Polanski: Deranged Criminal or Notable Director?

image credit: New York Times

On September 26, Swiss authorities arrested longtime director/producer/ writer/ actor Roman Polanski as he arrived in Switzerland to accept an award at the Zurich Film Festival.

For a little background information, Polanski is the Academy-award winning director of such renowned films as Rosemary's Baby (1968), Chinatown (1974), and the Pianist (2002).
In 1977, Polanski pleaded guilty to having "unlawful" sexual relations with a 13 year old girl. After his arrest, he was placed in psychiatric counseling in the US, after which he fled to France, where he is now a citizen. Since then, he has only traveled to countries that would not extradite him, and instead stuck to traveling between France (which has little extradition laws with the US) and Poland.

His arrest this Saturday came as a surprise to many, including the French Culture Minister and the French Foreign Minister who relayed the “the desire of the French authorities that the rights of Mr. Polanski be fully respected and that this affair rapidly find a favorable resolution.” On the other hand, the Swiss Justice Ministry stated that Polanski was "put in provisional detention pending extradition based on the arrest warrant from the United States." Therefore, Polanski has managed to avoid the US police enforcement policies for over 30 years!

image credit: New York Times

The interesting thing about this is, as PerezHilton writes, is that "Despite his recent arrest while heading to Switzerland for the Zurich Film Festival, Hollywood and neighboring nations have rallied around Roman Polanksi in support of his release." Some of his supporters from the Hollywood community include Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodovar, Monica Bellucci, and Brett Ratner who has recently signed on to produce a sequel to Marina Zenovich's 2008 documentary about Polanski.

In my opinion, award-winning director or not, his arrest is fully legitimate in my book and I am honestly appalled by all of Hollywood's support for his release. Its not only what substantiated his crime, but the fact that he RAN AWAY from the US justice system and for THIRTY years has not served his time. Although I admit I have definitely appreciated his work, that does not put him on a high pedestal above anyone else who has committed the same crime.

I guess I'm just a firm believer in justice...

What do you think??






You can read the full New York Times article about Polanski's recent arrest here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html?pagewanted=2&ref=movies

Also, here's the link to the Perez blog, in case you're interested:
http://perezhilton.com/2009-09-27-directorpedophile-roman-polanski-arrested

Back to the Tube?

Fox's Glee
Courtesy of Variety

As many shows premiered this past week, the hits and misses are beginning to become apparent. The misses, ss Ashley mentioned, include The Beautiful Life (Poor Mischa Barton just can't seem to catch a break since The OC). However, let's take a look at the bright side of television this season and look at the hits!

Network execs were cautious after a record-low summer as the industry seems to still be suffering from the effects of the Writer's Strike. As audience members found other ways to stay entertain themselves (Oh, hello, Twitter) it seemed to be difficult to draw the fickle American audiences back to the tube. If you bring in good shows, you'll bring back the audience, is what I say (well, duh).

Fox has something to be Gleeful about -- its new show about show choir misfits trying to navigate their way through the harsh world of high school and hormones all while breaking out in song (anybody just about die during the Single Ladies sequence? I swear I couldn't breathe) is proving to be a consistent hit with around 7 million viewers, even against the premieres of other shows on ABC and CBS.

While old reality shows such as America's Next Top Model, Survivor, and Dancing with the Stars are beginning to decline in ratings (to which I personally am thankful for), CBS' seventh-season launch of NCIS: Los Angeles opened "impressively last week, winning its hour among adults 18-49 (4.4/11) and delivering the largest premiere audience for a drama on any net (18.73 million) since the Eye's "CSI: NY" in 2004."

Other new shows such as Flash Forward (John Cho!), Cougar Town (Courtney Cox-Arquette!), and Vampire Diaries (*smacks forehead*) are faring well, while returning series The Big Bang Theory is slowly becoming one of the highest rated comedies on the tube right now (I've personally seen a few episodes, and while funny, didn't give me a big enough reason to stick around).

My personal picks of the season:

Returning: Dollhouse, 30 Rock
New Shows: Glee

I personally also want to check out Flash Forward. Haven't really seen much promo for other shows since I don't have a TV in my apartment, but am open-minded since Entourage is wrapping up its season, Pushing Daisies is no longer on air (yes, I'm still bitter. Though you'll be able to catch Kristin Chenoweth on Glee soon!), and Chuck and Heroes have disappointed me beyond words.

What say you? Any suggestions? Which shows are you hooked on this season?

Click here for more!

TBL: The Beautiful Letdown

Photo credit: The Live Feed

The CW's new television show, TBL: The Beautiful Life, has been canceled after just two episodes. Talk about cut. throat. Granted, the CW has reason to be so on edge, they have a long way to go to reach NBC/CBS status in terms of viewers, critical acclaim, etc. A baby network if you will - offspring of the WB and UPN born three years ago. The network can't waste time and money on shows that won't bring in a profit. The show premiered to an audience of 1.5 million and 1 million the second week. But surely great shows have had slow starts before? Very very slow turtle-speed starts...

It's fascinating that a show with such potential could bomb so badly. The show was executive produced by Ashton Kutcher, who has had plenty of great ideas before (Punk'd, Beauty and the Geek). The premise combined a look into the modeling industry, a la America's Next Top Model, and the glamor of of the wealthy like Gossip Girl or 90210. Even Mischa Barton cast as a jaded model veteran and the publicity she attracted with her recent stay at a psych rehab center could not bring viewers to flip to the CW at 9pm on Wednesdays. So it begs the question: do networks decide what is popular? Or do the viewers? Recent critics of the media have noted the power lies in the industry who determine what the public likes or dislikes. However, it seems in this case that the public does have an impact on what stays and what goes.

Regardless, it looks like the CW is going back to their safer options, shows known to be successful in recent years: 90s drama remakes and reality. Encores of Melrose Place will be airing during TBL's time slot until January when new reality shows Fly Girls and Tinsley Mortimer are ready.

The cancellation of The Beautiful Life is only the first of cuts to come this season. In the next few months we will see a lot more shifting around of schedules on all the networks. It becomes a Darwinian survival of the fittest; who will be the next 24 or House?

Source: http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/09/the-cw-cancels-beautiful-life-.html

D23 - Is Emulating ComiCon the Way to Go?

WRITTEN BY GRACE KAO

Image courtesy of www.cinematical.com

To follow up on my last post about the Disney-Marvel acquisition, I bring you... D23.

What, exactly, is D23, you ask? It is the launch of Disney's new annual convention for fans. The D, of course, stands for Disney (or, as many like to read it, "Gisney"), and 23 stands for 1923, the year Walt founded The Walt Disney Company.

What's interesting about D23 isn't simply that it's a convention for Mickey-freaks. (Which it probably is.) But what struck me is that D23 is a prime example of one of the biggest entertainment companies around using a fan convention as a model for marketing. Kinda genius, if you ask me. After all, San Diego's geekfest, ComiCon, has become one of the film industry's most highly anticipated advertising events of the year - something of a Hollywood SuperBowl, if you will. It's an interesting formula for success - and something to keep an eye on for the future, all you wannabe PR people out there.

Plus, Disney is finally getting around to paying back its most loyal fans by doing the one thing they've virtually stopped doing for the last decade or so - listening to them. Five years ago, Disney declared 2D animation dead after its atrocity of a film, Home on the Range. I wept bitter tears of rage to imagine that cow movie as the last Disney animated feature film in the lineup (er... exaggeration. More like, snuck into the movie without paying to show my defiant stand against authority), and I'm sure many other Disney fans felt the same way.

Now, five years later, with Pixar's John Lasseter (thank God this man was born) heading up Disney's newly restored animation department, we are getting back to Disney's roots with The Princess and The Frog. D23 attendees got to preview 30 minutes of the film - either in its final, polished form, or cleaned up roughs (which personally, I would've killed to see).

Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

You guys, I'm so excited for this movie. No joke. It's set in the Roaring Twenties, in the pre-Katrina, decadent French Quarter of New Orleans. It's got jazz, art deco, voodoo, period costumes.

I'm also very excited for Randy Newman, the new musical composer they've brought in for this film instead of their usual standby, Alan Menken (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, and so on). Don't get me wrong - I love Menken, but he's hard at work on Rapunzel, Disney's 2010 animated feature film (which will combine 2D and 3D aspects - ie, render computer animation in a painterly fashion. Exciting, no??). Newman is perhaps better known for the music in Pixar movies like Toy Story, Cars, and Monsters, Inc. After all, it'll be great to see if someone else can spearhead the music behind classic Disney movies besides Menken. (But... speaking of Pixar music, can we please have another film with Michael Giacchino? Please? That guy scored for The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Up and might just be one of my favorite film composers around today.)

All in all, I don't think it's an understatement to say that I am so so so excited for this film. And for the prospect of a new, good Disney animated feature.

Follow the jump for a more in-depth review of the sneak peek that D23 attendees got to see: Disney's D23 Exposes 'The Princess and The Frog,' Barely Mentions Marvel

What else happened at D23? Well... lots. Johnny Depp was a major player this year, as Depp once again revived his pirate persona, Capt. Jack Sparrow. He showed up in full pirate gear to announce the fourth movie in the Pirates franchise, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.

Uhm... not sure how I feel about that, to be honest. Here's hoping that Orlando Bloom and his equally unexciting character, Will what's-his-face, don't return for the fourth time. Actually, I've kinda given up on the franchise after the bizarreness of At World's End, and I'm not sure even Johnny Depp could entice me to return.

And although Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (2010) was already promoted at ComiCon, Burton & Depp also put in face time at Disney's D23. I don't think that movie could bomb if it tried, as Burton & Depp (I might begin to merge their names in my brain soon) are pretty much the hottest thing today in the tween-and-Hot-Topic set. (Hah, okay, not entirely fair. I've had my share of Burton-love in the past, but I just need to know if he remembers how to make a good movie, not just good visual design. And, tangentially related, UCLA's Shane Acker, has jumped on to my blacklist, because his recent eye-candy/stinker of a movie, 9, just stole $10.00 from me.)

There were also lots of other strange and wondrous things announced and/or performing at D23: John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, new news going on with MJ's Captain Eo, and so on, but this blogger is far too exhausted (and underpaid?? :D) to get into detail about all that.

Follow the jump for more about why D23 matters: LA Times Online: Hero Complex - For Your Inner Fanboy: Disney's D23 Expo in Anaheim May Be the Start of Something Special

American Idiot: A Review

Photo courtesy of Playbill.com

Attention Berkeley residents, this is your chance to get a taste of Broadway! The new musical, American Idiot, based on Green Day's 2004 multi-platinum album of the same name is now holding previews at the Berkeley Repertory Theater (Addison & Shattuck). Billie Joe Armstrong, the lead singer of Green Day, along with Michael Mayer (director of 2007 Tony-Award winning musical Spring Awakening) have adapted the band's "rock opera" into an 85 minute jam-packed musical. Punk rock and musical theater together?! That's right, American Idiot has made it happen.

The young but extremely talented cast is led by John Gallagher, Jr., also of Spring Awakening fame, who won a Tony for Best Leading Actor in 2007. He plays Johnny, or Jesus of Surburbia, a loser of sorts who bums around with his friends Will and Tunny until they decide to venture their separate ways. Tunny enters the war, Will stays behind with his pregnant girlfriend, while Johnny gets into a lifestyle of drugs and girls. All the while, these three men are struggling to live in a post 9/11, pre-Obama America.

There is little dialogue throughout the musical, instead Michael Mayer lets the songs do a lot of the storytelling. The songs come from the American Idiot album, B-sides of the European release, as well as 4 songs from Green Day's new album, 21st Century Breakdown. If you were a fan of these songs, you will love this musical. It's unbelievable to see these songs come to life on stage. Not only is the cast vocally and instrumentally talented, the choreography they perform is intriguing. With "dancing" reminiscent of other rock musicals like Spring Awakening, the movements work well with the songs and they culminate in a montage at the end.

The set is extraordinary and a work of art in itself. A tall set plastered with newspaper articles, media campaign posters, and at least 20 plasma TVs arranged throughout. The images on the TV screens change with each scene, showcasing a lot of the media we've seen in America in the past 10 years. Billie Joe chose to have the musical performed without an intermission as to keep the energy high and the audience mesmerized the entire time.

Overall, it's an artistic piece of work that is perfect for fans of Rent, Spring Awakening, or Green Day. However, if musical theater fans are looking for something new and refreshing, this punk rock musical will be sure to go down in history and pave the way for future musicals to come. Though the storyline may be weak, American Idiot offers a snapshot of America's struggles in the early 2000s with the government, the war, etc. This is definitely not your typical musical.

It's not everyday that you have a show playing down the street where Green Day's members are regular visitors, or high level New York producers for that matter. Many of the cast's former co-stars, including Lea Michele of the new TV show Glee, have stopped by. Be sure to watch this show before it explodes on Broadway, then you can say you saw it first!

For more info about the show, visit http://berkeleyrep.org/season/0910/3634.asp

What Would NPH Do?

Photo Courtesty of Variety

The 2009 Emmys made a bounce back both in terms of ratings and critical acclaim this year.

While the importance and overall impact of industry awards to audience members is questionable, it still seems holds a place in the hearts of industry insiders.

The Academy and show producers have been trying to increase viewership in the past couple of years. This year, they tapped Doogie Howser, How I Met Your Mother, Dr. Horrible, *takes a gasp of air* and Harold and Kumar star, Neil Patrick Harris to host last night's ceremony. NPH hosted the Tony Awards earlier this June to widespread critical acclaim and was tapped again for the Emmys in hopes of garnering the same viewership increase and response. He also served as producer for the telecast and brought along Mother scribe Joe Kelly as head writer.

Smart move. According the Variety, the show "posted credible numbers on CBS, rising roughly 10% in key demos vs. last year's record-low averages despite facing a monster NFL game on NBC... Even though the show and host Neil Patrick Harris received widespread critical acclaim, the audience declined with each half-hour. After opening with more than 15 million viewers at 8 p.m. (following a big NFL overrun and a shortened version of "60 Minutes"), the show wrapped with a little under 11 million viewers at 10:30 when lightly watched shows "30 Rock" and "Mad Men" walked away with the top prizes."

So what's the deal? Is it as Ming said in a couple posts below that Emmys place no importance in the viewers' minds? I think yes and no. There has always been a disconnect between everyday moviegoers and critics and therefore, the shows that get nominated are not always the ones that people watch. I am a huge fan of 30 Rock and was pleased to see it take home another award for Best Comedy (and was more than elated to see all five cast members receive nominations, with only Alec Baldwin walking away with a statue -- Fey walked away with one for her appearance as Sarah Palin in SNL), but win or lose, it would not have affected my viewership. Throughout the critical acclaim of Arrested Development, as much as I heard about all the hype surrounding the show, I didn't start watching the show (though I have since the show was canceled and am now a huge fan).

So what can the Academy and award show producers do? Obviously they've taken things in the right direction, starting with the host, but the ratings are still nowhere near where they used to be. Perhaps they should take cues from the Oscars and nominate more shows by including those with greater viewership (though do you really see Gossip Girl getting nominated for Best Drama?), but that risks the quality and prestige of the award in the eyes of the voting members. Maybe the show can be streamed live through the CBS website as well. Are you an awards show watcher? What do you think can be done to increase viewership?

PS: The best part of last night for me personally? Seeing Kristin Chenoweth take home the award for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy for her role is Olive Snook in Pushing Daisies, one of the best shows, in my opinion, to ever air on television. Shame it got canceled, but seeing her take home that award was a nice, bittersweet ending that provided this fan with some closure.

Click here for more.

Edited to Add:

After I finished writing this post and was walking to class, I was thinking more about it and came to the conclusion about how much more difficult it would be for television awards to gain viewership. For the Oscars, it wouldn't be impossible to watch every Best Picture nominee. For Grammys, there are certain singles that are released on the radios and an album takes an hour or so to get through. With television, it is an ongoing creative process where viewers have to come back weekly over the course of a couple of months. It requires a lot of time and dedication from viewers, so they only find a handful of shows to watch religiously. It would be virtually impossible to watch every single show, and most don't care about the shows they don't watch. So if you don't select the ones that are popular with viewers, they won't tune in to watch. Problem with television is, shows with high ratings don't generally generate critical praise. And there's the conflict that the Academy is going to have to solve.

"Can television save the Emmy Awards from itself?"

Written By Ming Gu

Courtesy of New York Times Online

I'm not a big TV fan. The most I'd do is check out some episode clips on Youtube recommended by friends. So the other day when I saw that an episode, "Margaritaville", of Southpark won an Emmy Award(http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3704), I was more than surprised, "Emmy actually gives out awards to TV show?!"

But then, who cares?

Seriously, people who watch TV don't care whether their favorite TV show gets an Emmy or not, they'll just keep watching it. Emmy may be able to increase the sales on other media industries, but not in TV. Tim Brooks, a former television executive who co-authored "The Complete Directory to Prime Time Netword and Cable TV shows", said, "No one ever brought up to me that they checked out a show because they won an Emmy Award."

Well, 'nuff said.

But if you happen to be one of the minorities who cares about Emmy Award on TV, check out <here>

Big Changes in Comic Book Industry

Written by Grace Kao
COURTESY OF PW WEEKLY ONLINE

Picture courtesy of starpulse.com

Of course, you all have heard by now about the Disney/Marvel deal (merger? Business folks? Is it technically correct to say merger here?). But today, my inbox popped up with another update in the comic book industry: DC Comics is shedding its old identity as "DC Comics" and becoming DC Entertainment. And while this might not seem as ground-breaking as, say, a wolverine-Donald-Duck, it is pretty big news. That means that DC Comics, home of heavy-hitters Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, are being further absorbed into the Warner Brothers structure, and DC Entertainment will be headed by Diane Nelson, who for the past ten years has been in charge of the Harry Potter franchise. She will be reporting directly to Warner Studios head Jeff Robinov.

Meanwhile, over at the Disney-Marvel side, we might be getting some strange new things happening. While I think a Spidey-Mickey is far from in the works, we're still talking Disney here. The greatest worry is that Disney is going to water down Marvel, what with its roguish wolf-like clawmen and fast-talking, punny spiderboys. But the vibe seems to be, from Disney's side, a great respect for what Marvel does. The affiliation will be not unlike Disney's with Pixar's, which is one of minimal interference. Or at least, one hopes so. Anyway, this sentence caught my eye while I was scanning the article:

There’s also the potential for “synergy” between Disney's various divisions. Pixar head John Lasseter has already met with key Marvel creative personnel, and reportedly ideas flew around so enthusiastically that the lawyers had to remind everyone that the deal hadn't been done yet.

Guys, just think about it. Pixar + comics. I think this is win. Actually, Pixar + anything is win in my book. :P Anyway, isn't it interesting to see how the chips are falling? Disney-Marvel vs. WB-DC: the two biggest companies in animation and comics are duking it out. Let the best man (or mutant. Or mouse.) win.

To read the rest, click here:
DC Comics Reorganizes as DC Entertainment by Heidi McDonald
Breaking Down Disney's Acquisition of Marvel by Heidi McDonald

"Nobody Puts Baby in the Corner"

So, amidst all of the Kanye-craze, which I originally planned on blogging about, another important event in pop culture has unfortunately come about.

Patrick Swayze, age 57, died of Pancreatic cancer today. :(

As a tribute, I just wanted to share with everyone my fondest memory of his acting career, as the strong-willed and romantic dancing instructor, Johnny Castle.

Enjoy!

(click here!)

I'm not surprised...

Surprise. Surprise. Kanye West invaded the stage of Taylor West's acceptance speech to tell the audience that Beyonce should have won. To be honest, I haven't even seen the clip yet, I've just been hearing this through word of mouth which makes me disappointed. No, not disappointed in Kanye, but disappointed at every news affiliate promoting this garbage. I've heard this sorta thing well to often before. If I had a nickel for every time someone told me Kanye was a douchebag, I'd be just as rich as Kanye.

I don't know why this stuff makes headlines and gets people buzzing, but then again, I'm blogging about it. Touche American media. Touche.

If you'd still like to indulge yourself even further, check out the article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8254836.stm

Ellen Degeneres becomes American Idol's 4th Judge?!

Photo credit: Variety

Sure Ellen Degeneres is a household name and hilariously funny, but can she critique singing talent? Variety reported that Degeneres has signed on to become American Idol's fourth judge, replacing long-time resident Paula Abdul. Abdul was a music icon of the 80s with extensive experience in the industry. Meanwhile, Degeneres is best known for her TV sitcom "Ellen" and her hugely successful talk show "The Ellen Show." This latest decision seems to call into question the quality of today's television shows, even reality shows.

Degeneres was recently a guest judge on an episode of the dance talent show, "So You Think You Can Dance". Needless to say, her commentary was purely entertainment and consisted of no real critique of the dancing. Her lack of knowledge in the art was almost embarrassingly evident and her short commentary was made up of humorous but irrelevant jokes. So what can she really contribute to American Idol? The Variety article quotes Degeneres saying, "Hopefully, I'm the people's point of view... I'm looking at it as someone who's going to buy that music." But can't "the people" form their own opinions about the music?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Ellen fan. I often spend hours on Youtube just watching clips of her talk show or her commencement speech at Tulane University's graduation (which you can watch here). Nevertheless, I was hesitant to accept the idea when I first heard it, especially after thinking back to Degeneres' recent stint on STYCYD. I thought the producers of AI were ignoring the idea that this was a talent show and audiences needed knowledgeable judges to help steer their voting in the "right" direction. I imagined Ellen's spot on AI would become something of a joke. However, it was later in the day when I caught myself saying to my friends "Ellen's on American Idol? I would totally watch it just for her!"

And there it was, Fox's genius and motivation was revealed. Ellen's entrance on this show will inevitably draw in thousands of viewers that AI did not possess before. Her humor is enough to bring people to turn on the TV at least two times a week. I guess it's not all about the talent, it's inescapably about the number of eyes on the talent.

Read the article here.

How Much Would You Pay to Interview Brad Pitt?

COURTESY OF VARIETY

Image a courtesy of news.com.au

We all know that press junkets are an essential part of a mainstream film's promotion. All the clips that you see on Access Hollywood or E! of journalists interviewing stars in their upcoming films or television shows has been a common and even expected part of a studio's marketing/promotional budget. An actor typically sits in a room all day getting interviewed by journalists from all over, who are reeled in and out of the room, one after another. The day may conclude with an appearance on Dave Letterman, followed by one on Regis and Kelly the next morning, and then it's back to a room with more interviews.

However, things are a little different in the realm of independent films that debut in film festivals. According to Variety, "sales agents and distributors typically agree to share the costs of staging a film junket at a film fest." With the addition of the current recession, studios are trying to find more ways to cut costs. Among them are passing this cost to the journalists themselves. While the act is more prevalent in smaller territories, there is a lot of debate as to what this means.

The always controversial Michael Moore claimed that"If I find out a distributor of my film is asking for money from journalists, they'll never distribute any of my films again." Why is he so upset? For one, while journalists from major media outlets such as Entertainment Tonight may be able to afford paying $2,200 to interview Nicholas Cage, those from smaller outlets or even freelance journalists will not.

I may be wrong in my assumptions, but this seems to give the studios more power. It seems to me that most of these journalists who get to interview the actors are also invited to screenings of the film. This may not always be the case, but assuming that it is, the studios can in a sense decide who sees and reviews their films. When you watch entertainment news, you always here that "Extra has the exclusive interview with so-and-so about this-and-that." It's clear to me that these media outlets have to maintain a generally good relationship with the studios in order to be able to grant them this exclusive access. This also means that these outlets are less willing to ask questions that are more out-of-the-box or risque (in the sense that there are certain questions that are "prohibited") and are less inclined to give scathing reviews. A lot of the times, it seems to me that it is the smaller outlets can afford to be the ones who are more honest in their reviews and the behaviors and attitudes of the film's stars. If they can exclude some of these freelance writers, they can also avoid their negative reviews.

On the other side, when studios pay for the junket, journalists claim that they fear that this access comes with "strings attached." They may force the journalist to interview the entire cast when maybe he or she only wants to interview one. If journalists cover the costs for their interviews, they may feel more inclined to ask the questions they want without fear. While certain journalists are griping, others are accepting reality: "We need these interviews and it's the only way to get them," said one journalist on the Lido. "It's really a question of who we're getting. I'm not sure about $1,500 to interview Michael Shannon, but I'd happily pay $5,000 to get a slot with Brad Pitt."

It's be interesting to hear what the actors themselves think of having a price put on them for interviews. As an actor, would you feel comfortable knowing that someone just shelled out $2000 to spend 5-10 minutes with you?

To read the full article, visit Variety.com.

Will the Kindle Change the Face of Publishing?

Written by Grace Kao
COURTESY OF THE NEW YORKER ONLINE

Picture source: dailycontributor.com

Now if I were a big-shot in the publishing industry - say, an editor, or a literary agent - I would totally see why you would get a Kindle 2. Why mow down forests of trees simply to print out unfinished manuscripts? Not only is the Kindle 2 more earth-friendly (supposedly), but it's simply more convenient to be able to carry an entire desk's worth of manuscripts in your purse.

But I'm not a hotshot editor, or agent, or even a writer. (Sadly.) I'm simply a person who loves to read. And when Amazon first came out with the Kindle, I have to admit, I scoffed: "Who would want to read on that? It won't look anything like paper."

Amazon sold 500,000 units in 2008, and experts are estimating anywhere from $750 million - $1 billion (!!) in sales by 2010. Of course, those are estimates, but I would say the Kindle & its latest incarnation, the Kindle2, have been doing all right. Baker, from The New Yorker, had even more to say about the impact of the Kindle:

Everybody was saying that the new Kindle was terribly important—that it was an alpenhorn blast of post-Gutenbergian revalorization. In the Wall Street Journal, the cultural critic Steven Johnson wrote that he’d been alone one day in a restaurant in Austin, Texas, when he was seized by the urge to read a novel. Within minutes, thanks to Kindle’s free 3G hookup with Sprint wireless—they call it Whispernet—he was well into Chapter 1 of Zadie Smith’s “On Beauty” ($9.99 for the e-book, $10.20 for the paperback). Writing and publishing, he believed, would never be the same. In Newsweek, Jacob Weisberg, the editor-in-chief of the Slate Group, confided that for weeks he’d been doing all his recreational reading on the Kindle 2, and he claimed that it offered a “fundamentally better experience” than inked paper did. “Jeff Bezos”—Amazon’s founder and C.E.O.—“has built a machine that marks a cultural revolution,” Weisberg said. “Printed books, the most important artifacts of human civilization, are going to join newspapers and magazines on the road to obsolescence.”

But as Baker himself was to find out, the Kindle couldn't entirely replace the good old-fashioned paper&ink book-model. For one, the Kindle displays only in shades of gray and is not backlit (the engineers of the e-paper model believing that backlit liquid crystal displays are bad for the eyes, which they probably are) - but this makes it hard to read in low-light OR high-light situations. In the sun, the words on the Kindle even fade.

Secondly, you can't really get pictures on the Kindle. I mean, you can get them, but they'll probably suck. There are only 16 shades... of gray. The image quality on a Kindle is nothing like that of, say, an iPod touch, and you can only enlarge so much before the resolution is completely shot. So that rules out half the whimsy and fun of classic children's books (say, Alice in Wonderland) and most of the accuracy of pictoral-based textbooks.

And finally, the Kindle has a library only as extensive as Amazon can buy out the rights to. Meaning that there are many books you can't get on the Kindle:

What else was missing? Back home, I spent an hour standing in front of some fiction bookcases, checking on titles. There is no Amazon Kindle version of “The Jewel in the Crown.” There’s no Kindle of Jean Stafford, no Vladimir Nabokov, no “Flaubert’s Parrot,” no “Remains of the Day,” no “Perfume,” by Patrick Suskind, no Bharati Mukherjee, no Margaret Drabble, no Graham Greene except a radio script, no David Leavitt, no Bobbie Ann Mason’s “In Country,” no Pynchon, no Tim O’Brien, no “Swimming-Pool Library,” no Barbara Pym, no Saul Bellow, no Frederick Exley, no “World According to Garp,” no “Catch-22,” no “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” no “Portnoy’s Complaint,” no “Henry and Clara,” no Lorrie Moore, no “Edwin Mullhouse,” no “Clockwork Orange.”

And - okay, hold up guys, Baker just totally hollered at my girl Mukherjee (aka my creative writing professor here at Cal :P). Just sayin'.

Anyway, no Nabokov, no Pynchon, no Tim O'Brien, no Heller, no Capote, no Murakami (yes, I just checked), no Burgess??? What is there to read?

It wouldn't be that big of a deal because Amazon will probably slowly manage to acquire most in-print books for the Kindle (just the way it has slowly pushed all local and some chain bookstores out of business). But for a device that is supposed to be "The Last Book," I don't see any real advantage over physical books. So when Murakami's new 1Q84 hits shelves here in North America... you'll find me at the local Barnes.

To read more, continue here: A New Page by Nicholson Baker

In Toronto, Directing Is Clearly Women’s Work

Written by Ming Gu
COURTESY OF NY TIMES


It is definitely a piece of heart-warming news for the female directors in the North America, which is mostly occupied by male. According to this NYT article, "the number of directors at American Studios remains well over 90 percent male," well, how sad.

Historically, only 3 women have won the distinction of best-director Oscar nomination (Sofia Coppola, "Lost in Translation"; Lina Wetmuller, "Seven Beauties"; and Jane Campion, "The Piano"). But none of them won the directing Oscar. -insert another super sad face-

But it seems that in the 34th Toronto International Film Festival, opened just this Thursday, women directors began to take the lead. Noteworthy films include "Jennifer's Body," directed by Karyn Kusama ("Girlfight") from a script by Ms. Cody ("Juno"). "Bright Star," by Jane Campion. "An Education", by Lone Scherfig, a Danish director. "The Vintner's Luck", by Niki Caro ("Whale Rider").

And much more.

To Read More: [click here]

Picture: Carey Mulligan in "An Education," by Lone Scherfig