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.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
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
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.
My friend from BSU, Megan, sent me an online quiz that asked a single question, "Is the Occupy movement what you want our generation
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)