I believe there's such a thing as too much George Clooney

I don't know about anyone else but I am so sick and tired of hearing about George Clooney. Don't get me wrong, I don't really have anything against him: he has been in some good movies lately. I think very highly of Syriana and Michael Clayton, and he seems like a nice guy, but there have been a constant stream of articles coming at me for 3 years, all virtually saying the same thing: George Clooney is great, he's selfless, he does charity work, as if he's the only actor in Hollywood ever to be good-looking AND promote good causes.


Time Magazine recently had an entire cover story on Clooney with teases like "what are his secrets to success?" "how does he do it?" I already know the answers to these questions:

He does it because he doesn't take himself too seriously, he owns a lot of money and a condo in Italy, is friends with Brad Pitt, he has a famous show business aunt, he likes movies from the 1960s and feels passionate about how movies can carry political messages blah, blah, blah.


It's the same interview over and over again.

Here's the way Hollywood stars generally work: Sometimes, a star does something really great and breaks out (i.e. Jamie Foxx in Ray, Jonny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, Helen Mirren in The Queen, Jake Gyllenhall and Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain) and they're the focus of a lot of attention for a while and then the buzz generally dies out while newspapers and magazines write about other people. A way to really break out is if you have two movies close to each other or within the same calender year: Seth Rogen had Knocked Up and Superbad pretty close to each other, Jamie Foxx had Ray and Collateral, Michael Caine had a "career resurrection" with Weatherman, Bewitched AND Batman Begins; Leo DiCaprio had Blood Diamond and Departed.

This enables a magazine writer to not just conclude that the breakout star had a good performance but that he's on a roll.

Back to business: George Clooney had a breakout period in 2005 when he released Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck: Two movies that were message pictures. The themes of Good Night and Good Luck which Clooney directed, wrote, and everything else was: 1) the Red Scare was bad 2) Edward Murrow was good and 3) All journalists suck today. Syriana's theme which Clooney didn't write was that oil was a big and complicated issue.

Anyway, this period where the press becomes infatuated with a star usually lasts for a short while (it culminates into orgasmic proportions around the end of the calender year when magazines and newspapers do entertainers of the year-themed issues), but the press has been infatuated with George Cooney since 2005 and it's become a love affair that has to stop.


I know that Clooney is a charming and nice guy, but this is not news after constantly telling us this for 3 years. Unless he's done something new, like develop superpowers, I do not want to hear it. And Clooney, you're not helping either. Stop hogging the spotlight, and dominating press interviews for films like Ocean's 13 and Michael Clayton when you're clearly not the best actor in the film.


But back to the press: If you still insist on covering George Clooney, how about talking about Darfur. That's this region of Sudan that your boy George is apparently doing something to help make peace or facilitate, or something like that. I don't really know because you never really tell me that: all you tell me is that George Clooney is such a dreamy and great guy because he helps with Darfur, yet I haven't learnt a single thing about what's going on in Darfur from any of these articles since George-mania has struck. Off the top of my head, didn't Jane Goodall do a lot of charity work in Africa for her foundation. Do articles about Jane Goodall talk about how great of a person she is or do they just cut right to the chase and talk about the charity work.




Other examples of Clooney overkill:


The Washington Post wrote an article after the Oscars that reported "George Clooney, who has recently replaced Jack Nicholson as the big man in Hollywood, was on hand at the Oscars....." I'm sorry, how is this objective reporting? By what standard has Clooney replaced Nicholson? Why does George Clooney even need to be mentioned in the article, if he didn't even win anything? George Clooney was nominated but seemed like a pretty poor sport throughout. He was probably the 4th or 5th most talented nominee in the field yet, he kept spouting off about he pissed off he was about how he was going to lose to Daniel Day-Lewis, as if Jonny Depp and the others wouldn't have also beaten him. George Clooney was also on a ridiculous special by Oprah at last year's Oscars, where 6 Oscars winners interview each other. Clooney had an interview with Julia Roberts. Don't Julia Roberts and George Clooney talk all the time since they've worked on films together? How is this a special occasion? This past week Time put Clooney on the top 100 most influential people AGAIN with a tribute that said the exact same things everyone else said before

What exactly was the point of Good Night and Good Luck

In retrospect, I think Good Night and Good Luck got nominated because of the novelty factors: Black and White, it had some innovative artistic decicions, etc, as well as the surging popularity of George Clooney at the time.

In truth, it wasn't that much of a film aside from David Strathain's performance and the jazz numbers. It was a film I would describe as narratively bare.

What's more, I don't really agree with this whole "good journalism is dead" theme. Look at Anderson Cooper and Brian Williams. Those guys are thoughtful, inquisitive, highly intelligent, compassionate to the issues that are troubling Americans and I feel highly professional. They've displayed intelligent viewpoints on Iraq long before the rest of the nation did and have continually donated their time to travel away from the anchor desk and cover Katrina to ensure that the nation does not forget that. Brian Williams flew to Virginia Tech within a day of the shootings (either the day of or the day after). Cooper travelled to Iraq and Katrina multiple times. Another great news journalist, Tom Brokaw, had an excellent sense of professionalism and wrote a couple excellent books

The media also did an excellent job on the whole in covering the tsunami disasters that marked the beginning of 2005. I was personally touched with the way the media led our nation to care so deeply for people halfway around the world.

And whose to say that they wouldn't have stood up to Eugene McCarthy if they were around back then. If anything, journalists back then were dumber, because they didn't call out the HUAC sooner, and if everyone EXCEPT for Edward R Murrow bowed to McCarthy, then it doesn't sound like a respectful era.

Definitive top ten list part I: 2005

My take on a definitive list for 2005's top 10 films. This isn't my own personal opinion but what I believe the overall consensus was. Call it "10 Most Successful Films."

2005:

1. Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee

Usually, in my system, the best picture Oscar gets a film an automatic number one spot, at least in the near future. However, it seems Brokeback Mountain which sparked an angry contingent of people insisting the film was robbed has more going for it. Like Saving Private Ryan, the last #1 on my lists to lose the best picture race, the closeness between Brokeback and Crash is reflected in the classic director/picture oscar split. More than that, however, Brokeback Mountain is ranked number one on both cream of the crop and all critics on the moviecritictop10.com. Unlike Crash, it was recognized by pretty much every major group (including the Golden Globes) as among the elite, and was one of three films to score an A- on EW’s sampling of entertainment reporters. It also swept the LA and NYC film critic awards, where Crash didn’t win any critics’ groups. It also made it big on the pop culture phenomenon and was one of the highest grossing pictures in the month of December. Brokeback also garnered oscar buzz and came closer to winning Oscars for more of its actors. Crash won the SAG award for best ensemble but it’s a better indication of the film in my opinion if it got more buzz for its Oscars, and Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams were contenders to win their categories.

2. Crash, Paul Haggis

Crash did win best picture and had an intense following, that included nation’s top film critic Roger Ebert who ranked it #1. It did win the best picture and secured its place in history and while people refer back to Crash’s “upset” as a debate between what should’ve won between “Crash” or “Brokeback Mountain,” so history is placing it in the top 2, at least.

3. Good Night and Good Luck, George Clooney

The debate over rankings 3-5 of the best picture nominees is tough, but Good Night and Good Luck was considered a lock for best picture early on and was recognized by more groups including National Board of Review which gave it the top award, the Golden Globes. It also placed 3^rd on movie critic’s top 10.

4. Munich, Stephen Spielberg

The debate between Munich and Capote might be decided by more people thinking that Munich was #1 oscar-winner potential, whereas Capote was just thought of to be #1. Directing Guild and Producing guild noms were also awarded to Munich. The main argument to be made, is that it had critics such as Boston Globe, Rolling Stone and Newsweek calling it either his best film ever or best film in years, and you have to make the film pretty damn good to top Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. It was thought of by some to be comparable, at least. Munich was also a better all around production than Capote scoring more oscar nods total in categories such as editing and score.

5. Capote, Bennett Miller

Capote had an incredibly high rottentomato rating going for it, and it was a frontrunner for the SAG ensemble award, but just because it was garnering praise for an ensemble shouldn’t be equated with best picture buzz, and it appealed to writers like Stephen King who put it high on his top ten list. Was a possible upset contender for screenplay nominee. Its top 5 status was solidified with a directors guild award and Oscar nomination for its director in addition to its picture nomination, considering its director is an unknown.

6. Walk the Line, James Mangold

Walk the Line was considered the just-missed the nomination category. It won best musical/comedy and acting prizes for both of its leads. It’s box office returns and word-of-mouth popularity was stronger than any other also-ran. This might have been in part due to it being comparable in quality to last year’s nominee Ray. Slight indications like the hosts of Good Morning America asking “Why not Walk the Line?” and winning “EW’s who got snubbed” poll. It also appeared in place of Munich on the Producers Guild of America poll.

7. Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles

Seven is a tight race between History of Violence and Constant Gardener. Between the two, Constant Gardener was received just a little better based on the more popular reputation of Meirelles (although Cronenberg is going more mainstream, his fan base is very much a small niche). The marriage of Meirelles and novelist La Carre led to a screenplay nom. Constant Gardener was an almost universally liked film with powerful performances that garnered more oscar buzz and better results (including walking away with an Oscar for the film) than History of Violence. It also garnered more total noms than some of the other films with editing and score noms. Its golden globe nom and director nom at the golden globes help its case as well. Also on Rolling Stone’s top 10.

8. History of Violence, David Cronenberg

History of Violence didn’t do as well at the Oscars as Constant Gardener squeaking a best supporting actor and screenplay nod. It also didn’t have as much word of mouth, hype, or box office draw as any other top ten contender but those who saw it liked it plenty. It was ranked 2nd on moviecritictop10.com for the year and finished a top one of the entertainment weekly top ten lists. It was just one of three films to get an A- on Entertainment Weekly’s newspaper sampling, made the top ten on Rolling Stone and Premiere’s top 10. It also appeared on 2 of the 3 New York Critic’s top 10. It was also EW’s pick in their oscar preview for the 6^th director slot.

9. Syrianna, Stephen Gaughan

The general critical response was the film was good but a little confusing. Looking at it in more detail, Syrianna did quite well and got a lot of top ten nods. It was Roeper’s top film of the year and Ebert’s 2nd, it placed 10^th on moviecritictop10.com, 3^rd on Peter Traver’s list and it was on both NBR and AFI’s top 10 nods with NBR’s screenplay award. It also was one of a handful of films to walk away with an award on oscar night and it merited an ensemble nod at the SGA’s and a WGA nod

10. King Kong, Peter Jackson/Match Point, Woody Allen

This is a virtual tie between the two. The main arguments for Woody Allen’s inclusion are its high number of 4 star reviews and overall satisfaction of viewers, the fact that that it’s considered a return to form for Woody Allen and its golden globe nod.

King Kong did walk away with 3 Oscars and transcended the blockbuster genre to get oscar buzz. With the saturatuation of big-budget blockbusters as of late, that is an increasingly hard task to pull off. It’s rotten tomato rating was very high and it placed 5^th on moviecritictop10.com’s top 10 list. It’s box office take was pretty high and fitting for a blockbuster.