34 posts tagged “american”

Here’s another one from the weirdo department!
   Let’s see: if this person had indeed worked for Lucire, or any magazine on the planet, then no wonder they have an axe to grind—note the spelling and grammar! (We had a dyslexic intern who wrote with greater accuracy than this, since she used this new invention called the spellcheck. It also helped she had better phrasing, but needed more time to get the words on the page.)
   It’s not terribly encouraging to know that the writer thinks ‘We had … went’ is correct English in the very first line.
   I have blanked out some of the statements that could reveal who on the team had referred this to me.
   And as with most people who are too cowardly or are untruthful, it’s unsigned, but the envelope is postmarked New York.

Strange American letter from New York 1

Strange American letter from New York 2

I rather liked Craig Ferguson’s jokes at last year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. It was a shame that his fellow media colleagues didn’t know a good laugh when they heard it.
   I have found this with political humour in the United States. I have had political jokes fall well flat, and this is due to the politeness of Americans. Democrats don’t want to offend Republicans in the audience, and Republicans don’t want to offend Democrats in the audience. Net result: little laughter.
   The only times one can get a bit more extreme is in areas which are staunchly one way or another (e.g. then-Sen. Obama at the DNC and Gov. Palin at the RNC).
   He dissed The New York Times as much as Fox News, Vice-President Cheney as much as Sen. Clinton, Bill O’Reilly as much as Keith Olbermann, and he even had a go with the media in general. However, I loved his closing which was a great way to bring everyone together. Also notice that Mr Ferguson got a standing ovation.

Anne Hathaway—Lancôme Magnifique

1 comment

[Cross-posted from Lucire] We’ve put up some extra images from behind the scenes of the Lancôme Magnifique TV commercial, starring Anne Hathaway and directed by Peter Lindbergh, this week. A video showing the making of the commercial was shown on the Lucire TV site last month.

[Cross-posted] Just found out through Jeff Fisher: Lou Dorfsman, who can legitimately be called one of the heroes of American graphic design, passed away aged 90 on Wednesday.

Harvey Keitel has the right credentials to be Gene Hunt: Reservoir Dogs, Bad Lieutenant and two alcohol commercials:

I’ve rewatched the Life on Mars American pilot (the one which will not air) and it’s improved slightly on a second viewing, but not much. Some general comments:

Colm Meaney as Capt Gene Hunt

• Colm Meaney as Capt Gene Hunt: Meaney is a terrific actor—he was brilliant in Layer Cake—and I thought he would bring that sort of demeanour to his Gene Genie. But apart from the orientation scene when he tells Sam it’s 1972, and threatening a witness, he’s plain nice. Even though he knows Sam claims he’s from 2007, he asks him nicely to interview a witness. He also doesn’t smoke, there’s no hint of him being the high sheriff of his domain, nor is there any hint of racism or homophobia. I had hoped he would evoke John Wayne in McQ or Gene Hackman’s Popeye Doyle but the man is given no room to be a “licensed hood” in the script. He’s certainly not ‘an overweight, over-the-hill, nicotime-stained borderline alcoholic homophobe with a superiority complex and an unhealthy obsession with male bonding’ as was described in the original series;
• Jason O’Mara as Det Sam Tyler: rigid, and never feeling that much confusion over being back in 1972. With John Simm, we felt a sense of disorientation, but we don’t with O’Mara’s performance. O’Mara is a great leading man but shows none of the vulnerability here that I think the Sam Tyler role needs. I don’t know much of his work, but I believe he has that Celtic edge that’s needed to pull off the role well—but he needs better direction;
• 

  Rachelle Lefevre as Det Annie Cartwright

  2 comments
  Rachelle Lefèvre as Det Annie Cartwright: playing the straight woman to Sam Tyler, it’s not hard to see why she was cast first by David E. Kelley. Her performance is about the only one I would rate highly, and it’s on a par with Liz White’s PW Annie Cartwright without being an attempt at copying her. Although her publicity shots are rather glamorous, the Rachelle Lefèvre in the programme looks more down-to-earth and real. Perfect.

   My other comments about the overall storyline in the earlier post stand. It is missing something in the first half, but the second half and, in particular, the last act where Sam is in the diner to the rooftop scene with Annie are quite well done.

Rachelle Lefevre and Jason O’Mara in Life on Mars (unaired pilot)

   It’s still mostly inconceivable that everyone in the department knows Sam thinks he’s from the future, yet no one throws him into the funny farm. There’s a veiled threat, not much more. The story lacks humour and there is little “how far we have come” about it other than in technology and location—the social commentary seems to have disappeared for a straight twenty-first-century cop show that just happens to be set in 1972. There is only one sexist line—but in a 1972 police department, one would expect much more misogyny. Heck, there was more in The Mary Tyler Moore Show.
   I normally complain about network tinkering, but in this case I think it’s needed. I just hope the remake of the remake fixes the problems in Kelley’s Life on Mars, as some network types tend to worsen things. Simply having more dialogue with the creators—Graham, Pharoah and Jordan—might help, rather than the two hours Kelley reportedly spent. Even The Office in the US had the hand of Gervais and Merchant. Life on Mars needs help, because, put simply, it lacks life.

Life on Mars USA—well, let’s say it’s little wonder ABC wants it reshot and the leak is a great way to get comments from fans, many of whom have downloaded the unscreened pilot as made by David E. Kelley and directed by Thomas Schlamme.
   The storyline is identical to the original, which is not a bad thing, but the British media comments about the American version lacking something are not far off the mark. They are not being anti-American or unduly negative.
   First, some neutral comments: the LA setting does not annoy me. To me, New York City, especially Manhattan, is not different enough between 1972 and 2008 unless one heads down to Battery Park and some of the reclaimed-land bits. It should also shut up all those who moaned about the Bowie song not being on the TVCs (a “duh moment”—of course it would be in the programme but not in ads, and since when was the song in the British ads?).
   Now, the good points:

• the second half does draw you in, even when you know what is happening;
• re-elect Nixon posters on the high street;
• no Nelson, replaced by a waitress pouring coffee at a cafeteria—good character, but Sam needs someone whom he can chat to;
• a reference by Colm Meaney to Klingons;
• Annie being a detective actually works; and Rachelle Lefèvre gives a good performance;
• the briefing scene with Sam and Annie and the camera going around the performers;
• sexism by a detective during Sam’s briefing (responding, ‘Her titties’);
• the musical score (by Edmund Butt?);
• Sam’s realization that Colin Raimes lives next door to Kenmore—well acted and directed;
• final shot of Sam and Annie on the hotel roof with ‘Life on Mars’ playing is a different take on the original—and is quite nicely done.

   And the bad points:

• dull first act;
• Sam tells everyone in the police station that he’s from 2007 so it gives no reason for him to have a closer relationship with Annie;
• bad special effects for 1972 Los Angeles (though I assume these are temporary) and I can see modern cars in the high street scene where Sam goes into the record store;
• Stephanie Chaves-Jacobsen is very pretty but I felt no chemistry between her and Jason O’Mara—while they are meant to be distant, I never felt Jason’s Sam Tyler cared for Maya before her abduction;
• Gene Hunt is not foul-mouthed and not even politically incorrect except for the orientation (punching Sam) and abusing a woman helping with police enquiries;
• generally no sexism other than the scene mentioned earlier—contrast this to, say, the movie The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, from 1974;
• no racism (an Obama-for-president reference might be interesting if it’s remade);
• Gene Hunt asking Sam nicely to join him for an interrogation—and lack of tension between the two beyond unconvincingly trading a few punches;
• absence of humour;
• no Chris and Ray, and Lenny Clarke is no substitute (I expect he will be recast);
• not much in the way of contrasting 1972 and 2007 methods;
• Sam’s 1972 arrival does not seem particularly tormenting to him and I was not drawn in to his feeling any confusion. Jason O’Mara almost seems too rigid and suffers in comparison to John Simm;
• bland performances from O’Mara and Meaney—watch the scene when Beryl Raimes tells them about the music next door ceasing to annoy her and contrast it to the original—which can be blamed in part on direction;
• certain lines copied verbatim from the original.

   I know the majority of people who will see the US one will not have seen the original. However, I believe it lacks a lot of sparkle and even cohesiveness and it could harm the series’ chances Stateside. The comparisons do need to be made: the success of Life on Mars was based on how deeply we were drawn in to Sam Tyler’s predicament. The American producers need to understand (if they don’t already) that it is possible to create that effect, but possibly with another director (with respect to Mr Schlamme).
   This first US version lacks that depth—and it is nothing to do with it being American.
   A remake prior to the fall début in ABC might not be a bad idea because there is room for improvement, especially for the underdeveloped Gene Hunt character and O’Mara’s rigidity.

From: Jack Yan
To: Drake

Please encode message before sending.

Drake: given your recent successful assassinations, our organization will pay you to eliminate from New Zealand screens the Beaurepaires spokesman, Vince Martin. Since 1982 we have had to put up with his ads for Dunlop and Beaurepaires, listening to him whine about blunt axes and singing Christmas carols. You are free to choose what method of killing you like, but the old hallucination and dive out of a high-rise gag is a good standby. Try not to run afoul of Jim Phelps and his Mission: Impossible team if you can.—JY

Life on Mars US

US Life on Mars looks like it’s in some sort of Hollywood hell, because of all the back-room deals that have gone on. The only new drama from ABC TV in the US this fall, there’s a lot riding on it. The pilot was already made, but now the network wants to tinker. David E. Kelley, who wrote the adaptation and executive-produced it, has departed. In fact, there’s talk of scrapping the pilot and starting from scratch, shifting the story from Los Angeles to New York. Somehow it’s all got to work out before the series débuts.
   Scott Collins of the Los Angeles Times tries to summarize what has been going on and it looks like a mess. One excerpt:

The network and producers are talking about tossing out the pilot and starting over. Or not; maybe they’ll just tweak a few details. Some of the actors might get canned. Not necessarily, though. One thing we know for sure: Over the last few days, the decision was made to move the series out of Los Angeles—in both its setting and its production—to shoot on location in New York City, giving it a very different look.

   What I thought was funny was that the network felt Kelley departed too much from the original.
   I do agree that New York is a better venue for the show; I always felt Seattle would have suited the theme more. But if they are retooling the show before the première, they had better work fast.

Finally, I have read the judgement from California about gay marriage. It may be prudent to post a comment from an earlier post, in response to a commenter, Madonna. I should note that I am not part of a conspiracy behind an ‘anti-gay industry’ or ‘“ex-gay” head cases’. I’ll also refrain from saying ‘You’re not bright,’ as you did to another Voxer, but I will begin with your own words, ‘Let me educate you.’ One proviso: I have read fewer Californian cases than, obviously, someone trained in an American law school. I have written based on what I have observed with Californian and American cases.
   It may also be instructive to read the below in conjunction with the previous post, also a response by me to a commenter who was considerably more civilized, in where I deal with Perez v. Lippold in more depth.

After having read the majority opinion, I remain unconvinced. While I agree the article is biased, I have to come to the same conclusion as Justice Baxter, principally for many of the reasons I outlined above.
   This may be time, now, to address Madonna’s points.
   First, Madonna, your attack on another commenter is unwarranted, and it’s a shame you would deny her her opinion from the outset without putting your reasoning first. It would not be unfair to dismiss anything that came afterward from you.
   I can equally attack you with your words:

No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

Precedents do not govern, they persuade. And if you do look back at Californian decisions, regardless of whether the issues are as controversial or not, they show a gradual, progressive moving forward of the law, catching up to public opinion in many cases. I believe you are ignorant of this basic fact of how the law has worked in California and, indeed, your own country, based on this very general, sweeping proposition. Indeed, Perez itself shows this, and I find the lead judgement in particular to be very, very clever.
   These precedents which I have at least enquired into do show some persuasiveness but none of them get around the problem California has with the Governor’s vetoes. The fact that the ‘a man and a woman’ definition has been placed in really do not help supporters of gay marriage. So we are essentially stuck with the position that I stated in my comment to the Gay Curmudgeon.
   Effectively I believe that the law has been circumvented, and not very cleverly, the majority judges trying to bury the core issue with legalese.
   Your bill argument is unconvincing. If the Governor’s position is so dead wrong, then vote the man out. I come back to the basic idea: the judge’s role is to interpret the law. And a bill is not law.
   As are your arguments, from a legal standpoint, about polls (not really a consideration generally for courts, though they are slightly persuasive), while another state’s court ruling is based on the legislation of that state.
It is also irrelevant which party appointed the judges.
   The position I had in the above post, then, is the one I must take. Perez shows how a clever court gets around restrictive legislation. You obviously believe that the law is restrictive and unfair here and perhaps even offends public policy. I respect your view. Common law precedents are littered with cases where the court has got around such law. The court in this latest case has not done its job and I would say that if the majority had an agenda to accept marriage for same-sex couples, then it has done it in a clumsy way that opens the case for future attacks.
   Even if I were on your side totally—and I am not saying I am totally against you, either—I would advise you both to continue campaigning for your cause, because this judgement is weak when compared with others that have, let’s say, pushed the law in a certain direction.
   Your battle is far from over though given current trends in the California, you may yet win. However, I will guarantee you now that it won’t be on this decision.