Oscar Picks

Over the years I’ve either attended or hosted parties.  Not this year, just didn’t work out with busy schedules (and I don’t even have kids).  So, almost always there is a pool.  I guess you could call it gambling, I call it a party cover and the person with the most correct predictions wins.  I think I’ve only won once.  Why?  Several reasons, but at the end of the day, I usually pick who I want to win.  Some come to the party prepared – they’ve either seen all of the films or have done Internet research.  Cheaters.  The best year ever was when Silence of the Lambs swept…I called it, but I was young and no money was at stake…just my pride.

There have been years when there are winners and I’m furious. I was happy when The Color Purple didn’t win.  I was upset when Schindler’s List did win.  I was happy when Chariot’s of Fire won and Ben Kingsley won for Ghandi.  I’m sad Glenn Close has never won an Oscar, but thrilled whenever Meryl Streep has won.  AND, I thought David Letterman was fine as host…what do I know?

So, predictions from me…and as always, I’ve not seen everything, so it’s a HUGE guessing game.

Best Picture – The Artist.  Didn’t see it, but it looks good.  I did see The Descendants, Moneyball and Midnight in Paris.  Liked them all, but none should win.  The other films (and I hate the new system of too many pics in the category) look terrible (for me). 

Best Actress  -- Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).  While she’s up against Meryl and Glenn, I really think this girl deserves it.  Didn’t see The Help and don’t want to see it, so it’s not on my list for anything. 

Best Actor – Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – didn’t see it but I think he’s good.  The French guy from the artist is probably great as is the other foreign guy, but I pick Gary (English).

Supporting Actors – Christopher Plummer for The Beginners and Melissa McCarty for Bridesmaids.  Saw both films and think they should win.  Breakout roles for both.  Yes, Christopher has been around for decades, but only recently has been in some good flicks (and not on the stage).  Melissa was BRILLIANT.  I mean perfect and weird and amazing.

Directing – while I LOVE Woody Allen, the director of The Artist should win, so he’s my pick – Michael something.

I really can’t pick anything else…too much guessing, however, I’d love Kristen Wigg and her friend Annie to win for Bridesmaids.  I know the film is NOT fine art, but it’s an important film for women and the industry and I actually laughed watching the movie…not just the trailers.

I hope Billy Crystal is good.  A weird year with the whole host thing.  I’ve already forgotten who was supposed to host.  That’s right, Eddie Murphy was supposed to host…whatever, we’re kickin it old school with Crystal and I’m sure he’ll rise to the occasion.

I hope it’s a good night.  My real hope is that film becomes more enticing than television…right now, I think the boob tube is producing the best work.  And then there’s the red carpet…

 http://oscar.go.com/

Downton Abbey - Season 1

Masterpiece Theatre is just lovely.  I wish I watched all of the time.  This review isn’t too timely as the second season of Downton Abbey just started.  I am late to the game and was able to watch season 1 via Netflix…it’s how I watch many serial programs.

Since I don’t pay attention to many things in life, I first learned of Downton Abbey by watching the Emmy’s.  Like many English shows, it has won awards.

Fellowes

Julian Fellowes is the creator and writes many of the episodes.  You may recall he wrote Gosford Park.  Downton Abbey, like Gosford Park, is about an aristocratic home showcasing the owners and the help…the service staff.  While Gosford Park is set in pre-WWII England, Abbey is pre-WW1.  I encourage you to watch both to see how things change….or not.

After watching the first season, I can classify Abbey as an Edwardian soap opera.  Once your peel away the magnificent setting, the accents and the wardrobes, it’s your basic soap.  There’s conflict, romance, secrets and lies.

The premise – an English aristocrat (and Earl, but called Lord) has a wife and three daughters.  Due to English law in the 1900’s, his home and his wife’s fortune should go to his son…of which he doesn’t have.  Instead, the home and fortune go to the closest male heir.  In the first episode, this relative heir dies on the Titanic.  This is bad as this heir is slated to marry the Earl’s oldest daughter.  The drama begins.

The next heir is a relative from Manchester, England.  A barrister.  He is invited to visit/live in Downton by the Earl - the hope is this relative would marry the Earl’s eldest daughter (lady Mary).  The cousin does come down (Manchester is in northern England) and he brings his mother.

As the story is laid out for the viewer, we begin to meet all of the characters, but at the same time, learn how life is lived in the 1900’s with the service staff.  While I never watched, it’s probably like Upstairs/Downstairs.

Like many English-period programs, the acting seems perfect.  The home (which looks like a castle) and the cinematography are just lovely.  Because it’s like a soap, it’s really not intimidating and the stories are not hard to follow.

 While some of the actors may look familiar, there are two most American’s will know.  Cora, the Earl’s American wife, is played by Elizabeth McGovern.  I believe she’s been living in England, so what a great gig.  The other familiar face is Dame Maggie Smith, playing Violet, the mother of the Earl of Grantham. 

Period pieces can be difficult, especially when it comes to exposing a class system.  English people seem to be obsessed with where people fall in place in society.  It’s easy to make the rich look off-putting and heartless.  It’s even easier to make the working class look like victims.  Downton Abbey helps us look into a reality of a time where your place in life was defined by your family and money.  Watching Downton Abbey, rather than portraying everyone “knowing their place” it’s more about “knowing their role.”  Without the levels, higharchy and rank, it all crumbles - metaphor for any powerful entity relying on structure rather than chaos.

There are some “modern” moments in Abbey from word choices to storylines, but these out of place modernisms makes the story even more palatable.

I have the first part of season two waiting on TiVo.  Will watch it tonight – a cold Saturday night in January.  Happy new year.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

I have not read the book (or any of the books in the series), nor have I seen the Swedish version of the film.  I wanted to see the movie from previews and my neighbors really liked it.  I really like my neighbors, so their endorsement was good enough.

This past weekend was Christmas and I had some time off from work.  One of my goals was to see this film, so we caught a 4:45 p.m. – in time for the matinee discount. 

Larsson

The film is based on the novel by Stieg Larsson – he wrote three stories in the series and then he died.  CBS Sunday Morning did a good piece on him and there are some legal issues between his longtime partner and his family.  You can Google all of that.  My review is more about the film, the story and its characters.

The movie is about an investigative journalist who is asked to research a man’s life for his memoirs – Christopher Plummer (yes, he’s still alive).   The journalist (Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist) has just experienced a slander charge with fines linked to a mogal businessman.  Plummer had Craig’s character investigated before asking him to visit his remote, northern Swedish island where he resides.  The firm that conducted the investigation employs a troubled/complex young woman named Lisbeth, the girl with the dragon tattoo.

Dreamy Craig

So Craig agrees to meet with Plummer’s character and he learns that aside from the man wanting a memoir, the story of his family and life on the island has been painful and complex.  The man’s biggest regret was not knowing what happened to his niece who died in the 1960’s.  Plummer’s thought is that a family member killed this niece (Harriet is the character’s name).

Craig embarks in this journey to learn about the man’s family, and more so, about the mystery of Harriet.  At the same time, we get to know Lisbeth a little better and how dark and sad her personal existence has been.  Lisbeth, who is thin, pale and dresses like a character out of Mad Max is an ace investigator for a private firm, is also a ward of the state due to her tragic childhood.  In the movie, we see her meeting a new caseworker that controls her access to money and reports on her progress.

American Lisbeth

The journalist and the investigator finally meet when Craig’s character is enthralled in the Harriet mystery and requires the assistance of an assistant.  This is where the film turns into a crime mystery with lots of time researching and looking at old photos.  Anymore would be too much.

So, what did I think?  I think the film was beautifully made and will probably hurt Swedish tourism.  The hues of the film leaned to the greys, blacks and white of a bleak and cold Swedish landscape.  The film’s director, David Fincher, sure knows how to create an authentic setting.  Fincher’s work is impressive and often leans to the dark side (Google him). 

The cast ranges from a few familiar faces to some lessor know actors.  Lisbeth is played by Rooney Mara and you could consider this a breakout role.  The transformation of a young, wealthy actress to this dark, troubled character is quite amazing.  I didn’t really read about the cast ahead of time and thought Mara was a foreign actor…I was wrong, she’s from the US and this makes her performance even more special and courageous.

Mara

Craig’s performance is low-key and masculine, but not macho.  In all honesty, he’s so appealing to watch as he’s beautiful looking and his styling is hypnotic.  His accent is non-descript, which seems a little out of place considering many of the actors attempt Swedish accents while speaking English.  This is a little distracting so I assume the director was okay with this inconsistency…I guess we are to forgive as well.

The film seems long and complicated, but I was okay with this as so many films seem short and I’m left wanting more, or at least more complexity.  This film weaves several stories with several endings.  Let me be clear, the film doesn’t introduce several scenarios as endings, but there are several stories needing closure.  Everyone knows there are two other books, so at the end you are craving the next movie to see where else Lisbeth’s life leads.

I am troubled by some of the imagery of the film….yet it’s not the movie’s fault, it’s part of the story.  I guess I’m disturbed that such dark, disturbing details about characters were written in the first place.  I tend to think I like gritty books and movies, but at the end of the day, I’m upset with such graphic narrative.  I wonder why authors go as far as they do and then filmmakers depict such stories.  I swear I’m not a fundamentalist prude, but I do think about the minds of artists when they are writing.  I wonder why they “go there.”  I am very certain that humans do horrible things to each other and I believe art reflects life, but I sometimes wish we didn’t chronicle such horrible acts under the guise of art.  I suppose I’m naïve.  All I know is that when I see horrific imagery in television or art, it stays with me and distracts me from the piece as a whole.

Lisbeth’s character has obviously endured offenses we would not wish on our enemies and we’re supposed to think this is why she is such a special character. And it’s true, many amazing and interesting people have suffered atrocities in their lives and all of this makes their personal character and drive.  I know authors have vivid minds and explore dark sides of the human psychy, but sometimes it teeters on the salacious.  I think I would be more interested in a story about Stieg and why he developed this character.

Aside from the disturbing scenes, I enjoyed the movie as an experience.  I think the character of Lisbeth is amazing, but her portrayal was flawed only by how she’s been created.  The more I think about her relationship with Craig, the more annoyed I become.  Because their relationship does become sexual, I feel as though we tilt over to male fantasy and not reality.

Without giving too much away, Craig does find himself in a life threatening and vulnerable position.  There is an intimacy scene shortly afterwards where he’s more concerned about solving the mystery than his sexual experience and gratification (of his partner).  To make myself like his character more, I’ve convinced myself that he still vulnerable.  I don’t think this is the case, but it’s allowed me to swallow the storyline a little better.

So, after what you’ve read you may be asking….did she like it or not?  I liked the film in general, but I’m not as impressed with the development of characters and core intentions (of the author).  Full disclosure, I think I can swallow horrific sex crimes when there are nameless, faceless victims in fiction…but in the case of this story, I’m troubled.  As I think about it, I want to think there are complex characters like Lisbeth who exist because they do…not because of the oppression inflicted upon them.  In other words, I want to see characters that are complicated without such a graphic backstory or even current existence.

God, I’m getting conservative in my old age…please forgive me.  And, Mara should win an Oscar in 2012.  

Real Housewives, Real Nice

I remember when Bravo was artsy-fartsy and the Actor’s Studio was something to really get excited about.  Then something happened.  Since I refuse to do some real research here, this is all from memory, so forgive me if my chronological recount is inaccurate.

So what happened?  Bravo switched to the unofficial gay cable network.  At least that was the vibe with Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (2003, I did Google it).  I loved the show and got hooked on Bravo programming.  At some point (this is where I get lazy), content really shifted to reality.  I am foggy about which came first, but I believe Project Runway and Top Chef hit around the same time.  Both shows were riveting to me.  I would watch each episode with such attention, and even watch them again and again during marathons over a weekend.  Then they introduced reunion shows with a host named Andy Cohen.

Cohen

Andy Cohen.  I DID NOT understand where Bravo found this guy (again, an aversion to just using the Internet) and even wrote Bravo complaining about him.  I thought his on-camera style was horrible and amateur.  I soon realized this guy was the PRODUCER of the shows…and for a while after having this epiphany, still didn’t like him.

At some point, a new franchise was introduced…The Real Housewives of Orange County.  It was fantastic.  A show with “wealthy” women in Orange County, CA.  It was perfect programming for caddy gay viewers to relish some ridiculous women and their silly lives and issues.  I did, and still do, thought it was brilliant to see these women want to display their lives for our enjoyment.  The joke to me is that they liked (and still do) the attention.  When most viewers judge their existence and woes, they think they are building brands and self-importance.

So, this is where I may be wrong.  The Orange County show spurred a spin-off – the Real Housewives of New York.  I thought everyone would run from this show as the women in California were displayed in such a negative light.  No, they found some reasonably wealthy women in New York who ALSO craved this weird notoriety.

Orange County Pioneers

From New York, we then patiently awaited the ladies from New Jersey.  Then the franchise becomes an epidemic with casts in Atlanta, Washington DC, Miami and Beverly Hills.  Seriously, what are these women thinking?

The question, however, is, what I am thinking?  I have seen EVERY episode from every season with EVERY cast….even Miami.  My TiVo is programmed to capture all of the shows, including the reunions.

Andy Cohen.  Now I like him.  He has created an empire with this franchise and other shows and I even watch HIS show…Watch What Happens Live.  He is much better in front of the camera and the viewer has a friend in him.  He personifies the viewer of these shows and inserts his opinions and prods honest and bad behavior.  In other words, he’s stirring the pot to entice viewer interest and spark enjoyable television.

Why do I like the shows?  They are glued together well and it’s amazing to see these women (who think they are posh) act so poorly and immaturely.  I would NEVER buy any of their products and I don’t care to follow them on Twitter.  I just like to escape in their weird worlds for an hour and wonder how they will humiliate themselves next.  I don’t aim to sound snarky…I get sucked in and take sides, but at the end of the day, these ladies are not helping themselves (or their families).

Bethenny

I think the grand prize for any of these ladies has been taken already.  Bethenny Frankel started on New York and now is a multi-millionaire because her drive for brand building worked.  Her story is special and I don’t think will be repeated by any of the ladies, so good for her.

I could go on for days about the various casts and the impact of these shows on society (and celebrity), but in general, it is what it is.  The shows are well produced and very entertaining.

So, in pure candy-coated form, here’s a list of my favorite ladies from each show:

Lisa Vanderpump

Orange County – Slade

New York – Ramona and Alex (was Bethany)

New Jersey – Melissa

Atlanta – Candy, Phaedra is a close second “everybody knows”

DC – who cares

Miami – who cares

Beverly Hills – Lisa

My real favorite Bravo character is Jeff Lewis.  He deserves his own entry.

Louis CK

I am not a Wikipedia junky.  In fact, I typically only reference Wikipedia when I need a link to something in a blog entry.  Before I started to write about the show Louis, I thought I’d take a look at the entry about Louis C.K.

I won’t recap what I read, but I found his heritage somewhat interesting as he’s still a citizen of Mexico…wouldn’t have called that tidbit.  The rest is pretty normal for a comedian…lots of writing for late night shows and other projects.  I did grimace when I read he’s a frequent guest on the Bob and Tom show.  Bob and Tom broadcast from Indianapolis where I live and have a HUGE following.  While some of their team can be funny, I find them offensive and old fashioned.  Furthermore, when a new acquaintance of mine references Bob and Tom, I turn my nose up and judge them rather quickly.  They are two old silly guys who giggle throughout the show and are pretty racist.  When they have an African American comedian on and try to talk “jive talk” to him.  Seriously, I just used jive talk, but it fits these guys.  I digress.

Bob and Tom w Christy and Chick

As mentioned in a prior entry, I discovered Louis the first time on Parks and Recreation and then later as a guest on The Daily Show.  For some reason, TiVo started to tape his 30 minutes comedy show on FX and I became hooked.  Aside from it being such an interesting, uncomfortable funny show, the credits show he writes, directs and EDITS the program.  After discovering this, it made me appreciate him even more as the show is not as simple as it looks.  The sets look real and his shooting style is cinematic.  On top of the great character and writing, the music is lovely and quickly reminded me of Woody Allen’s films.  I think there must be an influence as the credits are simple white words on black.  His artistry is why I wanted to read about him on Wiki as I thought maybe he had film school experience/education.

Genius

Knowing how much creative control he has makes him so much more appealing and talented.  In a world with computers and video at everyone’s fingertips, you can think that creating television or film is easy.  What we seem to forget is that these mediums were once a craft to be studied.  Knowing how to direct, edit and integrate music makes the difference between a YouTube video and art.  The look of this show transcends a sitcom set in a studio and leads the viewer experience a film short or funny documentary.

Louis is set in New York and is about a professional comedian who is divorced and sharing custody of two girls with his ex-wife.  The show blends segments of Louis doing stand-up with his daily life.  Louis’ character holds a multitude of traits….naiveté, darkness, neediness, sex-obsessed, tenderness, tenseness and carefree.  Louis often finds himself in awkward situations and tends to follow his more primal curiosity.  There are times of braveness or tenderness, but he frequently will just make bad decisions.

The episodes have included a female admirer who leads him to her suburb home and wants a three-some with her husband to standing in an airport watching the woman he’s in love with leave for France to be with her baby-daddy’s father.

Pamela Adlon

The first episode I watched had him walking his two little girls around a NYC neighborhood trick or treating and they get mugged.  I think the woman  (Pamela Adlon) who is the subject of his affections is with him in real life as I saw her sitting next to him at the Emmy’s.

The show is artsy, crude, endearing and unique.  Aside from his Bob and Tom appearances, I think Louis C.K. is special and I hope you will either catch his show or pay closer attention when you see him as a guest.

Daily News

I work for a transit agency.  I know it’s not sexy and may not be applicable to many of us with cars, but the for folks who ride the buses in my town, buses are lifelines for their daily lives.  In other words, the people who use mass transit in my town are going to work, medical appointments, school and grocery stores.  This entry is not about my job, but one important point is I oversee marketing and communications (and some other stuff).  Since I work for a quasi-government agency and help “control” messaging, you would think I wake up each day reading the major newspaper and blogs as well as local news reports. 

Uhmmm, no.  I don’t read any newspapers and basically watch local television news reports for traffic and weather.  Even then I fixate on how they speak and what they are wearing.  Since I oversee a Communications Manager, it’s her job to read the articles and send links to news reports.  I tend to read the headlines and think I have the gist of the story.

NPR premium

So, where do I get my news?  Well, I do listen to NPR exclusively in my car and on the weekends.  This way, I get snipits of local stories, a lot of national coverage and some artsy-fartsy factoids along the way.  If I want to see, buy or attend something, it’s usually from a story from my public radio friends.  In addition to NPR, my second source for news is Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. 

I have not always been a loyal fan of the show.  I think when TiVo entered the house, we must have programmed the show as a “season pass.”  It records the five shows each week and I watch them in the middle of the night when I can’t sleep or when I am killing a little time on my couch.  Sadly, I watch most of them.

Cute photo of Jon

George W. Bush was the president when I started watching.  I think I caught Jon when he was extra jaded and probably was over his show and politics in general.  I almost gave up on him as he was distracted and borderline rude in his interviews and would interrupt his guests (something I really dislike).  Then I noticed a change.  It started with the 2008 elections and the wonderful primary coverage, particularly between Obama and Clinton.  I really think these shows helped me be engaged.  I thought the battle between Obama and Clinton was like a romantic drama – akin to Moonlighting.  Who knew there could be so much sexual tension in politics?

I don’t know if it was the election or a phase, but Jon Stewart seemed rejuvenated by it all and the show became funny and relevant again.  I most enjoy his interviews with authors.  Even when TiVo tells me there’s a famous actor as a guest, it’s the authors who have the most to share.  Even if he doesn’t read the books (who knows), he acts like he has and Stewart seems so academic.

The first two segments of the show are about current news, usually with one of his correspondents doing a piece.  The third segment is the interview.  Certainly there have been great pop culture guests and I enjoy it when he interviews his friends. 

In other words, I get my news from The Daily Show.  I get to see “real” news coverage mixed in with Stewart’s commentary.  I most often agree with the coverage and understand the slants.

Louis Black pointing

Side note.  While I say I like the authors, I do enjoy some of the celebrity guests.  Lewis Black has a pretty regular segment called Back in Black and his appearances made me a fan.  I was most intrigued by Louis C.K.  Not because he was such a great guest, because Stewart likes him so much.  Stewart will often rib fellow comic guests, but with C.K., he really gushes.  When I saw him the show, the only recollection I had of C.K. was his small part on Parks and Recreation.  Fast forward to TiVo, it recorded C.K.’s show for me and I’m hooked.  A future entry.

Another Louis, but CK

In summary, I’m a little dim when it comes to current news affairs, but when it all boils down, I’m in the loop.  Yes, I may not be up on the latest abduction of a child or war stats, but I know about political candidates, world happenings and the economy from my two main sources…NPR and The Daily Show.  I did watch a piece on The New York Times this morning (CBS Sunday Morning) and I know it’s a good paper…but the correspondents from NPR and the writers of The Daily Show are already reading the paper, so I’m good.