« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 28, 2006
The Constant Gardener
Part of the reason this was in my Netflix queue is that it turned up on many critic's Top Ten list. Or at least the critics I read. And I was intrigued that Rachel Weisz was up for a Golden Globe. I thought maybe I just have a short attention span today and that was the reason the movie seemed to drag to me. But after reading some reviews, I realize it was the movie, not me, that dragged.
Here's the problem with Highly Opinionated Political Thrillers - if you're a highly opinionated political activist, the movie probably wont ring true. Apparently, if you're a really well respected film critic, you spend so much time focused on movies, you don't know a tired argument when you see it.
I am really sick of Great White Hope for the problems of the oppressed. Rich white men and women are not going to solve all of the problems in the world. They can help - if they donate their money effectively - but they cannot lead the way. So, while I recognized a lot of myself in the Weisz character (expect I'm not a trust fund baby, minor detail), I couldn't get behind most of the story.
The problem with Big Pharma isn't really their drug trials; it's the basic reason for their existence. Treating healthcare as a commodity will lead to expendable people, because pure capitalism does not care about individual lives. The real problem is that society entrusts the pharmaceutical industry with its lives, and like any industry, pharma is only interested in the bottom line.
More importantly, the only reason the film was interesting was because of its non-linear sequence of plot points. Fine, I get that it is intriguing to unravel a mystery. But once it was unraveled, the film dragged on for another half an hour and the only thing I got for investing that time into the movie was the exact words of a mysterious letter. Woohoo.
The experts speak:
"'Gardener' settles for familiar ground," by Ty Burr in the Boston Globe
"Cold Comfort Pharm: Postcolonial detritus and pharmaceutical devilry dominate a mature le Carre adaptation," by Michael Atkinson in the Village Voice
Roger Ebert's review
Rotten Tomatoes Entry
Posted by cj at 11:11 PM | Comments (0)
January 20, 2006
Random News About Blogs
The NYT wrote an article about WaPo supposedly closing a blog.
Headline: "Paper Decides to Close Blog, Citing Vitriol,"
Byline: Katharine Seelye
First Sentence: "The Washington Post shut one of its blogs yesterday, saying it had drawn too many personal attacks, profanity and hate mail directed at the paper's ombudsman."
I was intrigued by the article, since it seems strange to shutter a blog because of comments. Turns out, WaPo didn't shutter the blog, it simply turned off the comment section. I think the blog originally allowed candid volleys between editors and readers. But no matter active the comment section is, simply turning it off is not shutting down a blog. Perhaps the NYT chose its terminology from the WaPo blog entry announcing the end of comments: "As of 4:15 p.m. ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely." Still, the NYT article was bad form and showed a lack of understanding of the media it is covering.
In other blog news, Seed Media is publishing a set of science blogs and tryin to get high end advertisers at scienceblogs.com The ad angle of this is discussed by Stuart Elliot in the NYT. Gotta say, the beta version is uninteresting. Perhaps the actual blogs are interesting but you'd think their main site would pull you in instead of repelling you.
Posted by cj at 07:09 AM | Comments (0)
January 19, 2006
The Tyranny of February
You might think the calendar still says January, but in the mad mad world of consumer magazines, we're already well into February.
And if you're female, or read women's magazines, you know what that means - EVERY ISSUE is about Love or Coupling or Marriage or Love or Valentine's Day or Love or some other crap.
Now I recognize that it is far past time for me to dust off my flirting skills and get back into the scene; but come on people. Does every person in the world fall for this "Valentine's Day = couples = Everyone's in a Relationship in February" shite?
To add insult to injury, my coworker was commenting today on how soon V-Day is. Oh, how I yearn for the simple days of college...when V-Day meant I could brush up on my dramatic skills and help do a reading of the Vagina Monologues to raise money for local domestic violence survivor centers...
Posted by cj at 10:34 PM | Comments (0)
January 17, 2006
doh!
Much more interesting Golden Globe blogging by Carpetbagger at the NYT. Oh well. Randomly responding to the teevee can be cathartic. Heck, am I really writing this for someone else or just to keep myself entertained? Clearly just myself.
Found that blog today, by the way...
Posted by cj at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)
January 16, 2006
Hunker Down and Carry On (pt 6)
Alright, I'll stop pushing post until 10 pm, when this lil show is over.
I'm so grateful that Walk the Line won. It's just a purely beautiful movie. John and June Carter Cash had a cinematic love story and it is almost unbelievable, which is why it's such a great film. Plus, you don't have to be a country music fan to appreciate their singing ability. And if you haven't seen the film, you truly can't appreciate the range achieved by Joaquin and Reese. Oh, and who knew the country man, James Keach, was introduced to the country gentry by his wife, Jane Seymour? (They named their twin boys after Johnny Cash and Christopher Reeves, family friends, fyi.)
Drama series...I've watched all of the series nominated. I have to say I enjoyed Lost more last year before they started opening up ten million cans of worms that really have nothing behind them other than to pull out the story line. But it is intriguing.
Cynthia Nixon looks like the Bride of Frankenstein. That hair color is atrocious. And her makeup is just scary. So sad for such a beautiful woman with such a gorgeous name. ;)
I really want to see Transamerica...I'm really glad Felicity Huffman won. Not that I've seen any of the movies in the category, but Felicity Huffman is just such an angelic soul; don't you get that feeling when she does acceptance speeches? If she has another acceptance speech, I hope she mentions transgender people by terminology and not just descriptions..
I really should see Capote. I've been wanting to see it for awhile. And I want to read some of his work, especially In Cold Blood. And who knew he wrote Breakfast at Tiffany's?
I'm so glad Brokeback Mountain won! It's such an epic. Such beautiful cinematography. But Anne Hathaway should not be seated next to Ang Lee again. She clearly got drunk early and was rather out of place with her extravagant enthusiasm. I just wonder how she managed to keep her lips so red with all the drinkin she must've done...
This awards show reminded me yet again of the dearth of meaty roles written for women. I don't believe we will topple the patriarchy in my lifetime, so I can only pray that better screenwriters are allowed to create films with real female roles. I also look forward to more television roles for women that do not revolve around motherhood, sluttiness, or another incarnation of the role of sex organs in a woman's life. Even Commander in Chief gets its "dramatic twist" from the obnoxious whining of POTUS' daughters.
Posted by cj at 09:30 PM | Comments (0)
GG, part 5
The Lion in Winter is such a gorgeous movie. Pure art. I wish I owned it...who knew his name is pronounced with a hard T? Anthony Hopkins made an interesting speech, but it made him seem older b/c he didn't have it prepared (was it just me, or did he sound a bit like a bumbling old man?)
Ang Lee seems like such a sweet man.
Johnny Depp is still such a gorgeous man. Joaquin Phoenix looks like a terribly troubled soul right now. Like he hasn't slept recently. WOOHOO! So glad he won! I really loved that movie. The combo of great acting and incredible singing was pure movie magic.
Posted by cj at 08:57 PM | Comments (0)
GG, part 4
[break for dessert]...
Jonathan Rhys Meyers is HOT.
Why are so many young actors wearing skinny ties? This isn't the 80s...
I think Entourage should've won for Best Comedy. Desperate Housewives is still interesting, but it isn't as good as it was...
I had never heard of most of the foreign films nominated, but I'm glad Paradise Now won...now to see the film. Unfortunately, it wont be available on DVD till the end of March and it aint playin in Chicago...
I think everyone's getting a lil more trashed b/c the presenters are sloppier and the thank you's are getting boring. Or maybe that is just what happens 2 hrs into a show...
They really keep some uninteresting awards for the middle bit. Sorta smart, except I think it would be better to have built up to some of those earlier awards. Oh well. Interesting that absolutely no one took this award seriously until they started televising it live.
So sad that the Elvis miniseries is not available on dvd yet...why, oh why did I not see it when it originally came on?!?!
Posted by cj at 08:25 PM | Comments (0)
GG, part 3
Should I just be adding to the bottom of the first entry? Prolly, but it's too late for that.
I think the US version of The Office is terrible; but Steve Carell is damn funny.
Miami Vice is being made into a movie?!?! huh?
Yay! The Constant Gardener is on dvd. At least there's one movie I don't need to shell out more money for...
Okay, I take it back. Reese looks good and the dress is a good size for her petite body. I just don't like the fringes at the bottom of the bodice. YAY!!! I'm so happy she won! That movie is beautiful and it's such a shame it didn't make more critics' top ten lists.
I wish I got Showtime, because I love Mary Louise-Parker and I'm sure I'd enjoy Weeds...but what happened? Why is she so thin? aww...she gave a shout out to John Spencer (she had a fab role on West Wing a few moons ago)...
Posted by cj at 07:53 PM | Comments (0)
Golden Globes, part 2
Can you be upset when someone wins whom you don't watch? I think so, since it shows that his show ain't interesting enough for me to even watch a single ep all the way through.
Commercial break. So, the pre-show. Reading the onscreen guide didn't tell me that NBC would have a red carpet show, so I flipped between E! and the TV Guide channel. E! won most of my time, since Isaac Mizrahi is a hoot. Unbelievable that he grabbed ScoJo's breast, looked down someone else's dress (was it Terri Hatcher?) and asked countless actors about their skivvies. He put most people at ease, and got them to genuinely laugh. Which was much better than his co-host, some sycophant who kept mentioning her Clooney compact (give it up!), and of course better than Joan and Melissa Rivers.
Why, oh why, is the beautiful Reese Witherspoon wearing such an ugly dress? Oh yes, it's vintage, darling. It's also seriously ugly. I'm glad her hubby was able to fly in for the day to escort her (he's in the middle of a shoot in Toronto).
I should read Empire Falls and watch the mini-series...
12 hour mini-series?!? Never heard of it...
Why did I never see Lackawanna Blues? I need to check that out..
Sleeper Cell, so the least interesting of this set...
Viva Blackpool...only seems interesting b/c it's British..
I should see Warm Springs...
I'm sick and I still want some of that Moet champagne they keep getting close-ups on.
Posted by cj at 07:36 PM | Comments (0)
Golden Globes Extravaganza!
Media News? Film? TeeVee? What Primary Category should this be in?*
How bout Bad Fashion, Worse Actresses, and Wondering Where the Real Actors are?
I'm thrilled that Sandra Oh won, as she is truly fabulous both in Grey's Anatomy and throughout her body of work. I only wish white America allowed more opportunities for women of color, especially Asian women, to shine. Plus, she was dressed to kill.
But wtf is up with Drew Barrymore?!?! She needed a bra!
And Geena Davis is fabulous and all; but I think her dress is a bit too tight. Her show is popcorn entertainment, just like Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy, but I'm a little over-dosed on destination teevee, so I've given up on Commander in Chief. It's just too obvious and without any of the political intrigue of West Wing.
*(Next day, decided to place them all in the same category; Media News.)
Posted by cj at 07:28 PM | Comments (0)
January 13, 2006
Autobiographical Fiction
I'm sure people have been writing autobiographical fiction since the dawn of time. After all, there's a reason for the adage "write what you know." When I first saw A Million Little Pieces in Barnes & Noble, it reminded me of a book I read several years ago. It seemed like a poorer quality, modern update of that book with much more interesting jacket art. So, I didn't purchase it and I've never read it.
For awhile, I was searching for the name of the book aMLP made me remember. It's Junky by William S. Burroughs. I remembered this while reading the introduction to On the Road by Jack Kerouac.
I watched James Frey on the Oprah show (it re-ran over Xmas week). That was before this brouha started. I thought he was uninspiring and that his ridiculous ideas about addiction (that it is not a disease; that you simply decide not to take drugs and then have the ability to have root canal surgery without anesthetics) completely didn't jive with everything I know about addiction. I'm a nicotine addict and I grew up with a drug addict. I thought he was blowing smoke up someone's butt before I had proof of his lies. I couldn't believe that such an inarticulate man made so many millions writing Curse Words In Caps.
I've read the news articles on the controversy. And I read the Smoking Gun expose. Here's the thing: Frey did not write a memoir. He wrote autobiographical fiction and his "prophetic" phrase (hold on) was probably lifted from R.E.M.
There's actually nothing wrong with writing autobiographical fiction. Kerouac has many fans and all of his books were based on his life, seen through a fictionalized lens. Stone Butch Blues is a great explanation of transgender life and is the fictionalized autobiography of Leslie Feinberg.
My problem isn't really with what Frey wrote. It's his unending desire to portray himself as a victim of character assasination. It is the fact that he refuses to recognize that he did NOT write a memoir. Yes, there has been a huge boom in memoirs. No, the difference between memoir and autobiography is not a large as Frey thinks. Memoir chooses points of the author's life to create a good read. It does not give the author license to lie. If the author needs to lie to create a better read, he needs to market his book as fiction (as Frey did when he originally hocked his book to publishers).
I'm disgusted by his hubris. I'm saddened that Oprah Winfrey didn't further distance herself from him. Great, you liked the book. But you should be concerned that the author willfully misled you and your producers regarding the veracity of his tale. Do gooders who fear for the continued health of addicts who were inspired by the book miss the most vital point: neither a former alcoholic nor a billionaire talk show host can lead people to the promised land of freedom from addiction. Each individual must make the choice for herself. Each individual's recovery depends entirely on her own will and exposing Frey as a sham artist should in no way change people's access to healthcare. After all, he doesn't recognize addiction as a disease and his banal advice holds up whether or not you read his drivel.
I'm angry that people who have never dealt with addiction seen Frey's story of salvation as a holy grail which shouldn't be questioned. Plenty of fictional stories have effectively warned people of the problems of drug use; so people should stop blaming the messenger for the brouha over Frey's lies.
More info:
"A Million Little Lies," from The Smoking Gun
"Winfrey stands behind 'Pieces' author" on CNN; includes links to excerpts of the Larry King interview
"Pundits attack author Frey and unhappy reader sues," by Reuters
"Call It Fiction," NYT Editorial (found after writing this post)
Posted by cj at 06:01 PM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2006
Magdalene Sisters
It is really horrifying to know that Magdalene Laundries continued to operate until 1996, just ten years ago. Young women and girls in Ireland were sent to those prisons for the crime of being female: either because they were raped, had a child out of wedlock, flirted with a guy, or simply looked too pretty. They were known as penitents and had to pray and work for no pay in a laundry six days a week, 52 weeks a year.
From that uplifting history, a film was created to follow the lives of three women forced into a Magdalene Laundry. The actors were compelling, the story was Important and real yet unbelievable, but I'm not sure if it completely succeeded as a film. I suppose the truth is that years of torture really are ended without a particularly spectular escape, and that it really angered me so many women were destroyed by their community's "faith." It was a hard film to watch, since it showed every terrible aspect of the torturous asylum.
I'm not sure what I expected from the movie. I thought more would happen, but given the restrictions of the prison - "penitents" weren't supposed to talk and worked from sun up to sun down - it would be difficult to explore the character's feelings more or have more dialogue than was included. So, it was a good film and definitely worth seeing. It's not one of my favorite films, but I'd give it four out of five stars. My problem wasn't that the internal story of the nuns was given short shrift, but that I longed to know more about the women who were locked up. I did find out a bit more by watching the documentary included on the dvd. The whole package is definitely worth the three hours it takes to watch it. I only wish special features on dvd's came with time information. (The doc is an hour, the movie is two hours.)
I realize now that I liked the film more than I originally thought after reading reviews and realizing that the scenes had a powerful impact on me, even though I felt like I'd experienced them before. That's probably because of the US media coverage of serial rapist priests a few years back; nevertheless I couldn't imagine living in a country where these laundries were accepted and existed. My horror really isn't at the Catholic church - I know that institutional religion brings both joy and pain; rather, it is at the continued second-class status of women throughout the world.
More info:
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ebert's review
Ty Burr's review from the Boston Globe
Posted by cj at 07:35 AM | Comments (1)
New York City and the Bug from the Office
Had a really interesting three days in NYC - finally put faces to voices for my coworkers there; made some new friends and was offered an apartment, available February first; and spent way too much time on trains, bus, and subways. Went to Katz's deli, famous site of the fake orgasm scene in "When Harry Met Sally," and had to horse down my pastrami sandwhich in order to make my plane. I think it would have been a good meal if I had time for table service, but for price and amenities, nothing beats Brent's.
On my flight back, I felt the beginning of the bug that hit my office last week. Still haven't kicked it. Nothin worse than bein sick. At least I had some soup and Advil Cold & Sinus available at home...
Posted by cj at 07:27 AM | Comments (0)
January 02, 2006
Intriguing Perspective on Self Help
According to one author, self help is the bane of our collective existence. Ever since pop culture turned from crying victim to crying You Can Achieve Anything You Want, we've all be deluded into thinking we really deserve the world without an ounce of work.
It's an intriguing damnation of quacks and other assorted "gurus." I've never been particularly vulnerable to the pull of the self-help aisle...except when I am. I pride myself on a discerning taste, and I think the self-help books I like are better than the rest. For example, I'm still reading Zen and the Art of Making a Living, and every time I return to it I'm reminded why I enjoy it so much. Perhaps because it posits the same theory as all self-help manuals: that personal truth can be found within and be used to succeed in the wider world. I'm not delusional though: I know my faults and my ego is healthy enough for me to recognize my own intelligence, but small enough to accept that I'm not perfect.
To me, the really great thing about the self-help aisle is that it tells the consumer that she can change her life; it doesn't always take a professional to work through depression; the diet industry doesn't have to suck you dry for you to be thinner; a man doesn't need to sweep you off your feet for you to be complete. Then again, there are plenty of books out there that encourage professional help (which can be useful; though it never was for me); that supplement Big Name Diets; and the Teach You How to Snare a Man in Ten Days. Like all books and industries, I say take it with a grain of salt. While I usually can't stand Dr. Phil, I enjoyed his article in the January issue of O, the Oprah Magazine. Then again, I'm at a particularly vulnerable point in my life, where I'm willing to listen to anyone for a few pages but can't be bothered to buy any more books to teach me what I already know - me, myself, and I are complete today, completely alone still searching for the perfect career and mate. Who cares about the externalities? I've got my brain, I've basically got my health, and I'm moving forward. Maybe all the new age reading I did as a teenager has finally sunk in...
It's intriguing that when I looked for more info on the article's author I came across his words in The Observer, lamenting the temptation to bone the pert, lithe first years who populate his creative writing courses. (According to him, he's never succumb to the temptation.) Which makes me understand, a little bit, why there were so many inappropriate relationships at my all women's college.
More info:
"Self Help's Big Lie," editorial by Steve Salerno in the LAT
"The Third Degree," by Steve Salerno in the Observer Magazine
another self-help book that might actually help:
My sister recommends "The Artist's Way," to help you unlock your creativity.
Posted by cj at 04:22 PM | Comments (2)