I was saddened to hear the news that composer Marvin Hamlisch had died after a brief illness at the age of 68. Among the many scores that he wrote, his most successful one was for the Tony award winning musical, A CHORUS LINE, which opened on Broadway in 1975.
I saw it less than 3 weeks after it opened on the big White Way. An
actor friend in NYC called and said he had a comp tix for the upcoming weekend matinee performance.
Having just been in the Big Apple the week before and not knowing very much about this musical, I declined his offer. Soon after on the phone with a friend, I mentioned the offer and he went ballistic on me and said to call my buddy in NY and beg for the tix if it was still available.
I called. He still had it. I came. I saw. I was conquered.
As I was leaving my friend's apt. to walk over to the theatre district to see the show, he handed me a sliver of paper and said to swallow it
as I was entering the theatre. Little did I know that I would be having
my first time ever experience on acid.
I sat in the front row of the mezzanine and several times an usher came over to insist that I sit down and remain seated for the remainder of the performance.
What I wanted to do was to jump from the mezzanine onto the stage (thinking I was Superman and could fly) and join the cast that day and forever.
Mercifully, I was just enough in control of my body that I did remain in my seat until the very end of the performance. Believe me it wasn't easy.
I left the theatre, my head buzzing and my body moving in what felt like several different directions, but I managed to get back to my friend's apartment in one piece. I was still tripping when I got there.
Needless to say, A CHORUS LIFE, which I have seen several times in subsequent revivals of the Pulitizer winning musical, remains a singularly memorable experience for me.
Thank you, Marvin Hamlisch, for all your wonderful music and may you rest in peace.
Kiss today goodbye and point me towards tomorrow.
I did it all for love.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
PARAMOUNT PICTURES CELEBRATES 100 YEAR ANNIVERSARY
Just finished watching on Utube coverage of Paramount Pictures 100 year anniversary celebration held on the studio lot on Stage 18 where scenes from such famous films as Sunset Boulevard were shot and where the party commemorating the studio's 75th anniversary was held,
an event I attended since I worked there from 1980-2005.
116 stars were invited to participate in the recent celebration and a photograph of those in attendance appears in July's Vanity Fair. Viewing it brought back a wave of memories of my years there and in particular being among the guests at the anniversary celebration in
1987. I remember kibutzing with Robert Evans, with whom I had gotten friendly while supervising the renovation of his office suite on the studio lot. I remember seeing Elizabeth Taylor and approaching her to remind her of when we had met before (during her brief marriage to US Senator John Warner when she lived in Virginia).
Being the gracious lady she was, she pretended to remember me but I know she hadn't. I'm sure she put those miserable years well behind her and remembered little from that unhappy period in her life.
I remember walking around the stage during that event and quietly
taking it all in and taking pictures (in my mind...we weren't allowed to
bring cameras inside) that I would retain in my memory bank for many years to come. I remember being hugged by Sherry Lansing, who was
head of the studio at that time, who always called me 'Honey,' which is what she called everyone who worked in the backlot because she couldn't remember our names. I hobnobbed with many of the celebrities there who remembered me as the guy who got their offices painted and carpeted and managed to cut thru the bureaucratic red tape and get things done quickly, purchasing new furniture for their offices and in many instances, role playing as an interior designer (for which I had no previous professional experience).
A lot has changed in the 25 years that have passed since the studio
celebrated its 75th anniversary. Alas, mostly for the worse.
I retired in 2005. During the 26 years I worked there, there was a real sense of community, a feeling that we were family. There were hundreds of staffers who had worked at Paramount for many years and took great pride at their work and being part of the Paramount
family. Most of them are gone now.
Less than a year after I retired from the studio (2005), old-timers like myself began to get laid off. In one swoop, more than 400 people were let go. What once was a studio where films were often shot on stages on the lot and where many Paramount produced tv shows (Morky and Mindy, Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, Family Ties, Cheers) were done has become mostly a rental lot with stages and production offices rented to
non Paramount entities.
Very few films are shot there anymore and most of the people I worked with are long gone.
I consider myself fortunate for being there at the right time,
privileged to have observed filmmaking up close, thrilled at interacting with so many talented people on both sides of the camera - actors,
producers, directors, writers and all the wonderful backlot people
responsible for the day to day operation of the studio.
I have so many memories - like the time I had to sit in Meg Ryan's
offices on the lot because one of her assistants was convinced ghosts
occupied them. Yup. I was asked by a production executive to go there and sit for 2 hours and see if I saw any ashtrays floating midair or heard any ghost like sounds (I didn't).
And poignant moments like when I walked a very pregnant Dawn Steele, president of production, to her car on the lot carrying loads of gifts she had just gotten at a baby shower in her honor, knowing that she wouldn't be returning to her job after she gave birth (My boss had told me earlier in the day to have the keys to her office suite changed while she was on maternity leave).
And Sylvester Stallone and the damn desk he couldn't get his legs under (as it turns out, because of the lifts he wore in his cowboy boots)
or when former president of production, Don Simpson, threw a massive glass asstray at me while I was standing inside the entrance to his office suite. "What the fuck do you want," he screamed at me. "Ah,
nothing that can't wait until tomorrow, Mr. Simpson," I stuttered and ran like hell back to the safety of my little office in a nearby building.
I could go on. There are stories. There is diss. But for the moment
I'm keeping quiet. For what little it may be worth, I want to acknowledge the 100 year anniversary of Paramount Pictures and express my gratitude for the mostly wonderful 26 years I spent there.
Truly there is no business like show business!
an event I attended since I worked there from 1980-2005.
116 stars were invited to participate in the recent celebration and a photograph of those in attendance appears in July's Vanity Fair. Viewing it brought back a wave of memories of my years there and in particular being among the guests at the anniversary celebration in
1987. I remember kibutzing with Robert Evans, with whom I had gotten friendly while supervising the renovation of his office suite on the studio lot. I remember seeing Elizabeth Taylor and approaching her to remind her of when we had met before (during her brief marriage to US Senator John Warner when she lived in Virginia).
Being the gracious lady she was, she pretended to remember me but I know she hadn't. I'm sure she put those miserable years well behind her and remembered little from that unhappy period in her life.
I remember walking around the stage during that event and quietly
taking it all in and taking pictures (in my mind...we weren't allowed to
bring cameras inside) that I would retain in my memory bank for many years to come. I remember being hugged by Sherry Lansing, who was
head of the studio at that time, who always called me 'Honey,' which is what she called everyone who worked in the backlot because she couldn't remember our names. I hobnobbed with many of the celebrities there who remembered me as the guy who got their offices painted and carpeted and managed to cut thru the bureaucratic red tape and get things done quickly, purchasing new furniture for their offices and in many instances, role playing as an interior designer (for which I had no previous professional experience).
A lot has changed in the 25 years that have passed since the studio
celebrated its 75th anniversary. Alas, mostly for the worse.
I retired in 2005. During the 26 years I worked there, there was a real sense of community, a feeling that we were family. There were hundreds of staffers who had worked at Paramount for many years and took great pride at their work and being part of the Paramount
family. Most of them are gone now.
Less than a year after I retired from the studio (2005), old-timers like myself began to get laid off. In one swoop, more than 400 people were let go. What once was a studio where films were often shot on stages on the lot and where many Paramount produced tv shows (Morky and Mindy, Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, Family Ties, Cheers) were done has become mostly a rental lot with stages and production offices rented to
non Paramount entities.
Very few films are shot there anymore and most of the people I worked with are long gone.
I consider myself fortunate for being there at the right time,
privileged to have observed filmmaking up close, thrilled at interacting with so many talented people on both sides of the camera - actors,
producers, directors, writers and all the wonderful backlot people
responsible for the day to day operation of the studio.
I have so many memories - like the time I had to sit in Meg Ryan's
offices on the lot because one of her assistants was convinced ghosts
occupied them. Yup. I was asked by a production executive to go there and sit for 2 hours and see if I saw any ashtrays floating midair or heard any ghost like sounds (I didn't).
And poignant moments like when I walked a very pregnant Dawn Steele, president of production, to her car on the lot carrying loads of gifts she had just gotten at a baby shower in her honor, knowing that she wouldn't be returning to her job after she gave birth (My boss had told me earlier in the day to have the keys to her office suite changed while she was on maternity leave).
And Sylvester Stallone and the damn desk he couldn't get his legs under (as it turns out, because of the lifts he wore in his cowboy boots)
or when former president of production, Don Simpson, threw a massive glass asstray at me while I was standing inside the entrance to his office suite. "What the fuck do you want," he screamed at me. "Ah,
nothing that can't wait until tomorrow, Mr. Simpson," I stuttered and ran like hell back to the safety of my little office in a nearby building.
I could go on. There are stories. There is diss. But for the moment
I'm keeping quiet. For what little it may be worth, I want to acknowledge the 100 year anniversary of Paramount Pictures and express my gratitude for the mostly wonderful 26 years I spent there.
Truly there is no business like show business!
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN? A BUST SO FAR
My favorite op-ed page columnist, Richard Cohen, in his piece in today's Washington Post ("Running on Empty") is critical of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and says, "If the presidential campaign were a TV program, it
would have been canceled by now. Viewers have clicked off, stupefied by a campaign that has one overriding issue, the economy."
Cohen asks, "Why is this happening?" and answers his own question. "Some of it no doubt is due to the traditional American antipathy towards politicians, government and anything that lacks a goal post. We consider it
a triumph of Jeffersonian democracy when 60 percent of us vote, but usually the figure is lower -- 57.1 percent for president in 2008 and 37.8 percent in the last Congressional elections."
Cohen adds that there are other factors in the mix this year. "First and
foremost is the paucity of really gripping issues. There is only one, the economy, and it will do what it wants. If it improves, Barack Obama will win; if it worsens, Mitt Romney will win."
Cohen calls it the "nowhere economy -- neither boom nor bust nor much good to anyone."
"Romney," he says, "is content not to make waves. He steers clear of the arch-conservative positions he was forced to make in the primaries, revealing as little of himself as possible...he emphasizes his bogus credentials as a jobs creator when what he was, of course, was a profit creator. He has vast expertise in the private sector, bo so did Herbert Hoover and so didn't among many others, Eisenhower, Johnson, Kennedy,
Clinton, both Roosevelts and -- icon or not -- Reagan. Giving speeches does not create jobs."
Cohen is just as critical of Obama suggesting that he is a paradox: an exciting story, an unexciting man. His charisma, so evident on the stump,
has a brief half-life. He somehow covers it, like the snuffer over a candle,
and it casts no glow."
And so it goes. Romney drones on about creating jobs, but doesn't say how he's going to accomplish this major goal and Obama remains prisoner to the Republican controlled Congress. As Cohen writes, "it (the White House) can nudge and it can tug, but the economy goes its own way. A jobs program would help, but Congress won't pass it. More deficit spending would help, but Congress won't allow it. The government is tied up in knots. It, too, waits for November."
"It's as if it (the campaign) is being conducted by men who will not --
or cannot -- control events but are waiting for events to control them. They campaign dutifully but dully, going through the motions until Election Day.
Maybe then they'll get the audience back. In the meantime, America has gone for a beer."
Another brilliant column by Cohen and I urge you to read the entire
piece in today's (6/26) Washington Post.
would have been canceled by now. Viewers have clicked off, stupefied by a campaign that has one overriding issue, the economy."
Cohen asks, "Why is this happening?" and answers his own question. "Some of it no doubt is due to the traditional American antipathy towards politicians, government and anything that lacks a goal post. We consider it
a triumph of Jeffersonian democracy when 60 percent of us vote, but usually the figure is lower -- 57.1 percent for president in 2008 and 37.8 percent in the last Congressional elections."
Cohen adds that there are other factors in the mix this year. "First and
foremost is the paucity of really gripping issues. There is only one, the economy, and it will do what it wants. If it improves, Barack Obama will win; if it worsens, Mitt Romney will win."
Cohen calls it the "nowhere economy -- neither boom nor bust nor much good to anyone."
"Romney," he says, "is content not to make waves. He steers clear of the arch-conservative positions he was forced to make in the primaries, revealing as little of himself as possible...he emphasizes his bogus credentials as a jobs creator when what he was, of course, was a profit creator. He has vast expertise in the private sector, bo so did Herbert Hoover and so didn't among many others, Eisenhower, Johnson, Kennedy,
Clinton, both Roosevelts and -- icon or not -- Reagan. Giving speeches does not create jobs."
Cohen is just as critical of Obama suggesting that he is a paradox: an exciting story, an unexciting man. His charisma, so evident on the stump,
has a brief half-life. He somehow covers it, like the snuffer over a candle,
and it casts no glow."
And so it goes. Romney drones on about creating jobs, but doesn't say how he's going to accomplish this major goal and Obama remains prisoner to the Republican controlled Congress. As Cohen writes, "it (the White House) can nudge and it can tug, but the economy goes its own way. A jobs program would help, but Congress won't pass it. More deficit spending would help, but Congress won't allow it. The government is tied up in knots. It, too, waits for November."
"It's as if it (the campaign) is being conducted by men who will not --
or cannot -- control events but are waiting for events to control them. They campaign dutifully but dully, going through the motions until Election Day.
Maybe then they'll get the audience back. In the meantime, America has gone for a beer."
Another brilliant column by Cohen and I urge you to read the entire
piece in today's (6/26) Washington Post.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
REMEMBERING ALAN TURING DURING GAY PRIDE MONTH
June is the month that most cities hold Gay Pride Weekend celebrations, so it is fitting that while we do so, we also take the time to acknowledge the contributions of our gay brothers and sisters thru the ages.
This past weekend the New York Times in a brief editorial acknowledged the 100th birthday
anniversary of Alan Turing (June 23).
Turing was a mathematician/scientist who studied machines, their intelligence and limitations.
During WWII, he helped to develop the machines and algorithms that cracked the Enigma code used by the Germans. That work, according to the Times editorial, changed the outcome of the war because it gave the Allies an ear into German planning.
Turing's name appears in many science fiction novels set in the future. Determining the nature of machine intelligence and how it differs from human intelligence has been a common theme in many books and films and was the object of Turing's research and work during his lifetime.
Turing was gay and lived in an age when homosexual acts were considered a crime both in
England, his homeland, and in America. In 1952 he was convicted and given a choice between prison or treatment with female hormones, a form of chemical castration. He chose the latter.
He also lost his security clearance, in effect, ending his professional career. So much for his genius and scientific contributions.
Tragically, Turing committed suicide at the age of 41.
We have made significant strides in the struggle to gain acceptance in mainstream society and achieve deserved civil rights. It is fitting that we celebrate those achievements during Gay Pride
Weekends across the country. Be joyous and have a fabulous time doing so. But also pause to remember those who lived in darkness and and endured intolerance and were often treated as lepers.
Accordingly, let us salute Alan Turing and his contributions to mankind
This past weekend the New York Times in a brief editorial acknowledged the 100th birthday
anniversary of Alan Turing (June 23).
Turing was a mathematician/scientist who studied machines, their intelligence and limitations.
During WWII, he helped to develop the machines and algorithms that cracked the Enigma code used by the Germans. That work, according to the Times editorial, changed the outcome of the war because it gave the Allies an ear into German planning.
Turing's name appears in many science fiction novels set in the future. Determining the nature of machine intelligence and how it differs from human intelligence has been a common theme in many books and films and was the object of Turing's research and work during his lifetime.
Turing was gay and lived in an age when homosexual acts were considered a crime both in
England, his homeland, and in America. In 1952 he was convicted and given a choice between prison or treatment with female hormones, a form of chemical castration. He chose the latter.
He also lost his security clearance, in effect, ending his professional career. So much for his genius and scientific contributions.
Tragically, Turing committed suicide at the age of 41.
We have made significant strides in the struggle to gain acceptance in mainstream society and achieve deserved civil rights. It is fitting that we celebrate those achievements during Gay Pride
Weekends across the country. Be joyous and have a fabulous time doing so. But also pause to remember those who lived in darkness and and endured intolerance and were often treated as lepers.
Accordingly, let us salute Alan Turing and his contributions to mankind
Monday, June 11, 2012
BROADWAY MUSICALS AND THE TONYS
I watched the Tonys last night on TV and I found the telecast mostly lame, not very entertaining and even depressing. Sure, Neil Patrick Harris
was terrific hosting the ceremonies held in the Beacon Theatre in New York City. Harris is both talented and funny and his opening number was fun but
not half as much fun as the number he performed to open last year's telecast of the Tonys. I won't devote any of my time here to the non-musical shows
that were up for awards last night. First off, I've only seen one of the plays nominated - Other Desert Cities by Jon Robin Baitz which was excellent -
and everything I've read about this past season's efforts suggest that it was a very strong year for drama, comedy and (non-musical) revivals. In the
latter category is Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, directed by Mike Nichols, which opened a few months ago to rave reviews. I have no issue with
these plays. War Horse, last year's winner for best play, is still on Broadway and still strong at the box office. I do take issue with what Broadway has
to offer these days in musical theatre, especially musical revivals.
Granted, 2 of this past season's revivals warranted another look. Stephen Sondheim's FOLLIES, staged last year at the Kennedy Center and then brought to New York, is a good musical if not a great one (not one of my Sondheim favorites) and everything I read about this production tells me it was done quite well
and worthy of a large audience. Then there is The Gershwin's PORGY AND BESS. By the time this adaptation reached Broadway this past season, most if not
all of the controversial elements of it had been eliminated. Again, not one of my favorite musicals, but it is one, all the same, that warrants a revival.
Then there are the rest.
Did we really need a revival of Andrew Lloyd Webber's EVITA and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR? Especially lame ones? This EVITA features Ricky Marvin
in the role originated by Mandy Patinkin. I know Mandy Patinkin (his stage work that is) and Ricky Martin is no Mandy Patinkin. He proved that in the
number that he and other cast members performed last night at the Tonys. God awful. We've had several revivals of EVITA. The movie with Madonna.
Did we really need another EVITA production so soon? Nope. And as for JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, this is a musical best left to the efforts of community
theatres and hip churches and maybe even a regional theatre or two; but otherwise please spare us from this wretched show. Last,but certainly least of all,
is the revival of GODSPELL. Why?
When I open the Sunday NY Times Arts&Leisure section to see what musical theatre is playing or will soon be opening, I am always disappointed
at what's offered. Musical adaptations of lame films like GHOST, LEAP OF FAITH (that closed mercifully after a brief run) and (sorry) ONCE have been mounted.
ONCE took the Tony last night for best musical (winning over NEWSIES, Broadway's other big hit, which was adapted from a piece of dreck movie) but I dozed
thru the film version and you couldn't give me a free tix to sit thru it, not after hearing the overrated song that is the centerpiece of the story and was performed last night).
A look at some of the long running shows still playing on Broadway suggests that musical tastes of theatre goers (mostly tourists) has reached an all-time
low. ANYTHING GOES is yet another revival of a musical from way back when (hello, Ethel Merman) that has been done to death. Last season we had HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING (a so-so musical to begin with), a revival that opened to mixed reviews but was a box office hit thanks to the
presence of Daniel Radcliff. Another new musical this season is NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT, more Gershwin songs and big production numbers (I am a sucker
for big tap dance numbers), but I have the feeling it's another 'been there, done that' theatre experience. Still playing after all these years are
PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, JERSEY BOYS (I and the friend who saw it with me are the only 2 people on the planet who didn't love it), MEMPHIS (hated the production I
saw on PBS recently), CHICAGO (overrated) and MOMMA MIA (ok, I'm an ABBA groupie and saw it 4 times). Also MARY POPPINS (I took my 12 year old niece and 10 year old nephew to see it and they were bored shitless)and THE LION KING which will run forever I guess. In the works and opening in August is CHAPLIN THE
MUSICAL (I can hardly wait!).
I was relieved when the Tonys telecast ended last night. If I had heard one more winner exclaim that "I am a member of the most incredible community,"
I was prepared to throw my cell phone at my tv. I'm sure that most people associated with theatre in New York are certainly talented and pleasant (and mostly gay, bless their hearts), but all of them INCREDIBLE.
The only thing incredible about Broadway is the cost of a ticket to see a musical there. On average about $125 for a decent seat way back in the orchestra or in the first balcony. How many of us can afford the luxury of seeing a musical in NYC these days what with the economy and unemployment?
Friday, April 13, 2012
USING THE WRONG WORDS TO SAY THE RIGHT THING
Poor Hilary Rosen! A Democratic activist and CNN commentator said that Ann Romney - whose husband Mitt, the fav to win the Republican presidential nomination , and who has 'appointed' his wife as his spokesperson on women's rights - "has actually never worked a day in her life."
What she really meant to say is that Romney, who stayed home to raise 5 sons, has never worked OUTSIDE the home. And this is true. To call Ann Romney a typical stay at home housewife is to suggest that she spent most of her days dusting and vacuuming the floors in her several mansions and cooking macaroni and cheese in the kitchen for her 5 sons and dutiful husband.
If you believe this to be true, then I have some beach front property in Las Vegas that I would like to show you this weekend, available at a cut rate price.
I have sympathy for Ann Romney. She has survived Cancer and has been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis,
but unlike thousands of other women who have suffered the same setbacks, Ms. Romney undoubtedly had the care of the best specialists in their fields and could well afford to pay their high fees for services rendered.
She didn't have to worry about how she would get to the doctor's offices or to the hospital for treatment as so many other victims have had to do, because she could drive one of her 2 cadillacs to get there or have one of her husband's staff drive her there. And she didn't have to worry about how much gas was costing either.
The point is Ms. Romney's life experience could never be called 'normal'. It has been privileged in every sense of the word.
Imagine, if you will, the average every day work at home mother, trying to raise 5 sons in your average 3-bedroom 2,000 sq. ft. home, putting enough food on the kitchen table and making sure her boys stayed out of trouble attending the public schools in their community (Question: Did the Romney boys attend public or private schools? Just curious.)
There has been nothing 'average' about Ms. Romney's lifestyle. Privileged? Absolutely. Average? Not by a long shot.
Republicans and even our President have come running to defend the honor of Ms. Romney. Rosen's
comments were wrong, Obama has said. And he added that family should be "off limits".
Wrong!. When presidential hopeful (God forbid) Mitt Romney put a microphone in his wife's hands and made her a spokesperson for women's rights (or rights as far as Republicans see them), she becomes 'on limits' and fodder for the media covering the presidential race.
You woulda thought Hilary Rosen had called Romney a 'bitch' and worse, a lesbian, what with all the criticism leveled against her by Republican party spokesmen. Rosen is, in fact, a lesbian and a single parent to an adopted child.
And if you can believe it, the Catholic League has issued a statement critical of this lesbian who had the unmitigated nerve to adopt and raise someone else's unwanted child. Give me a fucking break!
Meanwhile, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) was quoted just this week as saying "I believe there is (sic) about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." "It's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus."
Jesus! I had no idea!
One would think that responsible Republican leaders, including presidential candidates Mitt Romney and that fat fuck Newt Gingrich would issue statements criticizing West's ludicrous comments. To date, no one has, but they have jumped all over Ms. Rosen for her poorly chosen words that when examined closely, were more closer to the truth than not.
How does someone like Allen West - obviously a moron and solidly supported by Tea Party members in his district - get a pass for saying what he did about Democratic Congressmen, while Hilary Rosen is raked to the coals and will probably be pushed under the bus by the powers behind the Democratic Party?
Why hasn't President Obama issued a forceful statement criticizing West for his ridiculous comments on the one hand and tried to explain in better terms what Ms. Rosen was trying to say about Ann Romney on the other?
Answer? Easy. He doesn't want to offend any potential voters in a state he clearly needs to win in November.
Obama has once again disappointed me. I'll vote for him this November even though I'm pissed at him for not attending the opening game at Nationals' Park yesterday to throw out the ceremonial first ball to open the baseball season here and angry at him for not coming to the aid of Ms. Rosen. I will do so without any degree of enthusiasm, only because the thought of a Republican president with a Republican majority in Congress scares the shit out of me!
Have a nice day people.
What she really meant to say is that Romney, who stayed home to raise 5 sons, has never worked OUTSIDE the home. And this is true. To call Ann Romney a typical stay at home housewife is to suggest that she spent most of her days dusting and vacuuming the floors in her several mansions and cooking macaroni and cheese in the kitchen for her 5 sons and dutiful husband.
If you believe this to be true, then I have some beach front property in Las Vegas that I would like to show you this weekend, available at a cut rate price.
I have sympathy for Ann Romney. She has survived Cancer and has been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis,
but unlike thousands of other women who have suffered the same setbacks, Ms. Romney undoubtedly had the care of the best specialists in their fields and could well afford to pay their high fees for services rendered.
She didn't have to worry about how she would get to the doctor's offices or to the hospital for treatment as so many other victims have had to do, because she could drive one of her 2 cadillacs to get there or have one of her husband's staff drive her there. And she didn't have to worry about how much gas was costing either.
The point is Ms. Romney's life experience could never be called 'normal'. It has been privileged in every sense of the word.
Imagine, if you will, the average every day work at home mother, trying to raise 5 sons in your average 3-bedroom 2,000 sq. ft. home, putting enough food on the kitchen table and making sure her boys stayed out of trouble attending the public schools in their community (Question: Did the Romney boys attend public or private schools? Just curious.)
There has been nothing 'average' about Ms. Romney's lifestyle. Privileged? Absolutely. Average? Not by a long shot.
Republicans and even our President have come running to defend the honor of Ms. Romney. Rosen's
comments were wrong, Obama has said. And he added that family should be "off limits".
Wrong!. When presidential hopeful (God forbid) Mitt Romney put a microphone in his wife's hands and made her a spokesperson for women's rights (or rights as far as Republicans see them), she becomes 'on limits' and fodder for the media covering the presidential race.
You woulda thought Hilary Rosen had called Romney a 'bitch' and worse, a lesbian, what with all the criticism leveled against her by Republican party spokesmen. Rosen is, in fact, a lesbian and a single parent to an adopted child.
And if you can believe it, the Catholic League has issued a statement critical of this lesbian who had the unmitigated nerve to adopt and raise someone else's unwanted child. Give me a fucking break!
Meanwhile, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) was quoted just this week as saying "I believe there is (sic) about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." "It's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus."
Jesus! I had no idea!
One would think that responsible Republican leaders, including presidential candidates Mitt Romney and that fat fuck Newt Gingrich would issue statements criticizing West's ludicrous comments. To date, no one has, but they have jumped all over Ms. Rosen for her poorly chosen words that when examined closely, were more closer to the truth than not.
How does someone like Allen West - obviously a moron and solidly supported by Tea Party members in his district - get a pass for saying what he did about Democratic Congressmen, while Hilary Rosen is raked to the coals and will probably be pushed under the bus by the powers behind the Democratic Party?
Why hasn't President Obama issued a forceful statement criticizing West for his ridiculous comments on the one hand and tried to explain in better terms what Ms. Rosen was trying to say about Ann Romney on the other?
Answer? Easy. He doesn't want to offend any potential voters in a state he clearly needs to win in November.
Obama has once again disappointed me. I'll vote for him this November even though I'm pissed at him for not attending the opening game at Nationals' Park yesterday to throw out the ceremonial first ball to open the baseball season here and angry at him for not coming to the aid of Ms. Rosen. I will do so without any degree of enthusiasm, only because the thought of a Republican president with a Republican majority in Congress scares the shit out of me!
Have a nice day people.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
LINCOLN HAD IT WRONG
It's true that Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents. Many of his actions and speeches have served through the years to inspire political leaders on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in the White House.
Lincoln's greatest accomplishment as president - most historians would agree - was saving the Union and declaring war on the South whose states seceded from the United States of America. But you know what?
Lincoln had it wrong. He should have let the fucking South secede from the Union.
But what about slavery, you ask? Well, what about it? Slavery, in my opinion, would have eventually ended. It may have taken years to happen but one by one, then by the hundreds and then thousands,
slaves would have revolted against their masters and achieved freedom, possibly much sooner than they did (in the second half of the 20th century).
No way could the South have contained hundreds of thousands and then millions of black slaves and prevented a revolution.
In saving the Union, Lincoln costs the lives of more than one million American men from both the North and the South. Was it worth it?
I don't think so.
Fast forward to the 21st century. To be specific - Super Tuesday, March 13, 2012. On this date
primaries were held in Alabama and Mississippi for the Republican Party's presidential candidate.
Two candidates - Rich Santorum and Newt Gingrich - took 64 percent of the vote in Mississippi and
63 percent in Alabama
I don't need to say too much about either of these candidates. They appeal to a segment of the population that is ignorant, intolerant and racist. And where do most of these people live?
You guessed it! In the South, dude.
Texas.
Louisiana
Mississippi'
Arkansas
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Ok. Ok. I know what you're thinking. How could we possibly get along without having
Florida in the Union? No problem. Until Henry Ford started mass production of model Ts and roads were paved and interstate highways were constructed, it would have taken forever to get from say Boston to Miami (or whatever it was called before Fla. became a state), so forget about it.
Except for New Orleans, there is absolutely no reason to have Louisiana in the Union. And
any American president worth his salt could have annexed New Orleans and declared it a no fly zone or whatever. Problem solved.
Forget about Alabama. Who needs it. The same goes for Arkansas (regardless of the fact that Bubba Clinton was born there), and Kentucky.
And South Carolina. Jesus. The state that gave us Strom Thurmond! I rest my case.
As for North Carolina and Virginia, sufficient numbers of people would have migrated there over the years from the South to make them more moderate in their political leanings and to seek membership in the Union.
Georgia might have caused some problems. But except for Atlanta, I can't think of any other reason for wanting to keep it in the Union. Really.
I've saved Texas for last. Next to Alabama and Mississippi, I loathe the State of Texas the most.
Except for Austin, I despise everything about Texas. Its size. Cowboy boots. Its politics. Its treatment of women's rights and its poor record of providing a decent public education to its children and did I say its politics.
From the state that gave us George W. Bush and Rick Perry.
I rest my case.
Newt Gingrich is right when he says that the upcoming presidential election in November will be one of the most important in our history. But absolutely and completely wrong when he says he is the one to lead us as we march further into the 21st century.
Both he and Rick Santorum are assholes, pure and simple. I can't think of another word to use to describe them. I wouldn't call Mitt Romney an asshole. A phony. A hypocrite. A liar. A jerk.
But not an asshole.
It saddens me to realize that as far as we have come in the area of civil rights for ALL Americans,
we still have a long way to go.
Just look at how many millions of Americans are still intolerant, ignorant and
yes, racist.
And most of them live in the South.
Like I said, Lincoln had it wrong. He should have let the South secede from the Union.
The Confederacy would have died a quick death, deservedly so.
Lincoln's greatest accomplishment as president - most historians would agree - was saving the Union and declaring war on the South whose states seceded from the United States of America. But you know what?
Lincoln had it wrong. He should have let the fucking South secede from the Union.
But what about slavery, you ask? Well, what about it? Slavery, in my opinion, would have eventually ended. It may have taken years to happen but one by one, then by the hundreds and then thousands,
slaves would have revolted against their masters and achieved freedom, possibly much sooner than they did (in the second half of the 20th century).
No way could the South have contained hundreds of thousands and then millions of black slaves and prevented a revolution.
In saving the Union, Lincoln costs the lives of more than one million American men from both the North and the South. Was it worth it?
I don't think so.
Fast forward to the 21st century. To be specific - Super Tuesday, March 13, 2012. On this date
primaries were held in Alabama and Mississippi for the Republican Party's presidential candidate.
Two candidates - Rich Santorum and Newt Gingrich - took 64 percent of the vote in Mississippi and
63 percent in Alabama
I don't need to say too much about either of these candidates. They appeal to a segment of the population that is ignorant, intolerant and racist. And where do most of these people live?
You guessed it! In the South, dude.
Texas.
Louisiana
Mississippi'
Arkansas
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Ok. Ok. I know what you're thinking. How could we possibly get along without having
Florida in the Union? No problem. Until Henry Ford started mass production of model Ts and roads were paved and interstate highways were constructed, it would have taken forever to get from say Boston to Miami (or whatever it was called before Fla. became a state), so forget about it.
Except for New Orleans, there is absolutely no reason to have Louisiana in the Union. And
any American president worth his salt could have annexed New Orleans and declared it a no fly zone or whatever. Problem solved.
Forget about Alabama. Who needs it. The same goes for Arkansas (regardless of the fact that Bubba Clinton was born there), and Kentucky.
And South Carolina. Jesus. The state that gave us Strom Thurmond! I rest my case.
As for North Carolina and Virginia, sufficient numbers of people would have migrated there over the years from the South to make them more moderate in their political leanings and to seek membership in the Union.
Georgia might have caused some problems. But except for Atlanta, I can't think of any other reason for wanting to keep it in the Union. Really.
I've saved Texas for last. Next to Alabama and Mississippi, I loathe the State of Texas the most.
Except for Austin, I despise everything about Texas. Its size. Cowboy boots. Its politics. Its treatment of women's rights and its poor record of providing a decent public education to its children and did I say its politics.
From the state that gave us George W. Bush and Rick Perry.
I rest my case.
Newt Gingrich is right when he says that the upcoming presidential election in November will be one of the most important in our history. But absolutely and completely wrong when he says he is the one to lead us as we march further into the 21st century.
Both he and Rick Santorum are assholes, pure and simple. I can't think of another word to use to describe them. I wouldn't call Mitt Romney an asshole. A phony. A hypocrite. A liar. A jerk.
But not an asshole.
It saddens me to realize that as far as we have come in the area of civil rights for ALL Americans,
we still have a long way to go.
Just look at how many millions of Americans are still intolerant, ignorant and
yes, racist.
And most of them live in the South.
Like I said, Lincoln had it wrong. He should have let the South secede from the Union.
The Confederacy would have died a quick death, deservedly so.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
REMEMBERING AUDREY HEPBURN
At this moment I'm watching my favorite all-time actress in one of my favorite films - Audrey Hepburn in THE NUN'S STORY (1959). In any other year, the film may have taken the Oscar for best picture, but it lost out to
the juggernaut, BEN-HUR which took home 11 Oscars that year.
Hepburn, who won an Oscar for her first American film, ROMAN HOLIDAY (1953), should have won another for her portrayal of Sister Luke in THE NUN'S STORY, but she lost out to Simone Signoret (ROOM AT THE TOP).
A mere teenager, I fell in love with Hepburn the first time I laid eyes on
her in ROMAN HOLIDAY. Then there was SABRINA (1954) and she stole my heart again. She followed that up with FUNNY FACE (1957), playing
opposite Fred Astaire who was old enough to be her father, but Hepburn
was often cast in films with actors much older than her.
Her most famous role was as Holly Golightly in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S (1961). Oscar nominated again, she lost out that year to
Sophia Loren (TWO WOMEN). Truman Capote, who wrote the short novel on which the film was based, was very vocal about his feelings that Hepburn was miscast as Holly but filmgoers didn't seem to mind. The
film was one of the most successful films of that year.
In 1963 she starred opposite Cary Grant in CHARADE. The following year Jack Warner (whose studio had the film rights) cast her instead of Julie Andrews to portray Eliza Doolittle in the film adaptation of the
smash Broadway hit, MY FAIR LADY.
Critics weren't kind to her when the film opened in 1964, citing her less than stellar cockney accent that she had to use before her transformation in the second half of the film. I thought her cockney was perfectly adequate. But what I remember most of all is the moment when Hepburn as Doolittle stands at the top of the stairs in a magnificent white empire gown before she leaves for the ball with Rex Harrison.
I was a senior at GWU when the film opened at the Warner Theatre in
D.C. with 2 showings daily. I skipped classes 5 days in a row to catch the 2pm matinee performance so I could sit in the dark and watch
Hepburn walk down the stairway and fantasize that I was accompanying
her to the ball.
Her performance was overlooked by Academy members mostly out of
spite. MY FAIR LADY won the Oscar for best picture; Rex Harrison took home the Oscar for best actor and George Cukor won for best director.
And guess who gave out the Oscar for best actress to Julie Andrews for her less than memorable performance in MARY POPPINS?
Yup. Audrey Hepburn. Talk about class.
Three years later she was nominated again for best actress for her performance in WAIT UNTIL DARK (1967). But I preferred her performance in another film (TWO FOR THE ROAD opposite Albert
Finney) she made that same year.
The following year Hepburn announced she was going to take a
sabbatical from films and concentrate on raising her son (by Mel Ferrer).
She had a second son in 1971.
In putting her film career on hold, we, her ardent fans, lost out on seeing her in the following films that she was offered to appear in:
GOODBYE, MR CHIPS (1969), NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA(1971),
THE EXORCIST (1973), ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
and THE TURNING POINT (1968). I would love to have seen her in the latter film which starred Shirley MacLaine and Anne Bancroft. She had the background since she studied dance and starred in the Broadway production of GIGI before she turned to Hollywood and film work.
(She also turned down the role of GIGI in the film version which starred
Leslie Caron (who was wonderful in the role).
In 1988 Hepburn was appointed Special Ambassador to United Nations
UNICEF, travelling extensively throughout Latin America and Africa to help raise funds and awareness of the thousands of children living in poverty.
Her last film performance was a cameo in ALWAYS (1989). She was diagnosed with Cancer in 1991 and died on January 23, 1993. I remember the day vividly because I shed a lot of tears on hearing the news of her death.
I adored Audrey Hepburn. I often fantasized that I would meet her one day and tell her how much enjoyment she had given me thru the years in all her films. It never happened but I did meet her son (by Mel Ferrer)
who was taking a meeting at Paramount (where I worked for 26 years)
in the mid 90s and was planning to make a documentary about his mother. I waited in the lobby of the Administration Bldg. where Ferrer was meeting with one of the VPs and approached him as he was leaving the building. I introduced myself and proceeded to tell him how much
I admired his mother, both as an actress and as a humanitarian. He
seemed pleased and on leaving thanked me for my kind words and shook my hand.
I almost burst into tears. I'll never forget that moment and I will
always treasure the joy that Audrey Hepburn has given me through the
years.
One of a kind. They don't make them like her anymore.
the juggernaut, BEN-HUR which took home 11 Oscars that year.
Hepburn, who won an Oscar for her first American film, ROMAN HOLIDAY (1953), should have won another for her portrayal of Sister Luke in THE NUN'S STORY, but she lost out to Simone Signoret (ROOM AT THE TOP).
A mere teenager, I fell in love with Hepburn the first time I laid eyes on
her in ROMAN HOLIDAY. Then there was SABRINA (1954) and she stole my heart again. She followed that up with FUNNY FACE (1957), playing
opposite Fred Astaire who was old enough to be her father, but Hepburn
was often cast in films with actors much older than her.
Her most famous role was as Holly Golightly in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S (1961). Oscar nominated again, she lost out that year to
Sophia Loren (TWO WOMEN). Truman Capote, who wrote the short novel on which the film was based, was very vocal about his feelings that Hepburn was miscast as Holly but filmgoers didn't seem to mind. The
film was one of the most successful films of that year.
In 1963 she starred opposite Cary Grant in CHARADE. The following year Jack Warner (whose studio had the film rights) cast her instead of Julie Andrews to portray Eliza Doolittle in the film adaptation of the
smash Broadway hit, MY FAIR LADY.
Critics weren't kind to her when the film opened in 1964, citing her less than stellar cockney accent that she had to use before her transformation in the second half of the film. I thought her cockney was perfectly adequate. But what I remember most of all is the moment when Hepburn as Doolittle stands at the top of the stairs in a magnificent white empire gown before she leaves for the ball with Rex Harrison.
I was a senior at GWU when the film opened at the Warner Theatre in
D.C. with 2 showings daily. I skipped classes 5 days in a row to catch the 2pm matinee performance so I could sit in the dark and watch
Hepburn walk down the stairway and fantasize that I was accompanying
her to the ball.
Her performance was overlooked by Academy members mostly out of
spite. MY FAIR LADY won the Oscar for best picture; Rex Harrison took home the Oscar for best actor and George Cukor won for best director.
And guess who gave out the Oscar for best actress to Julie Andrews for her less than memorable performance in MARY POPPINS?
Yup. Audrey Hepburn. Talk about class.
Three years later she was nominated again for best actress for her performance in WAIT UNTIL DARK (1967). But I preferred her performance in another film (TWO FOR THE ROAD opposite Albert
Finney) she made that same year.
The following year Hepburn announced she was going to take a
sabbatical from films and concentrate on raising her son (by Mel Ferrer).
She had a second son in 1971.
In putting her film career on hold, we, her ardent fans, lost out on seeing her in the following films that she was offered to appear in:
GOODBYE, MR CHIPS (1969), NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA(1971),
THE EXORCIST (1973), ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
and THE TURNING POINT (1968). I would love to have seen her in the latter film which starred Shirley MacLaine and Anne Bancroft. She had the background since she studied dance and starred in the Broadway production of GIGI before she turned to Hollywood and film work.
(She also turned down the role of GIGI in the film version which starred
Leslie Caron (who was wonderful in the role).
In 1988 Hepburn was appointed Special Ambassador to United Nations
UNICEF, travelling extensively throughout Latin America and Africa to help raise funds and awareness of the thousands of children living in poverty.
Her last film performance was a cameo in ALWAYS (1989). She was diagnosed with Cancer in 1991 and died on January 23, 1993. I remember the day vividly because I shed a lot of tears on hearing the news of her death.
I adored Audrey Hepburn. I often fantasized that I would meet her one day and tell her how much enjoyment she had given me thru the years in all her films. It never happened but I did meet her son (by Mel Ferrer)
who was taking a meeting at Paramount (where I worked for 26 years)
in the mid 90s and was planning to make a documentary about his mother. I waited in the lobby of the Administration Bldg. where Ferrer was meeting with one of the VPs and approached him as he was leaving the building. I introduced myself and proceeded to tell him how much
I admired his mother, both as an actress and as a humanitarian. He
seemed pleased and on leaving thanked me for my kind words and shook my hand.
I almost burst into tears. I'll never forget that moment and I will
always treasure the joy that Audrey Hepburn has given me through the
years.
One of a kind. They don't make them like her anymore.
Monday, February 27, 2012
POST OSCAR THOUGHTS
All in all, it wasn't a bad show. It is what it is. Try as they may - the producers of the telecast - there's not much new they can come up with to
make the Oscars more entertaining for the viewing audience.
Billy Crystal's opening was delightful. Why some critics thought Crystal's
selection to replace Eddie Murphy (who would have been awful) as M.C.
was a mistake is beyond me. Granted, Crystal is 63, but he's still funny as hell, a great mimic and delightfully spontaneous.
Some critics say the emphasis on showing clips from classic movies only
underscores the suggestion that the film industry has seen better days -
audiences are dwindling and the quality of the films being made these days leave something to be desired. That may be true, but I still thrill
at the montages of great moments in film that are shown during the
Oscars telecast. I wish there were more.
I enjoyed the Cirque du Soleil production and only wish I could have been in the audience to watch it. It must have been a gas to see it inside the 'Bankruptcy 11' theatre where the telecast took place. It was simply terrific and a real treat to behold.
There were even a few 'moments' during the telecast. Octavia Spencer's acceptance speech as best supporting actress was emotionally satisfying and real. I shed a few tears while she tried to contain her emotions and express her gratitude. She richly deserved her Oscar.
And Christopher Plummer finally got it down. After several meandering
acceptance speeches at previous award ceremonies (Globes, SAG, Spirit), he was charming, witty, warm and (thankfully) relatively brief.
I applaud his acknowledgement of his co-star, Ewan MacGregor, who gave a wonderful performance in Beginners, the film for which Plummer
won his Oscar. MacGregor is one of my favorite actors and vastly
underrated. In any case, Plummer was sincere and truly deserving of his
Oscar. Now when we think of him, it will be for Beginners and not for
The Sound of Music, a film he appeared in and despised.
I was surprised when Tom Cruise (looking hot) announced Meryl Streep's name for best actress. Poor Viola Davis. It would have been
thrilling if Cruise had announced there was a tie between Streep and Davis and both received Oscars. It happened before (Barbara Streisand and Katherine Hepburn tied for best actress in 1968 - Streisand for Funny Girl and Hepburn for The Lion in Winter - the story goes that Streisand became an Academy member only weeks before ballots were
distributed; Hepburn, we're told, never voted thru the years but
Streisand presumably did and voted for herself, thus tying Hepburn for the Oscar).
In any case, Streep gave a heartfelt acceptance speech although I was surprised that she didn't acknowledge her fellow nominees, especially
Davis. Maybe it was better that she didn't.
My only disappointment as far as categories are concerned was with
the original score. The Artist won but Hugo deserved the Oscar for its
lovely score, one of the finest I have ever heard in a film. Subtle, sweet,
and never obvious (unlike the bloated John Williams score for War Horse), it worked beautifully in the film.
And the only category in which someone was robbed was for make-up
with The Iron Lady taking the Oscar (for doing one face) over the team
that did 100s of faces to bring the final chapter of Harry Potter to life.
Poor Harry Potter. Lost in the 3 technical categories it was nominated for and ignored by the Academy in every other category, including best picture.
Possibly the fact that the average age of Academy members is 63 is reason enough why the best film of 2011 (Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows, Pt. 2) was ignored. Potter deserved noms for
supporting actor, adapted screenplay, cinematography, costumes, editing, sound editing, film editing, original score and BEST FUCKING
PICTURE.
Let's hope that next year's best film nominations give us something to be excited about. Lord knows this year's films didn't.
See ya at the multiplex which remains the best venue to see movies in.
make the Oscars more entertaining for the viewing audience.
Billy Crystal's opening was delightful. Why some critics thought Crystal's
selection to replace Eddie Murphy (who would have been awful) as M.C.
was a mistake is beyond me. Granted, Crystal is 63, but he's still funny as hell, a great mimic and delightfully spontaneous.
Some critics say the emphasis on showing clips from classic movies only
underscores the suggestion that the film industry has seen better days -
audiences are dwindling and the quality of the films being made these days leave something to be desired. That may be true, but I still thrill
at the montages of great moments in film that are shown during the
Oscars telecast. I wish there were more.
I enjoyed the Cirque du Soleil production and only wish I could have been in the audience to watch it. It must have been a gas to see it inside the 'Bankruptcy 11' theatre where the telecast took place. It was simply terrific and a real treat to behold.
There were even a few 'moments' during the telecast. Octavia Spencer's acceptance speech as best supporting actress was emotionally satisfying and real. I shed a few tears while she tried to contain her emotions and express her gratitude. She richly deserved her Oscar.
And Christopher Plummer finally got it down. After several meandering
acceptance speeches at previous award ceremonies (Globes, SAG, Spirit), he was charming, witty, warm and (thankfully) relatively brief.
I applaud his acknowledgement of his co-star, Ewan MacGregor, who gave a wonderful performance in Beginners, the film for which Plummer
won his Oscar. MacGregor is one of my favorite actors and vastly
underrated. In any case, Plummer was sincere and truly deserving of his
Oscar. Now when we think of him, it will be for Beginners and not for
The Sound of Music, a film he appeared in and despised.
I was surprised when Tom Cruise (looking hot) announced Meryl Streep's name for best actress. Poor Viola Davis. It would have been
thrilling if Cruise had announced there was a tie between Streep and Davis and both received Oscars. It happened before (Barbara Streisand and Katherine Hepburn tied for best actress in 1968 - Streisand for Funny Girl and Hepburn for The Lion in Winter - the story goes that Streisand became an Academy member only weeks before ballots were
distributed; Hepburn, we're told, never voted thru the years but
Streisand presumably did and voted for herself, thus tying Hepburn for the Oscar).
In any case, Streep gave a heartfelt acceptance speech although I was surprised that she didn't acknowledge her fellow nominees, especially
Davis. Maybe it was better that she didn't.
My only disappointment as far as categories are concerned was with
the original score. The Artist won but Hugo deserved the Oscar for its
lovely score, one of the finest I have ever heard in a film. Subtle, sweet,
and never obvious (unlike the bloated John Williams score for War Horse), it worked beautifully in the film.
And the only category in which someone was robbed was for make-up
with The Iron Lady taking the Oscar (for doing one face) over the team
that did 100s of faces to bring the final chapter of Harry Potter to life.
Poor Harry Potter. Lost in the 3 technical categories it was nominated for and ignored by the Academy in every other category, including best picture.
Possibly the fact that the average age of Academy members is 63 is reason enough why the best film of 2011 (Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows, Pt. 2) was ignored. Potter deserved noms for
supporting actor, adapted screenplay, cinematography, costumes, editing, sound editing, film editing, original score and BEST FUCKING
PICTURE.
Let's hope that next year's best film nominations give us something to be excited about. Lord knows this year's films didn't.
See ya at the multiplex which remains the best venue to see movies in.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
What We Should Do About Afghanistan
I HAVE A SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR OUR INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN:
GET
THE
FUCK
OUT!!!
GET
THE
FUCK
OUT!!!
Monday, February 13, 2012
ANOTHER ICONIC TALENT BITES THE DUST
How sad to hear about the death of Whitney Houston, ironically on the eve of the annual
Grammys telecast. At the same time, I can't seem to work up any tears over the news . I
realize that it's a tragedy that someone with so much talent suffered from obvious demons
that plagued her for most of her adult life.
We all have them. Some of us experience much greater success than others at keeping them
at bay and not overwhelming our ability to know right from wrong and not to cross over from
moderate to excessive abuse of our minds and bodies. One can only hope that she is at peace
now.
It will make no difference what the cause of death was but there were reports that Houston's
behavior the last 48 hours of her life was erratic. Some observers at the Beverly Hilton Hotel
where she died said she reeked from the smell of alcohol and several vials of prescription drugs
were found in the bathroom of her suite at the hotel.
One might ask where Houston's entourage was at the time she was in the bathtub alone in her bathroom. Judging from the fact that she had been partying since Thursday evening, wasn't
anyone in her group a little bit concerned about her?
Unlike the late Michael Jackson, who left behind much younger children, Houston has left behind an 18 year old daughter. At least she lived long enough to watch her daughter grow from childhood into a lovely and mature young lady.
The real tragedy here is not that we won't hear Houston sing again. After all, her glory days were behind her and this latest comeback probably would have ended like the last one did -
uneventful and generally unsuccessful. No, the tragedy is over the loss of a young woman's
mother who won't be around to laugh with and sing for her daughter.
Grammys telecast. At the same time, I can't seem to work up any tears over the news . I
realize that it's a tragedy that someone with so much talent suffered from obvious demons
that plagued her for most of her adult life.
We all have them. Some of us experience much greater success than others at keeping them
at bay and not overwhelming our ability to know right from wrong and not to cross over from
moderate to excessive abuse of our minds and bodies. One can only hope that she is at peace
now.
It will make no difference what the cause of death was but there were reports that Houston's
behavior the last 48 hours of her life was erratic. Some observers at the Beverly Hilton Hotel
where she died said she reeked from the smell of alcohol and several vials of prescription drugs
were found in the bathroom of her suite at the hotel.
One might ask where Houston's entourage was at the time she was in the bathtub alone in her bathroom. Judging from the fact that she had been partying since Thursday evening, wasn't
anyone in her group a little bit concerned about her?
Unlike the late Michael Jackson, who left behind much younger children, Houston has left behind an 18 year old daughter. At least she lived long enough to watch her daughter grow from childhood into a lovely and mature young lady.
The real tragedy here is not that we won't hear Houston sing again. After all, her glory days were behind her and this latest comeback probably would have ended like the last one did -
uneventful and generally unsuccessful. No, the tragedy is over the loss of a young woman's
mother who won't be around to laugh with and sing for her daughter.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
AND THE OSCAR FOR BEST FILM OF 2011 GOES TO...
NO ONE. NOT A SINGLE DAMN ONE OF THE 9 NOMINATED FILMS WILL BE HONORED BY THE ACADEMY THIS YEAR.
Just kidding, though to tell you the God's honest truth, none deserve to be singled out as the best of the year. Timing is everything and the Academy chose the wrong year to continue its silly policy
adopted last year to nominate as many as 10 films rather than the 5 that had normally been chosen
in previous years.
This rant isn't about the Academy's history of choosing an awful or mediocre film over a truly deserving one for its best film Oscar. You don't have the time and I don't feel like doing that much research to make the point. But here are a few examples: How Green Was My Valley (1941) over Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon; The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) over High Noon; Around the World in 80 Days (1956) over Giant and The King and I; Rocky (1976) over All the President's Men, Network and Taxi Driver; Chariots of Fire (1981) over Reds; and
Ghandi (1982) over Tootsie and E.T.
Rather this is about nominating movies that just aren't all that good. This year some of the nominated films are ok and many are moderatly entertaining. But GREAT? Nope. No way.
Not even close.
Of the 9 nominated films, it appears to be a 2-way race between THE ARTIST and THE HELP.
I enjoyed the former film, although the novelty of no dialogue wore off about half way thru and
were it not for the wonderful presence of Uggie the dog, I probably would have dozed off.
I'm glad I didn't because the ending is a knockout and almost worth sitting thru the boring sections of the film.
I don't want to sound racist, but I was completely underwhelmed by the screen adaptation of
the wildly successful novel which featured two wonderful performances by the probably Oscar winners this year for best actress and best supporting actress (Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer).
But THE HELP isn't a good movie by a long shot. Beyond Davis and Spencer, the rest of the
cast, especially the white actresses, are awful. The hands of a first time director are all over this
film, sad to say.
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is Woody Allen's most successful film and I loved the Paris location.
Beyond that I was bored to tears. Pure fluff. Will somebody please explain to me what is all the fuss over this movie.
I saw HUGO twice. I saw it the second time in 3D at the urging of a dear friend who said the
3D technique truly enhances the film. Not for me it didn't. I was just as bored (at the sloooow
sections of the film) the second time around as I was the first. HUGO has moments of magic
and the ending is spectacular and brought tears to my eyes. But this is not one of Marty
Scorsese's best films by a longshot. I wanted to embrace HUGO but I didn't. It does feature
a beautiful musical score and I hope it wins the Oscar in this category. It is also deserving of the
Oscar in many of the other (mostly technical) categories it was nominated in but it is not worthy
of a best picture Oscar. Sorry.
Nor is Steven Spielberg's WAR HORSE which I also saw twice. I'm a sucker for any movie
about a horse (National Velvet and The Black Stallion are among my all-time favs) and Spielberg
knows how to make grand entertainments and WAR HORSE is no exception, but it is not a
great film and it features an overblown musical score by John Williams. Just awful. But I cried throughout the film and was sobbing at the end (a happy one, kana hora).
THE DESCENDANTS features an ok story and excellent ensemble acting but did I find it
memorable and compelling in any way? Nope. Ditto MONEYBALL.
Two of the worst movies of the year were nominated for the Oscar. Terrence Malick's TREE OF LIFE was pretentious, overbearing, silly and worst of all, boring as shit. This was a film
that desperately needed a screenplay for the second half of the film, something that was as
compelling as the first half which featured some brilliant acting by Brad Pitt and
the young boys who portrayed his sons. I couldn't wait for it to end.
The other truly awful nominated film is EXTREMELY LOUD (Irritating) and INCREDIBLY
CLOSE (Unbelievable). Quite simply, it stinks. I wanted to smack silly the young boy who stars in the film and is in every implausible, ridiculous scene (Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock are ok
in their mostly supporting roles as the little prick's mom and dad.). Everything about this film
is 'off'. I hated it.
I'm sorry BRIDESMAIDS didn't get a best pic nomination. It's a more successful film than any of the 9 that were nominated. Alas, it didn't make the cut.
The best picture of 2011 (American made) that I neglected to have on my top 10 list (an oversight) and also neglected by the Academy was HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY
HALLOWS PT 2. I climbed aboard the Harry Potter wagon late in the game and watched most of the series on DVD except for the final episode which I saw on the big screen and loved.
Exceptional screenplay - a wonderful adaptation of the novel - a marvelous, brilliant cast,
spectacular visuals and special effects and satisfying in every other respect, this film not only deserved to be nominated, but it truly worthy of the Oscar.
Shame on the Academy...again.
Just kidding, though to tell you the God's honest truth, none deserve to be singled out as the best of the year. Timing is everything and the Academy chose the wrong year to continue its silly policy
adopted last year to nominate as many as 10 films rather than the 5 that had normally been chosen
in previous years.
This rant isn't about the Academy's history of choosing an awful or mediocre film over a truly deserving one for its best film Oscar. You don't have the time and I don't feel like doing that much research to make the point. But here are a few examples: How Green Was My Valley (1941) over Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon; The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) over High Noon; Around the World in 80 Days (1956) over Giant and The King and I; Rocky (1976) over All the President's Men, Network and Taxi Driver; Chariots of Fire (1981) over Reds; and
Ghandi (1982) over Tootsie and E.T.
Rather this is about nominating movies that just aren't all that good. This year some of the nominated films are ok and many are moderatly entertaining. But GREAT? Nope. No way.
Not even close.
Of the 9 nominated films, it appears to be a 2-way race between THE ARTIST and THE HELP.
I enjoyed the former film, although the novelty of no dialogue wore off about half way thru and
were it not for the wonderful presence of Uggie the dog, I probably would have dozed off.
I'm glad I didn't because the ending is a knockout and almost worth sitting thru the boring sections of the film.
I don't want to sound racist, but I was completely underwhelmed by the screen adaptation of
the wildly successful novel which featured two wonderful performances by the probably Oscar winners this year for best actress and best supporting actress (Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer).
But THE HELP isn't a good movie by a long shot. Beyond Davis and Spencer, the rest of the
cast, especially the white actresses, are awful. The hands of a first time director are all over this
film, sad to say.
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is Woody Allen's most successful film and I loved the Paris location.
Beyond that I was bored to tears. Pure fluff. Will somebody please explain to me what is all the fuss over this movie.
I saw HUGO twice. I saw it the second time in 3D at the urging of a dear friend who said the
3D technique truly enhances the film. Not for me it didn't. I was just as bored (at the sloooow
sections of the film) the second time around as I was the first. HUGO has moments of magic
and the ending is spectacular and brought tears to my eyes. But this is not one of Marty
Scorsese's best films by a longshot. I wanted to embrace HUGO but I didn't. It does feature
a beautiful musical score and I hope it wins the Oscar in this category. It is also deserving of the
Oscar in many of the other (mostly technical) categories it was nominated in but it is not worthy
of a best picture Oscar. Sorry.
Nor is Steven Spielberg's WAR HORSE which I also saw twice. I'm a sucker for any movie
about a horse (National Velvet and The Black Stallion are among my all-time favs) and Spielberg
knows how to make grand entertainments and WAR HORSE is no exception, but it is not a
great film and it features an overblown musical score by John Williams. Just awful. But I cried throughout the film and was sobbing at the end (a happy one, kana hora).
THE DESCENDANTS features an ok story and excellent ensemble acting but did I find it
memorable and compelling in any way? Nope. Ditto MONEYBALL.
Two of the worst movies of the year were nominated for the Oscar. Terrence Malick's TREE OF LIFE was pretentious, overbearing, silly and worst of all, boring as shit. This was a film
that desperately needed a screenplay for the second half of the film, something that was as
compelling as the first half which featured some brilliant acting by Brad Pitt and
the young boys who portrayed his sons. I couldn't wait for it to end.
The other truly awful nominated film is EXTREMELY LOUD (Irritating) and INCREDIBLY
CLOSE (Unbelievable). Quite simply, it stinks. I wanted to smack silly the young boy who stars in the film and is in every implausible, ridiculous scene (Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock are ok
in their mostly supporting roles as the little prick's mom and dad.). Everything about this film
is 'off'. I hated it.
I'm sorry BRIDESMAIDS didn't get a best pic nomination. It's a more successful film than any of the 9 that were nominated. Alas, it didn't make the cut.
The best picture of 2011 (American made) that I neglected to have on my top 10 list (an oversight) and also neglected by the Academy was HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY
HALLOWS PT 2. I climbed aboard the Harry Potter wagon late in the game and watched most of the series on DVD except for the final episode which I saw on the big screen and loved.
Exceptional screenplay - a wonderful adaptation of the novel - a marvelous, brilliant cast,
spectacular visuals and special effects and satisfying in every other respect, this film not only deserved to be nominated, but it truly worthy of the Oscar.
Shame on the Academy...again.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
A QUICK LOOK AT THE OSCAR NOMINATIONS
Well, the Oscar nominations are out and there are very few surprises. As I mentioned in my last rant, there are several good films in the mix and several not-so-good.
In the latter category, there is Terrence Malick's TREE OF LIFE, which I designated as the
worst film of 2011. Pretentious, silly, self-important and boring, Academy members who voted for it must have seen a different movie than I did. I haven't seen EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE but on the basis of several reviews I've read by critics I respect, I don't plan to and its inclusion - along with TREE OF LIFE - on the list of 9 films nominated for the best film Oscar indicates that the majority of the Academy's voting membership are a bunch of old farts.
How else to explain members voting in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS over the far more original and entertaining BRIDESMAIDS? Granted, Woody Allen is an Academy favorite, but MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, Allen's most successful film, is pure fluff. The only thing I remember about it is the
gorgeous Paris location. Meanwhile, nearly half a year later, I am still laughing over some of the
hysterical moments in BRIDESMAIDS.
And what about HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part 2? Ignored and overlooked because it is a sequel of sorts? I was late in coming on board the Potter train, but the final chapter in the wildly successful series was terrific, almost GREAT, a word I wouldn't dare use in describing any of the 9 nominated movies this year.
Every year or so there is the "Word of Mouth" nomination and this year there are two: Demian Bichir, the wonderful Mexican actor for his performance in A BETTER LIFE and
'The Almost Meryl Streep' (Glen Close) for ALBERT NOBBS, 2 films that I contend only 10
members of the Academy have actually seen. But they spread the word that these performances were Oscar worthy and here they are.
Poor Leo DiCaprio.
Of all the nominations, only one (besides the inclusion of EXTREMELY...) annoys me and that
is for best original score. I saw WAR HORSE (twice in fact) and enjoyed it. But John Williams'
score nearly ruined it for me. Overbearing and way too much of it and here it is up for an Oscar.
It's too early to make any predictions right now. At the moment THE ARTIST is a clear favorite but never underestimate the influence of the 'old fart' element of the Academy membership. But don't expect Woody to show up to pick up his Oscar.
In the latter category, there is Terrence Malick's TREE OF LIFE, which I designated as the
worst film of 2011. Pretentious, silly, self-important and boring, Academy members who voted for it must have seen a different movie than I did. I haven't seen EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE but on the basis of several reviews I've read by critics I respect, I don't plan to and its inclusion - along with TREE OF LIFE - on the list of 9 films nominated for the best film Oscar indicates that the majority of the Academy's voting membership are a bunch of old farts.
How else to explain members voting in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS over the far more original and entertaining BRIDESMAIDS? Granted, Woody Allen is an Academy favorite, but MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, Allen's most successful film, is pure fluff. The only thing I remember about it is the
gorgeous Paris location. Meanwhile, nearly half a year later, I am still laughing over some of the
hysterical moments in BRIDESMAIDS.
And what about HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part 2? Ignored and overlooked because it is a sequel of sorts? I was late in coming on board the Potter train, but the final chapter in the wildly successful series was terrific, almost GREAT, a word I wouldn't dare use in describing any of the 9 nominated movies this year.
Every year or so there is the "Word of Mouth" nomination and this year there are two: Demian Bichir, the wonderful Mexican actor for his performance in A BETTER LIFE and
'The Almost Meryl Streep' (Glen Close) for ALBERT NOBBS, 2 films that I contend only 10
members of the Academy have actually seen. But they spread the word that these performances were Oscar worthy and here they are.
Poor Leo DiCaprio.
Of all the nominations, only one (besides the inclusion of EXTREMELY...) annoys me and that
is for best original score. I saw WAR HORSE (twice in fact) and enjoyed it. But John Williams'
score nearly ruined it for me. Overbearing and way too much of it and here it is up for an Oscar.
It's too early to make any predictions right now. At the moment THE ARTIST is a clear favorite but never underestimate the influence of the 'old fart' element of the Academy membership. But don't expect Woody to show up to pick up his Oscar.
Monday, January 23, 2012
AND THE OSCAR NOMINEES ARE...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?
Normally, this being the night before the Oscar nominations are announced, I would be counting
the hours - the minutes - until they are announced in Beverly Hills at 5am EST. I have been known to actually set my alarm and turn on the tv so I can hear who got nominated and who got fucked. But not this time.
Oh, I may set the tv timer for 5am and tape the announcements but I'll be in no rush to watch them because (1) this year's nominees are fairly easy to predict and (2) there will be very few surprises (I promise you).
More to the point, none of the films - as many as 10 can be nominated for best movie -
stand out and not one of them - I repeat - NOT ONE OF THEM - is truly worthy of winning
the Oscar. Not a truly outstanding film among the bunch.
The odds on favorite to win the Oscar this year will be the film that was just honored by the
Producers Guild this past weekend: THE ARTIST from France no less and silent to boot.
Silent, that is, meaning there is no dialogue in the film, only title cards, just like in all the
films that were produced before talkies took over in the late 1920s.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed THE ARTIST. It made my top 10 list of films in 2011,
ranking No. 10. As mentioned before, the novelty of no dialogue wore rather thin about half
way thru but the ending is fabulous and all in all it's delightful. But worthy of the best film
Oscar? I don't think so.
THE ARTIST beat out the following films for the Producer's Guild award: BRIDESMAIDS,
THE DESCENDANTS, THE HELP, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, HUGO,
THE IDES OF MARCH, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, MONEYBALL and WAR HORSE.
The Academy of Arts and Sciences, which sponsors the Oscars, made a big mistake 2 years ago
when it announced it would increase the number of movies that could be nominated for best
film of the year from 5 to as many as 10. Timing, they say, is everything, and the Academy's
was piss poor because this change took place in a year when Academy members would be hard
pressed to find 5 decent films to nominate, let alone 10.
And I'm afraid that's the situation again this year. There were some brilliant, memorable
films distributed last year and they were all foreign made. Unfortunately, the clear majority
of these films are relegated to the best foreign film category and are ineligible for a best picture
nomination. (I know...I know. THE ARTIST is from France but it's silent, remember. And
the title cards are in English. So I presume that makes it eligible to win the Oscar for best film.
Confusing? Oui. Should all films, regardless of their country of origin, be eligible? Of course.
In my opinion, not one of the 10 films nominated by the Producers Guild stand out from the
rest. Most are good, none are great.
One of these was THE HELP, a wildly uneven adaptation of the best selling novel. It features
2 Oscar worthy (and probable winning) performances by Viola Davis and Octavia Spenser (best
actress and best supporting actress). However, I don't believe it will get a best pic nomination,
nor does it deserve one.
Neither does MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, Woody Allen's most successful film ever, which will be
nominated for best film. And so will Allen for best director. The best thing about it was the
the Paris location. I wanted to fly out the next day to Paris after seeing the film but that's all
I remember about it. The scenery. Talk about fluff!
The only real competition that THE ARTIST will face for the best pic Oscar will come from
THE DESCENDANTS and HUGO. George Clooney, who will probably take home the Oscar for best actor for his performance is the best thing in the former and the cinematography is the best thing in the latter film which I wanted very much to love...but didn't. I'm a big fan of Martin
Scorsese, but HUGO is not one of his memorable films. He will get a best director nomination but will lose out to Michael Hazanivicius (THE ARTIST) or to Woody Allen.
And what about WAR HORSE? Nominated for best film by the Producers Guild, its
director, Steven Spielberg, was overlooked by the Directors Guild. Still, WAR HORSE will
probably get a best pic nomination because the Academy's membership still consists of more industry retirees than not and they love big, over-the-top tearjerkers. I saw it twice. Yup.
I'm a sucker for movies about WWI and horses. I shed tears early on and was sobbing at film's end, a happy one, kana hora.
Oddly enough, the one English language film of 2011 that I saw and has stayed with me is one that will be overlooked by the Academy - BEGINNERS. Christopher Plummer will be nominated and most likely will win the Oscar for best supporting actor (deservedly so). And
maybe it will get a best screenplay nomination. But that's all.
The ratings for this year's telecast will be among the lowest in recent years unless one
film in particular is nominated for best movie.
And what is that film?
BRIDESMAIDS. Universally praised by critics, a major box office success, its fans will tune in to see if it wins (should it be nominated).
We'll know in less than 24 hours. I can hardly wait. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
the hours - the minutes - until they are announced in Beverly Hills at 5am EST. I have been known to actually set my alarm and turn on the tv so I can hear who got nominated and who got fucked. But not this time.
Oh, I may set the tv timer for 5am and tape the announcements but I'll be in no rush to watch them because (1) this year's nominees are fairly easy to predict and (2) there will be very few surprises (I promise you).
More to the point, none of the films - as many as 10 can be nominated for best movie -
stand out and not one of them - I repeat - NOT ONE OF THEM - is truly worthy of winning
the Oscar. Not a truly outstanding film among the bunch.
The odds on favorite to win the Oscar this year will be the film that was just honored by the
Producers Guild this past weekend: THE ARTIST from France no less and silent to boot.
Silent, that is, meaning there is no dialogue in the film, only title cards, just like in all the
films that were produced before talkies took over in the late 1920s.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed THE ARTIST. It made my top 10 list of films in 2011,
ranking No. 10. As mentioned before, the novelty of no dialogue wore rather thin about half
way thru but the ending is fabulous and all in all it's delightful. But worthy of the best film
Oscar? I don't think so.
THE ARTIST beat out the following films for the Producer's Guild award: BRIDESMAIDS,
THE DESCENDANTS, THE HELP, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, HUGO,
THE IDES OF MARCH, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, MONEYBALL and WAR HORSE.
The Academy of Arts and Sciences, which sponsors the Oscars, made a big mistake 2 years ago
when it announced it would increase the number of movies that could be nominated for best
film of the year from 5 to as many as 10. Timing, they say, is everything, and the Academy's
was piss poor because this change took place in a year when Academy members would be hard
pressed to find 5 decent films to nominate, let alone 10.
And I'm afraid that's the situation again this year. There were some brilliant, memorable
films distributed last year and they were all foreign made. Unfortunately, the clear majority
of these films are relegated to the best foreign film category and are ineligible for a best picture
nomination. (I know...I know. THE ARTIST is from France but it's silent, remember. And
the title cards are in English. So I presume that makes it eligible to win the Oscar for best film.
Confusing? Oui. Should all films, regardless of their country of origin, be eligible? Of course.
In my opinion, not one of the 10 films nominated by the Producers Guild stand out from the
rest. Most are good, none are great.
One of these was THE HELP, a wildly uneven adaptation of the best selling novel. It features
2 Oscar worthy (and probable winning) performances by Viola Davis and Octavia Spenser (best
actress and best supporting actress). However, I don't believe it will get a best pic nomination,
nor does it deserve one.
Neither does MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, Woody Allen's most successful film ever, which will be
nominated for best film. And so will Allen for best director. The best thing about it was the
the Paris location. I wanted to fly out the next day to Paris after seeing the film but that's all
I remember about it. The scenery. Talk about fluff!
The only real competition that THE ARTIST will face for the best pic Oscar will come from
THE DESCENDANTS and HUGO. George Clooney, who will probably take home the Oscar for best actor for his performance is the best thing in the former and the cinematography is the best thing in the latter film which I wanted very much to love...but didn't. I'm a big fan of Martin
Scorsese, but HUGO is not one of his memorable films. He will get a best director nomination but will lose out to Michael Hazanivicius (THE ARTIST) or to Woody Allen.
And what about WAR HORSE? Nominated for best film by the Producers Guild, its
director, Steven Spielberg, was overlooked by the Directors Guild. Still, WAR HORSE will
probably get a best pic nomination because the Academy's membership still consists of more industry retirees than not and they love big, over-the-top tearjerkers. I saw it twice. Yup.
I'm a sucker for movies about WWI and horses. I shed tears early on and was sobbing at film's end, a happy one, kana hora.
Oddly enough, the one English language film of 2011 that I saw and has stayed with me is one that will be overlooked by the Academy - BEGINNERS. Christopher Plummer will be nominated and most likely will win the Oscar for best supporting actor (deservedly so). And
maybe it will get a best screenplay nomination. But that's all.
The ratings for this year's telecast will be among the lowest in recent years unless one
film in particular is nominated for best movie.
And what is that film?
BRIDESMAIDS. Universally praised by critics, a major box office success, its fans will tune in to see if it wins (should it be nominated).
We'll know in less than 24 hours. I can hardly wait. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
REMEMBERING SANDY BLECHER
It was 25 years ago this week that my dear friend, Sandy Blecher, passed away. She was only
47.
She and her husband, Shelly, has just returned 2 weeks earlier from their 4th or 5th trip to
Italy. Sandy loved everything Italian: the art, museums, the food and especially the people.
There probably wasn't a gallery or museum in Rome, Florence, Milan or Venice that failed to
get her attention. She worshipped the great painters and was a virtual encyclopedia when it came to art history or, for that matter, just about any other subject under the sun.
She was born in Philadelphia, one of 3 children - 2 girls and 1 boy. Her brother, Barry, was treated as royalty - a prince - while Sandy was relegated to the role of no one in particular. As
a female, it was expected that she would marry young and be a housewife. Pretty typical for a girl of her generation, although she did attend Temple Univ. for a year before she met and married Shelly.
That marriage took place when Sandy was only 19, one year after she had met Shelly who
claims that Sandy proposed to him after only 6 weeks of dating. I believe Shelly because Sandy used to tell hysterically funny stories about her parents and how warped they were and how she
couldn't wait to get out from under their influence and control.
Once married, her parents refused to pay for her college tuition and thus ended the formal
education of one of the most intelligent people I've ever known.
I don't recall how Carol (my former wife) and I met Sandy and Shelly. I do remember falling
totally in love with Sandy the very first time the 4 of us got together. Funny, articulate and self-
effacing, she was the perfect foil for her husband Shelly's comedic riffs. She was Gracie Allen to
George Burns, dumb like a fox and quick with a retort.
Carol and I would often visit Sandy and Shelly at their home in Silver Spring, Md. It was
the late 1960s and the 4 of us would go downstairs into their large den and smoke a lot of weed
while their 2 young daughters, Debby and Nina, were asleep upstairs (so we thought). In fact,
they were sitting at the top of the stairs half hysterical that their parents would be arrested and thrown into jail (along with Carol and me) because in school they were told that mj was an
illegal substance and its users should be locked up for life. Fortunately, for us, they never turned us in.
Sandy was petite, less than 5' tall. She wore her dark hair short and was always in cutoffs.
At least that's how I remember her. She was also a heavy smoker and it was probably that habit that caused the lung Cancer that killed her. Back then, just about everyone, including
myself, smoked; this was long before cigarette packs carried warning messages. I can't think
of a single other 'vice' that Sandy was guilty of. She took care of herself and only indulged her husband and children, never herself. Physically, I used to think of her as the Jewish Teresa
Brewer, a popular vocalist back in the 50s and early 60s. Pert and pretty.
Sandy worked for years at the National Building Museum in downtown D.C. as the special
events coordinator. It was a perfect match. Surrounded by the art that she treasured and other nearby museums and galleries, she loved her work and those who worked with Sandy adored her.
I remember when Carol called me in Los Angeles where I had moved in 1979 to tell me the
tragic news that Sandy had died. I recall exclaiming, "What are you talking about? She and Shelly just got back from Italy." This was true. As it turned out, Sandy had been complaining
of headaches and shortness of breath before this last trip, but nothing, I'm sure, could have
kept her from taking it.
Soon after their return from Sandy's beloved Italy, she was admitted to a nearby hospital.
She passed away 3 days later.
She lived long enough to see the birth of her first grandchild, Joshua. Her oldest daughter,
Debby, who had married and moved to North Carolina, returned to DC with her husband Steve
and baby son and moved in with Shelly. She and Nina kept a close eye on their father - out of love.
Sandy didn't live to see the birth of her other 3 grandchildren. Both Debby and her lovely
sister, Nina, live in the area and remain extremely close to their father. I can only imagine
the pain that Shelly has carried all these years (He never remaried).
Sandy was unique. Intelligent, funny, caring, loving, both sarcastic and sentimental, it is
impossible to think of her and not smile. She would only be 72 this year. Her life was cut way too short, but she left behind so many people with loving and fond memories of their time with her.
I am fortunate to be among that group.
47.
She and her husband, Shelly, has just returned 2 weeks earlier from their 4th or 5th trip to
Italy. Sandy loved everything Italian: the art, museums, the food and especially the people.
There probably wasn't a gallery or museum in Rome, Florence, Milan or Venice that failed to
get her attention. She worshipped the great painters and was a virtual encyclopedia when it came to art history or, for that matter, just about any other subject under the sun.
She was born in Philadelphia, one of 3 children - 2 girls and 1 boy. Her brother, Barry, was treated as royalty - a prince - while Sandy was relegated to the role of no one in particular. As
a female, it was expected that she would marry young and be a housewife. Pretty typical for a girl of her generation, although she did attend Temple Univ. for a year before she met and married Shelly.
That marriage took place when Sandy was only 19, one year after she had met Shelly who
claims that Sandy proposed to him after only 6 weeks of dating. I believe Shelly because Sandy used to tell hysterically funny stories about her parents and how warped they were and how she
couldn't wait to get out from under their influence and control.
Once married, her parents refused to pay for her college tuition and thus ended the formal
education of one of the most intelligent people I've ever known.
I don't recall how Carol (my former wife) and I met Sandy and Shelly. I do remember falling
totally in love with Sandy the very first time the 4 of us got together. Funny, articulate and self-
effacing, she was the perfect foil for her husband Shelly's comedic riffs. She was Gracie Allen to
George Burns, dumb like a fox and quick with a retort.
Carol and I would often visit Sandy and Shelly at their home in Silver Spring, Md. It was
the late 1960s and the 4 of us would go downstairs into their large den and smoke a lot of weed
while their 2 young daughters, Debby and Nina, were asleep upstairs (so we thought). In fact,
they were sitting at the top of the stairs half hysterical that their parents would be arrested and thrown into jail (along with Carol and me) because in school they were told that mj was an
illegal substance and its users should be locked up for life. Fortunately, for us, they never turned us in.
Sandy was petite, less than 5' tall. She wore her dark hair short and was always in cutoffs.
At least that's how I remember her. She was also a heavy smoker and it was probably that habit that caused the lung Cancer that killed her. Back then, just about everyone, including
myself, smoked; this was long before cigarette packs carried warning messages. I can't think
of a single other 'vice' that Sandy was guilty of. She took care of herself and only indulged her husband and children, never herself. Physically, I used to think of her as the Jewish Teresa
Brewer, a popular vocalist back in the 50s and early 60s. Pert and pretty.
Sandy worked for years at the National Building Museum in downtown D.C. as the special
events coordinator. It was a perfect match. Surrounded by the art that she treasured and other nearby museums and galleries, she loved her work and those who worked with Sandy adored her.
I remember when Carol called me in Los Angeles where I had moved in 1979 to tell me the
tragic news that Sandy had died. I recall exclaiming, "What are you talking about? She and Shelly just got back from Italy." This was true. As it turned out, Sandy had been complaining
of headaches and shortness of breath before this last trip, but nothing, I'm sure, could have
kept her from taking it.
Soon after their return from Sandy's beloved Italy, she was admitted to a nearby hospital.
She passed away 3 days later.
She lived long enough to see the birth of her first grandchild, Joshua. Her oldest daughter,
Debby, who had married and moved to North Carolina, returned to DC with her husband Steve
and baby son and moved in with Shelly. She and Nina kept a close eye on their father - out of love.
Sandy didn't live to see the birth of her other 3 grandchildren. Both Debby and her lovely
sister, Nina, live in the area and remain extremely close to their father. I can only imagine
the pain that Shelly has carried all these years (He never remaried).
Sandy was unique. Intelligent, funny, caring, loving, both sarcastic and sentimental, it is
impossible to think of her and not smile. She would only be 72 this year. Her life was cut way too short, but she left behind so many people with loving and fond memories of their time with her.
I am fortunate to be among that group.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
MERYL STREEP AND THE IRON LADY
Alert: This is NOT a review of the new film, THE IRON LADY, in which of of my favorite
actresses - the great Meryl Streep - portrays former prime minister of Great Britain, Margaret
Thatcher.
It's not a review because I don't plan on seeing it. I know...I know. It's January when the major
studios dump all their dreck in the market place because attendance is generally down at the
multiplex because most people are home enjoying all the shit presents they got for Xmas, right?
Granted, a few good films do come out early in the year, but I don't think THE IRON LADY
is one of them. Why? Because who gives a shit about Margaret Thatcher? Be honest now.
Do you have the slightest interest in seeing a biofilm about her? Maybe, just maybe, if it were
a movie-of-the-week or month or on one of the cable networks, I might just tune in and watch it.
On the other hand, if TCM were showing KING KONG or NATIONAL VELVET for the 30th
time in the last year or TITANTIC was playing on The Movie Channel (Can you believe they're
re-releasing TITANTIC in April in 3D??!!??), I'd pass on watching IRON LADY.
You see, there's really nothing interesting about Margaret Thatcher. If there were, the screenplay for the film would have included those things that made Thatcher, well, fascinating.
But it doesn't, not according to several of the reviews I've read. All of them praise Streep's
performance and say she both looks and sounds like Thatcher. But beyond that, there ain't
much happening in the movie other than showing Thatcher as old, suffering from dementia and talking to her dead husband.
But this isn't a review so I'll stop citing some of them and what they have to say about the film.
The point of this rant isn't about the quality of the film but rather why did they bother. What
were the producers who developed the project and the studio head who gave it a green light thinking? Surely the studio's marketing division was consulted beforehand and its staff would
have advised that there was a better chance of snow falling in Palm Springs, Ca. in July than
a film about Margaret Thatcher making money. But the project got a green light anyway.
I recently saw another biopic about the late J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI, a truly compelling and fascinating character who was portrayed quite brilliantly by Leonardo DiCaprio who is sure to get a best actor nod when the nominations for Oscars are announced later this
month.
Directed by Clint Eastwood, I started yawning half way thru despite there being a lot of
action and good ensemble acting. It just didn't grab me and hold my attention and Hoover was in a powerful position for decades whereas Thatcher as prime minister held power for only a few years.
I must admit I'm no fan of Thatcher's. I truly believe that many of her policies - like those
of Ronald Reagan in this country - were ill-advised and in the end were harmful to the economic
developement of Great Britain and impacted negatively on the rest of Europe. That being the
case, I really have no interest in seeing her depicted in either a positive or negative manner.
And I don't think that a lot of other movie goers are gonna fork over $12 to see THE IRON
LADY. I've always said I'd pay to watch Meryl Streep read a telephone book because she is
an amazing actress. Sophie's Choice, The French Lieutenant's Woman, The Deer Hunter and
singing and dancing in Momma Mia. She's incredible.
But I'll pass on THE IRON LADY.
actresses - the great Meryl Streep - portrays former prime minister of Great Britain, Margaret
Thatcher.
It's not a review because I don't plan on seeing it. I know...I know. It's January when the major
studios dump all their dreck in the market place because attendance is generally down at the
multiplex because most people are home enjoying all the shit presents they got for Xmas, right?
Granted, a few good films do come out early in the year, but I don't think THE IRON LADY
is one of them. Why? Because who gives a shit about Margaret Thatcher? Be honest now.
Do you have the slightest interest in seeing a biofilm about her? Maybe, just maybe, if it were
a movie-of-the-week or month or on one of the cable networks, I might just tune in and watch it.
On the other hand, if TCM were showing KING KONG or NATIONAL VELVET for the 30th
time in the last year or TITANTIC was playing on The Movie Channel (Can you believe they're
re-releasing TITANTIC in April in 3D??!!??), I'd pass on watching IRON LADY.
You see, there's really nothing interesting about Margaret Thatcher. If there were, the screenplay for the film would have included those things that made Thatcher, well, fascinating.
But it doesn't, not according to several of the reviews I've read. All of them praise Streep's
performance and say she both looks and sounds like Thatcher. But beyond that, there ain't
much happening in the movie other than showing Thatcher as old, suffering from dementia and talking to her dead husband.
But this isn't a review so I'll stop citing some of them and what they have to say about the film.
The point of this rant isn't about the quality of the film but rather why did they bother. What
were the producers who developed the project and the studio head who gave it a green light thinking? Surely the studio's marketing division was consulted beforehand and its staff would
have advised that there was a better chance of snow falling in Palm Springs, Ca. in July than
a film about Margaret Thatcher making money. But the project got a green light anyway.
I recently saw another biopic about the late J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI, a truly compelling and fascinating character who was portrayed quite brilliantly by Leonardo DiCaprio who is sure to get a best actor nod when the nominations for Oscars are announced later this
month.
Directed by Clint Eastwood, I started yawning half way thru despite there being a lot of
action and good ensemble acting. It just didn't grab me and hold my attention and Hoover was in a powerful position for decades whereas Thatcher as prime minister held power for only a few years.
I must admit I'm no fan of Thatcher's. I truly believe that many of her policies - like those
of Ronald Reagan in this country - were ill-advised and in the end were harmful to the economic
developement of Great Britain and impacted negatively on the rest of Europe. That being the
case, I really have no interest in seeing her depicted in either a positive or negative manner.
And I don't think that a lot of other movie goers are gonna fork over $12 to see THE IRON
LADY. I've always said I'd pay to watch Meryl Streep read a telephone book because she is
an amazing actress. Sophie's Choice, The French Lieutenant's Woman, The Deer Hunter and
singing and dancing in Momma Mia. She's incredible.
But I'll pass on THE IRON LADY.
Monday, January 2, 2012
MY FAVORITE FILMS OF 2011
It's that time of year again when film critics, bloggers and movie fans pick their favorite films
of the year. I'm no exception. The films I've chosen are on my list for a very simple reason: I loved them and would be happy to sit thru them a second time. They either touched me emotionally and made my cry or hit my funny bone and made me laugh and smile. Some even did both.
All in all, it was an OK year for movies. There were far too many sequels and big studio wannabe blockbusters and far too many adaptations from comic books. Enough already. Fortunately, enough foreign films and character driven independent films to satisfy my appetite were released.
The list is totally subjective. Some films I saw were well made and featured excellent performances but lacked that intangible something or other that makes a film (for me) special.
Here's my list of special films from this past calendar year:
10. THE ARTIST ---- A valentine from France about the American film industry in the late
1920s when sound was making silent films obsolete and in this
story - done without any sound or dialogue until the end - threatening
the career of one of the era's popular stars who refuses to accept the
fact that silent films are history. The film borrows from A Star is
Born and Singing in the Rain and features 2 terrific performances by
the leads - Jean Dujardin and Berenice Beio. Plus an adorable terrier
dog who all but steals the film. Truthfully, the novelty of no sound
started to wear thin about half way thru, but I stuck with it
and glad I did because the last 10 minutes are fabulous. You will
leave the theatre with a smile on your face.
9. SARA'S KEY ---- Also from France but in both French and English, based on the best
selling novel by Titiana de Rosnay and starring the always terrific
Kristin Scott Thomas who plays an American journalist living in Paris
in 2002 who sets out to discover what happened to one of the survivors
of the 13,000 Jews who were rounded up by French officials in Paris
on July 16, 1942 and sent to German concentration camps. The story
meanders back and forth between the present (the least compelling
moments in the film) and 1942 (brilliantly rendered and incredibly
moving). I didn't read the book but my sister did and she said the
film adaptation was actually more involving than the novel.
8. 50/50 ---- One of the few American films on my list, a delight from beginning to
end, starring one of my favorite actors, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and one
of my least favorite (Seth Rogen, who is terrific playing Gordon-
Levitt's best friend). Written by Will Riser and based on his battle to
overcome a diagnosis of Cancer and subsequent surgeries. Also
terrific turns by Anna Kendrick as his therapist and Angelica Huston
as his mother. I loved this film. Another one to leave a smile on your
face.
7. BEGINNERS ---- written and directed by Mike Mills and featuring an Oscar worthy
performance by Christopher Plummer who comes out of the closet to
lead an openly gay lifestyle in his 70s after his wife has died. Ewan
McGregor, vastly underrated and always good, plays his son who tries
to overcome his inability to have a successful relationship with his
girlfriend while coming to terms with his father's lifestyle, terminal
illness and boyfriend. You will laugh...you will cry (ouch).
6. WE WERE ---- This wonderful documentary by David Weissman is about the AIDS
THERE epidemic in San Francisco in the late 1980s and is mainly accomplished
by interviewing 5 people who were intimately involved in the care of
many of the more than 15,000 who died in hospitals and hospice care in
the city. There are moments of great tenderness and humor and it
made me proud to be a member of the gay community that rose to the
occasion and met adversity with courage and love.
5. WAR HORSE ---- Yes, it is overproduced a la The Color Purple and features an awful
score by John Williams, but Steven Spielberg knows how to involve us
in a BIG film and I am a sucker for any movie about a horse. I started
tearing up 10 minutes into the film and by the end I was sobbing (tears
of happiness, kana hora). Just like the ads say, it is MAJESTIC,
GORGEOUS, POWERFUL and HEARTFELT. In lieu of seeing the
Tony award winning play on Broadway, this will do.
4. THE TRIP ---- A road comedy about an actor (Steve Coogan) who is asked by The
Observer (London newspaper) to tour the country's finest inns and
restaurants and takes along his 'best friend', fellow actor Rob Brydon.
As the 2 travel around, sampling fine cuisine and getting on each
other's nerves while doing competing impressions (Michael Caine and
Al Pacino among others), they also learn in the end the real nature of
friendship and fame. Coogan and Bryon are brilliant and fucking
funny. I loved this movie.
3. EVEN THE
RAIN ---- From Spain, a great film (I think) starring one of my favorite actors,
Gael Garcia Bernal. A film within a film concept about a film company
that travels to Bolivia to make a movie about Christopher Columbus
and his exploitation of native Indian populations during his journeys to
the New World. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation is attempting
to privatize the town's water supply and several of the locals who have
been cast in Bernal's film (He plays the director) get involved in the
increasingly violent demonstrations against the corporate intruders.
IF it is Spain's entry in this year's race for best foreign film, it deserves
to win the Oscar.
2. HEDGEHOG ---- based on the French novel (The Elegance of the Hedgehog), I saw this
film twice in one week so what does that tell you. About a concierge (a
stunning performance by Josiane Balasko, one of France's leading
actresses) in a pricey apartment building who befriends a precocious
11-year old girl who lives there and has announced (to the audience)
that she intends to commit suicide at the end of her current school year
and is herself befriended by a wealthy, retired Japanese businessman,
a new occupant in the building. Cynical and sentimental, I was sobbing
at the end of the film. To say I was 'vaklempted' would be an
understatement. I read the book after seeing the film and was still moved
to tears at the end. I loved this movie.
NOW A LITTLE DRUM ROLL, PLEASE AS I ANNOUNCE MY FAVORITE FILM OF 2011:
1. NOSTALGIA
FOR
THE
LIGHT ------ This brilliant documentary from Chilean filmmaker Patricio Guzman
blew me away. It takes place in the Atacama Desert where atop mountains
astronomers gather to observe the stars and the boundaries of the universe
thru gigantic telescopes while below on the ground surviving relatives,
mostly women, search for the remains of bodies that were
dumped and buried there by the Chilean army after the military coup of
September, 1973 (yup, we supported the anti-Communist ruthless regime
responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men and women).
Beautiful, meaningful and deeply moving, NOSTALGIA FOR THE
LIGHT remains fresh in my memory many months after seeing it and
was my favorite film of the year.
Honorable mention movies include: MARGAIN CALL, A DANGEROUS METHOD, HUGO,
THE DESCENDANTS, BRIDESMAIDS, LE HAVRE, WE BOUGHT A
ZOO, MOZART'S SISTER, INCENDIES, MONEYBALL and the first
15 and last 15 minutes of MELANCHOLIA.
The worst America film I saw last year was without a doubt, hands down: TREE OF LIFE
The worst foreign film I saw last year was UNCLE BOONMEE WHO CAN RECALL HIS
PAST LIVES (Thailand)
The 2 worst films that I didn't see last year were LARRY CROWE and NEW YEAR'S EVE.
That's all folks. It's a wrap. See ya at the movies.
The 3 worst films that I saw last year without explanation
of the year. I'm no exception. The films I've chosen are on my list for a very simple reason: I loved them and would be happy to sit thru them a second time. They either touched me emotionally and made my cry or hit my funny bone and made me laugh and smile. Some even did both.
All in all, it was an OK year for movies. There were far too many sequels and big studio wannabe blockbusters and far too many adaptations from comic books. Enough already. Fortunately, enough foreign films and character driven independent films to satisfy my appetite were released.
The list is totally subjective. Some films I saw were well made and featured excellent performances but lacked that intangible something or other that makes a film (for me) special.
Here's my list of special films from this past calendar year:
10. THE ARTIST ---- A valentine from France about the American film industry in the late
1920s when sound was making silent films obsolete and in this
story - done without any sound or dialogue until the end - threatening
the career of one of the era's popular stars who refuses to accept the
fact that silent films are history. The film borrows from A Star is
Born and Singing in the Rain and features 2 terrific performances by
the leads - Jean Dujardin and Berenice Beio. Plus an adorable terrier
dog who all but steals the film. Truthfully, the novelty of no sound
started to wear thin about half way thru, but I stuck with it
and glad I did because the last 10 minutes are fabulous. You will
leave the theatre with a smile on your face.
9. SARA'S KEY ---- Also from France but in both French and English, based on the best
selling novel by Titiana de Rosnay and starring the always terrific
Kristin Scott Thomas who plays an American journalist living in Paris
in 2002 who sets out to discover what happened to one of the survivors
of the 13,000 Jews who were rounded up by French officials in Paris
on July 16, 1942 and sent to German concentration camps. The story
meanders back and forth between the present (the least compelling
moments in the film) and 1942 (brilliantly rendered and incredibly
moving). I didn't read the book but my sister did and she said the
film adaptation was actually more involving than the novel.
8. 50/50 ---- One of the few American films on my list, a delight from beginning to
end, starring one of my favorite actors, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and one
of my least favorite (Seth Rogen, who is terrific playing Gordon-
Levitt's best friend). Written by Will Riser and based on his battle to
overcome a diagnosis of Cancer and subsequent surgeries. Also
terrific turns by Anna Kendrick as his therapist and Angelica Huston
as his mother. I loved this film. Another one to leave a smile on your
face.
7. BEGINNERS ---- written and directed by Mike Mills and featuring an Oscar worthy
performance by Christopher Plummer who comes out of the closet to
lead an openly gay lifestyle in his 70s after his wife has died. Ewan
McGregor, vastly underrated and always good, plays his son who tries
to overcome his inability to have a successful relationship with his
girlfriend while coming to terms with his father's lifestyle, terminal
illness and boyfriend. You will laugh...you will cry (ouch).
6. WE WERE ---- This wonderful documentary by David Weissman is about the AIDS
THERE epidemic in San Francisco in the late 1980s and is mainly accomplished
by interviewing 5 people who were intimately involved in the care of
many of the more than 15,000 who died in hospitals and hospice care in
the city. There are moments of great tenderness and humor and it
made me proud to be a member of the gay community that rose to the
occasion and met adversity with courage and love.
5. WAR HORSE ---- Yes, it is overproduced a la The Color Purple and features an awful
score by John Williams, but Steven Spielberg knows how to involve us
in a BIG film and I am a sucker for any movie about a horse. I started
tearing up 10 minutes into the film and by the end I was sobbing (tears
of happiness, kana hora). Just like the ads say, it is MAJESTIC,
GORGEOUS, POWERFUL and HEARTFELT. In lieu of seeing the
Tony award winning play on Broadway, this will do.
4. THE TRIP ---- A road comedy about an actor (Steve Coogan) who is asked by The
Observer (London newspaper) to tour the country's finest inns and
restaurants and takes along his 'best friend', fellow actor Rob Brydon.
As the 2 travel around, sampling fine cuisine and getting on each
other's nerves while doing competing impressions (Michael Caine and
Al Pacino among others), they also learn in the end the real nature of
friendship and fame. Coogan and Bryon are brilliant and fucking
funny. I loved this movie.
3. EVEN THE
RAIN ---- From Spain, a great film (I think) starring one of my favorite actors,
Gael Garcia Bernal. A film within a film concept about a film company
that travels to Bolivia to make a movie about Christopher Columbus
and his exploitation of native Indian populations during his journeys to
the New World. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation is attempting
to privatize the town's water supply and several of the locals who have
been cast in Bernal's film (He plays the director) get involved in the
increasingly violent demonstrations against the corporate intruders.
IF it is Spain's entry in this year's race for best foreign film, it deserves
to win the Oscar.
2. HEDGEHOG ---- based on the French novel (The Elegance of the Hedgehog), I saw this
film twice in one week so what does that tell you. About a concierge (a
stunning performance by Josiane Balasko, one of France's leading
actresses) in a pricey apartment building who befriends a precocious
11-year old girl who lives there and has announced (to the audience)
that she intends to commit suicide at the end of her current school year
and is herself befriended by a wealthy, retired Japanese businessman,
a new occupant in the building. Cynical and sentimental, I was sobbing
at the end of the film. To say I was 'vaklempted' would be an
understatement. I read the book after seeing the film and was still moved
to tears at the end. I loved this movie.
NOW A LITTLE DRUM ROLL, PLEASE AS I ANNOUNCE MY FAVORITE FILM OF 2011:
1. NOSTALGIA
FOR
THE
LIGHT ------ This brilliant documentary from Chilean filmmaker Patricio Guzman
blew me away. It takes place in the Atacama Desert where atop mountains
astronomers gather to observe the stars and the boundaries of the universe
thru gigantic telescopes while below on the ground surviving relatives,
mostly women, search for the remains of bodies that were
dumped and buried there by the Chilean army after the military coup of
September, 1973 (yup, we supported the anti-Communist ruthless regime
responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men and women).
Beautiful, meaningful and deeply moving, NOSTALGIA FOR THE
LIGHT remains fresh in my memory many months after seeing it and
was my favorite film of the year.
Honorable mention movies include: MARGAIN CALL, A DANGEROUS METHOD, HUGO,
THE DESCENDANTS, BRIDESMAIDS, LE HAVRE, WE BOUGHT A
ZOO, MOZART'S SISTER, INCENDIES, MONEYBALL and the first
15 and last 15 minutes of MELANCHOLIA.
The worst America film I saw last year was without a doubt, hands down: TREE OF LIFE
The worst foreign film I saw last year was UNCLE BOONMEE WHO CAN RECALL HIS
PAST LIVES (Thailand)
The 2 worst films that I didn't see last year were LARRY CROWE and NEW YEAR'S EVE.
That's all folks. It's a wrap. See ya at the movies.
The 3 worst films that I saw last year without explanation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)