“There is nothing new in art except talent.” Chekhov
I saw Hair this weekend, and have been thinking of this quote ever since. (Full disclosure, I had to look up who originally said it. I am not up on my Chekhov, I just remembered liking the quote). This was my first time seeing Hair, and the cast was fantastic, and full of energy and life. I only knew a few of the songs going in, which is odd for me, as I usually try to familiarize myself with the music before I go see a show. The sets were minimal, the band on stage is becoming a trend in shows (Spring Awakening, Next to Normal and Sweeney Todd are all doing that right now, and I have seen those in the past year) and the music still felt relevant some 30 years later. All in all very enjoyable.
So, why Chekhov? Because I think he was wrong. Far be it from me to argue with a lauded dead Russian, but I think there are new things to be had in art in general and theater especially. Watching Hair on Saturday, I kept wondering how people felt when they saw this show in the original run. In the early 1960's, Fiddler on the Roof, Hello Dolly and The Sound of Music all won Tony's for Best Musical. Big, traditional musicals all. And then came Hair. With sex and drugs and electric guitars and leaving the stage to mingle with the audience. It must have been shocking and confusing and awe inspiring and moving to see. It must have felt like I felt watching Rent for the first time.
I saw Rent in June 1997, when I was 19 and loved all things musical theater. I grew up with Les Miz and My Fair Lady, and had just done Into the Woods in college. My knowledge was limited to shows I had seen with my high school, or had been made into movies, but I loved them and sought out new shows as often as I could. I came across the soundtrack to Rent through a friend, and knew immediately that this was something new and different. I knew I liked the edgy lyrics because there was still enough "broadway" in there to keep me happy. My friends and I debated if Angel was a girl or a boy, and questioned what Stoli was. We were 19. And then we saw Rent for ourselves. We had gone to NYC to see The Lion King (great show, tickets were a gift because no college kid could afford the $120 ticket price) and stayed to see the late performance of Rent. We already had tickets for later in the summer, but somehow we could not wait. We HAD to see it that day.
Rent was shocking and awe inspiring and moving, and I cried several times. It was seeing my generation up on stage, with the most talented people I had ever seen pouring their hearts and souls and anger into the lyrics. It was early enough in the run that we saw most of the original cast, which looking back is amazing to me, but at the time I didn't know Taye Diggs from Adam Pascal. I didn't know this show would go on to be on the cover of Time, or even that Jonathon Larson has recently passed away, devastating the cast. I just knew that for two and a half hours, I was transfixed, and I felt like I was seeing something new.
I wasn't of course. If not for Hair, Rent probably would not exist. And if not for Rent, Spring Awakening probably would not exist either. And so it goes. Maybe Chekhov was right, and everything is just a new spin on something else. But Hair lost the Best Musical Tony award to patriotic, traditional 1776, and Rent won both the Tony and the Pulitzer Prize. So maybe as we as a culture grow, we are learning better to accept things that are new to us, even if others before us have seen it all before.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
A Mad Men length hiatus...
So there I was, blogging away through the fall, and something crazy happened: I got involved in other things! No more time to dissect my favorite tv shows? No movies to see and skip around the holidays? No (gasp!!) award show commentary?! Alas, my plate was sadly full of life and I slacked off. Now however, as we go into spring, we have an exciting season of Summer Blockbuster Movies to look forward to, season and series finales of beloved tv shows, one of the strongest New York theater seasons in years, and the geek in me is bright eyed and bushy tailed.
As it happens, a major event in the pop culture world is this weekend. Game of Thrones, the major undertaking of George RR Martin's series of books, premieres on HBO this Sunday at 9. I will admit, I had never even heard of the series until the casting began for the tv show, and only recently read the first book, upon which the first season will (presumably) be based. (In going forth, I will just speak to Book one of the series, which is actually titled Game of Thrones). Having read the first book, watched the 15 minute sneak peek and sought out several trailers, I can tell you I am excited. I am not a hardcore fantasy buff, but I love fantasy done well. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and The Chronicles of Narnia all have special places on my bookshelves and have been read and reread several times. I have been mostly pleased with the movie adaptations of each of the aforementioned series, and especially with LOTR. Game of Thrones, on the surface, most resembles Tolkien's trilogy in that it is less focused on magic, and more focused on the people of a far away, or alternate, or forgotten realm. They have big differences though, and in those differences are where the decision to make Game of Thrones into a television show and not a movie was a wise one. To wit,
Game of Thrones
As it happens, a major event in the pop culture world is this weekend. Game of Thrones, the major undertaking of George RR Martin's series of books, premieres on HBO this Sunday at 9. I will admit, I had never even heard of the series until the casting began for the tv show, and only recently read the first book, upon which the first season will (presumably) be based. (In going forth, I will just speak to Book one of the series, which is actually titled Game of Thrones). Having read the first book, watched the 15 minute sneak peek and sought out several trailers, I can tell you I am excited. I am not a hardcore fantasy buff, but I love fantasy done well. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and The Chronicles of Narnia all have special places on my bookshelves and have been read and reread several times. I have been mostly pleased with the movie adaptations of each of the aforementioned series, and especially with LOTR. Game of Thrones, on the surface, most resembles Tolkien's trilogy in that it is less focused on magic, and more focused on the people of a far away, or alternate, or forgotten realm. They have big differences though, and in those differences are where the decision to make Game of Thrones into a television show and not a movie was a wise one. To wit,
- There is no grand quest in Thrones. There are several wars, skirmishes and missions, but there is no carrying One Ring into Mordor. There are people making their way in the world, doing what they believe is best for their families, and often dealing with the harsh realities of their situations.
- There are no inherently good or inherently evil people in this series. There are people who do evil things, but when reading LOTR you knew right away that Sauron was evil incarnate. Game of Thrones just doesn't have that. There are characters you will love, characters you will hate, and many who, like in life, will fall somewhere in between. This is the greatest strength of the story, and what brings you into the world more than any sword fight ever could.
- Sex! HBO is playing this up quite a bit (this is the network of True Blood after all) but it really is a little shocking when reading a fantasy book to find that there are sex scenes, and sex scenes done well! No overly flowery language, no ridiculous descriptions of women opening like flowers (the worst sex scene offense in any book in my opinion) and even humor surrounding the situations!
- People die. Not like "Gandalf fights the Balrog and we think he is dead but isn't really" die. Actually die. Tragically, shockingly, brutally die. I will not say more for fear of ruining things for people, but be forewarned. Anything can happen. This is the LOST of fantasy novels in that respect.
- It is unfinished. This is the biggest difference, and one that could well cause the biggest problem, for directors, actors and mostly for fans. There has been a long gap between Books 4 and 5 (coming in July) but Martin has said there are to be 7 in the series. Can we wait that long? Can the series? Will we have a satisfying ending?
Game of Thrones
Monday, October 4, 2010
Harry Potter: A Comparison, Vol. 2
So we come to book/movie two: Chamber of Secrets. Upon first reading it was my least favorite of the series because if felt like a rehash of danger we already encountered. I was not terribly impressed with the "Voldemort sort of comes back but not really, and he almost could do damage, but not really" way that Secrets dealt with the Big Bad. That meant it was never anything special to me.
There were some great parts to be sure. Lockhart may be the first completely comical character in the series. Certainly others have been funny, or had funny lines, but Lockhart was introduced as a fool from the beginning and only grows more ridiculous from there. We are never meant to take him seriously, and though we may not know why he is such a fraud, or how he is managing to keep his incompetence under wraps, we as readers know early on that he is more jester than true character. That and some nice interaction between Harry and the extended Weasley family are really all I took away from the second book.
When the movie came out, I actually liked it a bit more than I had remembered liking the book. No glaring plot omissions, solid casting, and the young actors were learning nuances (Rupert Grint in particular really learned the art of timing a sarcastic side comment quite well). The fourth book had been published by the time Chamber of Secrets the movie came out, so I was completely engrossed in the world, and it no longer matter that I felt like it was more of an extension of the first movie than a movie that could stand on its own. I was just glad to have another way to experience that world.
Because of my ambivalence, when I go back and reread or rewatch, I often just skim the second book or skip the movie entirely. This time however, I reviewed both. And was I ever in for a surprise! The second book comes alive in the rereading, once you know where the story is going. It makes the first awkward interactions between Harry and Ginny mean much more, and the introduction of Dobby so much more important than the "lead" new character of Lockhart. Most importantly though, it introduces the Horcruxes, even if you didn't know it at the time. It shows that JK Rowling knew exactly what she was writing, how to get there, and how much to reveal and when.
So while some things are best experienced the first time through, when everything is fresh and surprises still shock, Chamber of Secrets just gets better with each read and viewing. So whichever medium you decide to do again, make sure you don't skip over the Chamber of Secrets. You will be missing some important canonical moments you may have missed, along with the laughs that jumped out the first time.
There were some great parts to be sure. Lockhart may be the first completely comical character in the series. Certainly others have been funny, or had funny lines, but Lockhart was introduced as a fool from the beginning and only grows more ridiculous from there. We are never meant to take him seriously, and though we may not know why he is such a fraud, or how he is managing to keep his incompetence under wraps, we as readers know early on that he is more jester than true character. That and some nice interaction between Harry and the extended Weasley family are really all I took away from the second book.
When the movie came out, I actually liked it a bit more than I had remembered liking the book. No glaring plot omissions, solid casting, and the young actors were learning nuances (Rupert Grint in particular really learned the art of timing a sarcastic side comment quite well). The fourth book had been published by the time Chamber of Secrets the movie came out, so I was completely engrossed in the world, and it no longer matter that I felt like it was more of an extension of the first movie than a movie that could stand on its own. I was just glad to have another way to experience that world.
Because of my ambivalence, when I go back and reread or rewatch, I often just skim the second book or skip the movie entirely. This time however, I reviewed both. And was I ever in for a surprise! The second book comes alive in the rereading, once you know where the story is going. It makes the first awkward interactions between Harry and Ginny mean much more, and the introduction of Dobby so much more important than the "lead" new character of Lockhart. Most importantly though, it introduces the Horcruxes, even if you didn't know it at the time. It shows that JK Rowling knew exactly what she was writing, how to get there, and how much to reveal and when.
So while some things are best experienced the first time through, when everything is fresh and surprises still shock, Chamber of Secrets just gets better with each read and viewing. So whichever medium you decide to do again, make sure you don't skip over the Chamber of Secrets. You will be missing some important canonical moments you may have missed, along with the laughs that jumped out the first time.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Harry Potter: A comparison
November approaches, and July (far too long) after that, which for the last times means a Harry Potter movie. They have always released them alternating Thanksgiving or mid-summer, and this coming season they will have a movie opening on both days because they are splitting Deathly Hallows into two movies. I know many people are complaining that they did this solely to make money, and while I am certain that was a part of it, those same people have complained for years about what has been left out of the movies. I would rather go to two movies than have the last book trimmed down so far that we miss the conclusion we have all been waiting for.
In preparation for each book or movie release, I have gone back and watched or read (usually both) the chapter immediately preceding it. This time around, I am starting from the beginning and working forward. And now that I know where things are going, and how they are getting there, I feel I am getting a fresh perspective. Therefore, I have decided to compare each movie with each book and see which small touches made each unique and enjoyable. Now, to be clear, I generally think books are superior to movies because they come first, and credit must be given for the original idea. In this case though, the books and movies are tied so closely together, and Jo Rowling had creative veto control over enough that I feel that we can judge each against each other in the small things that add up to a larger preference. There are little things that I miss from the books in each movie, and little things that are in the movies that I think are superior to the books. This is not a question of how faithful the adaptations are, but how each medium benefits from the other. And so, today I give you Book One, and the next 5 before the last movie comes out.
Sorcerer's Stone: Book vs. Movie
This movie is the most faithful to the book, and some critics say it was faithful to a fault, and that it lacked the momentum that a really good adventure requires. I disagree with that. I think for a first movie of a beloved book, especially a children's book, you have to be faithful. It sets a tone (literally, as John William's score is some of his best work, which is really saying something) for all that is to follow. While some parts simply worked better in the book, like the trials the kids go through to get to the stone, they cut as much as they could while keeping the climax of the film recognizable. Some things, such as the Potions riddle, just don't translate to exciting footage. And while some critics complained when the film debuted that there was too much of Harry's internal struggle, I think people would now say it was an excellent jumping off place. For people who loved the movies but have never read the books, they needed to see inside Harry's brain, and I think director Chris Columbus and Daniel Radcliff did that amazingly well, especially given Radcliff's young age.
Which brings me to the greatest accomplishment of the first movie: casting. I can count on one hand movies that have been so perfectly cast as this. I am sure it helped that every working actor with a British accent wanted a roll in these films, no matter how small the part. Casting a film as popular as this will always run up against critics, mostly angry fans who had a certain idea in their heads while reading the book. Vivien Leigh once gave an interview saying that the amount of hate mail she received for being a British girl cast as the most famous Southern woman of all time was only half as astonishing to her as the fact that her mail doubled with nothing but love and praise after Gone With the Wind came out. (Side note: I have been writing this blog for over a month, and this is the first mention of GWTW. Be proud, people). So when it was announced that movies were (inevitably) being made of Harry Potter, many people braced for backlash, but that backlash never came. I truly can't remember whether Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman or Richard Harris was announced first, but I distinctly remember reading those names and knowing the movies were in good hands. In a movie (and series thereafter) full of fantastic casting, those three people were exactly as I had envisioned them, and to this day when I reread the books, those are the faces I see.
So while there are lines I wish had made the cut in the film (Ron's "Are you a witch or not?" to Hermione was not only hysterical, but immediately reminded us that while she was brilliant, she was still muggle born, and her first reaction was not yet to use magic) and some wonderful descriptions that we saw come to life on screen (like all of Diagon Alley) even more vividly than in the book, I can not choose a preference between the two. (Don't worry, about later books/movies, I am MUCH more decisive). Sorcerer's Stone created a magical world, and the movie breathed life into iconic characters. I for one love going back and experiencing them each again, and I know I am not alone in that. In fact, I should probably buy my tickets for the midnight show of HP 7 now....
Next time: Chamber of Secrets, or Look, it's Lockhart!
In preparation for each book or movie release, I have gone back and watched or read (usually both) the chapter immediately preceding it. This time around, I am starting from the beginning and working forward. And now that I know where things are going, and how they are getting there, I feel I am getting a fresh perspective. Therefore, I have decided to compare each movie with each book and see which small touches made each unique and enjoyable. Now, to be clear, I generally think books are superior to movies because they come first, and credit must be given for the original idea. In this case though, the books and movies are tied so closely together, and Jo Rowling had creative veto control over enough that I feel that we can judge each against each other in the small things that add up to a larger preference. There are little things that I miss from the books in each movie, and little things that are in the movies that I think are superior to the books. This is not a question of how faithful the adaptations are, but how each medium benefits from the other. And so, today I give you Book One, and the next 5 before the last movie comes out.
Sorcerer's Stone: Book vs. Movie
This movie is the most faithful to the book, and some critics say it was faithful to a fault, and that it lacked the momentum that a really good adventure requires. I disagree with that. I think for a first movie of a beloved book, especially a children's book, you have to be faithful. It sets a tone (literally, as John William's score is some of his best work, which is really saying something) for all that is to follow. While some parts simply worked better in the book, like the trials the kids go through to get to the stone, they cut as much as they could while keeping the climax of the film recognizable. Some things, such as the Potions riddle, just don't translate to exciting footage. And while some critics complained when the film debuted that there was too much of Harry's internal struggle, I think people would now say it was an excellent jumping off place. For people who loved the movies but have never read the books, they needed to see inside Harry's brain, and I think director Chris Columbus and Daniel Radcliff did that amazingly well, especially given Radcliff's young age.
Which brings me to the greatest accomplishment of the first movie: casting. I can count on one hand movies that have been so perfectly cast as this. I am sure it helped that every working actor with a British accent wanted a roll in these films, no matter how small the part. Casting a film as popular as this will always run up against critics, mostly angry fans who had a certain idea in their heads while reading the book. Vivien Leigh once gave an interview saying that the amount of hate mail she received for being a British girl cast as the most famous Southern woman of all time was only half as astonishing to her as the fact that her mail doubled with nothing but love and praise after Gone With the Wind came out. (Side note: I have been writing this blog for over a month, and this is the first mention of GWTW. Be proud, people). So when it was announced that movies were (inevitably) being made of Harry Potter, many people braced for backlash, but that backlash never came. I truly can't remember whether Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman or Richard Harris was announced first, but I distinctly remember reading those names and knowing the movies were in good hands. In a movie (and series thereafter) full of fantastic casting, those three people were exactly as I had envisioned them, and to this day when I reread the books, those are the faces I see.
So while there are lines I wish had made the cut in the film (Ron's "Are you a witch or not?" to Hermione was not only hysterical, but immediately reminded us that while she was brilliant, she was still muggle born, and her first reaction was not yet to use magic) and some wonderful descriptions that we saw come to life on screen (like all of Diagon Alley) even more vividly than in the book, I can not choose a preference between the two. (Don't worry, about later books/movies, I am MUCH more decisive). Sorcerer's Stone created a magical world, and the movie breathed life into iconic characters. I for one love going back and experiencing them each again, and I know I am not alone in that. In fact, I should probably buy my tickets for the midnight show of HP 7 now....
Next time: Chamber of Secrets, or Look, it's Lockhart!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
A good long cry
For various reasons I have been thinking this week of death, disease, drama and the pursuit of a really good cry. Sounds like a barrel of laughs, doesn't it? Actually though, sometimes if things are bleak in your own life, it is difficult to commit to the tears, but a really gripping movie can help get the emotion out without having to do those pesky things like coping with your reality. You can cry your heart out for the people on screen, and then leave them behind after your catharsis. Sadly, there are a shortage of these movies, and I have criteria that only a few movies meet.
#10. My Girl (1991)
Possibly because it was the first movie that made me cry, or because I was 11 when I saw it and it was about an 11 year old girl who loses her best friend, unexpectedly. One day they share their first kiss, and the next he is dead from 100 bee stings. That is harsh.
#9. Little Women (1949)
Not an unexpected death to anyone who has read the book or been aware of the story, but still one of the best. I have seen all three versions of the movie and each has wonderful qualities, but for Beth's death scene, the 1949 one is the best. When she says, " I think I shall be homesick for you, even in heaven" I cry every single time.
#8 Moulin Rouge (2001)
I am not one who often has the romance/drama tearjerkers (which is why there is no Notebook or the like on this list) but this movie embraces the melodrama. Beautiful songs, beautiful actors, beautiful staging and directing put you in to the era of this movie, and you buy Satine's beautiful death.
#7 Dead Poets Society (1989)
Every Gen X'er I know loves this movie. We all saw it at the perfect time, when friendships were paramount, learning was something to be embraced if only you could find an elder willing to listen as well as teach. Robin Williams is at his best here (and should have won the Oscar, but he equally earned it for Good Will Hunting 8 years later) and Robert Sean Leonard took vulnerability and defiance to a new, startling level.
#6 Boys Don't Cry (1999)
The only movie on my list I do not watch over and over. In fact, I have only seen it once. That was enough. Yes I am breaking the rule about biopics, but this film broke all the rules, so I think that is only appropriate. I silently wept through half this movie, wiping my eyes because I didn't want to miss anything, but not sure I could watch even another minute. So well done.
#5 Fried Green Tomatoes (1991)
I know it is a cliche. I know this is one of the ultimate chick flicks. But I saw it on cable again last month, and I still cried, despite having watched this probably 30 times during high school. It has the great combination of being a friendship piece and a family piece, both of which are sure to bring me to tears. Plus Mary Louise Parker does a death scene beautifully.
#4 Philadelphia (1993)
This one certainly doesn't fall into the unexpected death category, but in the early 90's this whole movie was unexpected, and so important. Being 15 when I saw it in the theater, it opened me up to understand a world I had only read about before, and I felt woefully uninformed. I sought out more information, both about the AIDS epidemic and how it started, spread and reached critical levels, and about the bigotry and hate in our country.
#3 Iron Jawed Angles (2004)
Also a true story, but not one most people know anything about. And yes, there is a death in it, though I admit that isn't the part where I start crying. I start crying at the torture and force feeding Alice Paul is put though, really let it out during the prison scene when the women all start to sing for unity's sake, and continue on until the end of the movie when the women ear the right to vote. And occasionally I want to cry when I think about what these women did to secure our rights, and how blithely some people treat that privledge today.
#2 Beaches (1998)
Two girls meet, live, laugh, love, fight, cry and through it all they are the very best of friends. And then one dies. I cry earlier and earlier every time I watch this movie. I'm a sap who loves her friends.
#1 Terms of Endearment (1983)
There is a reason this movie won 5 Oscars: Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actress and Supporting Actor (for Jack Nicholson, in the most understated role of his career). This movie is simply the best kind of weepie movie there is. Family dynamics that feel real and not glossed over by Hollywood. Relationships that are important but not perfect, and an illness that sneaks up suddenly in the movie so the first time you see it you have no idea it is coming. You think you are watching a relationship drama, and 3/4 of the way through the movie, it is a cancer movie. To the filmmaker's credit, they handle the cancer part with as much honesty and realism as the rest of the movie. Everyone cries at this movie, and everyone has felt like Shirley Maclaine feels when she screams the famous quote, "Give my daughter the shot!"
There you have it. Did I miss any? Do any of these make you wretch rather than cry? Let me know, and meanwhile, if you haven't seen these, get yourself some tissues and Dvds, and have at it!
- Someone must die. I don't buy into the cry for a broken romance/unrequited love stuff. Now don't get me wrong, I have personally teared up at some of those movies, but I am not proud of it, and it never really gives the emotional release necessary.
- Disease is preferable to accident, but accident is preferable to war on the cry scale. You sort of know people are going to die in a war movie, but it rarely makes someone cry.
- Unexpected death is the best. I know tons of people who cry at movies like Titanic or Brian's Song, but you know what you are in for when you enter the theater. Likewise, I love a good biopic, but often you know how it is going to end, and real people dieing skirts too close to having to cope with real life. I bawled like crazy at Schinlder's List, but that isn't what I am talking about here.
- No death of pets movies. No Marley and Me, no Old Yeller etc. Just, no.
- I need/want/require real emotion and good acting. Love Story has gotten a reputation for being the go-to weepy movie, but I hate it. Love DOES mean having to say you are sorry, now shut up and die already. Ugh.
#10. My Girl (1991)
Possibly because it was the first movie that made me cry, or because I was 11 when I saw it and it was about an 11 year old girl who loses her best friend, unexpectedly. One day they share their first kiss, and the next he is dead from 100 bee stings. That is harsh.
#9. Little Women (1949)
Not an unexpected death to anyone who has read the book or been aware of the story, but still one of the best. I have seen all three versions of the movie and each has wonderful qualities, but for Beth's death scene, the 1949 one is the best. When she says, " I think I shall be homesick for you, even in heaven" I cry every single time.
#8 Moulin Rouge (2001)
I am not one who often has the romance/drama tearjerkers (which is why there is no Notebook or the like on this list) but this movie embraces the melodrama. Beautiful songs, beautiful actors, beautiful staging and directing put you in to the era of this movie, and you buy Satine's beautiful death.
#7 Dead Poets Society (1989)
Every Gen X'er I know loves this movie. We all saw it at the perfect time, when friendships were paramount, learning was something to be embraced if only you could find an elder willing to listen as well as teach. Robin Williams is at his best here (and should have won the Oscar, but he equally earned it for Good Will Hunting 8 years later) and Robert Sean Leonard took vulnerability and defiance to a new, startling level.
#6 Boys Don't Cry (1999)
The only movie on my list I do not watch over and over. In fact, I have only seen it once. That was enough. Yes I am breaking the rule about biopics, but this film broke all the rules, so I think that is only appropriate. I silently wept through half this movie, wiping my eyes because I didn't want to miss anything, but not sure I could watch even another minute. So well done.
#5 Fried Green Tomatoes (1991)
I know it is a cliche. I know this is one of the ultimate chick flicks. But I saw it on cable again last month, and I still cried, despite having watched this probably 30 times during high school. It has the great combination of being a friendship piece and a family piece, both of which are sure to bring me to tears. Plus Mary Louise Parker does a death scene beautifully.
#4 Philadelphia (1993)
This one certainly doesn't fall into the unexpected death category, but in the early 90's this whole movie was unexpected, and so important. Being 15 when I saw it in the theater, it opened me up to understand a world I had only read about before, and I felt woefully uninformed. I sought out more information, both about the AIDS epidemic and how it started, spread and reached critical levels, and about the bigotry and hate in our country.
#3 Iron Jawed Angles (2004)
Also a true story, but not one most people know anything about. And yes, there is a death in it, though I admit that isn't the part where I start crying. I start crying at the torture and force feeding Alice Paul is put though, really let it out during the prison scene when the women all start to sing for unity's sake, and continue on until the end of the movie when the women ear the right to vote. And occasionally I want to cry when I think about what these women did to secure our rights, and how blithely some people treat that privledge today.
#2 Beaches (1998)
Two girls meet, live, laugh, love, fight, cry and through it all they are the very best of friends. And then one dies. I cry earlier and earlier every time I watch this movie. I'm a sap who loves her friends.
#1 Terms of Endearment (1983)
There is a reason this movie won 5 Oscars: Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actress and Supporting Actor (for Jack Nicholson, in the most understated role of his career). This movie is simply the best kind of weepie movie there is. Family dynamics that feel real and not glossed over by Hollywood. Relationships that are important but not perfect, and an illness that sneaks up suddenly in the movie so the first time you see it you have no idea it is coming. You think you are watching a relationship drama, and 3/4 of the way through the movie, it is a cancer movie. To the filmmaker's credit, they handle the cancer part with as much honesty and realism as the rest of the movie. Everyone cries at this movie, and everyone has felt like Shirley Maclaine feels when she screams the famous quote, "Give my daughter the shot!"
There you have it. Did I miss any? Do any of these make you wretch rather than cry? Let me know, and meanwhile, if you haven't seen these, get yourself some tissues and Dvds, and have at it!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Adrienne, Yoanna, Eva, Niama, Nicole....
Law and Order. Top Gear. The Simpsons. ER. Survivor. And Miss Tyra. Not many shows have made it to 15 seasons or beyond, and tomorrow marks the premiere of the 15th season of America's Next Top Model. Many people mock it, especially for the complete lack of actual supermodels it has produced. Some consider it a sad commentary on our society and how we objectify women. Other people believe these women are all fame whores who just want to scream and cry and pull hair on tv. All of that may be true. But detractors leave out one simple truth: This shit is fun to watch!
Everyone has a guilty pleasure. Some people stay up late at night watching Antique Roadshow plotting about stealing priceless works from Grandma's attic. Some people watch any show having anything to do with vampires. Some people record 3 hours of soap operas a day just so they can watch all their "stories" on a Friday night. Some people watch Cash Cab and memorize the license plate number in the hopes that someday the cab will drive by, pick her up and she will win a tv game show!! Ok, that last one was me. But of all the junk I watch (and yes, there is more junk), ANTM is my favorite and most embarrassing.
I have seen every episode of every cycle (which is what Miss Tyra calls a season, because she can). I can name, off the top of my head, every winner (including the 10 above, plus the 4 most recent), and probably most of the runners up. Makeover day is my favorite, because it has it all: Tears, joys, fights, and girls learning whether they can really model, or if they just make good tv. I read People magazine and recognize some of the models who were going to "make it" now modeling for JCPenney (which is not "making it"). What I can't explain is why I love it. I mean, I worship my Tivo, yet there have been days when I have watched it live. Seriously. The funny part of all this is while I have no good reason for loving it, I have no intention of giving it up. Because while I used to think I was alone in my love of bad weaves, go-sees that end in tears, the token plus size model and the craziest woman on television, I have learned I am not alone. Smart people I respect watch this show. Men who would swear they watch the show for hot babes have gotten into arguments with me over who should be the next Cover Girl. Beautiful, empowered women who know they should hate everything this show represents watch it religiously. Maybe we all like a train wreck. Or maybe, just maybe, we all want to be just a little more Fierce.
Everyone has a guilty pleasure. Some people stay up late at night watching Antique Roadshow plotting about stealing priceless works from Grandma's attic. Some people watch any show having anything to do with vampires. Some people record 3 hours of soap operas a day just so they can watch all their "stories" on a Friday night. Some people watch Cash Cab and memorize the license plate number in the hopes that someday the cab will drive by, pick her up and she will win a tv game show!! Ok, that last one was me. But of all the junk I watch (and yes, there is more junk), ANTM is my favorite and most embarrassing.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Not just because he married Sydney Bristow
Entertainment Weekly has a feature on Ben Affleck in the new issue (the one with Sandra Bullock on the cover) which I would link to if I could, but they only post some of their articles online and visa versa, which I actually appreciate because then I feel like I subscribe for good reason. In it, they basically say that Ben is a good director, on his way to being a great one. Gone Baby Gone was a well structured movie, Amy Ryan got an Oscar nod, and critics liked it. He is directing The Town which comes out September 17th, and I can not wait to see it. It is a heist movie, and Jon Hamm and Blake Lively are in it. All pluses. Oh, and Ben Affleck is in it. Also a plus.
Yes, that is right. I said Ben Affleck acting in a movie is a plus. I wish him luck in his future directing endeavors, and I think they will be great, but Ben started off an actor, and a damn fine one. So for all the people who automatically hate Ben because he did Gigli, or was half of Bennifer (seriously, Kevin Smith, you had to know that was gonna stick) or because he made the movie Paycheck and spray tanned himself until he resembled George Hamilton, I am here to launch his defense.
Firstly, we know the man can act. He was excellent in Hollywoodland, where he played a dejected has-been who was anxious to reinvent his career. Now, I see the obvious joke there, but he was great in the part, and he had balls to take the role, because EVERYONE saw the obvious joke. He was great in Changing Lanes, where he managed to hold up against Samuel L. Jackson, even while Sam was doing his best scenery chewing. He was great in Chasing Amy, in a role that many people would have gone over the top with. And he was great in Bounce, which was a terrible movie, but he was really good in a thankless role. Which brings us to the second thing we know about Ben: STOP letting your women choose your movies. This has never worked out well. Bounce, Forces of Nature, Paycheck, Jersey Girl (which for the record I loved, but I can recognize the faults of) and yes, Gigli, were all taken under the advice of women. Namely JLo and FakeBrit Gywn. So it isn't taste in movies he had trouble with, it was women. Happily, now that he has the world's coolest wife (she is supermom! she is hot! she was the bestest SpyChick ever!) he can get back to doing what he does best. Acting, writing, directing, and looking dreamy.
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the man can make fun of himself. He knows he was way overexposed in the media. He knows that literally kissing Jennifer Lopez's ass in a video was a poor decision. He knows that just because he loved Daredevil as a kid and wanted the movie to be great, willing a movie into greatness does not work. And he knows that if you are going to make a epic war movie that has astounding special effects, you should also make sure it has a PLOT. But everyone gets a bad movie or two without people holding it against them (All the Pretty Horses, Matt? Really?). And if Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back taught us anything, it is that Ben Affleck can take a joke. Especially when the joke is on him.
So no more joking about Ben. He has been a good sport, but he has laid low, made good movies for the past five-ish years, married a great woman, had two adorable girls and has only gotten better looking. And if you still don't love him? It is ok. I have enough love for him to go around.
Yes, that is right. I said Ben Affleck acting in a movie is a plus. I wish him luck in his future directing endeavors, and I think they will be great, but Ben started off an actor, and a damn fine one. So for all the people who automatically hate Ben because he did Gigli, or was half of Bennifer (seriously, Kevin Smith, you had to know that was gonna stick) or because he made the movie Paycheck and spray tanned himself until he resembled George Hamilton, I am here to launch his defense.
Firstly, we know the man can act. He was excellent in Hollywoodland, where he played a dejected has-been who was anxious to reinvent his career. Now, I see the obvious joke there, but he was great in the part, and he had balls to take the role, because EVERYONE saw the obvious joke. He was great in Changing Lanes, where he managed to hold up against Samuel L. Jackson, even while Sam was doing his best scenery chewing. He was great in Chasing Amy, in a role that many people would have gone over the top with. And he was great in Bounce, which was a terrible movie, but he was really good in a thankless role. Which brings us to the second thing we know about Ben: STOP letting your women choose your movies. This has never worked out well. Bounce, Forces of Nature, Paycheck, Jersey Girl (which for the record I loved, but I can recognize the faults of) and yes, Gigli, were all taken under the advice of women. Namely JLo and FakeBrit Gywn. So it isn't taste in movies he had trouble with, it was women. Happily, now that he has the world's coolest wife (she is supermom! she is hot! she was the bestest SpyChick ever!) he can get back to doing what he does best. Acting, writing, directing, and looking dreamy.
So no more joking about Ben. He has been a good sport, but he has laid low, made good movies for the past five-ish years, married a great woman, had two adorable girls and has only gotten better looking. And if you still don't love him? It is ok. I have enough love for him to go around.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The post awards show letdown
The Emmy people are smart. They know that if they were tossed in against big movie stars, their little tv award show wouldn't stand a chance. But coming in the late summer as they do, they are like a small sip of ice cold water on a hot day. That is why the Emmy's are so fun for me. They are on the opposite side of the calendar than the normal awards flurry. That would also explain why every year I get my hopes up, and every year, in one category or another, they are dashed. Still, award shows are like crack to me, so I will keep coming back. And like an addict there were highs and lows for me this year.
Highs:
Only 137 days until the Golden Globes!!
Highs:
- Eric Stonestreet: Wonderful speech, completely deserving win, and his whole cast seemed truly happy for him.
- Modern Family: I would have been happy for this or Glee, but this cast seems like a family, the showrunner was humble, and by gum it is funny stuff!
- Ricky Gervais. How I wish this man hosted everything. That Mel Gibson line was the funniest of the night.
- Jim Parsons!!! I can't believe he actually won. Sometimes they do get it right!
- Jon Hamm. I will follow that man to the ends of the Earth. He sings, he dances, he spoofs himself, and he is damn sexy. Oh, and he can act.
- George Clooney. One of the worlds' biggest movie stars, and he joins the cast of Modern Family in a wonderful little parody, and then goes and gets all humanitarian. He is what a celebrity should be. Also, shout out to Aunt Rosemary!!
- Nothing for Lost? Seriously?! Writing, directing, acting by Terry O'Quinn, NOTHING?!? The smoke monster shall smite you all.
- Breaking Bad. I am sure it is a perfectly fine show, but I just don't get it. And in the year of such great acting, I was disappointed every time this show was called.
- Kyra Sedgewick. Her dress was a pretty color. That is all. Hate her accent, hated her "my hair hasn't seen a brush in two weeks" look, hate her accent, hate that she won for best actress, hate her fake collagen lips and I HATE HER ACCENT.
- Anna Paquin, January Jones, and Tina Fey. Stop listening to stylists and look in the mirror. Y'all look like damn fools.
- Kate Gosslin, get off my television. Forever.
- This last one breaks my heart a little. Lea Michelle has an incredible voice. She needs to save it for singing, and talk less. Also, the fake smile and overly posed pictures is making her look like a little girl playing dress up, and not like an up and coming star. Also, stop saying "like" in every sentence. You are from New York, not the valley. Take a page from your costar, Dianna Agron, who was poised and well spoken and flawless looking:
Only 137 days until the Golden Globes!!
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Are you LOST without Glee? Is your Modern Family full of Mad Men?
Emmy Awards are tomorrow. Have you printed your ballots and set all your Tivo tuners to the various red carpet shows? No? Just me then. But still, you will want to know about the two biggest awards for the night:
Best Comedy Series:
30 Rock (NBC)
Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO)
Glee (Fox)
Modern Family (ABC)
Nurse Jackie (Showtime)
The Office (NBC)
This is a classic old vs. new category this year. The Office and 30 Rock have both won before, but Modern Family and Glee are the new darlings. Keep in mind when The Office and 30 both (the first time for 30 Rock, as it has had 3 wins), it was the first year they were nominated. As much as the Emmy's love to reward the same actors over and over (I'm glaring at you Jeremy Piven), the Series award occasionally go to the new buzzworthy shows (unless they are up against Frasier of course). I think in the battle of Glee vs. Modern Family it is really a battle of the kind of television people want to see more of. Glee is a whole new kind of show, with singing and dancing mixed heavily with sarcasm and pathos. Whereas Modern Family has been heralded for being a throwback to the sitcoms of old, though I have to say that there is still plenty of sarcasm to go around on that show. So who will Emmy choose? Could be a battle of old vs. new, or it could be a battle of different kinds of new. My prediction? The voters are a sucker for good old fashion family comedy. Even if that "family" comedy is full of disfunction and non-traditional relationships, which is why I love it so much! Still, personally, I'm a singing and dancing and sarcastic kind of a girl, with much love for Glee.
Should Win: Glee
Will Win: Modern Family
Best Drama Series:
Breaking Bad (AMC)
Dexter (Showtime)
The Good Wife (CBS)
Lost (ABC)
Mad Men (AMC)
True Blood (HBO)
These are all great. Except for the vampire porn show. I swear someone lost a bet and had to add True Blood as the sixth nominee. No matter. This is Mad Men's award to lose, as it was last year and the year before. And I love Donald Draper, Joan Holloway and all the small perfections of this show. They make a period piece exciting for today, and they make you care about the characters even while you are marveling at the sets and costumes and how perfectly they evoke the era.
But....
Lord of the Rings was an amazing movie. Yes, there were three. But really, it was one long movie, and it was outstanding. (Stay with me here, I swear I am getting back to tv). The reason they gave the Best Picture Oscar to LOTR: Return of the King, was because they had to wait until the movie was complete and reward it as a whole. Therefore, using this logic, it only makes sense that they reward LOST this year. It won Best Drama the first year, and that was great. It won for the pilot episode really, because we had never seen anything like it before. And now the story has ended. Some people think it was fantastic, some people think the very last episode ruined it, but everyone has to agree that this series changed the way we view television. It was the first tv series you had to do homework for! Websites were set up, not just by fans, but by writers and producers to enhance your viewing experience. None of this would matter however, if it wasn't a damn fine show. And it was. Of course it had flaws, but this being the final season, I think it must be judged as a whole. It was set up that way. And the whole of the show was amazing, and I feel certain will stand the test of time.
Should Win: LOST
Will Win: LOST (Ok, really probably Mad Men, but I have to have faith. John Locke would have wanted it that way)
Best Comedy Series:
30 Rock (NBC)
Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO)
Glee (Fox)
Modern Family (ABC)
Nurse Jackie (Showtime)
The Office (NBC)
This is a classic old vs. new category this year. The Office and 30 Rock have both won before, but Modern Family and Glee are the new darlings. Keep in mind when The Office and 30 both (the first time for 30 Rock, as it has had 3 wins), it was the first year they were nominated. As much as the Emmy's love to reward the same actors over and over (I'm glaring at you Jeremy Piven), the Series award occasionally go to the new buzzworthy shows (unless they are up against Frasier of course). I think in the battle of Glee vs. Modern Family it is really a battle of the kind of television people want to see more of. Glee is a whole new kind of show, with singing and dancing mixed heavily with sarcasm and pathos. Whereas Modern Family has been heralded for being a throwback to the sitcoms of old, though I have to say that there is still plenty of sarcasm to go around on that show. So who will Emmy choose? Could be a battle of old vs. new, or it could be a battle of different kinds of new. My prediction? The voters are a sucker for good old fashion family comedy. Even if that "family" comedy is full of disfunction and non-traditional relationships, which is why I love it so much! Still, personally, I'm a singing and dancing and sarcastic kind of a girl, with much love for Glee.
Should Win: Glee
Will Win: Modern Family
Best Drama Series:
Breaking Bad (AMC)
Dexter (Showtime)
The Good Wife (CBS)
Lost (ABC)
Mad Men (AMC)
True Blood (HBO)
These are all great. Except for the vampire porn show. I swear someone lost a bet and had to add True Blood as the sixth nominee. No matter. This is Mad Men's award to lose, as it was last year and the year before. And I love Donald Draper, Joan Holloway and all the small perfections of this show. They make a period piece exciting for today, and they make you care about the characters even while you are marveling at the sets and costumes and how perfectly they evoke the era.
But....
Lord of the Rings was an amazing movie. Yes, there were three. But really, it was one long movie, and it was outstanding. (Stay with me here, I swear I am getting back to tv). The reason they gave the Best Picture Oscar to LOTR: Return of the King, was because they had to wait until the movie was complete and reward it as a whole. Therefore, using this logic, it only makes sense that they reward LOST this year. It won Best Drama the first year, and that was great. It won for the pilot episode really, because we had never seen anything like it before. And now the story has ended. Some people think it was fantastic, some people think the very last episode ruined it, but everyone has to agree that this series changed the way we view television. It was the first tv series you had to do homework for! Websites were set up, not just by fans, but by writers and producers to enhance your viewing experience. None of this would matter however, if it wasn't a damn fine show. And it was. Of course it had flaws, but this being the final season, I think it must be judged as a whole. It was set up that way. And the whole of the show was amazing, and I feel certain will stand the test of time.
Should Win: LOST
Will Win: LOST (Ok, really probably Mad Men, but I have to have faith. John Locke would have wanted it that way)
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Paging Drs. House and Shepherd
A single thought for today's categories: There is an embarrassment of riches this year, please don't screw these awards up.
Best Actor in a Drama:
Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights)
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad)
Matthew Fox (Lost)
Michael C. Hall (Dexter)
Jon Hamm (Mad Men)
Hugh Laurie (House)
How do you compare a serial killer to a high school football coach? An addict doctor to a doctor addicted to fixing people? A cancer ridden meth dealer to a wheeler dealer from a bygone era? Short answer: you find the common thread. These men are so damaged, and it makes them fascinating. These men each deserve an award for specific parts of their performances, and I think this category more than other will depend on while episode the actors decided to submit for consideration. Hugh Laurie has always been a strong contender and has yet to win for House. The season premiere episode with him in an institution allowed him to expand his character to new levels, which for a series on the sixth season, is really saying something. Likewise, Matthew Fox's season finale of Lost was surely the best he had ever been, but sort of makes me ask where the hell those acting chops had been for six years. Jon Hamm and Michael C. Hall both had fabulous seasons in their entirety, and neither has ever won an Emmy. And this is where the night always sours for me. Laurie, Hall and Hamm have all won Golden Globe's for their performances, and rightfully so. But nary an Emmy between them. Because the last two years have gone to Cranston, and before that James Spader (yes, really. That James Spader). So while I admire the work Cranston has done, it is time to spread the love around. And this year, there are so many right choices, it will be hard to decide.So hard, I feel like instead of a "should win" I need instead to rank these men.
Should Win: Hugh Laurie, Michael C. Hall, Jon Hamm, Matthew Fox
Will Win: Jon Hamm
Best Actress in a Drama:
Connie Britton (Friday Night Lights)
Glenn Close (Damages)
Mariska Hargitay (Law & Order: SVU)
January Jones (Mad Men)
Julianna Margulies (The Good Wife)
Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer)
Who doesn't love a second act? We all remember Julianna Margulies from ER, but perhaps we didn't remember just how good she was, holding her own against George Clooney, making her Carol likeable and vulnerable at the same time. So when a new role came up, another strong woman (this time complete with topical political plotting), she jumped at it, and rightfully so. She is great in the role, and an actress all of America seems to like. We already know Glenn Close can blow the doors off anyone and has won before, as has Mariska Hargitay. Kyra Sedgewick's accent makes my ears bleed, and I know I can't be alone in that, and January Jones can only get away with pretending empty stares and vapid whining are acting for so long. So, with Margulies having already won the SAG and Golden Globe for this, I think she can start writing her speech.
Should win: Julianna Margulies
Will Win: Julianna Margulies
Emmy prediction week ends tomorrow with Best Drama and Comedy Series! Think you know me well enough to know my picks? You may be surprised...!
Best Actor in a Drama:
Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights)
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad)
Matthew Fox (Lost)
Michael C. Hall (Dexter)
Jon Hamm (Mad Men)
Hugh Laurie (House)
How do you compare a serial killer to a high school football coach? An addict doctor to a doctor addicted to fixing people? A cancer ridden meth dealer to a wheeler dealer from a bygone era? Short answer: you find the common thread. These men are so damaged, and it makes them fascinating. These men each deserve an award for specific parts of their performances, and I think this category more than other will depend on while episode the actors decided to submit for consideration. Hugh Laurie has always been a strong contender and has yet to win for House. The season premiere episode with him in an institution allowed him to expand his character to new levels, which for a series on the sixth season, is really saying something. Likewise, Matthew Fox's season finale of Lost was surely the best he had ever been, but sort of makes me ask where the hell those acting chops had been for six years. Jon Hamm and Michael C. Hall both had fabulous seasons in their entirety, and neither has ever won an Emmy. And this is where the night always sours for me. Laurie, Hall and Hamm have all won Golden Globe's for their performances, and rightfully so. But nary an Emmy between them. Because the last two years have gone to Cranston, and before that James Spader (yes, really. That James Spader). So while I admire the work Cranston has done, it is time to spread the love around. And this year, there are so many right choices, it will be hard to decide.So hard, I feel like instead of a "should win" I need instead to rank these men.
Should Win: Hugh Laurie, Michael C. Hall, Jon Hamm, Matthew Fox
Will Win: Jon Hamm
Best Actress in a Drama:
Connie Britton (Friday Night Lights)
Glenn Close (Damages)
Mariska Hargitay (Law & Order: SVU)
January Jones (Mad Men)
Julianna Margulies (The Good Wife)
Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer)
Who doesn't love a second act? We all remember Julianna Margulies from ER, but perhaps we didn't remember just how good she was, holding her own against George Clooney, making her Carol likeable and vulnerable at the same time. So when a new role came up, another strong woman (this time complete with topical political plotting), she jumped at it, and rightfully so. She is great in the role, and an actress all of America seems to like. We already know Glenn Close can blow the doors off anyone and has won before, as has Mariska Hargitay. Kyra Sedgewick's accent makes my ears bleed, and I know I can't be alone in that, and January Jones can only get away with pretending empty stares and vapid whining are acting for so long. So, with Margulies having already won the SAG and Golden Globe for this, I think she can start writing her speech.
Should win: Julianna Margulies
Will Win: Julianna Margulies
Emmy prediction week ends tomorrow with Best Drama and Comedy Series! Think you know me well enough to know my picks? You may be surprised...!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)