It may be later than anyone hoped for but the 2005 Oscars finally delivered a surprise victory: the ratings did not suck.
According to overnights the show had the highest national rating in five years. Although total viewer numbers were down slightly from last year, they were way up compared to Chicago's victory year two years ago. Viewership was notably up in cities including New York City, Washington D.C., Los Angeles and Detroit (hmm...).
Final numbers don't come in until tomorrow but the early ratings are better than the Golden Globes and the Grammys combined (although, to be fair, those shows had a little more competition).
And while I'm at it, I'll share this choice red-carpet-related tidbit from Brian Lowry's Oscar show review in Daily Variety:
"The elder Rivers, however, yielded the biggest howler by asking Imelda Staunton if she had met the character she played in 'Vera Drake,' 'or is she dead now?' An embarrassed Staunton had to explain that Drake was fictional."
Monday, February 28, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Oscar reactions
Well if nothing else, this one will certainly keep the "conservative" pundits busy for a few days. From Chris Rock's monologue to several wins for not one but two films featuring euthanasia and zero wins for The Passion of the Christ (gee, I can't understand why).
Rock proved to be more feisty than I imagined he would and I enjoyed his monologue, packed with film geek friendly jokes on actors slumming it (take that Cuba Gooding) to actors who just work too much (yes, that's you Jude Law). It might have seemed mean if it all didn't come around to, wait for it, a round of self deprecation for Rock himself. Too bad Sean Penn had to display his complete lack of humor once again later on in the show by needlessly defending Law (no one should forget Gattaca, A.I. and The Talented Mr. Ripley but that doesn't excuse making Sky Captain, Alfie and Closer; and I don't think anyone who openly whines in print about Nicolas Cage's career choices should take offense at some jokes about Jude Law's lack of box office appeal).
Unfortunately, where I think Rock made a Letterman-style Paul-Newman-helps-with-stupid-pet-tricks mistake was in his too cool for school man on the street package. It would've made for a perfect skit on his old HBO show, and it nimbly demonstrated the gap between the films the Oscars celebrate and the movies a lot of regular people see and enjoy (this is why it's best to let the professionals and the film critics give out the awards, and why no one really cares about "people's choice" shows like the MTV Movie Awards, the Kids Choice Awards, the Blockbuster Awards and the People's Choice Awards). Since it was Rock the piece was centered around black folks, but the same points could've been made at any multiplex in the country. Unfortunately this only goes to remind the Oscar folks (and possibly some of the more philosophical viewers) how disconnected the general public is from award worthy filmmaking. This will remind them why their ratings are sinking and they won't be happy. I think Rock will only get a second chance if those ratings were better than expected, but in a way I hope he doesn't do it. Like Letterman he's really too good for the show.
But, back to those award worthy films. My predictions were spot on (yay me, but it really wasn't difficult this year) and I'm glad because the winners were all solid choices. They managed to reward a good number of great films from 2004: Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Sideways, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Incredibles and Finding Neverland.
My only quibble would be with the closest thing to a surprise winner for the evening: the win for The Motorcycle Diaries in the original song category. The competition was definitely lacking (why didn't they condense the performances into a medley when all the songs were so obviously lousy?) but I would've preferred the category's other foreign language entry.
Speech wise there wasn't anything amazing but I liked what Foxx and Swank did, even if they were variations on previous speeches from other award shows. I always find it moving to watch someone who has overcome many obstacles in their career win an Oscar. It was interesting to experience that same reaction in seeing someone win for a second time (that would be Hilary Swank of course).
Those much publicized changes in the presentation of many of the technical awards actually paid off by helping to slim the show down to a relatively manageable 3 1/4 hours. But did the nominees feel embarrassed doing it? Enough complaints could torpedo an innovative time saver.
Then I think some people are interested in fashion? Catalina Sandino Moreno looked very pretty, as did Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett. Ok, you too Beyonce. But Laura Linney didn't fair as well. Ugh, Natalie. And, as a guaranteed winner, Hilary Swank really should've picked a better dress.
Rock proved to be more feisty than I imagined he would and I enjoyed his monologue, packed with film geek friendly jokes on actors slumming it (take that Cuba Gooding) to actors who just work too much (yes, that's you Jude Law). It might have seemed mean if it all didn't come around to, wait for it, a round of self deprecation for Rock himself. Too bad Sean Penn had to display his complete lack of humor once again later on in the show by needlessly defending Law (no one should forget Gattaca, A.I. and The Talented Mr. Ripley but that doesn't excuse making Sky Captain, Alfie and Closer; and I don't think anyone who openly whines in print about Nicolas Cage's career choices should take offense at some jokes about Jude Law's lack of box office appeal).
Unfortunately, where I think Rock made a Letterman-style Paul-Newman-helps-with-stupid-pet-tricks mistake was in his too cool for school man on the street package. It would've made for a perfect skit on his old HBO show, and it nimbly demonstrated the gap between the films the Oscars celebrate and the movies a lot of regular people see and enjoy (this is why it's best to let the professionals and the film critics give out the awards, and why no one really cares about "people's choice" shows like the MTV Movie Awards, the Kids Choice Awards, the Blockbuster Awards and the People's Choice Awards). Since it was Rock the piece was centered around black folks, but the same points could've been made at any multiplex in the country. Unfortunately this only goes to remind the Oscar folks (and possibly some of the more philosophical viewers) how disconnected the general public is from award worthy filmmaking. This will remind them why their ratings are sinking and they won't be happy. I think Rock will only get a second chance if those ratings were better than expected, but in a way I hope he doesn't do it. Like Letterman he's really too good for the show.
But, back to those award worthy films. My predictions were spot on (yay me, but it really wasn't difficult this year) and I'm glad because the winners were all solid choices. They managed to reward a good number of great films from 2004: Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Sideways, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Incredibles and Finding Neverland.
My only quibble would be with the closest thing to a surprise winner for the evening: the win for The Motorcycle Diaries in the original song category. The competition was definitely lacking (why didn't they condense the performances into a medley when all the songs were so obviously lousy?) but I would've preferred the category's other foreign language entry.
Speech wise there wasn't anything amazing but I liked what Foxx and Swank did, even if they were variations on previous speeches from other award shows. I always find it moving to watch someone who has overcome many obstacles in their career win an Oscar. It was interesting to experience that same reaction in seeing someone win for a second time (that would be Hilary Swank of course).
Those much publicized changes in the presentation of many of the technical awards actually paid off by helping to slim the show down to a relatively manageable 3 1/4 hours. But did the nominees feel embarrassed doing it? Enough complaints could torpedo an innovative time saver.
Then I think some people are interested in fashion? Catalina Sandino Moreno looked very pretty, as did Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett. Ok, you too Beyonce. But Laura Linney didn't fair as well. Ugh, Natalie. And, as a guaranteed winner, Hilary Swank really should've picked a better dress.
Oscar alternatives
There were two other award shows this weekend...
The Independent Spirit Awards officially crowned Sideways the best indie movie of the millennium, which might be counted as some kind of backlash to the backlash. It's interesting that the Spirits do include a lot of minor films (many that only play festivals) in their nominations but the winners are always the mainstream indies.
It's hard to argue with Oscar nominations, especially when your ceremony is the day before the Oscars. Thus, Sideways, Alexander Payne, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Thomas Haden Church and Virginia Madsen all won Spirit awards. So did this year's poster child for Oscar shut outs, Paul Giamatti.
I really can't say if this is a good or bad thing because even I haven't seen movies like Down to the Bone, Robbing Peter and On the Outs (there is actually not a single category that contains five nominees I've seen, but that will change when I finally watch Baadasssss!). But it's impossible to complain with trophies for Sideways and Maria Full of Grace, unless you just like to complain.
Then there were the Razzies.
Much like the Spirits, the Razzies were all about two films: the what-were-they-thinking? "filmmaking" of Catwoman and the make-you-laugh/make-you-cringe "performances" in Fahrenheit 9/11. The Oscars may have skirted politics this year but the Razzies took them head on, justly combining them with another major issue facing our country: comicbook adaptations. And God bless Halle Berry, who showed up to claim her award.
Alexander managed to get away scott free but I have to say, Napoleon Dynamite was robbed.
The Independent Spirit Awards officially crowned Sideways the best indie movie of the millennium, which might be counted as some kind of backlash to the backlash. It's interesting that the Spirits do include a lot of minor films (many that only play festivals) in their nominations but the winners are always the mainstream indies.
It's hard to argue with Oscar nominations, especially when your ceremony is the day before the Oscars. Thus, Sideways, Alexander Payne, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Thomas Haden Church and Virginia Madsen all won Spirit awards. So did this year's poster child for Oscar shut outs, Paul Giamatti.
I really can't say if this is a good or bad thing because even I haven't seen movies like Down to the Bone, Robbing Peter and On the Outs (there is actually not a single category that contains five nominees I've seen, but that will change when I finally watch Baadasssss!). But it's impossible to complain with trophies for Sideways and Maria Full of Grace, unless you just like to complain.
Then there were the Razzies.
Much like the Spirits, the Razzies were all about two films: the what-were-they-thinking? "filmmaking" of Catwoman and the make-you-laugh/make-you-cringe "performances" in Fahrenheit 9/11. The Oscars may have skirted politics this year but the Razzies took them head on, justly combining them with another major issue facing our country: comicbook adaptations. And God bless Halle Berry, who showed up to claim her award.
Alexander managed to get away scott free but I have to say, Napoleon Dynamite was robbed.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Pre-Oscar thoughts
So I was going to post something about the Oscars but I didn't like how it was turning out. Basically all that needs to be said before the show is:
1) I hope Chris Rock does well. When the choice was first announced I was worried... for him. He's landed an extremely high pressure gig where he will be under the most intense scrutiny of his career and he won't even be allowed to fully be himself. It's a thankless task, but those who are offered can't seem to resist. We'll see how he does.
2) No matter what, the ratings are going to suck. At least by Oscar standards. This group of nominees for best picture happens to be, in my opinion, the best in a long time. But it's also the lowest grossing in a long time. That never bodes well for ratings. There's also the pesky problem that the other major award shows, and other big events like the Super Bowl, have seen their ratings sag lately. Unfortunately this is probably going to lead to some changes and I fear not all of them will be good. But I'll deal with commenting on those when they actually happen...
1) I hope Chris Rock does well. When the choice was first announced I was worried... for him. He's landed an extremely high pressure gig where he will be under the most intense scrutiny of his career and he won't even be allowed to fully be himself. It's a thankless task, but those who are offered can't seem to resist. We'll see how he does.
2) No matter what, the ratings are going to suck. At least by Oscar standards. This group of nominees for best picture happens to be, in my opinion, the best in a long time. But it's also the lowest grossing in a long time. That never bodes well for ratings. There's also the pesky problem that the other major award shows, and other big events like the Super Bowl, have seen their ratings sag lately. Unfortunately this is probably going to lead to some changes and I fear not all of them will be good. But I'll deal with commenting on those when they actually happen...
Diary of a box office hit
After a $7 million gross on Friday alone it looks like Diary of a Mad Black Woman will be the surprise champion of the weekend box office. The small indie film distributed by Lions Gate, with promotional help from BET, is shaping up to be a big success story for playwright and actor Tyler Perry. The reviews were pretty poor but many wisely acknowledged potential breakout appeal, probably due to the overwhelming success Perry has achieved onstage.
If Diary isn't #1 for the weekend it will mean the third week at the top spot for Will Smith's romantic comedy Hitch. Either way 2005 is starting off as an extremely strong year for black actors in Hollywood. (Also consider the record setting four black Oscar nominees, and of course Chris Rock's Oscar hosting gig - more on that above.)
Are we seeing the emergence of a new trend? Will major studios wake up to the audience for black films? History says it's not very likely.
I haven't seen the movie, but I feel like I have after reading Owen Gleiberman's Entertainment Weekly review. It's an extremely well written piece that acknowledges the film's faults but also the need for a movie, any movie, like this. Gleiberman also points out the failure of Hollywood studios to follow up on the success of Waiting to Exhale with anything else.
Personally, at the very least, I'd be happy if Diary signals nothing more than a breakthrough for the underrated and underused talents of Kimberly Elise. Maybe she can co-star in the next Will Smith romantic comedy.
If Diary isn't #1 for the weekend it will mean the third week at the top spot for Will Smith's romantic comedy Hitch. Either way 2005 is starting off as an extremely strong year for black actors in Hollywood. (Also consider the record setting four black Oscar nominees, and of course Chris Rock's Oscar hosting gig - more on that above.)
Are we seeing the emergence of a new trend? Will major studios wake up to the audience for black films? History says it's not very likely.
I haven't seen the movie, but I feel like I have after reading Owen Gleiberman's Entertainment Weekly review. It's an extremely well written piece that acknowledges the film's faults but also the need for a movie, any movie, like this. Gleiberman also points out the failure of Hollywood studios to follow up on the success of Waiting to Exhale with anything else.
Personally, at the very least, I'd be happy if Diary signals nothing more than a breakthrough for the underrated and underused talents of Kimberly Elise. Maybe she can co-star in the next Will Smith romantic comedy.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Fat chance
I've always been weary of Showtime originals but the network is now making a dedicated effort to change its second class reputation. That determination is obvious in the new Kirstie Alley comedy Fat Actress.
I've seen the first two episodes and two things are immediately clear: Showtime is hoping Alley can give them their own Curb Your Enthusiasm and Alley is ready to declare "Yeah I'm fat, but I'm still funny." I'd say she succeeds more than the show does. But at least the flaws of Fat Actress are not the flaws of Showtime past (which had been plagued by low budgets, dull concepts and boring execution, making it the anti-HBO).
Just like Larry David in Curb, Alley plays an exaggerated version of herself and is not afraid to look bad or come off unappealing (in word and deed). However, the show has a broad comedic approach that proves very uneven: there are a couple of solid hits in each episode but just as many duds. The verbal exchanges are often sharp but some of the physical comedy, like an overly long reenactment of 9 1/2 Weeks featuring Alley and Hangin' With Mr. Cooper's Mark Curry (yes), comes off more desperate than inspired.
Alley's obvious willingness to poke fun at herself is commendable, and she still has considerable comic skill, but the show itself needs to be tighter, faster, funnier before it's worthy of what its star has to offer. Curb may be loose in execution but it's extremely tight in structure. The first two episodes of Fat Actress run 30 minutes long, and that's probably 5-7 minutes too many.
Plotwise the second episode completely loses its way as Kirstie takes a meeting with a fake McG to discuss a potential Charlie's Angels sequel. Again, some really bad physical comedy comes into play. The best moments come from Alley and regular supporting players Bryan Callen and Rachael Harris. This three person ensemble has a lot of potential and their scenes together are the best moments in the first two episodes. Harris, who played the lesbian office assistant in the fourth season premiere of Curb, is especially talented.
Unfortunately they're not the only actors in each episode. One of the wonders of Curb has been its ability to find guest stars who perfectly fit with the show's comic style. So far, Fat Actress is relying heavily on "big name" guest stars with mixed results. John Travolta and Carmen Electra (in a very brief bit) acquit themselves well, Kid Rock and NBC exec Jeff Zucker are at least not cringe worthy but Kelly Preston (the only one not playing herself) is completely off. Still, in each case it feels like stunting instead of creating genuinely comic characters for the regulars to bounce off of.
With tighter plots and better guests Fat Actress could turn into something. No one else, broadcast or cable, has offered up a half hour with this much potential this season (and unless NBC's The Office actually works, no one will). It also represents a creative step forward for Showtime and should land them a fair amount of publicity, which is any cable network's dream. But it'll take more than this to get viewers to turn away from HBO.
I've seen the first two episodes and two things are immediately clear: Showtime is hoping Alley can give them their own Curb Your Enthusiasm and Alley is ready to declare "Yeah I'm fat, but I'm still funny." I'd say she succeeds more than the show does. But at least the flaws of Fat Actress are not the flaws of Showtime past (which had been plagued by low budgets, dull concepts and boring execution, making it the anti-HBO).
Just like Larry David in Curb, Alley plays an exaggerated version of herself and is not afraid to look bad or come off unappealing (in word and deed). However, the show has a broad comedic approach that proves very uneven: there are a couple of solid hits in each episode but just as many duds. The verbal exchanges are often sharp but some of the physical comedy, like an overly long reenactment of 9 1/2 Weeks featuring Alley and Hangin' With Mr. Cooper's Mark Curry (yes), comes off more desperate than inspired.
Alley's obvious willingness to poke fun at herself is commendable, and she still has considerable comic skill, but the show itself needs to be tighter, faster, funnier before it's worthy of what its star has to offer. Curb may be loose in execution but it's extremely tight in structure. The first two episodes of Fat Actress run 30 minutes long, and that's probably 5-7 minutes too many.
Plotwise the second episode completely loses its way as Kirstie takes a meeting with a fake McG to discuss a potential Charlie's Angels sequel. Again, some really bad physical comedy comes into play. The best moments come from Alley and regular supporting players Bryan Callen and Rachael Harris. This three person ensemble has a lot of potential and their scenes together are the best moments in the first two episodes. Harris, who played the lesbian office assistant in the fourth season premiere of Curb, is especially talented.
Unfortunately they're not the only actors in each episode. One of the wonders of Curb has been its ability to find guest stars who perfectly fit with the show's comic style. So far, Fat Actress is relying heavily on "big name" guest stars with mixed results. John Travolta and Carmen Electra (in a very brief bit) acquit themselves well, Kid Rock and NBC exec Jeff Zucker are at least not cringe worthy but Kelly Preston (the only one not playing herself) is completely off. Still, in each case it feels like stunting instead of creating genuinely comic characters for the regulars to bounce off of.
With tighter plots and better guests Fat Actress could turn into something. No one else, broadcast or cable, has offered up a half hour with this much potential this season (and unless NBC's The Office actually works, no one will). It also represents a creative step forward for Showtime and should land them a fair amount of publicity, which is any cable network's dream. But it'll take more than this to get viewers to turn away from HBO.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
That's more like it
Finally, Lost gives me what I want to see. (No spoilers ahead.)
After two weeks of underwhelming episodes (last week's Sawyer-centric episode was especially awful) the show returns to top form with what I thought was one of its best episodes yet. I've been waiting for an episode centered around Jin for awhile now and they didn't disappoint in the delivery. The episode also perfectly integrated the show's entire near-flawless ensemble. Everyone (except for Claire) had at least one moment to stand out. Although Terry O'Quinn's Locke has become a cliche since his full backstory was revealed in the third episode I think he's now the most valuable cliche on the island. Just like in previous J.J. Abrams shows at their peak form Lost is getting considerable mileage out of the development of unexpected relationships.
In a way I don't ever want the island's mysteries to be solved. I just want more exceptional drama like I saw last night.
After two weeks of underwhelming episodes (last week's Sawyer-centric episode was especially awful) the show returns to top form with what I thought was one of its best episodes yet. I've been waiting for an episode centered around Jin for awhile now and they didn't disappoint in the delivery. The episode also perfectly integrated the show's entire near-flawless ensemble. Everyone (except for Claire) had at least one moment to stand out. Although Terry O'Quinn's Locke has become a cliche since his full backstory was revealed in the third episode I think he's now the most valuable cliche on the island. Just like in previous J.J. Abrams shows at their peak form Lost is getting considerable mileage out of the development of unexpected relationships.
In a way I don't ever want the island's mysteries to be solved. I just want more exceptional drama like I saw last night.
Feel bad TV
Quick comments on the Idol results show...
I was surprised to see Melinda and Judd get cut and disappointed to see Sarah leave so early.
But what's really frustrating is how the producers seem to be increasing the cruelty factor this season. Every reality show (except possibly Extreme Home Makeover) has an element of cruelty and the Idol producers have always been cynical bastards who encourage smarmy host Ryan Seacrest to console the contestants one minute and mock them with cheap jokes the next. But this season, more than I can ever remember, seems determined to focus on shock and pain. Each new "twist" they've added to the elimination process is designed for maximum humiliation. It seems to me that's exactly what the contestants don't need when they're already performing in a high pressure competition.
Extreme close ups on people crying their eyes out is not good TV. But the ratings are better than ever, and unfortunately I won't (can't) stop watching.
I was surprised to see Melinda and Judd get cut and disappointed to see Sarah leave so early.
But what's really frustrating is how the producers seem to be increasing the cruelty factor this season. Every reality show (except possibly Extreme Home Makeover) has an element of cruelty and the Idol producers have always been cynical bastards who encourage smarmy host Ryan Seacrest to console the contestants one minute and mock them with cheap jokes the next. But this season, more than I can ever remember, seems determined to focus on shock and pain. Each new "twist" they've added to the elimination process is designed for maximum humiliation. It seems to me that's exactly what the contestants don't need when they're already performing in a high pressure competition.
Extreme close ups on people crying their eyes out is not good TV. But the ratings are better than ever, and unfortunately I won't (can't) stop watching.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Ryan, 100% of the audience finds YOU annoying
It's voting time and American Idol is finally getting interesting (ok, if it can ever be called interesting, but that's another debate for another time). They've mixed up the process this year and it's all competition, all the time. There are 24 performers right now, 12 guys and 12 girls, all struggling to make it to the top 12. It's a minor distinction which basically means you get to be a part of the American Idol touring show. After three seasons it's pretty obvious you're going to be screwed unless you make it to the top 1 (or in some cases top 4).
My early favorites:
Carrie Underwood - she's cute, blonde, a little bit country and can sing very well; she's a bit like Kelly Clarkson and considering Kelly's the show's biggest success story to date I think that's a good thing
Bo Bice - I'm suspicious of any "rocker" who actually enters this competition, and Bo lists "matchbox twenty" as his favorite male recording artist (yikes), but so far he's the best male contestant and the only person to "rock" on American Idol without making me cringe
Nadia Turner - possibly not the best singer but clearly one of the best performers; she lists Prince and Tina Turner as her favorite artists and so far she's living up to that standard
Scott Savol - yes he looks like a serial killer... but he has a great voice; he's from Shaker Heights, Ohio which is not very far from my hometown, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing
Aloha Mischeaux - is she this year's Fantasia? I don't know what to make of her yet because I thought she sassed her way through her Beyonce-inspired performance last night but it was fun and she has stage presence, and a good voice
Anwar Robinson - he sang "Moon River," and it was such a bizarre choice that it actually worked; he also clearly has the best dreads of any contestant
Who can't I stand? Well, embarrassing Clay-wannabe Anthony Fedorov (he sang Richard Marx!) and horribly fake and repulsive "rocker" Constantine Maroulis (he sang Seal's "Kiss from a Rose"!!) lead that list. But a lot of the other contestants are too boring to even distinguish between.
I think tonight will be the end of the line for Nikko Smith (he got screwed by having to perform first, but he lists Mario and JoJo as his favorite artists, so whatever) and Jared Yates (just one of several guys not even good enough for a boy band) on the guys side.
The girls are more difficult to predict but I hope it's the end of the line for Amanda Avila and, I guess, Celena Rae who both look better than they sing. I'm worried for Vonzell Solomon, who performed first, and Janay Castine, a 17-year old who looked like she was singing in the middle of Baghdad instead of on a Fox soundstage. Not because either of them were particularly good, but because I'd like to see them get a second chance. (I also have a feeling this week-by-week elimination process is going to lead to more charges of racism.)
So far, I'm also intrigued by the very confident Jessica Sierra, the voice of Sarah Mather and the complete trainwreck that is Mikalah Gordon.
Simon told Mikalah "I think half of the audience likes you and the other half finds you incredibly annoying." I think he was optimistic about that. But she's going to be entertaining to watch while she's around with her mix of a very nice Nikka Costa-style voice and a very insane Fran Drescher meets Bette Midler meets Barbra Streisand personality. She's like a 17-year old drag queen and it didn't help that she sang "Young Hearts Run Free."
Oh, how I love American Idol...
My early favorites:
Carrie Underwood - she's cute, blonde, a little bit country and can sing very well; she's a bit like Kelly Clarkson and considering Kelly's the show's biggest success story to date I think that's a good thing
Bo Bice - I'm suspicious of any "rocker" who actually enters this competition, and Bo lists "matchbox twenty" as his favorite male recording artist (yikes), but so far he's the best male contestant and the only person to "rock" on American Idol without making me cringe
Nadia Turner - possibly not the best singer but clearly one of the best performers; she lists Prince and Tina Turner as her favorite artists and so far she's living up to that standard
Scott Savol - yes he looks like a serial killer... but he has a great voice; he's from Shaker Heights, Ohio which is not very far from my hometown, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing
Aloha Mischeaux - is she this year's Fantasia? I don't know what to make of her yet because I thought she sassed her way through her Beyonce-inspired performance last night but it was fun and she has stage presence, and a good voice
Anwar Robinson - he sang "Moon River," and it was such a bizarre choice that it actually worked; he also clearly has the best dreads of any contestant
Who can't I stand? Well, embarrassing Clay-wannabe Anthony Fedorov (he sang Richard Marx!) and horribly fake and repulsive "rocker" Constantine Maroulis (he sang Seal's "Kiss from a Rose"!!) lead that list. But a lot of the other contestants are too boring to even distinguish between.
I think tonight will be the end of the line for Nikko Smith (he got screwed by having to perform first, but he lists Mario and JoJo as his favorite artists, so whatever) and Jared Yates (just one of several guys not even good enough for a boy band) on the guys side.
The girls are more difficult to predict but I hope it's the end of the line for Amanda Avila and, I guess, Celena Rae who both look better than they sing. I'm worried for Vonzell Solomon, who performed first, and Janay Castine, a 17-year old who looked like she was singing in the middle of Baghdad instead of on a Fox soundstage. Not because either of them were particularly good, but because I'd like to see them get a second chance. (I also have a feeling this week-by-week elimination process is going to lead to more charges of racism.)
So far, I'm also intrigued by the very confident Jessica Sierra, the voice of Sarah Mather and the complete trainwreck that is Mikalah Gordon.
Simon told Mikalah "I think half of the audience likes you and the other half finds you incredibly annoying." I think he was optimistic about that. But she's going to be entertaining to watch while she's around with her mix of a very nice Nikka Costa-style voice and a very insane Fran Drescher meets Bette Midler meets Barbra Streisand personality. She's like a 17-year old drag queen and it didn't help that she sang "Young Hearts Run Free."
Oh, how I love American Idol...
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
And now for something completely different...
The other night I saw a foreign film. Compared to most foreign films I have seen this one was truly foreign.
The film is called Moolaade, it is set in Burkina Faso, its director is a legendary African filmmaker named Ousmane Sembene and its primary subject is the barbaric practice of female circumcision.
It may sound unpleasant but it's actually a classically inspiring tale, very easy for Western audiences to embrace. It provides a vibrant look at a village that is forced to abandon some outdated myths and traditions. Moolaade is not, definitely not, one of those ponderous foreign films more interested in pretty pictures than in characters or ideas.
As J. Hoberman observed in his intelligent review for the Village Voice: "This has to be the most richly entertaining movie anyone has ever made on the subject of female genital mutilation." Not exactly a quote for the print ads, but true enough.
Moolaade is the kind of foreign film that can not be easily compared to anything from Hollywood, or mainstream indies, because it's so specific and regional. It does have flaws, well documented by Phil Hall in a negative review (the only negative review I've seen) at Film Threat, but it overcomes some flat performances and simplistic dialogue with evocative details and storytelling clarity. It also boasts an extremely strong lead performance from an actress named Fatoumata Coulibaly.
Apparently this is the first film of Sembene's to receive any kind of proper theatrical release in the U.S., but that release is still extremely limited. I wonder what it would take to get a respected, likeable film like this a decent level of attention in America. Someone like Oprah Winfrey, who has dealt with the film's topics on her show before, could help. But would it be a lost cause? Is subject matter alone enough to keep people away from a film, no matter how it is presented?
I'm not even sure it matters. While I think many Americans would enjoy seeing this film, they're clearly not the target audience. Anyone can relate to the film's idea of taking a stand and making a change for the better within your community. But the politics of the movie are pitched directly at Africans, and likely only Africans in certain regions. I know what the American film critics have to say, but what I'd really like to know is what the people whose lives are represented in this film have to say.
The film is called Moolaade, it is set in Burkina Faso, its director is a legendary African filmmaker named Ousmane Sembene and its primary subject is the barbaric practice of female circumcision.
It may sound unpleasant but it's actually a classically inspiring tale, very easy for Western audiences to embrace. It provides a vibrant look at a village that is forced to abandon some outdated myths and traditions. Moolaade is not, definitely not, one of those ponderous foreign films more interested in pretty pictures than in characters or ideas.
As J. Hoberman observed in his intelligent review for the Village Voice: "This has to be the most richly entertaining movie anyone has ever made on the subject of female genital mutilation." Not exactly a quote for the print ads, but true enough.
Moolaade is the kind of foreign film that can not be easily compared to anything from Hollywood, or mainstream indies, because it's so specific and regional. It does have flaws, well documented by Phil Hall in a negative review (the only negative review I've seen) at Film Threat, but it overcomes some flat performances and simplistic dialogue with evocative details and storytelling clarity. It also boasts an extremely strong lead performance from an actress named Fatoumata Coulibaly.
Apparently this is the first film of Sembene's to receive any kind of proper theatrical release in the U.S., but that release is still extremely limited. I wonder what it would take to get a respected, likeable film like this a decent level of attention in America. Someone like Oprah Winfrey, who has dealt with the film's topics on her show before, could help. But would it be a lost cause? Is subject matter alone enough to keep people away from a film, no matter how it is presented?
I'm not even sure it matters. While I think many Americans would enjoy seeing this film, they're clearly not the target audience. Anyone can relate to the film's idea of taking a stand and making a change for the better within your community. But the politics of the movie are pitched directly at Africans, and likely only Africans in certain regions. I know what the American film critics have to say, but what I'd really like to know is what the people whose lives are represented in this film have to say.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Oscars are pretty
So it has actually been a fairly interesting Oscar season. Near the end of last year there was a lot of talk that this year's race was "wide open" and some people even believed foreign, animated and documentary films might find their way into the best picture race (yeah, right).
That didn't happen, but some other unexpected things did. Two veteran directors actually delivered: Scorsese's The Aviator was brash and entertaining and helped erase some of the backlash that built following Gangs of New York, and Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby snuck into the race at the last moment (less than a year after Mystic River earned six nominations) and has been building momentum ever since. Meanwhile, Alexander Payne's Sideways essentially swept the critics prizes to become the indie champion of 2004.
As the races shaped up they also opened up. It was initially difficult to declare a frontrunner, but now there seems to be more agreement than usual on who will actually win the awards.
This year, if the Oscars do what I (and many others) predict, they'll honor one actor who has been a frontrunner since September and another who is long overdue for a win, an actress who many never expected to win one award (let alone two in five years) and another whose first win will reinforce her status as a future legend, and a contemporary character drama for the first time since American Beauty won best picture in 2000 (and before that The Silence of the Lambs in 1992).
They will also, once again, ignore a living legend.
Original Screenplay
Who will/should win: Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
One of the most distinctive screenwriters working today looks likely to pick up his first Oscar (after two previous nominations) for his best work yet. But the film has been woefully overlooked in much of the year's awards races and general wisdom says that the early-2004 release date was a mistake. Best Picture hopeful The Aviator is also in this category but if Kaufman loses it will likely be to the script for message movie Hotel Rwanda.
Adapted Screenplay
Who will/should win: Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor (Sideways)
This one has always seemed like a no-brainer. But the momentum behind Million Dollar Baby represents a serious threat. Still, Sideways has been collecting screenwriting prizes all over the place (even at the BAFTAs, where it wasn't even nominated for any other awards) and this category gives voters their best chance to recognize what is clearly one of the year's best films.
Confession: Before Sunset is nominated here and it's the only film nominated in a major category that I have not seen.
Supporting Actress
Who will win: Cate Blanchett (The Aviator)
Who should win: Virginia Madsen (Sideways)
This is generally viewed as a very close race between Blanchett and Madsen. Some point to Madsen's struggling-actress-revives-career personal story that will resonate with voters (then why didn't she win at the Screen Actors Guild?). Some say Blanchett will have many more chances to win in the future (it's worth remembering Meryl Streep's first win was as a supporting actress). Both have flashy roles: Madsen delivered a killer monologue directly to the camera and made it feel like it came from her heart while Blanchett pulled off the seemingly impossible task of playing Katharine Hepburn without getting slapped with the "impersonation" label.
I consider the performances essentially equal (and would say Kinsey's Laura Linney is on par with both) but slightly prefer Madsen. I expect most voters will slightly prefer Blanchett, not just because she's playing a Hollywood legend, but also because she'll be a great contradiction to that supposed "supporting actress curse."
Supporting Actor
Who will win: Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby)
Who should win: Liev Schreiber (The Manchurian Candidate)
But he's not nominated, so: Thomas Haden Church (Sideways)
After three nominations (and several films he should've been nominated for: Nurse Betty, Unforgiven and Glory, to name three) it looks like Morgan Freeman will finally get an Oscar. His biggest competition seems to be breakthrough actor Clive Owen in Closer. Even though Thomas Haden Church was more inventive at playing a cad (granted, with better material to work with), Owen has an edge since he's British and never starred in a U.S. sitcom. But Freeman is a respected actor who has never won and delivers a great performance in a true awards season darling. He'll be hard to beat.
Actress
Who will win: Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
Who should win: Uma Thurman (Kill Bill Vol. 2)
But she's not nominated, so: Swank
The only reason there is any doubt at all about whether or not Swank will win is because she won an Oscar in 2000 for Boys Don't Cry. Even then people thought she was too new, the film was too indie, she had Beverly Hills 90210 on her resume for god's sake. But she proved the doubters wrong. Then people said it was a fluke, she'll never do it again. Never mind solid work in genre films like The Gift and Insomnia. Again she proved them wrong, with a performance every bit as great, possibly better, than her incredible breakthrough.
There's an attempt in the media to make this a race between Swank and Annette Bening, because Bening was the initial frontrunner in 2000 for American Beauty. Bening's work in Being Julia is strong but the film is not. She's lucky she got the nomination.
Swank's real competition is Imelda Staunton, who is so motherly and sweet and saintly in Vera Drake that her performance stole the dark hearts of film critics. It helped that the film is bleak and British. It will help with Oscar voters that her character is tortured (she cries a lot) and British. If Staunton wins it will send a clear message to actresses like Swank: don't bother being that good if you've already won.
For the record, the other two nominees (Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Catalina Sandino Moreno in Maria Full of Grace) were two of my personal favorites this year. But their films, unfortunately, are not overall Oscar favorites.
Actor
Who will win: Jamie Foxx (Ray)
Who should win: Paul Giamatti (Sideways)
But he's not nominated, so: Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda)
I liked Foxx’s performance (and his lead performance in Collateral) and I think he’s a very fine actor. He has been the clear frontrunner in this race ever since people saw the trailers for Ray and it's to his credit that he has maintained that position in one of the strongest years for lead actors in memory. He has also helped ensure his win with pandering, obnoxiously "entertaining" acceptance speeches at other award shows. Oscar watchers don't really like sure things and have tried to create some doubt: maybe Leonardo DiCaprio or Clint Eastwood will be helped by the overall support of their films. But consider the obvious: Jamie Foxx already carried his entire movie to a best picture nomination. He's unstoppable.
Director
Who will win: Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby)
Who should win: Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
But he's not nominated, so: Alexander Payne (Sideways)
Who should've won several times already: Martin Scorsese
What a dilemma. Scorsese is clearly one of film's masters. He's lauded for his work on crime films and has an equally impressive body of work in "un-Scorsese-like" material (see Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Age of Innocence). Conventional wisdom says he should've won years ago, and if he were to win for The Aviator it would be a cop out since it's not a very "Scorsese" movie.
What a load of crap. The Aviator's joyous embrace of all things golden about Hollywood, and story of an outsider forcing his way in with fast talk and bold ideas, is pure Scorsese. And the visuals and performances are as impressive as in any other great Scorsese.
Yet there's the problem of Clint Eastwood. Sure he’s an actor and sure he already has an Oscar, but he provided one of the year's most distinctive directing jobs on Million Dollar Baby. I'm still not sure which of these two men will win. It will be painful to watch Scorsese lose yet again. But all things equal, based strictly on the work, I think I'd vote for Eastwood. And Oscar voters probably will too.
Picture
What will win: Million Dollar Baby
What should win: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
But that's not nominated, so: Sideways
The "wide open" year very quickly became a three picture race between The Aviator, Million Dollar Baby and Sideways. As the critics’ favorite, Sideways can be counted out. As the Hollywood epic, The Aviator should be a sure thing. But there are nagging doubts, and Million Dollar Baby is powerful stuff.
If last year wasn't the anointed Lord of the Rings year I think Mystic River would've won the top prize. For Eastwood to return the very next year with an even better film is remarkable. Many people predict a possible split between Aviator and Baby in the director and picture races. If that happens I'd hope it will come down in favor of Scorsese and Baby. Ultimately though I think the Oscars will take a rare detour from their conventional selections and reward a contemporary, character-driven film. One that despite its dark tone has significant mainstream, emotional appeal. And that's not such a bad thing.
That didn't happen, but some other unexpected things did. Two veteran directors actually delivered: Scorsese's The Aviator was brash and entertaining and helped erase some of the backlash that built following Gangs of New York, and Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby snuck into the race at the last moment (less than a year after Mystic River earned six nominations) and has been building momentum ever since. Meanwhile, Alexander Payne's Sideways essentially swept the critics prizes to become the indie champion of 2004.
As the races shaped up they also opened up. It was initially difficult to declare a frontrunner, but now there seems to be more agreement than usual on who will actually win the awards.
This year, if the Oscars do what I (and many others) predict, they'll honor one actor who has been a frontrunner since September and another who is long overdue for a win, an actress who many never expected to win one award (let alone two in five years) and another whose first win will reinforce her status as a future legend, and a contemporary character drama for the first time since American Beauty won best picture in 2000 (and before that The Silence of the Lambs in 1992).
They will also, once again, ignore a living legend.
Original Screenplay
Who will/should win: Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
One of the most distinctive screenwriters working today looks likely to pick up his first Oscar (after two previous nominations) for his best work yet. But the film has been woefully overlooked in much of the year's awards races and general wisdom says that the early-2004 release date was a mistake. Best Picture hopeful The Aviator is also in this category but if Kaufman loses it will likely be to the script for message movie Hotel Rwanda.
Adapted Screenplay
Who will/should win: Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor (Sideways)
This one has always seemed like a no-brainer. But the momentum behind Million Dollar Baby represents a serious threat. Still, Sideways has been collecting screenwriting prizes all over the place (even at the BAFTAs, where it wasn't even nominated for any other awards) and this category gives voters their best chance to recognize what is clearly one of the year's best films.
Confession: Before Sunset is nominated here and it's the only film nominated in a major category that I have not seen.
Supporting Actress
Who will win: Cate Blanchett (The Aviator)
Who should win: Virginia Madsen (Sideways)
This is generally viewed as a very close race between Blanchett and Madsen. Some point to Madsen's struggling-actress-revives-career personal story that will resonate with voters (then why didn't she win at the Screen Actors Guild?). Some say Blanchett will have many more chances to win in the future (it's worth remembering Meryl Streep's first win was as a supporting actress). Both have flashy roles: Madsen delivered a killer monologue directly to the camera and made it feel like it came from her heart while Blanchett pulled off the seemingly impossible task of playing Katharine Hepburn without getting slapped with the "impersonation" label.
I consider the performances essentially equal (and would say Kinsey's Laura Linney is on par with both) but slightly prefer Madsen. I expect most voters will slightly prefer Blanchett, not just because she's playing a Hollywood legend, but also because she'll be a great contradiction to that supposed "supporting actress curse."
Supporting Actor
Who will win: Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby)
Who should win: Liev Schreiber (The Manchurian Candidate)
But he's not nominated, so: Thomas Haden Church (Sideways)
After three nominations (and several films he should've been nominated for: Nurse Betty, Unforgiven and Glory, to name three) it looks like Morgan Freeman will finally get an Oscar. His biggest competition seems to be breakthrough actor Clive Owen in Closer. Even though Thomas Haden Church was more inventive at playing a cad (granted, with better material to work with), Owen has an edge since he's British and never starred in a U.S. sitcom. But Freeman is a respected actor who has never won and delivers a great performance in a true awards season darling. He'll be hard to beat.
Actress
Who will win: Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
Who should win: Uma Thurman (Kill Bill Vol. 2)
But she's not nominated, so: Swank
The only reason there is any doubt at all about whether or not Swank will win is because she won an Oscar in 2000 for Boys Don't Cry. Even then people thought she was too new, the film was too indie, she had Beverly Hills 90210 on her resume for god's sake. But she proved the doubters wrong. Then people said it was a fluke, she'll never do it again. Never mind solid work in genre films like The Gift and Insomnia. Again she proved them wrong, with a performance every bit as great, possibly better, than her incredible breakthrough.
There's an attempt in the media to make this a race between Swank and Annette Bening, because Bening was the initial frontrunner in 2000 for American Beauty. Bening's work in Being Julia is strong but the film is not. She's lucky she got the nomination.
Swank's real competition is Imelda Staunton, who is so motherly and sweet and saintly in Vera Drake that her performance stole the dark hearts of film critics. It helped that the film is bleak and British. It will help with Oscar voters that her character is tortured (she cries a lot) and British. If Staunton wins it will send a clear message to actresses like Swank: don't bother being that good if you've already won.
For the record, the other two nominees (Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Catalina Sandino Moreno in Maria Full of Grace) were two of my personal favorites this year. But their films, unfortunately, are not overall Oscar favorites.
Actor
Who will win: Jamie Foxx (Ray)
Who should win: Paul Giamatti (Sideways)
But he's not nominated, so: Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda)
I liked Foxx’s performance (and his lead performance in Collateral) and I think he’s a very fine actor. He has been the clear frontrunner in this race ever since people saw the trailers for Ray and it's to his credit that he has maintained that position in one of the strongest years for lead actors in memory. He has also helped ensure his win with pandering, obnoxiously "entertaining" acceptance speeches at other award shows. Oscar watchers don't really like sure things and have tried to create some doubt: maybe Leonardo DiCaprio or Clint Eastwood will be helped by the overall support of their films. But consider the obvious: Jamie Foxx already carried his entire movie to a best picture nomination. He's unstoppable.
Director
Who will win: Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby)
Who should win: Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
But he's not nominated, so: Alexander Payne (Sideways)
Who should've won several times already: Martin Scorsese
What a dilemma. Scorsese is clearly one of film's masters. He's lauded for his work on crime films and has an equally impressive body of work in "un-Scorsese-like" material (see Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Age of Innocence). Conventional wisdom says he should've won years ago, and if he were to win for The Aviator it would be a cop out since it's not a very "Scorsese" movie.
What a load of crap. The Aviator's joyous embrace of all things golden about Hollywood, and story of an outsider forcing his way in with fast talk and bold ideas, is pure Scorsese. And the visuals and performances are as impressive as in any other great Scorsese.
Yet there's the problem of Clint Eastwood. Sure he’s an actor and sure he already has an Oscar, but he provided one of the year's most distinctive directing jobs on Million Dollar Baby. I'm still not sure which of these two men will win. It will be painful to watch Scorsese lose yet again. But all things equal, based strictly on the work, I think I'd vote for Eastwood. And Oscar voters probably will too.
Picture
What will win: Million Dollar Baby
What should win: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
But that's not nominated, so: Sideways
The "wide open" year very quickly became a three picture race between The Aviator, Million Dollar Baby and Sideways. As the critics’ favorite, Sideways can be counted out. As the Hollywood epic, The Aviator should be a sure thing. But there are nagging doubts, and Million Dollar Baby is powerful stuff.
If last year wasn't the anointed Lord of the Rings year I think Mystic River would've won the top prize. For Eastwood to return the very next year with an even better film is remarkable. Many people predict a possible split between Aviator and Baby in the director and picture races. If that happens I'd hope it will come down in favor of Scorsese and Baby. Ultimately though I think the Oscars will take a rare detour from their conventional selections and reward a contemporary, character-driven film. One that despite its dark tone has significant mainstream, emotional appeal. And that's not such a bad thing.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Humble beginnings
Ok, I'm starting a blog. Accept it. I have. This comes at the urging of my girlfriend who has more experience in starting, and abandoning, blogs than I do.
I'm thinking this will be a place where I will write a little, or a lot, each day. It will not be a place where I talk about my feelings or what's going on in my life. I intend to focus primarily on what's interesting to me - films, television, books, music, etc. - but I'm sure other things will slip in from time to time.
Hopefully this will encourage me to write what I want, when I went, and that will be a good thing. I'll be back tomorrow to kick this off with some deadly dull Oscar predictions...
I'm thinking this will be a place where I will write a little, or a lot, each day. It will not be a place where I talk about my feelings or what's going on in my life. I intend to focus primarily on what's interesting to me - films, television, books, music, etc. - but I'm sure other things will slip in from time to time.
Hopefully this will encourage me to write what I want, when I went, and that will be a good thing. I'll be back tomorrow to kick this off with some deadly dull Oscar predictions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)