Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

When Brits, or just foreigners in general, try to take on the American psyche and its institutions.

I'm talking about filmmakers and those in the entertainment industry. Rarely do you see an American filmmaker try to passive-aggressively mock [insert country not named America] and its values or what they've heard of X county. Listed below are examples of those in the entertainment business that try to do this.

The Shape of Water by .
  • Takes on the positive thinking type of American
  • Takes on the machismo element of military men
  • Takes on the nuclear family
  • Takes on the public manners of white Americans in the 1950's
All shorts - American Virgin, American Pride and American Carnage all by Tamzin Merchant

Note: I haven't watch these shorts but I'm taking a good stab on what they're about just by the trailers and the tone of the interviews.
  • Virgin takes on the concept of virginity within the American psyche, that it is seen as a precious "asset" (as noted in the short's description). The short is about a teenager whose accepted into Julliard Summer Program but due the high costs cannot afford it so she resorts to prostitution (similar case to the Duke student who resorted to porn and now is a porn star ... The secular world says to not judge but it'll judge those who view virginity as something else than a societal myth.
  • Pride is about a closeted homosexual who is seen making out with another man behind the wedding curtains just when the bride and groom kiss where all the sitting public can see. This probably takes on America's more conservative social norms in comparison to UK's and Western Europe. Because what's the big deal, right?
  • Carnage, as Merchant admits to listening to several podcasts (what type of podcasts my dear?) that formed her thoughts and later script, is about a Brit's (and more a critical American take on Trump) view on the political "carnage" that led to the 2016 POTUS election. Listed on the short's IMDB's page is picture of a live version of the Statue of Liberty and the main actor in Pride wearing a t-shirt that says "Pride." In one of the director interviews a church is seen being used as a setting. I bet it's used as a symbol of hypocrisy. It just looks like a Brit's take on God, Guns and Country. Maybe Michael Moore makes a cameo?
Foreigners can sometimes give insights on America that are worth listening to. Sometimes these insights have some truth to it, helping even the most patriotic American reflect on their country. But often times the insights are shit and skewed to the left where modernism talks about X institution and Y social value but utterly fails on understanding it. Foreign filmmakers can use the yellow school bus, dress their actresses in 1950's skirts and blouses, locate a beautiful church, but never understands their significance, cultural worth and history. 

They gathered all the hallmark symbols of what one thinks of America, but what they didn't do is talk to those who hold the symbols used in their production as signs of identity. In other words they're talking about things they don't understand in an honest manner. They just see America as a country filled with strangeness. But it's Americans who have to change when they view another culture through their red, white and blue prism, or so the modern world says.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Wait ... I missed the memo.

When did the philosophy of award shows (including nominations) and casting/characters "needed to look the way the world looks"?

According to J.J. Abrahms not having a homosexual character is narrow-minded and that the recent Academy Awards was shameful because it wasn't inclusive enough.
["]It’s shameful,” he added. “We all need to do better to represent this world. It’s something that is important to me.”

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Hollywood Reporter's #OscarsSoWhite Edition



Just yesterday I was banned from The Hollywood Reporter.

I was commenting on one of Scott Feinberg's articles about the recent diversity movement happening within AMPAS, and movies & tv in general. It turns out, when responding to another person, if you write "It's Scott. This is Scott we're talking here. Scott," it will issue a ban from the site. Now, I'm a little disappointed because I wanted to comment on other articles that had headlines that were straight out ridiculous in regards to #OscarsSoWhite.

#OscarsSoWhite: Why Black Films Have to Be About MLK and White Movies Can Be About a Mop Inventor (the picture is offensive)

#OscarsSoWhite: Academy Chiefs Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Drama That Led to Historic Change (Exclusive) with tagline "We Could Not Be Silent." Can you feel how serious this issue is?

Working in Hollywood When You're Not White: Three Players Reveal All with the tagline "Is Hollywood Racist? America is Racist."

Oscars' Diversity Dilemma: A Mathematical Solution to Parity in Voting played the "old, white male" voting demographic as one major reason why the nominations tend to be white. I predicted it here.

There's much to be said about these articles.

I don't know if my comment, mentioned above, was the reason I was banned since I checked my comment history, and discovered that that was the only one on HR that was removed. Whatever Scott read into my comment apparently he took it as an insult. I assume that he thought I was implying he's racist (another poster said his lack of coverage of the supposed lack of diversity in Hollywood was concerning, to which he listed links to his articles talking about it). If so, he's wrong.

I also find it amusing because it shows that movie journalists, if white, take issue of themselves being accused of racism but not the industry that creates their income. They're the non-racists ones. The producers and the suits? Racists. They  think of themselves as the white knights, the light house watching over the passing ships that sheds light into the distance to guide them. That's my guess into the minds of people like Scott Feinberg.

#SAGWinnersSoBlack

No lie.

I'm not sure when votes were cast for the SAG awards (nominations were announced late last year), but it's awfully strange that after the uproar of the 2016 Oscar votes for the acting lineup being "too white," complaining that institutional racism and lack of diversity was a serious issue, that this happened.

Every category a black actor was nominated for a singular performance was won by a black actor. This was present in five categories:

1. Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role (Idris Elba)
2. Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series (Uzo Aduba)
3. Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series (Viola Davis)
4. Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries (Idris Elba)
5. Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries (Queen Latifah)

I would guess this was a makeup for the all-white winner lineup come Oscar night. Save for Best Actor, Actress and Supporting Actress, only Best Supporting Actor at the SAG Awards had a black actor nominated.

The only category that did win with an almost all black cast was Straight Outta Compton and Beast of No Nation for Outstanding Cast Performance in a Motion Picture. That win went to Spotlight.

#OscarsSoWhite was mostly targeted for the lack of dark skin pigment in the acting categories, so it makes sense to have the actors who aren't white sweep in the categories voted by their fellow peers if we go by modern liberal logic. The apologizing has begun and looking at the winners I can't help but think "You probably won because of the uproar." Without the uproar I bet it would not have been a sweep.

Similar to the administration at Yale and Mizzou, the complaints were heard. The demands were set. The demands were met. The children are getting what they want. And the children feel smug and (somewhat) satisfied. Academia and entertainment - two industries that are dominated by modern liberals, showing how "justice" is done.

And to take advantage of the "mostly black" theme, let's look at the 2016 NBA All-Star roster. It's not "mostly black," it's all black if we don't count old white guy Gregg Popovich. Where's the uproar from the white players? Last year's roster was "diverse," both in race and in nationality.

I would guess if next years All-Star roster is all black maybe April Reign, the woman who started #OscarsSoWhite, would be filled with indignation and start a new hashtag -- #NBAAll-StarSoBlack. It would be the second year in a row if such a thing were to happen, so I hope Reign is paying attention.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Too. Many. White. People.

The Oscar nominations were announced today and besides the usual disagreements on who and what should've nominated, some are very upset that the acting nominations were dominated by white people. As one concerned poster on IMDB entitled his thread "can we have a serious talk about diveristy in hollywood/awards."

The President of AMPAS also had something to with the lack of diversity in the nominations. In fact, she thinks AMPAS needs to "speed it up." 
Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs was diplomatic but clearly disappointed when I spoke to her at this morning’s Oscar nominations about the omission of African American-driven films like Straight Outta Compton, Concussion, and Beasts Of No Nation. “Of course I am disappointed, but this is not to take away the greatness (of the films nominated). This has been a great year in film, it really has across the board. You are never going to know what is going to appear on the sheet of paper until you see it,” she told me, while acknowledging the Academy’s very public efforts at diversity are moving too slowly. “We have got to speed it up.”
Gosh, it must be frustrating leading an organization so behind the times. I can't wait for trade magazines advocating for sensitivity training for all new members. The need to see darker pigmented human beings nominated has created its own twitter hashtag in the from of #OscarsSoWhite. At least that's a start, right? Because awareness and all.

As usual, though it hasn't been said already, people will blame the voting membership of AMPAS being filled with old, white men.

EDIT: Deadspin writer, Albert Burneko, lost his shit when the nominations were announced. As he writes -
For 363 days a year, nobody gives a fuck about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Today is one of the two remaining days, when suckers care—and other suckers pretend to care—about who gets nominated for the Oscars, which are worthless trash and always have been.
Did Burneko just call himself a sucker? Yep. He goes on about the injustice of Carol not being nominated for BP because it's so progressive aka features characters of the same sex who "love" each other. I mean, how can you not nominate it!
If you loved Carol, which didn’t get nominated for Best Picture, congratulations: As of today, it officially is not the same kind of movie as Forrest Gump. The milquetoast taste, bigotry, and self-regard the nominations reveal has been on abundant display every single day for more than 80 years, in your local cineplex, in the form of the movies these industry clowns crank out every week. How can you act surprised by this, let alone offended? Placing value on those same clowns’ choice of movies to award is precisely like rending your shirt because your favorite restaurant didn’t make Guy Fieri’s list of top places to eat.
 Hey now, Forrest Gump was a great film.

To add onto the "too white" nominations, LA Times, Hollywood Reporter and other prominent rags are building the narrative of racial injustice. As always.

EDIT: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti agrees that the Oscars lack diversity. 

Sunday, January 10, 2016

About The Force in Star Wars

SPOILERS

There are theories on Rey's background in the newest installment of Star Wars -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Some say she's a Solo, some say she's a Skywalker, some say she's a clone, some say she's Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader reincarnated.

After thinking it through, if I had my wish, I'd have her as person who is neither a Solo nor a Skywalker. For a galaxy that's so spread out that warp speed is needed to travel between planets, The Force is awfully limited to the Skywalkers in terms of it being so strong. Besides Yoda, the Skywalkers have a monopoly on The Force being their ace. I'd like that talent to expand to others. Genetically, Anakin was "the chosen one" to restore balance to The Force. That talent was carried onto his son, Luke, as well as Leia, Luke's twin sister (it is implied that The Force lies within her, too) since her son, Kylo Ren, was trained as a Jedi, following his uncle's and grandfather's steps.

Given what J.J. Abrams has given us in the The Force Awakens evidence points that Rey has blood-connections to the Skywalkers. I don't mind this, but if so I'd like her to be a Skywalker, not a Solo. Making Rey and Ren sibling, copying of off the Skywalker twins, would tell me that creativity in a galaxy far, far away is as limited as green, livable planets. If Ren is the Darth Vadar of this Saga's newest trilogy and Rey as the Luke Skywalker, that says there's little effort put into the story. If it must be a family feud make them cousins; the fight between the two - if one of them dies - would cause a rift between Luke and Leia, which makes the story all the more interesting.

Rey being the female version Anakin Skywalker reincarnated would "complete the circle of life" but it would be extraordinarily anti-climatic. Don't even get me started on Rey being a clone.

I can go on how keeping the The Force, how strong it is, within the Skywalker clan - with all the comments on genetics and gender when discussing these theories - is both ironic and elitist given how advanced the galaxy presented in Star Wars is.

Michael Jordan had two sons. Neither of them are as athletically talented as their father. Neither of them are as tall. Then there was Kobe Bryant. Enter Lebron James. Say hello to Derrick Rose. Stephen Curry just waved at you. In my galaxy, talent is dispersed. In the Star Wars galaxy, where different life forms walk like humans and when human limbs can be replaced by robotics, having The Force genetically stay within one clan would be quite regressive (not to mention the inconsistencies if we talk about it being hereditary), after all Leia was once a princess who then turned into a general. Let the The Force be home to another person. Let the scavenger be her own person, with her own family history. Now that's something truly independent and "strong."


Sunday, November 15, 2015

Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean.

Sort of like same-sex partners seeking out services that do not accept requests for same-sex ceremonies, there's little doubt that Perez Hilton sought to put 2009 Miss America runner-up Carrie Prejean on the spot when asking if she supported same-sex "marriage." She didn't, all hell broke loose and add in her leaked "sex" tape Hilton and same-sex "marriage" supporters gleefully burned her at the stake - or at least made her into a national mockery.

But hey, Prejean is now married - real marriage (hopefully it'll last) - with the potential of having babies, which Hilton and all same-sex partnerships can't accomplish unless a third party is involved. At least all the same-sex partners have their bizarre "wedding" photos and that ring on their finger! Sort of how Dave Rubin desperately proclaimed on the Steve Crowder show, "I'm married!" (not really) with pictures of his partner in the background.

Homosexuals are desperate. They're desperate for approval.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Bullies: Bane to rabbits' existence.

Buzzfeed, what don't you complain about? This company fulfills everything on my checklist for "The Stereotypical 'Cool' Company Politics."


Is it me or does media make bullying an epidemic like SARS/ or MERS?

Here's my profile: Asian. Ethnic minority in my school. Parochial schooling for 12 years. Classmates were mostly low to middle class. Midwest location.

Now was I bullied? No. I was teased now and then in grade school for my bizarre hair texture, but that was from a couple of girls who were with me at band, and I knew it was more of joke. Did it hurt my feelings? In a way yes. I'm now sure how many hours I spent researching shampoos and conditioners to make my hair less frizzy and puffy. If you 'knew' my hair during my 6-7th grade years it was bizarre; I won't lie. I got over it.

In high school my freshmen Spanish class I was called C^3 (C-Cubed), which stood for Ching Chong Charlie, for a few days. I'll admit that was a little clever. I was a bit irritated, though, but I eventually got over it after a week.

During my sophomore year I was standing near the main entrance of my high school. Across from me was a couple of other kids, one of which was in my year and knew me through our history class. He walked over and asked to see my clarinet case; I said no. He, being much bigger than I was, slowly pried it out of my arms, opened it and eyed the parts. He then mocked me for my diminutive stature, saying I probably would get drunk after one sip of alcohol. It all ended rather anti-climatically. He gave me back my clarinet case, the contents as it were after he pried it out my arms, and walked back towards his group.

That's it. None of these has scarred me or made me bitter. My hair isn't as bizarre as it was back then. I now look back on C^3 with a chuckle. The guy who pried my clarinet case out of my arms was probably the closest to an actual bully that many seem to confess to when it comes to personal bully stories, but in the end I hope he's doing okay. I don't think his home life was as solid or as peachy as mine. In fact, I want to pick up the clarinet again and I know I need to work-out my arms, so there you have it.

I won't be holding up any "look-at-me-now" signs with a look of self-righteousness on my face anytime soon. I don't want to. I don't need to.


Tuesday, June 2, 2015

An actor joining the military? Get outa here!

But really.

English actor, Michael Enright, age 51, joins Kurdish People’s Protection Units to fight ISIS in Syria.

Even though Enright isn't an established actor, I wonder how that makes all the young actors feel. Probably like metrosexual man childs. How manly. The terrorists are intimidated by such people I heard.

According to the ABC article, "He has no military background and little experience with firearms, according to his biography on the Internet Movie Database, or IMDB." That's a serious handicap for him and for the unit he's attached to.

I remember reading an online article about entertainers, mostly actors, who served in the US military. No millennial was listed. All that were listed were over the age of 50.

There's always this type of comment -

 

Atheists. To be a "free thinker" and a pacifist. What an admiral thing to be, right? There's something not right about a modern atheist's mind - the more I come across these types of posts and comments I'm coming to the conclusion that modern atheism is a mental condition.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Stop the earth rotating, Superman, there's racism!

Okay, and? 

It's so obvious what the producers tried to do here, and somewhat succeeded. What Would You Do? is an ABC prime time show. It puts people (actors) facing awkward social situations (racism, sexism etc.) that are staged in order to see what the unexpected population do and say. Sometimes the goal (to paint small towns as racist, sexist, homophobic etc.) gets the controversial results; sometimes it doesn't. In this episode an elderly woman expresses why people of different skin color should date and marry people within their own race. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that - it's somewhat similar to the religious deciding to marry someone with the same faith. It's a reasonable belief.  

Ah! Racists and religion are two sides of the same coin! Nope. To be honest, I don't think the elderly woman or the woman agreeing with are racists.

And the comments on the video. Dear Allah. This is the proof that modernism is absolutely ridiculous.

"I can't believe such a person exists!"

Welcome to the reality of diversity of thought.

I'd rather sit down with that elderly woman, a supposed "outed" racist, while having a cup of hot chocolate than sit down with the cast & crew of WWYD? The look on their faces were priceless.

"Did you catch that Cynthia? Dear Lord I can't believe what's happening."
"Jim, camera 4. Grab a headphone."

Sins and crimes through a modernist lens are, and make sure you write these down:

Racism
Sexism
Homophobia

Are there racists in America? Yes. Are there sexists in America? Yes. Are there homophobes in America? Yes. Were the people who did not approve of interracial dating racists? I say no.

What do you think? Do you think the elderly woman is a racist?

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Hollywood & Feminism

Now I think this is a cute skit -- I'm not sure if feminists would take that as an insult, if not make that out to be a sexist remark, but you know what? Fuck feminism.


Everything was going fine until this part -

"Such a plain cup, for such a pretty lady ... "
Lashes whip at knight.
"Man, I'm a respected professor of archaeology! Times have changed."
"I'm sorry! I meant it as a compliment."
"I have degrees. Have you ever been to college?"
"No, just 'knight' school."

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Things that annoy me when it comes to social conservatives.

 As said by a poster named Athena Carson about a rape scene in Game of Thrones (tv series),
Actually, I see this occurrence = endorsement much more often in conservative Christian circles, trying to scare parents into sanitizing their homes of every last scrap of popular culture. Over the last several years I have seen much ridiculous debate about how Frozen is corrupting our children, how Brave is corrupting our children, about the (supposed) hidden Satanic messages in Harry Potter.
Invariably, the non-conservative Christian types (which may or may not overlap with the more liberal progressive types) sensibly take down these ridiculous objections, only to have their commentary fall on deaf ears (of course).
The "sanitize" type of parents have a more compelling argument against Frozen (not that I agree with them) than with Harry Potter. I have always felt that "HP is evil!" parents, though well-meaning, are an embarrassment to sensible social conservatives. Harry Potter isn't evil, though the author of the series is the one you should be critical of since she's basically a modern day liberal when it comes to social issues (defends Islam, shallow defense for the LGBT community).

"Leave Harry alone!"

Friday, May 15, 2015

"And as long as people have problems, the blues can never die."


                                         B.B. King (Sept. 16, 1925 - May 14, 2015)

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Logic isn't a strength of the movie industry.

 Old age is getting to you, (Cate) Blanchett.

You've been on a role in the past couple of years. From your fossil fuel campaign, to your red-carpet complaining of cameras focusing on your dress, your annoying and tiresome complaint about the gender gap of women on screen and power positions within the movie industry and your supposed confession of having "many" relationships with women (I hope your husband at least knew about your trysts),  when, in such good timing, your next film (which will probably garner you an Oscar nomination) Carol, is about a married woman having an affair with another woman.

You're a great actress, but your idiocy as of late tells me you are an idiot -- but not located in neither LA nor NYC, but in Australia. Gotta spread the acting idiocy around the world. It's only fair. I mean, the UK has Kiera Knightley, Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Emily Mortimer.

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with the left and the movie industry getting upset with the fact that women are in less power positions (more men means there is a higher probability of them being in power positions), and obsession with diversity? Just look:

NY Times.
Katherine Bigelow supports ACLU.
(Ethnic) diversity in Marvel movie.

And their weird push for same-sex relationship to be shown on screen.

The movie industry is probably the most hostile towards conservatives besides academia, the most social 'progressive' and the most glamorous out of all the entertainment sects besides the fashion world yet there is still (will always be) complaints about sexism and the supposed patriarchy that sidelines females WITHOUT any real proof of actual sidelining due to ones sex. They need to get the uber-left ACLU to conduct an investigation for the 'proof.' It's almost sad, really. I guess the all the male nurses should ask ACLU to investigate nurse hiring practices. I mean, it's responsible thing to do, right?

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

It's America. Not Amurrrica.

Since I've been on a binge research mode on graduate life (at times looking up experiences of the rare conservative graduate student or prof), I think this little review of Captain America, found here,  was equally predictable as the other "liberal, through and through" (as said by the writer of the post) types.

If you're too lazy to click on the link and read, I'll provide a short explanation of it.

1. The film is too white.
2. The "token" female, though portrayed as a strong-willed woman, isn't the 'right' type of strong-willed woman.

That's about it.

There's this site, found within the link, that comments on the fear mongering that right talking heads - such as Beck, Limbaugh and O' Reilly supposedly do to (conservative) men. The writer also mentions Michelle Bachman. Here are the parts that tells me, although this person is in academia -- probably holds a Phd -- isn't too bright.
The one thing that comes to mind over and over again is how scared and threatened a very large segment of the population must be. Where does this phenomenon of the scared white guy come from? Because that's what it is, isn't it? Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and all the people who buy into their fear and hatred, and want to channel it back into attacking women and people of other races (and I don't really believe Islamophobia is as much about religion as it is about race -- Sharia law supports a lot of the sorts of positions Michelle Bachman does, after all...) -- how does that work? How is it that, when we look at who truly has power in Western society, we can see that it's mostly plutocratic power, and those who hold it are primarily white and primarily male. Actually, that should be reversed. Male and white. Male is still the biggest conveyer of privilege. In the West, white and straight and Christian are also up there. And yes, there are going to be trade-offs, and within certain communities, the balance will be different. A senior colleague and friend pointed out to me that one of the people who irritates me most on the list serv because he seems so entirely unable to recognize his male privilege, or even his academic privilege, probably can't see it that way because his self-perception is based on being a Jew and being held back by those with white privilege.

But back to the fear: why is it that we live in a world where there is a perception that power is a zero-sum game, and if it is shared, i.e., if we actually live in a world where people of color, people of other religions, people with other sexualities -- and, by the way, women -- share in the running of that world, it means something bad for white guys who think of themselves as Christian? And why is it that the people who fear (because I think we need to include the partners and families of these scared white men -- there are lots of women in the Tea Party, after all) cannot see that they have far more in common with the rest of us folks who live from paycheck to paycheck in multicultural land than they do with the people running things and asking us to pay the bills?
Oh dear. Let me whip out the check list. I apologize for this.

Mentions conservative talking heads.

Check.

Mention a maligned Republican.

Check (could've went for Palin, though).

Mention white privilege.

Check.

Compare Sharia law with actual Christianity.

Check.

Allude that white Christian men are incapable of recognizing people not like them (non-straight, non-white, female and non-Christian).

Check.

Condescendingly think that (the right) is what it is because of "fear."

Check.

Mention the Tea Party in some dismissing way.

Check.

Oh, mention jingoism like it's innately a bad thing.

Check.

(I could probably make a list of the issues I have with indie/art-house/foreign movies film made in the 1990s - present, but that's for another day.)

My questions to "Blogenspiel": Are you white? Is your boyfriend white? Are a Christian? If not, are you in anyway religious (being "spiritual" doesn't count)?

Me, I'm not white. I'm single. I'm a Catholic. I'm also an ex-liberal who probably would've written what you've written if I had stayed a modern day liberal.

Also, what's with non-conservatives spelling America, "Amurrrrica" - or other disrespectful misspellings - when they comment on anything that has a shred of patriotism? Are the inner anti-Vietnam and anti-Iraq war feelings slowly spilling over? It's pretty darn childish, the lot of it. (I think the writer, Blogenspiel, doesn't live in the States so she has achieved her dream of escaping the supposed oppressive and bigoted country that is America). 


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Binders, sex and six figure incomes.

The movie industry,  in general, is one industry that deserves an eye roll. Why? Because its actors,  especially its actresses,  are beyond saving. They love to call "Hollywood" out as sexist even though they have benefited from exploiting their bodies and sexuality in roles and photoshoots.  Many of the women who do call the industry sexist are established.  Go figure. 

These are women,  after complaining that there are such few good (read: "challenging," "interesting" - whatever they mean by that) roles for women,  sign onto a project that would be deemed prestigious or coveted faster than Speedy Gonzalez running away from Sylvester. An unknown actress would probably cry herself to sleep due to joy if she landed a role with a two lines in a prestige film. These actresses who are vocal about this supposed rampart sexism are making well above six figures, get the better roles for females and have adoring fans. 

Now,  I bet they'll say that have to keep sexist  incidents (apparently it happens so often that they need to comfortably announce sexism during actor roundtables or photoshoots) under wraps for the sake of their careers, and that they love their 'craft' so much that they'd be willing to bite the bullet for it, but I call BS. This entire thing screams of "me lioness hear me roar of courage against patriarhcy" as I accept a deal with Harper Bizarre for a cover spread. 

It's like Al Gore warning the world about global warming as he travels by private jet and lives in a mega McMansion. Or when some LGBT kid says his small town community hates for his orientation even though there's no proof of physical or verbal abuse.

You see, the word "Hollywood" is safe to use and safe to accuse because it really isn't an actual thing. Many established actors, when they use the word "Hollywood," are mostly talking about the blockbusters, drug parties exclusive to industry insiders, the paparazzi and plastic surgery. What's amusing is that they see themselves above most of these (drug parties are an accepted norm as well as plastic surgery); the paparazzi are actually hired - for the most part; blockbusters are not seen as "real" art with sexist roles for females. It's a set up. Actors see themselves as artists (a word that is overused as much as "Hollywood" is used in disdain) against these blockbusters, victims of bottom-barrel stalking flashing lights and Davids against "the suits" when it comes to getting roles. Are blockbusters mindless and offer no good roles for women? Sometimes. Are the paparazzi prying rats? At times. Are "the suits" out-of-touch people who no nothing about film and the 'art' of it? I don't doubt that some are. But here's the thing: Many movies that are made are considered "independent" and many roles that most of the established actresses accept are within these "independent"/foreign movies films (because 'art'). They gain respect (and industry noms & awards) by doing these films as opposed to (the much despised, yet extraordinarily tolerated) mindless, sexist blockbusters.

The puzzle pieces from what my observant eyes collect, and from established actresses have in their pile, do not match.

You see,  we're just suppose to believe everything they say because they're propped up as heroes - and they see themselves as the enlightened - against the sexist, bigoted and archaic world that is Tinsletown. Who knew that living in LA and/or NY, while jet setting to places like London and Paris, that sexism is rampart. Oh dearies. Wherever is the hard proof? If Bill Crosby can be accused of countless charges of rape then where these "strong, independent" actresses? How come they "confess" of this sexism to entertainment 'journalists' and not to their lawyers? You'd think there is a publicly well-known group entitled something like "Artists Against Sexism In Hollywood" but there isn't, at least to my knowledge. Why? Because most of the accusations of sexism are fictitious, if not exaggerated. Actresses know that accusing "Hollywood" of such things only helps their public image - their careers are safe (because they aren't actually accusing anyone of anything). It really has no leverage besides that, and they walk away with themselves thinking they are throwing that deadly stone in the forehead of Goliath. Such bravery that every young woman should admire. Girl power at its finest!

So established actresses making a living in an industry (add in the music & fashion sects as well), that is probably the most socially "progressive" & perverted, accuse it of being extraordinarily sexist - color me confused. You're able to live your life like such rampart sexism never happened. Color the entire industry the color Irony.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Cubicle Worker & Joe Parent - Kiss the "Artist's" Toes!

I've been meaning to comment on Steven Soderbourgh's "Commerce vs Art" speech given in 2013.

Here's a couple of comments belittling the average man -


Because we know non-cubicle workers don't have a narrow view of certain subjects. Seth could be a construction worker or an airline pilot. Even if he's a cubicle worker, so what. At least he isn't in a perpetual state of bitterness and knows how to wear a suit that doesn't call for a wedding, funeral or red carpet event.  

This one made me clench my jaw -


It's a "serious" question all-right. A seriously condescending dick bag question.

Now it's my turn.

Wow, Sean, you are passionate about film and how great film/cinema makes the world so much better (even though a good majority of so-called "real" film has the depth of a freshman college student writing a philosophy 101 or an Intro to Sociology paper). How many foreign languages do you speak? What's your understanding of banking, financing and economics? Any idea how a country should be run? How about your understanding, if you're American, of how the Senate works? No? None. Well, I guess you can talk how that one Woody Allen film totally explains relationships and that one Bella Tar movie -er- film gave the world a deeper insight to nihilism.

Time? Where did the poster get the time to write a comment on subject he has no clue about and has no investment in?

It's called "free time," Sean, after that daytime job, cooking dinner, helping the kids get into the pajamas, sex with the wife and writing chapter three for that novel in the "man cave." You know, the downtime before one goes to sleep or, if we go by the time stamp, in the wee hours of the morning at 3: 10AM after all said things were done

The fact is, ksb36's comment wasn't even remotely troll-like. Heck, he even mentioned how movies reach a wider audience besides the traditional studio distribution via internet and television. All that is true and accurate. The man even mentions the reality of many American families that going to the movies is a way of entertainment. He then reasonable admits that the best directors will find their audience - whether the movie is released straight-to-DVD, VOD or some other non-theatrical release.

Why is Sean so irritated by this? I'll take a swing. Sean is irritated because he doesn't agree with anything ksb36 has said (as someone who has observed how the movie industry works, both domestically and in Europe, I can't necessarily disagree with ksb36), yet never says what was the generalizations that someone with "no interest in film" would commit.

Once you meet a Sean you have met every other cinemaphile, Soderbourgh and "serious" actor.


Thursday, April 9, 2015

The horror! A low IMDb rating for an art house film!

The masses just don't "get" great works of art like The Tree of Life.


I myself like The Tree of Life, at least enough to recommend it with fair warning, but I wouldn't think ill of someone who may not like it or those who don't manage to finish the film. It's rather abstract and non-linear in its narrative (the script is significantly less than the usual 120 pages, double spaced script actors receive).

I never knew people not liking art house films is a sign of the decline of civilization. Heck, I fine myself chuckling seeing people hold so  much stock on art house/indie films as a barometer of fine culture. Pass the wine, puh-lease. The expensive wine.
 


Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Lost River (2015, dir. by Ryan Gosling)

SPOILERS

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

- "Amazing Grace," John Newton

Somewhat fitting lyrics for this feature.

Ryan's Gosling's debut touches on numerous things. The elusive American Dream, hedonism, family, heart ache from past journeys, friendship and community. As you go down that list the movie touches more solidly the topics nearer to the end. Even then the narrative is a little beefier than a Jewish concentration camp prisoner. You want to give it food, but you can't because you aren't its maker or its savior.

Detroit is known by many, both natives (not Native Americans in this context) of the country and foreigners as a once thriving city gone down the drain by various factors - it took decades to reach its current shape and condition. It may never see an ounce of its glory days for many reasons. Of course, those who know better, not all of Detroit and its metro are like what the media presents. Two films have used Detroit and its dilapidated buildings as backdrops and characters. It Follows is one of them and Gosling's Lost River is the other. The former movie does so more truthfully and more realistically despite both movies implementing the fantastical in the lives of its characters. It's like how Harmony Korine picks the oddest individuals of a backwater town and makes a movie out of them, making their eccentricities more pronounced than what reality is. It's ballsy, but it's also dishonest.

Gosling's Detroit, like his directing, is a mixture of many things. Think of the production like BioShock - the video game - with its steampunk vibe, Korine's depressing-thrift-shop-wearing characters who smell like dried sweat and neon-lit surroundings. Think of Terrence Malick's quiet and smooth camera movements as they walk about their world. You want out already, right? So do I. But trust me, it's not that bad. That's the issue with the Detroit that is portrayed in LR. It's a combination of "patches," none of which are remotely the same color, and none of the patches effectively create a world that slowly sucks in its potential residents. You know it's a created world as you watch, so you never actually are willing to pay the rent or take out a loan. You don't have anything to stay for.

The fantasy in LR is introduced then fades into existence only to be brought up again near the end as a "Oh, yea, there's this supposed monster that happened to put a spell on this city ... " and the interwoven stories of each individual are somehow able to grab a hold. I am not sure if Gosling meant to have this tone, this heavy on atmosphere but light on actual narrative, but I'll take that the story somehow got lost in its own style. This not to say that the characters that embody this particular Detroit are nothing. Oddly enough Gosling is able to add just enough of desperation, loss and hope within his protagonists that the movie doesn't completely crumble by real estate demolition.

Billy (Christina Hendricks), Bones (Iain De Caestecker) and Franky (Landyn Stewart) are a family of three. Billy is need of work in order to pay rent for a house that should be checked on by the city health inspector (in fact, all of the houses that each character lives in should). She isn't bitter and carries herself with a sense of dignity despite her failings as a parent and provider. Bones, given his living situation, is the ideal son. Caring, resourceful, brave and hard working, he has inherited his mother's sense of dignity;  he hides his frustration and sadness by searching for copper in exchange for money (instead of cans and bottles, like most cash-strapped people do). Franky is adorable - innocent in every way; a bit chubby like his mother (no offense Hendricks, that was meant as a compliment). They love each other and they get by with what they have. The company each spends with each other is lovely. Next door (more like half a football field away) lives Rat (Saoirse Ronan), a quiet young girl who calls her self "Rat" because "I have a pet rat," who is named Nick. Rats aren't nearly as popular as, say, dogs or cats when it comes to house pets, but those who do have them show immense affection and recommendation to future owners. You can say they are misunderstood. Like pet rats, Rat is a hidden gem of a friend. As you get to know Rat she is charming, a hidden beauty, and shares similar qualities as Bones. Her isolation - no parents, no friends besides her pet rat - seems to enhance her ability to observe the world she lives in. You wish she thought more of herself because she is, indeed, more (names herself Rat). She is the wisest of the neighbors. These two, Rat and Bones, are the parents to their guardians (Rat a 'parent' to her grandmother). They do it without complaint, they do it with a sense of duty.

In contrast to these families are Bully (Matt Smith) and Face (Torrey Wigfield). This is a different type of family. Bully, when he sees his partner-in-crime fail, abuses him to a point of horrific consequences. When you insult Bully you insult his inner demon. Sociopathic, greedy and "all-knowing" Bully is one of the unofficial mayors of the city - as he says "This is my city." Bully, by name alone, can metaphorically represent all the crooked politicians keeping the good residents from upholding a stable, happy life in Gosling's Detroit. Either you comply to his demands and warnings or face the consequences, that is if you don't move out of the city. Dave (Ben Mendelsohn) is another unofficial mayor. Unlike Bully, Dave is less violent in his advances to get what he wants. By day he's a loan officer (represents the world of banking) and by night he runs a club that "caters to every human desire." Of course, this club is on the other side of town nowhere near his bank or where said characters walk and sleep. In someway he's the MC from Cabaret, where his club shows off the grotesque (Gosling's commentary on the indifference of violence as a form of entertainment).

Probably the one character that represents the "American Dream," at least according to Gosling, in this Detroit is the Cab Driver (Reda Kateb). He goes about his job - taking Billy to her job, offering her kindness and expecting nothing in return for his small-talk (in contrast to Dave). Cab Driver talks about people who think America is filled with riches, and that when you arrive the money is at your feet (there is a perception by foreigners that most Americans are all monetarily rich, driving a Mercedes-Benz, living in gated communities). Now contrast that with many poverty stricken areas in America and, no doubt Gosling picked the city for this very reason, Detroit. Now contrast that with being monetarily rich with being rich on a more deeper plain -- family & friends. There is a point in the movie where Billy finds her own ride to various points in the city without Cab Driver - public transportation with Franky where she meets a strange man, and by Bones in their once broken down car. It then cuts to Cab Driver, his cab in front of a deli, eating a sandwich alone as he smiles at a low-income class family whom he later makes small-talk. Like Billy, Bones, Franky and Rat, he is trying his best with what he has -- no complaints. A part of you feels for him. There is no romantic hints between Cab Driver and Billy, in a way that is refreshing, but a part of me thought "You deserve Billy and Billy deserves you."  Out of all the metaphors in this feature, Rat holds a conversation with Bones asking him why he stays in this town, after all he does have a car (at that time broken) to which Bones replies his family. Cab Driver, the most mobile out of all the character besides Bully & Face, stays in Detroit. Why? As he and Billy talk for the first time, he mentions the American Dream and the possibility of eventually "catching" it -- that's what's makes it worth it. Maybe Billy, Bones and Franky are his "American Dream" whom he can drive away when the situation arises.

The similarities between Cab Driver and Rat I cannot help but recognize. The sense of duty (Cab Driver to his job and Rat to her grandmother - taking direction from someone else) are both isolated individuals. This is not out of their inability or refusal to form relationships, but because of their situations in life. This isolation is a blessing where it gives them a safe distance from the sadness that is right outside their door - they see what is happening and they asses it. What Rat is to Bones, Cab Driver is to Billy. The house that Billy wants to preserve is part of her past that should be left behind, remodeled or demolished. Rat's grandmother is literally the past who has no motivation to share love to her lineage - she neither talks to her granddaughter, her missing parents nor about her deceased husband that has her fixation. There is no love or concern from her. These are anchors, and of the wrong kind. Dear grandmother is neither living nor dead (hording, watching re-runs of her wedding). Both Billy and Rat deserve much better anchors.

There is also a competition between Dave and Cab Driver. Though the two never meet, they are rivals. Dave appears to have everything that would make a modern woman lean towards him as a sugar daddy, if not a "partner." In this Detroit he is a celebrity, a somebody. His daytime job as a loan officer can intimidate people to make poor financial choices in order to help make the "American Dream" a reality; this job needs cleverness and charm. By night he's the head honcho at a macabre club - he alone has the power to fire & hire. He sets the rules, he has the power. Then there's Cab Driver. His job is taking requests by other people; he may be in the driver's seat but he isn't in charge and the passenger can bolt without paying. Being a cabbie isn't seen the same way as Dave's jobs - it's much lower on the "attractive" job hierarchy with no authority. He is equal to a burger flipper/cashier when standing next to Dave. Add to the fact Cab Driver is never given a name in the movie, he is a 'nobody'; he was never formally addressed as a character once I think about it - he appears because his service is needed. Socially and materially the cabbie is several steps behind Dave, but yet he has his dignity (like Billy). Dave straight out tells Billy that he finds her attractive and then later that he is sexually turned on by her. Whatever attraction Cab Driver has for her it is kept silently away; he does not let her know nor hints to any possible attraction. Dave sees people as items to "fuck," to control and to seduce. The opposite is true for Cab Driver. Both are fully aware of their status in this fictionalized city - one is pumping it to the max for his benefit (one can take this as crony capitalism since Dave is a financial loan officer by day), and the other treats his job as a job - it does not define him and shows content with it. Unlike Dave, cabbie - as a foreigner - does  not know the city as well, but he does know enough. His job lends him to "get to know" the streets of this godforsaken city, and in return he gets to know its people. A king verses a carpenter. A celebrity verses a burger flipper. Who has the better hand? Who has the better heart? Who has "made it"? Who really is the 'somebody'? Who deserves Billy?

I'd be willing to pay & watch Gosling's second feature, that is if he found a voice of his own.

This directorial debut is a mixture of several directors: Terrence Malick, Harmony Korine, David Lynch and  Nicolas Refn. Malick for the sweeping vertical camera movements; Korine for his VHS, gritty, desperate and tinge of dried sweat  individuals; Lynch for is camera angles & quick violence and Refn for his visual flair. It's a soup that has many different spices from an apprentice soup maker. As you sit down and taste the liquid you can't help but say silently to your self "I recognize this, is it .... ?" You nod your head as your mind affirms and you continue on eating. The soup isn't necessarily bad nor is it anyway near original as the maker wants it to be. It can be, but he needs time on his own away from his inspirations to find his own mixes - not really his own spices. Gosling is trying on too many trendy pieces of men's wear; less is more.

It is ambitious in its style, but in the end it's really not a "style" - more so fashion. It is not really brave as it is timid to really "just be." Fashion is disposable and only out of luck do some trends hold some ground. Lost River is style over substance (though there is substance), promising, but no more promising (or exciting) than any Terrence Malick-esque hopeful director who premieres his shorts on vimeo/youtube than film festivals like Cannes or Sundance.

The only thing missing was a random, naked bed mattress with one of its characters standing on it with a look of absence.

** Interesting character names. Billy is a diametric name for a female; Bones actually has meat (courage); Rat is more than she seems; Bully is a bully; Face because "Look at his face!"; Cat because she's friendly, if not insidious in nature. The only people that don't have odd names are Franky (innocence - not corrupted/jaded enough to have one), Nick the rat (not even human) and Dave (the pervert who lives two lives). The cabbie was never given a name (he's listed as "Cab Driver" in the credits). He is below Franky - not really 'belonging' to the city to have an ill-fitting or strange name, but not 'something' to even have a title in Gosling's Detroit.

Lost River - C

Gosling's perception of the American Dream with purple saturated effect, and how family - both biological and not - can act as a saving grace.



The soundtrack, done by Johnny Jewel, mostly turns to synth. I have grown to like synth soundtracks (see: Maniac, Hanna, Drive) and just the music genre in general; this ones just 'alright.' As individual tracks, at least half don't stand alone upon repeated listens - "Tell Me," "Carousel," and "Yes" are memorable, and when you don't remember most of the soundtrack while pondering the movie that's a sign that it may be weak. 

Friday, March 27, 2015

Let's single out Fox News. Because ...

George Lucas and Jon Stewart team up to single out Fox News on lying, quick judgments and just being Fox News. Lucas did take a jab on Murdock's recent "can't talk bad about Fox," so fair enough on that.

But wait, how about CNN? MSNBC? How about picking on Stewart's show itself for quick - if not petty judgments? The fact that both Lucas and Stewart treat Benghazi as a "What's the big deal?" way is a testament to their blind adoration to their own political leanings and contempt for non-progressives, or at least the "non-enlightened, cool folks."

The reason I'm fed up with the Fox bashing is because I did it too when I was in university. I arrogantly said it was "Faux" News (how clever) and really ate up CNN whenever I got the chance in my dorm room. I thought CNN was the real deal; oddly enough I was very tempted to subscribe to Wall Street Journal as flipped through its pages when it was delivered to my building (the building I was housed in received subscriptions to various newspapers, WSJ being one of them). Only did I stop watching CNN and paid more attention to Fox did I realize that the previously held belief I held for Fox was more out of ignorance and naivety. It sure isn't the best, but it sure isn't in lock-step with left-leaning networks of the Alphabet Soup. I then noticed that Fox News was, besides Bush and Palin, a favorite punching bag of the left/left-leaning-libertarians. I wouldn't just here Fox News being tea bagged every other month, it was almost every week by the left and its followers.

"Why?" That's what I wondered. It then dawned on me: Fox News was the only station of prominence that didn't, as mentioned before, march in lock-step with the "progressive" agenda as willingly as networks like ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC etc. They views Fox as the tabloid station like how Sun is viewed by NYT or how a state university is looked down and mocked by more prestigious institutions like the Ivies or elite LASes. Fox is that news channel.

I'm no particular fan of Fox News, but the amount of tea bagging it gets by "cool, smart" people (the left/left-leaning-libertarians) is rather pathetic, if not bizarre.There's the Palin Syndrome, Bush Syndrome and the Fox Syndrome. It's basically bullying that is celebrated.