by Leroy Douresseaux
AMC's much-loved crime drama, “Breaking Bad” (which ended last year) won five awards at the 66th Primetime Emmy Awards, including for best drama series and lead actor. “Modern Family” won its fifth consecutive award for best comedy series, one of three awards its won. Other multiple winners included “Fargo,” Sherlock: His Last Vow, and “American Horror Story: Coven.”
To me, the entire ceremony seemed stuck in a loop that began three or four years ago. Television is supposed to be in a new golden age. However, all the buzzed-about shows like Game of Thrones, House of Cards, and Orange is the New Black lose to the same shows and performers who have been winning again and again for what seems like ages. And “The Walking Dead” doesn't even get nominations in the major categories. Oh, well...
The 66th Primetime Emmy Awards took place on Monday, August 25, 2014. The ceremony aired on NBC and was hosted by Seth Meyers.
For a complete list of winners and nominees, go here: http://www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners
2014 / 66th Primetime Emmy Awards winners:
Drama Series
Breaking Bad
Comedy Series
Modern Family
Lead Actor in a Drama
Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad
Lead Actor in a Miniseries or Movie
Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock: His Last Vow
Lead Actress in a Drama
Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife
Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie
Jessica Lange, American Horror Story: Coven
Lead Actor in a Comedy
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory
Lead Actress in a Comedy
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep
Reality Competition Program
The Amazing Race
Variety Series
The Colbert Report
Miniseries
Fargo
Television Movie
The Normal Heart
Supporting Actor in a Drama
Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad
Supporting Actress in a Drama
Anna Gunn, Breaking Bad
Writing for a Drama
Moira Walley-Beckett, Breaking Bad
Directing for a Drama
Cary Joji Fukunaga, True Detective
Supporting Actor in a Comedy
Ty Burrell, Modern Family
Supporting Actress in a Comedy
Allison Janney, Mom
Writing for a Comedy
Louis C.K., Louie
Directing for a Comedy
Gail Mancuso, Modern Family
Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or Movie
Martin Freeman, Sherlock: His Last Vow
Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or Movie
Kathy Bates, American Horror Story: Coven
Writing for a Miniseries, Movie, or Dramatic Special
Steven Moffat, Sherlock: His Last Vow
Directing for a Miniseries, Movie, or Dramatic Special
Colin Bucksey, Fargo
Writing for a Variety Special
Sarah Silverman: We Are Miracles
Directing for a Variety Special
Glenn Weiss, 67th Annual Tony Awards
------------------
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The 2013-14 Movie Award Season - It's On!
By Editor
With the announcement last Thursday (October 24, 2013) of the nominations for the 2013 Gotham Awards, the awards season for American films kicked off it's 2013-14 edition. It all culminates at the 86th Academy Awards on Sunday, March 2, 2013, where Oscars get handed out.
I hear lots of commentary and buzz about 12 Years a Slave (a Gotham Awards nominee) being the early favorite to win "Best Picture." Like Miss Melody used to say, "I ain't buyin' it!" Seriously, I don't see a film about American slavery winning the "Best Picture" Oscar. It would be great, but... it would be even greater to be realistic.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Barbra Streisand: Why Is It Easier to Get an Assault Weapon Than to Vote?
From Reader Supported News:
Why Is It Easier to Get an Assault Weapon Than to Vote?
By Barbra Streisand, Reader Supported News
07 September 13
A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon." - President Bill Clinton
The former president is absolutely right about what a great democracy should do. Unfortunately this is not the case in the United States today.
There have always been attempts by conservatives to restrict the franchise. It took women well over a century and painful struggle to get the right to vote. For African Americans in the South, activists were beaten and killed before the federal government stepped in to end "Jim Crow" laws against voting. Then it took massive voter registration drives in an atmosphere of intimidation to fully extend the right and access to vote for all citizens.
Until recently, there was a movement in the states towards making voting more convenient and accessible. Now, conservative governors and legislators are turning back the clock on progress.
Many Americans suffer from the difficulty of voting on a Tuesday in November instead of the weekend -- a relic of an agricultural nation. But it wasn't enough for some conservatives.
So, they discovered a "solution" in search of a "problem" -- the infinitesimal amount of voter fraud. But the real motive was stated by GOP Pennsylvania House Majority leader Mike Turzai, "Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."
According to the authoritative Brennan Center, since the beginning of 2011, 19 states have passed 25 laws and two executive actions restricting voting. The laws vary, but all have the same impact. In these states, it is now more difficult for those Americans who typically have the least access to power in our democracy to participate. Some of the restrictions are particularly perverse.
Texas allows a state-issued "concealed carry permit" for guns to count as a voter ID but not a duly authorized ID from the flagship University of Texas. Tennessee and North Carolina also prohibit university identification from their own systems. A student without a driver's license essentially loses his/her rights while a gun owner, simply by owning a gun, does not. On Election Day 2012, Florida had hours-long lines because of new restrictions on early voting. North Carolina also eliminated same-day registration and reduced early voting. Indiana now allows other voters to challenge and demand proof of registration from fellow voters before they can vote.
The purpose of these voter restrictions laws is to make it more difficult for the young, the elderly, the poor and minorities to vote. Our voter participation rates are already among the lowest in the world's democracies, but conservatives seem intent on lowering it further.
But guns, why, owning them should be easier than ever. Congress failed to renew the assault weapons ban, but one can buy an assault weapon from an individual or a gun show without having to show any identification. Even after the movie theatre carnage in Colorado and the slaughter of school children in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut by individuals wielding assault weapons and large ammunition clips, Congress failed to provide enough votes for simple background checks.
A recent study by two professors at Cleveland State University estimated that Americans own between 262 and 310 million firearms. The U.S. population is less than 314 million. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from firearms, and one person in three knows someone who has been shot according to the Brady Center. There are many suggestions about reducing gun violence in the United States. But allowing someone to buy an assault weapon without showing any identification surely is not one of them. Despite the paranoia fostered by the gun lobby, no government agency is going to come and take away guns from American citizens. In fact, the only national database of gun ownership is controlled by the NRA!
It is time to promote sensible reforms about gun violence and to stop further restrictions on voting. The only way this will happen is if enough Americans vote for politicians willing to oppose the NRA and its backers -- the gun manufacturers, and vote out those politicians who seek to restrict Americans' right to vote for their own narrow partisan reasons.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Why Is It Easier to Get an Assault Weapon Than to Vote?
By Barbra Streisand, Reader Supported News
07 September 13
A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon." - President Bill Clinton
The former president is absolutely right about what a great democracy should do. Unfortunately this is not the case in the United States today.
There have always been attempts by conservatives to restrict the franchise. It took women well over a century and painful struggle to get the right to vote. For African Americans in the South, activists were beaten and killed before the federal government stepped in to end "Jim Crow" laws against voting. Then it took massive voter registration drives in an atmosphere of intimidation to fully extend the right and access to vote for all citizens.
Until recently, there was a movement in the states towards making voting more convenient and accessible. Now, conservative governors and legislators are turning back the clock on progress.
Many Americans suffer from the difficulty of voting on a Tuesday in November instead of the weekend -- a relic of an agricultural nation. But it wasn't enough for some conservatives.
So, they discovered a "solution" in search of a "problem" -- the infinitesimal amount of voter fraud. But the real motive was stated by GOP Pennsylvania House Majority leader Mike Turzai, "Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."
According to the authoritative Brennan Center, since the beginning of 2011, 19 states have passed 25 laws and two executive actions restricting voting. The laws vary, but all have the same impact. In these states, it is now more difficult for those Americans who typically have the least access to power in our democracy to participate. Some of the restrictions are particularly perverse.
Texas allows a state-issued "concealed carry permit" for guns to count as a voter ID but not a duly authorized ID from the flagship University of Texas. Tennessee and North Carolina also prohibit university identification from their own systems. A student without a driver's license essentially loses his/her rights while a gun owner, simply by owning a gun, does not. On Election Day 2012, Florida had hours-long lines because of new restrictions on early voting. North Carolina also eliminated same-day registration and reduced early voting. Indiana now allows other voters to challenge and demand proof of registration from fellow voters before they can vote.
The purpose of these voter restrictions laws is to make it more difficult for the young, the elderly, the poor and minorities to vote. Our voter participation rates are already among the lowest in the world's democracies, but conservatives seem intent on lowering it further.
But guns, why, owning them should be easier than ever. Congress failed to renew the assault weapons ban, but one can buy an assault weapon from an individual or a gun show without having to show any identification. Even after the movie theatre carnage in Colorado and the slaughter of school children in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut by individuals wielding assault weapons and large ammunition clips, Congress failed to provide enough votes for simple background checks.
A recent study by two professors at Cleveland State University estimated that Americans own between 262 and 310 million firearms. The U.S. population is less than 314 million. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from firearms, and one person in three knows someone who has been shot according to the Brady Center. There are many suggestions about reducing gun violence in the United States. But allowing someone to buy an assault weapon without showing any identification surely is not one of them. Despite the paranoia fostered by the gun lobby, no government agency is going to come and take away guns from American citizens. In fact, the only national database of gun ownership is controlled by the NRA!
It is time to promote sensible reforms about gun violence and to stop further restrictions on voting. The only way this will happen is if enough Americans vote for politicians willing to oppose the NRA and its backers -- the gun manufacturers, and vote out those politicians who seek to restrict Americans' right to vote for their own narrow partisan reasons.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Disney Makes It Official: "John Carter" is a Box Office Bomb
Yesterday, The Walt Disney Company released a statement regarding the disappointing box office of its recent release, John Carter. The film made a little over $30 million during its opening weekend, March 9-11, 2012. The film, which reportedly had a production budget of $250 million, is largely based upon A Princess of Mars (1917), the first novel in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novel series. Disney's statement read:
“In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company.”
There are a number of theories as to why the film failed to meet expectations. One is that there was a disconnect between the film's director, Andrew Stanton, a two-time Oscar-winner at Pixar Animation Studios for Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and Disney's marketing division. So because of disagreements between the two or a lack of cooperation, if you read it that way, the film's marketing never piqued the interests of large numbers of potential moviegoers. And big-budget event films like John Carter need lots of tickets sold to be profitable theatrically.
So far the film is doing okay outside of the North American market. I guessing that Disney probably spent about $400 million making and marketing the film, so they're announcing a loss to their shareholders and the public because there is no way that this film can make a profit theatrically. It would probably need to make around $800 million worldwide to do so.
I have been too busy to see the film at the theatre, but I will see it on DVD or on television. Most people who see it will probably see it via some kind of home entertainment. Who knows? Over time, it may make Disney a pretty penny and become liked enough to make frequent appearances on the networks and channels that seem to have Disney franchises like Pirates of the Caribbean and National Treasure on heavy rotation.
“In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company.”
There are a number of theories as to why the film failed to meet expectations. One is that there was a disconnect between the film's director, Andrew Stanton, a two-time Oscar-winner at Pixar Animation Studios for Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and Disney's marketing division. So because of disagreements between the two or a lack of cooperation, if you read it that way, the film's marketing never piqued the interests of large numbers of potential moviegoers. And big-budget event films like John Carter need lots of tickets sold to be profitable theatrically.
So far the film is doing okay outside of the North American market. I guessing that Disney probably spent about $400 million making and marketing the film, so they're announcing a loss to their shareholders and the public because there is no way that this film can make a profit theatrically. It would probably need to make around $800 million worldwide to do so.
I have been too busy to see the film at the theatre, but I will see it on DVD or on television. Most people who see it will probably see it via some kind of home entertainment. Who knows? Over time, it may make Disney a pretty penny and become liked enough to make frequent appearances on the networks and channels that seem to have Disney franchises like Pirates of the Caribbean and National Treasure on heavy rotation.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
7 Films Fight for 5 "Best Visual Effects" Oscar Nominations
Last month, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced 15 semifinalists in the race to receive best visual effects Oscar nominations. Yesterday, they announced that they were down to 7 finalists. This year, 5 films will recieve nominations. That's good because in many years there are only three nominees.
Which films will be left out? I'm not sure, but I think Alice in Wonderland and Inception are locks. Now, here's the press release:
Press release:
7 Features In 2010 VFX Oscar® Race
Beverly Hills, CA (January 5, 2011) – The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced that seven films remain in the running in the Visual Effects category for the 83rd Academy Awards®.
The films are listed below in alphabetical order:
“Alice in Wonderland”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1”
“Hereafter”
“Inception”
“Iron Man 2”
“Scott Pilgrim vs the World”
“Tron: Legacy”
All members of the Visual Effects Branch will be invited to view 15-minute excerpts from each of the seven shortlisted films on Thursday, January 20. Following the screenings, the members will vote to nominate five films for final Oscar consideration.
The 83rd Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented on Sunday, February 27, 2011, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.
Which films will be left out? I'm not sure, but I think Alice in Wonderland and Inception are locks. Now, here's the press release:
Press release:
7 Features In 2010 VFX Oscar® Race
Beverly Hills, CA (January 5, 2011) – The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced that seven films remain in the running in the Visual Effects category for the 83rd Academy Awards®.
The films are listed below in alphabetical order:
“Alice in Wonderland”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1”
“Hereafter”
“Inception”
“Iron Man 2”
“Scott Pilgrim vs the World”
“Tron: Legacy”
All members of the Visual Effects Branch will be invited to view 15-minute excerpts from each of the seven shortlisted films on Thursday, January 20. Following the screenings, the members will vote to nominate five films for final Oscar consideration.
The 83rd Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented on Sunday, February 27, 2011, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Anthony Mackie Smacks Rapper-Actors
"I don't go into the hospital and let the janitor perform surgery on me, you know what I mean?"
Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker) on rappers-turned-actors. The blog entry from "BV on Movies" also brings up some old quotes from Samuel L. Jackson and Nia Long about rapper-actors.
Personally, I'm ambivalent about rapper-actors. Will Smith and Queen Latifah have turned out some exceptional performances, and Smith has earned two Oscar nominations, while Latifah has one (for Chicago). On the other hand, guys like Ice Cube, Ludacris, and 50 Cent are average actors, and that's being generous considering some of their performances. I like Ice Cube and Ludacris, but for the most part, they, like a lot of rapper-actors, are just taking roles that should go to trained African-American actors.
LL Cool J and Ice T have been good in parts tailored towards their personalities, but they're also deficient. I think that a guy like Mos Def doesn't get enough credit for how good he is as an actor.
Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker) on rappers-turned-actors. The blog entry from "BV on Movies" also brings up some old quotes from Samuel L. Jackson and Nia Long about rapper-actors.
Personally, I'm ambivalent about rapper-actors. Will Smith and Queen Latifah have turned out some exceptional performances, and Smith has earned two Oscar nominations, while Latifah has one (for Chicago). On the other hand, guys like Ice Cube, Ludacris, and 50 Cent are average actors, and that's being generous considering some of their performances. I like Ice Cube and Ludacris, but for the most part, they, like a lot of rapper-actors, are just taking roles that should go to trained African-American actors.
LL Cool J and Ice T have been good in parts tailored towards their personalities, but they're also deficient. I think that a guy like Mos Def doesn't get enough credit for how good he is as an actor.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Another White Cleopatra...
BET.com's "What the Flick" blog is not happy about Angelina Jolie being cast as Cleopatra in an upcoming film. Elizabeth "Caucasian" Taylor famously/infamously played Cleopatra 5 decades ago, and some are angry that another white woman is playing the Egyptian queen again. Who really knows what skin color the historical Cleopatra had?
I don't think it's that big a deal, and the movie will be a flop, anyway. If Jolie's character isn't performing oral sex or waving a pistol around, the box office isn't big.
I don't think it's that big a deal, and the movie will be a flop, anyway. If Jolie's character isn't performing oral sex or waving a pistol around, the box office isn't big.
Monday, May 31, 2010
OMG! Del Toro Out as Director of "The Hobbit"
This is breaking news this morning:
“In light of ongoing delays in the setting of a start date for filming “The Hobbit,” I am faced with the hardest decision of my life”, says Guillermo. “After nearly two years of living, breathing and designing a world as rich as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I must, with great regret, take leave from helming these wonderful pictures. I remain grateful to Peter, Fran and Philippa Boyens, New Line and Warner Brothers and to all my crew in New Zealand. I’ve been privileged to work in one of the greatest countries on earth with some of the best people ever in our craft and my life will be forever changed. The blessings have been plenty, but the mounting pressures of conflicting schedules have overwhelmed the time slot originally allocated for the project. Both as a co-writer and as a director, I wlsh the production nothing but the very best of luck and I will be first in line to see the finished product. I remain an ally to it and its makers, present and future, and fully support a smooth transition to a new director”.
With that statement, Guillermo Del Toro is out as director of the two movies that will adapt JRR Tolkein's book, The Hobbit, for the big screen. I first learned this news at the excellent Empire Online, but the story originated at The One Ring.net.
This seems to have something to do with the financial uncertainly of MGM, which has the distribution rights to any films based upon The Hobbit. The studio is currently in the midst of an ownership battle, and not only has this affected The Hobbit, but also the fate of the 23rd James Bond movie.
This is disappointing news, and as much as I'd wanted to see Del Toro's vision of Middle-Earth, I'd actually prefer another Hellboy movie.
“In light of ongoing delays in the setting of a start date for filming “The Hobbit,” I am faced with the hardest decision of my life”, says Guillermo. “After nearly two years of living, breathing and designing a world as rich as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I must, with great regret, take leave from helming these wonderful pictures. I remain grateful to Peter, Fran and Philippa Boyens, New Line and Warner Brothers and to all my crew in New Zealand. I’ve been privileged to work in one of the greatest countries on earth with some of the best people ever in our craft and my life will be forever changed. The blessings have been plenty, but the mounting pressures of conflicting schedules have overwhelmed the time slot originally allocated for the project. Both as a co-writer and as a director, I wlsh the production nothing but the very best of luck and I will be first in line to see the finished product. I remain an ally to it and its makers, present and future, and fully support a smooth transition to a new director”.
With that statement, Guillermo Del Toro is out as director of the two movies that will adapt JRR Tolkein's book, The Hobbit, for the big screen. I first learned this news at the excellent Empire Online, but the story originated at The One Ring.net.
This seems to have something to do with the financial uncertainly of MGM, which has the distribution rights to any films based upon The Hobbit. The studio is currently in the midst of an ownership battle, and not only has this affected The Hobbit, but also the fate of the 23rd James Bond movie.
This is disappointing news, and as much as I'd wanted to see Del Toro's vision of Middle-Earth, I'd actually prefer another Hellboy movie.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Why no "Best Picture" Win for Avatar?
Here comes the post-Oscar analyst. People are probably going to wonder why Avatar did not with the 2010 Oscar for "Best Picture," and The Hurt Locker did for years. This article from Yahoo talks about that and offers speculation. Here is a quote from the article:
Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein sums up this sentiment by writing, "My suspicion is that academy members still find it difficult to believe that films largely created and sculpted in the computer--whether it's "Avatar" or the long string of brilliant Pixar films -- can be just as worthy and artistic as the old-fashioned live-action ones."
I think there are many reasons why Avatar didn't win. I think some Oscar voters chose The Hurt Locker or some other film over Avatar because James Cameron already has 3 Academy Awards, from 1998 when the Academy lavished his 1997 worldwide smash hit, Titanic, with 11 Oscars out of 14 nominations. Some Academy members may not have liked how Cameron acted during the 98 awards ceremony. Remember Cameron declaring, "I'm king of the world?" It was a quote from Titanic, so I wasn't bothered by Cameron's declaration, but some apparently were and still are.
Anything that involves voting involves politics, and awards, like politics, are often popularity contests. Maybe some voters were a little envious at Avatar's monstrous success - 2.5 billion dollars in worldwide box office and growing. Pretty much everyone knew Avatar would be a hit, but how many thought it would be this big? Do some Academy members have the perception that Cameron already has everything, so why give him more? Why not honor The Hurt Locker, this little film that could and the "Best Picture" winner with the lowest box office take - about $12 million - in the modern era.
Or maybe Oscar voters are put off with these made-inside-a-computer movies. I think that is why Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Sin City, and 300 did not even receive Oscar nominations for "visual effects," when they seemed like obvious choices.
Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein sums up this sentiment by writing, "My suspicion is that academy members still find it difficult to believe that films largely created and sculpted in the computer--whether it's "Avatar" or the long string of brilliant Pixar films -- can be just as worthy and artistic as the old-fashioned live-action ones."
I think there are many reasons why Avatar didn't win. I think some Oscar voters chose The Hurt Locker or some other film over Avatar because James Cameron already has 3 Academy Awards, from 1998 when the Academy lavished his 1997 worldwide smash hit, Titanic, with 11 Oscars out of 14 nominations. Some Academy members may not have liked how Cameron acted during the 98 awards ceremony. Remember Cameron declaring, "I'm king of the world?" It was a quote from Titanic, so I wasn't bothered by Cameron's declaration, but some apparently were and still are.
Anything that involves voting involves politics, and awards, like politics, are often popularity contests. Maybe some voters were a little envious at Avatar's monstrous success - 2.5 billion dollars in worldwide box office and growing. Pretty much everyone knew Avatar would be a hit, but how many thought it would be this big? Do some Academy members have the perception that Cameron already has everything, so why give him more? Why not honor The Hurt Locker, this little film that could and the "Best Picture" winner with the lowest box office take - about $12 million - in the modern era.
Or maybe Oscar voters are put off with these made-inside-a-computer movies. I think that is why Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Sin City, and 300 did not even receive Oscar nominations for "visual effects," when they seemed like obvious choices.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Oscar Nominees Asked to Prepare Two Speeches
MTV Movies Blog is reporting that Oscar nominess have been asked to prepare two speeches:
Basically the winners will be allowed 45 seconds with which to tell the world what the award means to them. As for shout-outs to agents and parents (and spouses if they're remembered), there will be a separate forum for such gratitude backstage via a "Thank You Cam." These videos will be available online afterward for anyone to see, rather than aired during the television broadcast of the ceremony.
Apparently, MTV's story comes from Reuters which reported that the producers of the Oscar telecast, Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic, made this request at the annual Oscar nominees luncheon held Monday, Feb. 15th.
I have to say that the acceptance speeches annoy me, probably as much as the other really annoying elements of the Oscar telecast: the performances of dull best song nominees, the speech from the Price-Waterhouse guys or whoever counts the votes, the obligatory speech from the Academy president, the presenters' attempts at humor, etc.
Some of the winners' speeches are just plain embarrassing, for any number of reasons: too long, too personal, too many people to thank. Some of the winners ought to have the decency to just get off the stage. That meanness said, I still think they should have their time to say what they want. For all that they annoy me, I don't think they should be rushed off the stage. I can always press the mute button or switch to another channel for a minute or so.
Basically the winners will be allowed 45 seconds with which to tell the world what the award means to them. As for shout-outs to agents and parents (and spouses if they're remembered), there will be a separate forum for such gratitude backstage via a "Thank You Cam." These videos will be available online afterward for anyone to see, rather than aired during the television broadcast of the ceremony.
Apparently, MTV's story comes from Reuters which reported that the producers of the Oscar telecast, Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic, made this request at the annual Oscar nominees luncheon held Monday, Feb. 15th.
I have to say that the acceptance speeches annoy me, probably as much as the other really annoying elements of the Oscar telecast: the performances of dull best song nominees, the speech from the Price-Waterhouse guys or whoever counts the votes, the obligatory speech from the Academy president, the presenters' attempts at humor, etc.
Some of the winners' speeches are just plain embarrassing, for any number of reasons: too long, too personal, too many people to thank. Some of the winners ought to have the decency to just get off the stage. That meanness said, I still think they should have their time to say what they want. For all that they annoy me, I don't think they should be rushed off the stage. I can always press the mute button or switch to another channel for a minute or so.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A "Kick Ass" Preview
, the film adaptation of the Marvel Comics series from writer Mark Millar
(Wanted
) and John Romita, Jr
. The excellent movie box office news site is previewing 2010's big movies and have done one for Kick Ass.The film is directed by Matthew Vaughn
and written by Jane Goldman
and Vaughn, who previously adapted Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess' illustrated novel, Stardust
, for the screen. I liked Stardust. It looks like a British fantasy film that might have come out of the 1980s, and I think fans of fantasy films that are more like LadyHawke
and less like Lord of the Rings will really enjoy it.Concerning Kick Ass, I guess Nicolas Cage being in it means that it will either be a hit or a disaster. There will be no middle ground.
Review: "Pinky" Remains a Pointed, Relevant Drama
TRASH IN MY EYE No. 177 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux
Pinky (1949)
Running time: 102 minutes
DIRECTOR: Elia Kazan
WRITERS: Philip Dunne and Dudley Nichols (from the novel by Cid Ricketts Sumner)
PRODUCER: Darryl F. Zanuck
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Joseph MacDonald
EDITOR: Harmon Jones
Academy Award nominee
DRAMA
Starring: Jeanne Crain, Ethel Barrymore, Ethel Waters, William Lundigan, Basil Ruysdael, Evelyn Varden, Kenny Washington, and Griff Barnett
Actress Jeanne Crain died Sunday, December 14, 2003, a day before I began writing this review. She earned an Academy Award nomination for her work in the film, Pinky. Patricia Johnson (Ms. Crain) is a (very) light-skinned black woman living in the north. Years ago her grandmother (Ethel Waters) sent her north so that she could go to school to become a very well trained nurse. Now a graduate nurse, Patricia, better known as Pinky in the dirty, bigoted South where she was born, comes home to help her ailing granny. Pinky, however, is not ready to live again in the pre-Civil Rights South, with all the requisite stepping, fetching, and bowing to crackers that Negroes had to do then.
Her grandmother also uses guilt and guile to get Pinky to watch over an ailing white woman, Miss Em (Ethel Barrymore), who once ran a boarding school on the grounds of her palatial plantation estate. When Miss Em dies, she bequeaths her property to Pinky, which causes anger and consternation amongst the small town’s backwoods, inbred peckerwoods; it especially infuriates the trashy wife (Evelyn Varden) of Miss Em’s only living relative. Pinky doggedly fights the relatives who contest the will in court, and everyone is against her, from her grandmother to a reluctant retired judge who is acting as Pinky’s lawyer.
That’s just a few of the many hilarious highlights of the film Pinky, which like both film versions of Imitation of Life deals with light-skinned black women trying to “pass” as white women. Many of you would like to believe that there is no need for mulattoes, quadroons, octoroons, etc. to pass as white because skin color doesn’t matter any more, or at least not as much as it used to matter. Michael Jackson is trying to make himself white for a reason – it matters. Who would chose to have a dusky or dark complexion over being lighter? This film is timeless as we will always face hate, prejudice, and bigotry based on physical appearance.
The film is well acted (even if Ms. Crain and Ms. Waters are a bit hammy at times) and very well directed. Pinky captures with disheartening accuracy the pain and horror of racism and bigotry. Ms. Waters as granny or Miss Darcy (as she’s also known) plays the quietly suffering mammy a bit too heavily, but the humility and grace in the face of hate she gives the character serves the film quite well. It is also not naïve to believe that Pinky would stand up for herself at the great risk of personal injury. Back in the day it was nothing for evil white Christians to brutally and viciously murder black men and women, and that’s what Pinky faced, demanding that the legal system honor her property and inheritance rights.
Most importantly, Pinky is very entertaining, even though at times it is outrageously hilarious. It is, too, an inspirational film about doing the right thing, a feel good movie about triumphant black folks that will hopefully stand strong over time.
7 of 10
A-
NOTE:
1950 Academy Awards: 3 nominations: Best Actress (Jeanne Crain), and Best Supporting Actress (Ethel Barrymore, Ethel Waters)
------------------------
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Hughes Brothers on Everything Including Batman
In the run up to the release of the Denzel Washington starrer, The Book of Eli, the film’s directors, brothers Albert and Allen Hughes, did the usual round of interviews. Here are some highlights from two of them:
From Hollywood Reporter:
YOU BASICALLY MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTRY, CORRECT?
ALBERT HUGHES: I moved to Prague eight years ago. I have a kid in Los Angeles, so I come out and stay there when I'm here to work. But if I had my choice, I would not set foot in this town or this country again. It's 50% the business I'm in and 50% the culture and politics of the country. The youthfulness of this country, not having to deal with thousands of years of sexuality, religion, everything. This country is a big baby, and I don't want to be here while it's still learning. I'd rather be in a country where I don't understand the language and nobody is bothering me or telling me what to read or who to f--- and what movies to make. Out there, I do these little shorts that no one ever sees. They're experimental. I get more joy outta doing that than doing a movie. I can just make some bull---t and have fun. I've been doing that for eight years.
From MTV via Comic Book Movie:
"Three different Batman projects were presented to us over the years," revealed Albert Hughes. "The first time, it was 'The Dark Knight Returns.' I remember how dark the comic book was. Batman was old. He had to rely more on his tools and other shit, and he was a decrepit, 60 or 70 year-old man in this comic book."
According to the brothers, this Batman project never came to be because the studio thought that this film would kill the franchise. I don't believe that a movie about Batman at the end of his career would kill the franchise, and I think the today's movie audiences are sophisticated enough to understand a Batman reboot that would inevitably have to appear after a film version of The Dark Knight Returns. Certainly, the recent Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey, Jr. and the Jude Law, proved that any character franchise can be refreshed and revived, because if any literary character had been done to death, it was Sherlock Holmes.
From Hollywood Reporter:
YOU BASICALLY MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTRY, CORRECT?
ALBERT HUGHES: I moved to Prague eight years ago. I have a kid in Los Angeles, so I come out and stay there when I'm here to work. But if I had my choice, I would not set foot in this town or this country again. It's 50% the business I'm in and 50% the culture and politics of the country. The youthfulness of this country, not having to deal with thousands of years of sexuality, religion, everything. This country is a big baby, and I don't want to be here while it's still learning. I'd rather be in a country where I don't understand the language and nobody is bothering me or telling me what to read or who to f--- and what movies to make. Out there, I do these little shorts that no one ever sees. They're experimental. I get more joy outta doing that than doing a movie. I can just make some bull---t and have fun. I've been doing that for eight years.
From MTV via Comic Book Movie:
"Three different Batman projects were presented to us over the years," revealed Albert Hughes. "The first time, it was 'The Dark Knight Returns.' I remember how dark the comic book was. Batman was old. He had to rely more on his tools and other shit, and he was a decrepit, 60 or 70 year-old man in this comic book."
According to the brothers, this Batman project never came to be because the studio thought that this film would kill the franchise. I don't believe that a movie about Batman at the end of his career would kill the franchise, and I think the today's movie audiences are sophisticated enough to understand a Batman reboot that would inevitably have to appear after a film version of The Dark Knight Returns. Certainly, the recent Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey, Jr. and the Jude Law, proved that any character franchise can be refreshed and revived, because if any literary character had been done to death, it was Sherlock Holmes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)