"Sometimes I let him do the wide shots..."

"Looks like you're seeing double." -- Lucas Lee, "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World"

I just came across this article on IMDB.com. It discusses the recent controversy amongst the media world that Natalie Portman didn't do the bulk of the ballet scenes in "Black Swan" herself. Apparently Portman's body double, Sarah Lane, says the majority of what you see in the movie is not Portman dancing, and that people are making Portman out to be some sort of "prodigy" for having completed a year and a half of ballet training, which is 20 and a half years less than how long Lane's been dancing.

My opinion? The gifted double is jealous of the star. It's a tale as old as time. Sarah Lane is proud of her work, and she doesn't fancy being overshadowed by her Oscar-winning colleague. That makes sense, right?

My question: what's the big deal? So Natalie Portman didn't do all her own dancing in the movie she won an Oscar for. Who cares? This is nothing new - actors portraying exceptional performers have traditionally had doubles, most of the time. It's not a matter of laziness on the part of the actor, it's a matter of safety. If your actor sustains an injury performing something they haven't been trained throughout their lives to do, you may be S.O.L. during filming. Just ask Adrian Lyne, Brian Gibson, or Gary Ross. Does the fact that she didn't do all the stunts mean that her Oscar was any less deserved? She still had me convinced she was a dedicated dancer... she also gave the best performance of all the actresses I saw last year, and she deserved all the awards she won. In my humble opinion, anyway...

Who cares if our favorite actors don't do their own stunts? What matters is that their performances affect us on an undeniable, visceral level, and isn't that what movies are all about? Truthfully, I'm excited Portman won the Oscar for playing such an unconventional Hollywood character, in a normally-too-trippy-for-Hollywood movie. I think that's a pretty big step forward for Hollywood, and I hope the trend keeps up.

What do you guys think?


           *****    


[Picture: http://www.filmsavior.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/BlackSwan-Portman-Mirror.jpg]

Charlie Sheen is the New Charlie Manson

I know, it's mean. Maybe it's not completely true yet (after all, we've yet to see any gruesome and sudden deaths take place - oh wait, I forgot, he did single-handedly kill the most successful sitcom of the decade...). But I'm telling you, the statement that is my title is damn near prophetic. And because I cannot resist talking about the absolute trainwreck that is Charlie Sheen (can anyone?), I'm offering up some comparisons between the Charlies. Just some food for thought; it really is interesting to think about.

- First, we have the obvious similarity: both of them go by the name Charlie.

- Both guys were/are extremely interested in showbiz. Obviously, Charlie Sheen has had more success in this area than Charlie Manson. But Manson gave it his best - before he formed the Manson Family, he tried to pursue a career in music. After the Manson Family murders, several recordings of his music - many performed by the Family members themselves - were released on multiple albums.

- Both men have unconventional and notable families. Manson, of course, formed his infamous Family of young runaways and wayward hippies, and proceeded to brainwash them into killing as many as 30 people. Sheen's family is slightly more respectable. He is the son of awesome actor Martin Sheen, star of "The West Wing," the most Emmy-decorated drama in history. He is also the brother of Emilio Estevez, former esteemed member of John Hughes's Brat Pack and superb indie director.

- Speaking of families, both men were/are famous for currying favor from impressionable, attractive young women. Manson managed to string along several young women, notably his swastika-tattooed darlings, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten. Sheen's women are (as far as we know) far less dangerous, but the situation is still pretty sketchy. His "goddesses," Natalie Kenly and Bree Olsen (both young and pretty), live with him in his home. On a recent 20/20 special, one of them professed to follow and support Sheen in whatever he does. Let's hope that doesn't include murdering a famous pregnant actress and her friends.

- The Charlies have both had quite a history with hard drugs. Sheen's longtime cocaine addiction has become evident in everything that comes out of his mouth. ("I am on a drug - it's called Charlie Sheen! It's not available because if you took it, your face would melt off and children would weep over your exploded body.") And Manson... well... Manson's shenanigans took place in the '60s. I don't think anyone got out of the '60s alive without partaking in at least one type of hard drug. Manson spent the '60s persuading college kids to paint blood on walls - are you telling me drugs weren't involved?

- Neither of them ever shuts up. Ever.

- They both achieved mega-superstardom after revealing to the world they were crazy. Their insanity has put them both in the limelight, and they love every minute of it. Charlie Manson will still talk to anyone who will listen (my high school sociology teacher once tried to call him), and still thinks that he is the end-all be-all of human existance. Charlie Sheen? Pretty much the same.

By no means do I wish Charlie Manson's fate on Charlie Sheen. I'd love for him to snap out of it, to rally big time and apologize publicly to all the people he's hurt. But only time will tell, right? What do you guys think?

[All my information comes from Wikipedia.org and its sources.]

Facebook Friend's Lament

Well, it's been almost a week since the 83rd annual Academy Awards took place. It was a night of fabulous glamour, superstardom and hot men, hosted by two of Hollywood's most promising young actors.

I still get bummed out every time I think about it.

If by chance you read my first entry, you know that I worship at the altar of "The Social Network," and that I was rooting tirelessly for it to win Best Picture. In any case, you know now. So it should come as no surprise that when "The King's Speech" took both Best Director and Best Picture, I was unaccountably disappointed. Yes, I liked "The Social Network" better than "The King's Speech," but that's not why I'm so heartbroken. Let me tell you why.

First off, I just want to clarify something: I loved "The King's Speech." It's a fantastic movie, beautifully directed, superbly acted, totally worthy of all the Oscar nominations it received. I thought it was one of the best movies I saw all year.

But it wasn't better than "The Social Network."

At least, I don't think so. While "The King's Speech" may have deserved to win Best Picture any other year, it did not deserve to win it this time. Because even though it was a spectacular movie, when you really think about it, it's nothing we haven't seen before. Think about it: protagonist has the potential to be great, but is afflicted with some sort of physical or mental hinderance; reluctantly seeks the help of an unconventional but brilliant mentor who helps our protagonist make progress; at some point in the film, the two have a brief falling out, but reunite in the third act in time for the final ordeal, during which the protagonist demonstrates just how far he's come. Sound familiar? Maybe that's because we saw it play out in "Good Will Hunting," or "The Miracle Worker," or even "The Karate Kid." Inspiring story, but totally unoriginal.

"The Social Network" was not unoriginal; on the contrary, it was completely fresh. That's because it's an of-the-time, of-the-moment movie that celebrates the power of modern day ingenuity in a way no other movie has before. The first time I saw it, I sat in the theater completely awestruck because I was watching a movie about me - about my life, my time, the social and technological world that I helped create. And not only was the movie about me, it also happened to be incredibly well-done. So when I found out it was nominated for so many Oscars, I was genuinely overjoyed. A movie about my time was getting recognized and respected. I felt so totally, unashamedly proud of my generation. It was the first time I've ever felt personally invested in the Oscars. To see a movie like that lose Best Picture to yet another uplifting movie about intelligent old white men was, as Mark says in the former, "a little more than mildly annoying."

I don't mean to rant like a psycho - that's not why I started this blog. I just wanted to say how I felt. And how I feel is, basically, disappointed in the Academy for awarding Best Picture to a movie that was not the best movie of the year. I guess I should have figured the Academy would shy away from something so bold and unconventional and unprecedented (it's happened before), but I'm tired of that being the standard. When is it going to be our time?

What do you all think?