“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.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
It may have been a God awful year for movies, but SOMEBODY has to win...
I warned you that I was going to have a lot to say about stuff you only remotely cared about and you didn’t believe me, so here is your proof. Scroll down and see it all. Keep scrolling. Keep scrolling. You to the bottom of the entry yet?
….
Okay I gotta go do some stuff so just let me know when you reach the bottom. And then scroll back up.
….
You’re back?
Okay great, welcome back. Well, as I was saying I have prepared a little Oscar preview/prediction entry here for your amusement/lack of amusement. I covered the Big 8 categories, which I know is usually the Big 6, but the writing awards are pretty major these days too, so the Big 8 it is. As you’ll notice my predicted winners match up most of the time with whom I would like to see win. That is a good thing. This entry is like 1,000 hours long. That is a bad thing. You can take breaks as you like, if, you know, you have a life and stuff.
Read at your own risk.
BEST PICTURE
As I have mentioned elsewhere previously there is a difference your favorite movie of the year and the best movie. And there is a difference still between the best movie of the year and the “Best Picture” of the year. The Academy Awards are a very specific thing and that is what many people don’t get when they complain about why certain things out of the mainstream don’t win or get nominated. It’s because they shouldn’t. The Academy Awards aren’t really about what is the best movie of the year. They are about what movie is most deserving of the Academy Award for Best Picture. For example I would say Almost Famous was my favorite/best movie of 2000 but Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should have been Best Picture. In 2002 I thought Gangs of New York was the best movie but I was rooting like crazy for Chicago to win Best Picture. It’s sometimes a subtle difference but there are criteria to help you make the distinction.
1.) For starters, it’s always a good idea to try and picture 20 years from now how that movie will look on a list of Best Picture winners. Will people rent it and watch and think “what the hell were they thinking that year?” or “that must have been a weak year for movies” or will it hold up fine and represent that particular year well in the annals of history? So it should be something that has a timeless quality about it.
2.) Does it feel like something that the average person might potentially like if they were forced to watch it? And remember: the average person is stupid. This isn’t to say the Best Picture should pander to the lowest common denominator, but instead that there is a difference between the Indie Spirit Awards and the Academy Awards. The Academy Awards are the universal film award of record so its Best Picture should be something accessible.
3.) Is it important? This isn’t to slight comedy or genre films, but whatever it is, it must feel like it has weight and importance and it cries out to be recognized as great.
4.) And most importantly, it must FEEL Oscar worthy. This is the hardest thing to define but in reality it’s the most important. Does it feel like a movie that when it is released on video seems like its cover should say “Best Picture Winner” across the top? Does the thought of hearing its name announced at the end of the night seem awkward or does it seem fitting? Does it feel like when they were making the movie they knew they were making something great? More than anything else though, it’s just a gut feeling.
Million Dollar Baby feels like a Best Picture winner whereas The Aviator just doesn’t. I enjoyed The Aviator more. If I had to watch one of them again I would pick The Aviator no contest. The Aviator is bigger in scope and much more epic. But it doesn’t really have an ending. It doesn’t seem to be that important. And I cant shake that feeling that if it won people would look back 10 years from now and think “how the hell did THAT win”. It’s a movie that is easy to like but hard to really love. And although I didn’t love it, Million Dollar Baby has inspired a lot of passion in a lot of people. Mostly older people, but technically old people are still people too. Plus it feels important and seems like a movie that should have the words “Best Picture Winner” on its box. I can’t imagine ever thinking naming Million Dollar Baby Best Picture would be viewed as a mistake. So while Sideways might have been by far my favorite of the nominees and The Aviator is the grandest, Million Dollar Baby is the most Oscar-worthy and so I’ll be pulling for it come Oscar night. Which is fortunate because it will be winning whether I’m pulling for it or not.
Will Win: Million Dollar Baby
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Million Dollar Baby
BEST ACTOR
Jamie Foxx is such a lock here they should just start engraving the trophy while we speak. In fact you could make a case that the other 4 nominees shouldn’t even be nominated. If I was in charge, the other non-Jamie Foxx nominees would have been Paul Giamatti, Jim Carrey, Javier Bardem and maybe Liam Neeson, although Leo isn’t a bad pick for the last slot either. But nevertheless, 3 of the other 4 nominees shouldn’t be anywhere near nominations so there’s no way they are winning. Plus none of the non-Jamie Foxx performances really stand out. Which is ironic considering a few months ago all the talk was about what a good year this was for male actors. But once you take Paul, Jim and Javier out of the picture, it really doesn’t look that way. In fact people in the future will probably look at the list of nominees, see their performances on video and think “that must have been a pretty weak year for Best Actor candidates”. That is if anyone other than myself actually did such things. But at least we will have a worthy winner to redeem the rest of the sorry nominees. And I’m sure the Oscar people are glad Jamie is winning because then we will get to find out whether his speech will kick massive amounts of ass or gargantuan J. Lo sized amounts of ass. And really, it’s all about the speeches. For people like Michael Moore, Adrien Brody and Cuba Gooding Jr. their speech was arguably more beneficial to their career than the actual winning of the award was. Denzel gave a great speech a few years back too. In fact I think every few years they need to give an Oscar to an excitable black man just to keep these shows interesting.
As a side note, I find it interesting that almost all of the memorable Oscar speeches have been given by men. I mean if you take away Julia Roberts and Cher, than the two most memorable Oscar speeches given by females in the past 25 years are Hallie Berry sobbing uncontrollably and Sally Field making a fool of herself. And I don’t mean to imply anything by that observation; I just thought it was worth noting.
Will Win: Jamie Foxx
Would Win If I Was In Charge: Jamie Foxx
BEST ACTRESS
Speaking of a weak year for acting candidates, check out the Best Actress category. It’s lucky that they only have to pick five nominees and not six because then they’d be screwed. I know some people have said Catalina Sandino Moreno doesn’t deserve a nomination (I disagree) but really whom else would you pick instead? Name someone. Anyone. Bueller? The only name that you could even remotely attempt to get by me would be Uma Thurman for Kill Bill: Vol. 2 but there are several problems with that. 1.) She already got a nomination for Pulp Fiction and one Oscar nomination is already one too many for Uma Thurman. 2.) More importantly, it’s not an Oscar worthy part or performance. Some times no mater how good things are they just aren’t Oscar material. For example see Denzel Washington in Training Day. Better yet, don’t…
This isn’t to say people like Sigourney Weaver can’t get nominated for something like Aliens, it’s just to say someone like Uma Thurman cant get nominated for something like Kill Bill. And I say that as a HUGE Kill Bill fan. But Uma just doesn’t display a great level of acting ability in a movie that already just doesn’t feel like it should be within 100 yards of the Academy Awards. I mean everyone points to the buried alive scene as great acting but I guarantee you if bury 100 halfway decent actresses alive, 80 of them could give performances equal or better than what she did in that scene. (Go ahead, try it.) There’s nothing particularly unique or exciting about her performance and I hate to break it to ya’ but anger and physical pain just aint two of your harder things to portray. So anyway, 50 words later, the point is that since you have to have five nominees, Catalina Sandino Moreno should be there either based on talent or by default depending on your viewpoint, but definitely based on one of the two. But as for who should win, well there shouldn’t be any debate over that. Catalina is just lucky to be here so she’s out. Kate Winslet is great but isn’t even the best actor in her own movie (that would be Jim Carrey). Imelda Staunton is fantastic, but if five minutes of crying is powerful, 40 minutes of nonstop crying is decidedly less so. Plus no one even knows who she is. That brings us (and Oscar) down to two: Hilary Swank and Annette Bening. Now of course Hillary Swank will win because everyone saw and loved her movie and Being Julia feels too slight and too unknown to have the Best Actress winner come from it. But if I said earlier that actors from artsy action films or mainstream popcorn flicks don’t deserve Oscars, I don’t include in that category period dramadies based on W. Somerset Maugham novels. So I don’t think the quality or audience size of the movies should be a factor in this race, but yet it will be. So be it. But here are what SHOULD, in an ideal world, be the deciding factors in the race:
1.) If Hilary Swank were to win it would be her second Oscar and thus put her in the same company as Katherine Hepburn, Tom Hanks, Marlon Brando, and Ingrid Bergman. On the other hand it would also put in the same company as Sally Field, Shelly Winters, and Walter Brennan, so maybe the two Oscar thing isn’t such a big deal after all…
2.) But then again she would have two Oscars and have only ever appeared in 2 & ½ movies (I only count Insomnia as half a movie because I doubt anyone even remembers she was in it. And I don’t count any of her other movies because they don’t count.). And rewarding someone so young with such a barren resume the highest prize possible twice in five years just doesn’t seem right.
3.) In contrast, Annette Bening has been around for years has already been nominated twice before and even already lost to Hilary in 1999. She is a big star who is overdue for some recognition.
4.) And, oh yeah, one last minor thing: ANNETTE WAS FREAKING AMAZING. Outside of the Jennifer Connelly/Naomi Watts duo from last year she gives the best performance by a lead actress of the millennium. Remember how they gave Hallie Berry an Oscar three years ago for switching from laughing hysterically to crying in the matter of half a second (and having explicit sex with Billy Bob Thornton. And being “black”)? Well, Annette does that probably no less than 10 times in Being Julia (the switching from laughing to crying thing. Not the explicit sex with Bill Bob Thornton thing. Or the black thing.) In addition to switching instantly between laughing and crying many, many times, Annette goes through the entire rest of the emotional range too. She is powerful and yet vulnerable. Funny yet deadly serious. It is a performance so rich, unique, and varied that I can’t possibly imagine anyone else doing it. It also makes me feel like I was learning too much about Annette Bening as a person, as I left the theater thinking she was undoubtedly emotionally unstable in real life because there’s no other way she could have given her performance. But I think that’s what’s called being given a glimpse into someone soul. And that seems like a pretty good goal for any actor to strive for. Especially Hilary Swank.
Will Win: Hilary Swank
Would Win If I Was in Charge: Annette Benning
(PS- Remember that time Nicole Kidman won. Yeah, neither do I.)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
I really don’t have much to say here. Natalie Portman shouldn’t be nominated, Sophie Okonedo is in Hotel Rwanda so she is disqualified, and Laura Linney is Laura Linney. So that means it’s a battle between “the scene outside the door” and “the scene with the speech about the wine”. Because when it comes to the supporting races its all about who has the best big scene. Which was helpful to people like Beatrice Straight in 1976 for example, as she was only in one scene. But this year is the exception to the rule. Clearly the scene where Virginia Madsen gives the speech on the porch about wine is the better scene. In fact if they gave an Oscar for Best Scene that would be your runaway winner. But. Cate Blanchett’s scene outside the screening room door is almost as good. Plus she’s a bigger star than Virginia and is overdue for an Oscar. Plus her performance is better overall and the way she becomes someone so well known and distinct without ever descending into mere imitation (well except for the first sequence at the golf range) is nothing short of amazing. It would be like 30 years from now someone who is well known in their own right playing Jack Nicholson in a movie and making it heartfelt and utterly believable without ever seeming like a caricature or an imitation. And when that movie is made that person will win an Oscar as well.
Will Win: Cate Blanchett
Would Win If I Was In Charge: Cate Blanchett (barely)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Since I cant make up my own nominees I’ll be fine with it when Morgan Freeman wins, but since this is my personal Oscar rantings and since this category is boring and already locked up anyway, allow me to rant some more about Freddie Highmore. I don’t think the world has seen anyone this obsessed with a young boy since the mid 90’s at the Neverland Ranch. But I don’t care; the kid was AMAZING! Here I am spending valuable years of my life getting all this training on how to act and then I go see some little kid blow every grown up this year out of the water and I wonder what the hell I am doing with my life. All I know is he must have had some amazing objectives and tactics. His beat breakdown must have been intense. I bet he was really feeling it in his ass-kicking chakra. Him, Dakota Fanning, Haley Joel Osment, and that kid from Love Actually need to start an acting troupe. And their first order of business can be kicking Jonathan Lipnicki’s ass. They should rough up that kid from About A Boy while they’re at it. Perhaps steal his lunch money or something. And they should also find some way to travel back in time and kill Anna Paquin circa The Piano too. The world would be a much better place if they did.
Will Win: Morgan Freeman
Would Win If I Was In Charge: Freddie Highmore (except for the fact he isn’t nominated)
(PS- I’m thinking about testing out a theory I have. I’m going get Morgan Freeman to do voiceover narration for my home movies and see if they can get a Best Picture nomination as a result. Maybe if I kill Ashley Judd he’ll be so desperate for work that he just might do it.
But then I’d have to kill Ashley Judd…
Decisions, decisions….)
BEST DIRECTOR:
They shouldn’t give it Martin Scorsese just because he hasn’t won it before. If he didn’t win for Raging Bull then it doesn’t seem like he should be winning for The Aviator. And since they’ve already waited this long they might as well wait until he really deserves it. On the other hand Clint Eastwood really DOESN’T deserve it. He may have made the Best Picture but as far as I could tell the direction consisted of him setting up a stationary camera and telling people “now stand in front of it and do stuff”. Plus he already has an Oscar for directing. Plus what’s the big deal with Clint Eastwood anyway? He’s an old boring guy who used to be Dirty Harry. But people for some unknown reason act like he’s Jesus Fucking Christ. I mean, outside of Unforgiven what has he ever been involved in that was so great? That movie with the monkey? Space Cowboys? Dirty Harry Part 8? This really just baffles me completely.
Will Win: Too close to call, but while logic says Clint, my gut says Marty
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Martin Scorsese
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
Now that Sideways has fulfilled the promise of Election it really makes you wonder what the hell happened with About Schmidt - or as the lovely Chris Maddox dubbed it About Schit (a nickname I don’t 100% agree with but that the 93% of me that does agree with it finds highly appropriate on multiple levels). Hopefully it was just an aberration because looking back, it now seems like it’s the other side of very thin line than Alexander Payne likes to toe. Stay on the good side Alex; stay on the good side. More humor, warmth, and accessibility, and less needlessly slow pacing, postmodern detachment, and Kathy Bates naked in a hot tub. If you ever forget that again we get to take away your Oscar. Just like we only wish we could do with Roberto Begnini…
Will Win: Sideways
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Sideways
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Most things are matters of taste and opinion. I might think one thing, but I always respect the opinions of others and can usually see where they might be coming from. For example, in every category listed here you could think that any one of the nominees deserved to win and although I might disagree I would respect your opinion as a valid one. All the categories except one. This one. Liking Eternal Sunshine is not a matter of taste. It is a fact. If you do not think Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a good movie then you are wrong. You don’t have to think it is the most brilliant thing ever but you DO have to think it is good. And there aren’t too many movies I can say that about. In fact, of movies that have come out in the past few years, this is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that that statement applies to. There is no valid compliant you can have with Eternal Sunshine that would be big enough to prevent you from liking it. So therefore it should go without saying that it should win this category. Everyone is up in arms this year about the fact that Martin Scorsese has never won an Oscar, but I think it’s a bigger travesty that Charlie Kaufman doesn’t have one. And that’s saying a lot seeing as how Martin Scorsese has made over 20 feature films, is an American icon and a big enough celebrity to star in his own commercials, whereas Charlie Kaufman has only four produced original screenplays, is unknown to the average movie-goer, and even I wouldn’t recognize him if I fell on him on the street. But Charlie Kaufman’s screenplays are to screenplays what “Baby Got Back” is to Sir Mix-A-Lot songs - so much better than everything else that it seems unfair that it’s even in the same category as them. But Charlie’s not only in a different league; he’s playing a different game. And Eternal Sunshine is his greatest work yet. If the writings of Charlie Kaufman aren’t the very definition of “Original Screenplay” then I don’t know what is. So explain to me how he doesn’t have an Oscar yet because I’m a little confused.
Will Win: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week:
1.) Sleep or lack thereof
2.) Jonathan Marc Sherman
3.) Primary Colors
3 & 1/2.) Ethan Hawke movies
….
Okay I gotta go do some stuff so just let me know when you reach the bottom. And then scroll back up.
….
You’re back?
Okay great, welcome back. Well, as I was saying I have prepared a little Oscar preview/prediction entry here for your amusement/lack of amusement. I covered the Big 8 categories, which I know is usually the Big 6, but the writing awards are pretty major these days too, so the Big 8 it is. As you’ll notice my predicted winners match up most of the time with whom I would like to see win. That is a good thing. This entry is like 1,000 hours long. That is a bad thing. You can take breaks as you like, if, you know, you have a life and stuff.
Read at your own risk.
BEST PICTURE
As I have mentioned elsewhere previously there is a difference your favorite movie of the year and the best movie. And there is a difference still between the best movie of the year and the “Best Picture” of the year. The Academy Awards are a very specific thing and that is what many people don’t get when they complain about why certain things out of the mainstream don’t win or get nominated. It’s because they shouldn’t. The Academy Awards aren’t really about what is the best movie of the year. They are about what movie is most deserving of the Academy Award for Best Picture. For example I would say Almost Famous was my favorite/best movie of 2000 but Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should have been Best Picture. In 2002 I thought Gangs of New York was the best movie but I was rooting like crazy for Chicago to win Best Picture. It’s sometimes a subtle difference but there are criteria to help you make the distinction.
1.) For starters, it’s always a good idea to try and picture 20 years from now how that movie will look on a list of Best Picture winners. Will people rent it and watch and think “what the hell were they thinking that year?” or “that must have been a weak year for movies” or will it hold up fine and represent that particular year well in the annals of history? So it should be something that has a timeless quality about it.
2.) Does it feel like something that the average person might potentially like if they were forced to watch it? And remember: the average person is stupid. This isn’t to say the Best Picture should pander to the lowest common denominator, but instead that there is a difference between the Indie Spirit Awards and the Academy Awards. The Academy Awards are the universal film award of record so its Best Picture should be something accessible.
3.) Is it important? This isn’t to slight comedy or genre films, but whatever it is, it must feel like it has weight and importance and it cries out to be recognized as great.
4.) And most importantly, it must FEEL Oscar worthy. This is the hardest thing to define but in reality it’s the most important. Does it feel like a movie that when it is released on video seems like its cover should say “Best Picture Winner” across the top? Does the thought of hearing its name announced at the end of the night seem awkward or does it seem fitting? Does it feel like when they were making the movie they knew they were making something great? More than anything else though, it’s just a gut feeling.
Million Dollar Baby feels like a Best Picture winner whereas The Aviator just doesn’t. I enjoyed The Aviator more. If I had to watch one of them again I would pick The Aviator no contest. The Aviator is bigger in scope and much more epic. But it doesn’t really have an ending. It doesn’t seem to be that important. And I cant shake that feeling that if it won people would look back 10 years from now and think “how the hell did THAT win”. It’s a movie that is easy to like but hard to really love. And although I didn’t love it, Million Dollar Baby has inspired a lot of passion in a lot of people. Mostly older people, but technically old people are still people too. Plus it feels important and seems like a movie that should have the words “Best Picture Winner” on its box. I can’t imagine ever thinking naming Million Dollar Baby Best Picture would be viewed as a mistake. So while Sideways might have been by far my favorite of the nominees and The Aviator is the grandest, Million Dollar Baby is the most Oscar-worthy and so I’ll be pulling for it come Oscar night. Which is fortunate because it will be winning whether I’m pulling for it or not.
Will Win: Million Dollar Baby
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Million Dollar Baby
BEST ACTOR
Jamie Foxx is such a lock here they should just start engraving the trophy while we speak. In fact you could make a case that the other 4 nominees shouldn’t even be nominated. If I was in charge, the other non-Jamie Foxx nominees would have been Paul Giamatti, Jim Carrey, Javier Bardem and maybe Liam Neeson, although Leo isn’t a bad pick for the last slot either. But nevertheless, 3 of the other 4 nominees shouldn’t be anywhere near nominations so there’s no way they are winning. Plus none of the non-Jamie Foxx performances really stand out. Which is ironic considering a few months ago all the talk was about what a good year this was for male actors. But once you take Paul, Jim and Javier out of the picture, it really doesn’t look that way. In fact people in the future will probably look at the list of nominees, see their performances on video and think “that must have been a pretty weak year for Best Actor candidates”. That is if anyone other than myself actually did such things. But at least we will have a worthy winner to redeem the rest of the sorry nominees. And I’m sure the Oscar people are glad Jamie is winning because then we will get to find out whether his speech will kick massive amounts of ass or gargantuan J. Lo sized amounts of ass. And really, it’s all about the speeches. For people like Michael Moore, Adrien Brody and Cuba Gooding Jr. their speech was arguably more beneficial to their career than the actual winning of the award was. Denzel gave a great speech a few years back too. In fact I think every few years they need to give an Oscar to an excitable black man just to keep these shows interesting.
As a side note, I find it interesting that almost all of the memorable Oscar speeches have been given by men. I mean if you take away Julia Roberts and Cher, than the two most memorable Oscar speeches given by females in the past 25 years are Hallie Berry sobbing uncontrollably and Sally Field making a fool of herself. And I don’t mean to imply anything by that observation; I just thought it was worth noting.
Will Win: Jamie Foxx
Would Win If I Was In Charge: Jamie Foxx
BEST ACTRESS
Speaking of a weak year for acting candidates, check out the Best Actress category. It’s lucky that they only have to pick five nominees and not six because then they’d be screwed. I know some people have said Catalina Sandino Moreno doesn’t deserve a nomination (I disagree) but really whom else would you pick instead? Name someone. Anyone. Bueller? The only name that you could even remotely attempt to get by me would be Uma Thurman for Kill Bill: Vol. 2 but there are several problems with that. 1.) She already got a nomination for Pulp Fiction and one Oscar nomination is already one too many for Uma Thurman. 2.) More importantly, it’s not an Oscar worthy part or performance. Some times no mater how good things are they just aren’t Oscar material. For example see Denzel Washington in Training Day. Better yet, don’t…
This isn’t to say people like Sigourney Weaver can’t get nominated for something like Aliens, it’s just to say someone like Uma Thurman cant get nominated for something like Kill Bill. And I say that as a HUGE Kill Bill fan. But Uma just doesn’t display a great level of acting ability in a movie that already just doesn’t feel like it should be within 100 yards of the Academy Awards. I mean everyone points to the buried alive scene as great acting but I guarantee you if bury 100 halfway decent actresses alive, 80 of them could give performances equal or better than what she did in that scene. (Go ahead, try it.) There’s nothing particularly unique or exciting about her performance and I hate to break it to ya’ but anger and physical pain just aint two of your harder things to portray. So anyway, 50 words later, the point is that since you have to have five nominees, Catalina Sandino Moreno should be there either based on talent or by default depending on your viewpoint, but definitely based on one of the two. But as for who should win, well there shouldn’t be any debate over that. Catalina is just lucky to be here so she’s out. Kate Winslet is great but isn’t even the best actor in her own movie (that would be Jim Carrey). Imelda Staunton is fantastic, but if five minutes of crying is powerful, 40 minutes of nonstop crying is decidedly less so. Plus no one even knows who she is. That brings us (and Oscar) down to two: Hilary Swank and Annette Bening. Now of course Hillary Swank will win because everyone saw and loved her movie and Being Julia feels too slight and too unknown to have the Best Actress winner come from it. But if I said earlier that actors from artsy action films or mainstream popcorn flicks don’t deserve Oscars, I don’t include in that category period dramadies based on W. Somerset Maugham novels. So I don’t think the quality or audience size of the movies should be a factor in this race, but yet it will be. So be it. But here are what SHOULD, in an ideal world, be the deciding factors in the race:
1.) If Hilary Swank were to win it would be her second Oscar and thus put her in the same company as Katherine Hepburn, Tom Hanks, Marlon Brando, and Ingrid Bergman. On the other hand it would also put in the same company as Sally Field, Shelly Winters, and Walter Brennan, so maybe the two Oscar thing isn’t such a big deal after all…
2.) But then again she would have two Oscars and have only ever appeared in 2 & ½ movies (I only count Insomnia as half a movie because I doubt anyone even remembers she was in it. And I don’t count any of her other movies because they don’t count.). And rewarding someone so young with such a barren resume the highest prize possible twice in five years just doesn’t seem right.
3.) In contrast, Annette Bening has been around for years has already been nominated twice before and even already lost to Hilary in 1999. She is a big star who is overdue for some recognition.
4.) And, oh yeah, one last minor thing: ANNETTE WAS FREAKING AMAZING. Outside of the Jennifer Connelly/Naomi Watts duo from last year she gives the best performance by a lead actress of the millennium. Remember how they gave Hallie Berry an Oscar three years ago for switching from laughing hysterically to crying in the matter of half a second (and having explicit sex with Billy Bob Thornton. And being “black”)? Well, Annette does that probably no less than 10 times in Being Julia (the switching from laughing to crying thing. Not the explicit sex with Bill Bob Thornton thing. Or the black thing.) In addition to switching instantly between laughing and crying many, many times, Annette goes through the entire rest of the emotional range too. She is powerful and yet vulnerable. Funny yet deadly serious. It is a performance so rich, unique, and varied that I can’t possibly imagine anyone else doing it. It also makes me feel like I was learning too much about Annette Bening as a person, as I left the theater thinking she was undoubtedly emotionally unstable in real life because there’s no other way she could have given her performance. But I think that’s what’s called being given a glimpse into someone soul. And that seems like a pretty good goal for any actor to strive for. Especially Hilary Swank.
Will Win: Hilary Swank
Would Win If I Was in Charge: Annette Benning
(PS- Remember that time Nicole Kidman won. Yeah, neither do I.)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
I really don’t have much to say here. Natalie Portman shouldn’t be nominated, Sophie Okonedo is in Hotel Rwanda so she is disqualified, and Laura Linney is Laura Linney. So that means it’s a battle between “the scene outside the door” and “the scene with the speech about the wine”. Because when it comes to the supporting races its all about who has the best big scene. Which was helpful to people like Beatrice Straight in 1976 for example, as she was only in one scene. But this year is the exception to the rule. Clearly the scene where Virginia Madsen gives the speech on the porch about wine is the better scene. In fact if they gave an Oscar for Best Scene that would be your runaway winner. But. Cate Blanchett’s scene outside the screening room door is almost as good. Plus she’s a bigger star than Virginia and is overdue for an Oscar. Plus her performance is better overall and the way she becomes someone so well known and distinct without ever descending into mere imitation (well except for the first sequence at the golf range) is nothing short of amazing. It would be like 30 years from now someone who is well known in their own right playing Jack Nicholson in a movie and making it heartfelt and utterly believable without ever seeming like a caricature or an imitation. And when that movie is made that person will win an Oscar as well.
Will Win: Cate Blanchett
Would Win If I Was In Charge: Cate Blanchett (barely)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Since I cant make up my own nominees I’ll be fine with it when Morgan Freeman wins, but since this is my personal Oscar rantings and since this category is boring and already locked up anyway, allow me to rant some more about Freddie Highmore. I don’t think the world has seen anyone this obsessed with a young boy since the mid 90’s at the Neverland Ranch. But I don’t care; the kid was AMAZING! Here I am spending valuable years of my life getting all this training on how to act and then I go see some little kid blow every grown up this year out of the water and I wonder what the hell I am doing with my life. All I know is he must have had some amazing objectives and tactics. His beat breakdown must have been intense. I bet he was really feeling it in his ass-kicking chakra. Him, Dakota Fanning, Haley Joel Osment, and that kid from Love Actually need to start an acting troupe. And their first order of business can be kicking Jonathan Lipnicki’s ass. They should rough up that kid from About A Boy while they’re at it. Perhaps steal his lunch money or something. And they should also find some way to travel back in time and kill Anna Paquin circa The Piano too. The world would be a much better place if they did.
Will Win: Morgan Freeman
Would Win If I Was In Charge: Freddie Highmore (except for the fact he isn’t nominated)
(PS- I’m thinking about testing out a theory I have. I’m going get Morgan Freeman to do voiceover narration for my home movies and see if they can get a Best Picture nomination as a result. Maybe if I kill Ashley Judd he’ll be so desperate for work that he just might do it.
But then I’d have to kill Ashley Judd…
Decisions, decisions….)
BEST DIRECTOR:
They shouldn’t give it Martin Scorsese just because he hasn’t won it before. If he didn’t win for Raging Bull then it doesn’t seem like he should be winning for The Aviator. And since they’ve already waited this long they might as well wait until he really deserves it. On the other hand Clint Eastwood really DOESN’T deserve it. He may have made the Best Picture but as far as I could tell the direction consisted of him setting up a stationary camera and telling people “now stand in front of it and do stuff”. Plus he already has an Oscar for directing. Plus what’s the big deal with Clint Eastwood anyway? He’s an old boring guy who used to be Dirty Harry. But people for some unknown reason act like he’s Jesus Fucking Christ. I mean, outside of Unforgiven what has he ever been involved in that was so great? That movie with the monkey? Space Cowboys? Dirty Harry Part 8? This really just baffles me completely.
Will Win: Too close to call, but while logic says Clint, my gut says Marty
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Martin Scorsese
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
Now that Sideways has fulfilled the promise of Election it really makes you wonder what the hell happened with About Schmidt - or as the lovely Chris Maddox dubbed it About Schit (a nickname I don’t 100% agree with but that the 93% of me that does agree with it finds highly appropriate on multiple levels). Hopefully it was just an aberration because looking back, it now seems like it’s the other side of very thin line than Alexander Payne likes to toe. Stay on the good side Alex; stay on the good side. More humor, warmth, and accessibility, and less needlessly slow pacing, postmodern detachment, and Kathy Bates naked in a hot tub. If you ever forget that again we get to take away your Oscar. Just like we only wish we could do with Roberto Begnini…
Will Win: Sideways
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Sideways
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Most things are matters of taste and opinion. I might think one thing, but I always respect the opinions of others and can usually see where they might be coming from. For example, in every category listed here you could think that any one of the nominees deserved to win and although I might disagree I would respect your opinion as a valid one. All the categories except one. This one. Liking Eternal Sunshine is not a matter of taste. It is a fact. If you do not think Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a good movie then you are wrong. You don’t have to think it is the most brilliant thing ever but you DO have to think it is good. And there aren’t too many movies I can say that about. In fact, of movies that have come out in the past few years, this is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that that statement applies to. There is no valid compliant you can have with Eternal Sunshine that would be big enough to prevent you from liking it. So therefore it should go without saying that it should win this category. Everyone is up in arms this year about the fact that Martin Scorsese has never won an Oscar, but I think it’s a bigger travesty that Charlie Kaufman doesn’t have one. And that’s saying a lot seeing as how Martin Scorsese has made over 20 feature films, is an American icon and a big enough celebrity to star in his own commercials, whereas Charlie Kaufman has only four produced original screenplays, is unknown to the average movie-goer, and even I wouldn’t recognize him if I fell on him on the street. But Charlie Kaufman’s screenplays are to screenplays what “Baby Got Back” is to Sir Mix-A-Lot songs - so much better than everything else that it seems unfair that it’s even in the same category as them. But Charlie’s not only in a different league; he’s playing a different game. And Eternal Sunshine is his greatest work yet. If the writings of Charlie Kaufman aren’t the very definition of “Original Screenplay” then I don’t know what is. So explain to me how he doesn’t have an Oscar yet because I’m a little confused.
Will Win: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Would Win If I Were In Charge: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week:
1.) Sleep or lack thereof
2.) Jonathan Marc Sherman
3.) Primary Colors
3 & 1/2.) Ethan Hawke movies
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Any organization that has awarded Milli Vanilli, Toto, Creed, and Jethro Tull can't be all bad...
Ah the Grammys. What is there to say about the Grammys. Well if you scroll down, you’ll see there's a lot. But how much of it youll “get” is likely not very much. Because it seems like no one watches the Grammys anymore. And with good reason. For every Eminem/Elton John “Stan” or Mary J. Blidge “No More Drama” performance there is a random awkward pairing of some old person with some young flash in the pan. And also P. Diddy. Plus there are the awards themselves. Since 1990 we have seen such prestigious nominees for Album of the Year as “Falling Into You” by Celine Dion, “Millennium” by The Backstreet Boys, “The Three Tenors in Concert”, and “Tony Bennett MTV Unplugged”, which of course raises the question: when was Tony Bennett ever plugged in? And for every “Miseducation of Lauryn Hill” or “Speakerboxx/The Love Below” that wins, there is an “O Brother Where Art Thou Soundtrack” or “Two Against Nature” victory that makes the Grammys once again lose all credibility. So while I cant say I blame you for not caring about them, I will say you missed some truly great performances by Kanye West, Alicia Keys/Jamie Foxx, and others that I will mention below. You also will not have any idea what I am talking about for the rest of this entry, and that seems to me like much more serious problem.
-Has there every been a year when the nominees for Album of the Year should have been more clear? I mean how could they have possibly chosen anything else other than the following five: SMiLE, Van Leer Rose, The College Dropout, American Idiot and The Diary of Alicia Keys? It should have been like taking candy from a baby. Even the Grammys couldn’t screw that one up. Its almost like the music Gods planned it so that there would be exactly five universally critically praised albums in 2004 and that all of them would fulfill a slot in the Best Album category: Music legend without a Grammy/releasing a comeback album slot, Music legend/country music slot, rap slot, rock slot, R & B/attractive young female slot. It was perfect. TOO perfect apparently. Ironic that in their quest to appear young and hip the Grammys are now actually snubbing deserving old people in favor of undeserving young artists. Perhaps this explains why John Mayer won Record of the Year for “Daughters”.
No wait, NOTHING could explain that…
-I know its two years after the fact for my “Norah Jones, meet Christopher Cross” joke but I enjoyed it so much at the time I’m gonna throw it out there again just for the hell of it.
-After this Ray Charles thing, I’m seriously contemplating at this point releasing an album myself and then faking my own death just to see if I can get a Grammy out of it. If I enter it in some obscure category like Native American Album or Polka I think I might have a legitimate shot.
-Franz Ferdinand was not only allowed within 100 yards of the Grammys but was even allowed to perform? Live on CBS? Wow, Excuse me but I have to put the monkeys back in my ass. They flew out.
-Wow, so having five songs playing all at the same time sounds like crap? Who woulda thought?
-Is there anyone more overrated than Gwen Stefani? Seriously, name someone. I’ll give you a dollar. And who exactly started the myth of her attractiveness?
-Has anyone yet commented on the fact that Maroon 5 managed to sneak the phrase “keep her cumming every night” into a universally accepted hit song without anyone noticing? That, along with the fact that we play “Hey Ya!” every day at The Craft Studio for children’s birthday parties and no one bats an eyelash, just confirms that no one listens to lyrics anymore.
-That J. Lo she’s a crafty one. She knows that by singing in another language I wont understand what she is saying and therefore will have difficulty in mocking her. Nice try J. Lo, but I’m sure I can still come up with something…like…ummm…your singing is…not good. It’s quite poor in fact. So there! That’s right I said it. Whadda you gonna do about it?
-So I must be serious for a moment here. Tell me who else could have pulled off U2’s performance other than U2? A solid white background. No stunts or “special guest performers”. No special effects or pyrotechnics. A long monologue to open the song. A purposefully understated performance. Who else would be allowed to give that performance? Who else would even have the balls to try? And who else could make it the most captivating performance of the night? That is why they are “The World’s Biggest Rock & Roll Band”. End of story.
-I feel like Ellen and Portia De Rossi are the Citizen Kane of celebrity lesbian couples.
-Speaking of Citizen Kane here’s a little SAT flashback for you:
Citizen Kane : movies :: Sweet Home Alabama : things that kick ass
(And no I’m not joking)
Speaking of things that kick ass - Green Day, could you please put my socks back on my feet for me since you just rocked them off? Also, will you have my children?
-I think one of the joys of a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert would be that yelling out “Freebird” would not only not be ironic but might actually result in getting to hear “Freebird”. One of the non-joys of the Grammys is that you get to hear “Freebird”, but only the first part. That’s like getting to hear only the first six minutes of "Stairway to Heaven". Whats the point?
-After seeing A Ghost is Born win Alternative Album of the Year I’m reminded of a burning question I have. Has any person alive ever woke up in the morning and thought, “you know what song I really want to hear? ‘Less Than You Think’ by Wilco.”? And congratulations if you are one of the zero people who get that joke. Great now I’ve finally become too esoteric for my own good…And now I’m using the term “esoteric”…My parents would be so ashamed to see what’s become of the journal…
-I just wrote this line as an excuse to use another ellipsis…
-Getting all the “jokes” no one will get out of the way at once: I was thinking…if you’re an epileptic then the Grammys must be your personal hell.
(See, why do I even bother…)
-Is it wrong of me to comment that bald Melissa Etheridge looks like Billy Corgan? Is it also wrong of me to comment that she rocked hard core? Okay, just checking…
-Okay I gotta ask: who decided to let Stevie Wonder announce an award?
-I readily acknowledge that you pretty much have to have grown up with country music to really appreciate it and “get it”, but if some part of you isn’t affected by “Live Like You Were Dying” by Tim McGraw then you have no heart. It’s what modern country music is all about. Deadly tragedy? Check. Inspirational message? Check. Cheesy guitar solo? Check. So you can make fun of me for liking it but then I get to make fun of you for being the tin man. “Go follow the yellow brick road you man made of tin” might be a possible insult I could use.
-Jack White, how the hell did Loretta Lynn let you leave the house dressed like that? You know, the Strokes wont let you hang out with them anymore if you go out in public looking like that again. And don’t try and tell me you’re being ironic. Even Conway Fucking Twitty would have laughed at that shirt. And yes I just referenced Conway Twitty. And yes I referred to him as Conway “Fucking” Twitty.
I’d really just stop reading now if I were you…
-I wonder where I can download the Academy President’s speech about downloading?
-You know how at the Oscars they have the biggest star available announce Best Picture? Well to announce Album of the Year, the Grammys have Bonnie Raitt and Gary Sinese.
-Mark this day on your calendar. I can’t think of anything bad to say about Usher.
-Since the performances were disappointingly not sucky I now have some extra space to share a non-Grammy related thought. I don’t know if you saw the story the other day, but the rapper Houston gouged his own eye out. Yes, you read that right: HE GOUGED OUT HIS OWN EYE. He tried to commit suicide but the police stopped him and so since he couldn’t kill himself he just decided to gouge his own eye out instead. While I would like to explore the thought process that leads one to decide to gouge out ones own eye, I have other thoughts I will expound on here instead. 1.) You can’t imagine my curiosity and shock as a native Houstonian upon seeing the headline that simply read, “Houston gouges out own eye”. 2.) Guess this makes 50 Cent’s bullet wounds look pretty wussy by comparison. 3.) Houston must now deal with the eternal question faced by those who gouge out their own eyes: eye patch or glass eye. For me personally it would be no contest but you never know; a glass eye might have its benefits. To each eye gouger-outer their own…
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week: Top 3 & 1/2 “Sets of 3 consecutive songs on a classic non-Beatles album” Edition.
(Note this list was made off the top of my head with very little thought or research meaning it likely contains several glaring omissions. Nevertheless, let the debate begin)
1.) Where The Streets Have No Name/I Still Havent Found What Im Looking For/With Or Without You- from “Joshua Tree” by U2
2.) Crazy Love/Caravan/Into The Mystic- from “Moondance” by Van Morrison
3.) Ex-Factor/To Zion/Doo Wop (That Thing)- from “The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill” by Lauryn Hill
3 & 1/2.) Smells Like Teen Spirit/In Bloom/Come As You Are- from “Nevermind” by Nirvana
-Has there every been a year when the nominees for Album of the Year should have been more clear? I mean how could they have possibly chosen anything else other than the following five: SMiLE, Van Leer Rose, The College Dropout, American Idiot and The Diary of Alicia Keys? It should have been like taking candy from a baby. Even the Grammys couldn’t screw that one up. Its almost like the music Gods planned it so that there would be exactly five universally critically praised albums in 2004 and that all of them would fulfill a slot in the Best Album category: Music legend without a Grammy/releasing a comeback album slot, Music legend/country music slot, rap slot, rock slot, R & B/attractive young female slot. It was perfect. TOO perfect apparently. Ironic that in their quest to appear young and hip the Grammys are now actually snubbing deserving old people in favor of undeserving young artists. Perhaps this explains why John Mayer won Record of the Year for “Daughters”.
No wait, NOTHING could explain that…
-I know its two years after the fact for my “Norah Jones, meet Christopher Cross” joke but I enjoyed it so much at the time I’m gonna throw it out there again just for the hell of it.
-After this Ray Charles thing, I’m seriously contemplating at this point releasing an album myself and then faking my own death just to see if I can get a Grammy out of it. If I enter it in some obscure category like Native American Album or Polka I think I might have a legitimate shot.
-Franz Ferdinand was not only allowed within 100 yards of the Grammys but was even allowed to perform? Live on CBS? Wow, Excuse me but I have to put the monkeys back in my ass. They flew out.
-Wow, so having five songs playing all at the same time sounds like crap? Who woulda thought?
-Is there anyone more overrated than Gwen Stefani? Seriously, name someone. I’ll give you a dollar. And who exactly started the myth of her attractiveness?
-Has anyone yet commented on the fact that Maroon 5 managed to sneak the phrase “keep her cumming every night” into a universally accepted hit song without anyone noticing? That, along with the fact that we play “Hey Ya!” every day at The Craft Studio for children’s birthday parties and no one bats an eyelash, just confirms that no one listens to lyrics anymore.
-That J. Lo she’s a crafty one. She knows that by singing in another language I wont understand what she is saying and therefore will have difficulty in mocking her. Nice try J. Lo, but I’m sure I can still come up with something…like…ummm…your singing is…not good. It’s quite poor in fact. So there! That’s right I said it. Whadda you gonna do about it?
-So I must be serious for a moment here. Tell me who else could have pulled off U2’s performance other than U2? A solid white background. No stunts or “special guest performers”. No special effects or pyrotechnics. A long monologue to open the song. A purposefully understated performance. Who else would be allowed to give that performance? Who else would even have the balls to try? And who else could make it the most captivating performance of the night? That is why they are “The World’s Biggest Rock & Roll Band”. End of story.
-I feel like Ellen and Portia De Rossi are the Citizen Kane of celebrity lesbian couples.
-Speaking of Citizen Kane here’s a little SAT flashback for you:
Citizen Kane : movies :: Sweet Home Alabama : things that kick ass
(And no I’m not joking)
Speaking of things that kick ass - Green Day, could you please put my socks back on my feet for me since you just rocked them off? Also, will you have my children?
-I think one of the joys of a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert would be that yelling out “Freebird” would not only not be ironic but might actually result in getting to hear “Freebird”. One of the non-joys of the Grammys is that you get to hear “Freebird”, but only the first part. That’s like getting to hear only the first six minutes of "Stairway to Heaven". Whats the point?
-After seeing A Ghost is Born win Alternative Album of the Year I’m reminded of a burning question I have. Has any person alive ever woke up in the morning and thought, “you know what song I really want to hear? ‘Less Than You Think’ by Wilco.”? And congratulations if you are one of the zero people who get that joke. Great now I’ve finally become too esoteric for my own good…And now I’m using the term “esoteric”…My parents would be so ashamed to see what’s become of the journal…
-I just wrote this line as an excuse to use another ellipsis…
-Getting all the “jokes” no one will get out of the way at once: I was thinking…if you’re an epileptic then the Grammys must be your personal hell.
(See, why do I even bother…)
-Is it wrong of me to comment that bald Melissa Etheridge looks like Billy Corgan? Is it also wrong of me to comment that she rocked hard core? Okay, just checking…
-Okay I gotta ask: who decided to let Stevie Wonder announce an award?
-I readily acknowledge that you pretty much have to have grown up with country music to really appreciate it and “get it”, but if some part of you isn’t affected by “Live Like You Were Dying” by Tim McGraw then you have no heart. It’s what modern country music is all about. Deadly tragedy? Check. Inspirational message? Check. Cheesy guitar solo? Check. So you can make fun of me for liking it but then I get to make fun of you for being the tin man. “Go follow the yellow brick road you man made of tin” might be a possible insult I could use.
-Jack White, how the hell did Loretta Lynn let you leave the house dressed like that? You know, the Strokes wont let you hang out with them anymore if you go out in public looking like that again. And don’t try and tell me you’re being ironic. Even Conway Fucking Twitty would have laughed at that shirt. And yes I just referenced Conway Twitty. And yes I referred to him as Conway “Fucking” Twitty.
I’d really just stop reading now if I were you…
-I wonder where I can download the Academy President’s speech about downloading?
-You know how at the Oscars they have the biggest star available announce Best Picture? Well to announce Album of the Year, the Grammys have Bonnie Raitt and Gary Sinese.
-Mark this day on your calendar. I can’t think of anything bad to say about Usher.
-Since the performances were disappointingly not sucky I now have some extra space to share a non-Grammy related thought. I don’t know if you saw the story the other day, but the rapper Houston gouged his own eye out. Yes, you read that right: HE GOUGED OUT HIS OWN EYE. He tried to commit suicide but the police stopped him and so since he couldn’t kill himself he just decided to gouge his own eye out instead. While I would like to explore the thought process that leads one to decide to gouge out ones own eye, I have other thoughts I will expound on here instead. 1.) You can’t imagine my curiosity and shock as a native Houstonian upon seeing the headline that simply read, “Houston gouges out own eye”. 2.) Guess this makes 50 Cent’s bullet wounds look pretty wussy by comparison. 3.) Houston must now deal with the eternal question faced by those who gouge out their own eyes: eye patch or glass eye. For me personally it would be no contest but you never know; a glass eye might have its benefits. To each eye gouger-outer their own…
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week: Top 3 & 1/2 “Sets of 3 consecutive songs on a classic non-Beatles album” Edition.
(Note this list was made off the top of my head with very little thought or research meaning it likely contains several glaring omissions. Nevertheless, let the debate begin)
1.) Where The Streets Have No Name/I Still Havent Found What Im Looking For/With Or Without You- from “Joshua Tree” by U2
2.) Crazy Love/Caravan/Into The Mystic- from “Moondance” by Van Morrison
3.) Ex-Factor/To Zion/Doo Wop (That Thing)- from “The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill” by Lauryn Hill
3 & 1/2.) Smells Like Teen Spirit/In Bloom/Come As You Are- from “Nevermind” by Nirvana
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Paying Tribute to a Legend for Dummys
Its probably illegal or against some kind of copyright law to post whole articles from a website in your online journal instead of just giving the link to them but the law be damned thats what Im about to do.
As frequent readers know, The Late Show with David Letterman and Letterman himself are things I am very passionate about. I am equally passionate about my hatred for Leno. And although Carson was before my time, through seeing enough of his old shows on video and being taught by my parents how important he was, I have a great deal of respect and apprication for him and what he represented. Plus anyone that Letterman loves must be great. So anyway needless to say, I was interested to see how both Leno and Letterman would pay tribute to him on their shows. After seeing both of their "tribute" shows I defintely had things to say about them but Bill Simmons of ESPN.com beat me to the punch. And since he is the main inspiration for this journal it shouldnt be shocking that he would be able to articulate my thoughts on the shows better than I could myself. So I thought instead of writing something myself I should just post his article here instead. So Ill be back with new original thoughts of my own soon, but until then, enjoy original thoughts of my own as expressed by someone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you're reading this, I'm probably standing in a buffet line at Media Day, waiting for a 300-pound sportswriter to stop loading chicken fingers on his plate. But I wanted to post something about Letterman's tribute to Johnny Carson last night, just a talented guy paying tribute to another talented guy. Letterman ended up speaking extemporaneously for something like 15 straight minutes, focused and emotional, giving a heartfelt eulogy for the man who inspired his career. And since it was the highlight of my first night in Jacksonville, I thought I would write about it.
The Letterman-Carson dynamic always fascinated me. In the mid-80's, when Letterman would occasionally visit Johnny's show, then Johnny returned the favor during the transcendent "Letterman Goes to LA" Week, Carson was the one guy who always left Dave a little flustered. And Dave never got flustered, not even when Crispin Glover whistled a karate kick at his head. Letterman always had too much nervous energy when Johnny was in the room - it was obvious - so he would over-laugh at Johnny's jokes and rip through his own material with a little too much gusto. There was something endearing about it, like watching a son trying to please his father.
Two decades later, I was watching Letterman pay his respects to Johnny on his own show. Since both men meant a great deal to me as a kid, it was emotional to watch - especially since Letterman should have been the one who replaced Carson in the first place. And I'm not sure if he's ever really gotten over it; since he moved to CBS, it's like he's been playing a caricature of himself, except for those rare moments when he turns into a real person again (like after his heart surgery, or those painful days after 9/11). I don't think he's cared about his show for some time, but he probably can't imagine doing anything else. So he's stuck. Unlike with sports, your skills can't slip that noticeably in late night TV - it's more of a gradual decline, and there's no way to pinpoint when someone wasn't as good as they used to be. With Letterman, the show that used to be a parody of a TV show somehow became a parody of itself, and I'm not even sure when it happened. Then again, if he had taken over Johnny's spot, he would have defended that territory much more zealously, and he never would have allowed himself to trail a hack like Leno in the ratings.
Of course, no moment illustrated the difference between Leno and Letterman like the days after Johnny's death. Letterman may go overboard most of the time, but you never lose sight of the fact that he's a real person - flawed, deeply troubled, somewhat anguished, but a real person nonetheless. Leno? He's a blank slate. Seriously, do you know one thing about him? Would you want to have dinner with him? Hell, would you want to have coffee with him? Me neither. Even the magazine features about him invariably drift towards his overall elusiveness as a human being, like even his friends can't figure him out. He's like the Manchurian Talk Show Host.
Last Monday night, Leno came out with a predictably awkward tribute to Carson, devoting his entire show to the man he replaced, conveniently forgetting how his manager leaked the "NBC pushing out Johnny?" story in the N.Y. Post that hastened Johnny's retirement in the first place, or how Leno didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE Johnny on the night he took over The Tonight Show, or how Johnny famously avoided Leno and his old show after his retirement, compounding the insult by writing jokes for Letterman's monologue as recently as last month. His "tribute" to Carson remains a defining Leno moment, like watching a female Olympic gymnast giving another gymnast one of those fake hugs that they don't really mean. What a crock. May we never take this man seriously again. If we ever did.
Am I biased? Absolutely. I'm a Letterman guy. I wouldn't be doing this for a living if not for a handful of people that passed through my life, and he's one of those people. With that said, I thought the past eight days illustrated the difference between Leno and Letterman better than any show ever could. It's not that Leno is a bad person - obviously he isn't - but that it's physically impossible to feel any semblance of a connection to him. Maybe that's what some people need when they're falling asleep at midnight - someone safe and harmless, someone who doesn't challenge them in any way. But he shouldn't have been the guy to replace Johnny. That's the bottom line.
As for Carson, I loved two things about him over anything else: Nobody was better at saving a bad joke, and no celebrity walked away with more dignity. Carson headed to Malibu and never came back - not for an Oscars show, not for a Barbara Walters interview, not for a Curb Your Enthusiasm cameo, not even for an informercial - and only because he wouldn't allow us to remember him any other way than we already did. Even in his final few years with The Tonight Show, Leno and Letterman were breathing down his neck, a clown named Arsenio Hall was stealing some of his younger viewers, and SNL was running that vicious "Carsenio" sketch on his own network. The writing was on the wall. He was the face of a dying generation of comedy. So he left. And never looked back.
I just hope Letterman has the good sense to do the same one day.
As frequent readers know, The Late Show with David Letterman and Letterman himself are things I am very passionate about. I am equally passionate about my hatred for Leno. And although Carson was before my time, through seeing enough of his old shows on video and being taught by my parents how important he was, I have a great deal of respect and apprication for him and what he represented. Plus anyone that Letterman loves must be great. So anyway needless to say, I was interested to see how both Leno and Letterman would pay tribute to him on their shows. After seeing both of their "tribute" shows I defintely had things to say about them but Bill Simmons of ESPN.com beat me to the punch. And since he is the main inspiration for this journal it shouldnt be shocking that he would be able to articulate my thoughts on the shows better than I could myself. So I thought instead of writing something myself I should just post his article here instead. So Ill be back with new original thoughts of my own soon, but until then, enjoy original thoughts of my own as expressed by someone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you're reading this, I'm probably standing in a buffet line at Media Day, waiting for a 300-pound sportswriter to stop loading chicken fingers on his plate. But I wanted to post something about Letterman's tribute to Johnny Carson last night, just a talented guy paying tribute to another talented guy. Letterman ended up speaking extemporaneously for something like 15 straight minutes, focused and emotional, giving a heartfelt eulogy for the man who inspired his career. And since it was the highlight of my first night in Jacksonville, I thought I would write about it.
The Letterman-Carson dynamic always fascinated me. In the mid-80's, when Letterman would occasionally visit Johnny's show, then Johnny returned the favor during the transcendent "Letterman Goes to LA" Week, Carson was the one guy who always left Dave a little flustered. And Dave never got flustered, not even when Crispin Glover whistled a karate kick at his head. Letterman always had too much nervous energy when Johnny was in the room - it was obvious - so he would over-laugh at Johnny's jokes and rip through his own material with a little too much gusto. There was something endearing about it, like watching a son trying to please his father.
Two decades later, I was watching Letterman pay his respects to Johnny on his own show. Since both men meant a great deal to me as a kid, it was emotional to watch - especially since Letterman should have been the one who replaced Carson in the first place. And I'm not sure if he's ever really gotten over it; since he moved to CBS, it's like he's been playing a caricature of himself, except for those rare moments when he turns into a real person again (like after his heart surgery, or those painful days after 9/11). I don't think he's cared about his show for some time, but he probably can't imagine doing anything else. So he's stuck. Unlike with sports, your skills can't slip that noticeably in late night TV - it's more of a gradual decline, and there's no way to pinpoint when someone wasn't as good as they used to be. With Letterman, the show that used to be a parody of a TV show somehow became a parody of itself, and I'm not even sure when it happened. Then again, if he had taken over Johnny's spot, he would have defended that territory much more zealously, and he never would have allowed himself to trail a hack like Leno in the ratings.
Of course, no moment illustrated the difference between Leno and Letterman like the days after Johnny's death. Letterman may go overboard most of the time, but you never lose sight of the fact that he's a real person - flawed, deeply troubled, somewhat anguished, but a real person nonetheless. Leno? He's a blank slate. Seriously, do you know one thing about him? Would you want to have dinner with him? Hell, would you want to have coffee with him? Me neither. Even the magazine features about him invariably drift towards his overall elusiveness as a human being, like even his friends can't figure him out. He's like the Manchurian Talk Show Host.
Last Monday night, Leno came out with a predictably awkward tribute to Carson, devoting his entire show to the man he replaced, conveniently forgetting how his manager leaked the "NBC pushing out Johnny?" story in the N.Y. Post that hastened Johnny's retirement in the first place, or how Leno didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE Johnny on the night he took over The Tonight Show, or how Johnny famously avoided Leno and his old show after his retirement, compounding the insult by writing jokes for Letterman's monologue as recently as last month. His "tribute" to Carson remains a defining Leno moment, like watching a female Olympic gymnast giving another gymnast one of those fake hugs that they don't really mean. What a crock. May we never take this man seriously again. If we ever did.
Am I biased? Absolutely. I'm a Letterman guy. I wouldn't be doing this for a living if not for a handful of people that passed through my life, and he's one of those people. With that said, I thought the past eight days illustrated the difference between Leno and Letterman better than any show ever could. It's not that Leno is a bad person - obviously he isn't - but that it's physically impossible to feel any semblance of a connection to him. Maybe that's what some people need when they're falling asleep at midnight - someone safe and harmless, someone who doesn't challenge them in any way. But he shouldn't have been the guy to replace Johnny. That's the bottom line.
As for Carson, I loved two things about him over anything else: Nobody was better at saving a bad joke, and no celebrity walked away with more dignity. Carson headed to Malibu and never came back - not for an Oscars show, not for a Barbara Walters interview, not for a Curb Your Enthusiasm cameo, not even for an informercial - and only because he wouldn't allow us to remember him any other way than we already did. Even in his final few years with The Tonight Show, Leno and Letterman were breathing down his neck, a clown named Arsenio Hall was stealing some of his younger viewers, and SNL was running that vicious "Carsenio" sketch on his own network. The writing was on the wall. He was the face of a dying generation of comedy. So he left. And never looked back.
I just hope Letterman has the good sense to do the same one day.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
The only thing that gets me out of bed at 8:38 am on a Tuesday during break
There’s nothing quite as good as being an Oscar winner, but being an Oscar nominee comes close. If you never wind up winning an Oscar then at least you will get to be advertised as Oscar Nominee (Your Name Here) in all upcoming movie trailers and in your obituary. Plus you get to join such illustrious company as Queen Latifah, Rosie Perez, Eric Roberts, and Maria Ouspenskaya. You can overnight go from crappy/unknown actor to crappy/unknown actor with an Oscar nomination. It’s amazing really. Plus I hear the nominee luncheon is pretty bitchin’. And now we have a whole new crop of people who can add the illustrious title of Oscar Nominee to the front of their name and enjoy some pretty awesome free food. Good for them.
Before I share my thoughts though, I must first address one of my pet peeves. You can’t really be upset about someone not getting nominated if they were never even being considered. For example, I’m sure everyone will bitch about the omission of Eternal Sunshine but the old codgers that do the nominating were NEVER going to nominate it. It never had a prayer and everyone who knew anything knew this coming into today. So therefore it should be neither shocking nor outraging. If you want to be angry about Paul Giamatti that’s one thing, but being angry about Mark Wahlberg in I Heart Huckabees is uncouth and just makes you look stupid no matter how much in an ideal world he should have been nominated. But this isn’t an ideal world. It’s not run by me. It’s run by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. So deal with it. And now, without further adieu I present my thoughts on this year’s nominees, which considering what was being considered, are actually pretty good.
*Memo to the national news media: For the last time, Passion of the Christ AKA “Mel” and Fahrenheit 9/11 AKA “Moore” didn’t get “snubbed”, they just didn’t get nominated. In order for it to be a “snub” it have to have been considered in the first place, and no one this side of Idiotville ever thought either had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anywhere near Oscar. Just because they were the highest profile movies of the year doesn’t mean they were ever being considered for Best Picture. I don’t remember anyone back in the day talking about how Armageddon or Men in Black got “snubbed”. They just didn’t get nominated. And the only reason Fahrenheit isn’t up for Best Documentary is because Michael Moore DIDN’T SUBMIT IT. It can’t be a “snub” if the director didn’t even bother to fill out the requisite paperwork. But then again I guess asking people to actually do a little research and have all the information before getting mad and crying “snub” would be too much to ask….
Okay I’m done.
For now.
*The Queen Latifah Memorial Worst Acting Nominee Award:
Natalie Portman for Best Supporting Actress- I know that any award that both Anna Paquin and Whoopi Goldberg have won isn’t like an actual valid award, but still, Natalie Portman in Closer? Really? Come on now, be honest, don’t you halfway suspect she didn’t actually memorize her lines for that movie and was merely reading them off large off-camera index cards? I mean that’s what it sure sounded like. Sure yes, she played a stripper and all, and yes, Natalie Portman playing a stripper does deserve some kind of award, but not an Oscar. A Blockbuster Entertainment Award maybe. Ah what the hell, the Oscars nominated Kathy Bates one year just for getting naked so why does it matter. And its not like her nomination really hurt anyone major. As they always say, “its all fun and games until someone gets snubbed”…
*…Alan Alda on the other hand…Okay maybe I was picking popcorn kernels out of my clothes and missed it, but he was even IN The Aviator? This was news to me. What isn’t news to me though is that Freddie Highmore from Finding Neverland WAS FREAKING AWESOME! I mean in past years Anna Paquin and Tatum O’Neal WON and this kid cant even get invited to the show? Explain. I mean Freddie was the man. Or I guess in this case, the boy. But whatever. I don’t think I would be exaggerating if I said it was the best performance by a child actor ever. I mean who has been better? And don’t gimme this Haley Joel Osmond stuff or I’ll hit you so hard so that he’ll be the only one who can see you if you know what I mean. Freddie is probably home crying right now and he’s probably doing a better job of it than anyone else could have done. Even that cry baby Imelda Staunton. (Inside joke there for the five people who saw Vera Drake…). Anyway I hope you nominator people are happy with yourselves. Maybe if Alan Alda dies before the ceremony Freddie can go in his place. I’ll have to get on that.
*Speaking of death: Clint Eastwood. For Best Actor? I think some people might have gotten a little carried away with their love for Million Dollar Baby. Eastwood cried. Great, give him a cookie. Not an Oscar. Although I can see how you might confuse the two. Of course what was not confusing was that Paul Giamatti was brilliant. And if he can’t get a nomination for Sideways then he never will. He should start a “The Academy Officially Hates Us” club with Jim Carrey and Steve Martin. Paul Giamatti not getting nominated for Best Actor is what we call a “snub”, boys and girls. And while we are talking about people beating out Paul Giamatti, may we also mention Don Cheadle and his ever-raising eyebrows? Seriously dude, get a sedative for those suckers. They make Jack Nicholson’s eyebrows seem immobile and underused by comparison. Might I also mention Johnny Depp, who in Finding Neverland takes understatement to whole new level? He was so understated in fact, that he made no statement at all. But I guess the black guy and the hot rebel white guy beat out the nerdy ugly guy and the Hispanic guy in the foreign language film (Javier Bardem) every time, so whatcha gonna do?
*That last entry was a little too similar structurally to the previous one. I apologize for that. It won’t happen again.
*In a development absolutely no one cares about besides me, how did Collateral not get nominated for best Cinematography? How the hell did this happen? And yes I am actually seriously upset about this. You should just feel lucky I restrained from making any Gordon Willis references. Okay I need a life…
*I really don’t know what to say about the Best Foreign Language Nominating process without using over 5,000 words, and since no one wants to read that much lemme just say this: Any year that produces The Sea Inside, A Very Long Engagement, Bad Education, Motorcycle Diaries, Maria Full of Grace and, to a much lesser degree, House of Flying Daggers, and winds up with its Foreign Film nominees including only ONE of those and then four films no one has heard of (well expect for that French Mr. Holland’s Opus knockoff) is a year that needs to be the impetus for the long overdue overhaul of the Foreign Film committee. But since the documentary committee only started to show signs of life about 15 years after the fact, suffice it to say I’m not holding out hope…
*The Chocolat Memorial Worst Best Picture Nominee Award
Ray- Jamie Foxx is great in it. It is thoroughly entertaining. It has so much universal appeal that even my Dad liked it. But it looks like it was edited by someone who simply read “Editing for Dummys” and then started splicing film together. And the ending was so clearly tacked on and unnecessary it screamed out “test screening mandated”. And the direction was pedestrian at best. And the whole thing seemed rather bland. And even my Dad liked it.
(Also: Is it a coincidence that its director, Best Director Nominee Taylor Hackford, has the word “Hack” in his name? I think not…)
*So Mick Jagger WINS the Golden Globe for best song and then doesn’t even get NOMINATED for an Oscar? Huh? Well I guess since not a single song from A Hard Day’s Night or Saturday Night Fever got nominated that’s about par for the course.
*Just as a public service announcement I think I should say that in case you haven’t seen Million Dollar Baby or are an idiot and waked out at some point in the first hour, it is not actually a boxing movie. Or a sports movie for that matter. Or about a wise black man helping people. Or anything that is even vaguely alluded to in the trailer. To find out what it IS about you have to, and I know this will sound crazy, WATCH THE WHOLE THING. Crazy concept…
*Since Tupac:Resurrection got nominated for Best Documentary I think the biggest suspense of Oscar night will be: what will Tupac be wearing? I only hope it wins because I bet his acceptance speech will be awesome!
*Well, other than the above-mentioned stuff I think the nominations were pretty much exactly what everyone predicted and a pretty good lot, considering that this is the worst year for Oscar worthy movies since 1996. So Ill be back soon with my Oscar Predictions and more banal rambling annoyances. Be there.
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week:
1.) Europe
2.) Rilo Kiley- "Portions for Foxes"
3.) "Will in the World" by Stephen Greenblatt
3 & 1/2.) Snow
Before I share my thoughts though, I must first address one of my pet peeves. You can’t really be upset about someone not getting nominated if they were never even being considered. For example, I’m sure everyone will bitch about the omission of Eternal Sunshine but the old codgers that do the nominating were NEVER going to nominate it. It never had a prayer and everyone who knew anything knew this coming into today. So therefore it should be neither shocking nor outraging. If you want to be angry about Paul Giamatti that’s one thing, but being angry about Mark Wahlberg in I Heart Huckabees is uncouth and just makes you look stupid no matter how much in an ideal world he should have been nominated. But this isn’t an ideal world. It’s not run by me. It’s run by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. So deal with it. And now, without further adieu I present my thoughts on this year’s nominees, which considering what was being considered, are actually pretty good.
*Memo to the national news media: For the last time, Passion of the Christ AKA “Mel” and Fahrenheit 9/11 AKA “Moore” didn’t get “snubbed”, they just didn’t get nominated. In order for it to be a “snub” it have to have been considered in the first place, and no one this side of Idiotville ever thought either had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anywhere near Oscar. Just because they were the highest profile movies of the year doesn’t mean they were ever being considered for Best Picture. I don’t remember anyone back in the day talking about how Armageddon or Men in Black got “snubbed”. They just didn’t get nominated. And the only reason Fahrenheit isn’t up for Best Documentary is because Michael Moore DIDN’T SUBMIT IT. It can’t be a “snub” if the director didn’t even bother to fill out the requisite paperwork. But then again I guess asking people to actually do a little research and have all the information before getting mad and crying “snub” would be too much to ask….
Okay I’m done.
For now.
*The Queen Latifah Memorial Worst Acting Nominee Award:
Natalie Portman for Best Supporting Actress- I know that any award that both Anna Paquin and Whoopi Goldberg have won isn’t like an actual valid award, but still, Natalie Portman in Closer? Really? Come on now, be honest, don’t you halfway suspect she didn’t actually memorize her lines for that movie and was merely reading them off large off-camera index cards? I mean that’s what it sure sounded like. Sure yes, she played a stripper and all, and yes, Natalie Portman playing a stripper does deserve some kind of award, but not an Oscar. A Blockbuster Entertainment Award maybe. Ah what the hell, the Oscars nominated Kathy Bates one year just for getting naked so why does it matter. And its not like her nomination really hurt anyone major. As they always say, “its all fun and games until someone gets snubbed”…
*…Alan Alda on the other hand…Okay maybe I was picking popcorn kernels out of my clothes and missed it, but he was even IN The Aviator? This was news to me. What isn’t news to me though is that Freddie Highmore from Finding Neverland WAS FREAKING AWESOME! I mean in past years Anna Paquin and Tatum O’Neal WON and this kid cant even get invited to the show? Explain. I mean Freddie was the man. Or I guess in this case, the boy. But whatever. I don’t think I would be exaggerating if I said it was the best performance by a child actor ever. I mean who has been better? And don’t gimme this Haley Joel Osmond stuff or I’ll hit you so hard so that he’ll be the only one who can see you if you know what I mean. Freddie is probably home crying right now and he’s probably doing a better job of it than anyone else could have done. Even that cry baby Imelda Staunton. (Inside joke there for the five people who saw Vera Drake…). Anyway I hope you nominator people are happy with yourselves. Maybe if Alan Alda dies before the ceremony Freddie can go in his place. I’ll have to get on that.
*Speaking of death: Clint Eastwood. For Best Actor? I think some people might have gotten a little carried away with their love for Million Dollar Baby. Eastwood cried. Great, give him a cookie. Not an Oscar. Although I can see how you might confuse the two. Of course what was not confusing was that Paul Giamatti was brilliant. And if he can’t get a nomination for Sideways then he never will. He should start a “The Academy Officially Hates Us” club with Jim Carrey and Steve Martin. Paul Giamatti not getting nominated for Best Actor is what we call a “snub”, boys and girls. And while we are talking about people beating out Paul Giamatti, may we also mention Don Cheadle and his ever-raising eyebrows? Seriously dude, get a sedative for those suckers. They make Jack Nicholson’s eyebrows seem immobile and underused by comparison. Might I also mention Johnny Depp, who in Finding Neverland takes understatement to whole new level? He was so understated in fact, that he made no statement at all. But I guess the black guy and the hot rebel white guy beat out the nerdy ugly guy and the Hispanic guy in the foreign language film (Javier Bardem) every time, so whatcha gonna do?
*That last entry was a little too similar structurally to the previous one. I apologize for that. It won’t happen again.
*In a development absolutely no one cares about besides me, how did Collateral not get nominated for best Cinematography? How the hell did this happen? And yes I am actually seriously upset about this. You should just feel lucky I restrained from making any Gordon Willis references. Okay I need a life…
*I really don’t know what to say about the Best Foreign Language Nominating process without using over 5,000 words, and since no one wants to read that much lemme just say this: Any year that produces The Sea Inside, A Very Long Engagement, Bad Education, Motorcycle Diaries, Maria Full of Grace and, to a much lesser degree, House of Flying Daggers, and winds up with its Foreign Film nominees including only ONE of those and then four films no one has heard of (well expect for that French Mr. Holland’s Opus knockoff) is a year that needs to be the impetus for the long overdue overhaul of the Foreign Film committee. But since the documentary committee only started to show signs of life about 15 years after the fact, suffice it to say I’m not holding out hope…
*The Chocolat Memorial Worst Best Picture Nominee Award
Ray- Jamie Foxx is great in it. It is thoroughly entertaining. It has so much universal appeal that even my Dad liked it. But it looks like it was edited by someone who simply read “Editing for Dummys” and then started splicing film together. And the ending was so clearly tacked on and unnecessary it screamed out “test screening mandated”. And the direction was pedestrian at best. And the whole thing seemed rather bland. And even my Dad liked it.
(Also: Is it a coincidence that its director, Best Director Nominee Taylor Hackford, has the word “Hack” in his name? I think not…)
*So Mick Jagger WINS the Golden Globe for best song and then doesn’t even get NOMINATED for an Oscar? Huh? Well I guess since not a single song from A Hard Day’s Night or Saturday Night Fever got nominated that’s about par for the course.
*Just as a public service announcement I think I should say that in case you haven’t seen Million Dollar Baby or are an idiot and waked out at some point in the first hour, it is not actually a boxing movie. Or a sports movie for that matter. Or about a wise black man helping people. Or anything that is even vaguely alluded to in the trailer. To find out what it IS about you have to, and I know this will sound crazy, WATCH THE WHOLE THING. Crazy concept…
*Since Tupac:Resurrection got nominated for Best Documentary I think the biggest suspense of Oscar night will be: what will Tupac be wearing? I only hope it wins because I bet his acceptance speech will be awesome!
*Well, other than the above-mentioned stuff I think the nominations were pretty much exactly what everyone predicted and a pretty good lot, considering that this is the worst year for Oscar worthy movies since 1996. So Ill be back soon with my Oscar Predictions and more banal rambling annoyances. Be there.
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week:
1.) Europe
2.) Rilo Kiley- "Portions for Foxes"
3.) "Will in the World" by Stephen Greenblatt
3 & 1/2.) Snow
Monday, January 17, 2005
Golden Globes '05
So in interest of full disclosure I don’t have all that much of a rooting interest in this year’s round of movie awards. Usually I get very passionate about them but I know that this year its going to ultimately come down to Aviator vs. Million Dollar Baby, two movies I both liked alright, but neither that I care that much about one way or the other. I do have some favorites in the other categories but I’ll get into that more come Oscar time. First up though, is round one: The Golden Globes. It’s almost as fun as the Oscar except for the fact it doesn’t have a host or a montage of dead people. And less non-actors giving awkward speeches. And no short film nominees. Well actually, it doesn’t compare at all. But still, it’s famous people drinking heavily and then getting awards on live TV so it does have its appeal. And to share in the appeal with me this year were Carlyn, and via phone, one Ms. Maddox. And below are my…okay, okay, OUR…thoughts.
- “William Shatner”
- What is that thing on the back of Jamie Foxx’s head? A hideous looking tattoo? Get that thing off before the Oscars my man. And speaking of tattoos, Virginia Madsen, I love you dear, but that little arm tattoo makes you look like a two-bit prostitute. Now that you are a serious Oscar nominated actress you might want to get some laser work done. And yes I just used the pharse "two-bit prostitute".
- So as I was watching Natalie’s acceptance speech I thought, “That is what a Harvard education gets you?” I think I’ve heard more articulate usage of language in the Center for Student Services. Plus, why the heck did she win?!? Has there ever been a less deserving winner? Well okay Madonna did win Best Actress once, but that question was intended to be rhetorical. All I can figure in this case was that the male voters thought maybe if they gave her an award she would have sex with them. And that she would call them daddy. Cause that seems to be her thing. Natalie we all expected better from you…
(PS- Please no one give Natalie the link to this thing. She might break up with me over that last entry…)
-“William Shatner”
-Javier Bardem looks like Harry Conick Jr. if Harry Conick Jr. looked like Tony Danza.
-It has to be said so Ill be the one to say it. Hillary Swank looks like a horse. There I said it. Now I’m going to straight to hell. I don’t even get to pass Go and collect my $200.
-Now that I’m already damned to hell and I’ve got nothing left to lose I might as well say this too: No wonder the Desperate Housewives are so desperate; if I looked like them Id be pretty desperate too. Especially if I was the scary looking one.
-Speaking of Desperate Housewives: Terri Hatcher now has an award! And it’s not even a Blockbuster Entertainment Award! It’s like a valid award! It was gold and everything! Wow, I didn’t even know Radio Shack made trophies like that. The best part about her winning though had to be this line from her speech:
“You wrote me such a great part where I get to be locked out of my house naked”
I think Meryl Streep once said that exact sentence…
-“William Shatner”
- I think I speak for us all when I say: Clint Eastwood has a 16 year old daughter?!?!?
-The Golden Globes were brought to you by Diet Dr. Pepper, which, apparently, “tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper”. This has to be one of the biggest myths currently being perpetrated on the American public. In no way does Diet Dr. Pepper taste anything like regular Dr. Pepper. Dr. Pepper tastes like a good soft drink. DIET Dr. Pepper tastes like Satan pissed in a cup and then made you drink it. There is a difference between the two.
-It’s awards season so you know what that means: the return of the mysterious unnamed fat guy who always sits next to Renee Zellweger. Seriously, who is that guy?
-My new rules for acceptance speeches: If you win an award for a comedic performance or are known to be a funny person then you have to be funny in your speech. Or at least make the attempt. If not, you have to cry. There are no other options. Under no circumstances shall you read and/or recite a list of names. Also, if you are presenting an award, you must wear an eye patch. This is non-negotiable.
-Someone from one of the Law and Orders won an acting award? Is that allowed?
-“William Shatner”
-While discussing Angelica Huston:
Carlyn: “She has an ugly dress on.”
Me: “She has an ugly face on.”
-More Carlyn:
(While looking at Robert Redford): “He’s melting”
-Even more Carlyn:
“Ian McShane (the scary guy from Deadwood) looks like Al Pacino ate him and then regurgitated him”
-Last one I swear:
Jamie Foxx thanking Taylor Hackford: “He’s my best director”
Carlyn: “Wow, he beat out Keenen Ivory Wayans”
And without further ado…
Top 3 & 1/2 Moments of the Golden Globes-
1a.) Jamie Foxx’s speech: Now THAT is how it’s done. The PERFECT speech. Humorous, genuine, heartfelt, excited, commanding, and even some tears at the end. Absolutely perfect. Now why can’t all acceptance speeches be like that? Come folks, all of you are actors, I know you can do it. Yes, I’m talking about you Annette Bening.
1b.) When Jamie Foxx won and they showed the reaction of every black person in the audience. Even Prince. And he’s not really even black. Speaking of which, remember that time Halle Berry won an Oscar? How the fuck did THAT ever happen?
2.) Meryl Streep’s annual drunken Golden Globes appearance! I honestly wait all year for it, and she never disappoints. While nothing will ever top last year, this year was great fun too. Seriously, I don’t know if I can express in words how much joy drunken Meryl Streep brings into my life. Too much.
3.) Robin Williams’ speech: They should actually just do a show where Robin Williams just talks for 3 hours straight. No other awards, just Robin Williams talking. Wait, they did? It's called Good Morning Vietnam? It’s called his HBO stand up specials? And his Inside the Actors Studio appearance? Wow, I’ll have to get my hands on those. My only quibble (and its not his fault): in his clip retrospective they mention Patch Adams and Popeye and not Awakenings? WTF mate?
3 & 1/2.) Usher and Lisa Marie Presley: At first when I saw Usher in attendance I thought maybe he was there because they were going to honor his work in She’s All That several years after the fact. Maybe they just now got around to watching the DVD and wanted to give him a special award even though it’s a few years too late. But then he came out on stage with Lisa Marie and I saw sadly that was not the case. No, he was there to make Lisa Marie seem personable and lively by comparison. But then again my Grandma could do that. And she’s dead.
4.) And oh yeah: “William Shatner”
- “William Shatner”
- What is that thing on the back of Jamie Foxx’s head? A hideous looking tattoo? Get that thing off before the Oscars my man. And speaking of tattoos, Virginia Madsen, I love you dear, but that little arm tattoo makes you look like a two-bit prostitute. Now that you are a serious Oscar nominated actress you might want to get some laser work done. And yes I just used the pharse "two-bit prostitute".
- So as I was watching Natalie’s acceptance speech I thought, “That is what a Harvard education gets you?” I think I’ve heard more articulate usage of language in the Center for Student Services. Plus, why the heck did she win?!? Has there ever been a less deserving winner? Well okay Madonna did win Best Actress once, but that question was intended to be rhetorical. All I can figure in this case was that the male voters thought maybe if they gave her an award she would have sex with them. And that she would call them daddy. Cause that seems to be her thing. Natalie we all expected better from you…
(PS- Please no one give Natalie the link to this thing. She might break up with me over that last entry…)
-“William Shatner”
-Javier Bardem looks like Harry Conick Jr. if Harry Conick Jr. looked like Tony Danza.
-It has to be said so Ill be the one to say it. Hillary Swank looks like a horse. There I said it. Now I’m going to straight to hell. I don’t even get to pass Go and collect my $200.
-Now that I’m already damned to hell and I’ve got nothing left to lose I might as well say this too: No wonder the Desperate Housewives are so desperate; if I looked like them Id be pretty desperate too. Especially if I was the scary looking one.
-Speaking of Desperate Housewives: Terri Hatcher now has an award! And it’s not even a Blockbuster Entertainment Award! It’s like a valid award! It was gold and everything! Wow, I didn’t even know Radio Shack made trophies like that. The best part about her winning though had to be this line from her speech:
“You wrote me such a great part where I get to be locked out of my house naked”
I think Meryl Streep once said that exact sentence…
-“William Shatner”
- I think I speak for us all when I say: Clint Eastwood has a 16 year old daughter?!?!?
-The Golden Globes were brought to you by Diet Dr. Pepper, which, apparently, “tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper”. This has to be one of the biggest myths currently being perpetrated on the American public. In no way does Diet Dr. Pepper taste anything like regular Dr. Pepper. Dr. Pepper tastes like a good soft drink. DIET Dr. Pepper tastes like Satan pissed in a cup and then made you drink it. There is a difference between the two.
-It’s awards season so you know what that means: the return of the mysterious unnamed fat guy who always sits next to Renee Zellweger. Seriously, who is that guy?
-My new rules for acceptance speeches: If you win an award for a comedic performance or are known to be a funny person then you have to be funny in your speech. Or at least make the attempt. If not, you have to cry. There are no other options. Under no circumstances shall you read and/or recite a list of names. Also, if you are presenting an award, you must wear an eye patch. This is non-negotiable.
-Someone from one of the Law and Orders won an acting award? Is that allowed?
-“William Shatner”
-While discussing Angelica Huston:
Carlyn: “She has an ugly dress on.”
Me: “She has an ugly face on.”
-More Carlyn:
(While looking at Robert Redford): “He’s melting”
-Even more Carlyn:
“Ian McShane (the scary guy from Deadwood) looks like Al Pacino ate him and then regurgitated him”
-Last one I swear:
Jamie Foxx thanking Taylor Hackford: “He’s my best director”
Carlyn: “Wow, he beat out Keenen Ivory Wayans”
And without further ado…
Top 3 & 1/2 Moments of the Golden Globes-
1a.) Jamie Foxx’s speech: Now THAT is how it’s done. The PERFECT speech. Humorous, genuine, heartfelt, excited, commanding, and even some tears at the end. Absolutely perfect. Now why can’t all acceptance speeches be like that? Come folks, all of you are actors, I know you can do it. Yes, I’m talking about you Annette Bening.
1b.) When Jamie Foxx won and they showed the reaction of every black person in the audience. Even Prince. And he’s not really even black. Speaking of which, remember that time Halle Berry won an Oscar? How the fuck did THAT ever happen?
2.) Meryl Streep’s annual drunken Golden Globes appearance! I honestly wait all year for it, and she never disappoints. While nothing will ever top last year, this year was great fun too. Seriously, I don’t know if I can express in words how much joy drunken Meryl Streep brings into my life. Too much.
3.) Robin Williams’ speech: They should actually just do a show where Robin Williams just talks for 3 hours straight. No other awards, just Robin Williams talking. Wait, they did? It's called Good Morning Vietnam? It’s called his HBO stand up specials? And his Inside the Actors Studio appearance? Wow, I’ll have to get my hands on those. My only quibble (and its not his fault): in his clip retrospective they mention Patch Adams and Popeye and not Awakenings? WTF mate?
3 & 1/2.) Usher and Lisa Marie Presley: At first when I saw Usher in attendance I thought maybe he was there because they were going to honor his work in She’s All That several years after the fact. Maybe they just now got around to watching the DVD and wanted to give him a special award even though it’s a few years too late. But then he came out on stage with Lisa Marie and I saw sadly that was not the case. No, he was there to make Lisa Marie seem personable and lively by comparison. But then again my Grandma could do that. And she’s dead.
4.) And oh yeah: “William Shatner”
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
The Andys
Well now that the holiday season is over, it's time for the REAL Christmas season to begin. And I don't say that just because it's the return of Fred the Online Journal (although Fred is the present that just keeps on giving). No, I say that because now it's awards season. In the next month or so we will have the Golden Globes, the Grammys, the Oscar nominations announcement, and then of course, the REAL Christmas, the Oscars themselves. Because who cares about a season celebrating some spiritual being who will give us forgiveness for all our sins and eternal love and life, when we can watch famous people hand each other shiny trophies? Plus with Meryl Streep nominated for Best Supporting Actress at the Globes there's a good chance we might even get to see another Meryl Streep drunken awards show appearance which is always the highlight of any year. You see, Oscar season is what life is all about. Now sure there are other award shows out there throughout the year such as the Emmys, the AMAs, and the dreaded People's Choice Awards which always make me have thoughts such as "who are these 'people' they speak of?" and "maybe genocide wouldn't be such a bad thing". But of course those awards shows are not valid. They suck. Unlike the awards shows I like. Which are good. So for the next month or so Fred here will be devoted entirely to awards related musings, opinions, and reactions. So while you are out having a life and being productive, I will be here chronicling every minute detail of how the fuck a guy named Usher who once appeared in the movie She's All That is now nominated for multiple Grammys. And I will spend hundreds of words doing it. It will be my crowning achievement of irrelevance. So to prepare you for the upcoming onslaught of banality, I have prepared my first awards related entry of the season: My coverage of my own personal awards. You can call them the Andys.
Top 3 & 1/2 Movies of the Year
1.) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind:
I'll try not to say too much about any of these movies because with all the awards show stuff coming up I'll have plenty of other times to go into more detailed opnions about the movies mentioned here. But for the time being I will say a few brief things: The only thing better than Charlie Kaufman is Charlie Kaufman with heart. And the only thing better than Charlie Kaufman with heart is Jim Carrey playing Charlie Kaufman with heart. And the only thing better than Jim Carrey playing Charlie Kaufman with heart is nothing. I really don't need to sell you on this point because it was your favorite movie of the year too. Moving on...
2.) Before Sunset:
Before Sunset on the other hand, you probably never saw. All I can say is go rent it NOW. Actually now is too late. Build a time machine and go back and time and rent it yesterday. Because any day spent without having seen this movie is a day that life is less fulfilling than it should be. Like most great movies, Before Sunset presents an idealized, fantasy version of life, yet one that is at the same time so real that you feel like you are watching real life on screen. And not just any life, but a life you know. Or a life you want to know. And not in a Meg Ryan/Tom Hanks way but in a way that is utterly real. This movie is why we go to movies. And how many movies could inspire that statement using only two people talking and walking around Paris for close to an hour and a half and nothing else? Only one. Before Sunset. It's the movie few people would have the balls to make. There is no real plot, nothing really happens and it ends with, well maybe the greatest ending to any movie ever, but yet one that wraps nothing up. Yet who needs any of that stuff when you have dialogue, characters, and a relationship this good? The most physically intimate the two characters ever get is a long hug but yet it's the most sexual, passionate, and unabashedly romantic non-Cameron Crowe movie I've seen in, maybe forever. And it does it all with words and with an innate connection between people. This is what love and life are all about. I could talk about it forever but just go see it already. It maybe the ultimate movie-as-life-as-movie and it is for sure THE romance for our times. You'll laugh, you'll think, you'll dream, you'll consider crying (pansy), and before you know it you'll have memorized every line. I just want to yell it from the rooftops: GO RENT THIS FUCKING MOVIE!
3.) Sideways:
I think the wine industry and Alexander Payne are in cahoots. I also think I just actually used the word "cahoots". Regardless, in 20 years from now as I lie in the gutter clutching my last bottle of Pinot Noir wondering what happened to my life I'll have this movie to blame. Apparently wanting to be in a constant state of drunkenness can lead to a touching romance and a great film of the highest artistic merit. Good. Just the sort of validation my life needed...
3 & 1/2.) Hero:
The most beautiful LOOKING movie of the year, and maybe ever. I honestly can't think of anything that's ever been more visually stunning. Yet due to the ridiculously archaic Academy rules regarding foreign films, it likely won't be able to be up for any Oscars of any kind. The other cinematographers of the world must be thrilled by that fact. Because the look of this film would not have been overlooked by voters. There would be no way. It's burned permanently into their brains. Thinking back, I couldn't tell you exactly what happened in this movie, but I could tell you exactly how whatever was happening looked. American filmmakers: watch and learn. As with many things, the Asians can teach you a thing or ten.
Top 3 & 1/2 Albums of the Year
1.) Green Day- American Idiot:
Remember when "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)" was your senior class song and you thought "how the heck is this song by Green Day? Didn't they once release a video that consisted of them ripping the stuffing out of sofa cushions?" Well every song on this album makes "Good Riddance" seem like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in terms of quality and artistic merit. Sometimes my brain hurts it's so good. Its one of those albums where I'll always remember the first time I heard it. Greg Fusco put it on in the dressing room during Arcadia and we were all somewhat half listening, but more trying on tights and insulting each other in British accents. (And who said theater majors weren't cool?) Slowly it started capturing my attention until I stopped what I was doing and just sat there and listened. Every night after that I couldn't wait to get backstage and listen. During Game 3 of the Red Sox-Yankees series I even wanted to turn off the game to listen to the album. Music that makes we want to turn off baseball: That should say all you need to know. Two nine minute long multi-part "punk" songs. Blatant anti-Bush messages. Some semblance of a story and thru-line throughout the album. It's genius. It's gotten a lot of comparisons to the rock operas of The Who, but I think that slights Green Day somewhat. I mean a story about deaf, dumb and blind kid who plays a mean pinball vs. a story about the nature of our society. Hmm, it's a toss up...
In the end it's hard to believe that the album that best defines 2004 was written by a band that is most famous for an album called "Dookie". Then again maybe not...Regardless, even the Grammy voters agree: it's a classic album. And maybe the only one from 2004 that my grandkids will still be listening to.
2.) Brian Wilson- "SMiLE":
If I said, "hey check out this new album by the former lead singer of the Beach Boys that includes an ode to vegetables on it", you'd probably throw it in the trash. But if I said, "hey this is what Radiohead would have sounded like if they had been around in the 60's and were the chief artistic rival of Paul McCartney", then you would be interested. Well, guess what? I would be talking about the same album! Crazy, I know. If you don't believe me, then take it from my good friend Mr. Will Lacker who when discussing SMiLE said, (and I'm heavily paraphrasing) "That is some weird shit!" Okay settle down now and let me finish...For those that don't know the story, this was supposed to be the follow up to "Pet Sounds" 37 years ago but the other Beach Boys thought it was too weird, then the Beatles beat them to the punch with "Sgt. Pepper", then Brian Wilson went insane. He then had to spend the next few years in the looney bin, as they called it back then. (That and "the cuckoos nest" apparently.) Well now he's out and roaming the streets and finally releasing his "teenage symphony to God" 37 years later. When they say they don't make 'em like they used to, listen to this album and you'll see that "they" are right. You could never release a "teenage symphony to God" today. Or a love song about vegetables for that matter. The only teenage symphonies these days are "teenage symphonies to crap". (Damn, I'm clever...). SMiLE, despite its capitalization problems, was the best-reviewed album of the year, but still, it's a shame it couldn't have been released 37 years ago. Then it would now be a classic instead of a little heard oddity. At the time it would have seemed ahead of its time, and in retrospect I don't know if its time has, or will, ever come. It's an album that doesn't really have one great or memorable stand-alone song on it, but absolutely must be taken as a whole. But as a "whole album as artistic statement" it might be the best there is. And not to say it's better than "Sergeant Pepper", but it is a better "concept album", since, lets face it, Sgt. Pepper really has no concept. And it even has "Good Vibrations" to serve as its "Day in the Life"- a classic single that has nothing to do with the rest of the album yet closes it off perfectly. And it also contains songs about Plymouth Rock and, I can't possibly stress this strongly enough, a LOVE SONG ABOUT VEGTABLES! I'd like to hear someone today try and pull that off. But since I doubt anyone can I'm going to have to give Brian Wilson his props. The second best album of 1967 is now the second best album of 2004.
3.) Modest Mouse- Good News for People Who Love Bad News:
There are certain works of music that whenever you hear them they instantly take you back to a specific place and time. Like "Gangstas Paradise" by Coolio. Or "C is for Cookie" by Cookie Monster. Well this whole album will always undoubtedly remind me of this summer. And that's good news. And now that I actually own it myself I can relive summer whenever I want. As a side note: I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that I can hear "Ocean Breathes Salty" now at a Hallmark store or not, but it certainly does give me some kind of hope for the future. Then I remember that the biggest hit of the year was by Usher and some guy named Lil' John who likes to carry around an oversized gold chalice out of which he drinks "Crunk Juice". And then I go sit in the corner and cry.
3 & 1/2.) Kanye West- College Dropout:
When I bought this album the girl checking me out at Best Buy started excitedly telling me how great and hilarious the skits on the album were. I was shocked. A cashier in New York City was actually talking to me. Even more shockingly, someone was actually excited about having a conversation with me. (She must not have known about the journal...) But the most shocking thing of all was that she was right. Not only did I not skip right past the skits, I actually listened to them multiple times! In fact once I even skipped past a song to hear a skit! And then of course the earth promptly stopped spinning on its axis. But its true, Kanye is the best thing to happen to rap skits since The Mad Rapper. Even more importantly than that, he's the best thing to happen to rap since at least mid-2003. I was going to put this album in this spot before I even heard it just based on "Jesus Walks" and "All Falls Down", but now that I've actually heard the album I can confidentially say it's the best non-Outkast or Eminem rap album of the millennium. All four years of it. Kanye is just that good. Not only did he pen the immortal line "The way Kathy Lee needed Regis/That's the way I need Jesus" but he also made me enjoy listening to a Brandy song. That's right; Brandy. Freaking MOESHA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
(I actually have no idea what that saying means but it just sounds cool.)
(Word.)
Top 3 & 1/2 Best Things to Happen to Marymount This Year
1.) Thefacebook.com:
Friendster is the devil. I will never join MySpace. Yet, I am addicted to facebook. It is the best thing that has ever happened to Marymount. Now I could take up a whole journal entry to explain the reasoning behind this, as well as to expound on many other thoughts about facebook, and if you're not careful I just might, but for the time being I will just share a few brief thoughts on the matter. Now I know I'm a little late in commenting on the facebook phenomenon. I know its like so last month's news. But it was either this or my analysis of "The Macarena" so be grateful. By now we all know the basic reasons why facebook is great. It is like having a yearbook, so we now know who people are. It makes us feel popular. We can start out own club without actually having to get a faculty sponsor. But why I like facebook and not any of those other online community things comes down to one simple fact: The Friendsters of the world are designed to get you to meet new people, whereas facebook is designed to get you to meet people you already know. No crazy stalkers. No people from high school tracking you down and finding out what you are up to unless you want them to. Plus when my mom said, "don't talk to strangers" I really took it to heart. I don't like new people. And I don't like old people either. I just like you. Now be my friend damn it.
2.) The homemade potato chips in the 4th and Main Cafe:
If someone told me they killed a man I would think they were a bad person. If they told me they killed that man because he tried to steal one of their homemade chips, I would not think they were a bad person anymore. I would understand. That sandwich dude may mumble incoherently, but as long as he hooks a brother up with some chips its all good and his life is secure. After all, the sandwich is only a mere appetizer you have to put up with to get to the chips. But once you get to them, all is right with the world.
3.) The Vanderbilt:
All the fun of 55th Street (what fun?) with twice the drinking (for those who are over 21 only of course). And four times the crazy foreign people yelling at you in the hallway. It's just like my childhood really. Plus, the only thing better than having a roommate is not having a roommate.
3 & 1/2.) The 8th Floor Space:
Well see it's this big open space where we used to have a pool. What's it used for you ask? Well nothing really. We just throw a bunch up beat up old crap in there and let the kids have fun. Plus now we have a scary face on one wall. And the other walls have paint from 1963. But other than that its just filled with a bunch of worthless crap. A big ugly room filled with worthless crap. Its ideas like this that make me proud to go to Marymount and make giving tours so much fun.
Top 3 & 1/2 Other 2004 Highlights Id Like to Mention But Don't Really Fit in a Category:
1.) America the Book- Jon Stewart and Company:
Like Ellen and Jerry Seinfeld it makes you laugh because it's so true. But instead of being about "nothing" its about politics, history and the nature of our society. So the edge, as always, goes to Jon Stewart. Seriously this man is God. He makes comedy that's as important as it is funny. A trick that has NEVER before been pulled off. But here is a comedian who can literally change the world. And I have proof to back that up: I saw the other day that Carlton Tucker was dismissed from CNN and that Crossfire is being taken off the air. That means that Jon Stewart is so cool, so respected and so powerful that with one single television appearance he single handedly got the biggest cable network in the world to cancel its signature show of the past 20 years and dismiss one of its most well known figures. Normally when you call someone a "dick" on live TV people criticize you. In Jon Stewart's case you get the head of the network you are criticizing to issue a statement that says, "I come down on the side of Mr. Stewart". Seriously, his Crossfire appearance was one of the best moments in TV history. And think: who else could pull a stunt off like that and not only come out unscathed but looking like a hero to literally everyone? If I've said it once I've said it five times. Jon Stewart is God. We're just lucky he lets us share this planet with him.
2.) Seth Cohen- the O.C.:
If I ruled the world, I'd free all my sons. And the character Seth Cohen would be considered the very definition of cool. Imagine that. And oh yeah...I don't actually watch the O.C. Someone just told me about it one time. Someone who was clearly a loser and needed to get a life.
3.) "Lean Back" by The Terror Squad:
First of all, I'd like to mention your name. It's "The Terror Squad". That is the name of your group. Just thought I should put that out there...Second of all: lemme get this straight, this dance consists entirely of leaning back? There are no other moves? That's the whole dance? You may have written one of the most annoying songs ever, but you have given me new hope! I might one day even enter a club. Although for your next song might I suggest "Stand There"? That would work even better for me.
3 & 1/2.) The Guinness TV commercials:
"Brilliant!"
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week- Thoughts I've Had Recently Edition
1.) "My junior high fashion sense was inspired by gang members" is a sentence that really applies to far too many of us
2.) Is two turntables and a microphone really where its at?
3.) Maybe Bono was right all along. He really is the messiah.
3 & 1/2.) "This by far is the hardest thing I think I've ever had to do, to tell you, the woman I love, that I'm having a baby by a woman that I barely even know"*
*Note: I didn't actually have this thought. Usher did. But same difference
Top 3 & 1/2 Movies of the Year
1.) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind:
I'll try not to say too much about any of these movies because with all the awards show stuff coming up I'll have plenty of other times to go into more detailed opnions about the movies mentioned here. But for the time being I will say a few brief things: The only thing better than Charlie Kaufman is Charlie Kaufman with heart. And the only thing better than Charlie Kaufman with heart is Jim Carrey playing Charlie Kaufman with heart. And the only thing better than Jim Carrey playing Charlie Kaufman with heart is nothing. I really don't need to sell you on this point because it was your favorite movie of the year too. Moving on...
2.) Before Sunset:
Before Sunset on the other hand, you probably never saw. All I can say is go rent it NOW. Actually now is too late. Build a time machine and go back and time and rent it yesterday. Because any day spent without having seen this movie is a day that life is less fulfilling than it should be. Like most great movies, Before Sunset presents an idealized, fantasy version of life, yet one that is at the same time so real that you feel like you are watching real life on screen. And not just any life, but a life you know. Or a life you want to know. And not in a Meg Ryan/Tom Hanks way but in a way that is utterly real. This movie is why we go to movies. And how many movies could inspire that statement using only two people talking and walking around Paris for close to an hour and a half and nothing else? Only one. Before Sunset. It's the movie few people would have the balls to make. There is no real plot, nothing really happens and it ends with, well maybe the greatest ending to any movie ever, but yet one that wraps nothing up. Yet who needs any of that stuff when you have dialogue, characters, and a relationship this good? The most physically intimate the two characters ever get is a long hug but yet it's the most sexual, passionate, and unabashedly romantic non-Cameron Crowe movie I've seen in, maybe forever. And it does it all with words and with an innate connection between people. This is what love and life are all about. I could talk about it forever but just go see it already. It maybe the ultimate movie-as-life-as-movie and it is for sure THE romance for our times. You'll laugh, you'll think, you'll dream, you'll consider crying (pansy), and before you know it you'll have memorized every line. I just want to yell it from the rooftops: GO RENT THIS FUCKING MOVIE!
3.) Sideways:
I think the wine industry and Alexander Payne are in cahoots. I also think I just actually used the word "cahoots". Regardless, in 20 years from now as I lie in the gutter clutching my last bottle of Pinot Noir wondering what happened to my life I'll have this movie to blame. Apparently wanting to be in a constant state of drunkenness can lead to a touching romance and a great film of the highest artistic merit. Good. Just the sort of validation my life needed...
3 & 1/2.) Hero:
The most beautiful LOOKING movie of the year, and maybe ever. I honestly can't think of anything that's ever been more visually stunning. Yet due to the ridiculously archaic Academy rules regarding foreign films, it likely won't be able to be up for any Oscars of any kind. The other cinematographers of the world must be thrilled by that fact. Because the look of this film would not have been overlooked by voters. There would be no way. It's burned permanently into their brains. Thinking back, I couldn't tell you exactly what happened in this movie, but I could tell you exactly how whatever was happening looked. American filmmakers: watch and learn. As with many things, the Asians can teach you a thing or ten.
Top 3 & 1/2 Albums of the Year
1.) Green Day- American Idiot:
Remember when "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)" was your senior class song and you thought "how the heck is this song by Green Day? Didn't they once release a video that consisted of them ripping the stuffing out of sofa cushions?" Well every song on this album makes "Good Riddance" seem like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in terms of quality and artistic merit. Sometimes my brain hurts it's so good. Its one of those albums where I'll always remember the first time I heard it. Greg Fusco put it on in the dressing room during Arcadia and we were all somewhat half listening, but more trying on tights and insulting each other in British accents. (And who said theater majors weren't cool?) Slowly it started capturing my attention until I stopped what I was doing and just sat there and listened. Every night after that I couldn't wait to get backstage and listen. During Game 3 of the Red Sox-Yankees series I even wanted to turn off the game to listen to the album. Music that makes we want to turn off baseball: That should say all you need to know. Two nine minute long multi-part "punk" songs. Blatant anti-Bush messages. Some semblance of a story and thru-line throughout the album. It's genius. It's gotten a lot of comparisons to the rock operas of The Who, but I think that slights Green Day somewhat. I mean a story about deaf, dumb and blind kid who plays a mean pinball vs. a story about the nature of our society. Hmm, it's a toss up...
In the end it's hard to believe that the album that best defines 2004 was written by a band that is most famous for an album called "Dookie". Then again maybe not...Regardless, even the Grammy voters agree: it's a classic album. And maybe the only one from 2004 that my grandkids will still be listening to.
2.) Brian Wilson- "SMiLE":
If I said, "hey check out this new album by the former lead singer of the Beach Boys that includes an ode to vegetables on it", you'd probably throw it in the trash. But if I said, "hey this is what Radiohead would have sounded like if they had been around in the 60's and were the chief artistic rival of Paul McCartney", then you would be interested. Well, guess what? I would be talking about the same album! Crazy, I know. If you don't believe me, then take it from my good friend Mr. Will Lacker who when discussing SMiLE said, (and I'm heavily paraphrasing) "That is some weird shit!" Okay settle down now and let me finish...For those that don't know the story, this was supposed to be the follow up to "Pet Sounds" 37 years ago but the other Beach Boys thought it was too weird, then the Beatles beat them to the punch with "Sgt. Pepper", then Brian Wilson went insane. He then had to spend the next few years in the looney bin, as they called it back then. (That and "the cuckoos nest" apparently.) Well now he's out and roaming the streets and finally releasing his "teenage symphony to God" 37 years later. When they say they don't make 'em like they used to, listen to this album and you'll see that "they" are right. You could never release a "teenage symphony to God" today. Or a love song about vegetables for that matter. The only teenage symphonies these days are "teenage symphonies to crap". (Damn, I'm clever...). SMiLE, despite its capitalization problems, was the best-reviewed album of the year, but still, it's a shame it couldn't have been released 37 years ago. Then it would now be a classic instead of a little heard oddity. At the time it would have seemed ahead of its time, and in retrospect I don't know if its time has, or will, ever come. It's an album that doesn't really have one great or memorable stand-alone song on it, but absolutely must be taken as a whole. But as a "whole album as artistic statement" it might be the best there is. And not to say it's better than "Sergeant Pepper", but it is a better "concept album", since, lets face it, Sgt. Pepper really has no concept. And it even has "Good Vibrations" to serve as its "Day in the Life"- a classic single that has nothing to do with the rest of the album yet closes it off perfectly. And it also contains songs about Plymouth Rock and, I can't possibly stress this strongly enough, a LOVE SONG ABOUT VEGTABLES! I'd like to hear someone today try and pull that off. But since I doubt anyone can I'm going to have to give Brian Wilson his props. The second best album of 1967 is now the second best album of 2004.
3.) Modest Mouse- Good News for People Who Love Bad News:
There are certain works of music that whenever you hear them they instantly take you back to a specific place and time. Like "Gangstas Paradise" by Coolio. Or "C is for Cookie" by Cookie Monster. Well this whole album will always undoubtedly remind me of this summer. And that's good news. And now that I actually own it myself I can relive summer whenever I want. As a side note: I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that I can hear "Ocean Breathes Salty" now at a Hallmark store or not, but it certainly does give me some kind of hope for the future. Then I remember that the biggest hit of the year was by Usher and some guy named Lil' John who likes to carry around an oversized gold chalice out of which he drinks "Crunk Juice". And then I go sit in the corner and cry.
3 & 1/2.) Kanye West- College Dropout:
When I bought this album the girl checking me out at Best Buy started excitedly telling me how great and hilarious the skits on the album were. I was shocked. A cashier in New York City was actually talking to me. Even more shockingly, someone was actually excited about having a conversation with me. (She must not have known about the journal...) But the most shocking thing of all was that she was right. Not only did I not skip right past the skits, I actually listened to them multiple times! In fact once I even skipped past a song to hear a skit! And then of course the earth promptly stopped spinning on its axis. But its true, Kanye is the best thing to happen to rap skits since The Mad Rapper. Even more importantly than that, he's the best thing to happen to rap since at least mid-2003. I was going to put this album in this spot before I even heard it just based on "Jesus Walks" and "All Falls Down", but now that I've actually heard the album I can confidentially say it's the best non-Outkast or Eminem rap album of the millennium. All four years of it. Kanye is just that good. Not only did he pen the immortal line "The way Kathy Lee needed Regis/That's the way I need Jesus" but he also made me enjoy listening to a Brandy song. That's right; Brandy. Freaking MOESHA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
(I actually have no idea what that saying means but it just sounds cool.)
(Word.)
Top 3 & 1/2 Best Things to Happen to Marymount This Year
1.) Thefacebook.com:
Friendster is the devil. I will never join MySpace. Yet, I am addicted to facebook. It is the best thing that has ever happened to Marymount. Now I could take up a whole journal entry to explain the reasoning behind this, as well as to expound on many other thoughts about facebook, and if you're not careful I just might, but for the time being I will just share a few brief thoughts on the matter. Now I know I'm a little late in commenting on the facebook phenomenon. I know its like so last month's news. But it was either this or my analysis of "The Macarena" so be grateful. By now we all know the basic reasons why facebook is great. It is like having a yearbook, so we now know who people are. It makes us feel popular. We can start out own club without actually having to get a faculty sponsor. But why I like facebook and not any of those other online community things comes down to one simple fact: The Friendsters of the world are designed to get you to meet new people, whereas facebook is designed to get you to meet people you already know. No crazy stalkers. No people from high school tracking you down and finding out what you are up to unless you want them to. Plus when my mom said, "don't talk to strangers" I really took it to heart. I don't like new people. And I don't like old people either. I just like you. Now be my friend damn it.
2.) The homemade potato chips in the 4th and Main Cafe:
If someone told me they killed a man I would think they were a bad person. If they told me they killed that man because he tried to steal one of their homemade chips, I would not think they were a bad person anymore. I would understand. That sandwich dude may mumble incoherently, but as long as he hooks a brother up with some chips its all good and his life is secure. After all, the sandwich is only a mere appetizer you have to put up with to get to the chips. But once you get to them, all is right with the world.
3.) The Vanderbilt:
All the fun of 55th Street (what fun?) with twice the drinking (for those who are over 21 only of course). And four times the crazy foreign people yelling at you in the hallway. It's just like my childhood really. Plus, the only thing better than having a roommate is not having a roommate.
3 & 1/2.) The 8th Floor Space:
Well see it's this big open space where we used to have a pool. What's it used for you ask? Well nothing really. We just throw a bunch up beat up old crap in there and let the kids have fun. Plus now we have a scary face on one wall. And the other walls have paint from 1963. But other than that its just filled with a bunch of worthless crap. A big ugly room filled with worthless crap. Its ideas like this that make me proud to go to Marymount and make giving tours so much fun.
Top 3 & 1/2 Other 2004 Highlights Id Like to Mention But Don't Really Fit in a Category:
1.) America the Book- Jon Stewart and Company:
Like Ellen and Jerry Seinfeld it makes you laugh because it's so true. But instead of being about "nothing" its about politics, history and the nature of our society. So the edge, as always, goes to Jon Stewart. Seriously this man is God. He makes comedy that's as important as it is funny. A trick that has NEVER before been pulled off. But here is a comedian who can literally change the world. And I have proof to back that up: I saw the other day that Carlton Tucker was dismissed from CNN and that Crossfire is being taken off the air. That means that Jon Stewart is so cool, so respected and so powerful that with one single television appearance he single handedly got the biggest cable network in the world to cancel its signature show of the past 20 years and dismiss one of its most well known figures. Normally when you call someone a "dick" on live TV people criticize you. In Jon Stewart's case you get the head of the network you are criticizing to issue a statement that says, "I come down on the side of Mr. Stewart". Seriously, his Crossfire appearance was one of the best moments in TV history. And think: who else could pull a stunt off like that and not only come out unscathed but looking like a hero to literally everyone? If I've said it once I've said it five times. Jon Stewart is God. We're just lucky he lets us share this planet with him.
2.) Seth Cohen- the O.C.:
If I ruled the world, I'd free all my sons. And the character Seth Cohen would be considered the very definition of cool. Imagine that. And oh yeah...I don't actually watch the O.C. Someone just told me about it one time. Someone who was clearly a loser and needed to get a life.
3.) "Lean Back" by The Terror Squad:
First of all, I'd like to mention your name. It's "The Terror Squad". That is the name of your group. Just thought I should put that out there...Second of all: lemme get this straight, this dance consists entirely of leaning back? There are no other moves? That's the whole dance? You may have written one of the most annoying songs ever, but you have given me new hope! I might one day even enter a club. Although for your next song might I suggest "Stand There"? That would work even better for me.
3 & 1/2.) The Guinness TV commercials:
"Brilliant!"
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week- Thoughts I've Had Recently Edition
1.) "My junior high fashion sense was inspired by gang members" is a sentence that really applies to far too many of us
2.) Is two turntables and a microphone really where its at?
3.) Maybe Bono was right all along. He really is the messiah.
3 & 1/2.) "This by far is the hardest thing I think I've ever had to do, to tell you, the woman I love, that I'm having a baby by a woman that I barely even know"*
*Note: I didn't actually have this thought. Usher did. But same difference
Sunday, December 12, 2004
I am the Eggman
This past Wednesday was the 24th anniversary of John Lennon’s death. While spending the day at Strawberry Fields celebrating his life I got to thinking: Mark David Chapman is the best thing that ever happened to John Lennon. Getting killed did more for his life than his life could have ever done for itself. Need proof? Well, I present Sir Paul McCartney.
Now, the whole “premature death as image and career enhancer” argument is of course nothing new. Ask Tupac about how well it works. No really, go find him in whatever cave he is hiding out and making music in and ask him. I’d be curious to hear what he has to say. Maybe he’ll even address it on his next album…Anyway, the point is, death was clearly one of John’s best career moves - that much is indisputable. On a scale of good career moves from 1-10 with 1 being meeting Yoko Ono and 10 being forming the Beatles, his death ranks a solid 9.8. Plus, it couldn’t have been planed any better if his publicity team had dreamed it up themselves (if such a thing as a publicity team had existed back then). The voice of the 60’s and the Woodstock generation dying just as the 80’s dawned, was symbolically genius. Yet at the same time, the whole thing was so unexpected, so shocking, and so sad that it rocked people to their very cores, which was after all the purpose of John’s life and work. So in a sense in death, he achieved the greatest moment of his life. (Death as performance art, Yoko would be so proud…that hit man was money well spent…)
In dealing with his death the media and fans alike spent extensive time dealing with the greater social context of his life - his role as the voice of his generation, the ultimate embodiment of the sixties, and an emblematic spokesman for the common man. This intense focus during that time forever cemented those roles as the central tenets of his iconography and linked the symbolism of “John Lennon” inseparably with the reality of John Lennon the human being. This is where the genius of his death really becomes apparent, because innocently or not, this iconography was what Lennon was selling, and his death became the ultimate marketing tool.
It was however, a lie.
Well now lie might be harsh as it seems to imply malicious intent, but digging to the heart of the matter, Lennon’s self-created iconography is one that is inaccurate. A long way from being the common man, he was about as far from "common" as one could get (and that isn’t necessarily a complete compliment). He wasn’t one of “us” and didn’t speak for an entire generation. He said so as much himself if you ever took the time to stop and actually listen to the words of "Working Class Hero". But you don’t have to take his word for it. You can simply review the evidence…
John was addicted to heroin, had several known homosexual affairs, believed he was the messiah, and was married to a Yoko Ono - a hideous satanic creature who had him more whipped than any person in the history of mankind. Hell, Kunta Kinte was less whipped than he was. Does any of that sound like your common man to you?
Should I go on? Okay, I will.
John’s first non-Beatles album featured ambient noise and random sounds and featured him posed nude on the cover. He went through a period in which he basically locked himself in his apartment and broke off most all contact with the outside world. He was considered by the government to be a dangerous radical and was being heavily watched by them at the time of his death. He reinvented himself and his music constantly remaining always accessible yet always wrapped in mystery. Any of this sound like your Average Joe Schmo to you? I mean, I dunno about you, but I’m still working on inventing myself for the first time.
Want more? Okay.
John left his wife in the middle of his marriage for a year and a half, became a bachelor again, was wilder than ever before, and then when he was done, came back to her and she acted like nothing ever happened. He was a horrible parent, completely neglected his kid, then he gets a second chance and becomes a stay at home dad, and the model father. To be John seems to be to have your cake and eat it too. Usually in OUR life though we don’t even HAVE our cake, let alone eat it. We are watching our weight.
So it seems to me then that John isn’t really one of “us” at all. But him and his life sure do sound neat. He is dark, mysterious, endlessly fascinating, passionate, open, witty, and most of all, cool. He made art that touched people lives, and came as close to changing the world as music ever will. He was loved by critics and by the masses seemingly without even trying. He could have sex with any woman he wanted and hang out with any guy too. He had the courage of his convictions, and stood up and fought for whatever he believed in, regardless of what others thought or no matter how crazy or idealistic it seemed. We never saw him grow old and so he maintained his youthful vigor up until the end of his life….This all doesn’t sound like a description of who we are though. But all this does sound familiar.
It sounds like a description of who we want to be.
But alas, we are not John nor will we ever be. We actively want to be loved and respected. We would never risk making edgy avant-garde music that would potentially turn off fans and critics alike. We have strong views but we don’t fight for them like we should, lest we alienate others. Plus, we’re lazy. We’re not that cool as a whole, but boy do we try to be. We’d like to live a crazy life of adventure and carelessness, but hey there are bills to pay and we have to be responsible. A lack of restraint and order leads to too much uncertainty. We’ll chase our dreams and ideals for a little bit, but then its time to settle down and lead a safe, normal life. Our family is more important than our art or our career. We would like to be raw and emotional, but deep down we’re sappy romantics at heart. We would like to say the first thing that comes into our head, but we usually wind up censoring ourselves. We care a lot about what people think about us. We don’t age well. We get outbid for the rights to our own music by a surgically reconstructed albino pedophile.
That’s right, we are not John; “we” are Paul.
You don’t want to believe me I know. But Paul is the voice of his generation and of “us” just as much, if not more, than John was and is. Yes John has the mother issues, the directness, the hippie mentality, the common man appeal, etc.. Yes, Paul seems distant, inaccessible, sappy, and out of touch. But lets face it: if you were a former Beatle you would be the one writing “Silly Love Songs” with your wife and friends and playing at the Halftime Show of the Super Bowl, not the one getting into violent bar fights, starting your own religion, and dead by age 40.
Perhaps I can’t speak for you though.
Perhaps I should just let your mirror do me speaking for me.
Because you see, it’s pretty undeniable: Paul is who we are. John is who we want to be.
We are the eggman.
We are not the walrus.
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week:
1.) FACEBOOK
2.) The Band - "The Weight"
3.) The Postal Service - "Sleeping In"
3 & 1/2.) Fountains of Wayne - "Valley Winter Song"
Now, the whole “premature death as image and career enhancer” argument is of course nothing new. Ask Tupac about how well it works. No really, go find him in whatever cave he is hiding out and making music in and ask him. I’d be curious to hear what he has to say. Maybe he’ll even address it on his next album…Anyway, the point is, death was clearly one of John’s best career moves - that much is indisputable. On a scale of good career moves from 1-10 with 1 being meeting Yoko Ono and 10 being forming the Beatles, his death ranks a solid 9.8. Plus, it couldn’t have been planed any better if his publicity team had dreamed it up themselves (if such a thing as a publicity team had existed back then). The voice of the 60’s and the Woodstock generation dying just as the 80’s dawned, was symbolically genius. Yet at the same time, the whole thing was so unexpected, so shocking, and so sad that it rocked people to their very cores, which was after all the purpose of John’s life and work. So in a sense in death, he achieved the greatest moment of his life. (Death as performance art, Yoko would be so proud…that hit man was money well spent…)
In dealing with his death the media and fans alike spent extensive time dealing with the greater social context of his life - his role as the voice of his generation, the ultimate embodiment of the sixties, and an emblematic spokesman for the common man. This intense focus during that time forever cemented those roles as the central tenets of his iconography and linked the symbolism of “John Lennon” inseparably with the reality of John Lennon the human being. This is where the genius of his death really becomes apparent, because innocently or not, this iconography was what Lennon was selling, and his death became the ultimate marketing tool.
It was however, a lie.
Well now lie might be harsh as it seems to imply malicious intent, but digging to the heart of the matter, Lennon’s self-created iconography is one that is inaccurate. A long way from being the common man, he was about as far from "common" as one could get (and that isn’t necessarily a complete compliment). He wasn’t one of “us” and didn’t speak for an entire generation. He said so as much himself if you ever took the time to stop and actually listen to the words of "Working Class Hero". But you don’t have to take his word for it. You can simply review the evidence…
John was addicted to heroin, had several known homosexual affairs, believed he was the messiah, and was married to a Yoko Ono - a hideous satanic creature who had him more whipped than any person in the history of mankind. Hell, Kunta Kinte was less whipped than he was. Does any of that sound like your common man to you?
Should I go on? Okay, I will.
John’s first non-Beatles album featured ambient noise and random sounds and featured him posed nude on the cover. He went through a period in which he basically locked himself in his apartment and broke off most all contact with the outside world. He was considered by the government to be a dangerous radical and was being heavily watched by them at the time of his death. He reinvented himself and his music constantly remaining always accessible yet always wrapped in mystery. Any of this sound like your Average Joe Schmo to you? I mean, I dunno about you, but I’m still working on inventing myself for the first time.
Want more? Okay.
John left his wife in the middle of his marriage for a year and a half, became a bachelor again, was wilder than ever before, and then when he was done, came back to her and she acted like nothing ever happened. He was a horrible parent, completely neglected his kid, then he gets a second chance and becomes a stay at home dad, and the model father. To be John seems to be to have your cake and eat it too. Usually in OUR life though we don’t even HAVE our cake, let alone eat it. We are watching our weight.
So it seems to me then that John isn’t really one of “us” at all. But him and his life sure do sound neat. He is dark, mysterious, endlessly fascinating, passionate, open, witty, and most of all, cool. He made art that touched people lives, and came as close to changing the world as music ever will. He was loved by critics and by the masses seemingly without even trying. He could have sex with any woman he wanted and hang out with any guy too. He had the courage of his convictions, and stood up and fought for whatever he believed in, regardless of what others thought or no matter how crazy or idealistic it seemed. We never saw him grow old and so he maintained his youthful vigor up until the end of his life….This all doesn’t sound like a description of who we are though. But all this does sound familiar.
It sounds like a description of who we want to be.
But alas, we are not John nor will we ever be. We actively want to be loved and respected. We would never risk making edgy avant-garde music that would potentially turn off fans and critics alike. We have strong views but we don’t fight for them like we should, lest we alienate others. Plus, we’re lazy. We’re not that cool as a whole, but boy do we try to be. We’d like to live a crazy life of adventure and carelessness, but hey there are bills to pay and we have to be responsible. A lack of restraint and order leads to too much uncertainty. We’ll chase our dreams and ideals for a little bit, but then its time to settle down and lead a safe, normal life. Our family is more important than our art or our career. We would like to be raw and emotional, but deep down we’re sappy romantics at heart. We would like to say the first thing that comes into our head, but we usually wind up censoring ourselves. We care a lot about what people think about us. We don’t age well. We get outbid for the rights to our own music by a surgically reconstructed albino pedophile.
That’s right, we are not John; “we” are Paul.
You don’t want to believe me I know. But Paul is the voice of his generation and of “us” just as much, if not more, than John was and is. Yes John has the mother issues, the directness, the hippie mentality, the common man appeal, etc.. Yes, Paul seems distant, inaccessible, sappy, and out of touch. But lets face it: if you were a former Beatle you would be the one writing “Silly Love Songs” with your wife and friends and playing at the Halftime Show of the Super Bowl, not the one getting into violent bar fights, starting your own religion, and dead by age 40.
Perhaps I can’t speak for you though.
Perhaps I should just let your mirror do me speaking for me.
Because you see, it’s pretty undeniable: Paul is who we are. John is who we want to be.
We are the eggman.
We are not the walrus.
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week:
1.) FACEBOOK
2.) The Band - "The Weight"
3.) The Postal Service - "Sleeping In"
3 & 1/2.) Fountains of Wayne - "Valley Winter Song"
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Jesus is a Democrat
I've reached a new low. I am now reduced to posting class assignments in my journal. This is just sad. I don't have time to do a "proper"entry so this will have to suffice for now. The assignment was to write 2 two-minute arguments on any topic in the world. One had to be strictly a passion driven argument, while the other had to be driven only by reason. So I chose to make an argument that incorporated both of my two favorite topics: politics and religion. So, sorry to intrude on your fun, but we'll get back to the Ace of Base deconstruction next week (actually we wont but you get the point...). Anyway, here is an assignment I wrote for class.
That I have now posted online.
In my "journal".
Seriously, why are you friends with me?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASON
During this past election I heard a lot of talk from Republicans about Christian morals and values, and so I went back and studied the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and was interested by what I found. The Bible supports first and foremost peace and love, yet 75% of people worldwide view George W. Bush as the single biggest threat to world peace. The Bible says thou shall not kill yet George W. Bush shattered the record for most executions by any governor in US History. Maybe George missed the part of the Bible where it says people should forgive their enemies and not using killing as a form of punishment. The Bible is clear about killing not be allowed in this way but it is perhaps less clear about it being used in self-defense, a loop-hole Republicans have tried to use to justify the war in Iraq. Yet, we attacked Iraq because we believed they had weapons of mass destruction or terrorist connections and that they intended to harm us, but it has now been proven that they had no weapons nor the capability to produce them and that they had no ties whatsoever to Al-Quida. Therefore attacking Iraq was no more self defense than it would be to kill a person because you suspected they had a gun that they might possibly use to shoot you. That's just cold blooded murder, and yet this is the policy the party of "moral values" chose to pursue. The Bible says love your neighbor as yourself, yet Republicans want to stop gay people from marrying. So would you not allow yourself to be married if you happened to be born gay? Jesus spent his life surrounded by prostitutes, tax-collectors, thieves, and even murderers. Yet Republicans seem to believe he would have hated homosexuals and opposed their right to marry. And if they claim opposition to gay marriage isn't based on hate because they do support the "separate yet equal" institution of civil unions, well then perhaps they should look back 50 years to another "separate yet equal" policy they supported- segregation- and tell me that too wasn't a policy based in hatred. They should also explain why Republicans have opposed all attempts to expand hate crimes laws to include homosexuals. The Bible says you should help those less fortunate than yourself. Yet, Republicans have always opposed affirmative action, welfare, and expansion of all similar government services. So much for Christian charity. Jesus was the ultimately radical revolutionary. So much so that he was killed because he posed too great a threat to the government and the status quo. He would have never supported the repression, regression, and aggression that define the current Republican agenda. Jesus supported peace, love and understanding. Jesus supported change, reform and progress. Jesus supported what are today liberal ideas. Therefore Jesus clearly would vote Democratic.
PASSION
Studies show that large numbers of those voting for George Bush in the last election voted for him because he and his party support "Christian values". Well that of course raises the interesting question of- if Jesus were alive today what would he support? How would he vote? What would Jesus do? Well, Jesus wouldn't kill. He wouldn't strap criminals to a chair and run electricity through their body until they die. Jesus wouldn't send his own people off to die brutal bloody violent deaths for vague and questionable reasons. He wouldn't bomb innocent women and children. He wouldn't kill civilians in a country that had done nothing to harm him. He wouldn't kill abortion clinic workers, doctors who help people end their lives, or homosexuals. Jesus wouldn't kill ANYONE because Jesus said THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Jesus said FORGIVE YOUR ENEMIES. How would Jesus vote? He would vote for the side that loves humanity not hates it. Yet Republicans are filled with hate. They hate homosexuals just like they hated African Americans a generation ago. They hate free speech and dissent. They hate anyone different from themselves. As Bush once said "you're either with us or against us." You think Jesus had any hate in his heart? You think Jesus would have hated the poor and oppressed? You think he would have voted for tax cuts only for the rich? Would he have opposed raising the minimum wage? Opposed affirmative action? Opposed welfare, Medicare, and social security? Opposed love, tolerance, responsibility and compassion to side with selfishness, bigotry, ignorance, and hate? NO! If Jesus came back today and saw what was being done in his name he'd never stop throwing up. He'd lash out against the hypocrisy and corruption of those in charge just like he did in the Temple in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago. He'd detest that his message of love, peace and tolerance has been twisted and then hijacked for use by a group of intolerant fear-mongering, hypocritical, bigots. He would see that those who CLAIM to be most faithful to his teachings are those most worthy of burning in hell where they should be tortured by the ghosts of dead Iraqi children, and the soldiers they sent off to senseless brutal slaughter. He would see all this and he would vote for change. He would vote for love and compassion. He would vote Democratic.
That I have now posted online.
In my "journal".
Seriously, why are you friends with me?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASON
During this past election I heard a lot of talk from Republicans about Christian morals and values, and so I went back and studied the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and was interested by what I found. The Bible supports first and foremost peace and love, yet 75% of people worldwide view George W. Bush as the single biggest threat to world peace. The Bible says thou shall not kill yet George W. Bush shattered the record for most executions by any governor in US History. Maybe George missed the part of the Bible where it says people should forgive their enemies and not using killing as a form of punishment. The Bible is clear about killing not be allowed in this way but it is perhaps less clear about it being used in self-defense, a loop-hole Republicans have tried to use to justify the war in Iraq. Yet, we attacked Iraq because we believed they had weapons of mass destruction or terrorist connections and that they intended to harm us, but it has now been proven that they had no weapons nor the capability to produce them and that they had no ties whatsoever to Al-Quida. Therefore attacking Iraq was no more self defense than it would be to kill a person because you suspected they had a gun that they might possibly use to shoot you. That's just cold blooded murder, and yet this is the policy the party of "moral values" chose to pursue. The Bible says love your neighbor as yourself, yet Republicans want to stop gay people from marrying. So would you not allow yourself to be married if you happened to be born gay? Jesus spent his life surrounded by prostitutes, tax-collectors, thieves, and even murderers. Yet Republicans seem to believe he would have hated homosexuals and opposed their right to marry. And if they claim opposition to gay marriage isn't based on hate because they do support the "separate yet equal" institution of civil unions, well then perhaps they should look back 50 years to another "separate yet equal" policy they supported- segregation- and tell me that too wasn't a policy based in hatred. They should also explain why Republicans have opposed all attempts to expand hate crimes laws to include homosexuals. The Bible says you should help those less fortunate than yourself. Yet, Republicans have always opposed affirmative action, welfare, and expansion of all similar government services. So much for Christian charity. Jesus was the ultimately radical revolutionary. So much so that he was killed because he posed too great a threat to the government and the status quo. He would have never supported the repression, regression, and aggression that define the current Republican agenda. Jesus supported peace, love and understanding. Jesus supported change, reform and progress. Jesus supported what are today liberal ideas. Therefore Jesus clearly would vote Democratic.
PASSION
Studies show that large numbers of those voting for George Bush in the last election voted for him because he and his party support "Christian values". Well that of course raises the interesting question of- if Jesus were alive today what would he support? How would he vote? What would Jesus do? Well, Jesus wouldn't kill. He wouldn't strap criminals to a chair and run electricity through their body until they die. Jesus wouldn't send his own people off to die brutal bloody violent deaths for vague and questionable reasons. He wouldn't bomb innocent women and children. He wouldn't kill civilians in a country that had done nothing to harm him. He wouldn't kill abortion clinic workers, doctors who help people end their lives, or homosexuals. Jesus wouldn't kill ANYONE because Jesus said THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Jesus said FORGIVE YOUR ENEMIES. How would Jesus vote? He would vote for the side that loves humanity not hates it. Yet Republicans are filled with hate. They hate homosexuals just like they hated African Americans a generation ago. They hate free speech and dissent. They hate anyone different from themselves. As Bush once said "you're either with us or against us." You think Jesus had any hate in his heart? You think Jesus would have hated the poor and oppressed? You think he would have voted for tax cuts only for the rich? Would he have opposed raising the minimum wage? Opposed affirmative action? Opposed welfare, Medicare, and social security? Opposed love, tolerance, responsibility and compassion to side with selfishness, bigotry, ignorance, and hate? NO! If Jesus came back today and saw what was being done in his name he'd never stop throwing up. He'd lash out against the hypocrisy and corruption of those in charge just like he did in the Temple in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago. He'd detest that his message of love, peace and tolerance has been twisted and then hijacked for use by a group of intolerant fear-mongering, hypocritical, bigots. He would see that those who CLAIM to be most faithful to his teachings are those most worthy of burning in hell where they should be tortured by the ghosts of dead Iraqi children, and the soldiers they sent off to senseless brutal slaughter. He would see all this and he would vote for change. He would vote for love and compassion. He would vote Democratic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)