A Boom and a Bust

It should come as no surprise to anyone that reads this blog that I am EXTREMELY happy about the creation of a new Star Trek franchise. It should also come as no surprise that I was very skeptical about the idea of new hands taking hold of the reins. I feared this new younger generation had no connection to the show and had not experienced the love of the original series. I doubted they would handle it with the respect and dignity that we true fans believe it deserves. My feelings were to either make the movie in good taste, or leave it alone. I was very happy that the movie was created with great passion and a new youthful energy that had been missing for the last couple of releases. It also looked like the cast had been well schooled on how to be good Starfleet officers. They also appeared to love and respect their characters. They looked like the sexy children of the original cast. If I were Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Nichols, Koenig, Takei, and Doohan, I would be very flattered.

The story was close to perfect. It gave us Vulcans, Romulans, the Kobayashi Maru. We had warp drive, phasers, photon torpedoes and deflector shields. We had an Enterprise that was built like a college boy’s hot rod. I believe this is the ship we would have had if Gene Rodenberry or Rick Berman had the technology to make it years ago. My only disappointment with this outing was a little story twist that involved time travel. I understand it was used as a device to give us Leonard Nimoy in a nostalgic homage to the original series. He gave the new guys the necessary LL&P as a blessing to continue. I appreciated that. However, time travel episodes get very complicated with their plots. It was cool that the “alternate universe” now gives us liberty to do almost anything with the new set of movies. But, stay in the present with these new kids now. Let them have fun and save the universe on their own without the help of the old guys. Our beloved Jimmy Doohan and D. Kelley are gone now. Let’s not try to bring back cast reunions without them. If any of the original cast deserves a cameo, let them appear as holographic computer references and move on with the new guys. And, as Captain Janeway was told a couple of times in Voyager, try to avoid time travel.

As much as I enjoyed the new Trek, I disliked the new Dan Brown movie, Angels and Demons. I went to this movie with the greatest sense of anticipation for good. Many of you have seen my drawing of Bernini’s Ganges from the Fountain of the Four Rivers in Rome. That drawing was inspired because I fell in love with it after reading Angels and Demons a few years ago. I posted the drawing here on this very blog.

We all have to agree that DaVinci Code the movie was awful. It was boring. I didn’t care if they solved the codex or destroyed it. I didn’t care if the main characters lived or died. I was angry that a great book had been made into a bad movie. Of course, we all hoped that Howard and Hanks had learned their lesson and would do a better job this time. The one good thing about these movies is the fact they are based on fantastic stories written by Dan Brown. Angels and Demons is an even better book than DaVinci so it should have been a better movie, right?

The show started out better than the last one. There was action, there was excitement, and there was the very adorable Ewan McGregor as a heroic and lovable camarlengo. Then they ruined it. Spoiler alert here! They made McGregor the villain. The joy of the book is that the hero is elected Pope after he risks his life to save the church he loves. When he shows he is willing to sacrifice himself for it, he is made leader of the church. It is a beautiful and optimistic ending that shows the possibility of a Catholic church that just might have the common man’s touch. Instead, Hollywood makes the church appear to be an institution of crime, misdirection, lies and conspiracy again. That’s how we left it at the end of the DaVinci Code. Wouldn’t it have been better to show a balanced interpretation of faith in this movie? Brown did. Brown showed that men of faith could be heroic, altruistic and noble. He allowed that the Christian faith could inspire men to greatness and allow them to find their better selves. Why did the makers of the movie feel it necessary to tarnish what was an optimistic and inspiring ending to the story?

Brown created a noble and honorable character, why did Hollywood feel it necessary to destroy him? Do the makers of the movie not believe that such men are realistic? Are good men so fictitious and unrealistic that Hollywood can’t portray them? If so, they are a very pessimistic lot. If that’s what they believe, then they should watch the new Star Trek. Those moviemakers believe in heroes and know that the good guys should always win.

You Gotta Give Them Hope

I saw the movie, MILK, last night. I was skeptical at first. I was afraid this was Hollywood once again trying to capitalize on another sensational historic event like the assassination of JFK, Jimmy Hoffa, and the 9/11 tragedy. I was pessimistic because I suspected the straight actors involved were more interested in self-promotion than sincerely portraying this important turning point in the human rights struggle of gay people. You know how they are. Most celebrities will wear any ribbon and support any cause just to get another thirty seconds of publicity, i.e., “save the whales”, “don’t eat meat“, “have your pet spayed or neutered.”

To a certain degree those things were true of this movie. The story is sensational, the roles will get a lot of attention for the cast members, and the topic is a culturally relevant issue in modern current events. However, it still succeeded as a meaningful and entertaining film. I’m glad I saw it and I recommend everyone in the country to see it because you either know a gay person, or you should “get to know” a gay person. The film sets a perfect tempo of mixing shocking archival footage to let the viewer feel the discomfort and shame that gay people feel in our society with just the right amount of humor to remind us to laugh at ourselves and experience the joy of life more than the sorrow of it.

This movie could have easily drifted into the cliché mode with lots of, “Gay Pride” slogans or “I’m here, I’m queer, get over it” quotes. But, the director smartly stayed away from that and replaced it with a more universal theme of, “You gotta give them hope.” While Harvey Milk was a gay city supervisor, he ultimately represented not only gay people, but a constituency of many that were unrepresented by the system, the homeless, elderly, the handicapped. I like that the film’s protagonist was the country’s conformity to the status quo. The idea that injustice is acceptable as long as the majority doesn’t disagree with it was the great obstacle to overcome.

I was a child when these events were being played out in California. I vaguely remember seeing Anita Bryant on TV complaining about the terrible sinners that were destroying our country. I grew up in a religious family so it was not something we talked about. I didn’t understand that I was gay and I didn’t understand that Anita was talking about gay people. The movie did a wonderful job of crystallizing that whole ugly mess. It wasn’t until last night that I, a forty year old man, understood all that Milk and his supporters did to combat such a crusade of bigotry and hate. If I was unaware of it, then I’m sure that people younger than myself knew.

Gay young people today have it so much easier than my generation when it comes to finding acceptance in society. My generation is even finding it easier to be open and honest with our friends and families. Many of us at middle age are beginning to hope that we might have the possibility of a “normal” open and loving relationship during our lifetimes. Much of this is due to the work began by Harvey Milk and his supporters. If nothing else, this movie is important because it has made us aware of that.

The movie also makes us aware of some missteps taken by the “gay rights” movement. I was unaware that it was Harvey Milk that started his speeches with the words, “I’m Harvey Milk and I’m here to recruit you.” While those of us with a bit of intelligence understand that he was “recruiting” people to support his cause of human rights and social justice, the homophobic extremophiles insisted that he was recruiting wholesome heterosexual young men to become homosexual. There has not been any more damaging concept about gay people than that we are not born gay but that we recruit, teach, and train innocent, vulnerable straight people to be one of us. The idea that gay people have the magical powers to convert heterosexuals into something they are not has been deadly.

The villainous character, Dan White, was expertly portrayed by Josh Brolin. The writers and director designed the character to represent everything that is still oppressing gay people. Dan White was a charming, attractive face that masked a deep underlying evil of hatred and intolerance based on moral superiority and religious intolerance. Dan White represented everything that we Americans love in a man. He was a fireman, a police officer, he was heroic. He was a masculine and attractive, religious family man. He was an ignorant and incompetent public official who was elected based on his many appealing superficial qualities. When those pitiful charms failed to help him accomplish his meaningless agenda, he reverted to the violent animal that he truly was. Perhaps this portrayal by Brolin will help some people re-evaluate what they consider to be the marks of a “real man.”

MILK is a great movie. I can’t encourage you to go see it quickly enough.

OMG! The Final Frontier Was Never This Sexy

Hey, friends! You know what a huge Trek geek I am. I was furious when I heard that a new movie was being made featuring the ST:OS characters without the original cast. How dare they defile such an exquisite and perfect piece of American science fiction history. Why, the Great Bird of the Galaxy (Roddenberry) would roll over in his grave (but he was cremated and shot into orbit) if he had seen this.

But, I was so wrong. I was breathless after watching this very slick and adrenaline pumping trailer. I loved that first mysterious “Enterprise in the construction yard” thing that they first put out but was still skeptical when I saw the boy toy cast that was going to be playing my childhood heroes. Then I saw this little gem of a trailer today. I can’t tell you how many times I gasped while I watched the kid in the car go over the cliff, the fight between Kirk and Spock, the original clunky ship zipping across the screen as if it really were aerodynamic. Wow!

If you, my dear readers, bear any love for me at all, you will share in my joy about this new prequel. Let’s boldly go to this new movie. WOW!

W.

Whether you love the man or hate him, you will like the movie. Believe it or not, Oliver Stone has made a fair and very entertaining film about our current and soon to be former (thank goodness) president.

I don’t believe I’ve ever enjoyed an Oliver Stone film until now. The “Last Temptation of Christ” was offensive. “Nixon” was chaotic and oppressive. Most of his other films are so complicated they are impossible to watch without a road map. But, this one hit the perfect balance. “W.” shows the bumbling buffoon of a swaggering cowboy that Bush is well known for. But, by the end of the picture Stone has led us to a place to feel honest compassion and sympathy for a man that is quite simply in over his head. While the picture shows George W. Bush to be simple and somewhat stupid, he isn’t devious or malicious. I really wanted to give the guy a hug and a pat on the back when it was over. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the hunky Josh Brolin makes me want to sing “Hail to the Chief” with a whole new sense of enthusiasm. And, Brolin also makes us proud to know that GW is a brief’s, not boxers, guy.

I had heard that Stone had included the President’s Christian conversion. I was dreading seeing it on film because I feared it would be mocked in true Hollywood fashion. Instead, it was treated with great sensitivity and feeling. I can imagine that very scene happening in most of the churches across the South.

Stone’s movie finally hit the right blend of emotional elements; humor, sorrow, anger. It was easy to identify the multiple story/timelines involved. The supporting cast made all the characters serious and meaningful. It would have been a piece of fluff if the only major player had been the President. But, Brolin’s George W. seemed seriously presidential when surrounded by a cabinet that includes Richard Dreyfuss and Scott Glenn. The only questionable casting decision was Ioan Gruffudd (Fantastic Four) as PM Tony Blair.

Brolin should receive an Oscar for this performance. The character is perfect from accent and gestures, to swagger and expressions. Even in the scenes that showed W. at his most ridiculous I never felt that Brolin was mocking the man. The character was played with real respect and dignity. Brolin was able to deliver the charm and personal charisma that was present in the younger Bush when he ran for his first presidential campaign. The pre-9/11 Bush was the man that everyone wanted to “have a beer with.” Brolin gave us exactly that. With Brolin in the role it was impossible to dislike the guy. If George W. Bush were to be made into an action figure, it would look like Josh Brolin.

Make no mistake. Watching this movie will certainly not turn you into a Republican. I doubt that one could even call it historically or biographically accurate. But, its certainly entertaining. You should not be afraid to see this film. If anything, Oliver Stone and Josh Brolin have shown us that George W. Bush is not a monster. And, while they have not defended him, they may have explained and apologized for him.

Avoid Mamma Mia, Save Meryl’s Reputation

“I have a dream……”

That’s how it begins, and after those words are sung the dream quickly becomes a nightmare.

I’ve always wanted to keep the Gemini Art blog positive and upbeat. I don’t want to be perceived as the typical spiteful, bitter ol’ queen with nothing but venom to spew onto the Internet. However, I must use a little space here to complain about the great injustice done to a musical theatre piece that I love very much. “Mamma Mia: The Movie” had to be one of the worst things I’ve ever paid money to sit through. The last time I paid money to endure that much suffering was for my last dental filling. I think the audience was in agreement with my opinion judging by the snickers and giggles I heard at inappropriate times through the show (some of them from me).

I went into the movie with some skepticism. If anyone has seen Meryl Streep’s closing number at the end of “Postcards from the Edge”, they would have known that casting her in a leading musical role might not be the best idea. But, I loved the stage version of the musical and was eager to see what this all-star cast would be able to do with it. I also attended the movie with a couple of fellow “fancy-boys”. Needless to say, our people are quite friendly to the musical theatre format. But it wasn’t long before we were all three wincing and cringing with embarassment of watching this talented actress crash and burn in this glorious cinematic failure. After the first two bars of Streep’s “Money, Money, Money”, her Donna looked old, tired, pathetic and totally unbelievable. By the way, for the uninitiated, Donna is the heroine of our story. We’re supposed to be cheering for her, not pitying her. Her dancing was a difficult routine of awkwardness to watch. I kept averting my eyes in discomfort while watching a near 60 year-old in overalls and stringy hair attempt sexiness and touching herself inappropriately. You know, it’s the same feeling you get when you accidentally walk in on grandma in the bath tub (just add music).

Now, for some compassion. I love Meryl. The ol’ girl’s got skills. She’s one of the most talented and consistent leading ladies in Hollywood. In a dramatic role, there’s none better. Remember “Silkwood“? As a comedian, she can go there too. I loved, loved, loved her in, “Death Becomes Her”, and “The Devil Wears Prada”. I would bet that a professional actress like her is probably delivering the dialogue and presenting the character exactly like she’s being asked to. So, we should probably blame the director for this turkey.

Streep is surrounded with an all-star ensemble that has big-time show biz creds. But, this was just not the movie for them. Pierce Brosnan is still the dashing, tall, dark and handsome business that he’s always been. He is still leading man material in anybody’s book. Who doesn’t love “007”? I promise, any day of the week, I would let Pierce Brosnan be the “Spy Who Shagged Me”. But if I have to listen to that man sing I’ll have to put him on the couch for the night. The casting director should have asked Brosnan’s agent if he can sing because this is a MUSICAL. And, by the way, he can’t.

I didn’t understand the weird interpretation of the movie’s time setting or the characters ages. In the dialogue we hear that Donna was a young “rock chick” in the early 70’s. Her daughter was born in 1974 and is now 20 years old. If Donna and her friends were around 20 in 1974 then they should now be about 40. But, its obvious that the adult leads in the movie are closer to 60 than 40. The freakish idea of any one of them has a 20 year old daughter here in 2008 is just bizarre. I wasn’t sure what type of strange scifi time-warping explanation the director has for this. Whatever.

The players that came closest to hitting their parts were Christine Baranski, Julie Walters, and Colin Firth. These three certainly understood that they were in a musical comedy. Baranski and Walters looked like they were having fun. I’ve met old sisters like them who enjoy being silly and don’t take themselves too seriously (my mother for one). You could tell they were laughing at themselves and it made it fun to laugh along with them. Baranski is an old pro at playing the man-eating middle-age cougar. It would have been fun to see more of her in this picture. Firth brought us some of the same Mark Darcy up-tight Brit that we loved in Bridget Jones’ Diary except here he was much more the ham. It was nice to see him playing for laughs against Brosnan’s straight man, the role that Firth usually fills in the Bridget Jones movies.

Another positive about this movie is the beauty of the location and the male chorus line. For those of us that quickly tired of watching the poor performance of the leads and the messy story-telling in this movie it was easy enough to just shift our attention to the beautiful scenery. The locations made me want to move to Greece today and the Speedo clad man-candy singing and dancing their hearts out was enough to hold my attention if nothing else did.

So, if you want to see Mama Mia, be sure and see it on stage. I don’t want anyone to think that this movie is the appropriate interpretation of this musical. If you feel you must see this movie, then wait until it comes out on DVD and then borrow it from a friend. Do not spend money on this one.