For those of you who remember St. Elsewhere!

Apparently if St. Elsewhere was part of Tommy Westphall's created universe a bunch of television shows are too. Interesting stuff to check out
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html

Costal's Rhet & Comp @ Stockton College -- Spring 2010: A sad day for words and truth

http://costalwriting.blogspot.com/2010/01/sad-day-for-words-and-truth.html

The Villain Always Wins

Well with both The Golden Globes and the SAGs behind us, the BAFTAs and Oscars are looming over the many award winning films which will receive nominations. While I'd love to nick pick over who should and should not win, there is a category that I feel has already been decided. The supporting actor award has practically been won already by German actor, Christoph Waltz. Having won literally every award for his portrayal of Col. Hans Landa, he has even won the Golden Globe and SAG award for supporting actor.

This is where it gets interesting. IF Christoph Waltz wins the Oscar, this will be the third year in a row that the Supporting Actor award has been received by an actor in a villainous role. For those who do not remember Heath Ledger nabbed a posthumous Oscar for his role as The Joker last year and Javier Bardem won for his role as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men the year prior. While this sets a trend, not all villains win. William Hurt in 2006 lost with his role as Richie Cusack in A History of Violence. The real question is what sets villains apart from heart warming old men (Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild) and possible pedophile priests (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt).

First and foremost roles of these nature allow the actor to over act. Was the Joker really a seamless blend of reality and villainy? No! He was a character. Character acting is one of the best ways to get people to notice your skills as an actor, without having to break down crying in front of the camera. Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Petter Lorre and many other funny little men have made a living with character roles. While Javier Bardem's role might not come off as overacting, the little smile he gives the gas station clerk pushes a barrier that cannot be seen. Actors are allowed to act inhuman, unethical, and unruly all while they smile. It also allows the audience to escape into a mind set they will never embody or create something to absolutely hate. This reaction from the audience is what film in essence is about. Film is about reactions- crying, laughing, fear, etc.

Take a movie like It's a Wonderful Life. Jimmy Stewart is given continuous praise for his new cynical acting style which he embodied after his run in WWII. While Stewart is extraordinary, Lionel Barrymore as Mr. Potter is probably the most successful of all the roles. He makes you hate him and by doing so we can easily side with Stewart even with his feelings for Mary (He loathes her because she represents him never getting out of the grubby little town). Taking this idea of the villain allowing the viewer to like the lead, look at films like The Dark Knight or No Country for Old Men. While there is no doubt in my mind that Josh Brolin and Christian Bale are two of the greatest actors to grace the silver screen, their characters are not the most lovable or praise worthy. The reason an audience member screamed "HELL YEAH BATMAN!" after Batman took out the 18 wheeler, is because Heath Ledger has laid down the unsettling road to which we side with the Batman.

With actors becoming so unsettling and the perfect outline for what a villain should be, audience members can end up siding with them. More people undoubtedly dressed as the Joker for Halloween, rather then the Batman. In this case the villain has become so successful he outshines the hero. Unlike The Dark Knight which is about the black and white and grey areas of morality, Inglourious Basterds is about showing that all of the characters are in the grey or black. When Christoph Waltz outshines Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, and Diane Kruger, it is alright because they all are cruel characters. There really is no good or bad, just bad and worse.

The villainous role has slowly left the realm of Snidley Whiplash and moved towards Professor Moriarty or even Sherlock Holmes on a bad day. This transformation has undoubtedly improved cinema, just as leaving the Dudley Do-Right characters in the past and making leads multilayered emotional anchors. It is because the villainous role as started to truly mature so much we are siding with them, actors are receiving more nominations for such roles.

Help Haiti's Hunger

So I'm watching the Hope for Haiti live concert. Dad and I are sitting side by side, naming all of the actors and artists we see on screen. Matt Damon, Clint Eastwood, Nicole Kidman, ...even our very own Edward Cullen is hosting. We're watching all of the stories and footage from Haiti, and talking about how great it is that people are trying to do so much. Then my brother walks in. "Dad, have you donated yet?" No. Of course he hasn't. He says he's going to, but...I'm not going to press him. I'm smart enough to not piss him off about it (no matter how tempting it is to spam-text "GIVE" to that number, 50555, and totally jack up our cell phone bill to OVER 9000 dollars).

Random side-note: Hey look, it's Steven Spielberg.

...anyway. It really breaks my heart. I feel so helpless, and I hate that because I believe there is ALWAYS something you can do. I'm sitting here thinking how much I want to do something, anything, but I can't give money because I personally have none. Then I noticed the crawler at the bottom of the page "Your donation will benefit Oxfam America, partners in Health, Red Cross, UNICEF, United Nations World Food Programme...."

There. That's it. The World Food Programme. Now where have I seen that before?

A couple of years ago, I stumbled across this website called FreeRice.com. FreeRice is essentially a vocabulary game run by a non-profit organization. For each answer you get right, they donate 10 grains of rice through the UN's World Food Programme to help end hunger. And right now, the WFP is trying to help Haiti.

So...take 10 minutes out of your day and play!

(EDIT 1/23: Would have posted this last night, but...I fell asleep. Hah.)

A (very) Modest Defense of Avatar

There are some good aspects of the film Avatar. Anytime a film brings to light the destructive aspects of colonialism and imperialism I'm all for it. Although secondary to Cameron's 3-D filming, the focus on a society being invaded and destroyed both socially and environmentally is an important one especially in light of what the United States has been doing this century, and since its formation. In case you've forgotten, or Mr Cervi didn't mention it, the U.S. has invaded two countries within the last decade, we've killed hundreds of thousands of people, there are 5 million orphaned children in Iraq due to our invasion, we have 750 active military bases around the world, 30,000 troops in S. Korea, 115,000 soldiers in Iraq, soon there will be 130,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, we are the largest arms dealer and this year our defense budget will be $663.8 Billion. By the way just on Iraq and Afghanistan the US spent $170 Billion last year. The next country closest to the US is China which spent $122 Billion on its military last year. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld )

All this at a time when unemployment is skyrocketing and millions of people are losing their homes! Now Avatar does not connect the dots to the US, but even if people can make a small connection to the evil of imperialism no matter where or when, so much the better. Even today, when everyone is concerned for the people in Haiti due to the earthquake many people forget colonialism's impact in Haiti and the US role in their impoverishment beginning in 1804. As the first free black society the US refused to recognize Haiti for 60 years. (for a great article on Haiti: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22danner.html?scp=1&sq=mark%20danner&st=cse

I actually find more problems with Avatar than good things, such as the need for a white hero to save the day for the Navis (yeah that would happen!) and a 'Dances with Wolves' complex (where is Costner anyhow?). In fact, Kipling would probably love Cameron! Finally, as long as big money and big corporations control Hollywood, and we are now witnessing the pinnacle of this, we will continue to see huge movies that Cameron typifies, and less and less small productions. For most Americans there isn't a solution - they will keep on texting, facebooking, driving SUV's, and worrying about who won on American Idol. Don't change things - just consume them!!

Do you think Johnny Depp will play her?

This could be awesome!

Avatarrible Golden Globes worse than an episode of the Golden Girls

I hate Avatar. There, I said it. Whew!

I thought seeing it written would make me feel differently, but it hasn't. My sentiments are completely unfounded. I didn't see it. Nor have I seen or felt a special affinity toward any of the other films expected a nomination this year (the only one I saw was Julie and Julia... oh and New Moon of course). I wasn't blown away by the Hurt Locker (hahaha, get it?). I didn't soar over Up in the Air (too much? prob). I haven't even bothered to ON DEMAND Inglorious, but somehow I am utterly aggrevated that Avatar beat these films at the Globes.

Maybe it's that I could see this movie coming a mile away. All flash, no substance. All visual, no cerebral. Since the very first trailer, I felt as if I could relay the storyline to you almost verbatim. Everyone I know and respect, who has seen the film, including many of the loyal bloggers on this site o' ours, has justified my feelings.

Maybe I fear blue people. The characters look cross-bred--the unholy spawn of a tryst between the Blue Man Group and the cast of Cats.

Now I know Cameron innovated for this film big time! I know that industrial upgrades in cinema have not been so blatantly altered since Lucas.  (who incidentally also gets my goat lately), but I kind of, like, don't care. Is that fair?

I shutter to think that this film will provoke blurbs like, "now the rules have changed." I don't want Avatar and Cameron to change the rules of filmmaking this way. I like my movies the way they are, thank-you very much. I don't want CGI everything. I want Ellen Page as Juno. Matt Damon as Jason Bourne and Zach Galifinaka-whatchamacallit as any funny fat guy he so chooses.

If merit were judged on visual innovation, why didn't True Lies (1994) win an Oscar? Why didn't Terminator II: Judgment Day (1991) win? Oh yea, cause the storylines sucked. They were cool movies to watch in the theatre (and I saw them both in one), but they weren't Academy Award films, and you know what? Neither is Avatar. Guess what won Best Picture in 1994? A movie called Forrest Gump. A film that utilized CGI innovatively. A film with great effects, but also great acting and writing. Maybe I want too much. Maybe this is an off year for film. 

If it is a slow year for film, why not nominate Paul Rudd for the comedic performance of the year (yes, I saw the Hangover) in I Love You, Man. Do it, Oscar. Totes McGotes!

Maybe I just don't like that Cameron showed up, copied Robert Downey's sentiment about the music and proceeded to preach to the room about "accepting CGI." To a room full of actors! That's like going to a chamber maid convention and pushing Rosie from The Jetsons on everyone. Like showing up with those mechanized baskets at a toll collector conference. Here's the future everyone...I hope you like crap.

Maybe it's just that Cameron looked like he was on leave from Hogwart's. Maybe it's that he looked like the crazy old guy from Six Feet Under and sounded like John Houseman. I don't know.

Also, Ricky Gervais was a disappointment. Mostly because he got less air time than Vanilla Ice did in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 (extra credit for anyone who can name the subline of that gem of a picture). One zinger? At the expense of Mel Gibson. My dog could make fun of Mel Gibson, and he has arthritisis and doesn't speak English.

Anyway, I hope the Academy gets right what the Hollywood foreign press screwed up. Maybe we just don't get them...they're foreign after all. Don't be racist, Clancey.

Oh, and I am not alone. Here.