For Television Women, Bisexual is the New Straight
By Jessica Maas
Dr. Erica Hahn, the last of the primetime television lesbians, walked out of Seattle Grace Hospital and ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy” on Nov. 9. Perhaps not ironically, she’d only been “out” since the previous episode a week before. With her exit, homophobic viewers were saved from having to confront the fact that lesbians really do exist, and young women struggling to accept their sexualities are left with only three bisexual females in broadcast primetime with whom to relate; three females who spend more time with men than women. The number of television characters who represent the bisexual and lesbian communities is terrifying low, and those who do exist are inaccurately portrayed.
Gay characters have left their female counterparts in the dust in the last decade with an increase in characters and physical contact. They began the ’08-’09 season with ten characters to the bisexual women’s four, and have long been openly portrayed in committed relationships on shows like “Will and Grace” and the current “Brothers and Sisters.” The most lesbian and bisexual women to have ever graced television was seven in the ’97-’98 season, a time when they identified by name only; “ER’s” Maggie Doyle never talked about another woman, let alone touched one. Though many believe that the existence of HBO’s “The L Word” shows public acceptance of lesbian relationships, it doesn’t reach the same audience as broadcast television and is just as bad as purely heterosexual shows; one would think a lesbian planet existed.
“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was the first major breakthrough for female-centered sexuality on television. In 1999, Willow began a hesitant relationship with Tara at the beginning of the fourth season. The couple was on-again, off-again for two and a half years and remained extremely chaste due to restrictions imposed by the WB network. The inability to throw the characters into bed together forced the writers to develop other aspects of the relationship, thus allowing television viewers the chance to see and identify with the progression of a true lesbian relationship for the first time. After two years, the show moved to UPN to allow for more physical interaction between the couple, who subsequently got back together and had the first television scene that portrayed two women in bed together post-sex. In the seventh – and final – season, the show made history again by depicting an actual sex scene between Willow and new love interest Kennedy.
Since “Buffy” ended in 2003, however, no show has taken up where they left off. If anything, current shows with lesbian and bisexual women are effectively erasing any progress that was made. Four not-so-heterosexual women began the 2008-09 broadcast television season, and three remain.
On Fox’s “House,” Thirteen has been a bisexual only by name until this season. Following her Huntington’s disease diagnosis, Thirteen began engaging in heavy partying, drugs…and one-night stands with women. Executive producer Katie Jacobs stated that “When you don’t know how many years you have left to live, you might exhibit some reckless, risk-taking behavior …Thirteen’s sexual involvement with this woman is not really about this other woman. It’s about Thirteen’s reckless behavior.” The character’s destructive, “reckless” behavior coincides directly with days when she’s particularly upset about her diagnosis, and her flirtations with men occur only at moments when she’s feeling better. By attaching the word “reckless” to Thirteen’s involvement with women, the show’s producers are negatively creating an association between same-sex relationships and irresponsible behavior, and are ultimately de-legitimizing any lesbian relationship.
Fox is doing just as badly with Angela and Roxie’s relationship on “Bones.” Hart Hanson, creator of the series, recently called Roxie “a bump in the road” for Angela because “Hodgkins is her guy.” Again, Angela’s bisexuality on the show was a label until Roxie, a former girlfriend, showed up in November to rekindle an old flame. Though the relationship appears promising, Hanson says that Angela is meant to be with former love interest Hodgkins; they just “have some obstacles to overcome.” Roxie is apparently one of those obstacles. “Bones” is contributing to this season’s message that female same-sex relationships don’t last, by making a relationship something that has to be overcome.
But broadcast networks really struck out this season with the portrayal of Drs. Erica Hahn and Callie Torres on ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy.” The pair became friends last season after Hahn signed a hospital contract, but when their increasingly close friendship was misinterpreted by a friend as something more, it became apparent – and terrifying – to both that there was something there. Callie briefly slept with co-worker Mark Sloan at every opportunity in an unimpressive effort to prove her heterosexuality, but Callie and Erica eventually culminated the season with a steamy kiss. This season started out promising, with some nervous but cute moments between the couple, but warning bells sounded in the fifth episode when Callie asked Mark to show her (on her) how to pleasure a woman orally, as if men – and not women – suddenly have all the answers to what women want. In the following episode, Callie and Erica began the episode in bed together, adorned in frumpy nightgowns post-sex, but Callie panicked and foolishly ran to Mark’s bed when Erica tearfully announced that she’d realized she’s gay. Though Callie went to Erica’s office later that day and they agreed to be together, it didn’t matter, because in the next episode Erica abruptly gets mad at the hospital, picks a silly fight with Callie, and walks off into the parking lot for the last time. ABC’s message? Lesbians are irrational and dispensable.
Broadcast networks aren’t allowing heterosexual viewers to become comfortable with female-centered sexuality because they portray it as fleeting and improbable, as long as men are around anyway. Television is used as an introduction of many concepts for the American public, and with this kind of introduction, lesbian and bisexual women are destined to be misunderstood and joked about. Erica told Callie before she left that Callie can’t be “kind of a lesbian,” but really, one can’t be a lesbian at all; on broadcast television, they don’t exist.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Live Performance Review
Performance Should’ve Stayed “In the Closet”
By Jessica Maas
“Here to get straightened out, right?” asked Dr. Alan, the sexual reform therapist played by Cooper Wilson in the staged reading of “The Glass Closet” on Feb. 28. His patient Tom, played by Kelly Miller, became increasingly confused about why he was there, though, the more time he spent with Dr. Alan, but at least he had company. “The Glass Closet,” written by Ben Harpe and directed by Alex Clothier, did not only fail to be funny or innovative, but was puzzling to watch and potentially offensive.
The play seemed to be trying to say something about the difficulty Christians have with accepting their gay sexual orientations, but it attempted to do so many things at once that it wasn’t successful at any one of them. Some of the scenes were supposed to take place on the set of a television sitcom, but were indistinguishable from the other scenes. The presence of the narrator, who sat unobtrusively off to the side of the stage, could’ve easily solved this, but his character wasn’t taken advantage of and, as a result, it was impossible to separate the “television script” storylines from the “real-life script” storylines; this was only the beginning of the confusion.
A combination of bad acting and multiple roles given to each actor solidified the downfall of the rest of the play. Wilson played five characters just himself, and though his characters were generally discernible from each other, both Miller and Sam Grobbel, each of whom had two parts, seemed to be playing the same person in both roles. This problem, whether an acting or directing or writing issue, created a muddled understanding of the story and shattered the potential effect it could have had, slight as that may have been.
If that weren’t enough, gay stereotypes popped up so frequently that it was cringe-worthy. First there was Kyle, the flamboyantly effeminate gay man played by Wilson who spoke in a high-pitched voice and dramatically stretched himself across the couch to read a romance novel. Then there was the pastor, also played by Wilson, who condemned gays, though it turned out he was one himself, and the description that Kyle and Molly, played by Colleen Watt, used to talk about another gay man: “The pink spandex gym shorts were the first clue” and “Straight men don’t spend so much time on the elliptical.” The cliché with the title only contributed to the poor quality of the play, with the explanation of “Like he’s in the closet but everyone can see you there” and Molly’s statement of “People in glass closets shouldn’t throw stones.”
Though much of that was probably meant to be funny, it comes at a bad time for a gay community that’s struggling to make headway in society and deter the use of stereotypes. And if those characters and lines weren’t enough of a fault, the line “Everyone’s gay these days, its hip!” by Ruth, played by Watt, is sufficient for offense. “The Glass Closet” should’ve simply stayed in the closet.
By Jessica Maas
“Here to get straightened out, right?” asked Dr. Alan, the sexual reform therapist played by Cooper Wilson in the staged reading of “The Glass Closet” on Feb. 28. His patient Tom, played by Kelly Miller, became increasingly confused about why he was there, though, the more time he spent with Dr. Alan, but at least he had company. “The Glass Closet,” written by Ben Harpe and directed by Alex Clothier, did not only fail to be funny or innovative, but was puzzling to watch and potentially offensive.
The play seemed to be trying to say something about the difficulty Christians have with accepting their gay sexual orientations, but it attempted to do so many things at once that it wasn’t successful at any one of them. Some of the scenes were supposed to take place on the set of a television sitcom, but were indistinguishable from the other scenes. The presence of the narrator, who sat unobtrusively off to the side of the stage, could’ve easily solved this, but his character wasn’t taken advantage of and, as a result, it was impossible to separate the “television script” storylines from the “real-life script” storylines; this was only the beginning of the confusion.
A combination of bad acting and multiple roles given to each actor solidified the downfall of the rest of the play. Wilson played five characters just himself, and though his characters were generally discernible from each other, both Miller and Sam Grobbel, each of whom had two parts, seemed to be playing the same person in both roles. This problem, whether an acting or directing or writing issue, created a muddled understanding of the story and shattered the potential effect it could have had, slight as that may have been.
If that weren’t enough, gay stereotypes popped up so frequently that it was cringe-worthy. First there was Kyle, the flamboyantly effeminate gay man played by Wilson who spoke in a high-pitched voice and dramatically stretched himself across the couch to read a romance novel. Then there was the pastor, also played by Wilson, who condemned gays, though it turned out he was one himself, and the description that Kyle and Molly, played by Colleen Watt, used to talk about another gay man: “The pink spandex gym shorts were the first clue” and “Straight men don’t spend so much time on the elliptical.” The cliché with the title only contributed to the poor quality of the play, with the explanation of “Like he’s in the closet but everyone can see you there” and Molly’s statement of “People in glass closets shouldn’t throw stones.”
Though much of that was probably meant to be funny, it comes at a bad time for a gay community that’s struggling to make headway in society and deter the use of stereotypes. And if those characters and lines weren’t enough of a fault, the line “Everyone’s gay these days, its hip!” by Ruth, played by Watt, is sufficient for offense. “The Glass Closet” should’ve simply stayed in the closet.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
New ABC Crime Drama Same Old, Same Old
The following is a link from Felicia Lee's review of the new ABC series "Castle": http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/arts/television/07castle.html?_r=1&ref=television.
I was honestly kind of annoyed the entire time I was reading Lee's review because there were maybe two lines on the show itself, and I was really interested to hear what she had to say because I watched the season premiere last night. But I got to the end and realized that that was intentional, it was her point. All she'd done was talk about other cop shows that pair a man and woman with each other, and go on and on and on about them, and I was bored - it wasn't what I wanted to hear about. But her point was that the show itself wasn't worth talking about, that it itself is boring, because it's not anything innovative, it's just a copycat. And while I kind of agree, and kind of don't agree, I have to respect her technique. She got her point across.
I was honestly kind of annoyed the entire time I was reading Lee's review because there were maybe two lines on the show itself, and I was really interested to hear what she had to say because I watched the season premiere last night. But I got to the end and realized that that was intentional, it was her point. All she'd done was talk about other cop shows that pair a man and woman with each other, and go on and on and on about them, and I was bored - it wasn't what I wanted to hear about. But her point was that the show itself wasn't worth talking about, that it itself is boring, because it's not anything innovative, it's just a copycat. And while I kind of agree, and kind of don't agree, I have to respect her technique. She got her point across.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Helpful Article
This a link to an article entitled "How Buffy Changed the World of Lesbians on TV" that I found helpful while writing my final project:
http://www.afterellen.com/archive/ellen/TV/buffy-end.html
Sarah Warn, the writer of the piece, does a great job of talking about the progression of the relationship between Tara and Willow and then discussing the impact the relationship had on viewers and how groundbreaking it was. She's not totally swept up in how great it was, though - she does talk, near the end of the piece, of a few of the faults that the show had: Tara's death, Willow and Kennedy's relationship, and the identification of Willow as a lesbian rather than a bisexual.
Warn also talks about networks shying away from physical contact between two women, and about how decisions made by producers relate to ratings, which is a really important subject.
Her piece was really helpful for giving me background information about the only show that has been groundbreaking for lesbians.
http://www.afterellen.com/archive/ellen/TV/buffy-end.html
Sarah Warn, the writer of the piece, does a great job of talking about the progression of the relationship between Tara and Willow and then discussing the impact the relationship had on viewers and how groundbreaking it was. She's not totally swept up in how great it was, though - she does talk, near the end of the piece, of a few of the faults that the show had: Tara's death, Willow and Kennedy's relationship, and the identification of Willow as a lesbian rather than a bisexual.
Warn also talks about networks shying away from physical contact between two women, and about how decisions made by producers relate to ratings, which is a really important subject.
Her piece was really helpful for giving me background information about the only show that has been groundbreaking for lesbians.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
New Canadian Show
The following is the link to a television review by Ginia Bellafante:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/arts/television/26eric.html?ref=television
Bellafante is reviewing a Canadian series called "Being Erica" that is premiering on SoapNet. She starts out by listing off the horrible shows that the Canadians have recently produced, and then goes on to say that this one rectifies all that, clearly let readers know that she likes it.
She lets us know what the show is about - a very intelligent 32-year-old woman who can travel back in time, but can't seem to find a man. There's also good context for how the show fits in with other shows/movies that portray single women currently, and Bellafante seems to think this one does a really good job.
"Though the show’s dramatic pleasures are ultimately modest, its willingness to portray single womanhood as something beyond a sum of consumer choices or the embodiment of a disabling passivity feels useful and perhaps even necessary, the right kind of counterprogramming to balance the mood of the moment. Erica would rather know herself — her curious, real-world pretty, bat mitzvahed, whimsical self — than go looking for Chanel motorcycle boots at an outlet mall or compulsively check her text messages to see if some jerk had really intended to buy her a bourbon."
I thought that was really interesting, and it's a really thing to see on TV right now, too. And I always love how Bellafante gets personality in her pieces. She has a really witty remark about the APA, and then ends by saying "For anyone still absorbing the unhealthful aftereffects of “Shopaholic” or “He’s Just Not That Into You,” a movie in which women’s lives change only when men say so, “Being Erica” is likely to feel like more than a good, cold drink. It will be a free-radical-bashing antioxidant." Thank God.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/arts/television/26eric.html?ref=television
Bellafante is reviewing a Canadian series called "Being Erica" that is premiering on SoapNet. She starts out by listing off the horrible shows that the Canadians have recently produced, and then goes on to say that this one rectifies all that, clearly let readers know that she likes it.
She lets us know what the show is about - a very intelligent 32-year-old woman who can travel back in time, but can't seem to find a man. There's also good context for how the show fits in with other shows/movies that portray single women currently, and Bellafante seems to think this one does a really good job.
"Though the show’s dramatic pleasures are ultimately modest, its willingness to portray single womanhood as something beyond a sum of consumer choices or the embodiment of a disabling passivity feels useful and perhaps even necessary, the right kind of counterprogramming to balance the mood of the moment. Erica would rather know herself — her curious, real-world pretty, bat mitzvahed, whimsical self — than go looking for Chanel motorcycle boots at an outlet mall or compulsively check her text messages to see if some jerk had really intended to buy her a bourbon."
I thought that was really interesting, and it's a really thing to see on TV right now, too. And I always love how Bellafante gets personality in her pieces. She has a really witty remark about the APA, and then ends by saying "For anyone still absorbing the unhealthful aftereffects of “Shopaholic” or “He’s Just Not That Into You,” a movie in which women’s lives change only when men say so, “Being Erica” is likely to feel like more than a good, cold drink. It will be a free-radical-bashing antioxidant." Thank God.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Final Project
Dr. Erica Hahn was the last of the lesbians in primetime series on broadcast television, and she walked out of Seattle Grace Hospital
While the number of homosexual characters followed a decreasing trend in recent years, the number of women in that group remained constant in the less-than-three range. The most to have ever been on broadcast networks in lead or supporting roles is seven, and not only was that in the 1997-98 season, but “show and tell” for those women was almost exclusively restricted to “tell”; their sexualities were mere labels, formalities to make the shows seem diverse, or risky.
“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was the first real major breakthrough for female sexuality on television. In 1999, Alyson Hannigan’s character
Since “Buffy” ended in 2003, however, no other show has taken up where they left off. If anything, these shows are effectively erasing any progress that was made. Four not-so-heterosexual women began the 2008-09 broadcast television season, and three remain.
On “House,” actress Olivia Wilde plays Thirteen, a bisexual only by name until this season. Following her Huntington’s disease diagnosis, Thirteen began engaging in some wild behavior this season – heavy partying, drugs…and one-night stands with women. Executive producer of the Fox show stated that “When you don’t know how many years you have left to live, you might exhibit some reckless, risk-taking behavior …Thirteen’s sexual involvement with this woman is not really about this other woman. It’s about Thirteen’s reckless behavior.” The character’s destructive, “reckless” behavior coincides directly with days when she feels particularly upset about her diagnosis, and her flirtations with men occur only at moments when she’s feeling better. By attaching the word “reckless” to Thirteen’s involvement with women, the show’s producers are negatively creating an association between same-sex relationships and irresponsible behavior.
While Angela and Roxy current relationship on “Bones” isn’t associated with self-destruction, its future is less-than-promising. Hart Hanson, creator of the Fox series, recently called Roxy “a bump in the road” for Angela because “Hodgkins is her guy.” Again, Angela’s bisexuality on the show was previously a label, until Roxy, a former girlfriend, showed up in November to stir up an old flame. Though the relationship appears promising, Hanson says that Angela is meant to be with former love interest Hodgkins; they just “have some obstacles to overcome.” Roxy is apparently one of those obstacles. “Bones” is contributing to this season’s message that female same-sex relationships don’t last, by making a relationship something that has to be overcome.
But broadcast networks really struck out this season with the portrayal of Drs. Erica Hahn and Callie Torres on ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy.” The pair became fast friends last season after Hahn signed a contract with the hospital, but when their increasingly close friendship was misinterpreted as something more by a friend it became apparent that there was something there, and that both were freaked out about it. Callie briefly slept with co-worker Mark Sloan at every opportunity in a less-than-impressive effort to prove her heterosexuality, but Sloan eventually pushed her in the right direction and Callie and Erica culminated the season with a steamy kiss outside the hospital. This season started out promising, with some nervous but cute moments between the couple, but warning bells sounded in the fifth episode when Callie asked Mark to show her (on her) how to pleasure a woman orally, as if a Google search engine is a foreign concept to her. In the following episode, Callie and Erica begin the episode in bed together, adorned in frumpy nightgowns post-sex, but Callie freaks out when Erica announces that she’s realized she’s gay, and leaves the apartment, only to be seen in bed with Mark twice throughout the day. Though Callie goes to Erica’s office later that day and they agree to be together, it doesn’t matter, because in the next episode Erica abruptly gets mad at the hospital, picks a silly fight with Callie, and walks off into the parking lot for the last time.
Broadcast networks aren’t allowing heterosexual viewers to become comfortable with female homosexuality because they portray it as fleeting and improbable, as long as men are around anyway. Television is used as an introduction of many concepts for the American public, and with this kind of introduction, lesbian and bisexual women are destined to be misunderstood and joked about. Erica told Callie before she left that Callie can’t be “kind of a lesbian,” but really, one can’t be a lesbian at all; on broadcast television, they don’t exist.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Final Project Proposal
I want to critique the lack of visibility and current portrayal of lesbian/bisexual characters on primetime television. There are few bisexual characters and even fewer lesbians, but those that do exist seem to meet with overall implausible storylines. As soon as Willow and Tara finally got together for sure on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Tara died. After Callie told Erica that she really did want to be her on Grey’s Anatomy (after cheating on her with a man), Erica (who had only come out in the previous episode) picked a silly fight with her and walked off into the parking lot, never to return again. Bisexual character Thirteen on House only has sex with women when she’s feeling self-destructive due to her Huntington’s disease diagnosis; otherwise, she’s with men. Bones creator Hart Hanson has called Angela’s relationship with Roxie a “bump in the road” and on Nip/Tuck Olivia died and lesbian character Liz slept with her male colleague.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
'Project Runway' Amid Legal Struggle
The following is a link to an article by Brian Stelter about Project Runway:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/arts/television/21runw.html?ref=television.
The article discusses the legal struggle going on between NBC and the Weinstein Company. Bravo, which used to air Project Runway, sold the rights to Lifetime, which is a breach of contract. NBC subsequently sued, causing the Weinstein Company to counter-sue.
Now the season can't air until the mess is sorted out, and as a result, the final contestants weren't allowed to be onstage for the presentation of their final collections during Fashion Week, a tradition that audience members really enjoy.
I, personally, feel really bad the contestants. The show talks about how its not a reality show for the sake of being a reality show but that its presence is honestly to serve the industry, and I believe it - it's never seemed to me as if it's catering to audiences and rankings. So I think that it's really sad that the contestants can't be acknowledged for and be proud of their work. I understand the legalities behind the issue, but I also think that the legal system moves painfully slowly. I don't know when they started filming this season, but maybe they just shouldn't have started until the legal mess was cleared up.
Tim Gunn's a little worried that the viewers won't stick around long enough for the mess to be sorted out, and I think that's a valid concern, but I also think that fashion's a pretty contemporary issue - people will come back to Project Runway when it comes back. If Grey's Anatomy decided to take a little hiatus, though, the same thing probably couldn't be said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/arts/television/21runw.html?ref=television.
The article discusses the legal struggle going on between NBC and the Weinstein Company. Bravo, which used to air Project Runway, sold the rights to Lifetime, which is a breach of contract. NBC subsequently sued, causing the Weinstein Company to counter-sue.
Now the season can't air until the mess is sorted out, and as a result, the final contestants weren't allowed to be onstage for the presentation of their final collections during Fashion Week, a tradition that audience members really enjoy.
I, personally, feel really bad the contestants. The show talks about how its not a reality show for the sake of being a reality show but that its presence is honestly to serve the industry, and I believe it - it's never seemed to me as if it's catering to audiences and rankings. So I think that it's really sad that the contestants can't be acknowledged for and be proud of their work. I understand the legalities behind the issue, but I also think that the legal system moves painfully slowly. I don't know when they started filming this season, but maybe they just shouldn't have started until the legal mess was cleared up.
Tim Gunn's a little worried that the viewers won't stick around long enough for the mess to be sorted out, and I think that's a valid concern, but I also think that fashion's a pretty contemporary issue - people will come back to Project Runway when it comes back. If Grey's Anatomy decided to take a little hiatus, though, the same thing probably couldn't be said.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Oscar's Review
Oscar’s Perpetuate Country’s Mood
By Jessica Maas
Preceding his fourth presentation at the 81st Annual Academy Awards, Will Smith accurately summed up the presence of the show’s supposed host when he joked that “I think Hugh is napping.” The problem is, it could’ve been true. Hugh Jackman was mysteriously absent for much of the night, and it couldn’t have been because the rest of the show stood strongly on its own. The Oscar’s fell flat on Sunday; the result of an absent host, awkward presentations, and bad jokes and lulls that created a depressing mood, mirroring that of the country.
Jackman spent few extended moments on stage, causing his presence to seem more of a formality than anything else. When he did hang out for longer, he had the bad habit of dampening the atmosphere. Early into his opening he mentioned the recession, a fact no one wants to be reminded of, but he seemed to redeem himself with the song he sang about last year’s movies, which included “Frost/Nixon,” “The Reader,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” and a surprise Anne Hathaway visit at the end that prompted laughs. Jackman managed to bring the mood back down, though, by mentioning the recession again and then awkwardly sitting in Frank Langella’s lap. He was just as uncomfortable near the end of the night, when he noted that Sid Ganis, President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is stepping down and then said that “as a gift to all of us he has agreed not to make a speech,” which elicited uneasy looks among audience members.
Few of the presenters who joined Jackman on stage had much charisma, either. Bill Marr’s joke about his own film not receiving a nomination sounded bitter and Jessica Biel, who wasn’t on the big screen all year and has never even been nominated for a major award, looked insignificant and out of place among the big stars. Jack Black and Jennifer Aniston made for an awkward pairing, and though Black was meant to be funny when he answered Aniston’s question of “Did you watch any movie this year you weren’t in?” with “No. But then, neither did most people,” it instead served to perpetuate the dismal mood. Will Smith and Reese Witherspoon were the bright spots among the presenters with their comfortable presences and easy jokes; Witherspoon had a particularly amusing jab at Ben Stiller for not coming out of his trailer when on set.
Other off moments included the curtain failing to open for a video at the beginning of the night, Jackman having to tell the music to stop playing, and a standstill in entertainment that began with presenters Daniel Craig and Sarah Jessica Parker, who didn’t even attempt to be funny. The use of five former award recipients to present each of the acting awards was innovative, though, and allowed each nominee their own presenter and feeling of individuality when being spoken of. Beyonce and Queen Latifah’s performances each resonated as well, but the few enjoyable parts of the night weren’t enough to lift the Oscar’s – in entertainment or mood.
By Jessica Maas
Preceding his fourth presentation at the 81st Annual Academy Awards, Will Smith accurately summed up the presence of the show’s supposed host when he joked that “I think Hugh is napping.” The problem is, it could’ve been true. Hugh Jackman was mysteriously absent for much of the night, and it couldn’t have been because the rest of the show stood strongly on its own. The Oscar’s fell flat on Sunday; the result of an absent host, awkward presentations, and bad jokes and lulls that created a depressing mood, mirroring that of the country.
Jackman spent few extended moments on stage, causing his presence to seem more of a formality than anything else. When he did hang out for longer, he had the bad habit of dampening the atmosphere. Early into his opening he mentioned the recession, a fact no one wants to be reminded of, but he seemed to redeem himself with the song he sang about last year’s movies, which included “Frost/Nixon,” “The Reader,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” and a surprise Anne Hathaway visit at the end that prompted laughs. Jackman managed to bring the mood back down, though, by mentioning the recession again and then awkwardly sitting in Frank Langella’s lap. He was just as uncomfortable near the end of the night, when he noted that Sid Ganis, President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is stepping down and then said that “as a gift to all of us he has agreed not to make a speech,” which elicited uneasy looks among audience members.
Few of the presenters who joined Jackman on stage had much charisma, either. Bill Marr’s joke about his own film not receiving a nomination sounded bitter and Jessica Biel, who wasn’t on the big screen all year and has never even been nominated for a major award, looked insignificant and out of place among the big stars. Jack Black and Jennifer Aniston made for an awkward pairing, and though Black was meant to be funny when he answered Aniston’s question of “Did you watch any movie this year you weren’t in?” with “No. But then, neither did most people,” it instead served to perpetuate the dismal mood. Will Smith and Reese Witherspoon were the bright spots among the presenters with their comfortable presences and easy jokes; Witherspoon had a particularly amusing jab at Ben Stiller for not coming out of his trailer when on set.
Other off moments included the curtain failing to open for a video at the beginning of the night, Jackman having to tell the music to stop playing, and a standstill in entertainment that began with presenters Daniel Craig and Sarah Jessica Parker, who didn’t even attempt to be funny. The use of five former award recipients to present each of the acting awards was innovative, though, and allowed each nominee their own presenter and feeling of individuality when being spoken of. Beyonce and Queen Latifah’s performances each resonated as well, but the few enjoyable parts of the night weren’t enough to lift the Oscar’s – in entertainment or mood.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Kael Review
Kael Had Passion, Communication
By Jessica Maas
Film critic Pauline Kael wanted to write the way people talked. In an interview with Francis Davis, she said, “I didn’t want to write academic English in an attempt to elevate movies, because I think that actually lowers them. It denies them what makes them distinctive.” Kael’s philosophy showed in her work; in the opening lines of a review of “The Witches of Eastwick,” she wrote, “Jack Nicholson entertains himself in The Witches of Eastwick: he snuffles and snorts like a hog, and he talks in a growl. And damned if he doesn’t entertain us, too.” Her use of accessible language to communicate effectively and her passion for film made Pauline Kael a great film critic.
Kael translated movies to page with a clarity that allowed them to be re-created. In a review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “There’s a scene in Silkwood in which Karen and the other employees of the Kerr-McGee plutonium and uranium fuel plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, are having lunch, and Karen, who likes to titillate her co-workers by showing them how freewheeling she is, nuzzles close to one of them – Drew (Kurt Russell), her lover – rubs his bare upper arm with her fingers, and them, swinging her hips and moving from table to table, starts to take a bite of somebody else’s sandwich.” She made characters come alive, and the language she used is both user-friendly and fun to read.
Her reviews were often overly lengthy, though. In her opening of the review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “Meryl Streep gives a fine performance as Karen Silkwood, considering that she’s the wrong kind of actress for the role.” Kael continued to jab at Streep throughout the review, and at the end she returned to her for the entire 231-word concluding paragraph to make the same point. She was less-than-succinct, a trait that can cause readers to get bogged down in one point and lose interest.
But Kael also displayed an independence and “no excuses” attitude that represented her passion for film. On numerous occasions she gave films bad reviews because it was her true opinion, even if she’d previously enjoyed the actor or director’s other work. In her interview with Davis, she said, “It’s always painful to get to know a director, because they almost always take it personally when you don’t like a film. No matter how much you loved their other work, a negative review takes precedence in their thinking.” In other cases, she gave great reviews when every other critic panned the same films. Her passion for film made it her duty to be honest in her review, and she was, regardless of personal feelings or what other critics were writing.
In the introduction to his interview with Kael, Davis mentions she wrote a blurb for a book he’d previously published. She wrote, “He’s a very impressive critic. He doesn’t pin fancy phrases on his chest; he gets at what he responds to and why – you feel you’re reading an honest man.” Change the gender, and Kael could’ve been writing about herself.
By Jessica Maas
Film critic Pauline Kael wanted to write the way people talked. In an interview with Francis Davis, she said, “I didn’t want to write academic English in an attempt to elevate movies, because I think that actually lowers them. It denies them what makes them distinctive.” Kael’s philosophy showed in her work; in the opening lines of a review of “The Witches of Eastwick,” she wrote, “Jack Nicholson entertains himself in The Witches of Eastwick: he snuffles and snorts like a hog, and he talks in a growl. And damned if he doesn’t entertain us, too.” Her use of accessible language to communicate effectively and her passion for film made Pauline Kael a great film critic.
Kael translated movies to page with a clarity that allowed them to be re-created. In a review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “There’s a scene in Silkwood in which Karen and the other employees of the Kerr-McGee plutonium and uranium fuel plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, are having lunch, and Karen, who likes to titillate her co-workers by showing them how freewheeling she is, nuzzles close to one of them – Drew (Kurt Russell), her lover – rubs his bare upper arm with her fingers, and them, swinging her hips and moving from table to table, starts to take a bite of somebody else’s sandwich.” She made characters come alive, and the language she used is both user-friendly and fun to read.
Her reviews were often overly lengthy, though. In her opening of the review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “Meryl Streep gives a fine performance as Karen Silkwood, considering that she’s the wrong kind of actress for the role.” Kael continued to jab at Streep throughout the review, and at the end she returned to her for the entire 231-word concluding paragraph to make the same point. She was less-than-succinct, a trait that can cause readers to get bogged down in one point and lose interest.
But Kael also displayed an independence and “no excuses” attitude that represented her passion for film. On numerous occasions she gave films bad reviews because it was her true opinion, even if she’d previously enjoyed the actor or director’s other work. In her interview with Davis, she said, “It’s always painful to get to know a director, because they almost always take it personally when you don’t like a film. No matter how much you loved their other work, a negative review takes precedence in their thinking.” In other cases, she gave great reviews when every other critic panned the same films. Her passion for film made it her duty to be honest in her review, and she was, regardless of personal feelings or what other critics were writing.
In the introduction to his interview with Kael, Davis mentions she wrote a blurb for a book he’d previously published. She wrote, “He’s a very impressive critic. He doesn’t pin fancy phrases on his chest; he gets at what he responds to and why – you feel you’re reading an honest man.” Change the gender, and Kael could’ve been writing about herself.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
"The Bachelor" + One
The following is a link to an article by Bill Carter about this season of "The Bachelor": http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/television/16bach.html?_r=1&ref=television
I think it's really interesting that the attribute an increase in ratings to the fact that Jason, the "Bachelor," has a kid, but I can kind of understand it. Jason does have a greater sense of maturity to him that I think straight women like, but I'm not sure that they can jump to the conclusion that he's more likely to stay with whoever he ends up with in the end, whether it be Melissa or Molly (since he got rid of Jillian last night - and I hate that I know that). The two girls won't even meet Ty (the kid) until the final episode, and it's from there that Jason determines who he wants to spend "the rest of his life with." Do I understand that he wanted to wait to let Ty meet them? Yes. But I also think that there's no way for him to determine how compatible they'll be as a family after one meeting. It is a HUGE decision that Jason has to make, and I don't think that a man with a kid should even be involved with this kind of show - he's putting too much at risk for his kid. Even though I sometimes watch these shows, I don't at all agree with how they depict the process of falling in love, and I don't at all believe that people can actually stay together after they end. It's easy to hang out with someone and have a great time when you've left reality (your job, your family, your life, basically), but it's a whole other thing to take that fantasy world and put it back in the real world. Love shows are not intended to find love for people, they're intended to provide entertainment for viewers, and the network is going to do whatever it can to get ratings up.
I think it's really interesting that the attribute an increase in ratings to the fact that Jason, the "Bachelor," has a kid, but I can kind of understand it. Jason does have a greater sense of maturity to him that I think straight women like, but I'm not sure that they can jump to the conclusion that he's more likely to stay with whoever he ends up with in the end, whether it be Melissa or Molly (since he got rid of Jillian last night - and I hate that I know that). The two girls won't even meet Ty (the kid) until the final episode, and it's from there that Jason determines who he wants to spend "the rest of his life with." Do I understand that he wanted to wait to let Ty meet them? Yes. But I also think that there's no way for him to determine how compatible they'll be as a family after one meeting. It is a HUGE decision that Jason has to make, and I don't think that a man with a kid should even be involved with this kind of show - he's putting too much at risk for his kid. Even though I sometimes watch these shows, I don't at all agree with how they depict the process of falling in love, and I don't at all believe that people can actually stay together after they end. It's easy to hang out with someone and have a great time when you've left reality (your job, your family, your life, basically), but it's a whole other thing to take that fantasy world and put it back in the real world. Love shows are not intended to find love for people, they're intended to provide entertainment for viewers, and the network is going to do whatever it can to get ratings up.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
NYT Defense
This is a link to a film review of “He’s Just Not That Into You” by Manohla Dargis that was in Friday’s paper: http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/movies/06into.html?ref=movies
Dargis aptly reviews the film through the lenses of gender representation, and does so in a smooth and informative manner.
She compares the movie to other representations of gender for the first half of the review. While Dargis doesn’t get to her actual “but” right away, her use of these other devices let’s readers know that she’s not impressed by the female representation offered by the film. Her “but” is very clear: after comparing the movie to a children’s song, she writes “Such is more or less the reductive case in “He’s Just Not That Into You,” which is based on an obnoxious so-called advice book…”
She weaves her thoughts about the acting into her other thoughts on the film, and does an impressive job of taking on the large cast by fittingly separating the actors by gender. Her tone is mocking and funny, and suggests that her review may be more entertaining than the film itself.
Dargis’s overall structure is well done, and her bookend in the piece allows her to go out with a bang. Her piece is intellectually enlightening and educates readers about than just the film, proposing that there is something there worth thinking about, though it’s not the story on screen.
Dargis aptly reviews the film through the lenses of gender representation, and does so in a smooth and informative manner.
She compares the movie to other representations of gender for the first half of the review. While Dargis doesn’t get to her actual “but” right away, her use of these other devices let’s readers know that she’s not impressed by the female representation offered by the film. Her “but” is very clear: after comparing the movie to a children’s song, she writes “Such is more or less the reductive case in “He’s Just Not That Into You,” which is based on an obnoxious so-called advice book…”
She weaves her thoughts about the acting into her other thoughts on the film, and does an impressive job of taking on the large cast by fittingly separating the actors by gender. Her tone is mocking and funny, and suggests that her review may be more entertaining than the film itself.
Dargis’s overall structure is well done, and her bookend in the piece allows her to go out with a bang. Her piece is intellectually enlightening and educates readers about than just the film, proposing that there is something there worth thinking about, though it’s not the story on screen.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Film Review Outline
Review Outline
In Oliver Stone’s 2008 “W.,” Bush is characterized as a puppy lusting after his father’s approval in an unnecessary and painful two hour and nine minute tale of former president George W. Bush’s life.
§ Set-up of movie
§ Life as president combined with flashbacks
§ Bush’s characterization sympathetic
§ Lost as college student, father’s disappointment
§ Transformation
§ Character mostly left untouched
§ Good acting
§ Brolin as Bush
§ James Cromwell as senior Bush
§ Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney
§ Editing of film not so good
§ Flashbacks could be could, but don’t always stand well on their own
§ Running example
§ Conclusion: “W.” a waste, provides no new information, takes no stand
"W." Film Review
“W.” Stands For Waste
By Jessica Maas
Hands up in the air in the first scene of the film “W.”, George W. Bush, played by Josh Brolin, creates a “W” with his head. A display of this nature would generally proclaim the man’s individuality; in this film it does anything but. In Oliver Stone’s 2008 “W.,” Bush is characterized as a puppy lusting after his father’s approval in an unnecessary and painful two hour and nine minute tale of former president George W. Bush’s life.
The film follows Bush’s life as president after 9/11, and uses flashbacks as far back as his college days to lead up to his residence in the White House. These scenes allow insight into the person behind the public façade, through jobs he held, his problems with alcohol and inability to succeed in the eyes of his father, and his relationship with wife Laura.
Bush is cast in a sympathetic light throughout the film. He seems lost in life until he decides to do something about his father’s disappointment with him and then becomes comically transformed into a born-again Christian who follows in his father’s political footsteps and awkwardly forces time for prayer before he closes any meeting. Stone takes a few stabs at Bush’s use of language and overall intelligence, but they’re infrequent, and his character is mostly left untouched.
The best part of the film is its performances. Brolin slides easily into the role of the former president and executes it as if he’s the real man himself. As W.’s father, James Cromwell depicts the senior Bush as a genuinely tired but commanding man who evokes a poignant sympathy. Elizabeth Banks brings a refreshingly light presentation of Laura Bush to characterize life outside the White House, and Richard Dreyfuss leads the rest of the supporting cast as the compellingly patient and intelligent Dick Cheney, who Stone uses to present a contrast to Bush’s character.
Editing of the film seems to flounder, though. The change in time periods from President Bush to young Bush could keep the film fresh and are clearly meant to give more of Bush’s personality, but they fail to convey significance at times, especially when left to stand on their own. One example of this is a scene in which Bush’s run one morning ends with him lying passed out in a ditch but then the screen flashes forward a few years to the White House and no allusion to the scene or its importance is made again.
Stone has the opportunity to take a stand on Bush’s presidency with his film, but lets the moment pass unclaimed. It is unclear what the purpose of it is as a whole, or as released prior to the 2008 presidential election. Neither President Barack Obama, nor any of the general population, needs to see this film in the hopes of securing undisclosed information on what it means to be president or anything that has happened in the last eight years. The only thing “W.” provides is a waste of time.
By Jessica Maas
Hands up in the air in the first scene of the film “W.”, George W. Bush, played by Josh Brolin, creates a “W” with his head. A display of this nature would generally proclaim the man’s individuality; in this film it does anything but. In Oliver Stone’s 2008 “W.,” Bush is characterized as a puppy lusting after his father’s approval in an unnecessary and painful two hour and nine minute tale of former president George W. Bush’s life.
The film follows Bush’s life as president after 9/11, and uses flashbacks as far back as his college days to lead up to his residence in the White House. These scenes allow insight into the person behind the public façade, through jobs he held, his problems with alcohol and inability to succeed in the eyes of his father, and his relationship with wife Laura.
Bush is cast in a sympathetic light throughout the film. He seems lost in life until he decides to do something about his father’s disappointment with him and then becomes comically transformed into a born-again Christian who follows in his father’s political footsteps and awkwardly forces time for prayer before he closes any meeting. Stone takes a few stabs at Bush’s use of language and overall intelligence, but they’re infrequent, and his character is mostly left untouched.
The best part of the film is its performances. Brolin slides easily into the role of the former president and executes it as if he’s the real man himself. As W.’s father, James Cromwell depicts the senior Bush as a genuinely tired but commanding man who evokes a poignant sympathy. Elizabeth Banks brings a refreshingly light presentation of Laura Bush to characterize life outside the White House, and Richard Dreyfuss leads the rest of the supporting cast as the compellingly patient and intelligent Dick Cheney, who Stone uses to present a contrast to Bush’s character.
Editing of the film seems to flounder, though. The change in time periods from President Bush to young Bush could keep the film fresh and are clearly meant to give more of Bush’s personality, but they fail to convey significance at times, especially when left to stand on their own. One example of this is a scene in which Bush’s run one morning ends with him lying passed out in a ditch but then the screen flashes forward a few years to the White House and no allusion to the scene or its importance is made again.
Stone has the opportunity to take a stand on Bush’s presidency with his film, but lets the moment pass unclaimed. It is unclear what the purpose of it is as a whole, or as released prior to the 2008 presidential election. Neither President Barack Obama, nor any of the general population, needs to see this film in the hopes of securing undisclosed information on what it means to be president or anything that has happened in the last eight years. The only thing “W.” provides is a waste of time.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
"Burn Notice" Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/arts/television/01bell.html?ref=television
I always like Ginia Bellafante's reviews. On Friday, she published one entitled "Lusting After Guns, and the Affections of an Ex-Boyfriend," and while I like it - it's funny and witty, usual - I think it's unclear what her message about the show actually is.
She's talking about the character of Fiona Glenanne on USA's "Burn Notice." The show is currently in it's second-season, and is about Fiona and Michael's (former operatives) journey to figure out who "burned" him.
It appears that what she's saying is that Fiona's character really works: she's funny, she's real, and the actress does a great job of capturing her. Bellafante writes that "...producers correctly foresaw the comic potential of using a woman who looks as if she has stepped out of Burke's Peerage and Gentry to play someone who appears to live in the pages of Jane's Defense Weekly" and that "Fiona is character who has no memorable precedent." In other words, she's fresh - she's not on ABC at 9pm and then again at 10pm and then again three times the next night because writers these days don't seem to know how to create real characters.
It's the last paragraph in the review that really makes me think twice. She writes " 'Burn Notice' may have set out to say something about espionage in the post-9/11 age, but it has turned into a winning post-feminism revenge fantasy. Fiona fights for us all." I'm struggling with Bellafante's tone here - she's almost sounds like she's mocking Fiona and the show. She does call it "winning," so I'm led to believe that she likes it, but I'm also wondering if she's saying that the show isn't at all about what it's intended to be about. I don't know, I may just be reading way too far into this, but, as always, she's funny, and interesting to read.
I always like Ginia Bellafante's reviews. On Friday, she published one entitled "Lusting After Guns, and the Affections of an Ex-Boyfriend," and while I like it - it's funny and witty, usual - I think it's unclear what her message about the show actually is.
She's talking about the character of Fiona Glenanne on USA's "Burn Notice." The show is currently in it's second-season, and is about Fiona and Michael's (former operatives) journey to figure out who "burned" him.
It appears that what she's saying is that Fiona's character really works: she's funny, she's real, and the actress does a great job of capturing her. Bellafante writes that "...producers correctly foresaw the comic potential of using a woman who looks as if she has stepped out of Burke's Peerage and Gentry to play someone who appears to live in the pages of Jane's Defense Weekly" and that "Fiona is character who has no memorable precedent." In other words, she's fresh - she's not on ABC at 9pm and then again at 10pm and then again three times the next night because writers these days don't seem to know how to create real characters.
It's the last paragraph in the review that really makes me think twice. She writes " 'Burn Notice' may have set out to say something about espionage in the post-9/11 age, but it has turned into a winning post-feminism revenge fantasy. Fiona fights for us all." I'm struggling with Bellafante's tone here - she's almost sounds like she's mocking Fiona and the show. She does call it "winning," so I'm led to believe that she likes it, but I'm also wondering if she's saying that the show isn't at all about what it's intended to be about. I don't know, I may just be reading way too far into this, but, as always, she's funny, and interesting to read.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Oscar Wilde's "The Critic As Artist"
Oscar Wilde presents an argument that I have never before considered in his essay "The Critic as Artist." He basically argues that the critic is the ultimate artist, and that literature isn't really creative at all. Another point that he has that I find particularly interesting is when he says that the purpose of the critic isn't at all about the person/thing that is being reviewed, it's about the critics ability to create something new from that. One of Wilde's comments, from the voice of Gilbert, really struck me. "I am always amused by the silly vanity of those writers and artists of our day who seem to imagine that the primary function of the critic is to chatter about their second-rate work." The thing is, what he describes here is how we, as a society, view the critic, and honestly, if there was nothing to criticize, the critic would not have a job.
I honestly like his form. I think that the voice of Ernest is really important to the piece, because he presents the potential skepticisms and arguments that critics - of this essay - could have. It's an interesting dialogue, and I think that it is a creative method, in itself, of being a critic. It might be a stretch, but I feel like he's trying to create an example of his argument through the piece itself. And if I'm wrong, and he's not, then he at least presents his argument in a format that's more appealing than just the general essay.
I don't think that I agree with the extreme to which he makes his claims. Do I agree that a critic is not only a reviewer, but also an artist? Yes. But the character of Gilbert continues to argue that literature has nothing new to add to society, that it's second-rate, boring, etc., and I don't agree with this. I don't think that the critic is the only one who has the potential to make new statements - authors and painters (and other types of artists) do as well. The critic's job may not only be about the work they are reviewing, it may also be about creatively contributing to society, but it is also about the artists, and what the artists themselves are contributing to society. I think that Wilde's argument is interesting and that it makes one think, but I can't agree with it in its entirety.
I honestly like his form. I think that the voice of Ernest is really important to the piece, because he presents the potential skepticisms and arguments that critics - of this essay - could have. It's an interesting dialogue, and I think that it is a creative method, in itself, of being a critic. It might be a stretch, but I feel like he's trying to create an example of his argument through the piece itself. And if I'm wrong, and he's not, then he at least presents his argument in a format that's more appealing than just the general essay.
I don't think that I agree with the extreme to which he makes his claims. Do I agree that a critic is not only a reviewer, but also an artist? Yes. But the character of Gilbert continues to argue that literature has nothing new to add to society, that it's second-rate, boring, etc., and I don't agree with this. I don't think that the critic is the only one who has the potential to make new statements - authors and painters (and other types of artists) do as well. The critic's job may not only be about the work they are reviewing, it may also be about creatively contributing to society, but it is also about the artists, and what the artists themselves are contributing to society. I think that Wilde's argument is interesting and that it makes one think, but I can't agree with it in its entirety.
Television Networks Changing Things Up
Bill Carter's article "New on the Networks: Safe Formulas From the Past" presents a really interesting look at how the networks are doing (not good) and how much they're scrambling to change things up this winter/spring in an effort to bring ratings back up.
It's not a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to television lately that the ratings of all networks are considerably low so far this season. There's talk of the writer's strike having an influence on this, and that may be, though I think that at least some of it can be attributed to bad writing and repetitive storylines. Viewers are willing to stay with programs through periods of bad writing (unless you tick off a whole group of people, like the gay community) because they believe that things will probably start to get better, but many shows have continued to flounder to the point where they're losing more and more viewers as weeks progress. There has been a lot of shuffling of schedules already this year, but now more changes are being made.
According to the article, networks (specifically ABC and NBC, which have lost the largest percentage of viewers) have decided to throw out programs that go in new directions and are therefore considered "risky," and instead use writers who have had great success (like those of the shows "ER" and "NCIS") because this is safer.
On some level, I understand this - it's easier to go with what's safer, and these writers have had a lot of success in the past. The potential problem I see with this, though, is that people are getting tired of the same old thing, and that's what's being created (there's a new spinoff of "NCIS," for example). There can only be so many cop shows and so many hospital dramas - people NEED something new. We'll see how this decision plays out, but I feel like it could backfire.
It's not a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to television lately that the ratings of all networks are considerably low so far this season. There's talk of the writer's strike having an influence on this, and that may be, though I think that at least some of it can be attributed to bad writing and repetitive storylines. Viewers are willing to stay with programs through periods of bad writing (unless you tick off a whole group of people, like the gay community) because they believe that things will probably start to get better, but many shows have continued to flounder to the point where they're losing more and more viewers as weeks progress. There has been a lot of shuffling of schedules already this year, but now more changes are being made.
According to the article, networks (specifically ABC and NBC, which have lost the largest percentage of viewers) have decided to throw out programs that go in new directions and are therefore considered "risky," and instead use writers who have had great success (like those of the shows "ER" and "NCIS") because this is safer.
On some level, I understand this - it's easier to go with what's safer, and these writers have had a lot of success in the past. The potential problem I see with this, though, is that people are getting tired of the same old thing, and that's what's being created (there's a new spinoff of "NCIS," for example). There can only be so many cop shows and so many hospital dramas - people NEED something new. We'll see how this decision plays out, but I feel like it could backfire.
"Elements of Style" Help
One thing that I want to implement in my writing is Rule #8 (73) in the "Approach to Style" chapter.
8. Avoid the use of qualifiers
Basically, the rule says to avoid words like "rather, very, little, pretty" because "these are the leeches that infect the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words."
This is something that I'm guilty of a lot - I always feel like I have to qualify, to specify, as if it will provide me with greater description. Instead, it's not only unnecessary, but it adds another word to my piece each time I do it. So I'm going to try to pay more attention to this.
8. Avoid the use of qualifiers
Basically, the rule says to avoid words like "rather, very, little, pretty" because "these are the leeches that infect the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words."
This is something that I'm guilty of a lot - I always feel like I have to qualify, to specify, as if it will provide me with greater description. Instead, it's not only unnecessary, but it adds another word to my piece each time I do it. So I'm going to try to pay more attention to this.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Documentary Review
“Taxi to the Dark Side” Brutal, But Needs to be Seen
By Jessica Maas
Late in “Taxi to the Dark Side,” footage is shown of former president George W. Bush telling the American public, “We do not condone torture.” The screen flashes to an interview with attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who responds with, “Footnote: Torture as defined as…” This allusion to interpretation is one major premise of Alex Gibney’s 2007 documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a well-done, emotion-evoking film about the torture practices used by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.
The film centers on the controversy surrounding the torture practices inflicted by United States soldiers on detainees in three areas: the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. Gibney uses a collection of interviews, photographs, reenactments, and archive footage to examine and tell the story of the change in policy toward suspects in the war on terror, as he simultaneously brings up questions of morality, ambiguity, and public façade.
Gibney’s use of Dilawar, a taxi driver in Bagram, as an anecdote to begin the documentary was a sound decision. Dilawar’s personal story allows for a deeper connection to the personal and sets the film up perfectly for its more general investigation of torture.
The proper balance of voices is flawlessly fused throughout the production. No one voice is heard from too many times or for too long, and the multiple voices are well-chosen and allow for different perspectives, which in turn allows for more evidence to be presented. The combination of torture victim Moazzam Beg, soldiers who participated in torture, and soldiers who simply watched the torture happening permits each of the voices to back each other up as they recount events, essentially strengthening the facts presented. Lawyers who worked with some of the detainees provide information about what was occurring outside the detention centers and establish the contradiction between what the public was being told and the decisions that were being made by the government, and archival footage and other people involved are used to back this up. His strong arrangement of voices allows Gibney to cover his bases factually and keep the story fresh.
The organization of the facts themselves becomes confusing, though. In the beginning of the documentary, the events are organized by telling the story of each camp, but as the story progresses and more of the political scene is involved, it is less clear which camp or what time period is being referred to. Text is used on the screen at the beginning of each section to indicate time and place and is helpful, but might be needed more often.
Gibney can be applauded for not shying away from the brutality that occurred, as he uses pictures and reenactments that showcase the techniques that the detainees were forced to undergo, including nudity, sleep deprivation, and severe beatings.
In light of President Barack Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay, this is a must-see for citizens to get background on the events that took place there.
By Jessica Maas
Late in “Taxi to the Dark Side,” footage is shown of former president George W. Bush telling the American public, “We do not condone torture.” The screen flashes to an interview with attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who responds with, “Footnote: Torture as defined as…” This allusion to interpretation is one major premise of Alex Gibney’s 2007 documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a well-done, emotion-evoking film about the torture practices used by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.
The film centers on the controversy surrounding the torture practices inflicted by United States soldiers on detainees in three areas: the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. Gibney uses a collection of interviews, photographs, reenactments, and archive footage to examine and tell the story of the change in policy toward suspects in the war on terror, as he simultaneously brings up questions of morality, ambiguity, and public façade.
Gibney’s use of Dilawar, a taxi driver in Bagram, as an anecdote to begin the documentary was a sound decision. Dilawar’s personal story allows for a deeper connection to the personal and sets the film up perfectly for its more general investigation of torture.
The proper balance of voices is flawlessly fused throughout the production. No one voice is heard from too many times or for too long, and the multiple voices are well-chosen and allow for different perspectives, which in turn allows for more evidence to be presented. The combination of torture victim Moazzam Beg, soldiers who participated in torture, and soldiers who simply watched the torture happening permits each of the voices to back each other up as they recount events, essentially strengthening the facts presented. Lawyers who worked with some of the detainees provide information about what was occurring outside the detention centers and establish the contradiction between what the public was being told and the decisions that were being made by the government, and archival footage and other people involved are used to back this up. His strong arrangement of voices allows Gibney to cover his bases factually and keep the story fresh.
The organization of the facts themselves becomes confusing, though. In the beginning of the documentary, the events are organized by telling the story of each camp, but as the story progresses and more of the political scene is involved, it is less clear which camp or what time period is being referred to. Text is used on the screen at the beginning of each section to indicate time and place and is helpful, but might be needed more often.
Gibney can be applauded for not shying away from the brutality that occurred, as he uses pictures and reenactments that showcase the techniques that the detainees were forced to undergo, including nudity, sleep deprivation, and severe beatings.
In light of President Barack Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay, this is a must-see for citizens to get background on the events that took place there.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Interesting 'L Word' Preview
Below is a link to an article by Ginia Bellafante about the new (and last) season of The L Word.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/arts/television/16word.html?ref=television
Bellafante has basically turned the preview into a big critique of the series and one that I find few faults with, despite the fact that I've only ever watched the first season. She opens by talking about a few of the more ridiculous storylines the show has experienced, and then goes into the background of the show and how it has developed.
While I have always admired the fact that The L Word has women on it who are not stereotypically butch, I do understand that they also are not exactly representative of various body types (and if there's something our already eating disorder-riddled society needs, it's to see more body types on TV). Bellafante brings a great personality to her writing, stating at one point "...'The L Word' is a Sapphic Playboy fantasia in which women with wrinkles or squishy thighs or an aversion to lingerie appear to have been flagged down on the freeway with urgent instructions to move to Seattle." The L Word takes place in West Hollywood.
I also understand what she says about lesbian bed death. While I admire that the show has always been open about women having sex together (though it is HBO - the same thing could never happen on, say, ABC), the bed hopping is a little much. And the fact that all these women can stay friends with each other after they've slept together and/or had actual relationships with each other is a simply idealistic, as is the portrayal that it's easy to find someone to fall into bed with. One of my favorite lines in the article is "Celibacy means missing out on the action for a period no longer than the number of days between Rosh Hashanah and Columbus Day."
At the end of the article she does mention the fact that The L Word can at least be applauded for the visibility it provides to society, and it is for the visibility alone that I think the show is worth having (though it is in it's last season, so it is coming to an end anyway, and it's on HBO, so it's not as if your average, ignorant viewer is going to just stumble upon it). Bellafante compares the visibility on The L Word to the fact that CBS was flooded last year with angry letters about how two gay lovers on "As the World Turns" had only been seen kissing twice. She could've also mentioned ABC and Grey's Anatomy - they ax their lesbians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/arts/television/16word.html?ref=television
Bellafante has basically turned the preview into a big critique of the series and one that I find few faults with, despite the fact that I've only ever watched the first season. She opens by talking about a few of the more ridiculous storylines the show has experienced, and then goes into the background of the show and how it has developed.
While I have always admired the fact that The L Word has women on it who are not stereotypically butch, I do understand that they also are not exactly representative of various body types (and if there's something our already eating disorder-riddled society needs, it's to see more body types on TV). Bellafante brings a great personality to her writing, stating at one point "...'The L Word' is a Sapphic Playboy fantasia in which women with wrinkles or squishy thighs or an aversion to lingerie appear to have been flagged down on the freeway with urgent instructions to move to Seattle." The L Word takes place in West Hollywood.
I also understand what she says about lesbian bed death. While I admire that the show has always been open about women having sex together (though it is HBO - the same thing could never happen on, say, ABC), the bed hopping is a little much. And the fact that all these women can stay friends with each other after they've slept together and/or had actual relationships with each other is a simply idealistic, as is the portrayal that it's easy to find someone to fall into bed with. One of my favorite lines in the article is "Celibacy means missing out on the action for a period no longer than the number of days between Rosh Hashanah and Columbus Day."
At the end of the article she does mention the fact that The L Word can at least be applauded for the visibility it provides to society, and it is for the visibility alone that I think the show is worth having (though it is in it's last season, so it is coming to an end anyway, and it's on HBO, so it's not as if your average, ignorant viewer is going to just stumble upon it). Bellafante compares the visibility on The L Word to the fact that CBS was flooded last year with angry letters about how two gay lovers on "As the World Turns" had only been seen kissing twice. She could've also mentioned ABC and Grey's Anatomy - they ax their lesbians.
Monday, January 19, 2009
"Live from Baghdad" Review
“Live from Baghdad” Lives On
By Jessica Maas
It is not at all a large stretch of the imagination for one to today watch HBO’s “Live from Baghdad,” a recounting of journalists during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and think of the Iraqi war. Iraq itself, and the bombs, guns, and hostage situations present in the film bring the current war to the forefront, and not unnecessarily. Written by Robert Wiener and directed by Mick Jackson, this 2002 production discusses issues of censorship and journalistic integrity that are more than relevant today, and does so in a manner that is both absorbing and likable.
In the film, CNN producers Robert Wiener, played by Michael Keaton, and Ingrid Formanek, played by Helena Bonham Carter, take a crew to Baghdad with the hopes of surpassing the other major networks in ratings by presenting the best coverage of what will become the Gulf War. The team finds that this goal is going to be harder to accomplish than they initially thought, as they grapple with issues of censorship and manipulation imposed by the Iraqi government and with the ethics surrounding reporting the story over safety, both for themselves and others.
The script is good mostly for the issues it presents. Wiener struggles with the balance between presenting the best story and maintaining the safety of those he reports on, and throughout the film the team is subject to reporting only what Iraqi Minister of Information Naji Al-Hadithi, played by David Suchett, will allow. Though Wiener befriends Al-Hadithi and is privy to information from him, he and Formanek are still under a tight leash and risk their lives should they attempt to push the boundaries.
A positive, sympathetic light is cast on the journalists as a whole throughout the film. Even when they’re potentially putting people’s lives in danger, it’s portrayed as acceptable because they feel bad and they’re doing their jobs, and the controversy and potential negativity they could face as a result is an area that could’ve used more scrutiny and exploration in the writing.
The film is subject to great acting, both on the part of Keaton and Bonham Carter, who give compelling performances, and as a result of a strong supporting cast. Keaton delivers a very real character through his interpretation of the gutsy but morally aware Robert Wiener, and Bonham Carter presents the flamboyant and compassionate Ingrid Formanek in a very genuine manner.
The underlying sexual tension between Wiener and Formanek is believable and well-played, allowing the characters another dimension to their personalities, though the storyline itself does distract from the journalism story.
News images from the actual time period the movie takes place are used throughout the film and are a strong aspect of the effective cinematography.
The film raises concerns that became huge and caused great controversy in journalism in the years to follow the United States invasion of Iraq, and “Live from Baghdad” was released only months prior to the invasion. “Live from Baghdad” is a balanced, well done film that remains important for people to see today.
By Jessica Maas
It is not at all a large stretch of the imagination for one to today watch HBO’s “Live from Baghdad,” a recounting of journalists during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and think of the Iraqi war. Iraq itself, and the bombs, guns, and hostage situations present in the film bring the current war to the forefront, and not unnecessarily. Written by Robert Wiener and directed by Mick Jackson, this 2002 production discusses issues of censorship and journalistic integrity that are more than relevant today, and does so in a manner that is both absorbing and likable.
In the film, CNN producers Robert Wiener, played by Michael Keaton, and Ingrid Formanek, played by Helena Bonham Carter, take a crew to Baghdad with the hopes of surpassing the other major networks in ratings by presenting the best coverage of what will become the Gulf War. The team finds that this goal is going to be harder to accomplish than they initially thought, as they grapple with issues of censorship and manipulation imposed by the Iraqi government and with the ethics surrounding reporting the story over safety, both for themselves and others.
The script is good mostly for the issues it presents. Wiener struggles with the balance between presenting the best story and maintaining the safety of those he reports on, and throughout the film the team is subject to reporting only what Iraqi Minister of Information Naji Al-Hadithi, played by David Suchett, will allow. Though Wiener befriends Al-Hadithi and is privy to information from him, he and Formanek are still under a tight leash and risk their lives should they attempt to push the boundaries.
A positive, sympathetic light is cast on the journalists as a whole throughout the film. Even when they’re potentially putting people’s lives in danger, it’s portrayed as acceptable because they feel bad and they’re doing their jobs, and the controversy and potential negativity they could face as a result is an area that could’ve used more scrutiny and exploration in the writing.
The film is subject to great acting, both on the part of Keaton and Bonham Carter, who give compelling performances, and as a result of a strong supporting cast. Keaton delivers a very real character through his interpretation of the gutsy but morally aware Robert Wiener, and Bonham Carter presents the flamboyant and compassionate Ingrid Formanek in a very genuine manner.
The underlying sexual tension between Wiener and Formanek is believable and well-played, allowing the characters another dimension to their personalities, though the storyline itself does distract from the journalism story.
News images from the actual time period the movie takes place are used throughout the film and are a strong aspect of the effective cinematography.
The film raises concerns that became huge and caused great controversy in journalism in the years to follow the United States invasion of Iraq, and “Live from Baghdad” was released only months prior to the invasion. “Live from Baghdad” is a balanced, well done film that remains important for people to see today.
Review of 'Gran Torino' Review
My "but" comes at the end of the first paragraph: "Eastwood's judgments may be more on target than Kowalski's, though, as he brings an overall must-see film for society to the box office."
In terms of things I would change, I think I'd talk more about the script itself and less about the cultural implications of it, and I'd do a better job of summarizing what the film is actually about. I think that I'd also end up changing the tone of the piece itself to be slightly less positive because, after another day of reflection, I was less impressed by the film than I initially was.
I'd also be more specific with backing up the points I make, and I wouldn't refer to the "viewers." Overall I'd probably give myself a B.
In terms of things I would change, I think I'd talk more about the script itself and less about the cultural implications of it, and I'd do a better job of summarizing what the film is actually about. I think that I'd also end up changing the tone of the piece itself to be slightly less positive because, after another day of reflection, I was less impressed by the film than I initially was.
I'd also be more specific with backing up the points I make, and I wouldn't refer to the "viewers." Overall I'd probably give myself a B.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
8th Season Brings Changes to American Idol
Below is a link to an article about the changes in the new season of American Idol.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/arts/television/13idol.html?ref=television
While I applaud a lot of the changes that the show is implementing - airing three weeks of auditions instead of four, and even the addition of the new judge - I'm not a big fan of the show in general, and will to continue to not watch it. I have watched it on occasion (because one of my roommates was watching, or because my family was), and while some of the performances may be worth watching, I generally think the show is a waste of time and wonder what it says about us as a society that it's the most popular show on primetime television.
The main feature of the show is Simon Cowell - the show even admits this - and while his comments can, at times, be amusing, they can also get old. I do think that the move to bring Kara DioGuardi in to challenge him will be interesting and could create some drama. I've always thought that the other two judges on the show are totally worthless and unnecessary, but she has the potential to create some controversy.
The move to get rid of a week of the auditions is also a good one, I think. There are a lot of people who find the humor behind them amusing (because of all the people who have absolutely zero talent and only tryout to be on TV), but I think it's silly. When the goal of the show is to find a good performer, I don't know why we spend so much time looking at people who are only wasting the judges's time. I mean, I understand that it gets ratings, but I'm really tired of shows making stupid decisions for the ratings (cough, Grey's Anatomy, cough). This is a good decision, though.
I don't know how I feel about the move to having 36 semifinalists instead of 24. That's a lot, I think. But it could work - maybe. It'll take time to really draw a conclusion about that, I think.
Overall, though, I think that American Idol wastes a lot of time. They devote an hour a week specifically to kicking people off - I don't get that. Why does it take an hour to tell the United States who is safe and who isn't? It's long and drawn out and silly. If they want to have a two-hour episode every week (like, say, The Biggest Loser) and spend the last half an hour kicking people off, fine. But watching for an entire hour just to see who gets kicked off? Weird, and wrong. And can someone tell me why we need an eighth season of it? That's like eight too many.
So I will not be watching to see how these new changes play out. Though, if the FOX producers ever decide to go through with their idea to move from Tuesday/Wednesday to Wednesday/Thursday, which would allow them to compete with the drastically declining material those homophobic jerks over at ABC/Grey's Anatomy are producing, I might have to start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/arts/television/13idol.html?ref=television
While I applaud a lot of the changes that the show is implementing - airing three weeks of auditions instead of four, and even the addition of the new judge - I'm not a big fan of the show in general, and will to continue to not watch it. I have watched it on occasion (because one of my roommates was watching, or because my family was), and while some of the performances may be worth watching, I generally think the show is a waste of time and wonder what it says about us as a society that it's the most popular show on primetime television.
The main feature of the show is Simon Cowell - the show even admits this - and while his comments can, at times, be amusing, they can also get old. I do think that the move to bring Kara DioGuardi in to challenge him will be interesting and could create some drama. I've always thought that the other two judges on the show are totally worthless and unnecessary, but she has the potential to create some controversy.
The move to get rid of a week of the auditions is also a good one, I think. There are a lot of people who find the humor behind them amusing (because of all the people who have absolutely zero talent and only tryout to be on TV), but I think it's silly. When the goal of the show is to find a good performer, I don't know why we spend so much time looking at people who are only wasting the judges's time. I mean, I understand that it gets ratings, but I'm really tired of shows making stupid decisions for the ratings (cough, Grey's Anatomy, cough). This is a good decision, though.
I don't know how I feel about the move to having 36 semifinalists instead of 24. That's a lot, I think. But it could work - maybe. It'll take time to really draw a conclusion about that, I think.
Overall, though, I think that American Idol wastes a lot of time. They devote an hour a week specifically to kicking people off - I don't get that. Why does it take an hour to tell the United States who is safe and who isn't? It's long and drawn out and silly. If they want to have a two-hour episode every week (like, say, The Biggest Loser) and spend the last half an hour kicking people off, fine. But watching for an entire hour just to see who gets kicked off? Weird, and wrong. And can someone tell me why we need an eighth season of it? That's like eight too many.
So I will not be watching to see how these new changes play out. Though, if the FOX producers ever decide to go through with their idea to move from Tuesday/Wednesday to Wednesday/Thursday, which would allow them to compete with the drastically declining material those homophobic jerks over at ABC/Grey's Anatomy are producing, I might have to start.
Helpful Website
I used the IMDb website for part of my research because it gave me well organized general information about the movie (director, producers, list of characters, etc) all in one place. It also provided me with links to the actors so that I could research their acting backgrounds, which was helpful for the acting portion of my review.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/
Monday, January 12, 2009
Gran Torino Film Review
Kowalski a Symbol for All
By Jessica Maas
Clint Eastwood’s first scene in “Gran Torino” couldn’t be more fitting. Walt Kowalski, Eastwood’s character, stands at the front of the church for his wife’s funeral and meets anyone who dares to enter the ceremony with intense scrutiny and quick judgment. As the director and main feature of “Gran Torino,” it’s easy to draw a parallel between Kowalski overlooking the funeral and Eastwood overlooking the set. Eastwood’s judgments may be more on target than Kowalski’s, though, as he brings an overall must-see film for society to the box office.
Walt Kowalski is a hardened Korean War veteran set in his prejudices and general dislike of everyone, most notably his new Hmong neighbors. Though he is eventually befriended by and even defends teenagers Sue (Ahney Her) and Thao (Bee Vang) after Thao attempts to steal his prized ’72 Gran Torino, Kowalski has more than a few stereotypes and derogatory terms in his vocabulary with which to use against the community. The journey he takes as he learns more about the Hmong community, and subsequently more about himself, is by no means a quick one, but this nonetheless adds to the realistic component of the film.
Almost everyone knows or has known a Walt Kowalski, and Eastwood does a remarkable job in the role, bringing a true charisma to the character. The same praise cannot be given to his co-stars, however. While Eastwood should be applauded for his desire to use Hmong actors, and while it can be recognized that Hmong actors are not at all abundant in quantity, his choice to use two first-time actors is more than obvious throughout the film. Her’s lines are, at times, awkward and forced and Vang’s performance vacillates between stiff and overeager. There is no doubt that Eastwood carries the cast, but his performance and the poignancy of the story itself make up for any flaw in other performer’s abilities.
The script does a great job of bringing issues of stereotyping and visibility to the forefront. Many viewers can identify with Walt’s lack of knowledge about the Hmong community, and everyone is guilty of stereotyping or judging too soon at some point in their lives, if not everyday. “Gran Torino” offers hope for communities still seeking acceptance, and does so through the creation and realistic growth of authentic characters. The film doesn’t fall into the trap of clichés or even attempt to use sex to draw viewers in, as many other films are guilty of these days, but instead stays true to the message at hand, and that in itself is commendable.
“Gran Torino” is brilliant not only for Clint Eastwood’s acting, but for the risk taken with and the delicacy exhibited with the subject itself. The laughs that Eastwood is able to elicit through his sometimes overzealous character allow for a few lighter moments in an otherwise serious story, establishing an agreeable balance. Anyone who identifies with the term “American” needs to see this film.
By Jessica Maas
Clint Eastwood’s first scene in “Gran Torino” couldn’t be more fitting. Walt Kowalski, Eastwood’s character, stands at the front of the church for his wife’s funeral and meets anyone who dares to enter the ceremony with intense scrutiny and quick judgment. As the director and main feature of “Gran Torino,” it’s easy to draw a parallel between Kowalski overlooking the funeral and Eastwood overlooking the set. Eastwood’s judgments may be more on target than Kowalski’s, though, as he brings an overall must-see film for society to the box office.
Walt Kowalski is a hardened Korean War veteran set in his prejudices and general dislike of everyone, most notably his new Hmong neighbors. Though he is eventually befriended by and even defends teenagers Sue (Ahney Her) and Thao (Bee Vang) after Thao attempts to steal his prized ’72 Gran Torino, Kowalski has more than a few stereotypes and derogatory terms in his vocabulary with which to use against the community. The journey he takes as he learns more about the Hmong community, and subsequently more about himself, is by no means a quick one, but this nonetheless adds to the realistic component of the film.
Almost everyone knows or has known a Walt Kowalski, and Eastwood does a remarkable job in the role, bringing a true charisma to the character. The same praise cannot be given to his co-stars, however. While Eastwood should be applauded for his desire to use Hmong actors, and while it can be recognized that Hmong actors are not at all abundant in quantity, his choice to use two first-time actors is more than obvious throughout the film. Her’s lines are, at times, awkward and forced and Vang’s performance vacillates between stiff and overeager. There is no doubt that Eastwood carries the cast, but his performance and the poignancy of the story itself make up for any flaw in other performer’s abilities.
The script does a great job of bringing issues of stereotyping and visibility to the forefront. Many viewers can identify with Walt’s lack of knowledge about the Hmong community, and everyone is guilty of stereotyping or judging too soon at some point in their lives, if not everyday. “Gran Torino” offers hope for communities still seeking acceptance, and does so through the creation and realistic growth of authentic characters. The film doesn’t fall into the trap of clichés or even attempt to use sex to draw viewers in, as many other films are guilty of these days, but instead stays true to the message at hand, and that in itself is commendable.
“Gran Torino” is brilliant not only for Clint Eastwood’s acting, but for the risk taken with and the delicacy exhibited with the subject itself. The laughs that Eastwood is able to elicit through his sometimes overzealous character allow for a few lighter moments in an otherwise serious story, establishing an agreeable balance. Anyone who identifies with the term “American” needs to see this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)