I have really never posted about politics in my blog, I usually feel like it's not something I'm as qualified to write about, or to be more plain, it's something I think lots of people can do better than I can with it.
But with the departure of John Edwards from the Democratic presidential campaign yesterday, I find myself with no other subject to think as deeply about. It bothers me on a level I'm not even sure I understand yet, not even so much that Edwards dropped out, but the circumstances leading up to why he did.
John Edwards was my 'guy,' for the entire length of this campaign, and in fact I would go so far as to say I had him in my mind as the 08 Candidate during the 04 election, when I had the opportunity to see the Senator speak here in Columbus, following the first debate between Senator Kerry and President Bush. It was there on the waterfront in front of COSI, that I started to suspect that we had perhaps backed the wrong horse. Granted, at the time, Kerry had just wiped the floor with Bush in the debate and myself, along with the rest of the Dems in attendance of the rally, were fairly confident we had the election won. But there was something in the way John Edwards spoke that night, a level of charisma and conviction to his words that made me wish he had been the first name on the ticket. Assuming at the time that Kerry would win in 04, I was already picturing the Edwards 2012 campaign signs in my head (obviously in my fantasy, Kerry was a 2-termer.)
We all know how the 2004 election turned out, and it was in the wake of the election that I was then certain that Edwards was my guy. When the votes had not been fully counted, and there was suspicion of tampering in several Ohio counties, Kerry conceded. This action enraged me, and it enraged Edwards, who openly criticized his now-former running mate. Whether or not Kerry would have ultimately proven to be the loser was not the point, the point was that these men had campaigned on a ticket of fighting what they believed to be a wrong course for America, and Kerry knuckled under. Edwards wanted to keep fighting.
And in the build up to the 2008 campaign, it was this fighting attitude that made me lean towards Edwards when the media had already began prepping for a 2-candidate race between Hilary and Obama. Edwards ran the kind of campaign that people always claim to want, being one that focused on the issues and focusing his anger and fighting spirit towards what needed to be done about them, as opposed to what was simply wrong with his opponents. In the Democratic debate held on Martin Luther King, Edwards was the voice of reason, between a bickering set of frontrunners. His comment that his opponents back and forth was doing nothing to put food in the mouths of starving children, was to this viewer, the key moment of the debate, and yet in the vast majority of the media coverage of said debate, Edwards' presence was an afterthought, the fight between Hilary and Barack was apparently a more fun story.
What troubles me about the Edwards concession is that it is this media blackout on his campaign that forced it to be so. There are plenty of theorists online who suggest that the source of this blackout is a corporate media conspiracy to keep him from getting the ticket, as his populist message could pose a true threat to their status quo, especially as polls show he is capable of defeating every single republican candidate in the general election. I do not know how much stock I put in said theory, it has merit I suppose and frankly I've had the "liberal media" line shoved down my throat so many times that I challenge someone to try to claim that it isn't possible. If it can be argued that there is a media conspiracy powerful enough to push the leftist agenda, it is just as plausible, perhaps even more so, to say the same could go for the right.
But for me, I don't think the sin of media coverage in this election is an attempt to push a specific agenda, as much as it is the very troublesome problem with news coverage in general, in that the hotter story now is more important than the better story. In starting to write this blog, I had to actually dig deep to find any sort of information on what Barack, Hilary, Romney, or McCain actually think about any issues. All that is on the surface is that both Barack and Hilary are fans of "change," and the other offers false change. Romney and McCain, one of them is too conservative, or not conservative enough, depending on what day of the week it is.
The other thing that damned the Edwards campaign, is something that was at the very heart of what he was trying to accomplish. Edwards, by virtue of his refusal to take money from special interest groups, was unable to raise the level of money required to really take on either of his Democratic opponents. Without the support of media coverage, and the inability to finance his own advertising at the level of Hilary and Obama, he was forced into the distant third role, and written off, with most voters unaware that he was really even in it.
And that really doesn't sit well with me. I am tired of the way that in this country, politics have become a cult of personality that in no way have anything to do with ones own issues. I'm not saying that Edwards was absolutely the best candidate for everyone, in fact I know he was very opposable by people who favor conservative systems, but at least he had issues, at least he had a platform. When did we, as a country, stop caring about what our leaders actually think about? When did we just sit back and let 24-hour news tell us who the frontrunners are before a single vote has been cast?
We continue to allow things that at the end of the day are not the real important issues to be the things that dominate the race. In 2004, it was gay marriage, an issue pretty much untouched, even though it defined the voter turnout. Now the buzz points for the Democratic side seem to be making a change in race or gender. I get it, a black or female president is a progressive move forward, and there are benefits to it, and I support the cause. I just feel that with the country in the shape it is in, and with the troubles our next president is going to have to face, the changes of skin color or genitals are ultimately superficial changes, as in the end they are all politicians, all proven to be capable of the challenges of public office. The real change that needs to go into effect are philosophical and policy changes, an effort to shape the future of our nation, and like Howard Dean in 2004, that is what John Edwards represented in this election, and that is what has been lost in his departure from it.
In the wake of his departure, I now wait for Hilary or Barack to show me something besides what is wrong with the other, because I really want to know what they have planned, not as primary candidates, but as presidential ticket candidates, and as presidents. Hopefully that will include the message that Edwards has fought so hard to bring to the surface, of health care reform, of the poverty epidemic that gets worse every year, issues that his presence in the campaign thus far will make it hard for them to ignore. And here's hoping we see his name on the bottom half of a ticket, and the top in 8 more years.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bourne Smart
When I was a kid, I was obsessed with "Get Smart." I remember getting teased one day in class when as part of a game, I named it as a favorite TV show, and people laughed thinking it was some nerdy show that literally had to do with getting smarter. (We were supposed to draw a picture representing the show and someone drew a brain.) I don't know if loving a 1965 TV series is any more cool for an 8th grader than loving a "getting smarter" show, so I didn't press the point.
So it is of course with mixed feelings that I do somewhat anticipate the upcoming movie remake. I am warily excited because I can think of no better person to fill Don Adams' shoes than Steve Carrell. And I am just going to say it, I love The Rock. Between "Supe R. Man," and the Rundown, I'm a fan, despite having never watched him wrestle. And who doesn't love Alan Arkin, or Anne Hathaway, who so lovingly bared her chest for all us straight men who watched Brokeback Mountain?
But I remember another attempt to revive "Get Smart," the very short lived same-name series from 1995, which featured Don Adams returning as Max, now chief of Control, and starred his son, Zach Smart, played by... Andy Dick (yes, really.) And despite the very awful casting choice, the show did feature the original Max, and also Barbara Feldon returned as 99. But the show flopped. Again, maybe due to the fact that Andy Dick has never been enjoyable in anything ever except the Ben Stiller show, and NewsRadio, but also because, it wasn't a show for the 90's.
What makes me nervous about the idea of a Get Smart remake is a problem that faces a lot of contemporary remake, in that they often don't connect with the context of today's world. This problem was embraced by the Brady Bunch movies, but is usually something of a bane for remake attempts. The Duke boys can't gleefully ride around in the 21st century south the way they did in the 1970's and still connect. Miami Vice, though adapted by Michael Mann himself, translated into something more like a Bad Boys rip off than an actual remake of the original series.
In the case of Get Smart, the genre it parodies has undergone a massive overhaul, mostly on the tail of a little franchise called the Bourne Identity Trilogy. As Jason Bourne, Matt Damon changed the face of the spy movie hero from one of the debonair playboy to a rougher around the edges human weapon, a metamorphosis fully confirmed by the rebooting of the James Bond franchise with Casino Royale, essentially turning Bond into Bourne. By the majority of accounts it was a breath of fresh air that the series needed, but where does that leave Maxwell Smart?
Oddly enough, the one true bit of hope that the remake has going for it, is that the actual nature of the humor itself will work on audiences in 2008, without the contemporary connection to the spies of the sixties era. This potentially makes Carrell an even smarter casting choice beyond his similarities to Don Adams. As Michael Scott on the American "Office," Carrell has helped create an audience favorite out of a show that embraces the humor of awkwardness in a way perhaps no other American series has done since the original Smart. Hopefully this combination puts together a product that works better than the Cone of Silence.
So it is of course with mixed feelings that I do somewhat anticipate the upcoming movie remake. I am warily excited because I can think of no better person to fill Don Adams' shoes than Steve Carrell. And I am just going to say it, I love The Rock. Between "Supe R. Man," and the Rundown, I'm a fan, despite having never watched him wrestle. And who doesn't love Alan Arkin, or Anne Hathaway, who so lovingly bared her chest for all us straight men who watched Brokeback Mountain?
But I remember another attempt to revive "Get Smart," the very short lived same-name series from 1995, which featured Don Adams returning as Max, now chief of Control, and starred his son, Zach Smart, played by... Andy Dick (yes, really.) And despite the very awful casting choice, the show did feature the original Max, and also Barbara Feldon returned as 99. But the show flopped. Again, maybe due to the fact that Andy Dick has never been enjoyable in anything ever except the Ben Stiller show, and NewsRadio, but also because, it wasn't a show for the 90's.
What makes me nervous about the idea of a Get Smart remake is a problem that faces a lot of contemporary remake, in that they often don't connect with the context of today's world. This problem was embraced by the Brady Bunch movies, but is usually something of a bane for remake attempts. The Duke boys can't gleefully ride around in the 21st century south the way they did in the 1970's and still connect. Miami Vice, though adapted by Michael Mann himself, translated into something more like a Bad Boys rip off than an actual remake of the original series.
In the case of Get Smart, the genre it parodies has undergone a massive overhaul, mostly on the tail of a little franchise called the Bourne Identity Trilogy. As Jason Bourne, Matt Damon changed the face of the spy movie hero from one of the debonair playboy to a rougher around the edges human weapon, a metamorphosis fully confirmed by the rebooting of the James Bond franchise with Casino Royale, essentially turning Bond into Bourne. By the majority of accounts it was a breath of fresh air that the series needed, but where does that leave Maxwell Smart?
Oddly enough, the one true bit of hope that the remake has going for it, is that the actual nature of the humor itself will work on audiences in 2008, without the contemporary connection to the spies of the sixties era. This potentially makes Carrell an even smarter casting choice beyond his similarities to Don Adams. As Michael Scott on the American "Office," Carrell has helped create an audience favorite out of a show that embraces the humor of awkwardness in a way perhaps no other American series has done since the original Smart. Hopefully this combination puts together a product that works better than the Cone of Silence.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sliders Slid.
It is a safe argument that most shows are not consistently good, most have at least some down points in their runs. Even the critically beloved Sopranos had its fourth season, and, frankly, the first half of its sixth. Arrested Development is probably the closest any show I can think of ever came to being perfect, I can not think of any point in its 3 seasons that the show wasn't as good as any other point. The phrase Jumping the Shark exists for a reason. But I can think of no other show that had such a significant switch and decline in quality, than the Fox sci-fi series, Sliders.
Premiering in 1995, Sliders had a fairly simple premise. Stripping away the science fiction elements that explained how it worked, Sliders was simply this: four people travel together through parallel Earths. To give more background, Quinn Mallory, played by a then-only-known-for-'Stand By Me,' Jerry O'Connell, had discovered a way to open wormholes between worlds, and brought along with him on his trip his girlfriend Wade, Quinn's college professor Arturo, and Rembrandt "The Crying Man" Brown, a struggling blues singer who happened to be driving by. During their first "slide," Quinn's device was damaged and they were no longer able to control where they slid to, thus creating the driving force of the show, not unlike Quantum Leap, of hoping each "slide" would be the one to take them home.
The series started off very strong, presenting several interesting versions of what history would be were it not for a few important details. Some episodes dealt with alternate outcomes of wars, presenting an earth where the Russians had taken over during the Cold War, and one where we had lost the Revolutionary War. Others were more socially concerned, like a world where women were the dominant sex. Some were a little more complicated, for example a world where corporate negotiations are handled with western style gunslinging, and a world where following the assassination of JFK, J. Edgar Hoover was elected president and declared martial law, creating a present day where Rock and Roll never happened, the Constitution has been banned, and police offers all wear pleated skirts in honor of the alleged-crossdressing of Hoover. Despite the absurdity, they were good episodes with some really interesting points about the fabric of history. It was even possible to overlook the fact that far too often, they would "happen" to land on a world where one of the four sliders was really famous, including a world where Rembrandt was basically Elvis.
Then the Kromaggs came. In late season 2, the sliders encountered a world that was under an alien invasion by a race called the Kromaggs. By the end of the episode, we discover that the Kromaggs are actually sliders themselves, and come from an alternate earth where they evolved to be the dominant species on earth instead of humans. It was a fairly decent episode, however it is considered by most fans of the show to be the moment when the show jumped the shark. By the end of the series' 5 season-run, the Kromaggs went from being a one-episode indulgence to being the dominating storyline on the show. They became the main antagonist, something which really had not even existed in the original premise, as the conflict was always focused on the world being visited.
In Season 3, FOX took control of the show away from its creators, moving production from Vancouver to LA and shifting the focus of the show to become far more action-oriented, eventually forcing out show creator Tracy Torme (Mel's Son). Wanting to make the show appeal to a younger audience, FOX fired John Rhys-Davis, who played Arturo, killing off his character and replacing him with the younger, hotter, Maggie Beckett, played by sexploitation star Kari Wuhrer. The absence of input by the original creative staff was obvious as the majority of alternate earths in Season 3 were blatant ripoffs from movies and books, including the Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Anaconda. After doing unspeakable damage to the show, FOX promptly cancelled it.
Two more seasons aired on the SciFi channel, but despite occasional attempts to restore the show to its original premise, the damage had been done. Cast changes were rampant, with Sabrina Lloyd, who played Wade, left to do Sportsnight, and was replaced for a season by Jerry O'Connell's real-life brother Charlie, who played Quinn's long-lost brother Colin. Then both brothers left the show, Colin being written off as simply "lost in the vortex," and Jerry being replaced by another actor, creating the most complicated example ever of the "Darrin Syndrome." The details are still a little fuzzy to me, but it involved an alternate double of Quinn whose mind was merged with the original Quinn, creating a new character referred to as "Mallory." Only Rembrandt Brown lasted the entire run of the series, odd as he was also the only character on the show who had not slid willingly.
The show that started with a simple, creative premise, devolved into one of the most convoluted messes to ever be unleashed onto the television viewer, and I don't think any other show has ever made me as angry at its fall from grace. It is because of my experience with Sliders that I have developed a much weaker tolerance for shows that fall out of my favor, why I stopped watching Prison Break as soon as the premiere of season three showed me nothing I wanted to see, and why I took Grey's Anatomy off my DVR in the mess of storylines that followed the "ferry crash" storyline.
Premiering in 1995, Sliders had a fairly simple premise. Stripping away the science fiction elements that explained how it worked, Sliders was simply this: four people travel together through parallel Earths. To give more background, Quinn Mallory, played by a then-only-known-for-'Stand By Me,' Jerry O'Connell, had discovered a way to open wormholes between worlds, and brought along with him on his trip his girlfriend Wade, Quinn's college professor Arturo, and Rembrandt "The Crying Man" Brown, a struggling blues singer who happened to be driving by. During their first "slide," Quinn's device was damaged and they were no longer able to control where they slid to, thus creating the driving force of the show, not unlike Quantum Leap, of hoping each "slide" would be the one to take them home.
The series started off very strong, presenting several interesting versions of what history would be were it not for a few important details. Some episodes dealt with alternate outcomes of wars, presenting an earth where the Russians had taken over during the Cold War, and one where we had lost the Revolutionary War. Others were more socially concerned, like a world where women were the dominant sex. Some were a little more complicated, for example a world where corporate negotiations are handled with western style gunslinging, and a world where following the assassination of JFK, J. Edgar Hoover was elected president and declared martial law, creating a present day where Rock and Roll never happened, the Constitution has been banned, and police offers all wear pleated skirts in honor of the alleged-crossdressing of Hoover. Despite the absurdity, they were good episodes with some really interesting points about the fabric of history. It was even possible to overlook the fact that far too often, they would "happen" to land on a world where one of the four sliders was really famous, including a world where Rembrandt was basically Elvis.
Then the Kromaggs came. In late season 2, the sliders encountered a world that was under an alien invasion by a race called the Kromaggs. By the end of the episode, we discover that the Kromaggs are actually sliders themselves, and come from an alternate earth where they evolved to be the dominant species on earth instead of humans. It was a fairly decent episode, however it is considered by most fans of the show to be the moment when the show jumped the shark. By the end of the series' 5 season-run, the Kromaggs went from being a one-episode indulgence to being the dominating storyline on the show. They became the main antagonist, something which really had not even existed in the original premise, as the conflict was always focused on the world being visited.
In Season 3, FOX took control of the show away from its creators, moving production from Vancouver to LA and shifting the focus of the show to become far more action-oriented, eventually forcing out show creator Tracy Torme (Mel's Son). Wanting to make the show appeal to a younger audience, FOX fired John Rhys-Davis, who played Arturo, killing off his character and replacing him with the younger, hotter, Maggie Beckett, played by sexploitation star Kari Wuhrer. The absence of input by the original creative staff was obvious as the majority of alternate earths in Season 3 were blatant ripoffs from movies and books, including the Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Anaconda. After doing unspeakable damage to the show, FOX promptly cancelled it.
Two more seasons aired on the SciFi channel, but despite occasional attempts to restore the show to its original premise, the damage had been done. Cast changes were rampant, with Sabrina Lloyd, who played Wade, left to do Sportsnight, and was replaced for a season by Jerry O'Connell's real-life brother Charlie, who played Quinn's long-lost brother Colin. Then both brothers left the show, Colin being written off as simply "lost in the vortex," and Jerry being replaced by another actor, creating the most complicated example ever of the "Darrin Syndrome." The details are still a little fuzzy to me, but it involved an alternate double of Quinn whose mind was merged with the original Quinn, creating a new character referred to as "Mallory." Only Rembrandt Brown lasted the entire run of the series, odd as he was also the only character on the show who had not slid willingly.
The show that started with a simple, creative premise, devolved into one of the most convoluted messes to ever be unleashed onto the television viewer, and I don't think any other show has ever made me as angry at its fall from grace. It is because of my experience with Sliders that I have developed a much weaker tolerance for shows that fall out of my favor, why I stopped watching Prison Break as soon as the premiere of season three showed me nothing I wanted to see, and why I took Grey's Anatomy off my DVR in the mess of storylines that followed the "ferry crash" storyline.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Worst Title.. Ever
It is official, titles are out of control. The last few years, hollywood has gotten more and more ridiculous with the names of movies. The ones that I think started it were a combination of Lord of the Rings and the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Neither of these were really bad at all, LOTR obviously took their titles directly from the books, and Pirates were going for that old-school serialized movie thing, like Indiana Jones did.
But since then, the sky has been the limit on how long a movie title seems to be allowed to be, and they all have to have a sub-title. The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? (it should be pointed out that the movie did not feature the Surfer "rising" as much as "arriving.") The newly announced Terminator sequel being planned is: Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins, which is basically two sub-titles together. How about "Terminator 4: Salvation" Not nearly as pretentious as the new one, and it maintains the continuity of the other 2 sequels, which while includng a subtitle, still maintains the classic number system. Even my beloved Indy. Coming out this summer is "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Really? Why not just 'Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull'? Doesn't seem any less impressive to me and is less of a mouthful.
One thing I admire about the James Bond series in its titles is that by virtue of having been around since the 60's, they never got into the bad habit of putting "James Bond:" before every title. And yet Bond fans seem to have no trouble finding them. Props to Christopher Nolan for his new Batman, simply titled "The Dark Knight" and not "Batman Begins: The Dark Knight" or some other such silly name. People aren't so stupid that they won't recognize that a movie is a sequel without having the name of the original in the title. Would National Treasure: Book of Secrets have made any less money had it simply been titled "Book of Secrets"? I doubt it.
Bond is on my shitlist right now though because of their newest title. "Quantum of Solace," really? Maybe the worst Bond title ever. It doesn't even sound like an action movie. And before anyone calls me on it, yes, I know that it is an original Fleming story title. It still sucks. "View to a Kill," "Live and Let Die," "Goldfinger," "Diamonds Are Forever," those are good names for Bond movies. "Quantum of Solace" is even worse than "The World is Not Enough." It is a good thing "Casino Royale" did away with the opening song being a titular song, because I would pity the poor band that had to write the "Quantum of Solace" song.
But since then, the sky has been the limit on how long a movie title seems to be allowed to be, and they all have to have a sub-title. The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? (it should be pointed out that the movie did not feature the Surfer "rising" as much as "arriving.") The newly announced Terminator sequel being planned is: Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins, which is basically two sub-titles together. How about "Terminator 4: Salvation" Not nearly as pretentious as the new one, and it maintains the continuity of the other 2 sequels, which while includng a subtitle, still maintains the classic number system. Even my beloved Indy. Coming out this summer is "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Really? Why not just 'Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull'? Doesn't seem any less impressive to me and is less of a mouthful.
One thing I admire about the James Bond series in its titles is that by virtue of having been around since the 60's, they never got into the bad habit of putting "James Bond:" before every title. And yet Bond fans seem to have no trouble finding them. Props to Christopher Nolan for his new Batman, simply titled "The Dark Knight" and not "Batman Begins: The Dark Knight" or some other such silly name. People aren't so stupid that they won't recognize that a movie is a sequel without having the name of the original in the title. Would National Treasure: Book of Secrets have made any less money had it simply been titled "Book of Secrets"? I doubt it.
Bond is on my shitlist right now though because of their newest title. "Quantum of Solace," really? Maybe the worst Bond title ever. It doesn't even sound like an action movie. And before anyone calls me on it, yes, I know that it is an original Fleming story title. It still sucks. "View to a Kill," "Live and Let Die," "Goldfinger," "Diamonds Are Forever," those are good names for Bond movies. "Quantum of Solace" is even worse than "The World is Not Enough." It is a good thing "Casino Royale" did away with the opening song being a titular song, because I would pity the poor band that had to write the "Quantum of Solace" song.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Try on Dresses with me
(The Following Review was originally written for the website The Inept Owl Some formatting errors may have occured during the copying and pasting.)
I'll admit it. Despite being a somewhat cynical, heterosexual male, I do have a soft spot for romantic comedies. I am certainly willing to shoot down the ones that are absolute crap, such as Kate and Leopold, or Maid in Manhattan, but I also have a very hard time turning You've Got Mail off when it comes on my HBO. So armed with a light, since-Roswell crush on Katharine Heigl and a close lesbian friend who serves as a great fake girlfriend, I found myself at a screening of 27 Dresses, the new romantic comedy from writer Aline Brosh McKenna.
The movie has not been very well reviewed, and I went in with very low expectations. With that in mind I did enjoy it. I have not been very impressed with the slate of RomComs that have been dumped on us in the past few years, with such absolute driven as Must Love Dogs and A Lot Like Love, but I was able to enjoy 27 Dresses despite a couple of script errors, and the blatant even to me anti-feminist notion that the importance of its protagonist as a person seems entirely wrapped up in whether or not she can find herself a husband. An odd contrast from McKenna's previous film, the adaptation of The Devil Wears Prada, which commented on the struggle of women to hold power without isolating themselves from human connection.
A few things are out of whack in the script; I am willing to overlook the flawed logistics of the opening sequence where Heigl hires a cab to commute her between two simultaneous weddings, as it is an effective way of showing us the lengths she will go to in an effort to give every bride she knows what they need for their weddings. However one major plot point of the movie is that James Marsden, as a writer for the "Commitments" section of a popular newspaper, attends weddings and interviews the bridal parties for his column, yet Heigl, the maid of honor at a wedding he is writing about in the beginning, does not know who he is when they meet. Also, Heigl's character is painted as having basically no social life, being at the beck and call of her boss whom she secretly loves, yet she apparently knows enough people to have been the maid of honor or at least a very involved bridesmaid in 27 weddings so far. Where exactly did she meet all these other women, when it seems her only friend in the world is the perennial best-friend Judy Greer? (Greer is brilliant, as always, I should add.)
The reason why it does work is the chemistry between Heigl and the male romantic lead Marsden, who I am rarely a fan of, which is an actual believable romantic connection, unlike the attempted chemistry between original object of Heigl's affection, Edward Burns, and her sister played by the human bobblehead doll Malin Akerman (seriously, what school of acting did she go to that taught her your head must always move whilst talking?) As much as I am a fan of Burns, I really only think he works as a tough Irish cop or taxi driver, and always seems to fall short as someone who is supposed to actually be loveable.
The movie makes use of two way over-done romcom staples, that being the clothing-montage and the group singing scene, yet somehow they both work and do more than just fill time between banter. I will confess to being something of a sucker for an earned sing-along scene; I will defy any one to try and shake my love of a bus full of 70's musicians singing Tiny Dancer, and indeed I quite enjoyed this movie's rendition of Benny and the Jets. The sing along scene, which takes place in an upstate New York dive-bar, also contains perhaps my favorite extras in any movie ever, so noticeable in how much they are enjoying the singing of Marsden and Heigl that I began to watch them more than the leads.
One thing the movie does that I found myself very impressed by is that in the climax, our protagonist does something that is absolutely wrong of her to do, regardless of how awful her sister is. Typically in a movie such as this, a move in the same part of the script is something done with the best intentions or even more often, as is the case of most Ben Stiller movies, the result of things happening that make their own efforts fall apart, Heigl's character does something that is nothing short of personal sabotage, and I have to give a bit of applause to McKenna for taking that direction, of making us see our heroine as someone who can actually do something cruel or manipulative and selfish without making us hate her for it.
Because of that, and stellar performances by Heigl, Marsden, Greer, and those extras, I wll give 27 Dresses a B-.
New blog
While I will continue to post on this blog, I have just joined my friend comedian Dan Swartwout in a new multi-writer blog that he has started called "Something Something Burt Ward," which will be a collective pop culture based blog, and can be read here: http://somethingsomethingburtward.blogspot.com/ Check it out today to see Dan's choices for the best Simpsons seasons ever and my raving about the glory that is Judy Greer.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
3 Show Monte
Last night was a rarity in doing comedy in Columbus, a multi-show night. Sure when I work at the FunnyBone we do 2 shows on friday and 3 on saturday, but this was actually a night when I did three shows in one night at three separate venues. I had to hurry between gigs and even though I was driving, it reminded me of New York, when my friend Maria and I would hurriedly jump into the back of a cab to get to another show. Also what was fun about it was the total difference between all the shows.
The first was the FunnyBone, where I was MCing, there I pretty much have to do a tight ten minutes, of stuff I know is solid and will work, because it's a very established club and you have to make sure the people get the show they expect when they buy a ticket. The next was a feature spot at a show my friend booked in Clintonville, about 15 minutes away, and I did about a half hour there, which still had to be somewhat polished, except it was a bar and the crowd was much smaller and so I was able to have a little more freedom to mess around with them a bit.
Finishing off the night was the weekly show at the Surly Girl Saloon on high street. It was a rare night for that show too in that there weren't a lot of comics but there was a big crowd, so myself and a few others, we were told to just do whatever time we wanted within reason. The Surly Girl has very much become my workout room, it's the place I go to just try out stuff and sort of goof off onstage. As a result it is the stage I feel the most comfortable on, and often have the most fun with.
It was funny too, when I was onstage I told a story from when I worked at my old job and a woman telling a technician that her son hadn't sodomized his ipod (true story.) and this girl in the crowd just mutters "what's sodomize mean?" Later I found out this same girl had appeared on the TV series "Beauty and the Geek." One of the other comics got her autograph, which to me, seems like the absolute most wasted use of paper and ink ever, but whatever.
The first was the FunnyBone, where I was MCing, there I pretty much have to do a tight ten minutes, of stuff I know is solid and will work, because it's a very established club and you have to make sure the people get the show they expect when they buy a ticket. The next was a feature spot at a show my friend booked in Clintonville, about 15 minutes away, and I did about a half hour there, which still had to be somewhat polished, except it was a bar and the crowd was much smaller and so I was able to have a little more freedom to mess around with them a bit.
Finishing off the night was the weekly show at the Surly Girl Saloon on high street. It was a rare night for that show too in that there weren't a lot of comics but there was a big crowd, so myself and a few others, we were told to just do whatever time we wanted within reason. The Surly Girl has very much become my workout room, it's the place I go to just try out stuff and sort of goof off onstage. As a result it is the stage I feel the most comfortable on, and often have the most fun with.
It was funny too, when I was onstage I told a story from when I worked at my old job and a woman telling a technician that her son hadn't sodomized his ipod (true story.) and this girl in the crowd just mutters "what's sodomize mean?" Later I found out this same girl had appeared on the TV series "Beauty and the Geek." One of the other comics got her autograph, which to me, seems like the absolute most wasted use of paper and ink ever, but whatever.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Mark Harris and the Sci Fi problem
I begin this blog entry with a little bit of personal conflict, because while looking at Entertainment Weekly online for the column that I am responding to, I discovered a newer work by the same author makes me want to reconsider taking issue with him in the first place. The person in question is Mark Harris, and despite what I’m about to say, I highly recommend reading his recent piece on the WGA strike, here.
So I concede that Mark Harris is not an idiot, and is a guy who in general knows what he is talking about. However, I have to take him to task on what I frankly consider to be an irresponsible column published recently in the magazine, regarding the state of Sci-Fi today. The original piece can be read here.
Here’s the thing, it’s not so much the subject of Harris’ column that I take issue with. I totally agree with him that science fiction is in a bad way and has been for a few years. What bothers me is that the group he chooses to target with the blame for where it is: namely the people who create it. Really, Mark? You think J.J. Abrams and his Star Trek reboot is the problem with science fiction? Remember, as powerful as Abrams is, he still had to have his project greenlit.
See there’s the rub. Your argument is flawed the second you say in your column that sci fi’s problems cannot be measured at the box office. It absolutely can. I am Legend not withstanding, it has not been a great few years for science fiction. You want innovation and new ideas? Look no further than the groundbreaking TV series Firefly, and its movie adaptation, Serenity.
Despite a fiercely loyal cult following, the show was axed by Fox not even halfway through its first season, and even though the movie had a by comparison low budget of $40 million, it didn’t turn a profit in theaters, earning an estimated $38 million worldwide. Or how about Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men, made on a more expensive budget of $76 million, and being hailed specifically as a new artistic vision of the future (ok, admittedly loosely based on a novel) it only earned a worldwide gross of $68 Million. It would seem there are new ideas, just a little bit of trouble selling them.
And that’s why when you look at the most successful science fiction at the box office in recent years you run into things like I am Legend. Let’s face it, it didn’t do well because people said “ooh, Sci Fi.” People said “ooh, Will Smith fighting monsters.” So say you’re the head of a studio. Someone comes to you and says, hey I have this new idea that will challenge and reinvent the genre, or I have the Casino Royale of Star Trek. Which one will you go with? Ok, but which one do you think MOST studio heads would go with?
What is killing science fiction most right now is a cowardice of movie studios to gamble on what isn’t a safe bet. When I bring up Serenity in conversation most people have never heard of it, and the same goes with Children of Men, but everyone has heard of say, Fantastic Four 2. I have no doubt in my mind that had the public been more aware of these movies, had they been blitzed with promotion the way a certain Will Smith movie was, they would have been bigger hits. Or at least someone writing a column about Science Fiction may have been aware of them.
So I concede that Mark Harris is not an idiot, and is a guy who in general knows what he is talking about. However, I have to take him to task on what I frankly consider to be an irresponsible column published recently in the magazine, regarding the state of Sci-Fi today. The original piece can be read here.
Here’s the thing, it’s not so much the subject of Harris’ column that I take issue with. I totally agree with him that science fiction is in a bad way and has been for a few years. What bothers me is that the group he chooses to target with the blame for where it is: namely the people who create it. Really, Mark? You think J.J. Abrams and his Star Trek reboot is the problem with science fiction? Remember, as powerful as Abrams is, he still had to have his project greenlit.
See there’s the rub. Your argument is flawed the second you say in your column that sci fi’s problems cannot be measured at the box office. It absolutely can. I am Legend not withstanding, it has not been a great few years for science fiction. You want innovation and new ideas? Look no further than the groundbreaking TV series Firefly, and its movie adaptation, Serenity.
Despite a fiercely loyal cult following, the show was axed by Fox not even halfway through its first season, and even though the movie had a by comparison low budget of $40 million, it didn’t turn a profit in theaters, earning an estimated $38 million worldwide. Or how about Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men, made on a more expensive budget of $76 million, and being hailed specifically as a new artistic vision of the future (ok, admittedly loosely based on a novel) it only earned a worldwide gross of $68 Million. It would seem there are new ideas, just a little bit of trouble selling them.
And that’s why when you look at the most successful science fiction at the box office in recent years you run into things like I am Legend. Let’s face it, it didn’t do well because people said “ooh, Sci Fi.” People said “ooh, Will Smith fighting monsters.” So say you’re the head of a studio. Someone comes to you and says, hey I have this new idea that will challenge and reinvent the genre, or I have the Casino Royale of Star Trek. Which one will you go with? Ok, but which one do you think MOST studio heads would go with?
What is killing science fiction most right now is a cowardice of movie studios to gamble on what isn’t a safe bet. When I bring up Serenity in conversation most people have never heard of it, and the same goes with Children of Men, but everyone has heard of say, Fantastic Four 2. I have no doubt in my mind that had the public been more aware of these movies, had they been blitzed with promotion the way a certain Will Smith movie was, they would have been bigger hits. Or at least someone writing a column about Science Fiction may have been aware of them.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
New Page
I have a blog I maintain on my website, www.ryesilverman.com, but I have decided to post them here on blogger because it seems a little easier to read and maintain, and also because i can update it without being on my own computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)