Great Actors Often Get Confused for Celebrities

     Here's a little word association, what's your first thought when you hear the words "Brad Pitt".  For most people it's probably either "Angelina Jolie" or "Jennifer Aniston's ex".  I'm sure some of the others would be "adopted father of many foreign children", "Activist", "Former Stoner" or "Wine Drinker".  Some more opinionated readers might say something much more bitter.  Sadly, too few would answer with "actor", since Pitt hasn't won an Oscar yet.  Yes, Mr. Pitt's acting career hasn't yet reached George Clooney status, where his acting work is more known by the public than his high-profile personal life.  However, when you look at his work, it's clear that his work as actor deserves more attention.
     What would  Fight Club be if it where anyone other than Pitt listing off those famous rules of The Fight Club?  How many other actors could bring the emotional impact he did to Moneyball?  And how many times in last couple of years have you heard a friend reciting the "killin' Nat Zis" monologue by the immortal Lt. Aldo Raine in Inglourious Basterds?  The deeper you dive into his resume, the harder it is to discredit him as an actor.  You can say what you want about the Ocean's sequels and the Mr. and Mrs. Smith remake, but as a whole, Brad Pitt's acting career is about as close as you can get to perfect.
      Even more unfortunately,  he's not on the list by himself.  If every person that bought a tabloid with Kristen Stewart's face on it watched her in The Runaways, she would have been nominated for an Oscar last year.  Instead, E! Network "reporters" ramble on to the masses about how terrible it is that she doesn't smile for the paparazzi.  Ben Affleck is another example.  He's directed two consecutive great films, and has done great work with everyone from Kevin Smith to Gus Van Sant.  Despite all of his great work, every comedy show on TV makes it like the only movie he ever acted in was Gili.
      I'm not stupid enough to say that we should feel bad for these people, especially in this economy.  I don't even consider myself above celebrity gossip.  I especially don't attack the criticism of people like Lindsay Lohan, who have the ability to be great actors and waste it.  I just think that the personal lives of the actors should not get in the way of great performances.  If we put celebrity gossip above art, we'll get to a point where we'll destroy the art and we'll all be stuck with the Kardashians. 

Occupy or Apathy? Which one are we?

                                                                           "My generation is zero." - Green Day
     My friend from BSU, Megan, sent me an online quiz that asked a single question, "Is the Occupy movement what you want our generation to be known for?". 
The options for answers were: Yes, No, Apathetic, or Other.  I knew right away I didn't want to answer Apathetic, because I would be a lame college grad if I just didn't care. I didn't want to answer Other, either.  Whether it was because I didn't want to preach, or because I was too lazy to write in an answer, is up to you.  Tentatively, I plugged in a "Yes". Turned out I was 1 of 5 that answered "Yes".  The other 25 answered "No".
   I'm not really a "part" of the Occupy movement.  I haven't marched or chanted with any of the onsite protests.  I had a plan of donating them some water bottles, but honestly I just never got to it.  It's hard to argue with their basic principles, the rich are too rich, the poor are too poor, and middle class college students are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to fight over a job at McDonalds (if they're lucky).  I think in general I avoid movements in their earlier stages, because they often get taken over by crooked politicians and result in clownish antics.  Take the Tea Party for instance, their original principle was less taxes, and less government.  Whether or not this Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy works remains to be seen, but there's certainly nothing embarrassing about one holding these views.  But not long after, celebrity wannabees like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck became leaders in the movement.  The next thing we knew there was some knucklehead outside of Bridgewater State College (now University) with a big picture of President Obama with a drawn on Hitler moustache.
    The Occupy Movement has been respectively more disciplined in it's own disorganization. Since it hasn't any official leaders, or even any if official goals, it's mostly survived public embarrassment.  Karl Rove's attack advertisement against Elizabeth Warren childishly painted them as communists, but Rove should know (but don't tell him) that I know as many Republicans that support Occupy as Democrats and Independents.  
    The problem is that the movement is so vague in it's politics and even goals that it's hard it say whether or not you agree with it.  Maybe the perfect online quiz question would be "What is the Occupy Movement?"  Without endorsing either candidate or party, I do credit the Massachusetts student protesters for putting their energy behind Warren.  The rest of the 'Occupy' sites are in Congress-like deadlock where each political party tries to avoid offending the other.  It doesn't help that they have to worry about getting arrested, police brutality like in Oakland, thirst, the cold, etc.  
    So why did I vote "yes"?  It's simple, because I don't want to known as the generation that's the other option.  That's the generation that sat on the couch and watched Jersey Shore while the economy collapsed, multiple wars continued on, climate change melted the ice caps, and everyone died of peanut allergies (okay, that's different story, different entry, and different rant).  Yes, it's weird that I want to be remembered for a movement that: 1. I'm not a part of,  2.  I don't know what it is,  3.  It may not even accomplish anything. But what else are we going to be remembered as?  
    The Harry Potter Generation?  They're great books/movies, but disappointingly books and movies never seem to define a generation the way music does.  The first three James Bond movies are a memorable part of the Kennedy-era, but the only part of the generation they account for are British secret agents and people who worked for Don Draper.  Any other series isn't even close.  Star Wars? They're great movies for sure, some of the best ever, but they have nothing to do with the late 1970's.
     The iPod generation? Well, maybe, but we're not the generation that invented the iPod, or the iPhone, or the iMicrowave, or whatever.  A motivated acid-dropping baby boomer named Steve Jobs was behind that.  Our generation is sitting on a couch, facebooking on our iPhones, cleaning out our DVRs, and probably blogging about the Occupy movement.

Winter Movies Ahead

If your anything like me, you probably have some DVDs somewhere on your Christmas list, if you can wait until Christmas. Some of the great movies I saw in the theaters that are now coming on DVD include: 1. Inglorious Basterds 2. District 9 3. Public Enemies 4. Star Trek 5. The Hangover 6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Now we talked about good DVDs, let's mention what's coming soon theaters. Some coming in the next few months include A Single Man, Invictus, Crazy on the Outside, Prince of Persia, and Alice In Wonderland. I think the movie coming out soon that everyone's talking about is Avatar. I saw a 3D preview of it last weekend when I went to see Jim Carrey's A Christmas Carol. I have to say, it looks pretty awesome. I like a handful of James Cameron's films, specifically Aliens. What makes me curious though, is I wonder if everything is going to be in 3D soon. Clearly, I love 3D, however, I sort of wonder how this will affect the attitude toward smaller, independent films. On one hand, I think 3D helps the viewer feel to be more a part of the narrative. On the other, I feel it might distract what is interesting about the film. I'm pretty happy that the new Disney film, The Princess and the Frog is going to be hand drawn and in 2D, because I don't feel that there is enough of that.

Bus Crashes and Guitars

Sunday, just outside of Albany, New York, Weezer's tour bus crashed from an ice slip. There were a few injuries, the largest being lead singer and (on and off?) guitarist Rivers Cuomo who to a small cut to the spleen and a small puncture to the lung. Doctors report his injuries are not fatal. Reports claim the other injuries were less serious. Cuomo's wife and two year old daughter who were on the bus were unharmed.

Awkwardly and completely unrelated, Weezer has just released a new album named Raditude. It's the band's most Pop oriented album, that even features a club song I Can't Stop Partying which features rapper Lil' Wayne. Despite the new album's accessibility, the album's overall songwriting is a little stronger than their last few albums. In the mid-nineties, Weezer released an album this critics at the time hated called Pinketon. Despite the lack of sales and acclaim, in went on to be the most influential album in the second half of the 1990s, and was credited for inspiring the indie emo movement. Cuomo said he hated the album for years, and wouldn't play it live. Despite still refusing to play the songs like, Cuomo has recently come to like it and it's message. Do you think bands should be able to choose what songs they play life regardless of the audience?

You pick your friends, but what about your actors?

We filmed a movie for BVFA this past week, it was fun. We're having some technical difficulties, but it might turn out fine, we'll see. Anyway, it gave me an interesting idea to blog about.

Basically, when we, as college students, make films, we don't necessarily go through the same casting process that hollywood executives go through. To be judgemental and make a generalization, one of three things usually happen: 1. You give parts to your friends. 2. You hold auditions for people you know, who you may or may not know well. 3. You hold auditions open to the public.

This BVFA film was really the first film I directed when I wasn't directly people who I had mostly known for years. On one hand, I felt it was more appropriate because I didn't feel the need to give the actors roles that I thought they would like, because I felt it was more business. On the other, I kinda felt the communication was a little more awkward, I was kind of afraid to yell or give acting advice. However, the issue I have had in the past with directing people I've known for a very long time is that I'm afraid that some sort of disagreement or clash that I've had in the past with the person might screw up the work chemistry. So what do you think, who are you most comfortable working with?

Peace, Love, and Kissing Up

This sort of goes along with last week's chapter. Yesterday, I was all ready to go CVS to get the things I need for my dorm. But my friend called me to help out his radio show. So I went out of that for a little while. When I left, some girl I knew begged me to come watch a gentleman sing and play guitar who hired by the program committee. I felt really bad because there was no one there. He was pretty good and I enjoyed watching him, but I really had stuff to take care of. So when I got out, it was about 15 minutes short of 10 o 'clock. By the time I got to CVS, it was about 9:54, and when the clock struck 10:01, some worker yelled at me and told me I have to leave. I was so frustrated I didn't buy any of the things I had picked out, I just put them down and walked out the door.

I feel the same way sometimes when having conversations with people. For instance, on one hand, I feel there is no such thing as bad music, so I shouldn't say that I think Hillary Duff's So Yesterday is a terrible song if a friend likes it. On the other hand, I feel lame like I might lose my credibility if I am not honest about music. I think it works the opposite way too. When I'm with a group of guys and I admit that I didn't think the film Twilight had bad acting, that might not benefit me so well either.

Open Mic Night At BSC

I haven't played at open mic night here at BSC yet this semester. I went to see my friend sing a couple weeks ago, and sadly I missed her, however I got to see my other friend play, so that was cool. The moved it to the room next to the GLBTA room instead of having it at in the large ballroom. Now that I think about it, I think that was a good choice because last year everyone sort of had their back to the stage. It didn't really bother me when I performed, because well, you expect that when doing a little acoustic ditty at an open mic night. However, I thought it was sort of harsh for the comedians and spoken word poets because they weren't able to bounce off the audience. Therefore, I felt it was a better environment despite the fact it was a little harder to meet up with friends when in the audience.

I quite often tend to second guess myself when I do these types of things. I was original like, yeah, I'll do one of my songs and then cover "El Scorcho" by Weezer. But then I was like, I can't do that, it would be a sin to cut out of all the background vocal. So then I was like, "Well, I do a good version of Bob Dylan's 'Forever Young Continued'." But then I think, "I can't play that at an acoustic night, that's like playing 'Stairway To Heaven' at a guitar store!" Last I like, "Okay, I'll do 'Under the Milky Way' by Church." But then I think I might forget the words. The inner turmoil goes on...