Early parenthood is remarkably low-tech. Until we have robots capable of transferring our warm, wriggling infants onto the changing table, keep them from rolling off while simultaneously entertaining them so that they don’t start shrieking hard enough to peel paint off the walls, clean them up from their last experiment in modernist poop art and prepare them for their next one, well, human hands are going to have to do. And, in fact, they do well.

Human hands are also good at jiggling, rubbing, swaying, bouncing, and clapping babies on the back. It takes little more than this, plus milk, to keep babies reasonably satisfied for their first few months outside the womb. Toys, no matter how cool, hold no appeal for a creature with the hand-eye coordination and visual acuity of a rotisserie chicken. Our adorable fresh-out-of-the-womb critters aren’t interested in anything more complicated than a pacifier for a long time. For evidence (and for fun!), see the documentary Babies (2010), which features a small child for whom a Mongolian yurt and its dusty environs seem like Studio 54, with a goat standing in for Andy Warhol.

But Capitalism abhors a vacuum: parents of young children are a market, and therefore they must be marketed to. Some gadgets are useful in making baby-rearing easier, more pleasant, less messy. Which are worth your money?

The first and most important gadget for any milk-producing parent is a breast pump. Whether you’re a “breast is best” Mayim Bialik type or just cognizant of the fact that what comes out of you is cheaper than formula and you don’t have to worry about running out during a hurricane, it’s useful bordering on imperative to have something the baby can eat stored outside of your body. What if your body really needs to go to see a movie, for example? Or, you know, work?

The cost of these devices, which allow mommies to be roam free without being on call for every meal, can range from about $35 for an Avent manual pump to over $1200 for a hospital grade Medela Symphony. The powerful hospital pumps are much cheaper to rent than to buy and can be an excellent short-term option. For most women, though, they won’t be necessary.

A satisfactory, middle-of-the-road electronic pump falls far closer to the manual side of the bell curve: the very popular Medela Pump in Style retails for about $250, though prices can range up to $350. But I found the number of tubes, and the way those tubes can get clogged and moldy, intimidating. My pick is the light, user-friendly, tube-less, and affordable Ameda Purely Yours Electronic Pump ($160), which attaches nicely to the Simple Wishes Hands Free Bra ($25). Voila! You can express milk and write for the Billfold at the same time.

Your baby fussing, however, makes it hard to concentrate while you multi-task, which is why the second most important gadget is a bouncer or swing. Perhaps you remember the vibrating chair from Sex and the City that was the only thing that would help Miranda’s son Brady stop wailing? Some of these calming seats are useful without being eyesores, like this handsome 3-in-1 Rocker Napper ($100). Others are dizzyingly awful looking, especially the swings, which also tend to take up more room.

Certain parents swear by swings; they do have the virtue of being self-powered, while the bouncy chairs often need an assist from a nearby adult. We were given a Fisher-Price swing that took four batteries and forty-five minutes to assemble and turned out to be defective. We sent it back, used the Amazon credit on all-in-one cloth diapers (a Billfold piece for another day), and have been getting along fine with a used, not-too-ugly SnuggaBunny. It vibrates and plays insipid music, if your child likes that sort of thing. Like all Brooklyn babes, mine prefers vintage Hank Williams LPs.

The third useful baby gadget is a white noise machine. Babies don’t like silence; they are more calmed by whirring and whooshing that mimics the sounds of the womb. Cloud B’s popular, cuddly Sleep Sheep fits in the crib, but it can’t be programmed to play all night long. Other white noise machines, like the excellently reviewed Graco Sweet Slumber, look more like R2-D2 but also have more functionality and are still light enough to transport.

If you prefer not to invest in a machine, smart phone apps, including the free and effective White Noise Ambiance Lite, can also do the trick. The sound of “Rain on Car” kept my little monster sleeping peacefully for eight hours at a stretch for an entire week. Smart phones are vital baby gadgets in general: they can keep you sane while you nurse, enabling you to tap out emails, scroll through news or gossip sites, and play word games, all with one hand.

Bonus baby gadget: a wipe warmer. How would you like to wake up to the unpleasant sensation of sitting in your own feces, and then be further assaulted by the combination of cold air and even colder wet wipes on your delicate bits? Your little muffin has lots of nooks and crannies. Make the process of cleaning them more comfortable and you’ll get gurgles on the changing table instead of anguished shrieks. At around $20 for one with a nightlight, it’s less of a splurge than a no-brainer, and you can always order one to keep with you on the go.

Ester Bloom is always looking for more people to play word games with. 

NOTE: Adam and Ester saw The Dark Knight Rises together over the weekend, and then Adam saw it AGAIN on Tuesday, in IMAX. Because research.

Adam:  Hello!

Ester:  So! How was it in IMAX?

Adam:  Better. I kind of think that’s the way to do it.

Ester:  Ooh, yeah? But then, how much did that cost? And why did it improve it?

Adam:  So it was 20 bucks. which is a lot, though it may only be that much at the Loews Lincoln Square where I saw it. I think I did not realize how much of the movie was shot in IMAX. (You can tell when it switches, because the aspect ratios are different.) It’s gotta be almost half the movie.

Ester:  Oh wow. $20 is a LOT for one movie-going experience, even if it is almost 3 hours long. But now we’re starting at the end!

Adam: Yeah let’s come back to this.

Ester: So, the Dark Knight of the Soul, huh? Was this movie more or less grim than you anticipated, considering the previous two? 

Adam:  Interesting first question. I think it’s certainly less grim than the 2nd film. But it’s less everything, really.

Ester:  Oooh, what makes you say that?

Adam:  Well this is maybe my major complaint with the movie. It totally lacks the highs and lows of the previous movie. And I should say I enjoyed it overall. But…there’s just no single thing in it as good as Heath Ledger.

Ester:  That is true, though I did very much enjoy Anne Hathaway.

Adam:  We both did!

Ester:  Her performance was worth at least $3-$5 of the ticket price, whereas Heath Ledger’s was worth the whole kit & caboodle.

Adam:  Yeah, how dumb does it feel saying that Anne Hathaway elevates this Batman movie? But it’s true.

Ester:  Ledger was mesmerizing. And, as Dan Kois pointed out in the Slate Spoiler Special on this movie, he really made that film come alive — he was responsible for all the surprises. Or his character was, anyway. This movie was shorter on surprises.

Adam:  Haha, we both listened to that podcast in advance of this chat. We’re the worst.

Ester:  WE’RE THE BEST.

Adam:  Literally, we the best forever. But yes, totally: part of what made The Dark Knight was that combination of a truly scary villain with twist after twist that really convinces you that everything has gone to shit.

Ester:  We’re well-informed! Also we both read the Awl chat about this movie, which we disagreed with: They thought the take-away message was anti-Occupy; I felt it was more anti-Wall Street, that you can’t trust the private sector — i.e., philanthropists like Bruce Wayne and Marion Cotillard — to develop nuclear energy sources to solve big problems, or even necessarily to take care of a city’s orphans. Because if Bruce Wayne ducks out of sight for a while, everything goes to shit.

Adam:  True, though I do think the politics of this trilogy of Batman movies have always been a little fucked up. I’m thinking about the sonar-surveillance business that is basically the 3rd act of Dark Knight.

Ester:  Yeah, my head was kind of spinning at that point of Dark Knight.

Adam:  I think if you had to pin it down, Nolan’s philosophy is close to the ending of Metropolis. Remember? Something about, the head and the hands BOTH need the HEART? i.e., the working class and ruling class both need…heart. I don’t know what “heart” represents, but it is probably Batman.

Ester:  Man, Metropolis is a great movie. Although you’re just trying to shore up your film skool cred now, aren’t you?

Adam:  Yeah I hope it’s not too obvious?

Ester:  Batman’s hands, head, and heart all take a beating in this movie. There’s an interesting subtext about suffering and whether it builds character.

Adam:  Subtext? Interesting?

Ester:  OK fine! Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer kick the viewer with the force of a horse on steroids with the idea that suffering builds character, and perhaps people who are born privileged will never be as tough as those born in The Pit of Despair.

Adam:  Spoiler alert Pit of Despair. But also who cares, basically every movie has a Pit of Despair at this point.

Ester:  The Pit of Despair could be an abstract metaphorical construct, but yes, spoiler alert, this film contains a literal Pit of Despair.

Adam:  OK I have a big question. How did you feel about how LONG this movie is?

Ester:  Honestly, Dark Knight felt longer while I watching it because there were so many twists and turns — it was exciting but I was also aware of how many different stories it was telling. Because this one was more streamlined in that way, the length didn’t bother me as much in the moment. What about you? Did it seem longer in IMAX?

Adam:  Ha, no, it felt the same length. It did feel taller. But I think the main reason this movie feels long to me, even longer than The Dark Knight (which it is), is because it commits one of my most hated script crimes: having lots of time pass in the middle of the movie. Like, this movie essentially has a “6 months later” moment in the middle. NO. Don’t do that.

Ester:  Ahhh, yes. You’re right, it does span a significant length of time. Myself, I get more annoyed at voiceovers, at least ones that aren’t done by Morgan Freeman.

Adam:  So how did that affect your feelings on an all-voiceover villain?

Ester:  Heh. Yeah, I too would have liked to see his mouth and face move.

Adam:  I mean, god bless Tom Hardy. The guy does yeoman’s work here. But he has an IMPOSSIBLE TASK.

Ester:  Yes and yes.

Adam:  Those are two big ways in which the movie sets itself up to not succeed: 1) Put your best actor in a steel crab-mouth ding dong, and 2) Try to tell a story in which WAY too much time passes. (Incidentally, this is sort of why biopics suck. They cover too much time and eventually the main character is covered in old-face.)

Ester:  YES. Or rather, why biopics should just focus on a particular exciting period in a person’s life. But considering that, the film is remarkably successful. Because you’re totally right, and yet I did enjoy it.

Adam:  Yeah. You more than me, but we both liked it.

Ester:  (I may have liked it more, but you’ve seen it twice and spent at least $28 on it.)

Adam: And yet it’s so problematic. Part of it is that the movie is just really relentless in how much STUFF it tries to cram in. There’s just a lot of stuff in it.

Ester:  And Bane as a villain is so heavy-handed. Whereas I feel like the Joker was up-ending action movie cliches left and right, Bane is just a typical violent masculine cipher. Even though he does turn out to have a weirdly sweet backstory.

Adam:  Yeah, we keep coming back to this, which I think shows how strongly it impairs this movie: after Heath Ledger’s joker, you just don’t have anywhere else to go.

Ester:  RIGHT. Yes. That’s the problem with making the second installment of your trilogy so frighteningly memorable. You raise the stakes, which is rough if you can’t then meet them again.

Adam:  I think that’s fairly common in movie trilogies, for the 2nd film to be the high water mark. And in the complete context of this Batman trilogy, that’s forgivable. But we’re talking about this particular movie, which just isn’t as good as the last one.

Ester:  Is it common? Is Toy Story 2 the best? The Two Towers? I’m trying to remember. But okay, let’s talk about money in this film, because it plays an important role, both on-screen and off.

Adam:  Yes. Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street. The stock exchange. Wallets. ALL THINGS IN THIS MOVIE. Well, Occupy Wall Street isn’t actually in the movie. OR IS IT.

Ester:  NO IT ISN’T.

Adam:  OR IS IT.

Ester:  STOP IT.

Adam:  Fiiiiiiiiiiine.

Ester:  Bane’s men — mercenary gun-wielding ninjas — have no real political agenda. From what I could tell. They weren’t a bunch of well-meaning, earnest, ripe-smelling young idealists.

Adam:  So what is the comment being made about the Occupy movement in this movie? Is there one at all? Or is the resemblance just a red herring to lend the movie some relevance/urgency?

Ester:  I’ll go with Door #3. Red herring.

Adam:  Ah, good choice, very tasty. I think a frustrating thing about this movie is that not only does it not have a ton to say about those big questions of our times; it commits the crime of PRETENDING to have something to say. Like, Anne Hathaway whispering “there’s a storm coming” into Batman’s ear gave me some chills, I am not going to lie about this. But the payoff doesn’t come.

Ester:  Very true. I liked it though! In the moment.

Adam:  I think that moment is great!

Ester:  Yeah. There are great hints about class stuff, but then it’s not really born out.

Adam:  Like, ultimately, this is not a movie about whether the rich are Good or whether the common man is Good. This is a movie about, and I can’t believe I am writing this, How Batman Got His Groove Back.

Ester:  Yes. So let’s talk bottom line. I paid $8 to see this movie and it was well-worth that. (Of course, air conditioning & a seat out of the sun for 3 hours would have been worth at least $5.)

Adam:  I paid $8 and then, later, I paid $20.

Ester:  You enjoyed the $20 experience more.

Adam:  Yeah. It appears that the more you pay, the better the movie is. if you can find a way to pay $50 to see the movie, I bet it would be AMAZING.

Ester:  Hee! But which amount better reflected how much you thought the experience was worth?

Adam:  Well, I think $20 is so much money for a movie. Like, In This Economy. Kids these days. Obama.

Ester:  True, true.

Adam:  BUT, I do think there’s a huge amount to be said for seeing a movie the way the filmmaker intended it, and Nolan CLEARLY wants people to see this in IMAX. Almost half the movie is in IMAX. It really makes it a pretty awesome experience.

Ester:  OK.

Adam:  Also, I think I want to make sure I’m clear about something, or at least make an attempt to pre-emptively deny my own hypocrisy.

Ester:  Uh huh …

Adam:  I think movies like this demonstrate that there isn’t a direct correlation between how “good” a movie is and how much it’s “worth” to see it.

Ester:  How philosophical! Say more about that.

Adam:  Like, I do think this movie is problematic. It has script issues. It has pacing issues. You can’t see the goddamn villain’s mouth. Yet, I spent $20 on a ticket to see it, and I do not regret that investment at all, in the slightest. To be able to get out of yesterday’s 90-degree heat, and watch a long, intense action movie on that crazy Lincoln Square IMAX screen, with good friends and an enormous soda…like, why else am I alive?

Ester:  Aha! Yeah, that makes sense. There is an intangible quality to all of that that’s hard to put a price tag on.

Adam:  Right. I can’t in good conscience dock this movie dollars for not being as good as the last Batman. And further, I can’t really recommend that you just wait to see this on Blu-ray or Netflix, because it’s literally not going to be the same.

Ester:  And it speaks to another question: Are huge ambitious summer blockbuster movie events worth paying more for than smaller movies, even ones that are technically “better”? Especially if the smaller movies — documentaries, indies, etc — play just as well on Netflix?

Adam:  Right, you are exactly right. There are compelling reasons to see smaller, Better films in the theater, but they are different reasons.

Ester:  Supporting artists! Supporting quality!

Adam:  Being part of a conversation. Sharing an emotional experience with a crowd, or with the culture at large.

Ester:  Does this just come down to “Movies” vs. “Films”? They are, and can be, valued differently. Or their value can be assessed differently.

Adam:  I’d say big vs. small, but yeah.

Ester:  Magic Mike needs to make way less money than Dark Knight Rises to make people take note, and indeed it has.

Adam:  But, like I said last time, that “small” movie was also totally worth seeing in the theater for the audience’s reactions.

Ester:  That’s true.

Adam:  And that’s where you can quantify the value of the moviegoing experience: In what way did seeing a movie WHERE and WHEN you saw it make your experience better?

Ester:  Yeah. I remember where I was when I saw “Y Tu Mama Tambien” and “Being John Malkovich” in the theater, for example, and it totally added to both experiences to be spellbound in a seat surrounded by equally spellbound audiences. I mean, no one moved during the credits. People were just gobsmacked. It was great.

Adam:  RIGHT. THAT’S what we pay for.

Ester:  Batman is totally worth seeing in the theater, IMAX or regular, that’s for sure. I’d put the value at $15.

Adam:  I do think $20 is justified if you see it on a true IMAX screen. Otherwise, try to find a matinee like we did and see it for cheap!

Previously: Magic Mike

Ester Bloom has never visited an actual Pit of Despair, but she has seen Princess Bride like 50,000 times. Follow her @shorterstory. Adam Freelander still has a poster of Jim Carrey as the Riddler up in his childhood bedroom. From 1995. Just never cared enough to take it down. Follow him @adamplease.

Ester: Hello! Ready to talk twee?

Adam: Ready to talk TWEENS.

Ester: They’re so adorable! They got me thinking about chemistry onscreen and which directors do a good job of capturing it. Unfortunately I couldn’t think of a single instance where Wes Anderson has done so. But maybe I’m forgetting something?

Adam: Yeah, I don’t know if capturing the sparks and fireworks between lovers is really Wes Anderson’s main product.

Ester:  :)

Adam: Unless he can meticulously choreograph it.

Ester: And light it. And dress it in precious costumes. He’s like a kid playing with Barbies, except that once he has the Barbies perfectly-dressed and in their perfectly-decorated bedroom, he has no idea what to do with them.

Adam: Hang on, I thought we both liked this movie! We’re talking like people who did not like it.

Ester: We did! Sorry. Let’s back up.

Adam: Yeah, let’s switch gears for a second and say Hooray For This Great Movie. 

Ester: Tell us why you liked it! (When you’re done cheering.) The audience also cheered, I should say, at our nearly-sold-out screening on a Monday. And no one was tweeting or talking or anything. Everyone was so engrossed in this adorable love story of these two kids.

Adam: Very adorable. Very love story. But, were you aware before we saw it that, despite the star-studded cast, child actors carry 90% of this movie? I guess I knew it was about kids, but the two leads aren’t exactly top-billed.

Ester: I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen either one before. Though it should be said, Ed Norton has never seemed more like a child actor himself. (In the best possible way! He was so open and vulnerable.)

Adam: Yup. ‘Jiminy Cricket!’

Ester: God I love Ed Norton. He should be in everything. Bruce Willis was solid, too. Were you disappointed we didn’t get to spend more time with the adults?

Adam: Not really! That is kind of my point here: All the grownups in this movie are great, but they all have essentially bit parts. This is a movie about kids; kids are the main characters, and it’s only good because of how good the kids are.

Ester: Very true. It’s like one of the YA novels that Suzy brings with her everywhere.

Adam: Have you seen Truffaut’s Small Change?

Ester: NO. Thanks for making me look like a Philistine in the eyes of the Internets.

Adam: I haven’t seen it either!

Ester: Hahahahaha, okay then.

Adam: It seemed like something you might have seen.

Ester: Go on.

Adam: I dunno. I read something where Wes Anderson said he was influenced by it? Now I am having trouble recalling what I read. NEWS ALERT: Wes Anderson influenced by Truffaut.

Ester: This conversation is awesome. Let it be known we both studied Film in college.

Adam: Yes, two undergrad Film Studies majors.

Let me up the pathetic ante here. I’ve never seen a single Truffaut movie.

Ester: Oh wow.

Adam: 400 Blows, Shoot the Piano Player, Jules and Jim, Day for Night, Small Change: ALL MOVIES I HAVE NOT SEEN.

Ester: You should definitely see The 400 Blows at the very least. It is super-great. Day for Night is also really funny. Jules & Jim is sad.

Adam: …I think in my head some part of me hoped you’d also have not seen a lot of those movies.

Ester:  Nope! 4-nothing. Sorry dude. I have also seen The Last Metro but I remember nothing about it. However I have NOT seen some really vital and obvious American classics like Rocky and Raging Bull.

Adam: I’m trying to think of a common thread between those two movies but I’m at a loss.

Ester: Hee!

Adam: ANYWAY. Let’s talk about the kids’ acting a little more and move on.

Ester: They are so serious. They’ve invested everything in these roles. It’s very intense. In a great way.

Adam: I might characterize it a little differently. The kids are really great, but I wouldn’t call it naturalistic or method-y. I was really conscious almost the whole time that the kids were Acting. But that didn’t hurt my enjoyment of it at all.

Ester: Interesting. I’m not sure how I differ with you exactly—but they were taking their characters so seriously; they felt so believable. Even though of course the whole thing was absolute fantasy.

Adam: We were talking after the movie about how children, like stop-motion dolls, are sort of a perfect medium for Anderson, since he can treat them like figurines.

Ester: That’s very true.

Adam: I just feel like that’s part of being a Wes Anderson fan—that there’s an unnatural, stagey quality to absolutely everything he does, and yet, to me anyway, it still works. Very well.

Ester: See, this is where we disagree a little bit.

Adam: LET’S DO THIS.

Ester: I feel like the stage-y quality holds me at arm’s length so that I appreciate what he’s doing—especially visually—but I don’t get that emotionally involved. And at its worst, it can feel pretentious and airless. Rushmore, my favorite of his films by far, never feels like that.

Adam: So where did this movie fall on that scale for you?

Ester: Okay, if 10 is Rushmore and 1 is pretentious and airless, I’d give Moonrise Kingdom a 7.5? I think? It’s so sweet. It’s definitely the sweetest of his films. Okay, an 8.

Where does this rank for you in terms of Wes Anderson movies and their tendency to be a bit too Wes Anderson-y?

Adam: Well, I still don’t know if I’m 100% on board with the idea of this spectrum from airless/stilted to emotionally effective. Cause I think even the best of his work invokes the dollhouse quality. BUT. I do think this is clearly one of his best.

I think it’s also an adorable (and kind of elegant) solution to the very Wes Anderson problem of how all of his characters are constantly acting like children, or like children’s ideas of what grown-ups are.

Ester: True.

Adam: But make it so all the characters actually are children, and it’s perfect!

Ester: Even the adults in this film are children! Suzy’s parents sleep in twin beds. Ed Norton & Bruce Willis’s characters are both overgrown kids. Suzy’s mom rides a bike and it’s very easy to picture Social Services (played perfectly by Tilda Swinton) riding one too.

Maybe this feeds into what I was saying about chemistry—everyone’s so chaste! Even Suzy’s mom and her supposed lover. Then the two main characters have a kind of passion for each other that’s so visible that everyone else is threatened by it, but eventually respects it.

Like this is The Giver and they’re the only ones who can see color.

Adam: Haha. This movie owes a huge debt to The Giver.

Ester: Doesn’t everything?

Adam: No, you’re right though. ROMANCE.

Ester: ROMANCE! I love how he sets the table to make dinner for her while they’re on the run, and even thoughtfully squeezes mustard on her hot dog for her. There are all these wonderful delightful details. The stolen record player, too (extra batteries).

Adam: Those details are another quintessential Wes Anderson thing; they’re done with such affection. Fake books. Fake maps. A fake composer named Benjamin Britten who is actually real, but how was I supposed to know that.

Ester: True! All this artifice to capture the real emotion that these two main characters are feeling—this real connection between the two kids when everyone else is so lonely and unconnected. But then, that’s basically Romeo and Juliet in a nutshell too.

Adam: When we were talking right afterwards, you were a little put off by how much older she looks than he does. Do you still feel that way?

Ester: Kind of, but it also kind of works: At bar/bat mitzvahs, it’s always boys slow-dancing awkwardly with girls that are a little taller, a little better-looking, cause those are the proportions at that age.

Adam: Yeah, that’s the reality of being 12.

Ester: Like I said, if this movie were her fantasy instead of his, Sam would probably be 14 and taller with less of a baby-face; but whatever.

Adam: Right, it would be Twilight.

Ester: Hee! Yes.

Adam: But this movie is a BOY’S fantasy. It is MINE.

Ester: Right! Right. Sorry. So talk more about that! Is this roughly what you wished for when you were 12? Run away from your family with a fierce, good-looking girl who truly understands you? (Even though you, unlike Sam-the-Troubled-Orphan, had a happy family.)

Adam: Yes, absolutely. Part of why this movie is lovable is that it’s the ultimate non-sexual fantasy. Like, dude gets the girl (this is huge, already) and THEN WHAT?

Ester: Hahahhaha yeah! THEN WHAT? Maybe this is why Twilight was so popular—it answers the question by imposing an external limitation (HE’S A VAMPIRE HIS LOVE WILL KILL YOU) instead of the nervous adolescent internal one (OH GOD WHAT IF I DO IT WRONG).

Adam: So what else do we need to talk about?

Ester: How Bill Murray suddenly got so old?

Adam: Yes, he’s old.

Ester: Do you think this movie did a good job of capturing the ’60s, or does it not even matter?

Adam: What is it supposed to be, 1965? I mean, this movie is a total fantasy. BUT, I do often think about how my parents were kids at that time, and that their reality was less Mad Men, more Camp Granada. The experience of being an actual child in the ’60s, as opposed to a Child Of The Sixties, was pretty…normal. Wholesome?

Ester: Camp Granada!! Yes. Totally true. For most people, I think the ’60s passed them by in a blur. Or maybe they caught the tail end of it.

Adam: Right. When people say “the 60s” they typically mean 1966-1972. I always think of the last paragraph of this review when I try to get perspective on how short the ’60s actually were.

Ester: Oh wow.

Adam: So let’s wrap up, yeah?

Ester: Sure.

Adam: So: we liked this movie. It is cute. It is funny. It ranks at least in the top 50% of Wes Anderson movies.

Ester: Higher than that!

Adam: I said AT LEAST!

Ester: HIGHER! This is a ridiculous fight, since I still think you liked it more than I did.

Adam: But for you, this is up there with Rushmore as your #1 and #2, yeah?

Ester: Probably, yes. But I do need to see Tenenbaums again, as we discussed.

Adam: Yeah. my favorites are Rushmore, Tenenbaums, and Fantastic Mr. Fox, and I would place this among them.

Ester: Ok. How much did we pay to see it? No 3D this time, thank god.

Adam: THANK GOD. With the Fandango charge, $15 each.

Ester: Hmmmm. That’s a lot of dollars. On the other hand, I’m glad I saw it, and in a full rapturous theater. That definitely added to the experience.

Adam: Yeah. I do think buying tickets in advance is a necessity if you want that experience.

Ester: I’d say it’s worth full price, but full price should not be extortionate Manhattan prices, so $10-$12 is acceptable.

Adam: When we saw this movie, it was only playing in four theaters in the universe. But you can wait and see this movie at Cobble Hill for 50 cents!!

Ester: 50 cents?? Two bits?? (People should start saying “two bits” again.)

Adam: Done. I recommend you pay fifty-one bits for this movie.

Ester: Hahahaha.

Adam: Although I don’t know what a bit is and besides I think I did the math wrong. This is a solid $12 movie. Do it.

Ester: Yes! Solid $12 movie. We agree! Imagine how good something will have to be to make us think it’s actually worth $15! Because we are both kind of thrifty despite being film-loving types.

Adam: We’ll get there.

Ester: What do you think the first $15 movie will be this year?

Adam: Maybe Prometheus will be good enough to justify the 3D!

Ester: Ooooooh yes, good call. I’m excited.

Adam: Are we doing that one?

Ester: DUH.

Adam: OK good. Let’s hope Mike doesn’t realize that we didn’t do Snow White and the Huntsman.

Ester: Deal!

CONSENSUS: You should pay $12 to see Moonrise Kingdom.

Previously: How Much You Should Pay to See: The Avengers

Ester Bloom has not seen any boxing movies at all, come to think of it, except “Million Dollar Baby.” Follow her @shorterstory.

Adam Freelander has not seen a ton of Godard either. Follow him @adamplease!

Subsidizing the hobbies of our friends and family members is one of the things that separate us from the animals. Raccoons do not shell out cash for covers and a two-drink minimum to support other raccoons as they try out wobbly stand-up routines in rooms that haven’t seen natural light since 1978. Elephants do not have to promise to bring 15 other elephants in exchange for getting to play with their new band at 11:00 p.m. on a Tuesday night. Gazelles do not make their fellow gazelles climb five flights of stairs to see their off-off-Broadway show debut on a makeshift stage in front of rows of folding chairs.

This is largely because animals lack hobbies beyond food, sex, and survival. Even the love social mammals have for each other extends only as far as being able to eat bugs out of each other’s fur. Humans are tied to each other through webs far more complex: You are my Facebook friend because I met you at a party one time and your boyfriend and my boyfriend had a great conversation about how they both used to play “Magic: The Really Slow-Moving Card Game.” Or maybe we went to college together, although we only talked a couple of times and I was jealous that you did better on your honors exams than I did. Now you assertively promote your events on Facebook, inviting everyone you know to every performance you have, and then refer to those events in your status updates and on your Twitter feed. Maybe I’ve made it, somehow, onto your email list so I receive weekly updates as well. 

My responsibility to you is unclear. If you are a performing artist of any kind, I could enjoy your show, but what if you are a running a marathon—do I still need to throw some dollars into the hat? Is my responsibility greater if you are running it for a Good Cause, i.e., something bigger your leg muscles and Type-A Personality gratification? What if that cause is Komen-sponsored: am I still obligated to donate, and if so, is it wrong for me to include a lecture on pink-washing? (No, not that kind of pink-washing.)

Especially in an age of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, where everyone’s giving becomes public knowledge, can I resist donating to your album, your book, your album-book combo, your documentary film, your travels to India, even if I, like Dick Cheney, have other priorities? What if you say you don’t keep track but secretly you keep a color-coded Excel spreadsheet? Do I need to contribute in order to stay friends with you? And if so, is that extortion or just the everyday business of relationships in the modern age?

I don’t want to be a Scrooge-y, Jacob Marley-type person. I want to be generous, partly because I love you*, partly because giving is good for the soul, and partly because maybe someday I too may want to try being funny in public, or long-distance racing, or running for public office. But let’s say I am also of limited means, or that I’d prefer to spend my discretionary funds on the entertainment I choose for myself. What are my variegated responsibilities as an acquaintance / coworker / friend / good friend / sister? As a 22-year-old vs. as a 30-year-old? As a waitress vs. as a corporate lawyer? Does it matter how talented you are at what you’re trying to do? How much?

Really, I am curious. There are no set standards for this from what I can tell, and this issue comes up time and time again. It would be useful to have a framework, some sort of budget to work from.  So let’s lay down some ground rules! Tell us, Internet:

A) HOW MUCH IS FAIR TO ASK FRIENDS, FAMILY MEMBERS, COWORKERS, ETC., TO CHIP IN TO SUPPORT YOUR ENDEAVORS?

1)     Whatever I want to ask. I believe in myself and hopefully they do too. They can say no if they want—it’s a free country.
2)     Up to $200. Hey, maybe some of them have trust funds, who knows?
3)     Up to $50. More than that and I’d feel greedy but up to $50 is like a birthday present, or them picking up the bar tab. Totally fair between friends.
4)     Nothing. I am horrified by the idea of asking anyone for anything. Possibly I have no self-esteem.

B) HOW MUCH IS FAIR TO ASK FAMILY MEMBERS?

1)     Family members are no different than friends. Ask away! They’ll refuse if they want to.
2)     Family members are better to hit up for money than friends. They’re blood! Often they love you and want to see you succeed and/or get laid.
3)     Family members are totally worse! Are you kidding? The guilt, the follow-up questions at Thanksgiving, having to feel accountable to them …. No way.
4)     Nothing. I am horrified by the idea of asking ANYONE for anything, even family, and it’s probably their fault I have no self-esteem.

C) DO YOU SUPPORT YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY MEMBERS, COWORKERS, ETC., IN THESE WAYS?

1)     Always! As much and as often as I can. Money is for sharing, and it’s great for people to be passionate about things; it’s worth it to me to help friends out. Besides, I enjoy seeing what my friends can do!
2)     Sometimes, if I am independently interested in the event or cause, or if I’m really close to the friend, or if the friend is actually talented.
3)     Sometimes, as long as they support me too when it’s my turn.
4)     Never. If you’re not good enough to get strangers to subsidize your hobbies, why should I?

Thanks for weighing in and for helping to settle this question once and for all!

NOTE: Naturally, once you are famous, I will be SO EXCITED to know you. I will say that I always had faith in you. And I will ask you for comps. I will have been picking the bugs out of your fur for a long time by then; it will be time for you to pick one or two out of mine.

*If applicable

Ester Bloom is a writer who hopes that someday you’ll buy her book, maybe even in hardcover. For now you can follow her (for free!) @shorterstory. Photo: Flickr/Stijlfoto

Ester: Allo‬!

Adam: Ester, I have Battleship fever this morning‬. It’s all I can think about.

Ester: Ha! 15-F. Let’s just play Battleship for a while instead of doing this review.

Adam: Yes, great, thank you‬. E-6.

Ester: Clearly I have forgotten how to play Battleship‬. In my defense, it has been, um, like 20 years? G-21.

Adam: No you’re doing fine. Then I say “hit” or “miss”, and then there is Rihanna somehow‬.

Ester: At some point, one of us gets to say, “Damn! You got my Destroyer!” A Destroyer is a ship, right?

Adam: You have to say, “You SUNK my destroyer,” otherwise I believe it does not count?‬

Ester: Oh.‬

Adam: Alright, neither of us are necessarily bringing our A-game on this Battleship material, maybe we should do the actual thing‬.

Ester: I am as ignorant about Battleship as I am about comic books and comic book movies.‬

Adam: A good entry point!‬ NEITHER of us have seen more than one of the associated films in the Avengers series.

Ester: And the only one either of us has seen is the first Iron Man.‬ So we went in without much background.

Adam: Also, according to some googling I did this morning, Iron Man 2, Captain America and Thor are the only ones that really directly tie into this movie‬. So having seen the first Iron Man barely counts‬. BUT. Were we confused at all? We were not.‬

Ester: No, we were not. And we discussed this going in—we felt reasonably confident we could follow the plot of a bunch of superheroes defending the world against F. Scott Fitzgerald gone rogue.‬ 

Adam: Yeah. You made fun of me a little beforehand for being concerned that I wouldn’t know what was going on‬.

Ester: Perhaps we should mention that two separate 2D showings we tried to see were sold out? On a THURSDAY. And then our 3D showing, which cost ordinary mortals $17 each, was like half full. I think it would have been just as enjoyable in regular-D.

Adam: Yeah absolutely. This movie was post-converted, aka not actually shot in 3D, which is always a red flag‬. Also, having figured that out, I think we should be exempted from having to see any more post-converted 3D movies. Always just go see the 2D version.‬

Ester: Absolutely. That said, we both enjoyed this film, silly (expensive) glasses and all.‬

Adam: We did. I was a little nervous that I would be more on-board for this one than you would‬. But after laughing through some of the bad dialogue in the first 20 minutes, you got pretty into it!

Ester: I was into it even while I was laughing! (Plus when I laugh the baby shakes around and that makes me laugh more.) I loved the part where, after Thor and Loki where having their brotherly confrontation in the woods, Iron Man showed up and said, “What is this, Shakespeare in the Park?”‬ Cuz they were being so formal and stuffy! It was perfect.

Adam: Yes‬. This movie was FUNNY. It was my favorite thing about it! And we of course know who we have to thank for that.

Ester: JOSS!‬ Joss I love you, and I always wanted to see what you’d do with an actual special FX budget, since Buffy was made for a buffalo nickel.

Adam: I mean really. Just the fact that this movie is not offensively stupid, and that it actually surprises you and makes you laugh at points, is such an accomplishment‬. Because a hundred billion people would have gone to see it anyway.

Ester: Joss Whedon did a good job directing. This movie made me yearn for his version of The Hunger Games.

Adam: His version of everything, really‬. This is where I show you the picture of me and Joss Whedon from when I ran into him at a dance party at Wesleyan many years ago.

Ester: Wow.‬ Hey, speaking of which, can we dig into the beefcake buffet now and take about the Avengers themselves?

Adam: You should feel free to do so,‬ and I will watch.

Ester: They were like the Spice Girls! There was Posh Spice (Iron Man), Sporty Spice (Captain America) …‬
Um. Who were the other Spice Girls? Never mind, I’ll improvise: 2nd-Rate Brad Pitt Spice (Thor), Adorably Rumpled Intellectual Spice (Hulk, in his Dr. Bruce Banner guise)‬.

Adam: I know who the other Spice Girls were but I am not going to say‬.

Ester: Not fair!‬

Adam: Ginger Baby Scary. Just forget it leave me alone‬.

Ester: Hahahahahaha‬. Ginger Spice! That’s easy: Black Widow. And then Jeremy Renner is Baby-Faced Spice (Hawk). Or maybe poor Agent Phil Colson, previously known as Agent Casper from The West Wing. He’s just so convincing at wearing a suit and saying “Sir”!

Adam: Yeah, the guy from New Adventures of Old Christine was great‬.

Ester: It would have been amazing if they had broken into song. And very Whedon, since he loves his musicals.‬

Adam: I put the odds at 50/50 that this was actually shot and it’s a feature on the blu-ray‬.

Ester: I would pay for that!‬ Especially if it included a kick line. But okay. So. This movie has made unthinkable amounts of money. Here are some fun facts from Box Office Mojo.  It is the #6 highest grossing movie ever ALREADY after less than three weeks.

Adam: Wow. “The 2nd-highest-grossing movie in which someone eats a banana ever!” Thanks Box Office Mojo.‬

Ester: Yes, that site is a never-ending treasure trove.‬

Adam: It’s true though. I want to reiterate: We saw this movie last night, after it had been out for TWO WEEKS, and we failed to get into TWO SEPARATE SCREENINGS.

Ester: Since we’re writing for a money site, I should say that I used these very special vouchers that I bought eight years ago for $5.50 and they let us into a 3D screening for only a $2 surcharge per voucher. So we saw this movie in 3D for only $7.50 each (plus the stress of dealing with the geniuses who work at movie theaters these days)‬. At that price, this movie was TOTALLY worth it. I would even have paid $12-$13. What about you?

Adam: I agree. I almost wish this came out a little later, becuase it’s so good at being a summer blockbuster‬. I made a joke last time about how we failed as Americans in not seeing this movie two weeks ago, and last night I definitely felt one with the all-American rite of the summer movie. Were you surprised at how much you liked it?‬

Ester: Yes, it was so very all-American! And yes, I had very low expectations. I did laugh inappropriately at several points but I was honestly caught up in the story from the start.‬

Adam: So, this might be obvious, but I think we should note that neither you nor I regularly go see movies like this‬. Like, I had a great time last night, but part of me also wonders whether we were just marveling at all the shiny turning gears. “Well shucks would you look at that!” This movie is definitely not universally loved by my Facebook friends, some of whom have posted things like “AVENGERS IS THE MOST OVERRATED MOVIE OF ALL TIME!!!!”

Ester: Eh.‬ Like I said, I only read middling / mixed reviews beforehand, so I wasn’t expecting much. But the story was not convoluted: It made sense (even though I can’t hear “tesseract” without thinking of A Wrinkle in Time); it had good characters and used them to advantage; the battle scenes were well-shot and clear; there was stuff at stake (the fate of earth!); and the script was funny.‬ I’m not sure what more can be asked from a movie like this. (Except that it didn’t pass the Ms. / Bechdel test, which is too bad, but we will let it go this once, Joss Whedon, because of Buffy.)

Adam: I don’t even think our movie theater passed the Bechdel test, but whatever‬.

Ester: There were at least three significant female characters, which was nice.‬

Adam: Three? Cobie Smulders, Scarlett Johanssen, who else?‬

Ester: Pepper Potts!‬

Adam: Oh right. Well there you go.‬

Ester: Whose banter with Iron Man I enjoyed.‬

Adam: Yeah, she’s only in it early on, but it’s a good scene‬.

Ester: I thought that was too bad, too, cuz I wanted more. But I’m glad they didn’t make her a hostage and have the Avengers / Iron Man save her, a la Spiderman.‬

Adam: True—it’s worth noting that there’s no romantic clinch at the heart of this movie, which sounds stupid to say but is actually pretty significant‬.

Ester: True!‬ Even Scar Jo doesn’t get laid. Though those looks she exchanges with Hawkeye are pretty expressive.

Adam: You’re right, that may count as sex‬.

Ester: In the 40s, anyway.‬ And this movie was kind of adorably retro. So wholesome!‬

Adam: They Learn To Work Together‬.

Ester: There’s excellent chemistry among all the cast members, I should say, not just the two assassins.‬ Which makes it more fun to watch them Learn to Work Together (and also squabble, when they do squabble).

Adam: Yeah. Even though I was never really into comic books as a kid, this movie really reactivated those childhood fantasy feelings of wishing that all my favorite cartoon and Nintendo characters would get together‬.

Ester: Hee!‬

Adam: I was definitely like “Thor and the Hulk are MEETING!! Eeeeee!!!” But wait a minute, I don’t actually care about Thor or the Hulk‬.

Ester: It was confusing to me who was supposed to be strongest. You couldn’t just judge by musculature, which made it difficult!‬ Also I have a sneaking suspicion the hierarchy of strength of these Avengers wasn’t terribly well thought-out and adhered to.

Adam: Haha. You definitely expressed some confusion about how Thor’s hammer worked. I explained that only Thor can pick it up! You were not convinced.‬

Ester: I just don’t understand! These other guys are very beefy.‬ Also, how does his hammer always return to his hand?

Adam: ESTER IT’S A MAGIC HAMMER.‬

Ester: So you’re saying it’s magnets?‬

Adam: Thor comes from a magical world!!!‬ I can’t believe I am saying these things‬.

Ester: Don’t give me that shit. He comes from Scandinavia.‬ Although why he can’t wash his hair or speak using contractions …

Adam: Thor comes from a magical world and so he is the only Avenger who is magic-based. The others were all created from science‬.

Ester: OH SCIENCE‬.

Adam: Please god don’t let any Billfold commenters know anything about comic books‬. ANYWAY. Maybe we should sum up.

Ester: Sure!‬

Adam: Neither of us are huge superhero movie fans, but that did not lessen our enjoyment of this movie as a good summer action-y time‬. ON TOP OF THAT, it is funny and kind of smart.

Ester: We laughed a lot! And the baby started kicking. I don’t know what that means exactly but I think it’s good.‬

Adam: Box Office Mojo does say that this is the most successful movie ever with fetuses‬.

Ester: ahhahahahaha‬

Adam: So that makes total sense‬.

Ester: ‬All right, hot shot. So. How much do you think it was worth paying to see it

Adam: Don’t do the 3D. Pay 12 bucks for this. And buy your ticket online, since this movie is still selling out for some reason‬.

Ester: I agree. $12-$13 is totally sufficiently to pay to see this, but it will be worth your while.‬

Adam: O‬h wait!! We never talked about Ruffalo! Ruffalo is the best thing in this movie by miles.

Ester: He is so very very good.‬ So adorably disheveled and trying to control himself. But if I were
only going to do it with one Avenger, he would not be my choice. Jeremy Renner had weirdly strong sex appeal in this movie. I cannot explain why. Maybe even stronger than Robert Downey Jr’s.‬

Adam: Hm.‬

Ester: Do you disagree or are you just waiting patiently for me to stop thinking along these lines?‬

Adam: No don’t worry about it, I think it’s very important that we establish who in this movie you’d most like to have sex with‬.

Ester: Well I had so many more choices than you did!‬

Adam: True. I definitely felt marginalized by this movie.‬

CONSENSUS: You should pay $12-13 to see The Avengers.

Previously: Titanic 3-D

Ester Bloom appreciates that Adam doesn’t objectify any of the ladies, despite the tight leather costumes, whereas she’s buttering these guys up with her eyes. Follow her @shorterstory

Adam Freelander would never name a file “joss and me.jpg.” Follow him @adamplease.

Adam: Hello!

Ester: Oh yes! Hi!

Adam: So I think we should address the fact that we did not see The Avengers.

Ester: Yes! Let’s start there. We are apparently the only people in America who did NOT see The Avengers this weekend.

Adam: Part of me feels like we did a bad thing, not seeing it. Just as Americans.

Ester: Oh, absolutely. Not to mention as loyal writers for Mike Dang, who so politely expressed his surprise at our choice. He was very gentle about it, like the sitcom father who isn’t angry at you, per se, but maybe just a little disappointed.

But when I asked him to be the authoritative father figure and command us to see The Avengers, he demurred! No, no, no, he said—whatever you want!

Adam: Mike! We both want so badly to do right by you!

Ester: Now the question is, did we profit by our choice? Would we have done better to do what Daddy Mike wanted and see The Avengers? (Even if he refused to say outright that it WAS what he wanted.)

Adam: I actually think we did good. I think I am surprised more people haven’t gone to see the movie we saw.

Ester: I think we did good too. I mean, what can you ask for from a theatrical experience, really? We laughed. I cried.

Adam: I should note that it has done very, very badly at the box office.

Ester: Sank like a stone.

Like a Titanic stone, even 

Adam: When people have talked about “counterprogramming” for the big summer movies, they’ve been talking a lot about Think Like a Man and that old people movie coming out. And this strikes me as, at the very least, a movie more people should be talking about.

Ester: It’s funny, because Five-Year Engagement is so very different from The Avengers. For one, it’s realistic—so realistic, in fact, that it’s based on a true story. Unfortunately realistic also means kind of complicated, and I understand how people could be put off by that

Adam: One thing I said to you when we were walking to the subway was that I don’t think I know anyone who would see this movie and WOULDN’T feel like it hit really close to home. Which may say more about where we are in our lives, but.

Ester: Yes, that is very true. It is about people who are around 30, who are trying to decide what to prioritize in their lives: work, love, family…

Adam: I was a little impressed with how it is a movie about REAL DECISIONS.

Ester: Very much so. And money! Although that’s sort of subtextual.

Adam: Well, it may be sort of a rorschach in that sense.

Ester: Like, the characters are not just magazine editors or architects, like most rom-com characters. They have to make a living, both of them, which is partly why they have Ambitions, and that leads to the Drama.

(Movie architects are the best. I have seen so many movies featuring Architects and I still have no idea what an architect actually does, day-to-day.)

Adam: Haha, it’s true that there are no architects in this movie, a major departure for the genre.

Ester: It is such a vague, sexy-seeming profession! Instead we have Restaurant Chef and Academic. Which feels, again, realistic. As the movie begins, the Chef is happily employed in San Francisco, and the Academic is trying to get a job at Berkeley. She does not get the job! So she has to move to Michigan for a Post-Doc. (Can you even remember the last time anyone said the words “Post-Doc” in a mainstream movie?) They are both dealing with the constraints of a recession and a poor economy.

Adam: And also like, trying to be good to each other. A lot of the conflict in this movie arises from how hard it is for the two of them to do right by each other.

I feel like usually in movies, relationship problems arise from stupid misunderstandings. She saw the guy hugging his sister and now she thinks he’s cheating on her!!!

Ester: Right, exactly. Whereas here, they are each weighing their responsibilities to each other and to themselves. Is it okay to be selfish in a relationship? How selfish? For how long? etc.

Adam: I mean, I don’t want to belabor the point, and I also don’t mean to sound like I’ve never seen a movie, but I was really struck by how many people in my own life this movie made me think of.

Ester: Would you like to get more specific?

Gossip is fun! And we could blank out the names.

Adam: Oh, I just meant my friends Trudy Campbell and Kelly Kapoor.

Ester: Oh yes, of course. Maybe part of the reason this movie affected me (again: I cried for about fifteen minutes in the middle of it, and I’m not sure how much I can blame stupid pregnancy hormones, since I did NOT cry during “Titanic”) is that it seemed like all the actors in this film could probably relate to the subject matter more than usual.

Adam: Oh interesting! I think you are probably right. But also, and this doesn’t spoil too much, but there are two characters who start off the movie as sort of fuckups, and then end up being the mature family examples. They sort of “age past” the main characters. I related to that a lot, or to that fear I guess.

Ester: They are definitely more “successful,” by mainstream standards, and that’s not how I assumed their arc would go. Which fear did you relate to, though?

Adam: The fear of like, while you are trying to figure out your own life, the loveable fuckup sidekicks in your life are going to figure it all out and just do it better. In another movie, that’d be played for laughs. “The old goofball found a wife!!!!”

Ester: Ha! It is always an interesting question: Are you someone else’s loveable fuckup sidekick? Would you know if you were? We all like to think we’re the protagonists in our own stories …

Adam: Yeah, I definitely like to pretend differently, but I surely am all my friends’ loveable fuckup sidekick. And I resent being held to the standards of the sidekicks in this movie!!!!

But you see what’s going on here. This movie made me FEEL FEELINGS. And you too, for “fifteen minutes in the middle” (though actually more).

Ester: How do you know?? I was crying very very quietly. Yes, this is the kind of movie that makes you feel your feelings. Before we address how much that experience is worth though, I would like to address two complaints:

1) That it was basically like watching a season’s worth of a sitcom crammed into one movie — i.e., it was episodic, kind of strangely paced, and long for a comedy. 2) Every ethnic character was a terrible stereotype. This movie was a like a cautionary tale about trying to inject diversity into films!

Adam: OK, #2 first. The graduate study group is a little ill-conceived, I agree. I was particularly sad seeing Randall Park, a really funny guy, play an accented character named “Ming.”

Ester: Who is supposed to be really talented & bright! But all we see him do is a crazy-ass experiment involving blood and chicken feathers. And the black guy is singularly obsessed with masturbation (??).

Mindy Kaling is Mindy Kaling. Fun, but perhaps not entirely believable as a PhD.

Adam: Mindy Kaling is Mindy Kaling, which is technically not an ethnic stereotype, though I’m concerned it soon will be.

Ester: The lesbian chef was funny, at least. But overall, this movie was like the opposite of “Girls”—diversity up the wazoo, even in the snowy backwoods of Michigan—and yet it was done so badly I wished everyone had been white.

Adam: “I wished everyone had been white.” – Ester Bloom, cultural critic

Ester: Hey, people would be a lot less hard on the Merchant of Venice if Shylock had just been another British Protestant dude.

Adam: We keep bringing it back to Jews! Jason Siegel’s character in this movie is apparently Jewish. I always thought he was the Apatow guy who ISN’T coded as Jewish.

I do not know why I thought that.

Ester: Well, here his last name was Solomon. He made a cute Jew. He made a cute everything, actually—I really liked him here. Emily Blunt was good too! I believed in them as a couple. That does not happen that often. That is worth a couple of dollars, at least.

Adam: Definitely the first time I really liked Emily Blunt. Who, I just learned from Wikipedia, is 8 days younger than I am.

Ester: She was so good in Devil Wears Prada! What are you talking about?

Adam: She’s great but I didn’t LIKE her!

Ester: OK WHATEVER. Holy shit, she’s married to John Krasinski. They are going to have such cute funny babies.

Adam: Yeah ok whatever, you felt sympathetic towards the most evil character in that movie, good job.

Ester: I have empathy. It’s what separates me from the psychopaths.

Adam: Anyway about your “episodic” complaint, you are right. I read the New Yorker review you mentioned, and he compares this to Funny People, which is right on.

Ester: So yes, let us get to it: Largely we liked this movie, though we agree that it used ethnic characters in a troubling way and was kind of bumbling and episodic, even if in an endearing way. It made Adam scared and reflective about his life choices, and it made Ester cry for a while.

How much was it worth overall? We paid $7 per ticket.

Adam: Yeah, which I still can’t believe. This column is rapidly turning into an advertisement for Cobble Hill Cinemas, but SERIOUSLY.

Ester: Seriously. If you are in Brooklyn, you should never see a movie anyplace else. Even if you’re in New Jersey, you should drive into Brooklyn, because the theater is so comfy, cozy, adorable, retro, and cheap. Audiences are even well-behaved. No texting; no talking. A hilarious movie theater intro reminds us (to a score of electronic music) to turn off our beepers.

Adam: I will say that this movie is worth a full-price ticket. So, $28.

Or $12, whatever.

Ester: I would say it was worth $7 or $8 for sure, but I wouldn’t go above $10.

Adam: I am down with this movie. I think it tries to tackle serious things and it doesn’t always succeed but sometimes it does, and it’s really funny and extremely sweet.

“This movie has something for everyone!! (who is 29.)”

Ester: That is an important point.

OK, I’ll say $10. It gets a dollar bonus for the scene where Alison Brie and Emily Blunt fight using voices from “Sesame Street” (Brie is Elmo, Blunt is Cookie Monster). And another for its ambition.

Adam: And we should encourage that! I hope this movie’s financial failure doesn’t cause Nicholas Stoller to make a fart movie next.

Ester: Here here!

Or is it “Hear hear”? I’ve never been sure.

Adam: There’s literally no way of knowing.

Ester: And on that note, thanks, Adam! This was fun. Next time we’ll see The Avengers, because we don’t want to make Daddy Mike cry.

CONSENSUS: You should pay between $10 and $12 to see “The Five-Year Engagement”. Maybe add another dollar if you are exactly 29 years old?

Previously: Titanic 3-D

Ester Bloom was engaged for a year and three months, and that was enough. Follow her @shorterstory

Adam Freelander is not 100% on board with this “Daddy Mike” thing, though not for lack of respect for Mike. It just feels a little “Tobias Fünke” for his taste. Follow him @adamplease.

Ester Bloom: I’m so ready to talk about this movie!

Adam Freelander: Good morning!

Ester: Good morning.

Ester: I kept thinking about The Shining comparison—the hallways, the safe place that gets ominous and ends up trying to kill you (hotel / ship), the outside environment being just as dangerous (cold / COLD), the isolation and lack of help, the devouring liquid crashing through doors (blood / water), AND of course a guy named Jack who ends up freezing to death [NOTE: Hilarity here, via Facebook:]

Adam: Yes. Also Fabrizio is the bear.

Ester: I’m really curious whether the actor who played that ridiculous Italian stereotype was from St. Louis, Mo. Oh my god! Better than St. Louis, Mo.: Fabrizio was born in AUSTRIA.

Adam: Hahaha. Can we talk about Fabrizio’s arc for a sec? I actually think it ends up having some weight to it. 

Ester: Sure! Go ahead.

Adam: Well, just the one part where Fabrizio takes the life jacket off his just-shot Irish counterpart. This shot is probably one second long? But I also never noticed it before and was like, “Holy shit that is daaaark.”

Ester: His hands are shaking while he’s doing it, too.

Adam: Yeah. And then the smokestack falls on him and he dies. But that one part before! is genuinely sad!

Ester: ADAM I think the whole last hour is genuinely sad!

Adam: In a movie where, as we discussed last night, very little of the mass death and carnage actually makes you sad.

Ester: No, that’s a good point. We’ve gotten to know these cartoons—the Italian stereotype, the Irish stereotype—and then we watch them both die. Which reminds me, where are the Jews on this ship? No Jews on Titanic?

Adam: Guggenheim?

Ester: Ooh, there were more: “The fact is that there were enough Jews on the Titanic that kosher meals were available, and the crew included a chef, known as the ‘Hebrew chef,’ to prepare them.”

Adam: Here’s what I heard: All the Jews that were SUPPOSED to go on the Titanic got an email telling them not to go to work that day.

Ester: Hahahahahha.

Adam: What happened to passenger Freud, I would like to know.

Ester: Me too! That’s another really dumb scene.

Adam: Is this where we segue into all the scenes of people not knowing as much about the future as we do?

Ester: Yes. I liked your point about how the first act is essentially Midnight in Paris: Nostalgia plus romance plus that feeling that we, the audience, are smarter than the characters, because we get all the references and know what’s going to happen.

Adam: Except there’s no Owen Wilson as our stand-in, so it’s just dumb characters not GETTING IT. What this movie COULD have used is an Owen Wilson character. “I love Freud!!!”

Ester: Right! I guess our Owen Wilson is kind of Kate Winslet—there’s no reason she should be so well-read and aware and art-appreciate-y, except to function as our audience stand-in.

Adam: Right, exactly. It’s totally insane that a teenage (?) girl in 1912 just has perfect historical taste.

Ester: Right! Shouldn’t she be reading the Twilight of 1912? It’s also totally insane that James Cameron managed to create, in Jack, the perfect teenage girl fantasy. He’s like the centerfold from Non-Threatening Boy magazine. So beautiful, so good, so into her and in touch with his emotions and able to communicate …

Adam: To be fair I think we owe Leo some credit here

Ester: True! He manages to be smoldering and wholesome all at once. Rose is the sexual instigator, too, did you notice? She’s the one who wants to pose naked, and she’s the one who pulls him into the backseat for The Sex.

Adam: I did notice that. I wonder if passenger Freud would connect that to the axe-and-handcuffs business at all … does she purposely leave the drawing in the safe so Billy Zane will see it? I kind of got the vibe that she did, and I liked that.

Ester: Oh yeah. She writes on the picture, “Now you can keep us both in your safe.” Also, did you catch that she has totally done it with Billy Zane?

Adam: NICE! No.

Ester: I don’t think I realized it when I was 15, but he says, “You didn’t come to me last night,” and then he says, “You are my wife in everything but law” i.e., WE ARE MAKING WHOOPIE. I thought it was a pretty strong hint, at least. And that would explain why she didn’t stain the upholstery when she did it with Leo in the car.

Adam: Hahaha. Yes, Ester, that WOULD explain that.

Ester: Oh, don’t tell me you didn’t wonder.

Adam: I can pretty honestly tell you I didn’t wonder. It is magical sex with a magical man, even if it was her first time it’d be fine I’m sure.

Ester: That’s a very good point. Oh man, he’s so magical. I was totally my swoony, 15-year-old self all over again. He’s worth eleventy-trillion dollars or whatever this movie cost to make.

Adam: Is this his definitive performance?

Ester: He wasn’t nominated for Titanic, I remember, because some critic groused that that was like not nominating Clark Gable for GWTW.

Adam: Right, it was the Famous Snub of the year. “Leo Snubbed.” 1998: The year I looked up “snub.”

Ester: Well, millions of girls all over the world would have been glad to comfort him. ALL RIGHT, so bottom line: How much would you pay to see this movie? How much was it worth?

Adam: Okay. So the first thing is, the 3D is bullshit.

Ester: Completely.

Adam: I don’t know if I needed to see the movie to be able to report that. But it is.

Ester: It was really silly, especially if, like me, you happen to wear glasses into the theater, and then you have to wear TWO pairs of glasses for three hours.

Adam:  3D glasses feel silly even for non-glasses-wearers. A silliness enhanced both by the fact that this movie is a DRAMA, and by the mostly empty theater. Are they even showing it anywhere in 2D? When 3D movies come out I think they usually show two versions. But this is a rerelease, it might be different. It seems the answer is no.

Ester: Yeah, I think the excuse for re-releasing the movie was to do it in 3D. Well, that and the anniversary of the disaster (which was on April 15, 1912).

Adam: Ah right. At the wedding I was at last weekend, someone noted that anniversary in their toast. A very appropriate thing to say. So back to the pricing criteria.

Ester: I think Titanic gets penalized for making us pay a premium to wear funny glasses for no extra benefit at all.

Adam: Absolutely, yes.

Ester: Also for being at least 45 minutes too long.

Adam:  And crucially, it is a movie that literally everyone has already seen. It’s not like re-releasing Gone with the Wind for a new generation.

Ester: But it’s nice to see it on a big screen.

Adam: Yes. I think there are a lot of shots whose point is, “scale!”

Ester: Yeah, yeah, okay, but some movies are made for that theatrical experience and it was worth paying something (I haven’t quantified exactly what yet) to get that again.

Adam: True. If you see this movie in the theater, you will definitely get the idea that the Titanic was big. Quick side note: Was the Titanic actually any bigger than the average cruise ship of today?

Ester: I don’t know! let’s ask Dr. Google. Here you go.

Adam:  Haha, titanic-titanic.com

Ester: It’s hard to tell by sight since ships don’t have smokestacks anymore. I guess after that one smokestack killed our friend Fabrizio, ship makers learned their lesson. But Titanic had FOUR, and the ship that took forever rescuing people only had one.

Adam: Yes, Fabrizio turned out to be quite an influential figure in ship engineering. So by the stats, it seems like Titanic was about the size of a normal modern cruise ship which makes me a little annoyed that James Cameron took so much of our time trying to convey the fact that this thing was HUGE.

Ester: Okay, but, it was HUGE for the time. I got kind of annoyed at the end when Victor Garber was like, “It’s made from iron. I assure you it can [sink]“. Where was he in the first hour of the movie when people were tempting fate right and left?

Adam: Oh yes this is something you audibly were not on board for while we were watching.

Ester: Did I laugh?

Adam: The movie clearly sets up the mustachioed guy as the man responsible for MAKING Victor Garber and the captain sink the ship. But you were not having it. I think you said, “What about you??? You’re the captain!!”

Ester: Well, yeah! Stupid mustache guy and his peer pressure. Other people still have agency, like, you know, the guy driving the ship. Stupid mustache guy is the only one that survives though. And, really, there was only ONE pair of binoculars on the whole ship? It got lost and there was nothing anyone could do?

Adam: ”We lost the binoculars in Southampton,” is very hilarious.

Ester: And it’s such an aside. I don’t remember ever noticing that line before this viewing.

Adam: Like, James Cameron, you did not have to mention the binoculars. No one was wondering. We all know the Titanic sank, no one is going to find it unbelievable.

Ester: Actually, it’s pretty funny how easy it is, after all that. One little collision with the equivalent of a parked car.

Adam:  I do really like the scene when they hit it: And they’re trying to throw the ship in reverse and turn and for an eerie second it seems like they might miss it?

Ester: OR hit it head on. That would give you the kablooey you were looking for.

Adam: I just think the scene has good tension. It actually works the way it should and sort of grabbed me. Like, James Cameron CAN direct a good scene. If it doesn’t have a lot of words in it.

Ester: Yes, absolutely! We agree that the wordless, or near wordless, action scenes are the best in the film. The same is often true of The Shining, by the way.

Adam:  

Ester: Including that one. I do love that, with a whole luxury ship at their disposal, they do it in the backseat of a car. Very American.

Ester: Back to the question at hand! How much do you think a ticket to this film was worth? We paid $12 or $13 for each ticket.

Adam: Did we? Even with 3D?

Ester: Yeah! God bless Cobble Hill Cinemas. I’d say it was worth $8 – $10.

Adam: $5.

Ester: What’s your rationale?

Adam: Well, the 3D adds nothing so it’s not worth the extra 2-3 bucks.

Ester: True.

Adam: And I think that the movie has a decent creamy center surrounded by crap. So divide by 2.

Ester: Ha! Okay. Well, I don’t think any movie ticket should cost more than $10.

Adam: Maybe add a dollar for that amazing metaphor I just made. But no, $5. Also I have to be honest, the insensitivity of the mass death scenes hit me pretty hard

Ester: Is it just that you’ve been DEsensitized to mass death scenes?

Adam: No! I think I got REsensitized on 9/11.

Ester: And haven’t been DEsensitized again since then?? I’m skeptical.

Adam: And again on the 10th anniversary.

Ester: Don’t you watch war movies? Game of Thrones?

Adam: Well, compare this to Saving Private Ryan. Saving Private Ryan is in some ways a problematic movie, but that first 45 minutes is still ROUGH. That is a good standard for mass death I think. Just compared to this, and the dude falling off the back of the ship, and hitting the propeller like “doink.”

Ester: Yeah. Hard to tell, though, to what degree Cameron is indulging his inner 13-year-old. I found all the deaths pretty horrifying when I first saw it, even though I was mostly invested in Jack and Rose, and their beautiful love, surviving.

Adam: Mmm. But you did say last night that the focus on the two of them really does keep us from adequately caring about the 1,500 dead people.

Ester: Yes, yes I did. And it’s true. The two fake, lovely people end up being the only two people we really care about. But the other deaths are still sad! Like the Irish mother with her two urchins.

Adam: Yes. But also what are they doing??????? They could have gotten on boats!!!

Ester: It seems like the 2nd and 3rd class women and children didn’t have an easy time getting to the boats. Remember she was stuck on the stairs with her kids behind the locked gate?

Adam: Ah. Right.

Ester: Would you pay more than $5 to see Titanic for the first time, or does the ticket price go down because this is a repeat viewing?

Adam: Oh, this is for a repeat viewing. For someone who hasn’t seen Titanic before, which is no one, let’s say $8.

Ester: Then we agree! Except I’d also say it’s worth it to pay $8 to see Titanic again if, like me, you go all goopy over Leo in this role and enjoyed the film the first time. Or, um, first few times.

Adam: For me I think the re-watching experience is tainted by the film’s association with 9th grade. This may or may not be emblematic of men my age.

Ester: Whereas with me, it’s kind of fun re-engaging with myself from half-my-life ago (I was 15 when I first saw the film and am almost 30 now). So, yeah. A lot will depend on your relationship with your teenage self.

CONSENSUS: You should pay between $5 and $8 out of $13 to see Titanic 3D, and as much as $10 if you’re a softy like Ester.

Ester Bloom started crying halfway through Titanic when she first saw it because she thought she’d never have a love that pure. She’s still kind of dehydrated. Follow her @shorterstory.

Adam Freelander was on a cruise with his family a few weeks after seeing Titanic when he kissed a girl for the first time! He was king of the world!!! Follow him @adamplease.

In most places, once you move to a new apartment, you can survey your new digs with satisfaction and begin unloading boxes, secure in the knowledge that you probably won’t have to move again for a little while. You can hang pictures, assemble bowls of potpourri, maybe even paint the walls. After all, until you decide it’s time to boomerang home to live with your parents again, or move to Seattle to join your girlfriend on her new houseboat, this is home! Settle in.

Life in New York is different. You probably know that it’s expensive to live here, but perhaps you have only a hazy sense of what kind of expensive we’re really talking about. Put it this way: If the Big Apple were an actual apple, it’d be an organic Honeycrisp ($4/lb).

In the same way that a Honeycrisp has limited surface area, the island of Manhattan only has so much space for residential buildings, and at least half of those buildings are filled with Never Say Die-type New Yorkers who have been here since 1972, fighting off the junkies, and damned if they’re going to surrender their rent-controlled two-bedrooms. About 10-15% of the rental housing stock that remains is controlled by the richest people in the world, for whom a pied a terre near Lincoln Center or a luxury downtown penthouse is a vital status symbol. 

That means you can either duke it out with every other wide-eyed wannabe to overpay wildly for what’s left—hey, look, an alcove studio in Midtown West* for $2,590!—or, more wisely, look to the other four boroughs, where deals are easier to come by. That is not to say, however, that rentals in the hot spots of Brooklyn or Queens are cheap. They are “more affordable,” which means they probably won’t make you feel as much like your wallet was sexually assaulted and forced to walk home naked.

This one-bedroom in Battery Park for $3,600 is a good example. It is advertised at 687 square feet, which is so precise I’m guessing the realtor measured the inside of the closet. How big is 687 square feet? Well, for contrast, the Elephant Center affords each adult male elephant 3,100 square feet. (An elephant 2-bedroom, so to speak, is 4,900 square feet.) Sounds palatial, doesn’t it? If you’re just squeezing an elephant somewhere temporarily, say in a stall overnight, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums Standards for Elephant Management and Care from 2011 mandate a minimum of “no less than 600 square feet.” But in the long-term, that would be inhumane.

I can attest to that. My first real apartment in the city, which I shared with my then-boyfriend, now-husband Mr. Ben, was a 350-square-foot studio in Brooklyn Heights. That would hold just half an adult elephant. On the bright side, it would hold about 87 vintage English K6 telephone boxes! (If you didn’t have to worry too much about opening the doors.)

It worked okay for three years because we were young, desperate, and relatively compact, being short (me) and skinny (him). We paid about $1,550 in rent and counted our blessings. Still, no two adult human beings should have to share a space that would make Dumbo feel claustrophobic.

Our next apartment, a one-bedroom just outside of Park Slope, was $1,800 for three times as much space. We could have fit the entirety of the Brooklyn Heights studio in our new backyard, and two New York City medallion taxis in our living room / kitchen area.**

It was awesome. Like all awesome things, however, it was too good to be true for long. Our landlord sold the building out from under us to a nice Japanese family, and we found ourselves, once more, seeking maximum space for minimum money.

Overall, in the 7.5 years we’ve been in New York City, we’ve lived in two boroughs, four rentals, and one co-op, for which we coughed up enough money to buy Khartoum, the ill-fated racehorse from the Godfather. The co-op, our current home, is three rooms, plus one bathroom and a kitchen reminiscent of Harry Potter’s cabinet under the stairs^, and it would fit five dumpling trucks, although not all the impatient urban foodies waiting in line on an average Sunday. We bought the apartment so that we wouldn’t have to move again until we want to (say, because we buy an elephant). That is one of the ironies of living in New York: at some point, it can feel less expensive and less stressful to buy.

* Not a real neighborhood.
** A yellow cab is 6.5 ft wide and 17 ft long, for a total of 110 square feet.
*** A food truck is 7 ft wide and 24 ft long, for a total of 168 square feet.
^ Exact dimensions unavailable

Ester Bloom writes for money during the day, and for love all other times. She tweets in full sentences as @shorterstory.

Illustrations by Charrow. She lives in Brooklyn.

Brokers and bedbugs are not unique to cities, but they are native to them, and inescapable. They are invasive parts of the eco-system, specifically the most vulnerable, personal part of it: your home. Neither can be ignored; neither, after you meet one, forgotten. It costs fantastic amounts of money to deal with either the literal or the figurative bloodsuckers, yet both afflict the rich and poor alike.

I am fortunate never to have dealt with the literal bloodsuckers myself — very fortunate, since my then-boyfriend Mr. Ben and I furnished our first apartment off of the streets of the East Village, and really only stopped “rescuing” items from the curb in the last couple of years. I have, however, witnessed the havoc bedbugs can wreak on the well-being of friends and family. And I have read Teju Cole’s haunting meditation on them in Open City:

I thought of the bugs in all their countless millions in all five boroughs of the city, of their invisible eggs, of their appetite, which was greatest at the hour before dawn. … The concerns were primeval: the magical power of blood, the hours given over to dreams, the sanctity of the home, cannibalism, the fear of being attacked by the unseen. …

No one has ever waxed rhapsodic the same way about brokers. There is nothing poetic about them; they are the kind of middle-men who insert themselves where they’re neither needed nor wanted, and then extort enormous sums for their trouble. Brokers are so widely despised that even some other brokers call them “douche bags.”

Once, when surveying an apartment with a broker, I mentioned my husband (Mr. Ben had graduated to that status by then) and the broker cut me off to exclaim in his Fran Drescher-like voice, “No. No! You’re a baby!” At another sub-par apartment, Fran lost his temper with me when I said, “For $2,000, we’d like a large one-bedroom in a building with laundry and an elevator.”

“Forget it,” he snorted. “You’ll never find it.”

Another broker at a place I liked refused to give me the paperwork at all when he found out I was married. “Sorry,” he said, sounding anything but. “I don’t like giving wives applications without their husbands present.”

I ended up with a roomy garden apartment with a huge private backyard and a washer-dryer for $1,800. (Suck it, Fran!) But Mr. Ben and I did have to fork over about $2,000 to that landlord’s broker—who had done nothing more than show up at a pre-scheduled time and unlock the front door. $2,000 for an hour’s work, and he didn’t even have to go down on his knees or put on a Japanese schoolgirl outfit. Not a bad deal.

Which costs more to dispense with?

BEDBUGS
The site Bedbug Pest Control provides tips for dealing with an infestation:
Since bed bugs are very sensitive to heat, a steam cleaner is the best way to safely kill them on contact.  A steam cleaner such as a McCulloch Heavy Duty Steam Cleaner is powerful enough to get over 140 degrees Fahrenheit and will kill the bugs without toxins and leaves no residue.

Steam Cleaner list price: $150, or $99 on Amazon.

You’ll want to protect your box spring and mattress with something like the Sleep Defense System ($23.95 on Amazon for the box spring, plus $38 for the waterproof mattress cover). Even then, though, you’ll probably want to bring in a professional, which can run you $100 or more for the inspection and $500-$1000 for treatment.

TOTAL COST: $765-$1,765

There can be other, unseen costs as well: one friend of mine changed apartments rather than deal with the varmints she discovered her roommate had. And you may have to factor in therapy bills, premature aging from the stress/fear, and the shame of feeling ritually unclean.

BROKERS
Increasingly it is difficult to avoid having to deal with a broker, even if you are renting an outer-borough apartment (though you can, and should, try). My first apartment in Brooklyn I got straight from the management company with no fee. That is bliss akin to walking into Di Fara’s and finding they have a slice hot out of the oven waiting just for you. Brokers have continued to colonize the borough since those carefree, happy years, though, and No Fee apartments—whether offered By Owner or by the management company—are scarce, especially in high-octane months like June and September.

Dealing with a broker doesn’t always mean paying one. Once I got a future landlord to foot the broker’s fee. It never hurts to ask.

But in the vast majority of cases, you will need to go through a broker, and you will have to pay. How much will it set you back? According to MyNewPlace.com, in February, the average Brooklyn one-bedroom cost a hair under $2,000, and a two-bedroom cost $2,895. (You don’t even want to know about Manhattan.) A broker will charge a fee ranging from 10% to 15% of the yearly rent.

TOTAL COST: $2,600 and up

If you live in the city, odds are you’ll move at least a couple of times, no matter how much you may want to stay put: buildings change hands, relationships end, jobs come and go while rents go up (and up, and up). The insidious thing about brokers is that you’re on the hook for $2600 or thereabouts every time you move. The insidious thing about bedbugs is that they feast on your body while you sleep. Which is worse? Oh, hell, I have to say bedbugs: they’re out for blood, and they will stop at nothing. You can find good brokers—or, again, you can, and should, try—but everyone knows you can’t negotiate with terrorists.

If you rearrange the letters in ‘ester bloom‘ they spell ‘trees bloom,’ which makes a lot more sense. she tweets in full sentences as @shorterstory and blogs at Full of Pith and Vinegar.

Illustrations by Charrow. She lives in Brooklyn.