The best beards in show business

For those of you who braved the early hours to watch the Oscars last night, I'm sure you were as captivated and transfixed as I was, particularly in the last hour of the ceremony...

Transfixed not by the grandeur of the Dolby Theatre (another piece of despicable corporate branding), nor by the A-listers that studded the ocean of seats like moonlit sequins on a shimmering Pacific night, and not even by the incredible array of cinematic artistry being celebrated. Impressed? Yes. Transfixed? No. Instead, I found myself fixated on the brilliance of this year's show-biz beards.

There were A through to C-listers in attendance and a fair few of them were flagrantly flaunting their follicle fortitude as the Academy brought out it's biggest, best and bushiest beards the business has to offer!

Inevitably there were one or two follicle failures - but as a trend, the beardy bristles previously the exclusive property of bums and Beatniks has definitely grown into itself.

So let's take a minute to pay homage to those banging the bearded drum for 2013...

Clooney - what can we say? Suave, debonair, and coolly under-stated - everything that makes the man the star he is. Plus, there's something about a grey beard that just looks cooler than 'normal' ones (except for Alan Sugar's chin strap)

Affleck - a strong score on beard thickness while still being tidily defined. Indeed the similarities between Affleck and Clooney (on the night and in the past year) are plain to see - as for the question on whether Affleck's being groomed as Clooney's replacement? Who knows - but one thing's for sure; the follicle force is strong in this one...

 

Jackman - opting for the goatee is a brave beardy choice. Too thin, and you look like a slimy, Greek waiter. Or worse, Giuseppe from Eastenders. Too long, and you look like an unemployed Terry Venables. That is unless you're Hugh Jackman. Y'see, Hugh's what's known as a 'man's man'. Never one to shirk a fight, can still sink a few jars now and then and hell – he can probably cook too! And it's this aura of acceptability in both males and females (I've got no beef with this - the man's a unit!) that means he can get away with having a goatee, but pull it off as a fully-grown beard. Kudos.

And is it mere coincidence that the bushiest beard of the night walked away with the biggest awards? Pah!

I, like Hugo Weaving and God do not play with coincidence...

Then it must be fate. And so I take this as proof of the fact that you're not an actor - nor an artist - until you've released the inner beast, and braved the world of the beard!

So all you wannabe writers, all you aspiring artistes - put down the razor and embrace the beard!

I mean c'mon - the 'Academy Award for Outstanding Beard' isn't too far a stretch of the imagination...is it?

 

Images (lovingly) borrowed form BBC Online 

Monkey see, monkey…fight?

How many of you have ever seen violence in films? What’s that? All of you? Hhmmm, interesting. But far from surprising.

It could be as laughable as the Hugh Grant and Colin Firth ‘fight’ scene (for want of a better word) in Bridget Jones, or it could be as needlessly gratuitous as virtually any scene in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the (literally) eye-popping torture scene in Casino…either way, it’s safe to say we’d all struggle to find a single film which doesn’t have some form of fisticuffs in (even Toy Story has a few fights in it!).

And if certain ‘experts’are to be believed, the scenes in these films are the driving force behind much of the violence in real life.

And I wonder…how much truth is there in this?

Personally, I’m not convinced by the cinematic conspiracy theories. Maybe that’s because I’m not so easily swayed, and maybe because I’m too ‘in control’ and won’t let Hollywood shove me over the edge into insanity. But ask yourself – seeing that all of us have witnessed countless examples of violence on the silver screen, and yet (as far as I know) none of you reading this have gone on to commit any atrocities or acts of hate…how much impact do these movies have?

I mean just because I’ve seen 'Catch Me If You Can', does that mean I'm going to become a world-renowned fraudster? No. Because I've seen 'Trainspotting', am I going to develop an insatiable heroin addiction? Or because I’ve seen 'Withnail and I' going to start downing lighter fluid? Or because I’ve seen 'Wedding Crashers', am I going to hit weddings to pick up girls? No, no, and...maybe.

But I should be clear; I’m not trying to belittle any of the incidents which the media are trying to lay at the feet of the red carpet. Events like the Fairfax (VA) murder in 2007 and the Colorado killingsin 2012 were horrible and my heart goes out to the families involved.

Truly.

But I can’t help but notice that in the history of Hollywood, of the hundreds of thousands of  films created in the last 100 years, less than 0.01% of these films have been reported to have inspired copy cat violence.

In fact come to think of it, I’d say that video games have a far greater influence by turning a passive viewer (cinema) into an active force of fighting and killing and maiming…y’know?

But it’s not a case of finger pointing between films and games and rappers over who’s had the biggest negative impact on its audience. But in the same instance, nor is it a case of finger pointing by ‘experts’ and other media institutes.

I mean what about the news? News reports bring some of the most horrendous things into our living rooms, and while it’s not glorifying these acts, it is introducing us all to the darker side of life, so while the media exists (and by that I obviously include the web), people will be open to violence and war and crime.

But then we can’t be shut off from the world, so what to do? Well it seems to me that people just need to learn to control their emotions better, and that when they go watch a Tarantino movie, or when they read American Psycho, or when they play COD, they realise these are works of fiction. FICTION! And if they do get you hot under the collar, go jerk off or hit a punch bag or something…y’dig? This ain’t rocket science.

But I’ve rambled on long enough.

The point I want to make is; are we justified in lambasting the oft vilified Tarantino, and are we right to say that the bloody red carpet is in fact to blame for the attacks over the year?

In short, no. I don’t think we are. I think in those unfortunate instances, there is a pre-existing tendency towards insanity – or at least instability – and that’s the kicker. Cinematic copy cat killings just happen to make a convenient scapegoat.

But then again, everyone knows that Hitler was a big Chaplin fan, and having two of the same terrible ‘taches can’t be mere coincidence…can it?

I am God.

What is it about cinema? Why do we keep watching films?

Yes, we can argue for entertainment and for escapism (any spiv who took a media studies course at college could tell you that), but come on – think past the obvious…

Why do we watch films? Anyone? Bueller…? Bueller…?

Well I have an idea.

Take a look at some of the films that get made and that go on to be some of the most popular – what do they give us?

Spectacle! Extraordinary, and remarkable spectacle!

They give us the chance to explore space, to traverse deserts and scale the ocean depths; to see love bloom, wars rage, witness the White House being blown up (not that we wanted to!) or watch the world end…

Put simply; cinema gives us a chance to see things we would NEVER get the chance to see in our everyday lives. But this isn’t just escapism. This is the viewpoint of God!

We see cities ruined, skyscrapers razed, tsunamis hit, tornados land and we even see people brought back from the dead – we get to see everything that’s going on in an entire universe and we can even slow the most heart-racing sequences down to a crawl so that we can take it all in…

We watch films because they make us feel important and influential, as though we were the ones who created the world we’re watching.

In those 2 hours, people are born and then die, worlds are formed and then destroyed and stars come and go into the deepening night, but through it all, we remain. We stand strong and witness it all.

For those 2 hours, we are gods.

And that, ladies and germs, is one of the main (subconscious) reasons I can see for why we devote so much of our time (and money) to cinema. To experience omnipotence.

Then again, it could just be the sex appeal of the stars who swagger about on our silver screens!

Hard to tell really…

Trust me – you’re better off not Knowing…

I’ve just watched one of the most confusing films I’ve ever seen.

It wasn’t Memento or Inception confusing – nor in fact was it on the same plane as Adam ‘Holy Moly! How did this get made??’ Sandler confusing – but suffice to say, sense is one thing it just did not make.

The film, ironically enough, was ‘Knowing’ – you know, that 2009 Nicolas Cage film where he plays a guy in a place looking for some stuff to help him stop something…y’know? Oh, you don’t know? My bad. 

Well as it happens, you’re actually better off not knowing.

Y’see, after an hour or so, I realised; “this is shit.” Disappointing considering the premise of the film seemed so interesting; a formula is uncovered from the past which predicts every major disaster, down to the location and the number of people who will die from/in/because of it. Morbid, yes. But the trailer posed an interesting concept, so I thought I’d stick around to watch.

But once again, Film4 lied to me. That lying bitch.

Instead of the interesting and original film we were promised, we were presented with a warmed up ‘end of the world’ formula (how many times has this been done, seriously?) dressed up in the tarty outfit of a cross-generational narrative.  Sounds fancy, right? It ain’t. And neither was the film.

It was peppered with unexplained questions about whisperings, some sort of itchy-scratchy type business going on with a couple of kids (no, not that lovable Simpson’s cartoon (unfortunately!)), and a handful of creepy East 17 wannabe lookalikes. Through all these set-ups, we had potential avenues of explanation dangled in front of us, but like the donkey sat looking at the carrot, we never got any tasty answers.

And then we have the ending. Sigh.

Have you ever seen a disaster movie? Yeah? Well this is the same as that one. And all the others. Ever. It was exactly the same. I won't go into detail (partly because i hate spoilers, and partly because i didn't care to remember alot of it), but it was the same bitter-sweet ending (bitter because it’s a disaster movie, sweet because it’s mainstream Hollywood) that we all hope will get ditched some time soon in the favour of something a bit braver. A bit more original.

Don’t get me wrong – Nic’s gotta pay the bills, as do the cast and crew, so I get their motive, I just wish I got their madness. And while I’m wishing my life away, I wish they’d have taken the time to explain some of what we were seeing too.

But then again, maybe we were just better off not Knowing…

                                                                           

A look @ Movie Stereotypes – Part 1

The black dude dies first

I can’t remember exactly where I heard this from but it’s become a common adage that the black dude dies first or at least extremely early in a movie or TV series. This even prompted T-Dog in The Walking Dead to proclaim: “I'm the one black guy. You realise how precarious that makes my situation?”

The first movie where I actually thought that this might be true is Deep Blue Sea, where Samuel Jackson’s character gets eaten by a giant shark. Now, he didn't die first in the movie but he was the first of the major characters to kick the bucket. At the time I remember thinking – “Damn why did the black dude have to go first?” But the more I thought about it, I realised the shark didn't eat him because he was black, the shark ate him because he was the closest human to the shark. Also, he was being a bit of a dick. If you haven’t seen the film, let me summarise. Sharks are minding their own business, living ghetto fabulous and a bunch of scientists decide to fuck with them and make them smarter. But somehow, they’re surprised when the sharks go mental and decide to eat them all. Mostly because that’s what sharks do.

Racist!

It’s an acceptable theory that before the Civil Rights Movement, which afforded black people certain liberties like being in movies, it was ok to kill off black people earlier and portray white people as the heroes but anyone who has ever seen a Will Smith or Denzel Washington movie can attest that this is no longer the case. I hereby proclaim this stereotype as false.

Damn you Civil Rights Movement!

Partners with completely opposite personalities are the best

You cannot switch a channel without tuning into a police procedural these days. But what is it that makes these shows or movies worth watching? It isn't the crime – ultimately, we know that someone dies or gets raped. It isn't the end result – the good guys always get the bad guys. It’s the chemistry between the characters that draw you in – and more often than not, it is the friction between them. Whether it’s the ‘'will they, won't they’ get together cliff-hanger; the ‘what secret is he hiding from his partner’ question; or the ‘he is a serious, grumpy, old fart paired together with a happy-go-lucky young partner’ scenario; it is clear that opposites attract. Ever since Jake and the Fatman (if you watched this, you are old), through to Lethal Weapon, 48 hours, Miami Vice, Rush Hour and Men in Black, it is a proven notion that partners with opposite personalities (and apparently skin colour) are the best. Hell, the Americans have even done one better and made their President and Vice-President a double act as well.  

First we balance the budget, then we solve crime OK?

The attractive ugly girl

When you watch movies or TV shows, it’s understandable that you want to see attractive people women. However for a certain storyline to play out, you need someone who might not be so attractive. But how do you find an unattractive person in Hollywood? Answer: you don’t. Every unattractive woman that Hollywood has peddled at me has been five times more beautiful than anyone I have ever seen in real life, let alone dated. I suppose it doesn’t help when the leading ladies in movies are disturbingly attractive themselves but come on Hollywood, throw us a bone. A classic example is She’s all that, where Freddie Prinze Jnr. has to turn an unattractive girl into Prom Queen in 6 weeks. Oh by the way, did we mention that the unattractive girl in question is freaking Rachael Leigh Cook? Basically all she does is take down her hair and removes her glasses and voila – instant hot girl.

You're so ugly, I just can't stop touching myself

Another classic example is Judy Greer, who is perpetually portrayed as the ugly best friend. Wanna know what she really looks like: Check it out (SFW).

So cut this out Hollywood. I want my unattractive women unattractive damn it.

Skyfall…

In the first glimpse in which anyone caught sight of Bond for over 4 years (besides his parachuting out over the Olympic stadium in the summer), we're introduced to him as a be-stubbled, red-eyed shadow who sits in the middle of a morbid-looking psycho-analysis via word association;

"Country? England. Gun? Shot. Agent? Provocateur.

Murder. Employment. Skyfall? Done."

A captivating snippet, but he should've said: "Done, dusted and delivered with delightful derring do!" Because make no doubt about it folks, Skyfall is 'all that'. It is the icing on the cake, it is the last night of the proms and it definitely does deserve every last bit of the not inconsiderable plaudits placed at its feet.

This is a Bond that celebrates the past, while in simultaneously breaking a bounty of Bond’s boundaries as it brings in the new...

After the stumbling stone of Quantum of Solace (say no more), James – but more importantly, we – the audience – needed to be reminded what is great about Bond, and in-particular, about this new, bullish, brutish, beast of a Bond! And rest assured, Bond aficionados and novices alike should leave Skyfall with no doubt whatsoever that Bond is infact, great! Perhaps even with the belief that this Bond is greater than any other previous...

But that's a point of subjective contention, so for now let us stick to the matter in hand; Skyfall.

It's important to point out that Skyfall holds something for everyone. With so many well-placed, well-timed and well-handled nods to the past, die-hard Bondites get enough 'Bondisms' to satisfy their every Bond need.

The familiar formula presides over proceedings from the get go; the breath-taking action sequences, the emphatic(ally beautiful) theme song, the stunningly sexual femme fatale (spoiler alert: yes he ‘gets’ with her), the villain’s lair, the self-assured winks, throw-away one-liners – Q! – and thanks to a lip-biting scene between Naomie Harris and Mr. Craig that crackles with firey desire, there's a banquet of innuendo delivered right into our laps! And while these nods to previous successes (should) keep the old guard happy, Craig and co. deliver enough grit and grunt to keep Bond newbs entertained throughout.

But the real draw for Skyfall, is the intrigue laced within each scene under the superb stewardship of Sam Mendes. Not the intrigue to who the villain is, but into who Bond is. Watching the unravelling of this tale is entirely engrossing, and will keep anyone who’s ever scene a Bond film before, entirely fixated, and a fair few others to boot, I’m sure.

It’s the introduction of this depth of character, if nothing else, that makes this new breed of Bond films – Casino Royale and Quantum (sorry!), but infinitely more so, Skyfall – not only entertaining, but totally enthralling as Bond is brought back to us through the lost art of story telling.

Who is Bond? Where does he come from? Where is he going? Who (if anyone) does he trust? And where in the name of Tom Ford does he get his suits cut??

On his 50^th birthday, (not-so) 007 (or James, if I may) finally trusts us enough to give us glimpses into who he really is and unnervingly, we start to see that he’s a man with limits. We get more than a hint of how far he can be pushed before he breaks.

As the trailers suggests, Bond is delivered to us disillusioned, introverted and undoubtedly depressed...we know he was the hero, but when he’s up against the disarming but undeniable evil genius of the exquisite Javier Bardem’s, ‘Silva’, who is more than a step ahead at every turn, the question isn’t will Bond come back to MI6; it’s can he come back? Can he bring his heart and soul back to Britain? For Britain…?

Ultimately, Skyfall is a (literal) departure from where we’re used to seeing Bond. A refreshing shift, at that, handled with care and consideration. But through the change in narrative and focus – on to ‘Bond the person’ as opposed to ‘Bond the tool’ – 007 has had fresh life breathed into him in a film of two tales. First; a story with one eye on the present which is no more certain than the doom-laden future that lies ahead, and then one that gazes longingly and mistily at the past…the irretrievable and intangible past.

So where others say this was 007 going back to his roots, I’d argue that Skyfall is far braver and bolder than a mere tribute. It is a stand alone and stand out story of a man who we’ve known for 50 years, but only now are we starting to truly get to know him.

As for the after math, will Oscars fall from the sky, as so many predict? Who can say, although after a four year wait, Bond is back. And he’s better than ever.

Long live the Queen.

On the Road...was it worth the trip?

I have to be honest; the book of ‘On the Road’ means more to me than any other book around (other than the Bible, obviously). It shook my world up when I was travelling the states in 2008, and its message and meditations have stayed with me to this day, and I'm confident they'll resonate with me until the time old age steals the memory of it from me!

So bearing this in mind, it's only fair I mention that I might be a touch over-sensitive when it comes to reviewing the long-awaited film adaptation. But that's what I'm here to do, so on we press...

Let me start by acknowledging that Walter Salles is an accomplished director and has tackled weighty projects with skill, precision and success before now. Motorcycle Diaries, for instance, was another book to film adaptation and provided a captivating film in which the considered narrative, the complex emotions and the journey of Ernesto and Alberto were all handled with delicacy and dexterity. But when it came to wrestling and wrangling the long and winding Road, I can't help but feel the enormity of the project proved too much.

But this isn't an indictment on Salles’ abilities – it’s arguably impossible to transform the frenetic impulsiveness implicit in every page of On the Road into a single cinematic portrayal. But that doesn't mean that the film's short-fallings were any less crushing, and it saddens me to say there were multiple of these. Let me start with the most identifiable feature of Kerouac (Sal Paradise)'s novel; the language and dialogue.

In On The Road (1957), Kerouac recounts his adventures and escapades with the sort of wild, raw, unkempt energy that ismatched only by the eloquence of the text and the sumptuous sensation the words creates while rolling off of your tongue...

"All the magic names of the valley unrolled - Manteca,

Madera, all the rest. Soon it got dusk, a grapey dusk,

a purple dusk over tangerine groves and long melon fields;

the sun the colour of love and Spanish mysteries."

Beautiful, no?

And while he depicts his journey so delicately, he is careful to describe with real love and dedication even the smallest of meetings he made along the way, because after all, these are the people who interested and fascinated Kerouac and among whom he found shelter and solace when the American night drew around him. These are as much the focus and stars of the journey as Cassady or Kerouac himself.

But these gems, these wonderful insights into life on the road are all but entirely absent from the film. Why? I can onlysuggest the ‘restrictions of time' but even then, the mind boggles.

Instead, we rush through scenes with the same haste that lead Kerouac to dash out of his house and up to Bear Mountain in the hope of jumping on Route 6 straight into Nevada, where in actual fact he wound up trying to hitch a ride West in the "rain that came down in buckets and with thunderclaps that put the fear of God" into him (a scenario also omitted from the film). But just like Kerouac wasleft crying and swearing and socking himself for his foolish haste, the film's impatience leaves us ruing the missing gems of the author's scroll as we stand there in the cinematic rain without any time to take the road in; to savour what is passing and who is coming up on the roadside.

Interestingly – albeit unfortunately – the loneliness Kerouac felt on that ‘damn mountain’ is arguably a more acute sense of the distance felt between Sal and Dean et al and the cinema's audience. Why? Because we're simply not given any chance to dive into the people we're watching. Something’s missing. Intimacy.

The intimacy between characters in the book is infinitely more intense and vivid and tangible, whereas in the film we're offered mere snippets of the depth of understanding that ebbs and flows between Kerouac and Cassady and Ginsberg and any of the countless Beats they meet along the way...

By my count, there are maybe three scenes of real understanding and intimacy – one with Kerouac and his meme (mother); one with Cassady and his young wife Carolyn as they lose themselves in dance; and one between Kerouac and Cassady themselves which is saved until the very end, but goes at least some way to capturing the intricacies of their intimacy, because after all, these weren't just ‘buddies’ – they were brothers! In Cassady Kerouac found the answer to the lost soul of his deceased brother, and yet it is only at the end of the film do we see any real emotion between them. That being said, when the intimacy is evident on screen, it is handled wonderfully and you see beyond the sex, drugs and jazz, and you see hopeful boys excited about going on an adventure – not the road, but life!

Finally, it would be remiss of me to not touch upon the matter of 'speed' – a theme inherent within the book in all forms...in Kerouac’s text, Cassady is a strung out ball of natural (and unnatural) energy – people gravitated to him and the world orbited around him, such was his eye-popping, sweat-beading energy...here was a man who was "mad to live, mad to talk, desirous of everything at the same time!"; a man who yelled "Ah! God! Life! Yes! Whee!" while beating his hands on the steering wheel in un-caged excitement and exuberance!!! And yet in Garrett Hedlund’s portrayal, he's wound down to a slow-drawling cat who looks too polished, too ‘Hollywood’ for a man with the lust for life that saw him held up as the singular most vivid embodiment of the entire Beat generation!

But my bitching aside, the performances (out of the context of the original text) are excellent – Kristen Stewart surprises in her role as 'Marylou' and the ever excellent Viggo Mortensen is coolly assured as Kerouac's confidante and sage, Old Bull Lee (William Burroughs).

And besides, the most important thing is that through this film, yet more people will be encouraged to read Kerouac's inspirational prose, and to take to their own roads in the search of life, love (or lust, depending on what you're after) and understanding of the world that lies out there – so, ultimately, it's hard – and perhaps a tad unfair - to call the 2012 film a '(total) disappointment'.

So for now let me just say; if you've read and loved the book, you're gonna have some axes to grind afterwards. On theother hand, if you're a Kerouac/Beat novice, then dive right in, drive right on and enjoy the ride...

And here's the man himself...