For whatever, reason the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences has the actual ballots for the upcoming Emmy nominations posted online. As I not-so-eagerly anticipate a giant list of disappointments when the nominations come out, some already are clear on the ballot, which lists all submitted performers. Though there are some interesting brightspots: the SNL performers are being considered in acting categories this year (meaning Amy Poehler could be nominated alongside Vanessa Williams or Jenna Fischer in the supporting actress category), and its nice to see no one wasted any money submitting Jim Belushi for best actor in According To Jim. One other notable non-entry was Katherine Heigl, who removed herself from consideration after winning last year so that her co-workers could have better shots (you weren't gonna win anyway, so nice PR move). But though this isn't Emmys fault - its likely HBO or even the show itself that decided this - how come so few Wire folk are in the running? I see Dominic West, Wendell Pierce, Michael K. Williams and Andre Royo on the list, arguably the season's MVPs, but only a small percentage of the deserving cast members? But why is Domenick Lombardozzi (Herc) in there and not Sonja Sohn or Lance Reddick or Aiden Gillen? None of them will get a nod anyway, as The Wire has never received nods for series or acting, which goes in line with the Emmys complete ignorance of most shows I ever really love. Of the "10 most personally influential series" I listed here last week, one three (Sex and the City, Arrested Development and Seinfeld), ever won a series award, and of my top 5, only one was even nominated.

Sex and the City, as I had somewhat figured, opened with an astounding $26 million Friday, a higher opening day than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and double what most industry folk were expecting. On its way to a $65 million weekend, it will likely break a bunch of records: highest opening for a romantic comedy, for a film with female leads, etc, etc.

There is going to a ton of press about what these numbers mean (though its pretty simple: women are 50% of the population, and get 5% of the movies; Sex shows its time for that to change), and the movie itself will supplant itself into history as the first ever female-driven megablockbuster (other than maybe My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but that happened in a very different way).

Like seemingly every other urban gay or gal, I saw the film this weekend, and have wrestled with an instant love/hate relationship with it (don't read on past the first paragraph if you haven't seen it and want to).

On a side note, the viewing experience itself was really interesting. I went to a Thursday night show at the "Scotiamount" downtown Montreal. All 7 screenings were sold out, and women were dressed up in full fledged gowns. Cheers were rampant throughout the film, and the aura of excitement from the second you sat in the theatre was, honestly, really fun. But there's obviously a dark side to all this spectacle (for a take on that much funnier than I could ever muster: read this), and it was just as much depressing as it was exciting to see people take something so seriously. Not that they themselves are to blame. If Sex and the City: The Movie wasn't such a rare breed of event-movie, maybe it wouldn't bring out such desperation.

As a (conflicted) fan of the show (I don't know if it started now I'd be as in to it as I was back in 1999), for the most part I resorted to a nostalgic self during the actual viewing of the film, pretending I was the significantly less educated and cynical person that first fell in love with the show almost 10 years ago, just so I could get past a thesis-worth of issues. And, granted, this wasn't hard. The film is at times very funny, genuinely moving, and even occasionally shines light on often-ignored (and in terms of big summer movies, entirely ignored) themes like the fear of aging, the complications of monogamy, and the dark side of human emotion.

But there were times during the film I couldn't help but snicker, roll my eyes, and resist vomiting. The cheesy dialogue was in full force, especially in Carrie's "reading" of some parts of her "books" that she's now making a very good living of writing. At the very end she reads a section of unfinished new book that resulted from the events of the film, and I couldn't help but wonder: You'd think that Michael Patrick King would be capable, as a at times very good writer, of making Carrie seem like she herself is capable of being a good writer. Her "insight" into "love" sounds like it comes from a high school writing workshop.

And sometimes, so does King's (see the scene when Carrie figures out the password to her hidden e-mails). What's worse is King couldn't manage to come up with anything new here. The plot of the film is basically a rehash of the final season of the show, done bigger and (sometimes) done better. Breaking up Carrie and Miranda from Big and Steve (which we've already seen at least three times each) just to give the plot something to work with is as desperate as the girls wearing gowns to the screenings.

But at least there are some human-esque qualities to the as-seen-on-TV stories, and sometimes we get glimpses into the film Sex could have been. Cynthia Nixon, even with her tired storyline, rises above her work on the series and continues to push Miranda into her unique place among the 4 women: the only character with real problems. Even Samantha, who I felt was placed a few steps away from caricature and a few toward character, is given a story that - unlike the end of the series which awkwardly ended her story as being in a stable relationship - explores the idea that monogamy isn't for anyone, and Kim Cattrall does a really good job making this work on levels of both funny and affecting. Too bad Kristin Davis does the opposite, making Charlotte MORE of a caricature than she'd ever been and causing me to unintentionally laugh out loud at her shrill line readings on more than one occasion (her shitting herself in Mexico, though, was the funniest part of the film).

Carrie, always my least favourite character thanks to her remarkable self-absorption (evident here again when she consistently cuts off her friends' discussion of their problems by making a pun that transitions the conversation to her own drama), has a few moments of realism. One really good scene shows her looking to the mirror, sans makeup and voiceover, examining a face that very much looks her age. Its a minute of insight into the challenges that women face in a materialistic world based so much on how people look. But unfortunately, Sex champions this world way more than it criticizes it, so any insight it might give into the problems these ladies have is ruined by the fact that this film, and the series it came from, played a role in making them (which the film even winks to on a few occasions: 4 20something girls are shown walking in a gang at the beginning in an homage to many Sex-posers, and a scene toward the end shows them all drinking Cosmos and acknowledging they stopped drinking them because "everyone else started.")

"Labels and love" are the reasons Carrie gives to women who move to New York City, and she exemplifies its still the reason she stays there by shrieking at the sight of designer gowns, fancy bags, and, of course, shoes. Her character feels even more shallow that she did on the series. She's also even more well-off this time around (thanks to her books or thanks to her Big sugar daddy?) and this brings the film to a whole new level of depicting social hierarchies. This is most offensively displayed in the relationship she has with Jennifer Hudson's "we have a black person on Sex and the City!" character. Hudson's Louise is Carrie's assistant, and correct me if I'm looking to far into things, but their relationship plays a bit like Driving Miss Bradshaw. Louise is at Carrie's beckon call, unpacking her boxes, running her errands, returning her e-mails. And Louise, supposedly there to represent the differences in age-privileges among women, stands out as a representation of class and race differences. She can't even buy a bag, she "rents" them, and freaks out like a starved child when Carrie, rich, white woman that she is, buys Louise a real-life Gucci (I could have the brand wrong) bag for all her hard work she did making sure rich, white Carrie has an organized apartment and her e-mails returned. There's another scene that furthers these themes that outright shocked me. Miranda and her son are looking for an apartment in Chinatown and are surrounded by Asian people. Miranda sees a white man and her baby walk by and says to Brady (word for word, seriously) "follow the white man with the baby, he'll know where to go". And you wonder how subtle racism is bred among children?

These outstanding offenses aside, I do think that Sex is susceptible to more criticisms than the average movie. Its issues are all over the pop cultural map, but with Sex, the fact that, as its box office shows, it has such an intense following and extreme influence, people take more notice. If you take it simply as a summer popcorn film, its a very fun time. But Sex and the City, mammoth of estrogen-fueled following that it has, failed because it didn't take a very rare opportunity to be a little more critical of the world it examines and influences. I left the theatre thinking of my 15 year old sister, who went to see it with a big gang of future Carrie wannabes, and thought, THIS, Juno and Tina Fey aside, is the only role models Hollywood can muster up for them? Even if I look critically at myself, who watched the show from the ages of 14-20, I see my own vain, shallow, materialistic qualities and how Sex played a role in pushing them along. But Sex certainly didn't create them. Its just a big fish in a shallow ocean. And one might even argue that the materialism it displays is sadly a somewhat realistic portrayal of the rich, white world its portraying.

(for a different take, check out the always insightful - seriously - Reel Geezers:

)

I survived my first Cannes 08 hangover, and now have about 10 seconds to try and keep up with this daily blogging ambition I misguidedly started. Its rainy here, and today was a blur of headaches, the Palais basement and holding newspapers over my head as I ran from place to place. Most notable is last night, though, where I went to the Cannes Market opening party, a lavish event on the beach with crepe stations and lobster, and some very elaborate fireworks:

The event was sponsored by the Chinese Film board, complete with montages of Chinese films playing on big screens and a party soundtrack of Chinese film scores. The weirdest thing, though were these:

At every bar and food station. It was the only mention of the tragedy.. there were no suggestions of giving money, and it just seemed silly amid fireworks that must have cost thousands of dollars and free champagne by the hundreds of glass on tables all over. Im sure that all the people in China suffering from events unimaginable to the great majority of Cannes-goers appreciate such a ridiculously shallow gesture.

Moving your career to television is obviously not a bad thing to do these days, especially if you're a woman over 40. Glenn Close, Sally Field, Mary Louise Parker, Kyra Sedgewick, Holly Hunter and others have exemplified this recently, gaining roles that are both challenging and successful. But when I read this today, I wonder if Angela Bassett got some bad advice. After years of getting the shit end of the movie role stick (Mr. 3000? Time Bomb?), Ms. Bassett has got herself a full-time gig, on the final season of ER. Why not her own series? Or a series that isn't ending? Or a series that doesn't suck? No offense to John Stamos, but you deserve way better than this Angela Bassett. Remember when you were amazing in What's Love Got To Do With It?, or when upstaged Whitney in Waiting To Exhale because you were so damn good? I do. But it's not gonna make me watch ER.

photo courtesy of Gothamist.com

A couple days back, I asked some actual New Yorkers why the Empire State Building was pink. I thought maybe it was because Friday was a day of silence for Lawrence King and other hate crime victims that it was for that. Some suggested Tribeca Film Festival, as its main colour is pink, other thought maybe it was breast cancer. But, no, none of the above. It was for Mariah Carey.

I found this press release which pretty much says it all:

New York Landmark To Shine in Lavender, Pink and White in Honor of a Great New
Yorker and her #1 album E=MC2

WHO: International superstar Mariah Carey, the #1 most successful
female recording artist of all time, with more than 160 million
sales worldwide -- who recently earned her 18th #1 single on the
Billboard Hot 100 with "Touch My Body," surpassing Elvis Presley's
long-standing chart record of 17 #1's.

WHEN: Friday, April 25th, 2008

I also found some youtube clips from the event, and jesus:

I hope she paid for this, and it was not a gift.

Please quit your job. Or better yet, could someone just fire you? Unless Ebert's coming back (which I hate to say looks unlikely despite my truest wishes to the contrary), you don't deserve your own show. With all the "death of a film critic" pieces spreading around as of late, how come you're the one with a TV show? I'm sure there are many, MANY people more qualified to fill your shoes... (Remember that Peter Travers vs. Lisa Schwarzbaum show on CNN five years ago? I'll take that, even if Mr. Travers shares Mr. Roeper's love of superlatives).

A case in point from last night's show:

Alright, so I haven't had the opportunity to see Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and I'm sure its good, maybe even great judging from this song and dance. But Mr. Roeper, do you really need to say things like: "instant classic" and "among my 50 favourite comedies EVER" and "I just want to get down on my knees and declare my undying love for this movie" or that it had some of the "funniest one-liners I've EVER heard" or that "Mila Kunis is a revelation" (there's many other examples) all in one shot? You act like a horny school girl at the mention of Jason Segel and his nude scene.

If you need further reasoning, just give Roeper a quick historical check. In 2001, Vanilla Sky and A Beautiful Mind were in his top 5 films of the year, and three years later he threw in Steven Spielberg's The Terminal. The best examples are in the visuals, though. The Ebert & Roeper website offers hundreds of hours of clips (for an unrelated fun time, check out the Blue Velvet review by the original S&E). Among them is a review of Dancer in the Dark that is a classic (and entertaining) example of Roeper's shortcomings.

Why do you have to play me this way? Yesterday, you give me the first day of 2008 where I could wear something other than a parka outside. Today, you give me this:

Jossip posted this very incriminating comparison between "The Shape Issue" of Vogue magazine and a WWI era poster.

Its difficult to believe this was completely accidental.

Says Jossip:

It's hard to imagine Wintour or Leibovitz, or their staffs, in all their years studying photos and imagery, never came across this poster, or understood its racial ramifications with the ape carrying the helpless Lady Liberty. They understood it well enough to put Gisele in an eerily similar dress.

Update

As noted by my uncle, a History professor and newspaper columnist:

I think it is canny rather than uncanny -- the parallel is deliberate, the discovery expected, and the fact that it's an anti-German image may be another intentional twist. It could even be said that it is kind of racist to assume that every portrayal of a human as an ape must be a reference to the African race. In the 19th century U.S., the Irish were also often hatefully caricatured as having simian features. Still, it is an African American sports star that is made to look like a mad ape on the cover -- Jossip's point still holds.

UK's The Sun is "reporting" about how Daniel Ratcliffe is smoking "up to 20 cigarettes" a day and friends, such as co-star Rupert Grint, are "concerned":

Every time they call 'Cut', he lights up. It's disgusting.

"Friends and co-stars including Rupert Grint have been warning him about the dangers of smoking. But he doesn't take any notice."

Listen, we all know smoking is bad. It kills and costs money and stinks. And yes, Harry Potter should't smoke. But how would anyone know he smoked if gossip columnists and, er, blogs, didn't report on this crap and act like they are doing some sort of justice by denouncing the smoking while actually being the ones to publicize it in the first place?

This also annoyed me in regard to Patrick Swayze. All these articles showed pictures of him smoking and said that "1/3 of pancreatic cancer patients" are smokers. While, about 1/4 of people smoke, according to the CDC, so though there is higher numbers in smokers who get pancreatic cancer, its certainly not some insane percentage. What about the other 67% of people who don't smoke and get pancreatic cancer? Patrick Swayze already has cancer. Do we really need to demonize his bad habit and essentially suggest he had it coming? The addiction of smoking is a more complicated and complex problem than most of these people tend to suggest.. it can be imbedded in our socialization or in our psychological needs. I'm not advocating smoking in the least, but do we do this when celebrities with high cholesterol or body fat have heart attacks? When Regis had his triple bypass, did they blame bacon and eggs? Or what about the pollution non-smokers breathe in every day that might just as easily lead to the many diseases and ailments seemingly automatically blamed on smoking.

They've already raised cigarette prices so high that poor families with helplessly addicted parents spend money on cartons of smokes instead of decent meals, and THEN refuse to raise it any more to give that tax to save the sick children of those parents. They make us (yes, us, if you havent already caught on), stand on the corner of the street like lepers, go out in -20 degree winters when youve been drinking at bar, or have random strangers come up to you and tell you "you are going to die from that." Like we already didn't know. Smoking is bad. I try and quit every other day. But its my choice. I also eat right and exercise but it seems like if you smoke all other healthy regimes are cancelled out entirely.

Maybe I'm way off here. But while I get why people want to use Swayze or Ratcliffe's smoking as a "don't do this" warning, I don't think that the publicity is helping stop any smoking in Ratcliffe's case, and in Swayze's, it just seems sort of cruel considering the man is currently struggling with a possibly-deadly cancer. I hope that if for some horrible reason I get a life-threatening disease that COULD have been caused from my smoking, that someone doesn't remind me of it. Because I already know. And I'm sure Swayze does too.

And, besides, I think The Sun missed out on the real juicy gossip of their article:

Producers fear the actor's habit could ruin his schoolboy image - and have now warned him not to be seen puffing in public.

The source revealed: "He's been having late nights out with stars like Kevin Spacey and Stephen Fry and seems to have picked up bad habits from the luvvie set."

Read that last sentence again. Not to be vulgar (but hell, its St. Patrick's Day), but maybe cigarettes ain't all Harry Potter is smoking.

The Jim Carrey-Steve Carell voiced Horton Hears a Who! made some serious money this weekend ($45 million) and is poised to become 2008's very first $100 million box office hit (at this point last year, we already had two: 300 and, cringe, Wild Hogs). It also became the first non-Disney G-rated film to open north of $40 million (Check out this wacky list).

Its not particularly surprising. Good reviews, big name "cast", known story, little out there for families... But what IS surprising is this article on Slate.com, which details the attachment of anti-abortion activists to Horton's (very) questionably relevant message.

Slate's Kim Masters attended the premiere:

Your Hollywoodland correspondent attended the glamorous premiere of Horton Hears a Who! last Saturday and was present when protesters started yelling shortly after Horton uttered his famous motto: "A person's a person, no matter how small."

We could not understand what was being shouted and thought perhaps that Seth Rogen or one of the other many vocal talents in the film was expressing love for Dr. Seuss' elephant and his signature line. But as you may have read elsewhere, anti-abortion activists had infiltrated the theater. Afterward, they handed out fliers designed to look like tickets.

Yes. First, Juno, now Horton. Desperate for any sort of flag for their ship, pro-lifers have jumped on Dr. Seuss' story about an elephant you finds a speck of dust on him that is actually the community of Whoville, hence the "no matter how small" line. And Mrs. Seuss isn't happy:

None of this sat well with Audrey Geisel, widow of Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), who attended the screening. So did Karl ZoBell, the lawyer who represents her and who has represented the interests of Dr. Seuss for some 40 years. In an interview with NPR, he said he couldn't make out the yelling and thought maybe "some nut" was in the theater. Later, he asked the protesters what group they represented, and none would answer. Their silence didn't seem like an accident to him, which makes sense, because ZoBell has not been bashful about sending cease-and-desist letters to those who appropriate Dr. Seuss' material for their own purposes. And many do.

ZoBell says it would be nice if these people came up with their own material. But if they don't go too far - by copping the illustrations, for example - they can use a line like "A person's a person, no matter how small," even if it wouldn't have pleased Dr. Seuss. And it wouldn't have. The Geisels were opposed to using the Dr. Seuss books for any political agenda.

A few days ago I posted a video of an at-the-time-anonymous Oklahoma lawmaker saying a wide range of horrible things. Since then, the video made the rounds of the web and the "human" behind that voice has been revealed as Sally Kern.

Numerous developments have occurred since (including Oklahoma Republicans essential praise of Kern's beyond-frightening words), and I figured I'd update. First, a letter written to Kern from Victory Fund (who posted the video in the first place) president Chuck Wolfe from a few days back that pretty much voices everything that's wrong with what's going on:

What you said is not okay, but that's not because most sensible people disagree with it. It's because your words give aid and comfort to those who would hurt, maim and even kill people who are different from you. Comparing gays and lesbians to cancer and terrorism and saying they are the "biggest threat to America," gives license to others to treat us that way, especially given the leadership position you hold in your community.

Then, the situation got a bit juicier. Allegations arose that Kern and her Baptist minister husband had and hid a gay son. Despite much evidence to the contrary, Kern issued a loaded and manipulative statement shooting down those "rumors":

Our son is not gay. We would still love him if he was, but that would not change the fact that homosexuality is a chosen life style and that we would pray for our son to have a change of heart. My heart goes out to the many parents who have lost sons to AIDs [sic] and other STDs. Those kinds of deaths are tragic because they could have been avoided.

THEN the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation began going through Kern's emails after she said she had been receiving numerous death threats, only to find bitch is also a liar.

And finally, today Ellen deGeneres made her second step into having a gay voice after her touching speech about Lawrence King a few weeks ago. Up until recently I had figured Ellen's contract obligated her not to go into the gay talk, but now that she's secured a place amongst the daytime talk powerhouses, she's using that power for good, and gave some light and quite funny, but definitely point-across words about Kern (even trying to call her) and the absurdity of her statement:

The Victory Fund, a equal rights org trying to "elect fair minded individuals across the nation," found quite the opposite in an unnamed Oklahoma lawmaker. Their site posted a very disturbing clip of a voice recording from an apparently closed meeting. The lawmaker (they don't release her name so that she doesn't become "a 'cause celeb' for the other side"), was unaware someone was taping, or she probably wouldn't have gone all Fred Phelps. To shame: Not everybody's lifestyle is equal, just like not all religions are equal.

Take a look at the clip and go to The Victory Fund's website to put your name against it (Its American-only, so doubly do it for me).

Though I was reeling with national pride from word I got from a friend last night that Canadian distributors had refused to show Larry The Cable Guy's latest bigot-fest, Witless Protection in theatres, that quickly disappeared when I discovered news that CTV, one of Canada's main television networks, had aired this horrible commercial from conservative group Life Productions. To brief yourself first, check out the organization's cringe-inducing website that includes a "Are You Good Enough To Get Into Heaven Test" (One question, "God commands that we set aside one day in seven. Have you ever been guilty of breaking this Commandment?" will get you to hell alone). Anyway, somehow CTV (who is a "proud" sponsor of many Pride events), decided to air a commercial about "curing" homosexuality... I got word from a "facebook activist group" that they have stopped airing it due to protests, but seriously.. between this and last week's Bill C-10 bullshit, Canada is quickly losing the liberal image I once prided myself on being a part of....

The Watertown Daily Times is reporting that a little uproar has come about from St. Lawrence County officials removing a poster for the Out at the Movies Film Festival in Upstate New York. Allegations of homophobia ensued:

St. Lawrence County was accused Monday night of homophobia for removing a poster advertising the Out at the Movies film festival.

A poster advertising the movies at the festival was taken down two weeks ago after about six employees complained that they found words in them offensive.

The words? The titles of three films: Itty Bitty Titty Committee, Butch Jamie and Out at the Wedding.

Out at the Wedding??? But seriously, "Titty" and "Butch" are hardy something to freak out over. I'm glad the festival folk gave those tight ass complainers a little fight, even if it is questionable whether it was homophobia at play or just extreme lameness.

Speaking of the Canadian film industry, it seems the wrath of a conservative government might soon be having its day. The Globe and Mail is reporting that the Harper government has drafted guidelines that would allow it to pull financial aid for any film or television show that it deems offensive or not in the public's best interest - even if government agencies have invested in them.

Says The Globe:

The proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to projects deemed offensive, effectively killing the productions. Representatives from Heritage and the Department of Justice will determine which shows or films pass the test.

Game and talk shows, news, sports, reality television and pornography are already excluded from access to the tax credits. The proposed prohibition would cover a sweeping range of material, such as anything of an explicit sexual nature, that denigrates a group or is excessively violent without an educational value.

A "sweeping range"? This is not good. We might seem innocent, but Canadians have built their film industry on explorations of violence and sexuality (David Cronenberg, anyone? Do you think Crash would have made it through these censors? Or Exotica? And Bruce La Bruce better kiss his tax credits goodbye.)

The government provides refundable tax credits to productions that are certified as having Canadian content. Producers shoot the film or TV show, finish post-production, pay their bills and then file a corporate tax return. The tax credit is included in the production company's tax refund.

Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman of Goodmans LLP says the government's plans smack of "closet censorship." He tells the Globe:

The proposed new initiative, if not properly crafted, could potentially violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and lead to possible legal challenges against the Minister of Canadian Heritage," Mr. Zitzerman said Wednesday. "Such a provision could potentially lead to the government acting as 'morality police.' The existing definitions of pornography and obscenity in the Criminal Code should be sufficient for the government's purposes.

If you want to send a message to the Minister of Culture, Josee Verner, you may do so here.

If this is true, at least. Reuters had a really misguided article running a few days back that exclaimed "Genie awards show ignores "Juno"!" Yes, of course it did, because Juno is not Canadian. It is American produced in its entirety. But Jason Reitman didn't seem to get that. He said:

It's a Canadian director, Canadian stars, Canadian cast, Canadian crew, shot in Canada - how are we not eligible for a Genie when David Cronenberg's film about Russians living in London shot in England with a British crew and British cast is eligible? I'm sorry, but somebody is going to have to explain that to me; I don't get it," he said, with proud father Ivan Reitman at his side.

Well, lots of movies are shot in Canada, Jason, and some of them star the likes of Rachel McAdams, Seth Rogen and Mike Myers. But they are not Canadian. Take Titanic, for instance. Canadian director, Canadian crew, shot in Canada. But the Genies gave all the awards to The Sweet Hereafter that year. And you didn't see James Cameron yelling "Blasphemy!"

Eastern Promises, on the other hand, may have dealt with a British setting and plot, but it was, in fact, a Canada-Britain co-production, thus being eligible. L.A.-based Mandate Pictures developed and financed Juno and Fox Searchlight released it. Is that so hard to understand?

Anyway.. what makes Jason's comments all the more idiotic is the statement the Genies released in regard to Jason's comments:

Thanks so much for your coverage of the Genie Awards but I would like to clear up the confusion surrounding the movie Juno. The movie wasn't snubbed by the Genies because it was never submitted to the Genie Awards. I have provided below a quote from our CEO, Sara Morton that will hopefully clarify the situation.

Ultimately, it's up to the filmmaker to decide whether to seek Canadian certification. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate about the reasons for a filmmaker's decision, or why they may or may not qualify.

Even though it wouldn't have qualified in the end anyway, if Mr. Reitman wanted it so bad, he should have actually submitted the film. And while I'd be all for our country taking responsibility for "Juno", I fear if we start doing stuff like that, we'll have to start taking responsibility for stuff like this:

Notice how the commentator says "coming to America"? I must have forgot that the Toronto Maple Leafs played in Arizona now. Seriously though, that movie somehow looks even worse that I had intially imagined.

Wait. Is something missing? Oh yeah.. That part where Rudin thanked his boyfriend John Barlow. Watch the speech here:

I hate to be all gay conspiracy theorist, but come on...

UPDATE:
As a result of complaints, they changed the transcript to include Rudin's shout out.

Good Morning America announced the line-up for the 27th Annual Barbara Walters Oscar Special:

Ellen Page
Harrison Ford
Miley Cyrus
Vanessa Williams

Remember when it used to be mostly nominees and maybe the host? So I very slightly "get" Cyrus (at least her context here) as she was just in that concert movie that made all that money and is presenting at the Oscars. But Vanessa Williams? Save for Page (and depending on who you are, Ford - I personally don't enjoy the man), this is somehow a lamer list that the Oscar presenters themselves.

You'd think Barbara would know better. Or, as Ryan at AwardsDaily.com put it: Dear Barbara: Hope you find your Rolodex soon.

Says The Envelope:

Report: Travolta will waltz around the Oscars
"John Travolta may be putting on his dancing shoes for the Oscars," reports Marc Malkin at E! Online. "I hear awards-show director Gil Cates wants the Hairspray star to do a bit of performing when he presents Best Original Song Sunday night at the Kodak Theatre. While he isn't likely to be busting out any of his signature "Saturday Night Fever" or "Pulp Fiction" moves, Travolta, if all goes the way I'm hearing, will be doing a waltz.

Oh, my, Marc Malkin.. A waltz!!! Im definitely tuning in now!

Seriously, who would find John Travolta doing a waltz entertaining other than in a ha-look-at-his-hairpiece kinda way? I think it may be time for Gil Cates to pass on his crumbling torch.

Andrew Sullivan, whose idiotic conservative-gay-agenda "book" Virtually Normal is unfortunately part of my thesis reading list, has written an even more idiotic article on his blog at The Atlantic, theorizing the good vs. evil dichotomy of Shia LaBeouf and Emile Hirsch:

Now, male heartthrobs are normally not my bailiwick, but a very smart reader recently noted that my musings on women make her cringe. Ahem. This comment was, by the way, totally justified, particularly in light of the fact that I once wrote a two-part rap about my inexplicable "love" for Saffron Burrows. So I'm going to do my darnedest to make entirely new demographics cringe by bringing to light the elemental conflict between Emile Hirsch, force of good, and Shia LeBeouf, force of evil.

Mr. Sullivan, just because you announce that something is sure to induce cringes doesn't make it okay. And don't you write for The Atlantic? Shouldn't you be saving the philosophizing of people you don't know to trash rags and get back to telling gay people to vote for John McCain? And besides all that, look at the reasoning:

I loved Holes and Disturbia as much as the next red-blooded American, but when LaBeouf addressed the assembled hordes at Comic-Con in San Diego last year, he was a punk. Harrison Ford, the wonderful Karen Allen, Steven Spielberg: all were class acts who recognized that the fans are decent, hard-working people who spent a lot of dough to ooh and aah with many like-minded Indiana Jones nerds. Yet Shia slouched and muttered and behaved in a generally impish, prima-donnaish fashion. I'll never forgive him. Rest assured, there are many millions of people who will throw rose petals at this young man's feet, and it's true that he's a decently talented actor. But you're no Depp and you never will be, LaBeouf. So you might want to develop some humility. Oh yes, the ladies love cool Shia. Merry Christmas, and damn you to Hades! What troubles me most is that he's rumored to be the first pick to play Yorick Brown in the forthcoming Y: The Last Man picture.

So, lets put this in perspective: Sullivan is a gay Catholic Republican who endorsed George W. Bush and supported the Iraq war but fucking SHIA LABEOUF is EVIL because he acted "punk" at a comic convention and got cast in some nerd adaptation that is beloved to you? And what makes Hirsch so "good"? A tidbit:

In The Girl Next Door, a silly yet mildly diverting teen sex comedy, Hirsch gave a moving performance that ranged from earnest naif to smolderingly intense proto-pimp. This kid is going places, and my hope is that he will take a brief detour on the way there to trample on Shia LaBeouf.

I think that comment stands by itself, no? Maybe Sullivan should get back to trying to ruin decades of gay activism and keep the celeb commentary to Perez Hilton.

Academy Awards producer Gil Cates and Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences president Sid Ganis announced the presenters and performers of this year's February 24th telecast today... and they are a predictable mix of genuine stars, has-beens and rising-but-not-quite risen:

Included are all four of last year's acting winners, Alan Arkin, Jennifer Hudson, Helen Mirren and Forest Whitaker, as well as a long list of others including Amy Adams, Jessica Alba, Cate Blanchett, Josh Brolin, Steve Carell, George Clooney, Penelope Cruz, Miley Cyrus, Patrick Dempsey, Cameron Diaz, Colin Farrell, Harrison Ford, Jennifer Garner, Tom Hanks, Anne Hathaway, Katherine Heigl, Jonah Hill, Dwayne Johnson, Nicole Kidman, James McAvoy, Queen Latifah, Seth Rogen, Martin Scorsese, Hilary Swank, John Travolta, Denzel Washington and Renee Zellweger.

Alright so... 2 Grey's Anatomy stars (though I get it, they make movies now), Miley Cyrus (that 3-D thing was not a real movie), Jessica Alba (um... I know they always take a "rising" young starlet but why not chose someone who can act or is actually enjoyed by the general public?), the Rock???

Jonah Hill's kinda fun and Im always up for looking at James McAvoy, but I hoped this isn't the full list. Some ideas to fill it up? How about some actors you failed to recognize? Michael Cera, Paul Dano, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kelly MacDonald, Robert Downey Jr, Emile Hirsch... And give Nikki Blonsky the opportunity to get on that stage instead of the closet case Hairspray duo that Im sure will be presenting together.

And what about some actual legends (sorry, Harrison Ford) or world cinema representatives (Penelope Cruz can't do it all)... Vanessa Redgrave? Meryl Streep? Jack Nicholson? Peter O'Toole? Sophia Loren? Catherine Deneuve?

Anamaria Marinca and Vlad Ivanov presenting a clip from Juno??? (I'd forgive them for everything if that somehow happened)

In better news, Amy Adams will perform the song "Happy Working Song" from Enchanted, showing grace despite her snub and doing what most actresses tend to throw to others in fear of looking like someone that can't sing.. And in what will likely be my favourite moment of the show.. Glen & Marketa have confirmed their performance of "Falling Slowly"...

So not all is bad.

But seriously, I know they had short notice to organize this but c'mon, guys, its your 80th! Go nuts! Distinguish yourself as the definitive award show you say and think you are... Miley, Alba, The Rock.. those are Grammy presenters. You're the Oscars!

Keeping with 2008's apparent golden rule that any film - total garbage or not - can make money as long as it doesn't star Katie Holmes, this past weekend was a near-perfect example (though not the best example: that will forever belong to the weekend Rambo and Meet The Spartans ruled the chart).

Rounding out the top two were two critically shamed films starring two of the people I'd least want at a dinner party: Matthew McConaughey and Martin Lawrence. McConaughey's romantic comedy Fool's Gold topped the chart with $22 million, followed by Lawrence's Welcome Home, Roscoe Jones (not to be confused with my adolescent guilty pleasure, the Winona Ryder angst fest, Welcome Home, Roxy Carmichael), which took in $17 million.

But joining Mrs. Cruise on the exception-to-the-rule list was Paris Hilton. Her Hottie & The Nottie was waaay at the bottom of the box office chart. Opening on 111 screens, the critically lambasted film averaged a truly pathetic $225 per theatre, narrowly beating December's similarly ridiculed Jessica Simpson project, "Blonde Ambition," which averaged $165 per theatre in its opening weekend (though it went on to reach a miraculous $260 average the following weekend).

Honestly, I'd much rather see Hottie in all its imaginably so-horrific-i'll-laugh-if-im-high campy glory than sit through Fool's or Roscoe. But I'm obviously in the minority there.

In other depressing box office related news, Alvin and the Chipmunks has made $210 million and Rambo has made more than (here I go again..): There Will Be Blood, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Margot at the Wedding, I'm Not There, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and The Savages combined.

Not that I should be surprised after the countless "This Is The LAST Time You'll Ever Be Able To Own This DVD of 'The Fox and the Hound'" lies that have part of their marketing campaigns since the VHS was invented... But after weeks of announcing that Hanna Montana movie as a "One Week Event!" - a campaign that likely was a big reason for the film's whopping weekend numbers - the greedy little mouse machine has decided to keep the green rolling.

I understand that from an economic perspective this is obviously the right decision.. but morals, Disney, morals! All these 10 year old girls are going to ask their mommies and/or daddies why the commercials lied to them (or even why mommy and/or daddy lied to them). And perhaps this betrayal will kickstart low-self esteem and trust issues that will eventually lead a whole new generation into prostitution and crack addiction. Just saying, Disney... Do you really need more Montana money?

This extremely annoying Variety article popped into my inbox yesterday.. via "Variety Headlines". Entitled "Foreign Stars Cash In On Oscar Noms," writer David Mermelstein's thesis is simple: If a "foreigner" gets an Oscar nom, they are likely to get a shot at American roles and American money. The article is framed around Marion Cotillard, as if to say: "Hey Marion, a group of American film people have nominated you to be a member of their exclusive and shiny superclub! Abandon your language, country and past! You've won the film world lottery!"

Jossip is reporting an interesting little tidbit. Apparently Ed Koch - former NYC mayor and considered by some (including me) as one of a dozen or so people of power whose mishandling (read: homophobia) of the AIDS crisis caused millions of unnecessary deaths - went and saw Andre Techine's The Witnesses on opening night.

The film details a group of people dealing with the beginning of the AIDS crisis in France. Kind of a gay (and odd considering the criticism this man has faced) thing to do for the "straight" Koch. Koch - again, in my own belief (but Randy Shilts and Larry Kramer would most definitely agree) - essentially pretended like the epidemic wasn't even happening during the first couple of years, because he was scared making any stance would prove the many gay rumors were true.

His first move (after some serious pressure), wasn't a favourite: he backed up the New York City Health Department's decision to shut down the city's gay bathhouses in 1985. Finally, in 1986, Koch signed a lesbian and gay rights ordinance for the city after the City Council passed the measure, but this was following several failed attempts by the Council to approve such legislation.

Anyway.. I could go on and on and on but I won't. Its really not that big of a deal (Koch going to the movies, that is. That whole history of AIDS epidemic thing is a bit of a big deal). Just thought it was a bizarre decision for a man with this history to publicly attend a gay themed films about AIDS in the 80s on its opening night?

The Associated Press is reporting "Crash" will become a TV Show!

The 13-episode, one-hour series will air on cable's Starz as its first original drama series, the network announced Monday.

Key members of the feature's production team will be back for the series, including its director, co-writer and producer, Paul Haggis; co-writer and producer Bobby Moresco; producer Bob Yari; producer Don Cheadle; producer Mark R. Harris and executive producer Tom Nunan.

Starz, eh? Classy, Haggis. Way to let any false Oscar glory finally crash (ha) and burn into the depths of mediocreland where it belongs.

New York Times' Dave Carr has an article that suggests the Academy Awards might deem "Falling Slowly", the beautiful song from Once, ineligible:

The original song category for the Oscars has already hit its share of clanky notes, what with none of Eddie Vedder's breathtaking songs for "Into the Wild" making the cut. And now comes quiet word that "Falling Slowly," the achingly pretty song from "Once" written by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, may be ruled ineligible. The Bagger has been making some calls and there are indications that that the song, which is up against three, count 'em three, songs from "Enchanted" in addition to "Raise It Up" from "August Rush," may have some problems with eligibility requirements. Post nominations, this tempest could set the teapot to boiling.

It is unclear how "Falling Slowly" may have run afoul of those rules, but the music branch of the Academy branch will be looking into the matter on Monday with a decision to follow soon after.

Considering that: a) "Slowly" is by far the most deserving song nominated, and an absolute gem of a song in any consideration; b) The Acadatards already deemed Jonny Greenwood's score ineligible last week to may boos; c) Doing this so late in the game is a mind-boggling "why didn't they fucking decide this months ago" decision, and actually skews voting (How many people voted for Greenwood and what else would have been nominated had people actually had the opportunity to vote for eligible films?)

I strongly advise the Academy to keep "Slowly" in on Monday for those reasons, and because after 4 Months, Persepolis and Greenwood, I wonder if many can take much more organized douchebaggery.

Finally. But I don't care. He's just saving his fat ass. Please fire him, FOX News, and mildly redeem your pathetic farce of a network.

In other Heath news.. JustJared has reported the news that Johnny Depp mighty replace Ledger in Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus:

A studio source said: "There is a point in the film when Heath falls through a magic mirror. He could change into another character after that and that is where Johnny would come in.

They are merely "hoping" Depp will say yes. It's still a rumor, and as it is from the SUN, who knows if there is any truth to it at all.

This is slightly old news, but its horribly enraging so I'm posting anyway: Douchebag Fox News host
John Gibson made a complete ass of himself yesterday by poking fun at Heath Ledger's death.

The Huffington Post sums it up:

ThinkProgress reports that, on his radio show yesterday (which opened with funeral music), Gibson called Ledger a "weirdo" with a "serious drug problem." Making fun of the famous "I wish I knew how to quit you" line from "Brokeback Mountain," Gibson said of his death, "Well, he found out how to quit you."

You can listen to the whole disgusting rant here and you can send e-mails along the lines of "fire John Gibson" to any or all of these addresses:

Gibson's email: john.gibson@foxnews.com
Show's email: myword@foxnews.com
Network's email: yourcomments@foxnews.com
CEO of Fox News: roger.ailes@foxnews.com

He managed to take the crown for rudest Heath Ledger comment from that little skank over at MSNBC, Courtney Hazlett, who remarked, "In a lot of ways, this reminds me - we've almost had a dress rehearsal for this with Owen Wilson."

Gibson responded to critims by saying that it was just "a little Brokeback Mountain joke" and there is "no point in passing up a good joke."

Not that it surprises me, but the most vile man alive, Fred Phelps, has announced he and his gang of fucktards will picket Heath Ledger's funeral because :

Heath Ledger thought it was great fun defying God Almighty and his plain word; to wit: God Hates Fags! & Fag Enablers! Ergo, God hates the sordid tacky, bucket of slime seasoned with vomit known as 'Brokeback Mountain' - and He hates all persons having anything whatsoever to do with it.

Heath Ledger is now in Hell, and has begun serving his eternal sentence there - beside which, nothing else about Heath Ledger is relevant or consequential.

Could somebody seriously go stab, maim or dismember Mr. Phelps? I promise you God won't mind.

Jonny Greenwood's score deemed ineligible!

Says Sasha Stone of Awardsdaily.com:

That's the long and short of it. I got the news a while back but had to get confirmation. And yup, they aren't letting the score in. It was a last minute decision. Enchanted is apparently out as well. And Into the Wild.

Here is what I know. The film's score, apparently, referenced other music so that it was considered "diluted." Although it's strange because the movie's end credits is really where the referenced music is, apparently. But the Academy has a long history of doing this sort of thing, particularly where "rock stars" are concerned. It isn't that much of a shock. What is a shock is that the news broke so late in the game. They are a prickly group and they don't seem to really care what other people think about their choices. Many great scores have been deemed ineligible over the years. This doesn't speak to the quality of Greenwood's groundbreaking score, obviously. It will stand on its own and probably go down as one of the all time greats.

Bullshit! Between this and the doc and foreign language shortlists, the Academy is not earning much sympathy from me.