On the Media is one of many NPR shows that I really like, but rarely catch. This weekend I managed to catch four segments and they all interested me very much: one on the hype surrounding Hurricane Irene, two on retractions in scientific journals, and one on teens in television shows. Can you guess which one I am going to comment on?
I’ve begun work at my new job. The first week was a series of meetings including a day on diversity. I was very pleased with how the diversity day was handled: no lip service here, instead we really dove into the issues of difference in our community.
For me the most profound meeting was about body image. Read the rest of this entry »
Last night I watched Kirby Dick’s terrific 2006 documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. Go watch the trailer!
Even though I worked in the film industry, I never gave much thought to who made ratings decisions and how. This film tried to open up that world. The raters are supposed to be parents of children ages 5-17, and they are supposed to remain anonymous. The parent part does not always seem to be the case. What’s especially troubling is that raters are given no guidelines; they just go by their guts. So filmmakers have no idea what to expect when they send their films in for ratings.
Generally I tend to disagree with the ratings which, as the film pointed out, tend to think sex is always terrible and violence is okay. I read reviews to find out if it’s a movie I am going to enjoy or not — and whether or not it contains content I would find objectionable. What’s troubling about the ratings system is that independent movies tend to be treated more harshly. Violence gets a pass while sex does not. And if it’s gay sex or if the woman in a heterosexual couple seems to be enjoying herself too much, well that’s almost begging for an NC-17.
And that’s what scares me about the idea of age-rating books that flares up from time to time. Because what’s offensive? Who decides? Can I get a warning label for bad writing? Because that offends me far more than two girls realizing they are in love (or two penguins for that matter). In all seriousness, as an author and a librarian, I believe it’s up to the parents to find out what a book is about, what themes and topics it covers, and if that’s the right book for their child at that time. That information was never very hard to find — just ask an librarian. Now with the internet and a million blogs and Goodreads and LibraryThing and all that it’s beyond easy.
As an aside, Keven Smith had perhaps my favorite moment of the film. Paraphrasing, he said that if were to make a rating system, rape and violence against women would be the biggest strike against a film because there are already too many films that use the woman-in-distress as a plot point. I actually raised my fist in the air and said, “That’s right! That’s why I love Kevin Smith.”
By now, I think just about everyone has commented on the ending of Lost. So I’m a little late, as usual. Still, if you haven’t seen it yet, there are spoilerish things coming.
I loved the show Lost. I loved that it ended without answering all the questions or explicating itself. What I really loved about the ending was the way it mirrored the opening sequence: Jack in the bamboo, eye opening in the first episode, closing in the second. Vincent runs by in the opening, and snuggles in with Jack at the end. There’s the shoe caught in the bamboo. In a show about circles and mirrors and time folding in on itself, this ending makes perfect sense.
Opening:
Another favorite series ending is that of Homicide: Life on the Street, one of my all time favorite shows. The closing dialog is the exact same as the opening. Another circle, this one exact! And once again it totally fits the show. The characters may try to grow and change, but they are existing in the world of crime, where each case can blend into one another relentlessly.
People often ask writers if they are plotters or pantsers. I hate the term pantsers. I imagine people running around pulling down each other’s pants. Alas, I am not a plotter, so what else can I call myself? I like to think of it as following the story where it goes. Usually, though, I have the end in site, whether it’s a final scene or a final line.
I knew where Secrets was going to end — at a place where it could be called a happy ending. Actually, Happy Ending was one of the working titles. I knew that I wanted the last line to be: “But I’ll stop here because, just like Owen, I want a happy ending.” Likewise, I have the final line for something I’m working on now. I think it helps to know where you are going so you know what moments need emphasis in order for that moment to resonate.
And yes, getting back to Lost, I do believe that J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof knew where they were going. I’m a big geek for this show, and I’ve gone back and watched the two-part pilot again, and you can see them dropping hints. And if I had to guess, I’d say they were plotters who also let themselves follow story lines off into tangents. Maybe they didn’t tie it all up with little bows, but that’s okay with me. Life (or death or purgatory) just doesn’t work that way — so why should fiction?
I love James Franco. I love everybody associated with Freaks & Geeks.
I also have been a longtime fan of General Hospital. I don’t watch it much anymore, but it used to be an after school ritual, and I can tell you the back story of just about every character. A friend and I were once in Balthazar in NYC (back when it was super trendy, and we thought we were so hip for going there even though all we could afford was a drink), and we saw an actor from the show, and we both got all giddy, and then laughed because if either of us had been with another friend, they wouldn’t have known what we were so excited about.
Anyway, James Franco and General Hospital have come together: he’s doing a guest star run on the show. Which, even as a fan, kind of blew my mind. Turns out, he’s calling it performance art. He says he’s blurring the line between high brow and low brow. The article definitely shows that he’s a smarty, which makes me love him even more, but I’m not sure I buy the whole performance art angle. I mean, he’s an actor. He’s acting. Just because it’s a soap, and he doesn’t normally do soaps, doesn’t mean it’s art. Even if it’s all meta and he’s playing an artist with the one-name moniker of Franco.
Coincidentally, the idea of what art is has been on my mind lately since it’s a key piece in my WIP. In the current draft, one character asks, “If you say you’re an artist, does that make you one?” If James Franco calls his work on GH performance art, is it? Does intention create art? Maybe. It doesn’t mean it creates good art, though.
I understand there’s more to this project. He’s already done a piece with single-named artist Carter called Erased James Franco, and apparently they are working together again. There will also be a guest spot on 30 Rock as himself. And all of this ties into a film they are doing together. I think I’ll reserve judgment until then. In the meantime, I’m going to go watch Franco on GH on hulu.
I have to admit that I was a little cyncial when Dove started their Campaign for Real Beauty. However, I just saw this video, and think I need to give them more credit. I guess it’s been around for a couple of years, but it’s new to me.
There’s a great profile of Anna Faris in this week’s Entertainment Weekly. There’s a lot in there about the double standards for men and women in comedy.
“What is that all about?” Faris wonders. ”Is it that funny women are scary?”
Seth Rogen (ah, Seth!) has a quote about what he can get away with as a male comic versus what women can do:
”I can be in movies smoking weed and dating high school girls and shooting people with machine guns and the studio doesn’t bat an eye. But as soon as a girl does something remotely unlikable, they say, ‘We don’t want a b****y girl in the movie! No one wants to watch a b***h!”
Personally, I’m afraid it’s as much about attitude as looks. Good comics often look really goofy, ugly even. And Hollywood doesn’t like an ugly girl. What do you think?
While you’re at the EW site, check out this tribute to librarians.
It’s April 15th, which means it’s time to give away another Debsness bag:
Click the pretty picture, enter, and win.
Speaking of winning, what level of fame do you think an author needs to achieve before she could potentially be on Dancing With the Stars? It’s probably pretty high. Like Meyer/Rowling/King high, huh? Le sigh.
It’s no secret that I’m a big fan of Freak and Geeks and all of its satellites. Undeclared is next on my Netflix queue. Well, actually, Pineapple Express and Milk are next, but there is a long wait and a short wait for these, respectively, to which I say: Whoever is having the James Franco movie-fest, it’s my turn.
(Aside: James Franco is studing writing at Columbia as did a certain YA author albeit he is at the grad school and I she did it as an undergrad, and he just sold his first book of short stories. I hope it is better than Ethan Hawke’s jump into the word of fiction.)
Anyway, all of this is to say that last Monday Jason Segel was on Fresh Air on NPR. That night I had actually gone to the ER because I cut my finger making dinner, but the interview was so funny that I forgot my pain. I think Terry Gross had a little crush on him because she kept giggling.
Secrets of Truth & Beauty on the surface has very little in common with Judd Apatow films, but still I like to cast the movie with actors he commonly works with. Jason Segel would definitely be Sascha.
