A few people have sent this to me and I finally gave in… I wasn’t expecting anything awesome but, well, this is much better than what I was expecting and it’s sort of a really frickin’ amazing honor for even an online “analyzer” to match this up to me.
I don’t really know how this works.. I’ve got some pretty weird match-ups.
However, I do know that any time I put in an excerpt from a piece that I am truly proud of writing… I get Wallace. So at least I’ve got that going for me, right?
In Stephenie Meyer’s series, THE TWILIGHT SAGA, vampires sparkle like glittering diamonds in direct sunlight. It’s taken three movies and three directors but the film adaptation of the third novel, ECLIPSE, shines like Meyer’s well-loved vampires. The majority of the characters, as well as the setting of Forks, WA, remain the same but the visual aspect and the actors have gotten better – a lot better.
The official movie poster boasts the question, “It all begins with a choice…” Fans of the series know there isn’t an actual choice that needs to be made – fate has already put together Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) – but for newcomers, it begs the answer to Edward’s epic pause of a proposal at the end of NEW MOON. The thing is, though Bella needs to choose between her vampire boyfriend and werewolf Jacob (Taylor Lautner), half of the movie focused on things other than the love triangle, which was a welcome reprieve of the angst-filled love-fests of the first two films.
Case in point – the opening scene. What I expected was a couple, limbs entwined, in a field of flowers or on a bed. After all, that’s the point of these series, if you ask a random person walking down the street. Instead, there’s rain and darkness and fear and screams of a painful transformation. That’s not exactly what I envisioned as an opening but it worked. It worked well.
What also worked well was the fact that scriptwriter Melissa Rosenberg seemed to finally get it right. While the previous two movies were filled with extra lines that were cringe-worthy, ECLIPSE stuck close to dialogue from the book itself. Thank goodness since they fit well into conversations and the overall feel to the movie, which was a mix of tensions, sexual and otherwise, and flirtatious teases, with just a bit of emotion thrown in for good measure. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not at all a schmoop fest that one would expect from these books now, but there is the emotion of love and heartache and defeat sprinkled throughout the film.
A lot of that is due to the actors who seem to have gone through some sort of acting boot camp since the last film. One of my biggest gripes in both TWILIGHT and NEW MOON was the fact that lines were forced out of actors’ mouths, the movement was awkward, and there wasn’t always a clear line of communication between characters. Perhaps it’s just the magic that director David Slade has but, for once, there is a beauty in the relationships and the actors actually become their characters, instead of merely playing them.
Both Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson gave better performances in this film than the other two. They seemed more comfortable – with the lines, with each other, with the surroundings – and it led to an easier viewing experience. Pattinson no longer looked like he was constipated and Stewart didn’t look bored while doing the scenes; her acting was actually full of life rather than the flat, droning persona that was seen previously. In retrospect, Taylor Lautner did what he was supposed to do. The character of Jacob Black is one that straddles the line between friend and adversary, especially when it comes to the relationship between Bella and Edward, so the annoyance and anger I felt toward him was well-met, in terms of who he is supposed to be.
A few of the secondary characters were finally given a chance to shine. Despite slight askew wigs, both Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) and Rosalie (Nikki Reed) gave stories of their human lives to help Bella better understand vampires, albeit for different reasons. Although Rosalie’s 1930s romp looked a bit awkward within the context of the film, it didn’t detract from the importance of the message. Fans of Rosalie will love the scenes filmed, especially her revenge. Jasper’s storyline follows exactly as the book describes it, from his days in the Army to meeting the love of his life. Rathbone, though he seems awkward at first glance, exudes a tense and serious disposition when delivering lines.
The addition of new actors may actually be the reason this movie is so fresh for fans. As newborn vampire Riley, it’s easy to say that Xavier Samuel was the breakout performance of this film. He is the perfect foil to the protagonists, both Cullen family members and wolves. With only two handfuls of roles under his belt, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone if he receives more roles after his turn as a love-torn vampire without conscience of killing. His opening scene gave him humanity, one that contradicted the story arc of his character for the remainder of the film.
Perhaps the most prominent – and most controversial – new casting was that of Bryce Dallas Howard as the avenging Victoria, a role previously held by Rachelle LaFevre. The sudden announcement of the replacement was done last summer and caused a whirlwind of rumors and a break between fans and Summit Entertainment. The shock of it was no surprise, nor was the uncertainty of whether or not ECLIPSE would be the same without LaFevre. Simply put – it was better. The thing with LaFevre is that, while she is incredibly beautiful, there was always something forced in her acting. From her mannerisms to the way she read her lines, it was almost as though she was trying too hard. BDH didn’t have that problem. She was fierce and, more importantly, she was natural. If I was Riley, I’d believe she really loved me. If I was Bella, I’d be scared out of my mind that she was going to kill me. And if I was Edward, I would be ready to fight that feral snarl off of her face atop the mountain.
Was the movie perfect? No, of course not, but very few movies are. There were bad wigs, an accent from Carlisle (Peter Facinelli) that still has me confused, and a less-than-stellar performance from Dakota Fanning as one of the most evil and powerful vampires in the world. However, there was enough good that overrides the lesser aspects of the film.
If I had to rate it, especially compared to the previous movies in the franchise? I’d rate it a good 4 out of 5 if only for the similarities to the novel with more muted annoying scenes, the step-up of sparkling skin sans wind chimes, and better acting.
Let’s hope the sun won’t dip below the horizon for BREAKING DAWN though the fact that it will be two movies doesn’t help the case.
Did you see what I did there in the subject? A Tense & Tricky Situation = AT&T Situation. Okay, Anyway.
I, like thousands of other people, wanted to order the new iPhone 4 this past Tuesday, 6/15. I actually forgot about it until I was staring at Demetri2.0 at the bus stop and though, “Huh… I’m still on the 3G. I should change that when I’m eligible for an upgrade.” BING! Memory regained, I checked online on D2.0 if I was eligible. I was because of that whole “anyone eligible in 2010 will receive the lowest price” shiznet. Technically, I think I was supposed to wait until November but that’s besides the point.
So I waited until I was at work. Around 8:30, I tried to pre-order through the AT&T site. Someone had mentioned to me previously that I would need to go through AT&T because I had a company discount, rather than go to an Apple store where I wanted to use some gift cards. Again, I digress.
Wouldn’t you know – I actually got through to that final-look page, the one right before the confirmation page. Then I got that god-awful UNAVAILABLE page. “Okay,”I told myself. “No big deal. I’ll just try again.”
So I did.
And then again.
And again.
And then one more time.
I decided to see if the Apple site would be any better. That one timed out just attempting to get my information from AT&T. In my haste to get the iPhone 4, I also forgot that I should have been pre-ordering from the AT&T Premier site because of the company discount. So I headed to that child-site of AT&T and got the same stupid message about the system being unavailable.
Meanwhile, MT and I were texting back and forth. He had already pre-ordered his, the lucky SOB! I wasn’t surprised, of course, but what about me? Haha. I’m not saying I’m more important than anyone else out there but it was starting to get annoying. At this point in time, I hadn’t heard about the complete system fails that AT&T was experiencing; I only knew that I was having a difficult time getting through and so were some others.
Finally – finally – I was able to pre-order from the AT&T Premier site a little bit before 1 pm. Yes, it was about four-and-a-half hours of failed attempts before I could say that my iPhone 4 was set. Woo! Celebrate good times, come on!
I forgot about it after that. That is, I didn’t think any more of it.
Then yesterday happened. 6/17 was a pay day which meant I was paying my bills and setting up payments for the upcoming week. I decided to check my AmEx even though it wasn’t due yet.
Hold up. Wait a minute. Why do I suddenly have over $600 pending instead of the $317 I was expecting?!?!
I checked the status of my order on AT&T. I had two orders placed. I didn’t get it. How could this happen? Only one pre-order was allowed per phone line to begin with. But wait, it was under the same order number so what’s going on?
The AT&T rep’s name was Wanda. Wanda was really nice. Surprising? Not so much. Helpful? Uh, yeah, surprised me to all hell. I mean, this is AT&T we’re talking about. Their customer service is hot and cold all the time. No one ever knows if the person on the other end is going to be nice and helpful or bored and dumb. Luckily, I got the former of those two options.
Turns out… They have two different order numbers for me. We got into this long-ass discussion about what might be happening and what could be done. I was put on hold and let me tell you, AT&T hold music sucks. Her manager gets in on this phone action that’s happening <smirk> and basically tells me that only one should ship so I shouldn’t worry.
Wait. But how does that explain anything about what’s been charged on my AmEx?
Ho-hum, um, let’s see here…
They can’t tell me anything. They don’t want to cancel one because then I might not get any iPhone next week and that would defeat the entire purpose right? However, Wanda was cool and, after we hung up, she actually called me back within the hour with more options.
So this morning, I called AT&T Premier. It took two tries and a combined effort of about 20 minutes of waiting in a queue but I talked to another awesome lady.
Are you ready for this? Because seriously, I can’t make this shit up.
Their systems automatically duplicated my order. I only received one confirmation email for one phone but it duplicated over wherever they are. $634 was pending on my credit card for two iPhones. Both were actually scheduled to ship – as noted on their systems.
How the fuck I managed to get away with that, I have absolutely no idea.
So I canceled one. I realize that I could have possibly kept the order and sold it to a friend who wasn’t able to get a pre-order in but seriously? That is some space on a credit card I’d rather have free.
Simply put – this week was strange and fucked. Thanks a bunch, AT&T. You’re lucky you have the iPhone. I probably would have kept my crap-service at T-Mobile otherwise. At least they don’t have these buying issues.
There’s a new “Oh my GOD!” moment happening in the world of YouTube and it has to do with this group of 7-or-8 year old dancers:
Using just the picture for now, let’s talk about the costumes because apparently, they have caused various news and entertainment sites to blow up with discussion using words like “skimpy” and “sexy” and “revealing.” But they’re dance costumes not everyday wear. Let’s break it down.
The bottoms are a pair of dance shorts with a ruffle going around it – absolutely normal for dance costumes no matter what the age of the dancer is. It covers everything that needs to be covered and are actually really frickin’ cute. If anyone was to do a quick Google search for “dance costumes” and gone on any site to look for a few children’s dancewear items or costumes, he or she would have found things like:
So, yes, actually, those types of shorts are normal for dancing. Are there leggings and jazz pants available? Of course but dance shorts are par for the course.
While we’re at it, let’s move onto the tops. They’re showing skin! Their tummies are showing! GASPSHOCKWHAT?! To make things worse, they’re also wearing knee-high socks with their jazz shoes! And those mesh arm warmers are unnecessary and add to the allusion of sex these poor children’s parents are forcing them into. Again, I show you a few of the more popular costumes available for children from online catalogs:
Note how all of them fall under where the bust line is. It covers what is necessary in a dancer so I’m really not sure what the deal is here.
To be honest, I don’t understand why these tops and dance shorts are considered worse than the skin-tight leotards and see-through tutus of ballet. Why are those considered classic yet these more modern costumes are considered a vehicle towards “becoming a stripper,” which is what many comments have been stating.
And now for the actual dance…
My initial reaction when I first saw this video was literally my jaw dropping and my mind thinking, “I wish I could have danced like these girls at that age… Hell, I wish I could do some of those moves now.”
There are some intricate moves in that choreography. There are multiple pirouettes and high kicks and extensions (terms I don’t really know so I’m hoping my dancer BFF can fill those in for me in the comments). Are there some questionable sequences in there? Sure. I’m not so blind as to note that some of the choreography taken from Beyonce herself aren’t the best moves for any child (including the 3-year old children on YouTube whose parents filmed them for kicks, btw).
But! As a whole, I find nothing wrong with the routine itself. If you watch it without the music (which I did, actually), it’s a mixture of advanced choreography, some fun choreography, and moves that are usually reserved for cheerleaders on a field. The only section that is questionable is the very end of the routine where much of the moves were taken from the actual choreography and may seem a bit outlandish for the girls.
And then I got to thinking… What makes this different? Is it the song choice? Is it the modernized movement? Dancing With the Stars showcases couples of the same age dancing the samba, the tango, the salsa, and audiences cheer and clap and marvel at the dedication at that age. Are these girls not dedicated to their craft as well? Why is their “shaking about” worse than dances that are considered intimate or sexual in nature?
What makes these dances okay but not the one above?
Why are people so quick to judge these girls for being well-trained dancers yet so many others clap their hands and practically coo at girls in pageants at the same age. Why do the tiaras and loads of make-up from those pageants “build character” when these dancers are expected to lose their morals?
Why do parents allow their children to dress up in cheerleading outfits which are super tight and super short? On Halloween, they allow their little girls to dress up as Princess Jasmine who shows her stomach, or a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader with the tied halter tops, or flappers who are known as outspoken women known for their causal approach to alcohol and sex. Are we to assume, then, that any child who chooses Princess Jasmine one Halloween will become a belly dancer? Or that anyone who chooses to be a flapper one year will be a feminist or a liberal?
So tell me… What do YOU think of this video? Would you “let” your child dance like this? Are people too sensitive, too overbearing, overreacting? Or is this the start of the girls’ downfalls into lesser society?
Last month, Newsweek reporter, Ramin Setoodeh, published an article that begged the question:
Heterosexual actors play gay all the time. Why doesn’t it ever work in reverse?
His leading paragraph discussed the newly-opened revival of Promises, Promises on Broadway. The show opened to less-than-stellar reviews, which Setoodeh acknowledges, but he blames it on the fact that leading actor, Sean Hayes is gay. From the article itself:
The revival hands the lead over to Sean Hayes, best known as the queeny Jack on Will & Grace. Hayes is among Hollywood’s best verbal slapstickers, but his sexual orientation is part of who he is, and also part of his charm. (The fact that he only came out of the closet just before Promises was another one of those Ricky Martin-duh moments.) But frankly, it’s weird seeing Hayes play straight. He comes off as wooden and insincere, like he’s trying to hide something, which of course he is. Even the play’s most hilarious scene, when Chuck tries to pick up a drunk woman at a bar, devolves into unintentional camp. Is it funny because of all the ’60s-era one-liners, or because the woman is so drunk (and clueless) that she agrees to go home with a guy we all know is gay?
I haven’t seen the show. I wanted to but I recently have a conversation with a friend of mine (no name will be used for various reasons) whose opinion I value, especially when it comes to theatrical purposes. During the conversation, she mentioned that seeing the show would be a waste of my money as she didn’t believe I would enjoy it for the following reasons:
“I think that Kristin [Chenoweth] was cast in a role to young and fragile for her.”
“Sean [Hayes] does not have a stellar voice and he’s not good at recovering when he flubs lines.”
“The relationship between the leads was not well-developed. When Kristin chooses Sean at the end, it makes no sense, because there was nothing leading up to it.”
“I found the entire show kind of… pointless. [It was] not a great execution of what could have been an excellent plot.”
All of these are valid reasons for her believing I would not enjoy the show. Not one of these reasons comments on the fact that Hayes was unbelievable in his role due to his sexual orientation.
Setoodeh seemingly reviews the show with a bias already in place. This isn’t his first article regarding gay men and it’s not the first that sheds a dim light on gay actors. Being gay may be a part of who Hayes is as a person but it needs not be a crucial aspect of his life as an actor.
The article then moves on to the topic of Jonathan Groff, who officially “came out of the closet” a few months ago, and his turn in the hit show, Glee. Setoodeh states:
In Spring Awakening, he showed us that he was a knockout singer and a heartthrob. But on TV, as the shifty glee captain from another school who steals Rachel’s heart, there’s something about his performance that feels off.
Part of me wonders if the word “heartthrob” was used at the time because Groff’s sexuality was an up-in-the-air question during his stint as Melchior Gabor in the Tony Award-winning musical. The following sentences toss around stereotypes of characters, likening scowling to “straight” men and using the term “average theater queen” to discuss Groff’s character on the show.
Speaking to another friend who watches Glee, I explained the article and its use of terms that may sometimes seem derogatory and its use of comparisons that make no sense. Simply, she said, “to be honest I didn’t know he [Groff] was gay, and I don’t think it’s “on his face” so to speak when he’s playing a character.” Because it’s not. He, like the others mentioned in the article, is an actor and has the ability to transform himself from one to another.
In response to the above article, Chenoweth responded with words of defense for her costar:
This article offends me because I am a human being, a woman and a Christian. For example, there was a time when Jewish actors had to change their names because anti-Semites thought no Jew could convincingly play Gentile. Setoodeh even goes so far as to justify his knee-jerk homophobic reaction to gay actors by accepting and endorsing that “as viewers, we are molded by a society obsessed with dissecting sexuality, starting with the locker room torture in junior high school.”
Chenoweth, who has been an advocate for gay rights for years, calls Setoodeh homophobic but states that she knows the writer is a gay man. Setoodeh responded on Newsweek in which, in my own personal opinion, he seems to be baffled by Chenoweth’s response and open acknowledgment of his sexuality as though it would be impossible for him, as a gay man, to come off as homophobic. The thing is, however, that Setoodeh does write his article in such a way that makes it seem like he is highly against gay men.
He talks about the general public being unable to separate a person’s personal life from his work. Unfortunately – perhaps – I am able to separate someone’s personal life from his or her work and, in this case, I knew nothing of Setoodeh’s sexual orientation. When I first read the article, I found a deep sense of someone who wants to find the worst in “out” actors that are rooted in his disdain of particular shows. After finding out he is gay? I still feel that way.
He then claims that all the readers who spoke against him – and there were many – missed the point of his entire article:
But what all this scrutiny seemed to miss was my essay’s point: if an actor of the stature of George Clooney came out of the closet today, would we still accept him as a heterosexual leading man? It’s hard to say, because no actor like that exists. I meant to open a debate—why is that? And what does it say about our notions about sexuality? For all the talk about progress in the gay community in Hollywood, has enough really changed? The answer seems obvious to me: no, it has not.
Once upon a time, Rupert Everett said it would be better if gay men stayed in the closet in Hollywood. His reasoning was based on the fact that he was not able to get leading roles of good caliber after he came out. Suffice it to say, I think the problem is that his acting skills aren’t up to par with the likes of George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, or the likes. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with his sexuality but everything to do with his acting.
The thing is, I don’t go into a movie thinking, “The guy who plays the lead actor is gay – bet the sex scene they’ve been talking about is going to be weird.” Nor did I think, “Robert Pattinson is doing a gay love scene in Little Ashes? He’s so brave for doing that!” Sexuality shouldn’t mean anything while watching a movie or television show. Actors do their job, which is portraying characters that are sometimes a far reach from who he or she really is.
The whole point of this blog came about when stars Cheyenne Jackson and Michael Uriespoke up against Setoodeh’s article and responses. They say what I believe many people have been saying, but at least they have a broader means than a simple blog.
Urie states in a simple and no-nonsense matter:
Look, I’m not from f*cking Vienna. We’re all actors, and the audiences get it. When I saw Sean Hayes in Promises, Promises, it was a full house and everyone was completely in love with him. And I saw it at a Wednesday matinee full of tourists. They’ve all seen Sean in Will & Grace, and they loved him and believed in his relationship with Kristin. It worked.
And to attack, to quote Ugly Betty, someone [like Groff] recently ‘hatched from the gay egg’ is unconscionable and he should strung [up]. [Groff] made everyone want him in Spring Awakening. And Cheyenne was f*cking Elvis in All Shook Up. He was sexy and hot. He’s always playing straight. And people buy tickets to see him. No straight critics accuse Sean Penn of not being able to play Harvey Milk or [criticize] Tom Hanks in Philadelphia.
And Jackson followed up with
”That’s because when straight actors play gay, they’re so ‘brave.’ Why is it so f*cking ‘brave’? It’s a part and he’s a good actor. I hope we can get to the day where the best actor gets the part. End of story.
So Setoodeh, don’t say that people don’t understand your article or try to bring up your sexuality as an excuse for not being homophobic. Instead, learn how to use words in a manner that doesn’t alienate people. While you’re at it, learn how to keep open mind when you watch shows or movies, because your inability to separate fact from fiction is highly disturbing for a news reporter.
What are your thoughts on this – the blog, the reporter, the actors, the separation?
ip between Bella and Edward, so the annoyance and anger I felt toward him was well-met, in terms of who he is supposed to be.
Perhaps the most prominent – and most controversial – new casting was that of Bryce Dallas Howard as the avenging Victoria, a role previously held by Rachelle LaFevre. The sudden announcement of the replacement was done last summer and caused a whirlwind of rumors and a break between fans and Summit Entertainment. The shock of it was no surprise, nor was the uncertainty of whether or not ECLIPSE would be the same without LaFevre. Simply put – it was better. The thing with LaFevre is that, while she is incredibly beautiful, there was always something forced in her acting. From her mannerisms to the way she read her lines, it was almost as though she was trying too hard. BDH didn’t have that problem. She was fierce and, more importantly, she was natural. If I was Riley, I’d believe she really loved me. If I was Bella, I’d be scared out of my mind that she was going to kill me. And if I was Edward, I would be ready to fight that feral snarl off of her face atop the mountain.
