Shame Review: Just how much Shame should you feel?

Dexter: The ultimate Nature vs. Nurture? - TV Review, Television, Television Review, Movie Reviews, Film Reviews, Dexter, TV Shows, Television Shows, Entertainment

There are some things that are just disturbing to watch. Whether it’s a disturbing image like from news of a tragic event like a shooting or a video set up on YouTube like a recent serial killer did or a more fictional depiction of tragedy like the Saw films, Scream or a television depiction like Law & Order, Bones, or Jersey Shore. However there are some things which are hard to understand why exactly you’re disturbed by them. For me that show is Dexter. You can always look at a show like this and say that what is disturbing about it is the graphic depictions of sex, language and death that are disturbing, and yes it can be tough to watch the way in which people are both killed by the main character and kill other people but often that’s the least of what disturbs me.

What usually bothers me about the show is the way in which the characters evolve over time. Most disturbing of all is Dexter who struggles to deal with who he is versus how he was raised. Each season deals with the reality of his life as both a forensic blood spatter analyst and a serial killer. Living with such a contradiction alone would be difficult enough, but trying to relate to people without revealing this contradiction is even harder for him. He does manage to make some connections to people, though they are pretty basic at first over time they evolve and grow much like Dexter himself. The thing that disturbs me most about Dexter is how much people connect with the character. And not just in the sense of the insane ones who try to reenact or mirror his crimes.

My own connection is quite a strange one. I know what it’s like to feel disconnected from the world and other people, trying to find a way to connect to people when you don’t feel connected to anyone or anything. It’s hard to care about others or have a conversation that you find meaningful when you don’t care about what other people are saying. But you keep trying because you see the people around you talking and caring about each other and you want to understand what they feel like. You want to know so bad that you start to feel something just from that itself.

Ultimately, I think that’s what Dexter is all about, a man trying to connect to others without really knowing how. He tries to connect with his girlfriend, his co-workers as well as his family and friends. Yet no matter how many times he fails he keeps trying, despite the fact that doing so is against his nature. The main reason he fails is because his natural instinct is to shy away from people and do his own thing. But he was taught to spend time with people and to at least appear like everyone else so that he can try to fit in. This creates a tragic battle within the main character that is often played out within the inner monologue/voice over of the episodes and seasons as a whole.

As the seasons progress, he learns how to manage between his nature and the way he was nurtured to embrace in life. Watching him try to live up to both perceptions of himself that he has while dealing with the people around him and keeping them from learning the truth can be both tragic and disturbing at the same time.

So is Dexter the ultimate nature versus nurture? I think it is.

Spring Breakers Review: Anyone up for partying with “Spring Breakers”?

What goes through your head when you read the names Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Rachel Korine and Ashley Benson? For people who follow pop culture the first word that comes to mind is the word Disney. Often for filmmakers the words “pre-packaged Disney kids stuff” or some variation there upon is what they say. In either case it is something that can put people off when those names pop up on the metaphorical marquee of a film’s cast list. They can take a step back and say ‘you know what, that’s not for me’ without even giving the film a chance.

Suppose I were to add another name to that list. What if the next name on that list was Harmony Korine? I imagine there would be a few filmmakers reading this who would suddenly find themselves more interested. Those who might be somewhat less initiated should know that Harmony Korine’s film credits include such ground breaking and somewhat controversial films as “Kids”, “Mister Lonely” and “Trash Humpers”. Names which carry a bit more weight in the indie scene then some of the films associated with the previous four names I mentioned above. Of course this broader scope will lead people to another negative comment which sounds like “Oh look, a bunch of Disney sweethearts trying to break out of their squeaky clean image by being edgy and shocking people”. And this always leads me to... why the heck is that?

Why do we as a society, and in particular filmmakers, automatically jump to such conclusions about the people involved in a project if their history is one that is associated with Disney? Why do we place people like Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley Benson inside these boxes when history tells us that they are going to try and break out of them eventually? Perhaps those boxes we put them in never really existed in the first place. Maybe these actors were always serious about their work and we just couldn’t see it because we’d rather shove them in a corner. The film industry is a brutal business. No matter where you get your start, whether it’s Disney or through some other aspect of the industry, you don’t get into it unless you’re serious about succeeding. Does it really matter where that success comes from?

I try not to carry any such baggage into a film when I go to see one, which doesn’t mean that I don’t have any such baggage when going into a film. It is often the actors or filmmakers involved in the film that will lead me to wanting to see it in the first place. There’s no denying it plays a role in the decision making process of putting my rather limited funds into buying a ticket. But when I sit in the seat and settle in to watch, I try to let that experience stand on its own. A lot of people out there will have to try and do that in order to get them in that seat, but if they can then they will be pleasantly surprised. If they can’t, then by the end of the film they will be forced to reevaluate what I think is a fundamentally flawed perspective on the actors involved.

Because I honestly believe there’s no other way to come out of this film. The story is such a fascinating and well told one. The actors so very clearly embody the roles they play. Of particular note is James Franco in the role of the gangster named Alien, but I don’t think that his performance works without the great work of the other four young actors who accompany him. Spring Breakers is smart, funny, disturbing and emotional, sometimes all at once in a really beautiful way.

That doesn’t happen without the solid and emotionally honest performances of his co-stars. Harmony Korine is known for edgy and controversial films, and Spring Breakers is no exception. There are a number of scenes which are difficult to watch and the fact of the actors involved makes it fairly controversial. What sets this film apart is the way in which the event of spring break and the story become so well integrated.

He spoke during the Q&A about the idea of micro scenes and repetitiveness to tell the story he is trying to tell, but I would liken it to a deliberate attempt to give the audience an experience much like spring break itself. The non linear micro scenes and repetitiveness give you the feeling of a drunken, drug filled orgy of sex and violence masterfully controlled from the filming, editing and post-production. And so...

Anyone up for partying with Spring Breakers? I don’t know about you, but I had a rocking good time.