Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda: Oscar Miscalculations and Make-ups

I read something the other day about how almost all writing done about the Oscars - at least on the internet - is negative squabble about how and when they got it wrong. Totally fair point. And this post will do nothing to contradict that; in fact I've kind of written about this exact trend, the make-up Oscar, before. It's just a phenomenon that is already too prevalent in Oscar history to ignore. This list focuses solely on acting prizes, specifically Best Actor. I watched a TCM documentary about the history of the Oscars a couple weeks ago and there were two great quotes that I feel are relevant to this discussion: director/screenwriter Phil Alden Robinson (the man behind Field of Dreams, so obviously a hero) said (paraphrasing), "People say 'How could you give that to so and so over so and so?' Well, the answer is, we took a vote." Of course, people are fallible; the list of winners is just a microcosm of what the Academy liked best at the time. The other great quote was from Ellen Burstyn, talking about the year she won Best Actress for Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, besting several tough competitiors (Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence and Faye Dunaway in Chinatown). Burstyn states, "Gena Rowlands was really wonderful in that movie. She deserved an Oscar for that performance. Not my Oscar, but an Oscar." Sometimes that's just the way things go down - there are more than one actor who deserves the top prize. The only major category tie in history was in 1968 when Barbra Streisand and Katherine Hepburn both won Best Actress. All that said, here are the most glaring examples of how ignoring a great actor's best work leads down a very messy path.


1943: Paul Lukas, Watch on the Rhine
This could be a spectacular performance; I can't honestly say having never seen it. My only beef is that it seems wrong that Humphrey Bogart didn't take the Top acting prize for his most iconic role as Rick in Casablanca. Had he won here, there would have been less chance of his receiving a make-up Oscar from the Academy in 1951 for The African Queen.


1943: Jennifer Jones, The Song of Bernadette
Ingrid Bergman wasn't nominated for Casablanca, but she was nominated the same year as Best Actress in For Whom the Bell Tolls, an equally great performance. But she was bested by young ingenue Jennifer Jones, leading to Bergman's make-up Oscar the following year...

1944: Ingrid Bergman, Gaslight
Bergman is perfectly serviceable in Gaslight, playing a woman whose husband preys on her fragile and innocent mind to convince her she's crazy. But that's all she really has to play. The great shame is that Bergman's recompense comes at the cost of Barbara Stanwyck's dynamite performance in Double Indemnity. Though nominated 4 times in her career, Stanwyck never won a competitive Oscar; she received an Honorary in 1982.


1948: Lawrence Olivier, Hamlet
Another year that could have belonged to Bogart, he played a complex, greedy, sometimes very unlikable character in John Huston's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and despite it being one of Bogart's most memorable and praised roles, he wasn't even nominated. So Olivier won for his turgid portrayal of Hamlet (a great play, but in too reverential hands the lead character is extremely unsympathetic and whiny).


1951: Humphrey Bogart, The African Queen
Had Bogart not been overlooked in years past, his Best Actor Oscar could have been for something more meaningful than this pandering adventure tale. The most notable fellow nominees that year were Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire and Montgomery Clift in A Place in the Sun, both giving greater performances. Clift would never win a competitive Oscar and his A Place in the Sun antihero is one of his best roles. Brando's performance in Streetcar was game changing and popularized "the method" acting technique. However, Brando deservedly won in 1954 for On the Waterfront and in 1972 for The Godfather, so it's not like he really lost out in the long run.

1965: Lee Marvin, Cat Ballou
First of all, Lee Marvin's dual role in Cat Ballou isn't even the lead. That would be Cat Ballou (Jane Fonda) seeking to avenge her father's death, with the help of a couple yokels (Michael Callan and Dwayne Hickham) and a drunk former gunslinger (Lee Marvin). Marvin also plays the evil masked killer of Cat's father. As the bad guy, we never really get to see anything, the character is so shrouded and distant, and as the drunken gunfighter, Marvin is so over-the-top it's hard to take any aspect of the movie seriously. Marvin had a long and illustrious career in Westerns and War films, often playing the muscle or 2nd banana in such films as The Caine Mutiny, The Dirty Dozen, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Professionals, and The Big Red One. But his performance in Cat Ballou is preposterous and not even a leading performance. Losing to Marvin is the closest Richard Burton would ever come to winning a competitive Oscar; he was nominated the same year for The Spy Who Came In From The Cold.


1974: Art Carney, Harry and Tonto
Aww, shucks, Art Carney is really sweet in Harry and Tonto, and in a less competitive year I would have no problem with the former "Honeymooners" comedian taking top honors. But 1974 was a pretty special year: Jack Nicholson was nominated for Chinatown, Al Pacino was nominated for The Godfather Part II, and Dustin Hoffman was nominated as foul-mouthed comedian Lenny Bruce in Lenny. Luckily when they made it up to Jack Nicholson the next year, he won for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, possibly a more iconic performance than Chinatown. But for Pacino....well, take a look at 1992.


1986: Paul Newman, The Color of Money
The Academy gave Newman an Honorary Oscar the year before, but then he went and reprised his role from The Hustler in Scorcese's The Color of Money, and suddenly the Academy fell all over themselves to give him a competitive Oscar. In so doing they completely robbed Bob Hoskins who took the Golden Globe, BAFTA, Top Actor at Cannes and a variety of Top Critics awards for his leading role in Mona Lisa.

1992: Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman
The ultimate example of a make-up Oscar in practice. Pacino is undoubtedly a great actor whose enemy always seemed to be timing. His supporting nod for The Godfather was lost to Joel Grey in Cabaert, he lost to Jack Lemmon for Save the Tiger the year of his Serpico, his lead in The Godfather Part II was lost to Art Carney for Harry and Tonto, and when up for Dog Day Afternoon he was overlooked in favor of another perpetual nominee, Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. His series of nominated performances in the '80's and '90's all came to nothing, so in 1992 the Academy took it's chance and finally gave Pacino an Oscar for his rather hammy role in Scent of a Woman. Unfortunately, Denzel Washington gave the performance of his career, and the best performance of the year, in Malcolm X. Now Washington is owed a make-up Oscar, huh?


1995: Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite
Sorvino is charming in Woody Allen's 1995 film, but a rather one-note caricature. How exciting would it have been to see Kate Winslet actually win for her spunky, passionate Marianne in Sense and Sensibility? Or Joan Allen (in what was actually a leading actress role) as the beleaguered wife of Nixon? Or the always great Mare Winningham in Georgia? (People have largely forgotten about Winningham; today she's most remembered for playing Meredith Grey's doomed stepmother in "Grey's Anatomy," but she was always a top-notch actress.) Point being, there were better choices that year, and someday Joan Allen may be receiving a make-up Oscar as well. Winslet already got hers in 2008 for The Reader - although when you're talking about Winslet, the performances are almost always uniformly deserving.


2001: Denzel Washington, Training Day
Sure, Washington already had a Supporting Oscar for 1989's Glory, but the heir to the legacy of Sidney Poitier surely deserved his own Best Actor statuette. He was denied after great performances in 1992's Malcolm X and 1999's The Hurricane and the Academy wasn't going to let that happen again. So he won for playing against type as the thug of Training Day. I actually thought that Russell Crowe's best performance occurred in 2001 for A Beautiful Mind, but as he was already awarded the year before, it was easier to get Denzel the Best Actor Oscar he deserved. Tom Wilkinson also lost out for his subtle work in In the Bedroom.


2009: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Bullock's Oscar is not exactly a makeup, and I don't think any great harm was done by not giving it to Meryl Streep for Julie and Julia. But as lovable as Bullock is, The Blind Side is a trumped up Afternoon Special on Lifetime, and while her performance is strong, it's not Oscar-worthy. Had Bullock lost, the award would most likely have gone to Streep, and then the Academy wouldn't have felt the need to give it to her for The Iron Lady in 2011 (although Streep had won twice before, her last victory was in 1982: that's 27 years and a further 12 nominations out and Streep couldn't be left in the cold for too much longer, Katherine Hepburn won Best Actress 3 times in the latter half of her career," the Academy noted distressingly), and Viola Davis could have won for The Help. Also nominated in 2009 were Gabourey Sidibe for Precious, and Carey Mulligan giving a confident and layered performance in An Education. (Potential make-up Oscar situations now brewing for Davis, Mulligan and Sidibe.)

2009: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Jeff Bridges is awesome and I love him and while his performance in Crazy Heart is typically good, it's nothing extraordinary. But the Academy started getting worried when they saw the Dude had turned 60 and had been passed over for Supporting Actor in '71, '74 and '00 for The Last Picture Show, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot and The Contender, respectively, as well as losing Best Actor for Starman in 1984. And somehow it was deemed the year of Jeff Bridges. I thought George Clooney showed new depth in Up in the Air, but the real winner was Colin Firth's heartbreaking performance in A Single Man. Firth says so much with silence. He deserved it that year. Yes, Firth did win the following year for perhaps an equally great performance as the noble, stuttering King Bertie in The King's Speech, and I can't say it was undeserved. But if Firth had won the previous year, then Jesse Eisenberg would have had a much better shot of winning for The Social Network in 2010, an assured performance at least equal to Firth's. This one is not a travesty, but Bridges most definitely won a make-up Oscar in 2009.



As a final lead-up to Oscar day (!) I hope that was satisfying. If you prefer to focus on the positive, here's a list of my favorite Oscar dresses (though the list is 6 years old).

An Ode to Brenda Walsh

 

As many of you already know, I have been steadily making my way through all 10 seasons of "90210" thanks to the kindness of Soapnet's infinite reruns. I started in Season 6 about seven months ago and am now nearing the halfway point of Season 5. And as I slog through Dylan's alcoholism and Andrea's stupid early marriage, I can't believe how much I miss Brenda Walsh. Supposedly Shannon Doherty was such a bitch on the set that when she didn't want to return after Season 4, they happily sent her on her merry way. If only we knew then what we know now.

Regardless of what she was like behind the scenes, her absence had a hugely negative impact on the show. Without Brenda, there was no one to challenge St. Brandon and his patronizing reign as the most hypocritical good guy ever. Without Brenda, Kelly became the lead female and in the absence of any other complex females around, she was whitewashed and we entered the "Kelly" years where her blameless antics included almost dying in a fire, a cocaine addiction, her "I choose me" bullshit, a single-white-female stalker, almost joining a cult, the wedding that wasn't, a rape, a gunshot wound that gave her amnesia, and being rewritten as Dylan's one and only true love. Without Brenda, the love triangle to rival all love triangles was reduced to some half-hearted blather from Kelly and Dylan and Valerie basically attempting to BE Brenda. Brenda Walsh, wherefore art thou? (Despite Valerie's usefulness in knocking Kelly off her undeserved pedestal from time to time, she was a thoroughly horrible character - mean and spiteful and full of stupid schemes and faux indignation - I HATE Valerie. The fact that she was brought on as Shannon Doherty's replacement is a failure of epic proportions.)


With Brenda (as Laverne, the gum-popping, singing waitress):

Without Brenda:

But Brenda's appeal did not exist only to prevent bad storylines: she was a wonderfully written character on her own. She screwed up more times than anyone (forbidden trips to Tijuana with Dylan, providing fodder for an expose' on rich teens, cheating on her boyfriend with Paris-Rick, getting arrested for vandalising an animal testing lab, trying to get married in Vegas to a guy she'd only been dating for a month, bitching-slapping Andrea in a fight over their drama teacher (actually that was awesome because the only character as bad as Valerie is self-righteous Andrea), and yet through it all, she never lost that spark of relatability. And she always owned up to her mistakes and apologized. Sincerely. She wasn't afraid of speaking her mind or following an unknown path: for all the later talk of Dylan choosing Kelly over Brenda, it was Brenda who broke up with Dylan both times because she was brave enough to put herself first. She did the "I choose me" thing long before Kelly and in a far more honest way. She chose finding out about the complexities of herself over holding onto a guy she may not always want. And she did it with compassion and uncertainty. She didn't have all the answers, just a desire to seek them out. That shows a lot more gumption than she ever really got credit for from the other characters.

In fact, the way Brenda and the show handled her big breakup from Dylan and subsequent betrayal by both him and Kelly, was one of the most realistic portrayals I've ever seen. It took the rest of Season 3 to sort all that out - Brenda didn't speak to either of them for several episodes and even then she never fully let Kelly back into her heart. She even tried to go to college in Minnesota to get a fresh start. Dylan and Brenda dancing at the prom ("You know, I'm almost over you," "Yeah, me too.") felt so real and bittersweet (excuse me for relating a little too much over here).

My point is, Brenda Walsh rocked. I'm sure someone with a more absolute grasp of the 90210 universe could rip my theory of her as the best character to shreds if they had half a mind to, and I'm okay with that. I'll just go back and watch Brenda do her Laverne again and bask in the glow of knowing I'm right.

Celebrity Deaths

At the risk of sounding like a heartless bastard, why does everyone care so much about the death of Paul Walker? Apart from the sadness of someone so young passing too early in such an ironic way (a car crash from the star of the Fast and the Furious franchise), is this really the most tragic thing that happened? Of course we are sad for his family, especially his young daughter, and we wonder how the neverending saga of his franchise will continue, but was everyone out there a closet Paul Walker fanatic and never told me? Where were all these people when his non-Fast and the Furious movies bombed? Was everyone secretly clamoring for more Paul Walker behind my back? I'm sure he has his fans and Lord knows he was an especially attractive specimen of man, but I feel like the blowback of chatter surrounding his death is overdone. People die everyday and while this is sad and deserves respect, I just don't feel it warrants this kind of outpouring.

Unless you were a true fan - then outpour your little hearts out. I swear I'm not heartless. This just feels like people jumping on a bandwagon to me. If someone is deserving of this attention now, they should have been deserving before - and by the absolute lack of media focus of him, he wasn't. It feels hypocritical and false to pretend he was a icon of the acting world now when no one really cared before. That said, on a personal level of course this is sad - to those who knew and loved him. Not to unknowns on Facebook.

Update: I just read this piece over at, where else, Pajiba and it really explains all this unease about the retconning of Paul Walker's fame/appeal much better than I can. Those writers just get me, man.

10 Pop Culture Gems Ruined By My Break-Up

In no particular order and with absolutely no context...

• How I Met Your Mother: The season in which we finally get a resolution to the longest and most inappropriate story to ever tell your children, WE HAVE SIGHTED THE ACTUAL MOTHER, and yet I remain unmotivated.
• "No One" by Alicia Keys: Gah. Can't even. Turn the radio station off and leave the store. Immediately.
• Stranger Than Fiction: F*** you Maggie Gyllenhaal and your oddly appealing chipmunk cheeks. (Wreckless Eric's "Whole Wide World" is still firmly delightful.)
• "I Will Always Love You": Dolly or Whitney, ironically or not, even in that great episode of Gilmore Girls. Nope. No more.
• Pride and Prejudice: The book, the miniseries, the movie - in all it's forms this story and all the hope and goodwill it engenders are galling right now. Give me Marianne Dashwood and her melodramatic wailing!
• Kung Fu Panda: Apparently The Iron Giant  will be the only non-Disney cartoon to which my future hypothetical children are ever exposed. (Whoops, forgot about The Brave Little Toaster - tainted, but not ruined.)
• "I Will Wait For You" by Mumford and Sons: Really anything by Mumford and Sons. Too bad, I really like their style.
• Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling and Crazy Stupid Love: Steve Carell remains unaffected. My love for him pre-dates any romantic affiliations. (You're a double negative, indeed.)
• My Big Fat Greek Wedding: In which a dowdy 30 year-old virgin (who still lives with her parents) meets the perfect, gorgeous man of her dreams and gets her long-awaited happily ever after. Bullshit. DON'T WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE 30!!! That's insanity and it doesn't help a damn thing.
• "I Don't Know Much" by Aaron Neville and Linda Ronstadt: My history with this predates anything else on this list, and yet it is still somehow irrevocably spoiled. I guess there was a lot more that I needed to know.

Honorable Mention: "I Won't Give Up" by Jason Mraz, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, all of Adele's "21" album, multiple episodes of "Sex and the City," Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and the entire Kevin and Winnie storyline from "The Wonder Years."


And in the "Should Be Ruined, But Aren't" Category we have:

• "Love the Way You Lie" by Eminem feat. Rhianna: But only in private.
• Fringe: Need to get Netflix so I can figure out what the hell is going on!
• Anything to do with Harry Potter:  Too important to the fabric of the universe to fall prey to something as common as a break-up.
• Jennifer Lawrence and Silver Linings Playbook: She will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine.
• "Mr. Brightside" by The Killers: Just so damn good. And memories of certain people singing this song soooo off-tempo will always bring a smile to my face.

Things Annoying Me Today...

• Nancy Grace and her endlessly yapping mouth! I realize that the case of Caley and Casey Anthony (the 2-year old apparently killed by her mom) is hot news and right up Nancy's aisle of sensationalistic journalism revolving around the deaths of young children, but if I have to listen to her call Casey Anthony "tot mom" one more time, I'm gonna seriously slash my wrists. It's one thing to debate the case on your show, but shouting down anyone who doesn't immediately advocate for the death penalty and makes any point apart from "the prosecution is gonna slam dunk this case because "tot mom" is 100% guilty and there's nothing else to discuss" is getting so old. And her constant "tot mom" refrain just seems like a pathetic and demeaning attempt to make the story compact and soundbitey (similar to the horrendous moniker "Octomom").
• All the press coverage of the Sascha Baron Cohen Bruno movie. It might be hilarious - I thought Borat was a riot - but I'm already sick of seeing this guy show up everywhere in character looking like a goddamn rejected stunt cupid with Zoolander face. It's making me not want to EVER see your movie, dude! The upside of Michael Jackson's death is that it's pushed this loser off the front burner on E News (not that I'm particularly proud I watch that), but now I'm sick of the MJ coverage on every single news station. Can't win.
• Those Credit Report dot com commercials seem personally aimed at me in order to make me feel as pathetic as possible. Isn't it bad enough that I'm in massive debt without being reminded of the fact that I may end up a decrepit spinster as a result? "Hey loser, not only will you never be able to by a brand new car but your husband's gonna leave you!!! How do you like dem apples?!!?" What if I promise my future prospective husband that even though I'm his "dream girl with bad credit" we won't live in my parent's basement? (They don't have one, ha!) And what's really so bad about working at a Renaissance Faire anyway?
• Is Pixar sexist? So that's a huge exaggeration of the issue at hand. Apparently a female writer at NPR posted an open letter to Pixar requesting a female lead in one of the upcoming films. (See the original letter here.) This has sprouted a lot of controversy and an extreme distortion of her request. Cinematical has covered this debate and links to another blogger's overly defensive response: "Dear Pixar, How about a Chick Flick?" (See that article with link to the "Chick Flick" post here.) So now both sides are getting overly reactionary. The feminists are complaining about the lack of female leads in the Pixar cartoons and the guys are complaining about feminist shit that wants everything to be politically correct. But here is what I think the actual point of that open letter was: Pixar, you make the best cartoons around. And though you have created a lot of great female characters, the stories haven't been theirs - they've been supporting characters. And since you're the best around, could you please make one of your future flicks about an awesome female lead who's not a princess, cause the lead female characters are always princesses. That's all. It's not a criticism of Pixar or their films, or a request for there to be an equal number of male/female films. Just that we'd like to someday see a Pixar cartoon where Ellie from Up or Violet from The Incredibles were the main character.
  

But there are a couple of redeeming bits of pop culture on the horizon...

• I found this great clip of an SNL "Sex and the City" sketch with Christina Aguilera doing a kick-ass impersonation of Samantha. It gave me a chuckle. This is the only clip of it I could find.
  

• I really liked ABC's recently canceled mid-season replacement show "The Unusuals." It had a great cast (Harold Perrineau, Adam Goldberg, and Amber Tamblyn to name a few) but the guy that stuck out to me was Jeremy Renner. I've seen this guy around a lot, mostly in small, forgettable roles, and Elizabeth likes to tell me he was terrifying in a movie about Jeffrey Dahmer (where he starred), but other than that, don't know much about the guy. But after watching him in "The Unusuals" he's on my radar, I have a little crush, like his ability to be tough and tender and funny and cute. His current film, The Hurt Locker, is getting great reviews, so be on the lookout for that if you're interested. (Reviews of The Hurt Locker: Stephanie Zacharek, Entertainment Weekly, Pajiba)

What Were They Thinking???

• In a shrewd, greed-driven move, Warner Brothers has set back the release date for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (originally intended for this November 18) to next July 17. WTF!!! It would be one thing if the film were unfinished, but this ploy is purely to take advantage of the perceived movie drought next summer enabled by the recent writer's strike. This news was announced yesterday and today the Fall Movie Preview edition of Entertainment Weekly arrived at my door with a huge Harry Potter mug on the cover and a generous story inside. Great timing, Warner Brothers. At least now I know why you took so long to release the teaser trailer. If this affects the intended fall release date for The Deathly Hallows, Part One (the seventh film, due in fall 2010) or Part Two (due in summer 2011), heads will roll!
• Ever since I saw the first trailer for Beverly Hills Chihuahua I couldn't believe it was real. Those shamelessly pandering "Yo quiero Taco Bell" ads were occasionally cute, but do I really want to see an entire film about a talking chihuahua that acts like Paris Hilton's dog? No. So you can understand why is was disheartening to learn that Drew Barrymore is one of the leading voice talents on the film. Oh, Drew, why? I know she is occasionally too cute for comfort, but she seems like a genuinely sweet girl with a decent head on her shoulders, is one of the few big child star to movie mogul success stories out there, and the kind of girl it might be nice to have as a friend. (Am I projecting here? Maybe?) But there was no need for her to voice a chihuahua named Chloe! That's over the line, Ms. Barrymore!
• TNT's been running previews for it's new Law & Order clone franchise, "Raising the Bar" with star Mark-Paul Gosselaar. And his hair. Which requires it's own incomplete sentence because it is so heinous. Buddy, I know it's probably been tough to get away from your excellent altar ego, Zach Morris, and his ever-bleached blonde hair, but you've already gone brunette and put in 3 successful seasons on "NYPD Blue"; there was no need to grow a Tarzan-like coif for the role of a lawyer! Or is he a hippie lawyer? Works for the ACLU? Renegade, fighting the system troublemaker? Still - that hair must go if you plan on any of your former fans following you to TNT. This is just not gonna cut it.

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 comment 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 cheery, 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.

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 and 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 of 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 Bosworth: 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?

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 Example #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.

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.

How Poster Art Becomes DVD Swill

As evidenced by my blog (and the way I decorate my bedroom), I'm a big fan of movie posters. I consider many to be art. Which is why I am so angry at the way they are transformed when a movie comes out on DVD: more than half the time the artistry of the original poster is replaced with an oversimplified concept involving the lead actors' heads being blown up real big and plastered all over the cover. Once in a while, this works (Almost Famous), but more often than not, it ruins the original concept for me. Here are some examples of wonderful posters turned into sloppy DVD covers. (Original posters are the the left, DVD covers on the right.)

• Crime #1: Disney and other children's films - This is probably the least offensive to me. They are kids movies and the changes make the covers more colorful and full of characters which does appeal to its target audience. Artistically, I prefer the earlier incarnations because they have an element of mystery and magic, whereas the cover versions are loud and lacking in nuance, but as they are intended for children, they don't bother me as much.

• Crime #2: Mucking up the tone of the poster by unartfully covering it with actor's faces. I don't have a problem with the actors being featured prominently on the cover, but there are good and bad ways to go about it. None of the DVD covers below are awful, but in the case of both Sense and Sensibility and The Departed, the original film poster managed to have the actors on display without resorting to obvious plastering. In the case of Zodiac, the movie poster casts the perfect tone for the film, while the DVD cover has the faces of the lead actors weirdly hanging in space. And the poster for Bend it Like Beckham was creative in displaying it's subject and tone, while the DVD is just a typical shot of the lead actresses. Why did these posters need to be changed? They got the job done the first time.

• Crime #3: Bastardization of old film posters for new DVD release. In some cases this action is understandable. The style of movie posters in older films is radically different from the style of poster employed today. However, there are plenty of examples of a wonderful poster from an older film being given a craptastic DVD makeover - not better or more colorful, but rather sticking the figures from the movie over a generic background. I hate that!

• Crime #4: Changing the thematic concept of the poster. The incense caused by this is of course dependent on the individual's subjective taste, but for me these examples take on original visual style or an idea exemplified in the film and through the poster art, and changes it into something less. Vertigo's poster is a great example of a simple concept visually represented in the circular pattern of the graphic poster - in comparison, the DVD cover is just so prosaic. The poster for A History of Violence shows a man confronted by a gun, an object of violence in another's hand, but the DVD poster shows him as a typical action hero, gun in his own hand. In the original, he is confronted by a choice, in the second he has taken action; the agency of who has the gun is half the point of that movie and the original poster represented that well. I also prefer the artistic, puppetmaster, b&w theme of The Godfather poster over the shot of Marlon Brando on the DVD, and prefer the stylized posters for V for Vendetta over the DVD cover: the film was based on a graphic novel about a revolutionary, and the original posters stay true to that concept. The DVD prominently features Natalie Portman looking typically beautiful; it is not the strongest choice available. Of course, my personal taste, but each of these posters is a much greater concept than the DVD cover that replaced it.

Obviously, many of these are my own personal opinions and it may not make a difference to the average movie renter. I do understand that the changes made for DVD release are generally in the interest of making the movie more appealing to renters - by placing the actors faces on the cover potential buyers/renters will already know what films their favorite stars are appearing in, and bright colors, simple concepts, tend to get their attention easier. I get it - it's a business and money must be made. But it saddens me to see all of these great artistic posters replaced by third-rate crap; I buy the movies too and I have to look at these DVD covers forever! Shouldn't I get to choose my own artwork?!?