The things we do for love. The love of movies, that is.
Despite the best intentions of host Ellen DeGeneres and an amusing song and dance number by Jack Black, Will Ferrell and John C. Riley, last night’s Oscar festivities were quite the yawn-fest.
You’d think that when someone devotes so much of their time, energy and life to their love of movies, that they’d be rewarded by something that somewhat resembles entertainment. Instead, the large gaps between Ellen’s far too infrequent musings were filled with a seemingly endless string of tributes and retrospectives. Unlike recent Oscar shows where key awards were spread throughout the telecast, all the juicy ones last night were crammed into the last half an hour (which, it must be said, infringed quite rudely on my much needed beauty sleep).
Let’s face it: the Oscars only really need to be about 45 minutes long. Showcase the main awards and put the rest in a memo. Sorry people, we all know we’re there to see the celebs.
As for my Oscar picks, the only winner that threw me (and most of the free-thinking world) for a loop was Alan Arkin for Best Supporting Actor. I suspect that this was a sentimental offering, awarding a veteran actor for his life-long achievements. But if they were going that route, I really wish they would have given it to Peter O’Toole. I mean how much more does the old fellow have left in him? He’s not likely to star in Lawrence of Arabia 2 any time soon. Poor man looked like he was going to cry.
Anyway, that’s it for another year. Now we can get back to the more important task of actually enjoying movies for their own sake. And there is so much to enjoy!
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Movie Monkey's Oscar Picks
No self-proclaimed, self-respecting movie monkey could let this day pass without some reference to tonight's Academy Awards festivities, arguably the most significant (though not necessarily the most critically relevant) reflection of the state of movies today. People seem more consumed with what people are wearing than with the content of their movies.
For me, when I'm picking the winners, I’m always caught between who I want to win and who I think will win. The reason for this is that Academy voters are notorious for not seeing the movies nominated or letting their personal or political feelings influence their choices. As a result, it’s not always the most deserving person who wins (note to Marissa Tomei).
So, without further ado, here are my picks* in the major categories (do you really care who wins for Best Catering in an Animated Short Film?). Enjoy the show and we’ll check back tomorrow to see how I did:
Best Actor
Leonardo DiCaprio – Blood Diamond
I’ve always been impressed with his abilities and shrewd project choices. It would be great if he won but the competition is just too good.
Ryan Gosling – Half Nelson
I’ve been watching his career with great interest ever since I saw him in The Believer. This boy can act, and he does it quietly, without fanfare. He’s my personal pick but again, I think it’s not his time yet.
Peter O’Toole – Venus
I can’t believe this fellow hasn’t won an Oscar yet (not counting his lifetime achievement award in 2003). He’s long overdue but the low-key movie may have flown under Academy members’ radar.
Will Smith – The Pursuit of Happyness
A likeable superstar but I don’t think this is the one.
*Forest Whitaker – The Last King of Scotland
A veteran of memorable supporting performances, this is the year for him to shine. From all accounts, the performance is unstoppable.
Best Actress
Penelope Cruz – Volver
Judi Dench – Notes on a Scandal
Dench is always riveting to watch (except in The Chronicles of Riddick) but she will lose to another Queen.
*Helen Mirren – The Queen
If there is ever a sure thing in Hollywood, it’s that Helen Mirren will continue her award reign.
Meryl Streep – The Devil Wears Prada
Always watchable, always interesting. But I fear the role is too lightweight.
Kate Winslet – Little Children
Possible heir to the award throne (this is her fifth nomination), for now she’ll just have to be satisfied with her Lady in Waiting Status.
Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin – Little Miss Sunshine
An amusing and crustily, heart-tugging performance but not enough to win the gold.
*Eddie Murphy – Dreamgirls
Hollywood loves a comeback and after all the flops that Murphy has churned out over the past years, this just might be the role that confirms his dramatic abilities. Let’s just hope the Academy hasn’t seen Norbit yet.
Mark Wahlberg – The Departed
Indeed a significant role, acted flawlessly – but is it significant enough?
Djimon Hounsou – Blood Diamond
This fellow can do noble oppression with his hands tied behind him. I’d love to see him win because there are only so many such roles left, but I don't think he'll beat Murphy's momentum.
Jackie Earle Haley – Little Children
Hollywood Comeback Part 2. With nothing of significance to offer since his late teens, this would indeed be a resounding comeback – if not for Eddie Murphy.
Best Supporting Actress
Rinko Kikuchi – Babel
Abigail Breslin – Little Miss Sunshine
*Jennifer Hudson – Dreamgirls
Cate Blanchett - Babel
Adriana Barraza - Babel
This is the category I feel I’m least qualified to comment on since I’ve not seen Babel yet, but in this case I don’t think it matters. Jennifer Hudson’s fairytale climb from American Idol castoff to Oscar nominee has a story arc that must climax with an Academy Award.
Finally,
Best Picture
Little Miss Sunshine
Babel
Letters From Iwo Jima
*The Departed
The Queen
With Clint Eastwood already a multiple winner and barring a politically correct upset by Babel, this should be the year of Scorsese – best Director and Best Picture.
So, there you go. I could be wrong, very wrong. And these awards seldom influence my viewing tendencies, but it is fun to play along.
For me, when I'm picking the winners, I’m always caught between who I want to win and who I think will win. The reason for this is that Academy voters are notorious for not seeing the movies nominated or letting their personal or political feelings influence their choices. As a result, it’s not always the most deserving person who wins (note to Marissa Tomei).
So, without further ado, here are my picks* in the major categories (do you really care who wins for Best Catering in an Animated Short Film?). Enjoy the show and we’ll check back tomorrow to see how I did:
Best Actor
Leonardo DiCaprio – Blood Diamond
I’ve always been impressed with his abilities and shrewd project choices. It would be great if he won but the competition is just too good.
Ryan Gosling – Half Nelson
I’ve been watching his career with great interest ever since I saw him in The Believer. This boy can act, and he does it quietly, without fanfare. He’s my personal pick but again, I think it’s not his time yet.
Peter O’Toole – Venus
I can’t believe this fellow hasn’t won an Oscar yet (not counting his lifetime achievement award in 2003). He’s long overdue but the low-key movie may have flown under Academy members’ radar.
Will Smith – The Pursuit of Happyness
A likeable superstar but I don’t think this is the one.
*Forest Whitaker – The Last King of Scotland
A veteran of memorable supporting performances, this is the year for him to shine. From all accounts, the performance is unstoppable.
Best Actress
Penelope Cruz – Volver
Judi Dench – Notes on a Scandal
Dench is always riveting to watch (except in The Chronicles of Riddick) but she will lose to another Queen.
*Helen Mirren – The Queen
If there is ever a sure thing in Hollywood, it’s that Helen Mirren will continue her award reign.
Meryl Streep – The Devil Wears Prada
Always watchable, always interesting. But I fear the role is too lightweight.
Kate Winslet – Little Children
Possible heir to the award throne (this is her fifth nomination), for now she’ll just have to be satisfied with her Lady in Waiting Status.
Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin – Little Miss Sunshine
An amusing and crustily, heart-tugging performance but not enough to win the gold.
*Eddie Murphy – Dreamgirls
Hollywood loves a comeback and after all the flops that Murphy has churned out over the past years, this just might be the role that confirms his dramatic abilities. Let’s just hope the Academy hasn’t seen Norbit yet.
Mark Wahlberg – The Departed
Indeed a significant role, acted flawlessly – but is it significant enough?
Djimon Hounsou – Blood Diamond
This fellow can do noble oppression with his hands tied behind him. I’d love to see him win because there are only so many such roles left, but I don't think he'll beat Murphy's momentum.
Jackie Earle Haley – Little Children
Hollywood Comeback Part 2. With nothing of significance to offer since his late teens, this would indeed be a resounding comeback – if not for Eddie Murphy.
Best Supporting Actress
Rinko Kikuchi – Babel
Abigail Breslin – Little Miss Sunshine
*Jennifer Hudson – Dreamgirls
Cate Blanchett - Babel
Adriana Barraza - Babel
This is the category I feel I’m least qualified to comment on since I’ve not seen Babel yet, but in this case I don’t think it matters. Jennifer Hudson’s fairytale climb from American Idol castoff to Oscar nominee has a story arc that must climax with an Academy Award.
Finally,
Best Picture
Little Miss Sunshine
Babel
Letters From Iwo Jima
*The Departed
The Queen
With Clint Eastwood already a multiple winner and barring a politically correct upset by Babel, this should be the year of Scorsese – best Director and Best Picture.
So, there you go. I could be wrong, very wrong. And these awards seldom influence my viewing tendencies, but it is fun to play along.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
A Lesson Learned...
I ran into the pigeon again today, the one that got pooped on, and I felt ashamed for taking pleasure in his misfortune. He still had poop stains and looked vaguely embarrassed. So I tossed him a wetnap and he winked at me. We went our separate ways, each richer for the experience…
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Zanta: Friend or Foe
Unlike the "real" Santa who comes only once a year, Zanta (as he likes to be called) can be seen all year round just about anywhere in the Greater Toronto Area.
It's possible you've seen this self-proclaimed Toronto icon, wearing little more than a pair of shorts and his distinctive Santa hat, performing countless push ups for passing cars or pedestrians (he doesn't seem to care which) while onlookers gawk with a mix of uncomfortable curiosity and cautious disdain.
On a recent radio talk show, opinions seemed evenly split on whether Zanta was an amusing street performer or a public nuisance. Stories ranged from his benign public appearances at local events to his more hazardous street athletics, sometimes in the middle of traffic or on busy subway platforms.
His history is apparently somewhat tragic. After an on-the-job fall of seven metres at a construction site, he was unable to work but quickly began strengthening his body. The hat followed later as an attempt to make his daughter happy at a family court hearing. When he was denied custody, he vowed to keep the hat on until that situation changed. But despite opinions of those close to him, Zanta says he is mentally balanced and not bipolar.
Some claim that Zanta brings smiles to their faces while others say that he can make children cry with his antics.
I have seen Zanta on several occasions and I must admit that with his imposing physical presence and random, aggressive demeanor, he could be perceived as a threat. But whatever he believes his mental state to be, his behaviour is not normal nor is it likely to aid in the restoration of custody of his child.
It is quite clear, however, that as sad as his personal story might be, he might one day inadvertently harm himself or others by his actions. So why isn't someone stepping in to lend a hand, or at the very least, lend an ear. If his notoriety can gain him anything, perhaps it could be the help he needs, whatever form that might take...
It's possible you've seen this self-proclaimed Toronto icon, wearing little more than a pair of shorts and his distinctive Santa hat, performing countless push ups for passing cars or pedestrians (he doesn't seem to care which) while onlookers gawk with a mix of uncomfortable curiosity and cautious disdain.
On a recent radio talk show, opinions seemed evenly split on whether Zanta was an amusing street performer or a public nuisance. Stories ranged from his benign public appearances at local events to his more hazardous street athletics, sometimes in the middle of traffic or on busy subway platforms.
His history is apparently somewhat tragic. After an on-the-job fall of seven metres at a construction site, he was unable to work but quickly began strengthening his body. The hat followed later as an attempt to make his daughter happy at a family court hearing. When he was denied custody, he vowed to keep the hat on until that situation changed. But despite opinions of those close to him, Zanta says he is mentally balanced and not bipolar.
Some claim that Zanta brings smiles to their faces while others say that he can make children cry with his antics.
I have seen Zanta on several occasions and I must admit that with his imposing physical presence and random, aggressive demeanor, he could be perceived as a threat. But whatever he believes his mental state to be, his behaviour is not normal nor is it likely to aid in the restoration of custody of his child.
It is quite clear, however, that as sad as his personal story might be, he might one day inadvertently harm himself or others by his actions. So why isn't someone stepping in to lend a hand, or at the very least, lend an ear. If his notoriety can gain him anything, perhaps it could be the help he needs, whatever form that might take...
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Weeding Out The Advertisers
One of the big stories in this part of the world today is the big tobacco companies' desire to revisit the ban on the advertising of cigarettes.
On the surface, this seems like a no-brainer: How can you advertise something that has been so clearly proven to be deadly? One of the problems that arises is the hypocrisy of the government for enforcing this ban on the one hand and then raking in all the cigarette tax revenue on the other. If they really wanted to put an end to smoking they would ban cigarettes altogether.
But beyond the apparent simplicity (and possible naivete) of that argument lies a bigger question. While the tobacco companies claim they don't want to market to young people, isn't it the young who would be most influenced by such campaigns? Clearly seasoned smokers have no need for conversion and it's probably unlikely that older non-smokers will suddenly change their weedless ways.
An even bigger question is that of the need for cigarette advertising in the first place. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know about cigarettes? And would any potential customer believe advertising claims that one cigarette is smoother or milder or sexier than another? As a life-long non-smoker I must confess my ignorance on this matter but I would assume that cigarette preference was just spread by word of mouth (literally), or in the case of the budding smoker, defined by availability.
While I feel for people who are addicted to tobacco (I have no experience with an addiction so powerful), I would welcome the day when smoking was no longer a factor in our daily lives. The reality is that this day will be a long time coming. But in the mean time, do we really need to foster the promotion of an already powerfully seductive habit...
On the surface, this seems like a no-brainer: How can you advertise something that has been so clearly proven to be deadly? One of the problems that arises is the hypocrisy of the government for enforcing this ban on the one hand and then raking in all the cigarette tax revenue on the other. If they really wanted to put an end to smoking they would ban cigarettes altogether.
But beyond the apparent simplicity (and possible naivete) of that argument lies a bigger question. While the tobacco companies claim they don't want to market to young people, isn't it the young who would be most influenced by such campaigns? Clearly seasoned smokers have no need for conversion and it's probably unlikely that older non-smokers will suddenly change their weedless ways.
An even bigger question is that of the need for cigarette advertising in the first place. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know about cigarettes? And would any potential customer believe advertising claims that one cigarette is smoother or milder or sexier than another? As a life-long non-smoker I must confess my ignorance on this matter but I would assume that cigarette preference was just spread by word of mouth (literally), or in the case of the budding smoker, defined by availability.
While I feel for people who are addicted to tobacco (I have no experience with an addiction so powerful), I would welcome the day when smoking was no longer a factor in our daily lives. The reality is that this day will be a long time coming. But in the mean time, do we really need to foster the promotion of an already powerfully seductive habit...
Saturday, February 17, 2007
God loses His license
There was a story the other day about a man who had applied for a vanity license plate for his car and was rejected. The reason: his plate of choice was deemed offensive. What could possibly be so offensive, you ask? Well, the plate read "EHMEN". This was a play on the Christian prayer conclusion, "Amen" with an added (stereotypical) Canadian twist.
But this plate wasn't deemed offensive to Christians, who might not like the free and loose adaptation of a Christian tradition. It was deemed offensive to those of other religions, who might be "shocked" at such attention to another religion.
I just shake my head...
As I mentioned in my introductory blog entry, I'm not a religious fellow. But even I can see that at the root of religion there is surely good intention (for the most part). So how can any acknowledgement of any religion in such a benign manner be deemed offensive, or something that should only be spoken of in hushed tones in dark alleys.
What's next? Not wearing crucifixes in public? Not being allowed to say the word "good-bye" (as it is a contraction of the phrase "God be with you")?
In this time of religious sensitivity where all are encouraged toward tolerance and acceptance of new religions and cultures, should that also not apply to Christianity?
I'm just saying...
But this plate wasn't deemed offensive to Christians, who might not like the free and loose adaptation of a Christian tradition. It was deemed offensive to those of other religions, who might be "shocked" at such attention to another religion.
I just shake my head...
As I mentioned in my introductory blog entry, I'm not a religious fellow. But even I can see that at the root of religion there is surely good intention (for the most part). So how can any acknowledgement of any religion in such a benign manner be deemed offensive, or something that should only be spoken of in hushed tones in dark alleys.
What's next? Not wearing crucifixes in public? Not being allowed to say the word "good-bye" (as it is a contraction of the phrase "God be with you")?
In this time of religious sensitivity where all are encouraged toward tolerance and acceptance of new religions and cultures, should that also not apply to Christianity?
I'm just saying...
Friday, February 16, 2007
Welcome to my world...
Every once in a while, an event so monumental occurs that people stop dead in the streets, mouths agape, unable to comprehend the magnitude of what they're witnessing. This is not such an event.
But occasionally, when just the right two brains cells rub together in just the right way, a thought or two worthy of report is created and begs a forum for exposure. This humble blog is that forum.
The genesis of this blog is simple: from time to time, something in the real world will trigger a thought in my world. Sometimes I need to rant, sometimes I need to vent, sometimes life is just so absurd that I can't help but laugh in its face. It can be a cathartic experience and, hopefully, I'll find some like-minded people willing to engage in an intelligent discussion. If you're not like-minded, I also welcome your input (perhaps more so). A lot can be learned from opposing points of view. As long as we all listen with open minds.
I'm a life-long observer of the human condition and have an insatiable curiosity about the world around me, specifically humankind’s puzzling capacity for extremes of incredible compassion and incredible cruelty. I enjoy discussing everything from personal philosophies and the whole meaning of life to the more whimsical fare of the entertainment world.
I'm not particularly politically driven but I occasionally like to apply my modest knowledge in that field to the relevant issues of the day.
Religion does not play a role in my life but that's not to say that I'm not interested to learn about someone else's beliefs and values. I'm always fascinated to learn what gets someone through their day.
So on this inaugural blog entry, you've barely scratched the surface of my being. Stay tuned for more thoughts and insights into the mind of The Lone Monkey.
Until next time, remember: one planet, one people...
But occasionally, when just the right two brains cells rub together in just the right way, a thought or two worthy of report is created and begs a forum for exposure. This humble blog is that forum.
The genesis of this blog is simple: from time to time, something in the real world will trigger a thought in my world. Sometimes I need to rant, sometimes I need to vent, sometimes life is just so absurd that I can't help but laugh in its face. It can be a cathartic experience and, hopefully, I'll find some like-minded people willing to engage in an intelligent discussion. If you're not like-minded, I also welcome your input (perhaps more so). A lot can be learned from opposing points of view. As long as we all listen with open minds.
I'm a life-long observer of the human condition and have an insatiable curiosity about the world around me, specifically humankind’s puzzling capacity for extremes of incredible compassion and incredible cruelty. I enjoy discussing everything from personal philosophies and the whole meaning of life to the more whimsical fare of the entertainment world.
I'm not particularly politically driven but I occasionally like to apply my modest knowledge in that field to the relevant issues of the day.
Religion does not play a role in my life but that's not to say that I'm not interested to learn about someone else's beliefs and values. I'm always fascinated to learn what gets someone through their day.
So on this inaugural blog entry, you've barely scratched the surface of my being. Stay tuned for more thoughts and insights into the mind of The Lone Monkey.
Until next time, remember: one planet, one people...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
