Why Is it Just This Once Upon a Time?

A couple weeks ago saw the debut of ABC's new fantasy series Once Upon a Time, whereupon various characters from classic fairy tales find themselves trapped in the modern world. This is a theme that's probably not too alien, but alas, most mainstream TV is made up of ideas that have been gestating for a while. (See: Heroes) I kind of have a few problems here and there...one of them being that it seems very, very Disneyfied. Names Malicifent, Jiminy Cricket, and the particular personalities of Snow White's dwarves are largely the invention of the house of mouse. Now, while part and parcel of legends and folklore is the solidifying of once nameless and amorphous  aspects, the tendency of Disney to monopolize our culture makes this a bit more worrying. (To say nothing of ABC, of whom Disney is a parent company, passing on the TV adaptation of Fables, and then doing their own thing makes the whole thing kind of troubling.) But there's something else that bothers me.

"Fairy tales", are considered, perhaps, a somewhat small segment of overall mythology and folklore. If I were to define what a fairy tale is in exact terms, I would probably mention two things: 1) That the main character is rewarded with material prosperity, and perhaps marriage and 2) The aspect of "helpers". Many characters in fairy tales are kind of meek, and it's usually through a "one good turn deserves another" series of events, whether via denizens of the animal kingdom or a mysterious elderly stranger, that rewards the protagonist through kindness or hard work. The way these stories worked was enough for oral folklore, or for children, especially in a short stint. But as our folklore has moved to longer, and sometimes more visual mediums, we tend to like our legends to be a little more...martial in their presentation. Hence a story where nobody throws a punch is overtaken by the mantra "People had swords back then...why not use them?" Once Upon a Time's Prince Charming is something of a badass, who we see spill blood. (and have blood spilled!) Whether our fiction has become more proactive or belligerent is a story for another time, but my point is, it's starting to blur with a lot of "Heroic Age" mythology, or modern high fantasy.

In the various flashbacks, we see background characters...a clergyman here, a guard there, who is clearly a person of color. A few mythology and fantasy enthusiasts get quite perturbed whenever they see non-white faces in adaptations of Germanic legends. This of course, tends not to reflect on the complainers. I don't have a problem with color blind casting per se. It's hardly going to disenfranchise white people the world over if a large scale production features a non-white captain of the guard or something. But seeing it raises a few problem too. First off all, way to not have the conviction to put a person of color in a main role. But also, I'm led to ask "What's a few roles here and there if most of the fairy tale characters are just from Germany, France, and maybe one or two from Italy" Europe is a very small "continent" in a very large world, and there are countless amazing stories from Africa, the Middle East, India, China, and the Americas.

There's a Chris Rock joke about how Shaquille O'Neal is "rich", but the the man who signs his checks is "wealthy". I think of that joke whenever I see people talk about giving a non-white actor a chance in a European fantasy story. To simply give people of color roles (And token roles at that) does not address the institutional problems at hand, namely the very Eurocentric world view. And you can make your fantasy kingdom as anachronistically inclusive as you'd like, that doesn't make it truly egalitarian. It just means non-whites have a seat at the table that whites have built. Right now, the standard fantasy setting is based on Lord of the Rings. This is because its author, J.R.R. Tolkien, was an enthusiast, some might even say fetishist, for anglo-saxon folklore. In order to allow minorities to flourish in a genre that sometimes warrants aspersions on the race issue, we need to go back to the route. We need break out of a frankly chauvinistic worldview, which is that Europe is the pinnacle of storytelling and mystic-infused heroism, and that the United States is the natural successor. It's a perhaps unintentional, but hopelessly western view of things. And it is probably a temporary solution to a largely institutional issue. If we keep spinning the same Snow White yarn, but just occasionally throw in minorities, instead of truly drawing from their often rich heritage, it just seems, as they say, mighty white of us.

Fantasy, the European kind, has become a bit of a trend this decade. But people will embrace Anglophilic cinema, and yet not wonder why things are going wrong, from a race standpoint. In fact, the only recent franchise to draw inspiration from outside European tropes was Avatar: The Last Airbender. Which was kind of the brainchild of two white creators, but was purported to be a well-researched take on Asian culture. But of course, then they made the movie, and cast white actors in all the lead roles, with minorities so graciously being handed the secondary ones. This of course, ended up creating a goose-and-gander scenario of color-blind casting, as opposed to a chance to give the world a real alternative the typical fantasy nodule.

Mind you, I'm not urging for some kind of segregation. No "white people should want to be this, but black people should want to be this." If, after hearing a collection of stories from around the world, a young African-American girl still decides she wants to be Cinderella rather than Marimba, I'm all for it. My point is, authors are more important than the dressing. For social mobility, the marginalized have to be allowed to be the architects of culture, not hope to benefit from a trickling "generosity", which can ebb and flow. In order to make American fiction truly multicultural, we should go for multiculture, not the one culture with the occasional new candy shell.

Besides, how many different ways can one reinvent Snow White anyway?

Game of Thrones; Who's Who in Season Two

Shooting is under way for the second season of Game of Thrones. The adaptation of George R.R. Martin's series has drawn in a steadily-increasing audience, a whole lot of buzz, as well as an impressive collection of Emmy nominations for a show who's season was largely out of the Emmy timeframe. Season two will, of course, be based on the second novel in the series, A Clash of Kings. One of the most popular aspects of fantasy series is that authors will bring in characters with just as much importance as the first generation. Sometimes just as popular, if the author does his her her job right. We left the realm of Westeros just as things were starting to really kick into high gear. Fans have been salivating  at who's been cast as the new round of players. For who aren't caught up on the books, I'll introduce you to a few of the new class of denizens, some who seek power, some who seek honor, and some who just seek a place in this dog-eat-dog medieval world.


Of all the new characters we'll be meeting, the most important is arguably Stannis Baratheon. Mentioned as having "the personality of a lobster" on the show, it's his very presence that drives the action in the last couple of episodes of Game of Thrones In a lot of ways, he's kind of a composite of Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark, who departed during season one. As Joffery's lineage is...dubious, Stannis makes the claim to the throne of Westeros. What's very interesting is, his ambitions don't come from a craving for power, or even a need to serve, but to a certain degree, a perfunctory adherence to duty. While many of the characters in this world are driven by compulsion, Stannis's conflicts come from his robotic devotion to "The Rules", and his inability to understand why nobody likes him.  While Robert is the Seven Kingdom's Big Man the Star QB and Renly is the charming overacheiver, Stannis is the Hall Moniter. He's Inspector Javert. He's Principal Skinner. He'll be played by Stephen Dillane, from John Adams. An interesting choice, as Jefferson, especially as presented in the miniseries, was an innovative iconclast. However, Dillane also played him as somebody uncomfortable with social situations, so this will be worth watching.


Stannis will not be alone, every king needs a court, and the power behind his would-be throne is the mysterious Melisandre. The only outright magic user of the series, Melisandre throws an interesting wrinkle into the game of thrones. While most would expect Stannis's campaign to be kind of a meat and potatoes war, Melisandre is a priestess to a strange, foreign religion; As Baratheon's forces make their way across the continent, they bring a bit of an esoteric holy war into the mix. For whatever reason, Stannis trusts in Melisandre completely, and while their relationship is never revealed to be overtly sexual, it is oddly subtexual. Possibly some of the creepiest, oddest scenes will come from her. Really, the best way to describe Melisandre is like some bizarre cross between Angelina Jolie and Michelle Bachmann. She's going to be played by Dutch actress Carice van Houten, who's been in fims like Paul Verhoven's Black Book, and opposite Tom Cruise in Valkyrie. Which is to say, she probably knows a thing or two about out-there religions and misdirected sexual energy.


Rounding out the major players in Stannis's Camp is Davos Seaworth. Called "The Onion Knight", and bearing the pungent crop on his heraldry (Which was the fashion at the time...) Davos's story is the rarest, but at times most wonderous of things in Westeros...a regular honest guy who made good. Davos is is a former smuggler who was granted knighthood by Stannis, but at a very grisly price. Grateful for his new station in life, but versed hardly naive about the world outside castle walls, Davos is both Stannis's most loyal lieutenant, and his most abject critic. He's possibly the most pragmatic character in the series, and often serves as the hypotunese to Melisandre's perplexing, and often frightening approaches to running a kingdom. Davos has become a fan-favorite as a relatively good egg in a very rotten world. He'll be played by Liam Cunningham, an acclaimed stage star who's done his share of salty men-at-arms in stuff like Clash of the Titans and Camelot.


Did someone say "rotten world". Game of Thrones has introduced us to tyrants, rapists, and infantes terrible, but the gold medal winner of depravity in a very competitive contest probably has to go to the Bolton family. The Boltons are the Starks' nominal allies, but they're not very fun to be around. Their House insgnia is that of a human being flayed of all his skin. The really disconcerting thing is, in the world of Game of Thrones, family crests aren't just donned to look pretty--they have them for a reason. They'll play a larger role in series as it goes on, but for now we'll be introduced to Roose Bolton, played by Paths to Freedom star Michael McElhatton.



However, there are plenty of crazy clans to go around, for instance, the Grejoys. You've met one of them, Theon, but he really isn't the most prurient example of what the Greyjoys are like. Rulers of the Iron Islands, the're something like vikings as re-imagined by H.P. Lovecraft. They're morose and merciless, and have never really accepted how much Theon "went native" to the mainland. The two Greyjoys we're going to see this season are Balon, Theon's ruthless father, and "Yara", his adventurous, tomboyish sister. The thing is, in the books, Yara is called "Asha", but they don't want viewers to confuse her with "Osha", the Wildling played by Natalia Tena. To be honest, since Lady Greyjoy plays a much larger part in the books, they probably should have thought around that first. Balon will be played by Patrick Malahide, while "Yara" will be portrayed by comedienne Gemma Whelan.


While not the biggest presence in Clash of Kings, one of the first roles to be cast for season two was Margaery Tyrell. To throw a little spoiler your way, in part two of the saga, Margaery has marriage arranged with Robert and Stannis's brother, Renly. For those who remember who Renly is, you'll know that as eligible a bachelor Renly is, marrying him has some solid drawbacks, as he doesn't quite bark up that tree. The really juicy part is, the tree that he does bark up belongs to one Loras Tyrell, heartthrob knight and Margaery's brother. Certainly HBO is jumping to explore the drama in that dynamic. It's also worth noting that the Lady Tyrell, while soft-spoken, is one of the more astute denizens of the Seven Kingdoms, and here's more to her than being a trophy queen. She'll be played by Natalie Dormer, who as Anne Boyelin on Showtime's The Tudors, is well trained in playing an all-too-clever lady in an all-too-decadent royal court on a risque cable series.


Brienne of Tarth is probably the most popular of King's freshman class. At first she may sound like the typical "Warrior Woman" found in much fantasy fiction. But as Martin does with fantasy tropes, she's a deconstruction of the classic, spunky, chainmail bikini-wearing shieldmaiden. Brienne does not look like a male fantasy  with a sword, but a woman who's all-too-well built for warfare. However, she also possesses vulnerability and is a bit of a romantic. She doesn't inspire fear and shock from those around her, but rather pity. Like all characters popular in genre fiction, she appeals to both the reader's want for escapism, and need to identify with the outcast. Brienne has clearly bucked all traditions and become a warrior in her own right, in a world where such a thing would be inconceivable, but has to live with being an outsider day by day. Cast in the role is Gwendoline Christie, a newcomer to the acting world, but to many fans, one of the best choices that can be made. Christie is six foot three, taller than many men in the cast, even the non-Peter Dinklage ones. And while hardly ugly (It's Hollywood after all), it's not the level of insulting "uglying down" you get in so many productions. She does have a quirky set of features, including a very expressive set of eyes that betrays Brienne's vulnerability.

Every year, the internet likes to throw a big old party with fake news stories. At this point, I generally don't think people believe the stories anymore (Although in some cases, I've seen people who are actually that gullible. Also, at times, news items on the internet don't die on the day they're released, and so they can get around outside the context of the date.) I don't know what the first place to run gags in honor of the event was. Magazines have often used their April issue to fool around with fake articles for some time now. Actually, I remember doing the news for Moviefan Online, a now-defunct site, and having fun with fake articles. It was still relatively undone (2002) or so. I feel a strange sort of pride in doing a fake item about Gladiator 2. The scary thing is, it actually caught on--either people thought it was real and passed it around, or studio execs got wind of it and liked what they heard. Because it was my exact fake presence. (The Emperor's nephew, Lucius, was now a Gladiator, and Djmoun Honsou's character was his mentor)

So what is it about this day and fake items. Even people who aren't particularly down with pranks (Either for being too mean or too juvenile) are always up for it. Does it make it a sanitized kind of fun? A kind of internet casual Friday that really isn't that funny if people are allowed?

As both a comedien and a pop-cultural aficionado, I see it as something of an opportunity. An exercise. Writers, messageboard moderators, general denizens of the net can have pretty monotonous lives penning about things that are. Gag stories tend to serve as sort of a walk outside, and stretch muscles. If done well, it can be excellent satire.

Taking the Sheen Off

Charlie Sheen has been in the news a lot as of late. It started out with his routine misdeamnors, escalating with holding up production, his public insults to the production staff, his show going on hiatus, and finally, with Sheen being fired. As a result, Sheen has probably become more ubiquitous as a media than ever. Notably quoting his bizarre stream-of-conscious terms like "fire-breathing fists", "tiger blood", and "ninja warlock assassins" I've tweeted a few jokes about him here and there, but I do have to say, the media storm kind of veers into pet peeve territory for me.

It is, on a few levels, an interesting story. Even kind of relevant, at least relative to the sphere of showbiz, which is this blog's intended purview. The highest-paid star on television was fired from his juggernaut of a show. CBS is going to have to either cancel or heavily revamp their tentpole. In the money-driven ecosystem of Hollywood, this time capitol just wasn't enough. This has very rarely, and on this scale actually never, happened before. Chuck Lorre and the network do have other successes going on for them, but if the CBS dynasty that has ruled the 2000s falters in the next couple of years, this will probably be looked at as a turning point. But I think Sheen-fever is still a bit unwarranted.

I'm an entertainment aficionado, but I've never really cottoned to the tabloid aspect of popular culture, for several reasons. One is I for one am I a private person, and thus am often averse to seeing dirty laundry being hung over the clothes-lines of society. Secondly, because...it's one thing for a mediocre star to be successful, but there's something about this decade's fascination with people falling upwards into stardom. I mean, it's one thing that many of the best in their field struggle for recognition, but that the one thing they're doing wrong is not sucking enough?

Thirdly, because it's hypocritical. As an industry and a pastime. There's always a sense of moral judgment from those who write and read the tabloids but...all this does is escalate the presence of the famewhores and human trainwrecks. "Tsk tsk, I can't believe [crazy star here]"

Plus, to be honest, I don't find Sheen's ramblings to be that quotable. It's the same kind of word-salads that I think Adam McKay got the ball rolling with, and that Diablo Cody won an Oscar then later incurred backlash for. I mean, yes, there's something a little surreal about Charlie Sheen of all people pulling jargon from a Dungeons and Dragons manual, but is it really tat unique? "I'm going to bear-murder you with my celestial kitana of of excellence. Winning." Wow, I just talked like Charlie Sheen, and it only took me thirty seconds to think of how to do it. Because just about every comedian this decade has been doing it.

Also very troubling is people who seriously idolize the guy now. I mean, let's not forget, he does beat women. He does a massive amount of drugs he can't quite handle. And his getting fired from the show has very little do with creative differences. He didn't try to steer Two and Half Men into a direction of substance. He just whined a lot. People seem to appreciate when stars break down false civility that exists in Hollywood, (I do think that was the unpardonable sin with Sheen as far as his producers were concerned, too) but he comes across less like a rebel than a diva. How is he "telling it like it is", though? Yes, the show isn't very good, but do we see Sheen with a show on par with Community in the wings?

It's just really weird seeing a news cycle with a very obvious built-in obsolescence.

Catwoman's a Natural Fit, Really

Anne Hathaway has officialy confirmed she's going to be playing Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises. For months, people were wondering if the main female character would be Talia Al Ghul, or if it was Selina Kyle, she would not be donning the Catwoman costume. Everyone was expecting something more along the lines of a spy movie because of the universe Nolan has presented.

I'm rather surprised people were talking about Catwoman not being suited up for this installment. People keep talking about "realism" and what works in the universe Nolan is trying to create. In my view, this is a misinterpretation of what Nolan's manifesto. And that is, Nolan isn't trying to tone down the comic book elements for its own sake. In fact, in some ways, it's not very analogous to the real world at all. Heath Ledger's Joker is less cartoonish than Jack Nicholson's, but more supernatural, if ambiguously. To be honest, whenever somebody says "comic book style", they betray how little they actually know about comic books.

One needs to look at Nolan's comments regarding masked figures. In the universe the movies present, they insist superheroes don't exist in any form. Now, a world where not even Superman, the Lone Ranger or even Zorro aren't so much as a part of our culture? How does that exactly reflect "the real world"? That pretty much says presenting a down-to-earth fiction isn't the primary goal. The objective is to distill the Batman mythos. To present it in a vacuum, devoid of any context except the modern, civic world. Nolan wants to create a myth out of the cop story.

He shows a strong, almost fetishistic, attention to police protocol and legal procedures. Remember, the entire plotline of The Dark Knight hinges around Harvey Dent's prosecution. Superheroes are often referred to as the modern myth of our times, but myths have to, in some way, represent the values of those telling them. America is, in theory, a secular nation, formed in post-enlightenment times. If we're not quiet Godless, it's a lie by omission. The structure of law and order, and the frustration of corruption informs the unspoken common denominator region of the free world. Therefore, a lot of "cop movie" archetypes abound in the franchise. As gaudy as the Joker is, he makes a strange sort of sense, because we have had real criminals dress like clowns--and clowns, or at least clownish makeup has found itself into counter-cultural movements. It's almost a shorthand at this point. That's why the idea of a Selina Kyle who is actually Catwoman is not really out of left field. I mean, the term "cat burglar" is common lexicon, and many non-superhero films portray female thieves wearing skin-tight outfits. Come to think of it, she wouldn't be anymore out of place than a guy who wears a burlap sack to compliment his Sunday best. As long as she's not pilfering Bast statues, there's no way it's going too far.



I think there's another objective as well. It seems to me that Nolan wants to focus on the idea of normal people becoming archetypes by choice. The Joker's interrogation scene explains he thinks that Batman and himself are the wheat compared to society's chafe, and that there's something distinctly "different" and non-human about them, even if they're not strange visitors from another planet, or irradiated mutants. Similar themes are touched on in Watchmen, which, despite the lack of any superhumans other than Doctor Manhattan, seem to treat the given crimefighter as something other than human. "Escalation", "symbols" and "theatricality" are arc words used in Batman Begins, but I think what Nolan is latching onto, in superhero fiction, is the idea the idea of posthumanism. Punks, Goths, Drag Queens, even Furries are examples of a modern culture where we fight against what were given and reinvent ourselves to our own tastes.



Looking at Nolan's films, there's a recurring theme. The Prestige, Inception and Memento are all about mind over matter. They're about people with the will (if accompanying fractured psyches) to customize reality to their purposes. Perhaps in a way, it's important to explore this using the Batman template, because he didn't really become something else by accident, but by his own choice. The Joker also seems to flagrantly reinvent himself to the point of his previous identity seeming to not exist (That is if he is not a supernatural creature the way The Dark Knight tempts you to ask). Interestingly, Two Face became what he was largely by accident, but he seems to very much break from riding shotgun in his own dilemmas. In this sense, Catwoman makes a perfect addiction to the narrative, because she's the ultimate example in taking the world on her terms. Batman is devoted to order and justice. The Joker, for all his shilling of anarchy, shows the hypocritical zealotry of a dogmatic atheist. Catwoman provides a third option of "The world of law has little use to me, but I don't see why I have to salt the fields out of spite". It would also explain why Bane, of all villains, was chosen for this installment. Longtime comic readers will remember he's all about the initiative. He built himself up to counter Batman...just to counter Batman.

It's kind of a shame then that Robin won't be used in Nolan's movies. I always found the idea of a "laughing" crimefighter could add a lot to the saga. In Begins, Wayne dresses like a bat because he's afraid of them. I was always intrigued by the idea of a Batman counterpart who wasn't afraid of anything...

Academy Morning

Nominations are in, (Here in case you're curious) and man, it's been a while since they were announced so late. Overall, we mostly know how the season is turning out, so there aren't a huge number of surprises.

It's kind of odd. I think Christopher Nolan has perhaps the most obnoxious fanbase for a legitimately good director. But even I feel bad for him every Oscar morning. There's being overlooked, and then there's just being mean. In most other circumstances, missing out to the Coen Brothers would practically be an honor, but even that feels a little like a slap in the face. Not Reader slap, but still...the Coens were recently awarded, and True Grit, while a fine movie, was the Coens playing. (Although yes, both parties were better than the traffic cop work of Tom Hooper). To be dissed in favor of a genre remake, when that's what got your movie dissed last time? The Academy's constant snubbing feels so very palpably stubborn and contrarian, I think I'd rather be Barack Obama in the House, than Christopher Nolan at an Academy Luncheon.

Looking at the nomination totals, which don't always mean anything, but it's fun to consider; The King's Speech leads the total in nominations. This often happens with period pieces, but there will probably be a lot of talk (Of which I guess I'm now culpable) of it possibly being the dark horse to win best picture. It's certainly the most "traditional" type of Oscar movie, as opposed the clinical look at youth culture that is The Social Network, or the outright surreality of Black Swan. But in turn, if King's Speech does take the top prize, it will go from being seen as a nice little throwback that could, to an example of the Academy's stodgy and cowardly mores. It's what I call "the unflattering magnifying glass of success".

As for the acting nods. Not too many huge surprises here and there. Javier Bardem kind of came out of nowhere. A lot of people were wondering if the Social Network would get a nomination for one of its supporting players, but I think between the relative wetness of the cast, and maybe a little vote splitting, it wasn't a major shock. In any case, it's nice to see John Hawkes get some recognition. He's a true working actor, and I do personally like seeing Deadwood alums making good. Perhaps the most surprising miss at all was Mila Kunis. (And there's certainly room for the argument Stanfield was put in the wrong category because it was "easier") But even then, it's not an inconceivable snub, most of us were just surprised she was plowing through the precursors. It's kind of funny to think of all the That 70's Show actors, she'd be the first with an Oscar nomination. Heck, she even beat Ashton Kutcher to playing Natalie Portman's love interest. There might be concerns about her being one-note, but we'll see where her career takes her.

Back to Inception, it really is crazy to think the movie got left out for editing, when they really did edit the hell out of that thing. I'll be the first to admit Nolan loves his gimmicks, but just Black Swan could have easily been Burlesque-level laughable without its cast, Inception could have been a trainwreck without a steady methodical hand. (See Zardoz for when a film gets way ahead of itself) Sort of sad to see Tron: Legacy get left out of two nominations it did deserve. Daft Punk's innovative score really made the movie, but then again, Score is one of the most notoriously conservative of the categories. And while most of us forgot Hereafter even existed, the VFX branch really, really gets impressed with water-based money shots.

All-in-all, not the worst slate of nominations imaginable, although there will always be the requisite grouchiness. But as I remarked a week ago how audiences were surprisingly receptive to Oscar bait this year, it seems the Academy has in turn kind of been very, very old school with their selections this season.

A Year of Oscar Relevance?

A lot of folks have been kvetching about how bad this year has been for cinema. Actually not too uncommon, as there's always a requisite chorus of "Worst. Year. Ever.", especially from an internet that likes to use the always-disappointing summer season as a barometer.

However, what's looking like the lineup for Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards is looking...not too shabby. Most are predicting it will definitely include The Social Network, The Fighter, The King's Speech, Inception and The Black Swan. Rounding out the rest of the top ten are probably Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone, True Grit, 127 Hours and The Kids are Alright. The second wave is a little more vulnerable--sequels, remakes, cartoons, too small. But most prognosticators have this as the lineup. What's amazing is, this is overall a very excellent collection of films, regardless of which five would have made it in previous years. Probably one of the best slates in the last decade, and to be honest, the 2008 season was pretty much just propelled by two masterpieces.

Some of the box-office is pretty impressive all due considering. True Grit will be the Coen Brothers' biggest hit by far, and the most successful Western in twenty whole years. The Social Network was about internet drama, and was primarily unknowns. The King's Speech is one of those movies that always has a place in the Oscars, but audiences are biting more than they usually do. Then there is Black Swan. Female-driven drama. About ballet. But also rather horrific, if not trippy. Directed by a man not known for his commercial sensibilities. And 100 million is not out of the question. It's really a phenomenon that defies a lot of conventional wisdom. Even The Fighter, while not exactly unconventional, was probably looking like an also-ran months ago. (I'm sure there are those who will go on about Inception's miracle performance and...no. Christopher Nolan's career is not a miraculous shattering of conventional wisdom, but savvy combination of skill and timing.)

What's even more amazing is how...hip the slate of films is. The water cooler talk, the SNL parodies, whatever you want to call it. It seems the average person on the street cares about this slate of movies more than they usually do. Avatar may currently be the highest-grossing movie of all time, but even when it came out there was a sense it was more of a fad than anything really resonant. The backlash was also part and parcel of the phenomenon from the beginning. Inglourious Basterds and District 9 were surprise hits, but strangely under the radar. The Blind Side was huge but kind of had that "CBS" feeling. Up was there, but at this point, Pixar really feels more like a tradition than any of their movies are cultural phenomena, individually. But there is this overall sense that "adult" movies, even if different from the "adult" movies that defined yesteryear, are coming into their own.



I'm not one of those people who bemoans endlessly that studios are doing nothing but remakes and films based on comic books. It's not like a lot of film classics give us particularly probable protagonists and situations. The worlds presented in Gone With the Wind or Braveheart are no less fairy tales than what we see in Middle Earth or Hogwarts. But I have been concerned with a certain myopia from audiences. In past decades, familiarity worked via reliable stars or stories. This decade there has been something of a galvanization, where talents would rotate between very blatantly commercial material (well-done or otherwise) and personal, almost abrasive smaller projects. (which, once again, could be well done or otherwise) The quality per se has not been as bad as some make it out to be, but there was a palpable feel of running out of track. But does this season present a bit of a turning point?

Maybe it's from being burnt out on the steady diet of franchise films that has dominated the last decade. Maybe it's the indie generation starting to coalesce into an actual moviegoing public. Maybe the economy is just giving people too much free time. It could also just be a fluke, and next year we'll see audiences flock to The Hangover 2 and Breaking Dawn, while Tree of Life is left in the dust. In any case, it will be interesting to see what the ratings will end up like this year. The nominees are much stronger in popular consciousness, although there isn't a Lord of the Rings or Titanic level front runner either. Or maybe audiences are, in general, tired of the awards shows.