Web design and development by
A Touch of Splash
www.splashme.ca
|
Globe and Mail
January 23, 2006
I have, in the past, struggled with what I
would call "mild" anorexia. I am 5 foot 10, and years ago, I whittled
myself down to 108 pounds. I have not written about this, because I
believe there are few things more boring than a woman discussing her
weight -- whether she has too much of it, or too little. One's weight,
whatever it is, should remain a private concern, not a matter of public
policy.
But I have been so surprised, humoured and
dismayed by the recent mea culpas from the fashion world, stating
that "too skinny" models will not be tolerated, that I must now address
the dreaded topic. I am surprised because I assumed I could count on
fashionistas to hold themselves above the unwashed, to not listen to the
cries of the homely. I am humoured because of headlines such as,
"Fashion industry cracking down on models that are too skinny." That's
sort of like, "Military cracking down on soldiers that are too
combative."
I am dismayed because the notion that seeing a
size 12 girl in Versace will cause anorexics to get better is absurd, as
is the notion that skinny models cause anorexia in the first place. As
best I can decipher, anorexia is a matter of seizing back control from
suffocating people and an unco-operative world. When nothing on this
planet will bend to your will, making the number on the scale go down
gives you power. It was awareness of this that helped me recover (I now
weigh 130 pounds, and I have weighed more).
I am further dismayed because I fear this will
lead to ham-handed government attempts to intrude more in our lives. It
started last year when Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston died from
complications related to anorexia. The organizers of Madrid Fashion Week
banned models whose body mass index fell below 18.
It has become the topic du jour. Any
fashion mecca residents who don't play along look like meanies who don't
care. Italy -- style's ne plus ultra -- weighed in, with both its
government and Chamber of Fashion encouraging curves on the catwalks.
Next, New York capitulated. The Council of Fashion Designers of America,
led by Diane von Furstenberg (she of the grossly overpriced wrap
dresses), issued a set of "guidelines," though thankfully, no mandates.
Only England has -- so far, at least -- refused to play along. Too bad
the Brits don't make prettier clothes.
The CFDA's initiative starts by stating that
"designers share a responsibility to protect women. . . sending the
message that beauty is health." Am I the only one who hears the
condescension and infantilizing of women in this? Designers share a
responsibility to design and send whatever message they please. As for
teenage models, it is their parents' job to protect them. I'm certain
the scary Karl Lagerfeld isn't fit to do so. But the funniest CFDA
guideline has to be, "ensuring a healthy working environment that
includes nutritional foods and snacks provided backstage. . ." No
self-loathing anorexic can be made to eat simply by sticking food under
her nose.
The well-intentioned suggest government play a
role in "monitoring" fashion's alleged crimes. This is the same logic
that would have us revive ParticipAction -- a recent threat from Ottawa.
Telling the obese to exercise never worked. Hectoring models and
designers won't work either.
It has become the topic du jour. Any
fashion mecca residents who don't play along look like meanies who don't
care. Italy -- style's ne plus ultra -- weighed in, with both its
government and Chamber of Fashion encouraging curves on the catwalks.
Next, New York capitulated. The Council of Fashion Designers of America,
led by Diane von Furstenberg (she of the grossly overpriced wrap
dresses), issued a set of "guidelines," though thankfully, no mandates.
Only England has -- so far, at least -- refused to play along. Too bad
the Brits don't make prettier clothes.
The CFDA's initiative starts by stating that
"designers share a responsibility to protect women. . . sending the
message that beauty is health." Am I the only one who hears the
condescension and infantilizing of women in this? Designers share a
responsibility to design and send whatever message they please. As for
teenage models, it is their parents' job to protect them. I'm certain
the scary Karl Lagerfeld isn't fit to do so. But the funniest CFDA
guideline has to be, "ensuring a healthy working environment that
includes nutritional foods and snacks provided backstage. . ." No
self-loathing anorexic can be made to eat simply by sticking food under
her nose.
The well-intentioned suggest government play a
role in "monitoring" fashion's alleged crimes. This is the same logic
that would have us revive ParticipAction -- a recent threat from Ottawa.
Telling the obese to exercise never worked. Hectoring models and
designers won't work either.
What would be effective? In the 1960s, 50 per
cent of Canadians smoked. In 2005, according to Statistics Canada, 22
per cent smoke. Obviously, anti-smoking measures pack a punch. In other
words, all the government has to do is introduce policy that makes it
next to impossible for the skinny and the obese to be skinny or obese
anywhere but in their own homes. Enforce separate rooms for them in
restaurants -- or ban them altogether from restaurants. Also from
airplanes. Make it very expensive for people to be fat or skinny. The
public can help by socially stigmatizing them, chastising them when they
eat (or don't eat), and making it clear we won't date them or allow them
to be fat or skinny at our
parties.
If we're going to do something, however
misguided, we should go big or go home. Better yet, let's leave people's
weight to themselves, and let's leave fashion decisions to Dolce,
Gabbana, Valentino and all the other deliciously named fashionable.
|
|
Ottawa Citizen
November 5, 2006
Q&A with Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo of the Liberty Film Festival.
Ms. Murty, who grew up in Ottawa (her mother
and sister still live in town), met her husband at Yale. After 9/11, the
two began working on a pro-America film about terrorism, called Terminal
Island. (Murty starred in the film as the Muslim-American heroine.) But
shopping it around to film executives proved distressing. No one would
touch it.
They felt the Hollywood that had rallied the
public during the Second World War was shying away from the struggle of
our times. So Ms. Murty and Mr. Apuzzo, who live in Los Angeles, took
matters into their own hands.
Tell me about the beginning of the festival.
GM: That year we had Michael Moore coming out
with Fahrenheit 9/11. It was horrifying to me that the first movie we
got from Hollywood -- and let me assure you, Michael Moore is supported
by Hollywood, and his movie was released by Miramax, which is owned by
Disney -- the first movie to come out about Sept. 11 in America, was
Fahrenheit 9/11. So we decided to start the Liberty Film Festival
because we were concerned that the only viewpoint the world was going to
get was Michael Moore's, and it was so distorted, so incomplete.
JA: We had no money and eight weeks to get the
festival together. We wanted to squeeze it in before the election.
People thought we were crazy. But we were able to rally a bunch of
filmmakers together, and it got a lot of media attention, because the
worldview that we were presenting at the festival was considered such an
anomaly. I mean, conservatives in West Hollywood? It came together very
quickly, it was this kind of Woodstock-like event for people who are
conservative, or even just middle-of-the-road, in Hollywood.
GM: It was all a grassroots campaign, talk
radio hosts donated time talking about the festival, and Jason and I
were handing out flyers at every imaginable event. And that's how it
remains. We're not getting millions of dollars from rich conservative
donors. This is the myth that is perpetuated by the left. We're scrappy,
grassroots activists, dissidents of Hollywood.
You mention money. Doesn't Sundance receive
funding from George Soros?
JA: Sundance gets several million a year from
something called the Open Society Institute -- there's actually a
specific documentary fund that Open Society puts money into from George
Soros. There is no such equivalent on the conservative side. And even
more challenging are the studios. You've got Death of a President
opening, you've got the Dixie Chicks movie, Shut up and Sing, you've got
this movie Catch a Fire, that is a South African story but that is very
definitely supposed to suggest parallels to our current War on Terror.
Except that the guy who turns to terrorism is the hero. Next week we'll
have a new wave.
Are conservatives in Hollywood just afraid to
come out?
GM: There's a small number who do come out who
are either successful enough that they can withstand whatever shunning
they might get from the industry, or who are brave enough to come out
and say, "These are my beliefs, this is America and I'm allowed to work
in Hollywood, too. And if I do good work, you shouldn't care what my
politics are."
You mention the Dixie Chicks movie. Do you
think a conservative movie could have that kind of access to media?
JA: Well, we just saw that a few weeks ago
with The Path to 9-11. That got tremendous media attention, or, for
example, The Passion or Chronicles of Narnia. It does happen, it's just
that frankly, there haven't been many conservative movies to promote.
So if conservative movies can make money, why
won't Hollywood make more of them?
JA: Hollywood is about two things. Yes, one of
them is money. But it's also very much about ideology, and radical
cultural change, and the right people inviting you to cocktail parties,
and prestige. And prestige is what people in Hollywood associate with
left-wing radical activism. And that motivates an enormous amount of
what gets made. The other thing, and this is a really vital point for
people to understand, is that it actually pays really well to be radical
and left-wing these days.
GM: Hollywood used to be this unifying force,
where you would have liberals and conservatives, both making great
films. I mean, you had liberal directors, like John Huston, Orson Welles
and Billy Wilder, making wonderful films that left and right could
enjoy. And even in the '60s and '70s, when you had a more radical group
of filmmakers in Hollywood, even then you had very talented people like
Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, who made great
films that did not have that sort of partisan edge.
LIBERTY FILM FESTIVAL HIGHLIGHTS
www.libertyfilmfestival.com
This year's festival will be held Nov. 10 to
12, and includes 28 features and short films. Ms. Murty and Mr. Apuzzo
picked these highlights.
- This is DNN. Bruce Wittman directed this
satire short, depicting how the Second World War might have been covered
by today's media.
- Border War, a documentary about illegal
immigration in the United States.
- Suicide Killers, from Pierre Rehov, a
French-Algerian filmmaker. Rehov went to Israel and the Palestinian
Territories where he interviewed suicide bombers and their families as
well as both Muslim and Jewish victims of the bombers.
- White Elephant, from Canadian Christopher
Giardino. This humorous short follows a young man from an ultra-liberal
family who goes away to college and returns home at Thanksgiving a
conservative.
MILITARY THEME
As this year's festival takes place over
Veteran's Day weekend, a salute to military films and a panel on
Hollywood and the military will be included.
- Between Iraq and a Hard Place, a documentary
about a platoon of marines serving two tours in Iraq, and their
readjustment upon returning home.
- A Hero's Love: The Daniel Unger Story.
Unger, an ordained minister who worked with young offenders, volunteered
for the army after 9/11. In Iraq he gave his life protecting two Iraqi
civilians. He was 19 when he died.
|
| June 25, 2006 Toronto Star Privatize the CBC and let Canadians decide for themselves what's relevant |
| Ottawa Citizen May 21, 2006
Membership Drive |
| Christian Science
Monitor November 25, 2005 Can Fulla save Muslim girls from Barbie? Currently, little girls from Iraq to
Morocco are crazy for Fulla, a creation of Syria's NewBoy Design Studio. A
Barbie in a black hijab, with a smaller bust, and far more modest clothing,
Fulla was created out of concern that Barbie would corrupt traditional
values, turning Muslim girls into high-heeled wonders with vacant smiles.
And while sloe-eyed, darkhaired Fulla does have a vacant smile, she also has
abayas (traditional Muslim overdress), head scarves, a prayer mat, and
outdoor (modest) versus indoor (anything where her plastic flesh shows)
fashion. |
| Christian Science
Monitor October 11, 2005 Just Pull the Plug on the CBC Already There is something sweetly revealing about the fact that the NHL, a primarily American organization, is in large part responsible for bringing an end to the nearly two-month strike of Canada's public broadcaster. At issue was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's (CBC) plan to increase its number of contract workers. When the CBC's biggest union, the Canadian Media Guild (CMG) objected, they found themselves locked out, and the CBC found itself airing Coronation Street reruns, BBC news, Antiques Roadshow, management-hosted radio shows consisting only of music, and movies. The latter inspired Michael Moore to throw his heft around in the debate. When the CBC aired Mr. Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," mid-lockout, he issued a statement expressing dismay at the treatment of union members, and shock that, "the great and honorable CBC," was, "behaving like an American corporation." I'm willing to cast doubt on the greatness and honor of the CBC. But they have shown some sense in behaving like a corporation, American or otherwise. And with hockey season upon us, an agreement was reached, just in time for the CBC to carry out its lucrative contract with the NHL. The CBC, on both television and radio, is taxpayer funded to the tune of just under $1 billion (Canadian) a year. True believers in Canada maintain it keeps Canadians connected to each other, and above all, keeps us from becoming - oh, the humanity - American. The latter is a peculiar concern, since, even operating at full force, CBC's English-language television is ever defeated in the ratings by American networks and cable stations. It is a tossup as to whether the CBC, or socialized healthcare, represents the third rail of Canadian politics. Cries of panic went out in August when the lockout began. What will Canadians do without our national voice? How will the country hold together ... inasmuch as it ever has? And worse, how will we understand what's going on out there, without access to the rarefied CBC understanding of world events? I was grateful to have been spared the rarefied CBC understanding of, for example, hurricane Katrina. It is a safe bet that it would have been - but for the accents - similar to the BBC spin on Mother Nature's wrath, a take which reportedly caused British Prime Minister Tony Blair to denounce it as "full of hatred of America," and "gloating," at the country's, and George Bush's, misfortune. The CBC has earned, from conservative bloggers and websites, the nickname, "Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation." But while Canada may have a public broadcaster similar to Britain's, we don't, unfortunately, have any politicians with the courage to echo Mr. Blair. Nor do we have any with the spine to suggest the CBC should be privatized, in spite of the eminent springiness of Canadians in the face of their CBC-free lives these past weeks. According to a Decima Research poll taken during the lockout, 61 percent of respondents said the labor dispute had no impact at all on their lives. Only 10 percent considered it a "major inconvenience." Most telling was that, in the 10 percent who felt seriously inconvenienced, most were those who voted for Canada's left-of-center Liberal and New Democratic parties. And many were older people, for whom the CBC has no doubt played a larger role, than for someone who grew up with the Internet and hundreds of radio and TV stations. But even if one were politically in tune with the CBC, there remains the question of personal preference, versus whether that preference should be imposed on others. Should citizens have to pay for something they clearly don't require - and have barely missed? Fifty-three years ago, when CBC television was born, there were scarce other stations in Canada. But for that connection in our geographically enormous country, which has only a tenth of the population of the United States, many Canadians were isolated. During World War II, when radio coverage of events overseas may have been all that allowed a mother to know what her son was facing, a national broadcaster was desirable. In 2005, Canadian homes have access to hundreds of TV and radio stations, from all over the world (including private Canadian stations). Does it make sense to require citizens to pay for one they may not want, when they can choose to pay for others they do want? It is hard to see the CBC as a public service, least of all an essential one, in spite of the best efforts of some of Canada's artistic elite to peddle that notion. One wonders whether such people have a clue what things appear on the average Canadian's radar. Hockey is one of those things. And fittingly, it is a principal reason the dispute is being settled. It would be a crushing blow for the CBC were the NHL to sign a contract with another Canadian network. I strongly suspect another reason for the settlement is that CBC management and employees have twigged that few have pined for them. Should the unprecedented ever happen, and Canadian politicians develop the backbone required to pull the CBC's plug, the death knell would be most welcome and overdue. |
| Ottawa Citizen October 8, 2005 Climbing Every Mountain My fondness for The Sound of Music guarantees me lifelong membership in the Philistine Liberation Organization. The latter is a group a friend of mine founded, for people "who may not know much, but who know what they like." That would be me. And I don't just like Robert Wise's 1965 musical. I love it. Wise died last month at the age of 91, after a tremendous life in cinema. But had he only directed one movie and had that movie been The Sound of Music, I would still think him worthy of the many laudatory obituaries he has inspired, not to mention my own personal gratitude. The Sound of Music has gotten me through many painful personal times as an adult. Broken heart? Watch Maria, head high, congratulate the Captain and Baroness on their upcoming nuptials. Scared to face a painful situation? Watch Maria listen as the Mother Superior sings Climb Every Mountain and count your own goosebumps. Disgusted at the lack of integrity out there? Watch the Captain rip up the Nazi flag, or put a Nazi-sympathizing party guest in his place, passion and anger in his eyes. This year, I had two orthopedic surgeries in a four month period. I spent a lot of time horizontal, watching DVDs -- none more frequently than the tale of the von Trapps. You can't feel too sorry for yourself when a teenage girl (she is 16 going on 17!) is having her heart ripped out by a singing and dancing Hitler Youth, or small children are having to climb through Alps in order to escape tyranny. I have spent hours defending The Sound of Music to cynics and know-it-alls, most of whom have never actually watched the film. My oldest brother once announced, contemptuously, that he could never tolerate a movie where people were shown to be able to hike out of Austria and into Switzerland in only a day. I pointed out to him that no such thing takes place in The Sound of Music. Yes, the von Trapps are shown hiking through Alps at the end of the story, but nowhere is there a caption saying, "24 Hours Later." Nor is there a sign posted in the mountains, as the family trudges onward in their lederhosen and feathered caps, with "Wilkommen in Switzerland" written on it. You simply see them on their way. You don't know how much time has passed, since, with the help of Maria's nun friends, the family managed to escape Anschluss-era Austria. My father used to roll his eyes and sneer, when, as a child, I watched the movie on TV. It aired at Christmas and Easter, and before the days of VCRs, those were the only times I was able to enjoy my favourite story. "I'd better leave the room before I get diabetes," dad would say. That is, when he would allow me to watch it. Usually he and my brothers would either drive me from the room in tears, by making fun of it, or simply change the channel. In 1990, I took a trip through Eastern and Central Europe with my then-boyfriend. In Austria, I announced my desire to visit Salzburg. I wanted to see where the outdoor scenes of The Sound of Music were filmed -- the spots where Maria teaches the children to sing, as they ride around in a horse-drawn carriage or on bicycles, prance around a fountain and throw fruit. My boyfriend mocked me. I dumped him. Lack of respect for my love of The Sound of Music is, quite simply, a deal-breaker. A decade after that trip, I met a German academic who, visiting Canada, saw The Sound of Music for the first time. She loved it, and wondered why she had not seen it on TV in her homeland. Hmm ... I can't imagine why it's not huge over there. She and I discussed the movie at length, and agreed that both Maria and her rival, the Baroness, were great role models for young girls. The latter handles being dropped by the Captain with a grace I have never managed in similar circumstances (though I've never been thrown over for a nun). And the former is a perfect example of how to not let a guy walk all over you because you are in love with him. The Sound of Music is also gay-friendly (the character of Uncle Max), and full of pearls of wisdom: "No man can resist a woman who's in love with him," "When the good Lord closes a door, somewhere he opens a window," "You have to live the life you were born to live," and so forth. A few years ago, I attended the sing-along Sound of Music. But it just felt wrong -- like I was laughing at an old friend. Shortly thereafter, I was scheduled to interview Christopher Plummer when he was given a star on Canada's Walk of Fame. The interview fell through, which was probably for the best. I was told that Plummer hates to talk about The Sound of Music, and tries to distance himself from the role of Captain von Trapp. For sure, he would have hated my focus. |
| Toronto Star October 2, 2005 Let the 10 Per Cent Who Miss the CBC Pay for it To paraphrase someone I generally don't paraphrase, Gloria Steinem, Canada needs the CBC like a fish needs a bicycle. Even 50-plus years ago, we did not need the CBC. It may have served more of a purpose then, in pre-satellite and digital days. If you lived in an isolated area, and you wanted to know who won an election, the CBC may have come in handy. But it was never a necessity, or a public service, like education, or a police department. It did represent some kind of ideal — a way to connect an enormous country — which, I suppose, is adorable. But that enormous country is now connected in other ways. Advances in technology have seen to that. Albertans may hate Ontarians, but they know what we're up to. With more TV and radio outlets available to Canadians, why focus nearly $1 billion a year on merely one? The idea that a public broadcaster is the best way to offer a "distinctive Canadian voice" is difficult to defend. There is nothing "distinctive," must less definitively "Canadian" about the CBC, other than its name. The CBC does not speak for me and its programming does not reflect my life. As for it being "distinctive," well the CBC is just a squishy BBC. Nothing unique about that. If I feel the need to watch news dripping with anti-Americanism, or determined to make Israel ever responsible for problems in the Middle East (and beyond), I can watch the Beeb. And they have fun accents. Better yet, if Canada ever frees itself from the shackles of the CRTC, I can get all that, and beheading videos, on Al Jazeera. Talk about fun accents. I will admit to having felt great pangs of empathy for the locked-out CBC-ites during Hurricane Katrina. Just think what they were missing: Bush-and-America-bashing at its most shrill and unreasonable, and a chance to opine on Canadian superiority. I can hear it now: "If only those poor people in Louisiana had free health care, they wouldn't have to worry about living in a cesspool." But even if I weren't the type to laugh when a friend of mine calls the CBC "an Al Qaeda cell," I would wish for the privatization of our state broadcaster, on principle. Why should Canadians be forced to pay for a state network? And yes, I know each Canadian pays only $29 yearly for the CBC. But I would prefer to choose where my $29 go. I pay for Animal Planet, MSNBC and Fox News because I watch them. Let the true believers pay for the CBC. I'd be curious to know how many of them there are. According to a Decima survey taken at the end of August, 61 per cent of respondents found that the lockout had "no impact at all" on their lives. Only 10 per cent called the labour dispute a "major inconvenience." If that 10 per cent can sustain the CBC, more power to them. |
| Christian Science
Monitor February 4, 2005 Why so desperate to parse popularity of 'Housewives'? TORONTO - Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And
sometimes a television show is popular because it is good, not because it
reflects some great truth. |
|
Calgary Herald August 3, 2004 A few weeks ago, a man with whom I had gone out for coffee once, e-mailed, saying, "I can't go out with you again. I went online and read some of your stories and I see you're right-wing." After I stopped laughing, I contemplated how to reply. One possibility: "So the wedding's off?" Another: "Here's a radical idea -- how about getting to know someone through talking with her?" The man in question was overweight and 20 years older than me. It occurred to me that among the leftists I know, he wouldn't have any difficulty finding a female version of himself. It occurred to me to say that to him. But ultimately, I sent an e-mail suggesting living life his way had to be limiting, and that I wished him luck. And I do. It is beyond a truism to say we live in politically polarized times. If you support, for example, U.S. intervention in Iraq, people assume that you probably enjoyed The Passion of the Christ. As an unrepentant supporter of the war in Iraq, I can safely say such assumptions should not be made. With the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, the divisions seem more insurmountable than ever. And I find myself nearly alone in being as offended by Michael Moore's bundle of lies as I was by Mad Max's deranged vision. It's a lonely place to be. In a way, the two movies are perfect bookends for the first six months of 2004 and perfect reflections of the rabid packs of true believers on either side. Both movies preach to the choir. Both, at best, distort the facts, not to mention flat-out fabricate. Both use the weeping of a grieving mother to manipulate the audience. Both bring out the worst in people, making heels dig in deeper than ever. When The Passion was released, a friend of mine asked if I was planning to see it. Having been extremely disturbed by the interview Mel Gibson gave to Diane Sawyer just before the movie's release, I said I wasn't sure (ultimately I bit the bullet). My friend -- who had not yet seen The Passion -- e-mailed a lengthy defence of the movie and ended his missive by telling me: "I am going to see it and I will like it." One wonders how he knew that. After I saw the homoerotic bloodfest, I e-mailed another friend -- only after he asked my opinion -- saying that I found Gibson's epic racist and dishonest and not a reflection of any Gospels I had ever read. In return I was told, after wading through an angry e-mail, that my comments weren't welcome, that I clearly lacked a "spiritual life" and that I was not to get in touch with him again with any such "diatribe." So, don't ask, I felt like writing. But that might have constituted a "diatribe." A similarly fruitless discussion took place recently between myself and a woman with whom I do volunteer work one night a week. All breathy and filled with anti-American venom, she sang the praises of Moore's very own Triumph of the Will. I began, calmly, pointing out all the factual errors in the movie, as well as the sleazy and inconsistent insinuations. The movie's entire premise -- that somehow the war in Iraq was fought because of George Bush's Saudi connections -- does not hold up. Few Middle Eastern dictators were more against the war than the Saudis. The last thing they want is a democracy next door. Who elected them? My co-worker's face hardened. "I don't want to talk to you about this." Why not? I asked her. Surely, in a time of war, it is irresponsible -- even dangerous -- to spread this kind of message. Rest assured, I told her, you can still hate Bush and be against the war all while facing up to what a chronic dissembler Moore is. You can, but she didn't want to. The rest of the evening I was punished with stony-faced silence for my transgressions. One leftist acquaintance of mine managed to straddle both sides of the great divide with a particularly scary comment regarding The Passion. "I don't understand," she said, with great exasperation, "how the Jews who run Hollywood let that movie get made. "Oy vey. At moments like that, I feel the end is near. I also feel certain my former date, the one who Googled me and ran screaming, would probably be a Moore defender. But there I go assuming. Maybe the end won't be near if we take the time to talk to each other, rather than letting Moore and Gibson do the talking -- or their version of talking -- for us. |
| Ifeminists Network February 10, 2004
Eulogy: Sex and the City |
| The Christian Science
Monitor November 7, 2003 Creeping Blur Between Movie and Documentary TORONTO - My favorite movie is
"The Sound of Music," which I've seen
more times than a grown woman should freely admit. But even when I was
10, I suspected that the baroness could not have handled being dumped by
the captain with as much dignity in real life as she managed on screen.
I knew it was a movie, not a documentary. |
| Opium Magazine September 11, 2002 Suddenly Saigon http://www.opiummagazine.com/storyadamsonsaigon.html |
| Globe and Mail June 19 2002 p1 Television justice: should cameras be allowed in Canadian courts? Or is the O.J. Simpson trial a warning for us all? TORONTO -- Justice Wally Oppal of the British Columbia Supreme Court wants television cameras in Canadian courtrooms and has publicly criticized Canada's media outlets for their lack of interest in covering court proceedings, "Everything would not go to hell in a handbasket," if television coverage of trials were allowed, he said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. "Openness is the real issue here. With more openness, the public learns." One of Judge Oppal's concerns is that many Canadians are learning about what goes on in court from watching the TV drama Law & Order or the real cases covered on the U.S. Court TV channel -- in other words, they are learning about U.S. laws and judicial practices that don't apply to their own country. Television cameras are allowed in courtrooms in several countries, among them Israel, Italy, France, Australia the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and in 47 U.S. states. But in Canada, they've been granted access only on an very selective basis -- Supreme Court cases are televised on the Canadian Parliamentary Access Channel, but generally TV cameras haven't been allowed at the criminal and civil trial level. The popular Law & Order franchise may be particularly misleading to Canadian viewers, as its story lines are taken from the headlines (including one episode based on Paul and Karla Bernardo). It consistently rates in the top 10 at CTV and its "spinoffs,"SVU and Criminal Intent, rate in the top 20. CTV's communications director Allison Vale says the secret of their success lies in the shows' drama, not their accurate depiction of courtrooms. "All three are plot-driven programs.... It's all about the story," she says. Then there is the proliferation of "real" court shows, such as Judge Judy and Judge Mills Lane. These shows have surprised many with their success, offering a hybrid of Jerry Springer-style vulgarity and the fascination of watching the wheels of justice roll in a "real" case, however unreal that case may be. In the end, the Oppal ruled against allowing cameras into the murder trial of Shane Ertmoed, not because he was concerned about a media circus, but simply because he wasn't convinced doing so would be in the public's interest. But even in the U.S., there is some reluctance
now about televising trials. An example is the case of Barretta star Robert
Blake, accused of killing his wife. CNN reported a serious upturn in ratings
when Blake was arraigned -- live on television -- and the details of his
case were discussed virtually every night on Larry King Live. Not since
Sept. 11 and its aftermath has 24-hour cable TV known such a boost. |
| Opium Magazine April 30, 2002 Die Gang of Four, Die! |
| National Post April 17, 2002, National Edition, p.B3 Rock around and around and around the clock: Jane Scott retired as a rock critic last week. It was time. She's 82 |
| National Post October 16, 2001, National Edition, p.A14 Saddle up and watch, Pilgrim I appeared on a panel show recently, discussing the events of Sept. 11. Unfortunately, it was one of those shows where people phone in and say things. And when someone called in and berated the United States, saying it was acting "just like John Wayne," I could only roll my eyes. The John Wayne analogy is overused, and, worse, it is a bad analogy, inaccurate, one that insults not only Americans, in this case, but the memory of John Wayne. Saying "just like John Wayne" generally means someone has rushed in with pistols a-blazin'. It implies a lack of complexity -- the myth that Americans are too ignorant to think things through. Only take a cursory look at the history of the United States shows how silly that is. Americans are usually the last people involved in any war. They are either reluctant to get pulled in, or else they exhaust every peace accord imaginable before accepting the inevitable. U.S. governments usually try to set up coalitions before taking action -- as George Bush is doing -- and give warning after warning before making their move. As for John Wayne -- and as a lifelong fan of westerns, here's what really irks me -- to dismiss the roles he has played as being simplistic portraits of bloodthirsty gunslingers who think only of killing the enemy shows nothing but ignorance of cinema history. Ditto for dismissing Wayne as a limited actor, someone whose roles are only fodder for mockery, or for dismissing the movies he starred in as only a bunch of westerns. First, Wayne starred in all kinds of films, westerns, to be sure, but also war movies (1962's The Longest Day is a searing retelling of D-Day) and romance pictures. Of the latter, director John Ford's The Quiet Man, made in 1952, always makes the various "greatest movies" lists, as well it should. The story of an Irish-American boxer trying to exorcise his violent past and start again in the old country is worth a million Julia Roberts vehicles. But apart from the variety of Wayne films, is the fact that many westerns are brilliant and, more to the point, many of the westerns Wayne starred in are brilliant. The Searchers, again directed by Ford (he and Wayne worked together frequently) was released in 1956 and unrecognized by critics of the era. Sophisticated and complex, it did not receive a single Academy Award nomination (in contrast to Dances with Wolves, an appallingly bad western that swept the ceremony in 1991) and yet it is inarguably a masterpiece of U.S. filmmaking, the best of John Ford, the best western ever. Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and other directors have cited this film as being responsible for their obsession with moviemaking, with Scorsese even paying it tribute in Taxi Driver. Far from a "good guys versus bad guys" story, The Searchers is a disturbing and subversive look at racism and revenge through the odyssey of morally ambiguous, tragic, anti-hero Ethan Edwards (Wayne). From beginning to end, The Searchers makes the viewer highly uncomfortable -- there is nothing predictable here. Other great Wayne/Ford westerns include the 1939 Stagecoach, a strong story about the hypocrisy of moralists; Rio Grande, made in 1950, a comment on conflicting codes of conduct (personal and professional) in a cavalry officer's life as well as the story of a man trying, in modern parlance, to "heal" his relationship with his son; She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, from 1949, a sensitive film about loneliness and mortality; and Fort Apache, made in 1948, a great film about duty in a bureaucracy and putting up with incompetent bosses who take undeserved credit. Later Wayne westerns deserving of respect include True Grit, from 1969, in which Wayne caricatures himself, wonderfully and humorously, as an over-the-hill and none-too-eager marshal pressed by teen Kim Darby into helping her find her father's killer. And The Shootist, a flat-out intelligent film about an ageing, cancer-stricken gunfighter who wants to die in peace, but whose reputation prevents him from having that privilege. Made in 1976, and his last film, it was a touching end to a great career, especially as Wayne was dying of cancer himself at the time. So the next time someone wants to characterize Americans as being heartless warriors, I would like to suggest they a) think seriously about whether such a description is fair or at least b) refrain from using the phrase "just like John Wayne." And the next time you want to rent a great film, go to the western shelf. Copyright National Post 2001 All Rights Reserved. |
| Globe Television May 2001 |
| Globe Television March 2001 |
| Globe Television March 2001 |
| Globe and Mail February 23, 2001 |
| Globe Television January 2001 |
| Globe Television November 11, 2000 |
| National Post October 4, 2000, National Edition, p.E3 Hey ! That looks like Kristin holding the gun...: J.R.'s sister-in-law strikes again |
| National Post August 26, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.W16 |
| National Post June 23, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.B12 Canada's Walk of Fame takes 13 steps: New stars include Michael J. Fox, Neil Young and the Air Farce |
| National Post June 3, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.W8 Say you, say me, say Richie, say Commodores: Lionel and his old soul mates hits Toronto -- but not together this time |
| Broadcast Week May 13, 2000 |
| Broadcast Week April 29, 2000 |
| National Post April 15, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.F7 He blames cheesy pics on the Pie |
| National Post March 25, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.F6 A down-to-earth star: Toronto actor Maria Del Mar has enjoyed success on both television and the big screen, such as in the movie Price of Glory. But the one role she really relishes is being a mom |
| National Post March 18, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.F6 Have sound truck, will record: When the big stars want to be heard in Canada, they most often turn to Doug McClement |
| Broadcast Week March 4, 2000 |
| Broadcast Week February 12, 2000 |
| The Toronto Star January 23, 2000, First Edition |
| National Post January 31, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.A19 / FRONT Singer-songwriters strum along at growing number of clubs |
| National Post January 13, 2000, Toronto Edition, p.A21 Annual event celebrates life of uillean piper who left mark as teacher |
| National Post November 10, 1999, Toronto Edition, p.A23 |
| National Post October 23, 1999, Toronto Edition, p.E5 White still has the music in her |
| Globe and Mail July 26, 1999 Arts argument: spare us the celebrity grief councellors. How, exactly, is Catherine Zeta-Jones supposed to help us through our pain? It should best be left to psychiatrists to figure this one out, not to pundits. But there is something far more disturbing that gets no analysis at all: The appearance of celebrities -- most of whom had no more connection to John and Diana than you or I did -- on every news and magazine show, as if they had something brilliant to impart. Celebrities, with a few exceptions, are not that bright. One only has to watch a few minutes of Celebrity Jeopardy, when Sinbad and Shelley Long are the guests: The average question under the topic of Pets would be something like, "I say 'woof' and I am very loyal." And there's no guarantee the guests would get it. So it was with some horror that while channel surfing earlier this week I found Catherine Zeta-Jones being asked about her reaction to JFK Jr.'s death. Huh? What insights could she have on the whole situation? Well, she starred in The Mask of Zorro, and she's in a new scary movie with Liam Neeson. Oh, and Michael Douglas apparently gave her a really big ring. So she must have something to say, right? What she said was that she still couldn't believe Kennedy was dead. "I'm in shock. And my thoughts and prayers go out to the families." And then, with a flick of the remote, I found Samuel L. Jackson being interviewed. "It's so sad. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families." Another click and a reporter was standing outside Kennedy Jr.'s New York apartment building, reading a card that had been left there, written by Billy Baldwin and his wife Chynna Phillips. Baldwin is one of the younger of those towering intellects, the Baldwin brothers. And Phillips is the daughter of a Mama and a Papa. So they must be clever too. Their note said something about prayers and inspiration and Jack and Bobby. If this is reminiscent of the Di aftermath, it is mercifully less filled with the self-pity of stars whining about the press. The press is, after all, the very lifeblood of celebrities, yet Di's death brought the crybabies out of the woodwork, most notably Fran Drescher, Whoopi Goldberg and -- those Scientologists three -- Cruise, Kidman and Travolta. JFK Jr. seems to have been more grown up on this matter, understanding that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Unlike Di -- who invited the press to watch her wander through minefields or hug amputees and lepers, but then became enraged when they wanted a picture of her with her beau -- Kennedy mostly accepted the inevitable with humour and grace. One is grateful in all of this only that the Piper plane was not being pursued by another tiny plane teeming with paparazzi. True, celebrities have often postured as know-it-alls, so this isn't entirely new. A decade ago, Sting drove me to waste as much paper as I possibly could, to do my part toward destroying the rainforest. And these days Richard Gere is forever pontificating about Tibet. But there's something about the sudden deaths of beautiful people that brings out the bacchanalian in celebrity rants. There may indeed be some clever celebrities out there; I suspect they're the ones we rarely hear from. As Canadians, we can thank our lucky stars that most of our celebrities are so second-rate no one cares what they think anyway. Let's keep it so. Rondi Adamson is a freelance writer in Toronto. |
If your browser does not support frames, you can use the links below to enter pages without frames. If you would like to navigate from those pages, please scroll to the bottom of the page you are on for navigational options.
|
|
|
|