The true test of whether Thom Hartmann is on their side isn't just how much he criticizes big corporations. Lou Dobbs criticizes them too. The test is whether he stands for equality and the rights of all workers and their families.
-- David Bacon, "Divide and Deport: On Immigration, Thom Hartmann and Lou Dobbs Have Much in Common" (In These Times).
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Truest statement of the week II
Jimmy: How could you be so irresponsible?
Virginia: We're responsible. We're also passionate and spontaneous.
Burt: Those would be our gladiator names if we were on American Gladiator. Which we still might do!
Virginia: Because we're spontaneous.
Jimmy: Okay, first of all, Gladiator sounds awesome. But no babies. One of you has to get fixed or spayed.
Burt: No way.
Virginia: You cannot decide that, Jimmy. That is a personal decision.
Burt: She's right. I think we should take a family vote. All those in favor of everyone keeping their original plumbing?
Virginia and Burt raise their hands.
Virginia: Sorry, Jimmy, you're out voted two to one.
Maw Maw: I vote with Jimmy!
Jimmy: Hold on! Two to two!
Burt: Only if she's lucid! She's only allowed to vote if she's lucid!
Virginia: Maw Maw, we are currently at war with what country?
Maw Maw: Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jimmy: Is she right?
Burt: I think so but I'm not sure.
Maw Maw: It's right, you morons. One more reason why you shouldn't have
another baby.
-- Raising Hope (Fox, Tuesday nights), "Snip, Snip," written by Mike Mariano. Virginia (Martha Plimpton) and Burt (Garret Dillahunt) have a pregnancy scare. When their adult son Jimmy (Lucas Neff) finds out, he holds a family meeting in the living room. Also present is Maw Maw (Cloris Leachman), Virginia's grandmother, who appears off in her own little world as she examined a remote control.
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another long Sunday.
We thank all who participated this week which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what we came up with?
And that's what we came up with. See you next week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another long Sunday.
We thank all who participated this week which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what we came up with?
And that's what we came up with. See you next week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Bull F**king S**t
Political prisoner Bradley Manning is now being forced to sleep in the nude. Ed Pilkington (Guardian) reports, "The lawyer for Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of having leaked a massive trove of US state secrets to WikiLeaks, has accused his military jailers at the marine base in Quantico, Virginia, of ritually humiliating his client by stripping him naked in his cell every night." Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post) quotes the Quantico spokesperson 1st Lt Brian Villiard insisting, "The intention is not to cause any sort of humiliation or embarrassment. The intention is to ensure the safety and security of the detainee and make sure he is able to stand trial." Nakashima adds, "Villiard said he could not explain how Manning might harm himself if he were allowed to keep his underwear, citing rules to protect detainees' privacy."
He can't explain it because there's no way too. But taking the Stupidity Cup was US Senator John Kerry who tells NECN (link has text and video), "There are concerns about what is happening, but a strong argument is being made that they're trying to preserve his safety, they don't want him harming himself, and using his own clothing to hang himself, or do something like that."
Oh, go brush that weird hair, Kerry.
Let's toss out two words: Disposable scrubs.
Now if you're really out of date and never do anything for yourself and are John Kerry's age, you may not be familiar with those terms or with this one: Disposable, paper scrubs.
That's right.
There's no reason for Bradley to be naked.
Except to punish him. Except to make an example of him.
If you're not getting it, think about your last doctor's visit. Did you maybe put on a paper gown for the examination?
Yeah.
And the military could go to any medical supply company and puchase those.
But apparently they're either interested in humiliting Bradley or just need to get their jollies studying up on his wang.
Either way, it's past time that he was dressed. He can wear disposable scrub pants -- without a waist band sewn in (which someone might rip out) -- and roll the tops to keep them up. Or he could wear disposable scrub shorts. Or he could just wear a disposable gown.
But if he's naked? Don't pretend there was no other way. Don't lie to us. Don't insult our intelligence.
Either the military's trying to humilate him or those working the brig need something to masturbate too. We'll assume the latter until we get a credible explanation as to why disposable scrubs aren't being used.
TV: Rebirth or last gasp?
Under pressure from an SNL friend, we watched. We were interested that Fred Armisen would be making an appearance and, honestly, we were curious to see Miley Cyrus host but what really sold us was when we were told of how a number of male critics have trashed every episode this season that a woman hosted. Our awareness of Miley Cyrus consisted of headlines (we never bothered to read any stories on her) and Vanessa Bayer's parody of her in "The Miley Cyrus Show" skits. We weren't expecting a great deal.
So imagine our surprise to learn Cyrus could more than hold her own. Imagine our surprise that she hosted the best episode of the season. In fact, if a man had done what Cyrus did, he'd be on the rotating host schedule. Made us think how strange it was to be sold on checking out the broadcast because of the "woman's issue" (quoting the SNL friend) since only two women have hosted the show five times or more: Drew Barrymore (six) and Candice Bergen (five) and that Bergen hasn't hosted since 1990. (How many men have hosted five times or more? Ten.)
Maybe more women would be able to repeat host if SNL writers could do something more than leering sex jokes? That's actually what made this the best episode of the season, the lack of leering. It wasn't about how to get the host naked, it wasn't about the size of her breasts, it wasn't about any of the crap that they've offered over and over.
Instead the writers wrote skits for Cyrus like they would have a man -- meaning they saw her as something more than a T&A object. From her first moment on the show (doing a Lindsay Lohan impersonation) to her farewell, Cyrus projected strength. She sang, she danced, she joked, she was the perfect host.
The pretty much given was that Cyrus would somehow show up in the latest "The Miley Cyrus Show" skit. The most obvious way to handle it would be to let Bayer do her Miley impersonation and then have Cyrus walk out and comment on that. If you think about it, you should easily be able to think of at least ten times that Saturday Night Live has done exactly that. They went a different way (thankfully) and Cyrus impersonated Justin Bieber. As with her Lohan impersonation, Cyrus nailed Bieber. She and Kenan Thompson nailed it in the Disney Acting School skit. And even in the non-English skit, "Les Jeunes de Paris," she found laughs with Taran Killam.
The show wasn't without its problems. (And we were left indifferent by the parody of The Sound of Music.) As has become the pattern at SNL, after Weekend Update, they are progressively less and less concerned about laughs. If that's an expected, the homophobia wasn't. The show opened with Bill Hader doing a lousy impersonation of Charlie Sheen as "Sheen" hosted a talk show. First guest was John Galliano (played by Killam) and, apparently to telegraph that he was a designer, there was a need to mince and lisp. We've never caught or heard of Galliano doing either. Just because he's despicable, SNL writers thought the way to go was "Queenie!" -- which actually says a great deal more about them and their attitude towards gay people than they probably realize. The homophobia is not only tired it is, for this program, rather obvious.
Another thing that's rather obvious is how, despite Seth's determination not to share the stage, he doesn't have the chops to solo on Weekend Update. If only we all found Seth Meyers as cute as he finds himself, it might not be a problem. But it is a problem and the lack of a female co-anchor, when combined with the never ending male characters who show up, really goes to how little women are being valued. Jason Sudeikis had some nice moments in the broadcast; however, his bit as Satan on Weekend Update wasn't one of them.
Most of all there was the lack of creativity in the writing. In fact, except for the repeated swiping from Will & Grace episodes on this season of 30 Rock, we're hard pressed to think of more limited comedy concepts. For example, how many Charlie Sheen jokes were needed in one broadcast? The episode opened with a parody of a Charlie Sheen talk show and that should have taken care of it. However, Sheen's name was worked into "The Miley Cyrus Show" and into three jokes on Weekend Update. Was there nothing else that happened last week? Or was this just another example (like resorting to homophobia) of how immature and stunted the writers are?
It was the writers immaturity. There actually was another 'news' story they could have covered. Charlie Sheen? That drama's been playing out for weeks now. Last week's celebrity news was James Franco's immense flame out co-hosting the Academy Awards. That's the event that had every wag saying he was this decade's Elliott Gould and comparing his baked burnout to when Warner Brothers had to shut down A Glimpse Of The Tiger in early 1971 due to Gould's questionable behavior (which he insisted wasn't drugs; however, on set behavior including fights with director Anthony Harvey and co-star Kim Darby led the studio to conclude drugs or mental breakdown) and which made Gould -- at that time, one of the hottest actors in the industry -- not insurable for years after. Those not debating Franco's sanity or drug intake were largely left exclaiming that he'd taken a piss on the industry while the whole world watched. But Charlie Sheen's not friendly with Seth and the other bad writers. Franco is. So they bury the biggest celeb 'news' of the week to go with Charlie Sheen who, compared to the global reach of the Academy Awards, might as well have been acting out on IRC.
The worst of the writing wasn't on display mainly because we didn't catch one of Jay Pharoah's impersonations. If he can act, he's yet to demonstrate it. And his impersonations aren't really dead-on. Take the Will Smith impersonation, it's the sort of thing his grandmother might find solid but everyone else is thinking, "Uh, that doesn't sound like Will and it doesn't look like Will." And since there's no real writing of those sketches -- beyond "Look, I'm pretending to be and I'm saying stupid stuff so it's got to be funny!" -- Pharoah brings the show to a standstill -- not a show stopping way, in a paint drying on the wall sort of way. Saturday Night Live's been many kinds of bad over the years; however, it's never been bad because it attempted to ape its less successful impersonators. Yet every time Pharoah's humored and allowed an 'impersonation,' the sketch is so poorly written that it plays like MadTV.
What the Cyrus episode last night did was remind everyone that SNL can be something more than it's been for the last three years. Whether this was a rebirth or a last gasp remains to be seen.
So imagine our surprise to learn Cyrus could more than hold her own. Imagine our surprise that she hosted the best episode of the season. In fact, if a man had done what Cyrus did, he'd be on the rotating host schedule. Made us think how strange it was to be sold on checking out the broadcast because of the "woman's issue" (quoting the SNL friend) since only two women have hosted the show five times or more: Drew Barrymore (six) and Candice Bergen (five) and that Bergen hasn't hosted since 1990. (How many men have hosted five times or more? Ten.)
Maybe more women would be able to repeat host if SNL writers could do something more than leering sex jokes? That's actually what made this the best episode of the season, the lack of leering. It wasn't about how to get the host naked, it wasn't about the size of her breasts, it wasn't about any of the crap that they've offered over and over.
Instead the writers wrote skits for Cyrus like they would have a man -- meaning they saw her as something more than a T&A object. From her first moment on the show (doing a Lindsay Lohan impersonation) to her farewell, Cyrus projected strength. She sang, she danced, she joked, she was the perfect host.
The pretty much given was that Cyrus would somehow show up in the latest "The Miley Cyrus Show" skit. The most obvious way to handle it would be to let Bayer do her Miley impersonation and then have Cyrus walk out and comment on that. If you think about it, you should easily be able to think of at least ten times that Saturday Night Live has done exactly that. They went a different way (thankfully) and Cyrus impersonated Justin Bieber. As with her Lohan impersonation, Cyrus nailed Bieber. She and Kenan Thompson nailed it in the Disney Acting School skit. And even in the non-English skit, "Les Jeunes de Paris," she found laughs with Taran Killam.
The show wasn't without its problems. (And we were left indifferent by the parody of The Sound of Music.) As has become the pattern at SNL, after Weekend Update, they are progressively less and less concerned about laughs. If that's an expected, the homophobia wasn't. The show opened with Bill Hader doing a lousy impersonation of Charlie Sheen as "Sheen" hosted a talk show. First guest was John Galliano (played by Killam) and, apparently to telegraph that he was a designer, there was a need to mince and lisp. We've never caught or heard of Galliano doing either. Just because he's despicable, SNL writers thought the way to go was "Queenie!" -- which actually says a great deal more about them and their attitude towards gay people than they probably realize. The homophobia is not only tired it is, for this program, rather obvious.
Another thing that's rather obvious is how, despite Seth's determination not to share the stage, he doesn't have the chops to solo on Weekend Update. If only we all found Seth Meyers as cute as he finds himself, it might not be a problem. But it is a problem and the lack of a female co-anchor, when combined with the never ending male characters who show up, really goes to how little women are being valued. Jason Sudeikis had some nice moments in the broadcast; however, his bit as Satan on Weekend Update wasn't one of them.
Most of all there was the lack of creativity in the writing. In fact, except for the repeated swiping from Will & Grace episodes on this season of 30 Rock, we're hard pressed to think of more limited comedy concepts. For example, how many Charlie Sheen jokes were needed in one broadcast? The episode opened with a parody of a Charlie Sheen talk show and that should have taken care of it. However, Sheen's name was worked into "The Miley Cyrus Show" and into three jokes on Weekend Update. Was there nothing else that happened last week? Or was this just another example (like resorting to homophobia) of how immature and stunted the writers are?
It was the writers immaturity. There actually was another 'news' story they could have covered. Charlie Sheen? That drama's been playing out for weeks now. Last week's celebrity news was James Franco's immense flame out co-hosting the Academy Awards. That's the event that had every wag saying he was this decade's Elliott Gould and comparing his baked burnout to when Warner Brothers had to shut down A Glimpse Of The Tiger in early 1971 due to Gould's questionable behavior (which he insisted wasn't drugs; however, on set behavior including fights with director Anthony Harvey and co-star Kim Darby led the studio to conclude drugs or mental breakdown) and which made Gould -- at that time, one of the hottest actors in the industry -- not insurable for years after. Those not debating Franco's sanity or drug intake were largely left exclaiming that he'd taken a piss on the industry while the whole world watched. But Charlie Sheen's not friendly with Seth and the other bad writers. Franco is. So they bury the biggest celeb 'news' of the week to go with Charlie Sheen who, compared to the global reach of the Academy Awards, might as well have been acting out on IRC.
The worst of the writing wasn't on display mainly because we didn't catch one of Jay Pharoah's impersonations. If he can act, he's yet to demonstrate it. And his impersonations aren't really dead-on. Take the Will Smith impersonation, it's the sort of thing his grandmother might find solid but everyone else is thinking, "Uh, that doesn't sound like Will and it doesn't look like Will." And since there's no real writing of those sketches -- beyond "Look, I'm pretending to be and I'm saying stupid stuff so it's got to be funny!" -- Pharoah brings the show to a standstill -- not a show stopping way, in a paint drying on the wall sort of way. Saturday Night Live's been many kinds of bad over the years; however, it's never been bad because it attempted to ape its less successful impersonators. Yet every time Pharoah's humored and allowed an 'impersonation,' the sketch is so poorly written that it plays like MadTV.
What the Cyrus episode last night did was remind everyone that SNL can be something more than it's been for the last three years. Whether this was a rebirth or a last gasp remains to be seen.
Memo to AFL-CIO, communication is key
If it were 2001, we could understand some confusion as to what century we're living in. But it's 2011 and there's no explanation for it. And there's no excuse for trotting out language that really doesn't speak to today. Especially when you're attempting to court public opinion.
Anti-worker actions have been taking place in Wisconsin, Ohio and New Jersey. Wisconsin has been the key battle ground and Sharon Black (Workers World) reported Wednesday, "Seasoned trade unionists from the Steel Workers union joined high school and college students. People facing their first-ever arrest came with their children. Hundreds who spent sleepless nights on the cold marble floors had forged bonds of friendship that kept them strong." What makes Wisconsin key is the governor, Scott Walker, attempting to do away with collective bargaining for state workers. Collective bargaining?
Collective bargaining gives workers a seat at the table in decision making. It allows one person to represent the employees in the negotiations with employers. Without collective bargaining, there's no seat at the table, there's no negotiation rights. Which is why Walker's attack on workers, to be successful, has to do away with collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is one of the powers unions have and, throughout the history of this country, unions have fought for and won many cherished things that we now consider the norm -- for example, a living wage, the "weekend" (or two days off a week, where ever those two days fall for you) and an end to forced labor for children.
You might call the union the people's defender. At least you might if you weren't AFLO-CIO President Richard Trumka. Thursday, Judy Woodruff (PBS' NewsHour) spoke with Trumka about . . . Well who can be sure with Trumka's responses?
It's not? Then why should we give a ___?
Seriously, that's the best the president of the AFL-CIO can do?
And what's with the other 'leaders' and their soundbytes of "solidarity" and "brothers and sisters" and "comrades"?
Sweet Thursday! What crawled off the Tortilla Flat in search of The Pearl in the midst of The Winter Of Our Discontent?
Do you not get it?
Do we need to go all Grapes of Wrath to make the point?
"The kids. You ought to see them. Little boils, like, comin' out, an' they can't run aroun'. Give 'em some windfall fruit, an' they bloated up. Me, I'll work for a little piece of meat."
John Steinbeck, great writer. Really captured elements of his time. His time. Which has passed.
And you end up looking pretty silly to those not already vested in your cause when you're on TV attempting to rally people to your side with "comrade," "brothers & sisters" and "solidarity" among other terms.
Think language doesn't matter? Pioneer Press reported on public opinion yesterday:
Those aren't good numbers. When the numbers are that low, either unions are the problem or the way the message is presented is the problem. Our opinion is it's the latter.
You want to move beyond limited support? Work on your messaging.
"WE ARE ONE" reads the AFL-CIO splash screen. If we are one, we need to speak in a common language.
"Solidarity"? Try "shoulder-to-shoulder." "We stand shoulder-to-shoulder." Try "support." And when they made their little splash screen, did the ALF-CIO not grasp how many workers aren't unionized?
"Solidarity" is a term that, in fact, means union. Assuming people do know the various definitions for the term, how is Jo/e Marsh supposed to show "solidarity" with you when s/he works at a non-union job?
The AFL-CIO gives the amount of union members in the US -- for all unions, not just their own: 14.7 million (and their graph notes a downward trend since 1995). That's a tiny number when you realize that the 2010 US Census charts over 300,000,000 people in the US.
In other words, many, many more people are not union members than are. And those who aren't union members but would like to show their support? They're not being reached with faulty language from speakers and splash screens.
What's taking place is not the Bolshevik Revolution. Workers are under attack in the 21st century. You want to help workers, then you need to speak in relatable ways or else you're never going to persuade anyone. When your outdated language makes them laugh at you, you've built a wall between you and them.
And if you sound like a liar, they aren't going to trust you. Richard Trumka, if what's going on has nothing to do with unions, why are you talking about it? Why are unions protesting what's happening?
If you're a leader of a union and you're marking ridiculous claims, you're not just destroying your own credibility, you're destroying the credibility of the unions.
------------
For more on these topics, see Ruth's "Use language to communicate, not to confuse," C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and Trina's "Iraq snapshot" from last week.
Anti-worker actions have been taking place in Wisconsin, Ohio and New Jersey. Wisconsin has been the key battle ground and Sharon Black (Workers World) reported Wednesday, "Seasoned trade unionists from the Steel Workers union joined high school and college students. People facing their first-ever arrest came with their children. Hundreds who spent sleepless nights on the cold marble floors had forged bonds of friendship that kept them strong." What makes Wisconsin key is the governor, Scott Walker, attempting to do away with collective bargaining for state workers. Collective bargaining?
Collective bargaining gives workers a seat at the table in decision making. It allows one person to represent the employees in the negotiations with employers. Without collective bargaining, there's no seat at the table, there's no negotiation rights. Which is why Walker's attack on workers, to be successful, has to do away with collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is one of the powers unions have and, throughout the history of this country, unions have fought for and won many cherished things that we now consider the norm -- for example, a living wage, the "weekend" (or two days off a week, where ever those two days fall for you) and an end to forced labor for children.
You might call the union the people's defender. At least you might if you weren't AFLO-CIO President Richard Trumka. Thursday, Judy Woodruff (PBS' NewsHour) spoke with Trumka about . . . Well who can be sure with Trumka's responses?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me -- I want to pick up on that, because, you know, making that point, are you -- how worried are you that, if Governor Walker wins this argument in Wisconsin, that there could -- that it just builds and makes stronger the argument against unions in these other states? I mean, we already see this.
RICHARD TRUMKA: Look, this isn't an argument about unions. This isn't about unions.
It's not? Then why should we give a ___?
Seriously, that's the best the president of the AFL-CIO can do?
And what's with the other 'leaders' and their soundbytes of "solidarity" and "brothers and sisters" and "comrades"?
Sweet Thursday! What crawled off the Tortilla Flat in search of The Pearl in the midst of The Winter Of Our Discontent?
Do you not get it?
Do we need to go all Grapes of Wrath to make the point?
"The kids. You ought to see them. Little boils, like, comin' out, an' they can't run aroun'. Give 'em some windfall fruit, an' they bloated up. Me, I'll work for a little piece of meat."
John Steinbeck, great writer. Really captured elements of his time. His time. Which has passed.
And you end up looking pretty silly to those not already vested in your cause when you're on TV attempting to rally people to your side with "comrade," "brothers & sisters" and "solidarity" among other terms.
Think language doesn't matter? Pioneer Press reported on public opinion yesterday:
A new Ramussen survey of Wisconsin voters showed that 52 percent oppose the weakening of collective bargaining rights and 39 percent favor it. Nationally, Rasmussen reported a week ago, 47 percent of voters support Walker and 42 percent support the unions.
The Quinnipiac University poll, meanwhile, found 45 percent of American voters saying that, to reduce state deficits, collective bargaining for public employees should be limited, while 42 percent oppose limits on collective bargaining.
Quinnipiac also found that voters -- by the large margin of 63 percent to 31 percent -- say government workers should pay more for benefits and retirement programs.
Those aren't good numbers. When the numbers are that low, either unions are the problem or the way the message is presented is the problem. Our opinion is it's the latter.
You want to move beyond limited support? Work on your messaging.
"WE ARE ONE" reads the AFL-CIO splash screen. If we are one, we need to speak in a common language.
"Solidarity"? Try "shoulder-to-shoulder." "We stand shoulder-to-shoulder." Try "support." And when they made their little splash screen, did the ALF-CIO not grasp how many workers aren't unionized?
"Solidarity" is a term that, in fact, means union. Assuming people do know the various definitions for the term, how is Jo/e Marsh supposed to show "solidarity" with you when s/he works at a non-union job?
The AFL-CIO gives the amount of union members in the US -- for all unions, not just their own: 14.7 million (and their graph notes a downward trend since 1995). That's a tiny number when you realize that the 2010 US Census charts over 300,000,000 people in the US.
In other words, many, many more people are not union members than are. And those who aren't union members but would like to show their support? They're not being reached with faulty language from speakers and splash screens.
What's taking place is not the Bolshevik Revolution. Workers are under attack in the 21st century. You want to help workers, then you need to speak in relatable ways or else you're never going to persuade anyone. When your outdated language makes them laugh at you, you've built a wall between you and them.
And if you sound like a liar, they aren't going to trust you. Richard Trumka, if what's going on has nothing to do with unions, why are you talking about it? Why are unions protesting what's happening?
If you're a leader of a union and you're marking ridiculous claims, you're not just destroying your own credibility, you're destroying the credibility of the unions.
------------
For more on these topics, see Ruth's "Use language to communicate, not to confuse," C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and Trina's "Iraq snapshot" from last week.
How bad are the movies these days?
How bad are the movies these days? In an attempt to offer some sort of praise, Leonard Maltin hailed Matt Damon's performance in The Adjustment Bureau as "completely credible." Yes, that's what we've come to, an actor wins 'praise' for being credible -- excuse us, completely credible.
No, that wasn't how it always was.
"Did you see Sophie's Choice?" "Oh, yeah! Meryl Streep, completely credible. In fact, whole movie, credible."
Or how about, "Jack Nicholson's breakthrough performance in Easy Rider? Completely credible."
In June 2010, we did a parody which included, "Now let me come up with my pull quote for this review: Sex in the City? Golly, even the original cast of Star Trek got put out to pasture for the reboot!"
And yet they're rebooting. And the front runner to play 30-something Carrie? 23-year-old Blake Lively.
Not to be Jonah in Knocked Up (deleted scene where he's watching Brokeback Mountain) but if the film industry had any real guts right now, they'd be tipping some sacred cows.
For example.
----------------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Mary Pops Back"
No, that wasn't how it always was.
"Did you see Sophie's Choice?" "Oh, yeah! Meryl Streep, completely credible. In fact, whole movie, credible."
Or how about, "Jack Nicholson's breakthrough performance in Easy Rider? Completely credible."
In June 2010, we did a parody which included, "Now let me come up with my pull quote for this review: Sex in the City? Golly, even the original cast of Star Trek got put out to pasture for the reboot!"
And yet they're rebooting. And the front runner to play 30-something Carrie? 23-year-old Blake Lively.
Not to be Jonah in Knocked Up (deleted scene where he's watching Brokeback Mountain) but if the film industry had any real guts right now, they'd be tipping some sacred cows.
For example.
----------------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Mary Pops Back"
And we did find out
Last week's "And the Oscar should have gone to . . ." concluded with, "Will this year be another 2009 (boo) or 2010 (incredible)? We'll find out tonight."
And we did find out.
The Anne Hathaway and James Franco hosted event was excruciating. Agonizing, awkward and embarrassing.
For just a moment, pretend that Anne Hathaway solo hosted (and for many watching Franco stumble around on stage stoned, she did solo host). Same lines, same delivery, the next day's reviews would have been: "Hathaway A Trouper, Hathaway Shows Spirit." No one would consider her one of the best hosts in Academy history by any means but they would have noted she was a good sport.
James Franco's damn lucky he wasn't hosting solo because, as bad as he was, that would have been even worse. Lacking humor, charisma or even the ability to try, Franco, in the span of a few brief hours, quickly became the worst host in history.
And we did find out.
The Anne Hathaway and James Franco hosted event was excruciating. Agonizing, awkward and embarrassing.
For just a moment, pretend that Anne Hathaway solo hosted (and for many watching Franco stumble around on stage stoned, she did solo host). Same lines, same delivery, the next day's reviews would have been: "Hathaway A Trouper, Hathaway Shows Spirit." No one would consider her one of the best hosts in Academy history by any means but they would have noted she was a good sport.
James Franco's damn lucky he wasn't hosting solo because, as bad as he was, that would have been even worse. Lacking humor, charisma or even the ability to try, Franco, in the span of a few brief hours, quickly became the worst host in history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
