It's hard out there for a red-carpet interviewer.
Frankly, most people suck at this job. The newbies, still green behind the ears (I'm looking at you, Ben Lyons) tend to wax synchophantic and get all swoony over the celebs. (Although with the way that E!'s Giuliana Ransic was creaming her jeans over Brad and Angie waving at her, you'd be hard-pressed to remember she's been around awhile.)
Most tend to fall into the vapid vat of "ooh, celebrities, aren't they pretty?" with an occasional twinge of "how does this help my career?" thrown in (Ross Matthews). Which is where the whole "What are you wearing?" debacle originated. When in doubt, ask about their dress.
We can thank (or hate forever) Joan Rivers for that. Rivers, easily the worst red-carpet interviewer in history, who in addition to being vengeful and spiteful and mean, had the annoying habit of forgetting who these damn people were, what they'd been in, what relevance they had to anything, and being long schooled in the comedy of "talk about what you know" started asking about the dresses.
Now, that's all anyone gloms on to. Props in this awards season so far go to Melissa Leo. "What are you wearing?" "My tux," she said non-plussed. I loved her for that.
No, it's a very difficult balance a red-carpet interviewer must walk. If you don't care, you're Joan Rivers. If you care too much, you're Star Jones, and asking everyone to come on The View or ogle her wedding plans.
Truthfully, the red carpet has not been a safe place to walk since Steve Kmetko and Jules Asner held court. Now, THEY knew how to ask the right questions. They knew how to keep the celebritydom in check. Since they've been gone, we've had a vast wasteland of interviewers, most caught up in dress mania, few giving anything of substance at all.
Sam Rubin must be commended as a good interim host. He asks good questions, but even he tends to the fake and air-kissy.
What a surprise, a revelation, even, it was this weekend to see the "my God, this man is everywhere!" host, Ryan Seacrest doing a bang-up job on the red carpet for the Globes. After awhile, I had the unusual sensation of thinking, I really want to hear what Ryan asks this one. Never a comment out of place, never a synchophantic note. All was in order.
He not only appropriately juggled each celebrity (apologizing to Natalie Portman for making a pregnant woman walk up some stairs), he made the most of every moment: bringing Jimmy Fallon and Jason Segal up to sing a song. He knew people's credits (whether because he actually knew, or because he had a great producer whispering in his ear, I don't care—he was on it). It felt real.
I realized when watching him that Ryan Seacrest on the red carpet is the new breed of celebrity interviewer. He made them feel comfortable, being asked inane questions. He even got interesting answers out of them. Because of that, he made us feel comfortable watching, instead of wanting to throw something at the TV. I was grateful to him for that.
Whatever the tenuous balance is: between curiosity about things that are none of our business, and learning more about upcoming projects, and asking how someone is feeling at that moment, Seacrest was really the best in a very long time. In fact, during awards shows, I am normally a maniac with the remote, madly switching back and forth between E! and TVGuide and NBC and whoever else is covering it, because none of them are doing it very well.
Seacrest changed all that. The social-media-friendly celeb interviewer really is on to something here with the tenor and caliber of his interviewing, and I'm truly looking forward to his SAG and Oscar coverage.
*********************************************************
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
On Obsolescence
The world changed for me around this moment. It was at a tech conference, probably Seybold, probably Boston, around 1993 or '94. The creator of Netscape had just showed us our first spinning globe, and had tried to explain the power in front of us, this new thing called the Internet.
There was talk, even then, about content creation. Rather than take in the majesty of being able to chat with someone easily on the other side of the world that Marc Andreessen was so enamoured of, everyone, even then, was trying to figure out how to make money on this thing.
One advertising schmuck steps up to the mic during question time and asks simply: "Why would anyone want to create their own content?"
That was the moment for me. The moment that held in the question all the ignorance and arrogance of old media that caused it to completely fall in the time from then to now. I could tell in hearing the question that it was the wrong question to be asking. I could also tell that old media and advertising types thought the question perfectly reasonable. In that moment, I couldn't tell why the question sat so oddly with me.
Let's look deeper.
At that moment in time, old media (MSM) had been spoonfeeding us what they considered important: books, TV shows, movies, records, newspaper stories, advertising campaigns. We, the big monoliths, know better than you. We will only give you what we see fit, and you will like it. Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would want to change THAT status quo.
Their fault wasn't that they didn't see the importance of the Internet at that moment, they certainly did. They just never conceived (and truthfully many big companies STILL don't) that this new way of doing things made them irrelevant.
So when you ask yourself what must it have been like, when that buggy maker first heard about this newfangled "automobile" thing, I can tell you. The reaction, very likely, was the same. It doesn't matter. We're still going to be around. Everyone's always going to need buggies. Um, right?
That moment was nearly 20 years ago now. Here's what's changed, in case you missed it. Newspapers have died, most people get their news from Twitter and The Daily Show. Terrestrial radio has been replaced by Internet radio, Pandora and listening to downloaded music. People watch more TV on their computer or their DVR than what's actually broadcast in real time. Magazines, god love 'em, are still publishing, nearly all of them at a loss. Books have been replaced by ebooks and self-publishing. More people watch movies in the comfort of their home than in a multiplex.
And to that ad guy's next question: How are we gonna make money on this thing? Streams of Internet revenue now surpass every other medium. Last year, in the thick of the Recession, every other media stream lost money. Internet revenue was up.
This, then, is what's really going on. Millions of people lost their jobs in recent years. Those jobs aren't coming back. The world has changed completely.
Many of us, who trained in those industries, look around and see our skills as totally worthless. That's what's scary. Who needs a buggymaker anymore? Or a blacksmith? Typesetters? Printers? Worthless.
All of this was set off for me when I installed the new Mac OS, which comes with the new "App Store." There, among the shiny new apps, was one called "The Print Shop." My life flashed before my eyes. All those hours of creating business cards and letterheads and things that other people didn't want to bother with: there it is in one little app, for $50. Postcards, labels, banners, calendars, CD cases—any one of which we would've charged at least $50 to create for ya. There they were. Just pick your template, and boom!
So the answer, Mr. Advertising Guy, to your world-changing question: Why would anyone want to create their own content? BECAUSE THEY CAN.
******************************************
There was talk, even then, about content creation. Rather than take in the majesty of being able to chat with someone easily on the other side of the world that Marc Andreessen was so enamoured of, everyone, even then, was trying to figure out how to make money on this thing.
One advertising schmuck steps up to the mic during question time and asks simply: "Why would anyone want to create their own content?"
That was the moment for me. The moment that held in the question all the ignorance and arrogance of old media that caused it to completely fall in the time from then to now. I could tell in hearing the question that it was the wrong question to be asking. I could also tell that old media and advertising types thought the question perfectly reasonable. In that moment, I couldn't tell why the question sat so oddly with me.
Let's look deeper.
At that moment in time, old media (MSM) had been spoonfeeding us what they considered important: books, TV shows, movies, records, newspaper stories, advertising campaigns. We, the big monoliths, know better than you. We will only give you what we see fit, and you will like it. Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would want to change THAT status quo.
Their fault wasn't that they didn't see the importance of the Internet at that moment, they certainly did. They just never conceived (and truthfully many big companies STILL don't) that this new way of doing things made them irrelevant.
So when you ask yourself what must it have been like, when that buggy maker first heard about this newfangled "automobile" thing, I can tell you. The reaction, very likely, was the same. It doesn't matter. We're still going to be around. Everyone's always going to need buggies. Um, right?
That moment was nearly 20 years ago now. Here's what's changed, in case you missed it. Newspapers have died, most people get their news from Twitter and The Daily Show. Terrestrial radio has been replaced by Internet radio, Pandora and listening to downloaded music. People watch more TV on their computer or their DVR than what's actually broadcast in real time. Magazines, god love 'em, are still publishing, nearly all of them at a loss. Books have been replaced by ebooks and self-publishing. More people watch movies in the comfort of their home than in a multiplex.
And to that ad guy's next question: How are we gonna make money on this thing? Streams of Internet revenue now surpass every other medium. Last year, in the thick of the Recession, every other media stream lost money. Internet revenue was up.
This, then, is what's really going on. Millions of people lost their jobs in recent years. Those jobs aren't coming back. The world has changed completely.
Many of us, who trained in those industries, look around and see our skills as totally worthless. That's what's scary. Who needs a buggymaker anymore? Or a blacksmith? Typesetters? Printers? Worthless.
All of this was set off for me when I installed the new Mac OS, which comes with the new "App Store." There, among the shiny new apps, was one called "The Print Shop." My life flashed before my eyes. All those hours of creating business cards and letterheads and things that other people didn't want to bother with: there it is in one little app, for $50. Postcards, labels, banners, calendars, CD cases—any one of which we would've charged at least $50 to create for ya. There they were. Just pick your template, and boom!
So the answer, Mr. Advertising Guy, to your world-changing question: Why would anyone want to create their own content? BECAUSE THEY CAN.
******************************************
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Barney is So Self-Indulgent
For the first half hour of "Barney's Version," I wanted to walk out. I found it extremely unfunny, irritating, obnoxious and a waste of my time. Part of the problem for this is that the descriptions of this movie fall in the nebulous category, where publicists don't know what the heck to write about it. "Barney's cranky, and this is his life," is about as far as they'd get.
And indeed, there's Paul Giamatti, irrascible, puffing cigars and drinking booze from the first frame. Making crank calls to his ex-wife at 3 am. Fun stuff. Why the HELL do I want to get involved in this schmuck's life, one asks?
Here's why. To me, it's the story of TRUE LOVE. How true love hits someone and doesn't let go. And how, even when you have true love, you might just mess it up. That's what makes it worth seeing.
Barney's first marriage happens when his bride becomes pregnant. He does the honorable thing, and marries her. Then finds out it wasn't even his kid. That one doesn't end so well.
His dad (Dustin Hoffman) sets him up with his next lovely lady. And Minnie Driver is indeed lovely. And rich. What's not to like? Well, the incessant talking, perhaps...
So, there he is, at his second wedding, surrounded by many of her relatives, everyone getting smashingly drunk. Barney most of all, pounding back the shots. When suddenly through his drunken stupor, he looks across the room and sees her. Not his freshly-minted wife. His true love. And it hits him like an oncoming train.
He ventures closer and starts talking to her. She sees he is drunk. But they do hit it off. He abruptly leaves his own wedding to chase her to the train heading back to New York. And so it begins.
So there was the reason that made me sit in my seat for the rest of the movie, and be rewarded. How can this schlub of a man find true love with such a beautiful woman? But there it is, clear as day.
The film is based on the writings of Mordecai Richler. The film is dedicated to him.
It is packed with a cast of many stunning acting talents. Scott Speedman, for example, looks like sunshine made real as the charming playboy in Italy.
But the revelation, not surprisingly, since she's been the revelation of several movies of late (Made in Dagenham notably this season, and An Education last) is Rosamund Pike. She is gorgeous, refined, wonderful as a counterpoint to Barney.
It's sad and kind of tragic that Barney chose to live his life the way he wanted to: drinking, smoking big cigars and watching hockey games with the boys at the local bar. The love of his life chose to grow and evolve. But it's very interesting to see how all these pieces fall into place.
So trust me. The beginning may be annoying, but all in all, Barney's Version is a good ride through someone's life. I really do wanna see "Miriam's Version" next, though.
************************************************************
And indeed, there's Paul Giamatti, irrascible, puffing cigars and drinking booze from the first frame. Making crank calls to his ex-wife at 3 am. Fun stuff. Why the HELL do I want to get involved in this schmuck's life, one asks?
Here's why. To me, it's the story of TRUE LOVE. How true love hits someone and doesn't let go. And how, even when you have true love, you might just mess it up. That's what makes it worth seeing.
Barney's first marriage happens when his bride becomes pregnant. He does the honorable thing, and marries her. Then finds out it wasn't even his kid. That one doesn't end so well.
His dad (Dustin Hoffman) sets him up with his next lovely lady. And Minnie Driver is indeed lovely. And rich. What's not to like? Well, the incessant talking, perhaps...
So, there he is, at his second wedding, surrounded by many of her relatives, everyone getting smashingly drunk. Barney most of all, pounding back the shots. When suddenly through his drunken stupor, he looks across the room and sees her. Not his freshly-minted wife. His true love. And it hits him like an oncoming train.
He ventures closer and starts talking to her. She sees he is drunk. But they do hit it off. He abruptly leaves his own wedding to chase her to the train heading back to New York. And so it begins.
So there was the reason that made me sit in my seat for the rest of the movie, and be rewarded. How can this schlub of a man find true love with such a beautiful woman? But there it is, clear as day.
The film is based on the writings of Mordecai Richler. The film is dedicated to him.
It is packed with a cast of many stunning acting talents. Scott Speedman, for example, looks like sunshine made real as the charming playboy in Italy.
But the revelation, not surprisingly, since she's been the revelation of several movies of late (Made in Dagenham notably this season, and An Education last) is Rosamund Pike. She is gorgeous, refined, wonderful as a counterpoint to Barney.
It's sad and kind of tragic that Barney chose to live his life the way he wanted to: drinking, smoking big cigars and watching hockey games with the boys at the local bar. The love of his life chose to grow and evolve. But it's very interesting to see how all these pieces fall into place.
So trust me. The beginning may be annoying, but all in all, Barney's Version is a good ride through someone's life. I really do wanna see "Miriam's Version" next, though.
************************************************************
Thursday, December 9, 2010
On Not Getting It versus Insight
Two recent examples of this phenomenon crossed my view stream recently, and I wanted to comment upon them.
The phenomenon, visible all around you (especially if you look at Republicans and Democrats these days) is that of people who stubbornly, blindly, furiously, simply DON'T GET IT. You tell them or give them the information, and they do not or cannot see it. They persist in their stubbornness in seeing only their way, the right way. They blather on about their way, having totally and completely missed the actual point.
BLACK SWAN SPOILER BELOW
The two glaring examples of this that crossed my desk have to do with some (male) reviewers watching my favorite film of the year, "Black Swan," and a female reporter interviewing John Lennon and Yoko Ono.
Let's examine "Black Swan" first. I acknowledge that all art is subjective. People see what they want to see, based on their own set of experiences and life paths. The problem in the translation of "Black Swan," IMHO, has to do with the maleness versus the femaleness.
My perception of "Black Swan" is very much encased in the female mindset. I see it as a dream. Nina dreams of being the best ballerina ever. She shares this with her mother (who perhaps at one time had similar dreams). She sees the path to this dream resting in her ability to conquer perfection. So she studies technique, and becomes the best technical ballerina she can be.
But her male director tells her, NO! To really conquer the "Black Swan"/dark side of your personality/shadow side, you have to release the perfection. You have to be willing to risk, to feel, to experience life, in all its imperfection.
I think everyone is pretty much down with the story through these parts (male and female). But increasingly toward the end, the movie takes on flights of fancy/dream sequences/explorations of the creative mind. This is where many male reviewers seem to fall off. They resort to trying to take this movie literally.
Oh my God, she's turning into a swan. Oh my God, she kills herself at the end! Well, yes and no.
The way I saw it, from the middle of the movie on, she is still a little girl with dreams, trying to experience her own dark side. She is still trying to attain the perfection that she started out trying to attain. And if the director tells her she must be more sexual, she endeavors to do that.
Is it really a "lesbian sex scene" with Mila Kunis as one male reviewer crassly puts it? Or is it actually the bubbling of her subconscious? Her femaleness laid bare in trying to conquer her own sexuality? Did the experience with Kunis really happen? The director leaves you to wondering. THAT is the beauty of it.
Was she, in the end, enticed by Kunis? Enraptured by her? Wanting to sleep with her? Or was Kunis just the free spirit part of herself that she was trying to catch? Was she then, in essence, sleeping with herself, as the director had instructed her to do? Capturing through fantasy what she perhaps couldn't really capture?
And the end of the movie, that so horrified several male critics, who again WRONGLY take it literally, isn't really her dying. At least, that's not how I see it. It was the ballerina on the music box falling off. It was the end of "Swan Lake," as it's supposed to be. It was the grand spectacle of "la petit mort" writ large. Orgasm, the finale, "it was perfect." The end.
And it had to end in a big bloody spectacle, because life is imperfect, and bloody and messy. Life and love and passion and creativity. That's what I saw there.
So what that tells me is that the "Black Swan" haters need to have more orgasms and connect to their passions.
In the other subject, I confess, when I was younger, I was swayed by the tenor of the times, and my father. John Lennon and Yoko Ono were just wacky and crazy with this "Bed In" thing and preaching about peace. Nuts. Off their rockers.
I saw this in the frustrated questioning of the (I think BBC) reporter. She seemed to be perceiving Lennon and Ono as either complete nutcases, or fantasists wasting her time. She kept arguing about the seriousness of people dying in various wars, and they kept talking about how if people really thought about peace, peace could happen.
Yoko made quite an eloquent argument about "how can you shoot someone when you're smiling?" She was actually arguing quite complex spiritual principles. If you embody love, you cannot simultaneously embody hate. Hate is what causes killing. Hatred and fear. So if you choose love, if you choose peace, consciously, we would have no more war.
I understand that now. I sure didn't understand that then. Neither did the frustrated BBC reporter, who actually got up and stormed off at this point. She reacted as though Yoko were completely wasting her time, when in fact, they were both just trying to get her to understand.
And what will it take, as we have an insane stonewalling Congress on the horizon, for people to put down their arms and their stubbornness and finally listen and hear?
****************************************************************
The phenomenon, visible all around you (especially if you look at Republicans and Democrats these days) is that of people who stubbornly, blindly, furiously, simply DON'T GET IT. You tell them or give them the information, and they do not or cannot see it. They persist in their stubbornness in seeing only their way, the right way. They blather on about their way, having totally and completely missed the actual point.
BLACK SWAN SPOILER BELOW
The two glaring examples of this that crossed my desk have to do with some (male) reviewers watching my favorite film of the year, "Black Swan," and a female reporter interviewing John Lennon and Yoko Ono.
Let's examine "Black Swan" first. I acknowledge that all art is subjective. People see what they want to see, based on their own set of experiences and life paths. The problem in the translation of "Black Swan," IMHO, has to do with the maleness versus the femaleness.
My perception of "Black Swan" is very much encased in the female mindset. I see it as a dream. Nina dreams of being the best ballerina ever. She shares this with her mother (who perhaps at one time had similar dreams). She sees the path to this dream resting in her ability to conquer perfection. So she studies technique, and becomes the best technical ballerina she can be.
But her male director tells her, NO! To really conquer the "Black Swan"/dark side of your personality/shadow side, you have to release the perfection. You have to be willing to risk, to feel, to experience life, in all its imperfection.
I think everyone is pretty much down with the story through these parts (male and female). But increasingly toward the end, the movie takes on flights of fancy/dream sequences/explorations of the creative mind. This is where many male reviewers seem to fall off. They resort to trying to take this movie literally.
Oh my God, she's turning into a swan. Oh my God, she kills herself at the end! Well, yes and no.
The way I saw it, from the middle of the movie on, she is still a little girl with dreams, trying to experience her own dark side. She is still trying to attain the perfection that she started out trying to attain. And if the director tells her she must be more sexual, she endeavors to do that.
Is it really a "lesbian sex scene" with Mila Kunis as one male reviewer crassly puts it? Or is it actually the bubbling of her subconscious? Her femaleness laid bare in trying to conquer her own sexuality? Did the experience with Kunis really happen? The director leaves you to wondering. THAT is the beauty of it.
Was she, in the end, enticed by Kunis? Enraptured by her? Wanting to sleep with her? Or was Kunis just the free spirit part of herself that she was trying to catch? Was she then, in essence, sleeping with herself, as the director had instructed her to do? Capturing through fantasy what she perhaps couldn't really capture?
And the end of the movie, that so horrified several male critics, who again WRONGLY take it literally, isn't really her dying. At least, that's not how I see it. It was the ballerina on the music box falling off. It was the end of "Swan Lake," as it's supposed to be. It was the grand spectacle of "la petit mort" writ large. Orgasm, the finale, "it was perfect." The end.
And it had to end in a big bloody spectacle, because life is imperfect, and bloody and messy. Life and love and passion and creativity. That's what I saw there.
So what that tells me is that the "Black Swan" haters need to have more orgasms and connect to their passions.
In the other subject, I confess, when I was younger, I was swayed by the tenor of the times, and my father. John Lennon and Yoko Ono were just wacky and crazy with this "Bed In" thing and preaching about peace. Nuts. Off their rockers.
I saw this in the frustrated questioning of the (I think BBC) reporter. She seemed to be perceiving Lennon and Ono as either complete nutcases, or fantasists wasting her time. She kept arguing about the seriousness of people dying in various wars, and they kept talking about how if people really thought about peace, peace could happen.
Yoko made quite an eloquent argument about "how can you shoot someone when you're smiling?" She was actually arguing quite complex spiritual principles. If you embody love, you cannot simultaneously embody hate. Hate is what causes killing. Hatred and fear. So if you choose love, if you choose peace, consciously, we would have no more war.
I understand that now. I sure didn't understand that then. Neither did the frustrated BBC reporter, who actually got up and stormed off at this point. She reacted as though Yoko were completely wasting her time, when in fact, they were both just trying to get her to understand.
And what will it take, as we have an insane stonewalling Congress on the horizon, for people to put down their arms and their stubbornness and finally listen and hear?
****************************************************************
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Love and Other Drugs Goes Cold Turkey
Amid the crush of holiday releases and Oscar hopefuls, there are many many great pictures out right now. "Love and Other Drugs" is not one of them. The more I think about it, the more it bugs me.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays a brash handsome manipulator who beds women, uses them, spits them out (the usual). Anne Hathaway plays someone who's seen it all. She's been on the receiving end of such men, and as such, she's hardened, crass, cynical, guarded.
Both of these characters, for reasons described, are annoying and not fun to watch. He's thinking of ways to use people (easier, better, faster). She's thinking of witty comebacks to cut them down to size. Did I mention that this is not fun? This, despite the fact that both of them get naked a lot. Really. It's boring.
Who can he bed to sell his products? How can she avoid commitment? Wackiness ensues. No, not really. Boredom ensues.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
The supposed serious part of this is the increase in pharmacological assistance through depression drugs like Zoloft and Prozac, the salesmen who hawk them, and it all comes complete with a splashy song and dance number. And when Gyllenhaal's company (Pfizer) comes out with Viagara... well, you can imagine what that does to Lothario's drug sales.
The wrench in all this is that Hathaway has Parkinson's disease (note shaky hand a couple of times). This is why she knows all the drug salesmen. And comes the speech: "You're not gonna love me cause I have a disease!" (*pouts* *stomps feet*) She's way too self-deprecating in this movie. Mean to herself and others.
He has received a horror story of the progression of the disease from someone at a conference, so suddenly it's "Nope, I'm shallow. I don't love you. Bye."
Blech. At this point, who cares? She's shrill, pouty and annoying. He's still glib, uses sex to get his way. Who cares?
The fact that anyone anywhere mentions this dreadful movie in the context of Oscars is sad. No one in this movie (though I do love director Edward Zwick and actor Oliver Platt, but seriously...) deserves anything that has the word Oscar attached to it.
Really hated it. Don't waste your time. Many other great movies out there instead.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays a brash handsome manipulator who beds women, uses them, spits them out (the usual). Anne Hathaway plays someone who's seen it all. She's been on the receiving end of such men, and as such, she's hardened, crass, cynical, guarded.
Both of these characters, for reasons described, are annoying and not fun to watch. He's thinking of ways to use people (easier, better, faster). She's thinking of witty comebacks to cut them down to size. Did I mention that this is not fun? This, despite the fact that both of them get naked a lot. Really. It's boring.
Who can he bed to sell his products? How can she avoid commitment? Wackiness ensues. No, not really. Boredom ensues.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
The supposed serious part of this is the increase in pharmacological assistance through depression drugs like Zoloft and Prozac, the salesmen who hawk them, and it all comes complete with a splashy song and dance number. And when Gyllenhaal's company (Pfizer) comes out with Viagara... well, you can imagine what that does to Lothario's drug sales.
The wrench in all this is that Hathaway has Parkinson's disease (note shaky hand a couple of times). This is why she knows all the drug salesmen. And comes the speech: "You're not gonna love me cause I have a disease!" (*pouts* *stomps feet*) She's way too self-deprecating in this movie. Mean to herself and others.
He has received a horror story of the progression of the disease from someone at a conference, so suddenly it's "Nope, I'm shallow. I don't love you. Bye."
Blech. At this point, who cares? She's shrill, pouty and annoying. He's still glib, uses sex to get his way. Who cares?
The fact that anyone anywhere mentions this dreadful movie in the context of Oscars is sad. No one in this movie (though I do love director Edward Zwick and actor Oliver Platt, but seriously...) deserves anything that has the word Oscar attached to it.
Really hated it. Don't waste your time. Many other great movies out there instead.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Creative fever dream Swans into Best Picture
Reviewers who write about movies for a living, who have to slog through every paint-by-numbers adaptation, seem to have difficulty with two things: spirituality in movies, and the creative process in movies. Mind you, there aren't that many movies about either of those two things because they are also ephemeral streaks of lightning to capture in the film bottle.
What I had read about "Black Swan" prior to seeing it fluctuated on the spectrum from horror flick to Grand Guignol theatre to thriller to scary movie. In short, I really didn't know what to expect. Perhaps it will be one or some of those things to you, too.
How I perceived "Black Swan" was more like a dream. The dream, the central focus for this ballerina, is to be perfect. And she studies and she plies and she does everything she thinks she's supposed to do.
But when the company leader decides to do "Swan Lake," he presents her with this challenge: "You'd be great as the White Swan." But, essentially, she doesn't have enough of a dark side to do the Black Swan justice. (This lead character in the ballet performs both sides of a complex persona.)
"Black Swan," then, is about this striving-for-perfection ballerina figuring out what it takes to reach her own "dark side." What she discovers is that passion and the thrill of life often lie in its imperfections. As we travel with her on her journey, we also discover what is at the heart of the creative process, how far someone can push themselves for their art.
It is a stunning bravura performance. Prior to seeing the film, I posited on my podcast that Natalie Portman was going to take every award in sight this Oscar season. I think so even moreso after seeing the film. Like Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique last year, every other Best Actress contender this year can just sit down. It's Natalie Portman's year. Her work in this movie is stunning. In fact, I can't remember the last time an actress was so stunning and superb and affecting. Brilliant work.
Her supporting cast is also affecting and may glean some supporting nominations: Vincent Cassel as the ballet company director, Barbara Hershey as her mom, Mila Kunis as a fellow dancer. Winona Ryder takes an especially inspired turn, making a droll commentary on her own life, that elicited laughs in our industry screening.
People have also made reference to an "All About Eve" subtext. That is only there in as much as fearing other people taking roles you covet is part of the creative process. It's really and truly not about that.
In fact, I think where reviewers get into trouble with this role, and even the screening I saw this at, the questioner had the same problem--is dissecting it too much. Think of it as a dream. Roll around with the images, go with the flights of fancy. True creativity isn't that far from the dream state, and true creativity borders on that part of the brain near psychosis too. But don't let that analysis hinder you.
As Nina had to learn, with sex, with dreaming, with life, sometimes you just have to let it flow over you and become part of you. So, too, with "Black Swan."
*****************************************************************
What I had read about "Black Swan" prior to seeing it fluctuated on the spectrum from horror flick to Grand Guignol theatre to thriller to scary movie. In short, I really didn't know what to expect. Perhaps it will be one or some of those things to you, too.
How I perceived "Black Swan" was more like a dream. The dream, the central focus for this ballerina, is to be perfect. And she studies and she plies and she does everything she thinks she's supposed to do.
But when the company leader decides to do "Swan Lake," he presents her with this challenge: "You'd be great as the White Swan." But, essentially, she doesn't have enough of a dark side to do the Black Swan justice. (This lead character in the ballet performs both sides of a complex persona.)
"Black Swan," then, is about this striving-for-perfection ballerina figuring out what it takes to reach her own "dark side." What she discovers is that passion and the thrill of life often lie in its imperfections. As we travel with her on her journey, we also discover what is at the heart of the creative process, how far someone can push themselves for their art.
It is a stunning bravura performance. Prior to seeing the film, I posited on my podcast that Natalie Portman was going to take every award in sight this Oscar season. I think so even moreso after seeing the film. Like Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique last year, every other Best Actress contender this year can just sit down. It's Natalie Portman's year. Her work in this movie is stunning. In fact, I can't remember the last time an actress was so stunning and superb and affecting. Brilliant work.
Her supporting cast is also affecting and may glean some supporting nominations: Vincent Cassel as the ballet company director, Barbara Hershey as her mom, Mila Kunis as a fellow dancer. Winona Ryder takes an especially inspired turn, making a droll commentary on her own life, that elicited laughs in our industry screening.
People have also made reference to an "All About Eve" subtext. That is only there in as much as fearing other people taking roles you covet is part of the creative process. It's really and truly not about that.
In fact, I think where reviewers get into trouble with this role, and even the screening I saw this at, the questioner had the same problem--is dissecting it too much. Think of it as a dream. Roll around with the images, go with the flights of fancy. True creativity isn't that far from the dream state, and true creativity borders on that part of the brain near psychosis too. But don't let that analysis hinder you.
As Nina had to learn, with sex, with dreaming, with life, sometimes you just have to let it flow over you and become part of you. So, too, with "Black Swan."
*****************************************************************
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Made in Dagenham: Let's hear it for the women!
(Note: The director, Nigel Cole, informed us that it's pronounced roughly equivalent to "diggin him.")
Sometimes, with all the demonizing hate-filled Republican propaganda that fills our airwaves, sometimes one wonders why it is again that unions are relevant. They have been portrayed as terrible things that are ruining our lives. (Just don't look at the big corporations that are pulling the strings to make those statements...)
How far have we gotten from the struggles for the 40-hour week? Or the hard-fought-for half hour lunches and ten-minute breaks, legal by law, yet in this new corporate world where everyone is doing five people's jobs, hardly still maintained. Does anyone even remember that it was the unions that fought for these things? For these rights for us working stiffs?
Or has this bad word "socialism" (since that other trumped-up bad word, "communism" doesn't really work anymore, appearing hopelessly dated) really colored everything for so many? So many who voted their corporate keepers back into power, though they decried the influence of the big bad banks? Just makes ya sick, sometimes.
Well, here's an antidote to the corporate-cash big money Tea Party election we just stomached. Here's a pleasant reminder of exactly what unions can do, and why we need them so, in these crazy times. "Made in Dagenham" takes place in England, in the mid-60s. It's a true story.
Sallie Hawkins, a sure Oscar contender, is one of the strike leaders. Miranda Richardson has a noble turn herself. (Both were in attendance at the AFI screening.) This film is easily one of my favorites of the year.
Women, working at a Ford plant as machinists, start out the movie wanting to be the same pay grade as men, to be classed as "skilled," rather than "unskilled." Simple enough. Fair enough.
They encounter many obstacles along the way, not the least of which is that they aren't taken seriously because they are "just women," after all. We won't even talk about the other shop violations which they don't even talk about in the movie: the water pouring down on the workplace, the fact that many women work in their bras because it's too hot in the shop (those rights are things American workers fought for, and are still enforced).
But the big battle for the women ultimately becomes: "Equal pay for equal work." That is what they fight for. Don't wanna spoil the movie. I'll just say that it had a positive ending in Britain, and many other countries because of the women of Dagenham.
It made me uncomfortably squeamish, though, to realize that here in America in 2010, women still make only 74% of what men make for the same job. Oh yeah. That's why we need those "socialist" unions. I remember now.
*********************************************
Sometimes, with all the demonizing hate-filled Republican propaganda that fills our airwaves, sometimes one wonders why it is again that unions are relevant. They have been portrayed as terrible things that are ruining our lives. (Just don't look at the big corporations that are pulling the strings to make those statements...)
How far have we gotten from the struggles for the 40-hour week? Or the hard-fought-for half hour lunches and ten-minute breaks, legal by law, yet in this new corporate world where everyone is doing five people's jobs, hardly still maintained. Does anyone even remember that it was the unions that fought for these things? For these rights for us working stiffs?
Or has this bad word "socialism" (since that other trumped-up bad word, "communism" doesn't really work anymore, appearing hopelessly dated) really colored everything for so many? So many who voted their corporate keepers back into power, though they decried the influence of the big bad banks? Just makes ya sick, sometimes.
Well, here's an antidote to the corporate-cash big money Tea Party election we just stomached. Here's a pleasant reminder of exactly what unions can do, and why we need them so, in these crazy times. "Made in Dagenham" takes place in England, in the mid-60s. It's a true story.
Sallie Hawkins, a sure Oscar contender, is one of the strike leaders. Miranda Richardson has a noble turn herself. (Both were in attendance at the AFI screening.) This film is easily one of my favorites of the year.
Women, working at a Ford plant as machinists, start out the movie wanting to be the same pay grade as men, to be classed as "skilled," rather than "unskilled." Simple enough. Fair enough.
They encounter many obstacles along the way, not the least of which is that they aren't taken seriously because they are "just women," after all. We won't even talk about the other shop violations which they don't even talk about in the movie: the water pouring down on the workplace, the fact that many women work in their bras because it's too hot in the shop (those rights are things American workers fought for, and are still enforced).
But the big battle for the women ultimately becomes: "Equal pay for equal work." That is what they fight for. Don't wanna spoil the movie. I'll just say that it had a positive ending in Britain, and many other countries because of the women of Dagenham.
It made me uncomfortably squeamish, though, to realize that here in America in 2010, women still make only 74% of what men make for the same job. Oh yeah. That's why we need those "socialist" unions. I remember now.
*********************************************
The King's Speech and Blue Valentine
The company I work for is responsible for promoting The King's Speech, The Company Men, Nowhere Boy and Blue Valentine, so although I'm sure they'll be Oscar contenders, I feel that reviewing them would be a conflict of interest. Sorry, guys.
************
************
Friday, November 5, 2010
Endurance Cinema: Conviction, The Way Back and 127 Hours
One of my pet theories is that leading Oscar contenders reflect a current mode of our times. Last year's "Up In the Air," for instance, hit hard on the layoffs that touched so many. This year's theme, it seems, is enduring, despite overwhelming odds against you.
In the wonderful "Conviction," Hillary Swank's character battles for years to free her innocent brother from prison. You see her battle setback after setback. And still she hangs on. Believing that she can do it.
In the beautiful "The Way Back," we have prisoners from a Soviet concentration camp, first exiled to Siberia. Then some of them decide they've had enough, and endeavor to escape (all of this being in the trailer, I'm spoiling nothing; also this happens in the beginning of the film). They do escape, and begin their trek. I suppose they are heading toward that nebulous "freedom." Their path seems to go from Siberia to Mongolia to Tibet to India. On foot.
Needless to say, of the ones who start on the journey, not all of them make it, for various reasons. But it's a battle. A struggle to survive. A struggle to make it to the other side. A struggle to be free.
It seems that many of us, with millions of Americans unemployed, are struggling just to survive, too. Hanging on. Trying to make that meager unemployment check last just a little bit longer. Piecing together rent with odd jobs, believing, against all odds that that next job is somewhere around the corner. I really believe that hanging on and believing you'll make it is the new American dream.
No more streets paved with gold, we'd be happy to get a paycheck regularly. And this "endurance cinema" reflects that. Hang on, hang on, hang on, just a little bit longer.
"The Way Back" isn't quite as bleak and despairing as last year's "The Road," but it's a tough go. The ending brought tears to my eyes, but boy! was it a long slog to get there. Mind you, I do love Peter Weir as a director. His "Dead Poet's Society" remains one of my favorite films. And visually (thank you, Russell Boyd), "The Way Back" is stunning to look at. Vast landscapes that include icy snow-covered peaks, as well as vast deserts.
In "Conviction," though, it was clear what the motive and struggle was. In "The Way Back," they put themselves though lots of dangerous situations, and it's kind of unclear why exactly. They talk at the beginning about how "there's a bounty on your heads," from neighboring villagers, but this threat is never bourne out, or even hinted at, once they escape.
It's enough of a stretch to believe that people one day just say, "Hey! Let's walk across Mongolia!" but that they do it without ANY help from villagers along the way strains credulity a bit.*
I watch "Survivor" pretty much every week since it started (a few missed seasons here and there). The parts I love the most are the way people interact with each other (there is much of that in this movie). The parts I REALLY dislike vehemently (OK, I admit, I'm a city girl, and I'd never survive in the wild) are the parts where chicken's heads are lopped off, or animals are otherwise killed for food. Sadly, there is also a lot of that in this movie.
Sure, I understand, they are starving, they need to eat. Do I really need to watch it, though?
Another endurance movie is looming on the horizon, one that I am distinctly NOT going to see: "127 Hours." People in our office this week spoke again of people fainting at screenings. Know this, anyone who plans to go see this one: the hiker goes by himself into the wild, and ends up CHOPPING OFF HIS OWN ARM. And they show it. GRAPHICALLY. Why are people surprised about this? Every screening has someone fainting.
I don't intend to faint. I don't intend to see it, Oscar-worthy or not. I've had enough of endurance films for this season.
ADDENDUM: * I know it's based on a true story. I know people actually did this. Still...
********************************************************
In the wonderful "Conviction," Hillary Swank's character battles for years to free her innocent brother from prison. You see her battle setback after setback. And still she hangs on. Believing that she can do it.
In the beautiful "The Way Back," we have prisoners from a Soviet concentration camp, first exiled to Siberia. Then some of them decide they've had enough, and endeavor to escape (all of this being in the trailer, I'm spoiling nothing; also this happens in the beginning of the film). They do escape, and begin their trek. I suppose they are heading toward that nebulous "freedom." Their path seems to go from Siberia to Mongolia to Tibet to India. On foot.
Needless to say, of the ones who start on the journey, not all of them make it, for various reasons. But it's a battle. A struggle to survive. A struggle to make it to the other side. A struggle to be free.
It seems that many of us, with millions of Americans unemployed, are struggling just to survive, too. Hanging on. Trying to make that meager unemployment check last just a little bit longer. Piecing together rent with odd jobs, believing, against all odds that that next job is somewhere around the corner. I really believe that hanging on and believing you'll make it is the new American dream.
No more streets paved with gold, we'd be happy to get a paycheck regularly. And this "endurance cinema" reflects that. Hang on, hang on, hang on, just a little bit longer.
"The Way Back" isn't quite as bleak and despairing as last year's "The Road," but it's a tough go. The ending brought tears to my eyes, but boy! was it a long slog to get there. Mind you, I do love Peter Weir as a director. His "Dead Poet's Society" remains one of my favorite films. And visually (thank you, Russell Boyd), "The Way Back" is stunning to look at. Vast landscapes that include icy snow-covered peaks, as well as vast deserts.
In "Conviction," though, it was clear what the motive and struggle was. In "The Way Back," they put themselves though lots of dangerous situations, and it's kind of unclear why exactly. They talk at the beginning about how "there's a bounty on your heads," from neighboring villagers, but this threat is never bourne out, or even hinted at, once they escape.
It's enough of a stretch to believe that people one day just say, "Hey! Let's walk across Mongolia!" but that they do it without ANY help from villagers along the way strains credulity a bit.*
I watch "Survivor" pretty much every week since it started (a few missed seasons here and there). The parts I love the most are the way people interact with each other (there is much of that in this movie). The parts I REALLY dislike vehemently (OK, I admit, I'm a city girl, and I'd never survive in the wild) are the parts where chicken's heads are lopped off, or animals are otherwise killed for food. Sadly, there is also a lot of that in this movie.
Sure, I understand, they are starving, they need to eat. Do I really need to watch it, though?
Another endurance movie is looming on the horizon, one that I am distinctly NOT going to see: "127 Hours." People in our office this week spoke again of people fainting at screenings. Know this, anyone who plans to go see this one: the hiker goes by himself into the wild, and ends up CHOPPING OFF HIS OWN ARM. And they show it. GRAPHICALLY. Why are people surprised about this? Every screening has someone fainting.
I don't intend to faint. I don't intend to see it, Oscar-worthy or not. I've had enough of endurance films for this season.
ADDENDUM: * I know it's based on a true story. I know people actually did this. Still...
********************************************************
Thursday, October 14, 2010
NPR (and other news orgs) need to adopt transparency
There is this article:
Jeff Jarvis about NPR's restrictions
I agree with everything he said. I also think it's essential to understand the difference that's going on here. Although he didn't mention it, all the old media news organizations are falling in line with this edict: NY Times, Washington Post, AP, etc. Stay away from political rallies, staffers.
But as Jarvis astutely points out, it's a new time. We on the front lines of the new media don't sit on that objectivity fence. Our brands, our blogs, our presence online is indicated by our beliefs. We wear our opinions, loudly and proudly. Call it the New Honesty, if you will.
People want to know who they're talking to, and what those people believe. And if they choose to defer, or hide behind some corporate-speak, they are suspect.
So it is not only preferred that people attend these rallies if they want to, it is ESSENTIAL. It is a fundamental part of our democracy that people are allowed to speak their minds and their hearts, to participate in a rally, or give a donation, or put a sign on their lawn, if they are so moved to do so. NPR, supposedly liberal bastion NPR, doesn't allow them to do this.
WTF?
That is the reason this story keeps popping up in the news. It's WRONG. It's part of the stilted old-media mentality. The one that also allows Congress to believe that filibustering instead of actually getting things done is a preferred way to do business. One way or another, these people are all going to be dragged, kicking and screaming (or worse, pretending like they don't care) into the future.
Speaking up is the new law of the land. We expect transparency in our government, but it has to start with our reporters, those we trust anyway, taking a stand. How can you believe someone when they say (or infer): "This is wrong/right"--if they haven't stood on the front lines talking to people, taking a stand in their own lives? What credibility do they have?
I don't find a reporter to be "unobjective" if they attend a political rally. I trust that in doing their job, they will present both sides of the story. But who decided that what we do in our personal lives could be controlled by the corporations we work for? Why do we let this continue?
I agree wholeheartedly with Jarvis. Let's make this a trending topic on Twitter. Let's speak out about this in all our social media. It really speaks to the heart of why this country is so messed up right now.
Jeff Jarvis about NPR's restrictions
I agree with everything he said. I also think it's essential to understand the difference that's going on here. Although he didn't mention it, all the old media news organizations are falling in line with this edict: NY Times, Washington Post, AP, etc. Stay away from political rallies, staffers.
But as Jarvis astutely points out, it's a new time. We on the front lines of the new media don't sit on that objectivity fence. Our brands, our blogs, our presence online is indicated by our beliefs. We wear our opinions, loudly and proudly. Call it the New Honesty, if you will.
People want to know who they're talking to, and what those people believe. And if they choose to defer, or hide behind some corporate-speak, they are suspect.
So it is not only preferred that people attend these rallies if they want to, it is ESSENTIAL. It is a fundamental part of our democracy that people are allowed to speak their minds and their hearts, to participate in a rally, or give a donation, or put a sign on their lawn, if they are so moved to do so. NPR, supposedly liberal bastion NPR, doesn't allow them to do this.
WTF?
That is the reason this story keeps popping up in the news. It's WRONG. It's part of the stilted old-media mentality. The one that also allows Congress to believe that filibustering instead of actually getting things done is a preferred way to do business. One way or another, these people are all going to be dragged, kicking and screaming (or worse, pretending like they don't care) into the future.
Speaking up is the new law of the land. We expect transparency in our government, but it has to start with our reporters, those we trust anyway, taking a stand. How can you believe someone when they say (or infer): "This is wrong/right"--if they haven't stood on the front lines talking to people, taking a stand in their own lives? What credibility do they have?
I don't find a reporter to be "unobjective" if they attend a political rally. I trust that in doing their job, they will present both sides of the story. But who decided that what we do in our personal lives could be controlled by the corporations we work for? Why do we let this continue?
I agree wholeheartedly with Jarvis. Let's make this a trending topic on Twitter. Let's speak out about this in all our social media. It really speaks to the heart of why this country is so messed up right now.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Jonesy's Jukebox Returns! To the Evil Empire...
Remember back, if you can, to winter of 2003. Terrestrial radio was boring, bland, much as it is now. The only real "alternative" radio station in Los Angeles was the CBS monolith called KROQ. Not much of an alternative. People were turning to their iPods in droves.
Then, suddenly, on Christmas Day 2003, with a blast of The Ramones "We Want the Airwaves," a real alternative was born, and they called it Indie 103.1. From that day till its final terrestrial one, January 15, 2009, we were graced with some of the best radio ever to cross airwaves.
But it was on February 10, 2004, that radio was truly changed forever. That day was the day the irrascible, farting, belching, dead-air-flaunting machine that is Steve Jones of the Sex Pistols began his radio career with his trusty producer, Mark Sovel, Indie's visionary music director, by his side.
There were three versions of Jonesy's Jukebox. The second version had Indie's production director, Chuck P. as producer. But the Jonesy-Chuck P. mix just wasn't the same thing. Jonesy seemed to want more of a lackey, someone he could kick around, and in came Kevin Begley, from Boston's WFNX. Young, green, he suited the bill perfectly. Except for one thing.
The Sovel-Jonesy mix was an equal pairing. Modest Sovel, of course, will deny this, but while Jonesy was the star, the Sex Pistol, the legend, Sovel was also tops in his field of DJdom. For every Jonesy push, Sovel pushed back. Takes a lot of strength to do that. Strength that both Chuck P. and Begley ultimately lacked opposite Jonesy.
You can talk to anyone who listened to Indie 103.1 regularly. Every person will wax rhapsodic over which bits were their favorites. Whose show they liked the best, or listened to the most. Which guest really bowled them over. But among the hardcore listeners, the jewel in Indie 1031's crown is, was, and always will be the Jonesy-Sovel pairing. Or "Shovel," as King Jonesy decreed him to be.
Even today, as news came over the transom about Jonesy's Jukebox once again hitting the terrestrial airwaves, the recurring question hitting my inbox was: "Is he doing it with Shovel?" (Aka, is it gonna be great again? Or crap?)
More on that later.
Cause there's another big ugly pink elephant in the room. During Indie the upstart's years in terrestrial radio, not only were they at first not taken seriously; they were then openly harrassed by the monolith KROQ. The big station (I took to calling it "The Evil Empire" on my podcast and blog) spent quite a lot of time kicking the little station that could. They might say it was all in good competitive fun. But it did get ugly.
After hanging on for five long wonderful years (a Sex Pistols reunion and tour of Europe in the mix), way past when anyone thought they would, Indie 103.1 ended its terrestrial operations, gutted its staff and opted to keep the Internet version of the station, which was still drawing ads, going. It's still going now (http://www.indie1031.com).
One thing KROQ was good at during those five years and after is stealing Indie's best stuff. Bands, songs, playlist items, even staff. I suppose it's no surprise then, in these recession days when Yahoo has to suck it up and be happy that Bing is now their search engine, that we find, beginning Sunday: Jonesy's Jukebox will once again start spinning the tunes. (YAY! Applause) On the Evil Empire, KROQ. (Hmmm.)
It is with trepidation that one hears that news if one is a hardcore Indie 103.1 fan. But I'm happy to tell you that it's the good version of Jonesy's Jukebox: the one with Shovel alongside. We can only wonder if "Fast Food Rockers" and songs accompanied by melodica are far behind. (This version's focus is more "new music," apparently.)
Those Jukebox shows were truly magic. The more interaction with Shovel the better, in my view. Jonesy can get a bit ornery, even for the most dedicated listener. Thank God, Shovel's there to balance him out, to bring the funny. Radio truly almost doesn't get better than that.
I know it's KROQ, but listen, won't you?
****************************************************
The fourth edition of Jonesy’s Jukebox begins airing Sundays from 7 pm to 9 pm, this Sunday, October 10, on KROQ, 106.7 in Los Angeles. You can also stream it here:
KROQ radio stream
****************************************************
Then, suddenly, on Christmas Day 2003, with a blast of The Ramones "We Want the Airwaves," a real alternative was born, and they called it Indie 103.1. From that day till its final terrestrial one, January 15, 2009, we were graced with some of the best radio ever to cross airwaves.
But it was on February 10, 2004, that radio was truly changed forever. That day was the day the irrascible, farting, belching, dead-air-flaunting machine that is Steve Jones of the Sex Pistols began his radio career with his trusty producer, Mark Sovel, Indie's visionary music director, by his side.
There were three versions of Jonesy's Jukebox. The second version had Indie's production director, Chuck P. as producer. But the Jonesy-Chuck P. mix just wasn't the same thing. Jonesy seemed to want more of a lackey, someone he could kick around, and in came Kevin Begley, from Boston's WFNX. Young, green, he suited the bill perfectly. Except for one thing.
The Sovel-Jonesy mix was an equal pairing. Modest Sovel, of course, will deny this, but while Jonesy was the star, the Sex Pistol, the legend, Sovel was also tops in his field of DJdom. For every Jonesy push, Sovel pushed back. Takes a lot of strength to do that. Strength that both Chuck P. and Begley ultimately lacked opposite Jonesy.
You can talk to anyone who listened to Indie 103.1 regularly. Every person will wax rhapsodic over which bits were their favorites. Whose show they liked the best, or listened to the most. Which guest really bowled them over. But among the hardcore listeners, the jewel in Indie 1031's crown is, was, and always will be the Jonesy-Sovel pairing. Or "Shovel," as King Jonesy decreed him to be.
Even today, as news came over the transom about Jonesy's Jukebox once again hitting the terrestrial airwaves, the recurring question hitting my inbox was: "Is he doing it with Shovel?" (Aka, is it gonna be great again? Or crap?)
More on that later.
Cause there's another big ugly pink elephant in the room. During Indie the upstart's years in terrestrial radio, not only were they at first not taken seriously; they were then openly harrassed by the monolith KROQ. The big station (I took to calling it "The Evil Empire" on my podcast and blog) spent quite a lot of time kicking the little station that could. They might say it was all in good competitive fun. But it did get ugly.
After hanging on for five long wonderful years (a Sex Pistols reunion and tour of Europe in the mix), way past when anyone thought they would, Indie 103.1 ended its terrestrial operations, gutted its staff and opted to keep the Internet version of the station, which was still drawing ads, going. It's still going now (http://www.indie1031.com).
One thing KROQ was good at during those five years and after is stealing Indie's best stuff. Bands, songs, playlist items, even staff. I suppose it's no surprise then, in these recession days when Yahoo has to suck it up and be happy that Bing is now their search engine, that we find, beginning Sunday: Jonesy's Jukebox will once again start spinning the tunes. (YAY! Applause) On the Evil Empire, KROQ. (Hmmm.)
It is with trepidation that one hears that news if one is a hardcore Indie 103.1 fan. But I'm happy to tell you that it's the good version of Jonesy's Jukebox: the one with Shovel alongside. We can only wonder if "Fast Food Rockers" and songs accompanied by melodica are far behind. (This version's focus is more "new music," apparently.)
Those Jukebox shows were truly magic. The more interaction with Shovel the better, in my view. Jonesy can get a bit ornery, even for the most dedicated listener. Thank God, Shovel's there to balance him out, to bring the funny. Radio truly almost doesn't get better than that.
I know it's KROQ, but listen, won't you?
****************************************************
The fourth edition of Jonesy’s Jukebox begins airing Sundays from 7 pm to 9 pm, this Sunday, October 10, on KROQ, 106.7 in Los Angeles. You can also stream it here:
KROQ radio stream
****************************************************
Sunday, October 3, 2010
"Social Network" prism as multifaceted as Zuckerberg himself
Two things are the most fascinating after watching "The Social Network," easily the most fascinating movie of this year. One: most of the people involved with making this movie don't have a Facebook page themselves.
Two: People can see the exact same movie and come away with totally different viewpoints on who did what. Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, wasn't kidding when he likened this movie to "Rashomon." It is an incredible script, one that is sure to garner Sorkin a long-overdue Oscar. It is as easy to understand if you are a longtime Facebook user, or never even looked at Facebook in your life.
It is a machination of plot, spinning around the transcripts of real court cases. Friend against friend, classmate against classmate. And yet, it speaks to the quintessential question of our techie age: how can we create a cool app/product/website that everyone is going to love and use and make us rich in the process?
What a strange dichotomy that someone who seems to have such difficulty making friends creates the most social product out there.
My friend viewed this movie and came away with an image of Mark Zuckerberg as a "manipulative asshole." I saw the same movie and saw, finally, the whole story laid in front of me. Saw how Zuckerberg pretty much had to do what he did. I don't fault him at all, and I was rooting for him. In fact, in finally paying the amounts in question, he did right by his friends. Saverin is back on the Facebook masthead. All is now right with the world.
And just to be safe, he donated to some New Jersey schools on the day the movie opened. No, I see Zuckerberg as a good guy here.
Incredible director David Fincher also excels. The movie is stunningly shot. Harvard has never looked so good. Jesse Eisenberg, in the lead, does a fantastic job of walking us through the story. His best friend, Eduardo Saverin, played by the new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield, really makes you feel the pain he's going through. Justin Timberlake is just perfect as Sean Parker, creator of Napster.
It's like a multi-faceted prism. You can see each side clearly, as well as how they are all battling to be most beautiful, or in this case, most right. Wars of class and culture come into play. And out of all this morass, we have the incredible Facebook.
If there is anything faulting this movie it is Sorkin's lack of knowledge about Facebook. And the fact that really, its key battle: the privacy wars, was completely neglected in this story. Maybe they are saving that for "Social Network 2: Privacy." I can only hope they have someone who really knows the Internet writing about it this time.
Cause here's the thing. Nora Ephron got it wrong too, when she wrote the almost instantly dated, "You've Got Mail." It's different when you live here. When you live on Facebook, online, on Twitter. There are nuances and details that it's obvious this writer, though brilliant, missed though he combed through mounds of testimony and facts, and got an incredible story fashioned out of it. He missed the heartbeat of Facebook.
This is Facebook basically from the genesis of the idea until it starts branching out into other countries. Then the storyline drops the Facebook part, and focuses on Zuckerberg battling the court cases. By which time, he's already a billionaire. You're just not really sure why, if you aren't already on Facebook.
I can just imagine the Twitter movie. Sigh. I heard Craig Ferguson (who used to mock Twitter himself until he actually got on it and used it) talking to two celebrities this week (on the same show). Both celebrities used the tired old canards: "why would anyone care that I'm getting a haircut? or eating a sandwich? or blah blah blah..." Obviously, they don't get it. It's like that with this Facebook movie too.
And, I'm sad to say, that's what keeps it, for me, anyway, from being one of the best movies ever. It's like Sorkin was so busy making all the partners dance that he kinda forgot what the party was there for. I'll bet, if you asked him right now, he couldn't even explain why Facebook's growth was so incredible (and continues) and MySpace got huge and stopped growing. That's pretty key to this story, and would've served him well as a screenwriter.
So much of the story is built around the "college campuses" idea, it doesn't even really branch out into when other people besides colleges started using it. Or why. Why moms and grandmoms are suddenly on it. There is really a deep rich story there, too.
But for now, if we want the Facebook genesis story, this is it. I think it's a wonderful film. I think it's going to win the Best Picture Oscar and an Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Aaron Sorkin, and it's deserved. Go see it, come home arguing with your friends!
*******************************************************************
Two: People can see the exact same movie and come away with totally different viewpoints on who did what. Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, wasn't kidding when he likened this movie to "Rashomon." It is an incredible script, one that is sure to garner Sorkin a long-overdue Oscar. It is as easy to understand if you are a longtime Facebook user, or never even looked at Facebook in your life.
It is a machination of plot, spinning around the transcripts of real court cases. Friend against friend, classmate against classmate. And yet, it speaks to the quintessential question of our techie age: how can we create a cool app/product/website that everyone is going to love and use and make us rich in the process?
What a strange dichotomy that someone who seems to have such difficulty making friends creates the most social product out there.
My friend viewed this movie and came away with an image of Mark Zuckerberg as a "manipulative asshole." I saw the same movie and saw, finally, the whole story laid in front of me. Saw how Zuckerberg pretty much had to do what he did. I don't fault him at all, and I was rooting for him. In fact, in finally paying the amounts in question, he did right by his friends. Saverin is back on the Facebook masthead. All is now right with the world.
And just to be safe, he donated to some New Jersey schools on the day the movie opened. No, I see Zuckerberg as a good guy here.
Incredible director David Fincher also excels. The movie is stunningly shot. Harvard has never looked so good. Jesse Eisenberg, in the lead, does a fantastic job of walking us through the story. His best friend, Eduardo Saverin, played by the new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield, really makes you feel the pain he's going through. Justin Timberlake is just perfect as Sean Parker, creator of Napster.
It's like a multi-faceted prism. You can see each side clearly, as well as how they are all battling to be most beautiful, or in this case, most right. Wars of class and culture come into play. And out of all this morass, we have the incredible Facebook.
If there is anything faulting this movie it is Sorkin's lack of knowledge about Facebook. And the fact that really, its key battle: the privacy wars, was completely neglected in this story. Maybe they are saving that for "Social Network 2: Privacy." I can only hope they have someone who really knows the Internet writing about it this time.
Cause here's the thing. Nora Ephron got it wrong too, when she wrote the almost instantly dated, "You've Got Mail." It's different when you live here. When you live on Facebook, online, on Twitter. There are nuances and details that it's obvious this writer, though brilliant, missed though he combed through mounds of testimony and facts, and got an incredible story fashioned out of it. He missed the heartbeat of Facebook.
This is Facebook basically from the genesis of the idea until it starts branching out into other countries. Then the storyline drops the Facebook part, and focuses on Zuckerberg battling the court cases. By which time, he's already a billionaire. You're just not really sure why, if you aren't already on Facebook.
I can just imagine the Twitter movie. Sigh. I heard Craig Ferguson (who used to mock Twitter himself until he actually got on it and used it) talking to two celebrities this week (on the same show). Both celebrities used the tired old canards: "why would anyone care that I'm getting a haircut? or eating a sandwich? or blah blah blah..." Obviously, they don't get it. It's like that with this Facebook movie too.
And, I'm sad to say, that's what keeps it, for me, anyway, from being one of the best movies ever. It's like Sorkin was so busy making all the partners dance that he kinda forgot what the party was there for. I'll bet, if you asked him right now, he couldn't even explain why Facebook's growth was so incredible (and continues) and MySpace got huge and stopped growing. That's pretty key to this story, and would've served him well as a screenwriter.
So much of the story is built around the "college campuses" idea, it doesn't even really branch out into when other people besides colleges started using it. Or why. Why moms and grandmoms are suddenly on it. There is really a deep rich story there, too.
But for now, if we want the Facebook genesis story, this is it. I think it's a wonderful film. I think it's going to win the Best Picture Oscar and an Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Aaron Sorkin, and it's deserved. Go see it, come home arguing with your friends!
*******************************************************************
Saturday, September 25, 2010
FOX: Raising Hope, the Gem of the Paley Fest 2010
I knew nothing about “Raising Hope” walking into the Paley Fest evening. Didn’t have much hope for it, either. In the end, it was the only show, over many nights, which elicited CHEERS from the crowds at the end.
Of all these shows featuring earnest handsome leads, Lucas Neff as Jimmy is the best of them. Created by the same talents which brought us the charming and quirky “My Name Is Earl” (Greg Garcia), “Raising Hope” is funny. Laugh out loud funny. The funniest of all these comedies paraded to us during Paley Fest.
I’ll let you discover the little gems on your own, but here’s the family you’ll be watching: the always amazing (and I predict an Emmy in her future right here and now) Martha Plimpton as the mom, Garret Dillahunt (whom you know from “Deadwood” and other dramas) is the dad. Cloris Leachman frequently takes her clothes off as the grandmother.
It’s sweet, it’s poignant, it’s damn funny. You must watch it. In fact, if you watch one thing you weren’t otherwise going to watch from the Paley Fest schedule, make it this one. It follows “Glee,” but it’s much funnier.
Did I mention there’s a baby? Normally, I hate babies, but this baby rocks. Watch it.
BOTTOM LINE: “Raising Hope” is the highlight of Paley Fest 2010 fall season.
*******************************************************************
FOX: Running Wilde is No Arrested Development
Oh, I wanted to like “Running Wilde.” After all, “Arrested Development” is probably the best comedy of all time. Mitchell Hurwitz and Jim Vallely are geniuses. Cast members Will Arnett and David Cross are attached to this project. And I watched nearly every episode of “Felicity” and kinda miss Kerri Russell. What could go wrong?
Well, as it turns out, pretty much everything. Whereas “Arrested Development” was a delectable comedy that you could watch over and over and still laugh at new jokes, “Running Wilde” feels like a forced mess. Will Arnett is supposed to be playing a spoiled rich guy, something he excels at (and was pretty much his stock in trade on both “AD” and “30 Rock”). Kerri Russell plays the do-gooder environmentalist, fighting Arnett’s big oil company. What’s not to like?
You know how in finely tuned comedia dell’arte, characters rush around the stage in perfect timing, the timing of everything alone is what makes you laugh, in addition to what they are saying? Well, this is the opposite of that. Everyone is running around, slapstick like. But not in a funny way, just in an annoying way.
The only likeable characters are Arnett’s and Russell’s and those are marginal.
Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the whole shebang is narrated by Russell’s daughter, Puddle. *eyeroll*
No, this was such a mess that I won’t be revisiting it at all. The only real upside is that, for once, the focus of the show isn’t Kerri Russell’s hair. Small comfort.
BOTTOM LINE: Leave this “Running Wilde” in its puddle.
*************************************************************
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
FOX:Two and a Half Winners Served Up
SPOILER ALERT within
Really didn't know anything about this series before sitting down to watch "Lone Star," the first entry in Fox's night of new TV. Well, other than it's set in Texas, of course.
So here's the gist. Handsome and sexy James Wolk is a con man who works with his dad, David Keith. He's married to lovely and rich Adrianne Palicki (who can't seem to get out of Texas, and looks WAY different than she did on "Friday Night Lights"). Palicki's rich dad, Jon Voight, offers the young buck a job at the oil company he owns.
But the man can't seem to get out of his mind the other woman, Eloise Mumford. So, SPOILER ALERT, at the end of the episode, he marries her.
In "Big Love," it's one guy married to three (or is it four now?) women. All the women know each other and get along. In this one, the women don't even cross paths (well, not yet anyway). And the man just travels a lot. Not sure how I feel about this bigamy trend. Guess it's better than the electroshock torture that the previous Fox timeslot owner had been dispensing.
BOTTOM LINE: Pretty to look at, but are we interested?
****************************************************************
Really didn't know anything about this series before sitting down to watch "Lone Star," the first entry in Fox's night of new TV. Well, other than it's set in Texas, of course.
So here's the gist. Handsome and sexy James Wolk is a con man who works with his dad, David Keith. He's married to lovely and rich Adrianne Palicki (who can't seem to get out of Texas, and looks WAY different than she did on "Friday Night Lights"). Palicki's rich dad, Jon Voight, offers the young buck a job at the oil company he owns.
But the man can't seem to get out of his mind the other woman, Eloise Mumford. So, SPOILER ALERT, at the end of the episode, he marries her.
In "Big Love," it's one guy married to three (or is it four now?) women. All the women know each other and get along. In this one, the women don't even cross paths (well, not yet anyway). And the man just travels a lot. Not sure how I feel about this bigamy trend. Guess it's better than the electroshock torture that the previous Fox timeslot owner had been dispensing.
BOTTOM LINE: Pretty to look at, but are we interested?
****************************************************************
CBS: Blue Bloods Blech
The last presentation was Tom Selleck's latest vehicle, "Blue Bloods."
Some good actors in the cast (Len Cariou, Bobby Cannavale, Donnie Wahlberg, Bridget Moynahan, Will Estes). Not enough other stuff to remain interested, so I bailed on this screening.
Also, I'd heard that Selleck sees this as a "family drama," while the showrunner sees it as "a procedural." Blech.
Some good actors in the cast (Len Cariou, Bobby Cannavale, Donnie Wahlberg, Bridget Moynahan, Will Estes). Not enough other stuff to remain interested, so I bailed on this screening.
Also, I'd heard that Selleck sees this as a "family drama," while the showrunner sees it as "a procedural." Blech.
CBS: Mike and Molly Wins Hearts
So we who are viewing this Paley Center extravaganza are slogging through these selected dramas and comedies. Eh to this one. Eh to that one. I have to admit, the one I was most excited about, of all the shows presented was "Mike & Molly."
I've long admired Melissa McCarthy, who was the devoted friend of Lauren Graham's character on the many years of "Gilmore Girls." She was also the devoted friend on the recent Christina Applegate comedy, "Samantha Who?" (Are we seeing a pattern here?)
BOY, and I mean, BOY, am I excited to see her finally headlining her own show. She's long been an underrated talent. Billy Gardell, primarily known from the standup world, seems to be her match. A strong supporting cast includes Swoozie Kurtz.
The fat jokes may get tiresome after a while, but the pilot (with Chuck Lorre's influence) was a sparkling gem.
BOTTOM LINE: This is the one show I rushed home to program into my TiVo.
*****************************************************************
I've long admired Melissa McCarthy, who was the devoted friend of Lauren Graham's character on the many years of "Gilmore Girls." She was also the devoted friend on the recent Christina Applegate comedy, "Samantha Who?" (Are we seeing a pattern here?)
BOY, and I mean, BOY, am I excited to see her finally headlining her own show. She's long been an underrated talent. Billy Gardell, primarily known from the standup world, seems to be her match. A strong supporting cast includes Swoozie Kurtz.
The fat jokes may get tiresome after a while, but the pilot (with Chuck Lorre's influence) was a sparkling gem.
BOTTOM LINE: This is the one show I rushed home to program into my TiVo.
*****************************************************************
CBS: Defenders Shows a Different Side of Vegas
What is there to say about "The Defenders"? Well, it's got Jim Belushi. It's got Jerry O'Connell. And it shows you a "different side of Vegas." Different, that is, than their other successful Vegas show, CSI. It's more about the performers and their backstories. Helping the little guy, rather than solving crimes. Well, at least, that's what they said it was about.
The show reveals like a standard-issue procedural. Some courtroom wackiness reminiscent of David E. Kelley. Lots of cool Vegas shots.
But really, if you wanted to watch a good courtroom show, "The Good Wife" is already a jewel in CBS's crown, having scored that Best Drama Emmy nom this year. "The Defenders" sure isn't gonna do that. And really, how many care so passionately about Vegas that they want to watch it for all the in-jokes?
BOTTOM LINE: Myself? I'd fold on this one.
********************************************************************
The show reveals like a standard-issue procedural. Some courtroom wackiness reminiscent of David E. Kelley. Lots of cool Vegas shots.
But really, if you wanted to watch a good courtroom show, "The Good Wife" is already a jewel in CBS's crown, having scored that Best Drama Emmy nom this year. "The Defenders" sure isn't gonna do that. And really, how many care so passionately about Vegas that they want to watch it for all the in-jokes?
BOTTOM LINE: Myself? I'd fold on this one.
********************************************************************
Monday, September 13, 2010
CBS: Still Churning Out What Works
First up, the comedy that used to be called "Shit My Dad Says" when it was on the Internet; now, it's written as "$@#% My Dad Says," but pronounced as "BLEEP My Dad Says." *eyeroll*
You really almost can't go wrong with Shatner. Everyone loves Shatner. If there's a male to rival Betty White in popularity and longevity, it's Shatner. (However, her series, "Hot in Cleveland" on TV Land, is much funnier.)
In any case, this is pretty much a standard-issue comedy. Shatner plays irrascible, ornery dad, and Jonathan Sadowski plays the frustrated son. Will Sasso and Nicole Sullivan are in the mix.
BOTTOM LINE: Funny, but don't go out of your way for it.
********************************************************
You really almost can't go wrong with Shatner. Everyone loves Shatner. If there's a male to rival Betty White in popularity and longevity, it's Shatner. (However, her series, "Hot in Cleveland" on TV Land, is much funnier.)
In any case, this is pretty much a standard-issue comedy. Shatner plays irrascible, ornery dad, and Jonathan Sadowski plays the frustrated son. Will Sasso and Nicole Sullivan are in the mix.
BOTTOM LINE: Funny, but don't go out of your way for it.
********************************************************
Friday, September 10, 2010
NBC: Undercovers
Last and certainly not least, we have NBC's "Undercovers."
Here's the logline: "Alias," but with a couple. A sexy black couple.
That's really all you need to know. They used to be spies, but they quit. They are lured back to rescue a friend. And oh, they discover that they really liked all that spy stuff, so they get pulled back in. But is everyone really who they say they are?
And they have the wacky friend who's helping them, decoding things, and making sure they have planes and cover stories. (I so do miss Kevin Weisman in those moments.) This new guy is no Kevin Weisman.
Ah, but if you loved Alias and miss it, this may get you all warm and fuzzy all over. After all, JJ Abrams wrote this pilot and produced the show.
They have spies in great outfits, hopping all over the globe. (Or what passes for all over the globe, with fancy Photoshopping.) Leads who spew off great accents and languages on a moment's notice. And who (both man and woman) take their clothes off, to showcase great bodies.
"Under covers" (as in bed, get it?) and spies "under covers." (Get it?) *eyeroll*
Sure, if you like that sort of thing, you'll like this show. I give it the longest shelf life of the four for those reasons. There are some hardcore Alias fans out there.
My friend, however, summed up my feelings for it, as we entered the car. "At least there's no Rambaldi," he said.
"Yet," I said.
BOTTOM LINE: Alias with a couple does have a lot of advantages. But no Kevin Weisman.
******************************************************************
Here's the logline: "Alias," but with a couple. A sexy black couple.
That's really all you need to know. They used to be spies, but they quit. They are lured back to rescue a friend. And oh, they discover that they really liked all that spy stuff, so they get pulled back in. But is everyone really who they say they are?
And they have the wacky friend who's helping them, decoding things, and making sure they have planes and cover stories. (I so do miss Kevin Weisman in those moments.) This new guy is no Kevin Weisman.
Ah, but if you loved Alias and miss it, this may get you all warm and fuzzy all over. After all, JJ Abrams wrote this pilot and produced the show.
They have spies in great outfits, hopping all over the globe. (Or what passes for all over the globe, with fancy Photoshopping.) Leads who spew off great accents and languages on a moment's notice. And who (both man and woman) take their clothes off, to showcase great bodies.
"Under covers" (as in bed, get it?) and spies "under covers." (Get it?) *eyeroll*
Sure, if you like that sort of thing, you'll like this show. I give it the longest shelf life of the four for those reasons. There are some hardcore Alias fans out there.
My friend, however, summed up my feelings for it, as we entered the car. "At least there's no Rambaldi," he said.
"Yet," I said.
BOTTOM LINE: Alias with a couple does have a lot of advantages. But no Kevin Weisman.
******************************************************************
NBC: Chase
I really don't know how I made it through this nightlong slog.
Next up, NBC's "Chase."
Kinda sorta like "The Fugitive" meets TV procedural. We have our crack staff of good guys, US marshalls, who go about rounding up bad guys that others have trouble catching. Person X is wanted at the beginning of the show. They keep missing him (or her, at some point, I imagine) through the whole show. Chasing, chasing. Guess what? At the end of the show, bad guy/girl is apprehended. YAWN.
Of the four NBC shows that Paley Center was showing, I hated them all. I hated "Chase" the most, though. The lead, thankfully, is a woman. She lets you know right away that her daddy done her wrong, and that's why she's now in this thankless business she's in.
She can hogtie a bad guy in seconds flat, even a really nasty one. She can fight with some moves underwater that guys don't have on land. Yep. She does it all. And she sings a good Waylon Jennings song.
She's also joined by a crack staff (of course). Jesse Metcalfe (whom I never really liked, but at least was more interesting on "Desperate Housewives," where he was taking off his shirt constantly) is out of his league here.
The violence is brutal and graphic. The bad guy they were chasing at least had nice blue eyes. His acting was actually more memorable than most of the regulars in this show. Which is too bad, because he's been chased down. It's on to a new perp next episode.
BOTTOM LINE: If every episode is about these people chasing one guy who eludes them, and he's caught at the end, this is not a show I'll be watching. Yawn.
*************************************************************************
Next up, NBC's "Chase."
Kinda sorta like "The Fugitive" meets TV procedural. We have our crack staff of good guys, US marshalls, who go about rounding up bad guys that others have trouble catching. Person X is wanted at the beginning of the show. They keep missing him (or her, at some point, I imagine) through the whole show. Chasing, chasing. Guess what? At the end of the show, bad guy/girl is apprehended. YAWN.
Of the four NBC shows that Paley Center was showing, I hated them all. I hated "Chase" the most, though. The lead, thankfully, is a woman. She lets you know right away that her daddy done her wrong, and that's why she's now in this thankless business she's in.
She can hogtie a bad guy in seconds flat, even a really nasty one. She can fight with some moves underwater that guys don't have on land. Yep. She does it all. And she sings a good Waylon Jennings song.
She's also joined by a crack staff (of course). Jesse Metcalfe (whom I never really liked, but at least was more interesting on "Desperate Housewives," where he was taking off his shirt constantly) is out of his league here.
The violence is brutal and graphic. The bad guy they were chasing at least had nice blue eyes. His acting was actually more memorable than most of the regulars in this show. Which is too bad, because he's been chased down. It's on to a new perp next episode.
BOTTOM LINE: If every episode is about these people chasing one guy who eludes them, and he's caught at the end, this is not a show I'll be watching. Yawn.
*************************************************************************
NBC: The Event
Next up, NBC's "The Event."
I was trying to decide, during the first half hour, which was more annoying.
The fact that, "Lost"-like, you don't know what in the frack "The Event" is? Or the fact that every two minutes (or less) you get title cards like this: "Six Weeks Earlier." "Five Minutes Later." "Two Days Before." "Eighteen Hours Previous." I'm so not kidding. There are so many, in such quick succession, that's it's really difficult to figure out where the hell we are and when.
Don't get me wrong. There was a lot of madness going on in "Lost," with flash-forwards, and flash-backwards, and flash-sideways. But I could always tell where we were. In the pilot for "The Event," they lost me by the third title card. And I couldn't care by the third title card.
There were a couple of things which made me take notice for a minute, though. Blair Underwood (good actor) plays the president. Zeljko Ivanek (great actor! Did you see his death scene in "Damages"?!!!) plays an evil henchman in the White House. And Laura Innes (we loved her on "ER" all those years) plays someone... not really sure who she is yet, but she's pretty integral to the plot. And they had some pretty cool special effects toward the end of the pilot.
But it's too ham-fisted, too awkward, too on the nose, too "who cares?" for me. I don't think I care to find out what exactly The Event is, or who these people are that they are holding, and why they are stealing planes, and who the bad guys are or who the good guys are. I don't care. At least on "Lost," as crazy and convoluted as that plot got, I did care. From the very first frame.
BOTTOM LINE: Despite the gravitas of some great actors, this is no "Lost."
**********************************************************************
I was trying to decide, during the first half hour, which was more annoying.
The fact that, "Lost"-like, you don't know what in the frack "The Event" is? Or the fact that every two minutes (or less) you get title cards like this: "Six Weeks Earlier." "Five Minutes Later." "Two Days Before." "Eighteen Hours Previous." I'm so not kidding. There are so many, in such quick succession, that's it's really difficult to figure out where the hell we are and when.
Don't get me wrong. There was a lot of madness going on in "Lost," with flash-forwards, and flash-backwards, and flash-sideways. But I could always tell where we were. In the pilot for "The Event," they lost me by the third title card. And I couldn't care by the third title card.
There were a couple of things which made me take notice for a minute, though. Blair Underwood (good actor) plays the president. Zeljko Ivanek (great actor! Did you see his death scene in "Damages"?!!!) plays an evil henchman in the White House. And Laura Innes (we loved her on "ER" all those years) plays someone... not really sure who she is yet, but she's pretty integral to the plot. And they had some pretty cool special effects toward the end of the pilot.
But it's too ham-fisted, too awkward, too on the nose, too "who cares?" for me. I don't think I care to find out what exactly The Event is, or who these people are that they are holding, and why they are stealing planes, and who the bad guys are or who the good guys are. I don't care. At least on "Lost," as crazy and convoluted as that plot got, I did care. From the very first frame.
BOTTOM LINE: Despite the gravitas of some great actors, this is no "Lost."
**********************************************************************
NBC Unveils Four Turkeys: First, Outsourced
Every year, we in LA are graced with unveiling of the new fall TV schedule at the Paley Center. Each network gets a night. I'm not going to all of them. Sadly, I'm attending most of them.
First up, NBC.
I admit. I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about NBC. The whole Jay Leno-Conan O'Brien debacle still leaves a smarting feeling when I even hear the word "NBC." That, and it's firmly entrenched in fourth place. For good reason. "Outsourced" does nothing to alleviate that bad taste in my mouth.
Don't get me wrong. There are some good, funny actors on "Outsourced." But really, 16 million Americans are out of work. Are they really going to find it funny to see a show about those who took their jobs? Really?
I tried. I really tried to see the funny in this show. As the offensive stereotypes and racist insults flew by, I tried to see that, well, at least they were using a more diverse cast than they normally do on network TV. But no. As much as the moderator of tonight's events tried to put the spin on it as "at its core, it's just another workplace comedy," um, no. It isn't. This is no "The Office."
It's insulting to Indians (or as my ethnic-slurring friend calls them, "dot Indians, not feather Indians). It's insulting to Americans. They even throw in Australians. I'm waiting for the "shrimp on the barbie" jokes. Really, NBC. Haven't we moved past all this?
BOTTOM LINE: I tried to like "Outsourced." I still hated "Outsourced."
**************************************************************************
First up, NBC.
I admit. I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about NBC. The whole Jay Leno-Conan O'Brien debacle still leaves a smarting feeling when I even hear the word "NBC." That, and it's firmly entrenched in fourth place. For good reason. "Outsourced" does nothing to alleviate that bad taste in my mouth.
Don't get me wrong. There are some good, funny actors on "Outsourced." But really, 16 million Americans are out of work. Are they really going to find it funny to see a show about those who took their jobs? Really?
I tried. I really tried to see the funny in this show. As the offensive stereotypes and racist insults flew by, I tried to see that, well, at least they were using a more diverse cast than they normally do on network TV. But no. As much as the moderator of tonight's events tried to put the spin on it as "at its core, it's just another workplace comedy," um, no. It isn't. This is no "The Office."
It's insulting to Indians (or as my ethnic-slurring friend calls them, "dot Indians, not feather Indians). It's insulting to Americans. They even throw in Australians. I'm waiting for the "shrimp on the barbie" jokes. Really, NBC. Haven't we moved past all this?
BOTTOM LINE: I tried to like "Outsourced." I still hated "Outsourced."
**************************************************************************
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Ping is No MySpace Killer
Boy, I love a day when Apple releases (or talks about) new products. So it was with great excitement that I started reading about Ping, Apple's supposed "MySpace killer." A social network that exists right at the site where the music is? How fun.
Mashable's story on the MySpace killer Ping
Eagerly I downloaded the new version and tested it out. Well, yes, Apple, except for one small teeny tinsy little thing here: you forgot the "social" in social network. You also continue to thrust at us old world versions of the music we live today, and this "Ping" is functional for really no one.
There is no chat function. There are no forums. There is, in short, no way for one user to interact with another user, other than to "follow" them. And if you follow them, you'll see, in Twitter feed fashion, what music that person is buying. Great. More along the lines of who cares?
You'll also see which concerts they attended by which artist. Apple seems to have stolen (their format, their content structure) excessively from iLike, which is now partnered with MySpace Music.
But there's no way to ask your friend on this site, "Hey, what'd you think of that concert?" That is, after all, what a "music social network" should be about. Sure, your friend can "review" the album. But there is no connection. It's all distant viewing.
MySpace, at least, has chat and messaging all built in. You can see a band's concert calendar at the ready, and how much tickets are. You can comment when you saw their show in Portand and wanted to immortalize how awesome it was for you. None of that BASIC social networking stuff is here on Ping.
Ping, in fact, is really only a spruced up version of iTunes. The function, thrust at you, is BUYING stuff. Specifically buying their top artists. Upon setup, you have to choose only three genres of music that you like (!?!). Then you get their picks for you ("Artists We Recommend You Follow"). One of my selections was Alternative. Yet the artists they presented me with included Lady Gaga and Katy Perry. And Diddy. The only vaguely Alternative act they presented was U2.
Insert eyeroll here. Don't be worried, MySpace. Don't even bat an eye over this new "killer" in town.
Mashable's story on the MySpace killer Ping
Eagerly I downloaded the new version and tested it out. Well, yes, Apple, except for one small teeny tinsy little thing here: you forgot the "social" in social network. You also continue to thrust at us old world versions of the music we live today, and this "Ping" is functional for really no one.
There is no chat function. There are no forums. There is, in short, no way for one user to interact with another user, other than to "follow" them. And if you follow them, you'll see, in Twitter feed fashion, what music that person is buying. Great. More along the lines of who cares?
You'll also see which concerts they attended by which artist. Apple seems to have stolen (their format, their content structure) excessively from iLike, which is now partnered with MySpace Music.
But there's no way to ask your friend on this site, "Hey, what'd you think of that concert?" That is, after all, what a "music social network" should be about. Sure, your friend can "review" the album. But there is no connection. It's all distant viewing.
MySpace, at least, has chat and messaging all built in. You can see a band's concert calendar at the ready, and how much tickets are. You can comment when you saw their show in Portand and wanted to immortalize how awesome it was for you. None of that BASIC social networking stuff is here on Ping.
Ping, in fact, is really only a spruced up version of iTunes. The function, thrust at you, is BUYING stuff. Specifically buying their top artists. Upon setup, you have to choose only three genres of music that you like (!?!). Then you get their picks for you ("Artists We Recommend You Follow"). One of my selections was Alternative. Yet the artists they presented me with included Lady Gaga and Katy Perry. And Diddy. The only vaguely Alternative act they presented was U2.
Insert eyeroll here. Don't be worried, MySpace. Don't even bat an eye over this new "killer" in town.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Creative Arts Winners
Outstanding Guest Actor In A Drama Series
John Lithgow as Arthur Mitchell, Dexter (Showtime)
Outstanding Guest Actress In A Comedy Series
Betty White as Host, Saturday Night Live (NBC)
Outstanding Host For A Reality Or Reality-Competition Program
Jeff Probst as Host, Survivor (CBS)
Outstanding Creative Achievement In Interactive Media: Nonfiction
The Jimmy Fallon Digital Experience (LateNightWithJimmyFallon.com)
Outstanding Short-Format Animated Program
Robot Chicken (Cartoon Network)
Outstanding Children's Nonfiction Program
Nick News With Linda Ellerbee - The Face Of Courage: Kids Living With Cancer (Nickelodeon
Outstanding Reality Program
Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution (ABC)
Outstanding Art Direction For Variety, Music, Or Nonfiction Programming
The 82 Annual Academy Awards (ABC)
Outstanding Casting For A Comedy Series
Modern Family (ABC)
Outstanding Casting For A Drama Series
Mad Men (AMC)
Outstanding Cinematography For Reality Programming
Survivor (CBS) ["Slay Everyone, Trust No One"]
Outstanding Commercial
The Man Your Man Could Smell Like (Old Spice Body Wash)
Outstanding Short Form Picture Editing
Late Night With Jimmy Fallon (NBC) ["6-Bee (Episode 226)"][/i]
Outstanding Picture Editing For A Special (Single Or Multi-Camera)
The 25th Anniversary Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Concert (HBO)
Outstanding Hairstyling For A Multi-Camera Series Or A Special
Dancing With The Stars (ABC) ["902A"]
Outstanding Hairstyling For A Miniseries Or A Movie
Emma [Masterpiece] (PBS)
Outstanding Sound Editing For A Miniseries, Movie, Or A Special
The Pacific (HBO) ["Part Five"]
Outstanding Sound Mixing For A Comedy Or Drama Series (One-Hour)
Glee (FOX) ["The Power Of Madonna"]
Outstanding Sound Mixing For A Variety, Music Series, Or A Special
The 25th Anniversary Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Concert (HBO)
Outstanding Special Visual Effects For A Miniseries, Movie Or A Special
The Pacific (HBO) ["Part Five"]
Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, Video Control For A Series
Dancing With The Stars (ABC) ["Episode 909A"]
Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, Video Control For A Miniseries, Movie, Or A Special
The 25th Anniversary Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Concert (HBO)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)