A Long-Winded Rejection of Anti-Gay Arguments

A Long-Winded Rejection of Anti-Gay Arguments

Last week, I ran into a former dorm-mate of mine, who is a rather eccentric social conservative. Fixed to the rear of his backpack was the requisite McCain-Palin sticker, and below that a large “Yes on 8” sticker. The latter refers to Proposition 8, which is a California initiative that “Eliminates [the] right of same-sex couples to marry.” This man, who I'll call Paul, is the first person I've actually run into who supports Prop 8, and being gay myself, I decided to ask why he was voting “yes” on the measure.

Paul explained that homosexuality was a sin according to the Bible, that it was natural for a man and a woman to be in a family, that throughout history societies that featured “open” homosexuality subsequently collapsed, that it would allow other forms of sexual deviance to be widely accepted, and that being gay was a choice. The more I listened to Paul's arguments, the more I realized that we viewed Prop 8 in completely different ways. For him, this is an issue about maintaining societal normality and morality; for me, it is a pivotal civil rights issue.

When I asked him how he could substantiate his arguments, Paul invariably fell back on several justifications, including the Bible, a nebulous reference to “history,” and an even more nebulous reference to some “studies.” Let's be clear: these are not valid ways to support an argument. There's really no rational way to support or refute these reasons, since the guy views this as a moral issue, but I'll try. As I see it, the Christian testament's central message is that we should love one another. Jesus – who I, being Jewish, view as an important leader and, perhaps, a prophet, but not the Messiah – never mentioned anything negative about homosexuality, and he embraced lower-status people to the shock and consternation of his followers. When I offered this rebuttal to Paul, he had no response, other than the fact that homosexuality was declared a sin in the Hebrew testament.

Now, when it comes to the issue of what defines a “traditional” marriage, things get a bit tricky. Paul is correct when he says that most families throughout history have involved a man and a woman; but he provides no reasons as to why this has occurred. I can speculate that it has to do with the capacity for the heterosexual couple to reproduce, and that societies and the Church have then shaped cultures so that reproduction is seen as the ultimate goal of marriage. (If nothing else, such child-bearing couples helped to increase the number of members of a religious sect. Again, this is all speculation.) Paul did not recognize, however, that there have been gay people all throughout history, and while gay couples may not have been married, they did, in fact, exist. And his argument that civil unions provide gay couples with the same rights as married couples is, in effect, a resurrection of the “separate but equal” argument of Plessy v. Ferguson. Civil unions are ineffective as a long-term solution because they fail to address the underlying issue: a group of people is being treated separately based off of one set of criteria, which is inherently unequal.

The main thrust of Paul's argument regarding traditional marriage concerns how children without the proper balance of a man and a woman grow up in a deprived environment that results in them, essentially, being fucked up. Paul mistook my silence as a recognition that his argument is correct. To the contrary, who says that a child in such an environment ends up being deprived? Studies do. What studies? Well, studies. And history, of course. Again, Paul presented his views in an ostensibly rational manner, but ultimately without any way to fully substantiate them. Here is my counter-argument. Look at heterosexual couples and see how many fucked up people result from such families. And as for the notion that gay couples raise children who are more likely to be gay, I offer this question: to whom was I born? A straight couple. In fact, all gay people come from heterosexual relationships. The only practical advantage to a heterosexual couple over a homosexual one is that the former can reproduce, which is certainly important for the survival of our species. Some supporters of Prop 8 argue that gays can't reproduce, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. But if that is the case, then heterosexual couples that can't or don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry, either.

~ ~

It all comes down to how we view marriage. Is it a union that recognizes two people who love one another, or is it also a way in which we can help our population grow? I can't really answer that question, because it's up to each of us to decide our own priorities. So, let me now turn to the most touchy argument that Paul brought up: that opening up marriage will lead to the legal and social acceptance of “other” forms of sexual deviance, such as incest. Here's my position on the matter. I don't necessarily have an issue with an incestuous couple being married, because I believe that the State should not interfere in people's lives and narrowly define an institution like marriage. However, I suspect that most people involved in incest have big psychological issues, and I question whether such a couple's commitment to one another would be consensual or a true expression of love. Gay couples, on the other hand, consist of two people who are in love with one another, and who truly want to be together. The argument that “other” forms of sexual deviance are even on the same playing field as gay relationships is absurd.

And finally, there is the issue of whether others view being gay as a matter of choice. When I asked Paul whether he thought my being gay was a choice, he replied, “Yes, I do.” I have never understood this argument. One, because there have always been gay people, even in times of persecution. Two, because I can't "help it" that I'm attracted to guys. Paul would never be able to appreciate this, but as a teenager, I struggled for over five years trying to be attracted to girls. Three – and this is what I told Paul – why would I want to be gay when there are homophobes in the world, and when society generally paints homosexual relationships as inferior to heterosexual ones? His reply: “That is indeed the question.”

~ ~

For such an unusually succinct measure, Prop 8 carries a great deal of importance for a lot of people. The Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated that Prop 8 is “more important than the presidential election.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has contributed an astounding $20 million to the Protect Marriage campaign. Meanwhile, opponents of the measure have been fighting back. Apple and Google contributed over $150,000 to the No on 8 campaign. In the meantime, my friend, Hillary, organized an art show – to which I donated some of my photographs – that raised $1,300 in a single night. For the last month, my friend, Jon, has been fervently phone-banking undecided voters, many of whom live in my home town, San Diego.

For some, Prop 8 is a measure that will eliminate an imminent threat to the “sanctity” of marriage. Indeed, gay marriage is a shift from traditional notions of heterosexual relationships. Personally, I would have preferred if gays were legally and socially accepted in a more gradual manner, first with the passage of hate-crime legislation, and then with the passage of laws that prevent employment discrimination based off of real or perceived sexual orientation. Regardless, gay marriage is here, and despite the polarizing effect of the California Supreme Court's ruling, it has finally brought a long-hidden issue into the public sphere.

As I've already pointed out, homosexuality has been with us from the beginning. For too long, people have ignored the detrimental effects of forcing gay people to recognize that a heterosexual relationship is the ideal and exclusive way to love another person. And though the process has been painfully slow, people are beginning to accept homosexuality as a normal, non-threatening occurrence. Voting “no” on Prop 8 would prevent the passage of a discriminatory measure, protect my rights, and the rights of millions of others, as well as facilitate the acceptance of gays, who, as normal people, deserve to have the rights that many other Californians take for granted.

~Max~
October 31, 2008

Alphaville

“Alphaville”
Jean-Luc Godard, 1965

One of my acquaintances described the work of the French New Wave director, Jean-Luc Godard, as such: “His [Godard's] movies are at once serious and intellectual, as well as trashy and playful. . . . Imagine The Naked Gun directed and written by a philosopher, and you have an idea of how he's like.” This is a perfect description of “Alphaville,” which is the first Godard film that I have seen. Ostensibly, it is a mixture of science-fiction and film noir, and we follow a haggard private eye as he journeys through the futuristic town of Alphaville, which is run by a menacing super-computer.

There are many potentially fascinating themes at play here. What, for instance, is the role of women in this society? All of them are gorgeous, but they behave like robots who are enslaved to men. There is one major narrative that centers on the private eye and his love for one of these women, and his attempts to save her from the clutches of the super-computer, which seeks to turn all people into mindless drones.

Admittedly, the plot doesn't make much sense. The lengthy monologues by the super-computer, too, don't make sense. “Alphaville” is really the product of a director who simply loves to make films. Godard has a wonderful, off-kilter sense of humor, and he loves to arbitrarily experiment with his camerawork, sound, and acting. This results in a surprisingly approachable and fun film that belies its narrative's pessimistic vision of a de-humanizing future. In short, “Alphaville” is rather awesome.

First Viewed: 10/17/08, in 35 mm projection - IMDb

The 2008 Presidential Debates, Round Three

The 2008 Presidential Debates, Round Three
Hofstra University, New York, 15 October 2008

Upon reaching the end of this third, and final, debate between the Democratic candidate Barack Obama and the Republican candidate John McCain, the decision, for those voters who are still undecided, has become all the more clear. One candidate calmly explained the nuances of his positions, held a comfortable and respectful posture, and, ultimately, maintained a presidential manner. The other stooped to a new low in his efforts to continue telling lies, in his condescending and even hostile manner towards his opponent, and in his tired and out-of-touch rhetoric. The former, of course, was Barack Obama, and the latter was John McCain.

This was an especially disappointing evening for McCain, who actually started off on a relatively strong note compared to his previous debate performances. Where McCain really began to lose ground was in his reiteration of the cynical attacks that have come to define his campaign in recent days: tying Obama to ACORN, making a dubious connection between Obama and Avery, and how he was personally offended by John Lewis' criticisms of his campaign tactics. These tactics have not been working for McCain, and he did not appear comfortable delivering such trivial criticisms.

McCain, unfortunately, made many more mistakes. He invoked a middle-class voter that Obama had met on the campaign trail, whom he referred to as “Joe the Plumber”; this is a childish moniker that ultimately demeans voters - to whom was he trying to appeal? - and it should never have been brought up in the first place, let alone repeated over a dozen times. He continued to repeat out-of-date rhetoric, including the danger of high taxes and the nebulous threat of big government imposing itself on people's everyday lives. Note that he never mentioned the middle class, who would never benefit from his proposed tax cuts.

McCain also argued – or, more likely, bull-shitted – that his running mate, Sarah Palin, was a role model for both women and reformers. More irksome was his emphasis on “curing” autism – since when did this become an enormous national issue? – which he says Palin's child suffered from, when, in fact, the child has Down's Syndrome. To top it off, McCain came across as an angry, condescending old man who is bitterly jealous of Obama. Such quotes as “But maybe you [Obama] ought to travel down there [Colombia] and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better” don't help with dispelling this unfortunate image of this once respectable candidate.

Obama, in the meantime, maintained a supremely calm presence. For the most part, he threw effective counter-points, and he disarmed blatant lies with a smile. One line, regarding the McCain campaign's negative tactics, was particularly effective: “The fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.” And Obama kept connecting McCain to the Bush administration, which is exactly what he needed to do to help convince undecided voters.

I do think that both candidates have weak education plans, because neither of them are comprehensive or innovative. But when it comes to vision, manners, the ability to work with opposition members, maintaining a commanding presence, and running an administration, I think that the choice is obvious – Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States on November 4th.

The 2008 Presidential Debates, Round Two

The 2008 Presidential Debates, Round Two

Nashville, Tennessee, 7 October 2008

Tonight's debate was really the last opportunity for John McCain to chip away at Obama's lead, and he didn't take it. To be honest, I was bored. I have already heard both candidates' opinions and talking points many times, neither candidate strayed from their widely known positions, and neither candidate made any promises or efforts to answer questions specifically. Also, Tom Brokaw proved to be a shitty host, because he kept getting upset at the candidates' repeated efforts to extend their arguments past their allotted one minute response slot.

With regards to the issues that each man talked about, I think that McCain did a better job than he did at the last debate; but both candidates gave shaky performances. What was different about this debate was the incredible physical difference between the two men: Obama looked and sounded very healthy, but he kept his distance from people, so as to possibly appear aloof. McCain, on the other hand, looked remarkably unhealthy - he appeared to have difficulty standing and sounded out of breath - and moved in very close to audience members who asked questions, going so far as to shake hands with a questioner, who obviously loved this candidate-to-voter contact. This debate probably won't change perceptions that people already have about either candidate, with one important exception: McCain's visibly deteriorating health, which would impact his capacity - and Sarah Palin's - to become President.

Synecdoche, New York

"Synecdoche, New York"
Charlie Kaufman, 2008

The screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has always delved, to an unusually poignant extent, into how troubled individuals attempt to deal with their losses. His primary technique involves externalizing his characters' interior troubles so that they pervade all aspects of the film, from the dialogue to the visuals – in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” for instance, the lovesick protagonist's world literally collapses around him. Kaufman's directorial debut, “Synecdoche, New York,” is a continuation of his fascination with fucked up people, and it goes to an even further extent than his other films to externalize its protagonist's troubles.

Our protagonist, who is named Caden (Philip Seymour Hoffman), is a playwright who is running out of fresh ideas, and whose life is beginning to collapse: every announcement on the radio has a melancholy tinge, Caden first looks at the obituaries upon receiving a newspaper, and the bathroom sink randomly explodes in his face while he is in the midst of shaving. Meanwhile, his wife (Catherine Keener), a miniature portrait artist, does not love him anymore – she cites that there is “no life” in his latest play – and leaves him, taking his daughter with her. What follows, then, is – once again – a bizarre journey through our protagonist's internal state as he reconciles with his troubles.

“Synecdoche, New York” is a challenging film, because, more-so than in Kaufman's previous work, it lingers predominantly within Caden's deteriorating mental and emotional state, which manifests itself onscreen. (Caden suffers from a series of bizarre bodily ailments, including bloody pee, strange bumps on his arms and legs, and random seizures.) One day, when the playwright receives a large grant to make a new play, he decides to build his set within an enormous warehouse. He slowly builds up a miniature version of New York; and the set becomes a storage area-of-sorts, a place that allows him to compartmentalize the various aspects of his life. In essence, it becomes the staging ground for our protagonist's struggles, a la “8 ½.”

The primary focus, in “Synecdoche, New York,” is on how a man deals with the prospect of deterioration and, ultimately, death. (“We're hurtling towards death's door,” Caden intones to his actors.) Kaufman, once again, exhibits his unique understanding of what makes humans tick, brilliantly alternating between the nuanced – a quiet dialogue exchange simmering with tension – and the conspicuous – a lover's house is, hilariously, always on fire – and always with an original, off-kilter sense of humor. What the film is lacking, though, is focus. The second half of “Synecdoche, New York” completely abandons narrative coherency for a muddy and episodic journey through Caden's perception of his world. This abandonment of narrative for complete immersion into the protagonist's world has occurred in Kaufman films before, but they always led to a carefully constructed endpoint. This technique does not really work in this film, though, because the pacing shifts arbitrarily, from the relatively fast-paced sequences of the film's first half to the torpor of the second half.

At the end of a soliloquy, an actor, playing a priest who presides over a funeral, says, “Well, fuck everybody! Amen!” This brief sequence is telling: it's a succinct summary of Caden's frustrations with his life, but it also indicates a lack of confidence on the director's part regarding how he should effectively organize and wrap up all of his ideas. As it stands, many parts of “Synecdoche, New York” are brilliant, but, in the next film that Kaufman directs, he is going to need a better grasp on his larger narrative, on how to more effectively control his pacing, and on how to better focus his numerous ideas.

Rating: 7

With regards to the Q & A...

After the movie ended, I looked to my right and, sitting five feet away, was none other than Charlie Kaufman, staring right at me. It was very disconcerting; perhaps it had something to do with me looking like a reviewer, since I was taking notes during the film.

Kaufman is a very short, scrawny guy with a prominent Jew-fro. He is not a comfortable public speaker, and he was surprisingly churlish, going so far as to say that his studio basically forced him to be here. He was reasonably courteous, but he strongly disliked the requisite, artsy, bullshit questions that people at the event asked. I asked how involved he was in the visual process of his films, and how it was different with this film since he directed it - his laconic reply was that he made notes about what he wanted the film to look like in his script and communicated that to his DP and set designers.

One interesting thing about the film is that he purposefully cast all the actresses to look very much alike, which certainly added to my confusion during the film's second half.

This is a film that I'd like to see again. I don't think that it's Kaufman's best work - it's far too aloof and convoluted to achieve the emotional connection that I had with "Malkovich" or "Eternal Sunshine" - but there are definitely some brilliant aspects at play.

First Viewed: 10/6/08, in 35 mm projection - IMDb

Miracle at St. Anna

“Miracle at St. Anna”

Spike Lee, 2008

Note: Sorry, this review is pretty terrible. I didn't put all that much effort into it because, one, it isn't all that great a movie, and two, I haven't seen enough Spike Lee movies to properly comment on this film in the context of his other work.

“Miracle at St. Anna” is narratively uneven and overlong. Its characters are painted in broad strokes, and the dialogue they utter lacks nuance. In Spike Lee's vision, all blacks are treated as enemies within America, even in the face of real threats from without during World War Two. He stages a completely random sequence in which our four protagonists hold a diner at gunpoint so that they can be served their milkshakes like the white patrons; this is no doubt Spike Lee's fantasy concerning how oppressed blacks really should have dealt with racism in the 1940s. The film has a rather inane message about war: it kills thousands of innocent people, regardless of race, age or gender. But amidst all of these weaknesses lies a wonderful narrative – the incredibly touching father-son relationship between a sick Italian boy and one of the soldiers.

Ultimately, “Miracle at St. Anna” is a confounding experience. It's often stupid, unintentionally hilarious, and occasionally compelling. It seems like Spike Lee has a lot to say, but what, precisely, he's trying to tell us remains a mystery.

Rating: 4

First Viewed: 10/5/08, in 35 mm projection - IMDb

Ivan the Terrible

"Ivan the Terrible"
Sergei Eisenstein, 1944 and 1958

“Ivan the Terrible,” the two-part historical epic by the brilliant Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, tends to play out more as a stage production than as an actual film. The actors move in slow, exaggerated motions, the sets are overly sumptuous, and the characters are more inclined to give grand soliloquies than to actively struggle against one another. And in almost every scene, absurdly large church relics and innumerable lords' absurdly grotesque faces fill the frame.

But it is this clash of bizarre elements that gives “Ivan the Terrible” a unique atmosphere that allows us to fully appreciate how difficult it is for Ivan, the newly ordained Tsar, to consolidate power away from the Church and the Boyars (regional lords). Curiously, the trajectory of “Ivan the Terrible” follows that of its filmmaker: it is obvious that Eisenstein was a filmmaker of the silent era. We can sense his unease with the production, from his feeble use of sound to his tendency to oversimplify the power play. Similarly, Ivan's rule has a shaky start – when we first see him at his coronation ceremony, he is young and has an air of naivete, and his bold policies leave him friendless.

Ivan, by the film's second part, successfully transforms himself into a ruthless politician, complete with an aged face and an impressive beard. Eisenstein, too, seems more comfortable with the latter production, and he explores Ivan's struggles to wrest power away from rebellious underlings in a more focused manner. “Ivan the Terrible” is ultimately concerned about two things: how a leader attains power and still maintains his personal integrity, and how a director steps out of his comfort zone and attempts to craft a compelling film in the sound era.

Rating: 7

First Viewed: 10/4/08, on DVD - IMDb

The 2008 Vice-Presidential Debate

The 2008 Vice-Presidential Debate
St. Louis, Missouri, 2 October 2008

There were no major gaffes, and no major advances, but there was no contest: Joe Biden soundly beat Sarah Palin during the Vice-Presidential Debate on Thursday night.

There were, of course, incredibly low expectations for Alaska's governor, and to be fair, she didn't utterly fail, but that does not excuse her for her terrible performance, which ultimately reflects poorly on McCain's capacity to make sound decisions.

Joe Biden did an excellent job: he did not ramble, he made a concerted effort to attack McCain and connect him to the failed policies of the Bush Administration, and he made a compelling case for Barack Obama – in short, he did exactly what he needed to do. He only stumbled on a question regarding gay marriage. He told the moderator Gwen Ifill that he fully supported gay rights, but then, after Palin said that she only supported the “traditional” definition of marriage, he conceded that he and Obama also didn't believe in gay marriage. It was a wish-washy moment that arose from Obama's admittedly feeble compromise regarding gay marriage – he doesn't support it, but believes that it is up to the states to decide – and it conceded too much to Palin's position on the matter.

As for Palin, her performance not only proved how unqualified she is to become a vice-president, but also confirmed that she is an idiot. She almost never answered questions directly – at one point, she actually switched subjects entirely from when it's appropriate to use nuclear weapons to using the surge strategy in Afghanistan. And she always reverted to talking points that had obviously been drilled into her by advisers the week before. I'll list a few moments that were incredible in their utter stupidity:

1) After Biden's nuanced view on the Iraq war, she paused for five seconds and shakily exclaimed, “Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure!”
2) She repeatedly said that Obama wants to raise taxes; this has already been discredited.
3) She repeatedly stated that the War on Terror is in Iraq; Al Qaeda wasn't even there before the U.S. got involved. Biden rightly said that the crux of the terrorist organization is located between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
4) Her constant attempts to display her “folksy” appeal to viewers at home was sickening: she assumed that Americans are so stupid and close-minded as to want to vote for someone who is just as “average” as they are; she was obviously avoiding answering the questions; and I hate that she exploited her special-needs child for her “down-to-earth” cause.
5) Quote: “Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate.” Wow. Also, she feels that McCain having fought in a (losing) war and that he knows what “evil” is make him qualified to “win” in Iraq.
6) Biden gave a touching speech about how troubled the middle class is. Palin, in a horrid, faux-shocked manner said, “Say it ain't so, Joe! There you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future!” What?
7) In her closing statement, she said that she wanted to have more opportunities to talk to us viewers without “the filter of the mainstream media.” Oh, please. She – and the McCain campaign - are the ones who have been avidly avoiding the media.

So Palin, by not failing drastically, did what she needed to do. But this debate only confirmed her idiocy, her dangerously simplistic worldview, and John McCain's utter contempt for Americans. One particular moment irks me: she stated that we need more government regulation for the economy, and then, in her rant against Obama's “mandatory” health care plan, she said, “... unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds.” This is a terribly pessimistic view that does not inspire any confidence in her ability to run the federal government and to lead Americans.

As the New Yorker has said, McCain's pick of Palin for vice-president was a cynical decision, done only for his political benefit, rather than as a means for effective leadership. Obama and Biden, on the other hand, have presented themselves as politicians who would not maintain the status quo, who would not treat Americans with such contempt as the Republican ticket has. Instead, they would challenge Americans to rise above the squalor of the last eight years, because we do have the potential to achieve great things.

The same night as the debate, the McCain campaign announced that it would withdraw from Michigan, a surprising turn that increases Obama's chances for the Presidency. And, if Palin's performance is any indication, this trend will most likely continue through the next four weeks.

The Lady Vanishes

"The Lady Vanishes"
Alfred Hitchcock, 1938

"The Lady Vanishes" opens with a playful tracking shot through a town, which is obviously a model, that finally leads us into a hotel, where we meet all of our characters. There are two men who are anxiously waiting for a train to get back to England, where they are to see a high-stakes croquet game. There is a rowdy musician named Gilbert (Michael Redgrave) and the inevitable soon-to-be love interest, Iris (Margaret Lockwood). And finally, there is a pair of unhappy lovers who are on vacation, one of whom is a stodgy judge.

This is not one of Hitchcock's better films; its situations are humorous, it has a fairly weak premise - something concerning an international conspiracy that must be stopped - and it has a surprisingly paltry quality. What "The Lady Vanishes" does offer, however, are nearly all of the themes that Hitchcock was so fascinated with, such as his fear of authority figures, and how people's identities always seem to shift from situation to situation. Most of all, Hitchcock uses the weak plot - also known as a "McGuff" - as an excuse to explore how love can be found in the strangest and most intense situations.

The two croquet-loving men, for example, are most likely gay, and when they find out that they have to share a small room with a maid, they are absolutely petrified. The main narrative, though, focuses on the relationship that develops between Iris and Gilbert, when she discovers that a kind, old lady who boarded the train has mysteriously disappeared. No one on the train believes Iris; a brain doctor claims that the old lady is a figment of Iris' imagination. Hitchcock presents this theory as a possibility, because Iris was accidentally hit on the head before she boarded the train. But all throughout her frustrating efforts to convince others about the missing person, Gilbert is by her side supporting her.

It turns out that most people don't remember the old lady because they choose not to: the two men are afraid that they'll miss their connection, the horrible judge doesn't want to get mixed up in other people's affairs, and the brain doctor has more nefarious plans at play. With "The Lady Vanishes," Hitchcock presents a slice of humanity that is all too familiar - people are so selfish that they don't give a damn about others. Alternately, we witness those who try to help Iris, or those who gradually grow convinced about her predicament. What emerges, then, is a relatively light-weight film that reveals Hitchcock's unique and nuanced understanding of the way people work. It is this level of richness that makes this film, in spite of its paltry plot and its surprisingly pedestrian ending, all the more memorable.

Rating: 7.5

First Viewed: 10/1/08, on DVD - IMDb