cogitation_station

A Message for Our Age?

Have you ever seen something, then turned around and read something, then heard something, and CLICK!--epiphany! For some of us cursed with synthesis, this happens a lot. But lately some things have been happening which for us who synthesize make us wonder if all these seemingly disparate parts don't combine to form a message for our global generation.

Not to worry...I'm not a radical nut who's preaching THE END OF THE WORLD. Heck, I'm not even going to advocate selling everything you have, leaving it in my tender care--I'd take care of it; you can trust me--climbing some mountaintop to wait for the Mother Ship or the Messiah (He's not there yet) or even buying out the local stores for food and water to keep you through the DARKNESS AHEAD. (Shouldn't someone have a monster playing a dirge at a huge organ here?)

What Are You Watching?

I have been watching very little television these days. How about you?

The reason? Hard to find programs that appeal to me. I loathe reality shows. Why? Because I see enough bickering and clawing for the top every day, and to watch more of it does not classify either as entertainment or newsworthy. OK, "American Idol" may have some redeeming social values for the contestants, namely exposure and possible fame. But I just tuned in this week to see the one of the best guys voted off by the "people." The contestant who was allowed to remain was in shock. Why did I even tune in? Because the shows that I normally watch during "American Idol" were not on or were in reruns.

"Survivor"--good grief. It's multiple dysfunction and greed. No, I won't watch it.

"The Greatest Race"--is that even the correct title? A gymkana gone bad.

Actually one of my favorite shows, "Studio 60 on Sunset Strip," takes this issue on without apologies and the new network hotshot calls them in "poor taste," suggests that they appeal to the lowest and worst common denominator in the demographics, and add nothing to culture, news, or the higher forms of entertainment. Of course, the other network execs are upset when this is said on air by the once head writer of the show--terminated immediately. But his replacements--hooray!--are committed to lifting the quality of the writing of their imaginary show, and in the process, they lift the discussion of what should and should not be the business of entertainment to a level I haven't seen since "West Wing," "House," "Nothing Sacred," "Northern Exposure," and for sheer fun and great writing, "Grey's Anatomy." The actors in this show shine brightly with few others in an otherwise smog-filled ether which represents today's airwaves.

"Gilmore Girls'" writing used to be some of the best and wittiest anywhere. I understand now that the network, in all its ignorance, wants to replace or change writers, so guess what Lauren Graham and the rest of the great cast are doing? You guessed it. So we will have to enjoy that show in reruns or buy the DVDs. The "new" show will lack viewers; at least I won't be watching it.

Then someone had a bright idea to spin off Kate Walsh's character from "Grey's Anatomy" into a new series. I didn't like her character in the first place, and from what I've gathered around the water cooler the new spin off will be "dead on arrival." Why can't you people learn not to muck around with a good thing?

"House" is wonderful. Hugh Laurie and the rest of the cast are superb, and every week, the show actually continues with a high standard of writing and medical and personal puzzles. PLEASE don't mess with this one.

"The Closer" follows suit as just a great show. Like "Grey's," "House," "Studio 60," and "Monk," it exhibits great writing and solid, well-rounded characters. I love great writing. But it seems I'm in the minority.

Who said "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people?" I don't remember, but I surely don't.

Most American audiences--oh what the heck, most Americans period--seem to suffer from Drew Barrymore's memory problems in "Fifty First Dates." Talk about ADD!

And television reflects or projects and certainly exacerbates--I haven't quite decided which came first--this subtle amnesia. News--something as huge as 9/11--has to be retold, just so people in America don't forget what that date meant and means. Gee, guys, it's our Pearl Harbor. Why do people get so upset that our country responded in the same way we did to that foreign terrorist act with a declaration of war on terrorism?

Well, TV pundits don't help. Has anyone else noticed that journalists have put aside objectivity in reporting the news to telling us what we should think of the news they care to share with us?

Do you know how much news we actually are exposed to in the US, if we were to read all the big newspapers from cover to cover daily and watch the televised news? ONE PERCENT. That's right folks, and by and large it's the SAME one percent. Good grief.

Have people put their brains on some shelves so that others can do their thinking for them? Big Brother (and Sister) are not only watching, they are talking, and sadly most of us are listening....

Television is their primary tool.

So when you sit down at your TV and watch tonight, just try for a moment to think what messages underlie the gab and "plots." The messages that they're trying to sell and that you're buying without even looking at the large print, much less the small print at the bottom, are eating your souls.

And the Oscar Went to...You're Kidding, Right?

I have a blog in the works which takes, ugh, research, which is why you haven't seen much new on this site in a while. (That could be a good thing....)

However, I feel it incumbant upon me to mention a few things in the meantime. One, if you haven't checked out Harry Webber's website www.madisonavenew.com lately, or ever, rush to do it now. Hey, this man can think, and he's funny. Hummm, Truth and Wit...dynamite combo.

Two, you really need to check out Steve Simonsen's website on left. Click above pic and WHOOSH, you're in the middle of wonderful.

Three, please notice that Jacquie Lawson is ready for St. Pat's Day, as if any of us with more than several drops of the Emerald Isle running in our gene pools aren't. Have a drink on us just by clicking.

OK, enough news: Now to the real issue...the Oscars. Truly I have had to screw my courage to more than a sticking point to tackle these usually delightful displays of silliness, glamour, and cynicism.

Let's face it, Chris Rock, Mayer, the Carson Tribute, Robin Williams's speech, and a few deserving actors, very few, were all that were worth the time.

Let me treat the deserving first: Chris Rock shocked the critics by being tasteful while being dead on funny. (Please Mr. Penn, get a sense of humor. Do you really think that Jude Law was insulted? We all know that Mr. Law can act well. Did you truly think we needed your reassurance? And while I'm speaking to you, Mr. Penn, Kevin Bacon deserved the last award you received, but I'm sure you know that.)

Sorry about that. You see why I had to wait a while before tackling this?

Back to the deserving: Cate Blanchett actually deserved her Best Supporting Actress Award for her portrayal of Kate Hepburn. Well done, Cate! (And I also think you deserved something for "The Missing" along with Tommy Lee Jones, but that's bilge under the bridge.)

Jamie Foxx: Got to hand it to him. He had Ray Charles spot on. The movie wasn't that good, but Jamie Foxx was. Now, tell me why he didn't win for his turn in "Collateral." Oh...wait...I know. Everyone already knew that Foxx was going to get Best Actor. How could I be so dumb?

Annette Benning versus Hilary Swank...again. Look, I happen to think that Hilary deserved a Golden Globe for her performance in "Iron-Jawed Angels," but what do I know? But Annette has given Oscar-winning performances for years. How about her performance in "Open Range"? Oh...forgot...that was a Kevin Costner pic. Forget that. The fact that the film was incredible with an ensemble dream cast and a terrific story no longer matters in Hollywood.

How do I know? Check out "Sideways." Did anyone actually see that movie? The acting, while superb, could not cover the absence of story. Church did a great job, but his character was a total jerk who did nothing but use people, especially his best friend, Giamatti, who, strangely was not nominated for his subtle and tour de force performance. Rave reviews by critics who only wished they could have been on that wine tour; get more therapy, people.

I've loved and admired Clint Eastwood since he was "Rowdy" on "Rawhide." I even liked his singing in "Paint Your Wagon," but please.... Doesn't it seem like anything he's associated with gets a "sentimental Oscar?" These SOs are so plentiful these days, that I wonder why the Academy just doesn't creat a new category for them to honor actors whose contributions to the film industry as a whole deserve recognition, even if they don't really deserve an Oscar that year. I'm not saying that "Million Dollar Baby" wasn't good, but it wasn't GREAT. In fact, I liked "Finding Neverland," and please tell me why Cate Winslet wasn't nominated for her performance in that film, rather than in the "surely-we-can-do-better" film, "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." But perhaps there is a message to be heard there....

Ray Charles...God love him...the man could tear your heart out with his music. I saw him live, and I was simply in awe. But, sorry, the film majored on the worst part of his life. A true downer. Sort of like "The Passion of the Christ" minus the Resurrection. (Mel, why did you leave that out? Sequel?)

Speaking of "The Passion of the Christ," did anyone but Chris Rock and me notice that it wasn't nominated for any category except make-up? Please, people. I thought you guys liked money-making blockbusters. You certainly are quick to jump on Costner or any other filmmaker who 1) goes over budget (unless it's you, of course), 2) makes a movie that might say something important, unless, of course, you agree with the politics even if they're wrong and slanted, or 3) makes a movie over 120 minutes long. What did those people do who had to sit through "Gone With the Wind," "Lawrence of Arabia," "The Ten Commandments," "My Fair Lady," etc.? Or do you simply think the viewing public has no brains and ADD?

Gee...think "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter." And what did you do? You waited for three years to give LOTR the Oscars they'd deserved for all three segments. (Hello? Where were the acting awards in that?) Emma Watson got a nod, and so did the special effects team for Harry Potter, but please...nothing? Are we to wait for all seven years to pass before you hand out Oscars?

Now, since I'm ranting (right, but definitely ranting), please explain why certain actors are never given Oscars when they deserve them every year. I'm talking about people like Kevin Klein, Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgewick, Tom Cruise, Helen Mirren, and Gene Hackman.

Did you see the acting duel between Hackman and Dustin Hoffman in "Runaway Jury?" Hoffman was skewered at Hackman's first subtle flick of his acting foil. Hoffman's lunge? He channeled "Tootsie," but hasn't he been doing that since "Tootsie" came out? Unlike true giants of the screen like Jack Nicholson, he is truly a pigmy.

While I'm stomping on Hoffman, may I point out that Tom Cruise out-acted him from start to finish in "Rainman?" Think about it. How hard is it to play a character who never changes? While Tom underwent every emotional gamut known to man, and he did it with style, an honesty that actually hurt, and the Oscar went to ... that's right. Hoffman. Actually, Tom Cruise gets the short end of the stick most of the time. Why?

I'll go on record and say I can't like Scientology, but surely that can't be holding him back....

Babs, sorry, honey, but I love your singing. Period.

Clint, know I love you, but do something about these great actors who never get the recognition they deserve and the pictures which never get recognized.

Please...what happened to "Finding Forester" and Rob Brown? "Bagger Vance" and Will Smith, Matt Damon, and Robert Redford?

Heck, if we need more Oscars for great pictures, then make them! If all the actors in a film deserve Oscars, then give them all Oscars for ensemble acting.

Forget your politics...keep them to yourselves. Those of us who actually like and study film would be eternally grateful if the Oscars began meaning something besides a popularity contest within the "In Crowd."

Clue: You're not in high school anymore. Grow up.