That Gnawing Thought: Zombies in Popular Culture

Looking at bestselling books and popular movies, a person might conclude that vampires are in style. But amongst the ranks of the undead, vampires are miles behind another group of ghouls when it comes to overall cultural significance. From video games like Left 4 Dead to the television series The Walking Dead, zombies are on the rise out of the grave and into public consciousness. Interest in these shambling horrors has spiked in recent years and only continues to grow. As I write this, I can glance and spy a book I plan on reading over winter break on my shelf: Theories of International Politics and Zombies, written by Professor Daniel W. Drezner. Disbelief at my own dorkiness aside, the truth of the matter should shock you. Zombies have even penetrated academia.

"Braiinnnnsssss...."

Why such a fascination with zombies? What sets them apart from the witches, vampires, ghosts, and demons? I have a few suggestions. Scientists argue that there is at least the possibility of zombies existing. Similar occurrences are no stranger to biologists; take the fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, for example. That is the main difference between zombies and the rest: they are plausible. There is nothing magical about them. They could exist. Remember the story on the news this of the cannibal who devoured the face of a homeless man? More than a few people grew nervous about the possibility that this was some type of zombie. Even when the police announced it was bath salts that caused the man to act in such a way, it does not erase that fact that our minds jumped to the possibility of a zombies.

Zombies are also unlike other creatures in the effects that produce on a society. Recent depictions of vampires, for example, show them coexisting in the world with regular people. They merge with our own institutions or create new ones, sometimes threatening that of humans, but the world continues onward. Zombies change everything. There is little chance of coexistence; humanity either survives or dies. Typical social structures disappear completely in an outbreak. It is a crisis that alters the world in a horrifying and irreversible way.

I believe this is the crux of the matter. Zombies are considered fictional, but the disaster they could create is very real. In entertaining the idea of a zombie apocalypse, it raises questions about how prepared the world is for other catastrophes. A pandemic infection, for example, is a very realistic threat to our entire species, especially in this age of globalization. Zombies allow us to tackle difficult questions about public policy that need solutions now, before the crisis emerges. Thinking about dangers to the entire human race makes even the best uncomfortable and leaves rest either in a panic or unable to comprehend its magnitude. Zombies help bridge that gap; by using zombies as a substitute, we can start discussion topics that would normally remain best left unsaid.

Stepping back from the grand scale and peering into the more personal interest in zombies, they also present individuals with the chance to think about circumstances they never had a chance to before. Could I survive if society collapsed? Could I find food and water? Could I use a weapon? Would I kill someone, even to save myself? What would happen to my family and friends? What skills or knowledge do I have that give me an advantage? Larger moral dilemmas emerge: would you kill an infected loved one to spare them turning into a zombie? Would you kill yourself? Does individual need or the common good matter more? What about liberty and security?  If you even manage to survive, do you bring children into such a world? If you could, do you rebuild society? How do you shape it? During a zombie apocalypse, you and the world are one giant tabula rasa. Zombies allow people to ask challenging questions about themselves in a fictional setting. Placed outside of reality, a person can explore questions that they would otherwise never have a reason to entertain.

Zombies will outlast vampires in terms of culture significance. Vampires are like shiny baubles (after all, they do sparkle now) that are more show than substance. Zombies let us discuss both larger problems and personal dilemmas by creating circumstances that are fictional but nonetheless applicable to other disasters. It is a thought exercise in which all can participate, a philosophical experiment that all can understand and contemplate. Vampires, demons, and ghosts are simply too supernatural. When the credits roll, they and the horror they bring slowly dissipate away. Zombies, and the big questions they force us to consider, linger much longer.

-----

Joey Gale '13

The Descendants

I don’t always particularly enjoy going to movie theaters. Good movies are hard to find, and the thought of spending $11 and then potentially being stuck for two hours watching a film that makes me think, “what happened to original storytelling,” is not very appealing.

However, this weekend, I took a chance on seeing The Descendants in theaters. And I can honestly say it was an $11 and 2 hours well spent! Director Alexander Payne does an eloquent job of mixing slapstick with pathos in a dramatic comedy that examines everyday people dealing with an uncommon tragedy. The film follows the journey of Matt King (George Clooney), an uninvolved husband and father of two daughters, as he searches for his wife’s the secret lover, all while his wife is in a comma from a boating accident. Throughout his search, Matt also wrestles with the decision to sell the family’s land inheritance, which has been handed down through history by Hawaiian royalty, while also learning how to re-connect with his children.

The thing I found so refreshing about this film is the underlying honesty and authenticity that is found in its tone and characters, a product of the film’s offbeat rhythm. The film has a non-preachy air to it; rather, it simply explores the complexity of family relationships and life, a topic everyone can relate to. Providing a unique view on humanity, The Descendants is refreshing both in Clooney’s complex performance of a middle aged man trying to make his like whole again, and in the film’s overall message that there is heroism in simply making it through daily life. Overall, this is unique movie that should be seen either on the theaters or on your couch when it comes out on DVD. I guess original storytelling is not dead after all. 

Leaving Boston

Within the recent Boston genre of film, an interesting theme has surfaced; that being the need to leave the city that had loved. In Good Will Hunting, Will had only known the topic city. As he grows as a person, past his academic prowess, he realizes the need to branch out and explore new lands, heading west like the frontiersmen of old. In The Town, Doug MacRay has worked himself a niche life style that was quickly shrinking around him. Again, just like Will, Doug escapes his entrapment and chooses a life unfamiliar to him. The films suggest that leaving one’s comfort zone is a worthy goal in itself, but also, just the start of a larger journey of self. So, I too take such leave, entering the unknown, as a new chapter in the film of my life begins.

Daniel Perry

Torpedoed Again, Eh?

by Christina Mondy

Are you one of those people who go on YouTube just to find funny videos? I wouldn’t be surprised. I’m one of those people. However, when I get tired of talented toddlers and animals doing wacky things, there’s always one video that I can rely on to make me laugh every time. When I’m feeling down, I just type “John Lennon in the bathtub” into the search bar.

It brings me to a hilarious clip from my favorite movie, A Hard Day’s Night. It was The Beatles’ first feature film in 1964. The movie is supposedly a realistic yet whimsical portrayal of The Fab Four’s everyday adventures as Britain’s #1 sensation. If you like black and white movies, British comedy, the 60s, quick-witted dialogue and cute boys from Liverpool, this movie is perfect for you. Then again, I recommend it to almost everyone I meet because I’m so certain it will change their life, or something of that nature. Yes, it’s just that good.

I know a lot of music snobs will get annoyed with me for saying this, but after watching A Hard Day’s Night for the 23^rd time I realized that technically The Beatles were the first real boy band. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling them the first band that had ever been composed of boys and I’m not calling them lip-syncing dancers. They are, however, the first rock-and-roll band that ever had a ridiculously huge following. In fact, they pretty much set the stage for pop music. If you watch the movie, you’ll know what I mean. For instance, in the first scene they are being chased by rabid fan-girls. In the last scenes they are playing a concert on TV in front of a live studio audience full of screaming girls (who, apparently, were not actresses but actual fans). While pretty much all of today’s big artists have big fan-bases, I can think of two recent girl-magnets that get similar attention: The Jonas Brothers and Justin Bieber. Their talent is debatable, but whether you like it or not, these boys are so popular that they have even wormed their way into our vocabulary. (Oh my Jonas! I don’t belieb it!)

After making these comparisons, I am forced to slyly mention that the Jonas boys put out their own movie, Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience, in 2009. Then, of course, we have Biebs’s new 3D flick Never Say Never. Both of the aforementioned are concert movies which also include documentary footage of the stars. While A Hard Day’s Night is fiction (and, in my opinion, way more entertaining) the premise is similar, as is the general exploitation of their fame. It’s funny that even back in 1964 popular musicians got movie roles for their charm.

As a final comparison, I can’t help but notice that a lot of people hate on Justin Bieber and The Jonas Brothers today. In fact, to demonstrate how overrated and talentless they are, people often relate them to bands like The Beatles. I wonder if these people realize that The Beatles initially received the same criticism compared to other musical legends. It seems that history repeats itself. So, what comes next? What is the next big thing? All I know is…it just won’t be the same as John Lennon in the bathtub.

Why 'The King's Speech' Shouldn't Win Best Picture

It will though. Of quick note, this film is great. It is an all around well made piece of cinema with crisp editing, fantastic performances from the three main leads (Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, and Geoffrey Rush) as well as from the supporting roles, the cinematography is note worthy as is every other technical aspect of the film. It is, without question, well deserving of all of its 12 Oscar nominations. But, with all this in mind, I don’t believe it deserves the title of Best Picture of 2010. Please keep in mind, here there be spoilers.

Reason #1: This film is Oscar Bait. If you are unfamiliar with this term, it is a label put on the types of films that the Academy historically prefers. Most films that get nominated for Best Picture and the other major categories, to be fair, fall under this distinction. But, The King’s Speech falls under a particular brand of Oscar Bait. This particular brand is made up of the films that speak to the close relationship between cinema and theater and the drive to be recognized as a serious medium of art. This includes musicals (Nine), films about World War II, in particular the Holocaust (The Reader), and biopics, especially those about the British Crown (Elizabeth). If it is also a period piece, preferably set in Britain before World War II, you’re golden. The Academy, hoping to appear appreciative of fine art, will gladly push nominations on these types of films rather than the ones that took more risks and strayed away from the film making norm. This has been pointed to as the reason for Nine’s four Oscar nominations and The Reader getting a Best Picture nomination over the widely popular and critically acclaimed The Dark Knight. Not to say these types of films never deserve the recognition, but it is a well documented bias in the Academy’s history.

The King’s Speech manages to hit several of these notes. It is of course a period piece set in 1930’s London and tells the tale of the Duke of York becoming King George VI. Also, the main conflict of the film is the King attempting to overcome a stammer so his people will have faith in him and the country as it enters World War II. This is the type of World War II action that the academy loves: ignoring the dirty, ugly warfare and concentrating on the effects past the battlefield (see: Saving Private Ryan, which undeservedly lost Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love, a period piece). Oh, the Academy also loves films where the main character has to overcome a disability (see: Forrest Gump, which undeservedly won over one of the most influential films in recent history, Pulp Fiction).

I should mention that I don’t believe films like these should not be made. They tell interesting tales that are enjoyable and open overlooked chapters of history to a new audience. But, stacking the deck so heavily in one’s own favor for praise from the Academy is frustrating, especially when films attempt to do this every year. What I would like to see from future films of this particular sort that deal with the Crown are to take more risks in their film making and not to just play to the audience who will give you the award. Challenge your audience.
Reason #2: The ending of the film is curious. For those who haven’t seen the film, King George gives a flawless speech to his nation, impressing his teacher/ friend, his wife, his country, and himself. With the victory under his cap he goes on his balcony to acknowledge his people. The country is ready for World War II! That last part bothers me. The film is meant to end on an uplifting note of personal triumph over seemingly insurmountable odds. As the jovial, celebratory score kicks in and King George confidently stands over his people, all I can think is “How about some perspective here?” One of the most brutal struggles in the history of society is beginning, the Holocaust is occurring on the same continent, and I’m meant to be revelatory over the King of England overcoming a speech impediment? I’m aware, though, that this is where the story has to end and I doubt there was a way to keep what I just mentioned in context and still achieve a feel-good ending. It just leaves me with a poor taste in my mouth as I leave the theater.

Reason #3: The film’s not saying anything new or interesting. This is pretty much all my personal preference, but Best Picture should go to a film with subversive or challenging themes. The King’s Speech is about personal triumph, overcoming the obstacles each of us is presented from the day of our birth, learning to trust others, and, to a certain extent, fulfilling our destiny. These are all classic themes in cinema and are important for people to see and enjoy, but The King’s Speech does not do much to this established genre. One could argue that the film is trying to say something about class systems, mainly that we lose opportunities for greatness when this type of system is strictly observed. The film, though, fails to take this idea to fruition, settling for the need for classes shown by the importance of the King in the universe of the film. Thus, the film fails to challenge its audience and is happy to stay a good personal story of growth, which it does wonderfully. I just would hope for more from what is supposed to be the best film of the year.

Also, this poster is TERRIBLE!

-Daniel Perry

Have You Even Seen his Work in ‘Kitty Cat Man’?

I’m going to say something that has come to be a curse among seemingly all fans of cinema: I Love Michael Cera. Based on his recent cinematic draw, it seems that the general viewing public has come to despise young Cera. The generally accepted rationale for this view is that he, “plays the same character,” and “doesn’t branch out.” The reason Cera has been constantly placed in this character is due to his breakout role on Arrested Development. In this role, Cera cemented his ability to play young and awkward, trying to find love where it probably shouldn’t be. His success on the show has led him to be typecast into such roles, but he has played each with their own subtleties. This is exemplified by recent roles in Youth in Revolt and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World where Cera has broadened his range. So, yes, Michael Cera, thus far, has played essentially “one” role, but this shouldn’t be a slight against Cera. For one thing, he is still very young. At just 22 year old is it any wonder that he hasn’t really begun taking more challenging roles? Second, there are far more actors who do one type of character without the audience turning on them. Nic Cage, Sylvester Stallone, and Bill Murray all come to mind, all of which haven’t seen a slip in their returns due to this. So, stop acting like you don’t like Cera because he does the same roles. Just admit to yourself that you hate him because he plays hipsters.

-Dan Perry

History and Film

History and Film: A Lovely Marriage

By Ally Di Censo

“Many characters in historical films seem somehow aware that they are living in the past.”—Roger Ebert, in his praiseworthy review of Marie Antoinette, 2006

The above quote by renowned film critic Roger Ebert is, I believe, spot on. As a history major and a film lover, I inevitably encounter people who love to rip apart movies with a historical setting for being “inaccurate.” Sure, I can understand people’s anger towards lazy research errors, like an iPod appearing in a film set in 1985 (although these errors tend to be exaggerated. All movies, even those set in the present day, contain gaffes—why latch on to minor flaws in otherwise good films?). However, what bothers me the most is the implication, espoused by many fellow history lovers, that if historical movies had only followed history down to a T, they would be better films.

Don’t get me wrong: I am passionate and serious about history. I was History Club president in my high school, I hope to become a history teacher after I graduate—you get the gist. However, I am also passionate about film and literature, and I realize that fiction is a completely different medium than a factual history textbook. Often, a level of anachronism is necessary for a movie to attain its artistic vision. And, as Roger Ebert indicated, this level of anachronism frequently helps a historical film achieve the admirable task of making history come alive. People who lived in, say, 1875 didn’t consciously think that they were living in a historical epoch. They were simply living in the present, their present. A film that becomes too concerned with recreating 1875 at the expense of other aspects, such as character development and story, can feel like little more than an animated museum waxworks display. However, a film that works hard to recreate the details of 1875, but also considers innovative ways to make the past relevant—whether it be by putting in a non-diegetic soundtrack of contemporary songs, or by giving as equal attention to the universal themes of its story as to its historical period—is doing something right.

To illustrate my point, I would like to talk about two films from the past year that received some unfair criticism from history buffs. One of them, Inglourious Basterds, is an Oscar-nominated epic; the other, Sherlock Holmes, is a thinking person’s popcorn flick. Inglourious Basterds sent several historians into a tizzy because—spoiler alert—Hitler and the Nazi high command is killed at the end by the titular group of Jewish-American soldiers. However, Inglourious Basterds was never meant to be an accurate depiction of American World War II combat. It is a revenge fantasy, a fable, made clear by its opening narration of “Once upon a time.” Moreover, like many Quentin Tarantino films, Inglourious Basterds is a movie about movies. In this case, it’s his homage to WWII combat B-flicks and Spaghetti Westerns that always carried a sense of over-the-top heroics to them. Similarly, some critics complained that an action hero version of Sherlock Holmes clashed with its Victorian London setting. Instead, Guy Ritchie’s steampunk adventure brought new life into a literary character in danger of becoming nothing more than a stereotype, keeping the detective’s trademark intelligence and wit with renewed coolness. As such, the 2009 Sherlock Holmes feels more in tune with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original creation than some of the character’s previous, stuffier incarnations.

I agree that there are definitely limits to how history should be presented in film. I People should raise an outcry over films that distort the facts and realities of history to serve an agenda, as these often ignore or grossly misrepresent racial and social tragedies throughout history. These would include movies that gloss over the treatment of Native Americans by white settlers in the West, or movies that provide a glorified picture of the antebellum American South. Movies that completely disregard the troubling aspects of the past in favor of presenting a sanitized version of events are not only a historical travesty, but also hurt present and future efforts at social justice. Also, it’s bad when movies impose modern sensibilities over historical attitudes. For example, some historical films show all of their female characters as being as liberated, accepted, and outspoken as women in 2010. They imply that women have always had it easy, which most certainly isn’t true.

However, a culturally sensitive film which strives to make history as relevant and alive as possible should be applauded. Historical accuracy is not the sole determinate of whether a movie is good or not (trust me, there are plenty of other things that can ruin a film before historical accuracy). Good movies, no matter what their setting, should make people think and inspire discussion. And good historical movies should banish the perception of history as some stodgy and outdated topic. While remaining true to the sensibilities and details of their time period, they should make the audience feel as if they are watching characters with the same concerns and emotions recognizable in our peers today: fear, love, humor, cynicism, outrage, bravery, evil, affection. These emotions are timeless. Let’s stop focusing on petty details and make movies timeless as well.

He’s More than Just Tairy Greene

He’s so much more. Zach Galifinakis should be considered for more serious roles. With his work in Visioneers, Into the Wild, and, most recently, It’s Kind of a Funny Story, Galifinakis has proven he is capable of holding his own in more dramatic roles. I’m not saying that he should abandon his comedic endeavors. I relish each and every single one of Galifinakis’s comedic ventures, whether it be in film, television, or online. I’m just saying that Zach Galifinakis has the potential to be a fantastic actor, not just comedian.

-Dan Perry

Juno

By Grace Lapointe

Teenage pregnancy may seem like a strange subject for an independent comedy, but Juno succeeds because it tells the story of an unconventional teenage girl. Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) is an intelligent, sarcastic sixteen-year-old girl who unexpectedly becomes pregnant. Juno initially considers an abortion, but then decides against it. With the help of her loyal friend Leah (Olivia Thirlby), Juno decides to go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption to Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), a young couple desperately seeking a child. Bateman (Arrested Development) and Garner (Alias; Daredevil) skillfully convey the growing tensions between the Lorings. The film follows Juno through the ups and downs of her pregnancy, which makes her an outcast at her high school. (“They call me the cautionary whale,” Juno quips.)

Directed by Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking) and written by first-time scriptwriter Diablo Cody, Juno defies typical Hollywood conventions. Unlike other movies dealing with the same topic, Juno does not romanticize teen pregnancy or make it seem hopelessly catastrophic. The script is full of witty dialogue, and the unique characters are brought to life through the actors’ strong performances. Through the role of Juno, Ellen Page (X-Men) showcases her remarkable acting talents. She captures the full range of Juno’s emotions, from her snarky wit to her insecurities. Michael Cera (Superbad) is likably awkward as Paulie Bleeker, Juno’s sometime boyfriend and the father of her baby. J. K. Simmons (Oz; Spider-man) and Allison Janney (The West Wing) play Juno’s supportive dad and stepmom. The film uses songs from artists including The Kinks, Cat Power, and Belle & Sebastian, which perfectly complement specific scenes. Juno is a truly original, entertaining movie that manages to balance wry humor and poignancy. It has been nominated for multiple awards, including three Golden Globes, and Academy Awards in four categories: best director, best picture, best leading actress, and best original screenplay.

Across the Universe

By Erin Horan

Strawberries. War. Lesbians. Bono. Frat boys. Love. The Beatles! “Across the Universe” is so much at once. It is a beautiful movie- one of those rare films you can just sink into, letting go of all of the rules and expectations in your head. Just sit back, smile, and be entertained.

There is a pretty coherent and well-established storyline between all of the song sequences- in my opinion, a little too well-established for a movie that is clearly more about its visual artistry than its relatively unoriginal backstory. However, I did LOVE how the songs were seamlessly and appropriately woven into the plot. They were part of the telling of the story. (My favorite sequences were “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “With a Little Help From my Friends.”)

The casting is perfect: I immediately fell in love with Jim Sturgess, who plays a shaggy haired Brit with deep, dark brown eyes that speak for themselves....Evan Rachel Wood compliments him well as his love interest, a blonde All-American girl who becomes an anti-war crusader. Joe Anderson rounds out the principle three as the carefree and confused college dropout- at a time when those two words mean one thing: it’s off to Vietnam for you.

The actors sing all of the songs in the movie; and yes, Bono has a cameo in which he sings “I am the Walrus!”

Director Julie Taymor is at her best in “Across the Universe.” The choreography, movement, scenery, color, sound, and overall flow of each scene is brilliant. I burst out laughing more than once, as humorous surprises are plentiful. Football players tackle, flip over each other, and…cartwheel(?) in slow motion as a cheerleader walks straight through the commotion, singing softly. On a crowded New York City street, everyone wears suits and marches in formations, except for one newcomer from Chicago- the song is “Come Together.” I could go on, but I have already given too much away!

The movie is not without its serious moments- after all, issues such as war and the civil rights movement are highlighted. I was most moved by the “Let it Be” sequence, which takes place in the midst of the Chicago race riots. The “Strawberry Fields” sequence would have been more resonant if the Vietnam scenes had been more developed. The shots in New York City were real enough; the Vietnam scenes should have been shot outside, too. Realism would have provided an even greater contrast between the bloody violence of the war and the obviously fake dripping, squirting strawberries.

The movie is too long- but at the end I immediately overlooked this flaw because on the whole, the experience was fantastic! This movie is sure to become a cult classic. Across the Universe...is gonna change your world...

Classic Comedy Films

By Ally Di Censo

All my life, I’ve been a complete movie nerd, from elementary school (Disney, anyone?) to middle school (enduring many films about people giggling at sleepovers) to high school (aha! My introduction to the classics!). College is different from all of this, though, because it is so specific. Even in my major, history, I have to choose whether I want to specialize in world, European, or American history. Why can’t I just focus on Events of the Upper Midwest Which Occurred Between February and March of 1948 and make my job a whole lot easier?

So as I entered college as a freshman, I contemplated what particular kind of movie fanatic to become. Should I don a black turtleneck, drink bitter coffee, and discuss minor films of the New Wave movement, or should I keep a notebook full of loose-leaf paper and direct short movies on the absurdities of college life that attain a cult status on campus?

As the weeks progressed, however, I discovered that, much like in high school, college students like a lot of different movies for a lot of different reasons, so there’s really no one way to be a movie lover. I think everyone can agree that laughter is one of the reasons we watch movies (and a funny movie does sound good around finals!), so I decided, as my first project as a college film buff, to compile a list of five very humorous movies. Lest you think that “good movies” are synonymous with “new movies,” I focused on films made before the year 1990 for this list. So rent these movies, laugh, and enjoy!

Duck Soup (1933). When it comes to old comedians, the Marx Brothers were definitely ahead of their time. It is no wonder that this film hardly made a box-office dent when it was first released but zoomed to popularity in the intellectual 1960’s. Duck Soup, a zany, anarchic film that doubles as an effective satire on politics and war, brims with witty dialogue and puns that come charging at you with rapid speed. Watch it and note how this early form of smart humor influenced comedy routines from Monty Python to Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

Singin’ in the Rain (1952). Of course, Singin’ in the Rain is one of the most beloved musicals of all time. But what differentiates it from other musicals is its ample use of humor, ranging from slapstick (Donald O’Connor’s astonishing “Make ‘Em Laugh” number) to sharp satire on the Hollywood film industry and the reality behind the personas of movie stars (watch for Jean Hagen’s Oscar-nominated performance as a vapid, irritating actress).If anything, the famous twirling-around-a-lamppost dance will make you smile.

Some Like It Hot (1959). Considering the date in which it was made, Billy Wilder’s famed comedy about two men who must disguise themselves as women after witnessing a crime provided a unique (and controversial) alternative to standard comedic fare. The strength of this movie derives not only from great performances by Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis, but from the fact that it makes you laugh about everyday situations within the absurd situation it presents. This film also proves that the iconic Marilyn Monroe was a talented comedienne.

Annie Hall (1977). Most romantic comedies are not even remotely funny and ask audiences to believe that two beautiful, impossibly attractive people with high-powered professions in New York City would be single. Hand the genre over to a director like Woody Allen, though, and the film becomes a quirky, witty delight laden with references to pop culture and clever repartee to boot. Moreover, what makes this movie so endearing is that the characters are funny, flawed, and individualistic people we can recognize and identify with.

This Is Spinal Tap (1984). If you were to look up the word “parody” in the dictionary, This Is Spinal Tap would appear (not really, but it should). This spoof of heavy metal bands (Spandex pants-check. Bad hairstyles-check.) and the music industry, shot in documentary style, is so clever and realistic that one could be forgiven for mistaking Spinal Tap for a real 1980’s rock band. It offers a plethora of quotes (how many times have you heard the phrase “up to eleven?”), inside references to actual bands, and you grow to love the dim but sweet Spinal Tap.