You know how you have that friend who is really great and you like a lot but who every now and then does something really embarrassing or displays some of their worst qualities at the most importune times and then you just get embarrassed for them and frustrated with them, yet you forgive them because their glaring defects, although definite defects, are part of their charm? (If you are reading this then I assume you are friends with me, in which case the answer for you would be “yes!”) Well I too have a friend like that. One that I not only like, but actually love: “Love Actually”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Used to be that when I heard people say that protesting was patriotic I disagreed. Not that I had anything against protesting but I failed to see how doing so showed that you loved your country. It seemed to me to indicate just the opposite. But now in my old age I realize that that statement is indeed somewhat true. People protest often because they love their country enough to passionately care when it does things they feel are wrong. Like a parent disciplining a child. If they didn’t have love in their hearts for their country then they wouldn’t care enough to care. But they do love their country and so that’s why they don’t want to see it do dumb and unnecessary things. Like bomb other countries. Or elect stupid people to represent it. Or expect us to believe that a child with no musical training or experience can become a proficient drummer in less than two weeks. By all this I mean to say that the criticism that is to follow comes from a place of true love. See, I really, really love “Love Actually”. This is of course because I am a human being. And as such, I posses a heart. And everyone who meets this criteria also loves “Love Actually”. In fact if you suspect that someone you know might not a be human being and might instead be a life-like cyborg I think a good way to determine if they are or not is to ask them if they like “Love Actually”. If the answer is “no”, then shoot them, because, they are clearly evil and heartless and, well, cyborgs are usually up to no good anyway. Even the cyborgs WITH hearts. All that being said, much like I do with my country, I have some problems with “Love Actually”. And much like Thomas Paine did with “Common Sense” and NWA did with “Fuck tha Police” I will discuss these complaints with you now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Now that you’ve read the second section of this entry it’s pretty clear that the first part was completely unnecessary isn’t it? Bet you wish you had the two minutes of your life you spent reading it back now don’t you? Well all I can say is “haha, joke’s on you.” And what a funny joke it was too!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, as my last analogy implied, “Love Actually” were a country, in a world, say, called Romantic Comedy Land, it would be a superpower much like the United States (okay now I’m really forcing the analogies. I might want to stop before someone gets hurt…) It has so much going for it. It is romantic and comedic without ever sacrificing one for the other (a major flaw of almost all romantic comedies). It makes GREAT use of music. Really obvious music, but nevertheless music that is used VERY well. (Is it any surprise that a movie all about love is almost wall-to-wall pop music? But that’s a discussion for another time…) It somehow manages to pull off the Pulp Fiction “the storylines all intersect and overlap each other” thing. And most of all, it is ruled over by Richard Curtis. Richard Curtis never gets the respect he deserves, but he’s written basically every charming witty British comedy staring Hugh Grant, since, well, ever. He’s a master at what he does and yet he never gets much respect. If Billy Wilder is George Washington and Nora Ephron is JFK then Richard Curtis is definitely the Woodrow Wilson of romantic comedy screenwriters. Profoundly great, yet unjustly ignored and forgotten. Wilson had a genius level IQ and was in fact like the anti-George Bush as he refused to take the country into World War I even though there were daily protests by people who WANTED the country to go to war. In a sense he tried to save people from their own stupidity. Richard Curtis does the same thing by making witty Hugh Grant movies when what the world is clamoring for is stuff like “Hitch”, “The Wedding Planner” and “Kate Hudson Throws Her Career Away”. But unfortunately Richard Curtis is not actually president of the United States. Which is a shame in more ways than one. Because if he was, he would have been subject to our lovely system of checks and balances that seemed so important in high school government class and yet gets discussed in daily life about as often as trigonometry. But it would have been important to Richard Curtis, because he could have used a little less checking and a little more balancing while making “Love Actually”. By that I mean a little less sitting there with his list of possible human relationships in which love could be involved and checking them off as he inserted them into his movie. By that I also mean a little more balancing of the storylines so that keeping things from getting “lost in the shuffle” wouldn’t have felt so forced. In fact, while watching the movie it can be somewhat difficult to keep the storylines straight and even to figure out exactly how many there are. Well, that’s where I come in as I have broken the storylines down into nine main ones and then ranked those nine in order from best to worst. Let the discussion/debate begin.
1.) Kiera Knightly/her new husband/his best friend
I’d really like to hear someone try and argue against this being the best storyline. I’d like to hear their arguments because I don’t think it could be done. If the scene when the guy holds up the poster boards for Kiera Knightly to read doesn’t touch the deepest reaches of your heart then you don’t have one. If you could combine it and the scene when she discovers what is on the wedding tape into one scene it would be arguably the best scene in a movie in the past 10 years. Maybe more. Speaking of hyperbole, in a statement that almost completely contradicts what I say a few paragraphs down about female body types, Kiera Knightly in this movie makes a strong claim to the prestigious “most attractive appearance by a British actress in a movie in my lifetime” award. Not exactly the same as winning an Oscar but it’s close…
2.) Emma Thompson/Alan Rickman/his secretary
This storyline finishes a very close second to the Kiera Knightly one, so close in fact I almost declared it a tie because it was too hard to compare them. One touches your heart and the other one breaks it. I guess I’m just more into “touching” than “breaking” because, as my Mom always said, “if you break it, you are in deep shit young man. Hey don’t you try and run from me you little fucker! I have a belt made of solid steel and I damn sure now how to use it on your little ass! Now get back here and take it like a man!” But I digress…point is, is there anyone who does strong British female resolve better than Emma Thompson? The Christmas present scene when she manages to cry and at the same time keep her composure is acting at its finest. If it had come in any movie other than “Love Actually” she would have gotten an Oscar nod for it. In fact, for my money, it was an even better controlled crying scene than the one she WON her Oscar for in “Howard’s End”. And the most heartbreaking part about the whole thing is that the audience sees it coming so far ahead. The lesson to be learned, boys and girls, is, as always, never get involved with any character played by Alan Rickman. He’s up to no good. And just in case you didn’t catch that, his secretary conveniently wears devil horns to the costume party in perhaps the most obvious case of symbolism since every Tennessee Williams play every written. I guess at the costume shop they were all out of evil seductive home wrecker costumes.
3.) Hugh Grant/the “chubby girl”
As anyone who has ever mentioned “Love Actually” in my presence surely knows, my number one issue with the movie is the “size”, or lack thereof, of Hugh Grant’s secretary. The characters in the movie go on and on about how she’s fat and yet SHE IS NOT AT ALL FAT! She is a normal size. If a major part of the dialogue revolves around the fact that a character is supposed to be fat then why not cast someone who is actually fat? Did the casting director think the audience wouldn’t be able to handle watching someone who was actually fat? Did they think we wouldn’t buy that Hugh Grant could be attracted so someone who is actually overweight? The worst thought though is that the people involved with the movie really thought the woman they cast WAS overweight. And that’s the really scary part. Is Hollywood so out of touch with reality that they think the woman in the movie is actually overweight? And not just a little overweight but overweight to the point where people would constantly tease her about it? I mean I think the woman in the movie has a very nice body and I think we would be very lucky if ALL women had bodies like hers. I know this is digressing slightly from topic but I don’t know a guy alive who thinks Laura Flynn Boyle has a nice body and yet I’m sure I could find tons of them who would say that the woman who plays Hugh Grant’s secretary does. This issue bothers me so much it really hurts my enjoyment of all the scenes in this storyline. Which is saying a lot since this is the storyline that involves Hugh Grant. And Hugh Grant is Hugh Grant. And there’s really nothing else to say about that.
(On a somewhat related note: have you ever watched a movie or a TV show where there was someone who was hideous and really overweight and was the butt of a joke because of it. You know, a situation where it was imperative that the actor playing the role be very fat and ugly? Do you ever wonder what the casting notices for those parts say? I mean does it say “male, 5’10”, dark hair, very overweight, hideously ugly”? And as an actor, are you glad if you agent submits you for that part? And also, how would you feel if you didn’t get it because you weren’t fat and ugly enough? Or more importantly how would you feel if you DID get it? It makes me think of those “Shoot the Freak” games they have on Coney Island where people pay money to shoot paintballs at a real person known as “The Freak”. Do the people who apply to be “The Freak” feel bad if they don’t get the job? “Oh man, I guess I’m not freakish enough looking, damn!” And do they feel good when they DO get the job knowing that they were the freakiest looking person who applied? “Yes! I’m freakish enough looking to have paintballs shot at me!” It’s all just something to think about…)
(I also thought I should comment on the striking similarity between Hugh Grant’s dancing scene and the Fatboy Slim “Weapon of Choice” video featuring Christopher Walken. So there. I commented on it.)
4.) Liam Neeson/his son
Okay, so there’s no way he could learn the drums that quick. And there’s no way that any school production could be that elaborate and well done. And the relationship Liam Neeson and his son have is one that could only ever exist in a movie. And there’s ESPECIALLY no way anyone could make it through airport security like that. And okay so basically everything about this entire storyline is utterly implausible. But then again the whole movie is implausible. And then again life is implausible. So I guess I cant fault it too much. Plus it’s just so darn cute and charming. And you gotta give it major bonus points for making the girl he loves black and yet the movie never making mention of that fact. You have to deduct points though for the fact Liam Neeson seems very out of place in the movie. But then it gets one million kagillion bonus points because the kid is such a freaking phenomenally good child actor. And as you all know, it’s hard to counter one million kagillion bonus points.
5.) Bill Nighy/his manager
The first time I saw the movie I thought that when “Billy Mack” tells his manager that he loves him that he meant he loved him in a homosexual way. And clearly that indicates that I have been at Marymount for too long. But now that I realize that it’s simply the requisite friendship love story in the movie it’s not quite the same. Nevertheless the scene in which he reveals his feelings is so well played and with a surprising level of complexity that it is one of the stand out scenes in a movie full of standout scenes. And his character serves a strong purpose in the rest of the movie providing great comedy and serving as a common thread that glues all the other stories together however loose that gluing might be. It’s just an all around great comic turn for Bill Nighy and a pleasurable if slight addition to the movie as a whole.
6.) Colin going to America
The main problem I have with the movie other than its utter implausibility (and the “fat” thing…) is the fact that it feels like it takes on a little too much. As I mentioned earlier, it feels like when writing the screenplay Richard Curtis had a list of like every possible human relationship involving “love” that he could think of and then tried to fit them all in a movie. But in the end some of them are unnecessary as there’s no reason a romantic comedy should run two and a half hours. Not that I am one who should be criticizing others for an inability to edit themselves when something is clearly going on too long and becoming unnecessary and filled with stuff that it doesn’t need but that the person just wants to put in there because they don’t know any better and cant realize that some things should just be cut because otherwise things go on too long and become redundant and annoying, but nevertheless I will level that charge at Mr. Richard Curtis the writer and director of “Love Actually”. This storyline is one of those cases. It is charming and cute and all, but it’s basically a one joke premise and not a very good one at that. In fact the first time I saw the movie, I absolutely HATED this storyline because it was so ridiculous and unnecessary. It’s grown on me, but still it takes up too much time for basically one joke that’s not even all that funny. It also completely violates the spirit and world of the movie, which is otherwise realistic (however implausible that reality might be). But with this storyline it veers into pretty overt comedic fantasy and as such, it seems like it exists in a different realty than the rest of the movie. And that always bugs the crap out of me. And as always, I need to get a life…
7.) Porn actors/Body Doubles
This storyline is suffers from pretty much the same problem as the one just above except its not even really a one-JOKE premise so much as one-CLEVER IDEA premise. “Hey they’re porn stars and yet when it comes to love they are just as awkward and tongue tied as we all are!” Are you laughing yet? Are you cracking a smile? Are you maybe internally commenting to yourself what a clever idea that is? Anything? Bueller?
Now I realize they do mention standing in for Brad Pitt and so maybe they arent working in porn all the time but if you look at some of the scenes they are filming I ask you what mainstream movie would they be filming? Most body doubles come from porn because its an easy place to find people who dont have a problem with nudity so it would make sense they could do both porn and Brad Pitt movies as body doubles. Anyway, wether they are porn actors/body doubles or not, the point is that they are people whose job it is to be naked and simulate having sex with each other so the essence of the joke of their storyline is the same wether they are actual porn actors or not. If they ARE shooting a porn though, which it would seem that they very well could be, then I have to ask: is it the worst porn movie in history? I mean, is that what porn is like in England and if so, remind me never to do my adult video shopping in Britain. I know the British have a reputation as being repressed and dignified but if that movie they are filming is hardcore triple-X action to them then they need some serious help. In America we may not have produced Shakespeare or The Beatles or “Pride and Prejudice” but we have given the world some of the best hardcore X-rated fucking they’ve ever seen. And to that I can proudly say “My country ‘tis of thee!” whatever the hell that means.
8.) Colin Firth/“Aurelia”
I know this storyline is like every girl’s favorite, but all I have to say to that is “you’re wrong”. It’s even weaker than the two one-joke pointless storylines. Now before you start sending me hate mail let me explain. I have nothing against Colin Firth. He seems like charming enough fellow and I know he gets your knickers all in a tither. And that’s all well and good. But what is he thinking marring someone who doesn’t even speak his language? You can’t do that! Tom Cruise already tried that with Penelope Cruz and you see how that worked out. It’s not sweet or charming or romantic that he marries her. It’s stupid and utterly implausible. It doesn’t show that love knows no boundaries. It shows that he’s an idiot. I mean, how would they communicate? What would Dr. Phil have to say about that? They didn’t even have that strong of a connection or great chemistry or anything. Plus she’s clearly a rebound girl for him and doesn’t everyone know that you don’t marry a rebound girl? That’s just bad news man. And speaking of things everyone knows, perhaps he missed the memo that you don’t write outside inches away from a lake on a windy day with hundreds of pages that you don’t have backup copies of. In the words of Napoleon Dynamite: “Idiot!”
9.) Laura Linney/”Karl”
This story line is just so bad on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. Wait, actually I do: Laura Linney. Why the hell was she cast in this movie?!? I mean what were they thinking? “You know what this movie really needs? A dose of that special not quite good but not quite completely terrible quality of acting that only Laura Linney can bring”? On top of her general “averageness” as an actor, she is also so completely and totally wrong for her part that I hope the casting director who chose her gets trampled to death by a large mule. I mean do you buy for a second that Laura Linney would be a neurotic nervous wreck who can’t bring herself to even speak to a guy she has worked side by side with and had a crush on for like two years? If you are an actress who could ever be cast as someone who would throw Sean Penn down on a bed, straddle him and grab his crotch then you are not someone who should be cast as the “40-year-old, awkward, painfully shy girl with a crush on her coworker”. Plus who in their 40s would act like that anyway? It’s not a believable role to begin with but someone out there could have maybe pulled it off. But that person’s name is not Laura Linney. Even if Laura Linney COULD pull it off, she’s American. And everyone else in the cast is British. And this makes sense due to the fact its set in Britain. What doesn’t make sense is why one, and only one, of the members of the cast is American and why that one person is Laura Linney. Did they think that they should include an American in the cast so Americans would go see it, and if so why Laura Freaking Linney? I mean did the producers expect a reaction like this to Laura Linney:
American 1: Do want to go see “Love Actually”?
American 2: No that movie looks stupid. And British.
American 1: But Laura Linney is in it.
American 2: Laura Linney! Well why didn’t you say so before?!? I am SO there!
I really don’t understand. Every time I watch the movie the casting of Laura Linney upsets and baffles me more and more. And yeah, yeah she cares for her mentally handicapped brother and yeah that’s sweet and all, but at the expense of having sex with the guy she’s been pining after for over 2 years? Gimme a break. Besides if the producers really wanted to attract Americans they should have had Laura Linney and “Karl” have sex. Graphic hardcore sex. Because we as Americans really don’t give shit about some lady and her brother, all we really want is hardcore fucking.
And in America isn’t that what Love is Actually all about?
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week:
1.) Ranch flavored Wheat Thins
2.) If only Saturday Night Live had thought of it first: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2005/3/4gavaler.html
3.) Bill Simmons on U2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050303
3 & 1/2.) money
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
They Didnt Rock
“Overall, the only thing I'm disappointed about is that there were no disappointments.”- Carlyn Kautz
I really enjoyed the VMAs last night. Chris Rock’s monologue was great. It was good to see Jay-Z and P. Diddy and Prince. There were even some movie stars there too. Like Adam Sandler and Mike Myers. Santana’s performance was good. And Beyonce’s performances were, well, they were Beyonce performances. It was cool how the floor lit up and how the set was really busy with lots of TV screens and things moving around and shiny distractions. There was even a hilarous and highly original pre-taped bit where Chris Rock talked to regular people at a movie theater. All in all I went to bed afterwards thinking it was one of the best VMAs in years. And then I woke up this morning and started reading the news and it turns out that that wasn’t the VMAs at all! That was the Oscars. Who knew! Well I guess I have to amend the quote from Carlyn I used to open then. I do have one more disappointment: The whole show.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing with the Oscars is that they are an awards show. They exist solely for the purpose of handing out awards. This is their only reason for being. Not to provide entertainment to the masses, but to present awards to deserving members of the film community. This is also why we watch them, because we enjoy seeing all of these people win their awards. We enjoy the whole thing: the reading of the names, the celebration when the winner is announced, the walk to the podium and the speech. Its not just about who wins, its about the whole process of winning. (I think you know where this is headed…) This year though, (stay calm Andy…) the producer of the telecast wanted it to move quicker, so he eliminated that pesky step of people having to walk very far to receive their awards. Now, as I just got done saying, the Academy Awards, as their name indicates, are an awards show. And if the show exists solely to hand out awards THEN WHY ARE THEY SHAVING TIME OFF THE PRESENTING OF THE AWARDS?!? That’s the whole reason we’re watching is because we want to see people win awards!!! Who cares if we don’t know any of the sound editors or costume designers who were nominated; they still deserve awards as much as the actors and writers and I would still like to watch them receive said awards with all the same fanfare as the people I AM familiar with! If I didn’t want to watch them win their awards then I WOULDN’T BE WATCHING AN AWARDS SHOW! I would be watching Desperate Fucking Housewives. This new change just completely baffles me. I mean they used to have the Oscars in a ballroom and Im sure the Academy was just fine with that. But then they realized other people might be interested in their awards so to be nice they allowed us to watch at home as audience members. And what do we do in return? (and by “we” I mean Gil Cates, the guy in charge of the telecast) We start choosing to treat over half the nominees like second class citizens and try to suggest to them that their awards don’t matter and we’d rather that they just be over quickly. As an true Oscar fan knows, its actually good there’s all the smaller awards in the show because if it was four straight hours of Best Actor-level awards it would be a little too overwhelming. The smaller awards create balance and allow the show to build to a climax. Which also brings up the point this year of: what was up with the awards order this year? Full Length Documentary was given out like an hour before Documentary Short Subject. Adapted Screenplay was presented in the first hour and then they didn’t do Original Screenplay until the very end. Plus most importantly, what was with Supporting Actress? I think since the beginning of recorded time it has always been the first award given out. But they did Art Direction before it this time. What was the point of making such a minor change for no apparent reason? (And yes the fact that this bothers me is a very strong sign I need to get a life…) Maybe they wanted to show off their new form of degradation for the technical nominees as soon as possible. I swear if they hand out awards in the audience again next year Gilbert Cates will be a dead man. I understand he wants the show to move faster and end sooner but this was too much. Besides, I don’t know of anyone who really likes the Oscars who wishes they were over sooner. Me personally, I wish they went on all day. Of course TV critics and casual fans bitch every year about how long and boring the show is, but what can anyone do about that? If you don’t like seeing people get awards THEN DON’T WATCH! I know the show wants to attract new viewers, but they can't be something they're not. No matter how they try to spice it up they are an awards show and Cleatus The Truck Driver is never going to watch a Hollywood awards show where people are dressed in gowns and tuxes. Plus, did they really think their changes would help? You think Cleatus was passing by a TV and thought, “Hey I used to hate these awards but now I see that they’ve cut out the part where the technical winners have to walk all the way to the stage! Now they get to accept their awards at a microphone right next to their seat in the middle of the audience! Wow, I wasn’t going to watch these awards but now that they’ve shaved 10 seconds off each of the technical winners receiving their awards I’ll watch and I’ll love it!” No matter what you try and do Cleatus will just never give a shit about Sideways and Million Dollar Baby. So why try? Focus on what you do well and don’t try to be everything to everyone. You would have thought the Academy Awards would have learned this in high school, but some entities just never learn I guess. That’s why the whole Chris Rock thing was so misguided. While I thought he was hilarious, could he have been any more out of place? They were trying to put Chris Rock in a situation he didn’t belong in. You don’t bring a profane edgy comic to run the oldest, most tradition bound awards show around. It would be like getting George Carlin to MC a debutant ball. George Carlin is maybe the greatest comic alive but he doesn’t belong around fancy hairdos and tuxedos. And neither does Chris Rock. If it wasn’t clear from his opening monologue that mentioned none of the nominees (and sounded just like he was doing his standup act only with situation appropriate names inserted into it) that Rock was a bad choice to host, then it became crystal clear during the Johnny Carson tribute. Watching it I kept thinking: is there any way that that no matter how many more times Chris Rock might host the show that I could see them giving him his own separate tribute the year he dies? And the answer is a resounding no. He’s just not an Oscar host. Extremely smart and funny? Yes. Oscar host? No. To be fair, I enjoyed the show on a pure entertainment level more this year than I have the past two years and some if it was a direct result of Rock’s involvement. But at what cost is that entertainment? Not a cost anyone should be willing to pay. You can make changes to the Oscars, like when they took out the dance numbers a few years back, but you can’t make it something its not. The Oscars are not, and never will be, the VMAs, nor should they be. But unfortunately it seems that Hollywood’s obsession with youth has now extended to their awards shows. But as Clint Eastwood showed, younger and hipper isn’t always better. Sometimes old, crotchety and wrinkled is better.
Or at least that what I tell your Mom…
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I’ve already shared plenty of my views on who should win in my last entry, and since everyone I predicted would win DID win, I don’t really have anything to say about the awards themselves without being repetitive. But I do still have a few other things to share:
RANDOM THOUGHTS
-For two years in a row now there have been no upsets in any of the major categories. Some people have complained about this but I fail to see how those complaints are valid. Usually the person who is picked to win is picked as such because that is whom the greatest number of people have said they are going to vote for and because that nominee has the most “buzz” around them. So if they are the person the greatest number of people seem to prefer as the winner, then how is them losing a good thing? It makes for good TV for the two minutes it is actually happening, but then for all eternity we’re stuck with something like Adrien Brody beating Daniel Day Lewis for Best Actor. And I don’t see how something like that is worth two minutes of good TV.
-You know you’re in Hollywood when Peter Ustinov gets more applause than Ronald Reagan.
-Am I the only one who thinks it would be funny if you made a documentary about midgets and then submitted it as a nominee for Documentary Short Subject?
-Its been a fun ride Hilary Swank, we’ll see you again in 2020 when a screenwriter gets around to writing another butch, trashy, unattractive role for a lead actress.
-The less that is said about the Star Jones Preshow/Parade of Black People the better. I only wish Marlon Wayans had been there just so Star could have shoved Clint Eastwood aside to interview him. And also so that then Clint would have become so angry that he would kill Damon Wayans. And Star Jones. Now if he did THAT I would support giving him major awards…In short, who would have ever thought someone would make you long for the days of Joan Rivers? Or that a feeling of longing and Joan Rivers would ever be mentioned together in the same sentence?
-So Johnny Carson get his own tribute but not Marlon Brando? Makes sense I guess since Johnny was a TV host and Marlon Brando was merely the greatest actor of all time and revolutionized movie acting while winning two Academy Awards in the process...
-As someone (I can’t remember who) commented on, affirmative action is now officially out of hand. When you’re inviting people to the Oscars who have nothing to do with movies simply because they are black that’s when its out of hand. It’s almost patronizing to get Usher and P. Diddy to come just because they needed some black people in the audience and because they wanted to seem hip. The black people were coming out of the woodwork though. Even Prince and Oprah were there who I think both still technically qualify as black.
-Speaking of psuedo-black people remember when we all had to pretend like Halle Berry was a legitimate actress? I’m glad that’s over.
-Morgan Freeman waited 20 years to give THAT speech?
-I think all awards shows should be required to have an appearance by Robin Williams. Really all things in life should be. Think how much more fun a colonoscopy would be with Robin Williams there.
RANDOM QUOTES
- Carlyn: “Is Beyonce hiding refugees in her thighs?”
-Al Pacino about Sidney Lument: “Sidney told me where to go and what to do.”
Me: “Wow sounds like he must have been an amazing director”
-Carlyn after Hilary won Best Actress: “This is why people go to terrorist training camps”
-Me regarding Pierce Brosnan being sick while presenting: “Well if he dies on the spot at least Clive Owen is already in the building”
-Will during the Star Jones preshow: “Are we watching B.E.T.?”
-Will during the actual Oscar telecast: “Are we watching B.E.T.?”
BEYONCE
Sometimes there is just too much to say…
As if it weren’t bad enough that three of songs were all sung by the same person, that person had to be Beyonce! Seriously out of every single person in the entire world I cant think of anyone I would less like to have sing ONE song, let alone THREE. This is the same person who once sang the immortal lyric to end all immortal lyrics: “Charlie how your angels get down like that”. And it took like 8 people to write that song! Is there a more worthless person who is yet taken seriously? Today someone asked me “why did Beyonce sing three songs?” to which my reply, as you might imagine, was “why does she even exist?” And I think that about sums it up. Beyonce’s existence as a human being is suspect, so WHY IS SHE SINGING THREE SONGS AT THE OSCARS?!? Is she the only singer in the greater Los Angeles area?!? Before even asking why Beyonce sang three songs I think a bigger issue is why any one person sang three of the songs themselves. Especially if they were involved with NONE of them?!? I remember back in the day (meaning like two years ago) when the people who sang the song in the movie performed the song at the Oscars. Call me crazy, but this seems like this makes the most sense. I mean why not let the nominees do it themselves? If you liked them well enough to nominate them, shouldn’t you like them well enough to let them sing in public. I really don’t understand. It would be like nominating Green Day for a Grammy and then having Elton John perform for them on the Grammys. It makes no sense! And as for Beyonce, it’s not even like any of the songs were hip-hop related or even close to it. The Josh Grobon duet is the only one that makes even a modicum of sense for her to be within 100 yards of. I mean, her first song was in French! Yes that’s right, it was written for and performed in the movie by a French boys choir! Is Beyonce a young boy? No. More importantly, does Beyonce speak French? No. Of course not. She had to sing it phonetically. WHAT?!? Are there no French people in the entire world who can sing?!? Isn’t there any singer who at least knows French and therefore knows what the words mean that they are singing? Isn’t Johnny Depp dating a famous and hugely successful French language pop singer who happened to be sitting on like the third row? Someone please fucking explain this to me! WHY BEYONCE?!? Even worse, was having her sing the song from Phantom of the Opera. What could be worse than her singing a song written in another language for a young boy you ask? Well for starters, her singing a song that had to be rewritten specifically to fit her vocal range. Why are we rewriting songs specially for her? Is she fucking Pavarotti? Did I miss the memo? If we are going to hire someone to sing the song and we have EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ENTIRE PLANET TO CHOSE FROM why are we choosing someone whose RANGE IT DOES NOT FIT?!? And even more important than that, the song was sung in the movie by Minnie Driver. Last time I checked, Minnie Driver was movie star. Minnie Driver in fact is a past Oscar nominee. And last time I checked this was also the Oscars, a show designed specifically to honor and celebrate movie stars. It seems like it would make perfect sense for Minnie Driver, a well known movie star, to sign her own song at the “movie star awards”. I mean wouldn’t that make PERFECT sense?!? Of course it would!!! So then explain to me why an UNTALENTED PUTRID MASS OF HUMAN EXCRIMENT SANG IT FOR HER?!?!? Please someone just kill Beyonce for me. I don’t even care if the government and/or Jay-Z can read this right now, someone just please kill her for me and put us all out of our misery. Thank you.
That is all for now.
I really enjoyed the VMAs last night. Chris Rock’s monologue was great. It was good to see Jay-Z and P. Diddy and Prince. There were even some movie stars there too. Like Adam Sandler and Mike Myers. Santana’s performance was good. And Beyonce’s performances were, well, they were Beyonce performances. It was cool how the floor lit up and how the set was really busy with lots of TV screens and things moving around and shiny distractions. There was even a hilarous and highly original pre-taped bit where Chris Rock talked to regular people at a movie theater. All in all I went to bed afterwards thinking it was one of the best VMAs in years. And then I woke up this morning and started reading the news and it turns out that that wasn’t the VMAs at all! That was the Oscars. Who knew! Well I guess I have to amend the quote from Carlyn I used to open then. I do have one more disappointment: The whole show.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing with the Oscars is that they are an awards show. They exist solely for the purpose of handing out awards. This is their only reason for being. Not to provide entertainment to the masses, but to present awards to deserving members of the film community. This is also why we watch them, because we enjoy seeing all of these people win their awards. We enjoy the whole thing: the reading of the names, the celebration when the winner is announced, the walk to the podium and the speech. Its not just about who wins, its about the whole process of winning. (I think you know where this is headed…) This year though, (stay calm Andy…) the producer of the telecast wanted it to move quicker, so he eliminated that pesky step of people having to walk very far to receive their awards. Now, as I just got done saying, the Academy Awards, as their name indicates, are an awards show. And if the show exists solely to hand out awards THEN WHY ARE THEY SHAVING TIME OFF THE PRESENTING OF THE AWARDS?!? That’s the whole reason we’re watching is because we want to see people win awards!!! Who cares if we don’t know any of the sound editors or costume designers who were nominated; they still deserve awards as much as the actors and writers and I would still like to watch them receive said awards with all the same fanfare as the people I AM familiar with! If I didn’t want to watch them win their awards then I WOULDN’T BE WATCHING AN AWARDS SHOW! I would be watching Desperate Fucking Housewives. This new change just completely baffles me. I mean they used to have the Oscars in a ballroom and Im sure the Academy was just fine with that. But then they realized other people might be interested in their awards so to be nice they allowed us to watch at home as audience members. And what do we do in return? (and by “we” I mean Gil Cates, the guy in charge of the telecast) We start choosing to treat over half the nominees like second class citizens and try to suggest to them that their awards don’t matter and we’d rather that they just be over quickly. As an true Oscar fan knows, its actually good there’s all the smaller awards in the show because if it was four straight hours of Best Actor-level awards it would be a little too overwhelming. The smaller awards create balance and allow the show to build to a climax. Which also brings up the point this year of: what was up with the awards order this year? Full Length Documentary was given out like an hour before Documentary Short Subject. Adapted Screenplay was presented in the first hour and then they didn’t do Original Screenplay until the very end. Plus most importantly, what was with Supporting Actress? I think since the beginning of recorded time it has always been the first award given out. But they did Art Direction before it this time. What was the point of making such a minor change for no apparent reason? (And yes the fact that this bothers me is a very strong sign I need to get a life…) Maybe they wanted to show off their new form of degradation for the technical nominees as soon as possible. I swear if they hand out awards in the audience again next year Gilbert Cates will be a dead man. I understand he wants the show to move faster and end sooner but this was too much. Besides, I don’t know of anyone who really likes the Oscars who wishes they were over sooner. Me personally, I wish they went on all day. Of course TV critics and casual fans bitch every year about how long and boring the show is, but what can anyone do about that? If you don’t like seeing people get awards THEN DON’T WATCH! I know the show wants to attract new viewers, but they can't be something they're not. No matter how they try to spice it up they are an awards show and Cleatus The Truck Driver is never going to watch a Hollywood awards show where people are dressed in gowns and tuxes. Plus, did they really think their changes would help? You think Cleatus was passing by a TV and thought, “Hey I used to hate these awards but now I see that they’ve cut out the part where the technical winners have to walk all the way to the stage! Now they get to accept their awards at a microphone right next to their seat in the middle of the audience! Wow, I wasn’t going to watch these awards but now that they’ve shaved 10 seconds off each of the technical winners receiving their awards I’ll watch and I’ll love it!” No matter what you try and do Cleatus will just never give a shit about Sideways and Million Dollar Baby. So why try? Focus on what you do well and don’t try to be everything to everyone. You would have thought the Academy Awards would have learned this in high school, but some entities just never learn I guess. That’s why the whole Chris Rock thing was so misguided. While I thought he was hilarious, could he have been any more out of place? They were trying to put Chris Rock in a situation he didn’t belong in. You don’t bring a profane edgy comic to run the oldest, most tradition bound awards show around. It would be like getting George Carlin to MC a debutant ball. George Carlin is maybe the greatest comic alive but he doesn’t belong around fancy hairdos and tuxedos. And neither does Chris Rock. If it wasn’t clear from his opening monologue that mentioned none of the nominees (and sounded just like he was doing his standup act only with situation appropriate names inserted into it) that Rock was a bad choice to host, then it became crystal clear during the Johnny Carson tribute. Watching it I kept thinking: is there any way that that no matter how many more times Chris Rock might host the show that I could see them giving him his own separate tribute the year he dies? And the answer is a resounding no. He’s just not an Oscar host. Extremely smart and funny? Yes. Oscar host? No. To be fair, I enjoyed the show on a pure entertainment level more this year than I have the past two years and some if it was a direct result of Rock’s involvement. But at what cost is that entertainment? Not a cost anyone should be willing to pay. You can make changes to the Oscars, like when they took out the dance numbers a few years back, but you can’t make it something its not. The Oscars are not, and never will be, the VMAs, nor should they be. But unfortunately it seems that Hollywood’s obsession with youth has now extended to their awards shows. But as Clint Eastwood showed, younger and hipper isn’t always better. Sometimes old, crotchety and wrinkled is better.
Or at least that what I tell your Mom…
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I’ve already shared plenty of my views on who should win in my last entry, and since everyone I predicted would win DID win, I don’t really have anything to say about the awards themselves without being repetitive. But I do still have a few other things to share:
RANDOM THOUGHTS
-For two years in a row now there have been no upsets in any of the major categories. Some people have complained about this but I fail to see how those complaints are valid. Usually the person who is picked to win is picked as such because that is whom the greatest number of people have said they are going to vote for and because that nominee has the most “buzz” around them. So if they are the person the greatest number of people seem to prefer as the winner, then how is them losing a good thing? It makes for good TV for the two minutes it is actually happening, but then for all eternity we’re stuck with something like Adrien Brody beating Daniel Day Lewis for Best Actor. And I don’t see how something like that is worth two minutes of good TV.
-You know you’re in Hollywood when Peter Ustinov gets more applause than Ronald Reagan.
-Am I the only one who thinks it would be funny if you made a documentary about midgets and then submitted it as a nominee for Documentary Short Subject?
-Its been a fun ride Hilary Swank, we’ll see you again in 2020 when a screenwriter gets around to writing another butch, trashy, unattractive role for a lead actress.
-The less that is said about the Star Jones Preshow/Parade of Black People the better. I only wish Marlon Wayans had been there just so Star could have shoved Clint Eastwood aside to interview him. And also so that then Clint would have become so angry that he would kill Damon Wayans. And Star Jones. Now if he did THAT I would support giving him major awards…In short, who would have ever thought someone would make you long for the days of Joan Rivers? Or that a feeling of longing and Joan Rivers would ever be mentioned together in the same sentence?
-So Johnny Carson get his own tribute but not Marlon Brando? Makes sense I guess since Johnny was a TV host and Marlon Brando was merely the greatest actor of all time and revolutionized movie acting while winning two Academy Awards in the process...
-As someone (I can’t remember who) commented on, affirmative action is now officially out of hand. When you’re inviting people to the Oscars who have nothing to do with movies simply because they are black that’s when its out of hand. It’s almost patronizing to get Usher and P. Diddy to come just because they needed some black people in the audience and because they wanted to seem hip. The black people were coming out of the woodwork though. Even Prince and Oprah were there who I think both still technically qualify as black.
-Speaking of psuedo-black people remember when we all had to pretend like Halle Berry was a legitimate actress? I’m glad that’s over.
-Morgan Freeman waited 20 years to give THAT speech?
-I think all awards shows should be required to have an appearance by Robin Williams. Really all things in life should be. Think how much more fun a colonoscopy would be with Robin Williams there.
RANDOM QUOTES
- Carlyn: “Is Beyonce hiding refugees in her thighs?”
-Al Pacino about Sidney Lument: “Sidney told me where to go and what to do.”
Me: “Wow sounds like he must have been an amazing director”
-Carlyn after Hilary won Best Actress: “This is why people go to terrorist training camps”
-Me regarding Pierce Brosnan being sick while presenting: “Well if he dies on the spot at least Clive Owen is already in the building”
-Will during the Star Jones preshow: “Are we watching B.E.T.?”
-Will during the actual Oscar telecast: “Are we watching B.E.T.?”
BEYONCE
Sometimes there is just too much to say…
As if it weren’t bad enough that three of songs were all sung by the same person, that person had to be Beyonce! Seriously out of every single person in the entire world I cant think of anyone I would less like to have sing ONE song, let alone THREE. This is the same person who once sang the immortal lyric to end all immortal lyrics: “Charlie how your angels get down like that”. And it took like 8 people to write that song! Is there a more worthless person who is yet taken seriously? Today someone asked me “why did Beyonce sing three songs?” to which my reply, as you might imagine, was “why does she even exist?” And I think that about sums it up. Beyonce’s existence as a human being is suspect, so WHY IS SHE SINGING THREE SONGS AT THE OSCARS?!? Is she the only singer in the greater Los Angeles area?!? Before even asking why Beyonce sang three songs I think a bigger issue is why any one person sang three of the songs themselves. Especially if they were involved with NONE of them?!? I remember back in the day (meaning like two years ago) when the people who sang the song in the movie performed the song at the Oscars. Call me crazy, but this seems like this makes the most sense. I mean why not let the nominees do it themselves? If you liked them well enough to nominate them, shouldn’t you like them well enough to let them sing in public. I really don’t understand. It would be like nominating Green Day for a Grammy and then having Elton John perform for them on the Grammys. It makes no sense! And as for Beyonce, it’s not even like any of the songs were hip-hop related or even close to it. The Josh Grobon duet is the only one that makes even a modicum of sense for her to be within 100 yards of. I mean, her first song was in French! Yes that’s right, it was written for and performed in the movie by a French boys choir! Is Beyonce a young boy? No. More importantly, does Beyonce speak French? No. Of course not. She had to sing it phonetically. WHAT?!? Are there no French people in the entire world who can sing?!? Isn’t there any singer who at least knows French and therefore knows what the words mean that they are singing? Isn’t Johnny Depp dating a famous and hugely successful French language pop singer who happened to be sitting on like the third row? Someone please fucking explain this to me! WHY BEYONCE?!? Even worse, was having her sing the song from Phantom of the Opera. What could be worse than her singing a song written in another language for a young boy you ask? Well for starters, her singing a song that had to be rewritten specifically to fit her vocal range. Why are we rewriting songs specially for her? Is she fucking Pavarotti? Did I miss the memo? If we are going to hire someone to sing the song and we have EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ENTIRE PLANET TO CHOSE FROM why are we choosing someone whose RANGE IT DOES NOT FIT?!? And even more important than that, the song was sung in the movie by Minnie Driver. Last time I checked, Minnie Driver was movie star. Minnie Driver in fact is a past Oscar nominee. And last time I checked this was also the Oscars, a show designed specifically to honor and celebrate movie stars. It seems like it would make perfect sense for Minnie Driver, a well known movie star, to sign her own song at the “movie star awards”. I mean wouldn’t that make PERFECT sense?!? Of course it would!!! So then explain to me why an UNTALENTED PUTRID MASS OF HUMAN EXCRIMENT SANG IT FOR HER?!?!? Please someone just kill Beyonce for me. I don’t even care if the government and/or Jay-Z can read this right now, someone just please kill her for me and put us all out of our misery. Thank you.
That is all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)