4 hours ago
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Universe, You've Done It Again
Despairing Eagles fans, it could be worse. The Jets just signed a free-agent rookie tight end who hasn't played organized football since 8th grade.
Our Little Frankenstein
I like to think of Mark Steyn as the love child of George Will and Matt Labash. His latest is a keeper:
My colleague Rod Liddle writes elsewhere in these pages about the media’s strange reluctance to use the M-word vis-à-vis the rioting ‘youths’. I’m sure he’s received, as I have, plenty of emails arguing that there’s no Islamist component, they’re not the madrasa crowd, they may be Muslim but they’re secular and Westernised and into drugs. It’s the lack of jobs; these riots derive from conditions peculiar to France, etc. As one correspondent wrote, ‘You right-wing shit-for-brains think everything’s about jihad.’
Well, it’s true there are Muslims and there are Muslims: some blow up Tube trains and some rampage through French streets and some claim Mossad’s put something in the chewing gum to make Arab men susceptible to the seduction techniques of Jewesses. Some kill Dutch film-makers and some complain about Piglet coffee mugs on co-workers’ desks, and millions of Muslims don’t do any of the above but apparently don’t feel strongly enough about them to say a word in protest. And it’s also true that it’s better to have your Peugeot torched than to be blown apart on the Piccadilly Line. But what all these techniques — and those of lobby groups who offer themselves as interlocutors between bewildered European elites and ‘moderate’ Muslims — have in common is that they advance the Islamification of Europe. . . .
Now go back to that bland statistic you hear a lot these days: ‘about 10 per cent of France’s population is Muslim’. Give or take a million here, a million there, that’s broadly correct, as far as it goes. But the population spread isn’t even. And when it comes to those living in France aged 20 and under, about 30 per cent are said to be Muslim and in the major urban centres about 45 per cent. If it came down to street-by-street fighting, as Michel Gurfinkiel, the editor of Valeurs Actuelles, points out, ‘the combatant ratio in any ethnic war may thus be one to one’ — already, right now, in 2005. It is not necessary, incidentally, for Islam to become a statistical majority in order to function as one. At the height of its power in the 8th century, the ‘Islamic world’ stretched from Spain to India, yet its population was only minority Muslim. Nonetheless, by 2010, more elderly white Catholic ethnic frogs will have croaked and more fit healthy Muslim youths will be hitting the streets. One day they’ll even be on the beach at St Trop, and if you and your infidel whore happen to be lying there wearing nothing but two coats of Ambre Solaire when they show up, you better hope that the BBC and CNN are right about there being no religio-ethno-cultural component to their ‘grievances’.
Does Ms. Alba really wish she had the role of Padmé in Star Wars?
If anything, it's Natalie Portman who is probably envious. While poor Ms. Portman is out performing for the groundlings in Shakespeare in the Park, Jessica is achieving complete bronzification on the set of an aquatic thriller. And when Ms. Alba won the role of Nancy Callahan ("She grew up. She filled out.") in Sin City, Natalie was no doubt seething and wishing it was she.
Do you think Portman actually wanted to do Chekhov's The Seagull? No, of course not. It was when she lost out to Alba for the role of Honey.
Sometimes, life just isn't fair.
If anything, it's Natalie Portman who is probably envious. While poor Ms. Portman is out performing for the groundlings in Shakespeare in the Park, Jessica is achieving complete bronzification on the set of an aquatic thriller. And when Ms. Alba won the role of Nancy Callahan ("She grew up. She filled out.") in Sin City, Natalie was no doubt seething and wishing it was she.
Do you think Portman actually wanted to do Chekhov's The Seagull? No, of course not. It was when she lost out to Alba for the role of Honey.
Sometimes, life just isn't fair.
Say Goodbye to These!
The Cake Editrix sends us to the Llama Butchers, who have this picture of what the network news looks like in France.
We get Brit Hume, they get her. Despite everything, God bless the French.
Bonus: Is she Elizabeth Rohm's hotter, more talented sister?
Update: Galley Friend L.B. sends along this amazing footage of Melissa Theuriau, the French Edward R. Murrow. (And this link to her Best Of and this link to her homepage.) Two observations:
(1) I could watch her insult America for hours on end.
(2) If, 50 years from now, someone makes a movie about Theuriau's career and calls it Good Night, and Good Luck, it will have a very, very different connotation.
We get Brit Hume, they get her. Despite everything, God bless the French.
Bonus: Is she Elizabeth Rohm's hotter, more talented sister?
Update: Galley Friend L.B. sends along this amazing footage of Melissa Theuriau, the French Edward R. Murrow. (And this link to her Best Of and this link to her homepage.) Two observations:
(1) I could watch her insult America for hours on end.
(2) If, 50 years from now, someone makes a movie about Theuriau's career and calls it Good Night, and Good Luck, it will have a very, very different connotation.
Eyes Up Here
Galley Brother B.J. sends this breaking news on Jessica Alba:
Matus, take it away. . .
Jessica Alba fears she is being typecast, because she only gets offered role as whores and sexy maids.
The Sin City actress is grateful for the opportunities she has been given in Hollywood - but would kill for the parts offered to rival actress Natalie Portman.
She tells gossip site PageSix.com: "The scripts I get are always for the whore, or the motorcycle chick in leather, or the horny maid. I get all those screenplays that start, 'Tawnya is in the shower. The water streams down her naked, perky breasts.' Somehow, I don't think this is happening to Natalie Portman."
Matus, take it away. . .
Marry Me!
Proving once again that development executives will fall for anything, AICN links to this Hollywood Reporter story informing us that Universal is going forward with the movie version of Malcolm Gladwell's non-narrative, non-fiction book, Blink. Stephen Gaghan is writing the script and directing with Leonardo DiCaprio set to star in the picture.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
And so it begins
John Feinstein's basketball column is back, meaning it's that time of year again when Galley Slaves readers, regardless of their politics, begin exchanging their more vicious barbs over who will make a run in March. No surprise, both ESPN and AP have Duke at the top of their preseason polls. Indeed, four of seven Blue Devils are seniors, including J.J. Redick and Shelden Williams. (Speaking of the latter, I wonder if cheerleaders do in fact say to him, "Do it to me Sheldon, you're an animal Sheldon, ride me big Shel-den"?)
Also highly touted are Texas, Villanova (this will change since Curtis Sumpter is injured), UConn, and Michigan State. Let's also not forget Syracuse, which still has Gerry McNamara (who must be close to 30 by now).
Not that any of this really matters. As Feinstein points out, "It is worth remembering that a year ago at this time no one dreamed Washington would be a No. 1 seed or that West Virginia would come within seconds of the Final Four. People thought Illinois had a nice team, but no one was predicting 37-2 and a trip to the championship game for the Illini. It was laughable to think that Bucknell would be the team that would end Kansas's season or that Vermont would send Syracuse packing on the same remarkable night."
Not to mention millions of brackets that were torn to pieces.
But this year will be different. I can feel it.
Also highly touted are Texas, Villanova (this will change since Curtis Sumpter is injured), UConn, and Michigan State. Let's also not forget Syracuse, which still has Gerry McNamara (who must be close to 30 by now).
Not that any of this really matters. As Feinstein points out, "It is worth remembering that a year ago at this time no one dreamed Washington would be a No. 1 seed or that West Virginia would come within seconds of the Final Four. People thought Illinois had a nice team, but no one was predicting 37-2 and a trip to the championship game for the Illini. It was laughable to think that Bucknell would be the team that would end Kansas's season or that Vermont would send Syracuse packing on the same remarkable night."
Not to mention millions of brackets that were torn to pieces.
But this year will be different. I can feel it.
It's a Doberman, Let It Have Its Ears
Nan Aron seems pretty cavalier about what sounds an awful lot to me like animal neglect, if not cruelty:
Where's PETA when you need them?
Bonus: Alternate headline, "You're going to be covered in red paint. That'll distract the eye."
Nan Aron lost the fish this summer.
Aron, the founder of the Alliance for Justice, one of the liberal armies in the war over the judiciary, has lived in her Woodley Park rowhouse for 30 years. There's a small brick pond in the front yard and, much to the delight of the neighborhood children, she filled it with fish over the summer, about 20 goldfish and koi. But summer was also the start of a season of high-stakes judicial battles.
While Aron and her allies were working long hours trying to defeat the confirmation of now Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., her fish disappeared.
"The problem was I was responsible for the fish," Aron says with a bit of self-deprecating humor. "My one responsibility at home was to feed the fish, talk to the fish and protect their safety, and I'd come home and start counting" and realize that there was trouble.
The casualties of war. But when you come from a family of social activists, you can look into an empty pond and find the positive.
"We'll start again next year and hopefully I'll be a little more attentive," Aron says.
Where's PETA when you need them?
Bonus: Alternate headline, "You're going to be covered in red paint. That'll distract the eye."
They've Got the Worst [bleep]ing Attorneys
The Angry Clam notes that amid the other election news last night was this tidbit: The city of San Francisco passed a ballot measure banning the sale of all guns in city limits.
Never mind that this runs contrary to state law and that the city lacks the authority to do so. As the Clam says,
Never mind that this runs contrary to state law and that the city lacks the authority to do so. As the Clam says,
Problem: they tried this in the 1980s, when Feinstein was mayor. It didn’t work then, because the California Court of Appeal ruled that state firearms regulations preempt such local regulations, and localities lack the power to ban guns. Likewise, when West Hollywood tried to ban “Saturday Night Specials,” a different district of the Court of Appeal rejected the law as preempted by state law.
I Hadn't Packed for That
Michael Brandon McClellan has more on the Somali pirates, including this great quote:
When asked if the pirate attack would prevent them from cruising in the future, one responded:
"We're English old boy. We don't get frightened by things like this."
Les Cousins Dangereux
Have you noticed these eerie parallels between the next-generation Xbox and the dearly departed Sega Dreamcast?
Unsettling, if you're planning on rushing out to buy Xbox 360. (Mind you, I own and adore a Dreamcast.)
Unsettling, if you're planning on rushing out to buy Xbox 360. (Mind you, I own and adore a Dreamcast.)
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Vinick for President!
In search of a ratings boost, NBC execs came up with the brilliant idea of having a live presidential debate on last Sunday's West Wing. Overall, the numbers were still weak: According to Lisa de Moraes, the show still finished third with 9.6 million viewers, behind ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (18 million) and CBS's Cold Case (16 million).
But it doesn't end there. Someone at Rockefeller Plaza thought it equally clever to conduct a Zogby poll, asking viewers who they thought performed better: Democratic congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) or Republican senator Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda). Prior to the debate, Santos, the presumed successor to Jed Bartlet, led among younger audiences 54 percent to 37 percent. (And it is the younger audience those execs are desperately after.)
But the post-debate numbers show Senator Vinick now leading Santos among 18- to 29-year-olds by 56 percent to 42 percent. In other words, the age bracket NBC execs covet the most prefer the Republican who is supposed to ultimately lose. As de Moraes points out, Smits was even well-armed with such hard-hitting lines as:
What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation.... So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, "liberal," as if it's something dirty, something to be ashamed of, something to run away from, it won't work, senator, because I will pick it up, and I will wear that label as a badge of honor.
Somehow, audiences were not seduced by the sweeping rhetoric. Alda as Vinick, I am certain, was supposed to come off as old-fashioned, stodgy, out of touch--exactly the way a Republican should be. Instead Alda, the veteran actor that he is, actually appealed to viewers with his earnestness and folksy charm.
So what do the West Wing's writers and producers do now, knowing their target audience favors, good God, a Republican? Here are three options:
1. It turns out Vinick has some skeletons in his closet. He had an affair. With a male staffer. And, for good measure, he had a drinking and drug problem. How sweet the irony that his own conservative base would abandon him because of his loose morals!
2. Vinick is such a nice guy there's no possible way he could really be a Republican. Maybe he has a change of heart and decides to switch parties like the senator from Vermont. And he becomes Santos's veep. Everybody lives happily ever after.
3. Vinick is assassinated--by a far-right militiaman who used a gun that could have been banned under a Santos administration.
Oh, the possibilities.
But it doesn't end there. Someone at Rockefeller Plaza thought it equally clever to conduct a Zogby poll, asking viewers who they thought performed better: Democratic congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) or Republican senator Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda). Prior to the debate, Santos, the presumed successor to Jed Bartlet, led among younger audiences 54 percent to 37 percent. (And it is the younger audience those execs are desperately after.)
But the post-debate numbers show Senator Vinick now leading Santos among 18- to 29-year-olds by 56 percent to 42 percent. In other words, the age bracket NBC execs covet the most prefer the Republican who is supposed to ultimately lose. As de Moraes points out, Smits was even well-armed with such hard-hitting lines as:
What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation.... So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, "liberal," as if it's something dirty, something to be ashamed of, something to run away from, it won't work, senator, because I will pick it up, and I will wear that label as a badge of honor.
Somehow, audiences were not seduced by the sweeping rhetoric. Alda as Vinick, I am certain, was supposed to come off as old-fashioned, stodgy, out of touch--exactly the way a Republican should be. Instead Alda, the veteran actor that he is, actually appealed to viewers with his earnestness and folksy charm.
So what do the West Wing's writers and producers do now, knowing their target audience favors, good God, a Republican? Here are three options:
1. It turns out Vinick has some skeletons in his closet. He had an affair. With a male staffer. And, for good measure, he had a drinking and drug problem. How sweet the irony that his own conservative base would abandon him because of his loose morals!
2. Vinick is such a nice guy there's no possible way he could really be a Republican. Maybe he has a change of heart and decides to switch parties like the senator from Vermont. And he becomes Santos's veep. Everybody lives happily ever after.
3. Vinick is assassinated--by a far-right militiaman who used a gun that could have been banned under a Santos administration.
Oh, the possibilities.
The Heart of a Lion and the Hide . . . of an Oliphant
What to say about TO and the end of the Philadelphia Eagles?
Let's go to Galley Friend and Cowboy Superfan L.B.:
I agree with L.B. except that I'd go further--the Eagles were right to keep TO around and not trade him, because the poor value they would have gotten (a future second round pick, at best) would not have compensated them for having TO playing against them.
So, the Eagles to a chance which almost paid off and have now moved on. Where are they going from here? Nowhere, obviously. I'll be very surprised if they sneak into the playoffs. (If I ran the team, I would have sent McNabb in for the surgery after week two; when you play hurt, you tend to get hurt.) But they have had three goals in the Owens endgame and are close to accomplishing them:
(1) Get TO off the team. They did that yesterday.
(2) Don't pay him. At most, the team will have to pay Owens for four more games this season. Owens will lose his appeal--the Eagles front office has been creating the paper-trail for this showdown since the beginning of the summer.
(3) Destroy TO's career so that no championship-contending team will want him and that even bottom-feeding teams won't give him more than a one-year contract. The last thing the Eagles want is for Owens to show up in a Redskins (or Ravens) uniform next season. The way things have played out, that's much more unlikely today than it would have been if the Eagles had cut Owens during training camp. Owens is more radioactive today than he was three months ago--and football people have seen that he isn't the same receiver he was last year.
(Don't be fooled by TO's gaudy numbers--the Eagles have thrown the ball almost 80% of the time this season and on pass playes that weren't screens, TO was the first, second, and third option. Under that scenario, the team's #1 receiver couldn't help but have monster stats. Still, the tape doesn't lie: Owens is slower than last year and his body is starting to break down. Wide receivers don't get better after 30.)
So the Eagles have made the best of a bad situation. The only two questions left are: (1) Were they right to make the gamble in the first place? And (2) Will they regroup next year, the way the Pats did after winning their first Brady Super Bowl and missing the playoffs the following season?
Let's go to Galley Friend and Cowboy Superfan L.B.:
When the Eagles picked up TO, they knew they were making a huge roll of the dice. On one hand, they knew a big-play WR was probably the last element they needed in order to make it to the Super Bowl--and win. On the other hand, they knew (they *had* to know, didn't they?) that eventually the dude's enormous ego and attitude would require running him out of town. So the gamble was that the former would happen before the latter.
And actually, the gamble almost paid off--theycame up just 3 points short in the Super Bowl last year.
Now (to continue the gambling metaphor here), they've done the smart thing: cut your losses. This season's probably beyond repair, but at least they can move on. (Better to have done that during this past offseason--surely they could've found somebody dumb/desperate enough to take TO in a trade . . . but better late than never.)
I agree with L.B. except that I'd go further--the Eagles were right to keep TO around and not trade him, because the poor value they would have gotten (a future second round pick, at best) would not have compensated them for having TO playing against them.
So, the Eagles to a chance which almost paid off and have now moved on. Where are they going from here? Nowhere, obviously. I'll be very surprised if they sneak into the playoffs. (If I ran the team, I would have sent McNabb in for the surgery after week two; when you play hurt, you tend to get hurt.) But they have had three goals in the Owens endgame and are close to accomplishing them:
(1) Get TO off the team. They did that yesterday.
(2) Don't pay him. At most, the team will have to pay Owens for four more games this season. Owens will lose his appeal--the Eagles front office has been creating the paper-trail for this showdown since the beginning of the summer.
(3) Destroy TO's career so that no championship-contending team will want him and that even bottom-feeding teams won't give him more than a one-year contract. The last thing the Eagles want is for Owens to show up in a Redskins (or Ravens) uniform next season. The way things have played out, that's much more unlikely today than it would have been if the Eagles had cut Owens during training camp. Owens is more radioactive today than he was three months ago--and football people have seen that he isn't the same receiver he was last year.
(Don't be fooled by TO's gaudy numbers--the Eagles have thrown the ball almost 80% of the time this season and on pass playes that weren't screens, TO was the first, second, and third option. Under that scenario, the team's #1 receiver couldn't help but have monster stats. Still, the tape doesn't lie: Owens is slower than last year and his body is starting to break down. Wide receivers don't get better after 30.)
So the Eagles have made the best of a bad situation. The only two questions left are: (1) Were they right to make the gamble in the first place? And (2) Will they regroup next year, the way the Pats did after winning their first Brady Super Bowl and missing the playoffs the following season?
C'MON!
You know you want to read it: How the Death Star Works. Really, it's all about the Superlaser.
More: How the destruction of the second Death Star created a holocaust on the moon of Endor.
More: How the destruction of the second Death Star created a holocaust on the moon of Endor.
I Should Say So--Look at the Blouse!
The cruise ship pirate attack story keeps getting better and better: It turns out that Somalia has three "well-organized pirate groups" operating off its coast and that since March 15 there have been 25 pirate attacks in Somali waters.
More: The cruise ship employed a sonic weapon against the pirates.
More: The cruise ship employed a sonic weapon against the pirates.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Good Night, Good Luck, Have a Smoke
Just a few thoughts on Good Night, and Good Luck, which I had caught over the weekend thanks to tickets courtesy of David Cirilli of Ken Sunshine Consultants (other than the free tickets, I've received nothing for this blurb--not even a free bag of popcorn or Junior Mints. And those who prefer Raisinets to Goobers can go back to Russia!):
David Strathairn is a serious actor. My bet is he gets the Oscar nod. After a few scenes, you get the impression that Murrow's opinion of himself and his crusade for truth, justice, and the American Way is as high as Joe McCarthy's (or better yet, your modern-day network anchor). Still, Murrow's interview of Liberace, in which he asks the pianist if he'll ever settle down and get married is priceless. In addition, Strathairn deserves props for being a nonsmoker who, true to his character, smoked like a chimney for all 90 minutes. I don't think there was a single scene showing him without a cigarette.
Who is the real enemy in Good Night, and Good Luck? It's not McCarthy. Ultimately it is television and Bill Paley's vision for CBS versus that of Murrow and Fred Friendly's. (As CBS president, Paley sees a future not with Murrow's preachy talk show but, rather, with the more lucrative $64,000 Question.) It's obvious this movie is director George Clooney's Quiz Show moment.
Look carefully at the footage from the McCarthy hearings and you will see sitting there quietly a young Bobby Kennedy. Interestingly, he isn't quoted saying anything.
Performances across the board are stellar. But in particular is Ray Wise, a B-movie actor who I think deserves a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role of Don Hollenbeck. A war correspondence in North Africa during the war, Hollenbeck worked at CBS until his untimely death in 1954, an apparent suicide. Wise's Hollenbeck is sad and earnest. I asked a friend who actually knew him during his days at PM Magazine if Hollenbeck was really as sympathetic. My friend says he was indeed, "a very, very nice man."
At the very least, you'll leave Good Night, and Good Luck with a hankering for a smoke and a drink and maybe listen to some Cool Jazz. Not such a bad idea at the moment.
David Strathairn is a serious actor. My bet is he gets the Oscar nod. After a few scenes, you get the impression that Murrow's opinion of himself and his crusade for truth, justice, and the American Way is as high as Joe McCarthy's (or better yet, your modern-day network anchor). Still, Murrow's interview of Liberace, in which he asks the pianist if he'll ever settle down and get married is priceless. In addition, Strathairn deserves props for being a nonsmoker who, true to his character, smoked like a chimney for all 90 minutes. I don't think there was a single scene showing him without a cigarette.
Who is the real enemy in Good Night, and Good Luck? It's not McCarthy. Ultimately it is television and Bill Paley's vision for CBS versus that of Murrow and Fred Friendly's. (As CBS president, Paley sees a future not with Murrow's preachy talk show but, rather, with the more lucrative $64,000 Question.) It's obvious this movie is director George Clooney's Quiz Show moment.
Look carefully at the footage from the McCarthy hearings and you will see sitting there quietly a young Bobby Kennedy. Interestingly, he isn't quoted saying anything.
Performances across the board are stellar. But in particular is Ray Wise, a B-movie actor who I think deserves a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role of Don Hollenbeck. A war correspondence in North Africa during the war, Hollenbeck worked at CBS until his untimely death in 1954, an apparent suicide. Wise's Hollenbeck is sad and earnest. I asked a friend who actually knew him during his days at PM Magazine if Hollenbeck was really as sympathetic. My friend says he was indeed, "a very, very nice man."
At the very least, you'll leave Good Night, and Good Luck with a hankering for a smoke and a drink and maybe listen to some Cool Jazz. Not such a bad idea at the moment.
Ride 'Em, Cowboy
Today Andrew Sullivan commits what will certainly be the first of many fawning words about Brokeback Mountain. (Will it be this year's Team America!?!) The only problem is that Sullivan doesn't know much about the movie industry. In an effort to make Brokeback Mountain out to be more than it is, he gives us all sorts of hyperbole about how important this "fascinating cultural moment" is. He tells us:
Let's start at the top and work our way down this mountain of blather:
(1) Yes, Jake Gyllenhaal is a hot property; has been for a couple years.
Heath Ledger, on the other hand, missed his shot at the big time in 2001 and has been on a downward career spiral ever since. Ledger was a Bright Young Thing in 1999 when he appeared in the very fine teen comedy 10 Things I Hate About You; in 2000 he got second billing in Mel Gibson's Revolutionary War movie The Patriot, which underperformed. Still, Hollywood executives thought Ledger might become a bankable leading man, so they gave him starring roles in a summer action movie (A Knight's Tale) and a bit of Oscar bait (The Four Feathers); both flopped. Since then, Ledger has struggled to get leading-man work and has dipped into such fare as Ned Kelly, The Order, Lords of Dogtown, and The Brothers Grimm. For Ledger, Brokeback Mountain isn't a risk--it's a last, desperate grasp at the brass ring before he disappears into the abyss with Josh Hartnett and Wes Bentley. Remember them?
And what to say of Ang Lee? Lee directed one of my Top 40 movies, Sense and Sensibility. He then directed the cold and clinical Ice Storm. Both films had critical acclaim, but no serious commercial performance. Since then, he's directed two colossal flops: Ride with the Devil and The Hulk, both of which lost money and stunk. He isn't exactly riding a tidal wave of success into this project.
(2) Are Gyllenhaal and Ledger "bankable"? Is Sullivan kidding? Does he even know what the word means? Here's Ledger's résumé:
Despite having ridden shotgun with Gibson and Matt Damon--two actors who really are bankable--Ledger has never opened a movie with any real success. In fact, a studio executive might reach the opposite conclusion: that Ledger is box office poison. Look at those grosses for Ned Kelly, The Four Feathers, and Lords of Dogtown. These pictures should have gone direct-to-video.
And how about that Jake Gyllenhaal? Here's his track record:
Take out The Day After Tomorrow--which was a Roland Emmerich disaster extravaganza headlined by Dennis Quaid and starring everyone from Sela Ward to Ian Holm--and Gyllenhaal has never topped $35 million in total gross and never opened a picture above $6 million--$6 million! If you go by the numbers, and not what you read in Us Weekly, you see the portrait of an untested art-house darling, not a "bankable" leading man. You see, in fact, the type of career that was built for roles like "gay cowboy." Brokeback Mountain isn't a risk for Gyllenhaal, it's his wheelhouse. (Yes, Jarhead opened nicely this past weekend, but the executives at Universal didn't know that when they cast Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain many moons ago.)
(3) Was Philip Seymour Hoffman's career made by his "powerful, accomplished, career-making performances" in Boogie Nights, Flawless, and Capote? After all, he's been gay on-screen three times--that must make a trend!
Except that anyone who has followed Hoffman's career knows that to the extent any select performances "made" it, it was made by his work in The Talented Mr. Ripley, Almost Famous, and--more than anything else--Love Liza. If anything, Flawless, Hoffman's turn as a drag queen opposite Robert De Niro, is regarded as one of his few missteps.
(Note also how Sullivan uses Capote as both cause and effect: Playing a gay man in Capote has somehow helped Hoffman reach the heights he now commands where he can get the lead in movies such as Capote.)
(4) Have Ledger and Gyllenhaal "played macho heterosexuals for years"? Hardly. Ledger has yet to play a character older than his early twenties and his career only stretches back to 1999. As for Gyllenhaal, this fall marked the first time he's appeared in a movie as a character older than high school age and if Sullivan were familiar with the Gyllenhaal oeuvre he would know that his prototypical character is that of the sensitive, thoughtful, semi-nerd.
If only Sullivan would leave the movie industry alone. He can probably keep his gig as the resident hep cat on The Chris Matthews Show without having to pretend to be a Hollywood trend spotter.
But that two very hot Hollywood leading men would be prepared to take on these roles, that a director as accomplished as Ang Lee would direct the movie, and that a studio as mainstream as Universal would produce it strikes me as a significant development. A few years back, it would have been unthinkable for bankable, heterosexual stars like Ledger and Gyllenhaal to have embraced such a venture. But they are of the generation that is mercifully over the bigotries of old Hollywood. Think of the greatest actor of his generation, Philip Seymour Hoffman. Three of his most powerful, accomplished, career-making performances - in "Boogie Nights," "Flawless," and "Capote," - are of gay men, each very different, each very human, each poignantly and brilliantly brought to life. In his case, taking on homosexual roles has helped Hoffman reach the career heights he now commands. Ledger and Gyllenhal take this to a new level, because, unlike Hoffman, they are handsome beyond measure, and have played macho heterosexuals for years.
Let's start at the top and work our way down this mountain of blather:
(1) Yes, Jake Gyllenhaal is a hot property; has been for a couple years.
Heath Ledger, on the other hand, missed his shot at the big time in 2001 and has been on a downward career spiral ever since. Ledger was a Bright Young Thing in 1999 when he appeared in the very fine teen comedy 10 Things I Hate About You; in 2000 he got second billing in Mel Gibson's Revolutionary War movie The Patriot, which underperformed. Still, Hollywood executives thought Ledger might become a bankable leading man, so they gave him starring roles in a summer action movie (A Knight's Tale) and a bit of Oscar bait (The Four Feathers); both flopped. Since then, Ledger has struggled to get leading-man work and has dipped into such fare as Ned Kelly, The Order, Lords of Dogtown, and The Brothers Grimm. For Ledger, Brokeback Mountain isn't a risk--it's a last, desperate grasp at the brass ring before he disappears into the abyss with Josh Hartnett and Wes Bentley. Remember them?
And what to say of Ang Lee? Lee directed one of my Top 40 movies, Sense and Sensibility. He then directed the cold and clinical Ice Storm. Both films had critical acclaim, but no serious commercial performance. Since then, he's directed two colossal flops: Ride with the Devil and The Hulk, both of which lost money and stunk. He isn't exactly riding a tidal wave of success into this project.
(2) Are Gyllenhaal and Ledger "bankable"? Is Sullivan kidding? Does he even know what the word means? Here's Ledger's résumé:
| Release Date | Movie | Total Gross | Opening Weekend |
| 6/3/05 | The Brothers Grimm | $37,916,267 | $15,092,079 |
| 8/26/05 | Lords of Dogtown | $11,008,432 | $5,623,373 |
| 3/26/04 | Ned Kelly | $86,959 | $43,704 |
| 9/5/03 | The Order | $7,660,806 | $4,438,899 |
| 9/20/02 | The Four Feathers | $18,306,166 | $6,857,879 |
| 12/26/01 | Monster's Ball | $31,273,922 | $110,552 |
| 5/11/01 | A Knight's Tale | $56,569,702 | $16,511,391 |
| 6/28/00 | The Patriot | $113,330,342 | $22,413,710 |
| 3/31/99 | 10 Things I Hate… | $38,178,166 | $8,330,681 |
Despite having ridden shotgun with Gibson and Matt Damon--two actors who really are bankable--Ledger has never opened a movie with any real success. In fact, a studio executive might reach the opposite conclusion: that Ledger is box office poison. Look at those grosses for Ned Kelly, The Four Feathers, and Lords of Dogtown. These pictures should have gone direct-to-video.
And how about that Jake Gyllenhaal? Here's his track record:
| Release Date | Movie | Total Gross | Opening Weekend |
| 11/4/05 | Jarhead | [still in release] | $28,751,000 |
| 9/16/05 | Proof | $7,155,544 | $193,840 |
| 5/28/04 | The Day After Tomorrow | $186,740,799 | $68,743,584 |
| 9/27/02 | Moonlight Mile | $6,835,856 | $329,771 |
| 8/7/02 | The Good Girl | $14,018,296 | $151,642 |
| 6/28/02 | Lovely and Amazing | $4,222,923 | $91,910 |
| 10/26/01 | Donnie Darko | $1,270,522 | $110,494 |
| 8/24/01 | Bubble Boy | $5,007,898 | $2,038,349 |
| 2/19/99 | October Sky | $32,547,800 | $5,905,250 |
Take out The Day After Tomorrow--which was a Roland Emmerich disaster extravaganza headlined by Dennis Quaid and starring everyone from Sela Ward to Ian Holm--and Gyllenhaal has never topped $35 million in total gross and never opened a picture above $6 million--$6 million! If you go by the numbers, and not what you read in Us Weekly, you see the portrait of an untested art-house darling, not a "bankable" leading man. You see, in fact, the type of career that was built for roles like "gay cowboy." Brokeback Mountain isn't a risk for Gyllenhaal, it's his wheelhouse. (Yes, Jarhead opened nicely this past weekend, but the executives at Universal didn't know that when they cast Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain many moons ago.)
(3) Was Philip Seymour Hoffman's career made by his "powerful, accomplished, career-making performances" in Boogie Nights, Flawless, and Capote? After all, he's been gay on-screen three times--that must make a trend!
Except that anyone who has followed Hoffman's career knows that to the extent any select performances "made" it, it was made by his work in The Talented Mr. Ripley, Almost Famous, and--more than anything else--Love Liza. If anything, Flawless, Hoffman's turn as a drag queen opposite Robert De Niro, is regarded as one of his few missteps.
(Note also how Sullivan uses Capote as both cause and effect: Playing a gay man in Capote has somehow helped Hoffman reach the heights he now commands where he can get the lead in movies such as Capote.)
(4) Have Ledger and Gyllenhaal "played macho heterosexuals for years"? Hardly. Ledger has yet to play a character older than his early twenties and his career only stretches back to 1999. As for Gyllenhaal, this fall marked the first time he's appeared in a movie as a character older than high school age and if Sullivan were familiar with the Gyllenhaal oeuvre he would know that his prototypical character is that of the sensitive, thoughtful, semi-nerd.
If only Sullivan would leave the movie industry alone. He can probably keep his gig as the resident hep cat on The Chris Matthews Show without having to pretend to be a Hollywood trend spotter.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Jon Stewart Is Hurting America
I wish he'd just stop.
But really, can't we all quit pretending he's still funny? He hasn't gotten an honest laugh since the mid-'90s. I'd rather watch Rip Taylor.
But really, can't we all quit pretending he's still funny? He hasn't gotten an honest laugh since the mid-'90s. I'd rather watch Rip Taylor.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Of all the regions to undergo deer overpopulation, Washington, D.C., has got to be the unlikeliest. And yet, particularly because it's the rut, deer have been seen roaming throughout the city. Just yesterday, a young buck entered a shopping plaza in nearby Germantown, Maryland, smashing windows and causing havoc at the Giant supermarket. It was eventually put down.
Two nights ago I was driving down a sidestreet in Georgetown when suddenly a deer crossed my path some 20 feet ahead of me. It had somehow managed to cross Wisconsin Avenue near the Holiday Inn.
And last week one buck made his way deep into Georgetown and ended up inside a Diesel store and later Ralph Lauren, before getting tranquilized.
You may recall, a few years ago, some deer actually made their way onto the White House South Lawn.
These deer must really need to get laid.
Two nights ago I was driving down a sidestreet in Georgetown when suddenly a deer crossed my path some 20 feet ahead of me. It had somehow managed to cross Wisconsin Avenue near the Holiday Inn.
And last week one buck made his way deep into Georgetown and ended up inside a Diesel store and later Ralph Lauren, before getting tranquilized.
You may recall, a few years ago, some deer actually made their way onto the White House South Lawn.
These deer must really need to get laid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
