“What do you like about being up here?” “The silence.”

Almost two weeks ago, I ventured to the closest movie theater for an afternoon screening of Gravity. I was surprised and pleased to find that the theater was completely empty. Maybe it was because Gravity had been in theaters for several weeks or because I had chosen not to see it in 3D or that I was at a crappy AMC. Whatever the reason, I was totally alone. It was the ideal movie watching experience: huge theater, big screen, good movie, no distractions. For a movie like Gravity, this environment only intensifies the action scenes, the constant birth imagery, the beauty of Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography, and the paralyzing silence.

Until Kowalski asks Stone what she likes about space, the silence in Gravity is unnoticeable, blending into the abyss that is outer space. Once becoming aware of it, this silence is exhilarating. It is also terrifying. The silence magnifies Stone’s dire circumstances. It is a reminder that she utterly alone and defenseless. And when sitting, alone in a dark, expansive movie theater, this silence is beyond overwhelming.

————

I’m not the most relaxed moviegoer. In fact, I absolutely hate the act of going to the movies. I find it cumbersome and I can never become fully engrossed by a film until well after it has started. Then a cell phone goes off or I can here the sound of people eating disgusting theater popcorn and I’m distracted from medium. So I prefer to go to the movies alone and now more than ever, I just avoid movie theaters all together.

I wasn’t always like this. One year, I went to the movies more than 40 times and I reveled in the excitement of seeing a movie. In 2009, I wrote an article for my college newspaper about the thrill of being a film spectator. How the act of sitting with strangers in a dark theater just before a movie starts is stirring and eerie. At this moment, a sense of excitement looms right before you are transported to an alternate reality and before expectations are met or dashed. It is the best time of any screening.

I used to always experience this thrill when going to the movies. That is why I loved the cinema and I don’t know what I caused this shift in my habits. Perhaps I should stop trying to rationalize why it has happened. Things constantly change.

Of course I still love going to the movies, even if I find the process exhausting. The timeless moment when the previews (finally) end and the movie starts is thrilling. There is nothing better when the universe aligns and a movie can deliver a phenomenal viewing experience.

In Gravity, the silence does just that. It pulls us out of the world we are accustomed to seeing in cinema and forces us to see a larger, mystifying picture

The silence is rousing.

The Governors Awards were held this past weekend. Angela Lansbury, Steve Martin and costume designer Piero Tosi received honorary Oscars while Angelina Jolie received the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

As I watched the speeches by this year’s honorees, which are all quite lovely in their own way, I was especially drawn to Steve Martin’s speech. It touches upon this essential  aspect of filmmaking: collaboration. What especially rings true is this notion of being home. As Steve Martin reflects, the film industry has provided a career, a life, friendships and a home for him. The film industry means so much to so many people, whether they work in the industry or not.

So why have I latched onto this speech? Well, it is no secret that I have been more out of love with cinema lately. It has been reflected in my mostly dormant blog. (Writing about film has become especially difficult.) Some days I feel as though I’ve forgotten why I fell in love with cinema in the first place. I’ve lost what was the driving force behind my passion. Occasionally I wonder if I ever knew the reason for that passion.

Watching this speech reminded me that yes, I did know the reason. Watching movies – the good, the bad, and the ugly – provided me with something I could care about. They gave me comfort, a sense of self and community. They became an outlet and way for me to express my interests.

I’m slowly getting back to that place of reconnecting with the art form I once fiercely loved.

This isn’t going to be a long, detailed post. I stumbled upon a trio of screwball comedies tonight on TCM – My Man Godfrey, Bringing Up Baby, and Ball of Fire. For some reason I always forget how much I love Ball of Fire. Maybe because I’m blinded by the total adoration of Bringing Up Baby.

Anyways. Barbara Stanwyck in this scene is everything. No wonder she’s the kind of woman who makes whole civilizations topple.

Do I need to elaborate more? Okay.

That’s all.

Happy New Year!

Yes, I’m still blogging. In case you (I’m assuming at least one person still reads this blog) were wondering, I deliberately stepped away from blogging in December off. I think my self-imposed solitude worked.

Now that it is a new year – and with a new year comes a chance to recharge – here is what I have in store. For instance:

I will finish the Elvis Files. (A project two years in the making.)

I will return to writing reviews. (I stopped two or three years ago for whatever reason.)

I will publish the one post I’ve been working on for three months about why I am completely dissatisfied with 2013 films.

I will stop reducing my posts to Buzzfeed-esque lists about movies. (Because lets face it, Buzzfeed lists have reduced writing about culture to basically nothing.)

Lastly, I have enlisted some of my friends to challenge me to do something different with this blog. Like the film nerd equivalent of eating insects. Maybe they will force me to watch something I would never watch. I don’t know what they have planned. But one conclusion I reached during my hiatus is that this blog is http://www.cine-fille.com. Maybe it is time I focused more on the “fille” part than just the “cine” part.

Who knows if I will actually complete any of these resolutions. I am terrible at following through with the goals I set for myself. So in the meantime, just know that yes, I’m still blogging and yes, I’m still here.

Like Smaug, the evil Liberace of dragons, I’m not going away any time soon.

Every January, I go through the movie ticket stubs I acquired during the previous year and paste them into a small scrapbook. As I was going through my collection this weekend (while also ignoring the obvious signs of hoarding, of course), I noticed something. The oldest ticket stub is for Shattered Glass. I saw it in November 2003.

For exactly ten years I have been saving my ticket stubs. There are 220 ticket stubs in total. That’s seven Harry Potters, five Woody Allen movies, four Lord of the Rings, two Sex and the Citys, two Hunger Games and plenty more. Here is small a sampling of my stub collection.

1. 2003 to 2004

Shattered Glass; Lord of the Ring: Return of the King; Mystic River, Big Fish; Miracle; Jersey Girl; Mean Girls; Troy

This is the very first page from the scrapbook. I was 15 when I saw these movies. I can’t believe I saw Troy in theaters and I still can’t believe Mean Girls came out 10 years ago.

2. 2004 to 2005

Life Aquatic; In Good Company; Hotel Rwanda; Sin City; The Upside of Anger; Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants; Cinderella Man; Caterina in the City

My dad is still mad at me for making us see The Upside of Anger.

3. 2006

Superman Returns; The Devil Wears Prada; Little Miss Sunshine; The Departed; Marie Antoinette; the Queen; The Fountain; The Holiday

Marie Antoinette was one of the first times I went to the movies by my college. It took practically all day to take the PVTA to the Hampshire Mall and back.

4. 2007

Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix; Hairspray; Becoming Jane; The Bourne Ultimatum

I did not remember that I had seen The Bourne Ultimatum until about 20 minutes ago.

5. 2008

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2; Vicky Christina Barcelona; Man on Wire; W; Rachel Getting Married

I saw W on November 3, 2008. Barack Obama was elected president November 4, 2008. No, that was not intentional.

6. 2009

Up; The Hangover; Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince; Funny People

Yes, another Harry Potter. Anticipating the release of these books and movies was everything for me and my friends back in the day.

7. 2009 to 2010

Precious; Avatar; Crazy Heart; Robin Hood

My sister and I saw Avatar at the Sony Center in Berlin. (I insisted. She’s still mad at me.) I was working on my undergraduate thesis on neorealism at the time and Avatar proceeded to drive me insane the rest of the year.

8. 2011

Midnight in Paris; Bringing Up Baby; Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers; Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King; The Tree of Life; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 2

It should be required by law to see Bringing Up Baby and the Lord of the Rings trilogy anytime they are playing in theaters. Also around this time my local cinema changed owners. Instead of the nice green ticket stubs I used to get, I now get these ugly white stubs. The paper quality is slightly better than receipt paper so you can save them but they still yellow. I have never forgiven Digiplex Destinations for this.

9. 2012

Ruby Sparks; The Expendables 2; Beasts of the Southern Wild; The Master; Argo; The Sessions; Skyfall

I saw Beasts of the Southern Wild three times. But you would never know because one of the ticket stubs was printed on receipt paper. (Don’t get me started on receipt paper.)

2013

Fruitvale Station; Blue Jasmine; Rush; 12 Years A Slave; Gravity; The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

2013 was a slow and boring year for movies. I barely went. These six were some of the only ones worth going to see in theaters.

This is going to be a short post since I should be focusing on my Motifs of Cinema post for Andrew at Encore Entertainment’s now annual blogathon. (Because why I would I start that earlier than the day it’s supposed to be posted.)

I just got back from visiting my sister in Côte d’Ivoire. During the 9 days I was there, I accompanied her to a few programs she runs for English students throughout the country. Because it is Black History Month, these programs all centered around the Civil Rights Movement and highlighting this period in American history with students. That’s how I ended up at a special screening of In The Heat of The Night and discussing the film with English students afterwards.

Running a screening in Cote d’Ivoire for English students is (unsurprisingly) completely different than the weekly classic film screening I run in New Jersey. Because I am a know-it-all film snob, I often forget that not everyone watches movies the way that I do. This is especially true of people for who English isn’t their first language who are watching a non-dubbed American film and aren’t aware of American history. So most of the Q&A was spent explaining the plot and which white guy did it.

But I took away something else from watching In the Heat of the Night in Abidjan. Sidney Poitier is universally loved. Every instructor talked about how much they loved Poitier and his film. And Poitier gained some new fans in Côte d’Ivoire especially thanks to the scene when Tibbs slaps Endicott across the face. At another program in Yamaoussoukro, a question was asked: “Does anyone know any famous black actors?” The only answers were Wesley Snipes and Sidney Poitier. Take that, Will Smith.

“42” at the American Corner Yamoussoukro. This movie is also shown to highlight the Civil Rights Movement to Ivorian students.

Motifs in Cinema is a discourse across film blogs, assessing the way in which various thematic elements have been used in the 2013 cinematic landscape. How does a common theme vary in use from a comedy to a drama? Are filmmakers working from a similar canvas when they assess the issue of death or the dynamics of revenge? Like most things, a film begins with an idea – Motifs in Cinema assesses how various themes emanating from a single idea change when utilised by varying artists.

I’m about to share an unpopular opinion. I hated almost every movie released in 2013. I think it was a dreadfully boring year for cinema. If it wasn’t for how amazing Amy Adam’s looks in dresses with plunging necklines, I would completely give up on saying anything nice about 2013 cinema all together.

Which brings me to the 2013 Motifs in Cinema blogathon. This year, more than any other, was difficult for me to select a topic to write about. I settled on “coming of age” films because not only is this my favorite sub-genre of films but also because I actually enjoyed these few movies this year.

Mud

Jeff Nichols’ Mud combines so many of the essential elements seen in the best coming of age stories. An uncompromising location, a youth in need of parental guidance, a mysterious stranger. Yet what is striking about Mud is how as it crosses into a new yet familiar Mark Twain-like territory, the film gets at one of the bitter truths of growing up. Nothing is as it seems and learning this can be devastating.

Photo: Empire Online

Spring Breakers

If Mud is about the cruel realities of growing up then Spring Breakers is about the frivolity that comes with youth. The four girls – Faith, Brittany, Candy and Cotty – are bored by what they are expected to do (attend college) and escape for what they are not supposed to do (wild drunken escapades). The effect of their actions is different for each girl. Some run, some are damaged and some thrive off of the danger and newfound freedom.

Filmuforia

Ginger & Rosa

An essential aspect of growing up is when you see the world for the what it really is and your parents for who they really are. Ginger & Rosa tackles this through the lifelong friendship of two teenage girls in the 1960s. Ginger (Elle Fanning) and Rosa (Alice Englert) dream of not being their mothers but as the threat of nuclear disaster looms (note how female sexual awakening is equated to nuclear warfare), their friendship derails their lives. Like Ellis in Mud, Ginger has to accept the harsh realities of the world.

The Spectacular Now

High school senior Sutter Keely suffers from an acute inability to see beyond the present. He spends his days goofing off, drinking, and not planning for a future. His reckless attitude drives away his ideal girlfriend and leads him to meeting the shy, sci-fi loving Aimee Finecky. Thanks to an abundance of vampires, teen wolves and pretty little liars (oh my), movies set in high school are rarely equal parts realistic, humorous, and affecting. The Spectacular Now accomplishes this without relying on any gimmicks. This is in part because Miles Teller makes the incredibly unlikeable Sutter an actually bearable character. Teller’s performance gives depth to a character who is lacking any. (I hated Sutter in the book.) But that is why Sutter’s realization that he wants to move beyond high school is perfect, even if we don’t know how the story ends.

Blue is the Warmest Color

Near the end of Blue is the Warmest Color, Adele comments to her ex about how she has changed her hair to look older. The movie follows Adele’s life for about 10 years yet she still looks 17. But for a character so young, she experiences a great cinematic love stories that is sweet and heartbreaking. Emma pulls Adele out of her shell, making her live a life she never expected. How this relationship builds up and falls apart is completely devastating. Adele is often lost and unsure of herself without her longtime partner. And what we see from Adele’s experiences is the value knowing oneself outside of a relationship.

Jordan Catalano got an Oscar before Angela Chase. None of us saw that coming. Except maybe Rayanne.

The 86th Annual Academy Awards have come and gone. While I might not have loved 2013 cinema, there is nothing I love more than the Oscars telecast. It’s a gloriously absurd evening and every year gives us something to talk about. Except not this year. It was just a solid, non-controversial show, which is something the Academy needed. Let’s get into five points of interest.

1. Ellen Degeneres Does It Again

Ellen Degeneres’ hosting style doesn’t satisfy everyone.  There was no musical number. No “Boobs” song. Just jokes. But after three year’s of duds, it was great to see a host skip a musical number, not sing about boobs and just have fun. The audience gag’s kept the show from getting too boring and that pizza gag gave us the greatest picture of Brad Pitt ever. Thank you, Ellen.

2. LUPITA IS EVERYTHING

From her fashion choices to her articulate acceptance speeches, Lupita Nyong’o owned awards season. She even made that irritating Pharrell song bearable.The Oscars were her night and it was refreshing to see someone so overjoyed and gracious win.

3. Bill Murray’s Impromptu Tribute

Bill Murray is a national treasure. He cemented that with his tribute to Harold Ramis. It was perfect.

4. The Oscar Themes Need To Go

Why, why, why do the Academy Awards need a theme? It just doesn’t work. Look, I love a good montage (I really do) but all these montages do is reduce the greatest movies into snippets only film snobs appreciate. So either figure out how to execute a theme with some originality or don’t bother at all. It drags down an otherwise okay show.

I do like the idea of celebrating one great classic movie, like The Wizard of Oz, during the Oscars telecast. But when Liza Minnelli and Lorna Luft become glorified seat fillers, that’s a waste. Here’s an idea: bring back the honorary Oscars, in some way, to primetime telecast. It is the single best way to celebrate classic Hollywood without boring everyone. Because when Stanley Donen tap dances, we all win.

5. Lupita Nyong’o’s brother deserves an Oscar

Remember when Jimmy Kimmel tried to make everyone tweet during the Emmys? Yeah, that didn’t work at all. Ellen Degeneres, however, made it work with this instant classic bit. And that guy who’s blocking Angie who you don’t recognize…. it’s Lupita Nyongo’s brother Peter. Well-done, sir. Well-done.

This is what I took away from the Oscars. What are your thoughts on the 86th Annual Academy Awards? Sound off below.

It has been well over a year since I did one of these pointless lists. (I’ll never forget you, Hansel and Gretel.) But 300: Rise of An Empire is a movie worthy of this great honor. If you enjoyed it’s kind-of, sort of but not really 300 (and I did), you’ll probably get a kick out of this movie. If only because Artemisia (Eva Green) makes you question why Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) is even there.

1. These trailers are boring. It must be March.
2. 300: With Less Abs and More Facial Hair
3. Fassbender was not in 300 as much as he is in 300: Rise of an Empire.
4. Themistocles is a buzzkill.
5. So. Much. Blood.
6. Artemisia is a fancy Kristen Stewart.
7. Hell hath no fury like an Ancient Greek woman scorned.

Werk it, girl.

8. Xerxes is missing some gold. He should borrow some from Smaug.
9. “You traveled a long way to stroke your cock while watching real men train.” What?!
10. There are absolutely no stereotypes about Persians in this movie whatsoever.
11. Where did the Persians find the space store all Artemisia’s outfits?
12. Now I don’t think any of that happened.
13. Is it really necessary to whip the slaves? They’re already doomed.
14. ROCKS
15. Artemisia: Greece :: Captain Ahab: Moby Dick.
16. That sex scene was already in Dark Shadows.

The angriest sex in the history of angry sex.

17. How did the Athenians get their spears back in between battles?
18. Spartans. Amirite?
19. Seriously? Where did that horse come from?
20. I don’t remember Cook looking anything like that.
21. Lena Headey, guys. Lena Headey.
22. This entire movie is just one extended sex scene.
23. So… I guess there won’t be an Artemisia-Themistocles TV spin-off.
24. Eight years later and I still don’t know how the Persians transported those elephants to Greece.
25. And there are no words for this.

Everybody Dance Now

A new Expendables movie is like Christmas morning when you open your presents and wonder: “How the hell did you come up with this?” That’s basically what I thought as I watched the trailer for The Expendables 3: This Time With Young People Who Understand TechnologyThe Expendables is a who’s who from every action film and the trailer is, fittingly, a roll call. The familiar faces plus some new additions to the Expendables crew will bring more of the same absurd goodness to the big screen.

“One more movie. Until 2016.”

“I don’t need to be here.”

“Almodovar didn’t need me this year.”

“I don’t have time for this shit again.”

“Paycheck. Paycheck. Paycheck.”

“We all know I’m the star.”

“I know. What am I doing here?”

“Who invited these kids?”

“Seriously. Who invited these kids?”

“I’m not a sparkly vampire! I’m real boy!”

“They needed a girl.”

 “I almost wasn’t included in this post because Joanna doesn’t know who I am.”

“I do not own a shirt.”

“They couldn’t get Clint.”

“This is how it’s done.”

“Choppa. I’ll be back. I never get new lines.”

My only question is: Are we sure this be the final Expednables movie? Certainly this is one conservative floating around Hollywood who needs a job.

Oh and there are absurd character posters too. (I’m obsessed with Harrison Ford’s poster.) Let’s hope The Expendables 3 is just as ridiculous as the first two movies. But with more Dolph Lundgren. Every movie should have more Dolph.

Leave it to Fifty Shades of Grey to pull me out of my self-imposed blogging exile. I’ve watched the trailer a few times now and I… I just… I have some thoughts. For starters:

This is Zoe Kazan.

This is a white guy.

He wears suits.

He has a helicopter.

She has… well I’m sure she has hobbies and friends and something exciting going on in her life that is equally as exciting as that helicopter. Perhaps she enjoys scarves as evidenced by the one time she is seen wearing a scarf.

There is also an elevator.

But this is not Grey’s Anatomy.

Oh.

So.

Well, Beyonce is on board with this movie so I guess it’s fine.

The end.

This is not a “Best of 2014” list. This is an obituary for a blog.

“On December 31 2014 , the final post of For Cinephiles by a Cinefille miraculously appeared on the Internet. It had terrible SEO and even worse grammar. Thanks to a grand total of seven blog posts all year and after a nearly five month absence, no one bothered to read it.”

Just kidding. This blog isn’t going anywhere.

It isn’t necessary for you to read this post. It is more necessary for me to just write something, anything, on the final day of 2014, to force myself to get back to blogging.

I spent most of 2014 actively forgetting I had a blog. It didn’t really work. As I avoided publishing any content, the blog has been patiently waiting for me to draft a post, to type words and sentences, to reflect on a movie I just saw. I went through the motions many times. In one attempt to force myself to write, I posted on Twitter that I would be blogging again. (As if Twitter would hold me to my word.) Despite nice feedback and general enthusiasm from my (social) network, I never completed the task at hand.

It’s not that I lack opinions on the movies I’ve seen lately. The Imitation Game, for instance, left me in a stunned silence – as far as biopics go, it is one of the best of recent memory. I found Birdman to be exhilarating, Foxcatcher to be underwhelming, Gone Girl to lack a penis and Unbroken to be the movie I irrationally hate.

I just needed some time off from publishing those opinions here.

2014 has been a bizarre and lackluster year. At the beginning of the year I was un(der)employed, broke and frustrated. By September I was getting my shit together – I started a graduate program, moved, began working steadily again. That is where I needed to put my energy and after a few months off, I finally feel ready to return to this blog. I still won’t post as much as I once did. But it won’t be on hiatus as it has been.

I took the year to reconsider what I want out of this blog, how much of my Internet persona (we all have one) I want to maintain. I’ll never delete this blog because, well, I started it over 9 years ago.  There’s a lot stored here. I’ve put so much time, energy, money, and pain into creating a space for myself on the Internet that it would be impossible for me to completely walk away.

It was surprisingly easy for me to stop blogging. Not only have I become frustrated with the blogging process, but I’ve also become increasingly underwhelmed by the state of Hollywood. The new and current film industry – one that is built around sequel after sequel and multi-platform storytelling (thanks Marvel) is actually quite draining as a viewer when you are only casually invested. You spend more lamenting on the state of the industry and lack of attention paid to the exceptional movies than you do actually going to the movies. And so why blog about anything if the very thing you centered a blog around is a constant disappointment? But my dissatisfaction with movies only mask a larger problem for me.

Cinema is not everything to me anymore.

This is a strange sentence for me to write and an even stranger realization to reach. For starters, I never thought I would write it. It also isn’t entirely true. Right now, I’m watching Sweet Smell of Success, a film I love with every fiber of my being. There is no way I could stop loving this movie or any movie no matter how disappointed I am with the movies I see.

I spent most of this year consciously removing media from my life and reading far more Joan Didion than necessary. Yet, ironically, I spend most days binge-watching everything and anything I could get my hands on. (Did I really need to rewatch Private Practice? No. But I did.) The harder I remove what I do truly love from my life, the more I depend on it in my life.

So this is where my head is at. If any of this makes sense.

Still the blog continues.

Happy New Year.

[gif source]

Happy Galentine’s Day! I celebrated the greatest day of the year this past weekend by hosting a craft party for all of my favorite ladies to enjoy. Although I hate sharing DIY tips (that’s why I’ll never make it as a lifestyle blogger), I have made an exception for Galentine’s Day. Here are some ways you can celebrate the best ladies in your life.

1. Spend an unnatural amount of time at Michaels.

That escalator leads to my happy place/personal hell.

Surprisingly it only took three relatively painless trips to my local Michaels to pick out a craft project, find appropriately tacky decorations and not go completely overboard. Hah. Who am I kidding? At this point, I’m basically Abbi at Bed, Bath, and Beyond.

2. Send out questionnaires.

How can you provide beautiful gifts for your favorite ladies if you do not know every detail about their lives? My highly analytical survey (who’s your feminist icon? Favorite female politician? Favorite Book? Girly cocktail?) resulted in some custom party favors. Throw in some random questions (What’s the last book you read? Favorite color?) just for fun.

3. Pre-craft 

Feminist icon cupcake toppers are must for any Galentine’s Day party.

Pre-crafting is just like pre-gaming. You eat, you drink, you knit, you cut and you glue furiously until 3AM. You should always pre-craft so much that you need to take Alleve the following morning.

4. Create unique gift bags.

I’m not Leslie Knope. I actually sleep. I do not have a binder creator on retainer. I’m not skilled at making mosaics out of your favorite diet sodas. But I can search every store for the perfect gift bags swag.

What I came up with: Pinwheels; I Think You’re Sharp Pencils; Bubbles; Lip Gloss; Knitted Heart Puff stuffed with dried lavender; Chocolates in Handmade Heart-Shaped Gift Boxes; Conversation Hearts; Condoms.

5. Kick it breakfast style

Ideally your Galentine’s Day celebration takes place during brunch. Ideally you only serve waffles. If you know anything about Galentine’s Day, you don’t need me to tell you this.

6. Craft!

Galentine’s Day Craft Parties are not Paint Nite. (I hope. Please never let it become Paint Nite.) The key to successful craft party is to find something everyone can make and will actually want to use or gift to someone else. And allow your guests to do whatever the hell they want.

DIY Chalkboards are relatively simple to make. Hot glue some magnets on the back and you’re in craft business.

Notorious RBG not included

If you follow these steps, Galentine’s Days parties are a fantastic way to cut loose in February and enjoy the greatest holiday that really should be a national holiday.

The 87^th Academy Awards are in just a few hours. Boyhood will win Best Picture but that doesn’t matter.

As always, the Oscars telecast will be one of television’s great spectacles. Too much attention will given to what actresses are wearing, to how Jennifer Aniston will be breathing the same air as Brangelina, and to whether or not Neil Patrick Harris lives up to the absurd expectations we set for emcees. (No NPH, you can’t top Ellen’s selfie. Don’t even try.)

What we won’t discuss – at least not for any longer than we need to – is the incredibly flawed system (and Academy) that determines the so-called best movies, performances of a given year.

Every year the Oscars nominations incite people and this year that has anger resonated more than anyone could have predicted. The lack of recognition for Selma, its director Ava DuVernay and star David Oyelowo is deeply wrong, damaging and glaringly political. Equally disheartening are the overwhelming number of nominations for white men for the movies they made about white men, their lives and their problems.

Welcome to Hollywood.

As someone who cares far too much about an awards show where the results are determined by middle-aged white guys, I was not surprised by the 2015 Oscar nominees. It only added to my feeling of disappointment in the film industry that has left me bogged down for a while now.

I’ve spent the past month processing why I am so disappointed by the current Oscar nominees and with Hollywood. While I am genuinely glad about some nominees (The Grand Budapest Hotel, Julianne Moore), I don’t particularly care about the majority of films the Academy has singled out as the best of 2014 (The Theory of Everything, Boyhood, American Sniper). My frustrations have been building over the past several years when I could not be bothered to care about movies such as Avatar, Argo or The King’s Speech.

Why, after so many years of obsessing and loving this stupid awards show, do I kind of hate the Oscars right now?

My answer to that question began to fall into place for me after one incident.

In early January, my dad complained to me about Selma. He was angry about the allegedly inaccurate portrayal of Lyndon Johnson. Because of these inaccuracies, my dad refuses to see Selma, one of 2014’s most significant movies. I ignored my dad’s view about Selma because it is a ridiculous complaint that follows every movie based on a true story. Since our initial argument, my father and I have been engaged in an intense back and forth, sometimes yelling, sometimes sharing with each other article after article about the debate surrounding Selma.

At a certain point, I realized my dad’s opinion about a movie he would never see wouldn’t change so I was prepared to give up on the fight. Until my dad countered Wesley Morris’ review of Selma by emailing me Maureen Dowd’s January 17 column, which is easily the most problematic piece I’ve read about Selma. (He also called Dowd “my girl Maureen Dowd,” implying she is the columnist I turn to for meaningful culture critiques.) The backlash surrounding Selma has very little to do with faulting a movie over its creative liberties. It is about a specific demographic perceiving that their history has been misrepresented. (Gosh. That must suck.)

Too many people view cinema through a “clueless white gaze” – it is, unfortunately, how we are conditioned to see movies and to some extent, how we are conditioned to create movies so that they can be sold to mass audiences. Selma dismantles the white gaze, making audiences aware of what the film industry could be if more unrepresented voices can make movies.

But the anger surrounding Selma’s snubs (and my debate with my father) only scratches the surface of the much larger problem with the Oscars.

The Oscar nominations always come down to politics – who has the best campaign, who has the strongest studio support, which actor has the best surrogates while they build their acting cred on Broadway. You don’t need me to tell you that the Academy Awards is a constant parade of white guys jerking each other off.

I am not frustrated with the Oscars simply because the movies I like don’t get nominated. I am not frustrated simply because industry politics impacted the reception of Selma or that not enough women aren’t nominated.

My frustrations with the Oscars became amplified sometime around 2010, the year the Best Picture nominees increased from 5 to 10. Since then I have cared little for the majority of the Best Picture nominees. Why? Because as more films are recognized, the more redundant everything feels. Even if the nominated movies have nothing in common, the stories being sold to me as the best Hollywood can offer revolve around white men. And that’s boring.

Increasing the number of Best Picture nominees has allowed for some unlikely nominees over the years, but it also exposes the flawed system behind the Academy. It is not that the system was a secret; it was just easier to mask.

The Oscars telecast itself has become more about shielding the realities of a deeply problematic awards show and industry from the public than actually about the year’s best cinema.

Of course, I will watch the Oscars tonight. I will get excited about the outlandish moments. I will tweet snarky things. I will be thrilled with Julianne Moore finally wins an Oscar. And I will hold my breath because as soon as the show ends, an endless stream of criticisms will roll out across the Internet. Everyone will voice what was good and bad about the telecast. Tumblr will provide the gifs. Someone will inevitably post a list about what can be done better next year and how the Academy can improve.

Then nothing will happen because Hollywood – and even how we write about the industry – is trapped in a cycle.

We’re already planning the 88^th Academy Awards before Neil Patrick Harris even cracks his first joke tonight. We’re already trying to predict what movies will be nominated next year. We’re already mentally preparing ourselves for the moment in January 2016 when not enough women and minorities receive the nominations we know they deserve.

Perhaps what we can take from all of this is that people talk about Oscar snubs far longer than they talk about Oscar winners. Every debate that has surrounded Selma and the 2015 Oscars can (and should) finally push people to demand change from an industry that routinely limits itself in favor of playing it safe.

I want that hat and that cherry lapel pin for my Jane Fonda-Lily Tomlin-Madeline Albright Theme Parties

Once again, I’ve neglected this blog. As an apology, I’ve decided to write a new What I Learned From…

In the following post, I will reveal snarky insights about a popular movie. Several months from now, someone will stumble upon this post via the Google and think I am completely serious/clueless about the movie I’ve watched and what I’ve written. (Why else would a post on The Godfather – Part 3 from 2012 still get so much traffic?)

In anticipation of Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin’s new Netflix series Aaron Sorkin inspired FanFiction Grace and Frankie, here is what I learned from 9 to 5.

1. Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin do not have a portmanteau. This is a crime.

Janly Fonlin.

Where would we be without the friendship between Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin? In far more terrible place than we are now.

2. National Treasure Dolly Parton

Doralee is the trashy secretary everyone assumes is sleeping with the boss. (He wishes.) But she’s really the glue that holds the group together. It’s no surprise that in her fantasy about how she offs her boss, Doralee is the John Wayne-inspired heroine. Bonus: She’s becomes a country western star and laughs all the way to the bank.

3. Marijuana is the gateway drug for women’s liberation

9 to 5 is on to something with these old-fashioned ladies’ pot parties where pissed off women fantasize about killing men. And conservatives don’t like it.

4. Stealing a corpse is improper.

Literally my favorite scene in 9 to 5 is when Violet, Judy and Doralee realize they’ve stolen the wrong body from the morgue. At this moment, I learned that etiquette is always important, even in the middle of covering up a crime you didn’t actually commit.

5. Put women in charge and everything changes

The world will be a terrible place with women in charge. How else will companies adopt new policies to please pot ladies like equal pay, day care, part-time hours, the freedom to put knickknacks on desks and colorful decor?

6. The story hasn’t changed.

Not like these three

When men enact a revenge fantasy against their bosses, they get sequels and a chance to solve the world’s problems. Women, however, have been selling the same fantasy about the workplace in movies and television for well over 30 years. The actresses change but the story doesn’t.  Now we’re stuck with the Shailene Woodley’s of Hollywood as the “trailblazers” to tell the story and they are not feminists.

[gif source: 1 2]

Mad Men has generated an inordinate amount of think pieces this week. It’s overwhelming to say the least. While I certainly don’t need to contribute another aside to the story, a few thoughts about this show keep percolating in my mind.

For one, there is something different Mad Men’s public discourse – every commentary is able to find a different angle about the show or to highlight one last piece of hidden meaning that is still lingering behind each frame. This culture of commentary speaks to the complexity and nuance of each episode, every word of dialogue, each painstakingly, slow, frustrating bit of character development. (Come on, Trudy. Don’t let Pete play you like that, again.)

In many ways, I think the critiques a single episode of Mad Men can generate might be its best legacy. This series about a specific time in media history and American culture has not only elevated the medium of television itself but also taken television criticism in new directions. A decade from now, when every culture critic revisits the legacy of Mad Men, the conversations we have been having today will remain as thought-provoking as ever. (I can almost guarantee it will be Peggy Olsen and her story – not Don Draper’s – we will be most concerned with by then.)

Don Draper, more than any other Mad Men character, isn’t a character at all. He’s a symbol, something created and embellished through advertising. So much about him – his past and his future – is left unanswered.

This is why Mad Men has generates legitimate conspiracy theories and it is these conspiracies that separate Mad Men from Breaking Bad or The Wire. These conspiracy theories make the public discourse surrounding Mad Men fascinating and surreal. The theories range from absurd to completely plausible. They’re funny and carefully thought out. Above all, they are an expression of basic human desires.

We are naturally driven to be curious and seek out the truth. There has to be more to every story. (This is partially why fanfiction exists. The writers left something out and it becomes up to fans to fill in the blanks.)

But the beauty of being human is that you can never know everything. It’s impossible. And yet, that can’t be all there is. There has to be some hidden, profound truths behind a glass of red wine spilled on Don Draper’s white carpet.

The desire to know every detail about Mad Men, to find meaning behind every prop, to craft unlikely scenarios, also says a great deal about the nuance of the show itself. Mad Men relishes in time and banality and the ordinary nature of space. The slowness of an episode’s structure is deliberate and it drives audiences insane. For those of us who have spent 92 episodes devouring every detail of Mad Men’s world, there has to be more. Except there never is more.

I have my own ideas how Mad Men could end but none of them are likely or worth writing about.

As the series comes to an end tonight, I see this show as nothing more than a profound reflection on every day life. Mad Men may be set decades in the past but the feelings and experiences are immensely relatable for today’s audiences. (Human nature, like the story arcs on Mad Men, slowly evolves.) The characters will continue existing in this fictional universe we won’t be privy to anymore. Any similarities to Sharon Tate or D.B. Cooper are just coincidence. And that’s it. That’s how it all ends. But we’re all better for having experienced the subtle richness of this television show. It’s hard to imagine there will be any series like Mad Men again.

“Reality TV promises its audience revelatory insight into the lives of others as it withholds and subverts full access to it.” — Laurie Ouellette and Susan Murray, Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture

It finally happened. After almost a decade of being America’s favorite oversized Evangelical family next door, the Duggars of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting are experiencing a scandal for which there might actually be repercussions.

Here is (some of) what we know so far:

• On Thursday May 21, InTouch published a police report indicating allegations that oldest son Josh Duggar was accused of child molestation in 2006. His father Jim Bob waited more than a year to report the accusations.
• Josh Duggar has since apologized and resigned as Executive Director of the Family Research Council (FRC).
• Various blogs and websites are now uncovering many of the less often discussed aspects of the Duggars religion and lifestyle. Buzzfeed, for instance, has a post on the homeschooling practices the Duggars promote via 19 Kids and Counting.
• Other media outlets have reported that the allegations about Josh Duggar have been circulating on the Internet for years. (This is true. I first heard about the allegations some time ago.)
• TLC has pulled, not canceled, episodes of 19 Kids and Counting. You can still watch full episodes on TLC.com and there remains significant demands for cancellation.
• As of May 27, 19 Kids and Counting has lost advertisers including General Mills and Walgreens.
• While it seems that the scandal has simmered down over the long weekend, expect more news to spiral in the coming days until TLC makes a definitive decision on the future of 19 Kids and Counting.

Coincidentally, I wrote a final paper on 19 Kids and Counting for my Media, Culture & Power in International Communications course two weeks ago. (Snaps for grad school.) For the past month, I have been researching everything from the Duggar family and the Institute of Basic Life Principles (IBLP) to representations of extreme lifestyles on reality television to the branding of TLC and Discovery Communications. Needless to say, I have been following this scandal more closely than I ever paid attention to the similar fallouts that occurred with Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Jon & Kate Plus 8.

Much of what is being written across the Internet right now focuses on the scandal itself – especially the cringeworthy behavior of various Duggars over the years. Yet what is not happening enough is actually looking at how a show like 19 Kids and Counting in an integral part of a complex media system.

When you examine a show like 19 Kids and Counting, you quickly realize that more is going on than you could ever imagine. These are the main points we should focus on when we talk about the Duggars, the media empire they’ve built, and what is at stake for TLC/Discovery Communications.

Meet the Duggars

The Duggars made their cable television debut in the 2005 special 14 Children and Pregnant Again! TLC aired four additional specials before 19 Kids and Counting – then called 17 Kids and Counting – premiered in 2008.  Now in its tenth season, TLC has broadcast more than 200 episodes of 19 Kids and Counting, making the show one of the channel’s longest running and most successful reality series. Currently, the series is posting some of TLC’s highest rated telecasts in years.

19 Kids and Counting normalizes the every day activities of this supersized American Evangelical family. A typical 30-minute episode of 19 Kids and Counting follows the Duggars as they go about mundane everyday tasks including meals, homeschooling, laundry, shopping and doctor’s visits. But like any reality television series, 19 Kids and Counting provides “viewers with an unmediated, voyeuristic, and yet often playful look into… the ‘entertaining real’”(Ouellette and Murray 5). “The entertaining real” of the Duggar family has been carefully constructed even as the family extended their sphere of influence to include books, family blogs, and a strong social media presence.

Overtime the Duggars have a “built family like a company” and through that company, they are promoting a specific Evangelical lifestyle.

Extreme Motherhood, Extreme Conservatism

The Duggars follow the Institute for Basic Life Principles (IBLP) and Quiverfull, two Christian Evangelical movements founded and supported by Bill Gothard. (Gothard stepped down from his position in 2014 following a sex scandal.) Although 19 Kids and Counting often shows the Duggars attending church services, mission trips, or religious conferences, the family’s specific Evangelical beliefs are rarely explicitly stated on the series itself.

Quiverfull is a pro-purist lifestyle where women forego all birth control options and motherhood is viewed as essential women’s work. Quiverfull followers view women’s liberation as the cause of societal problems including abortion, divorce and premarital sex. Quiverfull women are expected to subservient to their husbands and fathers.

19 Kids and Counting establishes the Duggar family – particularly the Duggar men – as prime examples of successful Evangelicals because of their multiple children and financial stability. Thus, the public recognition and admiration of the Duggars has become vital for Quiverfull’s sustainability. The movement is small but growing with an estimated tens of thousands of followers.

Profiles in People Magazine also normalizes Quiverfull practices.

As public Evangelicals, the Duggars are given considerable access to conservative politicians in the United States. Through their various social media platforms, pro-LGBTQ discrimination robocolls, and Josh Duggar’s position with the FRC, the Duggars have become vocal mouthpiece for the conservative right. (It is also unsurprising that one of their most vocal supporters is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Huckabee always has been on #TeamDuggar.) Until this past week, the popularity of 19 Kids and Counting remained unaffected by the Duggars’ political beliefs and advocacy.

TLC and Discovery Communications

There is a running joke about The Learning Channel: When did the cable channel stop teaching? What began as an educational channel formed by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1972, has evolved into a privately own cable network. Seemingly every show on TLC focuses on extreme behavior and grotesqueries. Above all, TLC is targeted towards female viewers and the success of 19 Kids and Counting has been integral to this brand development.  As Jack Dickey recently wrote in Time, the channel “reaches the women of Middle America by parading unusual humans before them and hoping… that viewers relate to their struggles”. Primetime reality series like Little People, Big World, Jon & Kate Plus 8 and 19 Kids and Counting have all become synonymous with the TLC brand.

TLC’s current slogan, “Everybody Needs A Little TLC,” emphasizes familial love. No matter the family.

Most significantly, without 19 Kids and Counting – and other similarly controversial reality shows centered around extreme lifestyles – Discovery Communications would not be experiencing unprecedented international successes. Not only does Discovery own most of its programming (limiting foreign licensing fees), but most of its shows – even undeniably American reality series like 19 Kids and Counting – translate well globally. For Discovery, the Duggars are essentially an exportable commodity.

But the landscape of cable television industry has significantly changed. Competition from on-demand services and online streaming websites means that global mass media enterprises like Discovery must constantly evolve. As Discovery continues to define and redefine itself during the golden age of television, the prominence of its standing as a global network has only just begun. The Duggars have been key contributors to this success.

The Future of 19 Kids and Counting

 “Perhaps when the very idea of a cable subscription begins to seem antiquated, strong brands may all that’s left standing,” wrote Jack Dickey in his April 2015 profile of Discovery CEO David Zaslav. In a time when reality television stars must have marketability beyond the limits of a television series, TLC’s branding is what separates it from many cable networks.  In early May, Discovery launched TLCme, a hub for original digital content. The site is essentially a lifestyle blog that is heavily dependent on TLC’s main personalities. Articles about the Duggars dominated the site until the InTouch article broke.

Much of what I’ve written here appeared in my final paper on 19 Kids and Counting. Two weeks ago, I concluded that the Duggars were integral to TLC’s brand and that their sphere of influence would continue to grow despite more than a few pointedly political public appearances and posts on social media. I also wrote this: “Only a moral scandal, such as the child molestation accusations that led to the cancellation of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, could end the Duggar’s fame. So far, the Duggars have managed to avoid the impact of such a scandal.”

It seems that the hypothetical scandal I alluded to is happening now. I’m genuinely curious what will happen next. When you look beyond the religious and political practices of the Duggar family, 19 Kids and Counting is essential programming for TLC and Discovery Communications. If the network can find a way to keep the Duggars on the air, they will. (And yes, there is a double standard in how a Christian family is treated versus the family on Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.)

Much of what happens next is significantly tied to the Duggars’ role as public Evangelicals. Even without 19 Kids and Counting serving as their primary form of Christian ministry, the reach of the Duggars, the IBLP and Quiverfull is massive. I honestly don’t believe America’s favorite Evangelicals next-door are going away any time soon.

Additional References:

Jack Dickey. “The Cable Boss: Why David Zaslav is the Biggest Guy in Television.” Time 13 April 2015: 42-47.

Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. Eds. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York: New York, University Press, 2009.

I’ve never understood this marketing campaign.

The Duggars of 19 Kids and Counting are many things. They are an unorthodox family. They are Conservatives. They are public Evangelicals. They are hypocrites.

In the week since InTouch Weekly published the police report about Josh Duggar’s acts of child molestation, tabloids, advertisers and networks have been quick to respond. You can no longer stream episodes on either Hulu or TLC.com. The latest issue of People, typically the Duggars #1 fan, also covers the scandal.

People Magazine: Casually pretending to not have a symbiotic relationship with the Duggars.

There are also rumors that TLC is considering developing a 19 Kids and Counting spinoff, which would focus on daughters Jill and Jessa.

I know what you’re thinking. How can TLC possibly be considering a spinoff? Hasn’t this family already gotten away with enough hypocrisy?

First, as I have previously written, 19 Kids and Counting is TLC and Discovery’s most profitable show. The network and mass media company will go to great lengths to keep any Duggars on television. Second, a spinoff centered around the Duggar daughters could be intriguing reality television and a potentially genius move.

For those not up on the lives of every Duggar, Jill and Jessa are both married and starting families. (Jill gave birth in May; Jessa is due in November.) They are also presumed to be two of their brother’s victims.

Jessa Seewald and Jill Dillard

After 200 episodes, 19 Kids and Counting has become boring reality television. Like really boring. When the Duggars 2.0 began courtships, engagements, and families of their own, the show’s plots became redundant. There are only so many wedding and birth episodes a viewer can take. Even before the scandal broke, the show needed a major shake up. Obviously a child molestation scandal is a terrible way to generate new story material and interest in a long running series, but that is exactly what is happening. (Or at least, what TLC is presumably hoping will happen.)

Now consider this. The Duggars have gone to great lengths to keep much of their public lives and agenda separate from the image purported by their reality show. Even as the Duggars 2.0 began using social media (something they can’t do until they begin a courtship) and revealed their strong conservative political/social beliefs, the show itself remained rooted in the idea that the Duggars are just an abnormally large family living the American Dream. But the truth has come out and the aftermath is potentially devastating for both the Duggars and TLC.

For a spinoff to be successful and worthy of any viewers time, Jim Bob, Michelle and Josh must be removed completely. Josh Duggars deserves no platform to redeem himself. Neither do Jim Bob or Michelle, who have little purpose on their own show. (Their oldest daughters do most of the actual child rearing.)

If the focus does shift to Jill and Jessa, then the sisters must be as open and honest about their past as possible. The spinoff cannot keep any secrets from audiences anymore. Abuse is an unspoken reality about life in as an Evangelical. Because Evangelical churches are patriarchal institutions, abusers are protected from ramifications. For any Duggar to publicly discuss their experiences as abuse victims would rock the house of Bill Gothard, so to speak.

19 Kids and Counting has spent nearly a decade masking extreme patriarchy behind a veil of Christian family values. So yes, a Duggar spinoff centered around the Duggar women would be revolutionary. And if handled properly, it is the kind of show that might actually earn the (some) Duggars actual respect.

(An alternative scenario for a spinoff, and there are many, is perhaps more likely. But I prefer to imagine a Duggar spinoff as close to Breaking Duggar as possible.)

Degrassi: The Next Generation – Season 1

When I list my favorite TV series – E.R., Mad Men, Sports Night, Friday Night Lights, Freaks and Geeks, The Good Wife – I always mention Degrassi. I love including Degrassi partly because I enjoy watching someone process how a Canadian teen soap can possibly be on par with more high brow television. I also include Degrassi because it is a damn good television show that often gets passed over simply because it is about teenagers.

You can imagine my disappointment when news broke yesterday that Degrassi: The Next Generation would end its run on TeenNick and MTVCanada after 14 seasons. (Keep in mind, it seems likely that Degrassi will find a new home. Creator Stephen Stohn also tweeted something rather cryptic this morning.) Regardless of what happens next, I’m way more bummed about the mere possibility of Degrassi-less future than a 27-year-old woman should be.

Ironically, although I have an unabashed love for many teen shows (namely Skins), I didn’t start watching Degrassi:The Next Generation until I was in college. Netflix happened to be streaming some of the early seasons and I quickly got drawn into this television universe inhabited by totally normal looking teenagers. By the time Paige was dealing with trauma after being raped and Manny had an abortion at age 14, I was hooked.

“Accidents Will Happen” (Season 3)

Since my initial binge watch, I’ve caught up on Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High. I’ve fallen in love with so many characters and friendships. Ellie Nash is my long lost emo Canadian soul sister. I cried over J.T.’s death. I wanted better for Anya. I hated then loved Holly J. I shipped Eclare at first but I am totally over their relationship now. I could care less about some characters (sorry Chantal) and I will never understand Spemma (Does anyone??). And somehow after all this time, I’m never dissatisfied by an episode of Degrassi. Except maybe when Clare was hooking up with her almost stepbrother.

Everything imaginable has happened at Degrassi High. Abusive parents, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, cancer, murders, cyber bullying, mental illness, school shootings, gang violence, questionable sexy times in the Ravine. Hell, the school practically burned down in the Season 14A finale. What’s amazing is that it took 369 episodes for that to happen.

Unlike so many teen shows, Degrassi has never been out of touch. Thanks to its longevity, it has tackled issues well before they were cultural norms. Lately, the series has been eons ahead of most shows in its representations of teenage sexuality and mental illness.

Fiona and Imogen became a (short-lived) power couple.

Cam, a hockey player, struggled to adapt to Degrassi and committed suicide.

Adam, a transgender student, fought for acceptance and then died while texting and driving.

These narratives, which are so prevalent in the high school experience, have been normalized and validated through the lens of Degrassi. Only The Fosters and sometimes Switched at Birth are consistently on par with Degrassi. Most other teen shows, with their weirdly too old and attractive casts, are too over-the-top and have too many vampires/werewolves/pretty little liars to really feel like authentic representations of being a teenager.

Degrassi has been around for so long now, many fans simply tune in for pure nostalgia. It’s been remarkable to read over the past day how many people actually care that Degrassi could end. I suppose there was always a sense that Degrassi, kind of like the real high school you went to, would be lingering in the background until you were ready to let go completely.

A snapshot of this blog from 2013

Today is the 10th anniversary of For Cinephiles by a Cinefille. I had no idea when I started this blog with zero fanfare and one loyal reader (my sister) that it would still be limping around 10 years later.

I created this blog when I was 16. Yes, 16. As I sat at my parents’ old desktop PC and tinkered with a Blogger account, I built something that seemed like a cool idea.

In 2005, while everyone I knew had a MySpace or a LiveJournal, blogs were a new concept. Practically no one had laptops (at least not in my house). At the time I was about to start my senior year of high school and I was a know-it-all film snob who realized that my obsessive interest in cinema could make people notice me. I felt somewhat isolated in a small, conservative NJ suburb so my blog became a necessary outlet for me. Although the domain has changed a few times and I ditched Blogger for WordPress, my blog remains the little space on the Internet I carved out for myself.

Overtime, I’ve written a lot posts, many of them are unremarkable. Yet this blog evolved and new people still stumble upon it from time to time, though I honestly have no idea why something I wrote about Skins five years ago remains popular.

The differences about myself from 2005 to now are astounding. This is true for anyone who has a public record of how they wrote and thought about a medium as a teen, college student, young adult and now, an old young adult. Back then, I wrote with a sense of urgency, driven by misguided cockiness. I also didn’t know what I was doing. I had no clue how to source anything or how to write well. But I fervently believed I knew everything about film, until college and life showed me that I didn’t and would never. The so-called real world knocked more than enough reality into me.

As a result, I’m more hesitant to blog than ever before.  I approach media in general from a significantly different lens. I’m more self aware. If I have an idea, I’m less likely to commit to the exhausting writing process. Recently I started and stopped and eventually deleted a potential essay on Rachel Dolezal and performing racial identities out of my fear that what I wanted to say wouldn’t be good or intelligent enough or well-received.

A driving force behind this blog’s initial existence, if you haven’t gathered, was combating my sense of self-doubt. It’s a feeling that developed intensely after a lifetime (in this case everything that happened to me before college) of being compared to the kids I had been in school with since the age of five. And I was told, often, I wasn’t as smart or as talented as my peers. Those comments from teachers or classmates, which probably weren’t intended to carry as much weight as they did, shaped my insecurities in profound ways. I reacted by starting this blog and eventually finding a better sense of self in college.

Since college, I’ve struggeld with newfound insecurities that come with being in your 20s (or what the internet tells me about being in your 20s). Sometime around 2013, this blog fell into the rut that I can’t quite escape. The daily grind of maintaining an internet presence became less fun. I’ve spent the past 18 months or so actively reducing how much time I spend blogging, on Facebook, on Instagram, on Twitter. Because if people aren’t really reading what I write, what was the point of shouting into the void?

So I blog less now and that’s fine. I still enjoy my little corner of the Internet.

I’m also consuming digital media at a slower rate than ever before. (This is more than ironic… I’m working on a Masters in Media Studies.) I’ve returned to an old habit of reading three or four books at a time, meticulously finding classics in the public library that seemingly haven’t been checked out in decades.

It’s the public library that nourished my love of cinema before blogs and Internet forums ever existed. As a kid,  I’d load up on free VHS and DVDs every day during the summer. In a few hours I’ll be sitting a the dark AV room in the community center where I run a classic film screening. It’s another thing I’ve been doing since I was 16. There’s even embarrassing proof.

I don’t watch the movies I screen anymore; either I’ve seen them before or I can’t focus on the film while one woman constantly speaks at a deafening whisper. But the job is easy, the extra income is good, and the weekly company of the regulars, some I’ve known since my awkward high school years, is nice. Even the guy who shows up blasted every week isn’t too bad.

Since 10 years of blogging is worth noting, I dug through my archives (1,938 posts in total). These are some posts I wrote I kind of like. Mostly they are the posts I remember best.

• The Unseen Realities of 19 Kids and Counting – June 2015
• 10 Years of Movies – January 2014
• What I Learned From – Recurring
• My Year-Long Saga of Being Inexplicably Obsessed With Jeremy Renner – May 2013
• Do I Really Hate Anne Hathaway? – February 2013
• Movies That Make Me Irrationally Angry: Les Miserables – December 2012
• Beauty and the Beast Meets Downtown Abbey – January 2011
• What These Character Posters Tell Us About The Hunger Games – November 2011
• Shades of a Changing Community in Killer of Sheep – April 2011
• A Cinematic Alphabet – April 2011
• The Social Network and The King’s Speech – February 2011
• What I Learned This Summer At New Jersey’s Wineries – September 2010

Now I should probably conclude with something like: “Here’s to another decade of blogging!” But let’s be real: blogs won’t be a thing in 10 years.