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.

Bona Fide A List

Burlesque is getting some good reviews, and may be a comeback for Cher. For a while, she kind of a laughing stock, even though her career never imploded. The funny thing is, Cher used to be synonymous with fame. As in, kids who only know adult movie stars via cartoons, that level of A List.

Unfortunately, female A List stars tend to be much rockier for various reasons. An ingenue might be the next big thing, and poor choices in roles (or poor choice of roles) could put her out. Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep are experiencing some good renaissances, but males can weather dryer spells, and sometimes a degree of experience is good.

Chances are most of you are familiar with Television Without Pity. A good percentage of you are, in turn, familiar with Fametracker. I always found it fascinating because of its taking people who are huge names and wondering, what in fact, they have done of substance. Also, analyzing what the Hollywood pecking order exactly was. This is an article about Mel Gibson. In the article, it talks about the Mount Rushmore of Fame--Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Gibson, and Bruce Willis. In what's perhaps an error of judgment, Tom Hanks is ruled out, but he's never quite been a "matinee idol", and his status even now is more of a godfather of Hollywood as opposed to an Alpha Male. It's interesting to see where the four studs have gone. Gibson of course, has become cultural plutonium. Sure he made everyone wealthy for a while, but not they all want to stay away. Cruise has likewise faced an implosion, which just now looks quaint in light of Gibson's. Ford has quasi-retired from acting (What he does onscreen barely qualifies, anyway). And Willis has never really had a career dead per se--he just tends to have major misfires between the movies that do hit. So who makes the new Mount Rushmore?

The Aussie invasion, of course, fizzled out. Russell Crowe was too pretentious, Hugh Jackman can't find a good vehicle to save his life, and Ledger became a legend just in time to not be there for it. Eric Bana kind of became a "never was". Dwayne Johnson is doing low-rent kid movies, and Vin Diesel is going back to the well. Topher Grace proved "he who hesitates, is lost". Orlando Bloom proved his adeptness is strictly in the realm of "sidekick". Viggo Mortensen thanks you for his support, but he'd like to go and make Daniel Day Lewis look "mainstream". And then there was Jude Law.

One of the examples shot down was Brad Pitt, and at the time, rightly so. For all his stature as a real-life Adonis, he could never quite get audiences to pay to see him. I now wonder if the problem is that starpower is something that appeals to older audiences, so therefore you need years on you to be bankable. He kind of gradually started to appear in hit movies with Ocean's Eleven, but of course, that was ensemble piece. Troy did decent, but disappointing money. Mr and Mrs. Smith, buoyed by talks about his onscreen-and-off chemistry with Angelina Jolie, gave him his first real overperformer since Seven. (It also resuscitated Jolie's struggling bankability) At this point, people were quick to declare him the new Tom Cruise, and at the time, I felt that to still be an overestimation. However, with the somewhat hard-to-sell Inglourious Basterds and the "high concept only works if he's in it" Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Pitt has assured his status as a big four.

Next is Leonardo Dicaprio. Already a teen idol, he exploded with Titanic. However, one highest grossing movie of all time does not an A-Lister necessarily make. (Ask Sam Worthington) And with The Beach, it did look like the rose was off the bloom. However, DiCaprio struck up a partnership with legendary director Martin Scorcese, and the two would keep going at it until they had a legitimate box office home run (And Oscar winner) with The Departed.) He has two other big hits with Catch Me if You Can, and the recent Inception. While I don't think he's guaranteed money just yet, he probably has the most high-quality (and often memorable) set of movies for this first tier club.

Of course, there's Will Smith, He actually first got into the game in the late 90's with his string of four 100 million movies in a row, officially ending when he went the route of Oscar bait. At the time, it probably looked like he was a fad which officially came to an end, especially as accompanying pop songs to summer blockbusters were no longer in vogue. But right now he's called "The biggest movie star in the world", right now. He's largely earned this moniker for his hot streak of four years. In fact, from 2004-2008, he seemed to be on a mission to prove he could very well open any kind of movie, almost as an experiment. Unfortunately, Smith has probably the weakest CV in terms of quality. Independence Day and Men In Black were largely viewed as transitory, successes, and even his Oscar-nominated movies aren't totally classics. However, I think one thing should be kept in mind for Smith, who is a little different from DiCaprio and Pitt in a very obvious way. In fact, Pitt's career has largely come from people trying to recapture Robert Redford in a bottle. Smith has very few predecessors, and has had to redefine leading men on his own terms. If we ever have an African-Amercan equivalent to Indiana Jones or Braveheart, he will no doubt look up to Smith.

Finally, I would say the fourth "big one" is Johnny Depp, the only actor thus far to headline two movies to cross a billion dollars. In fact, of these four, I would say Depp most embodies the decade. Probably because of all the guys on this list, in fact, of any actor this decade, he's the one that best balanced being a huge star in his own right, and having a movie that's iconic in its own right. If one wanted to have a tapestry of the 2000s, similar to this, Jack Sparrow would clearly be there, and perhaps the most recognizable. It's very interesting he has a reputation for just putting on weird makeup, but maybe, in a way, that shows why he's the star of the decade. Today's actors have to be chameleons, but that often invites performers who can withstand a level of anonymity. With Depp, he's certain handsome and debonair on magazine covers and red carpet premieres, but is willing to get all zany in some geek properties. A lot of being a big name is having the right qualities at the right time, and I think, while the previous three have personae they're often attached to, Depp is able to ahve it both ways.

A friend of mine also suggested Robert Downey Jr. He's certainly had maybe the most amazing comeback in the history of Hollywood. It's amazing how one goes from not worth the insurance money to bankable, but his string of hits has been impressive. Perhaps the only thing that keeps him from breaking into this type five, however, is he's always had just that little something to boost him. The Marvel Comics pedigree, famous co-stars, working as a de facto sequel to The Hangover. But given enough time, it might be interesting to see what a harder sell on his name could do.