Monthly Archives: January 2010

Oprah Encourages Audience to Pity Leno, Not Conan

Posted on by Colleen Claes
7

The media and the public have been going crazy about Jay Leno’s interview with Oprah yesterday. You can find people tweeting about it even today, and the “I’m with Coco” Facebook page has received almost thousands of comments regarding the Oprah show. (Beware: Some of the comments say nasty things about both Jay and Oprah. These people are hardcore.)

As someone who considers herself on Team Conan, I made a point to watch the show yesterday morning. The interview itself was obviously supposed to redeem whatever’s left of Leno’s “everyday nice guy” image, and many writers have been referring to the episode as a means of “damage control” for Jay. For the general public and the media, it didn’t work. People are still siding with Conan. But for Oprah and her stage audience? Well, that’s a different story.

Since Leno came off as aloof, unemotional, and an NBC puppet, the interview was not as enlightening as I had expected it to be. The most dramatic part was probably when Oprah told Jay she thought the jokes at Letterman about his infidelity were “beneath” him, and Leno lied saying he only told one Letterman joke all week. (False. He told more than one.) And the only tough question Oprah really asked was why Leno didn’t just pack up and leave after NBC “fired” (more like pandered to) him twice. Jay responded that he’s just a guy who got fired from his job, and when offered his old job back, he took it.

“And really, who can blame him?” is what we are supposed to think after watching this. But as far as I can tell, the only people who fell into this trap were the people in Oprah’s audience for the after-show debate about the late night controversy. You can watch the whole video on Oprah’s official website.  For Conan fans, it will be truly infuriating to watch.

In a nutshell: The audience has watched the already-taped interview with Leno, and Oprah opens up a floor of discussion that’s supposed to include both arguments in favor of either Conan or Leno. For the next half hour or so, Oprah shoves the Leno bias down her audience’s throats, saying constantly after explaining something, “Do you all understand that? Do you realize that’s what happened here?”

She won’t let up, and then the audience turns out to be almost completely on Leno’s side. In fact, the only people who get applause after their arguments are the ones defending Leno. Oprah repeats her arguments in favor or Leno, and basically ends up regurgitating what Jay already said in the interview.

Highlights of points from both Oprah and her audience are listed below. (The parentheses include my commentary):

  • Jay Leno is just a guy who lost his job.
  • Jay Leno is just a guy who took back his job when it was offered to him.
  • Jay Leno does not consider himself a talk show host; he considers himself a stand-up comedian. (Except he’s not funny, so how do you figure that?)
  • Jay Leno “wasn’t done yet” when NBC told him to pass the torch to Conan.
  • Jay Leno deserves 30 years just like Johnny Carson. (Dear God, help us all.)
  • Jay Leno was No. 1 on the Tonight Show for many years after 17 years.
  • After 7 whole months, Conan was NOT No. 1! What a failure!
  • Conan just couldn’t get the ratings. TV is about the ratings.
  • Leno doesn’t own himself – NBC does.
  • Unlike Leno, Oprah owns herself.
  • “Team Coco” should have watched the Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien while it was on the air, instead of just supporting him after he was about to leave. (Okay Oprah, I’ll give you that.)
  • Jay Leno is a nice, funny guy.
  • David Letterman is a bully.
  • No one should feel sorry for Conan – he got 40-something million dollars. (And, as proof that he’s a better person than Leno, shared it with his whole staff.)
  • Many people in the audience really had no clue what happened in the Late Show War except for what they saw in the Oprah interview. (Great. And now you’re getting air time to debate the issue.)
  • Asked multiple times by Oprah: “Raise your hands if you changed your mind after watching this interview.”
  • As far as O is concerned, you damn well should have changed your mind after this interview.
  • NBC handled this whole thing poorly and was unfair to both O’Brien and Leno.

And, my favorite repeated point from Ms. Winfrey:

  • That’s just how TV works. Tough.

What a crock of…Ahem. Sorry, Team Conan coming out. I don’t want to start hating on O, but basically, the degree to how one-sided this whole group discussion was really disgusted me. I wish I had been in that audience, so I could’ve pointed out all the things in defense of Conan that were conveniently left out of the conversation.

Oh, and by the way – Happy Birthday, Oprah.

Blogging as a Beacon of Hope in ‘Julie & Julia’

Posted on by Colleen Claes
1

Amy Adams as Julie Powell in 'Julie & Julia,' 2009

Yes, I’m a little late on the Julie & Julia (2009) bandwagon. Since this isn’t for the purpose of review, let me summarize mine in one sentence: It was cute, sometimes annoying (mostly due to Julie and husband), but overall entertaining and hunger-inducing. Oh, and Meryl Streep was brilliant, of course…Okay I lied. Two sentences.

Aside from Streep’s performance as Julia Child, the part of the film that was most fascinating to me was Julie Powell. Not as a character, really, or even as a person (because she is real, after all.) Rather, it was her circumstance that was thought-provoking.

Her side of the story takes place in New York City 2002. 9/11 is ever-present in Powell’s life seeing as how she works as some sort of “customer service” representative for victims of the terrorist attack, or anyone complaining about plans to rebuild the World Trade Center. This, obviously, leaves a dark cloud hanging over her life. On top of that, she’s anxious about turning thirty because she has yet to accomplish her career goals.

There’s a scene early on in her storyline where Julie goes to meet up with “friends” for lunch. Though it makes absolutely no sense why this woman would be friends with these superficial and egotistical females, the lunch scene gives us a further glimpse into Julie’s situation. She’s not doing what she wants to do, people remind her of it constantly, and she feels like a failure. No, not just a failure. The best kind – a failed writer.

Now I don’t say that facetiously. Though, you have to admit, it’s an unfortunate common trend in the line of “failures.” But this is where Julie’s circumstance really starts to hit home. We find out that she graduated college with high hopes from herself and everyone else of becoming a successful writer. However, she’s bummed because she apparently had a book deal that fell through. She repeats self-deprecating remarks about her inability to finish anything, and yet she yearns to break free of her monotonous and emotionally draining job. She wants to be published.

And that’s where the blogging comes in. Blogs (“web logs”) have become increasingly popular in the late 90s and the 2000s. Julie entertains the idea of starting one, and her husband  encourages her saying it’s the easiest way to get recognized and published these days. After much debate on what to write about, it hits her that she loves cooking and has a special place in her heart for Julia Child. And thus, the rest is (recent) history.

Honestly, it was a bit strange to watch someone blog in a movie. I’m not sure why, but I guess it’s never really been explored so in-depth before in the context of a film. In this one, it’s half about blogging. And on top of it, Julie Powell becomes a successful writer because of the popularity of her blog, The Julie/Julia Project. More and more, the offers start pouring in, leading to book deals, agents, interviews, etc. (And as the end credits cheesily point out – a movie deal.)

I think Julie Powell’s character represents a lot of things, especially in the current economic times. She represents loss of dreams, disappointment upon graduation, and years of temp jobs she could’ve done better than. She also represents modern-day hope, success via online writing, and accomplishment when she least expected it.

This part of the film, I think, speaks very clearly to our generation – particularly the graduates in their twenties. To tell you the truth, blogging has been my sort of miniature savior in a time of recent post-graduation, bad economic climate, limited jobs, and seemingly nonexistent jobs in what I studied. As corny as it sounds, a comment and a page view trigger that little voice in the very back of my head saying, This is what you were supposed to do. So I’m thankful for blogging, the internet, and the accessible ways in which us writers and creatives can get our voices out there. Because without it? Well, times would really be tough then.

I think Julie Powell herself would agree.

Sandra Bullock over Gabourey Sidibe: What is Hollywood Thinking?

Posted on by Colleen Claes
5

The Golden Globes last Sunday announced many awards, but the one most problematic for me was the “Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama” category. Thrilled over Mo’Nique’s win for her supporting role in Precious (and not to mention her wonderful speech), I was almost certain that Gabourey Sidibe would win for the starring role. I predicted wrong, and I watched with much disappointment and confusion as Sandra Bullock went up to accept the award for her role in The Blind Side.

Now, I’ve seen both films. Precious because I knew it was a very important work of 2009. And The Blind Side because – well, frankly – my mother dragged me to it. The latter movie was not as awful as I expected it to be, though I found it to be too preachy. Bullock’s performance as a rich Southern housewife (though based on a true story) came off as campy, and yes, sometimes humorous. The Blind Side may deal with issues of race, acceptance, and social class, but come on – it’s no Precious. I think we can all agree on that. Without making this a two-in-one movie review, I just found Precious to be unlike anything I’ve ever seen before: unnerving, uplifting, raw, emotional, revealing, gritty, and beautiful all at the same time. It hit me in a way that no film has ever hit me before. And while many of the performances and aspects were incredible, I believe it was Sidibe’s first-time performance (ever) as Claireece “Precious” Jones that made it so uniquely impacting.

And yet, there I am, watching Sandy hold up the Golden Globe and give her acceptance speech. Initial reactions that ran through me included something along the lines of, Are you kidding me?! and She better not win that Oscar over Gabby… While the Globes don’t always act as a prelude to the Oscar nominations and wins, it’s a definite possibility.

To further my agitation more, Sandra Bullock won for “Best Actress” at the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards this weekend. Once again, Gabourey Sidibe was in the list of nominees. The SAG Awards are a big deal for actors in the industry, and it makes me wonder why they would also pick Bullock over Gabby. Do the panels think that Sidibe is too young and inexperienced to merit anything more than a nomination? Or do they really believe Sandra Bullock’s performance as an exaggeratedly ballsy Southern Belle is more deserving of the award? Part of me wonders if these people feel sorry for Bullock’s previous career, so they’re proud of her for doing something less mediocre this year.

I think it’s safe to say at this point that the Oscars will have to choose between the two. With the nominations announcement coming up on February 2nd, the 82nd annual Academy Awards have a chance to flip it on the rest of Hollywood and award the deserving and incredible Gabourey Sidibe. But alas, there’s a great chance now (especially with all the hoopla) that the Academy will also give it to Sandra Bullock instead.

I hope for the sake of cinema that the Oscars choose to turn things around and give it to the star of Precious. It would be glorious to see the young woman up on stage holding a statue for that role. Sure, Bullock did a good enough job in The Blind Side. But overlooking Sidibe’s first shot at acting with her powerful performance as one of the most challenging and socially important characters we’ve seen in years? That would just seem like a huge step back for film.

A Tribute to Conan O’Brien: I Grew Up with ‘Coco’

Posted on by Colleen Claes
5

The now famous image around the internet in support of Conan O'Brien. Author: Mike Mitchell.

With tonight being the last one of the Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, I figured it was only appropriate to write a tribute to a man I’ve been watching since the fifth grade. Interestingly enough, Conan’s mix of subtle, clever, and (self-aware) stupid humor entertained me when I was ten and entertains me now at twenty-three.

With the announcement in 2004 that Conan was replacing Leno on the Tonight Show in 2009, it was bittersweet news. It was great that he’d be on the air indefinitely at an earlier time slot with more of a budget and a bigger audience; but it also worried me that Conan might be forced to become vanilla, lame, and not funny. Why? Because with Jay Leno being the host for seventeen years, what else was I to expect?

“Indefinitely” turned into seven months for Conan, while his late night predecessors obviously had several years. This whole drama with NBC, O’Brien, and Leno is certainly not the most important thing going on in the world right now – and Conan makes a point of mentioning this every show while asking his audience to donate to help Haiti. But as far as television goes, it’s a major disappointment.

Conan may be a generational thing. After all, my generation happens to largely prefer O’Brien to Leno, or even Letterman sometimes. In a way we grew up with him. He was able to make us laugh all these years while we were going through puberty, sneakily staying up later than our bedtimes to watch him even though we had to get up for school at 6 in the morning, graduating high school, and throughout our formative college years when we officially became young adults.

Really, it’s no wonder this “Facebook and Twitter” generation has paraded the streets and the internet in defense of Conan O’Brien near the end of his show. So on behalf of all of us, I’d like to say thanks to “Coco” for all the laughs. We sure as hell hope they continue on another network in the near future.

Best and Worst of the 2010 Golden Globes

Posted on by Colleen Claes
8

BEST:

  • All of the NBC jabs. From everyone.
  • The opening jokes from Ricky Gervais about the differences between the British and American Office
  • Mo’Nique winning for Precious. Totally deserved it. Her speech was touching also.
  • Alec Baldwin winning for 30 Rock
  • Ricky Gervais: “I enjoy a drink as much as the next man…Unless the next man is Mel Gibson!”
  • Christopher Waltz winning for his performance in Inglourious Basterds
  • Martin Scorsese’s cute speech sounding more like a film school lecture than an acceptance speech for a career achievement award
  • This tweet from Lizz Winstead of The Daily Show: “James Cameron is looking more and more like Bea Arthur.”

WORST:

  • Most of Gervais’ hosting
  • Alec Baldwin not being present to accept his award for 30 Rock
  • Sandra Bullock winning for The Blind Side over Gabby Sidibe in Precious. Yes, you read that right. SANDRA BULLOCK won over PRECIOUS’s Gabby Sidibe.
  • James Cameron winning Best Director and then quoting his own movie in the “Na’vi language”
  • The poor layout of the awards ceremony making it difficult for anyone to get up to the front to accept their awards
  • Cuing the music for everyone EXCEPT Meryl Streep
  • A lack of awards for Inglourious Basterds, which I had expected
  • A lack of awards for Precious, which I hadn’t expected
  • A lack of George Clooney, just in general
  • Chloe Sevigny’s dress, which apparently “got stepped on and ripped,” even though you couldn’t tell a difference because it was kind of a mess

I never regret watching the Globes, but this year I think I enjoyed baking cookies during the show more than I enjoyed the actual awards ceremony itself. (Crunchy fudge cookies, for anyone who’s wondering.)

The Downfall of NBC Late Night

Posted on by Colleen Claes
1

When I was a little boy, I remember watching ‘The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson’ and thinking ‘Someday, I’m going to host that show for seven months.’

That’s a joke from Conan O’Brien, the current (but possibly not for much longer) host of The Tonight Show.

As everyone knows by now, NBC decided to make another poor decision for late night when they announced that they wished to move Jay Leno’s horrible new show to the 11:35 pm slot. Thus, The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien would be bumped up to 12:05 am. And thus, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon would be bumped up to an even later time. Conan announced in his perfectly clear and honest statement that he did not wish to move The Tonight Show or Late Night up to later time slots.

Part of his statement read:

For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn’t the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

Here’s what I don’t get: NBC would screw over both of these shows – even the long-standing and respected Tonight Show – just for Jay Leno because his new show is failing miserably? I mean, do we as an audience really need or even want Leno on television anymore? I sure as hell don’t. But NBC can’t let go, and that just may be the downfall of their late show program.

Apparently, Leno is upset too, which came through in his monologue on January 11th. But I can’t really find the sympathy for him. Yes, NBC screwed up big time. But I’m over Leno, and I’m not sure that many other people would miss him once he’s gone.

I’d much prefer that they let Fallon keep his Late Night spot, and more importantly, just give Conan O’Brien a chance to fulfill his long-time dream of being the host of The Tonight Show. He was always a better host and interviewer than Leno, and I think NBC could have found themselves a modern-day Johnny Carson if they had just played their cards right.

Overall? It’s a damn shame. Though we’ll have to wait and see what kind of agreement or settlement O’Brien and the network come to, it’s not lookin’ good for NBC’s late night.

Delayed Reaction: ‘Wendy and Lucy’

Posted on by Colleen Claes
2

Promotional image, 2008

I finally watched Wendy and Lucy (2008), the festival darling about a young woman (Michelle Williams) who’s making her way to Alaska with her dog (the Lucy of the pair) in hopes of starting anew. Directed by indie director Kelly Reichardt, the film feels like a drama made by and for hipsters. It’s methodically slow-paced; and though there are obstacles once Wendy becomes stranded in the middle of Oregon, the movie is ultimately uneventful.

Critics and audiences seem to have mixed reviews of this quiet independent film, which traveled the film festival circuit until it landed in theaters as a limited release. Apparently, you either think it’s subtly brilliant or overrated.

My thoughts? I’m leaning more towards the “overrated” category of opinion. I’m not sure, but maybe you really have to love dogs in order to become enthralled with this storyline – which is really just about Wendy trying to recover her missing pet in Oregon.

There are undertones of American poverty and homeless or nomadic youth, but they don’t seem to come through enough to the point where you can call it “powerful.” Williams’ acting comes off as a forced calm or lethargy. The plot is simple, which could work in its favor, but it really dragged on for me.

Overall, I just couldn’t get into the film. I admire its delicacy in its simplicity, but it wasn’t executed in a way that was engrossing or interesting for me.

And it’s an unfair comparison, but I’m going to have to do it: Wendy and Lucy was no Umberto D.

Liz Lemon: Feminist Icon (Havin’ it All)

Posted on by Colleen Claes
20

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_ff/ / CC BY 2.0

I got to thinking about female television characters after reading Salon.com: Broadsheet’s commentary, “Carrie Bradshaw: Feminist Icon?” I recommend giving it a read whenever you get the chance, but basically: Writer Tracy Clark-Flory debates whether or not the character of Carrie Bradshaw from Sex and the City (played by Sarah Jessica Parker, of course) can be considered a role model for modern-day women.

And then it occurred to me…Liz Lemon (played by Tina Fey, of course) of 30 Rock has to be, truly, one of the best female icons on television right now.

Essentially, Liz Lemon is a lot like Tina Fey (except “more of a loser,” as Fey herself once said.) But they seem to represent the same concepts and ideas, and the similarities are obvious when comparing Lemon and Fey’s careers and histories. (For instance, Fey started out in improv in Chicago, and this is often mentioned on 30 Rock in regards to Lemon’s past.)

There are oh so many reasons why us women looooove Liz Lemon. She strives and struggles to “have it all!” as a creative writer, business woman, single woman on the New York dating scene, and a sometimes “clock-a-tickin’” wannabe mother. While jokes are made about Lemon attempting to “have it all,” she fairs pretty well, while also pointing out to us – comically – the hardships of a successful urban woman having to date, maintain friendships, and be respected as a boss and a professional.

Women say they can relate to Lemon because they “eat like her,” or are “dorky” like she is. Or they get nervous around men like she frequently does. We can relate to her. We see her at home, not made-up, hair a mess and lounging around in un-sexy sweats eating blocks of cheese late in the night. In fact, she’s a welcome relief with her eating habits. Because unlike the Sex and the City women, you’ll never find her ordering a salad. (But instead: a meatball sub.)

Liz Lemon may be what we call an “accidental hero”: She never really set out to become a positive role model for women, but she’s become one anyway. And she’s my personal pick for the feminist icon of the small screen. Hell, maybe even beating out anyone on the big screen at this rate.

She’s smart. She’s funny. She’s independent. She’s not perfect. And she’s like us. What more could you ask for in a fictional feminist icon?

‘Up in the Air’: A Nice Touch

Posted on by Colleen Claes
Reply

 

Official promotional image, 2009

Find me one person who doesn’t love George Clooney, male or female. Everyone loves George Clooney, or at least likes him. And in his newest film, Up in the Air, he proves once and for all that he’s the only actor who can really get away with “just playing George Clooney” every time. And why? Because he’s so good that roles are made for him, and he has the talent and charisma to excel at every role.

The quickness in his witty speech, the smirks, and the “not-so-family middle-aged guy” quality we all expect from Clooney are ever-present in this movie. He plays Ryan Bingham: a non-committal, attractive older man who travels most of the days of the year to fire people for a living. The bigger catch? He thoroughly enjoys it. He succeeds with this role to the point that you’re convinced there’s no other actor who could have possibly portrayed Bingham.

His female counterpart (who actually says in the film to think of her as him, “but with a vagina”), played by Vera Farmiga, is a strikingly powerful traveling business woman and seemingly as non-committal as Bingham. However, superficially, she seems to be the incarnation of a modern man’s fantasy – pointing out that she’s “flexible” in bed and has experimented with other women. Nonetheless, she helps to nicely balance out Clooney’s character and they make a good pair throughout the film.

While all the Elliott Smith and other downer acoustic songs seemed out of place, the movie seems to get more insightful towards the last quarter. While most of the film was dedicated to how Bingham lives his life and does his job, the last part deals with how that’s affected his relationships (or lack thereof).

It’s a reflective film that actually has enough mass appeal to please both mainstream and more independent-loving audiences. It gives people what they want in terms of humor and love story, but it doesn’t have a Hollywood ending. It doesn’t tie everything up for you in a nice, pretty bow. I could even go there and say that the resolution of the film is “up in the air” itself. Oh yeah. I went there.

Though the general Hype Bandwagon seems to think this film is life-changing and amazing, I’ll categorize it as “pretty damn good.” I enjoyed it, appreciated its touches of comical and serious truths about post-9/11 airports and today’s unemployment rate. The subject matter is timely, and yet I can see it becoming a smaller classic years from now – a film we look back on and appreciate its relevance to the time. The editing by Dana E. Glauberman is noteworthy and slightly experimental. Overall, it’s clearly a well-made film. So while director Jason Reitman obviously did a great job, I’m going to have to say that George Clooney really made it what it is.