Is the entertainment industry the only place where it's OK to objectify men and women?
The argument that, if Hollywood and the entertainment industry at large objectify women, this is okay would be that those in the industry put themselves out there for judgment - their entire lives are defined by the opinions of other people. Those opinions may center on their appearance, but actors are also admired for their talent, wit, personality, and poise. Actors (both male and female) are hired for many reasons and attractiveness is amongst these reasons.
This is, of course, something that would not stand in pretty much any other profession. But at the same time, I wonder, is the entertainment industry's objectification of both women AND men something that makes it more or less progressive than other industries?
Men, sit down and shut up because this is for the women. Honestly, when was the last time any man felt like they were being judged by their appearance for a job interview? I don't want to hear men complaining about being objectified or judged by their appearance because, believe me, women have it worse. Luckily, at the tender age of twenty, I haven't experienced a job interview where I've been judged based on my appearance, probably because my jobs have been mostly minimum wage based professions (i.e. cashier, hostess, tour guide). But that doesn't mean I haven't felt the brunt of judgment about my appearance.
Let me break it down for you. I've had big boobs since I was 12 years old and I'm a natural blonde. I'm also 5'3. How many people do you think look at me and take me seriously, especially since I have a goofy, outgoing personality and a liking for feminine clothing? Men, how many of you have felt the judging eyes because you're short or fat? I apologize to anybody who is a minority because I know that race is another huge judgment point for people.
But women have been objectified for ages. What's the image that comes to mind when you think stripper? It's always going to be a girl, a skimpily dressed young woman. Porn stars, sex tapes, anything raunchy, you're probably going to be thinking about girls.
Celebrities and others within the entertainment industry who aren't necessarily defined as celebrities, on the other hand, are judged for their appearance no matter which gender. It's easy to make the argument that judging someone based on their appearance is wrong no matter what and I don't disagree. On the other hand, it's foolish for anyone to go into the entertainment industry thinking that their appearance won't be a part of their image. Whether it's the typical actor, that wants to be recognized for his or her work within their films or television series or other projects, or the more celebrity-based actor whose personal life is the center of attention, it's all about the appearance. In the former case, how well does the appearance of the actor fit the role? That's why actors get a lot of cred when they shake things up majorly for a role, say, gain or lose a lot of weight or drastically change their appearance so as to be unrecognizable. In the latter case, it's still about appearance, but about the actual, natural appearance outside of the movies and videos. Either way, actors are putting out their entire selves to be judged, and that includes their appearance.
So is it really unfair to then go ahead and deem someone attractive or unattractive? More often, people deem those in the entertainment industry attractive. Nobody really writes posts or articles about how unattractive someone is, and I doubt you'll find any genuine, credible source talking about the attractiveness/unattractiveness of celebrities or actors in the first place, save if it's about a role transformation.
I understand the harm of basing opinions of someone solely on their appearance, I really do. Nobody wants to be seen as just a pretty face - actors want to be taken seriously as actors and though appearance is a part of that, it's the praise for the talent that matters more than the praise for the appearance. My counter-argument, however, is that there is a line between playful "s/he's so hot" and derogatory comments like "s/he's just a pretty face." Is it really so wrong to drool over a Google image search of certain actors, so long as they're acknowledged as something more?
Well, I'll bring it back to me because I'm a selfish ho and I know myself pretty well and can't speak for everyone else. I love getting compliments on my appearance. I love getting comments on my talent as a filmmaker/musician/good person more, but I would never begrudge someone for thinking me attractive, so long as they know there's more to me than that.
Back on the sexism track, sometimes it's tough for me to think that people actually do see more to me than blonde hair and a big rack. I don't know, but, men, do you have the same problem? Do you feel as if women look at you and they only see what you look like and could never see you as something more than a man?
Historically speaking, though I know men also face objectification, men have always been more than just their appearance though. Men have always held jobs or positions or some role in the public world. Women, on the other hands, have been defined for centuries based on our womanhood and nothing else, because we didn't work, we didn't hold positions - all we were good for was being a woman (which entails: looking pretty, having kids, being present, etc.).
Do I feel for actors who are judged entirely on their appearance, regardless of their gender? Yes, I do. However, I feel a lot more for the women, to this day, who suffer from their gender in the workplace. Nobody would dare to call a man who worked as an office manager "just a secretary" but they would dare to call my mother that because she's a woman - she, as a woman, is a secretary and any other title is a joke, whereas it would be an insult for a man to ignore his actual title. God, what is this, Mad Men?
It may not be entirely right to judge actors based on their appearances, but it is part of their job. It is in no way, shape, or form part of an office worker's job to be judged on their appearance (well, maybe outside of their outfit; I'd judge a dude who wore a scuba suit to work, because that's just inappropriate - there is a certain dress code to working in the professional world). And though this may sound cruel, at least the entertainment industry is a bit more fair, ogling both men and women as attractive. Women definitely have a tougher time and are more scrutinized, but at least it's a bit more fair than the rest of the world.
Just keep on the right side of the line and don't cross over to pure appearance judgment and I don't see what's so wrong about appreciating beauty. It's not everything, it shouldn't be everything, but an appreciation is acceptable. I appreciate Alexander Skarsgard, for instance, both as a very attractive man and as a fantastic actor in his current role as Eric Northman in True Blood. He embodies the wit, slyness, and power of Eric very well. But, at the same time, I very much like the way he looks. Am I wrong?
I'm sure some might think so, but whatever.
(Inspired in part by a conversation had with a chap in the comments section of this EW.com post.)
Showing posts with label entertainment weekly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entertainment weekly. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Yet Another Reason I Hate Twilight... and some gender ranting
'scuse me that I'm bringing this up, but there's something interesting that was touched on in this article over on Entertainment Weekly that I addressed in the comments but felt was really worth sharing.
The quote that bothered me most?
“A grand paradox in all this is that a great many professed Twilight haters are young men who, though they may not acknowledge it, are threatened by this pop-cultural juggernaut.”
My response?
"To be quite fair, I am the exact demographic, a young woman, that Twilight is aimed at and I know plenty of young women just like me who are professed Twilight-haters. Sure, I believe that there are plenty of young men who hate Twilight, I know quite a few myself, but for young women like me, it’s hard not to be insulted by the creation of these books and their aim at people like me. The belief that I am a sucker for anything dazzling romantic just because I’m a young woman? Insulting. I mean, I can stomach some rom coms every now and then and sometimes I even actively seek them out, but story still matters, even then. Just like how I can’t stand a shrill heroine (a la Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – TBH that girl has every right to trash that role), I can’t stand a, not only passive, but downright inconsiderate and selfish heroine like Bella. Why would I ever want to watch or read about a girl who is supposed to be like me, but doesn’t appreciate anything in her life despite parents and friends who care about her? I would never want to be like Bella, and I think it is incredibly insulting that people think I should want to be like her just because I am a young woman."
All in all, women have more of a reason to be Twilight haters than men.
Men have plenty of their own say in pop culture - people make the argument that it's all them for the superhero movies, for things like Transformers and James Bond flicks or things like Star Wars or Star Trek. To be quite honest, that's a stupid, sexist stereotype as I am hardly a tomboy (love me some stilettos and skirts) but I have seen at least one movie in each of the aforementioned franchises and enjoyed them immensely. My favorite effing movie is probably Star Wars. But regardless, if the argument is that men are jealous of Twilight hogging some spotlight in pop culture, I think it is an immensely weak argument. If men were supposed to be the sexist stereotypes people write them out to be, they'd probably be thrilled that women were drawn into something so bad rather than going to the movies for incredibly intelligent fare which would show them as a true threat.
Of course, this is all complete bullshit. Sure, there are sexist stereotyped men out there, but it's unfair to say the whole gender is that way, just as it is equally unfair to say that women love Twilight.
It is because of this second assumption - that young women should be very interested in the Twilight franchise according to market research or whatever - that is the reason I think many a woman hates Twilight. We are insulted by these assumptions about ourselves and what kinds of stories we like. I think men should be just as insulted when things like "men have to love Transformers 2 even if it sucks, but because things blow up" pop into the conversation.
All in all, trying to figure out the success or failure of a franchise still, unfortunately, comes down to this sexist crap. Women movie-goers fit into one category, men movie-goers into another. When an audience is over 70% one gender, CLEARLY the movie is made for that gender. But 30% of the other gender is nothing to sniff at. And it's rare that you hear such a huge percentage for one gender. Most of the time, I see the range is usually smaller, the difference usually less than 30%. It's sometimes a big gap, but I doubt there's a single movie that has never drawn both genders for whatever reason.
Women and men both like crappy movies. Women and men both like good movies. Women and men hate the same movies. Women and men hate different movies. For every girl who says a war movie is too bloody for her, you get a girl like me who adores a good war movie, no matter how bloody it is. For every guy who complains about chick flicks, you get a guy who can actually enjoy a clever enough chick flick.
I know marketers have a job to do when they're selling a movie, and they're trying to find the right demographic. I understand that, but stop boxing us up too. Just because Twilight draws a female-heavy box office doesn't make "women between the ages of 18-34 love Twilight" accurate because I am in that demographic and I can't stand that crap. You're just making me hate it more by assuming I like it.
The quote that bothered me most?
“A grand paradox in all this is that a great many professed Twilight haters are young men who, though they may not acknowledge it, are threatened by this pop-cultural juggernaut.”
My response?
"To be quite fair, I am the exact demographic, a young woman, that Twilight is aimed at and I know plenty of young women just like me who are professed Twilight-haters. Sure, I believe that there are plenty of young men who hate Twilight, I know quite a few myself, but for young women like me, it’s hard not to be insulted by the creation of these books and their aim at people like me. The belief that I am a sucker for anything dazzling romantic just because I’m a young woman? Insulting. I mean, I can stomach some rom coms every now and then and sometimes I even actively seek them out, but story still matters, even then. Just like how I can’t stand a shrill heroine (a la Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – TBH that girl has every right to trash that role), I can’t stand a, not only passive, but downright inconsiderate and selfish heroine like Bella. Why would I ever want to watch or read about a girl who is supposed to be like me, but doesn’t appreciate anything in her life despite parents and friends who care about her? I would never want to be like Bella, and I think it is incredibly insulting that people think I should want to be like her just because I am a young woman."
All in all, women have more of a reason to be Twilight haters than men.
Men have plenty of their own say in pop culture - people make the argument that it's all them for the superhero movies, for things like Transformers and James Bond flicks or things like Star Wars or Star Trek. To be quite honest, that's a stupid, sexist stereotype as I am hardly a tomboy (love me some stilettos and skirts) but I have seen at least one movie in each of the aforementioned franchises and enjoyed them immensely. My favorite effing movie is probably Star Wars. But regardless, if the argument is that men are jealous of Twilight hogging some spotlight in pop culture, I think it is an immensely weak argument. If men were supposed to be the sexist stereotypes people write them out to be, they'd probably be thrilled that women were drawn into something so bad rather than going to the movies for incredibly intelligent fare which would show them as a true threat.
Of course, this is all complete bullshit. Sure, there are sexist stereotyped men out there, but it's unfair to say the whole gender is that way, just as it is equally unfair to say that women love Twilight.
It is because of this second assumption - that young women should be very interested in the Twilight franchise according to market research or whatever - that is the reason I think many a woman hates Twilight. We are insulted by these assumptions about ourselves and what kinds of stories we like. I think men should be just as insulted when things like "men have to love Transformers 2 even if it sucks, but because things blow up" pop into the conversation.
All in all, trying to figure out the success or failure of a franchise still, unfortunately, comes down to this sexist crap. Women movie-goers fit into one category, men movie-goers into another. When an audience is over 70% one gender, CLEARLY the movie is made for that gender. But 30% of the other gender is nothing to sniff at. And it's rare that you hear such a huge percentage for one gender. Most of the time, I see the range is usually smaller, the difference usually less than 30%. It's sometimes a big gap, but I doubt there's a single movie that has never drawn both genders for whatever reason.
Women and men both like crappy movies. Women and men both like good movies. Women and men hate the same movies. Women and men hate different movies. For every girl who says a war movie is too bloody for her, you get a girl like me who adores a good war movie, no matter how bloody it is. For every guy who complains about chick flicks, you get a guy who can actually enjoy a clever enough chick flick.
I know marketers have a job to do when they're selling a movie, and they're trying to find the right demographic. I understand that, but stop boxing us up too. Just because Twilight draws a female-heavy box office doesn't make "women between the ages of 18-34 love Twilight" accurate because I am in that demographic and I can't stand that crap. You're just making me hate it more by assuming I like it.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
We have enough damsels in distress; how about we try some knights in need?
From the April 23/30, 2010 double issue of Entertainment Weekly:
"'In the original script, there was a huge sequence where Edwin Salt saves his wife, who's in danger,' says [director, Phillip] Noyce. 'And what we found was when Evelyn Salt saved her husband in the new script, it seemed to castrate his character a little.'"
...I'm sorry, but are you saying that it is completely okay for a woman to be a damsel in distress but that it is in no way okay for a man to need a woman to save him? I'm calling shenanigans. I know that women have traditionally been cast as more damsel in distress roles and I know that I feel confident enough in my gender and sexuality to admit that I am okay putting my ego aside. I am not asking that women never be cast as damsels in distress, because it happens; everyone needs saving. But it's just that; EVERYONE needs saving, including men.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with a man playing the role of a "damsel" in distress - let's call him a "knight in need" if we want to keep with alliteration. Knights in need happen because, sorry guys, but you need us probably more than we need you. And I think that it is a horrible message to send to men to tell them that they cannot be vulnerable creatures. We are slowly coming to a time where we can see women as tough creatures, tougher than men, able to kick just as much ass. We are complex.
Men are complex too. The problem with an approach like this, however, is that it is training men to go to the old standby - they always have to be tougher than the women. Maybe the woman is the center of attention, like Evelyn Salt in the upcoming movie, Salt. But the man still needs to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the woman. She can take the spotlight, but he's still the MAN, you know?
No, actually, I don't. I don't presume to know how this will play out in the actual movie, but the way that this article was phrased, the way the director put it, it just riled me up. Being a woman is fucking hard because if we want to be more than the damsel in distress we have to prove it daily and if we are the damsel in distress then we're dragging down those women who don't want it. Men can be vulnerable and women can be tough and there is nothing wrong with either of those options. There is nothing wrong with a woman saving a man, and yet, it makes men uncomfortable.
Well, I'd honestly love to see a few men squirm to see that because that's exactly how I feel when I see silly women having to be rescued by the most masculine of men. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, however, when it makes sense, when it isn't about the gender and it's about the characters. When a female character ends up in harm's way and a male character has the ability and the will to rescue her, that's not always a painful thing for me to watch. And it would be equally comfortable if I were to watch a man end up in such a dire situation where a female protagonist would need to take charge.
Now, I have the feeling that the end product of the film will still prove that Angelina Jolie's Evelyn Salt is a badass and capable of saving her husband and that, perhaps, she will still come out being shown to be the tougher of the pair. But I also have the feeling that the original draft placed Edwin Salt's wife in a much more embarrassing situation because it could because women can be placed in more embarrassing damsel in distress scenarios. Only that's wrong.
We women may not understand quite how being kicked in the balls feels, but that doesn't mean that being kicked in the vagina doesn't hurt.
I don't define myself as a feminist, not that there's anything wrong with empowering women. When I read things like this, I realize that women still need empowering. We are not equal to men and we are not interchangeable. Sure, genders have their differences, but not like this. I hope that Evelyn Salt will prove that women can be tough too. And it'll probably be better for the story if her husband is not a total damsel in distress. But it would have been nice for men to see what we women get to see on a regular basis.
And believe me, the pain it strikes through me and the damage it does to my life as a woman lasts a lot longer than getting kicked in your balls does.
"'In the original script, there was a huge sequence where Edwin Salt saves his wife, who's in danger,' says [director, Phillip] Noyce. 'And what we found was when Evelyn Salt saved her husband in the new script, it seemed to castrate his character a little.'"
...I'm sorry, but are you saying that it is completely okay for a woman to be a damsel in distress but that it is in no way okay for a man to need a woman to save him? I'm calling shenanigans. I know that women have traditionally been cast as more damsel in distress roles and I know that I feel confident enough in my gender and sexuality to admit that I am okay putting my ego aside. I am not asking that women never be cast as damsels in distress, because it happens; everyone needs saving. But it's just that; EVERYONE needs saving, including men.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with a man playing the role of a "damsel" in distress - let's call him a "knight in need" if we want to keep with alliteration. Knights in need happen because, sorry guys, but you need us probably more than we need you. And I think that it is a horrible message to send to men to tell them that they cannot be vulnerable creatures. We are slowly coming to a time where we can see women as tough creatures, tougher than men, able to kick just as much ass. We are complex.
Men are complex too. The problem with an approach like this, however, is that it is training men to go to the old standby - they always have to be tougher than the women. Maybe the woman is the center of attention, like Evelyn Salt in the upcoming movie, Salt. But the man still needs to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the woman. She can take the spotlight, but he's still the MAN, you know?
No, actually, I don't. I don't presume to know how this will play out in the actual movie, but the way that this article was phrased, the way the director put it, it just riled me up. Being a woman is fucking hard because if we want to be more than the damsel in distress we have to prove it daily and if we are the damsel in distress then we're dragging down those women who don't want it. Men can be vulnerable and women can be tough and there is nothing wrong with either of those options. There is nothing wrong with a woman saving a man, and yet, it makes men uncomfortable.
Well, I'd honestly love to see a few men squirm to see that because that's exactly how I feel when I see silly women having to be rescued by the most masculine of men. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, however, when it makes sense, when it isn't about the gender and it's about the characters. When a female character ends up in harm's way and a male character has the ability and the will to rescue her, that's not always a painful thing for me to watch. And it would be equally comfortable if I were to watch a man end up in such a dire situation where a female protagonist would need to take charge.
Now, I have the feeling that the end product of the film will still prove that Angelina Jolie's Evelyn Salt is a badass and capable of saving her husband and that, perhaps, she will still come out being shown to be the tougher of the pair. But I also have the feeling that the original draft placed Edwin Salt's wife in a much more embarrassing situation because it could because women can be placed in more embarrassing damsel in distress scenarios. Only that's wrong.
We women may not understand quite how being kicked in the balls feels, but that doesn't mean that being kicked in the vagina doesn't hurt.
I don't define myself as a feminist, not that there's anything wrong with empowering women. When I read things like this, I realize that women still need empowering. We are not equal to men and we are not interchangeable. Sure, genders have their differences, but not like this. I hope that Evelyn Salt will prove that women can be tough too. And it'll probably be better for the story if her husband is not a total damsel in distress. But it would have been nice for men to see what we women get to see on a regular basis.
And believe me, the pain it strikes through me and the damage it does to my life as a woman lasts a lot longer than getting kicked in your balls does.
Friday, November 13, 2009
BTWs... about Heroes... + Why FlashForward Is Better Than You Give It Credit For
Pretty sure I changed my mind from before; I haven't bothered watching Heroes since like the third episode and probably won't bother to continue. I just hope it dies soon. NBC seems to be fizzling out all its other dramas too, so why not this tired and never-going-to-improve one?
My ulterior motivation in doing this is to eventually remake the series better. I doubt I would ever actually do that because there are other things I'd rather do, but I would totally blow up New York and hire some better writers.
And... House. I feel bad because I actually do want to keep watching House, but there are just so many other shows I'd rather be watching these days so I am not up to date on that show either. I'll try to catch up one day... but not now.
Oh and Dexter too. I still haven't finished the third season. Oops! >.>
On another note, although most people don't seem to be in love with FlashForward, I have a couple things to say in its favor. The reason I think that I personally am getting so invested in this show has to do with a literature class I am taking right now called Narratives of Suffering. In fact, FlashForward and my class overlap in ways enough that I wrote it into the conclusion of my midterm paper for the class (my professor actually quite liked it and thanked me for bringing the show to his attention; I had a paper conference with him earlier this week, just after (**SPOILERS**) Al offed himself and I told him about that and how interesting it was).
My paper was about the idea of suffering and human agency in regards to it. In many ways, we do not have control over the suffering that is given to us. Depending on who you ask or your source material, it might be that suffering is randomly assigned to people who undergo tragic experiences that plague them or cause suffering due to a complete removal or one from one's comfortable life. We've talked about this in class in relation to an identity within a frame that we create for ourselves. And then something comes along and while we suffer, we are removed from our frames and all that we felt we could control before is taken away from us and we are left in the infinite space of the universe, the wall we built up around ourselves as a symbol of who we are is suddenly taken away from us and we are lost. It could also be said that this natural, part of being human (something that can be taken away in particular from the poetry of Emily Dickinson or that seems to be implied in Samuel Beckett's play, Endgame). Or a condition of our being in a certain state (the focus of my paper was primarily on Harriet Jacobs' narrative of her life in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl). Either way, when we suffer and we are removed from our place, there is a sense of nothing we can do, that we have to give into our eventual fate and let suffering take us where it will.
Or, we can make a choice. Even if there is nothing physically that we can do to overcome our suffering, we can make a mental choice that we want to survive. In Owen Chase's narrative Loss of the Ship Essex, Sunk by a Whale, although he and his companions are starving on a boat far away from land, unable to even move at points because they have been so physically reduced, it really it the mental state that each man takes on that controls whether or not they will survive. Chase writes, "all was dark [Isaac Cole] said in his mind, not a single ray of hope was left for him to dwell upon; and it was folly and madness to be struggling against what appeared so palpably to be our fixed and settled destiny. I remonstrated with him as effectually as the weakness both of my body and understanding would allow of" (pg. 67). Although Chase fails to convince Cole that his destiny was not fixed as a dead man, here is the beautiful demonstration of human agency even when it seems we have none left. So many of the characters that we explore in this class make a conscious choice that, despite their state, they will fight it somehow. Mary Rowlandson in The Sovereignty and Goodness of God stands by her bible even while in the hands of the Indians, keeping her faith strong as she suffers, choosing to believe that God will deliver her from it, and he does. Chase eventually survives to tell the tale (although it is rumoured that he went crazy from the cannibalism they had to employ to survive and the long-term starvation and suffering each survivor endured). Jacobs manages to escape to the north after several years in a tiny space where she hid before she could leave the south.
But then, at the same time, none of the characters truly finds happiness in the end. As I said, Chase goes crazy, and when Jacobs goes up to the north, she finds that the world up there isn't a whole lot better to black women than the south was. We also watched a couple films in the class, The Sweet Hereafter and Leaving Las Vegas (which is why I was more than a little pissed off when Owen Gleiberman describes Nicolas Cage's character as someone who is "full of longing and regret" neither of which ever seems to cross the character from the perspective I watched the film). But I want to focus on the former film. In the closing narration, Nicole, the only child who survives the tragic bus accident, comments that in the process of moving past the grief and coming out of suffering that the town didn't exactly return to happiness, rather, they were now in a "strange and new" world, as she describes it. One of Dickinson's poems goes as follows:
"I shall know why-when Time is over-
And I have ceased to wonder why-
Christ will explain each separate anguish
In the fair schoolroom of the sky-
He will tell me what “Peter” promised-
And I-for wonder at his woe-
I shall forget the drop of Anguish
That scalds me now-that scalds me now!"
No matter what comes later, anguish will leave its mark. Suffering will leave its mark. There is a chance of removing yourself from suffering, but you will never reenter the world you had before it came.
And here is where FlashForward comes in. FlashForward has characters who see firsthand the suffering they will go through, or their flashforwards cause suffering upon their sight. Olivia is terrified of her eventual adultery. Mark is scared of returning to his alcoholism and losing his family. Nicole is frightened of a world where she finds herself deserving of being drowned to death. Demetri is, unsurprisingly, unpleased by the prospect of being murdered. Aaron is fraught by all kinds of despair when he sees his supposedly dead daughter alive. And Al, poor Al, wants to stop himself from being the cause of death for a single mother.
Yet, the agency that these characters employ? It's pitiful! The show seems to endorse the nonsensical concept of determinism, which Lloyd calls Simon out for using in yesterday's episode. But there are little things that characters do. Mark burns the friendship bracelet his daughter makes for him... all while constructing the board he sees in his future. Olivia throws away the lingerie she sees in her flashforward. Nicole tries to be the best person in the world, one who hardly deserves her death. And Al... kills himself.
I give Al two gigantic thumbs up, as well as the writers of FlashForward, for that game-changing decision. I cried, not only because it was so sad, but also because it was a much-needed remonstration of how the future is not set in stone (didn't we learn this lesson in Terminator all those years ago?). I had been waiting since the beginning for someone to jump off a building or take a gun to their head. It seems such a depression alternative, but in this case, it is a form of agency, better than the efforts the other characters have been making. They obsess over their futures rather than trying to live their lives as if their futures are still within their control. They are thrown out of whack, out of their comfortable little frames of lives, and forget that they have any control whatsoever. They are acting like Chase's companions and admitting defeat, that there's nothing to be done, the destiny has already been prescribed, there's no way out.
But there is, and that is what is so interesting and frustrating and beautiful about FlashForward. It provides us with this amazing study of how we all can react to a loss of control. It's not the same as being lost on a tropical island, not about finding that you have super powers, not about supernatural beings and powers. But all of these scenarios, they show new potential by being removed. But this... FlashForward, is so unique. It's not a change of what's already happened that leads this people to make their new choices and to arrange their new lives. There was a big dramatic event, the blackout, yes, but that's not all. Not only is there that bookend with the deaths of millions and the destruction of many places, but there's a future seen too. The potential is lost when people see the future and find themselves bound to a destiny, lost from their control, not just from the life they've already had, but the life they wanted or planned to have.
FlashForward isn't perfect. But I am so tired of hearing it labeled as a Lost knock-off, as too slow-moving or whatever else people find bad about it. FlashForward raises some of the most interesting questions and observations about human nature in regards to this loss of control, in regards to suffering, both of which I believe to be so important and central to human life, than I have seen in a while.
I will close this lengthy argument with the closing paragraph of the paper I wrote for my class. It was written before the latest two episodes of FlashForward were aired and therefore before Al's suicide. It may be repetitive of what I've already said, it may not be as articulate or clear or as in favor of the show as I am trying to be here. But it is an example of how truly fascinating this is:
"As an extension of this particular concept of human defiance versus submission to the fate’s commandment of suffering, there has been something tugging at my brain for some time now. This subject consistently reminds me of a new television series by the name of FlashForward. In the series, each of the characters is privy to a two minute and seventeen second “flashforward” (a vision with the clarity of a memory but of something that hasn’t yet happened) to a point approximately six months in the future. What people see brings them to do many things they may not have done had they not seen their future, especially those who see negative things in their flashforward (reverting to alcoholism after seven years of sobriety, having been murdered prior to that date, being in an extramarital affair with an unknown man, etc.) But what really surprises me is how some of the characters follow the strings, allow themselves to be drawn into the web of destiny or fate or whatever leads them to that place in the future, to that place where they would rather not go. Of course, the solution is not to simply kill oneself, although that would surely defy what is seen in the future. But when the woman avoids the man she will supposedly have an affair with, when the girl who sees herself as being “deservedly” murdered resolves to do absolutely no wrong in her life that would allow her such a fate, it reminds me of the strength of humanity to fight against what is to come. Here’s to hoping that some of them are actually capable of defying fate. Otherwise, the argument for humanity’s ability to use our small portion of agency to fight back will have been smacked down as completely false. If we can’t even stop the things we have been forewarned of, what hope is there when we don’t get that opportunity to see where the road goes?"
...the only thing I'm worried about? I'm only worried that FlashForward won't realize how smart it is (Heroes style... but I think FlashForward is already a lot stronger than Heroes was in the beginning) and ruin the beautiful study is has presented to us. Maybe I can even hope some of the dudes involved read this and realize what I'm getting out of it! ...but I doubt that. So the end.
My ulterior motivation in doing this is to eventually remake the series better. I doubt I would ever actually do that because there are other things I'd rather do, but I would totally blow up New York and hire some better writers.
And... House. I feel bad because I actually do want to keep watching House, but there are just so many other shows I'd rather be watching these days so I am not up to date on that show either. I'll try to catch up one day... but not now.
Oh and Dexter too. I still haven't finished the third season. Oops! >.>
On another note, although most people don't seem to be in love with FlashForward, I have a couple things to say in its favor. The reason I think that I personally am getting so invested in this show has to do with a literature class I am taking right now called Narratives of Suffering. In fact, FlashForward and my class overlap in ways enough that I wrote it into the conclusion of my midterm paper for the class (my professor actually quite liked it and thanked me for bringing the show to his attention; I had a paper conference with him earlier this week, just after (**SPOILERS**) Al offed himself and I told him about that and how interesting it was).
My paper was about the idea of suffering and human agency in regards to it. In many ways, we do not have control over the suffering that is given to us. Depending on who you ask or your source material, it might be that suffering is randomly assigned to people who undergo tragic experiences that plague them or cause suffering due to a complete removal or one from one's comfortable life. We've talked about this in class in relation to an identity within a frame that we create for ourselves. And then something comes along and while we suffer, we are removed from our frames and all that we felt we could control before is taken away from us and we are left in the infinite space of the universe, the wall we built up around ourselves as a symbol of who we are is suddenly taken away from us and we are lost. It could also be said that this natural, part of being human (something that can be taken away in particular from the poetry of Emily Dickinson or that seems to be implied in Samuel Beckett's play, Endgame). Or a condition of our being in a certain state (the focus of my paper was primarily on Harriet Jacobs' narrative of her life in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl). Either way, when we suffer and we are removed from our place, there is a sense of nothing we can do, that we have to give into our eventual fate and let suffering take us where it will.
Or, we can make a choice. Even if there is nothing physically that we can do to overcome our suffering, we can make a mental choice that we want to survive. In Owen Chase's narrative Loss of the Ship Essex, Sunk by a Whale, although he and his companions are starving on a boat far away from land, unable to even move at points because they have been so physically reduced, it really it the mental state that each man takes on that controls whether or not they will survive. Chase writes, "all was dark [Isaac Cole] said in his mind, not a single ray of hope was left for him to dwell upon; and it was folly and madness to be struggling against what appeared so palpably to be our fixed and settled destiny. I remonstrated with him as effectually as the weakness both of my body and understanding would allow of" (pg. 67). Although Chase fails to convince Cole that his destiny was not fixed as a dead man, here is the beautiful demonstration of human agency even when it seems we have none left. So many of the characters that we explore in this class make a conscious choice that, despite their state, they will fight it somehow. Mary Rowlandson in The Sovereignty and Goodness of God stands by her bible even while in the hands of the Indians, keeping her faith strong as she suffers, choosing to believe that God will deliver her from it, and he does. Chase eventually survives to tell the tale (although it is rumoured that he went crazy from the cannibalism they had to employ to survive and the long-term starvation and suffering each survivor endured). Jacobs manages to escape to the north after several years in a tiny space where she hid before she could leave the south.
But then, at the same time, none of the characters truly finds happiness in the end. As I said, Chase goes crazy, and when Jacobs goes up to the north, she finds that the world up there isn't a whole lot better to black women than the south was. We also watched a couple films in the class, The Sweet Hereafter and Leaving Las Vegas (which is why I was more than a little pissed off when Owen Gleiberman describes Nicolas Cage's character as someone who is "full of longing and regret" neither of which ever seems to cross the character from the perspective I watched the film). But I want to focus on the former film. In the closing narration, Nicole, the only child who survives the tragic bus accident, comments that in the process of moving past the grief and coming out of suffering that the town didn't exactly return to happiness, rather, they were now in a "strange and new" world, as she describes it. One of Dickinson's poems goes as follows:
"I shall know why-when Time is over-
And I have ceased to wonder why-
Christ will explain each separate anguish
In the fair schoolroom of the sky-
He will tell me what “Peter” promised-
And I-for wonder at his woe-
I shall forget the drop of Anguish
That scalds me now-that scalds me now!"
No matter what comes later, anguish will leave its mark. Suffering will leave its mark. There is a chance of removing yourself from suffering, but you will never reenter the world you had before it came.
And here is where FlashForward comes in. FlashForward has characters who see firsthand the suffering they will go through, or their flashforwards cause suffering upon their sight. Olivia is terrified of her eventual adultery. Mark is scared of returning to his alcoholism and losing his family. Nicole is frightened of a world where she finds herself deserving of being drowned to death. Demetri is, unsurprisingly, unpleased by the prospect of being murdered. Aaron is fraught by all kinds of despair when he sees his supposedly dead daughter alive. And Al, poor Al, wants to stop himself from being the cause of death for a single mother.
Yet, the agency that these characters employ? It's pitiful! The show seems to endorse the nonsensical concept of determinism, which Lloyd calls Simon out for using in yesterday's episode. But there are little things that characters do. Mark burns the friendship bracelet his daughter makes for him... all while constructing the board he sees in his future. Olivia throws away the lingerie she sees in her flashforward. Nicole tries to be the best person in the world, one who hardly deserves her death. And Al... kills himself.
I give Al two gigantic thumbs up, as well as the writers of FlashForward, for that game-changing decision. I cried, not only because it was so sad, but also because it was a much-needed remonstration of how the future is not set in stone (didn't we learn this lesson in Terminator all those years ago?). I had been waiting since the beginning for someone to jump off a building or take a gun to their head. It seems such a depression alternative, but in this case, it is a form of agency, better than the efforts the other characters have been making. They obsess over their futures rather than trying to live their lives as if their futures are still within their control. They are thrown out of whack, out of their comfortable little frames of lives, and forget that they have any control whatsoever. They are acting like Chase's companions and admitting defeat, that there's nothing to be done, the destiny has already been prescribed, there's no way out.
But there is, and that is what is so interesting and frustrating and beautiful about FlashForward. It provides us with this amazing study of how we all can react to a loss of control. It's not the same as being lost on a tropical island, not about finding that you have super powers, not about supernatural beings and powers. But all of these scenarios, they show new potential by being removed. But this... FlashForward, is so unique. It's not a change of what's already happened that leads this people to make their new choices and to arrange their new lives. There was a big dramatic event, the blackout, yes, but that's not all. Not only is there that bookend with the deaths of millions and the destruction of many places, but there's a future seen too. The potential is lost when people see the future and find themselves bound to a destiny, lost from their control, not just from the life they've already had, but the life they wanted or planned to have.
FlashForward isn't perfect. But I am so tired of hearing it labeled as a Lost knock-off, as too slow-moving or whatever else people find bad about it. FlashForward raises some of the most interesting questions and observations about human nature in regards to this loss of control, in regards to suffering, both of which I believe to be so important and central to human life, than I have seen in a while.
I will close this lengthy argument with the closing paragraph of the paper I wrote for my class. It was written before the latest two episodes of FlashForward were aired and therefore before Al's suicide. It may be repetitive of what I've already said, it may not be as articulate or clear or as in favor of the show as I am trying to be here. But it is an example of how truly fascinating this is:
"As an extension of this particular concept of human defiance versus submission to the fate’s commandment of suffering, there has been something tugging at my brain for some time now. This subject consistently reminds me of a new television series by the name of FlashForward. In the series, each of the characters is privy to a two minute and seventeen second “flashforward” (a vision with the clarity of a memory but of something that hasn’t yet happened) to a point approximately six months in the future. What people see brings them to do many things they may not have done had they not seen their future, especially those who see negative things in their flashforward (reverting to alcoholism after seven years of sobriety, having been murdered prior to that date, being in an extramarital affair with an unknown man, etc.) But what really surprises me is how some of the characters follow the strings, allow themselves to be drawn into the web of destiny or fate or whatever leads them to that place in the future, to that place where they would rather not go. Of course, the solution is not to simply kill oneself, although that would surely defy what is seen in the future. But when the woman avoids the man she will supposedly have an affair with, when the girl who sees herself as being “deservedly” murdered resolves to do absolutely no wrong in her life that would allow her such a fate, it reminds me of the strength of humanity to fight against what is to come. Here’s to hoping that some of them are actually capable of defying fate. Otherwise, the argument for humanity’s ability to use our small portion of agency to fight back will have been smacked down as completely false. If we can’t even stop the things we have been forewarned of, what hope is there when we don’t get that opportunity to see where the road goes?"
...the only thing I'm worried about? I'm only worried that FlashForward won't realize how smart it is (Heroes style... but I think FlashForward is already a lot stronger than Heroes was in the beginning) and ruin the beautiful study is has presented to us. Maybe I can even hope some of the dudes involved read this and realize what I'm getting out of it! ...but I doubt that. So the end.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Return of the Chuck: How NBC Will Probably Ruin It
So with all the excitement over at EW.com about Chuck's possible earlier return, a lot of good points have been brought up that are very important to Chuck's long term success rather than Chuck coming back as soon as possible.
a) Promotion.
If they suddenly bring Chuck back either because of Southland's recent cancellation or if they cancel the under-performing new series Trauma (or the cancellation that it deserves but hasn't gotten yet for Heroes), there will be next to no time to properly promote the series. Chuck has a loyal following, yes, but if Chuck is to actually succeed (especially in NBC's current fail!environment with very little to offer viewers aside from their comedy block and the handful of people who want to watch Jay Leno every night and the people like my roommate who are Law & Order addicts), it needs to build up an even stronger following of new and curious viewers. Chuck is a great show that can appeal to a whole host of viewers. It's a spy comedy drama with geeks and hot girls alike, episodic and large arcs alike, interesting main characters and a great ensemble, and it's just very likeable and accessible in many ways. But if it doesn't get the proper promotion, if there isn't at least a couple weeks of build up before it gets brought back, it'll get trashed and then we probably won't even manage to see more than a handful of episodes ever again.
b) Timeslot.
Chuck's old timeslot of 8pm on Mondays (when it would lead into Heroes) is now occupied by Heroes. And while Heroes totally deserves cancellation after a dismal third season and a limping fourth, this time slot would KILL as it has, amongst other things, HOUSE to compete with. And House, although I personally have been getting bored with it, still gets excellent viewership. If Trauma got cancelled, 9pm wouldn't be quite so bad a time, but the challenge that CBS' Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory present might be too much, especially since Chuck, as half comedy, would be interested in drawing the same crowd. As for other potential timeslots, the originally intended spot for Southland, on Fridays, would also completely demolish any chance Chuck has at continuing beyond this fall. The best option I heard in the comments was to shorten The Biggest Loser to a one hour show and put Chuck in on Tuesdays.
The main problem that Chuck has is that NBC came dangerously close to not renewing it at all before and give them even a split second's doubt that Chuck can sustain decent numbers and I have absolutely NO faith in NBC's capacity to give Chuck another chance. It took a lot of effort to bring it back for March and although I love Chuck and I would love for it to return sooner, if bringing it back in fall means that either it won't get enough promotion or that it'll end up in a poor timeslot then I would much rather wait until March when it would have a real chance at a future.
Mostly this all goes back to an overall disappointment with NBC. Now, personally, I don't watch anything on NBC anymore except for Community. I know people who watch The Office and 30 Rock, of course, but are any of the scripted dramas on that network any good? Heroes has gotten so bad that even a devout fan like me has given up. And everything else on there is either medical (Trauma, Mercy) or law (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU) shows. More and more is the Jay Leno Show looking like the stupidest idea ever, cutting out the chance for so many new shows to get a chance, proving that NBC has absolutely no faith in giving shows a chance. And when their most critically acclaimed (and pretty decently viewed) shows is about to return (I'm talking about Southland, which I never saw, but heard only good things about), they cut it out completely. Yeah, it's too dark for the 9pm time slot? Then stop with the madness of Jay Leno five times a week! Sure, it's cheaper, but that just makes your network that much cheaper. As evidenced by Tina Fey's acceptance speech for 30 Rock at the Emmys, even NBC's most stable show has absolutely no respect for the network anymore.
Oh how far the mighty hath fallen.
Oh, and NBC? If you DARE to cancel Chuck before its time, I will join the army of angry fans in setting your studio on fire. You know it'll happen. Stop being pussydicks (excuse my crudeness), and start showing some real television.
PS: If you haven't experienced Chuck, do it. And don't give up if you can't get into the first season. While the first season is definitely good, in my opinion, the show really finds its pace as the second season progresses, and morphs into a truly great television show.
a) Promotion.
If they suddenly bring Chuck back either because of Southland's recent cancellation or if they cancel the under-performing new series Trauma (or the cancellation that it deserves but hasn't gotten yet for Heroes), there will be next to no time to properly promote the series. Chuck has a loyal following, yes, but if Chuck is to actually succeed (especially in NBC's current fail!environment with very little to offer viewers aside from their comedy block and the handful of people who want to watch Jay Leno every night and the people like my roommate who are Law & Order addicts), it needs to build up an even stronger following of new and curious viewers. Chuck is a great show that can appeal to a whole host of viewers. It's a spy comedy drama with geeks and hot girls alike, episodic and large arcs alike, interesting main characters and a great ensemble, and it's just very likeable and accessible in many ways. But if it doesn't get the proper promotion, if there isn't at least a couple weeks of build up before it gets brought back, it'll get trashed and then we probably won't even manage to see more than a handful of episodes ever again.
b) Timeslot.
Chuck's old timeslot of 8pm on Mondays (when it would lead into Heroes) is now occupied by Heroes. And while Heroes totally deserves cancellation after a dismal third season and a limping fourth, this time slot would KILL as it has, amongst other things, HOUSE to compete with. And House, although I personally have been getting bored with it, still gets excellent viewership. If Trauma got cancelled, 9pm wouldn't be quite so bad a time, but the challenge that CBS' Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory present might be too much, especially since Chuck, as half comedy, would be interested in drawing the same crowd. As for other potential timeslots, the originally intended spot for Southland, on Fridays, would also completely demolish any chance Chuck has at continuing beyond this fall. The best option I heard in the comments was to shorten The Biggest Loser to a one hour show and put Chuck in on Tuesdays.
The main problem that Chuck has is that NBC came dangerously close to not renewing it at all before and give them even a split second's doubt that Chuck can sustain decent numbers and I have absolutely NO faith in NBC's capacity to give Chuck another chance. It took a lot of effort to bring it back for March and although I love Chuck and I would love for it to return sooner, if bringing it back in fall means that either it won't get enough promotion or that it'll end up in a poor timeslot then I would much rather wait until March when it would have a real chance at a future.
Mostly this all goes back to an overall disappointment with NBC. Now, personally, I don't watch anything on NBC anymore except for Community. I know people who watch The Office and 30 Rock, of course, but are any of the scripted dramas on that network any good? Heroes has gotten so bad that even a devout fan like me has given up. And everything else on there is either medical (Trauma, Mercy) or law (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU) shows. More and more is the Jay Leno Show looking like the stupidest idea ever, cutting out the chance for so many new shows to get a chance, proving that NBC has absolutely no faith in giving shows a chance. And when their most critically acclaimed (and pretty decently viewed) shows is about to return (I'm talking about Southland, which I never saw, but heard only good things about), they cut it out completely. Yeah, it's too dark for the 9pm time slot? Then stop with the madness of Jay Leno five times a week! Sure, it's cheaper, but that just makes your network that much cheaper. As evidenced by Tina Fey's acceptance speech for 30 Rock at the Emmys, even NBC's most stable show has absolutely no respect for the network anymore.
Oh how far the mighty hath fallen.
Oh, and NBC? If you DARE to cancel Chuck before its time, I will join the army of angry fans in setting your studio on fire. You know it'll happen. Stop being pussydicks (excuse my crudeness), and start showing some real television.
PS: If you haven't experienced Chuck, do it. And don't give up if you can't get into the first season. While the first season is definitely good, in my opinion, the show really finds its pace as the second season progresses, and morphs into a truly great television show.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Ancitipating District 9... and a TDK rant.
So here I was all sad that there wasn't a movie both adventurous and interesting, a movie in the same vein as The Dark Knight, that both excites and provokes me, and here comes District 9, a movie that I have not yet seen but deeply want to now. I hadn't heard much of it beyond a title and that Peter Jackson was involved until recently, when Entertainment Weekly did a cover story on it last week. Since then, I have really wanted to watch this movie and have heard a great deal about it.
Unfortunately, I am currently on vacation in Venezuela, but when I get home, I am getting to the nearest movie theatre and watching District 9 (...and then Julie & Julia, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, and Taking Woodstock).
Don't tell me what happens! I want to see for myself. I don't want to be overexposed because I want to be thrilled by what I see not thinking, "oh I remember reading about this part" (although, I have to admit, reading about and seeing the Joker in a nurse's uniform is still different enough for the visual to be hilariously awesome).
BTW, I am skimming rottentomatoes at the moment in a slight pit of boredom and saw that some critic, I forget who, commented that The Dark Knight does not seem to recognize the absurdity of its premise, or something similarly phrased. And, in return, I say, you, sir, are full of shit. "Oh man, a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime." Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. So does "a bunch of hobbits going on a journey with elves, dwarves, and men to fight evil and destroy a ring of power." It upsets me when people have to reduce a telling story to the superficial premise. I did it with Harry Potter ("ooh a book about some boy wizard. sounds stupid") before I read the books and realized that I was mistaken; yes, the superficial premise is there, but that's not what the story's about. And why not dress up like a bat to fight crime? It seems pretty practical: you have a dark exterior, you can hold out your "wings" to fly and... yeah, that's about all that's different about Batman's get together and, let's say, a dude who just dresses up in armour with weapons to fight crime.
Yeah, that is clearly totally absurd. Oh wait, I'm forgetting about the maniac who is known as the Joker. Hmm... well, firstly, he's insane... and secondly, ...he dresses funny and refers to himself as the Joker? I think the first one covers it all: he's insane, Mr. Movie Critic, and why not do crazy things like pretend you're a court jester with some grenades and guns if you're insane?
Anyway, this started out as excitement and anticipation to see District 9 and ended with The Dark Knight. Don't all my posts? My apologies, as I've said before, The Dark Knight is simply among the best films I've ever seen.
Unfortunately, I am currently on vacation in Venezuela, but when I get home, I am getting to the nearest movie theatre and watching District 9 (...and then Julie & Julia, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, and Taking Woodstock).
Don't tell me what happens! I want to see for myself. I don't want to be overexposed because I want to be thrilled by what I see not thinking, "oh I remember reading about this part" (although, I have to admit, reading about and seeing the Joker in a nurse's uniform is still different enough for the visual to be hilariously awesome).
BTW, I am skimming rottentomatoes at the moment in a slight pit of boredom and saw that some critic, I forget who, commented that The Dark Knight does not seem to recognize the absurdity of its premise, or something similarly phrased. And, in return, I say, you, sir, are full of shit. "Oh man, a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime." Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. So does "a bunch of hobbits going on a journey with elves, dwarves, and men to fight evil and destroy a ring of power." It upsets me when people have to reduce a telling story to the superficial premise. I did it with Harry Potter ("ooh a book about some boy wizard. sounds stupid") before I read the books and realized that I was mistaken; yes, the superficial premise is there, but that's not what the story's about. And why not dress up like a bat to fight crime? It seems pretty practical: you have a dark exterior, you can hold out your "wings" to fly and... yeah, that's about all that's different about Batman's get together and, let's say, a dude who just dresses up in armour with weapons to fight crime.
Yeah, that is clearly totally absurd. Oh wait, I'm forgetting about the maniac who is known as the Joker. Hmm... well, firstly, he's insane... and secondly, ...he dresses funny and refers to himself as the Joker? I think the first one covers it all: he's insane, Mr. Movie Critic, and why not do crazy things like pretend you're a court jester with some grenades and guns if you're insane?
Anyway, this started out as excitement and anticipation to see District 9 and ended with The Dark Knight. Don't all my posts? My apologies, as I've said before, The Dark Knight is simply among the best films I've ever seen.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXXIV
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From July 8, 2009:
"Okay, so, I don't watch a lot of TV (shows I view regularly are: House, Heroes, Mad Men, Chuck, and, yes, I'm not ashamed to admit it, Gossip Girl) but let me interject here once again by reminding the world that Battlestar Galactica is one of the best frakkin television shows ever, and definitely one of the best dramas. Now I have never really cared about the Emmys in the past because I don't watch much television, but let me reiterate a call Michael Slezak made on EW.com - frakkin nominate Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnel, and while we're at it, the entire show for some Emmys! Honestly, I'd also make a push for Tricia Helfer; I am always impressed by her ability to play all the Sixes and each of them with their own similar but distinct and fully rounded personalities. And if it was any season but the fourth, I'd also push for James Callis (Baltar was pretty lame in season 4, but astonishing in season 2, for instance - between the parts where he was stranded on Kobol to the Pegasus arc and all the way to his presidency bid, his character was fully realized in season 2).
But all in all, BSG is the best piece of television I've devoted myself to in a while. I don't get into a lot of TV shows because most of them are boring, repetitive, or only have so many good qualities. BSG, however, is excellently-written with a wonderful cast, not only with the leading members, but also with the secondary characters, from Laura Roslin herself all the way down to Doc Coddle, and everyone in-between, like Gaeta, the little favourite-character-turned-LEAST-favourite, but all done with such character... But where was I? Oh yes, and with the most original plot on television, even if it is based off of a previous series and shares similarities with every other space epic. But the way it twists and turns, always making sense, evolving and changing not to fit the writers' whims, but to fit what seems natural, that is in itself a characteristic too few television shows these days do.
Too many shows are afraid of change and stick to their formulatic tendencies. To an extent, that's enjoyable. House operates with its Patient Of The Week, Chuck has his Mission Of The Week, even BSG has its "oh we're out of food/air/water/sleep/fuel/etc. so we've got to find it ASAP" episodes. But each of these series also admirably took big risks, shaking up the formula. House just sent its main character off to rehab, for real. Now THAT is epic. Chuck lost the intersect... got it back... and learned kung-fu. WTF of AWESOME! BSG... gradually eliminated all the ways in which Cylons were inhuman, from turning them into humanoid form to making the girls get pregnant to destroying resurrection! Now isn't it cool when your enemy is suddenly not so different? (This is something I have to constantly remind my mother when she says that the Cylons are "evil.")
Anyway, without getting too plot heavy, my point is that BSG needs some frakkin love, Emmys/rest of the world. Watch it, love it, experience some of the best television ever.
But then again, what kind of hack am I? I watch Gossip Girl and cheer internally everytime Chuck and Blair share a scene. And I totally don't disagree with the random chick on EW.com who said Leighton Meester deserves some recognition (Blair is definitely the most interesting and fully realized character on the show. Also the wittiest. Scenes without her or Chuck suffer from being dreadfully boring at times).
Ahem. As I was saying, check out Battlestar Galactica, you frakkin morons, and understand why the frak I keep saying frak."
From July 8, 2009:
"Okay, so, I don't watch a lot of TV (shows I view regularly are: House, Heroes, Mad Men, Chuck, and, yes, I'm not ashamed to admit it, Gossip Girl) but let me interject here once again by reminding the world that Battlestar Galactica is one of the best frakkin television shows ever, and definitely one of the best dramas. Now I have never really cared about the Emmys in the past because I don't watch much television, but let me reiterate a call Michael Slezak made on EW.com - frakkin nominate Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnel, and while we're at it, the entire show for some Emmys! Honestly, I'd also make a push for Tricia Helfer; I am always impressed by her ability to play all the Sixes and each of them with their own similar but distinct and fully rounded personalities. And if it was any season but the fourth, I'd also push for James Callis (Baltar was pretty lame in season 4, but astonishing in season 2, for instance - between the parts where he was stranded on Kobol to the Pegasus arc and all the way to his presidency bid, his character was fully realized in season 2).
But all in all, BSG is the best piece of television I've devoted myself to in a while. I don't get into a lot of TV shows because most of them are boring, repetitive, or only have so many good qualities. BSG, however, is excellently-written with a wonderful cast, not only with the leading members, but also with the secondary characters, from Laura Roslin herself all the way down to Doc Coddle, and everyone in-between, like Gaeta, the little favourite-character-turned-LEAST-favourite, but all done with such character... But where was I? Oh yes, and with the most original plot on television, even if it is based off of a previous series and shares similarities with every other space epic. But the way it twists and turns, always making sense, evolving and changing not to fit the writers' whims, but to fit what seems natural, that is in itself a characteristic too few television shows these days do.
Too many shows are afraid of change and stick to their formulatic tendencies. To an extent, that's enjoyable. House operates with its Patient Of The Week, Chuck has his Mission Of The Week, even BSG has its "oh we're out of food/air/water/sleep/fuel/etc. so we've got to find it ASAP" episodes. But each of these series also admirably took big risks, shaking up the formula. House just sent its main character off to rehab, for real. Now THAT is epic. Chuck lost the intersect... got it back... and learned kung-fu. WTF of AWESOME! BSG... gradually eliminated all the ways in which Cylons were inhuman, from turning them into humanoid form to making the girls get pregnant to destroying resurrection! Now isn't it cool when your enemy is suddenly not so different? (This is something I have to constantly remind my mother when she says that the Cylons are "evil.")
Anyway, without getting too plot heavy, my point is that BSG needs some frakkin love, Emmys/rest of the world. Watch it, love it, experience some of the best television ever.
But then again, what kind of hack am I? I watch Gossip Girl and cheer internally everytime Chuck and Blair share a scene. And I totally don't disagree with the random chick on EW.com who said Leighton Meester deserves some recognition (Blair is definitely the most interesting and fully realized character on the show. Also the wittiest. Scenes without her or Chuck suffer from being dreadfully boring at times).
Ahem. As I was saying, check out Battlestar Galactica, you frakkin morons, and understand why the frak I keep saying frak."
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXXIII
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From July 3, 2009:
"I also read through some old Entertainment Weekly magazines I found in the bathroom. Crazy shit reading about Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt divorcing and House's first season (and the planned Emmy push for Hugh Laurie) and Paradise Hotel (which I think I actually watched a few episodes of before my mother chided me for it, calling it "trash." But it was so entertaining!). Crazy shit, man.
Also, I found it totally hot that Bend It Like Beckham was on the Must List. Damn straight, EW!"
From July 3, 2009:
"I also read through some old Entertainment Weekly magazines I found in the bathroom. Crazy shit reading about Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt divorcing and House's first season (and the planned Emmy push for Hugh Laurie) and Paradise Hotel (which I think I actually watched a few episodes of before my mother chided me for it, calling it "trash." But it was so entertaining!). Crazy shit, man.
Also, I found it totally hot that Bend It Like Beckham was on the Must List. Damn straight, EW!"
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXXI
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From May 13, 2009:
"I think one of my favourite things about Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch blog is probably the tags. Sure, there are the ordinary tags like "American Idol 2009" and "The Biggest Loser" and whatever, but then there are the glorious tags such as "deals" (as in big deal, even though the rest of the world seems to have taken a cue from me and dropped the "big" part of that phrase... or maybe I'm just in tune with the world. WHO KNOWS?) and "Waiting" (doesn't it suck to get awesomely interesting information about upcoming projects and then... realize that the film/tv show/video game/book/etc. doesn't come out for weeks, months, or maybe even years?) and other more interesting tags such as "Things That Are Awesome!" and "Hello to the no!" and "I'm Just a Geek" and "The Bad Man Scares Me!" and "Cute Cat Videos!" (which was actually the subject of an entire post).
Did I mention that, aside from filmmaking, writing for Entertainment Weekly is essentially my dream job? Essentially, if I could just write about "and this is why Heroes was once awesome but now sucks" and about how I'll be very disappointed if Sherlock Holmes does not have a cocaine addiction in the upcoming movie mostly because a) the House wikipedia article told me he had one and b) because Guy Ritchie is directing it and therefore I expect some underworldly ongoings. I would also probably write about how I still have nightmares about Diablo Cody's get-up to the Oscars when she won for Juno but since she's a writer for EW I don't think they'd like that very much. And I need to work out a bit more before I can beat her in a fight.
So I totally think I have to start an entertainment themed blog this summer or else I'll die. Molly and Shellie and I will hopefully do it together because it won't work if I do it alone (how did "what claudia wore" get so popular anyway? I mean, it's wonderful, but many wonderful things remain undiscovered on the internet) and because Molly and Shellie are also wonderfully entertainment-friendly people with whom I hope to write many a review for the Bard Free Press next semester. :D
Anyway, I just thought I'd share my joy of EW's wonderful tags with you all. Also insert a couple flails over the House season finale (flailflailflail). Now to go back to reading about how violent video games are badbadbad."
From May 13, 2009:
"I think one of my favourite things about Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch blog is probably the tags. Sure, there are the ordinary tags like "American Idol 2009" and "The Biggest Loser" and whatever, but then there are the glorious tags such as "deals" (as in big deal, even though the rest of the world seems to have taken a cue from me and dropped the "big" part of that phrase... or maybe I'm just in tune with the world. WHO KNOWS?) and "Waiting" (doesn't it suck to get awesomely interesting information about upcoming projects and then... realize that the film/tv show/video game/book/etc. doesn't come out for weeks, months, or maybe even years?) and other more interesting tags such as "Things That Are Awesome!" and "Hello to the no!" and "I'm Just a Geek" and "The Bad Man Scares Me!" and "Cute Cat Videos!" (which was actually the subject of an entire post).
Did I mention that, aside from filmmaking, writing for Entertainment Weekly is essentially my dream job? Essentially, if I could just write about "and this is why Heroes was once awesome but now sucks" and about how I'll be very disappointed if Sherlock Holmes does not have a cocaine addiction in the upcoming movie mostly because a) the House wikipedia article told me he had one and b) because Guy Ritchie is directing it and therefore I expect some underworldly ongoings. I would also probably write about how I still have nightmares about Diablo Cody's get-up to the Oscars when she won for Juno but since she's a writer for EW I don't think they'd like that very much. And I need to work out a bit more before I can beat her in a fight.
So I totally think I have to start an entertainment themed blog this summer or else I'll die. Molly and Shellie and I will hopefully do it together because it won't work if I do it alone (how did "what claudia wore" get so popular anyway? I mean, it's wonderful, but many wonderful things remain undiscovered on the internet) and because Molly and Shellie are also wonderfully entertainment-friendly people with whom I hope to write many a review for the Bard Free Press next semester. :D
Anyway, I just thought I'd share my joy of EW's wonderful tags with you all. Also insert a couple flails over the House season finale (flailflailflail). Now to go back to reading about how violent video games are badbadbad."
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXVII
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From February 25, 2009:
"http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/why-new-clue.html
WHY WOULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?
I am so mad at Hollywood right now for even considering remaking one of my all-time favourite movies!
Heroes spoiler: Unfortunately, my previous entry where I rejoiced over the death of Daphne was inaccurate... she's alive and around to make Matt as annoying as ever again. Ugh. Dammit. The latest episode wasn't as good as the first three were, but it was still better than Heroes has been. It felt like it was trying a bit too hard to relive Company Man but didn't have the same impact.
And life is life. Mostly I'm just still wtf-ing over remaking Clue.
Oh and the Oscars were good; for the first time ever I won at home (I won with 17 right out of 24; my brother and dad got 14 right and my mom got something below them)."
From February 25, 2009:
"http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/why-new-clue.html
WHY WOULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?
I am so mad at Hollywood right now for even considering remaking one of my all-time favourite movies!
Heroes spoiler: Unfortunately, my previous entry where I rejoiced over the death of Daphne was inaccurate... she's alive and around to make Matt as annoying as ever again. Ugh. Dammit. The latest episode wasn't as good as the first three were, but it was still better than Heroes has been. It felt like it was trying a bit too hard to relive Company Man but didn't have the same impact.
And life is life. Mostly I'm just still wtf-ing over remaking Clue.
Oh and the Oscars were good; for the first time ever I won at home (I won with 17 right out of 24; my brother and dad got 14 right and my mom got something below them)."
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XVII
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From December 30, 2008:
"So because I am a movie nerd, I follow the Entertainment Weekly's website's Oscar blog which posts some stuff I don't care about, but mostly talks about the possible noms and other award shows, which does interest me (if you couldn't tell from the majority of my posts). I assume that most people who read Entertainment Weekly in the first place are similar enough to me that they like movies, and typically they like movies for less common reasons, but not too cynical reasons, because EW is neither total fluff nor is it hardcore serious.
So what baffles me is, well, there is this one most recent blog post that the guy made about box office and award consideration and if one influences the other (this was in relation to Benjamin Button's higher per-theatre average against Frost/Nixon's). Now, this was genuinely interesting to me so I felt like, for probably the first time, I'd make the comment. I started skimming the comments already there, seeing the opinions of others. Now, what baffled me was that I kept reading comments about people bitching about the Oscars, saying how they were stupid and no one cares, people bitching about the movie industry, people just generally bitching about movies that were mentioned, and people bitching about pretty much everything that blog was about.
And I'm sitting here, thinking, why the fuck are people who don't like a) award shows, b) the movie industry, and/or c) award-magnet movies reading this blog in the first place (or this magazine/website)?"
From December 30, 2008:
"So because I am a movie nerd, I follow the Entertainment Weekly's website's Oscar blog which posts some stuff I don't care about, but mostly talks about the possible noms and other award shows, which does interest me (if you couldn't tell from the majority of my posts). I assume that most people who read Entertainment Weekly in the first place are similar enough to me that they like movies, and typically they like movies for less common reasons, but not too cynical reasons, because EW is neither total fluff nor is it hardcore serious.
So what baffles me is, well, there is this one most recent blog post that the guy made about box office and award consideration and if one influences the other (this was in relation to Benjamin Button's higher per-theatre average against Frost/Nixon's). Now, this was genuinely interesting to me so I felt like, for probably the first time, I'd make the comment. I started skimming the comments already there, seeing the opinions of others. Now, what baffled me was that I kept reading comments about people bitching about the Oscars, saying how they were stupid and no one cares, people bitching about the movie industry, people just generally bitching about movies that were mentioned, and people bitching about pretty much everything that blog was about.
And I'm sitting here, thinking, why the fuck are people who don't like a) award shows, b) the movie industry, and/or c) award-magnet movies reading this blog in the first place (or this magazine/website)?"
Stealing From My Livejournal Part X
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From September 10, 2008:
"This is why I love Entertainment Weekly.
I'm really not much of a magazine reader. I'm just too lazy to bother with subscriptions and the only reason I got them when I was younger was so that I could have the pretty pictures and also just to get mail. I started reading my brother's old copies of Entertainment Weekly he had lying around the house about a year or so ago and every week, they would come in the mail for him, even though he wasn't at home, and I'd read them, since I usually was the one to get the mail anyways. And I started getting really into the magazine, reading it essentially cover to cover, sometimes skimming over articles, sometimes not.
The magazine really catches my perspective, I feel. It's smarter than a lot of the pop culture it covers, and it knows that, but it can still appreciate these things because it understands their importance in our current time. Sometimes I'm less happy about this, when I got a copy of EW with two huge articles about Twilight (one of which I read anyways), or when Diablo Cody writes her obnoxiously condescending and snobbish articles (which, unfortunately, I sometimes agree with, like in the case of her newest one, which I'll get to later). Regardless, EW is smart, a bit condescending at times, but they still bother with pop culture because, no matter that life isn't going to be solved by listening to the Jonas Brothers, it is still appealing (although not really to me).
I've been feeling really good about the magazine ever since I started really reading it attentively about a year ago now and I finally managed to get my own subscription now that I'm away at school. I received my first copy in the mail... and the cover was ripped. And it had Gossip Girl on the cover. I thought to myself, dammit, and I was hoping I could milk more than twenty minutes out of this.
But I managed to. And not because I read the Gossip Girl column anyway, but because of the other stuff. Because of Diablo Cody's actually interesting and relatable article (for once, for me), essentially about how The House Bunny is culturally important (I saw that movie and it was exactly what you expect it to be, but the best part about that is that it is still funny and Anna Faris is great in it). Because of the review for College which, instead of actually talking about the movie beyond maybe two paragraphs, instead talked about the cultural importance of Animal House, but that was totally appropriate in my opinion. Remaking Animal House isn't going to happen. College movies suck, and Animal House is fucking ridiculous, but in a way that I can't imagine being duplicated for all of the reasons the reviewer listed in the review for a different movie, which isn't nearly as good or culturally significant.
Because of the Heroes poster that was waiting for me inside, which I ripped out and is now on my wall, featuring Nathan, Peter, Angela, Claire, Noah, and Matt. Because of everything in it, really.
Entertainment Weekly embodies my perspective on the entertainment world. It's absolutely wonderful to enjoy deep, meaningful things in the entertainment world, like The Visitor or whatever novel that isn't by Stephanie Meyer or Jo Rowling that is topping the charts this week. But it's also fine to talk about the fashion at the Oscars (like how Diablo Cody looked like trash when she won one, and how Helen Mirren always looks fabulous, not playing it as if she's old or as if she's twenty, but playing it just beautifully). It's fine to drool over Christian Bale as Batman. It's fine to cheer The Dark Knight on as it hits the $500 million mark. All of which I do.
That is to say, I don't always agree with the magazine. I mean, I wonder how the hell Diablo Cody got on staff. Of course, sometimes I worry when they put High School Musical 3 on a two page spread when talking about the fall movie preview. But The Brothers Bloom got a blurb and a little picture of Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffalo, and there are some smart people working on that magazine. The cultural references they bring up make me smile and their reviews always leave me thinking, whether or not I've seen the movie/tv show/read the book/listened to the music/etc.
It's really nice to find a connection like that. It isn't perfect. Entertainment Weekly and I don't always get along. But considering that I still read it cover to cover, even if I don't find all the topics interesting, but because I have faith in the magazine to maybe surprise me by making me think about something I hadn't before, that still makes this a pretty tight connection. Yeah, it's just a magazine. And it's a magazine about pop culture and the entertainment world at that. It doesn't spend as much time covering things that are maybe more deep and meaningful. But pop culture is meaningful, even if the stuff in it isn't. EW and I get that. We're both smart, a bit condescending, but we're okay with being worried about who's going to win which Oscar.
In other news, we had our first film screenings for my History and Aesthetics of Film class. We watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. The former is German Expressionism. The latter involves a drunk pig. I KNOW, RIGHT?
And now I must run off and do my reading for when that class meets in the morning. Oh joy. A ten page pdf and fifty-ish more pages in my textbook. The funny part of this chapter is how the author is writing about the importance of make-up in Speed. Ahahahaha."
From September 10, 2008:
"This is why I love Entertainment Weekly.
I'm really not much of a magazine reader. I'm just too lazy to bother with subscriptions and the only reason I got them when I was younger was so that I could have the pretty pictures and also just to get mail. I started reading my brother's old copies of Entertainment Weekly he had lying around the house about a year or so ago and every week, they would come in the mail for him, even though he wasn't at home, and I'd read them, since I usually was the one to get the mail anyways. And I started getting really into the magazine, reading it essentially cover to cover, sometimes skimming over articles, sometimes not.
The magazine really catches my perspective, I feel. It's smarter than a lot of the pop culture it covers, and it knows that, but it can still appreciate these things because it understands their importance in our current time. Sometimes I'm less happy about this, when I got a copy of EW with two huge articles about Twilight (one of which I read anyways), or when Diablo Cody writes her obnoxiously condescending and snobbish articles (which, unfortunately, I sometimes agree with, like in the case of her newest one, which I'll get to later). Regardless, EW is smart, a bit condescending at times, but they still bother with pop culture because, no matter that life isn't going to be solved by listening to the Jonas Brothers, it is still appealing (although not really to me).
I've been feeling really good about the magazine ever since I started really reading it attentively about a year ago now and I finally managed to get my own subscription now that I'm away at school. I received my first copy in the mail... and the cover was ripped. And it had Gossip Girl on the cover. I thought to myself, dammit, and I was hoping I could milk more than twenty minutes out of this.
But I managed to. And not because I read the Gossip Girl column anyway, but because of the other stuff. Because of Diablo Cody's actually interesting and relatable article (for once, for me), essentially about how The House Bunny is culturally important (I saw that movie and it was exactly what you expect it to be, but the best part about that is that it is still funny and Anna Faris is great in it). Because of the review for College which, instead of actually talking about the movie beyond maybe two paragraphs, instead talked about the cultural importance of Animal House, but that was totally appropriate in my opinion. Remaking Animal House isn't going to happen. College movies suck, and Animal House is fucking ridiculous, but in a way that I can't imagine being duplicated for all of the reasons the reviewer listed in the review for a different movie, which isn't nearly as good or culturally significant.
Because of the Heroes poster that was waiting for me inside, which I ripped out and is now on my wall, featuring Nathan, Peter, Angela, Claire, Noah, and Matt. Because of everything in it, really.
Entertainment Weekly embodies my perspective on the entertainment world. It's absolutely wonderful to enjoy deep, meaningful things in the entertainment world, like The Visitor or whatever novel that isn't by Stephanie Meyer or Jo Rowling that is topping the charts this week. But it's also fine to talk about the fashion at the Oscars (like how Diablo Cody looked like trash when she won one, and how Helen Mirren always looks fabulous, not playing it as if she's old or as if she's twenty, but playing it just beautifully). It's fine to drool over Christian Bale as Batman. It's fine to cheer The Dark Knight on as it hits the $500 million mark. All of which I do.
That is to say, I don't always agree with the magazine. I mean, I wonder how the hell Diablo Cody got on staff. Of course, sometimes I worry when they put High School Musical 3 on a two page spread when talking about the fall movie preview. But The Brothers Bloom got a blurb and a little picture of Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffalo, and there are some smart people working on that magazine. The cultural references they bring up make me smile and their reviews always leave me thinking, whether or not I've seen the movie/tv show/read the book/listened to the music/etc.
It's really nice to find a connection like that. It isn't perfect. Entertainment Weekly and I don't always get along. But considering that I still read it cover to cover, even if I don't find all the topics interesting, but because I have faith in the magazine to maybe surprise me by making me think about something I hadn't before, that still makes this a pretty tight connection. Yeah, it's just a magazine. And it's a magazine about pop culture and the entertainment world at that. It doesn't spend as much time covering things that are maybe more deep and meaningful. But pop culture is meaningful, even if the stuff in it isn't. EW and I get that. We're both smart, a bit condescending, but we're okay with being worried about who's going to win which Oscar.
In other news, we had our first film screenings for my History and Aesthetics of Film class. We watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. The former is German Expressionism. The latter involves a drunk pig. I KNOW, RIGHT?
And now I must run off and do my reading for when that class meets in the morning. Oh joy. A ten page pdf and fifty-ish more pages in my textbook. The funny part of this chapter is how the author is writing about the importance of make-up in Speed. Ahahahaha."
Stealing From My Livejournal Part VI
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From July 12, 2008:
"As a film nerd, I was excited to read in Entertainment Weekly (and everyone else who is talking about The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger) that I wasn't the only person in the midst of summer blockbuster season to be looking towards the Oscars. After seeing Wall-E, which is at least one of the best, if not the best, Disney/Pixar film (and I agree with anyone pushing for a Best Picture nom rather than just an Animated Picture nom (or more likely, win)), and after hearing all the buzz about The Dark Knight, I've just been waiting for February to get here already.
I rely on my brother's subscription to Entertainment Weekly as my portal into the media and the film industry (aside from my online escapades), and so was extremely glad to see when they spoke of the few contenders for Oscars thus far this year, to see at least a passing mention for Richard Jenkins in The Visitor. This got me to thinking, of all the films already out there, what films are good contenders? And today, I remembered another early contender, In Bruges. In January/February/March, you don't expect many, if any, good films to come out, but I remember seeing that in theatres back when it came out and it was excellent. I think that it should definitely be included on any list of good movies of 2008 so far. The Visitor is the tiny indie film of the year, except that it has much more indie cred than that fucker Juno ever had imo, and I hope that it doesn't get ignored. Everything about that film was excellent.
Another film that came out in the off-season was the surprise Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day. Not the best movie I've ever seen, hardly, but it was adorable in its own right. Amy Adams and Frances McDormand were great in it, to say the least, and it was certainly a visually pleasing movie. It was a genuinely sweet film but in the best way possible, and although not in the same caliber as The Visitor or In Bruges, also good.
Now, these aren't my votes for Best Picture; I'm still waiting to see some Best Picture qualifiers aside from Wall-E (which is a tough competitor because not only is it a Disney/Pixar film, which speaks for itself as a brilliant animated feature film, but also, I think, the best film of the year thus far). But I do think The Visitor and In Bruges should not be forgotten when critics start to reflect on the year come fall and columnists start making Oscars guesses. I wouldn't be shocked that, if the fall lacks some proper Oscar contenders, The Dark Knight or Iron Man might take a stab at more notable noms than the special effects departments.
Also, because I like to think of the less dramatic Oscars, I think the sound effect and sound mixing ones should go to Wall-E. SERIOUSLY, man, the sound put into that movie is AMAZING. I notice these things; I disliked Atonement, but loved the soundtrack and thought that deserved the Oscar it got (although all of last year's soundtracks were great, like 3:10 to Yuma, which was totally shunted elsewhere in its awesomeness). I'd make a guess right now that Horton Hears a Who! and Kung Fu Panda will attempt to rival Wall-E for the Best Animated Feature. With the abundance of superhero films this summer, I'm sure the special effects categories are well-covered.
But my opinions right now might change. It seems to me that Oscar contenders are going to come late in the year, considering what there is to work with thus far.
In other film news, I am looking forward to the Coen Brothers' new film, Burn After Reading. I remember seeing a preview at some point and wondered just how many Oscar-vets they were trying to fit into the movie, but it also looked funny. And, of course, I need to see about fifty other movies this year, surely. x)"
From July 12, 2008:
"As a film nerd, I was excited to read in Entertainment Weekly (and everyone else who is talking about The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger) that I wasn't the only person in the midst of summer blockbuster season to be looking towards the Oscars. After seeing Wall-E, which is at least one of the best, if not the best, Disney/Pixar film (and I agree with anyone pushing for a Best Picture nom rather than just an Animated Picture nom (or more likely, win)), and after hearing all the buzz about The Dark Knight, I've just been waiting for February to get here already.
I rely on my brother's subscription to Entertainment Weekly as my portal into the media and the film industry (aside from my online escapades), and so was extremely glad to see when they spoke of the few contenders for Oscars thus far this year, to see at least a passing mention for Richard Jenkins in The Visitor. This got me to thinking, of all the films already out there, what films are good contenders? And today, I remembered another early contender, In Bruges. In January/February/March, you don't expect many, if any, good films to come out, but I remember seeing that in theatres back when it came out and it was excellent. I think that it should definitely be included on any list of good movies of 2008 so far. The Visitor is the tiny indie film of the year, except that it has much more indie cred than that fucker Juno ever had imo, and I hope that it doesn't get ignored. Everything about that film was excellent.
Another film that came out in the off-season was the surprise Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day. Not the best movie I've ever seen, hardly, but it was adorable in its own right. Amy Adams and Frances McDormand were great in it, to say the least, and it was certainly a visually pleasing movie. It was a genuinely sweet film but in the best way possible, and although not in the same caliber as The Visitor or In Bruges, also good.
Now, these aren't my votes for Best Picture; I'm still waiting to see some Best Picture qualifiers aside from Wall-E (which is a tough competitor because not only is it a Disney/Pixar film, which speaks for itself as a brilliant animated feature film, but also, I think, the best film of the year thus far). But I do think The Visitor and In Bruges should not be forgotten when critics start to reflect on the year come fall and columnists start making Oscars guesses. I wouldn't be shocked that, if the fall lacks some proper Oscar contenders, The Dark Knight or Iron Man might take a stab at more notable noms than the special effects departments.
Also, because I like to think of the less dramatic Oscars, I think the sound effect and sound mixing ones should go to Wall-E. SERIOUSLY, man, the sound put into that movie is AMAZING. I notice these things; I disliked Atonement, but loved the soundtrack and thought that deserved the Oscar it got (although all of last year's soundtracks were great, like 3:10 to Yuma, which was totally shunted elsewhere in its awesomeness). I'd make a guess right now that Horton Hears a Who! and Kung Fu Panda will attempt to rival Wall-E for the Best Animated Feature. With the abundance of superhero films this summer, I'm sure the special effects categories are well-covered.
But my opinions right now might change. It seems to me that Oscar contenders are going to come late in the year, considering what there is to work with thus far.
In other film news, I am looking forward to the Coen Brothers' new film, Burn After Reading. I remember seeing a preview at some point and wondered just how many Oscar-vets they were trying to fit into the movie, but it also looked funny. And, of course, I need to see about fifty other movies this year, surely. x)"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
