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.
Friday, April 13, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)