots of room to show off. Some of the solo songs by Gaby Moreno ("The Weed Smoker's Dream") and Sista Jean ("I Hate a Man Like You"), not to mention their impossibly infectious duet "Didn't It Rain," are among the best of the night. And each band member gets his or her moment to shine. I only wish that he had given himself a few such moments. The guy has serious chops on the piano; it would be okay for him to strut his stuff from time to time. Just the man's natural modesty at play, I suppose.
That being said, a night with the Copper Bottom Band is a musical gift to audiences wrapped in a bow and topped with a cherry (or a shot of 12-year-old Macallan, if you prefer). If you're not feeling the love, it's indeed time to check your pulse.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Her Totally Awesome Life
The Carrie Diaries, in case you didn’t know, is a “prequel” to Sex
and the City. Young Carrie (played by the
kewpie-eyed AnnaSophia Robb, sporting an unfortunate perm) is a teenager from
Connecticut in the 80s. Her mother has recently died of cancer and she lives
with her doting, if sometimes bumbling father (Matt Letscher) and her
proto-goth kid sister Dorrit (adorable Stefania Owen.)
And since this is a teen drama, we
think we know what to expect: Carrie
won’t be popular, she’ll be tormented by a “mean girl” and suffer numerous
indignities in the school cafeteria; she’ll pine for a popular boy who doesn’t
love her back (or at least can’t risk losing social standing by being seen with
her). She’ll feel misunderstood, awkward, and sometimes ignored.
Or, well, not.
Because teenage Carrie Bradshaw
has to be the most well-adjusted kid on TV. She has a group of great friends,
who are really smart and cool and supportive. She is dating the best looking boy in school, Sebastian
(played by the best-looking boy on TV, Austin Butler.)
She has fallen in love with New
York City—as young Carrie Bradshaw would—and even got a job at the über-cool
Interview magazine.
Many scenes of The Carrie Diaries
are basically Carrie sitting at a booth at her favorite diner making out with
Sebastian or bashing about New York City, marveling over her good fortune.
Yes, there is a “mean girl”, Donna
(Chloe Bridges)—who briefly wins Sebastian away from Carrie (meanwhile, Carrie
has her own hot new prepster boyfriend). But the mean girl isn’t even all that
mean (she helps Carrie’s friend Walt deal with his closeted homosexuality) and
Sebastian clearly loves Carrie, not her.
I started watching The Carrie
Diaries because I’m totally infatuated with
that period in New York. And while the show doesn’t get everything right—a lot
of the fashion choices in particular seem like they come from the Urban
Outfitters “Totally 80z” section—a lot is right: The Limelight! Bret Easton Ellis book release parties! The
Smiths! Basquiat!
In a way, the show tracks
consistently with Sex and the City, its own glossy, sugar-coated celebration of
New York, girl power, and friendship. Yes, there were flare-ups of drama on Sex
and the City—just as there are on The
Carrie Diaries—but for the most part, that
show was sunny and chipper. (That was why it briefly struggled to find its
footing after 9/11.) But there was also all that great sex
and all that great fashion—not to mention, the snarky, world-wise commentary by
Samantha, Miranda, et al. It was fabulous, in a way that a show about teenagers
simply can’t be.
I must confess that, charming as
it can be, I sometimes find Carrie’s sunniness a little insipid. If the girl’s
got the best friends, the hottest guy, and the coolest internship on the
planet, what exactly is the source of the drama? (They show her grieving for
her mother, but in a spunky, “I’m going to keep mom’s sprit alive!” kinda way.)
There is, however, one thing I
absolutely adore about this show. There are hot guys on The Carrie Diaries, of course, but Carrie and her friends are not defined by them.
In fact, in the penultimate
episode, Carrie breaks up with Sebastian—methinks not for long—because he
doesn’t understand or support her ambition at Interview magazine.
Likewise, brainy Mouse (Ellen Wong)
dumps her boyfriend because sex with him is taking away from her grade point
average. (Another bonus! The Asian girl here might be a brain—cliché alert—but
she also has lots of hot guys to choose from. Hooray!)
Next week is the season finale of
the show (and possibly the series finale—ratings are middling at best.)
I’ll be watching—and expecting a
totally warm and fuzzy ending. After all, cliffhangers are so. . . upsetting.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
What if GIRLS was Created By a Guy?
Photo courtesy of TVLine.com |
Just imagine for a second that,
instead of being the show’s executive producer/den father/head cheerleader (or
whatever he is), Judd Apatow was actually the creator of Girls.
How would you feel then, about
the Season 2 finale and the myriad humiliations heaped upon Lena Dunham’s
character in general?
How would you feel about the
ubiquitous nudity, the awkward and sometimes demeaning sex, the grotesque
close-ups of Hannah picking at her wedgie or ramming a bloody Q-tip up her ear?
How comfortable would you be with Hannah’s OCD, her narcissism, her disastrous
haircuts and seemingly unlimited supply of unflattering outfits (neon mesh
half-shirt anyone?).
You’d think that Apatow either
hated Hannah or possibly hated women. And you’d feel protective of the
young actress who was put in these compromising situations.
But of course, Apatow isn’t the
creator of Girls—Dunham is. In that
sense, Girls is the anti-vanity
project; a weekly exercise in a kind of strangely mesmerizing masochism.
(Have we ever seen a mainstream artist depict themselves in such an unflattering light? Woody Allen would be the obvious corollary—but his alleged self-loathing is strictly amateur compare to Dunham's. It's Self Loathing Lite)
(Have we ever seen a mainstream artist depict themselves in such an unflattering light? Woody Allen would be the obvious corollary—but his alleged self-loathing is strictly amateur compare to Dunham's. It's Self Loathing Lite)
Ironically, with her willingness to lay herself completely bare, Dunham may actually be protecting herself. Women who direct themselves are invariably accused of raging egomania. (I still bristle when I think about the criticism that was leveled at Barbra Streisand for directing and starring in Yentl and The Mirror Has Two Faces: She's too old! She bathes herself in a beautiful golden light!) Needless to
say, male auteurs are rarely subjected to such scrutiny. But, intentionally or not, Dunham has
managed to sidestep this criticism entirely. How could anyone EVER accuse her of self-aggrandizement?
Tellingly, the one episode—the brilliant, standalone “One Man’s Trash”— where
she dared to give herself satisfying sex and a dishy co-star, the Internet
positively slammed her for her vanity.
Okay, so now let’s move on to the
problematic Season 2 finale —again, acting
under the premise “what if it was created by a guy?”
[MASSIVE SPOILERS
AHEAD, NEEDLESS TO SAY]
Let’s start with Marnie, as I found her character arc perhaps even more troubling than Hannah’s.
In Season 1, she’s the most
accomplished of the “Girls.” She has a solid job at a gallery and a boyfriend,
Charlie, who adores her. Problem is, she finds the boyfriend too clingy and
effete—she seems to think she wants a man with a bit more machismo. So she
breaks up with Charlie and, in short order, her life falls apart.
By Season 2,
she’s been fired from her job and forced to work as a cocktail waitress at an
upscale men’s club. Charlie, meanwhile, starts dating a sexy sprite-like
hipster—and seems quite happy with her. Then Marnie finally hooks up with the
man she’d been fantasizing about—a cocky artist who depicts himself as some
sort of stud in the bedroom. Turns out, the artist is a mediocre lay and,
what’s more, not interested in being Marnie’s boyfriend. Now she’s single,
heartbroken, and stuck in a demeaning dead end job. Let’s check back in with
Charlie, shall we? He’s got a cool new haircut and a dream job—he created a
successful app and is working (as the boss!) at the kind of edgy Internet
company featured in Samsung ads.
In the season finale, he agrees
to take Marnie back—essentially “saving her.”
Again, imagine if Apatow had
created this episode. (Not picking on Apatow, by the way. He’s just a
convenient male figure in the Girls
orbit). What a cautionary tale for
women this would appear to be: Break up with the nice guy and you WILL
PAY. Your life will be ruined, while he will
prosper and only once you have been sufficiently cut down to size—the nadir
being her humiliating cry for help (oy, that Kanye song!) at Charlie’s office
party— will the nice guy condescend to take you back and save you. And he’s
rich now, too, so your money troubles will be behind you!
How weirdly regressive is that?
And what about the fate
of Hannah—crippled by her OCD and hypochondria, unable to complete (or even
start) her manuscript, and, by all reasonable measures, totally falling apart.
We’ve seen Adam, her recovering alcoholic
hulk of a man-child ex, trying to establish a normal relationship with a new
girl. But there’s one problem: The new girl has healthy self-esteem and
therefore is not turned on by his sexual debasement. “I didn’t like that all,”
she says, when Adam tells her to crawl on all fours.
Hannah, on the other end, had
willingly submitted herself to all of his debasing fantasies.
Now remember, Hannah broke up
with Adam because she found his energy too intense, his commitment to her
bordering on obsessive. She was afraid of him—even called the cops on him once. He's not a bad guy, but he certainly has a lot of demons. On what planet is it a happy ending
for Hannah to end up with him?
Season 2 ended like a classic
rom-com, with Adam running shirtless through the street to literally scoop up
Hannah in his arms and save her from herself. Like Marnie, turns out Hannah didn’t
know how good she had it with Adam. Like Marnie, her life effectively fell apart
when she jettisoned her man. Like Marnie, her ex got the satisfaction of
essentially seeing her hit rock bottom until he had no choice but to swoop in
and save her.
WTF?
If a man had directed this
season, I would’ve truly cried foul.
Look, I love Lena Dunham. I think
she’s a genius—a word I don’t toss around lightly. And I certainly don’t think
she has to be my kind of feminist. What
she’s doing—running her own show (at 26, no less!)—is certainly more than
feminist enough. As an artist, she’s well within her right to expose herself,
humiliate herself, lay herself completely and utterly bare. But it does bug me
that she, the only young female showrunner in the game, has chosen this
path—particularly this new wrinkle where her female characters are saved by
unworthy men.
It’s okay to have some
self-esteem for you and fellow Girls, Lena. Last I checked, you guys were
ruling the world.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Coming to America: The Project Runway recap
Did I win? |
Not gonna lie. I never saw that
coming.
I had seen Christopher as a
frontrunner the whole time (he, modestly enough, had also seen himself as the
frontrunner the whole time). But in the end, his collection did disappoint.
Making pretty garments is one
thing. And Christopher’s got that down cold. But assembling a strong
collection, with a clear point of view that announces to the world who you are
as a designer? That’s a whole other can of notions. Melissa, Fabio, and Dmitry
all did that a lot better.
But Christopher wins cutest hair
and most adorable pout, so there's that.
But Dmitry? Certainly he had been coming on strong in the final
weeks: But did he ever actually win a challenge? (Okay, guess he won the
print challenge with that clever peek-a-boo print.) But for most of the show he
was the bridesmaid, the wingman, the Garfunkel. I always saw him being the “guy who made
really impeccable clothing that—shhhh—nobody actually loved.” Boy did I get that
wrong.
The other big surprise of the show? I’ll
say it: Fabio’s collection. Talk about going from Drabio to Fabio. He really
pumped up the luxe, as Nina and co. told him to do. And suddenly his
collection, which had previously seemed like the costumes for a production of Jesus Christ
Superstar on Mars! suddenly seemed sort of fresh and innovative and chic.
(Still not saying I’d wear it. But at least I get it.)
(But I was chatting with my friend
R2 about this: Why oh why do the judges keep insisting that Fabio is, himself,
a good dresser? He looks like the only hipster in the shtetl, a Hari Krishna
gone clubbing, an Amish art student during Rumpspringa. NOT a great dresser. And the mystery of
the beard still torments me: Who’s got their money on weak chin?)
Would you let this man dress you? |
Melissa’s collection was fabulous
and very her (that one straightjacket dress with the binded shoes
notwithstanding). I would definitely wear every single one of her pieces, except
for this, cause really, who the hell could pull this off?
Besides this model, that is |
(Also probably wouldn’t wear the
leather bathing suit either. In public at least. )
But back to Dmitry’s collection.
I’m sorry I’d never wear it. I feel like those garments would be sold in a
boutique with Russian house music on the speakers and salespeople who smell
like bad cologne. (I did sort of like that one dress with the geometrical
pattern and the frills, tho. Not gonna hate.)
Frills gone right |
Frills gone wrong |
(Where did Michael Kors get the idea that ALL women want this jacket? Not this gal.)
Anyhoo, let’s look back the show,
which was, let’s face it All Filler, Not Much Killer.
It starts out with all the
designers being, quite literally, haunted by the voices of Nina, Heidi, and
MK—sort of the way Dorothy was haunted by the Wicked Witch.
“More expensive looking!” the voices tell
Fabio.
“Younger!” the voices tell Dmitry.
“Turn up the volume!” the voices
tell Christopher.
“Use color!” the voices tell
Melissa.
More luxe!!!! |
This is driving them all a little
batty, particularly Christopher, who has bags under his eyes and is borderline delirious.
There is so much nervous energy in
the room that they woke up Earl, the lone Lifetime FX guy, to illustrate it.
“My nerves are traveling through
the screen right now,” Fabio says. And damned if they don’t do some sort of
undulating wave effect on my TV screen. Mind. Blown. (Now Earl can go back to
his cave).
The producers must’ve promised
L’Oreal extra screen time in the finale—as if the whole season hasn’t been one
big fat infomercial already—so we have to watch all the designers get extended
consultations in hair and makeup.
Lots of product name dropping
like, “Oooh, Coral Seduction!” and “I’m just going to go in the Everystyle Curl
Mousse.” Etc. Etc.
Ugh.
And because of Christopher’s
nervous breakdown, he can’t figure out what to do with his models’ hair.
He takes one poor girl from Bride
of Frankenstein to Janelle Monae to Marge Simpson and back again.
Not good.
It’s always cute to see how awed and humbled and nervous the designers are when they get to fashion week. It really is a big deal—and this was a particularly nice, non-catty group of designers. (But note to Christopher: Blood orange really is a thing. And it’s not the same thing as red.)
Actually nervous, even though it looks like they're faking it |
They pan the audience as the show
is about to begin.
Mondo seems to have taken the
Internet’s fake mustache meme to a literal degree and is sporting one that
looks exactly like THIS.
Harvey Weinstein is also in the
house, which means the winner will not just take home the Project Runway
trophy, he will be guaranteed the Best Picture Oscar next year. (My film
critic friends are ROFL right now. Trust me.)
Dmitry is talking about his
journey to Project Runway: “I left my home when I was 18 with one backpack, a
coupla hundred bucks and a huge dream,” he says. The man is good at
self-mythologizing. (Later he actually says, unironically, “Winning Project
Runway will give me the wings to fly.”)
Fabio is also talking about his
emotions. “My whole body is vibrating with positivity right now,” he says.
(Earl looks up for a second,
considers it, then goes back to sleep.)
And the show begins. JHud is the
guest judge. I agree with the judges. Everyone really did great. And it’s cute
to see all their families and loved ones kvelling in the audience.
Afterwards, design insiders pick
their favorites. We’ve got fashion editors, the
buyer from Lord & Taylor, Joanna Coles, and . . .*record scratching sound*. . .Stephanie Meyers, author
of Twilight??? Seriously, the most random people show up at these things.
She’s on Team Dmitry, BTW. (Team
Edward is PISSED.)
So Christopher is the first to be
eliminated. He’s great, but just not ready.
Then Melissa. Her collection,
while young, funky and fresh, was too predictable.
So it comes down to Fabio and
Dmitry.
There’s some brief talk of who
needs the win more—they all agree that it’s Fabio, whose aesthetic is much more
offbeat. That’s a pretty bullshit reason to make someone the winner. (Just
sayin’).
So even though Christopher “demands
a recount” (heh) I’m glad Dmitry won over Fabio. I never even expected Fabio to
make the finale, to be honest. He definitely exceeded my expectations (and his
own: He thought he was going to be the first to be eliminated.) In the end, say what you will about Dmitry, he was much more consistent all season long.
Heidi will now take him back to the dungeon where she keeps all the past winners |
Once Dmitry won, I kept waiting
for the big reveal where his family from the Motherland was flown in to see
him. (Get the feeling that Mama and Papa Sholokhov are none too thrilled that
young Dmitry didn’t join the family distillery?) (I made that
up. I have no idea what Dmitry’s family does.)
Instead, he has three bleached blonde
besties (all future employees in his boutique, no doubt) and then “someone else
who’s very excited to see you.”
Have Mama and Papa Sholokhov forgiven him?
Is it Elena, finally willing to
admit her true feelings for him?
Nope. It’s Tim Gunn!
And damned if Tim isn’t all choked
up.
“I’m losing it,” he says. Oh, Tim.
So congrats Dmitry: You came to
this country with a backpack (unofficial contents of said backpack: tap shoes,
a bottle of Drakkar Noir, a pair of leather skinny pants, and a thimble), a
charmingly monotone voice, and a dream that you made come true.
I bet you’re feelin’ a whole lot
like THIS guy right now.
p.s. Reading my Nashville recaps on Vulture yet? What are you waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)