Although my parents have been avid fans from day 1, I never really watched "Lost" before. As most of the general populace is aware, I knew who most of the characters were, wondered about the hatch, was excited to see Kate and Sawyer get it on, and bummed to learn that Charlie had died. But with the exception of the odd episode here and there, I never watched it or really cared to.
But all that changed this season. I was informed, in great detail, about the amazing season three finale in which Jack and Kate are revealed to have left the island in a flash-forward!!!! Everyone was very excited about this development, so when the premiere of season four rolled around, I indulged my parents and watched it with them. WOWZA!!! The development of the flash-forward concept was a truly beneficent gift from the creators because, in contrast to other seasonal narratives, it actually allows the show to move forward and answer some questions without really revealing too much about the end game. Whereas before we marveled at the hidden connections between the Losties, pondered the meaning of the smoke, the numbers, what the Others wanted, the answers to most of these questions were mired in double talk and a lack of plot progression. I can't tell you how many times my dad would rant at them to just KILL BEN ALREADY! It was frustrating to devote so much time to a story that always seemed to be running circles around you chanting, "I'm smarter than you-ou! I'm smarter than you-ou!" Within this flash-forward concept, rather than philosophical musings about island mysteries, we get some concrete answers to understandable questions. In the past 5 episodes alone, we have learned that yes, 6 people will get off the island. We know that Jack and Hurley will feel guilty about an event that occurs in order to get them off. We know that something horrible happens to Sayid that guilts him into working for Ben. We know that Ben and Sayid are taking out a list of people, most likely connected to Mr. Abbadon, a possible threat to people still on the island. And we know that Kate has a child, and it's Aaron! Claire's son!!! And now, the questions I have are real and they have a time-stamp! Rather than mystical correlations between Jacob's cabin and Locke, or why those specific numbers, I am now able to focus on realistic problems. Don't get me wrong - those mystical questions are still important and relevant, I'm sure, but it's a lot more fun to muse about material events than confusing other-worldly ideas that won't become clear for a very long time. Instead, I get to ask - what happens to Claire! Is she gonna die soon? What is the terrible event that Sayid, Hurley and Jack have referred to? Was it some sort of deal they had to make to get off the island, which they now feel guilty for? What are Ben and Sayid trying to accomplish? Who is the dead person in the coffin? These are questions I can relate to. Not only are they physical events with tangible answers, but we know they will be revealed before people get off the island. These are questions we won't have to vaguely wonder about until the end of the show. And that gives these episodes a new sense of urgency and realism, because the day all this shit goes down is coming, and it's coming soon!
So now I'm hooked, theorizing like the rest of the Lost geeks - although I haven't entered any kind of shipperdom or extreme fanbase (as of yet). I've been burned by sci-fi before - shows that got me all riled up about all their mysteries, and then didn't deliver on a single one! But I think "Lost" knows what it's doing and it is such a great ride! All I need to do now is rent the first three seasons over the summer and life will be hunky dory! And did I mention that Naveen Andrews (Sayid) is looking pretty damn tasty?!?!! New TV crush alert!
So, it's been a few days and everyone has had the opportunity to dissect the rights and wrongs of the 80th Annual Academy Awards to an itty-bitty pulp that vaguely resembles the Oscars as they actually occurred five days ago. Some of these people were forced to analyze the telecast because it was their job as entertainment correspondents; others chose to do so because they too have a movie blog and everyone who's anyone was blogging about the Academy Awards this week. After a little brew-hah-hah about what won, and who deserved it, blah blah blah, fishcakes, the real point of Oscar discussion reared it's ugly head: how do we rank the show?
As many of you probably already heard, this was the lowest rated Oscar telecast in history. Apparently, only 32 million people tuned in this year as opposed to the 55 million that watched in 1998 when the mega-blockbuster Titanic stampeded the night. (For an excellent analysis on whether the ratings for the Oscars should actually matter to the film industry, check out thisarticle at The Cooler.) Along with the worry over these low ratings and what they mean for this year's telecast comes the onslaught of criticism over every detail of the show: how did Jon Stewart do? Were there a lot of classic one-liners? OMG, it was so long! OMG, no American actors won awards! OMG, what was up with all the montages? WTF, the Oscars are pointless and they shouldn't exist!!!
I will concede that the Oscars are intended to be an entertainment program, and as far as that is concerned, some discussion on it's failures and successes is warranted. However, I see the same redundant criticism leveled at the Oscar broadcast every year and I'm more than sick of people quibbling over elements of the Oscars that, imperfect as they may be, are and always will be part of the show. If you don't like it, don't watch it! This has really stuck a craw in my ghord and I feel the need to address these issues in a rant....
Issue One: Jon Stewart sucks as an Oscar host.
Was he the best host ever this week? No. There were a lack of stunning one-liners, his opening monologue contained more political fodder than necessary and he generally acted like Jon Stewart. Suits me just fine. No Oscar host is ever universally liked. Chris Rock was too offensive, Steve Martin was too low-key, Whoopi Goldberg made lame jokes, and there are even those who object to Billy Crystal's Best Picture-themed songs. Nobody wins here. It's a thankless job. (Seriously, read about it here.) Jon Stewart was Jon Stewart, and that's all we can really ask of him. He seemed comfortable on stage, moved the show along at a decent pace, and made the incredibly classy move of bringing Marketa Irglova back out after the commercial to finish her acceptance speech. Fine by me. Maybe he wasn't as daring as other hosts have been, but at least there weren't any hilarious, but cruelly uncomfortable jokes made at anyone else's expense. (I still haven't forgotten when a certain host's joke about Russell Crowe made me worried Crowe was going to kill him, and set an intensely bad vibe upon the room. No need for that.)
Issue Two: The awards were too long, there were too many montages, stupid dances numbers, etc.
Again, this may be true. I will agree that the musical numbers for the songs from Enchanted were a bit hammy and got boring fast, but they didn't offend me. People are now talking about wanting to bring Debbie Allen back for more of her interpretive dance numbers. I remember, at the time, people hated and complained about them! Just can't win! As for the length of the show, the montages....have you ever WATCHED the Academy Awards before!?!?!?!?!?!?! The show is ALWAYS too long! The montages are ALWAYS stupid and redundant! It's part of the tradition. Actually, at 3 hours and 21 minutes, this is one of the shorter broadcasts in recent history. (In 2000 the show ran 4 hours and 2 minutes.) I never expect the show to come in under 3 1/2 hours, so when it does, I'm pleasantly surprised. And I spent the entire 3 hours and 21 minutes sitting comfortably on my couch, having happy movie debate with my family. Lovely day! As for those montages, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad, but they are always unnecessary and there are always too many. At least this year none of them contained the ubiquitous clip of Gene Kelly clinging to the lamp-post in Singin' in the Rain! If you don't like it, DVR the damned thing and cut all the unnecessary bullshit out! It's always middling fare and you either go with it, or shut the hell up! As for those who are hankering for better montages, I know some lovely people over at YouTube that can help you edit your own, more creative Oscar clip montage. Show me better!
Issue Three: The Oscars are an irrelevant and overhyped glamorization of Hollywood, actors and film in general.
This one I have a big problem with. To be fair, this wasn't the major word out there on the blogs, although I did find one post that likened the Academy Awards telecast to "the worst kind of trash on television." This criticism I generally find thrown my way by those (sisters and friends alike) who do not share my affinity for film culture and view the Oscars as the pinnacle example of an unnecessary and demoralized industry. And to this I say PHOOEY!!! So let's break this down. First up, are the Academy Awards necessary? Well, no, they are not. Getting a bunch of movie stars together to celebrate their general fabulousness and generating a list of awards that will all be disagreed with next year, and are a retread of the previous 12 awards shows and the ever-popular critic's top ten list couldn't exactly be called necessary. True, not seeing these films will not hurt your life, the awards have essentially become an excuse for a fashion show, and stars are paid too much.
But the Academy Awards started as a celebration of excellence in film. Schools have teacher of the year, firms have salesman of the year, and there's the Pulitzer and numerous book awards for writers. Shouldn't filmmakers get to honor their own? Remember that for every beautiful, vapid star that arrives to up the star-power, there is an ordinary short-film maker, sound mixer, set dresser, costume designer and computer specialist who don't get paid the big bucks, and are responsible for keeping movies from looking and sounding like shit. They deserve some recognition as well. Having stars present just increases the chances that schmucks like us will actually tune in to watch these unknowns bask in their moment of glory. There is honor and pride in these awards, however glamorized they may be.
Second, lots of things are unnecessary, but that doesn't mean we don't need them. I wonder how many of these Oscar-naysayers tune in to see the Superbowl or the World Series? Sports aren't necessary either, athletes are also generally overpaid, and the world of sports can be a dirty industry too. But just watch how many people would break down and cry if they canceled these unnecessary events! They are a celebration of a pastime, of a form of entertainment that enriches our lives, even if it isn't a necessity like water and shelter. (To be fair, the Superbowl and World Series are contests that require a final match-up to determine a winner, and are not retread fashion shows. But you can't have films "play" each other; it just won't work. There needs to be an awards show. Sorry.) So until sports contests can also be deemed irrelevant, I see no reason the Academy Awards should suffer such biased judgment.
Finally, I am really tired of people telling me that movies are just "escapist" trivialities that distract and help people hide from real life. Yes, there are plenty of films that function purely as entertainment. They make us laugh, marvel at a chase scene, squeal when the couple finally gets together, and then we go home and never think of that film again. But movies are so much more than that. They tantalize the imagination, offer glimpses into our values, challenge preconceived notions, and question the choices of history. Most importantly, for me, they teach tolerance. If I had never seen If These Walls Could Talk 2, I don't think I would necessarily have grown into the woman who so passionately loved Brokeback Mountain. Crash made me think about how many racist preconceptions I have that I am not even aware of. Something to Talk Abouttaught me that infidelity is not always the result of a lying scumbag of a husband; marriage has two sides and they are both hard work. Braveheart made me want to search for a belief that I would die for; Before Sunrise made me want to be smarter; Almost Famous made me want to start a vinyl collection; Blood Diamond convinced me I will never want a diamond engagement ring; Gone Baby Gone made me realize that sometimes, there are no right decisions - only those you can or can't live with; High Fidelity taught me that the task of becoming a grownup never ends; Monsoon Wedding opened my eyes to the different, and yet recognizable, joys found in other cultures, in foreign traditions; and It's a Wonderful Life reminds me time and time again that the only success that will ever truly matter in my life is how well I love, and am loved by others in return.
Movies are not the be-all and end-all of this education; newspapers, relationships, books, life experience - all are vital to understanding and continuing to grow in this world; I don't place film on a higher level than all of these other worthy pursuits. I only know that it speaks to me more deeply and helps me comprehend more fully than any other medium or experience I have ever had. It IS necessary to my survival. And once a year I like to acknowledge the films that have made me think, feel, and tolerate the most, and maybe discover some new ones. If it comes with a fashion show and a few too many montages, that's all right with me.
(Please be warned that throughout this piece I wasn't able to emote properly and had trouble controlling THE SIZE OF MY TYPE. Apparently, typing all in caps indicates EXTREME emotion. I guess exclamation marks just weren't cutting it!) 1) Cans of soda drunk during show (including red-carpet arrivals) : 3 (I know, so few!) 2) Trips to the bathroom at commercials : 6 (off of only 36oz.! What the hell?) 3) Categories in which non-Americans won : 12 (at least, which was awesome! So many great accents and a spreading of the wealth!) 4) Exclamations of "I love James McAvoy!" : 4 (again, at least) 5) Pieces of trivia looked up during Oscar broadcast : 1 (I was surprised, there's usually more. But just so you know, the question was which 4 other actresses, besides Hilary Swank, have won two for two at the Oscars? The answers are: Helen Hayes in 1932's The Sin of Madelon Claudet and 1970's Airport; Vivien Leigh in 1939's Gone With the Wind and 1951's A Streetcar Named Desire; Luise Rainer in 1936's The Great Zigfield and 1937's The Good Earth; and finally, Sally Field for 1979's Norma Rae and 1984's Places in the Heart. And yes, I looked each one up myself!)
All in all, I was extremely satisfied by the outcome of last night's Academy Awards. After a night of nail-biting I was so relieved that the Coen brothers No Country For Old Men pulled both Best Picture and Best Director(s) out. While it was a quality year, I honestly felt that this film was on a higher plane than the others and it would have seemed an INJUSTICE for anything else to take the big prize!
Other awards were mostly in accordance with my wishes and opinions as well: Daniel Day-Lewis was phenomenal, though Best Actor was by far the most worthy group of candidates in any field; Javier Bardem was deserving and gave a great speech; Marion Cotillard's upset over Julie Christie offered the most touchingly shocked and overwhelmed reaction of the night; and Tilda Swinton pulled out a win for Michael Clayton, in a truly great performance, although, again, a worthy field of competitors. I knew Atonement was in tough company in all of it's categories, so I'm glad it won for score - I'm telling you, that typewriter effect really works in the film! And "Falling Slowly" fromOnce was recognized - YAY! In a classy move, Jon Stewart brought Marketa Irglova back on stage to finish her acceptance speech after the band cut her off and went to commercial. Stuff like that should happen more often!
The only real bone I have to pick is The Bourne Ultimatum winning both sound mixing and sound editing. Ultimatum was a great flick - totally deserving of some technical awards. However, the sound effects editing used in No Country For Old Men were absolutely essential to the success of that film. Almost all of the suspense is built upon small sounds, from the wind, footsteps, that cattle gun, even the careful use of silence, as well as a million other noises that, combined, create one of the most fascinating exercises in the effect of sound ever demonstrated on film. I won't feel too bad for No Country - after all, it did come out the big winner - but this was a technical award it really deserved.
Onto the dresses! Red was the theme of the night, and as it's my favorite color, I can't really complain. However, other than red and a little navy, there was not a whole lot of color on the carpet this year. Both 2006 and 2007 carpets had a wide range of styles, in lots of vivid colors, and, dammit, that's the way I like it! There weren't too many stupendous flops this year, but there seemed a lack of ingenuity all around.
I don't wanna gush about the red, but I couldn't choose just one of these ladies: I think Helen Mirren (again, she just can't go wrong) and Anne Hathaway were my favorites: Mirren is just stunning, and I think the color and rose decolletage of Hathaway's dress was just lovely with her hair and skin tone. As for the other two, Katherine Heigl's dress just FITS man, to a T, and I dig the Monroe hair. Miley Cyrus, couldn't care less about her career, but the dress was both event-fitting and age appropriate.
Jessica Alba gets a vote as well for just WEARING A DIFFERENT COLOR. That plum is lovely and it's a classy dress to go with her baby bump.
Other than the ladies in red, I thought Jennifer Hudson was great - this is what she SHOULD have worn last year when she was the belle of the ball. It looks great on her figure and was gorgeous on television, but I can't find a photograph that really does it justice - this is the best I could find, so you'll just have to take my word for it! Also on the nude/white side of things, I thought Marion Cotillard was a goddess, and one of the few women who really took a chance as far as design goes, and it really worked for her. But really, take a look at this woman and tell me she isn't one of the most beautiful people you have ever seen. Seriously.
And my final pic just had to be of James McAvoy. Love him! And check out his beautiful wife, Anne-Marie Duff - really gorgeous eyes and WEARING A BOLD COLOR! Completely won me over! Also, I saw a hilarious interview Ryan Seacrest had with both of them at the BAFTAS (British Oscars) where James said that in their house Ryan is referred to as the "Chicken Bucket guy." Apparently, they saw a segment of E!News where Seacrest refers to Mariah Carey as "hot as a bucket of chicken with biscuits on the side!" So basically, James and his wife are having a nice, public giggle at Seacrest's expense, totally awesome, and then, to make it even better, James does a spot-on impression of Seacrest actually saying the line. So I went searching and found this clip of James doing the same impression on Ryan's morning radio show. Freaking hilarious!
Welcome to my second-favorite day of the year! So, comethis afternoon I will be planted in front of the television, and though it's popular among other bloggers, I'm not going to do a live blog-cast of all my reactions throughout the broadcast. I have to focus, people! And I usually spend the commercials looking up trivia in my book and refilling my soda anyway. I just don't have time for you.
I was originally going to post my Oscar predictions, and that might have been enlightening for those of you out there who haven't already read 30,ooo of the same predictions (like I have), and are therefore not wary of treading boring and familiar ground (like I am). Basically, I think the Coen brothers should pull it out, though I'm not counting out Michael Clayton or There Will Be Blood to upset. Also, DD-Lewis and Javier Bardem should have it locked up, I'm hoping for Ellen Page to upset in Best Actress, and I want Tilda Swinton or Amy Ryan in Supporting Actress. I want Atonement to win at least one (costume design or score, please) but not counting on it, and I want "Falling Slowly" from Once to take Best Song. Other than that, I'll just be enjoying the show. I'll post my reactions and fave dresses tomorrow.
Also, in all my Oscar searching, I found a great list of the 100 Worst Oscar Snubs over at EW.com. They're all performances, but it's a pretty good list and contains shout-outs to a lot of great movies. Check it out here.
Sorry for my long absence (well, sorry Heather, the only person who actually cares and was probably having too crazy a week at her new job to really notice, anyways), but I was rather apathetic this week. Not feeling the motivation. Hopefully it will be regained in the impending Oscar-high!
The day of the Academy Awards is like Super Bowl Sunday in my house. Junk food is spread out on the table before me, I have my Oscar trivia book at hand in order to look up questions that arise during the broadcast, and I sit screaming in front of the television all day. And if the Academy Awards telecast is the game, then the red carpet arrivals are the Super Bowl commercials. So as part of the ongoing celebration of Oscar month (and they're definitely airing now!) I have decided to indulge my inner fashionista and rank my favorite Oscar gowns. Such a girly thing to do, and sorry to the fellas who don't care, but what's the point of having a blog if I can't bask in the glow of my own trivial pastimes. So here they are, my favorite Oscar ladies in their Sunday best.
10. Maggie Gyllenhall (2005) If you'll look around, upto this point Maggie hadn't usually dressed her body in the most flattering designs. So I was relieved to see her looking so tall and elegant in this nude Prada, which I think actually complements her skin tone. I also really dig that metallic sash around her hips - it keeps the dress from becoming blah.
9. Michelle Williams (2006) The fashion police were fairly split over this dress. I agree with those that say the top of the dress isn't the best suited to her frame, but the bottom half definitely works and I absolutely love the marigold color of the Vera Wang gown. It was risky and I think she looks smashing in it. And pairing it with the bright red lips is fabulous! (Also love the curly tendrils around her face.)
8. Kate Hudson (2003) She generally has a hippie vibe going on that works for her, but in this pale pink gown she looks like a classic leading lady. The neckline and capped sleeves actually make her look curvier and the make-up perfectly enhances the frothy color of the dress.
7. Reese Witherspoon (2002) America's sweetheart has had other fetching Oscar ensembles, but this Valentino, her first Oscar appearance, perfectly captured a fun, flirty vibe while simultaneously looking elegant. And I love the short and sassy hair.
6. Cate Blanchett (2005) Cate is known for taking fashion risks, so at first this dress seems a little safe. But the butter-yellow Valentino is a stunning choice because the color and fit suit her flawlessly. Love the burgundy sash, the jeweled shoulder piece, and the soft gold curls.
5. Gwyneth Paltrow (2007) Our gal Gwyn rarely goes wrong (well, stay away from the 2002 disaster), but this Zac Posen design was a real risk. The cut and the color are both unusual, but I love them both and think she looks gorgeous. And kudos for taking chances! Many thought the hair was "undone," but I think it adds an element of looseness to the ensemble that an up-do just would not have accomplished.
4. Kate Winslet (2005) Oh, Kate. I love you, I love you, I love you! I've always hated periwinkle blue, but the color of this Badgley Mischka is just gorgeous on my favorite lady. The cut flatters her lovely curves (in truth, almost no other actress consistently dresses so well for their body type), and I love the soft, relaxed hair and make-up.
3. Uma Thurman (2006) Many complained that 2006 was too safe (sheer nudes and simple cuts were abundant) but I don't think any other dress has ever made Uma looked like such a Grecian goddess! In this Versace, she is so statuesque and regal. And I know you can't see it well in this photo, but the hair was perfectly mussed.
2. Renee Zellweger (2003) Red is a color that's been done right many times (see Marcia Gay Harden in 2001 and Kate Winslet in 2002), but never lovelier than on Renee. I had trouble choosing between this and the daring yellow she donned in 2001, but the backless Carolina Herrera, combined with the modest hair and red lips, ultimately won me over. This is simplistic chic done right.
1. Helen Mirren (2007) It took a few minutes for the beauty of this dress to fully hit me, but I haven't stopped thinking about it since. The Christian Lacroix gown is simultaneously sexy and mature and it really needs to be seen in motion. The color is marvelously mirrored in her gorgeous white-blonde hair and that smile brings it all home. Please God, let me look this hot when I'm 61.
So there goes my attempt to be fashion commentator. Don't hate on me - it's really hard to talk about cut and color and whether or not the hair is right without sounding like a total jackass who should just stick to movies and leave the couture to the experts! If anyone is still reading, and has a best Oscar fashion moment of their own they'd like to share, feel free!
I've given you a film noir, a sports TV show, and a quirky romantic comedy, so I thought it was time for a sci-fi entry. A lot of you may have already seen this one (it's not as under the radar as some of my other choices), but it's goes unmentioned a lot so I'm still gonna toot it's horn.
Gattaca is a modern sci-fi tale lacking any blood-thirsty aliens or artificially intelligent life-forms. It's not particularly technologically advanced, although the issue of space travel has been refined to a regular occurrence. Rather, in this future, the scientific landscape has been modified by gene technology. Infants are no longer conceived and born accidentally, but parents attend gene specialists who create the fetus artificially, using only the best traits of either parent and eradicating "undesirable" attributes such as baldness, poor eyesight, crooked teeth, and inclination for osteoporosis, as well as serious health problems and defects. What results is a beautiful, healthy, genetically superior society.
Ethan Hawke stars as Vincent is a "god-child," born naturally without the benefit of only his parent's best traits, and as such has a weak heart and wears glasses. He also wants to visit the stars, but in this brave new world only the genetically perfect are allowed to have white-collar jobs and Vincent is banished to the janitorial sector as a "de-gene-erate." But he finds a loophole in the system. Through black-market dealing he pairs up with the genetically superior Jerome (Jude Law), who is unfortunately in a wheelchair and unable to take advantage of his genetic gifts. Together, they turn Vincent into a "borrowed ladder," in which he is made to look as much like Jerome as possible, and become him in the real world, essentially borrowing his genetic green-card. Through this tricky maneuvering, Vincent becomes a top flight analyst at a firm also employing the lovely Irene (Uma Thurman), and is next in line for a rare mission to a distant moon. However, when a murder occurs at work, bringing with it throngs of detectives and gene-analysis, Vincent's secret is at risk of discovery.
Many sci-fi stories are concerned with fantastic, over-the-top developments, but the realities of gene superiority are not far-fetched. If that technology did become available, sure we'd get rid of health-risks, but how long would it take before we were tempted to abolish unflattering features, and mild physical hindrances like near-sightedness? In creating a healthy world, would we too aim to create a homogenized one? It's an interesting future to ponder and Gattaca explores it's potential realities with leveling questions and a fondness for the "human spirit." Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman are well-cast, have palpable romantic chemistry, and a certain coolness that fits the futuristic world they occupy. For me, the scene-stealer is a pre-fame Jude Law as the drolly dour Eugene/Jerome, looking sick and sad, but often zinging with his wit. The film is radiantly lit and shoots from creative angles, balancing a hazy beauty with the angular silver constructions of the futuristic sets. And the score is one of my favorites, rousing and inspiring, but containing dark notes of gloom. An excellent combination of science fiction elements and classical Hollywood storytelling.
But good news, yesterday the WGA agreed to the new offer and formally ended the strike. Most writers should be back at work within the next week or two, if not the next day. So what does this mean for the current TV season? Surprisingly, there are gonna be some new episodes before the end of the season. I'm pretty damn happy about that as I long ago resigned myself to no new television until fall '08, or worse, winter '09. But happily, I have been proven wrong. I got the 411 from E!Online, where they have a listing of pretty much all the shows that have been on hiatus due to the strike, and if/when they will be back on the air. Here's some of the ones I know we care about:
Friday Night Lights: Technically, NBC hasn't actually agreed to another season, and FNL is currently in limbo. Most likely it won't be back until next season, but exec producer Jason Katims has said that everyone would like to get back to work and that they have a lot of ideas on how they were planning to finish out this season, if they get the chance.
The Office: Yippie-Kai-Yay, Mother Fucker, they are expected to get back to work pronto and have 6-10 new episodes this season. YAY!!!
How I Met Your Mother: Currently still on the bubble, CBS hasn't formally renewed the show and it is in danger of being canceled, though word isn't out on whether the show will be able to complete the current season. But it they do, they could whip out 8 more.
Heroes: I think it's being shelved until next fall. Apparently, the storylines aren't worked out to a place where they could get any kind of flow going this season, so they may just wait and relaunch in the fall, when there's time to tell a complete arc.
Grey's Anatomy: Likely to complete 3 or 4 episodes to close out the season. But, very important, JOSHUA JACKSON (that's Pacey Witter, to all you who should know) is going to be appearing on some of them. Thank you god! (His planned guest-spot was originally announced pre-strike, and I wasn't sure if it would still happen after, but apparently it will!!!)
Lost: Probably will get 2-3 more episodes out, in addition to the 8 that had already been completed.
24: Because it needs to be in told in 24 consecutive segments, don't expect this back until winter '09.
Gossip Girl: YAY! YAY! YAY! I know none of you probably watch this one, but this was my new guilty pleasure of the season! And, because the CW loves it, it is expected back for up to 9 new episodes! Yay! We get to see Blair obliterate all the people who screwed her over in the last episode! It's gonna be a takedown of epic proportions!
Any shows you wanna know about that I didn't mention? Just check here.
I have a very handy book called "The Academy Awards Handbook." In addition to providing me with lists of winners and commentary on the ceremony for every year, it also has a helpful "Predicting the Oscars" essay in the back. Let me share with you the list of criteria to consider when picking the acting winners:
"1. Real People: Geoffrey Rush in Shine; Susan Surandon in Dead Man Walking; Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot; Ben Kingsley in Gandhi; Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry; etc.
2. Characters with disabilities: Again, Geoffrey Rush in Shine; Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman; Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas; Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump; Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man; etc.
3. Age: Very old actors are a good bet, as are veteran actors who have never won: Al Pacino, Susan Surandon, Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy; Jack Palance in City Slickers; Sean Connery in The Untouchables; Paul Newman in The Color of Money; etc.
4. In the supporting categories, watch out for leads nominated in support, especially for actress. Marisa Tomei is a lead in My Cousin Vinny. Whoopi Goldberg has leading lady screentime in Ghost, Geena Davis is the lead in The Accidental Tourist, as is Jessica Lange in Tootsie. Also, watch out for big stars in supporting roles - Sean Connery, Michael Caine in Hannah and her Sisters, Jack Nicholson in Terms of Endearment, Maggie Smith in California Suite; etc.
5. Put your money on the Brits. In the past twenty years (this was written in 2000), 11 of the 80 acting Oscars have gone to Brits. That includes Connery (a Scot), Hopkins (Welsh), and Peter Finch, an Australian whom everyone thought was English. (Add to this Helen Mirren and Jim Broadbent, plus both Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchett may as well be British for their adaptability to accents.) 6. Accents: Hanks in Gump, Landau in Ed Wood, Tomei in Vinny, Day-Lewis in My Left Foot, Anjelica Huston in Prizzi's Honor, Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs; etc.
7. Actors win for the performances they weren't honored for last year. They also win for performances they weren't nominated for this year. How much of Diane Keaton's Annie Hall win was for the serious dramatics of Looking for Mr. Goodbar? Jeremy Irons won his Oscar the year after his highly regarded but unnominated performance in Dead Ringers. "
Put all of this information together and definite patterns emerge in the Academy Award's history of choosing large and loud performances. Also, the essay's guidelines for predicting the Best Picture winner mention that 1) the longest nominated film wins Best Picture 44% of the time, and 2) comedies don't usually win Oscars. The comedy winners have included It Happened One Night, Annie Hall, The Sting, Going My Way, All About Eve, The Apartment, and Shakespeare in Love (which takes it's plot from Shakespearean tragedy, and ends without the leads together, making it a dubious comedy, true as that label is). So in the absence of comedies, what usually wins Best Picture? Epics. This trend has wavered a bit in the past decade (while Crash, A Beautiful Mind, and The Departed are pictures with large casts, intricate and wide-reaching plots, and in the case of Mind, spans large portions of time, none really qualify as epics.) But if you look at past-precedents, the Oscars almost always go for the biggest, longest and most dramatic film they can. This is especially true of the '90's where we got Dances With Wolves beating Goodfellas, Unforgiven beating The Crying Game, Schindler's List beating In the Name of the Father, Forrest Gump beating The Shawshank Redemption, Braveheart beating Apollo 13, The English Patient beating Fargo, and Titanic beating L.A. Confidential. I'm not complaining about most of these winners; in many cases they were the best film of the year, especially Schindler's List. I'm just noting a pattern. Why is it that we seem to place a greater importance or value on stories about war, history, death, and tragedy? Even I find it hard to seriously consider Juno in the same league as Atonement, even though it accomplishes it's story just as wonderfully, or thinking of Little Miss Sunshine as worthy as Letters From Iwo Jima. Why? Because one makes me laugh and the other teaches me a history lesson in tolerance? That makes one less valuable than the other?
Whatever the reason, it is usually a safe bet to wager on the biggest, longest, or most time-sweeping story. Although No Country For Old Men is the leading candidate for it's perfection in cast, performance, sound, pacing and dialogue, There Will Be Blood has the epic feeling. It feels larger, grander, it spans a large period of time, and explores historical relationships, giving it the epic vibe is spite of Country's superiority. But here's the rub; I think the Coen brothers have the edge for another important reason - they didn't win for Fargo. Critically speaking, while The English Patient remains a perfectly respectable film, critical favor for it has waned in the years since it's win, and most believe that Fargo was the deserving winner, both for picture and for direction. So this year, if the Academy were to honor Paul Thomas Anderson for his first really big picture, they would have snubbed the Coen brothers for both of their masterpieces. It's like rule 7 above - artists rewarded this year because they weren't honored before. In this case, I think the Coen brothers deserve it, but if they had won for Fargo, I'd give the edge to There Will Be Blood. The Oscars are really just one big political game, aren't they?
These guidelines are especially apparent in the acting categories. Although many nuanced performances get nominated, it is generally the biggest and loudest performance that wins. Let's look at last year. I'm not complaining one bit about Forrest Whitaker's win for The Last King of Scotland, or Helen Mirren's victory for The Queen, but we should taker a closer look at the reasons behind these wins. In the case of Whitaker, why was he nominated over James McAvoy, who is the real lead of the film? Technically speaking, Whitaker's role as Idi Amin is a supporting performance. He has a lot less screen time, but he has two very crucial attention grabbers in his favor: first, he's playing a real life person, and second, this real life person often seemed bi-polar, alternately loving and boisterous, then suspicious and cruel. McAvoy gave a performance that was smaller in scope, depending on reactions, while Whitaker got to display every emotion in the book and do it loudly! As with Best Picture, where we place a higher premium on long and dramatic, so in acting do we think it is more impressive to play a real-world figure. I have often thought that this seems ridiculous; if you're playing a real person, there are pictures, videos, historical references, and testimonies that help you shape a character and make them real. Doesn't it seem harder, or at least as difficult, to create a character that only exists in the script, where the actor has to create the voice, mannerisms, and patterns? The other thing in Whitaker's favor was the absolute ignorance of his other great performances in past award-seasons. Once Whitaker started garnering acclaim for The Last King of Scotland, the media, and the public, seemed to latch onto this as his rightful comeuppance for a great career, cause who knows if he'll get nominated again. I'm not claiming that his performance was anything less than fabulous - he was amazing. But this role and his acting history had a lot of favors built into it from the beginning.
The situation was in many ways similar with Helen Mirren. Again, she gave an absolutely staggering performance, and it was actually filled with nuance. I couldn't necessarily call it big and loud. But again, it was based on a real-life figure; there were images and behaviors to draw from in creating that performance. Mirren was also an actress with a long and fruitful career, twice-nominated in the past, but had never won. What if she wasn't nominated again? Judi Dench, also nominated that year, is older, but she won in '98 for Shakespeare in Love, so she's covered. While Mirren's work was excellent, it could be argued that Kate Winslet (in Little Children) and Penelope Cruz (in Volver) had the more difficult roles as their characters were steeped in humor and normalcy, and the actresses had to bring fire from within. I was rooting for Mirren all the way, but again, look at the guidelines; she had a lot of things going for her.
Navigating this political minefield has left a lot of clean-up for the Academy over the years. For instance, when Russell Crowe won for Gladiator in 2000, he was being given a make-up Oscar for The Insider, which he should have won for the previous year. And because the Academy was so involved in making it fair play, they missed out on Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls, and Ed Harris in Polluck. (Btw, Harris is gonna have a make-up Oscar in his future; amazing actor, four Oscar noms in the past ten years, and still hasn't won.) And because they gave Crowe the award in 2000, they couldn't give it to him for another deserving role the very next year, when he should have won for A Beautiful Mind. But that freed them up to give Denzel Washington his make-up Oscar. He won for Training Day (another big and loud supporting performance, disguised as a lead because Denzel is a big name) when he should have won for Malcolm X in 1992. And why didn't he win in 1992? You guessed it - because that was the year they gave Al Pacino his make-up Oscar, for his big and loud performance in Scent of a Woman. They had to give Pacino a make-up after failing to recognize him for Serpico in 1973, The Godfather Part II in 1974, or Dog Day Afternoon in 1975. They really have created quite a mess, haven't they?
I could go on about the big and loud (Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood) triumphing over the small and interior (George Clooney in Michael Clayton), because there are plenty of examples, but they are for a variety of reasons, and I think you get the idea. Just hoping everyone will think about it and look at the less showy performances a little more next time. I could also continue on with examples of make-up Oscars (Ingrid Bergman won for Gaslight in 1944 because she wasn't nominated for Casablanca and didn't win for For Whom the Bell Tolls in 1943, and consequently Barbara Stanwyck didn't win for Double Indemnity, oh the shame!), but I've already written too much. I don't think you guys enjoy reading these essays about Oscar history and rules as much as I do. But wanted to bring it to your attention.
But all that changed this season. I was informed, in great detail, about the amazing season three finale in which Jack and Kate are revealed to have left the island in a flash-forward!!!! Everyone was very excited about this development, so when the premiere of season four rolled around, I indulged my parents and watched it with them. WOWZA!!! The development of the flash-forward concept was a truly beneficent gift from the creators because, in contrast to other seasonal narratives, it actually allows the show to move forward and answer some questions without really revealing too much about the end game. Whereas before we marveled at the hidden connections between the Losties, pondered the meaning of the smoke, the numbers, what the Others wanted, the answers to most of these questions were mired in double talk and a lack of plot progression. I can't tell you how many times my dad would rant at them to just KILL BEN ALREADY! It was frustrating to devote so much time to a story that always seemed to be running circles around you chanting, "I'm smarter than you-ou! I'm smarter than you-ou!"
Instead, I get to ask - what happens to Claire! Is she gonna die soon? What is the terrible event that Sayid, Hurley and Jack have referred to? Was it some sort of deal they had to make to get off the island, which they now feel guilty for? What are Ben and Sayid trying to accomplish? Who is the dead person in the coffin? These are questions I can relate to. Not only are they physical events with tangible answers, but we know they will be revealed before people get off the island. These are questions we won't have to vaguely wonder about until the end of the show. And that gives these episodes a new sense of urgency and realism, because the day all this shit goes down is coming, and it's coming soon!
vaguely resembles the Oscars as they actually occurred five days ago. Some of these people were forced to analyze the telecast because it was their job as entertainment correspondents; others chose to do so because they too have a movie blog and everyone who's anyone was blogging about the Academy Awards this week. After a little brew-hah-hah about what won, and who deserved it, blah blah blah, fishcakes, the real point of Oscar discussion reared it's ugly head: how do we rank the show?
Martin was too low-key, Whoopi Goldberg made lame jokes, and there are even those who object to Billy Crystal's Best Picture-themed songs. Nobody wins here. It's a thankless job. (Seriously, read about it here.) Jon Stewart was Jon Stewart, and that's all we can really ask of him. He seemed comfortable on stage, moved the show along at a decent pace, and made the incredibly classy move of bringing Marketa Irglova back out after the commercial to finish her acceptance speech. Fine by me. Maybe he wasn't as daring as other hosts have been, but at least there weren't any hilarious, but cruelly uncomfortable jokes made at anyone else's expense. (I still haven't forgotten when a certain host's joke about Russell Crowe made me worried Crowe was going to kill him, and set an intensely bad vibe upon the room. No need for that.)
interpretive dance numbers. I remember, at the time, people hated and complained about them! Just can't win! As for the length of the show, the montages....have you ever WATCHED the Academy Awards before!?!?!?!?!?!?! The show is ALWAYS too long! The montages are ALWAYS stupid and redundant! It's part of the tradition. Actually, at 3 hours and 21 minutes, this is one of the shorter broadcasts in recent history. (In 2000 the show ran 4 hours and 2 minutes.) I never expect the show to come in under 3 1/2 hours, so when it does, I'm pleasantly surprised. And I spent the entire 3 hours and 21 minutes sitting comfortably on my couch, having happy movie debate with my family. Lovely day! As for those montages, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad, but they are always unnecessary and there are always too many. At least this year none of them contained the ubiquitous clip of Gene Kelly clinging to the lamp-post in Singin' in the Rain! If you don't like it, DVR the damned thing and cut all the unnecessary bullshit out! It's always middling fare and you either go with it, or shut the hell up! As for those who are hankering for better montages, I know some lovely people over at YouTube that can help you edit your own, more creative Oscar clip montage. Show me better!
this I say PHOOEY!!! So let's break this down. First up, are the Academy Awards necessary? Well, no, they are not. Getting a bunch of movie stars together to celebrate their general fabulousness and generating a list of awards that will all be disagreed with next year, and are a retread of the previous 12 awards shows and the ever-popular critic's top ten list couldn't exactly be called necessary. True, not seeing these films will not hurt your life, the awards have essentially become an excuse for a fashion show, and stars are paid too much.
schmucks like us will actually tune in to watch these unknowns bask in their moment of glory. There is honor and pride in these awards, however glamorized they may be.
but that doesn't mean we don't need them. I wonder how many of these Oscar-naysayers tune in to see the Superbowl or the World Series? Sports aren't necessary either, athletes are also generally overpaid, and the world of sports can be a dirty industry too. But just watch how many people would break down and cry if they canceled these unnecessary events! They are a celebration of a pastime, of a form of entertainment that enriches our lives, even if it isn't a necessity like water and shelter. (To be fair, the Superbowl and World Series are contests that require a final match-up to determine a winner, and are not retread fashion shows. But you can't have films "play" each other; it just won't work. There needs to be an awards show. Sorry.) So until sports contests can also be deemed irrelevant, I see no reason the Academy Awards should suffer such biased judgment.
of films that function purely as entertainment. They make us laugh, marvel at a chase scene, squeal when the couple finally gets together, and then we go home and never think of that film again. But movies are so much more than that. They tantalize the imagination, offer glimpses into our values, challenge preconceived notions, and question the choices of history. Most importantly, for me, they teach tolerance. If I had never seen If These Walls Could Talk 2, I don't think I would necessarily have grown into the woman who so passionately loved Brokeback Mountain. Crash made me think about how many racist preconceptions I have that I am not even aware of. Something to Talk About taught me that infidelity is not always the result of a lying scumbag of a husband; marriage has two sides and they 
are both hard work. Braveheart made me want to search for a belief that I would die for; Before Sunrise made me want to be smarter; Almost Famous made me want to start a vinyl collection; Blood Diamond convinced me I will never want a diamond engagement ring; Gone Baby Gone made me realize that sometimes, 
there are no right decisions - only those you can or can't live with; High Fidelity taught me that the task of becoming a grownup never ends; Monsoon Wedding opened my eyes to the different, and yet recognizable, joys found in other cultures, in foreign traditions; and It's a Wonderful Life reminds me time and time again that the only success that will ever truly matter in my life is how well I love, and am loved by others in return.
others and it would have seemed an INJUSTICE for anything else to take the big prize!
Once was recognized - YAY! In a classy move, Jon Stewart brought Marketa Irglova back on stage to finish her acceptance speech after the band cut her off and went to commercial. Stuff like that should happen more often!
had with both of them at the BAFTAS (British Oscars) where James said that in their house Ryan is referred to as the "Chicken Bucket guy." Apparently, they saw a segment of E!News where Seacrest refers to Mariah Carey as "hot as a bucket of chicken with biscuits on the side!" So basically, James and his wife are having a nice, public giggle at Seacrest's expense, totally awesome, and then, to make it even better, James does a spot-on impression of Seacrest actually saying the line. So I went searching and found this clip of James doing the same impression on Ryan's morning radio show. Freaking hilarious!
I've given you a film noir, a sports TV show, and a quirky romantic comedy, so I thought it was time for a sci-fi entry. A lot of you may have already seen this one (it's not as under the radar as some of my other choices), but it's goes unmentioned a lot so I'm still gonna toot it's horn.
"undesirable" attributes such as baldness, poor eyesight, crooked teeth, and inclination for osteoporosis, as well as serious health problems and defects. What results is a beautiful, healthy, genetically superior society.
line for a rare mission to a distant moon. However, when a murder occurs at work, bringing with it throngs of detectives and gene-analysis, Vincent's secret is at risk of discovery.
4. In the supporting categories, watch out for leads nominated in support, especially for actress. Marisa Tomei is a lead in My Cousin Vinny. Whoopi Goldberg has leading lady screentime in Ghost, Geena Davis is the lead in The Accidental Tourist, as is Jessica Lange in Tootsie. Also, watch out for big stars in supporting roles - Sean Connery, Michael Caine in Hannah and her Sisters, Jack Nicholson in Terms of Endearment, Maggie Smith in California Suite; etc.
decade (while Crash, A Beautiful Mind, and The Departed are pictures with large casts, intricate and wide-reaching plots, and in the case of Mind, spans large portions of time, none really qualify as epics.) But if you look at past-precedents, the Oscars almost 
always go for the biggest, longest and most dramatic film they can. This is especially true of the '90's where we got Dances With Wolves beating Goodfellas, Unforgiven beating The Crying Game, Schindler's List beating In the Name of the Father, Forrest Gump beating The Shawshank Redemption, Braveheart beating Apollo 13, The English Patient beating Fargo, and Titanic beating L.A. Confidential. I'm not complaining about most of these winners; in many cases they were the best film of the year, especially Schindler's List. I'm just noting a pattern. Why is it that we seem to place a greater importance or value on stories about war, history, death, and tragedy? Even I find it hard to seriously consider Juno in the same league as Atonement, even though it accomplishes it's story just as wonderfully, or thinking of Little Miss Sunshine as worthy as Letters From Iwo Jima. Why? Because one makes me laugh and the other teaches me a history lesson in tolerance? That makes one less valuable than the other?
ce, sound, pacing and dialogue, There Will Be Blood has the epic feeling. It feels larger, grander, it spans a large period of time, and explores historical relationships, giving it the epic vibe is spite of Country's superiority. But here's the rub; I think the Coen brothers have the edge for another important reason - they didn't win for Fargo. Critically speaking, while The English Patient remains a perfectly respectable film, critical favor for it has waned in the years since it's win, and most believe that Fargo was the deserving winner, both for picture and for direction. So this year, if the Academy were to honor Paul Thomas Anderson for his first really big picture, they would have snubbed the Coen brothers for both of their masterpieces. It's like rule 7 above - artists rewarded this year because they weren't honored before. In this case, I think the Coen brothers deserve it, but if they had won for Fargo, I'd give the edge to There Will Be Blood. The Oscars are really just one big political game, aren't they?
Technically speaking, Whitaker's role as Idi Amin is a supporting performance. He has a lot less screen time, but he has two very crucial attention grabbers in his favor: first, he's playing a real life person, and second, this real life person often seemed bi-polar, alternately loving and boisterous, then suspicious and cruel. McAvoy gave a performance that was smaller in scope, depending on reactions, while Whitaker got to display every emotion in the book and do it loudly! As with Best Picture, where we place a higher premium on long and dramatic, so in acting do we think it is more impressive to play a real-world figure. I have often thought that this seems ridiculous; if you're playing a real person, there are pictures, videos, historical references, and testimonies that help you shape a character and make them real. Doesn't it seem harder, or at least as difficult, to create a character that only exists in the script, where the actor has to create the voice, mannerisms, and patterns? The other thing in Whitaker's favor was the absolute ignorance of his other great performances in past award-seasons. Once Whitaker started garnering acclaim for The Last King of Scotland, the media, and the public, seemed to latch onto this as his rightful comeuppance for a great career, cause who knows if he'll get nominated again. I'm not claiming that his performance was anything less than fabulous - he was amazing. But this role and his acting history had a lot of favors built into it from the beginning.
call it big and loud. But again, it was based on a real-life figure; there were images and behaviors to draw from in creating that performance. Mirren was also an actress with a long and fruitful career, twice-nominated in the past, but had never won. What if she wasn't nominated again? Judi Dench, also nominated that year, is older, but she won in '98 for Shakespeare in Love, so she's covered. While Mirren's work was excellent, it could be argued that Kate Winslet (in Little Children) and Penelope Cruz (in Volver) had the more difficult roles as their characters were steeped in humor and normalcy, and the actresses had to bring fire from within. I was rooting for Mirren all the way, but again, look at the guidelines; she had a lot of things going for her.
Russell Crowe won for Gladiator in 2000, he was being given a make-up Oscar for The Insider, which he should have won for the previous year. And because the Academy was so involved in making it fair play, they missed out on Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls, and Ed Harris in Polluck. (Btw,
Harris is gonna have a make-up Oscar in his future; amazing actor, four Oscar noms in the past ten years, and still hasn't won.) And because they gave Crowe the award in 2000, they couldn't give it to him for another deserving role the very next year, when he should have won for A
Beautiful Mind. But that freed them up to give Denzel Washington his make-up Oscar. He won for Training Day (another big and loud supporting performance, disguised as a lead because Denzel is a big name) when he should have won for Malcolm X in 1992. And why didn't he win in 1992? You guessed it - because that was the year they gave Al Pacino his make-up Oscar, for his big and loud performance in Scent of a Woman. They had to give Pacino a make-up after failing to recognize him for Serpico in 1973, The Godfather Part II in 1974, or Dog Day Afternoon in 1975. They really have created quite a mess, haven't they?
