Teleprompter blog has to be one of my favorites...

And this recent posting after the USAF Academy incident had me laughing.http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/2009/05/alive-and-well.html I love how the White House has privately adopted a new policy of not letting Joe Biden anywhere near a live microphone at any event that real press will be at... Commencement addresses don't count.

Palme d'Or or Oscar?

This will forever be one of the greatest comparisons in film history. Which is more prestigious? Which would directors/producers rather have? Commercial success or critical acclaim? And most importantly, do either actually mean anything? To further complicate the discussion... is it Hollywood vs. the world? Festival Juries vs. Academy? And does the timing matter?

[Some interesting differences that need to be pointed out are these. The Palme d'Or is presented to the director of the winning film, whereas the Oscar for Best Picture is given to the producer[s] of the winning film. There have been only 18 U.S. winners of the Palme d'Or and only 10 Best Picture winners have been "financed" from outside the U.S. (This also is part of the distinction above. The nationality of the director determines whether a film is American or not for the Palme d'Or, as opposed the where the financing comes from for the Best Picture Oscar).]

The first question is completely unanswerable without tackling the other questions first. The matter of prestige is completely subjective in pretty much any comparison, whether it be the Best Colleges in America, or the best films ever made. And, inherently, the second question can not be answered without answering the first. Of course, directors and producers alike would like to win the most prestigious award there is for their craft. Which takes us to question three.

Commercial success or critical acclaim? There has long been an argument over which is more important. It follows the same lines as the question of what directors and producers prefer to make... passion projects or blockbusters. For most directors it seems that an equal balance is important. Very few films have ever been able to tout both commercial success and critical acclaim. Arguably, looking through the list of winners of both awards you could argue that the Oscar represents more films that have achieved commercial success. At least, to the American movie-goer, the short lists for Oscars probably contains at least a few recognizable names. Whereas, the short lists for Palme d'Or (and Grand Prix prior to the Palme's existence) may contain a bunch of names that are unfamiliar to the American movie-goer.

There have only ever been two films that have won both a Palme d'Or (One a Grand Prix winner) and a Best Picture Oscar. Those films are The Lost Weekend and Marty. Both of which you probably have never heard of.

Of course, it has long been said that you cannot attain an Oscar for Best Picture without some commercial success. If that is the case, can we assume that the Best Picture Oscar does not measure critical acclaim. I doubt it.

So, what does it mean for your film to win one of these awards. In the U.S., the Palme d'Or is rarely tracked and therefore does not translate to a fever pitch about that film in the wake of it winning the award. On the other hand, an Oscar for Best Picture certainly translates to more time and theaters, which translates to more box office revenue. But also, it certainly means that you will spend some time at the top of the rental and on-demand markets, as well as DVD and Blue-ray sales. So, perhaps commercial success breeds even more commercial success.

Incredible Game

A friend recently referred me to this article... and for those "in the know," this may be the most important sports analysis article of all time:
http://www.barstoolsports.com/article/nhl_awards/3263/

An Ode to Russ...

This has to be one of the coolest things Russ Feingold has done... other than those "I know Wisconsin like the back of my hand" commercials:
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_133/news/35043-1.html

I knew there was a reason that I voted for him when I lived in Wisconsin. Don't we already have a holiday that honors these things... its called President's Day. If we are going to start with honoring presidents separately, we certainly aren't going to start with Reagan.

There are a lot of reasons to love Russ... aside from the Campaign Finance Reform bill which carries his, and John McCain's, name, there is also his vote against the war in Iraq, his opposition to the Patriot Act, and his stance on same-sex marriage: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853948 But, by far the most compelling reason to love Russ has to be his opposition to the outrage that is the FISA bill: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/10/feingold-fisa-law-a-blackmark-on-country-terrible-piece-of-legislation/

It is certainly too bad that the Draft Russ! initiative (http://www.petitiononline.com/feing08/petition.html) couldn't quite convince the senator to run for president. His arguments were compelling though. And I do believe that he has the ability to get more done in congress than he may have been able to as president. Thank you Russ for all of your service, and we really appreciate your strong voice in congress. May you have a Byrd-length run in the senate.

And as for those commercials that I spoke of earlier:
but this one gives you a better idea of who Russ is:

Jeez-its, Cheesus, and all manner of "Savior Sightings"

This is the latest in a rash of Savior Sightings involving cheese products, or "Saviory Snacks". A Cheeto shaped like Jesus on the cross. The funniest part about this has to be the jewelry box in which the woman has placed the Cheeto. There is also this one from a few weeks back, where a woman found the impression of Jesus, much like the Shroud of Turin, on her grilled cheese. This is even funnier then the one above:



My question is this: How sad are these people's lives, and how lacking are they in happiness, that they are looking for Jesus in everything, including snacks? "Please God, just give me a sign... bless this bread I am about break... with cheesus!"

Cell Phones...

There are two sides to this story... but in the end I don't blame Robert Gibbs for acting out.

First off, don't keep the press waiting. This only makes them angry. When you schedule a press conference at 1PM, don't fail to notify the press corps that it will be 2PM until minutes before 2PM. This is a regular occurrence.

On the other hand, turn off the ringer on your damn cell phone. You remember to do it when your standing on the North lawn doing a live hit... why not when you are in the Brady Room?

Film Review - Get out the popcorn!

The first popcorn flick of the year is always cause for celebration.  First off, when you go to the first popcorn flick of the year, you are defying the laws of nature.  How, you say?  Well, just as the weather finally becomes somewhat bearable, and the opportunity to spend an evening in the fresh air presents itself, the popcorn flick begins to rear it's ugly head (like Vladimir Putin over Alaska, but more menacing), and instead of partaking in margaritas on the porch, you hit the movie theater.

This year's first puffed kernel motion picture -  X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

For the most part, I have no problem with popcorn flicks.  They usually don't tend to make my list of favorite movies of all time, but they are enjoyable.  There is a place for these mindless action films in the world.  Very rarely do I leave one of these movies asking for two hours of my life back (there have been exceptions).  When watching a film of this character, it is important to ask yourself: "Am I entertained?"  Than you can fairly judge the movie by how entertained you are.  That being said:

The X-Men franchise has done me well.  The first three movies have been enjoyed immensely, some numerous times on the old HBO.  Albeit, at times I was hoping for something a little less comedy and a little more tragedy (in the classical sense), I could always count myself thoroughly entertained at credit roll.  The casting was fantastic, and the effects were good enough that I wasn't feeling Michael Bay'd (that is a verb).  But what has pleased me most about the trilogy and franchise up to this point was completely lacking in the newest movie... a deeper meaning.

What makes the X-Men story (from original comic through The Last Stand) so compelling is the metaphor for race relations and politics.  Every part of the series from conception until "Wolverine" attacked this metaphor on a multi-tier story line, presenting no antagonist as completely evil, no protagonist as a knight in shining armor, but instead as characters whose moral fiber falls in the gray area in between, as if each was a moral mercenary for himself.  Wolverine missed the mark completely.  Spending less than 5 minutes of the 107 minute film on this issue.  We see a military officer confront Stryker briefly on knowing "why" he has it out for mutants... but then the character is promptly off-ed and nothing more is divulged.  This renders Stryker a completely static character; evil and manipulative, completely "black" in the "black and white" world; making Wolverine the "white."  This turns our protagonist, a previously compelling character, into a victim and tragic-hero of sorts, without the tragedy.

Don't get me started on the love story.

But, in the end, I found myself entertained, even without the moral, even without the depth.  I walked away from the theater feeling as though my time had not been wasted, I didn't want my money or my time back.  I just wanted to head back to my porch and enjoy some margaritas and a cool evening breeze.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is worth 6 dollars.

Inaugural Post

About this blog:

Musings on everything from sports to politics, music to culinary arts... and the not-so-occasional film review.  All from the center of all things unholy, Washington D.C.