Tuesday, July 29, 2008

It's Coming Back!!!

So I know my last "Gossip Girl" post was only two months ago, but they've just got the cutest little ad campaign going right now and I was seduced all over again. There are a great many promos, but this one is my favorite (love the song and editing style!):



They also have an ingenious print campaign in full swing. Basically, they show a still of a "provacative" moment from the show and pair it with a quote from a negative review of the show, such as the "mind-blowingly inappropriate" quote from the Parents Television Council - they hate the show.


I just can't wait for September 1st!

Weekly Links

Sorry I'm so late this week. So, so, so many lists. Pick your faves - I really loved the Lost backstories, Memorable misquotes, and 24 Smartest Characters. Also, if you want something more substantial, the piece defending Katherine Heigl is interesting, the "If Only" Battlestar Galactica article makes you wonder, the essay on Cool Hand Luke is great, and I loved the article about a critic's personal connection to Fight Club - helps everyone understand why it appeals to him so much, great writing. Also, must check out the "Dark Knight Bad Experience" piece - I was so angry on this guy's behalf - fuming!


Thursday, July 24, 2008

Women's Bodies: When did size 8 become fat?


Last week I was catching up on my trashy television by watching the marathon of "The Real World XX: Hollywood." And it was in Coral-vision! Coral is the famed, loudmouth snarkster from season 10: Back to New York. It's like watching a show with pop-ups or commentary; Coral has guests (other Real World/Road Rules alums) join her for an episode where they bag on the melodramatic happenings of the losers on the current season. All in good fun, and usually a healthy dose of the truth that hurts.

On the episode I was watching, roomies Dave and Nick are on vacation in Cancun and decide to hit on a hot blonde in the hotel bar. She has a friend with her, so the guys are set. They start talking up the girls when the Coral-vision flashes up and her co-host, Wes (the aggressive and pig-headed dick from Real World: Austin) pipes up to say, "Whoa! Whose gonna end up with her friend?" in an obviously disgusted tone. The blonde was tiny, not more than a size 2 or 4, and her friend looked a very healthy and attractive size 8 or 10. What gives? Since when does a size 8 or 10 land you on the undesirable list? I won't deny that the blonde was the more conventionally attractive (at least in size), but I'm not exaggerating the attractiveness of her friend's size or appearance to make Wes look like an ass - the girl looked perfectly cute to me, even if a little curvier than her friend.

Wes's next comme
nt was, "Come on Nick! You don't have to settle for that! You're on the Real World now!" This I believe. While nothing was wrong with the appearance of "blonde's friend," I don't doubt that there are plenty of tiny, cute fame-whores out there, happy to flop over for a chance to be with one of the stunted, cocky, alcoholic Real World cast members. But the attitude taken by Wes offended me anyway. It's bad enough that a practically impossible vision of perfection is the ideal in most Hollywood films; has it transferred to people hooking up in a Cancun bar too?

I know this issue gets covered with decent regularity (some designers are now insisting their models meet a certain weight in order to walk in shows, ABC cast curvy America Ferrera as the star of "Ugly Betty," Grey's Anatomy star Sara Ramierez and Dreamgirls Oscar-winner Jennifer Hudson are both size 12+ and proud of it) but the complaints never really seem to go away. I'm happy that some of the curvier stars are proving that size is not necessarily a detriment to sex appeal, or to being a working actress. But many of the attempts to portray female characters as healthy role models, not anorexic ideals, have gone about it the wrong way.

Take the Charlie's Angels films: executive producer Drew Barrymore, God love her, decided to show the Angels eating regularly - and not just oatmeal, but fast food, bread, junk food - in order to send the message to young girls that it's okay to eat and to like food. As admirable as her intention obviously was, it portrays a conflicting dichotomy: yes, we may see gorgeous, slender Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore eating like pigs in the film, but we know that in real life, these actresses have to watch their diet, steadfastly work out, and train like hell to pull off those stunts. It sets up another impossible ideal: the beautiful, skinny woman who can eat whatever she wants. I don't doubt that women like that exist, but it needs to be understood that being a size zero isn't usually synonymous with a person who regularly eats junk food.

To some degree, this crime of misperception was perpetrated by Sarah Jessica Parker on "Sex and the City." Her character Carrie, like Parker, is a petite size 0, a has the body of a fashion plate (see her crazy, yet somehow charming, wardrobe). But Carrie always eats out, enjoys carbs and junk food, drinks cocktails daily, and claims shopping is her only exercise. In reality, Parker works to keep her body looking good. I can't speak for her diet (she may be one of those lucky 'anything goes' women with regards to food) but Carrie's tight, toned, in shape body belies that Parker must do some frequent strength and cardio training. But the image of the character is that she can eat anything, be lazy, and still look fabulous. (To be fair to the show, Samantha's strict adherence to 'organic' foods and water with lemon was a major plot point, Miranda went through a round of Weight Watchers to get rid of her post-baby weight, and Charlotte has frequent doubts about her curvy thighs, eats appropriately, and is portrayed as a consistent runner.) I don't want television shows and films to revolve around female characters eating a lot and then having pointed dialogue about how they have to work out, but if you're going to have tiny women in practically every role, it is necessary to organically incorporate the fact that these characters have to exercise or watch their diet, otherwise it's not sending quite the empowering message producers and writers may be aiming for.

I guess that's part of the reason I was so happy to see Hairspray last summer. Not only is the star of the film a ch
eery, cheeky plus-size ball of enthusiasm, but in the course of the film, she stays the same size, refuses to feel bad about her weight, and gets the guy! I know it's a tad unrealistic, but it sure did feel good to watch. Most films about an overweight, or drab and dowdy, heroine require that she go through a beautifying transformation before she gets her man (The Mirror Has Two Faces, She's All That, The Breakfast Club, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the list goes on and on). Of course, once she's gorgeous the man will say that he always loved her anyways, that she didn't need to change. Which means that her transformation is for the audience's benefit; these films are subtly re-enforcing the idea that only beautiful women are deserving of love. So when chunky Nicki Blonsky wins her man by defiantly dancing her ass off, regardless of size, she wins him over with her joy in doing what she loves, not with her size 2 figure. And because the object of her affection is played by tween-heartthrob Zac Efron, I'll bet a lot more girls paid attention. That makes me happy. (I also adore that curvy Minnie Driver never goes through a drastic makeover in the underrated Circle of Friends - she too gets her man by being herself, albeit a few more complications.)

In the interest of well-being, unhealthy bodies shouldn't be glorified, but I don't see any harm in portraying women's bodies in slightly more varied forms. And in many cases, positive strides are being made. But hearing Real World Wes put down a girl, relegate her to the realm of the "unfuckable" just because she's bigger than a size 4, well that just pissed me off and made me wanna re-examine the issue, yet again. To be fair, when sex is all you're looking for, just a one-night stand, I don't suppose it makes much difference whether you're basing that decision on looks alone; it's not gonna become a relationship anyways, and I'm sure all the Real World guys knew that. I just hate hearing perfectly good-looking women put down because of ridiculous expectations in size.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Why Are They Stars?


It should be no surprise to anyone that Jessica Alba recently had a baby. Her growing pregnancy was well-documented by the press and now the magazines are salivating for rights to baby photos, and the oh-so-original cover stories "How I Got My Body Back After Baby." The other day I was surfing the 'net (that phrase should be banished from my vocabulary by now) and came across a photo spread documenting Alba's breast growth since giving birth.

Really?

And it occurred to me, no offense to the beautiful, radiant and seemingly affable Ms. Alba, that I don't know why she's famous. I'm not stupid, I know that she's hot an
d that in today's market that's enough to guarantee publicity, exposure and fame. But other than her slamming beach body and lovely smile, what has she really given us as an actress? I started thinking about her career resume and it's shockingly weak; I couldn't think of one film in which she's a major player that is worthwhile. There's no doubt that her star-in-the-making mark came with the 2000 Fox series "Dark Angel" and while I've never seen more than a minute or two, I believe the hype that she was very good on it and it was an underrated show. I also appreciate her supporting roles in both Never Been Kissed and Sin City, but all that was really required of her was to look hot, wear chaps and crack a whip.

The rest of her films include Honey, both Fantastic Four's, Into the Blue, Good Luck Chuck, Awake, The Eye, and the recent The Love Guru. Anything there worth seeing? She may in fact be a capable actress, but you'd never know it from this array of crap. So why do I see her face in every magazine? Why has she been a featured presenter at the Academy Awards for 3 years running? It seems rather ridiculous to me. I know she's gorgeous, but I feel like there should at least be some genuine film contributions in addition to her looks for her to be covered and talked about at this level. I find that frustrating.

More actresses I'm sick of seeing in magazines:


Zoe Saldana: Center Stage, Get Over It, Drumline, Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, The Terminal, Haven, Guess Who, Premium, Ways o
f the Flesh, After Sex, Vantage Point. I know some of these are decent films, but her parts in those films are usually insignificant and I've never been impressed by her acting. But she's in practically every issue I've ever bought of InStyle. And she almost always has dark circles under her eyes like she forgot to put on concealer. I don't know if her make-up is just put on wrong or what but she always looks really wane and tired. She'd better really impress as Uhura in next summer's Star Trek.

Kate Bosw
orth: Okay, she killed in Blue Crush. But since then she's mainly famous for her rapidly diminishing weight, her failed romance with Orlando Bloom, and for sucking all the spunk out of Lois Lane in Superman Returns. She's got some natural charm and is not a horrible actress, but she needs to choose her parts more carefully.
Mischa Barton: I love "The O.C." And she was by far the worst actress on it. She's a really beautiful girl who showed some early promise in Lawn Dogs, Pups, The Sixth Sense, and Lost and Delirious, but has since lost all ability to credibly deliver a line. Some of the stiffest acting I've ever seen. But Marissa Cooper is a pop culture icon, so famous and photographed she remains.

Olivia Wilde
: She's not as widely overexposed, but I'm still sick of her. After a rather lackluster, but buzz generating, turn as one half of the touted season 2 lesbian relationship on "The O.C." I was unimpressed (and resented the departure from cuties Rachel Bilson, Ben McKenzie and Adam Brody, who could actually act). Now she's sucking up screentime on "House" as the most whiny, supposedly "mysterious" Cameron-retread, 13. Bored now.

Jessica Biel:Not the worst part of "7th Heaven" but I don't think having that show on your resume can every be viewed as a positive. I'll admit, the girl keeps her body in great shape, has a nice smile, seems very cutely in love with Justin Timberlake, and was surprisingly "not bad" in 2006's The Illusionist. But I've seen nothing worthwhile in Rules of Attraction, Summer Catch, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Next, or I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. She's got 5 films in the works so here's hoping she turns it around because she does seem like a nice girl.

Jessica Simpson: This one is self-evident, right? Vapid, fairly talentless, annoying, and not really all that attractive anymore, at least not lately. (I guess I have an anti-thing for the Jessica's, don't I?)


These are just my own irrational grievances (I'm sure there are also lots of unworthy actors and actresses that I irrationally love) and I don't dislike them personally (well, maybe Jessica Simpson); I'm just sick of reading about and seeing pictures of celebrities that haven't really contributed anything worthwhile to my enjoyment of television and film.

What celebrities do you think are worthless?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

EW's "The New Classics" Part Four


You can start celebrating - we've made it to the end. Look no further if you want to read EW's praise of the Top 25 (I know, I know, you guys just can't get enough!)


25. Shrek (2001)
24. A Room With a
View (1989)
23. Memento (2001)
22. Rushmor
e (1998)
21. Schindler's List (1993)

20. The Lion King (1994)
19. Casino Royale (2006)

18. Do the Right Thing (1989)
17. Jerry Maguire (1996)
16. Boogie Nights (1997)
15. Edward Scissorhands (1990)
14. Crumb (1995)
13. Goodfellas (199
0)
12. The Matrix (1999)

11. This is Spinal Tap (1984)
10. Moulin Rouge (2001)

9. Die Hard (1988)
8. The Silence
of the Lambs (1991)
7. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
6. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
5. Toy Story (1995)
4. Blue Velvet (1986)
3. Titanic (1997)

2. The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03)
1. Pulp Fiction (1994)


Once you get to #1, it seems pretty obvious that Pulp Fiction would be it, right? No other single film has had such last
ing influence in movies being made today, especially when it comes to messing with the time frame and writing stylized dialogue. Everyone knows this movie, and almost everyone admires it as one of the best. (There was an especially great post at The Cooler blog a few days after the issue of EW had come out, espousing the vices and virtues of Pulp Fiction on current filmmaking and pop culture. Check it out.) I full-heartedly agree with #1, although I think it may be kind of played out in 30 years, but that's then. In addition to QT's icon, Schindler's List deserves the nod for signaling the beginning of Spielberg's grown-up period and immersing us as fully as the medium of film allows, in the visceral abominations of the Holocaust. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan earned it's place for that horrifically realistic beach-landing, and for, as Ebert put it, "making a philosophical film about war almost entirely in terms of action."

Goodfellas and Do the Right Thing are also no-brainers (there are a lot more in this section). Goodfellas is one of Martin Scorcese's masterpieces, telling a mobster story with infinite style, headlong enthusiasm, and even incorporating the wife's conflicted, complicit feelings about her compromised world. Spike Lee changed the way a lot of people thought about race with 1989's Do the Right Thing; he made it clear that just because segregation was over and affirmative action was in play, didn't mean that race relations were clear or that resentments based on race don't still exist and effect our everyday lives. I've seen blogs that question whether that films still retains the same power and incendiary social commentary, but even if it's point of view becomes outdated, I think it will remain a testament to some of the conflicts of the later 20th century.

I question the enduring quality of The Matrix's storyline, but I don't dispute it's eye-popping action and revolutionary "bullet-time" concept. I can't be sure of when the summer blockbuster concept originated, but I feel pretty secure in saying that Die Hard greatly contributed to it's mystique and success, gave us the great "Yippee Kai Yay, Mother Fucker!" line, Alan Rickman's awesomely bad baddie, and made Bruce Willis the epitome of macho tenderness we know and love today. And in the vein of famously evil, yet kind of likable and magnificent bad guys, Anthony Hopkins made Hannibal Lector pop culture magic in Silence of the Lambs, as well as officially ushering in the decade of blockbuster courtroom, detective, wrongfully accused and John Grisham thrillers. However eternal their fame, I do wonder if the subject matter and context will be as dutifully revered in the future: couldn't it be dangerous to glamourize a serial killer and cheer on his plan to murder the (admittedly odious) warden/doctor of his jail? The non-stop gun shooting of The Matrix can get old, and it was followed by two of the most disappointing sequels ever (after the Star Wars prequels, of course), and it's hard to tell if the action sequences of Die Hard will look as cool in the future when the "European bad guys takeover corporation in madness of greed" set-up seems so arcane.

What can I really say about Titanic or the Lord of the Rings trilogy? They are epic, blockbuster money-makers, deeply beloved, huge staples of popular entertainment. There is no doubt they will be fused to the core of pop culture for many years to come (Leonardo DiCaprio, Gollum, "I'm the King of the World!", "GAN-dolf!"). But they are also both films full of flaws (no matter how much I love them, I must admit this). The glossy veneer of Titanic has already begun to fade under sharp criticism of it's bare bones plot, stock characters and ridiculous dialogue, and the once-revolutionary special effects won't seem so groundbreaking in 20 years (they already look less slick). Someday Titanic may be viewed as little more that the Towering Inferno of the '90's (that disaster flick got a Best Picture nom too, though not the win), apart from it's historic worldwide box-office. I think the LotR trilogy will fair better in the critical world, and the fact that it's a franchise helps ensure it's longevity, but it too has moments of ridiculous dialogue (even if Tolkien wrote it, doesn't mean Elijah Wood can pull off saying all of it), good vs. evil generalizations, and intermittent lulls of staggering plot stalls in films stuffed to the brim with characters and plot. (Don't hate me, I really do love them. I just don't know how they'll fair on the critical end of "classicism" in the future.)

Wow, I've already written a lot. I'll try to make the rest of this as brief as possible. Jerry Maguire, Rushmore, and Boogie Nights. I love it, but think Maguire is overrated and apart from the catch-phrase trifecta "Show me the money!", "You complete me", and "You had me at hello", will be more of a people-who-grew-up-in-the-90's classic, rather than a true classic. I prefer director Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous. I also think that Wes Anderson's real triumph has been The Royal Tenenbaums (though Rushmore stands out in ways because of Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman's performances), and that Magnolia is the better Paul Thomas Anderson film. Boogie Nights has the notoriety because it takes place within the porn industry, but I think Magnolia has a bigger fanbase (which is kind of necessary to achieve classic status). As for Moulin Rouge and Memento? I was shocked to see Moulin Rouge ranked this high. It did allow the musical to once again become a working genre, but it's far too frenetic and audaciously loud to be universally liked; it's divisive and always will be. And Memento, though introducing director Christopher Nolan, and telling a compelling story, is not as revolutionary as we once thought. The backward storytelling technique is clever, but had been done before, and I honestly don't hear it mentioned much anymore, accomplished or not.

Casino Royale was a brilliant reboot of the James Bond franshise (already well-established) but is it really that classic a movie? It's effective and riveting, but only stands out this far in comparison to other Bond films. It's a great spy thriller, but not an enduring classic apart from the Bond name. Edward Scissorhands also benefits from the Tim Burton/Johnny Depp two-punch that has become so beloved in recent years. Depp's performance is iconic, but the plot itself is never "great", only intriguing and this film shouldn't ever be more than a cult classic. The Lion King has popularity on it's side, but aside from Mufasa's Hamlet-inspired death, lacks the depth of other Disney cartoons. Pumbaa and Timon are lovable, but they're no Scuttle, Lumiere, Genie, Gus-Gus, or Dopey. Scar is a fairly effective villain, but his heyena sidekicks are lame and his song sucks (can anyone sing it for me right now? No? How about "Gaston"? "No one's got a small cleft in his CHIN like Gaston!" Case closed.) Shrek has potential, but it's popularity is diluting it's power. The original is so inventive and charming and Donkey is one of the all-time great sidekicks, but how many lame sequels will follow? Right now we're at three, with plans for a fourth and fifth. Does anyone remember The Land Before Time? That great little movie about the dinosaur friends? Well, we all used to love it....until it became fatally tainted by the 12 and counting sequels that dragged it's name through the mud with their ludicrous plots, crappy animation and horrible songs. There's a lesson in that fate for you makers of Shrek, if you catch my drift. However, I have no trouble believing that Toy Story is a classic. Pixar's first feature opened the door to not only a new style of popular animation, but is famous for telling stories that could only be told in animation, from a point of view rarely heard. Toy Story is the patriarch of this legacy and wears it's crown well.

There are still 5 more, but I'm tired and I bet you are too. Short list: Crumb is a much-praised documentary, unseen by me, that will need a hearty boost of fans to retain classic status; A Room With a View is great, but only here because Daniel Day-Lewis is awesome, Merchant/Ivory championed the period piece, and there are no other strictly "period piece" films on this list; This is Spinal Tap is a legend and will stay one; Hannah and Her Sisters is my favorite Woody Allen film, but I think Crimes and Misdemeanors is generally considered his '80's classic; and as for Blue Velvet? David Lynch is a crazy, rule-bending director, and a rarity in this business. His films are arty and incomprehensible and original and beautiful, and I don't get them at all. He deserves a film on this list and Blue Velvet is his most well-known, though I haven't seen it. I wouldn't be surprised if both it and Mullholland Drive are considered his classics for years to come.

So we're done! Yay! I'd ask you to comment, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't and I'm just gonna have to be all right with that. I, and other bloggers who wrote about this list, certainly thought it would be more of a button-pusher and debate-starter than it has since turned out to be. Which is unfortunate. I really did want to know what you guys thought "classic" meant in film standards. Oh well, another time, perhaps. :)

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Texting @ the Movies

This morning I was making my usual blog rounds, looking for the next great read, when I came across "Texting? Hold Up" over at the Movie Dearest blog. I glanced it over, found I agreed that people who text during movies (in the theater) are mostly annoying and deserve some lessons in movie etiquette. Then I put it out of my mind and went to see the matinee showing of The Dark Knight at the Rio in Sweet Home...

...where lo and behold, I encountered my personal Case Exa
mple #3,091 of "Don't text during the movie!" It was a doozy.


First of all, I have never expected the same level of theater respect from the people of Sweet Home who congregate at the Rio; I don't want to sound like a snob, but years of growing up in this town, with that theater as the only public movie house within the city limits, has taught me that the Rio theater is nothing more than a holding cell for disrespectful teenagers on a Saturday night. Whatever the movie, they show up in droves, take over entire rows, and bunker down for a night of gossip, relationship drama, cell phone merry-go-round, and lots of loud, riveting chatter. And no offense to kids, who can be lovely, but the Rio usually has a hearty dose of fussy kids in attendance as well, probably because (except for Sunday) the 7pm showing of any movie is the earliest available for a child to attend in Sweet Home. Suffice to say, it's never been my favorite venue, and I usually go elsewhere.

But on this particular Sunday, after being inundated with blog gossip about the awesomeness of The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger's performance, Aaron Eckart's make-up as Two-Face, blah di blah, I was really in the mood to see the movie as soon as possible. And whala! The Rio managed to book The Dark Knight it's opening weekend. So my parents and I decided to go.


Our first mistake was choosing seats farther away from the teenagers. The decision was between 5 open seats directly behind a full row of 14 year-olds, or 4 open seats behind no one, and next to a sweet-looking 10 year-old boy; we chose to sit near the boy. Big mistake, and not because of the boy: because of his turd of a mother. This woman was rather rotund, in her '40's, quiet and calm. Seemed like a normal person to me. However, for the first third of the movie, she routinely whipped our her cell phone (one of the ones that open up to show a full keyboard, with a wider viewing screen, like Heather's) and proceeded to text every 5 minutes. Her screen was bright, her texting was slow, and her demeanor was in complete disregard to the growing rage inside of me and my mother. (One glance at the teenagers showed me they were watching the movie in rapt silence and attention - go figure.) Clearly I had a hard time getting into the spirit and tone of the movie (which was excellent, by the way) with the consistent blue glow setting off my features.

I spent this time coming up with clever ways to tell her off and send the message that texting right next to me was not going to be tolerated. I fantasized about grabbing her cell phone, exiting the theater, and throwing it into oncoming traffic. I considered whipping out my own cell phone and subtly shining it directly toward her face, much as one would blind a person with a well-positioned mirror in the sun. I imagined saying "Excuse me, I don't mean to be rude, but that texting is extremely inconsiderate, ruining this movie for me, and it would seem appropriate for your tubby, neglectful, uncivil ass to stop texting, shut the fuck up, and watch the goddamn movie." All in a perfectly calm voice of course. Obviously, I did not say this, however much it was warranted. Rather it was my mother who spoke up, as I knew she would if I didn't find a way to discreetly diffuse the problem, saying "You know, you're being really rude!" Well done, mom. And with an absolute economy of language. I think the lady got the message, although she did check her phone once more, bitch.


I don't purport to being perfect in this regard; there have been one or two occasions when I have texted during a theater film. However, in my defense, I only texted if I was expecting an important call from someone, about something important, and I only answered texts if I was in a fairly empty theater, sitting by myself, at least two rows away from the next nearest viewer. I try to be considerate - usually my phone goes untouched for the entirety of a film, at home as well as at the theater. Why don't other people get the message?


TEXTING DURING MOVIES IS RUDE! PAY ATTENTION! STOP BEING AN INCONSIDERATE ASSHOLE! ROBBIE DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW THAT "this movie is kewl!" GROW UP!


If you don't understand this, there really is no hope for you. (God help those who actually answer the phone during a movie - they are going straight to hell.) I considered leaning over to the woman after the film and whispering, "You are a rotten human being," but I thought that might be going too far. I'm still not sure letting her go was the right call.

Weekly Links

Definitely several Batman themed posts and lists this week, but for my money, read the Fight Club essay, the two lists about replacement actors/recasting, and the line-up of actors who should play villains in the Batman sequels, or characters in Tarantino's new flick.


Saturday, July 19, 2008

Rant: The Emmys

I think I'm officially through with the Emmys. I tried to get on board the last couple of years - I was stoked to see "The Office" win Best Comedy for Season 2, I tuned in for "The Sopranos" swan song" - but the nominations just annoy the crap out of me. Unlike the Oscars, which feature different movies and performances every year, The Emmys are just the same also-ran shows from last year, the same actor getting his umpteenth nomination for a less-than-stellar show. And even when the Academy does something right and gets a great new show a whole slew of nominations, they invariably include a whole host of schmucks who don't deserve it. In no particular order, here are my beefs with this year:

  • The Emmys reward "stand-alone" television. Each show submits one episode as en example. Each actor submits one episode that is judged. This kind of process rewards clip-worthy moments (like a breakdown, a crying fit, a mere one episode worth of credible story-telling) but it puts shows that tell long-term stories, build on mythology, and follow character arcs at an extreme disadvantage, especially for many actors whose arcs need to be viewed in their entirety to be fully appreciated.
  • Mary McDonnell didn't make the final cut for Battlestar Galactica but Mariska Hargitay did for the bizillionth time for SVU. That drives me nuts! I don't see how this panel could watch a clip of McDonnell in her submitted episode ("Faith") and not be completely bowled over. McDonnell was that show's best chance at a nom and without her, BSG is once again criminally overlooked!
  • The list of Best Comedy noms is ridiculous: Two and a Half Men? Curb Your Enthusiasm? Entourage? I'm sick of seeing all three of these shows show up (especially since critics have deemed each of these most-recent seasons some of their weakest). Even The Office, which I sincerely love, didn't have it's best year. It probably only won the nomination on the strength of the season finale, which was not indicative of the season as a whole. It would have made me happier to see other short-list contenders Pushing Daisies, Flight of the Conchords, or Weeds get the nod. Even How I Met Your Mother had a more consistent season. (Also, Charlie Sheen and Tony Shalhoub (6 noms, 3 wins!) got nominated for Best Actor again! Aaahhh!!!)
  • I don't think Sandra Oh should have gotten a Supporting Actress nod. Like Katherine Heigl, her character was severely mishandled by the Grey's Anatomy writers this year, and she too was given little material worthy of a nomination. The only reason she's here is because of the ONE kick-ass speech she got, and delivered flawlessly, in episode 14. The nom should have been given to Mad Men's January Jones or Christina Hendricks, or In Treatment's Mia Wasikowska.
  • The slew of nominations for Boston Legal? Who knew that show still existed? It may be decent, but in no way deserved it's Best Drama, Actor (James Spader), Supporting Actor (William Shatner), or Supporting Actress (Candice Bergen) nominations over many more deserving candidates. Most critics are of the opinion that Boston Legal is more of a comedy or farce these days, so giving away nominations that should have rightfully belonged to Kyle Chander or Connie Britton in Friday Night Lights, Robert Sean Leonard in House, Henry Ian Cusack in Lost, or Jill Clayburg or Donald Sutherland in Dirty Sexy Money is just scandalous! And how about giving the criminally ignored The Wire, Battlestar Galactica or Friday Night Lights a shot at the Best Drama prize instead?
  • It was nice to see Amy Poehler recognized for her work on Saturday Night Live with a Supporting Actress nomination, but I think Dana Delany also deserved a spot for helping re-energize Desperate Housewives with her layered portrayal of Katherine Mayfair. I would have scrubbed Holland Taylor in Two and Half Men.
  • The musical score of BSG wasn't nominated???? I know I give that show a lot of credit, but the one thing it does better than anybody is it's amazing musical score by Bear McCreary. Sets the tone for the entire show and is as good as any film score. Meanwhile, Family Guy and The Simpsons scored music nods. Travesty. (Although, I'll give the Academy some credit for giving BSG writing ("Six of One") and cinematography ("He That Believeth in Me") nods.)
I will give the show it's proper due in the drama category; with the exception of Boston Legal - Mad Men, Dexter, Lost, House, and Damages all had quality years. I also commend the recognition of Bryan Cranston (of "Malcolm in the Middle" fame) as Best Actor nominee for Breaking Bad, as well as the nominations for Michael Emerson (Ben on Lost), the many guest actor noms for 30 Rock (no other show does it better), as well as the acting noms for Pushing Daisies, Mad Men and TV-movie "Recount." However, these well-dones don't make up for a consistent delivery of rejections and disappointments that never seem to end. (Maybe I just never got over the terminal ignorance of Lauren Graham's amazing work on Gilmore Girls.)

Two sides of the same argument: Newsweek liked this year's noms (which were better than usual, not saying much), and TWoP, which had quite a few bones to pick. Click the links to read more. Also, The Envelope site has their Emmy wishlist, and their Alternate Award Categories. And for anyone who wants even more (who am I kidding - I'm the only one who reads this much crap!) EW's list of the Top 25 Emmy snubs.

Funny Office Video

I was shuffling around on Youtube the other day, catching up on the latest offerings from Gossip Girl and Battlestar Galactica fans, when I came across a great Dwight/Jim vid. It's horribly uncomfortable (like the show itself) that because it's edited so well, it actually appears as if Jim is harboring a huge crush on Dwight. Totally cracked me up!




Or if you prefer a Michael/Dwight pairing. Or another Dwight/Jim to the "Best of Friends" song from The Fox and the Hound.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

EW's "The New Classics" Part Three


Hey everybody! We're halfway done! I'm getting the impression (from the egregious lack of commenting from ANYONE, save Heather, finally!) that you're not too keen on the "let's talk about yet another list in mind-numbing detail" idea. Did I read you right? Well, take heart, dear readers! T
here's only two installments left and you've already read about 6% of this one! Good on you!

Once again, here's the link to EW's comments about this section, and this is what we're gonna try with this one: I'm gonna do all the heavy lifting (read the analysis or don't, I won't really ever know) but look at the list and comment with one film you think is a definite classic, and one film you think everyone will have forgotten about in 2028. Think you can do that for me so I don't run crying to my room over the compete abandonment of my blog? Can you give a girl a break? Pleeeeeease??? :)

50. The Piano (1993)
49. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
48. Scarface (1983)

47. Men in Black (1997)
46. Children of Men (2006)
45. Rain Man (1988)

44. The Player (1992)
43. Gladiator (2000)
42. Clueless (1995)
41. Dazed and Confused (1993)
40. Speed (1994)

39. The Sixth Sense (1999)
38. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
37. Pretty Woman (1990)
36. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
35. The Incredibles (2004)

34. Fargo (1996)
33. The Breakfast Club (1985)
32. Fight Club (1999)
31. Brokeback Mountain (2005)

30. When Harry Met Sally... (1989)
29. The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
28. Wings of Desire (1988)

27. Aliens (1986)
26. Hoop Dreams (1994)

At first glance, Scarface and Aliens jump out as tried and true classics. As I said in the AF
I blog, Scarface redefined a previous classic (the original 1932 Scarface), making it slicker, more luxurious and lot more violent. It was a master in style from director Brian DePalma. And Aliens is the epitome of a successful, suspenseful, rewarding, edge-of-your-seat popcorn flick. It also helps that "Say hello to my little friend!" and "Get away from her, you bitch!" have both become such iconic pop culture phrases. In addition to these titles, When Harry Met Sally..., The Breakfast Club, and Pretty Woman have pretty much proven their classic status by now, even if none of them can claim overwhelmingly long-lasting critical success. Pretty Woman is the ultimate fairytale and the film responsible for making us all fall in love with Julia Roberts, The Breakfast Club helped develop the serious teen flick and it's influence is still felt today, and When Harry Met Sally... is a cornerstone film in the romantic comedy genre, fueling the age-old question "Can men and women be friends?"

I didn't much bat my eyes at Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Dazed and Confused, Speed or Fargo either. CTHD was definitely a pop culture milestone (the first foreign film to pass $100 million) and it's particular brand of dreamy action sequences was so new and different. However, it has been followed (perhaps even preceded) by a series of similar films (Hero, House of Flying Daggers) and it's hard to tell whether one of them won't be preferred in the future. Dazed and Confused is largely regarded as "Altman-light" due to it's sprawling cast, intersecting characters, and time constraints (Dazed all takes place in the course of a single day). However it's enduring popularity amongst high school and college students makes up for it's seeming lack of substance. Speed has long established it's dominance in the action genre, even despite a less-than-stellar 5th act, and Fargo, long considered a little Coen Brothers gem, has had it's status cemented with their recent Oscar success.

A few of the films I felt will be remembered more for the lead performances than for the film itself. The Piano won Holly Hunter an Oscar for her mute depiction of a woman's struggle for independence, but the film itself is rather uneven and strange. It's one of those films that critics love because they can see more deeply into what the film is attempting to accomplish, but it left me cold. Other than it's Best Director nomination for Jane Campion (only the second woman ever nominated for director) the film doesn't seem to have left much of a mark. The same can't be said for Rain Man, a film everyone has seen and can quote with much familiarity. It's a good film, and the performance of Dustin Hoffman is certainly iconic, but it seems to lose a little more respect every year when the Best and Worst Oscars are discussed. As for Gladiator, I'll try to keep my infamous prejudice aside, but I just don't think it's that great. It's good, it's enjoyable, and it certainly caused a stir, but the only thing it really deserves credit for is further establishing to the world the genius of Russell Crowe. He owns the film, and thanks to the film's success, he's been set up as one of the best actors of his generation, deservingly so. I suppose this film will be likened to older classics Spartucus and Ben-Hur, but at least Ben-Hur had that amazing chariot race; I don't think Gladiator has a single scene of such power, as good as it is. Brokeback Mountain, on the other hand, is a delicately balanced and lonely film, and made history as one of the first homosexual films treated as an epic romance and featuring well-known Hollywood beefcakes kissing. And as much as I love it and hope it remains thought of as a classic, I wouldn't be surprised if down the road the film is mainly remembered as the astounding swan song performance of Heath Ledger. As I've said before, it's just too soon to tell.

Looking over the list, only one title jumped out at me and said, "I don't belong here!" and it was Men in Black. It's funny, it has a clever premise, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have good chemistry, and thanks to it's success, Smith is now "Mr. July" and summer movies are all the loud, franchised, big-budgeted rage. But it's not THAT great. Neither is Clueless, really. It's also clever and so much fun, but it's constant '90's references, not to mention insane fashion, are really going to appear dated, of they don't already. It'll be like the Valley Girl of our generation: cute, beloved, but not a classic. Two action sequels appeared on this list (The Bourne Supremacy and Spiderman 2) which intrigued me. I think it's too early to single out Supremacy as the lone classic of the Bourne franchise as last summer's Ultimatum is considered the best by many. Spiderman 2 is one of the best superhero movies ever made, but even I thought it seemed widely overpraised then, and I don't see it retaining classic status now, especially if this summer's The Dark Knight is as good as everyone's claiming. But it's very good and in this superhero infatuated state, it's hard to tell what will stand out from the rubble after the mania has worn itself out.

Children of Men doesn't seem like a classic at this stage, but I could easily believe it becoming the Blade Runner of this generation with it's depiction of a bleak, dystopian future. Hoop Dreams, The Player, and Wings of Desire (a 1988 foreign film which I believe was the original premise for City of Angels) ar
e all critic's darlings, but will require massive word of mouth to be talked of outside prestigious film publications in the future. If M. Night Shyamalan continues his descent into crappy filmmaking, The Sixth Sense will be thought of as a total fluke, possibly dismissed. As good as it is, I think some of his other films are just as accomplished, and if Shyamalan can pull it together and redeem himself in the critical eye, I see no reason why some of his other films won't be seen as classics someday. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind should retain it's status based on the sheer original audacity of it's plot (and part of Kate Winslet's considerable body of work). The Incredibles doesn't seem as sure to me, if only because no one seems able to reach a consensus on which Pixar films are the classics (other than it's first, Toy Story, appearing later on this list); is it Finding Nemo? The action adventure James Bond spoof, The Incredibles? Will Monsters Inc. regain it's fame? Will new sensation Wall-E become the gold standard? It's impossible to conjecture, although I would be thrilled if The Incredibles remained a classic: it's incredible.

As for Fight Club, I see the same debate every year: Fight Club or Seven? There seems to be agreement that one of David Fincher's films should be considered his masterpiece. The problem is, no one agrees on which film is the best, or even if either film is good. Fight Club is criticized for it's blatant violence and fascism, while Seven is chastised for it's fascination with a serial killer that seems to romanticize his methods. I read an excellent essay at Scanners, defending the attitudes and metaphors employed by Fight Club - read it if you're a fan who needs some amo. While I think both of these are great films, I will say that I prefer the physical brutality of Fight Club, which in no way compares to the moral and emotional violence I experienced in watching Seven; I have seldom felt so repelled, sickened and dirty after a viewing.

Anyone notice my tendency to think there can be only one classic film per director, or specific genre, or company? Is Pixar only allowed one classic? Why can't Crouching Tiger, and the entire array of copycats it either spawned or made prominent, be classics, or defining genre? I don't know. It's that need to spread the wealth around, not favor one filmmaker over another, to continually rate and rank. No justification for it, really. I will try to stop.

And please, comment on something I wrote or brought up here. I would really appreciate it. :)