Missed movies make once-hip mom hapless
By Beth Teitell

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Here's what I hate: You think you have all the bases covered, and then they go and add a new base.

     I arrived at work on Monday, feeling pretty proud of myself for already starting to stress out about Thanksgiving traffic, holiday shopping and seasonal weight gain, when a colleague sent an e-mail ranting about a subject that I hadn't yet started worrying about (but immediately added to my must-angst-over list).
     "So it's the end-of-the-year movie season,'' she wrote, "with studios cramming the theaters full of releases, to be eligible for Oscar consideration, etc.
     "But it's also holiday season: So where the heck are people supposed to find time to do everything, and let the cocktail crowd in on your views about 'The Girl with the Pearl Earring'?''
     Tension twisted my gut. I thought back to last weekend, and recalled that the papers and the magazines had been filled with stories about upcoming holiday movies. Movies that others would see, but that I, for babysitting reasons, probably would not.
     Which meant that people with whom I could once converse would now be talking to other filmgoers only, raving about "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'' or tossing out names from Middle-earth that meant nothing to me or gushing about Naomi Watts in "21 Grams.''
     It would be like being caught in a room of Patriots fans, except that the aliens would be my friends.
     To torture myself, I flipped through the "Holiday Movie Preview'' issue of "Entertainment Weekly.''
     Inside were gorgeous photos of Julia Roberts and Kirsten Dunst and Julie Stiles. I studied them, looking for anything I could talk about when the conversation swung to "Mona Lisa Smile.'' But there was nothing.
     Sinking deeper into my shame spiral, I e-mailed the woman who'd pitched me into this bad place to begin with. I wasn't looking to blame. I just wanted some advice.
     I explained that the stars have aligned for this coming weekend, and that I'd actually be going out. I had been planning to see "Mystic River,'' but now I'm not sure. Yes, the movie's as good as it was when it was released to strong reviews, but it's so yesterday.
     As I hit "send,'' one of the hipper people in the newsroom walked by. I ran the "Mystic River'' question by her: She did a small snort that translates as "obviously not.''
     "Who you gonna talk about it with? You finally motivate to see it, and it's like you just wasted 10 bucks. You can't mention it. That would just broadcast that you're a big loser.''
     She suggested I cut my losses and move on to something with buzz.
     As I was taking in her wisdom, my e-mail companion wrote back:
     "Movies should come with a 'see by' date,'' she noted: "For optimum hipness, see by Nov. 3.''
     The hip colleague, who'd left my desk, popped back, inexplicably cheerful. "You can see 'Mystic River,' '' she said, "it's just that you have to wait like 20 years. Then it will be on the list of one of the coolest movies of the beginning of the century.''
     Then it would be vintage, not dated.