Best. Killing off. Of. A. Main. Character. Ever.

The season finale of The O.C. did it right.

First there were the presumed spoilers. Not to mention bringing back the Marissa 2.0: this time younger and bitchier. But then the show, with all its I-can't-believe-I'm-saying-goodbyes, I thought, It's all too obvious. Surely, they've got a surprise ending in the wings. The O.C., I soon discovered, is better than that.

The show isn't about the Big Surprise. That's for shows still actually doing the tired, worn-out genre. The O.C. is a self-aware revival of the genre. Not a satire, not a send up. Satires and send ups, too, have all been done before.

And I've got to tell ya, I'd come close to giving up on The O.C. But this episode rebuffed my doubts. It was perfectly self-aware with its I-can't-believe-I'm-saying-goodbyes, and with its unabashed replacement character: "Dad thought you'd need another daughter to worry about," says Kaitlin. Everything so stripped down to playing its part, I was reminded of the Lars von Trier movies Dogville and Manderlay - only without all the condescending pretension. This episode was, in fact, devoid of unnecessary artifice.

It was about the time in the show when Marissa suggested going back to the model house that I began to suspect they're really going through with this. They're making a circle, and they're saying, Hey, we're making a circle. Because the show isn't about shocking you, or even comforting you with pop culture references winking at you, letting you know you're hip, too. It doesn't have subtext; it is subtext. It is the footnotes and exegesis of a genre. And this series finale (among a few other episodes) brought that idea from an exercise up to sublime.

Good show.

Loleanna

Last night i saw "Lucky Number Slevin". It was just what i was expecting, and just what I was looking for - lots of style and banter with a bit of violence thrown in. Unlike Ebert, I like stylistic dialogue for the sake of stylistic dialogue. I mean, just listen to The Bachelor and the Bobbysoxer.

you remind me of the man
what man
the man with the power
what power
the power of voodoo
who do?
you do.
do what?
remind me of the man

Who talks like that? No one, and that's what's enjoyable about it.

Sure, not the Slevin greatest of its genre, but i think it delivered what it promised.

The movie I saw tonight also was a bit writerly. It was a little like Oleanna in its exploration of gender issues and such, just less annoying.

More so, it was a subversion of the horror film subgenre that includes films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, I Spit on Your Grave, High Tension, Wolf Creek, etc. The revenge/torture films.

Only with a twist. I think one day, looking back, this film will be recognised as introducing the Female Gaze. Sure I Spit On Your Grave (a/k/a Day of the Woman) and High Tension were about a woman taking her revenge, but Hard Candy takes it further, and raises the question of is it revenge or is it simply cruelty. It also introduces the Yin aspect of lore, with its Little Red Riding Hood allusions, and the possibility that she is emotion itself, namely the male protaganist's guilt manifest.

The movie does raise a few questions - and then dissappointingly tries to answer a few. I think it would have been a better movie all around had it not tried to offer a couple of the motives it offered, but that would have been against type for the torture/revenge subgenre. In terms of turning the camera around on that style of movie, it was wonderfully consistent.

Superfriends with Money

Last night S and I saw Friends With Money. I liked it. It wasn't the writer/director's best, but it was a good parlor movie. I enjoyed the balance: It was at once both sweet and sad. The rich weren't villians and the not-as-rich weren't saints. Everybody had their virtues and vices to some extent, and they were often the same trait. Also, as S pointed out, the richest ones did seem to have the least problematic life, and that is just often how it works. That's just reality. Nothing wrong with it. In fact, I suspect that's a large part of why people strive for riches. Just a guess.

There's a great line in the movie where Olivia wonders why benefit dinners don't just give the money to the needy rather than wasting so much on the affair itself. I'm sure we've all wondered that.

That's in a way why I can't watch shows like Cribs on MTV. When I see someone with 27 Bentley's it just makes me sad. And I don't begrudge you your Bentley. It's just that, you know, wouldn't one be enough? I was reminded of that when I read this story

GANG of anarchist Robin Hood-style thieves, who dress as superheroes and steal expensive food from exclusive restaurants and delicatessens to give to the poor, are being hunted by police in the German city of Hamburg.

Yes, yes, it's technically stealing and stealing is wrong, but something about it entertained me. Especially that "they presented the cashier with a bouquet of flowers before making their getaway." Nice touch.

And, no, I'm not saying eat the rich. I understand that we've got to live our lives, and the whole problem of poverty seems too big to do anything about. Still, we can "tap into the water try and bring [our] share", and by doing so, make one of the most amazing videos ever.

Just sayin'.