YES! It is only 4+ days away from the season 2 premiere of Bob’s Burgers (Sunday night, Fox, 8:30 pm, Be there).
In preparation, we should be pulling down the pants of the night and then following Tina’s Pintrest page. Needless to say, it’s full of horses, zombies, and zombie horses.
Tina Belcher from Fox's Bob's Burgers. She loves horses.
Ed Harris as McCain and Julianne Moore as Palin Credit:HBO
We had to wait till the beginning of 2010 to get the dirt.
When Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin came out everyone was buzzing about the behind-the-scenes gossip from one of the most historical presidential elections this country has ever experienced. No matter who won, it was going to be historic: we would either have the first African-American president or the first female Vice-President. It was epic.
Of course no one came out of it smelling like a rose. The book covered Hilary’s vilification by the press, John Edwards’ amazing ability to self-destruct, and most enticingly, the mess that was the McCain/Palin campaign. The cracks in the rockstar that was Sarah Palin were put out there for the public and it was inevitable that someone would make a movie out of it.
And of course, the good folks at HBO were just the ones to do it.
Based on the book and adapted by Danny Strong, who had also written HBO’s Recount (he also played Paris’ boyfriend on Gilmore Girls, for those GG lovers out there. Go Doyle!), this Game Change focuses primarily on the McCain campaign, with a spotlight on the days before and after Senator McCain tapped an unknown governor to be his VP running mate.
While John McCain was the presidential candidate, and while Ed Harris is remarkable as McCain, the story belongs to Julianne Moore as Palin and Woody Harrelson as Steve Schmidt, the guy brought in to run McCain’s campaign after a shakeup and the one who was heavily instrumental in McCain choosing Palin.
On the heels of a comeback in the primaries and heading into the Republican Convention, McCain seemed dead set on choosing Joe Lieberman to be his VP. While he insisted this is what a maverick would do and that is was a choice that would help unite the country after 8 years of the Bush administration doing everything they could to divide it, McCain’s staff thought this was a terrible idea. Lieberman while intellectually a great choice, wouldn’t excite the base and would in fact alienate many, especially those who were pro-life or were women.
That is where Palin came in. She was a Conservative, she was pro-life, she was the mother of five…and she was attractive. According to Game Change, McCain’s team were so intent on Palin working out, they rushed the vetting process – 5 days vs the 6-8 weeks the other VP possibles had been vetted. And therein lay the problem.
Over the course of the film, we see Palin’s rise to almost demagogic heights. She was the Republican answer to Obama’s star power. She was galvanizing crowds around the country in a way that hadn’t been seen in years. Julianne Moore plays Palin’s unwavering certainty in her own abilities to a T. Not once does Palin pause when asked if she could take on this huge responsibility and change her life and the life of her family in an instant. For a person who had only been governor for 18 months, this was an astounding feat of hubris.
Then the interviews and questions started and as she rose spectacularly, so too did she fall spectacularly.
You see these events unfold through the eyes of Woody Harrelson’s Steve Schmidt, who slowly realizes what he has done. Sarah Paulson plays Nicolle Wallace senior political adviser to the campaign, is the first to realize Palin’s lack of general knowledge.
It’s not just that she doesn’t understand the complex economic situation in Russia…she thinks the Queen is the head of the British government…she doesn’t understand why North Korea and South Korea aren’t the same country…she thinks the Fed is the Federal government, not the Federal Reserve. Wallace rings the alarm but Schmidt is so committed to Palin being the silver bullet to the Obama campaign, he ignores the warnings. In the end, Wallace sobs when she tells Schmidt that because of Palin, she just couldn’t bring herself to vote for McCain. Her continued focus on her ratings in Alaska rather than preparing to be grilled by the press, just serve to undercut her readiness for being a heartbeat away from the presidency.
For his own part, you see Harris’ McCain make concession after concession where Palin is concerned and when he worries about his legacy, we have the hindsight to see the tragedy.
I never thought that anything could make me feel sympathetic towards Sarah Palin. It is a remarkable feat that Game Change manages to do so, at least for a while. She is portrayed as a loving mother who really cares for her children and didn’t seem to grasp what her run would do to her family. As Palin crumbles during her now infamous interview with Katie Couric and then watches it replayed for laughs by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live, Moore makes Palin seem intensely human. And when Palin rebounds with the VP debate, Moore capture’s Palin’s zealotry and ambition. Moore’s Palin is never scarier than when she is convinced she is right in all things or when, on election night, she tries to maneuver it so she makes her own concession speech.
This is an incredible film that tries very hard and mostly succeeds at not coming off as a smear campaign. Yes, some of those moments we all remember too well are played for laughs, but everyone is pretty given their fair due. Technically it is brilliant as it superimposes the actors into film from 2008, and with the clothes and the hair and the attitude, we lose sight of Julianne Moore and truly see only Sarah Palin. An accomplishment for the tech team and Moore both.
I love stop motion animation. Tim Burton and Henry Selick’s The Nightmare Before Christmas and Selick’s Coraline (based on the fabulous Neil Gaiman “kids” book of the same name) are prime examples of how this painstakingly created art form can be done and done well. There is a depth and reality to this animation that you don’t get from computer generated animation, even those with really well done 3D.
The latest from Laika, the production company that brought us Coraline, is ParaNorman about a boy, Norman Babcock, who is seen as a bit of a weirdo and just happens to be able to see and speak to the dead. He and his friends has to battle an army of supernatural forces, as well as the worst of all – adults – to save his hometown of Blithe Hollow from a centuries-old witch’s curse.
Considering its pedigree and looking at the amazing cast (Kodi Smit-McPhee from The Road and Let Me In, John Goodman, Oscar nominee Anna Kendrick, Casey Affleck, and even Tempestt “Vanessa Huxtable” Bledsoe), this should be great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=Gzjhej9pVuY
As we head into March Madness, New York Magazine‘s excellent culture blog, Vulture, has decided to a slightly different sort of bracketing: what is the best drama of the past 25 years?
Looking back at 1990, our options for good TV dramas were limited – a 21 Jump Street spinoff, some show with Richard Chamberlain that wasn’t The Thorn Birds, and shows for the older set, Matlock and Murder, She Wrote. Vulture goes on to suggest that Twin Peaks was one of the first shows for adults in a long time –
Twin Peaks was a TV show that didn’t seem to knowit was a TV show, and its mere existence conveyed a strangely empowering message to TV viewers everywhere, people who’d long been content with neuron-dimming procedurals and plod-heavy soaps: You’re smarter than this.
And since then, those TV viewers who want it, have been treated like adults with shows like Sopranos, Six Feet Under, and Battlestar Galactica.
A panel of novelists, actors, writers, and journalists will make the case for their shows and then decide who goes on to the next level until New York Magazine’s TV critic Matt Zoller Seitz will announce the final winner on March 23.
Sopranos - the probable favorite
This is a breakdown of all the shows in the running, with their initial sparring partners, my choices are in bold:
Group 1:
Sopranos vs Six Feet Under – this was today’s bracket, Sopranos won.
The Shieldvs NYPD Blue
Breaking Bad* vs Friday Night Lights
Twin Peaks vs Battlestar Galactica
Group 2:The Wire vs My So-Called Life
X-Files vs West Wing
Buffy the Vampire Slayer vs Deadwood
Mad Men* vs Lost
*These shows have not yet finished their run, so this is based on all shows that have aired to date.
Are there any shows missing? Which do you think will/should win?
Well, it depends who you ask.
For almost a decade, the most watched show on TV was Fox’s American Idol. It was, as the phrase goes, a ratings juggernaut. But that was before the days of DVR’s, hulu, and watching things on demand.
According to this article in Sunday’s The New York Times, American Idol’s reign of terror is now over, ratings this season have fallen to all time low — and then you factor in “time-shift” viewing. “Time-shift” refers to watching a show after it has officially aired, using things like DVR’s, hulu, and on demand. The new show that all the cool advertisers want to play with is……(drumroll)….. Modern Family. So if you’re in a crowd and it seems like everyone else is talking about Modern Family, you’re probably right.
ABC's Modern Family
Fox's American Idol
This is of course in the most desirable of demographics, 18-40 year olds. It turns out that the first day viewings of Modern Family within that demo are 7.1 million. However, when you factor in additional viewings within seven days, and that number goes up to 10.2, an additional 3.1 million.
“On behalf of all the comedies that were wiped out by ‘Idol’ over the past 10 years, it’s very gratifying,” said Steve Levitan, one of the creators of “Modern Family.”
And looking at the overall numbers, aka people under 18 and over 49, NCIS will most likely beat American Idol. Of course, advertisers care most about the time-shift views within the first 3 days of initial airing. This is mostly due to the fact that any messaging in the ads might be time sensitive, so watching much later could dilute the impact of the advertising. In addition, there is the thought that people who watch the shows later on, are more attentive to what they’re watching.
“We do like viewing in the playback mode,” said Tim Spengler, the global chief executive of the media-buying firm Magna Global. “We’re finding that the viewers are more attentive. They are less distracted. They have picked a time when they have the opportunity for more engagement than they would have if their kids were bugging them or they had three things to do at once.”
American Idol might be losing some of its mojo, but some of Fox’s other shows are benefiting from time-shift viewing: older shows like House and Glee as well as new shows New Girl and Alcatraz. Grey’s Anatomy and The Office are also reaping the higher ratings this way.
While advertisers and networks are figuring out that there is power in watching shows after they air, that realization still hasn’t vanquished the power of the all mighty “overnights”, the immediate ratings following the original airing. I can only hope that things change, and soon because I don’t know if time-shift viewing could save any program – I’m looking at you Community, Parks and Rec, Fringe – but I have to hope.
In 2010 an indie film was released that got some press, but almost no one I know saw, Lena Dunham‘s Tiny Furniture.
http://youtu.be/PF_jWPJwKIE
The movie follows Aura, played by Dunham, who has just graduated from college and is essentially lost. She moves back in with her mother, an artist who takes photos of, yes, tiny furniture, and her younger sister…and founders. Aura has returned home and has become completely infantilized, though she is still the same extremely sexual and sarcastic adult. She becomes involved with two guys, neither of whom is truly interested in her and in general, feels extremely overwhelmed. The poster for the movie pretty much says it all:
Dunham gained some publicity for this film for a number of reasons.
#1 It’s pretty great. Aura manages to be funny and awful, pitiable and unlikeable, all at the same time. You want her to figure it out but love watching her mess up.
#2 She directed her own mother and younger sister in the movie. They played…Aura’s mother and younger sister. She even used her mother’s actual apartment as their apartment in the movie. Her mother is also a real artist.
#3 The movie contains one of the most awkward and uncomfortable consensual sex scenes I’ve ever witnessed on film. It’s truly terrible.
#4 She doesn’t look like what Hollywood thinks everyone should look like in Hollywood. Yet she is open with her body to the point of making us feel uncomfortable.
#5 It’s a pretty great movie. Needed saying again.
So it’s not much of a surprise that she has paired up with Judd Apatow to produce a new show on HBO, Girls. The show is being compared with Sex and the City, mainly because it is about a bunch of young women living in New York, and they are having sexual relationships. But as much as Carrie et al seemed not to have their sh*t together, Dunham’s Hannah and her friends, really seem like giant messes.
The NY Times had a big article on Girls this past weekend. It begins by pointing out that in a TV season that was supposed to be all about the ladies (Whitney, New Girl, 2 Broke Girls) , all those shows ended up seeming both too crass and inauthentic. In full disclosure: I watch New Girl, tried and gave up on 2 Broke Girls, and hated the ads for Whitney so much I avoided it like the plague. The opening line of the trailer below is far funnier than most of what I’ve seen in any of these “lady shows” this year.
Authenticity seems to be one of Dunham’s watchwords. Girls seems to be much more honest, funnier, and slightly more bleak than anything that network TV has tried to sell us. These friends aren’t living in fabulous apartments and assuaging their heartbreak by buying $400 shoes. As the title of the show indicate, these are girls finding their way into being women, they just aren’t there yet. While I am no longer right out of college, and pray that I have progressed beyond these scenarios, I cannot wait for the show to premiere on April 15.
Last night’s couch gag was one of the more elaborate ones: a full-blown dedication to the opening for HBO’s Game of Thrones, steampunkesque cogs and all. Watch quickly before it goes away:
Also available in the fuller version here.
For quick reference, here is the original (and cuz seriously, who doesn’t want watch it again):
I particularly enjoyed Burns’ Landing and The Couch, standing in for The Wall. The addition of the three-eyed ravens flying out of the nuclear plant towers was also a nice grace note.
Might I add — less than 27 days to go to the premiere of season 2. (Should I be starting some sort of countdown…?)
Of course the rest of the Simpsons episode kinda went downhill from there – Bart becomes a street artist a la Shepard Fairey to get back at Homer for locking him in a rabbit cage. It was as bland and convoluted as it sounds. As has been said on the show so many times in so many way, Meh.
I have previously discussed my admiration for Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He’s just super. Recently, I have discovered another reason he is super, however – Startalk Radio, his astronomy themed podcast.
The world is being glutted with podcasts these days – especially comedy podcasts, so to find one that combines a nerdy love to science with a healthy dose of comedy, helps it stand out amongst the rest.
Every week or so, Dr. Tyson sits down with people like the writers of the Big Bang Theory, Jon Stewart, Senator and former astronaut John Glenn, even Morgan Freeman, and they talk space and science. These discussions are always funny, always informative, and never esoteric. They cover such diverse topics as how science informs the plot of a top sitcom, how science appears in movie plots, and how will humanity actually become extinct. (In case you’re wondering, the chances of dying by a black hole are less than being hit by an asteroid. And we almost definitely won’t be killed by a sentient robot rebellion.)
It is a rare quality that Dr. Tyson possesses where he educates but never overtly makes you feel like you’re learning something you didn’t want to know.
The episode that hooked me was a recent one, in fact the first episode of season 3. Season 3 started with a live show at the Bell House in NYC and featured not only Dr. Tyson and astronaut Mike Massimino, but a trio of amazing comics: Eugene Mirman, Kristen Schaal, and the inimitable John Hodgman.
Eugene, John, Kristen, Neil and Mike
At one point in the podcast, the phrase “Astronomy is the second oldest profession” came up and Dr. Tyson pretty much went along with it. It’s that kind of attitude that makes him a science hero for the masses.
Well that and his awesome collection of space themed vests and ties.
Lohan on SNL
They meant well, I’m sure they did. I bet that Lorne Michaels only wanted to help Lindsay by inviting her to host this past Saturday Night Live. And the whole cast was probably behind her, cheering her on. Even Jimmy Fallon stopped by to support her. I was even kinda excited. But, sadly, it just didn’t work and the whole show was just sorta sad.
I love Jason Sudekis and I think he’s doing fine as Mitt Romney, getting down his bizarre robotic cadences and lack of human emotion, but it’s getting a little old. So many cold opens have been about Romney, his gobs of money, and his lack of connection with the common man. We get it. Though Bill Hader can play Shep Smith all he wants, Psycho references and all.
Lindsay got a warm reception before her monologue and you could tell she was definitely nervous. The monologue was cute – everyone was checking her for drugs or booze or stolen items. But of course the monologue was most important because it marked the first appearance of the one and only Mr. Jon Hamm.
He's Dreamy. Credit: Parade
He’s dreamy. AND extremely funny. In fact he’s one of the better hosts SNL has had over the past few years. Jon Hamm’s John Ham and Hamm and Buble are some of the funniest sketches the show has done in years. With Mad Men starting again on March 25…why wasn’t HE hosting? Back-up host just didn’t cut it.
The Real Housewives of Disney was pretty entertaining. I refuse to watch ANY of those shows, but they are in the ether enough that I could guess it was a pretty spot on spoof. Taran Killam is becoming my favorite cast member and his Prince Charming was exactly how (flamboyantly gay) I’ve pictured him. Also, those were some spot on costumes, especially the hair for Jasmine.
After that though, the sketches sort of just ran together. The Psychic Awards was cute, some funny bits with the early “In Memoriam” sequence. The Delinquent Teen Girls bit just went on for too long. I can watch Fred Armisen in a dress and wig being hit by a car as much as the next person, but it needed to much sooner than it did. The radio station sketch was saved by the interaction between Killam and Moynihan’s shock jocks and Vanessa Bayer’s straight laced newswoman. The time updates also added a bit of humor. But what did all of these sketches have in common? Very little Lohan. She was mostly a prop, making a comment every so often, but not really adding anything. Not really utlizing the host.
The two sketches that did use the host were the worst of the evening. Keenan Thompson’s Scared Straight is always good for a few laughs and the one intentional laugh we got last night was when Lindsay was essentially playing herself. But again, it just dragged, she was reading the cue cards too obviously, and overall it was just boring. Not good for an SNL sketch. The other was the Housesitter sketch with Lohan and Kristen Wiig. I don’t really know what to say about that other than both of them looked unhappy and as much as Wiig tried to save it with her weird voices and facial tics, it never gelled.
There were a few bright moments during the show. Weekend Update’s interview with Snooki was delightful. Moynihan could have been a bit more orange, but his delivery on “God help us all” sold it. Plus Jon Hamm popping up at the end made the whole bit that much better. Also the two micro sketches with Jason Sudekis as a man sitting in front of a fire, reminiscing about the music from the 70’s was just odd enough to work.
Apparently the show got good rating, I suppose everyone was watching to see how she’d handle it and how the show would handle her. She didn’t embarrass herself and she didn’t embarrass the show — it just wasn’t great.
And when you think back to her Debbie Downer at Disneyworld sketch, you know she is capable of doing more and inspiring more.
If you love movies and you’re not following Roger Ebert (@ebertchicago) on twitter, you’re missing out. I don’t know if it’s because this is one of his more direct ways to communicate now that he can longer speak or that his general style lends itself to 140 characters, but his tweets are usually funny and occasionally thought provoking.
His feed is also a great resource for articles about movies, politics, and the world at large. Most recently, he linked to an article, Razzies vs the Oscars, on the BBC’s website about the dearth of really good bad movies.
The article states, “There are two types of bad movies: boring films with lacklustre scripts and ho-hum acting, or outlandish, offensive bombs with over-the-top performances, awful jokes and unbelievable plot lines.” While we are bombarded with the former, the question is whether we are starting to lose out on the latter.
For many people, one of the best worst movies around is Showgirls, that Elizabeth Berkeley stunner with a pool sex scene for the ages.
A true classic
This is a movie which would fall into the second category of bad movies: terrible dialog, highly overblown acting, and a ridiculous plot. The Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association named it the Worst Film of 1996. It also won multiple Razzies including Worst Film of the Decade and whatever it didn’t win it was nominated for. Showgirls should be viewed at least once a year.
Another movie that I find to be a good bad movie is the old Edward D. Wood Jr. chestnut, Plan 9 From Outer Space. (And yes, that is the movie Jerry wanted to go see in the Seinfeld episode, The Chinese Restaurant) Unlike Glen or Glenda, this one is somewhat watchable if not horrifically terrible. The trailer truly does the movie itself justice.
But what about really bad movies that are not as enjoyable, that are just bad? The article suggests the film Priest which barely made a blip when it was released, though Paul Bettany continues to break my heart with this onslaught of crap. I submit the film Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, of which I have expressed my many views. This is not to mention the slew of just awful chick-flick films that have crowded the theaters (Valentine’s Day, New Year’s Eve, Something Borrowed, Bride Wars, The Ugly Truth….etc)
This year’s Razzies Nominations were dominated by Adam Sandler, who broke records by 
being nominated for both Worst Actor and Worst Actress for his film Jack and Jill. Although I have yet to see this masterpiece – and I emphasize yet – there is so much about the movie that recommends it. My god, Al Pacino, Micheal Coreleone himself, falls in love with Jill, which is just Adam Sandler in a bad dress. How does one not see that??
As we head into spring and as the start of the summer release creeps earlier and earlier every year, what other terrible/wonderful films are to be released this year? And, as the article finished, will the good bad film become extinct as the bad bad movie takes precedence? With The Lorax coming out as this weekend’s highest grossing film…I do worry.
Movies, TV, and all things Pop Culture 