Permit me to brag obnoxiously for a moment. (Is this pure nepotism? You betcha! But well-deserved nepotism, I promise.)
Friday night was opening night for POST GRAD, the first movie to reach release that was written by my brilliant and beautiful screenwriter niece, Kelly Fremon. (She has other movies in the pipeline, but this is the first out of the gate.) (Yep. That’s my niece posing above—at the urging of her camera-brandishing-aunt.)
Post Grad is a funny and sweet-spirited romantic comedy (and serendipitously timely) about NOT finding a job after college. I loved the film. (Of course.) But so did last night’s jammed Santa Monica audience at the 3rd Street Promenade, which laughed and whooped throughout the movie and spilled out of the theater looking happy and exhilarated.
(NOTE: I read Kelly’s original script which—-when it was first sent out to deliriously enthusiastic coverage around town—won her the designation of one of the 10 screen writers to watch by Variety. However, in the version that made it to screen, I saw that many of the smartest and most original parts of Kelly’s script got filed off, thereby somewhat changing its nature, which is a pity.)
YET, THE FILM WORKS amazingly well anyway—as evidenced by early audience reaction. (Yes, I have been scanning various web-forums and the like. She’s my niece. It’s my job.)
So go see it. Immediately. It’s a perfect summer night antidote to…well…nearly everything. Drag everyone you know (or have ever met casually….or possibly once passed on the street).
And tell ’em the proud and doting auntie sent you.
That’s great! The synopsis sounds funny – like real life. Every family has its crazies…so I hear. You have every right to be proud. Tell her that I have this great idea for a comedy film about this accountant who wants to become an actuary.
Celeste: You betcha!
You’re beginning to sound like someone else. (Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)
(Do you embarrass your family with all the picture taking?)
Wow – and Ivan Reitman bought her first script?
Quite impressive.
You better not read http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/post_grad/
movie reviews, or you might want to throw some of your own rotten tomatoes at the reviews posted.
Oh, I’ve read ’em all. Or most of them anyway. Kelly’s mom and I have been the crazed review readers. (My niece has wisely stayed away from them, being far healthier in her outlook than her mom and aunt.)
And, honestly, I think I’ve shown stupendous restraint not sending firmly-worded personal letters to any of those who wrote critical reviews—with Kelly’s last draft of the script helpfully attached to the the letter. (Not that I wasn’t sorely tempted.)
The film is actually quite funny and charming, despite what certain reviewers might have suggested.
You know Celeste I probably shouldn’t even post this up as it’s subject matter is too obvious and probably in bad taste, but I feel compelled to comment on some stark realities.
First of all your neice is stunningly beautiful and no doubt smart as a whip, and I’m sure that she is not only ambitious but also talented as hell. She’ll be heard from in her chosen field in the most positive manner and her life will be so blessed and full of joy which she’ll share with her loved ones like you Celeste. And it touches me and makes me happy to see how much you care about and support your talented, beautiful niece, your whole family must be special and a positive for our society.
But the stark antipodal reality of the lives of your niece and the woman featured in your last post, the once young, pretty, Deborah Peagler whose story of misery, pain, and punishment by almost everyone connected to her in life, is so unequivocal and glaring in it’s contrasts that it’s like being kicked in the gut, it takes my breath away.
My emotions when reading these two posts aren’t based on some kind of envy or antagonism towards the good fortune and blessings bestowed on your niece, to the contrary, I’m happy and proud for both her and you Celeste, no, my head is spinning and I gasp for air because I am again faced with the reality’s of life in Los Angeles, California, USA in 2009 for many people.
DQ; good fortune and blessings bestowed on your niece
Just to clear up reasons for success versus failure, it isn’t about “good fortune:” i.e., luck. It’s about making right choices, both individually and within a culture. Celeste’s niece didn’t have a child at fifteen, and her parents made right choices for her future until she could make the right choices for herself, which she is doing and she is learning more with each step.
But, “good fortune” is the politically correct choice in that it doesn’t offend people, but it does nothing to help them with direction and lets them blame everyone and everthing for difficulties other than themselves.
Now, here’e an example of planning for a successful life and having the self-discipline to stick to it…along with a Plan B: Post Grad Clip – The Big Day
(BTW, the film’s star, Alexis Bledel is really pretty.)
DQ, Of course, of course, of course. That impossible disparity is why I do the work I do. But a long time ago I had to come to some kind of balance, just in my own heart, that allowed me to commit profoundly to doing what (little) I could to give voice to those who are generally voiceless in this culture, and still to also commit profoundly to my family (blood and extended), and rejoice in my time with them.
Some years ago, I was not so good at this balance and I drove myself mad. I didn’t feel okay about the good in my own life because of the suffering and inequity I saw everywhere. Deborah Peagler is a perfect example, because the pain of her situation is nearly unbearable. But I see situations nearly as painful everywhere I look. Clearly you do too. A couple of fairly serious situations in my own life led me to understand that I had to find a way to handle that discrepancy or risk doing damage to those I love most and likely destroying myself in the process.
As a consequence, I’ve gotten much better at holding those too very, very paradoxical realities inside myself and making room for both. So I can make a big deal over my fantastic niece, on whom life has bestowed many blessings simply by accident of birth (but who is also a deeply decent, extremely hardworking woman who deserves all the love and support we can give her), and put my own handsome, brilliant talented, fabulous son absolutely first in my life……..and still commit most of my working hours (and a huge percentage of my personal time) to do my small part to help right the wrongs I see around me. Since I can’t be more than one person, I choose to do it mostly in the realm of criminal justice, juvenile justice and, to some degree, education reform.
I also had to come to some kind of peace with this whole issue in order to teach, as I am teaching kids of comparative privilege. Yet, I really, really have found teaching to be my second calling, because I want to help kids find ways to become fully committed to and skillful at something in their own lives that will help make the world better, and so teaching seems a worthy task as well. (<---This is a very abbreviated and inadequate way to explain how I feel about teaching, but I'm trying to avoid writing a novella here.) Yet, although I've gotten better at the emotional and moral juggling act, week after week I question the balance, find things are getting out of wobbly and out of whack, and need to recalibrate. I hope that rambling answer makes some kind of sense. Woody, about the picture taking: Nah, we're a happy family of picture takers. I'm far from the only one doing it.
I skimmed the first couple of reviews before deciding they must be from jealous film students who didn’t get their own projects made. Besides, this is a good time to dig out the “auteur theory” which passes real authorship and hence praise or blame to the director.
Hey, anyone who can get Michael Keaton and Carol Burnett to appear in their movie has accomplished something right there. One critic describes Burnett as “a cheap and cranky Grandma” who shops for coffins, sounds promising to me.
Read your reply above, it’s good you to try to juggle your life to balance these two worlds and interests to make a difference n– too few us do besides maybe writing about it or volunteering at a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving.
Celeste, your Top of the Mark in my book.
“Besides, this is a good time to dig out the “auteur theory†which passes real authorship and hence praise or blame to the director.”
Yes, with extreme prejudice.
Actually, I love the Burnett character, who made it (nearly) intact into the screen. She’s a hybrid of the quirks of both of Kelly’s considerably quirky, now deceased grandmothers (one of them, of course, my own mother). Fortunately for the writers among us, there are many, many more….uh…quirks to be mined out of our cluster of families.
And thanks, DQ.
Okay, now on the totally non-social justice-related side of things, I’m off to work on some last minute planning for my nieces wedding, as she’s getting married, weekend after next. (Woooo-hooo!)
The big problem with the auteur theory as it was promulgated chiefly by Andrew Sarris was essentially that it argued that the consistency of the director’s “vision” was of primary concern rather than if a particular film was actually good.
By that standard, the very worst of Hitchcock (I’m thinking Topaz and Family Plot), who the auteurists championed, was still more “interesting” than the very best of George Stevens (Giant, Shane, A Place in the Sun). Go figure.
Celeste, my very best and my most heartfelt congratulations to your lovely niece. May this be just the beginning!
Randy Paul, I threw the auteur theory out there as a foil for criticism somewhat tongue in cheek, because in reality what it means is that it gives the director license to act like a petty dictator, while treating the writer as nothing. Which is very wrong, since the script is the skeleton of the film. Hollywood writers have it bad enough without that. BUT when things go wrong – and in this case it sounds like the script was changed quite a bit – it’s handy to give the director his or her due.
Since I’ve not seen it and probably won’t, I’ll just agree that it sounds very timely and charmingly quirky. Funny how all those embarrassing relatives suddenly provide such a wealth of inspiration.
Oh I agree. Several years ago Gore Vidal published an article about that very subject.
I have great admiration for writer-directors like Joseph Mankiewicz and Preston Sturges.
Randy, I was also going to explain, but WBC beat me to it.
I’ve always thought of the “auteur theory” as an exaggerated combination of existentialist philosophy and hero-worship by young French intellectuals who desperately wanted to become cinema directors when they grew up…
The best of them had brilliant careers and their “theory” prefigures their own approach. But as film criticism, “auteur” is a pretty sketchy method.
Celeste, your niece is GORGEOUS! Wow!
I just checked Metacritic, and the 25 reviews to which they linked have been generally unfavorable:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/postgrad?q=post%20grad
Congrats on getting something made, even if it’s not a critical success.
Thanks, Rebecca. I think so too!
And Grossed Out, Kelly’s mother and I have read those critical reviews and we don’t like those reviewers very much. We don’t think they have very rich inner lives. We also think their dogs and cats (if they have dogs and cats) probably don’t like them much either, although the critters are no doubt reluctant to admit their honest feelings for fear the food supply will be cut off.
I believe I am fairly objective in this assessment.
(And, yes, it’s ultra cool she got it made.)
I’m glad you’ve ascertained that those dogs and cats aren’t on the same page, because among certain “families” (if you know what I mean) unpleasantness might be arranged for these critics pets.
Also, they seem to like this film in Chicago…both Roger Ebert (!) and the Tribune critic. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere…(oh, wait a minute-that’s New York, New York – but Chicago’s a tough town.)