On the Road (2012)

Film: On the Road (2012)
Stars: Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund, Kristen Stewart, Kirsten Dunst, Amy Adams, Tom Sturridge
Director: Walter Salles
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

There are books that I can say with a little bit of "I'm getting around to it" shame that I haven't read like The Help, where the novel hasn't reached any sort of level of classic fame and is really just a popular book club selection.  Then there are books where admitting you haven't read it feels like you're admitting you're an alcoholic or that you took your parents' car joyriding or some long-seated truth that you've hidden in the dark.  So, friends, readers, Romans, countrymen, my name is John and I've never read On the Road.  Whew, glad we got that out there.  I promise that I will get around to Portrait of a Lady so we don't have to have this awkwardness again when we get to the 1996 Oscars.

(Spoilers Ahead) While I wasn't familiar with the book, I was familiar with the Beat Generation, and had seen Howl (yes, I haven't read that one either, and yes, I will be making more of an effort to get a little more literary in the upcoming year), and had read about the Beat Generation (...in Vanity Fair...leave me alone!) and its impact on artistic culture, so I went in with a bit of a preconceived notion, and while I can't say that I know Kerouac's written story, in the hands of Walter Salles, I got to see both the good and the bad of this drug-addled, mind-bending band of artists.

The film tells the tale of Sal, a character clearly inspired by Kerouac himself, who, after the death of his father, takes up on a trip on the road with two Bohemian spirits, Marylou (Stewart), a young, beautiful woman who happens to have fallen in love with the lawless, uninhibited Dean Moriarty (Hedlund), a name that sounds like a Sherlock Holmes villain for about twenty seconds and then Hedlund owns it with a confident, naked swagger.

The film after this is a series of interactions, and while both Sal and Dean slowly alter their own sense of friendship and attitude toward life, Salles, perhaps at the film's peril, is a bit too preoccupied with throwing at us cameos by a bevy of actors that we'll react to with a "she's in this movie?!?" sort of awe.  This sometimes works-Kirsten Dunst, for example, is wonderful as a good girl that has been brought down by the magnetism of Dean's appeal, and through the film we see her slowly lose herself, going from a reputable young woman to a single mother, a thought that demands a far sharper stigma in the 1960's than it does now.  Dunst, who has proven adept recently in films like Melancholia once again proves that her sometimes prickly onscreen demeanor can lend itself well to the characters who aren't villains, but aren't necessarily to be cheered for either.

On the flip side, you have Amy Adams, tragically miscast as a woman of the Bohemian wilderness, consumed by lust and drugs.  Adams, who is a superb actress when suited for the right role, seems to not understand her character, and while previous life experience hasn't hurt her in the past (I assume that she hasn't led any cults) it seems to be causing her to be too cartoonish in this role.

However, if there's an actress listed above that you want me to discuss, she isn't Adams or Dunst.  I fear that for some, Kristen Stewart has entered the realm of actresses beyond reproach, with people putting her in the same field as Kim Kardashian and Pia Zadora in terms of acting ability, but I'm sorry to say that you'll be disappointed, as Stewart is very good in this movie.  This, and not Bella Swan, is the style of role she was born to play-wild, unknowable, with motives that shift erratically.  She may not be an actress of Dunst's or Adams's abilities yet (or perhaps ever) but an actor who can excel in a particular role can work magic for decades onscreen (if you don't believe me, ask Cary Grant).

While the plot takes too many loose turns for this to be considered a great film, Hedlund's performance frequently makes it seem as if you're watching one.  His work as Dean Moriarty is spellbinding-from the second he saunters onto the screen, stark naked and completely aware that people are staring but hiding his pride behind a cheshire grin, he devours the film.  His work slowly shows a man desperate for attention, a closet extrovert whose wild, manic lifestyle threatens to destroy him, but to give it up would be like suicide.  With Dean, we see that there is no moral line that he cannot cross, even as others who claim not to have one find their own.  Hedlund's performance, largely due to the poor release schedule of the film (it's finally hitting a wider audience in the past week, despite the Box Office insurance of Stewart), was ignored during the awards season, but I'll give you this: not only is he better than all five of the supporting actors that were nominated this past year, he was better than every supporting performance in 2012.  If this is a sign of things to come from him, I am excited, but if he somehow finds himself relegated to franchises and Hangover-style films, I'll still have Dean Moriarty.  I'll still dream of Dean Moriarty.

OVP: TRON: Legacy (2010)

Film: TRON: Legacy (2010)
Stars: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Bruce Boxleitner, Michael Sheen, Beau Garrett
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Sound Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

So, where last we left off, Flynn had vanquished the Master Control Program and I had written a rather scathing review.  I decided to follow-up the last TRON movie with the first one because A) I love a theme and B) both happened to be part of the OVP, and as we're inching closer and closer to capping off 2010, so I figured I wanted to get through this one as soon as possible.

(Spoilers ahead) This film follows Flynn briefly, with Jeff Bridges in a moment of creepy, Polar Express-smoothness transported back to his mid-30's, comforting his son before taking off and disappearing.  Only an idiot would assume that he hadn't fallen onto the grid that the first film made famous, and so thankfully Disney doesn't spend a great deal of time wasting both ours and Flynn's son's (played as an adult by Garrett Hedlund) in the real world, instead sending us quickly and easily (a little too easily, if you ask me) to the world of Clu, Tron, and now Flynn, who has been trapped there for decades thanks to his doppelganger Clu going rogue and killing anything he finds imperfect.

The film then enters a series of rather stunning visual acrobatics, and while it loses all of the charm and silliness of the first film in favor of something sleeker, faster, it does have some exciting action set pieces, particularly those in the arena where Sam must rather quickly discover his skills with a disc and a motorcycle (thankfully, he rides one in the real world, otherwise we would have a giant, gaping plot point to throw in for that ability).  The movie moves at a brisk pace, only slowing down during a bizarre interaction with Zeus (Sheen), who seems to have crossed David Bowie with the Emcee from Cabaret for a puzzling and off-putting combination.  Is he hitting on Sam, or just merely stalling him?  Or both?

The film's final scenes play out so predictably that you feel like they were written in a paint-by-numbers afterthought party, when all of the Pixar writers taunt the less talented writers at Disney.  The film is coolly beautiful, and sticks to the color scheme of the first picture, but also sadly sticks to the hackneyed endings, this time watching Flynn sacrifice his freedom to send his son and his inevitable love interest, played by Wilde (there is no "winner's kiss" but you know it happened off screen eventually, or will wait for the sequel).  It would have been a nice change if, for example, all three would have gotten out-it wouldn't have hurt its chances at a sequel (and there's certainly going to be a sequel-why else give Cillian Murphy a thankless, uncredited role as Flynn's nemesis's son?), as they could still have Bridges go back in to save the day if another villain wormed his way into the grid.

The stars of the film are hit-and-miss.  I found Sheen's over-the-top scenery-chewing a bit reminiscent of his bizarre work in the Twilight films, and while I've come to enjoy Olivia Wilde as a celebrity, I have yet to be impressed by her as an actress.  Bridges, a little bit too reminiscent of "the Dude" and his real life persona, is a bit sloppy, though it's still Jeff Bridges, so his longer monologues have an intensity that's difficult to put down.  Finally, there's Hedlund, who has the same confidence and swagger that Bridges had in his early days (and the Costume department seems intent on exploiting it), and the sexy, pretty boy with a deeper side that elicits both swoons and intrigue.  His work in On the Road this past year was mesmerizing, and I want to say this may be the start of a young movie star, if he can ever find a way to combine a critical and commercial success in the next few years.

The film's sole Oscar nomination was for Sound Editing, and while it's sturdy, it's not really superb.  The film relies heavily on the first film for its soundscape, and nothing about this movie screams "Oscar!"  It's not that it's too subtle (which would be welcome in a Disney film), it's that it's just "meh."

But what do you think of TRON: Legacy?  Are you clamoring for a sequel, or was this conclusion enough?  Do you wish they had stuck to the more primitive visual effects or do you like the, to quote Will Smith, "new hotness?"  And where do you see Garrett Hedlund's burgeoning career taking him?

OVP: TRON (1982)

Film: Tron (1982)
Stars: Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner, David Warner, Cindy Morgan, Barnard Hughes, Dan Shor
Director: Steven Lisberger
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Costume and Sound Mixing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

There has to be a bit of a curve when judging special effects-laden films of the past.  Not every film can have the timeless panache of Star Wars or the inexplicably ageless effects of Jurassic Park; it's impossible to expect each film to equal that level of foresight in what will still be utilized in the future.  However, even if you discount the archaic, video game-inspired digital work on display in this cult classic, much-lampooned Steven Lisberger film, you cannot excuse the expositional dialogue and the rudimentary, two-dimensional acting on display.

(Spoilers ahead) The film tells the tale of a hacker named Kevin Flynn (Bridges) who is trying to recover proof that he created a series of successful video games, which the increasingly out-of-control Dillinger (Warner) has stolen credit for, and is now guarding through the Master Control Program.  Flynn enlists the help of his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend (a love triangle that remains largely uncommented upon throughout the film, despite her having the "winner's kiss" with both of them at some point during the film).  Together, the three of them attempt to hack into the Master Control Program, only to have Flynn find himself in the actual world of the computer programs.

The film shows Flynn, still played by Bridges, encounter different computer programs (all taking on human form), and having to fight them in a gladiator style form of combat.  Once he eventually escapes from his masters (with two other fighters, including Tron, played by Boxleitner in a doppelganger moment that is mimicked multiple times throughout the film), he sets out to destroy the Master Control Program, and eventually succeeds, saving the day, kissing the girl, and going back to the real world with successful credit for his work.

The film is at its best whenever it focuses on the charming, affable Bridges.  Bridges, 32 when this was made but looking eight years younger, plays like an effortlessly beautiful, less ornery Harrison Ford when he wanted to be, and despite never taking off in the matinee style that Ford did (though really, few actors in film history took off like Ford did during this time period), his charm and confidence oozes across the screen, particularly since the rest of his cast members seem to constantly be forgetting their lines (the time delays may have had to do with the visual effects holding them up in the computer world, but the issue also lies in the real-life scenes, so there's really no excuse).  The rest of the cast is so bad you have trouble believing that this wasn't a highly-stylized student film and not a major-budget film funded by Disney.

The script is also grossly dated.  It's already at a hindrance with the focus on soon to be obsolete technologies, but add to that a series of "I'm doing this" sort of dialogue and a plot that seems to have been written directly from the brainstorming session of the writing room without actually killing any ideas(what was with the random allusions to the Pentagon and the Kremlin if for no other reason that it's the Cold War-this plot doesn't go anywhere outside that scene?), and you have a clunker.

The film received a pair of Oscar nominations, and almost certainly would have scored a third had its Visual Effects been eligible (oddly enough, they were deemed ineligible for using CGI, which would become a mainstay of that category in years to come).  The Costume design is a give-and-take, as the costumes would go on to be relatively iconic, but they're also all variations on the same suit, and so it's hard to give them a trophy for just one look.  The other nomination, Sound Mixing, seems like one of those cursory nominations they throw at a film that's special effects laden, but again, there's little to crow about in the Sound design, and comparing it to films like Star Wars and Indiana Jones which became part of the filmic landscape during the same era makes Tron fall short.

But what are your thoughts?  I'm about to head into the sequel (both are OVP films, and so I figured they'd make a good double feature even if I'm not exactly thrilled about the prospect of the second one based on my initial reaction to the first).  Are you a Tron fanatic, or do you not get the many (many) allusions Seth MacFarlane has made to this film over the years?  And do you agree that it likely would have been nominated had it been eligible for the Visual Effects Oscar?

Ranting On...Lynne Ramsay

In the past few weeks, one of the biggest stories coming out of Hollywood has been the scuttle surrounding Jane Got a Gun and the mass exodus of stars (including Jude Law and Michael Fassbender) attached to the western, which is (as of this writing) starring Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton.   Much of the press has been directed at the film's former director (she's also dropped out of the project) Lynne Ramsay.  Ramsay, director of the critically-acclaimed Morvern Callar and We Need to Talk About Kevin, is one of the few women to have broken out with significant critical acclaim in the largely male-dominated world of film direction, and so what the end result of this incident is is important to those of us who want to see more opportunies for great films from female directors.

What we do know about the incident, over a week after it took place, is surprisingly little for a town that is relatively loose-lipped like Hollywood.  While it has been confirmed that Ramsay didn't show up for the first day of filming, we don't know what caused this.  A number of rumors (repeat, these are rumors) have circulated, including that the film's producers had not presented Ramsay with a finalized script, schedule, or budget overview, as well as that Ramsay was behind on script revisions, and perhaps most tantalizing for the tabloid press, that there were conflicts between Ramsay and the Oscar-winning Portman.

What we do know, for sure, though, is that the media has been surprisingly one-sided on their attacks on Ramsay, largely skipping any blame that may have fallen on producer Scott Steindorff (which, if the emails from his assistant begging for positive comments in favor of the Lincoln Lawyer producer are legitimate, appears to be a sorry assessment of the situation).  I've seen mainstream media using phrases like "drama on set" and "cat fight" and I think it's pretty obvious that these are veiled derogatory attacks on Ramsay's gender.  Were James Cameron or Quentin Tarantino to not show up due to a disagreement over a script, they would be described as "passionate" and "artists intent on their vision," but in Ramsay's case, she gets no benefit of the doubt from the film fanboy public (the film nerd public is predominantly male, or at least the loudest elements of it are, even if the actual film-going populace is not).  And if a director like Lars von Trier acts like a fool (that's about the least colorful term I can think of, but if you've read any article about the director in the past decade, you know what the ones that are actually going through my mind are), you don't read articles about how it will affect other male directors, but with Ramsay, that seems to be a gut check reaction (and for the record, von Trier is an extreme example, and nothing that Ramsay has even been rumored to be associated with has been close to some of the worst of the von Trier stories, but you see my point).

The fact is, though, that amongst the relatively few women that have enjoyed major critical success in the film world, the backlash has been vitriolic and particularly nasty from certain segments of the film-going universe.  Look at the way that Kathryn Bigelow was blasted over the torture elements of Zero Dark Thirty; even if you feel the film gives a more even-handed approach than is comfortable, having her derided as a Nazi and comparing her to Leni Riefenstahl is wildly over-the-top.  And look at the way that a critically-acclaimed director, an Oscar-winner and the helmer of the film that won the critical Triple Crown of the NYFCC, NBR and LAFCA prizes was un-nominated and no one said a peep, whereas Ben Affleck got a makeup Best Picture Oscar for his miss in the Best Director category.

The list goes on: look at how critical backlash has occurred for Sofia Coppola, who makes films with largely female leads, and is constantly derided for being "repetitive," when male-dominated filmmakers like Fellini, Scorsese, and Woody Allen don't get that thrown at them as an insult.  60% of Nancy Meyers films have made over $100 million-tell me another non-franchise director that has done that, and yet she's pushed to the derisive sidelines.  And don't get me started on the treatment of DGA-nominated, Oscar-winning Barbra Streisand.  Within her three directorial achievements, her films have amassed 14 Oscar nominations, including a Best Picture bid, but talk about her contributions to film and you get a snicker from "serious film fans."

There was also something to Helen Mirren's recent comments about Sam Mendes.  When Mendes won the Empire Inspiration Award and failed to list a single female filmmaker as an inspiration, Mirren chastised him.  What Mirren was trying to get at wasn't that she should be picking Mendes' inspirations, its that people like Lina Wertmuller and Jane Campion have served as inspiration to many, many filmmakers (male and female), and yet they are largely pushed to the sidelines in favor of male filmmakers when today's young talent are describing their directorial influences.  As an aspiring writer, I can say that Edith Wharton has been my hero just as long as John Updike, if not longer.  Yet Mirren's right-men rarely acknowledge their female inspirations, and that's a damn shame.

Sexism is still an issue in every field.  If you want proof, think of what would happen if Nancy Pelosi cried openly as often as John Boehner or Jo-Wilfried Tsonga's saying that the reason there aren't only a few female tennis players who dominate the field (a question that never should have been asked by any journalist who had heard of Steffi Graf, Martina Navritolva, Monica Seles, and the Williams sisters) because women are emotinally unstable.  This didn't happen in 1953-that was a comment made at the Australian Open two months ago.  In a field that continues to be inexplicably male-dominated like film direction, however, it becomes even more important that we stand tall against sexism of one of the few female directors that has enjoyed mainstream, critical success.  And that means that we give Lynne Ramsay the same respect we'd give every auteur that we love-the benefit of the doubt, and a little faith.

Senate Story Updates

Well, that didn't take long.  Two of the most recent posts have updates to share!

Proving that my Top Ten skills need some work, it was the Number Six seed, Sen. Kay Hagan, who became the latest senator to endorse gay marriage.  Sen. Hagan's decision has qute a bit of political bravery behind it-North Carolina rather decidedly passed a gay marriage ban a couple of years ago, and there is definitely a possibility that the senator could lose some votes next year in her re-election bid as a result.  So, for those who always complain about wanting a politician that puts principle before politics, look no further.

And in other Senate related news, Ashley Judd has passed on her rumored Senate bid.  As I pointed out previously, this is probably for the best, as it seems we'll have the best Democratic candidate that we could possibly recruit to this race, as Alison Lundergan Grimes appears to be strongly interested in a run.

And that's it-it's been a busy poltiical week!

Top Ten: Democrats Left to Support Gay Marriage

As a gay man and a longtime political junkie, I have to say that the past 24 hours was a hugely enjoyable experience for me.  While the ultimate resolution of yesterday's Supreme Court hearings won't be known for several months, it's clearly a sign of the changing times when U.S. senators are falling over themselves to try and announce their support of gay marriage.  A decade ago, a senator from Massachusetts was reluctant to announce his support of gay marriage.  This past week, senators from West Virginia, Missouri, Montana, and even Alaska have announced their support of the institution.

In fact, with yesterday's announcements, there are only ten sitting U.S. Senators in the Democratic Party that are not in favor of gay marriage.  With only ten, that seems like an obvious time to make a list.  So here, I will rank from least to most likely the ten remaining Democrats and the odds they will endorse gay marriage.

Honorable Mention: With Sen. Rob Portman's (R) endorsement of gay marriage, there is always the possibility that the next senator to endorse gay marriage could be a Republican.  While blue state Republicans Ron Johnson (WI) and Pat Toomey (PA) are unlikely to support the movement, senators like Susan Collins (ME) and Mark Kirk (IL) are both a strong possibility (Collins in particular, as she will be facing reelection as the only blue state Republican in next year's Senate elections, may want to shore up her moderate credentials by giving her support).  There's also Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was elected as an independent before rejoining the GOP in 2010, who has bucked her party in the past and has cover in the form of her Alaskan colleague Mark Begich, who confirmed his support for gay marriage.  Any of these three are probably more likely, actually, than the first couple of Democrats we're about to profile.

10. Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): Manchin, perhaps the most conservative senator in the caucus, definitely sticks hard right on social issues, despite his fellow senators' recent switches on the issue.  Manchin is one of the few Democrats who still supports DOMA, in fact, so don't expect him to switch any time soon.

9. Sen. Mark Pryor (AR): There's a solid possibility that Pryor won't be in office come January 2015, considering the difficulties facing Democrats in the Natural State.  That's actually a much more likely outcome than the conservative Democrat endorsing gay marriage.  Pryor is not the liberal that his father was, and I doubt this is going to happen for a long time, if ever.


8. Sen. Tim Johnson (SD): If Sen. Johnson was going to come out for gay marriage, he would have done it yesterday in his retirement announcement.  In conservative South Dakota, with his son likely running for public office (perhaps even his own seat) next year, Sen. Johnson is not going to enter the political fray with little to be gained from taking a liberal, unpopular-with-his-constituents position.

7. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL): I put Sen. Nelson so low not because he doesn't make sense on paper to support gay marriage (a three-term senator from a purple state who just won reelection seems like a very obvious candidate), but because he wasn't part of the avalanche of supporters yesterday.  Though he could declare soon, his silence on the matter (he did make a public statement indicating that the courts would be ruling on the matter) means he probably won't be announcing anything soon.

6. Sen. Kay Hagan (NC): This is the point where I think we could theoretically see some movement, but not for a couple of years.  Sen. Hagan has a fairly strong gay rights record (she came out against the gay marriage ban initiative in 2012 in North Carolina, she supported the repeal of DADT), and I suspect she supports gay marriage privately (in fact, considering the huge amount of senators that supported gay marriage yesterday, I suspect that the entire caucus, with the possible exception of Manchin, Pryor, and possibly Number Two on this list privately support gay marriage), but with a tight reelection coming up in 2014, she won't come out for it until after she wins (in a similar fashion to Sens. Kaine, McCaskill, and Tester in recent days).  Gay marriage enthusiasts should not take this as an opening to primary Kay Hagan, however; though it's disappointing the senator doesn't back gay marriage, we're not going to have a stronger ally in that seat than her, and should be working our tails off to make sure she gets re-elected next year.

5. Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA): I put Sen. Landrieu one seat above Sen. Hagan, only because she has a couple of additional terms under her belt and that may give her more credence to come out in support of gay marriage.  Otherwise she's in the same boat as Sen. Hagan-a solid resume on GLBT issues, while not quite at the legalizing gay marriage stage, but I suspect she'll get there come 2015, hopefully as a reelected senator (because, again, we're not going to do better than Sen. Landrieu in Louisiana).


4. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (ND); Another red state senator, a slightly different song.  While Sen. Heitkamp did just win reelection, she hasn't established her moderate credentials quite yet on other issues in order to come out publicly for gay marriage (she's been elusive on staking a position, which always leaves an opening for her to come out in support, however).  I suspect that she'll be joining the chorus soon enough (particularly if the Supreme Court gives a particularly favorable decleration later this year), but for now, I don't suspect her to come out in favor.

3. Sen. Joe Donnelly (IN): The two reasons I put Sen. Donnelly ahead of Sen. Heitkamp is that Sen. Donnelly has a House record and is slightly more established as a member of Congress than Sen. Heitkamp (he was in the House for three terms before winning his Senate seat) and because he promised yesterday an announcement.  I would be stunned if he didn't switch his position by the end of his term, but am not sure when during the term he will do it.

2. Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (PA): Unlike a lot of senators on this list, I sometimes wonder if the socially conservative, fiscally liberal Sen. Casey (a rare breed in the Senate) isn't in fact truly against gay marriage.  Either way, in a relatively blue state like Pennsylvania, it's foolish to think he won't eventually switch this position, even if he has personal reservations, as this will likely become an issue in Democratic primaries in the future, especially when there are myriad more liberal alternatives.

1. Sen. Tom Carper (DE): The oddest person on this list, Sen. Carper is a blue state Democrat with remarkable reelection numbers (he just won with 66% of the vote) and with this exception, has a consistently  

strong gay rights record.  My hunch is that, despite being a three-term senator, former governor, and former congressman, the very low profile senator may not have been asked for his opinion yet.  I suspect this will come soon, possibly within the next month.

And those are my thoughts-what are your guesses?  Who will be the next senator to change their mind about gay marriage?

Ranting On...Ashley Judd and the Kentucky Senate Race

Ashley Judd, who became popular in the late 1990's with film roles in movies like Kiss the Girls and Double Jeopardy, is an actress that despite some awards love (she's a Golden Globe and Emmy nominee) never really got a Pretty Woman or While You Were Sleeping or Legally Blonde to cement her as an America's Sweetheart style actress, which seemed to be where she was heading (her career, during its heyday, bounced pretty solidly between romantic comedies and thrillers, making her on-par stylistically with Sandra Bullock).

While she hasn't given up on acting in recent years, success hasn't been as forthcoming (her Emmy-nominated work in Missing doesn't count since it was never intended to be a miniseries, despite its latter designation).  Instead, she's used her millions and her celebrity to highlight causes special to her heart, and unlike a lot of celebrities who write a check and occasionally show up for a televised fundraiser, she's walked the walk, travelling the globe fighting AIDS, poverty, and giving more opportunities to women.  Really admirable work, and if the Academy ever gets over its aversion to giving out Honorary Oscars to women, she'd be a fine recipient someday of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

However, when it comes to her latest venture, I have to admit to being quite leery.  Ms. Judd seems very intent on running for the U.S. Senate against Mitch McConnell, and in recent days has basically said as much while hitting the campaign trail.  Liberals are cheering at the thought of someone taking down the Senate Minority Leader, and with her natural charisma and 100% name recognition, there are some attributes in Judd's corner to make the case for her running.

However, those attributes are nothing when you compare them with the unfortunate negatives that come with her candidacy.  For starters, while the Judds have a strong Kentucky background, she's been living in Tennessee for years, which gives the impact of a carpetbagger mentality that has sunk candidates before (why she doesn't primary Jim Cooper, since she's likely in his district, is beyond me as that's a safe House seat and Cooper is way too conservative to represent it).  In addition to this, Judd's politics just don't mesh well with a conservative state like Kentucky-candidates like Al Franken, probably the best recent comparison one can make to Judd, win because they happen to be running in blue states.  Al Franken wouldn't have stood a prayer somewhere like Kentucky; you need someone like a Heidi Heitkamp or a Joe Manchin to win a red state as a Democrat-someone who can connect with voters while also toeing the moderate line.  Ashley Judd is way, WAY to liberal (god love her) to be able to win in a red state.

I wouldn't have this much to say if it weren't for one other factor.  If Ashley Judd were running in Wyoming or Utah, I'd say great, have at it-maybe we'll get the other side distracted enough that we'll be able to get them to spend money that could go to more pivotal races like South Dakota or North Carolina.  However, Kentucky is not an impossible race to win for the Democrats, we just need the right candidate-though it's hardly competitive on a presidential level, Mitch McConnell won his last race by just six-points, the state has a (conservative) Democratic governor, and when an incumbent has a 37% approval rating, that's a recipe for a victory if the Democrats have the right candidate, and can create the perfect storm.  The Democrats have that candidate too: Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, who won an open seat race four years ago by over 20-points (better than any other Democrat that year, and better than almost every statewide bid by Mitch McConnell).  Now, running for Secretary of State isn't the same thing as running for the Senate, but those numbers are too impressive not to want to court her for the seat.

So, Ashley, while I admire you lighting a fire in this race, and would be 100% behind you running in a more liberal backyard, please take a pass and endorse Grimes for the Senate in 2014.  The causes you are espousing are going to do a lot more good with a Democrat in this seat than a Republican, and that's a circumstance you just can't deliver.

Ranting On...NBC

For this week's "Ranting On," I felt compelled to write about the continued collapse of the peacock.  NBC, once the home of Cheers, Friends, Seinfeld, and Frasier, a ratings powerhouse that had the Today Show reign supreme and the Tonight Show was king of late night, has fallen so far that it is now win fifth place to Univision.  So the question is, why did this happen, how can they fix it, and what the hell is going on with them mixing up the one thing that's actually succeeding?

That thing, of course, is that they are still the reigning champs in late night.  It seems bizarre with their morning show consistently losing to Good Morning America and the bottom falling out on their broadcast shows that the channel is focusing on removing Jay Leno, a consistent ratings powerhouse even if he's not a critical success.

Of course, if you paid attention 3-4 years ago, you know this isn't the first time that Jay Leno has been the center of a huge problem for NBC.  When Conan O'Brien became the host of The Tonight Show, and Leno, initially rumored for FOX, moved to the 9:00 time slot (I'm central time zone-adjust as needed for your particular coast) five nights a week, absolutely no one was happy.  This caused a messy, nasty feud in the media, with Leno persistently airing NBC's dirty laundry in his monologues (again, shades of the present), and O'Brien's ratings consistently falling to his CBS competitor David Letterman.  After less than a year of this uncomfortable back-and-forth, Conan got a massive settlement, and Jay returned to The Tonight Show.

What this move cost NBC wasn't just a year's worth of ratings in the late night wars.  For that year, four prime-time slots that could have served as launching pads for NBC (plus Friday, theoretically) were taken up by Jay Leno, and if there's a massive problem in NBC's ratings dilemma, it's a lack of proper prime-time identity, due to years of trying an "anything-that-sticks" sort of approach.  CBS is the home of the cop show (NCIS, CSI) and the broad, studio audience sitcoms (The Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men).  ABC has long been the home of female-oriented shows like Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives, and FOX has cultivated hipper, younger-oriented shows like New Girl, Glee, and Animation Domination Sundays.

The thing about these channels is that while they consistently prop up their tent poles (think Grey's/The Bachelor, CSI/NCIS, and American Idol), they also are constantly trying to add and cultivate something new for their audience.  Shows like Once Upon a Time, Revenge, and particularly Scandal have given ABC a new generation of buzz and female-oriented shows to replace departing Desperate Housewives and Private Practice.  CBS has added to its crime/broad comedy block with shows like Elementary and recent comedies 2 Broke Girls and Mike & Molly.

NBC, on the other hand, doesn't have a proper identity.  After its many yuppie sitcoms like Frasier, Friends, and Seinfeld, and its hard-boiled, critically-acclaimed dramas like Homicide, ER, and Law & Order went off the air, NBC seemed to be stuck in a "throw it against the wall, let's see what fits" sort of situation.  Sometimes it seemed to be signing on for quirky, critically-acclaimed sitcoms, but as The Office tended to do strongly, it was apparent that NBC didn't understand the critically-acclaimed aspect of this element, because for every Community, Parks and Recreation, and 30 Rock, there seemed to be a half-dozen Whitneys and 1600 Penns stinking up their lineup.  NBC also seems constantly intent on moving its entire lineup around the globe.  Even in this age of TiVo, people like to know what night their favorite shows will be on television, but for a show with potential like Community, moving it consistently away from shows that match well with it (like The Office, 30 Rock) is going to cost you those viewers that were just tasting it and hadn't invested in it yet.  And finally, NBC seemed to jump the gun too quickly with some of its shows that may have needed a while to cultivate an audience, axing a show like Southland, which had so much potential, and shipping it off to TNT, where it's entering its fifth season.

Another major problem for NBC is that when something does work (Smash, potentially Revolution), they don't know how to use the hit.  With Smash, for example, they had a respectable hit on their hands, but as a result, they thought they could go off the air for seven months, when in reality most un-established shows can't suddenly come back from the seven month gap-they can only take the three month gap during the Summer.  When your fans are as a cult-loyal as Lost, Game of Thrones, or 24, you can come back at any point and people will show up, but a first-season show has never hit that sort of level with the audience.  They are oddly doing the same thing with Revolution right now, as it's been off the air for months at a time when it's still establishing its crucial fan base.  Granted, it could end up in the same class as Lost or 24, but it's not there yet.

Lastly, when the other networks stumble across a hit that doesn't necessarily fit with the rest of its shows (for example, Lost on ABC or Bones on FOX, both of which seemed more in-tune with FOX and CBS, respectively), they don't reinvent their entire identity to adapt to it.  The Voice was once a fun, fresh show with a solid chemistry, but if you'd look at NBC now with their reaction to it, you'd be stunned that they have any other shows on their network-seriously, they advertise it every commercial break, and it totally overpowers the rest of their lineup.  NBC has always had this problem-remember how often Dateline used to be on the channel, and looking at their lineup for next week, they will be airing three separate hours of SVU in primetime, only one of which is original?  If they're trying to cultivate an identity (and in this age of a thousand channels, it's a necessity), they can't reinvent themselves when they stumble across a hit.  By all means, embrace it (like ABC with Lost and Bones on FOX), as a hit is a hit is a hit, but don't forget your core audience in the process.

So, to get back to the task at hand, as we've stumbled across a large diatribe at NBC, canning Jay Leno is not the answer unless you have a complete, total goal for your future.  During this article I've tried brainstorming what sort of niche NBC could land itself into, and I'll admit I'm having trouble (if it was easy, we'd all be television executives), but I will say that it starts with realizing that if you're winning, don't take your top player out of the game if he's willing to stick around.  I am by all means not a fan of Jay Leno (I prefer David Letterman, who is smarter and overall an odd fit for CBS considering his persistent critical acclaim, but again, that's an example of a channel not losing its identity because something works, and I in particular prefer Jon Stewart), but there is no arguing with his consistency.  When Conan left, despite his hemorrhaging viewers to CBS, Leno got them back and went back to winning his time slot.  NBC may be worried about Jimmy Fallon moving, but unlike Conan, that seems very unlikely-Fallon has strong roots with the network, as does producer Lorne Michaels, and where is Jimmy going to go?  FOX has had ample opportunity to create a late night show that works, and yet never has, and without a ratings guarantee like Leno, probably wouldn't invest.  Letterman is an institution over at CBS, and Jimmy Kimmel continues to itch up as the It Boy of late night television.  Fallon was not at risk of moving off of NBC, so why not fix your morning show (Matt Lauer has become too toxic for such light-hearted news after the Ann Curry debacle, and probably needs to go in favor of someone like Anderson Cooper), and your primetime broadcast (I think NBC's best bet at this point would be to invest some money and to take some creative risks, trying to pitch to the critics for a while and see what takes off, rather than invest in comfort food losers like 1600 Penn).  Leaving Jay Leno alone makes the most sense, and though he seems obnoxious (seriously, he's making this issue ten times worse, and the man has more money than God, so it's not like he should be hugely complaining), as I said above a hit is a hit is a hit, and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, despite its faults, is one of the few NBC still has left in the pen.

Darren Criss + Oscar Trivia = Marry Me Please!

I don't always catch Kathy Griffin's (whom I adore) talk show, but last night she had my beloved Darren Criss on, so I couldn't miss it.

And I have to say, I didn't think I could love Darren Criss more, but when Kathy was trying to stump him by asking what Lily Tomlin was nominated for an Oscar for, and he responded, matter-of-factly, "Nashville, and she lost to Shampoo," my heart fluttered.  Curly-haired, voice-of-an-angel with the crazy amazing hazel eyes knows Oscar trivia?  You can't even fathom the smile that brings to my face.  Just for fun, below is a picture with Lily in her Oscar dress, and two of Darren, just because.

Don't you just love Lily Tomlin-how many people wear a tiara to the Oscars?

Glee: Guilty Pleasures (#4.17)

It's been a rough life in the real world (when it rains, it pours, and it's been a monsoon lately), so I needed someone to step up to the plate.  I noticed that The Office, one of my favorite comfort shows, was in a rerun tonight, and so the task to cheer me up fell to Glee, a show I have a complicated love/hate relationship with which meant it needed to take a serious turn into the love direction, particularly considering that there have been so few stories for me to latch onto this year.  I was even willing to watch it live-that's how much I required my show to turn out right.  Thankfully, Ryan Murphy and gang must have been psychic, as this has to be one of my favorite episodes in eons.

Seriously, from start-to-finish, I can't remember anything that I didn't love about it.  It included almost every single one of my Glee checklist items: Fondue for Two!  Blaine and Sam, together!  Santana and Kurt, together!  Songs from Broadway musicals!  No Matthew Morrison!

I will start out with someone who is becoming my guilty pleasure: Kitty.  Listen, I'm aware that her character is a bevy of contradictions, and she's like the love child that Santana and Quinn's tryst a few weeks ago produced.  But she's also quick with the wit, and if she becomes the eye-rolling, voice-of-the-audience that we need on this show (we all were thinking Tina had taken the guilty pleasure thing to an extreme by dressing as that robot chick, and if that was a real show, I'd never heard of it, no), I think everyone can appreciate that.  Her comments about Lord Tubbington, her slow embrace of her fellow NDers, are all signs of solid character growth.  I'd love it if she started making fun of the other students more because she's fighting her natural instincts than out of true bullying-it'd be a solid, Santana-like improvement.

Speaking of Santana, she was on fire tonight, wasn't she?  I love the idea, again, of them getting along in that apartment.  They have known each other as friends for so long-we don't need to constantly have them regress.  Santana had told Kurt, but not Rachel, about Brody's expensive side dalliances, and while Kurt was trying to spare Rachel's feelings, I think Santana interjecting that Brody was a hooker was important if Rachel was thinking about getting back together with him-I mean, presumably she's having safe sex, but sleeping with a prostitute carries risks aside from just pregnancy, if you know what I mean (and you do).  Rachel seems done with Brody for good, and hopefully she'll focus more on that upcoming Funny Girl tryout instead of finding her next hunky boyfriend.  I want ambitious Rachel Berry back please, not just the one who needs a man to feel complete.  Remember the treadmill and the Tony Award?  You don't get a Tony Award singing in the shower.

Of course, let's not entirely rule out men, though, as then you'll start dating a fake arm.  Listen, I love that Kurt named his new "boyfriend" Bruce (kudos to that writer), but the fake arm was just a teensy bit creepy.  This goes from guilty pleasure to something you should actually feel guilty about, but Kurt sells it.  Though, did he break up with the cute British guy (did I miss that?)?  Because if not, there's a proper set of arms you could be utilizing there.

The Spice Girls tribute has been a long time in coming, and while it was probably a number we had dreamed once upon a time would be performed by Quinn, Brittany, Rachel, Mercedes, and Tina, every single one of the new girls sold it, especially Kitty (inspired putting her as Ginger Spice, even with the blonde hair).  And while the Bobby Brown thing could be a little bit in bad taste, they did it in a way that included the (admittedly classic) "My Prerogative" without condoning his rocky status in pop culture.  And boy, did Chris Brown (whom I detest) get it from the Glee writers tonight-dump his ass, Rihanna!

And finally, I have to end with one of the sweetest plots that the show has given us all season-the emerging friendship and crush of Blaine on Sam has been brought back and forth all season, but tonight it came full force, as Blaine, after teaming up to sing Wham! with Sam, was clearly singing about the blond adonis when he took on Phil Collins.  While I've been in roughly this exact situation before (every gay guy has-it's kind of a rite of passage having a crush on one of your straight guy friends), the result was roughly what you'd expect.  Sam, after joking about how good-looking he was, said he didn't have a problem with the situation, and that their friendship would just get deeper as a result.  Now, in real life this would eventually end slightly badly if the crush didn't actually go away, but I feel like this was a solid resolution to this story, and we got to see both Chord Overstreet and Darren Criss hit a bevy of excellent notes and show their range as actors.

All-in-all, this was a home run (I didn't even mind that we basically skipped the catfish story, though that better be resolved soon-could it be someone from a competing school, perhaps?).  What are your thoughts?  Are you disappointed that Blam didn't turn into a legit couple?  Do you love the Santana addition to the NYC stories?  And are you as proud as I am that I did the recap the same night as the episode instead of a week later?

Favorite Broadway Memories

Playbill regularly does a feature where they ask different members of the theater community to reflect on their favorite performances and theater-going moments through the years.  Though I don't get to genuflect on it as much as I do on film, television, and politics (all of those passions being readily available), I have a complete and total love of Broadway and the theater.  I used to live in NYC, and though I don't live there anymore (my heart is always lost there, though, somewhere near the Ravine in Central Park), I do travel out there twice a year and partake in 4-5 shows (I've already got this spring's tickets, and could not be more excited).  In my Playbill binder, I've hit some thirty Broadway plays, which I think is a strong enough roster to be able to pull something together.  In no particular order, here are some of my favorite Broadway memories:

Mark Rylance, Jerusalem

I cannot quite tell you what I was thinking when I decided to randomly buy a ticket to this play-War Horse was destined to win more Tony Awards, but for some reason I decided to spend one of my last Sunday afternoons in New York partaking in an actor I admittedly hadn't heard of before.  Lo and behold, it was a night and an experience I'll never forget-all actors essentially become their characters, it's their job.  Rylance was doing something else entirely; over the course of the (quite long) play, he brought me on stage with this rough-and-tumble man, so that when, by the play's end, he begins summoning the giants, you almost feel as if they were going to rumble through the stage, brought to life by his sheer magnitude.  A performance for the ages.

Audra McDonald, The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess

One of my most prized possessions is a photo I have with Ms. McDonald after this play-I was totally smitten by her Bess, and that voice.  The cliche is that it's one in a million, but in Audra's case, it's more like 1 in 7 billion.  There is literally no one else in the world who can do what she can do.  The fifth Tony Award was a start, but it wasn't enough.  They should have given her a Nobel Prize or a unicorn or something.

The Book of Mormon

Easily the funniest, best production I've ever seen on Broadway, original or revival, play or musical.  Trey Parker and Matt Stone started on all cylinders and wouldn't let go-I was lucky enough to see this with the original cast, before Andrew Rannells became a big TV star (though I wish he'd go back to playing Elijah rather than staying on the increasingly preachy The New Normal).  The musical manages to be the smartest kind of offensive, poking fun at nearly everyone, and mining laughs in every single song.  A triumph from beginning to end.

The Phantom of the Opera

I saw this for the first time in London's West End when I was seventeen, and it was like having a childhood dream come true.  I grew up in a rural community, and my one introduction to Broadway was my cousin's Phantom of the Opera CD which I had memorized by the time I saw the play.  This was the musical that made me an eternal devotee to the theater.

Steve Kazee, Once

I wasn't entirely expecting much when I went into this one-yes, it had just swept the Tony Awards, but there was no way it could be as lyrical and beautiful as the film it was based upon, and so it was a last choice amongst my plays that fall.  And overall, while I didn't like the changes to the book (too many cheap jokes, and the side characters added little), Steve Kazee's troubadour poet was just stunning.  Before the show, they let you stand on the stage briefly, and I stood up there for a second at the same time as Kazee, and his performance made me feel like I'd never left.

Topol, Fiddler on the Roof

He'd done it a thousand times at that point, but seeing Topol appear on-stage, I had one of those surreal, out-of-body experiences where you feel like you're dreaming and have suddenly landed in one of your favorite movies.  It's the only time I've seen two standing ovations in the middle of a play (once when he entered, and once at the end of "If I Were a Rich Man").  To get to see him in his farewell tour, knowing what he had done with this role-I well up still just thinking about it.

"Anything Goes," Anything Goes

Everything in this play was top drawer, but it was the title song, with the incomparable Sutton Foster at the lead, that had me in awe.  Every tap, step, hop, and note was like a Swiss watch-beautiful, perfect precision and completely memorable.  The standing ovation afterwards was totally deserved.

"Don't Cry for Me Argentina," as sung by Ms. Patti LuPone

Listen, I saw the Ricky Martin/Elena Roger production of Evita, and the only thing worth mentioning from it is Michael Cerveris.  Thankfully, I had my proper moment with Ms. Peron when I saw Patti LuPone in Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda and she, after a typicaly sassy Patti anecdote, flung her arms in the air, was greeted by adoring, rapturous applause, and belted out the song she was born to sing.

The Mystery of Edwin Drood

The final play on this list earns its spot through sheer joy-is there a more entertaining, thrilling way to spend an evening than a mystery, tons of audience jokes (this play lives or dies off of audience participation), and of course a beautiful songbook?  I challenge there is not, and throwing Chita Rivera, Jessie Mueller, and Will Chase in with completely game work keeps this play on its toes.

Glee: Feud (#4.16)

I love that the Glee kids just gave Will and Finn an assignment-it shows who is actually in charge here. They're feuding, and have to sing a rival song to make up their differences.  Novel concept-I'm excited where this theme takes us, mashup-wise.

And Rachel isn't pregnant-whew!  Though I suspect this means that her boy toy is about to be outed as a gigolo.

And I am right-he's definitely a prostitute.  Or else he's taking part in a bizarre flashmob in a hotel.  And anyone else notice that every single one of these "clients" are very attractive?

Blaine's middle name is Devon?  Love it-too cute.  And that may be the first Sue line I've laughed at all season-"Lance Bass, RuPaul?"

This girl is most definitely not a girl named Katie.  The question is it Wade, Kitty, or Jake?  It's one of the three though.  Glee never found a trend it couldn't jump on, and catfishing is very hot right now...

Umm, Matthew Morrison-you cannot pull off tough guy.  Cory Monteith could wipe the floor with you.

Rachel, sweetheart, if a cater waiter could make $1200 in that short of a time, there would be more of them living in the Upper East and not in Weehawken.

OMG-best line reading of the night, after seeing the "Blaine is on the bottom" banner-"it's not even true...well, not really."

No, Marley, Jake doesn't trust you, honestly, because you totally cheated on him.  It takes two to make out.

Elton John and Madonna for our first feud, and unlike Will, I'm going to pick winners in each song (Ryder vs. Wade).  And I have to point out the irony in singing Elton John in a story that seems to be turning into another GLBT-phobia story.  Ryder wins vocally, but since he's being painted into the bigoted corner, Ryan Murphy clearly wants us to pick Wade.  And I hate to point out inconsistency on Glee (that's like pointing out the calories in a Cadbury egg), but if you look at the last episode, Wade and Ryder totally danced together in the "Footloose" number, making this feud completely unrealistic.  But I am 100% convinced that Wade is Katie now.

Paula Abdul and Santana-together in crazy heaven.

Ha ha-too funny. Will discusses doing Tupac and Biggie, but decides instead to do 'N Sync vs. the Backstreet Boys.  Oh god, someone in the writing room really hates Matthew Morrison.  And while 'N Sync was my favorite of the two in real life, the BBs took this one.

I love the disgust in Kurt's voice when he said "Paula Abdul song."  And any call-out for Lena Dunham is worthy of another Golden Globe, so brava (lurve that girl).

"Pretty sure she just stole my comforter." "Bitch just took my pillow"  Classic.

Sending shirtless pics-how many girls ask that in an IM conversation?  Catfish, catfish, catfish!

The locker freak-out was a bit pathetic, but Jane Lynch most definitely deserved to win that mashup.

Kitty seems to be officially coming around to being a Quinn-type, which means she could also be the catfish.  Either way, glad she's starting to come around, cause my love/hate relationship with her is losing the hate steadily.

Seriously-opening a scene with a shot of Blaine's butt?  Does Darren Criss have an objectification clause in his contract or something?  I mean, there are worse things for me to see, but still.

Does the Glee club have a contract with Delta or something?  How can everyone afford all these trips to NYC?

Wow, so we're getting an actual fight now?  See, I told you that Cory Monteith would win that fight.

And that's where we leave it-it's either Jake or Wade on the other end of that catfish, and my hunch based on the previews is that it's now Jake, rather than Wade.  And also, Sam and Blaine?  Is this really happening?!?  I can't wait to see...Glee!

Glee: Girls (and Boys) on Film (#4.15)

After a weekend of kicking off a new feature (check out Ranting On...), and adding two more OVP movies to the lineup, don't think I've forgotten that I'm two weeks behind on Glee recaps.  Here, we're going to enjoy back-to-back live watch blogs of both episodes, starting with this, the 500th musical performance.  Where last we left off, Will was abandoned at the alter, literally everyone on the show hooked up, Rachel might have been pregnant, and a reunion could be in order for Kurt and Blaine.  And that's what you missed on...Glee!

Will and Emma are doing their best Fred Astaire in Royal Wedding.  Adorable-though not the Oscar-nominated song from that flick.

That really was not a great Nic Cage impression Sam-I gotta admit it.  And Kitty gets perhaps the best bitchy line of the night, and we're only two minutes in, "you don't get dibs on Les Miz just because you are the poster," to Marley-snap.  And kudos to Sugar for her line as well "we should do The Artist so we don't have to sing."  At some point, they have to give Sugar a plot line again.

We live in a hugely digital age and you work in the same building-it can't be that hard to find Emma, Will-isn't it weird that the two of you have no mutual adult friends?  And I agree with Finn-it's time for you to take action.  And also, I have trouble believing that a bunch of 18-year-olds have heard of The Crying Game and Stand and Deliver.

"Wind Beneath My Wings," by Beaches?  They should just start having Marley dress as Debbie Downer and make it complete.

"Shout," seems like a solid choice for the 500th song, but couldn't they have found a reason to bring back Rachel, Santana, and Kurt to also get to join in on such a historic performance?  And with his manic dancing, Darren Criss keeps getting more adorable-proving that the impossible is possible.

Are you serious?  Why would you not want Santana everywhere you live?  Did I miss something on the pregnancy thing-does Santana know or was that just a winking coincidence?  And it's a movie show, so they had to get the requisite John Hughes callout there (with yet another movie I suspect people the character's ages wouldn't know, though it's Kurt, so I'm going to let that one slide, as he's always been pretty up-to-snuff with his pop culture references).  Not to be rude, but at some point television producers need to pick another director to hero-worship.

Blaine and Kurt montage to Moulin Rouge!-get out of my dreams and get Darren Criss into my car, Ryan Murphy, as I'm fairly certain I had this on my Christmas list (except I was played by Kurt and it was slightly less G-rated).  And while they're having their cinematic moment, can I just acknowledge the hypocrisy on Kurt's part hiding that he and Blaine cheated while he's still dating the British dude (name to be determined at some point).  Please tell me someone's going to point that out?

Lars and the Real Boy?  Classic.

So, they're going to be going with Brody as a drug-dealer instead of a prostitute?  Slightly less intriguing possibility-I think they've already done the drug story, and if they are going to heavy drugs, shouldn't it be with someone we have a more important connection with like Rachel or Quinn?

Red hair club...umm, we're just not going to talk until the commercial.  And does anyone else always think of Donny Most and the bit they did on Family Guy rather than his Happy Days time?  Though I do like when they throw a splash on reality-you're supposed to figure that out when you're a Junior.

Kurt and Santana on the same side-perfect.

I think this show may have become just a platform to put Darren Criss in sexy costumes.  Air pilot-awesome.  And Sam, Ryder, and Jake in their Risky Business best-I need a...commercial break.  Yeah.  A cold shower commercial break.

For the record, Will would be completely get fired for letting his students parade around in their underwear, even if they are all in their twenties in real life.  And I hate that they always have the "I Like Boys" t-shirt worn by a girl in the advertisements, as that totally defeats the original purpose of the t-shirt when Kurt wore it.

Marley, you kind of deserve whatever is coming for confessing to your archnemesis Kitty that you kissed Ryder.  I mean, who does that?

Isn't this number kicking Smash and its plummeting ratings while they're very, very down?  And another Moulin Rouge! number?  What a coincidence that seems incredibly unlikely since these characters were in elementary school when this movie came out.  And the boys win for not totally ripping off another movie's mashup.

Doesn't Will teach Spanish?  Why are they watching Lincoln?

Hasn't this Say Anything thing been done to death?  Please, there must be another movie to spoof at this point.  I know that John Cusack hasn't done much of worth since then (except The Grifters, but that was all about the Huston and Bening), but come on, do we need to keep pulling out this cliche?

Wait, I think I just fell asleep-did Will and Emma break up or get back together?

A real moment between Santana and Rachel-no jokes.  Just sad about where this story is going to head.

Okay, Ghost is not my favorite movie by a longshot, but "Unchained Melody" is easily my favorite song of all time, so again, no jokes, just enjoy.

The lip-synching was off on that song, but that song always makes me cry.  I am bound and determined to fall in love to that song.  2013: Year of John...or Penny!  And no one in the world can hit that note like Bobby Hatfield, so it's okay they didn't even try.

I agree with Blaine-why did everyone win?  That sucks-this is the reason I can't stand Will.  He's such a wimp-just declare one of them the winner (in this case the boys).  Has anyone ever won one of these boy/girl competitions?

So Finn confesses, and Will just walks away.  Kind of saw that coming.

And they end with yet another movie to the 1980's-Ryan Murphy, Seth MacFarlane, and a thousand other show-runners, you are aware that film hits its nadir, not its zenith during the Reagan era, right?  The show ends with Jake looking longingly at Ryder.  And we'll be back in about an hour with the next installment of...Glee!

OVP: The Way Back (2010)

Film: The Way Back (2010)
Stars: Jim Sturgess, Colin Farrell, Ed Harris, Saoirse Ronan, Mark Strong
Director: Peter Weir
Oscar History: 1 nomination
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Peter Weir have long been a part of the Oscar tradition.  With six Oscar nominations himself, and three Best Picture nominees amongst his credits (and one film that was almost certainly in sixth place), he may not have a statue, but his films are most certainly an event of which to take note.  After his Master and Commander received ten nominations, he waited seven years to make another picture, The Way Back.  While it's always good to have a director of distinction behind the camera, I will admit freely that I was a bit disappointed that it didn't hit some of the heights he had previously hit with some of his best-loved pictures.

(Spoilers commence now) The Way Back takes place during the 1940's, where Stalin has imprisoned those who opposed his regime in Siberian work camps, and our main character, Janusz (Sturgess), has been wrongly imprisoned there.  An optimist, and one of great moral character, he first latches onto Khabarov (Strong) a man whom he is certain will be able to get him out, and talks a good game about how to get to Lake Baikal, and then onto Mongolia, where they will be free.

However, Khabarov has been there for years, and is simply using Janusz to feed his delusional hope.  Instead, when Janusz tries to leave, Khabarov resists, and is clearly intent to stay there forever.  So Janusz assembles a set of five other men, including a mysterious American named Mr. Smith (Harris) and a live wire scoundrel, Valka (Farrell), to make the long journey from Siberia, and eventually, as we learn, to India.

Peter Weir's films rely heavily on the subtle, and he's not one to make easy, cliched choices with his movie, and it's worth noting that the film doesn't run into a large number of hackneyed roadblocks that other, lesser directors would throw in for the audience.  For example, while Valka remains true to his seedy ways, he never once betrays the men he is traveling with, and the film doesn't spend time cutting back to the Siberian guards trying to track them down (since, quite frankly, they wouldn't have).  Instead, we are treated to some stunning visuals of this largely untouched-by-man land, and the perils that nature has in-store for our journeymen.

Along the way, they encounter a young girl Irena (Ronan), who, after some resistance from Mr. Smith (who, in one of the few admittedly cliched moments, softens his reserve to her despite an initially crusty reaction), joins their group.  They also learn, at the Mongolian border, that the country has also become Communist, and so the group must travel all the way to India to ensure their freedom.

The film is at its best in the largely wordless, man-encountering-nature scenes.  Despite strong actors like Harris, Ronan, and Farrell, no one seems to be doing terrificly heavy-lifting, acting-wise, even if they are taking on an incredibly physical undertaking.  Like Master and Commander, Weir tries to make the story the focus, but this film doesn't have the inherent gravitas to carry it like that film did (and admittedly, I was less than impressed by Master and Commander to begin with-my favorite Weir film so far is surely The Truman Show).  The movie never quite gets its proper balance, defining its characters' intentions, instead focusing on survival over character development.  It pays off when it needs to (the film is impressive when we encounter a new climate, whether it be taiga, desert, or the majestic Himalayas), but it doesn't give us enough time knowing the characters to make the film's ultimate reunion between Janusz and his wife meaningful.

The film received a sole Oscar nomination (an incredibly low count for an Academy-favorite like Weir), that of Best Makeup.  It's an odd nomination, not because the Makeup isn't fine (it is), but because it's a lot more subtle than the Academy is used to in this category-the Makeup falls largely into the background, and while it shows the slow deterioration of our characters, it also doesn't pop in the way the Academy usually gravitates toward with their fondness for prosthetics and old-age makeup.

And that's a wrap for The Way Back-as I mentioned yesterday, just a handful of films left until we do the big 2010 extravaganza, but in the meantime-what did you think of The Way Back?  Do you have a favorite in the filmography of Peter Weir?  Do you think Weir (or one of his favorites, 4-time nominee Ed Harris) will ever get an Oscar?  And what are your thoughts on the Best Makeup of 2010?

OVP: Salt (2010)

Film: Salt (2010)
Stars: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Daniel Olbrychski, August Diehl
Director: Phillip Noyce
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Sound Mixing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Angelina Jolie is a star that Hollywood knew was special, but I don't think 100% knew what to do with when she arrived on their doorsteps a little over a decade ago.  Hauntingly beautiful, terrific voice, charisma coming out her eyes (and lips), she was clearly destined to be a movie star, but there wasn't really a genre that fit her.  Sure, she could do dramas, but, despite her six (I think it's still there-I haven't read In Touch magazine in a while) children, she doesn't read super maternal onscreen (when we get to the OVP for Changeling, hopefully soon, we'll discuss how that seemed like a bit of a miss).  Comedies aren't really her forte, and romantic comedies even less so (who is going to believe anyone would turn this woman down for five seconds, let alone a two-hour movie?).  No, after her Oscar-winning turn in Girl, Interrupted, it seemed she was best suited for action films.  Which is great (Sigourney Weaver broke a lot of ground there and created an iconic character), but it's sad that, as a whole, her action films lack any sort of filmic worth.

Yes, I will acknowledge the wild fun of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and no, I haven't seen Wanted (though we'll be discussing that one as well when we get to 2008 in the OVP, which is only 25 films away), but Lara Croft and its sequel, The Tourist, and now Salt all leave something greatly to be desired (spoilers to come, but if you didn't see them coming in the film, you really should watch more movies).

The film tells the tale of a woman, Evelyn Salt (a clunky moniker if I ever heard one) a CIA operative, who has fallen in love with a man (it's not really important what he does, as he's really just a plot device, but he seems to collect spiders for some reason), and is desperately trying to find him, as he has been taken by someone (we don't know who until later in the film) after she's accused of being a Russian spy.  This leads to an extensive, half-the-movie chase through the streets of Washington DC as Jolie assembles makeshift bombs and finds herself jumping from semi to semi while avoiding a barrage of bullets.

All action films are a bit ridiculous (people in real life cannot possibly live through most of these things), but this film enters a different kind of ridiculous considering the body count that it assembles.  There are always casualties along the way, but ever since Taken, which hit such an extreme with its body count (essentially killing multiple, oftentimes innocent people in search of one man's daughter, without ever commenting on the carnage that's on display), it's become harder for me to really envelope myself in the story without knowing that there is a greater good in-store.  Salt takes down multiple members of the CIA and FBI in her pursuit of her husband, and when she is shown as truly being a Russian plant, that makes sense (the hero is fighting for the other side-twist!), but when it's shown that she's a double-double agent (she's actually just trying to figure out the Russian plan), it seems a bit indulgent.  The only death that is shown to be fake is that of the Russian President-what about the nameless extras that had families and loved ones that are lost along the way?

But I digress, as moral issues are not what Phillip Noyce is going for here-he's going for loud, boom, crash, and then "twist" after "twist" after "twist" (for the record, if you didn't see the Leiv Schreiber double agent thing coming from the very moment the Russian guy came in and talked about training young assassins, congratulations on seeing your first film-the script kept constantly reminding us that there were other double agents out there side from Salt, and wasn't it obviously going to be the guy who gets second billing?).  Except that even the sounds and effects were a collective yawn-yes, it's impressive that they can make all of these car chases sound so "realistic," but this is a relatively generic action film (all action films do that work), and I suspect it received this Oscar nomination because Greg P. Russell is a god amongst Sound Mixers, even if he can never pull off the actual win.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?  Did you like Salt, or do you wish Jolie would be a bit choosier when picking her action films?  Do you think Greg P. Russell should have an Oscar, and for which of his sixteen nominations? And with just five films to go for the 2010 edition of the OVP, are you as excited as I am to start discussing the 83rd Academy Awards in-depth?