Politics of the Academy Awards

As Oscar season approaches, I thought I'd give my readers a little insight into the politics of the Academy. It should come as no surprise that the award season has always been political, but never fear struggling actors, I have three simple ideas that tend to at least guarantee a nod if not the award itself. Now we all know the Academy shells out for Holocaust flicks, thank you very much Mr. Ricky Gervais, so I'm gonna skip the movie categories and dive right into the acting accolades. First and foremost...
1) Play ugly. It sounds simple enough, but in a world of superficiality and a world where Jessica Alba is still getting work, we all know that looks matter. That's why when people use advanced make-up crews and prosthetics to look like the rest of us average folks or, dare I say even ugly, the Academy pays attention. Prime examples; Nicole Kidman in The Hours and Charlize Theron in Monster. These performances both had merits of their own, but let's be real, to see Charlize Theron anything less than hot was pretty much mind-blowing. Sure, there was character development but there was also about an extra 30 pounds there we'd never seen before.
2) Play mentally retarded. The Academy goes nuts for that kinda stuff. Ben Stiller joked about the topic in his film Tropic Thunder which sent some overly-PC groups, that hadn't even seen the movie, into a frenzy. This is one of those things that people don't really like to admit to themselves, but still holds true. When watching a movie about the trials and hardships of being mentally handicapped, and let's face it, they rarely end well, don't most of us feel a little better that we don't face those challenges? Prime examples; Leonardo DiCaprio in What's Eating Gilbert Grape and Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. DiCaprio received his first nomination, while Hoffman was in it to win it. What's ironic is that Rain Man scolds Charlie for taking advantage of his brother's disability, but at heart, this film essentially does the same thing.
3) Play gay. This is one of the more recent trends in Oscar history that homosexuality has fallen into favor and that's primarily due to the visibility of issues of gay rights in the media and politics. For a long time it would have been considered career suicide to accept the role, but over the years, attitudes have softened. There still remains an element of stigma to these roles though. Homosexuality is popular with the Academy when it is a recognizable character trait, but essentially reduces them to a caricature. When complexity is introduced, such as issues of gender identity, you can almost be sure that it'll go to someone else. Prime examples; Felicity Huffman in Transamerica and Sean Penn in Milk. Say what you will about the movie itself, Felicity Huffman's performance in Transamerica was powerful and complex, but evidently the whole prosthetic penis thing spooked the Academy into handing the Oscar over to Reese Witherspoon that year. Sean Penn's Harvey Milk was impressive acting, but it felt more like watching hero worship than a fully formed character. Color me biased, but I'd rather hear about the man with all his successes and all his failures.
These are some of the tried and true methods of winning an Oscar or at least receiving a nomination. Doesn't make it right and nobody said it was fair, but that's the way it is. Stick to at least one of these three rules and you should be golden. After all, Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron stuck to rules 1 and 3 and they're both Oscar winners. Coincidence? I think not. Just remember to thank me in your acceptance speech.

Jennifer's Body's Got the Look... But Little Else

It's a rare thing in Hollywood that the screenwriter receives more attention than the director, but such is the case with runaway hit screenwriter Diablo Cody. Though not exactly the same fare as her 2007 hit Juno, Jennifer's Body features the same obnoxiously indie quips that made Juno so popular. The main thing to note here is that the character of Juno was written as such. She is a bit of an outsider, but when Jennifer, one of the most popular girls at school, starts spouting lines like "You're lime green jello", the audience (or at least this audience member) won't fall for it. Of course Juno had similar lines (after all they were written in the same year) it was more characteristic of the people that inhabited that specific universe. Furthermore, Juno has an advantage that Jennifer's Body does not and that is the level of acting. Don't get me wrong, Megan Fox is phenomenal in this role, arguably her best role to date. Then again, there are few other contenders unless someone really wants to try and make a case for Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, but even then. However, the real problem with Jennifer's Body is there's little that can be done with this script.
More importantly, although the Christian Right will have you believe that America has too much sex and violence, horror movies suffer when there isn't enough. Well, not all horror movies, but for campy fare like Jennifer's Body it certainly helps. It's a very specific type of horror movie that needs the sex and the blood to move it forth, but for a movie so suggestively titled Jennifer's Body, there's little to write home about. I mean, we're supposed to believe that this girl is using her body to seduce guys and kill them, but very little of either of these activities is seen. There's always that strategic cut right before you get to the good stuff, but even with these cuts, Jennifer's victim count is surprisingly low.
All in all, Jennifer's Body mainly suffers from the script. The actors try to do all that they can with it, and I have to give credit for that. The movie is fun to watch, but ultimately a letdown. There's either not enough laughs or not enough guts for my personal taste.

Facebook Ads Keep Taunting Me!

Dear Facebook,
I understand the basic principles of economics, don't get me wrong. I get where you have to sell things on the margins of Facebook in order to stay afloat, but can we just take a minute to look at some of the stuff that's being peddled? In a world that has young clear-skinned starlets selling a thousand and one solutions to all your blemish problems, it's sort of hard to feel good about one's self. Now, just for a moment, imagine you're on your Facebook writing to a friend that you haven't seen a while and out of the corner of your eye, you see an ad. Not just any old ad, but an ad entitled "Free Chicago Area STD Testing". Sure, the young man in the ad is handsome and smiling, but let's be real, no one's smiling back at syphilis guy. That's just the facts. That man will forever be known as "STD guy". Now, I understand no harm was meant by the ad, but we all know that these ads are tailored to specific areas of interests... so what did I do or say to indicate I was interested in STDs or STD testing? I'm not being accusatory, it's just, is that what people think of when they look at me? Man, I hope not. I mean, committed relationship comin' up on 8 months now and I'm still getting skank junk mail? Something has got to change. Can't we go back to the days when my ads were more along the lines of "Ran a marathon? Share you story!" Those were the days, I was at the top of my game, but now, evidently, I'm slummin' it down here in the internet equivalent of an AIDS clinic. Oh well... at least I tried.
Sincerely,
Calhoun

Ford's Character Study of A Single Man

At the heart of A Single Man, fashion designer Tom Ford's directorial debut, is a celebration. It is a celebration of life and unabashed sexuality. While most reviews of this film categorize the film as "a day in the life of a man after his partner dies", they neglect to tell viewers that the story takes place roughly 8 months after his "partner's" death. While there is a fair amount of heavy material presented in the film, it does not lose sight of its celebration of the life that these two men had together as George, played by a devastatingly beautiful Colin Firth, tries to find a reason to continue living.
Another issue that I took with people's descriptions of the film is the use of the word "partner". I know, I know, it makes Middle America uncomfortable when you start talking about the homos, but it does such a disservice to the story to refer to Jim, George's lover, as his partner. It's true that they are also partners having been in a monogamous relationship for 16 years, but the movie focuses just as much on their relationship as it does their love. Unfortunately, there's little I can do about that as that's an American neurosis projected on to the film, but let me do what any responsible writer would do and clear it up for readers. George and Jim are lovers first and foremost. Tom Ford does an incredible job of showing his audience that without any hardcore, in-your-face content. All the audience needs is right there in tender displays of affection, like the gentle kiss on the forehead.
However, Tom Ford has the advantage that most Hollywood directors do not in this situation and that is, his relationship with Hollywood. He will always be a fashion designer first and foremost and so when watching A Single Man, you can't help but feel that Tom Ford is unapologetic. He isn't caught up in the fear that he'll never work in Hollywood again for doing his take on a celebration of life, love, and the male form. As a fan of A Single Man, I can safely say that I hope he does work in Hollywood again, but who knows as to that? When thinking of this one can't help but think of 2005's Brokeback Mountain which, thanks to its stars, got people noticing homosexuality in the movies. However, what never took with Brokeback Mountain is the fear of admitting these characters were gay. they spent the whole movie fighting it. A Single Man never has a moment's doubt. It presents its audience with a lover's kiss between two men in the first shot. This is the celebration of sexuality so many gay men had hoped Brokeback Mountain would be. Although it arrived about 4 years later, it is a welcome change of pace.
In closing, it is Ford's frank displays combined with brilliant performances from most of the cast that make this film so notable as a celebration of life rather than the bleak portrayal of loss it is frequently seen as. While it does deal with themes of loss and regret, ultimately, it celebrates the life that these two men shared together.

Why I'm Still Up in the Air about Up in the Air

Jason Reitman, director of 2007's "indie" hit Juno, is at it again. Up in the Air follows an executive, Ryan Bingham played by George Clooney, whose job it is to fly around the country and fire people. The perverse, but supposedly "quirky" part is that Ryan seems to get off on it. The whole film follows him as he performs mass firings around the country. Thst is, until, his way of life is threatened. A young career woman Natalie Keener, beautifully portrayed by Anna Kendrick, threatens his way of life "grounding" him and forcing him to live in one place. Throughout the entire movie Clooney's character is the perfect example of the Peter Pan complex, never wanting to grow old, but he has little more depth than that. Then, of course in the third act, he magically changes. He wants to finally settle down, but of course, nothing goes as planned there. Truth be told, I couldn't help but sort of be glad he didn't get all that he wanted. He'd spent about 90 minutes of my life being an unlikeable and unapologetic character so I would've been furious for him to receive his happy ending. It was a perfect illustration of "too little, too late". However, Clooney's character is surprisingly the one that I have less of a problem with. Natalie Keener and Alex Goran, played by Vera Farmiga, are the two female leads in the movie. Although Natalie has her annoying traits, she is overwhelmingly charming. She has some bad ideas about success and about relationships, but the audience forgives her. She's young and she's new to this, hell, she's practically still a kid. Alex is a different story. She is essentially the female version of George Clooney's Ryan Bingham. For this reason, Ryan and Alex function well together as they schedule sex dates and nothing more.
SPOILER ALERT.
So when Natalie quits because she realizes she doesn't have the stomach for the job, I was slightly relieved. Then they add one line of dialogue that completely destroyed it for me. "Text message." It's supposed to be a throwback to when her boyfriend dumped her via text message, but it doesn't come off as quirky or endearing. Instead, that simple line strips her of her dignity. It shows her as weak for not being able to do the job and quitting via text message, rather than being human. Alex even undergoes a similar transformation from strong female to less than. Of course, after Ryan's undergone his magical transformation where he realizes he has to grow up, he hops a flight to Alex's house where he discovers that she has a family and a life. Of course, she can't be a strong, independent woman who has casual sex with strangers like Ryan does. It feels like she's being punished for having an actual sexual appetite. So, yes, it's true that Ryan doesn't get all that he wanted, but it's at the expense of these women. With Natlaie quitting, he gets to keep his way of life. With Alex, reducing him to a sex object, he is free of his fear of commitment. All in all, the movie has interesting parts to it and some endearing characters (at least for most of the movie), but in the end it's almost a masturbatory worship of the middle-aged man-child. END OF SPOILER.

New Year's Resolution

As every new year begins (and we love to pretend it’s actually gonna be different) we all make promises to ourselves. We tell each other the things we hate about ourselves and the things we wish to change, but let’s keep it real, alright? Maybe this new year’s resolution could be to be a little more realistic? Nah, that’s a stupid one anyway. It’s been mine to be more consistent with writing. As a freshly graduated film kid (aka professionally unemployable) I owe it to myself to write more than I have been when school was in full swing. That being said, let’s hope I actually stick with this resolution this time…

Horses on the Planet of the Apes? Not Cool Man, Not Cool

Not much is expected to make a whole lotta sense in a world where Charleton Heston is supposed to be representative of the human race... still, a form of, what I'll generously call logic, feels like it dictates the ape society. They have a functioning, albeit slightly skewed, set of laws, indicating that there's a clear set of actions and consequences. However, Charleton Heston is persecuted for... I don't know what the legal term for it is, but basically being a douche and not hairy. Fast forward to the end of the movie when Charleton heston is escaping and he's runnin' on the beach or whatever, with the humanoid apes in tow. How do they catch up to him so fast? They ride horses... I'm sorry, but does nobody else find this weird that the apes in Planet of the Apes ride horses? I mean, don't get me wrong, I go to film school so I understand "suspension of disbelief" which is a pretty crucial concept in watching a movie where apes rule the world, but still, I mean, apes are heavy motherfuckers. I'm no equestrian, but I don't think horses can even carry that much weight directly on their backs... The weight issue aside, it just seems kinda douche-y that apes are making horses their bitches. I mean, apes have been oppressed before so they should understand where the horse is coming from. A little solidarity between apes and their horse brethren doesn't seem like it's too much to ask, but evidently the apes just aren't havin' it. Whatever, apes are douche bags.
PS I'm aware this is less than eloquent...
PPS Charleton Heston is also a douche