Respect (2021)

Film: Respect (2021)

Stars: Jennifer Hudson, Forest Whitaker, Marlon Wayans, Audra McDonald, Marc Maron, Tituss Burgess, Mary J. Blige

Director: Liesl Tommy

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

In the past twenty years, no genre (for my money) has gotten more tired than the musical biopic.  Everyone from Ray Charles to Elton John have gotten the prestige treatment, and I get the rationale.  These are people everyone knows, with songs that they can easily exploit on the big-screen, and the movies make money.  Bohemian Rhapsody was the most successful example of this, getting a Best Picture nomination and a Fort Knox-style box office to match.  But the genre is stale, always going to the same formula with increasingly diminishing returns.  That's unfortunately the case for Respect, which is elevated by Jennifer Hudson's vocals, but an overlong story (one far too familiar) keeps an anchor around its neck the entire film.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on the early life of Aretha Franklin (Hudson).  Franklin is an interesting figure because while she's a titan, she also grew up in a prominent family in Detroit, where her father CL Franklin (Whitaker) was a well-known minister who cavorted with the politically famous (he was a friend of Martin Luther King. Jr.), and the musical alike (we see Mary J. Blige play Dinah Washington in two key scenes).  We get to see Franklin's troubled upbringing, where she had a son as early as twelve, and her struggles to make it into the music scene (all of her early records before partnering with Jerry Wexler were flops).  As the film is a musical biopic, we get a lot of time devoted to Franklin's strained marriage to songwriter Ted White (Wayans) and her later battles with alcohol.  The movie ends with her returning to her gospel roots, recording Amazing Grace, which would become the bestselling disc of Franklin's career.

Clocking in at over two hours, the film is repetitive & too long.  The film does document some of the more shocking chapters about Franklin's life, some of which might not be known to casual fans (specifically her early pregnancies), but the movie feels too predictable.  It spans only part of Franklin's life, and maybe it should've focused on a more interesting chapter?  After all, Franklin's most atypical career moves likely happened in the 1980's, when she was battling Tina Turner both in terms of getting big hits (Franklin's "Freeway of Love" going against Turner's "What's Love Got to Do With It?" for billboard supremacy), but also cementing her legacy-would she exclusively be a big hit from the 1970's, or would she have lasting power into the coming decades, particularly with Turner going for her title?  In some ways, both were true, but it's a more interesting "comeback" angle than what we get in Respect, which is a story we've heard countless times & is filmed conventionally.

Hudson's acting style is not a fit for the growing changes in Franklin's personality.  Whether it's her inability to keep up with the growing diva antics of the character, or her being too close to Franklin personally, she holds back when she should be going full throttle, making the character more complicated.  Her performance doesn't work, which is strange because she seems to understand Franklin when she sings.  This was a criticism that was levied at her for her Effie White, but I don't think it fits to the same degree, as Effie White as-written worked with Hudson's approach (only knowing how to communicate through song).  Aretha Franklin the character (and let's be real, Franklin in real life), was someone who didn't struggle to bring her voice in her later years, her public facade coming through in most interviews-there's not enough evolution here, and it places an anchor around the film.  But I have to give Hudson credit-unlike, say, Rami Malek, not only does she actually sing here, but she uses her vocals to create a connection to the audience that she simply cannot achieve in the rest of the picture.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2006)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2006)

The Nominees Were...

Adriana Barraza, Babel

Cate Blanchett, Notes on a Scandal

Abigail Breslin, Little Miss Sunshine

Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls

Rinko Kikuchi, Babel

My Thoughts: Category fraud is a big debate in the world of Oscars Twitter.  There are people that fall into a few camps about it.  There are those that are hardliners, breaking out stopwatches (which is extremely fascinating-this is not meant to disparage), and long treatises about the subject.  Others are more laissez-faire about the topic, thinking that there's nothing wrong with it and the performance's value should more fully dictate whether it should be included.  I tend to fall into the middle, perhaps a bit more to the former.  I think there are grey area performances, roles that are part of an ensemble & therefore it's hard to fault Oscar, and then there are performances where it's clearly cheating, to the point where I dock a star in the rating as a result of the performance being so completely in the wrong category.  Three performances today run the gamut between "definitely lead" and "arguably lead," and all three were among the most likely victors in 2006.

We'll start, though, with the two women that clearly weren't leads in their films, or should I say film because Babel scored the dual nomination trick in 2006.  Rinko Kikuchi is one of those two women, and does bring a bit of grace to her role as a teenage girl who is self-conscious about being deaf.  Unfortunately for Kikuchi, it feels like her character is underwritten, and she's definitely underperformed in the film, with not enough of Chieko's inner-world, and honestly this feels like Oscar honoring a baity role rather than a particularly interesting performance-we don't get enough of a sense of her isolation in relation to a unique onscreen character, and she's not very connected to the larger narrative of the story.

Adriana Barraza, though, is another story.  Her Amelia is underwritten as well (real talk: everyone in Babel is kind of underwritten-it's not a great movie), but she brings depth & emotion to it in a way that totally elevates the character and was my favorite story in the movie.  As a nanny who is illegally taking care of two children, and a woman who is forced to not attend her son's wedding due to Brad Pitt being unable to find someone else to take care of his children, she brings a truth to Amelia, giving us not just a heartbreaking look at what it's like to be illegally emigrated into the United States, but also how much of her identity is only at the discretion of two white employers who treat her with utter callousness.  A fascinating, complicated performance from Barraza.

Jennifer Hudson is not the actress that Adriana Barraza is-that's reality & borne out by some of her later work.  But sometimes actors get the roles they were born to play, and that's very much the case for her Effie White.  Hudson brings so much soul, broken hopes & dreams into Effie White when she's singing, tearing down the house with "And I Am Telling You."  Yes, there are moments in this that don't quite work (some line readings feel like Bill Condon should've given her another take), but there's so much heat & passion from Hudson's Effie that she totally makes the movie, stealing focus even when she's not onscreen.  That's sheer magnetism, and I'm a fan-I return to this performance often, and I didn't even like Dreamgirls all that much.  That being said, you could make a sincere argument that this is a lead role (I am debating it for my final My Ballot countdown)-it's hard to determine mostly because the script shifts its focus so often.  Because I can't quite decide I'm not knocking down a star, but I might still shift this when it comes to my own selections (it reminds me a lot of Jennifer Lopez in Hustlers in that it's hard to tell if it's actually a co-lead role or if Hudson/Lopez are so much more dynamic than their costars they're the only ones you pay attention toward).

Cate Blanchett, on the other hand, it's impossible to deny this is a lead role.  Not only is she in over 50% of the film, but it's very much the story of Barbara and Sheba.  I'm docking a star here for her, a performance I wasn't wild on to begin with.  It had been a while, and I wanted to revisit this movie before getting to our discussions of Blanchett & Dench, and I land a bit higher than I did when I initially saw it, though I don't hold it in the same regard others do.  Blanchett, in particular, cannot handle the abrupt pivot to gorgon lady in her penultimate showdown with Dench...Dench is also out-acting her, and giving one of the most singular performances of her career.  There's things to be mined in Sheba, particularly the way that Blanchett taps into her obsession with being young (notice how she's rarely in the company of people her own age), but it's not enough-she gets lost in the salaciousness of the plot.

Abigail Breslin, like Hudson, is probably a lead.  But again, there's enough of an ensemble feel here to make an argument that she shouldn't be in the lead category so I'm not docking her anything even if I might personally have put her in lead.  This is a pretty textbook definition of a cute performance from a plucky child in a likable movie.  I didn't really like Little Miss Sunshine, but like Babel, I understand its merits, and Breslin is one of them.  She totally sells this precocious girl, living in an atypical world and adapting to her surroundings, not yet rebelling against them.  It's always hard to tell at this age how much is performing and how much is just solid direction, but this is not one of the more objectionable nominations this category has ever produced.

Other Precursor Contenders: We saw on Monday that the precursors were all over the map on Best Supporting Actor.  The other three categories were not so lucky, and stayed relatively uniform.  The Globes went with Hudson, and the only change from Oscar's lineup was Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada) in place of Breslin, and SAG copied Oscar exactly in both winner & nominees.  The BAFTA Awards also picked Hudson, but went with a pretty off-kilter nominee lineup, as Hudson beat Breslin, Blunt, Frances de la Tour (The History Boys), and Collette.  All things considered, I have to think Blunt was in sixth place, though while that performance is well-regarded now, I assume it was a distant sixth place-this was a lineup that Oscar clearly wanted.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Blunt is one of the better-known actors working today who has never gotten a date with Oscar despite a plethora of opportunities.  It was her first foray into awards season, though, that she should've triumphed-her work in Devil Wears Prada is basically the reason to have a category like Best Supporting Actress (totally elevating a performance that otherwise could've been window dressing), and she should've been among the nominees.

Oscar’s Choice: Unlike her Dreamgirls costar, Hudson didn't have an embarrassing movie premiering during awards season, and as a result she won easily on her film debut.  In second, I suspect it was Breslin rather than a quick second trophy for Blanchett that was the runner-up.

My Choice: I'm torn, so we'll go backward.  I have Kikuchi in last, and just ahead of her is Blanchett.  Breslin is in the middle-not too good, not too bad.  For the top prize I know that Barraza is the better actor, but Hudson is giving the better work, or at least the work I'm the most drawn toward, and I'm going to give this trophy to her just as I did in 2006.  Debatable category fraud and some scenes in the  memory have not worn as well as they did when I initially gave it to her (at the time, it was a slam dunk), but I can't shake her Effie White, and think it's the best of these five performances.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Is everyone with Oscar & I on Effie White, or do you think that someone else was best-in-class?  Which of these performances was category fraud and which was just a big supporting role?  And what's it going to take to finally get Emily Blunt a nomination, or is she her generation's Mia Farrow?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2006: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2006

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019

Cats (2019)

Film: Cats (2019)
Stars: James Corden, Judi Dench, Jason Derulo, Idris Elba, Jennifer Hudson, Ian McKellen, Taylor Swift, Rebel Wilson, Francesa Hayward
Director: Tom Hooper
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

The first Broadway play I saw was Promises, Promises starring Kristin Chenoweth and Sean Hayes.  It was a magical experience, one that set off a love affair with Broadway that continues to this day (every time I go to New York, I see 4-5 shows on the stage).  But a decade before that, I got my proper introduction to high-caliber productions when I was in London, and saw Cats in the West End (I still have my Playbill, and can see it from where I'm typing this).  I loved it-Cats would not go on to be one of my favorite plays, though thanks to buying a CD of the soundtrack I know every word of it (Phantom would be the musical that would dominate my young, closeted high school years), but it has a special place in my heart as a result of its introduction for me to the world of theater.  I have no problem with its nonsensical plot and occasionally bizarre musical numbers, and was one of the few people when the trailer arrived who wasn't prone to mockery (though I did think the digital fur was a step in the wrong direction).  As a result, I was going to see this movie no matter how bad the reviews were, as I wanted to relive the magic, if that was still possible, of the first time I saw this production.

(Spoilers Ahead) The plot of Cats is at once very easy to explain and rather confusing if you start asking questions.  Essentially, a group of cats get together each year and audition for Old Deuteronomy (Dench), an aging and wise cat, for a chance to, well, die, and be reborn as a new feline.  This year we have a variety of candidates, ranging from Gus the Theatre Cat (McKellen) to Jennyanydots (Wilson) to Bustopher Jones (Corden), but the clear frontrunner for the audience is the cat-in-the-shadows Grizabella (Hudson), who is seen as a former glamour cat by all except the new cat Victoria (Hayward), who sees her potential.  However, the wicked Macavity (Elba), threatens to upend the whole operation as he slowly kidnaps all of the cats who are competing so that Old Deuteronomy will be forced to pick him as the cat that gets a new life.  In the end, Macavity is punished for his wickedness, and Grizabella is sent off to start a new adventure in the next world, while Victoria joins the rest of the "Jellicle" cats in the streets, finally finding a family.

Here's where I am going to start the contrarian reviews-I didn't hate Cats, in the same way that I didn't hate the stage play.  I know it's been long fashionable to hate the latter, something that's going to quickly become true of the former, but I don't get the vitriol.  This is weird-something like Ford vs. Ferrari is a story that's particularly dreadful.  There are fun musical numbers in this film.  Obviously there's the "Memory" showstopper from Hudson, who is generally a questionable choice as an actor but can pull off great character work through song, and does so here.  But we also have a great tap number in "Skimbleshanks" and the infectious opening "Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats," and I even liked what Jason Derulo did with "Rum Tum Tugger."  Cats is a musical that's more for dancing than it is for singing, something alien to our "park and bark" modern-era of cinematic musicals.

That said, there are definitley problems with the film.  Putting aside the bizarre sexualization of the cats, the CGI is clunky.  While there are moments (like Taylor Swift's descent during "Macavity") where the cats look pretty much perfectly in sync with the fur and their bodies, other times Jason Derulo & Francesca Hayward genuinely look like floating heads on the screen.  Any time we aren't singing we have a problem, as Wilson & Corden doing their schtick (which genuinely would work on me-I don't dislike them like Twitter seems to do) feels a bit too reliant on cat-to-human jokes and less on genuine humor.  The sound mixing is downright dreadful on a few numbers-when your orchestra is drowning out Jennifer freaking Hudson, there's a problem in the control room.  Worst of all is the direction-Hooper doesn't know how to adapt this to the real world in the way he's supposed to (this was a problem to a lesser degree with Les Miserables), and frequently it feels like a filmed play in the worst possible way.  The "Ad-Dressing of the Cats" is awful and he deserves to be on film probation for making Dame Judi Dench endure such a travesty, with her breaking the fourth wall and singing that clunky number with every audience member wondering if the film was about to end thanks to the poor pacing.

So I'm going with 2-stars.  I considered three because honestly there were moments I felt found the weird wonder of the "now and forever" Cats and I feel like the internet is being collectively unfair to the film by comparing it to a travesty like Battlefield Earth.  It's become clear that at this point every actor in this movie needs to get their agents on the phone fast and book a crowdpleaser, as this isn't just a "derided" movie, it's the kind that takes on John Travolta's career and throws it in the garbage.  But it's also not a good movie-the failings are there, even if it's not "the worst film ever made."  So should you see it?  I think it is the sort of film that should probably be seen to be believed, but if you know the stage show by heart you'll be entertained, though not surprised.

Thoughts on the Tony Nominations

Yesterday's election news was hardly good for me, but I couldn't let that deter me from getting to the Tony nominations (I would have had this article out last night, but I'm on a strict "watch a movie a day and watch The Real O'Neals live in order to help keep it on the air" plan this week-you should most definitely join me on the latter, as it's a marvelous show and I'm now on a tangent but WATCH IT).  I did very well with my predictions, so I only have three things that I really want to call out, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to discuss the theater just a wee bit:

1. Hamilton Breaks the Record...Can It Do It Twice?

Yesterday Hamilton officially made history again (the puns just write themselves this afternoon, don't they?) when it took sixteen nominations, one more than either Billy Elliot or The Producers, taking a nomination in literally every category that it was eligible for and likely setting up a mind-numbing sweep at this year's Tony Awards.  The question now is around whether or not it can break the other major Tony record: that of 12 Tony wins, which is currently held by The Producers.  It's nominated in thirteen categories, so it would have to win all of them (The Producers won in every category it was nominated for, but didn't have a female lead actress so Hamilton has the chance to break that tie up).  It seems relatively likely it could tie, but both Best Actress in a Musical (where Cynthia Erivo has to be considered a slight favorite for The Color Purple) and Choreography (where Savion Glover's magic work in Shuffle Along is going to be a fierce competitor) are both tossups at this point.  If it can take both, it seems near-certain that it would be able to be the first Broadway show ever to sweep all categories.

2. Audra McDonald and Jennifer Hudson Get Snubbed

In a seismic moment that threw most of Twitter off-guard, Audra McDonald (for the first time in her career for a musical) wasn't nominated for a Tony Award-in fact, even counting in plays the only time she's ever missed was for Henry IV.  While the Meryl Streep of Broadway took the snub with class, it's still a shock not to see McDonald's name amongst the five women nominated for Best Actress in a Musical, and kind of leaves a vacuum (that could, as I mentioned above, benefit both Erivo and Soo).  McDonald has missed a number of performances and isn't going to be with Shuffle Along for very long so the snub is understandable, but this is almost certainly the biggest shock of Tony nominations morning.

Coupling alongside that is Jennifer Hudson, who took on the Margaret Avery role in the recent revival of The Color Purple.  Hudson's name is plastered all over the poster and marquee, and it was expected by many that while her reviews weren't superb that she would end up gaining the nomination on celebrity alone.  Hudson was also making waves on Twitter yesterday with a surprise amount of candor about her lack of a nomination.  Though she quickly deleted the tweet (likely because it erupted a firestorm), celebrities should know better than to assume screenshots don't live forever, and she basically said she was only hired because of her fame, not because of her talent.  It feels like there's a lot of story there, but this does end Hudson's impressive EGOT-style debut series, where she won an Oscar for her film debut and Grammy for her first album.  She could still EGOT, of course, but she's going to need to give the boards another run in order to do it (perhaps she'll revive Effie White?).

3. Best Actress in a Play is Crazy

Four Oscar nominees litter the lineup for Best Actress in a Play, one of the most talented lineups for an award I've ever seen.  Jessica Lange, Sophie Okonedo, Michelle Williams, and Lupita Nyong'o all make up the list of women competing for the prize, and you would be forgiven for assuming that this was a lineup at the Golden Globes rather than the Tony Awards, though both Okonedo and Lange have had long careers on the stage.  Joining them is TV and theater legend Laurie Metcalf, who is one of my favorite performers (when is she going to get her own Frozen River/The Visiter?), and I suspect that while this is probably going to Nyong'o that there's room for Lange or even Williams to sneak in and take the trophy considering their name recognition and that they are both still on Broadway as well (and neither have won this letter in their EGOT).  Either way, I wish that all actressing lineups were this sensational, as I genuinely love all of these women.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  What stood out to you about yesterday's Tony nominations?

Confirmation (2016)

Film: Confirmation (2016)
Stars: Kerry Washington, Wendell Pierce, Greg Kinnear, Jeffrey Wright, Bill Irwin, Eric Stonestreet, Jennifer Hudson, Grace Gummer
Director: Rick Famuyiwa
Oscar History: The film was on HBO, so it wasn't eligible, but I suspect it will grab an Emmy nomination or two
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Looking around Twitter, a lot of the initial reviews of the film seem to compare it to the recent hit The People vs. OJ Simpson, a show which I didn't watch because I have developed a pretty solid Ryan Murphy allergy despite having seen most of his television work in the past (sadly, because of the bravura praise the series has received I'll probably relent this summer).  Still, it's worth commenting since the courtroom drama is enjoying a massive success not only in television but in documentaries and radio in the past few years coming in the wake of NPR's massively-successful Serial.  The idea of taking on one of the ugliest and bitterest moments in recent American political history, that of the Clarence Thomas hearings, seemed like a no-brainer for HBO, who has had remarkable success in recent years with real-life political films like Recount and Game Change.  Seeing it in reality in many ways plays out something akin to a horror film, regardless of your political beliefs, and it made for arresting, if not always challenging, cinema.

(Real life doesn't need spoilers-if you don't know what happened, you need to pay more attention to history) It has to be said before I delve too deeply into this review that the film's quality in some ways does matter upon whether you believe Justice Thomas' testimony or that of Professor Hill.  While the writers, and in particular Wendell Pierce who plays Thomas, do a decent job of not showing Thomas' beliefs in regard to the matter (we get no secret moments when he's alone or with his wife where he claims the case has some merit or shows signs of guilt), it's impossible to watch this film without a perspective.  After all, as is pointed out point-blank in the film, this was not a political debate with a lot of areas of grey, as the testimonies of both parties were so diametrically-opposed that one of them clearly had to have perjured themselves before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  As a result, I feel it required that I point out (both because it will color my opinion of the film and because this doubles as a political blog) that I have long sided with Anita Hill in this conversation.  The overwhelming evidence against Thomas, the fact that there were so many corroborating witnesses to her complaints, as well as that there were other women who were willing to testify (such as Angela Wright), and the fact that Hill had nothing to gain and quite frankly everything to lose by coming out against Thomas has cemented my belief that her allegations against Thomas were truthful, in which case he didn't deserve a spot on the federal judiciary, much less his current position on the Supreme Court.

This is clearly the belief of the producers of the film, as while the film takes the unusual tactic of never actually confirming or denying Clarence Thomas' guilt (history hasn't even figured that one out definitively yet), they do tacitly imply it by giving Hill's inner perspective and turmoil while never giving us, say, a flashback scene that would have confirmed our suspicions about what happened.  As a result of this, conservatives have pointed that this is just another Hollywood attack, and whether you think the attacks justified or not (I do), they do have a point.  People like Sens. Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, and (in particular) Alan Simpson and Jack Danforth come across as bullies and sexists, aggressively attacking Anita Hill to get Thomas through.  It's worth noting, however, that perhaps no politician comes out of this film in worse shape than now-Vice President Joe Biden (Kinnear).  Biden, who would go on to become a champion of women with the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 comes across as a nice guy completely out of his element.  Kinnear's Biden, jovial and clearly someone who relishes his ability to be liked by both sides of the aisle, is lambasted by the writers and by other characters for not having enough spine.  Ted Kennedy, the only senator who gets much of a moment of redemption in the film, frequently makes asides to Biden to stop the Republicans, but Biden doesn't appear to have enough skin in the game.  Many commentators have retroactively stated that Biden could have done more to stop the character assassinations against Anita Hill, and in particular to bring more credence to her argument.  One wonders in hindsight, at least in terms of what the vice president did at the time, how much Biden actually believed Anita Hill, or if it was wholly that he was concerned about people's perceptions of him if he didn't approve Justice Thomas.

It's worth noting, of course, that Sen. Biden voted against Thomas in the end in the closest Supreme Court vote in history, something none of the other Republicans name-checked can claim, but that stain is there, and it's probably a good segway into the actual movie, as Greg Kinnear is definitely one of the movie's highlights.  While the cast is routinely good, very few enter into great, Kinnear being one of three exceptions.  The others are Kerry Washington, who at the center of the film provides beautiful monologue and tries to find the inner-workings of someone who has been extremely guarded (and understandably so) against the press, and Grace Gummer, who stands out as perhaps the only person in the film other than Hill who is clearly, unequivocally pointing out that this conversation has a whole lot more to do with gender than just race as the film frequently frames up the argument.  Gummer, an aide to Sen. Kennedy, convinces him in an excellent moment to forget about the political ramifications and do the right thing, coming to Hill's aid in a way that Biden and none of the other Democratic senators had done.

There's a terrific scene, one that is actually based on history so keep that in mind if Nita Lowey, Louise Slaughter, Barbara Boxer, or Eleanor Holmes Norton still represent you in Congress (you should be proud).  Rep. Pat Schroeder and six other female members of the House of Representatives bust into a Senate lunch (I thought that seemed a bit ridiculous that someone would deny members of the House an audience with the Senate lunchroom, but that's actually based on fact), and admonish Biden and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell for ignoring Professor Hill and women across the country.  It's a great scene, and perhaps the only scene that properly points out that one of the biggest deficits at the time was that there were no women on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of this hearing.  In fact, only two women (Nancy Landon Kassebaum and Barbara Mikulski) were even in the entire Senate body.  The film points this out over the ending credit, but it seems like a deeply-missed opportunity to not make this a primary focus, particularly considering that this year will likely mark the first time a major party will nominate a woman to the White House.  One of the single-biggest ramifications of the Thomas/Hill hearings was that women won five Senate seats in one election cycle for the first time in American history that year, a record that would stand until 2012.  The film rarely focuses, however, on this lens (we never once hear it stated by anyone that there was no woman on the judiciary committee, something that would never happen again after the 1992 elections).  It would have been so powerful and perhaps provide a wider lens on this film if we'd seen, say, a cut to Patty Murray or Carol Moseley-Braun saying enough is enough while watching the Anita Hill hearings.

This lack of perspective, and instead simply focusing on the (admittedly, addictive) facts of the case make the film merely good and not great.  There is no larger artistic license here, just presenting something that was a national embarrassment and a low-point in the history of the Supreme Court.  By not taking a stronger political stance until the end credits, the filmmakers lost me as much as they could by a subject that I was fascinated by (I enjoyed playing "guess the senator" in most scenes).  Still, because of the dialogue that it will cause and the issues that it hopefully raises, Confirmation is still worth your time.  Remember that gender equality is not something that is ancient history, and something to never be taken for granted.

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

Yesterday's post got a lot more personal than I anticipated, but occasionally you need to let something out into the universe and hope someone listens.  However, we'll be back to slightly lighter fare today (or at least heavier fare served up by someone else with a link roundup of different stories from around the internet that I found fascinating).  Let's begin!

On Entertainment...

-The Atlantic has one of this week's two major "must read" think pieces, this one about the state of the American actor which I found absolutely mesmerizing (you'll find with my links that I tend to favor longer thought pieces, so if this intimidates you, bookmark it and read them on the bus!) which shines a light on the weird sort of phenomenon with the decline of the American actor.  It's an interesting look at the state of the American actor as a serious thespian, and how so many American parts are now played by European actors (this was particularly noteworthy to me while watching the press tour for Terminator: Genisys and noting that Emilia Clarke, whom I adore, is having her first big-screen moment in a quintessentially American franchise, a role made iconic by American actress Linda Hamilton).  I do think there are American actors to be excited about right now (both Channing Tatum and Jake Gyllenhaal, arguably my two favorites at the moment, are name-checked amongst them), but he has a definite point that the superhero culture has created a sea of Chris's that seem more like performers stuck in uninspired work than a new breed of de Niros and Brandos.

-The other must-read article of the week is from the LA Times, which looks at the troubling 1% problem plaguing the US Box Office.  In it Steven Zeitchek points out that all of the radically large Box Office receipts of the year (the Inside Outs, the Jurassic Worlds, the Cinderellas) are not having a trickle-down effect to mid-range titles, which are seeing only a slight growth.  That people are watching less movies each year is not a new reality, but it is a frightening one for fans of good movies and for those who want diversity on their big-screen.

-Darren Criss, who is about to finish up his Broadway run as Hedwig, apologized for comments he made regarding Caitlyn Jenner this past week while on-stage.  I'm going to be honest here, though, and say this was entirely unnecessary.  If it had been Criss himself who had said the comments, yes, I get it, but he was in character as Hedwig, and quite frankly it was very much in-line with something the character would say in the performance and was actually pretty clever.  As a result, while I don't always attack the PC police, I'm saying this was one too far and they probably should have just let it be.

On Politics...

-My beloved favorite Senator Claire McCaskill was out stumping for Hillary Clinton this past week, pointing out that the media has been pretty darn soft on Bernie Sanders, and I have to say I agree.  I make no qualms about my support for Hillary Clinton (though, admittedly I really like Joe Biden and if he were in a horse race by the time the primaries were in Minnesota I would have a tough decision to make), but even someone who is supporting Sanders has to see that he is not being treated like a "serious candidate."  All of the questions about Clinton's age (Sanders is older than both she and Biden) and his position as a Socialist are things that a lot of more moderate Democrats are going to raise their eyebrows about, and you don't see that across the coverage quite yet.

-One of the untold stories about ISIS's occupation in Syria has been the iconoclasm that has been taking place in the country.  The terrorist group has been attacking different cultural landmarks, including potentially the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Palmyra, which is deeply disturbing on multiple levels, not least of which is this region of the world's position as one of the first civilizations, meaning that some of these shrines, statues, and cities have been around for over 2000 years.  As an art lover myself, this is heartbreaking to watch beautiful sculpture and architecture that has survived millennia destroyed by such a hateful group.

-I find it fascinating, considering the shroud of secrecy that covers the court, how the little feuds of the Supreme Court seem to be spilling out this week, fueling speculation about frustration from Justices Scalia and Alito in particular.  While I tend to agree with former Rep. Anthony Weiner (though I wouldn't do it with such unfortunate language for a former congressman) that the Court is only liberal a minute amount of time while otherwise it has had a conservative slant (let us not forget Hobby Lobby), it is interesting to see the strange legacies set out by the Roberts Court considering that the majority of these justices were appointed by Republican presidents.

-Can someone fix that pesky 22nd Amendment and let Obama run for a third term?  Because I want a president who is going to put the rainbow colors across the White House to stay in office.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-Finn Jones, I'm ready when you are.

YouTube Video of the Week...

-This week's YouTube videos were all, I'm going to say it right now, pretty uninspired and WAY too product placement-y and self-promotion-y for my taste.  When Smosh and Mamrie Hart can't even muster particularly compelling videos, you're in trouble.  So instead I'm going with an old clip that I have been playing on loop for some reason, the "And I Am Telling You" scene from Dreamgirls, mostly just to keep hearing the line "Curtis was supposed to love me!" over and over again.  I have no reason why this is in my head this week, but here's Jennifer Hudson winning her Oscar:

Just One More...

-I couldn't be happier with President Obama this past week if I tried (well, climate change is there for next week sir, but I'll give you a break for the weekend), and I would be remiss if I didn't include a link to his amazing and unexpected version of "Amazing Grace," which left me in tears.  I'm so glad I voted for him twice.

87th Academy Awards: The Good, the Indifferent, the Bad, and the Ugly

Well, we're officially done with the Oscars for the year.  I will probably pipe in on Tuesday with some of the thoughts on the fashion, once I get to see all of the fashion, and we're six films away from the OVP write-ups where you'll get to know a bit more about what I would pick, but for now I'm going to just go with my reactions to the show itself.  I'll try to limit myself to no thoughts (one way or the other) on the winners as I am saving those for the OVP (it's always Oscar season at The Many Rantings of John) and because I've been discussing those for months.  As we do here, here's my Good, Indifferent, Bad, and Ugly of the 87th Academy Awards.

The Good

-Literally every year, the Oscar producers forget that rather than wanting to see the host or the fashion or even the winners, the audience really want to see movie stars in their natural habitat.  And every year my favorite moments are the off-the-cuff moments with celebrities.  Like Benedict Cumberbatch's brilliant reaction shots or Jessica Chastain cooing "Chivo" when Emmanuel Lubezki won or (my personal favorite, seen above) Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lopez reacting to the equal pay speech from Patricia Arquette in what has to be the most gif-able moment of the ceremony when they didn't know the camera was on-these are the best moments of the ceremony. Perhaps no one was better at this than Felicity Jones, who had a hot mic incident ("they've won a lot, haven't they?"), a Julie Andrews fan girl moment, and the random realization that she was applauding for herself.  Here's to hoping that Ms. Jones is invited back soon as either a presenter or a nominee, as she was the unsung MVP of last night's ceremony.

-I love when the Oscars get political.  Millions of people are watching, so it's time to have something to say, and boy did Hollywood have something to say.  From advocating for women's rights (Patricia Arquette may have brought a piece of paper with, but that's only because she had something to say, damn it haters!) to the brilliant calls for more mental and physical health awareness to calls for tolerance toward immigrants, it was a night of important messages and I was most pleased.  I also loved the trend of the documentary and short subject contenders who shut up the orchestra by starting to talk about something serious the second the music started, hence lengthening their speeches.  Just in general, 45 seconds isn't long enough-it's a long show, people can get used to it.  If you're desperate about people not being able to stay up late due to work the next day, put it on a Saturday or on HBO so you don't have to worry about commercials.

-Two truly random things I loved: one, the commercials were excellent this year.  For all of the talk about the Super Bowl being the crown jewel of advertising, the Oscars continually get innovative, oftentimes funny, and frequently moving commercials.  And this is officially bumped to this spot because after watching it four times I finally realized it was Robert Redford voicing that Comcast commercial (I could not place that voice for the life of me!).  Secondly, I skipped the red carpet this year, and loved it.  It was refreshing to see the gowns and outfits for the first time onstage and I didn't have to endure talented artists like Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep reduced to a designer label and inane questions about their dieting traditions.

-The interactive set was gorgeous-please keep this next year.

The Indifferent

-I loved the idea of interviewing the seat fillers (I actually think this could have been something that was done throughout the night), but the Steve Carell joke fell flat.  Perhaps Carell isn't a comedian who is funny off-the-cuff, but I feel like the punchline got botched and may have been better-served with a more improvisational personality like Will Ferrell.

-It was a smart decision to go with Travolta and Idina to present-it was a major moment last year, and trying to bottle car-crash lightning in a bottle a second time was worth the risk.  But what was with the face-holding John-seriously?  Couldn't they have just stuck with the easy but funny pablam instead?

-I am not going to get into the quality of the winners, but I will say that while Graham Moore's speech was nice for The Imitation Game and extremely moving and he's ridiculously adorable and I now have a crush on him and what is his Instagram account because there are like 40,000 Graham Moore's, I felt like it was the same one Dustin Lance Black did six years ago.  Why not try to stumble a new barrier for gay people rather than the tired "kid living with a dream one."  Perhaps want more realistic representations of gay people onscreen rather than gay-in-name-only performances like Benedict Cumberbatch in...oh, wait, I see the problem now.

The Bad

-I haven't really been discussing Neil Patrick Harris too much because, well, it was just okay.  There were some lines that were absolutely aces (the best being the JK Simmons/Farmers Insurance jingle and the brilliant Birdman/Whiplash parody), but by-and-large it was slightly underwhelming.  A lot of energy got sucked out of the room when Harris got too schmaltzy in the opening with a poorly-timed musical number that was identical in spirit to one he did at the Tony Awards a few years back (the music was too fast to catch all of the jokes...and there weren't enough jokes to begin with), and in hindsight they should have gone with a monologue, as so much of Hollywood got left on the table this past year (did anyone even bring up Sony/The Interview?!?).

-I ask this every single year, but can we cut the In Memoriam song number?  Jennifer Hudson is a brilliant vocalist and frequently the best reason to watch an awards show, but honestly it was such a yawn and this has never been a particularly stirring addition to the ceremony.  I'm fine with the show being super long, but if there's a portion of it begging to get cut, it's not the Shorts categories-it's the In Memoriam song.

-Speaking of musical performances, as wonderful as Common and John Legend were, it felt a little bit too weighted to them.  Everyone and his mother knew they were winning that Oscar, but couldn't they have made it a little bit more suspenseful.  It felt like they spent all of the budget on that number and "Everything is Awesome" and left the other three songs to sort of rot there.  Even the camera and sound crews felt like they sort of forgot how to do their jobs during Tim McGraw's weird constant wide shots and Adam Levine's vocals getting drowned out by the instruments.  Admittedly Legend and Common may have been the only ones to show up to rehearsals (we're dealing with temperamental stars here), but it felt like the TLC wasn't properly spread.

The Ugly

-Neil Patrick Harris, as I mentioned above, was uneven, but one bit clearly was a dud: the idiotic ballot prediction schtick.  This was wrong for a number of reasons.  For starters, it felt like Octavia Spencer, who is frequently very funny in interviews, was caught off-guard by it and she probably should have been looped in beforehand to maybe nail a joke or two.  Secondly, it was the only moment in the film where Harris's famous gravitation toward narcissism in his humor (my chief worry when he was selected) was indulged (most of the audience probably isn't aware of his penchant for magic, both at the show and at home).  And the jokes were kind of duds (plus, he does this every year at the Tonys, so it's tired for awards show hounds).

-While I can't recall a particularly strong presenter (am I blanking here, or was there someone who was particularly funny-the show seriously needed a Will Ferrell or Kristin Wiig or Bette Midler to show up), the worst was Terence Howard.  My brother postulated that perhaps the teleprompter broke (which I hope someone can confirm as that would bump this up to merely bad), but if it wasn't then Howard needs to keep it together.  Presenters are not supposed to have favorites when they are giving out awards, and he clearly felt less enthused about Whiplash than The Imitation Game and Selma.  It was one of those truly cringe-worthy TV moments.

-Did they really play The Bodyguard theme for Viola Davis?  Really?!?

-I am sure I'm going to be in the minority here as she sounded great, but what was the point of the Lady Gaga tribute?  She has no real connection to the movies and isn't what you'd call a particularly popular singer at the moment (her star has fallen enough that she probably couldn't get a solo performance at the Grammys at this point), so why was she called upon for The Sound of Music tribute?  Get someone like Anna Kendrick or Anne Hathaway or Emily Blunt (or hell, all three) to do it-someone who is actually a vibrant musical force in movies today.  And speaking of The Sound of Music...

-Why bring out Sean Penn to present Best Picture when Julie Andrews is clearly who should have done it?  She's better at presenting, she has the Best Picture history thing, and she doesn't feel the need to make presenting about herself (Penn is a brilliant, talented actor but he's a narcissist and a curmudgeon as a celebrity, whereas Julie Andrews is practically perfect in every way).  Is it so wrong to have a woman present Best Picture?!?  Seriously Academy, a 50th Anniversary and a beloved Oscar winner is right there for the taking-what more do you need?!?

And those are my thoughts on last night-what are yours?  Share them below in the comments!