This is the second edition of my post on lyrics.
Landed, Ben Folds (2005)-Ben Folds doesn’t try to make his songs universal. He writes very specific stories. He said once in a concert I attended that he admired Stevie Wonder because Wonder didn’t just write sad love songs about heart break: He wrote about all facets of life including the good and the bad. Songs like “Stephen’s Last Night in Town,” “Song for the Dumped,” and “Zak and Sara” show there’s nothing too mundane in life to be covered for a song. Folds doesn’t feel the need to write about himself either: He writes about a man who’s been fired after putting in 25 years of good work at a company in Fred Jones Pt. II, a man who became an evangelist after an acid experience in a party in “Not the Same”, and an ex-hippie who’s no longer part of the revolution in “Ascent of Stan.” By comparison, every other songwriter is a narcissist. Folds doesn’t feel like his own ordeals are as important as the rest of the world. In “Landed,” Ben Folds writes somewhat of an anti-relationship song. It’s about a guy who’s in an unhealthy relationship, gets out of it and regains his sanity in the process. The opening line: “We hit the bottom, I thought it was my fault, and in a way I guess it was.” Have you ever heard a narrator in a song possess such a lack of confidence? As the listener, you can tell that it wasn’t his fault, but the narrator has been forced into believing it was. The pronouncement at the climactic bridge when the narrator has landed is “I’ve come alone.” Upon further research, I found that this was based on a specific story of Ben’s friend. Go figure.
Hard Candy, Counting Crows (2002)-The symbolism and imagery in this song is so great. For one thing, the connection between your mother, your love, and your daughter is explored here (that is, if “girl upon a pedestal” relates to a daughter), how you miss your mother’s love as you age and see her in your wife/lover, and how you also compare that love to what you expect of your daughter. In the end, there’s an acknowledgement that this is an unhealthy cycle, because you’re waiting for your daughter to fall. The song touches up on the power of nostalgia with a certain ironic detachment that all of his regrets, his hopes, and summer memories are all compressed into a picture of an ordinary girl. I think in my own experiences, when I see a picture of some former love, I find that same irony that it’s now just a picture of an ordinary girl and it used to be much more.
Wake Me Up When September Ends, Greenday (2005)-The song takes a pretty direct approach on the subject of severe depression as depressed people tend to sleep a lot. What's interesting and relatable about the song is that the narrator wishes for something ineffective: He believes that skipping the month of September will cure his pain. That's not how the healing process works, of course. If he slept through the month of September, he would have to deal with the feelings of (in this case, getting over his dead dad) during the month of October. Nevertheless, it's a nice wish. There's a hopeful tone to this depressing state he's in simply because he is in the act of wishing (even if that wish is irrational). Of course, the song is also relatable because unless you absolutely love school (and even then, the transition is kind of hard), September is the worst month of the year and it would be kind of nice to skip it. It's kind of the flipside of a summer anthem in that sense.
Rain King, Counting Crows (1995)-Another Counting Crows song. The line in the chorus "I belong in the service of the queen, I belong anywhere but in between," is the most striking to me. I've listened to Adam Duritz discuss the song and it's not anything close to how I interpreted it, but I interpreted it as a guy deserving this woman's heart and not anything less. "So don't try to feed me because I've been here before and I deserve a little more," he also says. I see it as a song about a guy who's been searching for true love for a while and is still isn't willing to compromise. The narrator is also in a severe state of confusion, disillusionment, or euphora. It's a little hard to tell and that's what makes the song interesting.
Why Georgia, John Mayer (2003)-This is a case of me discovering a song where I was coming from the same exact place the songwriter was coming from. John Mayer was singing about dealing with a quarter-life crisis as a result of a life change. In this case, he was moving to Georgia. Perhaps, moving to Georgia was the solution to his quarter-life crisis, who knows? The pronouncement: "Everybody's just a stranger but that's the danger of going my own way. I guess that's a price I'll have to pay," puts a positive spin on the situation. When I was 20, I had to make a major life change and it was really risky to try to move far away from everything I knew. In the end, I moved away for a while, but came home a little too soon. Still, the song was very relatable to me: Moving away and taking a big risk comes with a few negatives and struggles, even when it's all for the better and a liberating move of independence.
Fallen, Sarah MacLachlin (2003)-Sometimes, channeling your sadness through music and turning it into poetry can be the best thing you can do with it. This song is nothing but sadness, but capturing those emotions so poetically and wish such a serene voice as Sarah gives these dark emotions a redeeming quality. The lesson of this song is that there's beauty in failure to.
Barrytown, Steely Dan (1974)-I didn't even know this was Steely Dan's song. I thought it was Ben Fold's song, but I just recently discovered it was a cover that I downloaded from Napster of so many years ago. The song hit a chord with me. I viewed it as a ballad against conformity: "And don't think that i'm out of line for speaking out for what is right, I'd like to see you do just fine, but look at what you wear, and the way you do your hair. I can tell by what you carry that you come from Barrytown." The song resonated with me at a time when I didn't fit in with my surroundings. I just transferred colleges and would speak out a lot against the culture of the new school only to be ridiculed and misunderstood. Apparently, the song is about a cult in New York.
You're a God, Vertical Horizon (2000)-I got into the massive hit Everything You Want well-before I got into this song, but it's a good song as well. Vertical Horizon doesn't have too many good songs other than those two. Best I Ever Had has been covered a couple times. Anyways, this song is really interesting because the narrator is proclaiming to this woman that she's a God, which is quite a compliment, but at the same time, it's being used as an excuse (i.e. "you're a god and I thought you would know...and I just thought I'd let you go"). There are a lot of complicated loopholes in this relationship or potential relationship and the narrator's reason for writing this song is that he's gotta be honest after being "covered in lies." Did he cheat on her? Did he ever have her in the first place and to what degree? What an interesting song.
Game of Love, Santanna featuring Michelle Branch (2003)-What a great song about love. The line in the chorus "A little bit of this, a little bit of that," is a good metaphor for the game of flirting and love. Successful attraction is just a random mix of ingredients and the incredibly festive music encourages you to just go out there and enjoy searching for that right mix of ingredients. The girl is heartbroken by a kiss that didn't turn into anything more but could you sit there after listening to this song and tell me that she's not having a good time with it?
You're Winter, Sister Hazel (1997)-I played this song a lot during my freshman year to deal with stresses and how I wasn't going to let them take control of me. The tone is melancholy, with the narrator saying "won't be your winter and I won't be anyone's excuse to cry, and we can be forgiven, but I'll still be here." The guy is being treated like crap by someone else and he is refusing to let it get him down. He will still be there for that person when he or she comes to they're senses and realizes how wrong they will be acting. Surely, good resolve for a strong person.
OK, that's 10 more songs. I'll do a third round of this soon.
And please donate a hit to me by clicking on my site:
Songs I'm considering writing about in the next edition:
1. It's All Been Done, Barenaked Ladies
2. #41, Dave Matthews Band
3. Who Knew, Pink
4. You and I Both, Jason Mraz
5. Grey Street, Dave Matthews Band
6. Name, Goo Goo Dolls
7. Be Like That, Three Doors Down
8. Hand Me Down, Matchbox Twenty
9. Walking in Memphis, Marc Cohn
10. Meet Virginia, Train
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Review of the TV year:Part 1
It's mid-summer and it's now time to review the year that was in TV. The two greatest tragedies were the cancellation of My Name is Earl and Pushing Daisies. I am greatly disturbed by the state of TV when I think of how powerless I am to change these things. Here is a list of some of the shows I followed this past year (more will be covered soon):
Sit Down, Shut Up- An animated comedy about incompetent teachers at a flailing school that really has very little to do about teaching at all. It’s made by the Arrested Development guy and stars such big names as Will Arnett, Jason Bateman, Kristen Chenowith, Keenan Thompson, Will Forte, Cheri Oteri, Henry Winkler and Nick Kroll. The expectations were high to live up to and that brought a lot of disappointment and I can see both sides of it. The show got a little bit too meta too early in its run. In the 4th episode and last before leaving the remaining 9 episodes of the season (and most likely the series) in limbo, there were no less than three or four self-referential gags going on: characters kept trying to consciously match themselves to 80’s archetypes, characters alluded to how they had few adventures before episode one, and Miracle was self-conscious about being nothing more than a plot device fueling the rivalry between Ennis and Larry.
On the other hand, I really like most of the characters (the sexually confused Andrew is definitely an exception) and there is a sense that the writing is witty and sharp and will be even better once a coherent tone is found. Most of the running gags the show has works: I think there is a good amount of running gags they have: The assistant principal is really really incompetent and was a prison clown before he was a principal, Happy's ethnic mumblings superimposed with proper-soundng British, Willard always having a different way to get to school, the fact that no one cares the least bit about actually teaching and we know very little of the students, etc..
Burn Notice, USA: In the world of TV, it is generally not a bad thing to have a gimmick that hooks you in. The show is about an exiled spy in Miami who is Bond-like in his ability to outwit his foes. The gimmick? Imagine if James Bond was letting you pick his brain while he was kicking ass. In Burn Notice, Michael Weston is an exiled CIA operative who takes freelance jobs (usually involving dealing with dangerous people) in his hometown of Miami while he attempts to figure out who ratted him out and compromised his identity to the CIA. As he’s slipping into and out of trouble, Weston provides voiceovers about how a spy should handle this or that situation that really makes things interesting. Also in the show are Weston’s mother (the only person who will take him in), an old male associate, and an ex-girlfriend (played by the dainty-looking Gabriel Anwar)
Important Things with Demitri Martin, Comedy Central-Demitri Martin is, by far, one of the best comics out there. He can be creative on so many mediums and he has such an uncanny ability to pull hilarious observational humor where no one ever looked before. He’s the ideal star for his own show, because it doesn’t just include 30 minutes of stand-up and he can mix it up, through different mediums and interlace some great sketches: For example, he has one in which a high school student gets his wish granted of meeting three great minds for dinner- Ben Franklin, Galileo, and William Shakespeare- and all they want to do is hit on the waitress.
30 Rock, NBC: I am not one who demands excellence from a TV show or demands it be cancelled. 30 Rock is good and provides humor better than a high percentage of shows still out there and by no means do I want that to go away. That being said, 30 Rock didn’t really raise the bar this season. In fact, the comedy that was previously limitless in the ways it could surprise the viewer with a limit, became somewhat formulaic as of late. Every plot would include three plots:
1) Liz looking for love or trying to convince herself that she hasn’t lost her plebian roots because she’s now part of Jack’s inner circle.
2) Jack dealing with his love life or family problems
3) A C plot with either Jenna trying to come to terms with her snobbishness or someone doing damage control for Tracy’s latest escapade
The Root of All Evil, Comedy Central: A novel idea that might not have legs to last several seasons, but good enough to allow those talented under-the-radar humorists like Andrew Daly, Patton Oswalt, Greg Giraldo, Andy Kindler and Paul F Tompkins to riff on various topics in what sort of plays as a comedic sport. Lewis Black could stand to play a larger role in the show. Every comic has their own unique style and everyone has their own preferences. I get a kick out of Tomkins and Daly who take themselves as seriously as lawyers because they’re suddenly dressed in suits. You can also never get enough of the debate over which is worse: Beer or Weed, American Idol or High School, Donald Trump vs Tila Tequila, etc.
More to come....
Sit Down, Shut Up- An animated comedy about incompetent teachers at a flailing school that really has very little to do about teaching at all. It’s made by the Arrested Development guy and stars such big names as Will Arnett, Jason Bateman, Kristen Chenowith, Keenan Thompson, Will Forte, Cheri Oteri, Henry Winkler and Nick Kroll. The expectations were high to live up to and that brought a lot of disappointment and I can see both sides of it. The show got a little bit too meta too early in its run. In the 4th episode and last before leaving the remaining 9 episodes of the season (and most likely the series) in limbo, there were no less than three or four self-referential gags going on: characters kept trying to consciously match themselves to 80’s archetypes, characters alluded to how they had few adventures before episode one, and Miracle was self-conscious about being nothing more than a plot device fueling the rivalry between Ennis and Larry.
On the other hand, I really like most of the characters (the sexually confused Andrew is definitely an exception) and there is a sense that the writing is witty and sharp and will be even better once a coherent tone is found. Most of the running gags the show has works: I think there is a good amount of running gags they have: The assistant principal is really really incompetent and was a prison clown before he was a principal, Happy's ethnic mumblings superimposed with proper-soundng British, Willard always having a different way to get to school, the fact that no one cares the least bit about actually teaching and we know very little of the students, etc..
Burn Notice, USA: In the world of TV, it is generally not a bad thing to have a gimmick that hooks you in. The show is about an exiled spy in Miami who is Bond-like in his ability to outwit his foes. The gimmick? Imagine if James Bond was letting you pick his brain while he was kicking ass. In Burn Notice, Michael Weston is an exiled CIA operative who takes freelance jobs (usually involving dealing with dangerous people) in his hometown of Miami while he attempts to figure out who ratted him out and compromised his identity to the CIA. As he’s slipping into and out of trouble, Weston provides voiceovers about how a spy should handle this or that situation that really makes things interesting. Also in the show are Weston’s mother (the only person who will take him in), an old male associate, and an ex-girlfriend (played by the dainty-looking Gabriel Anwar)
Important Things with Demitri Martin, Comedy Central-Demitri Martin is, by far, one of the best comics out there. He can be creative on so many mediums and he has such an uncanny ability to pull hilarious observational humor where no one ever looked before. He’s the ideal star for his own show, because it doesn’t just include 30 minutes of stand-up and he can mix it up, through different mediums and interlace some great sketches: For example, he has one in which a high school student gets his wish granted of meeting three great minds for dinner- Ben Franklin, Galileo, and William Shakespeare- and all they want to do is hit on the waitress.
30 Rock, NBC: I am not one who demands excellence from a TV show or demands it be cancelled. 30 Rock is good and provides humor better than a high percentage of shows still out there and by no means do I want that to go away. That being said, 30 Rock didn’t really raise the bar this season. In fact, the comedy that was previously limitless in the ways it could surprise the viewer with a limit, became somewhat formulaic as of late. Every plot would include three plots:
1) Liz looking for love or trying to convince herself that she hasn’t lost her plebian roots because she’s now part of Jack’s inner circle.
2) Jack dealing with his love life or family problems
3) A C plot with either Jenna trying to come to terms with her snobbishness or someone doing damage control for Tracy’s latest escapade
The Root of All Evil, Comedy Central: A novel idea that might not have legs to last several seasons, but good enough to allow those talented under-the-radar humorists like Andrew Daly, Patton Oswalt, Greg Giraldo, Andy Kindler and Paul F Tompkins to riff on various topics in what sort of plays as a comedic sport. Lewis Black could stand to play a larger role in the show. Every comic has their own unique style and everyone has their own preferences. I get a kick out of Tomkins and Daly who take themselves as seriously as lawyers because they’re suddenly dressed in suits. You can also never get enough of the debate over which is worse: Beer or Weed, American Idol or High School, Donald Trump vs Tila Tequila, etc.
More to come....
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Is file-sharing and downloading wrong?
I have so many thoughts on the current age we live in where technology allows us so many shortcuts in commerce. Like Andrew Keen, I greatly worry about the effect that web 2.0 has on art, society, and values. This is one of a few different essays, I've written on the topic on helium, including an expose on someone who is downloading the entirety of films on youtube:
One of the more worrisome aspects of the internet and the file-sharing that originated with Napster two years ago is how people believe that right or wrong is not as much of an issue if everyone is partaking in it. Downloading copyrighted music and videos have not become any less wrong just because it is more widespread or the punishments for such activity aren't being enforced. That being said, there are various degrees of wrong with this issue depending on a few factors.
The most prevalent of these is whether you disseminate the material. The difference between whether you disseminate (i.e. share through posting on youtube or a bit torrent) the material and whether you simply choose to download the material is analogous to the difference between an arms dealer and someone who uses a weapon. Uploading a song or video to the internet that isn't yours is wrong in many ways because it takes away the value of another person's work. Downloading a song illegally encourages the uploader to continue his wrongdoing and deprives the creator of the work of profit or whatever else he intended to do with his work.
Specifically, downloading copyrighted music and videos and reproducing them is a violation of of the Fair Use Act which states that you're not allowed to reproduce copyrighted content unless it's from criticism, comment, scholarship, news reporting, or research and there are certain restrictions based on, among other things: The portion used in relation to the entire copyrighted work, the effect of the copyright on market value and the nature of the copyrighted work.
Looking at this law closely reveals that copyright violation is not entirely a black-and-white issue and there are degrees of wrongdoing. Are we sampling a piece of the song or are we just stealing the whole body of work? Are we using the download for some useful creative purpose such as providing commentary of our own or do we just want to hear the song? To me, these stipulations make a lot of sense and help clarify the line between wrong and right.
The intention of the copyright owner is of course something that we overlook the most. Was it a commercial song intended to make money in some form for the artist? In this day and age, a number of artists are increasingly giving out content for free as part of a larger marketing plan. If that's the intent of the artist, than downloading it is ok. At the same time, perhaps that particular artist decided that he wants to charge money for some of his work and that is also his perogative. Just because similar artists are able to give out songs for free does not mean that all artists can profit from that model and we feel that we have a right to download their content for free.
Too often, we are guilty of assuming a "Robin Hood" complex with music that must be paid for. We say to ourselves "Oh, that money is just going to go to the record companies" as if we are doing the people a favor. In truth, we do not know how taking these songs or videos affects the people who are producing it. In a worst case scenario we are putting the artists we want to enjoy out of business by not financially supporting them and we are also depriving ourselves from enjoying the fruits of their labor since they can no longer support ourselves as artists.
Bottom line: As consumers and citizens who live under a code of laws including the very basic one- "Thou Shalt Not Steal" - we need to take responsiblity for how we chose to consume art or art won't survive
One of the more worrisome aspects of the internet and the file-sharing that originated with Napster two years ago is how people believe that right or wrong is not as much of an issue if everyone is partaking in it. Downloading copyrighted music and videos have not become any less wrong just because it is more widespread or the punishments for such activity aren't being enforced. That being said, there are various degrees of wrong with this issue depending on a few factors.
The most prevalent of these is whether you disseminate the material. The difference between whether you disseminate (i.e. share through posting on youtube or a bit torrent) the material and whether you simply choose to download the material is analogous to the difference between an arms dealer and someone who uses a weapon. Uploading a song or video to the internet that isn't yours is wrong in many ways because it takes away the value of another person's work. Downloading a song illegally encourages the uploader to continue his wrongdoing and deprives the creator of the work of profit or whatever else he intended to do with his work.
Specifically, downloading copyrighted music and videos and reproducing them is a violation of of the Fair Use Act which states that you're not allowed to reproduce copyrighted content unless it's from criticism, comment, scholarship, news reporting, or research and there are certain restrictions based on, among other things: The portion used in relation to the entire copyrighted work, the effect of the copyright on market value and the nature of the copyrighted work.
Looking at this law closely reveals that copyright violation is not entirely a black-and-white issue and there are degrees of wrongdoing. Are we sampling a piece of the song or are we just stealing the whole body of work? Are we using the download for some useful creative purpose such as providing commentary of our own or do we just want to hear the song? To me, these stipulations make a lot of sense and help clarify the line between wrong and right.
The intention of the copyright owner is of course something that we overlook the most. Was it a commercial song intended to make money in some form for the artist? In this day and age, a number of artists are increasingly giving out content for free as part of a larger marketing plan. If that's the intent of the artist, than downloading it is ok. At the same time, perhaps that particular artist decided that he wants to charge money for some of his work and that is also his perogative. Just because similar artists are able to give out songs for free does not mean that all artists can profit from that model and we feel that we have a right to download their content for free.
Too often, we are guilty of assuming a "Robin Hood" complex with music that must be paid for. We say to ourselves "Oh, that money is just going to go to the record companies" as if we are doing the people a favor. In truth, we do not know how taking these songs or videos affects the people who are producing it. In a worst case scenario we are putting the artists we want to enjoy out of business by not financially supporting them and we are also depriving ourselves from enjoying the fruits of their labor since they can no longer support ourselves as artists.
Bottom line: As consumers and citizens who live under a code of laws including the very basic one- "Thou Shalt Not Steal" - we need to take responsiblity for how we chose to consume art or art won't survive
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The apocolypse is officially here: Stewart declared the most trusted newsman
I have long tried to act as a counterpoint to my generation's childhood crush (bordering on hero worship) on John Stewart. I have no problem with Jon Stewart but I have a problem with the way my generation worships him and applauds everything he does or says.
I have always argued that it's becoming indicative oh how cynical and intellectually lazy we are when we turn out to like Stewart more than we like the system that he thrives on. In a poll by Time Magazine, Stewart ranked higher than Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and Brian Williams in terms of being a trusted news sourcce. While the poll is fairly inaccurate, considering that the three news anchors would split so many of the same like-minded votes, it is something I find disturbing.
Stewart must be a cynic by the definition of his job: He must find something to make fun of every night. If he actually compliments the job of any news organization or reporter, than it's boring. Our generation, as a result of being guided by Stewart and so many other voices whose function is
to critique the voice of someone else, has become snarky, pessimistic and disbelieving of everything.
Voting for Stewart as the voice of your generation is a vote for being intellectually lazy and cynical about the world at large- mainly politicians and reporters. It is far easier to sit idly by and make snarky comments about the news (and I am not debating whether it is fun to watch, because I agree that it is) than to actually try to make news in the form of reporting it or making laws.
In terms of making news, it is a blanket statement, and a trendy one at that, to just talk about the bad job the news is doing. I would like to see more constructive dialogue about what's wrong with the news and I'd bet that the youth of today wouldn't even know how to approach that conversation because they don't even know what's wrong with the news. "If Stewart hates it, than I hate it too," they probably think. Or they complain that it's too liberal, which is a notion invented by Fox News so that they can invalidate actual stories and tell their own version. Whatever it is, no one even strives to think about why it can't be better or has an appreciation for the actual act of reporting on stories (without which Stewart would have nothing to report on). In glorifying Stewart, you're not picking a hero, so look a little past him, people.
I have always argued that it's becoming indicative oh how cynical and intellectually lazy we are when we turn out to like Stewart more than we like the system that he thrives on. In a poll by Time Magazine, Stewart ranked higher than Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and Brian Williams in terms of being a trusted news sourcce. While the poll is fairly inaccurate, considering that the three news anchors would split so many of the same like-minded votes, it is something I find disturbing.
Stewart must be a cynic by the definition of his job: He must find something to make fun of every night. If he actually compliments the job of any news organization or reporter, than it's boring. Our generation, as a result of being guided by Stewart and so many other voices whose function is
to critique the voice of someone else, has become snarky, pessimistic and disbelieving of everything.
Voting for Stewart as the voice of your generation is a vote for being intellectually lazy and cynical about the world at large- mainly politicians and reporters. It is far easier to sit idly by and make snarky comments about the news (and I am not debating whether it is fun to watch, because I agree that it is) than to actually try to make news in the form of reporting it or making laws.
In terms of making news, it is a blanket statement, and a trendy one at that, to just talk about the bad job the news is doing. I would like to see more constructive dialogue about what's wrong with the news and I'd bet that the youth of today wouldn't even know how to approach that conversation because they don't even know what's wrong with the news. "If Stewart hates it, than I hate it too," they probably think. Or they complain that it's too liberal, which is a notion invented by Fox News so that they can invalidate actual stories and tell their own version. Whatever it is, no one even strives to think about why it can't be better or has an appreciation for the actual act of reporting on stories (without which Stewart would have nothing to report on). In glorifying Stewart, you're not picking a hero, so look a little past him, people.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Borat is social satire, Bruno is social harm
In Bruno, one finds confirmation of every negative stereotype of gay people imaginable: Bruno is self-centered, shallow, perverted, sex-crazed, dim, and worst of all, he's completely unrestrained in his sexual urges to the point that he is unabashedly hitting on straight guys. That's one of straight guys' worst fears and Cohen and Charles are trying to attack American men for reacting poorly when a large and imposing gay guy tries to hit on them?
Sacha Baron Cohen's thesis is that Americans are secretly culturally ignorant. How exactly was the tv audience supposed to react to a man bringing an infant son to orgies in a jacuzzi and calling him OJ, or how was the hunter supposed to react to being hit on twice by a guy on a camping trip, or the senator? If a man crossed such sexual boundaries with a woman that Bruno did with Ron Paul or the hunter, it would be no laughing matter. If the point of the film was to raise awareness for homophobia, how did that work, exactly? People weren't uncomfortable around Bruno because he was gay, he was a nuissance. Borat was a nuissance too, but the character himself had good intentions.
Therefore, Bruno's theme "American men are clearly ignorant of gay people and more uncomfortable around it than they care to admit" gets overshadowed by the fact that in the world of Bruno, gay people are just plain undesirable to be around.
There's the battle over proposition 8 and the fear among anti-gays is that the homosexual agenda is invasive and pushing to change America. In reality, gay people just want to be treated equally and be accepted for who they are. I can't imagine having a fame-seeking narcissist who wants to shove his sexuality down other people's throats as the most culturally visible representation of homosexuality at the moment, is what gay people need.
I think images make a big deal too. When I was young, I was fairly homophobic and uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality until I actually started meeting and befriending gay people in college and realizing that they were pretty normal people like you and me. There's a big battle for public opinion out there and there are a lot of people who are fearful of homosexuality because they haven't had much contact with it. For them, the image that Bruno promotes is something that quells the fire.
Sacha Baron Cohen's thesis is that Americans are secretly culturally ignorant. How exactly was the tv audience supposed to react to a man bringing an infant son to orgies in a jacuzzi and calling him OJ, or how was the hunter supposed to react to being hit on twice by a guy on a camping trip, or the senator? If a man crossed such sexual boundaries with a woman that Bruno did with Ron Paul or the hunter, it would be no laughing matter. If the point of the film was to raise awareness for homophobia, how did that work, exactly? People weren't uncomfortable around Bruno because he was gay, he was a nuissance. Borat was a nuissance too, but the character himself had good intentions.
Therefore, Bruno's theme "American men are clearly ignorant of gay people and more uncomfortable around it than they care to admit" gets overshadowed by the fact that in the world of Bruno, gay people are just plain undesirable to be around.
There's the battle over proposition 8 and the fear among anti-gays is that the homosexual agenda is invasive and pushing to change America. In reality, gay people just want to be treated equally and be accepted for who they are. I can't imagine having a fame-seeking narcissist who wants to shove his sexuality down other people's throats as the most culturally visible representation of homosexuality at the moment, is what gay people need.
I think images make a big deal too. When I was young, I was fairly homophobic and uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality until I actually started meeting and befriending gay people in college and realizing that they were pretty normal people like you and me. There's a big battle for public opinion out there and there are a lot of people who are fearful of homosexuality because they haven't had much contact with it. For them, the image that Bruno promotes is something that quells the fire.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What exactly is the problem with Brett Rattner?
X-Men 3 came out with director Brett Rattner taking over the project 2 months into filming, shortly after Bryan Singer dropped out of the production. When the film came out, it opened to some dissapointment and there was a lot of backlash towards Brett Rattner for ruining the film that sort of fascinated me. X-Men 3 is virtually identical in style to X-Men 2. The biggest complaint I heard was that film is packed with too many characters and storylines. This is not the director's fault. Rattner said in interviews that he liked Singer's work with the two previous X-Men films and that his goal was to match the tone of the X-Men franchise as best as he could so that no one would be able to tell it was a different director. From that perspective, I've never heard a legitimate complaint (and I was previously on a message board asking people to give it their best shot) that Ratner did anything differently.
I have a theory that Brett Ratner simply suffers from the same problem Lindsay Lohan or Hillary Duff does (ironically, he's been linked romantically to Lohan): More news comes out about him in the tabloids than for his films.
Let's review:
Brett Ratner was a guy who's been linked romantically to Lindsay Lohan, Serena Williams and a number of other young hotties. Throw that in with the fact that he throws fairly well-publicized parties at his place (his friends Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton have attended) and to a degree, he is somewhat of a tabloid regular.
He doesn't help this image much at all in interviews as a guy who likes the playboy lifestyle of being a Hollywood star. He discussed an interest in Hugh Heffner on AMC's Shootout a couple years back, and in this interview, he decided to publish a book of actor Scott Caan's photography because he said, in part, he likes looking at naked girls.
Then again, in these interviews he also expresses a humongous appreciation for film and a true passion for what he's doing. I find it odd that anyone could have much passion about making 3 Rush Hours but he almost manages to convince you that it's worth seeing. To me, it seems like he has a very interesting duality to him. He throws parties at his lavish mansion but, according to an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, his grandparents also attended. He's a man who loves partying, dating, making social connections (at the front page of his official website is an article of his friendship with Michael Jackson) and he's also a guy with a solid film background who speaks with a clear passion about what he does.
I can't emphasize that solid film background enough: Brett Ratner was accepted to NYU's film school at age 16, making him the department's youngest filmmaker, and an award-winning short got him the funding of Stephen Spielberg's production company to progress to a pretty upstart career.
He never has really done anything the least bit daring with the films he's chosen to direct, however. His resume has 3 genre films: Red Dragon, Family Man, and After the Sunset (a fairly clever heist film with a couple twists thrown in) and he's most well-known for the Rush Hour trilogy (which is actually pretty awful). For my money, I actually liked the three non Rush-Hour films.
His films are solid, but not anything particularly notable. His online biography includes (I'm not making this up) that he has won many awards including an MTV Award for Best Fight Scene in Rush Hour 3 and a TONY for producing Russell Simmons' def comedy jam on Broadway.
If you want to get to the source of the Brett Rattner hate on X-Men 3, it's right there. His reputation has never served his talents justice and X-Men 3 was the first time he was challenged on that by a large fan base.
I have a theory that Brett Ratner simply suffers from the same problem Lindsay Lohan or Hillary Duff does (ironically, he's been linked romantically to Lohan): More news comes out about him in the tabloids than for his films.
Let's review:
Brett Ratner was a guy who's been linked romantically to Lindsay Lohan, Serena Williams and a number of other young hotties. Throw that in with the fact that he throws fairly well-publicized parties at his place (his friends Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton have attended) and to a degree, he is somewhat of a tabloid regular.
He doesn't help this image much at all in interviews as a guy who likes the playboy lifestyle of being a Hollywood star. He discussed an interest in Hugh Heffner on AMC's Shootout a couple years back, and in this interview, he decided to publish a book of actor Scott Caan's photography because he said, in part, he likes looking at naked girls.
Then again, in these interviews he also expresses a humongous appreciation for film and a true passion for what he's doing. I find it odd that anyone could have much passion about making 3 Rush Hours but he almost manages to convince you that it's worth seeing. To me, it seems like he has a very interesting duality to him. He throws parties at his lavish mansion but, according to an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, his grandparents also attended. He's a man who loves partying, dating, making social connections (at the front page of his official website is an article of his friendship with Michael Jackson) and he's also a guy with a solid film background who speaks with a clear passion about what he does.
I can't emphasize that solid film background enough: Brett Ratner was accepted to NYU's film school at age 16, making him the department's youngest filmmaker, and an award-winning short got him the funding of Stephen Spielberg's production company to progress to a pretty upstart career.
He never has really done anything the least bit daring with the films he's chosen to direct, however. His resume has 3 genre films: Red Dragon, Family Man, and After the Sunset (a fairly clever heist film with a couple twists thrown in) and he's most well-known for the Rush Hour trilogy (which is actually pretty awful). For my money, I actually liked the three non Rush-Hour films.
His films are solid, but not anything particularly notable. His online biography includes (I'm not making this up) that he has won many awards including an MTV Award for Best Fight Scene in Rush Hour 3 and a TONY for producing Russell Simmons' def comedy jam on Broadway.
If you want to get to the source of the Brett Rattner hate on X-Men 3, it's right there. His reputation has never served his talents justice and X-Men 3 was the first time he was challenged on that by a large fan base.
The 10 DVD game
I bought something like 10 DVDs recently on a couple different trips to Blockbuster and FYE. I've had the luxury to splurge a little. Here is the following list with reasons why I bought them in parenthesis separated by commas. In the comments section, take some time to discuss what you just bought or are planning on buying (if you can get to 10, that sounds great) and why you bought it. Understanding the film industry is about understanding our choices as consumers. Also, please click here on my helium article because that's the only way I get my revenue.:
1. King of California:
-I haven't seen enough good films from 2007
-Sounds like a good story
-Michael Douglas is an actor I haven't seen anything good from in a while)
2. Be Kind Rewind:
-It's one of my 4-star films from 2008
-The sweeded portions of the films were very rewatchable and i wanted to know what was up behind the scenes.
-The concept of sweeding that the film helped revolutionize would probably be better explained. I imagine the extras would not dissapoint
-Probably entertaining on rewatch
3. X-Men 3:
-I love the X-Men trilogy
-I have a mild interest in whether Brett Rattner is actually a good director or not since he seems mildly hated by other film buffs and I thought that the DVD commentary would provide insight
-The action scenes are always great to rewatch on DVD
-The deleted scenes might ne extensive since there are so much story they chose to cut
4. The Break-Up:
-I caught a little on TV and it was good so far,
-A supporting role from Jason Bateman looked intriguing
-I wanted to laugh and Vince Vaughn guarantees that for me
-Vince Vaughn as an actor also drew me in
5. Elizabethtown:
-I saw about 90% on TV and thought it was ripe for rewatching
-I read into some symbolism from the film that I wanted to check which the commentary would provide
-It was just a solid film. Not a 4-star film, but relatively lightweight and enjoyable
6. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
-I've watched this film 1 1/2 times and my general rule is only get a DVD of something you've seen once but I felt it got better on the second viewing so I could see it having a long shelf life
-Indiana Jones is a legendary trilogy (or whatever you call it now) and there's just a need to own a piece of it
-Hearing Lucas and Spielberg in action sounds like a great idea. I've read so much about it here.
-It was a complex storyline that would probably make more sense if you view it over again
-I thought others might like it
7. Orange County:
-I saw it in 2002 and think it's a film with a lot of great lines and funny moments that I think I might appreciate more in retrospect
-I also want to rewatch it to see all the cameos
-I have a greater appreciation for Jack Black now
-Just the themes about how being educated and going down the conventional track for success isn't all it is cracked up to be need rewatching
-Tom Hanks' son before he hit it big with Mad Men
8. Kingdom of Heaven:
-I saw a few minutes on TV and I was impressed with the cinametography
-Wanted to dig my teeth into some historical fiction
-I wanted to be surprised by something that could be great and it had potential
-I haven't seen enough Ridley Scott
-I remember a friend talked wildly about how great of a film it was right after it came out so word-of-mouth
9. Religulous:
-I like Bill Maher's political views a lot
-As a member of a religious minority I love it when people pole holes in Christianity
-I thought it might make my top 10 list of 2008 if I got around to seeing it, even though I already made my top 10 list)
10. Ghost Town:
-I just watched the Extras series and now have a fascination with Ricky Gervaise
-I wanted a not-too-ambitious comedy to enjoy
-Gotta love Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni
-One of the films from 2008 that intrigued me that I haven't seen
1. King of California:
-I haven't seen enough good films from 2007
-Sounds like a good story
-Michael Douglas is an actor I haven't seen anything good from in a while)
2. Be Kind Rewind:
-It's one of my 4-star films from 2008
-The sweeded portions of the films were very rewatchable and i wanted to know what was up behind the scenes.
-The concept of sweeding that the film helped revolutionize would probably be better explained. I imagine the extras would not dissapoint
-Probably entertaining on rewatch
3. X-Men 3:
-I love the X-Men trilogy
-I have a mild interest in whether Brett Rattner is actually a good director or not since he seems mildly hated by other film buffs and I thought that the DVD commentary would provide insight
-The action scenes are always great to rewatch on DVD
-The deleted scenes might ne extensive since there are so much story they chose to cut
4. The Break-Up:
-I caught a little on TV and it was good so far,
-A supporting role from Jason Bateman looked intriguing
-I wanted to laugh and Vince Vaughn guarantees that for me
-Vince Vaughn as an actor also drew me in
5. Elizabethtown:
-I saw about 90% on TV and thought it was ripe for rewatching
-I read into some symbolism from the film that I wanted to check which the commentary would provide
-It was just a solid film. Not a 4-star film, but relatively lightweight and enjoyable
6. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
-I've watched this film 1 1/2 times and my general rule is only get a DVD of something you've seen once but I felt it got better on the second viewing so I could see it having a long shelf life
-Indiana Jones is a legendary trilogy (or whatever you call it now) and there's just a need to own a piece of it
-Hearing Lucas and Spielberg in action sounds like a great idea. I've read so much about it here.
-It was a complex storyline that would probably make more sense if you view it over again
-I thought others might like it
7. Orange County:
-I saw it in 2002 and think it's a film with a lot of great lines and funny moments that I think I might appreciate more in retrospect
-I also want to rewatch it to see all the cameos
-I have a greater appreciation for Jack Black now
-Just the themes about how being educated and going down the conventional track for success isn't all it is cracked up to be need rewatching
-Tom Hanks' son before he hit it big with Mad Men
8. Kingdom of Heaven:
-I saw a few minutes on TV and I was impressed with the cinametography
-Wanted to dig my teeth into some historical fiction
-I wanted to be surprised by something that could be great and it had potential
-I haven't seen enough Ridley Scott
-I remember a friend talked wildly about how great of a film it was right after it came out so word-of-mouth
9. Religulous:
-I like Bill Maher's political views a lot
-As a member of a religious minority I love it when people pole holes in Christianity
-I thought it might make my top 10 list of 2008 if I got around to seeing it, even though I already made my top 10 list)
10. Ghost Town:
-I just watched the Extras series and now have a fascination with Ricky Gervaise
-I wanted a not-too-ambitious comedy to enjoy
-Gotta love Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni
-One of the films from 2008 that intrigued me that I haven't seen
The 10 DVD game
I bought something like 10 DVDs recently on a couple different trips to Blockbuster and FYE. I've had the luxury to splurge a little. Here is the following list with reasons why I bought them in parenthesis separated by commas. In the comments section, take some time to discuss what you just bought or are planning on buying (if you can get to 10, that sounds great) and why you bought it. Understanding the film industry is about understanding our choices as consumers. Also, please click here on my helium article because that's the only way I get my revenue.:
1. King of California:
-I haven't seen enough good films from 2007
-Sounds like a good story
-Michael Douglas is an actor I haven't seen anything good from in a while)
2. Be Kind Rewind:
-It's one of my 4-star films from 2008
-The sweeded portions of the films were very rewatchable and i wanted to know what was up behind the scenes.
-The concept of sweeding that the film helped revolutionize would probably be better explained. I imagine the extras would not dissapoint
-Probably entertaining on rewatch
3. X-Men 3:
-I love the X-Men trilogy
-I have a mild interest in whether Brett Rattner is actually a good director or not since he seems mildly hated by other film buffs and I thought that the DVD commentary would provide insight
-The action scenes are always great to rewatch on DVD
-The deleted scenes might ne extensive since there are so much story they chose to cut
4. The Break-Up:
-I caught a little on TV and it was good so far,
-A supporting role from Jason Bateman looked intriguing
-I wanted to laugh and Vince Vaughn guarantees that for me
-Vince Vaughn as an actor also drew me in
5. Elizabethtown:
-I saw about 90% on TV and thought it was ripe for rewatching
-I read into some symbolism from the film that I wanted to check which the commentary would provide
-It was just a solid film. Not a 4-star film, but relatively lightweight and enjoyable
6. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
-I've watched this film 1 1/2 times and my general rule is only get a DVD of something you've seen once but I felt it got better on the second viewing so I could see it having a long shelf life
-Indiana Jones is a legendary trilogy (or whatever you call it now) and there's just a need to own a piece of it
-Hearing Lucas and Spielberg in action sounds like a great idea. I've read so much about it here.
-It was a complex storyline that would probably make more sense if you view it over again
-I thought others might like it
7. Orange County:
-I saw it in 2002 and think it's a film with a lot of great lines and funny moments that I think I might appreciate more in retrospect
-I also want to rewatch it to see all the cameos
-I have a greater appreciation for Jack Black now
-Just the themes about how being educated and going down the conventional track for success isn't all it is cracked up to be need rewatching
-Tom Hanks' son before he hit it big with Mad Men
8. Kingdom of Heaven:
-I saw a few minutes on TV and I was impressed with the cinametography
-Wanted to dig my teeth into some historical fiction
-I wanted to be surprised by something that could be great and it had potential
-I haven't seen enough Ridley Scott
-I remember a friend talked wildly about how great of a film it was right after it came out so word-of-mouth
9. Religulous:
-I like Bill Maher's political views a lot
-As a member of a religious minority I love it when people pole holes in Christianity
-I thought it might make my top 10 list of 2008 if I got around to seeing it, even though I already made my top 10 list)
10. Ghost Town:
-I just watched the Extras series and now have a fascination with Ricky Gervaise
-I wanted a not-too-ambitious comedy to enjoy
-Gotta love Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni
-One of the films from 2008 that intrigued me that I haven't seen
1. King of California:
-I haven't seen enough good films from 2007
-Sounds like a good story
-Michael Douglas is an actor I haven't seen anything good from in a while)
2. Be Kind Rewind:
-It's one of my 4-star films from 2008
-The sweeded portions of the films were very rewatchable and i wanted to know what was up behind the scenes.
-The concept of sweeding that the film helped revolutionize would probably be better explained. I imagine the extras would not dissapoint
-Probably entertaining on rewatch
3. X-Men 3:
-I love the X-Men trilogy
-I have a mild interest in whether Brett Rattner is actually a good director or not since he seems mildly hated by other film buffs and I thought that the DVD commentary would provide insight
-The action scenes are always great to rewatch on DVD
-The deleted scenes might ne extensive since there are so much story they chose to cut
4. The Break-Up:
-I caught a little on TV and it was good so far,
-A supporting role from Jason Bateman looked intriguing
-I wanted to laugh and Vince Vaughn guarantees that for me
-Vince Vaughn as an actor also drew me in
5. Elizabethtown:
-I saw about 90% on TV and thought it was ripe for rewatching
-I read into some symbolism from the film that I wanted to check which the commentary would provide
-It was just a solid film. Not a 4-star film, but relatively lightweight and enjoyable
6. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
-I've watched this film 1 1/2 times and my general rule is only get a DVD of something you've seen once but I felt it got better on the second viewing so I could see it having a long shelf life
-Indiana Jones is a legendary trilogy (or whatever you call it now) and there's just a need to own a piece of it
-Hearing Lucas and Spielberg in action sounds like a great idea. I've read so much about it here.
-It was a complex storyline that would probably make more sense if you view it over again
-I thought others might like it
7. Orange County:
-I saw it in 2002 and think it's a film with a lot of great lines and funny moments that I think I might appreciate more in retrospect
-I also want to rewatch it to see all the cameos
-I have a greater appreciation for Jack Black now
-Just the themes about how being educated and going down the conventional track for success isn't all it is cracked up to be need rewatching
-Tom Hanks' son before he hit it big with Mad Men
8. Kingdom of Heaven:
-I saw a few minutes on TV and I was impressed with the cinametography
-Wanted to dig my teeth into some historical fiction
-I wanted to be surprised by something that could be great and it had potential
-I haven't seen enough Ridley Scott
-I remember a friend talked wildly about how great of a film it was right after it came out so word-of-mouth
9. Religulous:
-I like Bill Maher's political views a lot
-As a member of a religious minority I love it when people pole holes in Christianity
-I thought it might make my top 10 list of 2008 if I got around to seeing it, even though I already made my top 10 list)
10. Ghost Town:
-I just watched the Extras series and now have a fascination with Ricky Gervaise
-I wanted a not-too-ambitious comedy to enjoy
-Gotta love Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni
-One of the films from 2008 that intrigued me that I haven't seen
Friday, July 03, 2009
Megan Fox slams Transformers
I actually have to admit I kind of enjoyed Transformers the first time around. It was partially because the summer of 2007 was such a massive dissapointment from the letdowns of Shrek 3 to Pirates 3 to lucklaster comedies like Lisence to Wed and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry to films that didn't excite me enough to watch in the first place like Simpsons Movie (the show has been going on too long and lost my interest 10 years ago), Rush Hour 3 (Rush Hour 2 was one of the worst experience I've ever had), Ratatouille (A Pixar film has never sounded that horrible).
Granted, Transformers sounded even dumber but somehow I made my way in the theater (I was working in a theater and it was all free) and the star charisma of Shia LeBouf and the Spielbergesque element of the lost son made me pleasantly surprised. Desperate to like something from that awful summer I proclaimed Transformers a decent surprise.
Looking back, Transformers represents so many bad things all at once, it should not be encouraged. It probably made everyone in the cinema a little dumber for having watched it:
The soundtrack was writen by someone with massive ADD, the action scenes were nonsensical (why would humans be needed in a fight between cars/robots?), and worst of all, you had the most stereotpu In the midst of the most stereotypical collection of characters I have ever seen together in one film:
1. The tough-guy marine with a soft spot for his daughter who solves problems by taking civillians like John Turturro and ramming them against a wall
2. The childish black guy who provides comic relief but within the plot actually does something well (knows computers or whatever)
3. The goofy government bureaucrat who is about as viable of a threat as Wile E Coyote is to the road runner
4. The hot girl next door
5. The hot girl's boyfriend who's sole purpose in life is to demonstrate his superiority over the nerds in school
I did really, really like the Australian defense analyst because she didn't fit into any box. She was attractive but because of Megan Fox's role in the movie, you didn't get the sense she was there just to provide eye candy. I also loved LeBouf.
But worst of all, inserting shiny cars into a movie is an overly commercial move designed to attract fan boys. It's practically screaming out at its audience that the film is nothing more than an attempt to round out a McDonald's Happy Meal with a toy.
So anyway, onto the news:
Megan Fox of Transformers fame, who's role is basically eye candy, protests that Transformers is a film that's basically about Special Effects and not about acting. She acknowledges the film made her career, but admits that it is crap. I'm not sure whether to applaud her or not, because if Fox had any integrity at all, she probably wouldn't sign up for the part of "teenage male fantasy," or maybe she'd try to do something with it.
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html
Then again, maybe I should give Fox points for being self-conscious of the fact that I basically think nothing of her. I would never see a Megan Fox film on the basis that she has no acting value to me. Transformers doesn't cut it. Still, if Fox insists that she's not just eye candy but a good actress, the burden is on her to prove us otherwise.
Meanwhile, Bay points out that he launched the careers of Shia LeBouf, Nicholas Cage, and Ben Affleck. Shia LeBouf, Nicholas Cage and Ben Affleck had already showed their range and what they could do in films before they appeared in Bay's films. LeBouf was in "The Battle of Shaker Heights", "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and "Disturbia." Those films grossed a small amount of money and weren't seen by a lot of people. If Bay puts Shia LeBouf in a film that's seen by millions and millions of people, of course he'll turn into a star. Is that to Bay's credit? Did Bay discover him? Not really.
I wrote more about this here:
www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
Granted, Transformers sounded even dumber but somehow I made my way in the theater (I was working in a theater and it was all free) and the star charisma of Shia LeBouf and the Spielbergesque element of the lost son made me pleasantly surprised. Desperate to like something from that awful summer I proclaimed Transformers a decent surprise.
Looking back, Transformers represents so many bad things all at once, it should not be encouraged. It probably made everyone in the cinema a little dumber for having watched it:
The soundtrack was writen by someone with massive ADD, the action scenes were nonsensical (why would humans be needed in a fight between cars/robots?), and worst of all, you had the most stereotpu In the midst of the most stereotypical collection of characters I have ever seen together in one film:
1. The tough-guy marine with a soft spot for his daughter who solves problems by taking civillians like John Turturro and ramming them against a wall
2. The childish black guy who provides comic relief but within the plot actually does something well (knows computers or whatever)
3. The goofy government bureaucrat who is about as viable of a threat as Wile E Coyote is to the road runner
4. The hot girl next door
5. The hot girl's boyfriend who's sole purpose in life is to demonstrate his superiority over the nerds in school
I did really, really like the Australian defense analyst because she didn't fit into any box. She was attractive but because of Megan Fox's role in the movie, you didn't get the sense she was there just to provide eye candy. I also loved LeBouf.
But worst of all, inserting shiny cars into a movie is an overly commercial move designed to attract fan boys. It's practically screaming out at its audience that the film is nothing more than an attempt to round out a McDonald's Happy Meal with a toy.
So anyway, onto the news:
Megan Fox of Transformers fame, who's role is basically eye candy, protests that Transformers is a film that's basically about Special Effects and not about acting. She acknowledges the film made her career, but admits that it is crap. I'm not sure whether to applaud her or not, because if Fox had any integrity at all, she probably wouldn't sign up for the part of "teenage male fantasy," or maybe she'd try to do something with it.
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html
Then again, maybe I should give Fox points for being self-conscious of the fact that I basically think nothing of her. I would never see a Megan Fox film on the basis that she has no acting value to me. Transformers doesn't cut it. Still, if Fox insists that she's not just eye candy but a good actress, the burden is on her to prove us otherwise.
Meanwhile, Bay points out that he launched the careers of Shia LeBouf, Nicholas Cage, and Ben Affleck. Shia LeBouf, Nicholas Cage and Ben Affleck had already showed their range and what they could do in films before they appeared in Bay's films. LeBouf was in "The Battle of Shaker Heights", "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and "Disturbia." Those films grossed a small amount of money and weren't seen by a lot of people. If Bay puts Shia LeBouf in a film that's seen by millions and millions of people, of course he'll turn into a star. Is that to Bay's credit? Did Bay discover him? Not really.
I wrote more about this here:
www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)