I thought this was awesome news in that the photographer, Giuliano Bekor, shot regularly for Lucire. From the Lucire ‘Insider’ section.

Giuliano Bekor, whose credits include numerous Lucire shoots, photographed Hayden Panettiere for her 2008 Candie’s print campaign.

Hayden Panettiere will star in Candie’s back to school 2008 television, print and online advertising campaign, according to the company. Hayden, who is known as an award-winning actress, activist and star of NBC’s hit television series Heroes can now add recording artist to her résumé.
   Following last year’s marketing campaign with Grammy-award winning artist Fergie, the new fall TV commercial will be a direct lift from Panettiere’s first music video, ‘Wake Up Call’, which was styled using Candie’s apparel, footwear and accessories.
   This is Panettiere’s second season with the brand.
   To coincide with TV, a print campaign will feature Panettiere in a variety of sexy and sweet vignettes as she playfully poses with a piano, behind a beaded curtain and in a club-like setting among others. The ‘Wake Up Call’ video and the Candie’s commercial were shot in Los Angeles by famed music video director Chris Applebaum and the print campaign was shot by fashion photographer Giuliano Bekor, whose credits include Lucire, and created by the Iconix in-house marketing team.
   Fans can listen to ‘Wake Up Call’ exclusively at www.candies.com and www.kohls.com/inspire (streaming only) beginning today. The single will be available for download on iTunes beginning August 5. The single is being released by Hollywood Records.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Los Angeles Times believes San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom is considering exploring running for California’s governor when Arnold Schwarzenegger’s term finishes in 2010. Gov Schwarzenegger cannot run again due to his state’s term limits.
   Gavin—the fiancé of a friend of mine, and whom I had some dealings with when he was first elected (more specifically, our staffs dealt with one another)—is probably ideal from the Democratic side of things and could score a lot of votes on the coastal counties. Inland, I am less sure.
   Right now I say his profile is the highest of the likely rivals, even compared with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles.
   I know from many of our mutual friends that Gavin has considered running for the Governor’s office for years, though this is one of the few public articles about this ambition.
   I may not agree with all his policies but I believe he is faithful to his principles. And living in a place that has universal healthcare, I like the fact that Gavin has given that to the people of San Francisco.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

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
  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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The following is a comment in response to the exchange from my earlier blog post on gay marriage in California. I believe it is important (for my own ego!) to address charges that I am prejudiced against gays or am a bigot. It is a pity that while I am open to seeing the other side of the argument in favour of gay marriage in California, as a heterosexual man I am already labelled (prejudged) as being incapable of that.
   I am going to Lawcrawler to see if I can find this controversial judgement and will give my thoughts on it later.

T. G. C., I am reading your extract short of seeing the full judgement, and I find it somewhat unconvincing.
   Let me address one point: the article I posted is an article I posted. Simple. I do find it somewhat offensive that you and Madonna would attribute its position to me when even I have not done so. Yes, you may feel it has a personal endorsement by its mere appearance here. In that case your opinion of me is forgiveable. I can understand that the article inflames certain passions. However, it is my opinion that if the article were fair, then the judges in this case do not understand their jobs.
   A bit about my history, so at least we can get on the same page here. I have a fairly good grasp of the law as I am qualified with an LL B. I live in a country that was an early pioneer in homosexual law reform and has a proud tradition of embracing lifestyles that traditionalists would be appalled at. I could probably even find you two gay couples who would attest to my views on the subject that I would say most gays (here) would believe are reasonable and fair.
   My posting an article is for promoting understanding, certainly my own, and certainly, too, to contrast the way your country handles legal positions against the way my one does.
   Let me take one of your highlighted points:

we disagree with the Attorney General and the Governor to the extent they suggest that the traditional or long-standing nature of the current statutory definition of marriage exempts the statutory provisions embodying that definition from the constraints imposed by the California Constitution, or that the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes a court from determining that constitutional question

   Obviously without reading the statute I am less informed, but this is fairly true: in general, in most common law jurisprudence, courts to interpret laws in line with (state or federal) constitutions.
   Then, however, we have a conflict if the definition of marriage is codified, and this is perhaps the stem of the conflict more than anything.
   Traditionally, even when legislation is interpreted in the spirit of a constitutional document—a familiar argument here given the Treaty of Waitangi—it is not done by completely violating the wording of that legislation.
   To you and Madonna, it may be an issue of what the public wants, but if you have a Governor who keeps vetoing such bills, then I find it unconvincing that we rely on those bills in legal interpretation. In fact, this fact alone illustrates the law’s insufficiency at this present stage for those supporting gay marriage.
   The judicial task when faced with wanting to respect the will of the people and equal-rights doctrines in a constitution is to find third ways, clever exceptions that provide citizens with what they want without violating the legislation before them. This is a given in common law.
   While this means that gay marriage will take far longer to be recognized if this is the prevailing trend, law is something that takes decades to remould, but it should not be short-circuited.
   The law of negligence is a classic example in tort: probably most law students will recall this took decades before the landmark Donahue v. Stevenson case in 1928 and Lord Atkin’s classic judgement.
   Laws are slow, they are often reactive, but it is the system we are laboured with. An ideal world would be one without laws and with self-regulation between people acting with their complete free wills. I hold this to be an ideal and it matters, at the end of the day, little what definitions state about this word or that—but it does matter to me that while we have our current system, it is conducted fairly until the people decide on another system again.
   You bring up Perez v. Lippold. You are right that this is actually highly convincing and I thank you for reminding me of it. I do know a little about this case but there are some distinctions based on religion, the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutional interpretation, and these really helped the couple there. The respondent also presented some heavily biased opinion that the court saw through.
   There was indeed a law written in statute that barred the marriage of the couple in that case, one that was, admittedly, steadily eroded by the courts as it expanded the definition of marriage to increasingly more races.
   The court held (inter alia) that the sections in that legislation were too vague especially when it came to racial classifications—which was how ultimately it got around the interracial ban.
   You see, there was no legislating from the bench: the judge in Perez showed how lacking the legislation was, how it offended the basic tenets of the requirements of American law, and it was effectively a challenge to the legislature that: if you want to block us, revisit the law and redraft it if you dare. This I accept as this fight goes on all the time in a democracy.
   This is why I asked you and Madonna to find me the judgement, though since I haven’t heard back, I’ll have a trawl through Lawcrawler myself in a sec.
   Without clever methods of finding a way around fairly strictly worded statutes, I do believe from what little I know (yes, maybe I shall accept the ignorance charge) the judges crossed the line here.
   Contrary to your and Madonna’s biased views of me, I retain an open mind.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

John Armor in the Sun–Sentinel gives an excellent summary of the controversial case in California over gay marriage, where judges have ignored the separation of powers, trying to create laws from the bench. He begins:

The recent decision on gay marriage handed down by the California Supreme Court will have long-lasting and widespread effects far beyond the issue at hand. It creates a dangerous precedent justifying judicial violation of the separation of powers and demonstrates the increasing inclination of some judges to usurp the lawmaking powers reserved for the legislature and the people.
   Creating laws is clearly designated as a legislative function in both the California and U.S. constitutions. For example, it is the business of California’s legislators (or the people, in the case of a referendum) to vote for, or against, gay marriage. Enforcing the laws and applying the Constitution is the role of the courts. But as Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in his dissent, in handing down this decision, “the majority places this controversial issue beyond the realm of legislative debate and substitutes its own judgment in the matter for the considered wisdom of the People and their elected representatives.” …
   Sadly, some of our judges have become black-robed politicians who happen not to be elected and who serve for life. They have turned their courtrooms into ad hoc statehouses, handing down laws that appear to have more to do with their personal beliefs than the Constitution.

   The rest can be read here. My view: if a schmuck like me outside the US understands the legislative function, democracy and the separation of powers, how come those four judges don’t?
   Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, this is an assault on democracy and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
   If I were an American, I’d be very worried—dodgy politicians on the one hand, and contemptuous judges on the other.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Just as I finished writing about Philip Glenister getting his driver off a ticket by acting as Gene Hunt, I surfed over to an article about Canadian actor William Shatner linked from the Daily Mail page I cited earlier:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=565380&in_page_id=1879

   In the 1960s, Shatner wore his Capt Kirk uniform rushing to work and was also stopped. He writes:

I got out of my car, dressed in my uniform. The police officer looked me up and down, frowned and asked: “So where are you going so fast at this time in the morning?”
   I told him the truth: “To my spaceship.”
   He sighed. “OK, go ahead,” he said, before adding the Vulcan blessing: “Live long and prosper.”

   Nothing new under the sun.
   The story is quite good, told in the first person. Shatner recounts his lows and the death of his third wife (after what seems to be the final paragraph talking about the price of his autobiography).

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Folks may recall the videos I posted about the possibility that Hillary Clinton committed a breach of electoral finance laws in 2000 a few weeks back.
   The following was Dugg today: ‘Paul v. Clinton: Experts Question Whether Clinton Campaign Finance Case Will Impact ’08 Race’.
   It’s an old article from 2007 but the last time it was on Digg, Democratic supporters dismissed it as a right-wing attack on their Hillary.
   Now you see from the comments on Digg that many, many Democrats have joined in and the right-wing charge has disappeared. It’s obviously accepted by more of the US population.
   The excerpts are interesting (and I am being biased against Sen. Clinton in selecting these):

The star-studded August 2000 event was later deemed to be a violation of federal campaign finance laws: The Clinton campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Elections Committee. Clinton’s campaign finance director David Rosen was accused of lying to the FEC, indicted, but eventually acquitted. …
   The case presents the classic question of what Clinton knew and when she knew it, said election lawyer John Armor. He said the tape shows that Clinton allegedly committed at least four felonies pertaining to illegal campaign fundraising and obstructing subsequent federal investigations into the matter. …
   “No presidential candidate was ever caught on videotape engaged in felony,” Paul told Cybercast News Service. “No candidate [has ever been] engaged in major civil fraud suit [that] she was forced to testify in.” …
   In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said only that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser.
   “I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton,” Clinton wrote.

   The following excerpt, however, is very sad:

From a political perspective, the public stopped caring about alleged misdeeds by either of the Clintons, said Gary Rose, political science professor at Sacred Heart University.
   “When it comes to the Clintons, they are generally immune to public condemnation regarding ethical lapses and violations of the law,” Rose told Cybercast News Service. “If this case continues into the general election, we'll see how it affects swing voters and independents, but it is not going to derail her bid for the nomination. I still remember Bill Clinton’s polls, and two-thirds of voters said they didn’t trust him but voted for him irrespective of his morality or ethics.”
   Even critics of Clinton don’t think the case will harm her politically.
   “She’s going to hold the highest office in the country. She’s got the money, the organization and the FBI files,” James Nesfield, president of the Equal Justice Foundation of America (EJFA), said in an interview.

   I don’t think Americans are that stupid but there is one part that rings true: we are so used to the idea of the Clintons being crooks we don’t bat an eyelid any more. The more news like this surfaces, the more it becomes part of the Clinton noise, and fewer and fewer will care. We become desensitized.
   None of this has made it into the MSM in this country and I bet little has made it into the MSM in the States. 
   Also, the voting public was different in 1996 because they did not see the Sen. Dole as being potentially effective—either have an ineffective, uninspiring president, or an untrustworthy one. Americans chose the latter, since when did politicians and trust go together?
   In 2008, the world is different—Americans have the choice between an experienced candidate (McCain) or the claimed agent of change (Obama). Or, the least experienced of the three in elected office who claims sleep deprivation causes lies (Clinton).

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Before I begin, I should note that this story does not have a response from the Clintons directly, but it makes very disturbing viewing. As Peter Paul says in the first part, the case against the Clintons is proceeding, dealing with a massive election fraud, but there is nothing in the media about it. At the end of Part One, Mr Paul shows a video that demonstrates Mrs Clinton was in full knowledge of the campaign contributions that were raised for her by him and his organization.
   Equal Justice Foundation of America, which presents the documentary, calls the incident ‘most shocking expose on the blatant corruption surrounding Hillary Clinton. Includes exclusive home videos of Hillary to expose the illegalities that elected Hillary to the Senate and the obstructions of justice that keep her there.’ One commentator believes that Sen. Clinton has committed a felony punishable by five years’ jail time.
   Let us say this is not beyond the realm of imagination and needs to be considered fairly.

The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (1of2)

The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (2of2)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend