You have to be pretty much a deaf-blind hermit to have never heard of American Idol.  It’s become one of those TV phenomena that defies criticism because it really doesn’t matter what I or anyone else says about it, the public will still tune in and watch as pop star wannabees warble in front of crazed family, friends, and fans-a-million.  Further down the dial is another competition show that pits pairs of people who know each other in a race around the world.  The Amazing Race is every bit as engaging and fun, but while the stage-bound Idol is predictable and trite, the Race is unpredictable and fluid as the audience goes along on a fun and furious trek to exotic locales while discovering a little about the world and human nature.  

For all its plastic veneer, Idol isn’t just a talent show but a reflection upon the essence of what makes us American.  Oh, of course the show’s roots are British and the concept franchised in numerous countries around the globe, but that’s exactly why it is quintessentially American — Idol is the McDonald’s of television — full of idealism, hope, and the idea that with diligence and hard work, you can become successful.

It also represents the less attractive aspects of American culture — arrogance (see Simon), celebrity, obsession, and a disdain for those who may not fit our idea or image of success.  It’s also glitzy, processed, easily digested, and only satisfying to a point — much like a certain food product that sits on a sesame seed bun.  

What makes Idol popular is its adherence to classic theater, almost attune to the Roman arena. The intrigue isn’t just in the trenches but in the stands as the audience participates in the outcome of these singing gladiators who dodge the barbs of sometimes-harsh judges.   I must admit that I enjoy patronizing McIdol, but I’m also glad that it only lasts a few months because you can only take so much Ryan Seacrest in one season.

The Amazing Race is a different story.  At least for me, it is one of those shows that I can’t wait to watch each week and curse the TV when Phil Keoghan (the host) finally gives the bad news (most of the time) to the last players to arrive at the pit stop because it means it’s the end of the episode.  Race’s premise of not only pitting couples against other racers but against each other has helped the show win Emmy after Emmy, but it’s also the only show of its kind that ordinary Joes like you and me could realistically compete in and have fun at the same time — it is this empathetic probability of success that I believe is the reason people like watching Race.  There are physical and mental challenges along the way that can be quite scary, but they’re never over the top and many not-so-physically-fit racers over the years have proven that, when the adrenaline is pumping, you can do things you normally would never do, like bungee jumping or begging for money in a foreign land.

Like Idol, Amazing Race is theater but more like an off-Broadway play in a small Greenwich Village basement that holds twenty chairs.  You’re up close and personal as witness to the story of two individuals and how they keep from driving each other crazy. You have couples whom are married, dating, cohabitating, sisters, college buddies, father/daughter, etc.  They each bring baggage with them, and I don’t mean luggage, which, of course, makes the drama more interesting.  Though the reality of all these shows is somewhat tainted because the players are aware of the cameras and can’t help but play to them, the chaos and franticness of Race probably makes it the only show where it’s conceivable that the players actually forget that they’re being taped to be broadcast to millions of people.  You get a great sense that these folks are acting pretty much like they do during their everyday lives, and that’s refreshing.  My only advice to the producers is to put the Travelocity gnome to rest and find a less irritating tie-in sponsor, just not McDonald’s.  

Both American Idol and The Amazing Race are in the middle of their seasons, but it’s not too late to try them on for size.  You may feel guilty liking Idol, and the Race will find you pining for the overseas trip you’ve always dreamed of taking.  Oh, on the battle of the hosts, Phil Keoghan wins hands-down because anyone who can stand for hours next to some bizarre local representative waiting for racers to make it to the pit stop deserves praise and the paycheck that goes with it.

Rich Burlingham

It was to one man’s credit that, after more than 40 years, the Rolling Stones are still censored on national television and still rein as one of the top touring bands in the world.  That man is Brian Jones, who founded the band in 1962, only to be kicked out five years later after becoming the poster boy for the ‘60s experimentation with hard drugs and free love.  He passed on in 1969 at the age of 27, found dead at the bottom of his pool on the rural estate, Cotchford Farm, once owned by Winnie the Pooh author, A.A. Milne.  Even though toxicology reports showed only traces of drugs and alcohol in his system, the coroner deemed his death that of misadventure.  Murder rumors were rampant with several conspiracy theories including those implicating Jones’ band mates, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Bill Wyman.  Several books have been written about Jones and his death, even one by one of those present at the house at the time and featured in the film, Anna Wohlin (Tuva Novotny).  All the theories forge into one in the new indie film made of Jones’ life, called Stoned.

Stephen Woolley, producer on films such as The Crying Game and Interview With A Vampire, took ten years to get the film produced, and he was so engrained in the subject that he decided to also direct the film himself.  He, along with writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (Billy Elliot, The Italian Job, Die Another Day), smartly kept the film as raw as Jones’ life and music and creates a ‘60s morality play with Jones (Leo Gregory) as a sort of Othellian fallen king with an Iago in the form of a builder, Frank Thorogood (Paddy Consdine), who is given a job more as watchdog than craftsman and who becomes Jones’ pet but one treated more like a mongrel than companion.  Thorogood slowly becomes intoxicated and addicted to Jones’ lifestyle, even trying drugs, but when he is finally sacked because he’s really not that good a builder, he turns on his lord to knock him off his throne.

They say that there is a fine line between genius and madman, and unfortunately Brian Jones couldn’t keep the madman in check.  At the end of the film, the character, either in a post mortem state or as flashback, reveals that what he didn’t like about being happy was that it was boring. This sums up his life — he was never one to be bored and would do almost anything to prevent it. Woolley smartly tells a story of this genius/madman and not the Rolling Stones; even the music featured is not Stones songs but those reflective of Jones’ taste, his life, or the era. Woolley also uses Jones as an allegory to the rise and fall of the flower power movement.  Jones was not only a remarkably talented musician but also a visionary who set fashion trends and pushed rock music into a new era.  The film nicely captures the frenzied, drug- and sex-filled era by its visual style, music choices, and chaotic editing, cutting between the last three weeks of Jones’ life and the rest of his tumultuous past.  

Musically, Jones’ was a fan of American soulful blues, especially that of the legendary Robert Johnson, who also died young.  He wanted the Rolling Stones to take rock and roll to a new bluesy direction, and he succeeded.  But when his hedonistic lifestyle took over, with drug convictions preventing him from touring in the U.S. and his addictions saddling his ability to play at recording sessions, other powers took over and he was kicked out of the band.  The Rolling Stones kept their bad-boy image and blues-based music but ventured more towards a pop sound in their post-Jones era.  

I think Stoned will be used in film and history classes as a tutorial in ‘60s youth culture.  It captures the era better than other similar films have done before, such as Oliver Stone’s The Doors or Bette Midler’s Joplinesque portrayal in The Rose.  To Woolley’s advantage, he wasn’t dealing with big icons like Janis Joplin or Jim Morrison and was able to show a very honest and balanced portrayal of Brian Jones who, as in real life, could easily be loathed and loved at the same time.

The British cast, mostly unknown to Americans, are all quite good, and even those playing Richards and Jagger capture the essence of their young legendary characters without trying to mimic.  Of all the famous souls in the film, Keith Richards, as portrayed by Ben Whishaw (HBO’s Rome, Layer Cake), comes away the most sympathetic as the one band member always sticking up for Jones and his desire to keep the band seated in the blues and his protection of Jones’ lover, Anita Pallenberg (Monet Mazur), who finally became fed up with Jones’ abuse and selfishness and moved on to Richards.  It’s a stark contrast to the walking corpse image we see today, and it’s refreshing knowing that these “boys” were once young, passionate, and hungry with desire to explode onto the world’s chaotic stage.

Stoned is in limited theatrical release at Landmark Theaters across the country beginning March 24th.  Go to www.landmarktheaters.com for more information.

Rich Burlingham

The 78th Academy Awards have come and gone and, as a show, it was okay but nothing to remember past March except that Crash derailed Brokeback Mountain to take the top prize.  Speaking of prizes, give a big round of applause to Kacie Seaman, winner of the Great Oscar Quiz and who only got two wrong answers out of the 15 regular questions.  If we could, we’d allow her to give an acceptance speech behind annoying music and then cut her off before she had time to thank her mother or agent or lawyer or dogsitter.

Anyway, here are the answers for all of those who were afraid, very afraid of trying to participate in the quiz.  Maybe next time you’ll give it a go and know that all the answers are somewhere on the Web.  You just have to dig.

The 2005 Great Oscar Quiz answers

1. What 2005 nominated actor appeared in a 1991 film that also featured an actor nominated in the same category?
ANSWER: In City Slickers, Jake Gyllenhaal played Billy Crystal’s son, and one-arm push-upper Jack Palance won Best Supporting Actor, playing a cowboy named Curly who was far from being gay though he liked redheads.  Carrot Top can be relieved both character and actor have passed on to the great movie range in the sky.

2. Which 1960 winner was Debbie Reynolds referring to when she said, “Hell, I even voted for her”?
ANSWER: Elizabeth Taylor, who won Best Actress for Butterfield 8 and who stole Reynolds’ ex-husband Eddie Fisher away from her.  Taylor would then leave Fisher for Richard Burton.

3. One of this year’s Best Picture nominees was filmed in black and white.  What was the last black and white film to win Best Picture?
ANSWER: Schindler’s List in 1993, winning a total of seven awards. The film did contain a little color — the girl in the red jacket, the ending march by Schindler’s grave —  but generally was considered a black & white film.  You have to go back to 1960 and Billy Wilder’s The Apartment for a film entirely in black & white.  Both answers would have been acceptable.

4. What star of NBC’s The West Wing performed a rendition of Proud Mary with Snow White (Eileen Bowman) on an Oscar telecast that came to epitomize the over-produced musical numbers that since have been curtailed, and what was the date on which the telecast took place?
ANSWER: Rob Lowe, March 29, 1989.

5. What 1975 winner was escorted to the ceremony by twin sons he or she had not seen since 1968?
ANSWER: Milos Forman, Best Director for One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.

6. What was the original category title for what is now Best Picture, used for the first three ceremonies beginning in 1927?
ANSWER: Production.  It was changed so members wouldn’t vote solely on size or logistics.

7. Walt Disney has the record for most nominations ever at 59, but what living individual (Oscar night categories only) has the most career nominations on his/her resume (45 and counting), including this year’s nominations?
ANSWER: Musical Score composer, John Williams, who failed to add another statuette this year, but I’m sure he’ll be back.

8. What presenter revealed to Joan Rivers on the red carpet before the 1994 awards that “I just got over excited in the car.”
ANSWER: Hugh Grant, escorted by his then girlfriend Elizabeth Hurley.

9. What 1946 Best Picture loser but now classic film was praised by a New York Daily News editorial saying, “It momentarily restored this reporter’s faith in human nature — quite some achievement after you’ve spent sometime in the newspaper game.”?
ANSWER: Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life, starring James Stewart and Donna Reed.

10. What was the only television film to be adapted to the big screen and win Best Picture?
ANSWER: Marty, 1955.

11. Who is the only Oscar to win an Oscar?
ANSWER: Oscar Hammerstein II for Best Song, 1941 and 1945.

12. What film holds the record for the most nominations without a single loss?
ANSWER: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, 2003 at 11.

13. Who was the first Best Actor nominee to be nominated for portraying another Best Actor nominee?
ANSWER: Robert Downey Jr., nominated for Chaplin, playing Charlie Chaplin.

14. Who are the only twins to win Oscars together and for what film?
ANSWER: Julius and Philip Epstein, winning Best Screenplay for Casablanca.

15. Which 2005 double-nominated individual began his/her career on the TV sitcom One Day at a Time?
ANSWER: Paul Haggis, nominated for Director and Screenwriter for Crash.  He won for Best Original Screenplay and shared the Best Picture Oscar as a producer for Crash as well.

Tie-Breaker Questions

What Oscar-winning actor, presenting at the 1994 awards ceremony, was brought to the stage by the announcer saying he is, “Unique. Original.  His nationality is Actor.”?
ANSWER: Jack Nicholson.

Who will win Best Live Action Short Film?
a) Ausreisser (The Runaway)  
b) Cashback  
c) The Last Farm  
d) Our Time Is Up  
e) Six Shooter
ANSWER: Six Shooter

Rich Burlingham

It’s Oscar time, when carpets are red, modest stars are few, and pools are entered with pencils not diving into waters of blue.  A little further down we’ll get to the first annual Great Oscar Quiz where you could win a special ITF prize, but first let me comment on Sunday’s Academy Awards telecast.  

I am as guilty as the next critic of getting wrapped up in the Oscar race but not enough to rant about jilted films or individuals who didn’t receive a nomination or my picks vs. those of Academy members — there are plenty of others doing that around the country.  I just want to comment on the ceremony itself and its place within our culture.

For years, the Oscars were simply a blip on the radar with only those in the industry and really hard-nosed fans caring at all.  Only after Jaws brought in the era of the blockbuster and magazines, such as People, and entertainment news programs began proliferating did the awards “show” begin to gain more attention from regular Joes and Janes who began to take an interest in the nominations and watch to see who wins on the big night.  That’s when the ceremony became an institution and began to be beamed around the globe as a sort of three-hour commercial for American culture.  

The awards were started, as all awards are, as a sort of slap on the back for those making movies.  The founding fathers of the Academy, many of which were pioneers in the medium, came up with an excuse to put on a fancy dinner party, get drunk, and show off to each other.  It has now become big business for a lot of folks, least of which are the filmmakers themselves.  More money is spent just on campaigning for nominations than some countries’ total GNP. The show also reflects the American way of life on many different levels.  It propagates our image of wealth and grandioseness.  It reflects our democratic system of government but at the same time our cultural emphasis on the individual. It promotes what is our largest export — entertainment — but also how we are a people who, for the most part, come from emigrant families and continue to welcome those from other countries to reap the rewards of a free society.  And lastly, the ceremony is something that binds us as a nation, even for those who do not watch. It is a ritual, much like the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving, that is both unique to us and a comfort because it is a reminder that our way of life continues to be strong, vibrant, and envied throughout the world.

Okay, now to the quiz.  There are 15 questions — some are very difficult and others, not so. All years in the questions or answers reflect the year the films were released, not the year the actual ceremony takes place, unless otherwise stated.  For instance, if I asked what film won Best Picture in 2004, your answer would be Million Dollar Baby even though the ceremony took place in 2005.  Please email your answers to rich_burlingham@inthefray.com by Sunday, March 5, 2006, 5 p.m. PT.  The winner(s) will be notified by email and, at that point, asked for a mailing address to send your special ITF prize.  Anyone can enter, but only one entry is allowed per email address.  Unfortunately, only emailed entries will be accepted.  Please write your name and email address along with your answers within your email to make sure we know whom to contact.  In the words of Edward R. Murrow — or should I say Best Actor nominee, David Strathairn — good night and good luck.

The 2005 Great Oscar Quiz

1. What 2005 nominated actor appeared in a 1991 film that also featured an actor nominated in the same category?

2. Which 1960 winner was Debbie Reynolds referring to when she said, “Hell, I even voted for her”?

3. Two of this year’s Best Picture nominees were filmed in black and white. What was the last black and white film to win Best Picture?

4. What star of NBC’s The West Wing performed a rendition of Proud Mary with Snow White (Eileen Bowman) on an Oscar telecast that came to epitomize the over-produced musical numbers that since have been curtailed, and what was the date on which the telecast took place?

5. What 1975 winner was escorted to the ceremony by twin sons he or she had not seen since 1968?

6. What was the original category title for what is now Best Picture, used for the first three ceremonies beginning in 1927?

7. Walt Disney has the record for most nominations ever at 59, but what living individual (Oscar night categories only) has the most career nominations on his or her resume (45 and counting), including this year’s nominations?

8. What presenter revealed to Joan Rivers on the red carpet before the 1994 awards that “I just got over excited in the car”?

9. What 1946 Best Picture loser but now classic film was praised by a New York Daily News editorial saying, “It momentarily restored this reporter’s faith in human nature — quite some achievement after you’ve spent some time in the newspaper game”?

10. What was the only television film to be adapted to the big screen and win Best Picture?

11. Who is the only Oscar to win an Oscar?

12. What film holds the record for the most nominations without a single loss?

13. Who was the first Best Actor nominee to be nominated for portraying another Best Actor nominee?

14. Who are the only twins to win Oscars together and for what film?

15. Which 2005 double-nominated individual began his or her career on the TV sitcom One Day at a Time?

Tie-Breaker Questions — only used if multiple winners for above:

What Oscar-winning actor, presenting at the 1994 awards ceremony, was brought to the stage by the announcer saying he is, “Unique. Original. His nationality is Actor”?

Who will win the 2005 Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film?
a) Ausreisser (The Runaway)
b) Cashback  
c) The Last Farm  
d) Our Time is Up  
e) Six Shooter

Rich Burlingham

Israeli families of the victims of Hamas suicide bombers have gathered 30,000 signatures to petition the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to withdraw the nomination for the Palestinian film Paradise Now.  The Oscars awards ceremony is scheduled for Sunday, March 5 — three years to the day that the son of Yossi Zur, 16-year-old Asaf, was murdered in a bus attack.  This brings up the issue of what defines free expression and what would be considered threats to national security or defamation.   Should the Academy bow to the Israeli families and be forced to withdraw the nomination because it somehow legitimizes terrorism?

It is my contention that without artists and their ability to hold up a mirror to society and explore the actions, emotions, and philosophy of the human condition, our existence would certainly be worse off if not totally in chaos.  It is through understanding what we are, our history, and our ways of dealing with the world that we learn to become better patrons of this planet and happier, more engaged, and productive individuals.  Since we are made up of so many different cultures full of different ideas on how to live and interact with others, it is no wonder that we do not all agree on every issue.  The situation between Israel and Palestine is thousands of years old, and one film isn’t going to break the camel’s back.  By reaching out to understand the people who live on the other side of the tracks, the better the communication between two peoples becomes, and in time better relations and possibly friendships will develop.  Not all stories have happy endings, and nothing is black and white.  It is the daily struggle in the mire of the gray that makes life both difficult and interesting.

Instead of trying to prevent artists from expressing themselves, we should be encouraging more and more of them to show us ourselves so that we can take the images, feelings, and thoughts they provoke and promote and turn them into productive catalysts of change that will bring about a better world for our children and for the many people who will inherit this earth another thousand years from now.

Rich Burlingham

It seems that the most compelling and emotionally exciting films being produced the last few years are coming from countries least expected, such as Palestine’s Paradise Now, Columbia’s Maria Full of Grace, or the 2005 Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language Film and winner of various international festival awards, South Africa’s Tsotsi.  

Tsotsi is written and directed by Gavin Hood and based on the popular and acclaimed novel by author and playwright Athol Fugard who originally wrote the story in the 1960s when apartheid was at its peak.   The story revolves around a street thug named Tsotsi, which is also the term used for the runaways or orphans who survive in the ghettos by engaging in crime.  Tsotsi, we discover, ran away from an abusive alcoholic father who was scared to let him have any contact with his mother, probably dying from AIDS.  He forms a gang of similarly disenfranchised youth and becomes a powerful leader amongst the bottom rungs of society.  After Tsotsi carjacks a wealthy woman’s vehicle, injuring her and driving off, he soon discovers her baby is in the back of the car.  Haunted by his own past, he cannot leave the baby on the remote road and proceeds to try to take care of him on his own.  This begins a burgeoning process of redemption for Tsotsi that allows the audience to find a little sympathy for a character graphically shown not to be very empathetic.  

Hood and his producers needed to update the story because of financial reasonsm and it’s a good thing they did because it makes the film far more realistic and relevant than if they stuck to the 1960s time period.  For American audiences, it will be difficult to sort through the ghetto language of Tsotsi-Tal or Isicamtho — a mixture of local vernacular, Afrikaans and English — even with the subtitles. But Hood’s simple but cinematic visualization makes it easy to emotionally connect to the characters and their plights.  In fact, the ghettos and business districts of Johannesburg are not that different than those in the U.S., and some scenes do remind you of the images beamed into our living rooms after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

Rare is a film that has a lead character with few redeeming features, especially one that is in constant turmoil with himself and lashes out at others in violent rages.  It is the struggle of discovery of evil within oneself that fascinates us and the glimmer of hope that even the most despicable people can change themselves around.  It is why the recent attempt to keep ex-gang leader and death-row inmate Stanley “Tookie” Williams from being executed stayed in the news for so long.  

Tsotsi, in all its rawness and frankness about a segment of society most people would rather not see, is able to move you on both an intellectual and emotional level and makes you think about our own country’s attempt at curbing poverty and helping those sitting on the murky bottoms.  Some critics dismiss Tsotsi for pulling the heartstrings, but if you can put the obvious manipulation aside, you have a film that shows a world not seen by many, compelling characters who we can ride on an emotional journey with, and a story that is both entertaining and thought-provoking — all qualities you want in a great film.  Given this year’s politically charged Best Picture nominees, if not for the language, I believe Tsotsi would have been among them.  It is a film that gives a down and dirty view of our world but with a hope that, within every person, there is a gentle soul who pines for a world where love conquers all.

Tsotsi is now showing at select theaters.  Released through Miramax Films.  Running time is 94 minutes.  Rated R.

Rich Burlingham

Russian filmmaker Timur Bekmambetov has broken all Russian box office records (making more than $16 million) with this depressing but visually stunning film about good vs. evil in modern Moscow.  Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozer), Russia’s entry in the 2004 Academy Awards, is an action-packed nail-biter combining Old Russian myths about ancient beings representing the dark and light of humanity and their thousand-year treaty over control of the world.  The film lays out an ancient story of the Light forces who police the world’s Dark Ones — the vampires, witches, shape-shifters, and sorcerers that wreak havoc at night while the Dark Ones have the Day Watch.  The world is kept sane by a delicate balance between good and evil, but as the film unveils, that fate is in jeopardy.

Night Watch’s cast is full of Russian film stars who are unknowns to American audiences but look just like the good-looking, youthful actors we put on magazine covers here in the States.  Director Bekmambetov puts his $4 million budget to good use, painting a visual pallet that rivals anything done on this side of the pond.  The picture he does reveal is of an urban Moscow that could easily be Los Angeles, Chicago, or any other American metro area.  There are plenty of run-down apartment buildings, factories, and seedy neighborhoods where you’d think vampires and other Dark Ones would tend to hang out.  And even without the Russian dialogue and subtitles, a Russian sensibility is all over the film, which may be what made it a bit confusing and convoluted, but to be honest, so are many American films in this genre.

Night Watch is based on the books of Russian novelist Sergei Lukyanenko, which were big literary hits in his native land.  They became worldwide cult faves as fantasy fans across the globe found them on the Internet, helping to boost sales to more than 2.5 million copies.  Director Bekmambetov has already made deals to make English-language films based on the remaining books by Mr. Lukyaneko.  Day Watch (Dnevnoy Dozor), the next installment, has already been filmed and released in Russian.

Night Watch’s fantasy mayhem could easily be mistaken as a metaphor for a Russian society in flux over a transition from a restrictive Soviet society that was full of paranoia and secret political struggles that always played out behind closed doors.  Though the visual effects and art direction are a feast to the eyes, it is difficult to emotionally connect to the characters, and the confusing, slightly out-of-sync storytelling is jarring and leaves you scratching your head at certain crucial points where clarity and simple plot points are desperately needed for this kind of film.  Some of the puzzlement could be attributed to the difference in our cultures, but storytelling, especially in action-oriented films, should cross all borders.  Sadly, at the end of watching Night Watch, you’re glad that the apocalypse has been averted, but you’re not sure why.  

If you’re a big fan of Sci-fi, fantasy, and slasher films, you’ll probably have a good time viewing Night Watch, but if you’re expecting insight into Russian society, you’re better off staying home and watching the Russians win gold medals at the Olympic games on TV.  Night Watch is dark, gloomy, and wild and will appeal to teen boys who are accustomed to similar material while playing like games on their Xbox or Playstation III consoles.  I guess it’s both good and bad that Russian cinema is looking more and more like their American counterparts.  Let’s just hope that the Light Side wins out over the Dark Ones in the battle for the global box office.

Night Watch is now playing in select theaters in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco and is released through Fox Searchlight.  For fun, go to their website here and download a two and half minute version of the entire film.  Running time 1 hour, 56 minutes.

Rich Burlingham

The Visual Effects Society (VES) handed out its awards for achievement in visual effects in television, feature films, games, and commercials last night at the Palladium in the heart of Hollywood.  The golden statues in the shape of a moon, in honor of the pioneer of visual effects, filmmaker Georges Méliès, are awarded to visual effects supervisors and producers who make up the membership of VES, though nominees do not have to be members to qualify for awards.

The team from WETA Digital, director Peter Jackson’s effects company in New Zealand, took what could be considered the VES Awards top prize, Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects Driven Motion Picture, for King Kong.  Teams on Kong also took two other prizes for Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Motion Picture and Outstanding Created Environment in a Live Motion Picture for their 1930s New York City.  The other top prize, and, for some, more prestigious because it honors effects that are seamless parts of a film, is Outstanding Supporting Visual Effect in a Motion Picture, and that award went to Ridley Scott’s crusades film Kingdom of Heaven.

The other big winners were teams from ILM for their amazing work on Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, which took three prizes, including Best Single Visual Effect of the Year.  Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Motion Picture went to Gromit from Nick Park and Aardman Animation’s stop motion film Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.  Other winners included the HBO series Rome, ABC-TV’s Lost, the video game Need For Speed: Most Wanted and the Nine Inch Nails music video Only.  

Besides the awards for 2005 films, VES presented their Georges Méliès Award for Pioneering & Artistic Excellence to Pixar’s John Lasseter for being the driving force behind the use of computer-generated animation.  A parade of celebrity presenters who have worked with Mr. Lasseter on the many Pixar features he has either directed and/or produced had heartfelt praise that could almost match the quality of the work he has created with such hits as Toy Story, The Incredibles, and his newest film Cars which comes out later this year.  Praise flowed, from Craig T. Nelson (Mr. Incredible) to Cheech Marin (Cars) to John Ratzenberger (A Bug’s Life, Toy Story, Cars) who had these remarks: “What a thrill it was to read in the paper that you were coming to take over Disney Animation. On the same day, on page nineteen in another part of the same newspaper, there was an article, which said that Walt Disney had stopped spinning in his grave!”  

Upon receiving his award, Lasseter, speaking to a room full of visual effects professionals, reminded them about not getting too wrapped up in the technology and to always remember, “What interests people is how you entertain them, the story and the characters … Computers don’t create the animation, people do. It’s all about combining art and technology. Art challenges technology, and technology inspires art.”

Actress Bonnie Hunt (A Bug’s Life, Monsters, Inc., Cars), who presented the award to Lasseter, entertained the crowd with both touching and amusing comments. After praising Lasseter’s genius, creativity, and attention to detail, she said, “The love and passion you damn nerds have for your work is amazing. You are such a big deal … John, you know how I feel about you. We slept together last night! And (the sex) was fully animated.”

For a complete list of award winners and further information about the Visual Effects Society, go to www.visualeffectssociety.com.

Rich Burlingham

You could probably throw a dart at any executive at any of the major studios in Hollywood and, after screaming in pain, they would say their strategy for making films these days is based on a global marketing initiative.  The stakes have changed, the studios are now all part of media conglomerates, and the new showbiz sales adage has now become “It’s nothing if doesn’t play in Pretoria.”  The new Warner Bros. Pictures major release Firewall, starring Harrison Ford, could be the poster child for this new form of world entertainment.  It is slick, well-crafted, well-acted, full of action and images of the high life of American society, and a flawlessly produced filmed product with nothing to say and no heart and soul.  It is hard to criticize such a film because it is enjoyable to watch with enough thrills and action to keep it interesting but also easily forgotten once you leave the theater.  

Firewall is another of these home/office- invasions-by-criminals-acting-a-lot-like-terrorists movies in recent years taking advantage of the fears brought upon after 9/11.  Harrison Ford plays Jack Stanfield, a top-ranking bank executive who designed the most effective anti-theft system in the industry.  Paul Bettany is Bill Cox, a wolf in Brooks Brothers suit who kidnaps Jack’s family and forces him to break into his own bank and steal money for them, which these days involves electronic transactions to those elusive off-shore accounts.  And just like his President Marshall in Air Force One, Harrison Ford takes matters into his own hands, and the rest you can figure it out on your own.

The supporting cast is first-rate but underused, especially the underappreciated Virginia Madsen, who is relegated to the resourceful wife role.  Mary Lynn Rajskub, a standout on Fox TV’s 24, is relegated to resourceful secretary role, and the always reliable Robert Forster is relegated to the doomed friend role.  British director Richard Loncraine has made some impressive films in the past, such as the compelling modern retelling of Shakespeare’s Richard III and the controversial black comedy Brimstone and Treacle.  Now it seems he’s relegated himself to Hollywood fluff such as the mediocre Wimbledon, also starring Paul Bettany, who trades in his leading man status to take on the bad-guy role so often coddled by actors these days.  Just a note, Bettany will take on another off-color character in director Ron Howard’s blockbuster-to-be The Da Vinci Code later this year.

With so many other films around that deserve audiences, it’s a shame that Firewall will probably bring in big money, globally, of course.  I guess the bottom line dictates that these kinds of films, which deserve their place at the multiplexes, take center stage on America’s world war on box office dominance.  At least it can be said that, although Firewall isn’t the best story out there, it is at least well-made and won’t embarrass us with the folks in Pretoria.  

Firewall opens February 10th nationally.  Released by Warner Bros. Pictures. Running time is 105 minutes.

Rich Burlingham

America has become a fractured nation.  What I mean is that nowadays it is rare when the collective conscious of America is drawn to a single moment in time.  Going back forty, fifty, sixty years, radio and television broadcasts would bring people together to listen or watch significant events.  Presidential speeches, news and sports, and the like would rivet a nation. The homeless even would find a radio or TV set in a store window to catch FDR declaring war, Babe Ruth hitting a homerun, or men landing on the moon.  Even the presidential voting process is fractured as so many people vote absentee or not at all.  

September 11th was one of those few current events that affected us all, and we all communally mourned and feared for what would happen next.  For broadcasting, the advent of cable and satellite has diminished the ability of TV and radio to be a means of bringing a whole country together. No longer do we all tune to Uncle Walter or Ed Sullivan to watch the same exact occurrence with our neighbors around the country.  I believe that the collective consciousness helped build us into the super power we are today, and the loss of it can only make it harder to keep that power going into an uncertain future.

An interesting observation finds that the only non-disaster event in this day and age to be able to collectively bring together the people of the United States, and even the entire world, is the Super Bowl, seen in more than 200 countries around the globe.  This past Sunday, all kinds of people tuned into an American football game, and for a few hours the cultural zeitgeist was morphed into one.  The Super Bowl has become less a sporting event and more a kind of national holiday where we all gather together to celebrate being Americans — and, for those in foreign lands, to sneak a peek at a culture that prides itself on being a collection of vastly different individuals fused together by ideas of freedom and liberty for all.  It used to be exploration, wars, and other political events that brought us together.  Now it’s men dressed in funny uniforms running at each other like mountain goats chasing after an odd-shaped ball.  And what makes it all even stranger is the fact that most people don’t even tune into the broadcast to watch the game but to watch the commercials.  We have become a Wal-Mart culture where commerce is everything.

As a television program, the Super Bowl broadcast is overly produced, stuffed with such a vast array of fluff that it’s almost a parody of itself.  The teams are so over-analyzed and scrutinized beforehand that even a Mongolian sheepherder knows the point spread and what each quarterback eats for breakfast.  The actual game is always hit or miss, just like any sports contest.  Some games are close and offer on-field thrills to rival any event, and others are boring blowouts where you can almost hear a collective yawn from coast to coast.  Super Bowl XL happened to be better than most and at least made it to the final few minutes before the outcome was known.  But these days you don’t only judge the show on the merits of the game but on the commercials that run between plays.  There is even a show the night before previewing the commercials that will run the next day, so there isn’t even any surprise on that front which makes them as anticlimatic as the game.  

Now that I brought up the commercials, I guess I need to reveal my top faves in terms of entertainment and salesmanship.  I will say that this year there were no Apple 1984 spots to knock you off your chair or anything coming close.  There were a few that made me laugh out loud and a couple that even watered the eyes a tad, but as a group I would give this year’s crop a C+.  The ones I didn’t particularly care for were Coca Cola Company’s Full Throttle spots that were obviously trying to get those NASCAR aficionados to drink its new Red Bull knock-off.  I got tired of the Blockbuster and Pizza Hut spots because they kept coming and coming, and all the effects-driven spots all kind of morphed together.  Budweiser, the event’s leading advertiser, scored big with a couple of continuing Clydesdale spots.  A touching one where a young colt gets a little help pulling the beer wagon, and the streaking sheep that invades the horses’ own Super Bowl game were both cute and funny.  Ameriquest scored points with its airline passenger who winds up in a compromising position after a bit of turbulence, as did the Leonard Nimoy spot where the Star Trek veteran uses Aleve to help him give the seminal Vulcan greeting to a bunch of geeky fans.  Add ABC’s inventive “Addicted to Lost” promo and the Burger King Busby Berkeley build-a-burger revue, and those were pretty much the top commercials this year.  Oh, and for some reason the “Cheers from the world” spot from herestobeer.com made me choke up a little.  I guess if anything in this world could bring us all together, Rodney King not withstanding, we could do a lot worse than a mug of beer.  

You can view Super Bowl ads at either Google or at NFL.com.

Rich Burlingham

I generally like to give new TV series time to settle in before giving them the once over because it’s hard to judge from a single episode, especially a pilot.  Some potential series have killer first shows and then go down hill faster than Bode Miller.  Others are like fine wine and require time to breath before easing into big hits.  Then there are shows that fall somewhere in the middle like CBS’s new dramedy Love Monkey, starring Tom Cavanaugh, and which could have easily been called Ed In The City.  

Love Monkey is based on the best-selling book of the same name by Kyle Smith which was touted as an American version of Brit Nick Hornsby’s High Fidelity, which, in turn, was Americanized for the film version staring John Cusack and Jack Black.  Both book and TV show are about four thirty-something males living in New York, all at different stages of life, who hang out together and discuss the idiosyncrasies of their existence, which in most cases involves women.  The title stems from the idea that single guys in the jungle of the big city swing from relationship to relationship, looking for the right woman to settle down with.  The show veers from the book by changing the main ape, Tom Farrell, from a newspaper writer to a recording industry A&R man who gets fired from his cushy major label job because he cares more about the music than the bottom line.  He downgrades to a friend’s independent label where he can make more of a difference in helping undiscovered talent hone their craft and head towards stardom.  Tom’s trials and tribulations with musical artists are interspersed with his trials and tribulations with the opposite sex, which so far have only involved a few.  He breaks up with one romance at the start of the pilot, and after a few episodes, the embers are smoldering on another with one of his colleagues at work.  Along for the ride are three male buddies and a platonic girlfriend, who seem to act like the devil and angel on Tom’s shoulders, dispensing advice that may be well-intentioned but not always the best route to take.  It’s Tom finding his own path and his life revelations that make the show entertaining and meaningful.

Upon seeing the pilot, I was pleasantly surprised to find a show that doesn’t overtly try to make an audience like it.  It’s not a Desperate Housewives jumping up and down and waving in hopes of attracting your attention, but it’s also not dull pabulum for tired folks who want nothing but to sit and watch programs that hardly even use up one brain cell.  The characters are all interesting, likable, and flawed — which means that you want to find out what happens to them.  And that is what will make the show successful, if the writing stays fresh.  

Though, Tom Cavanaugh is the star, the show feels more like an ensemble piece, and if the rest of the cast is allowed to shine, I believe Love Monkey will turn into a big hit.  The writers need to take advantage of Judy Greer, who plays Tom’s platonic friend Brandy, a very astute actress who has great comic timing, charm, and a lot of chemistry with Cavanaugh.  One part of me wants them to build up the Brandy-Tom relationship, but another part wants there to be a good platonic relationship on TV that doesn’t involve one of the characters being gay.

Tom Cavanaugh takes his Ed character and fine tunes it, giving his screen Tom a little more edge and cynicism, which makes him not only more real than Ed but adds a lot more charisma, without losing the sweet charm that has been the actor’s appeal.  Jason Priestly (Beverly Hills, 90210) grows up to play the married buddy who is about to become a Dad and perhaps may not be grown up enough for the challenge.  Larenz Tate is Shooter, the rich playboy who works for the family business that allows him more time to entertain the ladies in the bedroom than attend meetings in the boardroom.  Christopher Wiehl is the not-so-enlightened ex-jock sports announcer who’s keeping his personal life secret for good reason.  There’s a lot of room for the characters to explore life in the big city much like their uptown counterparts who made it fashionable for ladies to talk about sex.  Perhaps Love Monkey will make it okay for men to talk about their emotions, though I can’t see Tom Cavanaugh ever appearing on the cover of GQ anytime soon. But you never know, he may one day become a Gap spokesman.

I recommend switching the channel over to CBS for Love Monkey after watching American Idol and House on Fox for a light but satisfying snack before bedtime.  It may not be issue-stretching material or shockingly thrilling, but with good writing and interesting characters, I think Love Monkey has the chance to become another Northern Exposure, quietly entertaining viewers for years to come.  You can catch Love Monkey Tuesdays on CBS, 10 p.m. ET/PT.

Rich Burlingham

It is hard to review a film when the focus of the story can’t be revealed because it’ll spoil the fun, but suffice it to say Fox Searchlight’s British romantic comedy, Imagine Me & You, is a film about love at first sight, unrequited love, platonic love, love that hurts, and love that saves you.  First-time writer-director Ol Parker takes some real-life experiences, puts them in a blender, and concocts a funny, sometimes sweet, sometimes thought-provoking gem of a movie with characters that genuinely engage, even though at times you may want to slap some sense into them.

The film stars Piper Perabo (Coyote Ugly, Cheaper By The Dozen I & II) as Rachel, a typical British thirty-something finally tying the knot with her long-time childhood love, Heck, played by the likeable Matthew Goode (Chasing Liberty, Match Point) who, at least in this film, looks and acts like a British version of American TV’s Ed (Tom Cavanaugh).  As Rachel is heading up the aisle at their wedding, her eyes grab a glimpse of another and from that moment something changes inside her as she begins to question her love for Heck.  

Imagine Me & You isn’t a great film, but it offers a refreshing take on classic romantic comedy, of which I can’t explain, unfortunately.  The film is packed with plenty of the charming moments and sheer electric sparks found in the best romantic comedies, such as Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, and Adam’s Rib.  In most genres, a film doesn’t really need a big star to make the film good or even exceptional, but in romantic comedies I believe it sure helps, and romantic pairings such as Tracy & Hepburn, Day and Hudson, and Hanks and Ryan turned mediocre stories into classics.  Piper Perabo is a likeable enough lead, but my feeling is that a bigger star, such as Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson, or Drew Barrymore, could have elevated this film to a higher level.  It’s understandable that a first-time director doesn’t have the street cred to attract big names, and it is possible to enjoy this film as presented.

The comedy is very British and with a cast mainly from BBC comedies, some of the humor may leave you shaking your head. But for the most part, the script relies on universal musings of relationships that everyone on both sides of the pond can enjoy.

In some respects, Imagine Me & You is like the light comedy companion to another issue-stretching romantic film in theaters right now, but I can’t see this little picture causing any furor, which takes me back to the problem of revealing too much.  All I can say is this is definitely a chick flick in more ways than one but a film that I think even your date will enjoy, whoever that may be.

You could easily place Imagine Me & You with all those other British romantic comedies of recent memory like Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, and Love Actually, but only time will tell if it’ll play as much on cable as it seems those films have (see star power above).  The rest of the cast is serviceable with two standouts, Lena Headey (The Brothers Grimm, Ripley’s Game) as florist Luce who looks for love in all the wrong places but finds it when least expected and newcomer Boo Jackson as Rachel’s eight-year-old sister ‘H’ whose smart charm deserves her own pre-teen romantic comedy.

With all the heavy-handed, Oscar-nominated films out there now, Imagine Me & You is a delightful escape that’ll not only make you smile and chuckle but make you think about what romantic love means in today’s ever-changing world.

Imagine Me & You opens in Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco on January 27th and on February 24th nationwide.  Rated PG-13.  93 minutes.  Released through Fox Searchlight.

Rich Burlingham