From an article about Michel Gondry, which I will link to, I learned he is dating the cartoonist Gabrielle Bell, which makes the fact of his adapting one of her comics more sensible. Still, there's a thing in that profile about Gabrielle, on the set, drawing in her notebook, which is notable for how awful it is:
"She goes back to her sketchbook. She draws everything longer and sadder than it appears in real life, like she’s making the world over in her image."
Later on, it goes on to call dating a shy cartoonist a "concept." What? I know exactly what the writer means but it's clear to me thats an assholish point of view to possess.
Oh, also, Human Nature and The Science of Sleep both ruled. Come on. Come ON.
The article also talks about an installation at Deitch Projects that sounds ill. You know- it's a great article for the Gondry stuff and terrible for any and all insertions of the writers' voice. (The idea of the "film club" is pretty similar to something I've conceptualized myself. The idea of making "exquisite corpse" films with Spike Jonze never occurred to me though.) Obviously, GQ is a magazine for assholes but I don't think I'd ever read an article from them to confirm this. Whoops.
It's offensive for being both sexist and really- I don't know, capitalist? Enamored with the idea of wealth and status? Confused by comics because there's no money in it, and condescending to Gondry for being able to look past that? It's kind of gross. GQ scribes shouldn't feel like they are better than the dude who made the "Let Forever Be" video. Not because they're magazine writers and Gondry makes movies- any respect shown is based on that weird fallacy- but because no one is better than that video. It has nothing to do with consumption and everything to do with creation.