Before I run this peice, concerning the recent proposed changes to FCC policy, I think I ought to outline my personal views on the overall subject of government media-regulation so that we’re all on the same page as to the prism through which this and stories like it will be viewed. My views on said subject are as follows:

There has never been, in the HISTORY OF HUMANKIND, a single provable case or even a single reputable study to support the notion that ANY item of the arts or media, (be it music, radio or TV broadcast, film, painting, sculpture, literature or otherwise,) is inherently harmful to view, see, read or listen to.

Read that last statement over again, and let it sink in. NEVER. Thats how many times someone has proven that a work of art or media is automatically “harmful.” ZERO. That’s how many reputable studies exist to support the idea that they could even in theory be automatically harmful. There is NO video game can be gauranteed to make anyone who plays it shoot up their high school. There is NO movie that can be garaunteed to turn your kid into a serial killer. There is NO album that can be gauranteed to make any listener commit suicide. Even that episode of “Pokemon” where the flashing light-patterns caused a mass-outbreak of seizures among Japanese children did not effect 100% of those who saw it. Are we crystal clear about this? These things DO NOT EXIST. At all.

Thusly, it is not merely my “belief,” but my conclusion based on the logic outline above, that in the complete absence of the garauntee of harm no branch of the State or Federal Government has the right to regulate ANY book, picture, film, television or radio broadcast, musical peice, or ANY work of creative media in regards to it’s content.

By extension of that basic principal, it is also my belief and conclusion that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has absolutely no right under the United States Constitution to regulate content and levy fines for “broadcast indecency” as it currently does. The FCC should be stripped of all such powers, and relegated strictly to the function of regulating the corporate and financial behaviors of Broadcast entities.

All power to regulate art and media content should be stripped from the government and placed exclusively in the domain of the private business owners who operate the television stations, movie theaters, art galleries, publishing houses, bookstores, etc. They, and the market they serve, should be the sole determiners of what is decent or indecent, what is regulated and in what manner. We are, after all, still allegedly a free market society.

Ahem.

Having said my peice in that regard, on to the news…

On February 16th, 2005, the United States House voted overwhelmingly to give the Federal Communications Commission the go-ahead on a proposed hike in broadcast indencency fines from their current $32,500 to a staggering $500,000. A lighter (but at $325,000 still inexcusably high) version of this legislation is favored by the Senate, which has to either approve the House vote or iron out a compromise between the two before any legislation can be passed on to President Bush for final approval.

Get the broader details HERE:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050217/REPOSITORY/502170363/1013/NEWS03

If you don’t understand why this is big deal, then you need to start paying attention to this stuff and now. I do not care if you are a Republican, a Democrat, independent, undecided, red-state or blue-state or whatever, this comes down to a simple fundamental truth: This is the government making laws to control speech. The higher fines will make it easier for the government to punish someone who says or shows something they don’t like. This is a way for a government body to get around the First Amendment. The freedom to express even unpopular speech is not just an important aspect of American life, it’s THE MOST important aspect of American life.

This is not about “making broadcast radio and television safe for family viewing,” as the White House said in a prepared statement. To that I demand to know: “Who’s definition of ‘safe?'” and “Who’s family? Your family? Mine? The Manson Family? The Partridge Family?” This is not about families or safety. This is about reactionary societal-regressives, motivated primarily by fringe elements of Religious Fundamentalism and cultural “traditionalists” who desire the re-engineering of American culture in their image through the use of government regulation. This is about CONTROL.

Back to boldface for a spell: Can you guess how much I think the FCC should be allowed to fine for “obscene” material on TV? Hm? How about ZERO dollars?

Of course, this is motivated almost entirely by the events of about a year ago, when a cheezy publicity stunt at the MTV-produced Superbowl halftime show resulted in the “shocking” (yes, shocking, simply shocking!!!) revelation to billions of impressionable TV viewers that fading pop diva Janet Jackson was possessed of an upper-torso epidermal feature also shared by every single person watching the show. The offending feature is colloquially refered to as a “nipple,” and anyone who honestly still thinks this was EVER even worth getting mildly peeved about… Please, I’m begging you, get counciling.

Now, let’s explore why this is a complete fraud:

The “Nipplegate” incident is part of a larger “story of the year” in 2004, i.e. the HUGE uptick in complaints to the FCC. The exact numbers are often disputed and hard to come by, but the figure is something like several hundred-thousand this year as opposed to a prior average of about a hundred. The way the enemies of free speech have so magnificiently spun this data, it’s easy to buy into the Big Lie that TV has gotten “too raunchy” and that there’s some kind of “silent majority” revolution going on in this country in favor of “good old-fashioned family values.” It’s not hard to look at this skewed data and conjure up the mental picture of hundreds of thousands of Smith’s and Jones’s deciding they’ve “finally had enough” of TV sex and violence (mostly sex) and sitting down spontaneously-en-masse to write impassioned strongly worded letters which in turn arrive in righteous, burying-bagfuls at the office of the FCC like some kind of facist Bizarro-World version of “Miracle on 34th Street.” It’s a powerful image, cinematic in scope and rife with pathos and symbolism…

…too bad it’s NOT REAL.

What if I told you that there’s BARELY the makings of an “uprising” out there? (There’s also no spoon, but thats another column.) What if the whole “massive surge in viewer complaints” was a shadow and a fraud? What if, instead of thousands of angry individual Americans motivated to write strongly-worded letters to the FCC with specific complaints, the “surge” was actually coming from thousands internet-trolling “family values” malcontents adding “me too!” to a mass-mailing and that “writing a strongly-worded letter” was in reality “clicking a mouse button.” What if a single group, founded by a single man was the mastermind behind the entire thing? Also a powerful image, cinematic in scope and rife with pathos and symbolism…

…except this time, IT’S REAL.

In January, the industry trade publication Mediaweek.com published shocking statistics about the entire FCC/Nipplegate debacle. It turns out that OVER 98% OF THE COMPLAINTS came from a single source. Read all about it over at Audio Video Revolution:
http://www.avrev.com/news/0105/6.indecency.html

They call themselves the Parent’s Television Council. As an organization, they monitor the airwaves for anything they deem to be “indecent.” When such a nugget is found, it is posted on their website out of context and made viewable to anyone who wants to see it. Those offended by the clips are then prompted to digitally add their name to a mass-mailing-style form letter that the PTC then forwards to the FCC. And what does the PTC define as “indecent?” As you might expect, they toe the “Religious Right” line in that respect, so naturally they are infinitely more concerned about sex than violence, and “deviant” (read: “gay”) sexuality especially. See for yourself:
http://www.parentstv.org/

Everybody got that? Not a “moral majority” uprising in the mail. Not a spiritual fellowship of like-minded hardworking Americans. Websurfers with an agenda mass-mailing form letters from a politically-biased pro-censorship website.

And who’s in charge here? His name is L. Brent Bozell. He’s a professional censorship-advocate who, in addition to running the PTC, also operates the Media Research Center, which claims to be a “Conservative” watchdog outfit watching for “Liberal bias” in the media but basically exists to accuse anyone L. Brent Bozell disagrees with of being “biased.” Here’s the site, see for yourself:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/entcol/welcome.asp

What REALLY irritates me about the Media Research Center is that their bogus claims of watchdog-hood cheapens the very real problem of political bias in journalism. Fortunately, a REAL Conservative watchdog-group with REAL credentials that ISN’T just twisting news to advance a so-called “family values” agenda exists, over at David Horowitz’s Frontpagemag.net. Agree or disagree with Frontpage’s politics, at least their fair and honest which is more than can be said for either of Bozell’s operations. He’s not a Conservative, he’s a Religious Zealot, militantly anti-gay, anti-choice and only champions “conservative” causes when they advance his theological agenda…

…and hey, wouldn’t you know it? He LOVED “The Passion.”
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/lbbcolumns/2004/0217.asp
Notice the little PTC link down the bottom to “send a thank-you note to Mel Gibson?” Man, sometimes this is just too easy.

When the REAL Constitutional Conservatives (and Libertarians) over at the respected CATO Insitute admirably stepped up and called out the PTC for the anti-freedom outfit it is, look how pissy Bozell got about it:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/entcol/welcome.asp
(Scroll down to “CATO Lobbies for Hollywood” entry)

The article he’s so upset about is by Adam Thierer, CATO’s Thierer. I URGE you to read it, as it’s the best anti-censorship article I’d read in many a moon:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-04-05.html

Money quote from Thierer:
“While the PTC claims to be non-partisan, the watchdog group’s public policy advocacy adopts a distinctly social conservative and moralistic tone. Interestingly, the PTC’s motto is: “Because Our Children Are Watching,” which begs the question: Why are your children watching? Why are they watching Desperate Housewives or any other show you find objectionable? I know my kids aren’t watching.”

And one more:
“Conservatives and religious groups decry government activism in terms of educating our children, for example, but with their next breath call in Uncle Sam to play the role of surrogate parent when it comes to TV content.”

Can I get an “Amen?”

CATO Institute is one of the most intelligent and important groups on the American political scene. Vacillating between Constitutional Conservatism and Libertarianism (kind of an exercise in hair-splitting, really) their operating motto is: “Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets & Peace.” Couldn’t have said it better myself. If you’ve never heard of them or visited their website, I reccomend you do so and look around. If you’re into politics at all, from any side, this is pure brain-food:
http://www.cato.org/index.html

So anyhow…

Our Freedom’s may have been be given to us by the blood of our Patriot forefathers, but keeping them is as responsibility for all of us. I, and many others like me, believe that the increased FCC-fines, motivated by bad, manipulated data, are a step in the direction of abridging those very freedoms. If you agree, do something about it.

You’ve all got a senator. You’ve all got a congressman. The White House Switchboards really do catalogue all the calls they get. Make your voice heard.

Yes, even if you disagree with everything I’ve said here. Despite the best efforts of The Parents Television Council and all their ilk, this is after all still a free country 😉

…and this time it’s 100% Michael Medved and Mel Gibson free! I promise!

So there’s two simmering Oscar issues right now, which are sure to come to a head in the coming years but we’re getting early previews of around this year’s show.

The first issue is one of a rejiggering in the way the statues are handed out this year. The reliable Moviepoopshoot.com reports:
http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/news/feb05/74.html

The meat of it goes something like this: Some of the “less major” awards this year will be given to the winners in their seats or via beauty-pagent style “every nominee lines up” on the stage. Presumably this is producer Gil Cates making good on his yearly promise to make the show go quicker and shake things up a bit… but c’mon, you don’t have to be any kind of insider to figure out what’s going on here: This is the Academy caving in to the sad reality that a majority of people watching the show are just doing so to oggle their favored celebs and see what they wore, and this new system was likely designed to get the awards that “nobody” (read: film buffs and the people nominated for the awards) cares about done quicker so that the attendees with the better PMI (People Magazine Index) can get even more attention.

Editor Walter Murch said it nicely in an angry email to Gil Cates:
“I would like to protest in the strongest possible terms your decision to not allow ‘technical’ crafts on stage to receive their Oscars.” He added, “To apply some kind of PMI (People magazine index) to the nominees and make this the criterion for whether they get to go onstage or not and speak to the Academy is disgraceful to the Academy and to all of the people who work in film, whether they are members of the Academy or not.”

To be fair, it hasn’t been confirmed which categories will be done this way and the producers are promising this WON’T be just about shorting the craft-nominees, but right now I’m with Murch: It just sounds fishy. The hard working people on the technical side of filmmaking spend their entire year with their work being overlooked in favor of celebrities who act in the films, and the Oscars is the one night the field gets suitably equalized: The winner of Best Actor takes the same stage, gets the same-shaped trophy and the same speaking time as the winner of Best Makeup or Best Editing. To take that away is cruel.

And speaking of hardworking people getting shortchanged, it’s ridiculous that there’s no Oscar for Best Stunt Coordinator. This is a vital part of making a huge number of films, and it deserves a category. The Stuntmen apparently agree with me. For seperate stunt organizations have joined to petition the Academy to recognize them. I say don’t hold your breath, look how long in between “Snow White” and “Shrek” for us to get a Best Animated Feature prize.

The only film pundit I can find talking about this is Jeffery Wells over at “Hollywood Elsewhere”…
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/
…predictably, he’s against it. His rationale is, I gather, the same as most of the Academy ruling class: he views stunt work as the stuff of artless blockbusters, action films, and other stuff thats not worth recognizing. Or as he puts it:

“Safe, maybe, but forget creative. To me, movie stunts are the antithesis of that. Hollywood’s stunt professionals are good people, but they’re upper-level proles who are just a step or two removed from carpenters and electricians, and including them with the rest of the Oscar contenders would devalue things a bit.”

Look, I like Wells’ site, he’s a good film writer, but on this like most other things he’s just the definition of an old-school Film Snob (the boomer-aged dying-breed forerunner to the NEW power-class of film pundits, the Movie Geeks) and to put it bluntly: He just doesn’t get it. “Stunt Coordinators” don’t just stage crashes and falls, they also handle the complex human-mechanics like the elaborate fight sequences that’ve become so prevalent lately. It’s an art, it’s essential to filmmaking right now, and it deserves a spot.

In fact, I’ll do the stunt guys one better. They don’t need one award, they need THREE:

How about: “Best Stunt Coordinator,” “Best Choreography (Dance)” and “Best Choreography (Combat)”? That’d be something…

I’m aware that the Alan Keyes stuff seems pretty far removed from the subject of film, but I’m going to continue posting it anyway. Yes, it’s not immediately on-topic, but Keyes is one of the top “culture warriors” in the U.S. and a frequent ally of the pro-censorship forces that threaten all art including film, so if you want a connection there it is.

The developing news story around the former Republican presidential candidate and hardline anti-gay-rights activist, i.e. that his daughter Maya is a lesbian and that that fact has (allegedly) led to her being thrown out of the family home and cut off financially, has hit the mainstream media following TV News interviews involving Maya herself. You may have already heard about the story here, or from bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Oliver Willis.

Worldnetdaily.com, an independent political news site catering to the hard-end of the Religious Right that offered it’s support to Keyes during his recent Senate run against Barack Obama, gives their take on the story here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42867

The article includes a lengthy quote from Mrs. Keyes, where she fills out some of the details in the story. For example, she has apparently been “out” to her parents since High School, which means that the fact of his daughter’s lifestyle was already known to Alan and in his mind during his recent hard-fought fights against that very same lifestyle. This is not a pleasant thought.

This particular peice from Mrs. Keye’s thoughts on her father strikes me as especially poignant:
“It was weird to see what he said all over the news, but the remarks themselves weren’t any shock to me; it’s no different than what he believes and says at home as well.”

This whole thing, honestly, makes me sick to my stomache and deeply pained for all involved. Yes, Maya Keyes in particular but in a way even her father. I’ve followed Keyes’ career for quite some time, and it was always “one thing” to hear his hateful words about gays under the assumption that they were coming from just the latest in a long line of angry “traditionalists” with little connection to the reality of which they spoke… But to now know that he has said what he said and stood for what he has stood for… to know that when he called an entire group “motivated by selfish hedonism” that he was not only conciously talking about Dick Cheney’s daughter (as the news made hay of at the time) but his own child when he did so… that’s another thing entirely. The picture being painted here is of a profoundly disturbed man, and I find I simply cannot grasp the sorts of things that must be wrong with a person to make him treat his own family in this regard. For me, it is simply beyond words.

Look, I can’t guess at what the political, religious or otherwise beliefs are of people reading this blog entry, and I don’t really care. I imagine it’s mighty tempting for some who fall on the “progressive” side of social issues, like myself, to look at this situation as “good” because it will likely be the end of Keyes’ stature as a figure of record (his own party, which already refused to support his Senate run, will likely cast him aside given the seeming callousness of his behavior here), and while that may be “good news for the good guys” in the long run, I don’t think there can be any legitimate response to hearing of this other than sadness.

I don’t care what you think about gay rights, gay marriage, or what you thought of Keyes in the past or think of him now. The facts here (as we know them thus far) are beyond mere politics: Somewhere in America right now, a family is torn apart. A young woman is out on her own, cast out from her house by her parents. A man is going to bed knowing that he sent his own child away from his home. It doesn’t matter which family it happened to, or for what reason, it’s a plain and simple tragedy. And one that is, sadly, happening in a hundred other homes to a thousand other people who’s names we’ll never know.

Ong Bak is one of those genre films that critics like to say “you’ll like even if you don’t like ::insert genre here::” Don’t believe the hype. This is an old-school style martial-arts film, focusing on Muy Thai Kickboxing, made in Thailand. It’s plot is a bare-basics creation, existing exclusively to showcase a specific fighting-style and a specific star using it. If that sounds like something you’d enjoy, this is a damn good example of such and you’ll probably enjoy it. If you don’t like martial-arts films at all, there’s no reason on Earth for you to see this. You will sit bored to tears, wondering why everyone else in the theater is clapping and cheering.

Now, for those of you who ARE into this sort of film (myself included) it’s my honor to report to you that everything you’ve heard is true, and that if your even a casual fan of good kung-fu movies then you owe it to yourself to get to a theater and see this movie. Now.

Shot in Thailand, Ong Bak plays as designed from the ground-up as a martial-arts film for martial-arts fans. The fights are intricate and uninterupted, the styles are distinguishable and cool to see, the stunts are spectacular. Newcomer Tony Jaa is, indeed, the real deal, and if he can fair in a film where the ambitions of the story rise to his ambitions as a physical performer then we have a rising star on our hands. It’s becoming sport to compare Jaa to the great stars of the past, but in my estimation he most resembles Bruce Lee in his serious, spiritual-stare and forceful fighting-style.

The plot (which also recalls the early work of Lee) would have been right at home in an old-school Shaw Bros. classic: A small village has been robbed of the head of it’s sacred Buddha statue and the local golden-boy, a master of Muy-Thai Kickboxing, is sent to the big city retrieve it. The film wrings a genuinely admirable degree of story and pathos out of this in the simple act of moving this old-school story from it’s more natural home in a period Chinese kung-fu peice to present-day Thailand. The culture-clash undercurrent to the exploits of Ting, (Jaa,) the simple “hick” from the traditional rural village as he navigates the streets of busy, modern, quasi-westernized big city Bangkok really does manage to punctuate the action with moments of real humanity, particularly in the character of Ting’s reluctant ally Hum Lae, a former villager who has moved to the city, dyed his hair blonde, changed his name to George and runs gambling scams.

In a way, the expressive “George” functions as a kind of emotional-core to the film, complimenting Jaa’s position as the driving-force of it’s action. It’s possible, indeed downright easy, to see this character as a kind of humanization of the story’s overall aim of reuniting Thailand’s modern, urban present with it’s religious and philosophical roots though the unifying element of Muy-Thai. As if to drive the point home, Ting at first refuses to use his skills in combat, but changes his tune when a boorish English-speaking “fight club” participant taunts him that “Thai men aren’t strong enough, thats why Thai girls come to my country and become hookers!” Subtlety is not the genre’s strong suit.

All of that doesn’t really serve to make this more than a film about a young fighter punching his way through henchmen to retrieve a stolen McGuffin, nor does it really need to. The film functions fine on it’s own, adhering to the iron-tested formula of the martial-arts genre and delivering all the right beats (and beat-downs) required. There are epic chases, terrific slapstick and jaw-dropping fights. The location-shooting and Jaa’s fearless stuntwork gives the film an air of welcome authenticity: Never does anything happen that appears outside the realm of the possible, and while I dearly love Hong Kong wire-fu it’s absence here really is a mark in it’s favor.

What more can I say? It’s a top-class fight film with a great fresh face in the lead. Action fans in general and kung-fu fans in particular really need to see this. You may have seen the trailers wherein Wu-Tang Clan’s “The RZA” offers you much the same advice. You should listen to The RZA on this one. If you’re not inclined to listen to The RZA about anything, or if you have no idea who The RZA is, you really should see something else.

If you ever find yourself counting a Movie Geek among you recent aquaintances and you want to get to know them better with minimal digging on your part, here’s something to try: Ask them if they have any “film theories” that are especially their own. Most of us have them.

By “film theory” I mean, to clarify, a certain opinion about film “overall” that this particular Geek happens to consider his or her very own. Some big moment of enlightenment they once had that they have by now fashioned into what can definately be called an “opinion” but which they are more apt to describe in such detail that it eventually crosses into the realm of a “theory.”

I’m going to tell you mine, because I can tell you want to know me better. I mean, if not, then why are you reading this blog? Exclude yourself from this presumption if you are here because a friend of your’s also happens to be a friend of mine and they gave you this URL, (in addition, if they qualified it with “you might like this” or “this guy is pretty interesting,” please accept my humble appologies for how dissapointed you must be by now,) or if you only came for the review of “Hitch” which, I promise, we’ll get to in a moment.

Anyway, here goes: I believe certain films and genres can be classified by gender. More literally, I believe that contrary to the popular notion that there are some films and films genres “for men” and others “for women,” that instead the works in question can actually be said to have genders themselves, i.e. if films were to suddenly transform into animals, many or most of them would have classifiable genitalia.

This isn’t unusual as theories go. Electrical wiring has “male” and “female” connectors. Computer software (stimulating) is “male” while hardware (nurturing) is “female.” Sometimes it lines up curiously: Personality wise, the “lion” analogue to a human male is a female lion (hunter instinct.) Stretch the bounds a bit, and this can work for pretty much anything.

So it goes with films. There are “male” genres and there are “female” genres, at least in my estimation. And, like with everything else, usually they come in pairs and compliment one-another: Martial-Arts films are the “male” analogue to Musicals, a “female” genre. And there are complexities: It’s a noted fact that the audience for Science Fiction and Fantasy is (still) predominantly male, but I also believe that Fantasy is the “feminine” counterpart to “masculine” scifi.

“Romantic Comedies” are a female genre, in gender and in audience appeal. These films just aren’t made for men. They can be, but almost never are. Especially the “Rom-Coms,” the dominant-subgenre in which popular actors are romanced by popular actresses in entirely-disposable narratives that serve only to pair them up and play off their established personas. You know these films by sight, because their DVD case is usually white while others are usually every other color.

“Hitch” is a kind of rare bird, then, as it is at least in part trying to do something different: Offering up a traditional, utterly-predictable “Rom-Com” from the perspective of it’s male characters. In addition to focusing on the men, the male story is told not by the “goofy romantic chasing the girl” but instead from the vantage point of the obligatory “slick-cool-guy-pal-who-helps-out-messes-everything-up-but-then-fixes-it-sorta,” in this case a self-proclaimed “Date Doctor” named Hitch who’s helping a chubby nerd (Kevin James) woo a Hiltonesque heiress. That Hitch is played by Will Smith has more to do with making the sidekick/helper the lead role than any kind of creative jonesing by the filmmakers, but try not to let that bother you.

SIGNIFICANT SPOILERS follow, continue reading at your own risk.

In the film, Hitch is a guy who has (apparently) learned all there is to know about women, and proudly proclaims that with his advice “any man can sweep any woman off her feet.” Rather than putting this all down in a book, Hitch works with “clients” personally, on an “untraceable” referal-only basis that has rendered “the Date Doctor” into a kind of urban legend whispered about in New York’s female population. Hooking socially-inept Albert Heffernan (James) up with the heiress is to be Hitch’s “masterpeice,” and with that setup and plot the film really has a winning hand. Smith is perfect for this role, and he has real chemistry with James. When the film is concentrated on Hitch at “work” and with Albert in particular, there’s a really great movie going on.

Unfortunately, another movie is going on that’s just typical Rom-Com time-wasting that at first intrudes upon and then nearly crushes to death the more interest Hitch/Albert subplot. This other movie concerns a female gossip columnist (Eva Mendes) for whom Hitch falls hard and who also happens to be investigating the mystery of the Heiress’s odd new beaux and the existance of the Date Doctor as well. This story just isn’t very interesting, and that it seems intended by the filmmakers as the “A” plot is a colossal mistake.

The problem is with Mendes, a capable-enough actress here saddled with the role of the character who has to say and do whatever the script requires to advance the plot, no matter how foolish or out of character. The basic idea is that she’s the “one woman” who’s cynical and removed enough to be immune to Hitch’s charms, but it doesn’t work because Hitch is so well-written as a cool charmer (and played by Will Smith, who doesn’t really even need the good writing to come off as cool and charming) that her character must twist and morph into a frigid, unlikable creep to make the “immunity” even partially believable. Eventually I started wondering why Hitch was bothering, and the film fails to provide an adequate answer.

The problem is also with the simple fact that the requirements of the two stories don’t really compliment eachother at all. For the Hitch/Albert story to function, Hitch has to be a good guy of completely altruistic motives: The film goes to GREAT pains to establish that Hitch is a nice guy who only helps lonely guys fall in love, and refuses to aid those who are only out for sex. It’s a movie, after all; in “reality” this person would probably much more resemble Frank TJ Mackey, Tom Cruise’s “Seduce & Destroy” peddler from “Magnolia” than Hitch.

Thusly, the innevitable 3rd-act complication wherein Mendes misinterprets a situation so as to both discover that Hitch is the mythical Date Doctor and believe him guilty of nefarious doings plays as an unlikely (even pathologically cynical) move on her part, and her actions stemming from these events are simply cruel and petty: There’s nothing that Hitch and people connected to him have done (or even are believed to have done) to deserve any of what happens to them in the third act, and Mendes character in turn does nothing that warrants her being forgiven for them.

As a result, the finale to the Hitch/Albert story, which is really funny and touching and just great in all the ways the rest of that story has been throughout, gets shoved to the side for attempts to salvage Mendes’ character, and it just doesn’t work. The film, overall, would have been infinitely superior focusing on Hitch’s mentoring of Albert, jettisoning the Hitch’s romance with the Mendes character and instead allowing her to assume her more natural role as the villain of the peice.

Still, half a good movie is better than none, and mostly-good is much better than I can usually say about most Rom-Coms. There’s a lot of good in “Hitch,” and while it’s not really worth rushing out to see it’s also not worth avoiding, either.

Final Rating: 6/10

The common misonception about folks, like myself, who see evidence that something may be “wrong” with Mel Gibson given his behavior surrounding his film “The Passion” is that the “charge” is motivated exclusively by some kind of negative-regard for his religious beliefs. Speaking for myself, this is not the case. Gibson’s public-persona has always been as a star always a little “on the edge,” but this past year it’s trended into territory that’s making him look less and less “wacky” and more and more “in need of help.”

And now we have this most recent story, as reported by those good fellows over at CHUD:
http://chud.com/news/1495

Here’s whats going on: Gibson and his distributors, in a smart business move, are planning to re-release “The Passion” to theaters for the Easter season, hoping to start some kind of yearly-tradition thing. Harmless enough…

But here’s the thing… it’s not the same movie that played earlier in the year. Gibson went back an recut it to be less-violent, apparently in the hopes that it would be more accesible to younger audiences. The MPAA, however, slapped his new cut with an R-rating all over again; which only makes sense because it’s not possible to make The Passion into a PG-13.

Mel, however, seems fully convinced that the new cut is indeed more family-friendly and that it’s something that those families NEED to see, so he’s releasing the new cut Unrated, (the designation usually reserved for the more violent cut of a film,) rather than let the MPAA put the “R” on it.

Let’s just put aside for a moment the notion that Gibson (and alot of his supporters) seems to think that the film’s “message” is so important for the very young to witness feel that a recut is necessary. Lets also put aside the absurdity of thinking that a few minutes of recuts can possibly render a film as gruesome as “Passion” suitable for anything but an R-rating.

Does this not just sack of plain old NUTTY behavior? One of the BIG sub-stories of the movie was the phenomenon of parents and churches dragging their young ones to a feature-length torture-film. Does Gibson really believe that many people who skipped the film did so because it was just slighty too violent for them, and that a few moments of missing bloodspray will fix the issue? Exactly how far out of touch with reality is he, at this point?

PREDICTION: This won’t be the last we hear of this. Dollars to donuts (figuratively speaking) the next shoe to drop will be “Passion”-devotees claiming that the new cut MUST have been good enough for a PG-13 but the eeeeeevil secular/jewish/gay/liberal cabal that “controls Hollywood” still gave it an R just to prevent more people from being exposed to it’s evangelizing powers.

It’ll happen, just wait and see 🙂

Okay, the last three posts have been sort of on the dour, serious side, and only one was totally about movies, so lets try something lighter and more “everyone can enjoy”-style, eh?

Let’s do the “Oscar Predicting” thing, or start doing it anyway. These things take time, and why do it all in one shot?

I’ll start on “Best Picture,” as good a place as any to start, no?



BEST PICTURE



Nominated: “The Aviator,” “Finding Neverland,” “Million Dollar Baby,” “Ray,” “Sideways”



Should’ve been nominated: “Kill Bill: Vol. 2,” “Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind”

Should win: “Kill Bill: Vol. 2” (note: yes, “should wins” can and will include “should’ve been” nominees.” Bob’s blog, Bob’s rules)

Likely winner: “Million Dollar Baby”

Longshot: “Sideways”



Analysis: I know I’m a broken record on this, but I’ll repeat it one more time. “Kill Bill” is one of the best films of this young decade, this young century, and far and away the best film made this year. In terms of sheer difficulty, Quentin Tarantino set himself an impossible dramatic task in undertaking the “Bill” epic; and that he pulled it off so well as to be more dramatic, more thrilling, more moving, more comedic, more inspirational and more a work of raw, pure filmmaking than any of the other (worthy) nominees in this category only makes it much more clear what visionary works we’re dealing with here. In the plainest allegory I can think of, not only did Quentin choose the heaviest stone, he threw it further than even the guys throwing lighter stones. The “Bills” are efforts of an Atlas, while the other nominees are merely Herculean.

But it’s not nominated, so someone else has to win. In my estimation, the “someone else” to beat is “Million Dollar Baby.” Not only because I feel it’s the best of the nominated films, but I also believe it is the most likely winner given traditional Academy voting patterns. “Aviator” is good but not great Scorsese, and while everyone knows he’s “due” I’m just not feeling that the momentum is with the film. “Baby” is topical, popular, and is exactly the sort of film that The Academy loves when it’s done properly: A small-ish, character-driven drama full of pathos, drama and a sucker-punch of an emotional hook. It’s also full of actors the Academy has liked before and still likes, (and it won multiple SAGs, so the powerful actors-bloc is behind it) and it’s the most recently-released of all nominees which does play a factor.

The wedge here is that “The Aviator” is still popular in it’s own right, and it’s nostalgiac recreation of Hollywood’s own Golden Age resonates big in Academy circles. And yes, Scorsese is due. While I don’t think “Aviator” has the momentum or the votes to win, what could happen is a split between “Aviator” and “Baby” that would knock both from competition and instead lead to a win for a dark horse like “Sideways.” Don’t bet on it, though.

BEST DIRECTOR



Nominated: Martin Scorsese (“Aviator“), Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby), Talyor Hackford (Ray), Alexander Payne (Sideways), Mike Leigh (Vera Drake)

Should’ve been nominated: Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill: Vol. 2), Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind), Kerry Conran (Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow)

Likely winner: Too close to call.

Longshot: Alexander Payne

Analysis: This is the toughest race of the year. Eastwood and Scorsese are both “due” in their own right, and their respective films are the 1st and 2nd contenders for the big prize to boot. The recent DGA win speaks heavily in Clint’s favor, but the Academy voters may give this one to Scorsese if “Baby” becomes the assumed winner of Best Picture (the Director award occasionally seems to get used as the “Best Picture Runner Up” prize.)

The same unlikely voter-split scenario could occur here, too, which I can only imagine would favor Payne.

Toss those two around in “comments” for awhile, more predictions and commentary to come on this. Promise.

If you follow politics at all, you’ve probably heard of Alan Keyes. Or at least you’ve seen him on TV. Short, excitable-looking African American ultra-conservative who put on such a fantastic show running to the right of everyone in the 2000 Republican race? Yeah, him.

Well, Alan is… Alan is kind of special, really. Most public representatives of the “Religious Right” are careful to cloak their agenda of hate in the guise of being traditional constitutional-conservatism, but not dear Alan. Alan is right up front about it: anti-choice, virulently anti-gay, right down the line.

Aaaaaaanyway, the last time anyone heard from this clown was back during the election when Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter, Mary, became a brief object of media fascination (culminating in John Kerry’s gasp-inducingly clumsy would-be gotcha invocation of her name in a debate) and Keyes got himself quoted as follows regarding the “gay” issue in an interview:

“The essence of … family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it’s possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism.”



Gee, ya think they asked him specifically about Mary Cheney being a “selfish hedonist” next for a money quote? You bet they did. Take it away, Alan:

“That goes by definition. Of course she is.”

See what I mean? How can you not love such openess and honesty from a purveyor of faith-based hatred? Suffice it to say, that last part lit a fire under the media’s butt and they went back for more. An article from Washington Times Online… (from whence these quotes were taken and which you can read in full here:)

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040901-093347-1067r.htm

…reports that someone finally did ask Keyes what he would do if HE had a lesbian daughter. As they reported it:

“Keyes said if he had a lesbian daughter he would love her but tell her she was sinning.”

Hey, y’know what would be really interesting?

I mean really, really, really interesting?

(oh, hat tip to bloggers Oliver Willis, Andrew Sullivan, and Daily Kos for this, BTW)

Fast forward to today. A gay-equality march in Maryland lists the following for their scheduled events: (bold-highlights are mine)

“March to Lawyer’s Mall (in front of the State House) for the rally, featuring community leaders, Judy Shepard, and Maya Marcel Keyes, the self-described queer activist who is also daughter of ultra-conservative Alan Keyes, whose recent campaign for senator from Illinois included his calling Mary Cheney a “hedonist.”

shorthand: Alan’s daughter is a lesbian.

Well, well, well…

Okay, aside from the obvious schaudenfreud (sp?) of seeing yet another acolyte of Religious Fundamentalism get smacked in the face by a little thing called the real world, the basic story here really isn’t so big: An anti-gay-rights politician has a gay daughter. At best, it’s a TV movie. But then it gets a little tragic…

Unlike Dick Cheney, who made it subtly but unmistakably clear in his Vice Presidential Debate that his administration’s anti-gay stances are not necessarily his doing (remember his near-mutinous moment in the debate when Edwards broached the topic and Cheney merely joined his rival in mutual man-to-man “good family ya got there” praise and refused to even mention Bush’s ammendment to ban gay marriage?) Well, sadly, it doesn’t look like Alan Keyes is quite the closet-progressive so many suspect Cheney is…

Nope, apparently Alan Keyes has approached the issue of gays in his family the same way he and his fellow so-called “religious” right allies seem to want to approach the issue of gays anywhere else: He threw her out of his house.

How do we know that? Well, Maya Keyes has a blog of her own, and she’s keeping the web up to date on her adventures right here:

http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=Xmisled0youthX&tab=weblogs&uid=196061776

Alright, look… I posted this because I find it interesting and relevent. Keyes considers himself a culture-warrior, and part of my mission with this blog is chronicling the actions of those who favor censorship which he certainly does. This is news about him, and it’s going to be a big story.

I want to stress that it’s also a NEW story, and there could be dimensions we don’t know of yet, but right now I think it’s fair to say that IF this is all true, Alan Keyes has revealed himself to be a hypocrite and world-class creep. I respect those who disagree with the various dimensions of gay rights issues, and political issues of ALL stripes, but some things are bigger than politics and this is one of them. If Alan Keyes really did throw out his own child because she’s gay, then Alan Keyes is even less of a man than I thought he was. For all those who look to Keyes because of his supposed Christian values, look to this news and see for once and for all: IF this is all true, Alan Keyes has no business calling himself any kind of Christian.

The bottom line is, as much as I want to see Keyes and all of Keyes’ ilk suffer as much political embarassment as possible, this is ultimately a sad story, made sadder still by the fact that it’s playing out in thousands of homes across the country that will never make the news. It’s true, sure, that Mrs. Keyes will likely find friends and allies in this difficult time in rights groups and other friendly entities who will see her need (and the big potential news story connected to her need, of course) and help her out.

You can bet I’ll be following this one, as more details emerge…

Did you watch the Superbowl? I watched the Superbowl. I’m from New England, so it was sort of required even though I was technically at work.

I usually don’t watch for the game, because I don’t “follow” professional Football closely enough to really elevate one game above the others even if it is the big one. But I usually at least tune in for the commercials, (am I the only one who’s already sold on the innevitable plush “Esuvees”?) specifically the movie trailers, which are usually early looks at the big summer tentpoles of the year.

The big news this time was the first non-teaser spot for “Batman Begins.” At this point, early praise has become a cliche: Yup, the cast is unbelievable. Yup, I love the cool “Year One”-reminiscient brown-ish color scheme so much of it seems to have. But what thrills me about this spot is our first peek at The Scarecrow. Can I just say how much it thrills me that he actually is a guy dressed like a scarecrow? I know this is something only “fanboys” are supposed to care about but, honestly… the costumes are important. It’s part of what makes the genre cool and different. If your lead is dressed like a bat, it’s fine for the bad guy to go about with a burlap sack on his head. It’s just cooler that way.

But speaking of this… the new “Batman” isn’t the only comic book franchise making a go of it in theaters this summer. Marvel Films, who are still technically the driving force behind the new studio fascination with the genre, has “The Fantastic Four” coming out. It’s a big project, with a budget somewhere in the $130 Million range, and the franchise it represents is one of the very biggest as-of-yet-untapped properties in all of comics. So why didn’t it have a Superbowl spot?

Logically, it’d be because it’s not quite ready for one. But it could also be just the latest in the long string of publicity-related bad luck the project has had. Unlike “X-Men,” which fans approach with cautious optimism, or “Spider-Man,” which had fans largely elated the moment Sam Raimi was announced as it’s director, the project just can’t seem to get any traction among the “fanboys” that the studios claim to so greatly despise but so transparently rely on to build pre-release hype.

Ever since Marvel Film’s Avi Arad got “misquoted” as saying the film was aiming for a “sitcom” vibe, the buzz has been unrelentingly negative and hasn’t caught a break since. Some of this can be, admittedly, chalked up to the geek community being just this side of paranoid about a Marvel project that seems to have so much more heavy studio/marketing influence upon it than the Spidey or X-films, but there’s also the rumbling of something deeper going on. Something that makes me think that those who dismiss the “fanboy” concerns over this could likely find themselves walking out of the theater on “F4’s” opening night echoing Joaquin Pheonix’s astonished utterance from “Signs,” namely: “the nerds were right!”

But let’s not jump to conclusions. Let’s do the grownup thing and make a list, or two lists, rather; of reasons to be looking forward to “The Fantastic Four” and also the reasons to be, well… a little worried about “The Fantastic Four.”



Let’s do the happy list first:

NOTE: As before, this post involves a political pundit taking aim at the Oscar Nominations in order to further his/her own political agenda. Thus, it contains potential spoilers about the film’s in question. I’ll try to tread as lightly as I can over the specifics, but if you haven’t seen some of these films (specifically: Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby”) you may wish to read at your own risk.

Don Feder is a political writer, and at that he’s pretty damn talented. He’s also, by manner of his postings, (which you can read at his website donfeder.com an ally of the so-called “Religious Right,” and at that he’s pretty damn loyal. Yesterday (Friday, Feb. 4th) he posted his thoughts on this year’s Oscar nominations at David Horowitz’s website, frontpagemag.net, and, Mr. Feder, on your rationale here I find you pretty far off base.

Before I get into this, I want to point out that Horowitz is an admirable scholar and that his Front Page site is “fair” in a way that most “conservative” news outlets never are. It’s to his credit that he offers equal time to “hard-right” fellows like Feder and moderates like Andrew Sullivan. Check the site out here:

http://www.frontpagemag.net

Here’s the thing, folks. The “religious right” was planning on using The Passion and The Oscars as a post-election hammer with which to bludgeon it’s Hollywood enemies whether it was nominated or not. In the absence of nomination, the attack has been predictable: Pick peices out of the nominated films that make them appear “liberal” (read: not-explicitly-religious-fundamentalist) and contrast them against the “holy” Passion. Also present is propping up Passion’s boxoffice numbers, in order to turn the standard occurance of non-blockbusters racking up Academy nods into another chapter into the myth that Mel Gibson’s torture-porn zealotry is “a film of the people.”

Feder sticks to this script like glue, and in the end that’s what hurts him: The outline doesn’t fit real life, and anyone with even a basic knowledge of real Academy “politics” can see that. Read his original, whole article HERE: (spoiler warning)

http://www.frontpagemag.net/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16873

Take a look at his thesis statement here:

“The Oscars are Hollywood’s way of celebrating its values – the agenda of a gang of celebrity cretins who need a teleprompter to think.”

Truth is, The Academy is comprised of thousands of people from all aspects of the industry, not only actors and directors but also writers, crewpersons and technical engineers. While it’s true that actors make up the largest voting bloc, “celebrities” (cretins or otherwise) are a minority and many are too busy during the year to vote on the awards themselves. (you have to see all the nominated films to vote.)

He gives away some spoilers, a’la Michael Medved, in the exact quote about his case studies, but I can tell you he zeroes in on “Million Dollar Baby,” “Kinsey” and “Vera Drake.”

“Two were box-office bombs. “Kinsey” earned an anemic $9 million and “Vera” $2.3 million – one-tenth the box office of “Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid.” “Baby” has yet to prove itself.”

“Bomb” is a little on the extreme side. “Kinsey” never opened “wide” and “Vera Drake” is a small, independent British film for which 2.3 Million is a respectable take. This is basic business stuff, and standard for Oscar nominees.

Kinsey has a single nod in an acting category, and not even for the actor playing Kinsey. The film is only mentioned here, I suspect, so that it can be feigned that this is about more than The Passion, and because the “religious right” so despises Kinsey that they had planned a year-long assault on the film are a little dissapointed that it doesn’t have more acclaim for them to complain about.

“At the same time, “The Passion” (winner of the People’s Choice Awards) will go down as one of the most popular movies of all time, grossing $370 million in domestic box office receipts, and $611 million worldwide. It received a backhanded compliment from the Academy — three nominations, all of them technical.”



But wait… is he really suggesting that being a big-grosser should qualify one for an artistic achievement award? Does this mean he’ll also demand a Grammy for Eminem?

“Spiderman 2,” the summer blockbuster ($373.5 million) that praised virtue, also got three minor nominations. “The Village” got one nomination (also minor).”

Nice sleight of hand here, attempting to woo action fans and film geeks by trying to create some link between “Spider-Man” and “The Passion.” The only thing they have in common is that “Spider-Man 2” is a better film about a put-upon hero making sacrifices for the greater good than “The Passion” could ever dream of being. Why is “The Village” in here? You’ve got me.

He goes off on “Baby,” playing spoiler for the whole thing so I won’t repost it. But listen to this:

“Eastwood has been in the industry long enough to know exactly how to butter Hollywood’s agenda bread.”

Clint? Is he serious? The actor the New York Times labled as “facist” for “Dirty Harry”? The former Republican mayor? Who campaigned on behalf of Ronald Reagan? Is buttering-up “liberal” Hollywood? Does he honestly believe what he’s saying here?

“Spiderman 2” was the number 2 top-grossing movie of 2004, as well as a rarity — a sequel that exceeded the original. It was fresh, exciting, and dealt with serious subjects in a serious way. It was nominated for Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Visual Effects – rather like being nominated for a seat on the Burbank city council.”

On this, sir, we agree. One out of one-hundred ain’t bad, eh?

“M. Night Shyamalan’s latest movie, “The Village,” was reactionary in the best sense of the word – rejecting modernity, while positing the virtues of a bygone era. It was nominated for Music (Score).”

And there’s the answer to that question. He must be joking. The reactionary villagers of “The Village” are the good guys? That he can glean that says an awful lot about how much of an artistic failure “Village” really was and even more about how Feder just doesn’t really have an argument here.

“The Academy Awards are more than Hollywood thumbing its nose at those whose patronage pays for the extravagant lifestyles of actors and directors. Winners achieve recognition they rarely deserve.”

“Deserve?” It’s an industry award, with voted winners.

“Then the sheep flock to the Oscar-winning film – and in turn are indoctrinated in the industry’s worldview. Thus, those adorable statuettes might be seen as an army of little soldiers marching into battle for Hollywood’s favorite causes.”

Okay, so, let me get this right: When people blindly obey the command of Pat Robertson and James Dobson to flock to indoctrination from “The Passion,” their exercising some kind of vox populi dollar-vote of their true feelings… but if they blindly trudge to the Academy Award winner.. then their sheep?

“The spectacle that will take place three weeks hence at Hollywood’s Kodak Theater has nothing to do with art and everything to do with ideology.”

The same could be said, sir, of this and all other politically-motivated “film” columns like this one.