photo credit:
Jake Lyell

Becoming Jane is easy to describe in one sentence: a cheap trick designed to lure in the dreamy escapist ladies who start to panic during those years without Pride and Prejudice adaptations. Luckily, I am one of those dreamy escapist ladies, and although the rational part of me screams, “You are being manipulated with this trite crap,” I’m too busy reviving the other part of me from an uncontrollable swoon.

Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway) has a (largely inexplicable) thing for a hot Irish dude named Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy). She is reserved yet opinionated, he is a young hothead, and the two initially clash. So far, so good. As all Janeites* know, this setup is a recipe for the very best kind of romance – Unique Girl Changes Asshole Guy Into a Noble and Devoted Lover. However, the reason we love that particular plot so much is that it doesn’t actually exist in real life, and Becoming Jane proclaims to be just that, the real life version of Pride and Prejudice.

More than resembling that classic, however, the film actually more closely imitates Shakespeare in Love. Molding an author’s biography to fit with his or her most famous works is not a new practice. The successes of both Shakespeare in Love and film adaptations of Austen novels are an understandable motivation for Becoming Jane, which is well-cast but not nearly as sophisticated a film as its predecessors. Austen-like dialogue is rushed and garbled, and clearly screenwriters Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams didn’t get the memo I sent out earlier this year that declared epilogues (especially those involving aging make-up) as officially retired. But I would much rather have this film emulate those greats, however weakly, than go down the boring biopic road that so many others have.

Of course, Janeoids (Yes? No? Whatever, I’m keeping it.) take issue with errors and liberties in this supposedly biographical love story, when they of all people should understand that the whole reason Jane Austen is so timeless is because LIFE IS DISAPPOINTING, and audiences absolutely do not care if fact is fictionalized as long as there is a good story. On some level, we’re aware that odds are pretty slim that Austen’s life was Pride and Prejudice gone horribly wrong, causing her to resolve to write stories that only end happily. Whether or not she was an Elizabeth Bennett to Tom Lefroy’s Mr. Darcy is really irrelevant. Becoming Jane is a cute story about how one might imagine Jane Austen would become THE Jane Austen. And fabricating a point in her life story in which her own personal Lloyd Dobbler failed to hold up a boom box and sacrifice everything is entirely legitimate. The film cleverly takes advantage of the vacant position of romantic comedy’s founding mother and awards it to Jane. It simplifies the origins of a genre that really exists for other reasons, but it does so pretty skillfully, and there are heart-piercing moments in the film that rank right up there with the “I WILL FIND YOU” waterfall scene in Last of the Mohicans.**

Instead of taking ownership of the Austen-esque romance, Becoming Jane really is just another example of one. It may not end in a wedding, but it does leave you with the reminder that there are plenty of pre-packaged happy endings in books and films just waiting to provide you with an alternative to your own disappointments.

*This is the actual word for Jane Austen fans. I love George Eliot, so I’m hoping to popularize “Georgies” by late 2008.

**I have watched this scene (and just this scene) more times than I care to reveal.

Our neighborhood is represented in the House of Delegates 68th District. The three way race is being run by incumbent Katherine Waddell (Ind.), former City Council President Manoli Loupassi (R), and William “Bill” Grogan (Ind.).

The Museum District Association hosted a forum to get to know the candidates better Mon., Sept. 24 at Albert Hill Middle School. I apologize for the delay in posting these forum notes, but better late than never! Closing remark videos can be found at the end.

Why are you best qualified for the office?

Grogan: Stubborn but frugal but gets things done

Loupassi:Council for 4 1/2 years, elected unanimously to Council President; sensible reasonable, practical and his record as public official signifies that.

Waddell: Mother wife, delegate, record as incumbent of serving the district. Proven that an independent can be effective in office; she doesn’t caucus with whether party but looks at all bills from both sides of the aisle before deciding. Acts and votes based on four questions:
Is it in the interest of constituents?
Does it make sense?
Is it good public policy?
Is it the right thing to do?

What one change would you like to make in Virginia government if you could as a delegate?

Loupassi: Classrooms first program; aim to make sure 65% of public education money goes to the classroom.

Waddell: Redistricting. The way we select and draw districts is not good because the process is so polarized. Politicians select the voters rather than the other way around. Need more choice in competition in all elections.

Grogan: a fair and simplified tax system

Stem Cell Research?

Waddell: supports it

Grogan: Yes. Everyone can benefit from it.

Loupassi: Does not favor embryonic stem cell research.

Would you support a statewide non-smoking ban in restaurants?

Grogan: doesn’t like government coercing businesses to run their operations; should be up to the individual owner. You get to degrees of restaurant size and it gets complicated to manage.

Loupassi: Up to the individual owner. His sister who runs the Robin Inn took the restaurant smoke free a few years ago on her own without being told.

Waddell: favors the ban. Gov’t is involved in many aspects of businesses (health inspections, etc). She supported the “smoking allowed” requirement in the bill that passed the Assembly last year but the Governor changed the wording to include a full ban that she supported but failed.

Abortion – would you support right to choose?

Loupassi: pro-life; noted even with the new Supreme Court they did not overturn Roe v. Wade. As delegate need to focus on things that affect us directly, not political hot buttons.

Waddell: pro-choice; agreed with Loupassi on focusing on other direct issues.

Grogan: opposed to repealing Roe v. Wade.

Roads issue: How can we get past stalemate?

Waddell: Transportation package will help and bill included money to begin process of replacing Huguenot bridge. Noted that she supported the bill to get the money for the bridge but supports revocation movement of abusive driver fees.

Grogan: abusive driver fees don’t make sense; noted a 1 cent increase in gas tax costs average driver $8 a year and raises $10 million for roads. Favors a user fee to improve roads.

Loupassi: Much needed plan addressed last year. Does not favor regional authorities with taxing power because they are unelected bodies. Abusive driver fees ridiculous and need to be revoked. They punish the poor and make police officers part time tax collectors.

The state owes the city money for untaxed land and limits on annexation. How can the city get/increase those funds?

Grogan: city got shorted by annexation ban; we do not get money we are or were promised. Would work to end the annexation ban.

Loupassi: Annexation is not the solution. It is very divisive and will not solve the city’s ills. City needs to look at and revise funding formulas with state and feds; said he will represent the best interests of the people and work for a positive effect on the state.

Waddell: annexation very divisive and not a good idea to reopen;

Illegal Immigration

Loupassi: an issue for the Feds to tackle; against free higher education for illegal immigrants; astounded that local police are not allowed to contact the feds/INS if they arrest an illegal immigrant.

Waddell: Understand why they are coming here but there is a right way to enter and a wrong way. Feds have failed; voted to deny in-state tuition for illegal immigrants; need to make sure employers are not hiring them.

Grogan: legal immigration is fine; illegal is not. Joked that they should round them up and bus them to D.C. because it is a federal issue.

Renewable energy to address global warming?

Waddell: will listen to ideas but believe in balance. need to protect the Bay, rivers, and air for her grandchildren; need to balance protecting the environment but also keep the economy moving. Voted for money for protection of the Chesapeake Bay.

Grogan: had an old plan from the 90′s for the city to house 1,000 shared bicycles.; worried that we are destroying our environment.

Loupassi: dead zones in Bay are unacceptable; state must act to correct this; said he was a Green Republican and will prioritize helping the Bay with feds; state needs to spend more in this area.

How do you manage personal public criticism?

Grogan: don’t know, never had any (laughter). He will admit when he is wrong and own up to it. But warned you better be right b/c they will get it back x2 if they are wrong about him.

Loupassi: do the best he can and let it go. He is the son of an immigrant and noted that to get where he is now and to serve would be an honor.

Waddell: can handle her stuff; she is tougher than she looks; she is down there fighting for legislation and doesn’t take it personally; focuses on the job.

Closing Remarks Video Clips (forgive the poor quality) can be found here.
Katherine Waddell

Bill Grogan

Manoli Loupassi

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

Remember when Pixar was so insecure about the way their newfangled technology represented humans that they only sporadically showed them – always in a rush and always only bit by bit? Now, as my moviegoing friend reminded me, they are able to digitally portray humans so realistically that they have to purposefully make the characters cartoonish so that the viewer still gets the animation experience.

This makes me feel kind of weird. Pixar is TOO ADVANCED that it has to dumb itself down for us? Come on. I mean, the cars of Cars only exist in my memory as animated figures, not amazing works of art. Stop dilly-dallying around with genius technology and get back to your formerly incredible scripts. It’s quality we want from Pixar – a feel-good movie that delivers some seriously good jokes. Am I right??

Well, I’m almost right. Ratatouille, Pixar’s latest feature about a rat that wants to be a chef, is the first Pixar film whose animation struck me straight off. They may be caricaturing up the humans in the film, and as expected, the portrayal of rats is a little skewed so that they become adorable cuddlers instead of what we all know is their natural state.* The other stuff though – the Paris streets, the professional yet warm kitchen, and even the sewers – is so visually appealing that you find yourself wondering how they got a computer to make an image look so softly lit and appetizing. A sunset over a French farmhouse and the afternoon light slanting into the shot makes you wonder why people bother to make live action movies at all.

In fact, the obvious and complicated care gone into making this film look both worn around the edges and on the cutting edge of taste (like Remy the Rat’s signature dish, ratatouille**) is clearly the theme behind the entire film. Remy’s culinary adventures are abbreviated by the fact that his very presence can cause a restaurant to be shut down, even when the crustiest food critic (played by Peter O’Toole – who really rules, what is going on with that guy? I hope he lives to be 200!) will deign to admit that a lowly rat can bring some much needed humility to the world of food – and, it was enjoyable to see, the world of criticism.*** But the pervading message of the film, “you can do whatever you want as long as you set your mind to it, etc.” is delivered with more sincerity than any children’s movie I’ve seen in a long time.

The humor in Ratatouille isn’t quite as memorable as in former Pixar greats, at least, I don’t remember more than a couple incredibly side-splitting moments. But you know what? Was Finding Nemo all that funny? It was more of an entire package, not just some cheap laughs like Cars, and it’s the “entire package” film that wins hearts (and Oscars).

*Demons.

**Which, in America, is pronounced (as the film keeps telling you) ‘Rat-a-TOO-ee’ and if you try to say it like you are French, I will come after you with a giant, stale baguette and a host of angry escargot.

***A movie about food AND a movie about criticism? Replace the colony of rats with a colony of Johnny Depps and I would swear never to watch another movie ever again.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

For someone who has never seen an episode of this apparently life-altering cartoon, Transformers sure isn’t a difficult movie to follow. And even if I wasn’t following the basic (er, only) premise – (bad guys want to take over the universe, good guys try to stop them) – I wouldn’t have to wait more than a couple minutes for someone in the film to give me a nice summary. It occurred to me that if I had been as passionate about Transformers as a kid as I was about Anne of Green Gables (omg, Gilbert Blythe), that I might have been irked and/or bored by the endless repetition of the simplest plot points, but my date is a fervent Transformers nerd and still spent the whole time clutching my knee with delight So with that evidence in mind, I’m going to assume that the purists* weren’t let down by the film either, and I’m going to move on.

JEEZ LOUISE, folks. CGI might possibly take over the world one day, or at least fool us all by creating a digital President with an animated cabinet. Besides trying to neutralize the seeds of crush that Shia LaBeouf was mercilessly sowing in my heart, I spent the majority of my time during the film slackjawed and sitting completely upright, thinking dumb things like “We’ve come a long way since Jurassic Park.” If this film doesn’t win a Best Special Effects Oscar, at least we will finally have proof that the Academy has most definitely been coerced into acting in the best interest of someone else. Each alien’s lightning-fast transformations into and out of their mechanical alter ego is so visually fascinating, that your adrenaline will muffle the part of you that will be screaming, “It’s a movie about TOYS! About toys that you can move around!” Occasionally, that skepticism is impossible to contain, such as during the scene in which Megatron is released from bondage and booms out “I…AM…MEGATRON!” “YOU…ARE…A TOY!” is what Tom Hanks will yell inside your head at that moment.**

The horrible and embarrassing “black” Autobot should have been stricken from the script, that’s for sure. Especially since the stereotype represented seemed to be an outdated version of DJ Jazzy Jeff or that sound-making guy in Police Academy. It blew my mind that this was included in the film, that some poor animator had the job of creating a breakdancing machine that folds its arms and says things like “You wanna piece of me?” And Megatron (whose name in my head keeps oscillating between both Magneto and Megadeth) was probably the least-developed villain ever, but it was exciting to watch them stomp around and brush tanks out of the way just to clash in mid-air briefly before turning into jets and cars and whatnot.

But the film doesn’t hide behind its special effects. On the contrary, director Michael Bay is perfectly suited for this sort of thing – a boisterous action flick with a lot of dramatic tension that doesn’t fully expect us to take it seriously. And the script and acting are surprisingly solid, with the exception of just about everything the actual Transformers say. Shia LaBeouf, as a teenager named Sam who has the unlucky fate of possessing something the aliens want, and John Turturro, who pops up in the second half of the film, are seriously funny enough to carry the film. They, along with Bernie Mac, Julie White, and Kevin Dunn (a used car salesman and Sam’s parents, respectively) provide so many great moments that we’re a little more forgiving for everything hokey that Optimus Prime says.

It’s almost the flimsiness of the story that makes the film so impressive. Bear with me now, but clearly in order to make the film watchable, given the basic plot of the cartoon, one would have to guarantee a terrific script, talent, and direction. It’s clear that the producers’ energy was directed into these elements so as to make up for and indeed overshadow the movie’s dubious origins. Let’s be honest. The All Spark thing is kind of stupid. Transformers doesn’t have the benefit of a comic book background, it had to be liberally doused with talent to get my attention, and it wasn’t until I heard “Actually, I thought it was really good!” from at least ten friends that I even dragged myself to see it. But I’m glad I did. Even though the most important scene in the film is based around a giant Mac-truck-turned-robot screaming “PUT IT IN MY CHEST, SAM! PUT IT IN MY CHEST!” I still came out exhausted and afraid of the parked cars outside of the theater, worried that each Hummer was more than met the eye.

*I tried to come up with a good name for them, here is the IM conversation I had with my roommate about it (while we were in the same house):
Susan: what’s a funny way to say “fans of transformers” that isn’t “trans-fans”
Susan: Fansformers?
Susan: Trans-fats?
Kelly: “dudes”
Kelly: “optimus primelots”
**Toy Story? Buzz Lightyear? Anyone?

Monument Avenue: gorgeous mansions line the street, and the statues that dot the medians make the historic road a hallmark of Richmond. The purely residential feel of Monument Ave is one aspect that sets the street apart from all others. But now, are developers descending upon it looking to cash-in on history?

Pictured above is potentially the first business to open its doors on Monuement west of The Boulevard. The house at 3101 W. Franklin may not technically reside on Monument, but only a grassy median separates it from the Maury statue at the corner of Belmont and Monument. Soon, it will open it’s doors as “Maury Place,” a bed and breakfast.

Some may laud the new business. Let’s face it, hotel chains like the Marriott are exactly in the best part of town. Who wants to stay there? A bed and breakfast could fit in quite well on the residential street. Bringing more tourists to the area could help local businesses. But putting businesses on Monument destroys the very thing that’s appealing about the street – there are virtually no businesses.

“Maury Place” wouldn’t be the first business to open its doors on Monument. Recently, “Artist Underground Cafe” opened its doors as a coffee shop and bar at the corner of Monument and Stuart. The cafe is in the basement of an apartment complex there, arguably another business. Richmond Renaissance so far has gotten away with that illegal parking lot as well.

But the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Clearly, when businesses begin to move in, it’s only a matter of time before the 7-11s and Starbucks begin to acquire storefronts on our sacred street. Once commerce begins to creep onto Monument it will be too late to save what made the street great in the first place.

It’s not too late to save Monument Ave. “Maury Place” is still seeking the necessary permits to open up as a bed and breakfast. The City Council must approve the use of residential land for business purposes. If we stay quiet now, it’s only a matter of time until a 7-11 is situated facing the Lee Statue.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

The inside of Captain Jack Sparrow’s brain is a marvellous thing: richly detailed, over the top, and full to the brim with nonsense. Disney’s new Pirates of the Caribbean installment, At World’s End, occasionally opens a tiny window into the character whose massive popularity was brought about, and let’s give credit where it’s due here, by Johnny Depp, my praise of whom has been contained in a footnote, so as not to bore those of you who are not interested.* Luckily for Disney, Captain Sparrow’s dramatic death at the end of the second film is reversible, and his lovable gang of dentally-challenged pirates joins up with their erstwhile foes from the first film (you know, the ones that turned into comical skeletons in the moonlight?) to challenge the British Armada, under the employ of which struggles Davy Jones and the slimy crew of the Flying Dutchman, which also contains Will Turner’s doomed father. You think that sentence was confusing? Print it out, cut out all of the nouns, scatter them to the winds, lead a lovable gang of dentally-challenged pirates on a mission to retrieve them, tape them together, douse it with rum, light it on fire, and shoot it out of a cannon. Tadow! You’ve just achieved the same effect as a screening of At World’s End!

If you bothered to read my footnote, you might presume that if there is a way to glorify a Depp movie, I am loath to pan it. And that’s usually because his talents honestly tend to bolster a film’s attributes. POTC:AWE is no exception, of course. The tried and true Captain Sparrow continues to delight, especially as Geoffrey Rush’s Captain Barbosa is back for him to play off, but the rest of the film crowds in so closely on either side of Jack that it’s difficult for him to get enough screentime to steal the show.

And the rest of the film is not that great. It’s so plot-driven that it doesn’t take enough time out to explain what’s going on (like in Black Pearl) or entertain us with some amazingly choreographed fight sequences (like in Dead Man’s Chest). Instead it’s almost all action, ship vs. ship, pirate councils, arguments, giant women, explosions, tense meetings, and whirlpools. The film only slows down long enough for various loyalties to flip flop and motives to be reconsidered, tangling the plotlines so much that I think I blacked out during parts of it. I think my brain went into defense mode and cut out anything too confusing to string together. As a result, I just found myself rooting for Jack, dimly aware that Keira Knightley was stomping around gnashing her teeth at everybody, but completely surprised every time Orlando Bloom popped up on a boat, having completely forgotten for whose pirate-team he was now pirate-playing.

I have a friend who suggested that perhaps I found At World’s End so confusing because it is for minds less “simple” than my own. After I finished removing him from my “people who might want the gift of a home-baked pie now and again” list, I considered this seriously. Am I just stupid? Surely not! Besides, if I’m stupid, a whole lot of other people are too, and if you think Disney’s going to intentionally make a film that’s going to confuse most of the populace, you’re mistaken. Nope, I believe it was the curse of the trilogy. Trying to wrap up too many things at once with the third film, whereas the first is perfectly digestible, being more of a complete story within itself, and the second is free to focus a little more on artistic expression – taking the first film’s story and pushing it into new directions. Of course, I may have found it a mite easier if I’d watched both of the other films several times beforehand, with a pen and a notebook and a compass and my thumb on pause. But maybe your mind is a little more complex than mine, a little more like the mind of Jack Sparrow himself, in which case you might be able to make sense of it all. But enter ye with caution, or whatever, because all of a sudden you will wake up and Keira Knightley will be a Chinese pirate king, and I will give you five gold pieces if you can “savvy” an explanation for how you got there.

*JD has limitless talent and painful good looks, in addition to his obvious genius and potential to leave a gaping hole in the world of cinema upon his departure from this world, at which point I will lead a crew of ruffians on a ship to the ends of the Earth to bring him back and restore him to his throne as king of the thespians. Also, I bet he is a killer dad.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

Recently, I made some sweeping statements about the seemingly indefatigable trajectory of trilogies as of late, fueled by my bitter and almost personally offended disappointment in the final installment of Pirates of the Caribbean. One is enough! I said. Two is indulgent, and three is simply showing off effects, recycling jokes, and losing your audience in the process. Well, sue me. I forgot about the Ocean’s 11 stuff (though I’m not sure how, considering my almost scary trust in Soderbergh and Clooney), and about midway through Ocean’s 13, I realized…hey! I am NOT lost, I am NOT confused, I am NOT bored, and I am NOT ready to write a “you’ve let me down” email to a bunch of famous dudes who don’t care. I looked around at my fellow Cloonz-fans. Everyone’s eyes were alight, their heads were nodding, and they laughed with genuine glee at the appropriate times. No one, except a Frodo follower, expects the third part of a trilogy to be the big mind-blower.* And though Ocean’s 13 may be a slightly weaker version of the other two, it is still clever enough to save the films from the trilogy curse.

One of the reasons for the film’s success is that it didn’t attempt to go one step further and tackle a bigger, grander problem like, say, a casino on the moon that threatens to put Vegas out of business, so Danny Ocean and his right-hand man Rusty gather up a crew to blast off into space and set the evil alien owner straight by stealing all his spacebucks. Nope, it’s just another jerk (this time it’s Al Pacino) who think he’s really awesome and who is basically acting for his hubris to have its ears boxed. He’s also made the mistake of screwing over one of the 11 personally, which, luckily for us, seems to enrage the dashing thieves into incorporating more fake mustaches than usual. Ellen Barkin, David Paymer, and Eddie Izzard make for some excellent fresh characters, and Pacino, of course, plays an obnoxious, self-obsessed, greedy snake to a tee.

Clooney and Pitt, as one might expect, provide most of the really great lines and cap off the movie’s humor quota in one brilliantly random scene that slows down the film’s trademark quick and snappy directing for just enough time to turn the joke from funny to hilarious while also allowing us some space to collect our wits while the complicated world of casino heists whirls around us. Matt Damon tends to consistently steal the Ocean’s show, so that’s no surprise, while Casey Affleck got more than his usual share of laughs. Both Eddie Izzard and Bernie Mac (no, seriously!) were substantially underused, but it doesn’t really matter. There’s enough stuff going on so that you’re sufficiently entertained, down to Rusty’s ridiculous ringtone and Andy Garcia’s cravat. Leave it to Clooney to step up to the plate when Depp lets us down. Oh my gosh! Perfect Ocean’s 14 idea!! I’m going to write that email after all.

*Although, for all we know, this isn’t a trilogy, it’s an ongoing series that will continue until Brad Pitt suffers heart failure on the set of Ocean’s 63.

photo credit: Jake Lyell

CaryTown is truly a magnificent place. The sheer quantity of independent shops makes it leaps and bounds better than the corporate malls in Short Pump and Stony Point. A stroll down Cary Street on a lazy weekend afternoon is both fun and refreshing. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it, right?

Maybe CaryTown is broken. Wait and hear me out. Over the past few years we’ve witnessed massive turnover in the shops and restaurants. While most spaces are filled with tenants, it’s concerning to see so much change in such a short period of time. While there are many examples of long-term success, there is an equal number of counter-examples. (Toymaker of Williamsburg, Growers Exchange, Rostov’s Coffee & Tea, Richmond Piano, and Rolly Polly just to name a few.)

There’s going to be more competition in the near future as well. Scott’s Addition, north of Broad along The Boulevard, will soon be home to a brand new movie theater and new storefronts that will line the street up to The Diamond. Establishments such as Strong Hill Dining could give CaryTown cornerstones like Acacia and Can Can a run for their money. Other hot spots are popping up throughout Richmond as well, for example the art corridor on Broad and the Cary Street Lofts area in the Fan.

Let’s not forget that while Cary Street has catered to small businesses, expansion efforts have gone less than stellar. Remember Glass and Powder’s store in the Short Pump Mall? Or the countless efforts of Ellwood Thompson’s to expand? While Cary Street may be a place to nurture start-ups, it’s anything but a launching point. So, I propose the first ever CaryTown online Charrette. It worked well enough for the city, drawing hundreds to participate in redrawing the Richmond map. What would you do to CaryTown? My plan for CaryTown has 6 main points…

• Close Cary Street on Saturdays. There’s too much traffic to drive on Cary Street on Saturday anyway. Why not close the road and open it to pedestrians-only during the summer? Restaurants could set up tables to the sidewalk, increasing capacity and revenue, and shops could move merchandise outside. Vendors could even rent temporary spaces along the road, meanwhile generating revenue that could be used to improve CaryTown. Of course, the city would get a cut too in return for permitting Cary Street’s closure. It’s a win-win.
• Put a Farmer’s Market in the Cary Court parking lot on Saturdays – this could be the pinnacle of Saturdays on Cary Street. Since no one is driving anyway, turn the parking lot into a Farmer’s Market and watch 17th Street turn green with envy.
• Change some roads to two-way on Saturdays. Of course, people need a place to park, so one-way streets like Crenshaw and Colonial would need to be changed to two-way to allow people to park
• Put some green space on Cary Street. Right now it’s 100% storefronts. How about a park? The 7-11 property sure looks ripe for “CaryTown Park.”
• LESS THAI FOOD. ‘Nuf said.
• Do something with the corner of Cary and Boulevard. Why is this area still run down and shady? Let’s clean it up with something decent. Anything is better than the empty storefronts there.

Those are my ideas. What about you? Leave your comments, and we’ll be sure to pass them on to the powers that be.

photo credit: Jake Lyell

When asked to choose her favorite item at It’s Hip to be Round, Anne Kennon gasps. “It’s like choosing a favorite child!” she exclaims in mock dismay. Kidding or not, this devotion to her products makes It’s Hip to be Round a must-stop-shop for Richmond’s mommies-to-be.

Open for 2 1/2 years, Kennon’s store seeks to provide stylish alternatives to the mu-mu and stretch pant prison many women feel relegated to during their pregnancies. Shoppers will find a great selection of casual, office, evening, and swim wear, as well as those cute novelty tees that allow women to show a sense of humor and pride in what was once consider a “delicate condition.” They can choose pieces from several off Kennon’s favorite maternity designers like Olian, Michael Stars, and Japanese Weekend (her personal favorite because of the multi-functional designs of each piece).

Dads-to-be can also find some goods of their own. It’s Hip to be Round has an extensive collection of dad-friendly items, all of which can be found on the second level. As an added bonus, Kennon has equipped the second floor with a TV and couch to keep dads comfortable during shopping trips. Big brothers, big sisters, and grandparents can also get in on the fun with inventory selected just for them as well. Kennon has also chosen a great selection of baby gifts and accessories. She carries that coveted Bugaboo carriage and baby clothing up to 12 months.

Clearly, Kennon’s shop has a lot to offer. But, what she takes the most pride in is the service she and her small staff provide. This dedication to customer satisfaction stems, believe it or not, from Kennon’s former life as a country club employee. After earning a masters degree in physical education, Kennon spent 10 years serving the needs of the often-demanding clients in the country club circuit. A quarter-life crisis lead her into retail where she spent time at Gap and Baby Gap. The high demands of her former job made Kennon accustomed and able to provide extraordinary personal service. She eventually ended up working at another local maternity store. She admits she “fell into to it,” but found the work to be rewarding. She loved seeing a woman schlump into the store feeling frumpy and gross and watching her strut out feeling beautiful and comfortable. Kennon also enjoyed working in a smaller setting that allowed her to provide personal service and guidance to customers who are often scared to take that leap into maternity wear. When the opportunity arose to open her own store in Carytown, Kennon jumped at the chance to be a part of this shopping district known for its high quality merchandise and excellent service.

It’s immediately obvious that Kennon fits right in with Carytown’s good reputation. She didn’t hesitate to pause during our conversation to greet a customer (and baby) by name. She made herself readily available to answer questions and give advice regarding garment size and gift ideas. She says it’s this personal attention and knowledgeable advice that separates her shop from the its larger counterparts. Her staff is also known for taking the time to call a customer when a new item arrives that might match up with her style or needs.

Such customized, conscientious service has earned It’s Hip to be Round a stellar reputation with the expectant crowd in Richmond. Many customers come insisting, “My friends told me I had to come here.” As Carytown business owners know, word of mouth gets you far in this town. If Kennon keeps it up, she can expect to be seeing the expecting for a nice, long while.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

Things I learned from this film: Spartans are the hottest ancient Greeks, Persia’s king was an eight-foot-tall drag queen, and shirts should really be optional as they serve no purpose except to limit a (my) healthy appreciation of pectoral muscles.

Surely there must be something else to say about this long-awaited, heavily-promoted, graphic-novel-adapted film? Let’s see, 300 tells the story of a Spartan king who, for a couple of hasty reasons, rounds up 300 hot guys in their underwear and marches them off to war against a giant Persian army with nothing more than some shields, spears, and a strategy simple enough to be depicted by a few drawn lines in the sand. Each of these elite soldiers has been rigorously trained since birth to yell “HOO!!” when necessary, which appears to be whenever their king yells a sentence that ends with “…SPARTAAAA!”,” …SPARTAAAANS!”, or “…GLORYYYY!” The only other remaining piece of plot information is just whether or not they win or lose, and if you are a sweet, innocent lamb who really can’t figure it out in the first ten minutes, I’m not going to be the one to ruin it for you.

Now I’m afraid that I’ve deterred you from slapping down some ticket money and getting pumped about seeing this movie in the theater. Plot or no plot, 300 is an amazing feat, a very non-Spartan approach to filmmaking. The color treatment alone is enough to make it worth seeing, much less the striking presence of the main character, who it’s impossible not to follow on-screen, even when surrounded by nearly-identical dudes. I was doing some research on Gerard Butler, the hard-as-nails King Leonidas, to confirm my suspicion that a Scottish accent kept breaking through his majestic lines, and I was surprised/delighted/dismayed to learn that he was the adorable Archie in Mrs. Brown. I would never, ever have recognized him due to what I believe is some sort of prosthesis going on here in order to make his face look more Spartan. David Wenham (aka “Faramir”) and Vincent Regan (aka “that guy from Troy”) are immediately recognizable, however, as they basically play tiny, one-dimensional slivers of former roles.

Everything’s pretty one-dimensional in this film, to be honest, as all of the energy was obviously focused into creating something stunning and original. With that mission accomplished, nobody seemed to go back over the film and think “what a breathtaking representation of…nothing.” Because of this, a review about 300 is very difficult to write. 300 expresses nothing and signifies nothing. It is what it is – eye candy. But the reason reviews of it aren’t terrible is that it is some of the finest eye candy yet, and it’s hard to pan something that’s so unique and truly deserves to be seen on a big screen.

I know what you’re thinking. “But it’s made from a graphic novel! It’s not supposed to be King Lear! Meh meh meh! Frank Miller!” Look, all I’m saying is, Sin City managed to include “awesome-looking” in one giant package of “awesome.” It hit the visual highs necessary to make it groundbreaking while also including some substance. Of course, that film also had the benefit of the stupendous Robert Rodriguez, one of my favorite filmmakers ever, who managed to take Frank Miller’s handiwork and make it into a masterpiece in its own right. 300 won’t quite rob of you of speech, but it’ll certainly leave an impression. And sometimes thinking is overrated, you know? Sometimes we all just gotta sit back and enjoy the nearly nude men on the screen who are engaged in combat for their honor.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

The Oscars are exhausting for those of us who obsess about films – weeks of predictions and nail-biting, followed by a few days of scoffing and/or gloating. The weeks after the Academy Awards are usually a nice breather for me. Usually there’s a dearth of good movies in theaters, and I can catch up on my DVD-watching in my own living room.

This year my little break was cut short prematurely by Zodiac a film so long and talent-packed that, combined with its superior editing and eerily funny suspense, it will easily become this year’s The Departed. Like that 2006 Best Picture-winner, Zodiac‘s director (David Fincher)
has put together some good ones, namely Fight Club and Se7en, and luckily so, because if you form your preconception of this film solely from its publicity, you won’t want to go see it.
Trust me, good people. I was like you. I thought I was going into a weak thriller that was going to end in a predictable twist involving some gross-out bones found in a closet or something. But when I realized who Zodiac was directed by, I thought I’d give it a shot, and I found myself enjoying every second of it.

You’ll hear a lot of “I found myself enjoying every second of it” and “not one part of this film could be omitted” when you hear what people have to say about Zodiac, and that’s because it’s
almost three hours long and spans a narrative time of something like 25 years. Based on the book by Robert Graysmith, one of the main characters, the film is a modern quest narrative, only instead of finding treasure or destiny, the characters in this film are consumed by their need to solve a mystery.

In San Francisco in the 1970s, the “Zodiac” killer made a name for himself by sending letters and ciphers to various newspapers in the area, outlining his own crimes, making threats, and taking credit for various crimes it was later found he did not commit. The film points out again and again that, in the scheme of things, this one man does not deserve the enormous amount of effort and manpower put towards his identification and arrest. But manpower he gets, and the film emphasizes
just how many lives and careers were affected by this investigation. There’s Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards), Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr., who confirmed my suspicion that he is brilliant), and Robert Graysmith (Jake
Gyllenhaal): cops, journalists, and cartoonists.

Instead of a neat, concise murder mystery such as we’ve seen hundreds of, Zodiac presents a sprawling mess of red herrings, trails gone cold, false alarms, paperwork, districts, due process, and frustration. Fincher takes a risk, and as a result, a lot of people will not like this film. There are no easy answers, and nothing is glossed. Years into the famous case, the characters watch themselves portrayed in a movie based on their story, only that film conveniently ends things with a bullet in the guilty man’s chest. In real life, according to Zodiac, it’s not that simple. How do we prove this man is guilty, and what if he’s not? Evidence doesn’t necessarily add up perfectly, and just because you want a man to be guilty and this harrowing search to be over, that doesn’t mean it’ll happen that way. The screenplay (written byJames Vanderbilt) doesn’t leave anything out – we’re privy to the very unsensational phone calls Inspector Armstrong has to make between cities, coordinating information between police stations and the frustration of Inspector Toschi as a handwriting expert deliberates between samples. We’re led in wrong directions as suspenseful music and other traditional cues lead us to believe that Robert Graysmith is finally about to have the
expected climactic scene with a guy who we think (or hope?) is the killer, just because he’s creepy. That climax never happens. All of the evidence amassed by various characters doesn’t point to anything but their own obsession with finding out the truth, as Graysmith says, the ability
to be able to look in the killer’s eyes and know that it’s the right man.

Fincher does a superb job at creating that feeling of drawn-out frustration while still keeping us as hooked on the mystery as Graysmith and Toschi, otherwise we’d give up long before they do. I’d be willing to bet that the Academy won’t forget this truly unique film come nomination time next year, although the seriously amazing acting by Ruffalo, Gyllenhaal, and Downey will most likely be overlooked in favor of someone impersonating a well-known public figure, so I won’t nail-bite over that one. But now, seriously, I’m going to watch some TV shows on DVD until somebody goes with me to see Hot Fuzz, and I don’t want to hear, think, or talk about the Oscars for at least another six months.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

I’ve said this time and time again, but last year I should have tried to make money off of it — in order to win an Academy Award for Best or Best Supporting Actor or Actress nowadays, you must be impersonating a real figure in a biopic about that figure. If you have the misfortune to star in a film that does not feature people doing impressions of real people, then your only recourse is to hope for either a year without a biopic contender (good luck) or to hope that you are Russell Crowe. After I saw this film last year, I knew the Oscars would be a done deal and Helen Mirren would certainly take away the Best Actress award.

I liked the movie, and I thought she did a perfectly fine job, but my enthusiasm for The Queen is really only that there finally exists a film that both fits this weird proclivity of the Academy’s and also deserves much of the praise it will undoubtedly receive. There are many films that have won ridiculous accolades undeservingly, simply because they a) reaffirm for us that we really enjoy the music/good works/art of some dead famous person and b) feature a performance that can be compared to a real live figure, and therefore is easily applaudable in our minds. But if biopics are the only way to get some Oscars around here, I am happy to say that The Queen is a good one, and I will feel no remorse when it sweeps the Awards.

Director Stephen Frears does make things a little risky for himself, though, by portraying well-known heads of state…in a different country. For instance, I’m assuming James Cromwell did a bang-up job as Prince Phillip, but to be honest with you, I have, like, no idea what Prince Phillip is like. I actually had to remind myself who he was. So I’m hoping that just because we can easily look at Jamie Foxx and say “Gotcha. You’re being Ray Charles,” The Queen won’t arrive at our Halloween party and have to explain its clever costume, which doesn’t garner nearly as much attention as the undeserving but easily recognizable Sexy Dorothy.

In sum, The Queen is a very, very interesting film that is probably a great take on what probably happened within the confines of the Royal Family after Princess Diana’s death. I’m blindly trusting Frears on the accuracy of this statement, not just because he knows more than I do, but because he includes footage of President Clinton. I hadn’t realized how much I missed him.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

Ben Stiller plays Ben Stiller in this kid flick and/or two-hour-long advertisement for New York’s Museum of Natural History. I know I’m coming across as really harsh, but it just so happens that usually I like Ben Stiller, I like kids’ movies, and I’m down with some CGI history. And with a cast roster that seems to be pulling out all the stops (Owen Wilson, Ricky Gervais, Steve Coogan, and even Dick Van Dyke, for Pete’s sake), I couldn’t really see how this tasty bit of holiday fluff could go wrong.

Then, two blocks away from the theater, when I realized I had basically forgotten what film I had just seen, I knew that Night at the Museum had gotten the better of us all. Director Shawn Levy tricks intelligent adults to fork over eleven bucks each by dangling promises of top quality special effects, performances by talented comedians, and a premise as magical as anyone in the throes of holiday goodness could wish for. Instead of Home Alone for the 21st century, however, we get a bunch of good caveman costumes and realistic looking lions but no script and few laughs.

Maybe it’s not the script’s fault, though. Maybe it’s the fact that Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller were really and truly hilarious gents…500 films ago, and at this point, watching them play the exact same characters yet again was almost embarrassing. I half expected Vince Vaughn to lumber out of an exhibit in boxers and a t-shirt, babbling about beer and chicks. Ricky Gervais was only mildly entertaining, Steve Coogan was under-used, and I keep forgetting Robin Williams was even in it at all. Furthermore, I challenge you to find one person who feels comfortable with Dick Van Dyke playing a villain. The shining star in the film – and the only one who seemed to generally put any effort into his role – was Mickey Rooney. The guy’s, what, almost 90, but his lines were delivered with such force that the audience couldn’t help but laugh.

Admittedly, the special effects were cool, but at this point, that’s not enough. We take special effects for granted these days. A Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton running around, wagging its tail? No big deal. Mickey Rooney doing a roundhouse kick to the face? Please! A film can’t depend solely on CGI anymore. We need a story and some dialogue that doesn’t feel like it was thrown together at the last second, and while you’re at it, an ending that doesn’t involve the entire Roman Empire dancing to hip hop.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that Night at the Museum isn’t really trying to be a good film at all. Larry (Stiller) gets sacked after the museum is trashed and the inhabitants escape during his watch, but as soon as the museum director (Gervais) sees the amount of people that this publicity has attracted, the mess is forgotten and Larry gets to keep his job. Publicity is key, the filmmakers obviously believe, and what better way to promote a museum that’s being rendered obsolete by the Internet than to cram it full of well-liked actors, project it on a big screen, and make it look fun as hell? On this point, Night at the Museum is a resounding success. In fact, I do want to head over to the Museum of Natural History next time I’m in New York. But if that T. rex skeleton doesn’t dance around on command, I’m going to be mighty disappointed, Stiller.

photo credit: Jake Lyell

When you walk into 15 N. Belmont, you might see Chris cradling his newest mortadella like a
proud father. Or maybe you’ll spot Tanya finishing off her lunch of baguettes and bolognaise sauce as she advises a customer on selecting a cut for that night’s dinner. Either scene is exactly what Tanya Cauthen wants for her customers when they visit her latest venture in Richmond’s culinary community: Belmont Butchery.

Tanya has created quite a presence for herself in the foodie world. She has left her imprint on such Richmond favorites as Ellwood Thompson and the European Market, and served a stint as a food stylist for Style Weekly. Her history, combined with that of her employees Chris, Bill and Nathan, gives customers over 30 years of experience to tap into. When visiting Belmont Butchery, customers don’t get away with simply demanding a specific cut of meat and heading out the door. Instead, each product is cut to order after determining where and how the meat is being cooked, as well as how hungry those eating actually are.

To say that the staff members of Belmont Butchery “know their stuff” is a gross understatement. They envision, prepare, and take pride in each product going into the hands of their customers. Tanya stresses the importance of how proud she and her staff are of their work, a sentiment adding to the fact that Belmont Butchery is a team venture. So often the owner (the person ultimately in charge of the bottom line) gets all the attention, but Tanya is adamant that all inquirers know that Chris, Nathan, and Bill are equally invested in the integrity of their shop.

Such dedication explains how far Belmont Butchery has come since Tanya acquired it in the latter half of 2006. She’s hesitant to say the stars aligned to get her there, but in my opinion, there’s no other explanation. All obstacles that popped up in front of her during the acquisition process were knocked right down as everything seemed to fall in her lap. That’s not to sat Tanya hasn’t worked hard to make Belmont Butchery something to be proud of. Only 9 ½ weeks passed between the moment she got the keys and the moment the doors opened for business on October 20, 2006. Once a jewelry and sculpture shop, the space had to be completely revamped to fulfill Tanya’s vision of a functional yet comfortable atmosphere. Working as her own contractor, she hired a plumber and electrician to help her change the dimly lit, lime-green and burnt orange storefront into the clean, industrial space that it is today.

The inside of Belmont Butchery looks like, well, a butchery. That is, it looks exactly like a butchery should look: wood paired with metal, a spectacular butcher block planted in the middle of the room, and a welcoming staff decked out in their black and white, striped aprons. The first thing you see when you walk in the door is their expansive display case of quality meats, ranging in anything from the prime, bone-in rib eye (described as “luscious” or “just damn good” by the staff) to hot dogs and sausages prepared on-site. They also boast an impressive selection of cheeses, as well as prepared foods, often made from recipes crafted right in the store. You can also find great specialty beers or the perfect wine to complement your meal.

Despite their comprehensive inventory, one would never describe Belmont Butchery as cluttered or cramped. The space is clean, airy, and well-organized. As Tanya points out, people purchase food from her and she wants them to feel good about the space in which that food is prepared. Consequently, the only part of the shop that customers cannot see is the sink. Not only that, as I discovered upon arriving for my visit with Tanya and suggesting we sit down and chat, there is nowhere to sit, either. This was a conscious decision on Tanya’s part. She wants everyone working in the shop to be accountable; not only for their product but also for how they use their time. They work hard and they want their customers to know it.

They also want their customers to know that Belmont Butchery shouldn’t be considered a “special occasion shop,” but rather a place that can easily be added to a normal route of weekly errands. Many think that specialty stores will break the budget, but Tanya assures us otherwise. Pound for pound, you will receive the same amount of meat at a price comparable (and sometimes lower) than at the grocery stores. Not only that, you can walk away knowing that your selection was cut with your plans and needs in mind. This personalized service has created a loyal band of regulars for Tanya and her team, giving the shop a real “neighborhood” feel. Tanya is also quick to point out that her shop is a family establishment, both in its design and audience. Her brother-in-law selects the wine, and kids can thank her seven-year-old niece, Halle, for the chalkboard base of the checkout counter. It proudly displays the artistic scrawls of Tanya’s youngest customers. As she tells it, Halle cringed at the thought of lining the counter with bead board, insisting, “If kids are happy, moms will spend more money.”

As cute as that is, don’t think that Tanya is just in this for the money. When she talks about her shop, one gets a sense that providing a service to her customers is the priority. Wanting to establish Belmont Butchery as a neighborhood presence, as well as a destination for foodies, Tanya has more plans in the works to amplify the impact of her business, ranging from her commercial relationships to customer service. Belmont Butchery wants to help local restaurants find new, unique products to enhance their menus. Customers can sign up to receive offers via email or newsletters. Tanya also hopes to create a program to make dinner easier for busy families. Soon, they will be able to get ready-made recipes and shopping lists, marinades, and cuts of meat, all in one stop at the butchery. Additionally, Tanya wants to expand their educational efforts by offering demos and classes that will not only add to her customers’ skills, but also make them more aware of the food they buy.

Although she has plans for her business, Tanya says she’s stopped thinking long term. She claims every time she tried that in the past, it didn’t work. As she tells it, Belmont Butchery “just happened.” After watching Tanya and her staff in action and tasting some of their delicious creations, I can say that the “just happened approach” definitely works for her.

photo credit:
Jake Lyell

Is it or is it not true that modern-era James Bond movies are, as a rule, laughably bad? I thought that this was understood – certainly Pierce Brosnan got the picture. You only (and without exception) go to a Bond movie because your boyfriend makes you, and you get to gloat afterwards when they admit that, yes, there has never been a worse movie. That’s the way things go. I’m not saying I was happy about it, but it was something steadfast and unchanging in these times of ours. Something you could depend on and something that seemed as if it would be around forever. Like Dave Barry. Or ER.

Well, that’s all shot to hell. Martin Campbell (who also directed the last acceptable 007 film, Goldeneye) turned out Casino Royale, which is not only ridiculously entertaining but actually beautiful as well. And layers, people, layers! Who knew James Bond to be such a complex character? Sexy and disarming, sure, but interesting to boot? It’s almost too much to process. The raves over Daniel Craig are accurate; he gives the character a much-needed update and strikes an admirable balance between the requisite suave British guy in a tux and a young hothead secret agent who is not above making the occasional mistake. Even without these merits, however, I think it would be safe to say that people would still be raving, only when they said “brings a freshness to the role,” they would actually mean “indisputable champ of teeny swimsuits.”

But Craig isn’t solely responsible for bringing the Bond franchise out of its recent rut. The writing and cinematography were carried off with a sophistication that simply has not been present in these films in years. This is not to say that Casino Royale in any way resembles its predecessors from the Sean Connery age. In fact, most of the film’s surprising appeal lies in its departure from many expected Bond tropes. It lacks “Q” and all the gadgets he normally bestows upon James, thereby foreshadowing the types of crises that will occur later in the film. Most of the preposterous situations (ice hotels, elaborate jetski chases, Madonna) are gone, though there is a villain who cries blood, but he doesn’t dip people in gold paint. He just wants to beat them at poker. Also blessedly absent are bimbos, painfully stupid innuendo banter, and womanizing in general. The female characters are likeable and intricate, and Eva Green’s well-acted Vesper Lynd commands respect and sympathy. A stunning shot of a traumatized and soaked Vesper sitting in a shower in her evening finery and a tuxedoed James getting in beside her without hesitation just to give her a shoulder to lean on would never have existed in a previous Bond film. It’s too smart, for one, but also too concerned with the psychological development of a female character that has heretofore been so one-dimensional that it’s even received its own stereotype label – “the Bond girl.”

Even the landscapes in which Bond moves are realistic while still exotic – Madagascar, Montenegro, Venice. They’re not the circles we peasants move in, but they’re not secret islands occupied by evil geniuses either. There are no maniacal, convoluted plans to destroy the world, there’s just a guy who works for terrorists and is therefore a liability. Don’t despair, all the good things about Bond are still around – exciting chases, Aston Martins, and martinis, but Casino Royale can’t be bothered with the stale stuff. As the new Bond impatiently spits out when asked if he’d like his vodka-martini shaken or stirred, “Do I look like I give a damn?”