Tripping the Life Sarcastic

I understand that there's more than a little irony in getting nostalgic about sarcasm, but if ever there was a film or TV series that deserved some love, it's "Daria". In honor of the release of the complete series on DVD last month, here's a look back at one of the best cartoons from the past 20 years.

Sarcasm has a very special place in the world of American comedy, specifically television, and few recent shows aimed at teens put it to better use than this one. For those who don't recall, "Daria" ran on MTV from 1997-2001, lasting five seasons (13 episodes each) and two hour-long TV movies. The show centered on laid-back, pessimistic, realistic, detached Daria Morgendorfer, as she navigated high school, portrayed as a world of vapid classmates and condescending adults. If anything could sum up the series' protagonist, it was its tagline: Talks Slow, Thinks Fast. But while the show's protagonist could be contained in those four words, Daria Morgendorfer and the show around her was really so much more. Not only does it remain one of the best things to ever come out of MTV (which now spends its time making masterpieces like "Jersey Shore"), but it's a stand-out among animated series. It didn't play dumb, it didn't talk down to its audience, and it didn't go out of its way with gags involving stupidity or gross-out moments. And despite having a smaller following than "Beavis and Butthead" (of which it was a spin-off), it has an appeal that stretches from high school students to adults (I'll cite my parents as examples).

It's easy enough to see what made "Daria" such a treat for its fan base. At a time when pop-culture excess was really starting to blow-up among the high school set, "Daria" offered a refreshingly dry, witty, and often hilarious commentary on the dumbing-down of teenage life. And I mean hilarious. Though Daria delivers her lines in a monotone, she has the majority of the show's smartest, most cutting jokes, referencing everything from Dostoevsky to the Hanoi Hilton. And while the characters of Lawndale may be exaggerations (the thick-headed jock, the dumb blonde cheerleader, etc...), the shows use of the characters and their relation to Daria was never taken too far. Consider Brittany, the aforementioned dumb cheerleader. While she's dumb as rock and occasionally says things indicating her support of the stereotypical "caste system" of highschool, she is never cruel to Daria for being a "brain". Brittany is even given her own shining moment. After saying stupid, vapid things throughout the first season, Brittany suddenly shines as a skilled military tactician when the school goes on a field trip to play paint ball. Then there’s Quinn, Daria's fashion-obsessed younger sister who tells her friends that Daria is a distant cousin. Like Brittany, she’s mostly distant or at odds with Daria, yet she shows some growth in the fifth season when Daria briefly takes over her English class. Another notable character is Jodi Landon, who lacked Daria's sarcasm but made up for it in being both smart AND active in the school community (student council president, president of French Club, etc...). An episode where the two girls talk about the pros and cons of their respective personalities is easily one of the most insightful, humbling moments in the entire show. And yet even the characters who remained the same, like the elitist, hilariously-voiced Fashion Club never grew stale, because the show's writers new exactly how each member of the Daria-verse fit in to the puzzle.

But like many teen-oriented shows, "Daria" also took on issues, and once again it surpassed the competition. As was often the case in the 90s and even early 2000s, when teen shows wanted to address an issue, you could see it coming from a mile away. I can't keep track of the number of shows that ran ads like, "this week on a very special episode of _____". So while many shows presented ham-fisted scenarios to address topics, "Daria" did it seamlessly, even if it was presented in exaggeration (Principal Li selling out the school to a soda company for funding). In fact, "Daria" almost never felt like it was making a huge deal out of issues, even when Daria herself had a chance to monologue, because it was simply THERE. The writers were smart enough to know that the show's audience didn't need to be beat over the head with a message.

But perhaps the greatest single strength of "Daria," amid all of the laughs, was that it never canonized its protagonist. Though the first season never put Daria in the wrong, as the show progressed it wasn't afraid to occasionally make Daria do something that required her to make amends. This culminated late in season four wherein Daria more or less lures away her best friend's boyfriend. This brings us Jane Lane. Though I've already talked about the characters, I've saved Jane for last because she is one of the show's greatest strengths, and possibly even a better character than Daria herself. The fact that she actually has aspirations and is often shown working on pieces of art only add dimension to her, and keeps her from being Daria-lite. And while not as book smart as Daria, Jane is a more accessible, though often equally sarcastic, foil; she is the heart to Daria's brain.

So how does "Daria" hold up 13 years after it first premiered? Well, after plowing through all five seasons on DVD, pretty damn well, even if 99% of the soundtrack is missing due to licensing issues. In an age when pop-culture seems to be increasingly headed in the direction of an Idiocracy (I'm looking at you, Ke$ha), "Daria" serves as a reminder that to discerning audiences, being a "brain" can still be cool.

Grade: A

When the Musical met the 21st Century: A look back at the evolution of a troubled genre

For as far as we can trace (to be, well, vague), song has played a key role as a form of artistic expression and entertainment, and has evolved to meet the times. Most holy texts, such as the Bible, include passages meant to be sung or chanted, and the ancient mythologies of Greece, Rome, and beyond have a story or two involving a musical instrument. Moving forward, music played an increasingly integral part in the developing arts, and by the 20th century, it had fused with the art of storytelling, to create a genre unlike any before. It was nothing new for songs to tell stories, some of them spanning years, but for songs to be condensed to in-the-moment, explanatory, limited devices was a unique creation if ever there was one. Through the 1900s the form developed on the Broadway stage where it flourished, and even made an impact on film (Broadway Melody, from 1929, won Best Picture). Through the following decades more successful silver screen musicals followed, often adapted from hit Broadway Shows (Gigi, The Sound of Music, and My Fair Lady, all Best Picture winners, and Cabaret, which picked up Best Director). And then a curious thing happened on the way to the forum: after the Best Picture win of Oliver! in 1968, the genre, after several years of ups and downs, flat-lined. That's not to say that there weren't musicals (1978's smash Grease), but they gradually began to lose prestige and commercial appeal as a genre. By the time the 90s arrived, the remotely successful films featuring characters bursting into song, outside of 1996's Golden Globe and Oscar-winning Evita (underrated), were the animated films of the Disney Renaissance. And while Disney (and Alan Menken) racked up a number of score and original song trophies, the idea of people singing their feelings suddenly became a tactic only fit for "kids movies" (almost exclusively cartoons). Meanwhile, musicals were booming on Broadway, with smashes like Les Miserables, Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Rent all beginning their monumental runs in the mid-80s and -90s. And then the 90s ended, and the guillotine blade finally dropped. Or did they?

As it anyone who pays attention to film would know, the musical is, well, back, and it happened way before Hugh Jackman proclaimed it at last year's Oscar ceremony. It may not be bursting with life and firing on all cylinders, but it's in better shape than it once was 10 or 20 years ago, and that's saying something. The purpose, then, of this post is to look back on the first 10 decade of the 2000s, and examine how far the musical has come, setbacks and all. Going chronologically, this means our first stop is:

1. Moulin Rouge! (2001) dir. Baz Luhrmann: This is, mostly, the BIG one. Why? Lots...and LOTS of reasons. Though it proved to be a love/hate experience, Luhrmann's frenetic editing, gorgeously over-the-top visuals, and old fashioned theatrics won over the majority of critics with its mix of Top 40 hits remixed for a bizarro take on Paris in 1899/1900. Luhrmann's film was a classic example of a film that didn't have an original plot, but told its plot in an extraordinary way, and the Academy took notice. The film led the Oscars with 8 nominations, including its groundbreaking nomination for Best Picture, and a Lead Actress nomination for star Nicole Kidman. Featuring a brilliant ensemble to match its lead duo (the other half of which was played by Ewan McGregor, sadly snubbed by AMPAS), the film was broad in its comedy, outlandish in its visuals, yet ultimately packed an emotional punch underneath all of the glitter and fancy costumes. Filled with now iconically staged numbers ("Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend", "Your Song", "El Tango de Roxanne"), Luhrmann's film also wore its heart on its sleeve loudly and proudly, and the result was pure magic. The musical was back.

• Oscars: 2 out of 8 nominations (Art Direction and Costume Design)
  
• Golden Globes: 3: Best Picture (Musical/Comedy) and Best Actress (Musical/Comedy) and Best Score
  
• Box Office (Domestic): $57 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $121 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 77%
• Best Performance: Nicole Kidman
• Best Scene: "El Tango de Roxanne"
• Impact on the musical genre: HUGE, and all of it positive
  

2. Chicago (2002) dir. Rob Marshall: As luck would have it, the Moulin Rouge! found a perfect companion film the following year. A more minimalist take on the genre (sort of), Rob Marshall's stellar adaptation of the so-called "unfilmable" stage show cemented the idea that the musical was a legitimate genre. Like Luhrmann's film, the numbers are brilliantly staged ("Cell Block Tango", "Roxie") are fantastically performed by Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, and John C. Reilly. Marshall's film, aside from taking more than a few cues from Bob Fosse, did something different: it wasn't afraid to cut songs from its source material (a problem Moulin Rouge! didn't have to deal with). Marshall also wasn't afraid to try something different with the songs themselves; instead of characters bursting into song along with the world around them, Marshall gave the songs (save for one, but it was justified) a unitive theme: they are all taking place in the "show in Roxie's mind". Such a device gave Marshall's film a greater sense of purpose, and he would employ the same device (though not quite as successfully) in Nine. Chicago also provided one last bit of importance. It showed audiences that songs weren't just there to be sung; they could be acted. Case-in-point, John C. Reilly. The role isn't given too much to do, and only has one major song. So why did Reilly get nominated for Best Supporting Actor? Because when he sang "Mr. Cellophane", the one song not tinged in cynicism, it struck a chord, and it struck a big one. And while Reilly went home empty-handed from the Oscars, the fact that co-star Zeta-Jones took home Supporting Actress, is proof enough.

• Oscars: 6 including Best Picture
• Golden Globes: Best Picture (Musical/Comedy), Best Actor (Musical/Comedy), Best Actress (Musical/Comedy)
• Director's Guild of America: Best Director
• Box Office (Domestic): $170 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $136 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 87%
• Best Performance: Catherine Zeta-Jones
• Best Scene: "Cell Block Tango"
• Impact: Moulin Rouge! x 2

3. The Phantom of the Opera (2004) dir. Joel Schumacher: Like the third Godfather film, the third big musical of the decade wasn't quite what everyone hoped it would be. Based on the massively popular soon-to-be longest running show on Broadway, Schumacher's film, though absolutely gorgeous in sight and sound, didn't quite capture critics the way its predecessors did. Personally, I like the film; there are flaws (good lord, there are flaws), but overall it's a decent enough film, that's always a treat for the eyes and ears. The problem is, it's almost too pretty. The aspects of the film that should be dark and nasty are either too tame or too, well, pretty. The Phantom's lair, complete with plush swan-shaped bed (wha...?) is in spots beyond campy (the two hulking men carved into the wall to look like they're holding up the ceiling...anyone?), despite the lushness of it all. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Phantom's scarring, when revealed, is too light; it looks more like a really bad sunburn in the process of peeling, rather than a horrific deformity. The other big problem is that, in not really changing anything, the film is too much a literal adaptation, giving one the feeling of watching a filmed version of the stage show. There are good things...besides the costumes, I mean. The songs are wonderful to hear, and anytime Emmy Rossum opens her mouth to sing, the film soars. Even the ridiculously huge statues in the cemetery can't diminish her mind-blowing rendition of "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" (a song which I had completely forgotten about after seeing a 'blah' performance on Broadway). Minnie Driver is also fun as the diva Carlotta, a role that actually requires a fat dollop of camp. Awards wise, the negative press didn't help the film, even in the artistic categories. But the biggest insult was the film's snub for Costume Design in favor of the likes of Troy. That, or having Beyonce butcher the already "just alright" original song, "Learn to be Lonely".

• Oscars: nominated for 3
• Golden Globes: Nominated for 3
• Box Office (Domestic): $51 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $103 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 33%
• Best Performance: Emmy Rossum
  
• Best Scene: "Masquerade"
• Impact: Slightly hurtful, though not devastating. It managed decent box office in spite of the reviews.

4. Rent (2005) dir. Chris Colombus: To me, this was the first real sour note in the musical revival, and critical consensus was overall 'meh' (however, the fact that this film has a higher RT score than both Phantom and Nine is disturbing). My gripes are mostly the same as the naysayers with paychecks: Colombus' film does nothing to innovate the source material. The film's signature song is, like on Broadway, just there; a thematic prologue of sorts. Unfortunately, it doesn't add up to much. The performers are all trying, but the story is limply told, and the numbers staged and shot unengagingly save for "The Tango Maureen". Most of them, while fun on the stage, feel cramped on film. Prime example is Jesse Martin's song set in a subway car; Martin's hulking frame, bouncing around and trying to groove, simply looks too big to be dancing in a real subway car. The song "La Vie Boheme" doesn't fare any better, with the cast dancing on table tops in a cramped restaurant. In the end, the film didn't go very far, especially outside of the states, and on this matter, I'm not complaining.

• Major Awards/Nominations: none
• Box Office (Domestic): $29 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $2.5 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 48%
  
• Best Performance: Rosario Dawson (?); frankly, I don't really remember any of them...
• Best Scene: "The Tango Maureen," which isn't saying much.
• Impact: Negative to those who weren't avid fans of the stage show.

5. The Producers (2005) dir. Susan Stroman: Instead of waiting another year or two, audiences got a second musical only weeks later, with the results better than the previous entry, but still nothing that could rival the Luhrmann/Marshall one-two punch. Like Chicago and Moulin Rouge!, The Producers benefits from having a number or two staged within the head of a character, or on a stage within the film, which is where some of the best parts occur (it's pretty hard to ruin "Springtime for Hitler"). So where does it misfire? The look. The sets, and more importantly, the lighting on said sets, feels flat; it lacks richness and subtlety. The inside of Max's (Nathan Lane) apartment is so evenly lit that it looks more like the set of a sitcom. And while the cast are all trying hard (with varying degrees of success), the overall effort feels stifled, in part due to Stroman's willingness to become enslaved by the source material. That said, while I'm not rushing to re-watch this anytime soon, it certainly didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's flaws aren't heinous, but they're simply too balanced out by the positives, none of which are outstanding.

• Oscars: zero
  
• Golden Globes: 4 nominations: Best Picture (M/C), Actor - Lane (M/C), Supporting Actor - Ferrell, Original Song
• Box Office (Domestic): $19 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $18 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 55%
  
• Best Performance: Nathan Lane
• Best Scene: "Springtime for Hitler"
• Impact: reinforced the idea that musicals belong on a stage

6. Dreamgirls (2006) dir. Bill Condon: Hype can be a dangerous thing, and it certainly was the case in Dreamgirls. Touted as a Best Picture frontrunner before an official trailer had even premiered, the film, despite winning the Best Picture Golden Globe (M/C), missed out on nominations for Picture and director. While it wasn't as good as the first two musicals of the decade, it was a very well made movie, and probably what Phantom should have been if left unaltered: a generally well paced, energetic musical that does not remove a single song, and by its end has outstayed its welcome by a mere 10 minutes or so. Condon, who helped write Marshall's film, wasn't as strong of a director, but his literal translation was a success because he understood the material. Certain songs didn't gel as well as others, but they were never distracting. And for the most part, the performances were solid-to-very-good, save for Jamie Foxx. The stars here were Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson, who was OK in her acting parts but so perfectly sold her songs (especially the big one), that it almost didn't matter. She may not have given the best supporting performance of the year, but it's hard to deny the impact she had. Apply a similar sentence for the film as a whole, and you basically have it in a nutshell.

• Oscars: 2 out of 8 nominations (Supporting Actress and Sound Mixing)
• Golden Globes: Won 3 out of 5, including Best Picture (M/C)
• Box Office (Domestic): $103 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $51 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 78%
• Best Performance: Eddie Murphy
• Best Scene: "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going"
• Impact: A big step forward after two steps backwards

7. Hairspray (2007) dir. Adam Shankman: Unlike The Producers, this film actually benefited from a deluge of brightly lit sets. The stage musical has always been big, loud, and bright, and the film version was too. Featuring a cast of old pros and newcomers, the numbers were well performed, even from Travolta, who generated too much controversy to play his role as an actual woman, instead of an in-joke of "omg it's a man in drag haha" (which I don't think works off of the stage). And while the barrier created by the silver screen does slightly hinder the tremendous energy of the show (the finale on stage almost brings the roof down), it's still a boisterous blast. Some aspects are weaker either due to writing or casting. Amanda Bynes doesn't do nearly enough as geeky best friend Penny, a role often made much nerdier, but also much more endearing and easy to root for as she emerges from her shell. Then there's Queen Latifah, whose performance lacks the necessary sass, and feels too gentle. However, newcomer Nikki Blonsky, Travolta, and Michelle Pfeiffer, along with Elijah Kelley, light up the screen with presence and enough vocal strength to match.

• Oscars: zero
• Golden Globes: nominated for 3: Best Picture (M/C), Actress (M/C), and Supporting Actor
• Box Office (Domestic): $118 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $83 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 91%
• Best Performance: John Travolta
• Best Scene: "You Can't Stop the Beat"
• Impact: musicals could work as light, summer fare, and still draw in acclaim

8. Sweeney Todd (2007) dir. Tim Burton: Over the course of Tim Burton's career, the man has tried man different genres, but until his 2007 masterpiece of sorts, never touched on the musical genre. Finding a stage musical with material perfectly suited to his liking, Burton's adaptation, though not high on vocal prowess, succeeded thanks to its tightly told story, and songs that were well staged and performed with a brilliant combination of singing and acting. By cutting the Greek chorus like set of narrators, reducing or removing subplots, and focusing on his two leads, Burton created a fantastic musical that was, *gasp*, R-rated. Dark, funny, and surprisingly intense, the film may have finally earned Johnny Depp a Golden Globe award, but the real star here was Helena Bonham Carter, who knocked her role out of the park. Backed up by a wonderful supporting cast including Sacha Baron Cohen and Alan Rickman, Burton's film was also a technical marvel, which, combined with a sharp screenplay, and Burton's most assured directing in years, left a stunning impression as it faded to black.

• Oscars: Won 1 out of 3 nominations (Best Art Direction)
• Golden Globes: Won 2 out of 4 nominations: Best Picture (M/C) and Best Actor (M/C)
• Box Office (Domestic): $52 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $99 million
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 85%
• Best Performance: Helena Bonham Carter (where was her Oscar nomination!?)
  
• Best Scene: "A Little Priest"
• Impact: musicals can be dark (very dark) and nuanced, and still make money.

9. Mamma Mia! (2008) dir. Phyllidia Lloyd: The second musical to feature an exclamation point in its title, suffered from literal-translation-syndrome, though this didn't hinder the film's box-office, which is by a wide margin the highest for any musical this decade thanks to foreign audiences (Chicago is still king on stateside profits alone). Based on the ABBA jukebox stage show, the film cast certainly seemed to have a blast, and they generally sang well (although I'm still concerned about what Meryl Streep was doing with her hands during "The Winner Takes it All"). The problem was that the moments between the songs were, for the most part, not too engaging, and the musical sequences were often shot too close up, or waaaaaaaaaaay too far back, meaning the energy of numbers like "Dancing Queen" was muted, even as dozens of women danced on a boardwalk. That said, Streep is fun to watch as always, and the young cast are fun too. In the hands of a better director and writer, this could have been as good or better than Hairspray; sadly, it's not quite there (although audiences obviously disagreed).

• Oscars: none
• Golden Globes: nominated for 2
  
• Box Office (Domestic): $144 million
• Box Office (Foreign): $465 million (not making that up)
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 53%
• Best Performance: Meryl Streep
• Best Scene: "Take a Chance on Me"
• Impact: Meryl Streep can officially do anything, and musicals can make money. Lots and lots of money. Especially in the summer. money.

10. Nine (2009) dir. Rob Marshall: Rob Marshall's second musical effort sadly isn't as strong as his first, despite a bucketload of stars. That said, even though I've downgraded my review of the film to a "B", the amount of hate thrown at this movie strikes me as preposterous. Perhaps it was the Fellini comparisons, or the fact that the story wasn't as deep as it could have been. I'm not going to say that the film is without problems, but only 38% on Rotten Tomatoes? Really? I understand that the film doesn't really score top marks as far as being a totally compelling drama is, but to be fair, 8 1/2 isn't really a hard hitting drama either. Sadly, turning a Fellini film into a musical and then transferring it to the screen wasn't the best idea commercially; the $80 million film has only grossed $11 million as of Saturday, and its theater count is being reduced, which is a shame. Nine may not be the stunner that everyone hoped it would be, but to call it junk, a travesty, or one of the worst films of the year (no joke, I've seen it on one Bottom 10 list...) is going too far. Rob Marshall may not be Fellini, but that doesn't mean he deserves to take such a beating for making some mistakes.

• Oscars: nominations not yet revealed
• Golden Globes: 5 nominations, ceremony on January 17th
• Box Office (Domestic): $14 million
• Box Office (Foreign): not yet released in many overseas markets
• Rotten Tomatoes Score: 38% (lower than Rent, Mamma Mia!, and The Producers? Really?)
• Best Performance: Marion Cotillard
• Best Scene: "Take it All"
• Impact: pretty meh, unless it does decently during awards season. The genre should recover, however.

So there we have it, 10 years, and 10 musicals (I left off Once because it's more of a film about music), with good and bad moments throughout. As we plunge into the next 10 years, it's going to be exciting to see where this genre goes. Hopefully, 10 years from now, I won't be writing about the death of the movie musical; that would be a shame.

A message to rabid fans of "The Dark Knight"

Obviously, The Dark Knight had quite an amazing year. Not only was it a commercial smash, becoming the second biggest domestic hit of all time (behind Titanic), but it also received rave reviews, and not just for Heath Ledger's performance. And now there's the increasingly likely chance that The Dark Knight could take another massive leap forward for "comic book movies" (although it's much more than that) and become a Best Picture nominee. In spite of what I'm getting ready to say, I would actually be thrilled it that happened, considering that so many of the end of the year "Oscar-bait" films have either underwhelmed, or simply been very-good-but-not-great. Now, that being said, there are some who are taking The Dark Knight's Oscar campaign a little bit too far. Take the opening of this "review" written back in July just after the film's release....

Note to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: Usually you have a tendency to stick your nose in the air at genre films. Your taste has become less and less based in reality, and you are in danger of becoming irrelevant. If you want to avoid this, you must nominate “The Dark Knight” for Best Picture, and not only must Heath Ledger be nominated for Best Supporting Actor; he better win it. Otherwise you will become the joke many already suspect your organization of being.

There are so many things wrong with this. First, since when is this guy in a position to try and bully The Academy? This is, after all, from a website that was only started in mockery of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Yes, one could say that the Academy (particularly the older/more traditional members) does sometimes ignore "genre films" (although, isn't EVERY film part of at least one genre?). But apparently the Oscar success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, or even the fact that the original Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture, isn't enough to appease some of the true rabids. Perhaps the weakest argument the writer makes is that the Academy's taste is, "less based in reality" (what on earth does that mean?) and that they are in danger of, "becoming irrelevant". Okay, so maybe he's upset that the Academy tends to go for movies that don't make a lot of money (again, completely ignoring the Oscar love for Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Titanic and Chicago) but is that really a real reason to call someone out? According to his logic, the Academy is almost a joke because they reward films that don't always make a bunch of money, thereby implying that the masses didn't rush out to see them. However, is it really the Academy's fault that a lot of the movies they nominate don't have massive box office returns? No, that blame goes to the studios who open films in 10 theaters and expand them across the nation at a glacial pace. And going back to the issue of popularity, if the 2007 Oscars had been based purely on "what the greatest number of American people saw", then the Best Picture nominees would have looked like this:

• Spider-man 3
• Shrek the Third
• Transformers
• Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (the only really good film of the five)

Yikes. So, back to that review excerpt, the other issue that infuriates me is that he demands that The Dark Knight be nominated for Picture, and that Heath Ledger must not only be nominated for supporting actor, but that he MUST WIN or else the Academy will be a complete joke. While I do think that the movie should be nominated and that Ledger should win, to say that Ledger MUST win isn't just whiny, but it's insulting to all of the other supporting actor contenders throughout the year; this guy is saying that those other men don't matter, because "OMG HEATH LEDGER GAVE LIKE DA BEST PERFORMANCE EVAAAAH!!!" And if The Dark Knight doesn't get nominated, maybe it's not because of an anti-comic book bias, but maybe the Academy simply thought that there were five movies more deserving of the spots. Get over it. If all this whining and moaning continues, it could very well spoil Ledger's increasingly likely Oscar. No one likes sore winners.

A message to writers/journalists/bloggers everywhere...

I know I'm probably not the best person to go on a rant about grammar. I catch ludicrous mistakes on here all the time, and there are most likely errors in this very post. However, when I make mistakes like "they're house" instead of "their house", it's usually an accident that I fix as I soon as I find it. For many, unfortunately, this is not the case. So, not to sound like some insufferable English teacher, but I feel like I have to at least sound off on some of the grammatical errors that simply drive me over the edge. Now no one can say that I didn't try.

1) Their vs They're vs There

• It's actually REALLY simple. Their is possesive, they're is a contraction meaning "they are", and there is a reference to location. Some examples to drive home the point....
• I want to burn that copy of "Twilight" sitting on that table over there.
• I can't believe they're reading "Twilight"; I thought their tastes were much more refined.

2) Good vs Well

• Nothing irritates me more than to sit down in my high school's cafeteria (pardon, dining hall) than to hear one of my friends brag about how he, "felt like I did really good on the pop quiz."
• For starters, the words differ in function. Good is an adjective, and well is generally an adverb. So...
• I did really well on the in-class essay in AP English (which, if you have my teacher, is still grammatically correct, but none-the-less a lie).
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a really good movie (yes, yes it is).
• However, well can be used as an adjective: I don't feel well today.

3) A history/historic/historically vs An history/historic/historically

• Did I say that errors in good vs well bothered me? Those mistakes are nothing compared to the sudden RAGE I feel when I see an error here. Why? Because it isn't just an error made by average Joe's. I've seen errors in high quality publications. I was recently horrified by Anne Thompson's review of "Benjamin Button" in Variety, wherin Ms. Thompson declared the film, "an historic acheivment." 
• NO. NO. NO. NO.
• "But wait!" you say, "We say 'an hour' and that's correct, right?" 
• Yes, it is correct to say "an hour", but that's because English pronunciation all but drops the "h". The "h" never changes the fact that "hour" is pronounced identically to "our", which begins with a vowel, therefore making "an hour" correct. Though the "h" in "history" may not be where the main stress of the word falls, it is still crucial to the word, and, being a consonant, very much requires a damn "a".
• Still not convinced? Helium, a well respected website that focuses a lot on languages has this to offer:

• Should the "h-" sound be pronounced with breath, or without? Is it simply a matter of opinion?

  The answer, coincidentally, is a historic one (not an historic one). Like many words in the English language, "history" is derived from French. The French language does not pronounce the "h-" sound at all it is, in essence, swallowed. For many of the words beginning with the letter "h" that English commandeers from French, the French pronunciation is respected: "honour" (Fr. "honneur"), "honest" (Fr. "honnete"), "heir" (Fr. "hair"), and "hour" (Fr. "heure") to name but a few. However, there are also many h-words taken from French in which English has changed the pronunciation of the "h": "hideous" (Fr. "hideux"), "horror" (Fr. "horreur"), "hotel" (Fr. "hotel"), and, of course, "history" (Fr. "histoire"). The words that retain the French pronunciation of "h" still begin with a vowel sound in English, and the article "an" should be used: an hour, an honest woman, etc. For those words that English modifies the pronunciation of, thereby breathing the "h-" and creating a consonant sound, the article "a" should be used: a horror movie, a hideous man, etc. It would sound ridiculous if we heard somebody say, "I have an history test tomorrow", because English changes the pronunciation to a breathed "h-" sound. Therefore, we can safely reason that the English adjective "historical" should be constructed from the English noun "history", breathed "h" and all, and thus take the article "a".

Extremely Random - Guess the plot based on the title

what I would assume the following films were about based only on their titles...

Brokeback Mountain: a group of friends camping in mountainous Wyoming/Montana find themselves pursued by a psychotic stalker who picks them off one by one.....by breaking their backs with a sledgehammer.

Across the Universe: a group of hippies get abducted at Roswell and go on a fantastical intergalactic journey and battle the forces of evil...while SINGING!

Hairspray: Al Gore narrates this riveting documentary about the insidious hidden truth behind the ingredients in a can of hairspray.

The Illusionist: it looks like a movie....but it's not...

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: if you thought Moulin Rouge was an acid trip, just wait until you see this.

Children of Men: a man becomes genetically spliced with a male seahorse and can now become pregnant. Raunchy sex comedy with a heart of gold ensues.

Babel: watch as a bunch of holier-than-thou evangelicals ramble incessantly about just about everything you can think of...for 3 HOURS.

Big Fish: a man tries to prove that the fish he caught two weeks ago is the biggest one in the world, while his friends just think he's trying a bit too hard to compensate.

No Country For Old Men: in a futuristic society where old age has been eliminated, one man suddenly begins to show signs of aging, and must lead a rebellion against the tyrannical, youth-obsessed government.......and fail miserably.

The Kite Runner: the story of how the "underground" drug market took to the skies and soared to new heights. Based loosely on the book which was based loosely on the true story.

The Darjeeling Limited: a man falls into possesion of a limited edition "darjeeling" (whatever the hell that is) and becomes pursued by a number of eccentric individuals, each with their own motives (spoiler: one works for an extremist religious group).

The Silence of the Lambs: The fashion world collapses into panic when a crazed man begins kidnapping sheep and depriving the world of angora sweaters.

The Devil Wears Prada: a new twist on Paradaise Lost: Lucifer was a homosexual.

Unforgiven: Catholic Priests get pissed off at the morally depraved world around them and stop hearing confessions, convincing millions that they're doomed to hell.

The Painted Veil: a young Muslim girl decides to defy tradition and paint artwork on her burka, incurring the wrath of the Taliban (this one's got "Oscar" written all over it, I swear).

A Beautiful Mind: Jim was just a shallow jock concerned only with appearance, until one day he met Sally. She looked like a toad, but her brain looked fantastic in a bikini.

Life Is Beautiful: a purposely ironic film that shows nothing but news footage of death and destruction. Written and directed by Michael Moore.

Little Children: we thought they were innocent; we were wrong.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street - a barber kills people and some how Tim Burton is involved...I can feel it...

Sunshine: taking a cue from Andy Warhol, an up and coming avant garde director films the sun....for 5 days.

Pride and Prejudice: holiday romantic comedy aimed at minorities.

Notes on a Scandal: there is a scandal, and there are notes about it. the end.

if I think of more, I'll edit them in..

A rant against the new Beowulf movie

Obviously when a book or play is adapted to the screen, there are bound to be some changes. Sometimes they're quite large (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) and sometimes rather minute (supposedly, December's "Atonement" is incredibly faithful to the book). Why are these changes made? Well, because books tend to have lots of things happen, and lots of subplots and characters involved in those subplots (The Goblet of Fire anyone?) and though they're cool, they don't need to be there because they aren't essential to the story. The story can still exist with its main events and overall themes and motifs intact when those delightful diversions are are altered, minimized, or removed all together. But those are for NOVELS...and Beowulf is no novel. What's more, is that it gets right to the point with little time spent on exposition (the poem is 3000 lines and spans roughly 60 pages. That's it.) Though lots of events happen, they are all more or less connected to the main story; there is little room for sub plots in legitimate epics. Why, you ask? Because legitimate epics (defined as: a long narrative poem composed orally in the elevated style about the deeds of a hero representative of a nation or race, with supernatural intervention) were well, orally composed, and were "stored" mentally in the brains of the scops (name for the official poet of a tribe in Anglo Saxon culture) and there wasn't room for superfluous side stories that didn't contribute to the overall plot. Now, for the next part of this post, I'm going to post several "events" that happen in the Beowulf MOVIE, and then explain the problem in each one.

1. King Hrothgar adopts Beowulf as his own son after he defeats (note: not kills. Grendel's real death occurs later in the poem and probably does the same in the movie.) Grendel because Hrothgar has no successors. This leads to Beowulf becoming King of the Danes, even though he is a Geat.

The Problem: Though Hrothgar does actually do this, it's merely a grand gesture of thanks. Beowulf does not become his successor and never intended to. Hrothgar has 2 sons named Hrethic and Hrothmund, a daughter, and an adopted nephew named Hrothhulf who is the son of Hrothgar's brother Halga. He's got PLENTY OF DAMN SUCCESSORS ALREADY. This also undermines the point that after Hrothgar's death (a natural death, and not SUICIDE as the movie shows) infighting and betrayal bring down the Danes of Hrothgar's tribe. If Beowulf is the Danes' new king, this cannot happen.

2. Beowulf goes to face Grendel's Mother wearing no armor.

The Problem: this essentially destroys one of the central themes of Beowulf. As each challenge (Grendel, his mother, the dragon) gets greater and more "mysterious" (ie Beowulf doesn't know what he'll have to do to defeat them) Beowulf becomes more cautious, protective, and HUMAN. The movie screws this up by a change involving one of the 3 enemies and makes the story more about redemption of a sin as opposed to Beowulf finally becoming a great king and sacrificing himself for his people against the ultimate evil. Beowulf's death is supposed to represent the end of the heroic age, not the redemption of a sin (which never happened).

3. Grendel's Mother is hot and succeeds in seducing Beowulf.

The Problem: last time I checked, creatures described as "troll wives" shouldn't look like naked Angelina Jolie (wearing high heels to boot...). Also, she seduces Beowulf and he doesn't kill her (this is the "sin") and since there was no birth control back then, she has a child...well just guess who it is!!!

4. #&@*$&@#@^#(*!^@-ing Fire Dragon is the offspring of Beowulf and Grendel's Mother (must've been one hell of a delivery what with the scales and claws and fangs and such...)

The Problem: uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. But seriously, the Dragon really only begins attacking Beowulf's people when a ceorl (second class of two class society. they would do lots of labor.) stole a flagon from the dragon's treasure. The dragon isn't out to get Beowulf like Mordred trying to kill King Arthur in The Once and Future King (sorry, just had a test over this today...). It's just a beast who gets seriously pissed off, and decides to let all hell loose on the kingdom of GEATS AND NOT THE DAMN DANES.

5. Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson) is present throughout the entire story.

The Problem: Wiglaf only appears in the final episode with the dragon. He helps weaken the dragon so that old king Beowulf can finish it off before he dies. Wiglaf then becomes his successor. Wiglaf is supposed to be young (and not the same age as Beowulf) and represents the end of the age of heroes. He is a good person with a heart of gold, and true loyalty to his king, but he isn't supposed to be Beowulf's friend for life. He is supposed to lead the way as the heroic age ends, and the middle ages arrive, where great warriors are no longer called upon. Why no need for more "Beowulf"'s? Because the heroic age was (for "epics") about defeating monsters, creatures that did evil simply because it was all they knew. The middle ages is when men fight men; those who know they should not do evil, but choose to do so anyway. If Wiglaf is roughly the same age as Beowulf when he dies, he cannot lead the Geats for very long into the oncoming age.

6. Beowulf marries Hrothgar's wife, Queen Wealtheow, and then cheats on her later in life.

The Problem: none of it ever happened or could even be implied. Why? Queen Wealtheow was a real person. Beowulf was not. Beowulf also never had any romantic attraction to her, and was a noble enough figure to never cheat on his own wife, let alone the former wife of great Hrothgar (who commits suicide in the movie....what the hell?).

Addressing the "negative buzz" about The Golden Compass movie

Read this first:

Nicole Kidman’s “The Golden Compass” to Bomb

Posted October 26th, 2007 by Molly Celaschi

in

• Movies

Nicole Kidman’s "The Golden Compass," based on the first book in Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, is receiving negative previews.

"It is a $175 million investment for New Line Cinema, which has been hurting ever since 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy," says an insider. "People working on the movie say it is just plain bad."

The picture is said to rely too much on CGI effects and may turn off some with its talking, armored polar bear.

But a New Line rep said, "That's bull[bleep]," and got us a quote from Ted Cooper, the senior VP of Regal Ent. Group who saw the movie at the Showeast convention.

Cooper said, " 'Golden Compass' has been on my radar for nearly a year now. I perceive this as one of the most important films to play throughout the holidays."

Kidman's latest flicks have flopped: "The Stepford Wives," "The Invasion," "Bewitched," "The Interpreter," "Dogville" and "Fur."

Moving on. Let's address the "flaws" with this "negative buzz" and seek the truth (shame the alethiometer doesn't actually exist).




1. "people working on the movie have been saying it's just plain bad". This is just one person. Many other people working on the technical aspects of the film (including the "overused VFX) have said they enjoyed working on it; some have even called it their favorite project to ever work on.

2. The article seems more focused on Kidman's string of flops (though come on now, The Interpreter was good and by no means a flop; the rest?..yeah..) than the actual films. Every time one of her recent films flop, articles pop up like this.

3. It's just one "insider" whose one small quote has appeared in numerous articles. That's right, it's not a bunch of people, it's ONE GUY who's small statement is being published EVERYWHERE.


4. "the picture relies too heavily on special effects and some may be scared by the armored polar bear..." The first half of that statement could make sense for those who haven't read the books; the second is just plain dumb. Back to the first half: Anyone who has read TGC and the rest of the His Dark Materials trilogy knows that this is a story that (unlike many of today's blockbusters) actually NEEDS lots of special effects. Flying witches, armored and fighting polar bears, air ships, massive shots of parallel universe London, and of course, Daemons which everyone (yes, even those silent extras) needs to have. And what makes it more complicated? For starters, children's daemons can change into any animal they want at any time. They also have to react to pain just as their human counterparts do; daemons are physical manifestations of a person's soul - if it gets hurt, so do you, and vice versa. Now, about that "turn off" of a talking polar bear. Oh, how silly of me, talking animals have never EVER appeared in a successful fantasy film! How stupid of me to *cough*Narnia*cough*Harry Potter*cough*lots of other stuff*cough* forget! The major polar bear fight if anything, is going to be one of the big draws, especially for the older teens/young adults. And besides, Iorek Byrnison could totally kick Aslan's ass...(sorry Narnia lovers).

5. While we're at it, let's look at some other films that had so-so or negative buzz:
A) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - everyone's initial verdict? "this attempt at reviving the pirates genre will be dead in the water..."

The end result? - Hugely popular with critcs AND audiences, great box office, and 6 Oscar nominations including Best Leading Actor for Johnny Depp. And this was a film based on a theme park ride.

B) The Lord of the Rings Trilogy - the initial verdict? "Why the #$(*&#(*&(*@ is some crazy New Zealand guy who has only done small budget movies adapting Tolkien's masterful epic?"

The end result? - huge box office and critical love, with each film being nominated for best Picture and Best Director. Return of the King swept with 11 Oscars and became the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time (not too shabby, eh?).

C) 007: Casino Royale - the initial verdict? "Some unknown blonde guy is gonna be Bond? WTF this will SUCK! Craig should NEVER EVER be BOND!"

The end result? - Great box office as well as hugely positive reaction from audiences and critics; on Rottentomatoes.com, CR was the best reviewed major studio release (95% fresh) of 2006.

Conclusion: Does this mean that The Golden Compass will enjoy the mind blowing success of The Lord of the Rings? Maybe not in terms of awards, but it could certainly kick serious box office butt considering the extensive and well organized marketing campaign.

- Can this movie be bad: of course it can. I'd have to throw myself off a bridge if it was, but yes, it could turn out to be bad (and I mean as a bad "film". It could be an awful adaptation but still be a good film like the Prisoner of Azkaban movie).

- Will the changes doom the film?: Phillip Pullman seems thrilled, and he signed over ALL creative control to the studio. So...I'd say, "no".

- Am I still looking forward to December 7th as much as ever?: Hell yeah. And besides, look at the picture below; Kidman knows we don't like it when she flops, and she's out for vengeance....I mean seriously, look at those eyes....they just scream "do something wrong, and I'll KILL you!".

Beating a dead horse with more psycho analysis: The Golden Compass movie ending

For those who watched them: remember the Harry Potter films? Remember how you were so excited and then you came away puzzled (especially after the 3rd movie) thinking "why did they CHANGE stuff?" Well, by the time films four and five rolled around we got used to it and in some cases it's worked (Order of the Phoenix) to the greater benefit of the film itself. Perhaps it's the same. This is a series that has yet to make its way to the screen and because we see a chance for doing it the "right" (every little detail gets put on the screen no matter how trivial) way. Well, The Golden Compass is that "new series" (even though the first book is older than the first Potter book) and at the first sight of differences (basically the ending, seeing as things like Mrs. Coulter's hair color stopped bothering people ages ago) we're mad because the chance for a "perfect" adaptation is gone. Oh well, let's just be glad that the story is still completely intact, and simply being cut off at a different place. *sigh* *forgives Chris Weitz*