Hopefully—and probably—more than half of the new shows will be off my list by October; heck, some will be scrapped right after their pilots have been aired. Why is it that television pilots are always so disappointing? Oh, well, I’ll have enough returning series to fall back on, though some are currently on probation (well, only Parenthood is; Peter Krause be damned). … H’m. This is one hell of an incoherent article opening.

Let’s just move on. To the list!

ABC

• Better With Younew
• Body of Proofnew/mid-season
• Brothers & Sisters
• Castle
• Cougar Town
• Desperate Housewives
• Grey’s Anatomy
• Happy Endingsnew/mid-season
• The Middle
• Modern Family
• Mr. Sunshinenew/mid-season
• No Ordinary Familynew
• Off the Mapnew/mid-season

CBS

• The Good Wife
• Mad Lovenew/mid-season
• Mike & Mollynew
• Two and a Half Men

The CW

• Gossip Girl
• Hellcatsnew

Fox

• Fringe
• Lone Starnew
• Raising Hopenew
• Running Wildenew
• The Simpsons

NBC

• 30 Rock
• The Eventnew
• Friends With Benefitsnew/mid-season
• Harry’s Lawnew/mid-season
• Parenthood
• Parks and Recreationmid-season

And now, cable television.

Comedy Central

• South Park

HBO

• Curb Your Enthusiasm2011?
• HungSummer 2011¹

Lifetime

• Drop Dead DivaSummer 2011

Showtime

• The Big Cnew
• Californicationmid-season
• Dexter
• Nurse JackieSpring 2011
• United States of TaraSpring 2011

TNT

• The Closer

TV Land

• Hot in Clevelandmid-season

• Disorganised rant on a boring night
• “How I Met Your Desperate Anatomy”
• Seriously Too Hot!
• “The Riches”

Great show, though the stage design could've been better. (Vorhang auf by Kersten A. Riechers)

I cannot wait till my big debut. It’s still months away, but when rehearsals start in September, shoot me right there and then and I’ll go straight to gay theatre heaven. … Wait. What?

• The Meaning of “Heaven forfend!”
• Incredibly-off-Broadway
• Sci-fi Readiness
• Sci-fi Madness

However, I have this rule in life: Never ask me to explain something to you. (Well, it’s not exactly a rule. More a safety precaution.)

I am awful at explaining things. In high school, when I had to explain an episode of [insert random television series for women here] because someone had missed it, my explanations would turn into incoherent ramblings of essay-length. Ask me about my childhood, and I will make your head explode by illogical sentence structures, non-chronological narration, sentences that suddenly end, and phenomena that are left unexplained, even though they form the essence of the story.

So, asking me to explain Heaven forfend! is quite pointless. And not only because of my lack of explanation-skills, but also because it isn’t exactly a play that’s easy to characterise in a few words or sentences. The absurdist nature of many of the dialogues make it difficult to explain, and yet these dialogues embody the play’s essence—sort of. One of the recurring themes in the play is the meaninglessness of existence and of what is said about that existence. When Julie is trying to understand why Vinci wanted to be a nun, it is already determined that she, in fact, will never understand. Why Vinci wanted to be one is not important; nothing of meaning can be said about it. It is just one of the many choices he could have made in life, and because of entirely random forces, he picked devotion to God in a convent. (On a related note: Vinci’s a man.)

Which brings me to another element: being accountable for your own choices—and thus not rejecting responsibility—is also a big part of the plot. Nowhere in the play is this as present as in the unhappy ending. (The ending, in relation to the meaninglessness of existence, only further intensifies this notion of aimlessness. The play essentially ends at the beginning of a clone-play.)

Throughout this exploration of meaninglessness (as said before, very much present in the slightly-absurdist dialogue and the circular plot) and accountability, three less-defined themes are also present: firstly, being a free spirit versus someone who blindly follows everything that is presented; secondly, taking things for granted; and finally, Heaven forfend! is a look into the true life and the real living experience in heaven.

H’m. I think I have basically said everything I wanted to say about the play. Now that I have actually written it down, it will be so much easier to explain to people. Thank you, Words. You’re my God.

• Curtain!
• Incredibly-off-Broadway
• Sci-fi Readiness
• Sci-fi Madness

Why shouldn't you seduce the Almighty?

Starting September, 2010, the production of Heaven forfend!, my first stage play, will commence. In association with VU University Amsterdam, the play will probably première in Amsterdam in either December, 2010, or January, 2011.¹ In the meantime, I’ll be occupied with rewrites, casting, finding some additional funding, scoping out theatres, rethinking the process of buying tickets online, et cetera.

What’s it about? Can you believe I have no idea what it’s about? (You probably can.) I will try to condense it into one sentence (plus parenthesis):

Heaven forfend! is a stage play about making choices, challenging your destiny, not taking things for granted, being incredibly bitchy and sarcastic, and seducing the Almighty. (In an awkwardly unsexy kind-of way, to be honest.)

In three acts, you’ll be taught a moral lesson that has an awfully strange Christian undertone, to be honest. (The residue at work, apparently.) But don’t be afraid, I’m still an atheist at heart, so comedic blasphemy is an important part of the play.

You can find all the information on Martian Prince’s website, so I’m not going to repeat it all here, if y’all don’t mind.

• Curtain!
• The Meaning of “Heaven forfend!”
• Sci-fi Readiness
• Sci-fi Madness

Originally published for a nineteenth-century British literature course. Ignore the madness.

I hate it when technology turns on you. This is just like the time my phone accidentally sent a text message containing a spicy secret to the gossip queen of my high school, which resulted in World Wars Episode III Electric Boogaloo: The Fight’s Back On, in theatres near you, next summer. Of course, it is not exactly the same as my phone wasn’t really capable of sending said text without being instructed to do so, but let’s just skip that fact, all right?

Two hours ago, I had written a whole piece about Dorian Gray and The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus; it was hilarious, it was insightful, it was Pulitzer Prize- and Nobel Prize-worthy, to be honest. However, Pauw & Witteman—I cannot stand Pauw with his smug questions, but that’s an aside—well, obviously it is, otherwise I wouldn’t be using em dashes, but, anyway—started broadcasting at eleven, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on tonight, so I just had to watch—did anyone see yesterday’s episode with Komrij? Snappish! He would have been a great addition to the spicy conflict-starter group I belonged to in high school.

To arrive at the station, I will fast-forward to the actual point now: TextEdit saw it fit to crash, and I had forgotten to save the thing. Yes. I’m supposed to be a writer, yet I cannot remember one of the most important rules of digital writing: SAVE, SAVE, SAVE, PRESS IT EVERY FIVE SECONDS. Too bad I’m not a Catholic anymore; I would have finally had something to confess. (… Who am I kidding?)

So. Bye, bye, Nobel. Oh, well. It’s not like winning a Nobel Prize’s really that important anymore after Obama’s win. #ohsnap

To summarise: Dorian. Faust. Dr Faustus. Indulgence. Harry -> devil. ”[...] every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself.” Great quote by Basil. Nothing to do with Faustian qualities, but still. #confusedmuch #jointheclub #fiftyeuroentrancefee

• Twitter rant about the Academy Awards
• Musical Tragedy “Hamlet 2″

“And what’s with the ‘big guy’? Is it because I’m fat?”
— Jake

Yes, it is, Alec Baldwin, but your awesome personality balances it out, so don’t worry. What is unbalanceable, though, is It’s Complicated‘s screenplay. The film feels like it is trying to be two separate things: on one hand Nancy Meyers is trying to tell us something (meaningful) about divorce and life-after, and on the other, she’s ridiculing everything she stands for by making everything into a joke. I have no problem with a romcom (or a dramatic comedy), but I do have a problem with a film that cannot look at itself without snickering at its own badness.

Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, and several other supporting actors are great in it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a significant difference between being great because the screenplay challenges you to do something extraordinary, and looking great because everything around you is sucky-to-the-max. A lot is not explained, and I guess Meyers, in her films, in general doesn’t explain a lot about backgrounds, but I would like an explanation for once why Meyers’s characters always seem to be making mistakes alien to real life.

• It’s Complicated

I don’t want to waste too much text on It’s Very Easy: Just Have a Real Conversation for Once, so, let’s continue.

Because this is the first Film Ratings in ages—the last one having been published June 28th, 2009—I have skipped a lot of films, including this year’s Academy Award for Best Picture nominated films. For example, Frozen River (), Shortbus (), and Coraline () were all skipped. It’s a shame, really, because the films I was left with are pretty mediocre and lame.

Take Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, for instance. While putting the film’s grades in its film franchise context, I realised that this is the second-best film of the whole series—which definitely says something about the franchise in general. Chamber of Secrets stands above it, though even Chamber only got two stars out of me.

The problem with the Harry Potter films lies not in the art setting, or the amount of entertainment they serve. Except for Goblet of Fire, the screenplays have been all right and the directing adequate. The real deal-breaker for me lies mostly in the acting.

Sure, I’m not saying that the films should contain acting that equals A Woman Under the Influence, but the thing is, a good screenplay only remains good when the acting to support it has the same adjective in front of it. You can direct as many great shots as you want to, but when there’s a frozen face in every shot, or a twitch, of any of the wrong-emotion-Willy actors, a great shot will be eaten up by mediocrity.

• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Speaking of mediocrity, Terminator Salvation, instead of going for a critical blast, remains in what-the-hell mode throughout its entire run. I mean sure, Sam Worthington is great to look at and that definitely improves the film, but McG’s hopscotch directing and the fragmented, totally uninspiring script by John Brancato and Michael Ferris destroy it. Scenes need to have a point, character decisions need to be motivated, and science-fiction (even action sci-fi) needs to have an air of seriousness over it. Terminator Audience-Damnation lacks all.

• Terminator Salvation

I will skip Nine, because I already tore that one apart.

The rest of the feature films (including The September Issue) can be summed up with the following: very enjoyable, but nothing more. Food, Inc. is visually very pleasing, the content is great and educational, and though the balance’s missing a bit (not exactly the filmmakers’s fault, though), overall it is a great documentary.

• Invictus
• Anger Management —
• Nine
• Food, Inc.
• The September Issue
• Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
• Whatever Works

• Film ratings [15/16]
• Film ratings [13/14]
• Film ratings [12]
• Film ratings [11]

Originally published for a nineteenth-century British literature course. Ignore the madness.

In my short, but incredibly prosperous and famous existence, I have read Brontë’s Wuthering Heights many times—the last time I did so was about six months ago—and yes, that means I haven’t re-read it for the course. Whatever. Did you guys see the Academy Awards? I swear, Elizabeth Banks, Tina Fey and Barbra Streisand were the only ones who did know how to present something. You would think being an actor/actress would make you a great presenter—all you do is read of a teleprompter and/or memorise a—badly written (again)—script—but alas. So, anyway, because I’m better at memorising things than Miley Cyrus—what the hell was she doing at the Academy Awards, for the second time, anyway? Stupid ABC pushing those Disney princesses—there was no point in me re-reading the novel.

… Now, where was I? Oh, right, the last time was about six months ago, and every single time I read it I have loved it. There’s something about the witchcraft brew of violence, love, family and nature that livens a read.

Up till the last time, I gave every character the same attention. But six months ago, I gave Linton (Isabella’s boy) some special attention, I noticed. Though Heathcliff is, obviously, the bad guy in the story—he makes it impossible to like him, really—Linton, that weak kid who gets kicked around by Heathcliff, seemed to me even worse—or, at least, almost on the same level. He manipulates to an even farther degree—yes, farther. I like saying it more than further, because it sounds awfully British—and Brits are hot—you know who’s also hot? Tom Ford. Rawr. I have always loved him—he keeps ignoring my phone calls and he never writes back, but one day he’ll answer (insert evil laugh here)—but when he was interviewed by the German host of the ProSieben Academy Awards pre-pre-show: hotness to the maximum—than his father does. At least Heathcliff has his tormented youth and his wicked love for Catherine Earnshaw to use as an excuse, but Linton’s just plain ol’ mean. Oh, sure, he is scared of his father, and is mistreated in the Wuthering mansion, but that doesn’t explain every single awful thing he does to poor Catherine Linton Heathcliff Earnshaw. (That’s a pretty Dynasty‘esque name for you.)

Wait. I had meant to talk about something completely different when I started writing here. What was it …

Oh, right. Joseph, the most annoying character in the novel, is, in my opinion, a complete allegory for the ridiculous nature of both the church, religion, and theists/believers. Such a religious man, but when he opens his mouth. Such a religious man, but when injustice happens in front of his eyes. Such a religious man, but when his faith is questioned and tickled. …

Dammit. This is what happens when you wonder off to the Academy Awards in your opening paragraph. You lose focus, and the original brilliance of the interpretation you were going to write about. You can fill in the blanks, can’t you? Sure you can. You can do everything! Look at that pretty face—look at those pink cheeks—so cute! Who’s a good girl? Who’s a good girl? Yes, you are! Now, go fill in those blanks, and don’t make me tell you twice.

• That which stands out is likely to be disputable
• Curtain!
• The Meaning of “Heaven forfend!”
• Incredibly-off-Broadway

Buzz was everywhere, and there was little that could go wrong for the Weinsteins. Until, people actually saw the film. It was a reminder to the world that a film cannot rely solely on the talent of its cast and crew; a great film, a film worthy of an Academy Award nomination and win, a critically-acclaimed motion picture that will be remembered for decades to come, needs the whole package. Nine toyed around with its talent; without a good foundation, lacking that solid screenplay that should have held everything together, the film flopped.

Today, the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony will be held in the Kodak Theatre, and, in my opinion, we can already call it a success: this year’s Best Picture nominees, each and every one, deserves to win more than last year’s slumdog win. They might not all be as good—The Blind Side and Inglourious Basterds—but these films, at least, will stand the test of time better than Slumdog Millionaire has.

But enough stalling—let’s get down to my predictions and, most importantly, which films are in my opinion the best of 2009.

Best Films of 2009

Last year, none of the films I had chosen as Best-of were nominated for Best Picture. WALL-E, Doubt and The Dark Knight were better than The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and, looking back, I stand by that opinion. Furthermore, as you’ve already noticed, last year only three films were excellent. Though a step up from 2007 (when only There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men were, in my opinion, of Best-of quality), it’s not exactly a thing for the industry to brag about.

This year, five films made it onto my Best of 2009 list, and they were all nominated for Best Picture.

With the exception of WALL-E, last year’s films are crushed by this year’s.

Surprisingly, District 9, the low-budget science-fiction allegory, deserves to be recognised as this year’s most original Best film. The cinematography, the perfectly-blending special effects, and the simple nature of it all surprised me. Though Roger Ebert thought the third act was a bit too unoriginal and basic point-and-shoot, I think he ignored the humane switch the main character made in this particular act, and the fact that it mirrors actual world events. Anything else would have been, to me, too much liberal-propaganda.

Precious is most definitely the most heart-wrenching and emotional film of the year. A film that wants to be nothing else than honest—and in its honesty it may even tell us a little bit too much, actually. The performances by Mo’Nique and newcomer Gabourey Sidibe deserve to be recognised as extraordinary.

Somehow, I have very little to say about The Hurt Locker, the best film of 2009. It serves its topic the best, by focussing on an aspect of war untouched by filmmakers so-far. The film should win both Best Director and Best Picture, but the latter may be somewhat of a battle.

What can one say about Up that hasn’t been said about every Pixar film to date? The geniuses at Pixar know how to make a perfect film, and they know it so well that the world has run out of original adjectives to describe their films. I do have one sidenote: Up is a brilliant film, but what may lack is an original voice in it all.

Avatar. People have been talking about this film for years now, and they will be talking about James Cameron’s masterpiece for years to come. It has its own chapter in the history of cinema, even though it’s only a footnote in the history of storytelling. Avatar‘s biggest problem is its kindergarten screenplay. The visual and special effects are a cinematic feat—the experience, even in 2D, is thrilling—but will people still be talking about its story in a few years? I don’t think so.

Just to make a Cameron comparison here: when Titanic premiered and had its record-breaking box-office run, people couldn’t stop talking about it. Eventually, though, they did, and though Titanic is most-definitely still a great film, it has lost its golden shine. Will the same happen to Avatar? In my opinion, yes.

Academy Award for Best Picture nominees

Last year none of my picks were granted a nomination, this year every one, which also means that I can skip the first five on the list, and move on to discussing the bottom five.

1. The Hurt Locker (9.8)
2. Precious (9.7)
3. District 9 (9.7)
4. Up (9.6)
5. Avatar (9.6)
6. An Education (9.3)
7. A Serious Man (9.2)
8. The Blind Side (8.5)
9. Inglourious Basterds (8.3)
10. Up in the Air (—)

British drama films automatically have that glow of Best-of over them, and An Education is no exception. The film’s genius in a very sophisticated and simple way—which is also exactly what keeps it from a five-pointer grade. Because of its simplicity, it lacks the depth a true great film needs. Even so, Carey Mulligan is perfect as lead actress, and it is certain that she’s going to be one of the best of her generation. (If she picks the right films, of course.)

The Coen Brothers deliver yet another Coen gem with A Serious Man, a film that has cultural brilliance in every scene. Without being comedic, the film’s light-hearted, and features that winching-humour only the Coens do well. Yet, though that’s all fine and dandy, the last ray of light doesn’t escape the brilliant core. Something’s missing to pull it past just being a great film.

The Blind Side features the best Sandra Bullock performance ever, and it will probably bring her (deservingly) the Academy Award for Best Actress (in a year when she also brought us the horrible All About Steve, mind you), but, overall, the film doesn’t excel. Hell, I don’t even understand why it’s nominated for Best Picture in the first place.

The same can be said for Inglourious Basterds. I have an unpopular opinion to share with you—I liked the film; nothing more, nothing less. Heck, if it hadn’t been for that first act, I wouldn’t have bothered discussing it. If the film had ended after that superb Christoph Waltz first act, it would have been so much better. Hey, it may have even been a contender for the Academy Award for Best Live-Action Short Film. Think about that, Tarantino.

Also, during the film, I observed that Brad Pitt has officially become unable to play anything other than Brad Pitt. The Tom Cruise Paradox.

I haven’t seen Up in the Air (yet), and to be honest, the promotional material and videoclips have not really given me a reason to do so. I am interested in the performance of Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick, though—but only because they were both nominated for Best Supporting Actress. They must have done something to deserve that honour, right?

Random observations

I haven’t really thought these observations through, to be honest, but I still want to share them with you:

• In the acting categories, real performances will triumph over technical perfection this year. Where Morgan Freeman, Meryl Streep, and Penélope Cruz have put forth excellent performances, nobody thinks they have a shot at an Academy Award because their performances are “good in only a technical sense.” Apparently, they have become so good that they’re too good?
• Just a sidenote about Penélope Cruz’s Nine nomination: it should have been Marion Cotillard.
• In the Best Picture race it will be a battle between populism and high culture.
• Star Trek should have been included in that race instead of Inglourious Basterds. Or, Coraline. Heck, even Food, Inc. deserved it more, though I personally think documentaries should be separate (which they are; however, a Best Picture nomination is theoretically possible).

Note

This post hasn’t been copy-edited. Sorry.

• Academy Award nominations
• The Best Pictures and the grave case of Danny Boyle
• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• Film ratings [15/16]

Originally published for a nineteenth-century British literature course. Ignore the madness.

Back in the day, when my face was without wrinkles, and when Kelly Rowland still had a steady paycheck and a real manager, I had a friend who dated a very obnoxious guy. He was nice to look at—which we did—we, meaning I—I, meaning, well, I—and could tell a killer date story—somehow that sounds like he’s a date raper. He wasn’t, at least, I don’t think he was. Maybe that was how they met! Though, I think she would have told me that she met him on a date-rape if that was the case, because it’s a way too awesome detail to leave out of an otherwise boring story.

Where was I? Oh, right. He was good-looking and had the ability to tell a nice evening story. Unfortunately, the list of positives ended there. On his negative side, he had: rudeness, homophobe, jock, and dumb-as-W. But, she liked him, and she wanted to make it work. Being a good and loyal friend, I told her to end it and made his daily life a living hell—being a fool, I encouraged her rehabilitation program.

So, through mind games and subtle hints we impregnated him with good-boy qualities—all within two months, of course. I mean, summer was coming up and who stays with their boyfriends over the summer? Exactly. Lindsay Lohan taught us well. Anyway, to get back to the story, after those cool two months, he was a changed man. He was still nice to look at—though the longer hair made him look just a tad like a very chiselled Jesus, not the look you want to go for—and an evening-story star; but, he was also a gentleman, a shopper, someone who could talk with you about emotions, and a very clingy friend.

All was well, until the summer actually presented itself. I had a dressage competition in Emmeloord, home base, and he just happened to be there. Well, happened’s a loose term, because when I gave him a tour of the equestrian facilities (to be honest, I have no idea why; it might’ve been home base, but it’s not like I knew the place), he suddenly turned to me—which was very awkward, as I had to interrupt a very classic monological discussion on whether hay or wood fibre was a better bedding for the stables; totally lost my point because of it—not that I had one—and told me he had come to like me. Well, great. That was the whole point of the rehab, wasn’t it? But, well, then he told me he liked men. Which was a bit odd, but I just thought he misspoke. So, I said, “Great,” and went on with my monologue. Truth be told, I didn’t care much for his daytime stories, so I often just blocked out his conversation. But, this time he made it impossible. Anyway, skipping the long story: Yup. We had made him gay.

Well, it’s not a surprise things went downhill from there. She blamed me for turning him gay; I blamed her for steering him towards my incredibly-gay friend Lloyd, with whom he had a relationship for a week and a half, after which I had to listen to Lloyd telling me how heartbroken he was for months and months; and the new gay-recruit stopped being our friend because he thought we were “a little bit too conservative” for his newly acquired taste.

How does all this relate to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein? People, creating upright human beings out of blank concepts never works and is morally a bad thing to do. Please refrain from it.

Also, never try to soften someone who already appears to trim his eyebrows and who can detect when you’re humming a Judy song. Sigh. We should have seen the signs.

• Passivity’s Time Has Expired
• Minority
• The much-needed Gay Insurrection
• The G(r)ay Lady opposes Prop 8

Originally published for a nineteenth-century British literature course. Ignore the madness.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, overall I have nothing against your “Kubla Khan;” I must even admit that I like-slash-love it, but that doesn’t mean that I have no issues with it. So, in an effort to move towards making a point, here they are:

According to good-pal Wikipedia, my love letters to Jared Leto are completely pointless, even though I could have sworn that it was a natural law that anything Lindsay Lohan touches automatically is turned into a gay-extravaganza, but, there he is, being all straight and non-gay, and, to be honest, I don’t even know why I’m still sending him those letters after having seen his plus-sized version in the dreadful Chapter 27. I mean, the film’s script alone still gives me nightmares, but on top of that, seeing him, with his hamster-face and weird gestures, trying to act in what was supposed to be a dramatic feature of quality; why, oh, why?

… Wait, when did this post turn into an episode of Ricky Lake? What I was going to say is that issue number one with your lovely poem is its title. “Kubla Khan; or, A Vision in a Dream: A Fragment”? If my good-pal’s right, and you do like all that opium, you must have been pretty high when you wrote that title. Is it a Vision, a Dream, or a Fragment? And I know that if you picked the All-of-the-above option it would also be right, but could you make up your mind, please?

H’m. Apparently that’s a pretty silly issue to have with this poem, my inner-monologue just told me. He’s been bugging me all day long, little bugger.

Second issue:

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree :
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.

Now, there isn’t really anything wrong with this beginning; it is just that “Where Alph, the sacred river, ran / Through caverns measureless to man / Down to a sunless sea.” doesn’t really flow as well as it probably should. The last two lines, which apparently are meant to be one thought, hinder this invisible flow to, well, flow.

The next one is not really an issue, I guess, but more an observation.

And ‘mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war !

Is this meant to soften Khan’s war-lust? If he acted on his own, he would be responsible for it—on his own; but if he did it because voices in his head were telling him to do it, some responsibility would be shifted to them.

Isn’t this somewhat similar to what happens in the Old Testament? For instance, couldn’t one say that Abraham was just mentally-insane when he decided to offer his son? Yes, we can. But then, of course, full responsibility for it would be in Abraham’s hands; and by telling people God said it, he gets off scot-free! Sure, he didn’t go through with it because—and allow me to cough before and after saying this—an angel prevented him. (Or maybe his valium just kicked in.) … I’m not sure what kind of point I was going to make with this, especially not in relation to “Khan,” but I think it was this: by attributing Khan’s war-lust to ancestral voices, you—and I’m talking to Coleridge, remember—shift a bit of responsibility away from him.

So, my final question is this: are you in love with Kubla Khan and thus willing to forgive some of his deeds?

• Barton-Lohan
• They did what now, to whom now?
• Taking Notice of the Fundamentally Religious
• Hullo!

No big surprises this year, not even with ten Best Picture nominations. The Blind Side being nominated for Best Picture could be considered a mild surprise, but the rest of the nominees were set-in-stone for months. The Princess and the Frog not receiving a Best Original Score nomination was somewhat odd, but the two Best Original Song ones kind-of balance it out.

Overall, Avatar and The Hurt Locker received the most Academy Award nominations—nine. Again, not a surprise. Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds received eight, previous-darling-put-to-shame Nine only four (including only one for the music—a travesty for a musical), my favourite of the year, Precious, received Best Picture, Best Actress and Supporting Actress, Best Directing, Editing, and Adapted Screenplay nominations (six), the same as Up in the Air with Clooney a Best Actor nominee, Pixar’s Up followed in the footsteps of WALL-E and received five Golden Boy nominations, and Star Trek received three technical nominations.

Best Picture

• Avatar (James Cameron and Jon Landau)
• The Blind Side (Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove and Broderick Johnson)
• District 9 (Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham)
• An Education (Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey)
• The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier and Greg Shapiro)
• Inglourious Basterds (Lawrence Bender)
• Precious (Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness)
• A Serious Man (Joel and Ethan Coen)
• Up (Jonas Rivera)
• Up in the Air (Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman)

Best Director

• James Cameron (Avatar)
• Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
• Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)
• Lee Daniels (Precious)
• Jason Reitman (Up in the Air)

Best Actor

• Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
• George Clooney (Up in the Air)
• Colin Firth (A Single Man)
• Morgan Freeman (Invictus)
• Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)

Best Actress

• Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
• Helen Mirren (The Last Station)
• Carey Mulligan (An Education)
• Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
• Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)

Best Supporting Actor

• Matt Damon (Invictus)
• Woody Harrelson (The Messenger)
• Christopher Plummer (The Last Station)
• Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
• Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

Best Supporting Actress

• Penélope Cruz (Nine)
• Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)
• Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)
• Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
• Mo’Nique (Precious)

Best Original Screenplay

• Written by Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker)
• Written by Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)
• Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman (The Messenger)
• Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen (A Serious Man)
• Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter. Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy. (Up)

Best Adapted Screenplay

• Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell (District 9)
• Screenplay by Nick Hornby (An Education)
• Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche (In the Loop)
• Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher (Precious)
• Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner (Up in the Air)

Best Animated Feature

• Coraline (Henry Selick)
• Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson)
• The Princess and the Frog (John Musker and Ron Clements)
• Th Secret of Kells (Tomm Moore)
• Up (Pete Docter)

Best Foreign Language Film

• Ajami (Israel)
• El Secreto de Sus Ojos (Argentina)
• The Milk of Sorrow (Peru)
• Un Prophete (France)
• The White Ribbon (Germany)

Best Original Score

• James Horner (Avatar)
• Alexandre Desplat (Fantastic Mr. Fox)
• Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders (The Hurt Locker)
• Hans Zimmer (Sherlock Holmes)
• Michael Giacchino (Up)

Best Original Song

• “Almost There” (The Princess and the Frog)
• “Down in New Orleans” (The Princess and the Frog)
• “Loin de Paname” (Paris 36)
• “Take It All” (Nine)
• “The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” (Crazy Heart)

• 2009 in Film: The Best-of Edition
• 81st Academy Awards picks and predictions
• 81st Academy Awards nominations
• The Best Pictures and the grave case of Danny Boyle

• Atheism is not nihilism
• Passivity’s Time Has Expired
• Slay the Praying Mythical Monster
• The Roman Catholic Residue

Yes, in that capacity I truly take notice of the Catholic Church—as I do fundamentalists. In my opinion, it is simply fact that religion and progressive do not go together; that religion and liberal concepts do not go together; and that religion and change are two incompatible concepts as well.

That is what makes the bible such a human book—without a doubt written by humans, for humans, and containing only human concepts.

On your left you have a God who is all-knowning and omnipotent, and on your right you have a book that contains more errors than a Lindsay Lohan post-it. The left, being omniscient, omnipotent and living outside time, has no ability to change his mind; the right, being from human origin, contains more changes of opinion, mind and action than a Diana Ross show contains dress changes.

But, it is what is holy to Christians, so, being the ultimate book of truths, should be adhered to completely. In this, my disapproval of gay Christian apologists lies. You can be a gay theist—if your belief in God is strictly of a personal nature¹—but to be a gay Christian apologist is to be an African-American member of the KKK. The two are of irreconcilable nature.

Unless, of course, and many will argue this, you do not take everything in the bible as strictly as you should. The selective nature of Christians when it comes to believing in the bible (and dogma) is legendary; for some reason, it is fine to ignore parts of an inerrant book. When you do not like a certain thing in your religion—and when it makes you look like a bigot, homophobe, and/or complete idiot, you are excused from adhering to it.

I may look at this too strictly, but the bible says homosexuality is wrong—end of discussion. Do not try to reconcile it with your own opinion—if you do not think homosexuality is wrong, and if you think the bible is wrong on this issue, then you are not a Christian. I never knew simple logic was too difficult for some to understand.²

It is because of this that I can take notice of Christians who are fundamentally against homosexuality—on the condition that their stance is based upon dogma, and not personal fabrications. A traditional-family group professing that same-sex marriage is against God is dogmatically right; one that proclaims that same-sex marriage will destroy society and will negatively impact children is simply (sociologically) wrong. I should not have to explain this, really.

However, and in the end, when my rambling cools down, comes my twist, I will never—never—tolerate, honour or respect it.^{3 4 5}

• The God Question is not benign
• Biblical Quotes Gone Wild
• An Atheist Look on Christianity et alii
• Passivity’s Time Has Expired

Gelukkig Nieuwjaar, hooggeëerde mede-Nederlanders.

• My 2010–2011 television schedule
• The Jackson Family, Sans Un
• NASA lacks the wherewithal for greater space

However, no more of that! I’ve got a lot of catching up to do, I have to say. Not only am I way behind on the film ratings articles, I also haven’t shared much of my colourless and tedious life of the last six month with you—for shame! (Not that there’s really that much to share, but, whatever. Just roll with it.) Well, that’s definitely going to change from now on.

• Curtain!
• The Meaning of “Heaven forfend!”
• Incredibly-off-Broadway
• Busy as a red-hot bumblebee

It still amazes me that evolved and cultured people in this day and age can look at someone who is unlike themselves and proclaim that person to be less of a human being. Especially those who cling on to “morals” and “family values.” Is it not the ultimate moral thing to help, respect and love your fellow man, a member of the extended family of human beings, regardless of gender, sexual preference, ethnicity and/or religious preference?

Why is it that in the twenty-first century people are still discriminated against, when we have all this wicked history to fall back on in our considerations? Have some learned nothing from the past?

I hope that we someday can all look back at this time as world-changing—a time in which true equality was achieved. However, the roadblocks ahead of us first need to be bulldozed before we can get to a peaceful and equal future. And with dreams and hope alone that will never happen. Passivity’s time has expired and only through social and political actions, militant if necessary, can we eradicate the poisonous brume and finally get to a clear and unclouded existence.

• Minority
• The much-needed Gay Insurrection
• Taking Notice of the Fundamentally Religious
• Born into it or not

However, is it? Mariah Carey, 39, has, in my own opinion, never sounded out of sync with the music of the times she lived in, and the things happening in her own life have always transcended into her albums. So, if this album is truly a plain throwback to the albums she produced in the 1990s, I simply cannot abide it. Nevertheless—and I will repeat myself—is it?

The Past

In the spirit of the media’s obsessiveness about her 90s sound throwback, “Charmbracelet” was a castrated first attempt to bring back the old Mariah. It turned out to be a lacklustre album with few high notes, because let’s be honest, Island Records probably wanted people to forget all about her Virgin disaster, and going from screaming disco-pop to crickets-crickets definitely did the job. Even though they killed any musical outbursts in the process, thereby guaranteeing that Mariah sounded bored and still-depressed on every song.

Though this all might just be my own personal interpretation of “Charmbracelet,” I bet everyone will agree with me that she broke through that castration-barrier with “Emancipation.” I’m not sure what she was on while recording “Emancipation,” but we should all have a taste of that specific brand of crack.¹ The production suddenly went from snooze to Hey-Bitch-Why-Aren’t-You-Dancing, and every media outlet was calling this her grande comeback to the top of the music industry.

Really? A three year period between albums justifies calling something a “comeback” now? We all know Mariah Carey went nowhere, and we definitely know that “Emancipation” was nothing like her previous albums (“Rainbow” excluded). With “Emancipation” she told the world that she doesn’t need to be relevant: the rest of the world needs to be relevant in accordance to her presence. If you want to call “The Emancipation of Mimi” anything, then call it an “industry reckoning”—Mariah making a statement that she was not to mess with. It’s like that.

Then came “E=MC²”—which to me was nothing more than an attempt to solidify that reckoning. Some people called it “Emancipation 2″ and they were probably right; if not that “E=MC²” felt like something “Emancipation” never achieved: consistent. The initial statement (“Emancipation”) contained a lot of great songs, but lacked the overall steadiness of greatness—while “E=MC²” on the other hand achieved consistency. Mariah’s musical, writing and production interests had finally come together, and it showed.

So, what does one do after finally feeling like a whole person again? Well, most people would chill and relax, and enjoy their country-sized Manhattan apartments.

Thankfully, Mariah Carey—every time I feel the need to write her full name; she’s a corporation, you know—did not feel the need to relax. And thus we return to the original subject of this article: “Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel.”

“Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel”

I will stay on topic this time and start-off by stating that the first time I listened to it, it seemed to be an album that followed a few key rules from the Janet Jackson rulebook.

First of all, the album contains a prologue, two reprises, a prelude, and an interlude. Except for one of the reprises and the prelude, these are all almost full-length songs, making them an addition to the songs they’re supporting instead of just introductions and endings. Some people don’t like interludes; and under normal circumstances, I’m not part of that group. However, I found myself wondering why some of the interludes were included. The “Up Out My Face” reprise is nothing more than an unnecessary continuation of the original’s song ending; “The Impossible (The Reprise)” feels almost like an entirely different number than the song it’s supposed to be supporting; and “Angel (The Prelude)” does nothing more than establish what we already know: Mariah’s voice can replace any man-made instrument.

Would I have been less critical if the interludes would’ve been full-blown Janet copies? Chatter and speaking introductions; orgasms and grunts; whole, awkward conversations with an inanimate robot? Perhaps; it would’ve showcased a more personal Mariah, and would have given us a different way into some of the songs. Yet, she didn’t go that way; the interludes never surpass their two-dimensional nature, and while there is little to criticise when it comes to her execution of the interludes, they could’ve been much more.

Growth

Now on to the actual songs, considering that’s what the album’s really about. Is it a musical return to old-school Mariah Carey? Short answer: No. Grab your copy of “Mariah Carey” or “Emotions” or “Daydream”, and compare it to “Memoirs”—you will quickly hear that this is in no way the same Mariah Carey. And though this may sound like a bad thing, in my opinion it’s a compliment.

If she would’ve sounded exactly the same now like she did all those years ago, would that have been a positive commentary on her musical talents? It would not have been. The Mariah that sings on “Memoirs” is so much more a grown woman: a real woman, an emancipated woman. This is the woman Mariah Carey should have been from day one. Instead of wasting her talents on mediocre R&B-crossover songs, she sat down and recorded songs that showed progress, growth and stability.

The Bad (Or, The Nice)

Her crossover roots are still there, though. In “Ribbon” you can hear her slide between tempered R&B and a more hiphop-oriented sound; and she almost pulls it off. “Ribbon” is not one of the winners on the album, because to me it feels unfinished. It’s a nice song to have playing in the background, but to actually pick-and-play it—no.

There are only three other songs on the album that have the same faith as “Ribbon”: “Obsessed,” “H.A.T.E.U.” and “Standing O.” The first one in this array, “Obsessed,” should’ve been left off the album all-together in my opinion. It’s a nice revenge song, that showcases Mariah’s claws nicely. Which marks the second time I’ve used nice to describe a song, and that’s really all that “Obsessed” is. Nice. Well, perhaps there’s something else: it’s extremely out of touch with the rest of the album. It’s as-if Mariah recorded “Obsessed”, walked into a door, and recorded the rest of the album.

“H.A.T.E.U.” is not nice, on the other hand. It’s much more than nice, and that’s why it’s such a shame Mariah’s voice ruins the songs potential. While listening to the song, over and over, I wondered whether why she kept restricting her voice throughout the whole number. I didn’t want to put all the blame on the awful use of auto-tune, but, I have to. “H.” never became the song it should’ve been because Mariah doesn’t need auto-tune. Do you have a lousy voice? Use auto-tune to make it seem hip. Have a superb, world-rocking voice? Use auto-tune to ruin every single note.²

Then there’s “Standing O,” which doesn’t suffer so much from auto-tune, but more from a lack of creativity. It’s not an awful song—on the contrary, it’s a great listen if you don’t feel like experiencing inspiration.

The Good (Or, … The Good)

If you have been waiting for praise, read on. Because from her ridiculously-awesome cover of “I Want to Know What Love Is” (including its awesome interlude) to the pop-sounding, voice-cracking “Up Out My Face”, the rest of the numbers are fantastic, and many should deserve Grammy Awards.

“Up Out My Face” is just plain—dare I say it?—hip and cool. From the lyrics to the voice, to the repetition; this is a song that benefits greatly from a fun-sounding and tongue-in-cheek production. Where the repetition of “Standing O” fails, “Up Out My Face” excels.

All right, let’s just stop and rewind for a bit. I started off by talking about Janet Jackson, and then almost-completely disregarded my own comment. Because, secondly, now that we’re going to discuss “Candy Bling” and “More Than Just Friends”, something from the Janet Jackson rulebook comes to mind. Mumbling. Or, to be more specific, alleged mumbling.

Especially in her recent work (“Discipline” excluded for convenience), Janet has been singing like a fourth-grade schoolgirl: very soft, very mellow, and without focusing all too much on enunciation. A lot of times you just want to shake her and yell at her, “Speak up, dammit!”

And that little routine comes to mind when listening to “Candy Bling” and “More Than Just Friends”, both great songs with awesome beats and production, but both suffering from the alleged-mumbling syndrome. Especially when Mariah sticks with her whispering voice for more than a few lines it starts to become annoying. One shouldn’t need printed lyrics to understand a song.

But I digress. There are five songs left on the list to talk about, and I’ll start off by applauding Mariah for her cover of Foreigner, and the incredible prelude³ that goes with it. Many people don’t like it and tell me that the timing is off, to which I say, it’s a cover, people. It shouldn’t need to follow the same timing and pacing; I actually believe it’s a great improvement. The emotional baggage that is presented in the song really comes to the foreground in this way, and the relaxed build-up serves a presentational point. There is one annoyance in the song though: why isn’t it about a minute longer? It fades-out in the best part of the song right now. Minor annoyance, though.

I have nothing intelligent to say about why I feel “Inseparable” is a superb song. Everything just fits—from the story-lyrics to the supportive execution of the music—and, furthermore, it feels like a pure Mariah Carey extraction. The same can be said from “The Impossible,” a snug fit that also has the added benefit of providing Mariah with a way to show-off that she does know how to whisper-sing while enunciating.

“It’s a Wrap” is a song that relies heavily on Mariah’s voice, and which wouldn’t have worked with a different artist. The song showcases the layers of her voice, puts a spotlight on her shouting abilities, and asks you to join in with your own singing—or, *cough*, at least that’s what I got from it.

And that leaves just one song to discuss: “Angels Cry,” the masterpiece song on the album. As you may have noticed, when it comes to applauding songs I have less to tell than when I’m criticising them, and the same applies here. “Angels Cry” is a song you just fall in love with. Ever been asked why you fell in love with someone, and you couldn’t think of anything besides the clichéd obvious? I have the same with “Angels Cry.” “What do you mean, why? Just listen to the song; isn’t it bloody obvious why I did? That sound, those lyrics, the emotion and feeling, that awesomely fierce-yet-mellow ending, … Pure excellence!”

No, really

Yes, I will say that “Memoirs” overall sound has more to do with Mariah’s earlier albums than the recent batch that came from the House of Carey. The restless nature of “Emancipation” and the creative blandness of both “Glitter” and “Charmbracelet” (and perhaps also “Rainbow”) have very little influence on “Memoirs” (“Obsessed” excluded; that one would’ve fit on “Emancipation”).

However, run away from people who proclaim that this album is old-school Mariah Carey. The title, “Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel” is a perfect description of what this album really is. It’s the coming together of a willingness to sit back and enjoy life and music, and the talent to excel at providing your musical colleagues with a fuck-off message. Anyone who dared to doubt Mariah’s ability to shine nineteen years after her debut, has been set right. There’s only one, true and holy God, and her name is Mariah Carey.

• The Big Mariah Carey Review
• Saving Jessica Simpson
• “Mink Shmink”
• Sony Music Entertainment

Same-sex marriage is one struggle on the way to equality for all, as are equal-treatment civil rights, but this time I want to talk about something that’s a little less media-centred: religion and the state.

Let’s assume that the United States was founded on the principle of Christian values (even though it clearly was not). If so, religious outings at the presidential inauguration, constant references to (protestant) religion in speeches and on the US dollar, and a ban on same-sex marriage, but also on abortion and euthanasia, would make sense. A Christian nation needs to adhere to those values marked essentially Christian, does it not? Notwithstanding the difficulty of deciding what exactly is Christian, considering all the denominations and variations.

Now, this is all great, but it brings one big problem to the surface: what if a US citizen is not Christian? Easy solution would be for this person to move to a different country, but it’s a solution that doesn’t solve the problem at hand. A Christian nation is sure to harbour people who do not adhere to Christianity, yet it is still supposed to represent these citizens. When the country’s currency says “In God We Trust,” doesn’t it alienate those who do not trust in God? Again, notwithstanding the vagueness of who’s God this is. When the nation’s legislation refuses to grant equal civil rights to LGBT people just because of religious convictions, doesn’t it make second-rate citizens of those people? Doesn’t it discriminate against them? Does it not create a sexual apartheid—if you will?

When abortion isn’t allowed in a country, or parts of a nation, doesn’t that essentially say to those who do not see anything wrong with abortion, “We don’t give a crap about your ideals and beliefs, so bugger off”?

You might reverse the situation. What if the United States were to allow same-sex marriage across the nation; wouldn’t that alienate the Christians and Muslims who are against it? Well, let’s think about that for a minute. Not allowing same-sex marriage grants heterosexual couples the right to marry and gives them federal benefits, while allowing it grants heterosexual and homosexual couples the right to marry and to profit from these federal benefits. Christian heterosexuals had all the rights before same-sex marriage was allowed, and they’ve still got those after it was allowed (in this hypothetical situation). Where exactly does it alienate anyone? Same-sex marriage doesn’t force Christians to marry same-sex-wise, nor does it take away any of their rights. If they don’t want to anything to do with same-sex marriage, why don’t they just stay away from a same-sex wedding (as if they would be invited in the first place)?

A different situation takes place during a presidential inauguration. While it’s not protocol to take the oath of office with your hand on a Bible, it has become custom to do so. Nor is it necessary to have a priest or pastor speak at the inauguration, but again, it has become somewhat of an unwritten law. All fine and dandy, until you take into account all the people an American president is supposed to represent: people of all spiritual persuasions, even those without. Now, he or she can do two things to solve this; one, invite representatives of every religion or non-religion out there in the nation to speak (which would make the inauguration endless); or, two, to keep it secular as not to isolate anyone. I would go for door number two.

To be honest, I would go for number two in any state-related issue. It is one thing to hold on to (prehistoric) traditions, like “In God We Trust,” but it’s another to alienate and discriminate millions of citizens. Believing that your God should be with you on the most important day of your life is fine, but if you’re mooning large minorities by doing so, perhaps that important day shouldn’t be just about you—perhaps it should be about the nation as a whole. And the last time I checked “nation” was a secular word, not one owned by the church—any church.

Aside: Political parties founded on Christian principles, and civil rights

We’ve kept it pretty broad, until now.

Here in the Netherlands we’ve got political parties that were founded on essentially Christian principles. Heck, two of the three ruling parties¹ right now are Christian.² While their Christian basis nowadays is essentially only ethical³, it’s still a protestant-Christian⁴ government governing a nation which harbours a lot of atheists, but also Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, and others.

Of course, they were democratically chosen to represent the nation, and are as such not to blame for the (slight) misrepresentations, but this is besides the point I want to make. According to our constitution, there’s equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination (article one), but also freedom of religion (article six). When a political party stands for one specific religion and (essentially) admits to governing in the name of that religion, does it not discriminate against those not adhering to said religion, and doesn’t it treat people unequally under such a situation? Furthermore, in a general way, doesn’t it prohibit atheists from exercising their right to freedom of religion, considering that they’re now being held to adhere to Christian values?⁵

This aside goes nowhere, as I do not know where it leads, but I just wanted to share it in addition to the above. Carry on.

• Gasp, I agree with Bush on this one
• Disorganised rant on a boring night
• Eradication or secular edification
• Notes on religion

“The knowledge exists by which universal happines can be secured; the chief obstacle to its utilisation for that purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.”
— Bertrand Russell¹

• Faith.
• The God Question is not benign
• Taking Notice of the Fundamentally Religious
• The Roman Catholic Residue

Dijon

• The Roman Catholic Residue
• La Galerie des Batailles
• Bitching! I’m Back!
• V-v-vacation!

Monica Almeida/The New York Times

• The G(r)ay Lady opposes Prop 8
• Twenty-Ten
• NASA lacks the wherewithal for greater space

“You! Yeah, you in the suit! Take a shower, hippie!”
— Carl Fredricksen

Carl Fredricksen is one of the most endearing characters in recent film history. He’s a grumpy old and eccentric man who loved his wife beyond everything. And he hates people who bother him. (Who doesn’t?) It also helps that Fredricksen was partly based upon Spencer Tracy, and who doesn’t love Spencer Tracy! To make this paragraph even more erratic, Fredricksen reminds me of a censored, older version of Cartman. “Take a shower, hippie!” Who doesn’t hate hippies and who doesn’t automatically refer to people who annoy them as hippies?

Now, to get back on somewhat of an understandable track, Up is yet again a masterpiece by Pixar Animation Studios. They keep on producing works of art, regardless of subject matter. I’m telling you, Pixar could make an animated film about tumbleweeds and it would be a tour de force. People would weep, cheer and praise it.

To be honest, the basic premise that lies beneath Up is incredibly boring and unoriginal. It has been done a million times before, and will be done a million times after. Yet it’s still a masterpiece; how come? Well, first of all, making the main character an elderly man works for the film’s genius. Where Hollywood is always searching for young characters to attract the money-spending youth, Pixar picks a main character of considerable age. The Hollywood Youth has no way of connection with a character with this much live experience. Nevertheless, it works. The identification process may not occur, but Pixar goes for endearment, a grandfatherly connection and just sheer entertainment loveliness.

Second, it’s the little things that count. Where Pixar excels is telling a story, any story — how lame and tired it may be, Pixar knows how to tell it. The broader premise isn’t important here, but what is of essence here are the details. Fredricksen’s life story, Russell’s overeager banter¹, the dogs, the place they go to for their adventure, et cetera.

I have a bit of criticism left for Up though. While the film is great, it forgets a lot of small specifics. For example, the age of the villain, Charles F. Muntz. The difficulty of him designing so much great inventions in such a desolate place. Russell essentially being kidnapped; also, where are his parents? Not to mention that the film works wonders with time. However, I’m willing to forgive Pete Docter for all of this, without precedent.

These Old Broads

I had only one reason for wanting to watch These Old Broads, an ABC television film that eared in 2001 and was written by Carrie Fisher. Dame Elizabeth Taylor, it being her last acting performance to date, and considering her personal health, probably her last performance ever.

Overall, this is a film with more acting legends together on screen than … I don’t know how to finish that, but there are a lot of silver screen legends in this film: Shirley MacLaine, Debbie Reynolds, Joan Collins, and of course, to a lesser extent, the writer herself, Carrie Fisher. Imagine this: Carrie Fisher is the daugher of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher, who divorced Reynolds in a highly publicised affair to marry his “mistress” — Elizabeth Taylor. I’m not sure how much tension there was on set, but I can only say, “awkward!”

Taylor’s performance is mellow and, already being hit by her deteriorating athleticism and health, she’s “bedridden” for most of her act. Yet, without really straining herself, Taylor is still able to attract my every attention. Man, this woman is beyond legend. I cannot even criticise her performance, because, well, it’s Elizabeth Taylor. What do you want from me?

If this had been a major motion picture production, the film could’ve turned out a great comedic drama. I’m not even sure how they were able to hire so many great actresses within a television film’s budget. But somehow they did, and, considering that probably their whole budget went to their respective salaries, the television part definitely shows. The art setting is awfully campy (though that’s exactly why I liked it), the story should have used a rewrite, the direction is very general and neutral, and the supporting cast acts like a bunch of drunken monkeys.

Still, I loved it. For all its campiness.

Yor: Hunter From the Future

Blue cavemen, a nuclear holocaust, the killing of a dinosaur with just one blow, Yor appearing out of nowhere whenever it pleases him, sand mummies, a prehistoric future, and multiple genocide (with extinct civilisations springing back into action for no good reason and then again being murdered).

Can you spell “leg·end·ar·y mess”?

Silkwood

Believe me, I liked Silkwood. Mike Nichols’s directed Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? for Christ’s sake, and The Graduate and Working Girl (what?) and Closer, and … You get the point, right?

However, I liked the screenplay less than the acting and the direction. I do understand that Nichols’s probably wanted to tell more than just the controversy and also wanted to document Karen Silkwood’s life. Still, it seemed to me as though the film was constantly drifting between wanting to be just a biopic and wanting to be more — a want for speculation.

Nobody knows what exactly happens, and there’s vagueness everywhere when it comes to Karen’s life, but showing that on screen is less fun than it sounds. The speculative looks of characters are there, but nothing is done with it. It’s left to the audience to interpret and analyse it, which I have nothing against if we weren’t also busy interpreting and analysing her personal life. Pick a path to follow and stick with it, would you?

300

Re-watched it — still hated it. Period.

Film ratings

Film	Studio	Grade	Stars
Kathy Griffin: Straight to Hell	Bravo (NBC/U)	8.2
Deliver Us From Evil	Lionsgate	8.4
A Beautiful Mind	Universal Studios	9.2
Kathy Griffin: Allegedly	Bravo (NBC/U)	8.2
Kathy Griffin: Everybody Can Suck It	Bravo (NBC/U)	8.1
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room	Magnolia Pictures	7.4
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning	New Line Cinema	5.3	—
Madea Goes to Jail	Lionsgate	7.5
These Old Broads	ABC (Disney)	8.5
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?	Warner Bros.	9.5
W.	Lionsgate	8.0
Silkwood	20th Century Fox	8.5
Death Becomes Her	Universal Studios	7.4
Yor: Hunter From the Future	Columbia Pictures	3.0	—
Quarantine	Screen Gems	4.2	—
Poseidon	Warner Bros.	6.9	—
Up	Walt Disney Pictures	9.6
Roger & Me	Warner Bros.	8.0
The Banger Sisters	Fox Searchlight Pictures	6.9	—
300	Warner Bros.	6.3	—

• Film ratings [13/14]
• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• Film ratings [12]
• Film ratings [11]

“Born into a world of numbers, an oppressed zero discovers that through determination, courage, and love, nothing can be truly something.

Zero is a 12’47 stop motion animation written and directed by Christopher Kezelos and produced by Christine Kezelos. For more information, visit zeroshortfilm.com.”

• “The Prince of Mars” progresses, slowly
• “The Prince of Mars and the Red Planet Gala”
• Wow, Chow, HD Meow
• Sci-fi Readiness

“If the God hypothesis is a promising one, then we don’t need to appeal to faith. If the God hypothesis doesn’t sit well with the evidence we have, then we should reject it and it would be wrong to seek to cling to it by giving it some privileged exemption from criticism. Faith is always at war with truth, because if we try to make ourselves arrive at a predetermined conclusion, we run the risk of not dealing honestly with the evidence.”
— David Ramsay Steele¹

• Slay the Praying Mythical Monster
• The God Question is not benign
• Taking Notice of the Fundamentally Religious
• Questions for the Children of God

“Are you kidding me? RoboCop?!”
— Anchorwoman

There is only one good scene in RoboCop 3; an anchorwoman recites the fabricated news that RoboCop has once again killed a lot of people. Then, in the best performance of the film, her face turns to puzzlement and, while standing up, she shouts to her colleague, “C’mon, this is bullshit! Are you buying this? Are you kidding me? RoboCop?!”, and she just walks away. Which is what everybody should do when trying to watch any of the RoboCop sequels.

I remember liking the sequels when I was little, but perhaps that was because everything looked cool and awesome back then with all the explosions and the melodrama. However, I’m amazed that Michael Bay didn’t direct both of these. Sure, both films do actually have more depth than any film Bay has ever made, but they abide by the same basic rule: explosions equal entertainment.

Mega, gigantic update this week because I love you all! … All right, I was behind two weeks with my film ratings, so this week I’m catching up, and boy, it’s a good one. Funny Girl, Departures, Kathy Griffin, the RoboCop sequels, Drew Barrymore, an amazingly-campy Taylor-Burton flick, and Studio Ghibli in one update. An explosion of awkward randomness, if you ask me. Ten above the legendary and distinguished line of cinematic greatness, ten below it. Because it’s too confusing (i.e. too tiring for yours truly) to discuss them all, here are my picks.

Funny Girl

Let’s be honest here, Barbra Streisand is one of my all-time idols, in music and film. So, anything I’m going to say regarding Funny Girl should be taken with a grain of salt.

I had heard of Funny Girl, knew that Barbra (we’re on a first name basis, Barbra and I) had won an Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance in it, but silly me had never seen the musical. Now that I have, I can’t live without it, to be fair. The music is superb, the comedy is hilarious, the staged theatrical performances are fantastic, and every single scene stays with you for ever and ever. When you see the ending, Barbra as Fanny Brice singing “My Man” on an empty, blacked-out stage, with the intensity of love, sadness and perseverance, you can’t deny that this performance was above Academy Award worthy.

I thought Omar Sharif was a bit of a kink in the perfection cable, though. Yes, he’s a great actor, but for this role I didn’t quite understand why they picked him. He looks fatigued throughout the entire film, I don’t really get his sex appeal in this particular role and, still being honest, from time to time the chemistry between Barbra and Sharif (we had a falling out, Sharif and I, so no first names there) seems a bit out of place.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t matter. The overall quality of this musical film is excellent. The soundtrack will have you smiling from beginning to end, from “If a Girl Isn’t Pretty” till “My Man.”

Valkyrie

Strange isn’t it, that even Valkyrie had me smiling from beginning to end. Oh, not because of its subject matter. Though I feel a bit saturated by films about Nazi-Germany (I mean, enough is enough; perhaps it’s different for North-American audiences, but from first grade till university we’re pumped with Nazi history over here; I don’t need American films doing the same as well), if one is done right and with care, it can really impact a person. Schindler’s List definitely did and more recently, The Reader, though a bit more flawed, as well.

But United Artists’s big return to excellence, the majestical Valkyrie? Every Nazi is a stereotype in this film, there is no depth or complexity to any of the characters, and even though the Operation Valkyrie story could’ve been quite interesting, in this form it only bored. The message of the film was probably that these men were heroes, standing up to Hitler for the greater “good” of the nation and its citizens. And you know what? I could’ve got that message from a one-liner. Two hours of straining “acting” footage is a bit pointless then, not?

I don’t have to say anything about Tom Cruise’s performance, right? Right.

Step Up 2: The Streets

Now, this is a film Tom Cruise would’ve been perfect in. His mediocre acting would have looked Academy worthy compared to everybody in Step Up 2: The Streets, Touchstone Pictures’s attempt to show that it has definitely turned into a sequels-for-money label.

Yes, it’s all about the dancing in this film, I get that. It’s not called “Step Up” for no good reason. (Though you can have a whole discussion whether or not this is actual “dancing worthy of recognition and the title ‘dancing’.”) But when even the dancing bores you in a dance film, someone’s in trouble. Especially considering that these dance competitions that are staged in the film are supposed to be off the hook. (All right, slang coming from me is ridiculous. I don’t do slang. Stereotypes do unfortunately, so that’s why Step Up 2 is slang after slang after slang.)

The Producers

Mel Brooks’s a genius. Period. (Even in a slightly flawed production. Wait, did I just disregard my own “Period.”? I’m a bitch, really. Period.)

Film ratings

Film	Studio	Grade	Stars
Departures	Shochiku	9.7
Alien Resurrection	20th Century Fox	6.7	—
The Secret Life of Bees	Fox Searchlight Pictures	8.8
Boom!	Universal Studios	6.6	—
Funny Girl	Columbia Pictures	9.6
Kiki’s Delivery Service	Studio Ghibli	9.6
Valkyrie	United Artists	8.1
Holiday	Columbia Pictures	8.5
Mad Max	Warner Bros.	8.2
Monster	Newmarket Entertainment	9.0
21	Columbia Pictures	7.1
Baby Mama	Universal Studios	7.9
Step Up 2: The Streets	Touchstone Pictures	6.5	—
Million Dollar Baby	Warner Bros.	9.4
The Producers (2005)	Universal Studios	8.5
He’s Just Not That Into You	New Line Cinema	7.2
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry	Universal Studios	7.3
RoboCop 2	Orion Pictures	5.9	—
RoboCop 3	Orion Pictures	4.7	—
Kathy Griffin: She’ll Cut a Bitch1	Bravo (NBC/U)	7.8

• Film ratings [15/16]
• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• Film ratings [12]
• Film ratings [11]

I’m not quite sure why I started on such a negative note here, because everything I will say now about the trailer of Precious has been discredited beforehand. Nevertheless, trust me when I say that Lee Daniels’s Precious will be one of the best films of 2009. Yes, I’m making that statement by only having seen the trailer — sue me. Gabourey Sidibe is fierce, believable and incredibly talented as the main character, Precious Jones. If this girl is willing to work for it and to take good acting decisions¹, I’m foreseeing a great career for her.

She isn’t the only one in the film excelling. Mo’Nique, Paula Patton (who looks a lot like Alicia Keys from some angles) and even Mariah Carey — yes, Mariah Carey — are incredible. I’m not sure whether they keep this intensity when one views the entire film, but from what I’ve seen so far I’m willing to bet on it that they do.

Coming November 6, 2009 (limited release). A must-see motion picture, that’s for sure.

• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• 2009 in Film: The Best-of Edition
• Film ratings [15/16]
• Film ratings [13/14]

“People like Sheba think they know what it is to be lonely. But of the drip, drip of the long-haul, no-end-in-sight solitude, they know nothing. What it’s like to construct an entire weekend around a visit to the launderette. Or to be so chronically untouched that the accidental brush of a bus conductor’s hand sends a jolt of longing straight to your groin. Of this, Sheba and her like have no clue.”
— Barbara Covett

Notes on a Scandal features two of the best actresses out there, Dame Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett. They each deliver superb performances, in a way in which you believe that you’re watching real life being played-out, instead of a screenplay moving along with actors presenting their dialogue and actions. Then why is it that I wasn’t entirely satisfied with this Rudin/Fox produced motion picture?

I haven’t read the novel by Zoë Heller, so I cannot really judge whether the story disappoints me because of the screenplay, or because the original source material isn’t satisfying me. There are some really good scenes in Notes, especially the ones with Dench (Barbara Covett) being a psycho bitch, but there are also a bunch of scenes which could’ve used some more depth and length.

Furthermore, I couldn’t stand Bill Nighy as Blanchett’s husband (Richard Hart). To be honest, I’ve never been a Nighy fan, so I’m a little bit biased; but in this role, in this film, Nighy is simply a distraction. His acting isn’t that good in Notes and he never really fits the role in my opinion. Andrew Simpson on the other hand is perfect as Blanchett’s love-interest, Steven Connolly. Simpson really becomes the character, and enchants and envelops the whole film. Dench and Blanchett are superb — Dench more than Blanchett in this particular piece — but Simpson has the best acting performance here.

On to Happily N’Ever After 2. The first film was a disaster, so this time they could’ve turned it all ’round and wowed me. And of course they didn’t deliver; not sure where that little bit of hope came from, to be honest. The plot is insane (not in a good way), the animation is amateurish and awful (also not in a good way), and there is basically no direction to be found throughout the film (never a good way, I guess). Every scene is predictable, all the twists are laughable, and the ending — oy vey, even Glitter had a more satisfying ending.

Replace “Happily N’Ever After 2” with “Fashion Victim” in the previous paragraph, and look, my review of Fashion Victim has been written. (That was an easy one, I have to confess. Nothing in the film shines; not the acting, not the ludicrous script, nor the amazing art setting or the fabulous film score. Fashion Victim is a film without a heart and without a brain.)

Changeling on the other hand does have a heart and a brain. The film moves with a lovely pace, the acting is precisely right — not too much overacting, not too little — and the art setting is mesmerising. The plot could have used a little boost; many people will disagree with me on this one, but I was wishing for more (melo)drama to be honest. There was a lot of that already, yes, but a little bit more could’ve pushed the film over the edge towards ultimate superbness.

Many people complained that Angelina Jolie shouldn’t have been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress at this year’s ceremony. First of all, it’s impossible that every acting member nominated her just because they wanted great ratings for the show. I mean, honestly, I can’t believe some people actually insinuated that scenario! Don’t you think Jolie an Pitt would’ve appeared at the Academy Awards anyway, regardless of the fact whether she was nominated or not?

Secondly, she deserved the nomination. There’s no way that she was worthy of an award, but her performance was excellent and very solid. Melodramatic when she needed to be, and when a scene called for it she suddenly turned to mellow and unexpressed, like that. People, stop complaining about her nomination. This was a worthy performance, period. (Saying “period” automatically calls for a comma before it, so it doesn’t actually help you out when you’re typing the expression. Moreover, then discussing it between parentheses also doesn’t help.)

Film ratings

Film	Studio	Grade	Stars
Happily N’Ever After 2	Lionsgate	4.2	—
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift	Universal Studios	6.9	—
Fashion Victim	Regent Entertainment	5.9	—
The Cat Returns	Studio Ghibli	9.0
And Then Came Summer	10% Productions	7.1
My Cousin Vinny	20th Century Fox	9.1
Notes on a Scandal	Fox Searchlight	8.7
Naked Boys Singing	TLA Releasing	7.3
Changeling	Universal Studios	9.2
Birth	New Line Cinema	8.8

• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• Film ratings [15/16]
• Film ratings [13/14]
• Film ratings [11]

“Men like you are the reason I left Finland.”
— Rebecca Bloomwood

Isla Fisher’s not a bad actress, just not the right actress for Confessions of a Shopaholic. I bet a lot of the people involved in this film aren’t bad at their job, it’s just that they messed up when it came to this particular film. With a little more substance, a lot less fluff, Shopaholic could have been more than just your average chick flick.

It’s fun and entertaining to see Fisher on screen; she has a special kind of twinkle in her eyes and in her step. You almost believe that she’s as airheaded as the director wants her character to be — almost, because it’s evident that she’s playing a character, instead of being the character. It’s not Fisher’s fault, I think, because every actor in this film breathes “acting!”, but perhaps it is the casting department’s glitch. A different actress, one with more dramatic experience, and perhaps the film would’ve been better. False hope, I know, as both the screenplay and the art setting seem a bit silly and unsuited for excellence to me.

On to Studio Ghibli, the second-best animation studio of all-time. Ever since I saw Spirited Away (I’m still not certain whether I saw Howl’s Moving Castle first, but it doesn’t really matter; both are superb), I have been in love and addicted to Ghibli’s masterpieces. Especially Princess Mononoke deserves the monicker “masterpiece” — every element in the film oozes excellence, imagination, enchantment.

It’s quite a different film from My Neighbours the Yamadas (playful and jolly) and My Neighbour Tortoro (youthful and spirited), but they all share a similar characteristic: Ghibli films go beyond what is fantasy, beyond imaginativeness. They let you move to another world, one that is magical yet thrilling, loving yet terrifying, emotionally-scorching yet tender and sweet. Every extreme is stuffed into the Ghibli imagination; the vision they share is that of a child’s: limitless and beyond our mortal world.

Then you have a contrasting film like Jim Carrey’s Yes Man. Made up out of a storyline that consists of a one-liner. I want to want to still like Carrey; meaning that I don’t care about him, but I wish I wanted to, I really do. There’s no comedy left in him, just witty remarks recycled from his previous lives. Unfortunate, but also inevitable. Just look at Eddie Murphy.

I’m going to end with another “comedy film”: How to Steal a Million. It’s not a good film, not incredibly funny or witty, has a lot of flaws (including the infamous French-who-speak-English-shortcoming), and needed a bit more direction. So, why does Million get an 8.5, while Yes Man gets a 7.5? Is it just the fact that Audrey Hepburn and Hugh Griffith are awesome? Is it because this classic film’s cinematography makes everything look better? Maybe it’s all that, but on top of that it’s the fact that the story deserves to be more. Yes Man‘s storyline doesn’t deserve anything, just to be forgotten.

Film ratings

Film	Studio	Grade	Stars
Sixty Six	Universal Studios	8.1
My Neighbour Totoro	Studio Ghibli	9.5
Princess Mononoke	Studio Ghibli	9.7
My Neighbours the Yamadas	Studio Ghibli	9.1
A Streetcar Named Desire	Warner Bros.	9.2
Confessions of a Shopaholic	Touchstone Pictures	7.4
Yes Man	Warner Bros.	7.5
How to Steal a Million	20th Century Fox	8.5
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day	Focus Features	8.3
Anastasia	20th Century Fox	8.6

• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• Film ratings [15/16]
• Film ratings [13/14]
• Film ratings [12]

Well, I guess mainly because it’s not considered unnecessary by those outspoken and frank atheists. Perhaps because the world is still ruled by religion and it is turning out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy; or maybe because the issue of God’s existence is not of little importance considering the fact that in some countries laws and policies are still being executed based upon (some) God’s way.

There are two groups of people proclaiming said question to atheists: agnostics and theists. I don’t think I even have to discuss agnostics, considering the fact that it’s weird that they even have the guts to ask that question. Why does an agnostic care what atheists are doing? If one group is apathetic towards the big questions, it’s the one inhabited by agnostics. Now, theists on the other hand present an ironic case here.

What does a slightly-radical and thus plainspoken atheist want? For religion to stop existing, hence shutting up those who preach and believe it. In fact, many atheists ask themselves, “why don’t theists just shut up?” And I’ll tell you why they won’t: because for a religion to succeed, in a fairly political manner, there has to be a large group of people behind it, supporting the religion and converting people to their ways. A personal religion, one that only exists within a small and confined group of people, doesn’t work because each religion preaches that they know how to save the world of evil and how everyone should lead their lives. How does one go about saving other people from the fires of hell, or from a life of mischief and meaninglessness? Well, by converting these people, naturally. By force if that needs to be done.

Missionaries are the foremost representatives of this converting business, trying to inject their beliefs into the gooey logic boards of others. Oh, sure, some of the missionary groups also try to “help people,” but most of them have only their own interests at heart.

To illustrate this, I have an example set out for you. This is all a terrible aside, but important enough not to put it in the footnotes. A while back, a large missionary ship (“zendelingenboot” in Dutch) left from the Dutch port of Scheveningen towards Africa (where else, Hawaii?).¹ Their main goal was to help the people and provide support. Nothing wrong with that, you say; well, let me finish my story, will you?

You would think they would be providing these people food, water, or at least something useful, but no — what these three-hundred-and-fifty missionaries brought along on their big, expensive, luxury ship was just plain stupid: books. That’s right, nothing to eat, just books. And no self-help books either, or books about agriculture, economics, (international) law or politics. This big ship was filled with books about Jesus Christ, God, religion, the Ten Commandments, how to live your life according to His way, et cetera.

Confronted with the question whether or not it would be more helpful to bring along some food for these people, the staff came up with the stupefyingly moronic explanation that as soon as these people would embrace God, they would get unlimited fortune, plenty of food and the cleanest and purest water. Naturally! Because embracing God was such a big help to all the millions of Africans already converted to Christianity!

Not to mention the fact that all the books were in English. Now, I’m betting a lot of Africans are English-able (especially the cityfolk), but do you know what is also a hot language in Africa? French. Apparently those who speak French don’t have to be saved via these holy books — these Frenchies are apparently already doomed to the eternal hellfire, so why care? As are all the other people on the continent who aren’t able to speak English or any other major language, I guess.

Why don’t they, the theists, just shut up? Is it helpful that they’re talking about their religion every time they encounter a non-believer? I would say that it’s pretty pointless, considering it’s one big fat lie, but looking at it from the perspective of a theist, everything I am saying is one big fat lie.

So why do atheists do it? Perhaps we’re doing it for all the same reasons the theists are doing it. To win over some souls, to build a large supporting group, a secular army if you will, to bring about global secularism. Just like theists, atheists are also in the business of converting; only in contrast to the theists, atheists aren’t pushing their restrictions of life onto other people —  they’re doing quite the opposite, by ridding people of their need to pray, to obey a crazy man wearing a tiara in the Vatican, and to exonerate them from a made-up and specious afterlife.

• The God Question is not benign
• Eradication or secular edification
• Notes on religion
• The pushy belief of atheist movements

“I am Shiva the destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.”
— Kym

While watching Jonathan Demme’s Rachel Getting Married, I was thinking just one thing: my oh my, Anne Hathaway has grown into a marvellous and strong actress, one who will be able to continuously wow us. Sure, last week I bitched about the awful Bride Wars, and yes, I thought that Passengers was a mediocre mess, but I can’t possibly say anything negative about her performance in Rachel Getting Married.¹

Hathaway’s performance is strengthened by Demme’s direction and the screenplay by Jenny Lumet, and all the while watching the film I was going over the similarities in style and subject between Rachel and Margot at the Wedding (directed by Noah Baumbach). Because of the direction and writing of both, it seems that you’re not watching actors playing out a screenplay, but characters, living day to day, experiencing the positive and mostly-negative in life.

But enough about what is good in film. Looking over my selection of last week, I noticed something odd; the first four films were crap, utter and plain crap. I don’t even want to spoil a whole paragraph on any of them, so I’ll just use one sentence per flop:

• The Love Guru: I don’t see why this is comedy;
• Testosterone: what just happened?;
• Kissing on the Mouth: what just didn’t happen?;
• Death Race: kill me, kill me now.

On to Merchant Ivory. Do I even have to say anything more? “Merchant Ivory” should be included in the Oxford English Dictionary as a synonym for “excellence.” Last week I watched the sensual Maurice and the brilliant Howards End, with Anthony Hopkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Helena Bonham Carter and Emma Thompson. Both excel at everything, especially in the acting, directing and stage setting categories. I don’t know what it is, but Merchant Ivory films have something about them; I think it’s the passion both Ivory and the late Merchant had for film-making and storytelling.

Film ratings

Film	Studio	Grade	Stars
The Love Guru	Paramount Pictures	6.7	—
Testosterone	Strand Releasing	5.7	—
Kissing on the Mouth	Swanberg	4.6	—
Death Race	Universal Studios	5.6	—
A Crude Awakening	Lava Productions	8.5
Rachel Getting Married	Sony Pictures Classics	9.1
Coffee Date	TLA Releasing	8.0
Howards End	Sony Pictures Classics	9.5
The Women	Picturehouse	7.6
Maurice	Cinecom	9.4

• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• Film ratings [15/16]
• Film ratings [13/14]
• Film ratings [12]

Where was I? Ah, all right. I’m not dead, it’s just that I haven’t had the time to update, in addition to the fact that my trusty iMac had a heart attack, leaving me behind, all alone, to take care of our three children, Shcherbatsky, Vronsky and Karenina. (What? So I named my external hard drives after characters in Anna Karenina. I bet that’s not that weird.) Also, I was preparing to send some of my short stories and poems to literary magazines, but — there’s always a “but” in my life — since it’s all stored on my external hard drive, which is formatted in HFS+, I can’t get to any of it until my iMac is restored or replaced. *cheer*

So, stop celebrating and start crying! If all goes according to plan, I’ll be returning soon! Aren’t you glad I will?

• Themes of my life
• “The Girl, the Boy and the Troth”
• “I Do, You Do Not”
• Writing developments

“Ethel Thayer. It sounds like I’m lisping, doesn’t it?”
— Norman Thayer Jr.

A superb actor lacks the ability to act. He or she will not show any signs of acting and will embody the character instead of plainly acting out the screenplay. You could say a good actor needs to be possessed by his/her character, unwilling to be who they were but only willing to be all that the film asks of them. The acting part should be taken out of acting.

Now, let me present you On Golden Pond. Katharine Hepburn, Henry Fonda, Jane Fonda and Doug McKeon (yes, the then-little boy deserves top billing). This is not Henry Fonda we’re looking at, it’s Norman Thayer Jr. Katharine Hepburn? We’ve only got Ethel here. All these superb actors are the personifications of their characters, instead of just being the characters’s three-dimensional marionettes.

On the other end of the acting scope we’ve got Bride Wars, a far cry from On Golden Pond‘s grandness. You want to see “acting”? Go watch this Anne Hathaway—Kate Hudson melodrama, and all you’ll see is actors trying to be what the script tells them to be. Be furious, so they act furious. Be loveable, so they try to be loveable. Make this film look better than its screenplay, plot and director think it can be, … well, that one you won’t see.

The girls in this film are self-centered, egotistical and just plain dumb, and their fiancés have too little emotion and significance to them to even merit a description. Perhaps this is all the intent of the creators, but I’m not sure that 20th Century Fox consciously set out to produce a mess of a film. With a rewrite they could’ve added some intelligence to it all, perhaps providing these two Academy Award-nominated actresses with some substance. Why is it that filmmakers think that chick-flicks and romantic comedies have to be mind-numbingly stupid to succeed?

Why don’t they just take after Rumor Has It…?¹ It’s a film with its own set of flaws, I have to admit to that, but overall, the spirit behind it all, the feistiness of some of its characters, the melodramatics — they all strike me as highly entertaining, rather than monotonous and incredibly boring.

All right, I wish Shirley MacLaine would stop wasting her time on these types of films, and I hope that Jennifer Aniston one day realises that she’s wasting her talent by playing Rachel Green over-and-over-and-over. Also, I myself realised that Mark Ruffalo is a pretty replaceable actor in anything he has ever played, which isn’t all that of a compliment I guess.

But Ruffalo shouldn’t complain, because at least he’s still a bankable actor, unlike Eddie Murphy. It’s not a revelation of any sort to say that Eddie Murphy has lost much of the charm he once possessed. Oh, I enjoyed watching Meet Dave, I might have even laughed, giggled and smiled throughout the whole ninety minutes. Nevertheless, for me to do this I had to surpress any critical thought, because let’s be honest, Meet Dave can only be classified as horrible when critical thought is applied.

There is actual comedy in this comedy film, but you’ll have to search for it. Most of the scenes are bad slapstick, accompanied by terrible dialogue and giggle-inducing acting. Eddie Murphy is trying to act like a robot throughout it all, but all the while you’re thinking, “Hey, this is what Eddie Murphy looks like when he’s trying to look like an Eddie Murphy-robot.” The “live-action” Eddie Murphy miniature in the film is an improvement, but not a big one.

Here is the twist to my story: is this film trying to be more than what it really is? The dialogue, terrible as it is, seems to fit perfectly into it all. Somehow, the acting seems natural in the context of this film, as does the Eddie Murphy-robot acting. Meet Dave isn’t trying to be a smart comedy like The Princess Bride², and in that setting I’ve watched and reviewed the film. Two stars seems a bit high for a film as crappy as this one, but something has to be said for a film acknowledging its own idiocy and embracing the fact that it’s nothing more than just pure entertainment.

Film ratings

Film	Studio	Grade	Stars
Breakfast With Scot	Regent Entertainment	7.3
The Bucket List	Warner Bros.	8.3
Shelter	TLA Releasing	8.6
Rumor Has It…	Warner Bros.	8.5
Passengers	TriStar Pictures	7.0
When Harry Met Sally…	Columbia Pictures	9.0
Zack and Miri Make a Porno	The Weinstein Co.	8.1
On Golden Pond	Universal Studios	9.6
Bride Wars	20th Century Fox	7.0
Meet Dave	20th Century Fox	7.7

• Film ratings [17]: It’s Not Complicated
• Film ratings [15/16]
• Film ratings [13/14]
• Film ratings [12]