Jim Carrey in Once Bitten (1985)

 

Once Bitten is a 1985 American comedy film starring Lauren Hutton and Jim Carrey. It is a vampire-themed comedy about Mark Kendall (Carrey), an innocent and naive high school student who is seduced in a Los Angeles club by a sultry blonde countess (Hutton) who, unknown to him, is really a centuries old vampire. The film was Carrey’s seventh film and his first main role.

Trivia:

Posted by Audiegrl

It’s been 166 years since the publication of A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens’ seasonal story of redemption wrapped up in a biting indictment of 19th-century capitalism.

Scrooge (Jim Carrey) and Tiny Tim (Gary Oldman) are prepared to get you into the holiday spirit.

“I think it’s a very pressing story nowadays, too,” said Carrey, the star of Disney’s re-imagining of the classic, released in North America on November 6. “I think stories get told at times when they’re supposed to be told.”

“Scrooge is the first corporate scumbag. The unloved scumbag. So, in this time when all our constructs are breaking down because of greed, this story is so pressing,” Carrey added.

“Everybody loves a good transformational story. You know, somebody who sees the light, who finally finds out what’s important in life. And, this is one of the greatest ones ever written.”

Just like the character of Scrooge, Carrey was confronted with a vision of his future during the making of the film.

But while Scrooge’s insight came via the spooky Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, Carrey’s own premonition was entirely due to his appearance after the 3D movie’s special effects wizards went to work.

Jim Carrey

“When I saw the movie, one of the first things I said when I saw the first close up of Scrooge is, ‘my family is going to have a heart attack, because that is my father,’” he said.

“It’s unbelievable. It’s really a look into the future for me. Not the long chin and the long nose, but the look is what I’m going to look like when I’m old,” Carrey added.

Disney’s new take on the classic is the latest in a long line of adaptations of the beloved 1843 novella, with the first screen version coming more than a century ago with in the 1901 British short Scrooge.

More @

A Christmas Carol Tops Weekend Box Office with $31 Million

A Christmas Carol unsurprisingly topped the weekend box office with an estimated $31 million in receipts.

The latest foray by Robert Zemeckis into motion-capture filmmaking came in lower than initial expectations but easily bested the $23.3 million open by The Polar Express, his last holiday CGI film. With the holiday season only now ramping up, A Christmas Carol should continue to play strong for weeks to come.

Charles Dickens’ timeless tale of an old miser who must face Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet-to-Come, as they help to bring kindness to his otherwise cold heart. The Ghosts remind him of the man he used to be, the hard truth of what the world is today, and what will happen if he does not strive to be a better man. Set around Christmas, the most joyous day of the year, Scrooge realizes the sharp contrast of his own personality.

Jim Carrey plays four separate roles in this updated version of A Christmas Carol. Carrey portrays Scrooge, as well as the three ghosts (Past, Present, and Yet-to-Come). His dynamic character roles keep the four characters as diverse as being played by four actors.

Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future trilogy) has his chance to dabble in telling a story through the windows of time, as he directs the long-awaited remake.

Our Favorite Versions

Each December my family and I watch our favorite versions of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. What’s your favorite?

Estreiou na terça-feira (03/11), na Mostra Internacional de Cinema de São Paulo, na Fundação Armando Álvares Penteado (FAAP), o filme “I Love You Phillip Morris”, que conta com a participação do ator brasileiro Rodrigo Santoro.

O filme é baseado no livro homônimo, de Steve McVicker, que conta a história de Steve Russel (papel interpretado por Jim Carrey), que se apaixona na cadeia por Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor). Quando Morris é libertado, Russel foge quatro vezes só para encontrá-lo.

Rodrigo Santoro interpreta o primeiro namorado de Morris, que morre de AIDS. A cena onde os atores Rodrigo Santoro e Jim Carrey se beijavam na boca foi cortada, deixando o público frustado. Segundo argumentações do diretor Glenn Ficarra, a cena estará presente nos extras do DVD, e foi cortada devido ao fato da química sexual entre Rodrigo Santoro e Jim Carrey estar muito grande, sobressaindo-se da história principal.

Santoro recebeu a notícia do corte como um elogio dos diretores, entendendo que o personagem estava chamando atenção demais e não deveria ter todo esse espaço na trama.

Apesar do papel interpretado por Santoro ser importante, o tempo de sua aparição na telona não foi muito diferente das suas participações nos filmes “As Panteras 2″, “300″ ou “Che”.

Depois desse filme, Santoro vai interpretar o protagonista do filme “Heleno”, sobre o jogador Heleno de Freitas, que será dirigido por José Henrique Fonseca e coproduzido por ele. “Vamos começar a rodar no primeiro semestre de 2010”.

O longa, que estréia em circuito comercial em fevereiro de 2010, ainda pode ser visto na Mostra (hoje, no HSBC Belas Artes). As informações são do Jornal da Tarde.

I Love You Phillip Morris. Sessão hoje, às 19h50, no HSBC Belas Artes. (Rua da Consolação, 2423).

Maiores informações: www.mostra.org.

Fonte: http://epipoca.uol.com.br/filmes_detalhes.php?idf=21251

Letícia dos Santos

• You are looking at a great poster.
• It is perfect for framing or hanging on the wall — and it makes a great gift.
• This poster measures approx. 11″ x 17″ and is perfect, unused, and rolled in a protective tube.

Dumb & Dumber Movie Jim Carrey Funny New Art Poster Print – 11″ X 17″

Para los que no lo sepan, Saturday Night Live ha sacado a la luz a algunos de los grandes personajes cómicos de los últimos años, tales como Mike Myers o Eddie Murphy, generando también algunos de los más míticos gags televisivos. Pues bien, en esta ocasión os presento a Jim Carrey acompañado de Chris Kattan y Will Ferrell haciendo uno de los gags más conocidos mundialmente. Disfruta:

JRANDIOSAMENTE DESJOJONANTE

La canción es Gigi D’Agostino-Bla Bla Bla

I’ve always loved A Christmas Carol, now we have the updated modern version which keeps the exciting/mind blowing feel of The Polar Express:

The Official Trailer (old)

The Official Event Featurette

Still working on all the updates I will be working on in the future, school has taken over so I’ve been busy

And I wish you all a Happy October! Plz be sure to avoid the Swine Flu

Well guys that’s it for now, stay tuned for the next update =D.

Mint tudjuk a biztonság a legfontosabb. A következő videóban tűzoltó parancsnok Bill bá ezt hivatott bemutatni.

A következő videó ANGOL nyelvtudást igényel tovább 5 perc hosszú. Aki nem bírja ki ezt az 5 percet az kapja be!

Most már tudjátok mi kell ahhoz, hogy egy űrhajót biztonságossá tegyünk! Megérte ez az 5 perc ugye? ;D

Csináld utána!

Sinopse:

Cinebiografia de Andy Kaufman (Jim Carrey), considerado o mais excêntrico, inovador e enigmático comediante de seu tempo. Um mestre em provocar o público, Kaufman podia gerar gargalhadas, um silêncio sepulcral, lágrimas ou até mesmo brigas, o que lhe valeu a fama de gênio da comédia americana.

- Já tinha assistido e assisti novamente. Muito bom!

A atuação de Jim Carrey faz você crer que realmente é Andy Kaufman.

-Assistido em 05/07/2009

In ihrem neuen Video “Obsessed” hat sich Mariah Carrey als Eminem verkleidet. Das sollte wohl die Rache sein, für alle bösen Worte die Slim Shady in  der Vergangenheit über Sie und ihr Ehemann Nick Cannon verloren hatte. Niedlich…

“He’s not going to Chicago.”

What the choreography of everyday life in The Truman Show tells us about culturally defined identities

1

Once upon a time, the Big Brother fantasies of Orwellian philosophers seemed nothing but science fiction. Nowadays, one knows better. We are globally surrounded by a vaguely institutionalized set of CCTV systems, registering almost every aspect of everyday life and scrutinizing the ordinary human being in a way that reminds of the burlesque ‘eyeholes-in-a-newspaper’ private detective. The entanglement of our physical world and modern media has an undeniable influence on the construction of cultural identities and related cultural themes. Boundaries have been stretched or even broken, and the modern world finds itself somewhere between past, present and future.

2

In 1998, Australian director Peter Weir (Picnic at Hanging Rock, Witness) addressed these red-hot topics with his prospective film The Truman Show, starring among others Jim Carrey, Ed Harris, and Laura Linney. Beneath the surface of American blockbuster entertainment, The Truman Show reflected on a wide range of issues the world was confronted with at the doorstep of the fin-de-siècle.  Themes of race and ethnicity, nation, globalisation, and religion are explored within a one-hundred-and-three minutes duration.

This essay will examine which lights The Truman Show sheds on the issues of whiteness, community, ‘home’ and identity performance, all of which are considerably affected by modern day globalisation processes. To illustrate this analyse, the words will be attended with a series of film stills depicting one single – but exemplary – scene in The Truman Show. After all, how can one examine visual art without closely scrutinizing the imagery?

The choreography of everyday life

3

The Truman Show welcomes the viewer to a world where every act, every movement and every slice of life surrounding the protagonist is being staged. Literally every part of Truman Burbank’s world is aware of the artificiality of this microcosm – except, of course, Truman himself. For Truman is, as we, the audience, know, in global limelight since the day he was born. He is the ignorant centre of a world-wide – but, at the same time, undoubtedly American – television reality show that observes his daily practices twenty-four hours a day. To follow the film’s tagline: Truman is ‘on the air – unaware’[i].

The show’s creator, Christof, has been heading Truman’s life for great television moments. In a God-like way, Christof has been pulling the strings of every man, woman and object present in the world of Truman (which is, by the way, an enormous, hermetically closed dome, ‘the only man-made structure besides the Great Wall of China visible from outer space’[ii]). The world of Truman is constructed, counterfeit, artificial; on the other hand, Truman himself is not at all fake or scripted. As Christof comments in the film’s opening sequence: “It isn’t always Shakespeare, but it’s genuine. It’s a life.”[iii]

4

In the course of the film, Truman starts to discover the real identity of the world he inhabits. The façade begins to show some cracks, and these fissures are reason for Truman to start investigating what is truly going on around him. For the cast and crew involved with the show, it becomes more and more difficult to keep up their poses for the attentive and (not groundlessly) paranoid Truman.

The scene depicted on this essay’s edge concerns one of the first attempts of Truman to go against the grain (as defined by Christof and his). Truman “secretly” follows his wife Meryl to the hospital where she works. After both personnel and patients peculiarly have tried to stop him, Truman takes off to a travel agency to book an immediate flight to the Fiji Islands. However, all the flights to Fiji turn out to be sold out for the coming month, and therefore Truman decides to take a direct bus to Chicago. Unfortunately for Truman, the bus is, oddly enough, unable to leave. As one of the viewers of the television show reluctantly comments (still no. 14): “He’s not going to Chicago. He’s not going anywhere.”

White roofs over white people

5

Since The Truman Show presents us a distinctively constructed world, one is enabled to see clearly the way this world is designed and defined. As opposed to the complexities of the ‘real’ world, Truman’s microcosm  serves as a kind of herbarium, that explicitly unfolds what is ‘non-obvious’ in our daily life, in other words: ‘everything we [normally] don’t notice’[iv]. Therefore, we can examine the choices that are made by the fictional character Christof, the show’s creator, and, on a higher level, by the filmmakers themselves. Which elements of real life does this constructed world inherit, and which parts are (deliberately) left out?

Most strikingly, Truman’s world appears to be principally white. With that, I do not only refer to the visual design of ‘Trumania’ –white houses are the standard, as can be seen in still no. 1 – but mainly to the ethnic composition of the inhabitants of Truman’s world. In short, most of the ‘extras’ around Truman are Caucasian, or simply white. Every pedestrian, every passer-by, every employee and every dog owner – they are all white as far as their skin colour. With that, the ‘white person’ establishes its normative domination, because he ‘colonise[s] the definition of normal’[v].

6

There is but one noticeable exception to this status-quo: the driver of the Chicago bus (I refer to still no. 12). He makes his first appearance in the sequence where he fakes a technical failure on his bus, to thwart Truman’s plans of escaping the town. It is noteworthy that the only non-white inhabitant of Truman’s world gets directly associated with ignorance, technical malfunction, and failure (still no. 11). (Later in the movie, this same bus driver is commanded to navigate a ferry, but again, he turns out to be a fraud – for he is, like any other extra on the show, an actor.)

This situation has some politically incorrect implications. From a logical point of view, every actor on this show should be unable to disguise there factual lack of knowledge when being confronted with Truman’s deviating behaviour, because they are only pretending to be what they are in the eyes of Truman. Nonetheless, the Afro-American bus driver is the only one whose ignorance is being publicly exposed. Every time a Caucasoid inhabitant is on the verge of making a clean breast of his or her incompetence, someone interferes on behalf of the show’s direction.

7

A striking example is the fake medical surgery (still no. 5). In this short sequence, we see Truman invading the (again, not so real) hospital to tell his wife he will be flying off to the Fiji Islands. To confine Truman’s doubts and suspicions, the show’s extras have to improvise a medical amputation. However, before the lingering actors stick a knife in their fellow actor’s right leg, Truman is being addressed by a security guard, who orders the protagonist to leave the area (still no. 7). In that way, the incompetence of the white inhabitants of ‘Trumania’ has again been camouflaged literally in front of Truman’s paranoid eyes. In this short sequence, the film establishes the invulnerability of the white hegemony, at the expense of the singular non-white inhabitant. Truman gets indoctrinated by this ideology – to put it rather bluntly: Truman’s world is filled with competent whites and failing blacks, and presents therefore, from the roofs to the people, a ‘racialized form of memory (…) a nostalgia for a time when all the “folk” were white’[vi].

Such a difficult pose to keep up

8

Since Truman suspiciously investigates, at a certain point, the ‘realness’ of his every-day reality, the television show’s cast and crew are faced with an extended challenge. Under the pressure of Truman’s (not groundless) paranoia (still no. 4), it turns out that being natural is ‘such a very difficult pose to keep up’, as Oscar Wilde so ironically put it[vii]. Everyone’s ‘normalness’ is in fact a performance, more literally than in the gender-oriented appropriation of Judith Butler. Nonetheless, some of Butler’s usages of the performativity concept actually can be applied to the way Truman’s constructed world evolves around him. Truman’s identification with the world he inhabits can almost literally be understood as ‘an enacted fantasy’, where identities are performed, constructed and fabricated by means of hidden, but extremely well designed, discourses.[viii]

Unlike the dominant gender-related ideologies Butler analyses in her work, the construction of identity in The Truman Show is a concretised, unclouded process (though it takes place behind the ‘clouds’ in Truman’s sky). It is fully controlled by creator Christof and his crew, ever since the day Truman was born. Every bit of Truman’s identity is the fruit of an event directed by Christof. A telling example is Truman’s hydrophobia, which derives from a tragic – but staged – sailing trip with Truman’s father, who has been missing ever since. Though this somehow manipulating of Truman’s mind and life is evident to the spectators both of the diegetic television show (see still no. 14) and of Peter Weir’s film, Truman himself is, of course, unaware of this process.

9

A comic example can be found in the sequence where Truman tries to book a flight to the Fiji Islands (still no. 9). The camera angle draws attention to the way the mise-en-scene ‘subconsciously’ influences Truman’s thinking. Before the travel agent enters the office, we see Truman juxtaposed to a poster warning that ‘It Could Happen To You’ – thereby referring to a bolt of lightning striking an airplane. Another poster (still no. 8) reads ‘Travellers Beware’, followed by a summary of hideous things that could ruin your flight (‘terrorists, disease, wild animals’). Perhaps this plays a part in Truman’s later decision to take the bus.

Two times on the payroll?

10

Yet, this chess board of identity construction is problematic.  Every actor in the world of Truman struggles with what Thomas Elsaesser calls ‘double occupancy’[ix]. Although Elsaesser uses it in the context of new European cinema and the effects of migration and multiculturalism, the term can be applied to all the inhabitants of Truman’s world, who are in fact migrants, albeit temporarily. These people are commuters between their personal lives outside ‘the Dome’, and their fictionalized lives inside ‘Trumania’, the people they pretend to be through their performances. This brings to the fore a kind of schizophrenia, a mental split between who one really is en what one performs to be.

Over the film’s course, there are several occasions where this schizophrenia, this double occupancy, takes its toll. One of the minor examples is the aforementioned medical surgery. There is a moment (see still no. 6) where the patient (again, an actress) acts ‘out of character’. Because it starts to seem that the other actors have to perform an actual surgery (for Truman is observing them), the patient-actress gets suddenly overthrown by a ‘this-was-not-what-we-agreed’ kind of fear. Before Truman fully grasps the disclosing quality of this particular moment, a security guard disables him to continue his observation (still no. 7).

Later in the film, we are presented a flashback to Truman’s ‘secret’ –recorded by cameras, but not necessarily staged – love affair with the blonde Lauren (played by Natasha McElhone). Because she threatens to endanger the planned development for Truman’s ‘narrative’, she is, at one point, removed from Truman’s life – but not from his mind. And apparently, Truman himself did not disappear out of her thoughts either, thus indicate the shots of Sylvia, the real life actress that played Lauren, watching the show at home. Her fictional feelings in the show on the one hand, and her real sentiments on the other, they both seem to have gotten entangled. Lauren’s/Sylvia’s double occupancy made her life ‘toujours occupé’, always occupied, as Elsaesser anecdotally notes[x]. She simply cannot live her ‘real’ life apart from her fictional role in the story of Truman. She is troubled by a ‘paranoid dream of tabula rasa’[xi], but that very dream contains the – again – Wildean logic that ‘no one should be entirely judged by their past’[xii].

11

One can add several other examples to the abovementioned: Truman’s father returns, unplanned, on an ordinary day, to the show’s crew’s discontent; a fan of the television show tries to invade the world of Truman to tell the protagonist that everything has been made up; the bus driver feels genuinely sorry for Truman (still no. 13); and, on a smaller scale, we can see a fissure of Truman’s world in the entrance of the travel agent, who is clearly raked up while she was having lunch (see still no. 10). All these examples clarify the problematic role of maintaining a constructed world.

No place like ‘home’

Still, this constructed environment is Truman Burbank’s home. For the grand majority of his life, Truman had – influenced by Christof’s directing strategies – no thought of leaving his hometown. Truman changes his attitude when he becomes conscious, slowly but surely, of some unexplainable ‘cracks’ in his every-day life and his ordinary environment. This is where Truman’s world starts to show the consequences of the globalisation in the ‘real world’; Truman’s realm has become, through the media (most notably television), a phantasmagoric place. In this situation, one is continuously confronted with the dialectics of the ‘realm of the near’ (Truman’s familiar life) on the one hand, and the ‘realm of the far’ (the ‘real world’, in particular Christof’s television crew) on the other[xiii].

12

In this perspective, it is not difficult to understand the ethical crisis Truman lands in when he notices the undeniable imperfections of his environment. At first, an insecure Truman searches for safety in ideas of community (still no. 3), which can be regarded as a natural response in case of post-modern anxieties[xiv]. However, when this community turns out to be the very crux of the problem, Truman subsides in ‘identity panics’[xv]. Driven by an outburst of grounded paranoia, cynical distrust and moral despair, Truman works his way through his world to find the borders, and with that the exit of this realm. He is, as I have said before, thwarted by the television crew via the extras in ‘Trumania’, but nothing can discourage Truman to find a solution for this incomprehensible situation.

In this particular case, it is not the post-modernist disappearing of borders that troubles the notion of ‘home’, but it is the opposite awareness of the existence of those borders. The vast limitation of Truman’s life – that is, the show’s scenario – transforms the ‘home’ into a prison cell. The concept of a trusted base ‘where everybody knows your name’[xvi] has been made far too literal. Truman is confronted with ‘“strangers” of one sort or another’ that invade his ‘symbolic space’, ‘defile’ it and dislocate the status-quo[xvii].

And the entire world is watching

13

Meanwhile, Truman’s attempts to escape this involuntary isolation are being followed worldwide by the television show’s audience. These spectators indicate a noteworthy paradox within The Truman Show’s perspective on globalisation. On the one hand, we see Truman struggling to be a part of a globalised world, where one can move freely and cross borders without restraint (see still no. 2). On the other, there is a global audience, living in a world of blurring and fading borders, that consumes intensely the nostalgic, non-ambiguous, de-globalised world of Truman Burbank. The television show serves as a ‘mediascape’, presenting narratives and metaphors that arouse a desire to live these imagined lives, and thriving on the anxieties and unspoken needs of the post-modern, even deterritorialized worldwide population[xviii]. The show-within-the-film bases itself on ‘the belief that society [is] naturally organized around and under high centres’[xix], therefore offering a stable, impervious grip that is so deeply missed in the post-modern, anarchic world. That ‘centre of the universe’, epitomized by creator Christof, reaches almost divine proportions.

Concluding remarks

For what happens in the end? Truman overcomes his hydrophobia and sets sail towards the horizon – which he finds to be a massive wall, namely that of ‘the Dome’. Caught in this surreal imagery, Truman finds himself a stairs leading to an exit door. Then, ‘the sun’  – that is, Christof in front of a small screen – starts conversing with Truman, leading to a scene abundantly filled with biblical references (a voice from above, a man walking on water, a man as an inspiration for so many people). Finally, and unexpectedly, Truman utters his meanwhile famous words: “And in case I don’t see ya: good afternoon, good evening, and good night.”[xx] Then, Truman bows to the camera, turns around and leaves through the exit door.

Remarkably, this is where Peter Weir’s film ends. Truman leaves the nostalgic, clearly defined and restricted community, to enter the realm of post-modern anxieties. It is, we should not forget, the year 1998, the fin-de-siècle, the eve of the new millennium, the culminating of worldwide angst. Perhaps, Truman will become one of the show’s spectators, longing for a world where boundaries were strict and communities were tight. That can arguably be the reason director Weir ends his film like this – for we can imagine what Truman will become: one of us, anxious people, out of our depth.

Maybe it would have been better if Truman had not wanted to go to Chicago after all.

"He's not going to Chicago. He's not going anywhere."

References and notes

The original essay contained a full strip of film stills, that had to be reduced to a microscopic selection, due to WordPress restraints and technical malfunctions. If you want to view the original essay (and I truly recommend you do), please request it by sending me an e-mail.

Due to design restraints, the strip of film stills on this essay’s edge had to be shortened. Therefore, some shots have been omitted to serve both the lay-out and the shots’ relevance within this essay.

The stills cover 00:37:39 – 00:43:49 of The Truman Show.

Anderson, Benedict. ‘Introduction’. In: Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983: 37-46.

Appadurai, Arjun. ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’. In: Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996: 27-47.

Butler, Judith. ‘Bodily Inscriptions, Performative Subversions’. In: Sara Salih, Judith Butler, ed. The Judith Butler Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005: 90-115.

Dyer, Richard. ‘White’. In: Jessica Evans, Stuart Hall, ed. Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage, 1999: 457-467.

Elsaesser, Thomas. ‘Double Occupancy and Small Adjustments: Space, Place and Policy in the New European Cinema since the 1990s’. In: Thomas Elsaesser et al., red. European cinema. Face to face with Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005: 108-130.

Federman, Mark. ‘What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?’ (2004). <http://individual.utoronto.ca/
markfederman/MeaningTheMediumistheMessage.pdf>.

Morley, David. ‘Belongings: Place, Space, and Identity in a Mediated World’. In: European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 4, no. 4 (2001): 425-448.

Nairn, Tom. ‘Demonising Nationality’. In: Tom Nairn, Faces of Nationalism: Janus Revisited. London: Verso, 1997: 57-68.

Wilde, Oscar. An Ideal Husband. (1895). With contribution by Laurie Wolf. London: Nick Hern Books, 1999.

Other media

The Truman Show. Dir. Peter Weir. Paramount Pictures, Scott Rudin Productions, 1998.

Google Books. Google. 01-06-2009 <http://books.google.com>.

Metroactive.com. Metro Publishing, Inc. 28-5-2009 <http://www.metroactive.com>.

The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Amazon.com. 28-5-2009 <http://www.imdb.com>.

All of the film stills have been made by this essay’s author.

[ii] ‘Metroactive Movies | The Truman Show’. Metroactive.com. Metro Publishing, Inc. 28-5-2009 <http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/
06.04.98/trumanshow-9822.html>.

[iii] ‘The Truman Show (1998) – Memorable quotes’. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Amazon.com. 28-5-2009 <http://www.imdb.com/title/
tt0120382/quotes>.

[iv] Federman 2004: 1.

[v] Dyer 1999: 458.

[vi] Morley 2001: 433.

[vii] Wilde 1895 (ed. 1999): 9.

[viii] Butler 2005: 110.

[ix] Elsaesser 2005: 108-109.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Wilde 1895 (ed. 1999): 28.

[xiii] Morley 2001: 428.

[xiv] Morley 2001: 431.

[xv] Etiënne Balibar, quoted in Nairn 1993: 65.

[xvi] Morley 2001: 425.

[xvii] Morley 2001: 433.

[xviii] Appadurai 1996: 35-36, 38.

[xix] Anderson 1983: 40.

[xx] ‘The Truman Show (1998) – Memorable quotes’. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Amazon.com. 28-5-2009 <http://www.imdb.com/title/
tt0120382/quotes>.

Jim shows off his new David Caruso-style look

Eu apenas digo uma coisa… gosto da série CSI (não em particular uma das “cidades”), mas ODEIO, ODEIO os planos que fazem do David Caruso. O gajo parece um deficiente, sei lá o quê… parece ter um peso na cabeça que está sempre com o pescoço de lado, com planos completamente estúpidos. Horrível!

Ou então, se calhar sou eu o cromo nisto tudo… mas não suporto, planos horríveis.

Em cima o Jim Carrey a gozar com ele…

Em baixo, o próprio “Horatio”, se tiverem pachorra, vejam a personagem até ao fim (eu não consegui)…

E este?

LINDO!!!!

Jim Carrey delivered a great performance for a bad cause.  I was not impressed with this movie, and here’s a review you might enjoy more than the flick:

Yes Man

Read more about this film here

I’ve decided that we’re going to show this film at our regular film and faith service at Moortown on Sunday.

I hope that those watching it view it in a more positive light than Thaisha Geiger did!

I thought the idea of covenant asked some great questions for us as Christians.

 What are we covenanted to? The next self help fad? the latest charismatic leader? the most recent minority movement?

Or do we take seriously that call to be in covenant only with our God?

That then leads into questions about how we make decisions in our life. How does our relationship with God change the things we say yes and no to?

For me it also talks about what offers we make as a church. In the film Jim Carrey can only say yes to the invitations that he is given. As a church are we quick enough to make the offer of Jesus, knowing that a life with Jesus is a life lived in all it’s fullness?

Has anyone else seen it yet? what did you think? do you think it deserved the ‘Very Offensive’ moral rating it was given in the review?

COPIO-INCOLLO DA dottprof.com

Jim Carrey e Jenny McCarthy a una marcia anti-vaccini

La fobia dei vaccini pediatrici che causerebbero l’autismo ha due nuovi, autorevoli (o forse no) profeti: l’attore Jim Carrey (”The Truman Show”, “Una settimana da Dio”, “Io me & Irene” e così via) e la procace showgirl Jenny McCarthy, sua compagna anche nella vita. Dopo ripetute prese di posizione pubbliche (memorabile  in tal senso la partecipazione della McCarthy all’Oprah Winfrey Show) e marce a Washington, arriva un editoriale di Jim Carrey sull’Huffington Post.

Come si sa, le due teorie più diffuse su certo Internet e nel passaparola tra genitori preoccupati sono le seguenti:
- i virus attenuati presenti nei vaccini per il morbillo, a contatto col tratto gastrointestinale del bambino svilupperebbero tossine che, assorbite dal cervello, porterebbero all’autismo;
- il mercurio presente fino a qualche anno fa nel conservante thimerosal funzionerebbe da neurotossina causando l’autismo.

Entrambe le teorie sono state ripetutamente smentite da decine di studi scientifici autorevoli, ma tant’è.

L’attore americano si scaglia contro le dichiarazioni rassicuranti arrivate da più parti sulla sicurezza dei vaccini pediatrici: “Nessuno sarebbe più sollevato di me e Jenny se queste affermazioni si rivelassero veritiere. (…) La realtà è che invece nessuno che non abbia interessi economici nel campo ha studiato i 36 vaccini pediatrici sul mercato in profondità. Ci sono più di 100 vaccini in fase di sviluppo e nessun test sugli effetti cumulativi e le interazioni tra i 36 vaccini attualmente utilizzati è stato effettuato. Se sto sbagliando, fatemi vedere questi studi!”

[Ehm, Jim... dai un'occhiata a questa revisione della Cochrane Collaboration, vuoi? ]

A un certo punto il tono si fa apocalittico: “L’evidenza anedottica di milioni di genitori che hanno visto i loro figli totalmente normali regredire nella malattia mentale e nell’isolamento dopo una visita all’ambulatorio del pediatra andrebbe attentamente considerata!”. Visti e considerati i discorsi che sento spesso in sala d’attesa dal pediatra io quando accompagno mia figlia, effettivamente un problema-regressione mentale c’è: resta da vedere se antecedente alla visita ambulatoriale o successivo.

Il nemico giurato di Carrey è Paul A. Offit, pediatra specializzato in Infettivologia del Children’s Hospital di Filadelfia, che è uno dei paladini della sicurezza delle vaccinazioni pediatriche e anche uno dei padri del vaccino contro il Rotavirus. Carrey naturalmente – citando interrogazioni parlamentari al Congresso, pratica che in Italia è sommamente scivolosa considerando la media della qualità e della logica delle interrogazioni parlamentari, ma magari al Congresso va meglio, lo speriamo per gli Usa – sostiene che si tratta di un tizio che ha fatto milioni di dollari con i vaccini e che quindi difende i supoi loschi interessi personali.

Offit dal canto suo recentemente c’è andato giù duro, in un editoriale sul New England Journal of Medicine: “Chi sono i falsi profeti dell’autismo, cioè coloro che diffondono voci allarmanti e infondate sulla correlazione tra vaccini pediatrici e autismo ingannando migliaia e migliaia di genitori in buona fede? Scienziati che comunicano male col grande pubblico e non fanno passare i giusti messaggi, politici e giornalisti che si guadagnano gli applausi di una parte del pubblico fingendo di essere paladini della giustizia contro il sistema delle aziende farmaceutiche e dei medici corrotti e invece sono solo sciacalli, medici e/o ciarlatani che sfruttano la disperazione delle famiglie di bambini autistici proponendo terapie senza base scientifica che sono nel migliore dei casi inefficaci e costose e nel peggiore dannose e pericolose”.

Chissà se all’elenco da oggi Offit aggiungerà anche gli attori.

Con Jim Carrey puedes tener dos sentimientos. Que te encante y lo pases bien con la mayoría de sus películas. O que sientas un cansancio insufrible nada más verlo y cualquier cosa que haga te la traiga bien floja. Este actor hace ya tiempo que no está en la cresta de la ola. Extraño sería que cobrase las alucinantes cifras que ingresaba en su cuenta corriente con películas como “Un Loco a Domicilio” (una de las menos valoradas de su filmografía). Puede ser que sus cambios de registro en películas que no eran comedias, le hayan perjudicado más que beneficiado. Así que cuando eso pasa, lo que hace un actor es volver por sus fueros. Comedia cien por cien. Y es lo que conlleva, que al final hacen una película que te recuerda a muchas otras que ya has visto.

Como os decía al principio. Si no os gusta este actor pasad olímpicamente de ver “Dí que Sí”. Carrey ofrece prácticamente todo su reperterio de muecas y expresiones dignas de un cartoon. Olvidaos de “Mr. Majestic”, “El Show de Thruman” o “Número 23″. La historia, si la analizas un poquito (tampoco hace falta mucho) da que pensar. Es decir, te enseña a esquivar una vida rutinaria, aburrida, estéril de emociones. Posiblemente más de uno se ha podido o se puede sentir así. Siempre haces lo mismo y siempre querrías salir de ese mundo que gira pero que siempre te lleva al mismo sitio. Carrey es esa persona hasta que acaba conociendo a Terence Stamp y le da un consejo. “Dí que sí a todo, no importa lo que sea”. De esa manera todo le sale bien. O mejor dicho, disfruta más de la vida. Un día viviendo de esa forma no tenía comparación con la vida tediosa en la que se estaba desenvolviendo. Luego conoce a Zooey Deschanel (El Incidente) y su vida amorosa empieza a reflotar. Y luego vienen los inconvenientes de turno, los problemas. Un guión totalmente lineal de principio a fin. Estoy totalmente seguro que si veis esta película os vendrá a la menta alguna otra de Adam Sandler o Ben Stiller. Incluso tiene muchísimos paralelismos con “Mentiroso Compulsivo”, aunque para mí es mucho peor la que nos ocupa.

Sin embargo, se salvan algunos gags. Esos que tan bien sabe resolver este actor con su histrionismo habitual. La aparición de Terence Stamp, aún siendo escasa, es de lo mejor. El compañero de trabajo de Carrey y su frikismo con Harry Potter hará sonreir a más de un fan de la saga. Incluso Zooey tiene sus momentos.

“¿Me recomendarías esta película?”

Pues si quieres seguir viendo todas las películas de Jim Carrey, adelante. Duración media (noventa minutos) que no hará que mires el reloj constantemente. Pero lo peor de todo es su grandísima previsibilidad. Sabes qué va a pasar, cómo se va a desarrollar y cómo va a terminar. Y eso no es bueno, en absoluto. Me sigo quedando con “Dos Tontos Muy Tontos”, por poner una película de este actor.

Para leer la ficha de la película, pincha aqui

Fdo: Snake