Old Jindabyne, located in New South Wales, Australia, is mostly invisible. Mostly. Flooded in the 1960s to make Lake Jindabyne, the abandoned town sits quietly under the rippling surface. But on some days, when lake waters drop low enough, parts of Jindabyne come into view — a reminder of sorts that buried things have a tendency not to stay buried forever.

That Old Jindabyne serves as the setting of Aussie director Ray Lawrence’s tense, eerie character study “Jindabyne” is certainly no accident. The watery ghost town seems to attract residents nursing old grudges and long-suppressed emotional pain. However, it takes a murder and the discovery of the body to force all the hurts to the surface and even bigger, more dangerous ones. Early in their fishing trip, Stewart (Gabriel Byrne), Gregory (Chris Haywood), Rocco (Stelios Yiakmis), Billy (Simon Stone) and Carl (John Howard) discover the nude body of an aboriginal woman (Tatea Reilly) floating in the river. The men decide to finish their weekend before reporting the gruesome finding, going so far as to tether the body to tree so it won’t float downstream. She’s dead, they seem to agree silently, so what does it matter?

It’s a decision that has enormous and damning repercussions. Though the men elect to create a story to explain their choice, Billy spills the truth to a reporter. The story hits like a bomb blast. Stewart’s wife Claire (Laura Linney) is horrified by her husband’s cruel behavior and tries to make amends with the family of Susan, the dead girl. This alienates her from her friends: Carmel (Leah Purcell), who believes Claire has no business intruding on aboriginal rituals, and Jude (Deborra-Lee Furness), still recovering from the death of her own daughter. Tensions between the whites and the aborigines, who believe Stewart and his friends wouldn’t have dismissed Susan so easily if she’d been white.

Though Susan’s death plays a key role in “Jindabyne,” the film is about much more than a murder and the discovery of her corpse. Much like Karen Moncrieff’s sadly overlooked “The Dead Girl,” ”Jindabyne” explores the ways that one death creates a kind of butterfly effect, changing everyone from the family of the deceased to complete strangers, and untethers all the little hurts we weight down. Susan’s murder affects each character differently. For Stewart, it brings to light his anger over the post-partum depression that caused Claire to leave him and their son for 18 months. On one level, Claire simply wants to atone for her husband’s mistake; on another, she’s seeking absolution of her own unresolved guilt. The incident makes Jude and Carl confront their grief over the death of their daughter and the stress of raising her daughter (Eva Lazzaro). Even the killer seems surprised by the firestorm his crime has created. In this way, “Jindabyne” is very much a character study, but one with many interconnected threads.

Telling a story this complex requires patience and time, and Lawrence, who adapted “Jindabyne” from Raymond Carver’s short story “So Much Water So Close to Home,” has both in spades. He lets the characters unravel the plot threads at a pace impatient viewers will call “maddeningly slow” and minimalist fans — including this viewer – will deem “exactly right.” Along the way he focuses much attention on nature, including Lake Jindabyne, and wide, expansive shots of Australia’s wilderness. These scenes do much to reveal the continent’s harsh natural beauty, but they also cultivate the feeling of loneliness so central to the film. In the face of such vastness, man is, in essence, very small and alone.

The people of Jindabyne know this feeling all too well, and the actors give voice to this. Furness deftly shows the weariness and the sheer frustration that come after the death of a child, while Stone understands Billy’s immaturity renders him incapable of processing something this complicated. Byrne lends Stewart an air of stubborn and tense silence; his motivations are a mystery to everyone. There’s a hardness in him that frightens his wife, a part of himself he refuses to show her. Linney’s performance, though, shakes us hardest. Her Claire is a woman bell-jarred by guilt. She cannot go backward or forward, and it is she who reminds us that a life of perpetual penance is its own kind of hell.  

Grade: A

Un film del 2010, regia di Brendan Gleeson, con Jonathan Rhys Meyers / Colin Farrell / Cillian Murphy / Gabriel Byrne. Prodotto da ()

Uno studente dublinese sta scrivendo un romanzo su un romanziere moderno di nome Trellis. Questo autore vuole scrivere un libro contro il peccato e, a tale scopo, recluta molti personaggi presi in prestito da altri romanzi o da antiche saghe e favole irlandesi come il famoso eroe Finn McCool. Infine ne crea alcuni completamente originali. Però Trellis è anche uno che dorme molto e mentre dorme i suoi personaggi non sanno cosa fare e parlano del più e del meno, interrotti costantemente da Finn che vuole raccontare la storia di Sweeney sugli alberi. Durante i sonni di Trellis succede poi che i personaggi si ribellino. Pare infatti che Trellis abbia violentato un personaggio femminile di sua creazione e allora gli altri decidono di punirlo per le sue malefatte cominciando a raccontarsi storie in cui il povero romanziere viene picchiato e tormnetato con mezzi magici, per essere alla fine sbattuto sull’albero dove si trova il pazzo Sweeney.

Un film del 2010, regia di Brendan Gleeson, con Jonathan Rhys Meyers / Colin Farrell / Cillian Murphy / Gabriel Byrne. Prodotto da ()

Uno studente dublinese sta scrivendo un romanzo su un romanziere moderno di nome Trellis. Questo autore vuole scrivere un libro contro il peccato e, a tale scopo, recluta molti personaggi presi in prestito da altri romanzi o da antiche saghe e favole irlandesi come il famoso eroe Finn McCool. Infine ne crea alcuni completamente originali. Però Trellis è anche uno che dorme molto e mentre dorme i suoi personaggi non sanno cosa fare e parlano del più e del meno, interrotti costantemente da Finn che vuole raccontare la storia di Sweeney sugli alberi. Durante i sonni di Trellis succede poi che i personaggi si ribellino. Pare infatti che Trellis abbia violentato un personaggio femminile di sua creazione e allora gli altri decidono di punirlo per le sue malefatte cominciando a raccontarsi storie in cui il povero romanziere viene picchiato e tormnetato con mezzi magici, per essere alla fine sbattuto sull’albero dove si trova il pazzo Sweeney.

I’m in serious catch-up mode on my news feeds, and I can’t believe this gem has been sitting unread. Production is set to begin on a third season of HBO’s In Treatment, starring Gabriel Byrne as our favorite therapist. The caliber of acting and writing on this show is well worth the subscription to HBO, so I can’t wait for the show to come back next year.

Full Press Release at futoncritic.com

Over the course of this week, we will uncover twenty titles you need to seek out at your local DVD store. Here is Part 3.

The list is laid out something like this. The title, year it was made, genre, synopsis and finally my rating. I hope to do more of these lists as I uncover some of the treasures hidden at the local videostore.

10. Zero Effect (1998) (Comedy – Mystery)

Daryl Zero (Bill Pullman) maybe the world’s most reclusive private investigator. Along with his assistant, Steve Arlo (Ben Stiller) he solves impossible crimes and puzzles.

When these two crack professionals are on a case they are brilliant but during the off time they drive each other bananas. In their latest case, Zero must find out who is blackmailing a rich executive, and when his client won’t tell him, why. 

What makes this film so unbelievably clever is the performance by Pullman. Imagine a man with no-social skills, a horrible musician and recluse having to deal with the emotions of love. For years, Zero has lived vicariously through his assistant but for once he has to deal with everyday issues that are right in front of him.

Pullman plays this type of character to utter perfection and to top it all off you have the comedic talent of Ben Stiller to play off of. Stiller is hilarious as he tries to deal with how eccentric his goofy boss really is. The mystery in the film is a little flat but the comedic combination of Pullman and Stiller is pure magic. (3.5 of 5).

9. Dead Ringers (1988) (Thriller)

The Mantle brothers (duo role played by Jeremy Irons) are both doctors – both gynecologists – and identical twins. Mentally however, one of them is more confident than the other, and always manages to seduce the women he meets.

When he’s tired of his current partner, she is passed on to the other brother – without her knowing. The whole plot is upset when the shy brother falls in love first and the balance is upset. Brutal, unnerving and sinister, director David Cronenberg weaves a tale that is bound to get the blood pumping.

Jeremy Irons gives the performances of his lifetime as the world of Mantle brothers explodes into a very sinister plot. A lot of the time you aren’t really sure which brother is which and that is part of the magic. It’s a wonderfully eerie ride. (4 of 5) .

8. Love Letters (1999) (Romance – Drama)

“Love Letters” is an adapted play about an ambitious U.S. Senator (Steven Weber) reflects back on his life after the death of a woman (Laura Linney) whom he loved and kept in contact with only through correspondence.

“Love Letters” is told in a series of flashbacks as the two first meet as children and begin their lifelong correspondence. “Love Letters” is a strong and passionate story that is bound to make you cry.

The performance of Laura Linney is unbelievably moving. This version of the stage adaptation is filmed like it’s being played out on a stage in your TV.

The director doesn’t drop in a lot of twisted camera movements but instead focuses on the actors and the story.

It is a pure delight. (4 of 5) .

7. Deceivers, The (1988) (Adventure)

In 1825, India lives in fear. A mysterious religion’s followers murder everyone that stand in their way. When William Savage (Pierce Brosnan), a tax-collector of a British-Indian company, discovers the new sect. Savage disguises himself as a local and joins the sect as he tries to solve the mystery. 

 This is the first of 2 little-known Brosnan films on this list. It’s strange how much interesting stuff he did between “Remington Steele” and James Bond.

With beautiful exotic locales, this Merchant-Ivory production, this film is also a mindbender of a mystery, as Brosnan’s character is pulled deeper and deeper into the cult.

There are times when you aren’t really sure he wants to uncover the mystery but just live it. He falls in love with two different women and that struggle almost develops a split personality. It truly is one of Brosnan’s greatest performances. (4 of 5) .

 6. Gothic (1986) (Drama – Horror)

What happened the night that Mary Shelley (Natasha Richardson) concocted to the horror classic “Frankenstein”?

Drug induced games, ghost stories and betrayals occur during one night at the mad nobleman, Lord Byron’s country estate.

As Mary begins writing her classic story, she is drawn into the sick world of her lover Shelley (Julian Sands) and her cousin Claire (Myriam Cyr) as Byron (Gabriel Byrne) leads them all down the dark paths of their souls.

“Gothic” is a Victorian story turned upside-down. It’s filled with shocking revelations and euphoria that is bound to keep you guessing.

How a great and twisted story like “Frankenstein” was created is a fascinating story but presented, as a gothic horror story itself is mind-boggling. (4 of 5) .

Ik had nog twee cadeaubonnen liggen van Standaard Boekhandel, twee keer gewonnen tijdens de Kievitquiz. Die wilde ik zo snel mogelijk cumuleren en opkopen. Het was maar 10 euro, maar als ik die van de prijs van één of andere dvd-serie kon afpeuteren dan zou het misschien nog meevallen. Standaard Boekhandel is nu eenmaal geen prijzenklopper in die categorie.

Dus speurde ik naar reeks 3 van ‘Battlestar Galactica’, maar ik zag enkel seizoen 4 staan. 56,95 euro terwijl ik die in online stores (proxis of mediadis) voor slechts 39,99 euro op de kop kan tikken. Dan maar zoeken achter ‘Weeds’ (seizoen 3), maar wederom niets. Uiteindelijk voor seizoen 1 gegaan van ‘In Treatment’, een HBO-serie die veel bijval oogstte. Voor slechts 14,95 euro extra was de reeks van mij. Nu binnenkort eens tijd vinden om ze te bekijken.

In de serie ‘In Treatment’ volgen we een psycholoog en zijn patiënten. Dit leidt tot intrigerende, vaak emotionele gesprekken. Iedere dag van de week staat één patiënt centraal en aan het eind van de week is de psycholoog zelf de patiënt. De reeks is gebaseerd op een succesvolle Israëlische serie. Hoofdrolspeler is Gabriel Byrne (‘Jindabyne’, ‘Miller’s Crossing’, ‘The Usual Suspects’). Een trailer om al een eerste indruk te krijgen.

BROADCAST/CABLE

Also this past Thursday at 10p, Bravo’s The Real Housewives of Atlanta concluded its second season drawing in a little more than 2.0 million A18-49 viewers and nearly 3.0 million total viewers. These tallies are up 22% and 35% respectively compared to the season one finale. (Cynopsis10/26)

NBC, Universal Sports and UniversalSports.com plan 1,250 hours of coverage of Olympic sports leading to the Winter Games in Vancouver. “For the first time ever, this all happens and is accessible to the American public,” says NBC Olympics president Gary Zenkel. (Iwantmedia 10/26, Yahoo10/26)

HBO renewed its 30m drama series In Treatment, starring Gabriel Byrne as Dr. Paul Weston, for a third season. Production on season three begins early next year in New York with a premiere slated for later in 2010. (Cynopsis 10/26)

The place where it all goes down, in the forest.

Trusted adviser to 1920s Irish crime boss Lee O’Bannon, Tom Reagan’s loyalty is tested when he takes up with O’Bannon’s gal pal, Verna Bernbaum. Meanwhile,rivals Johnny Caspar and Eddie Dane threaten O’Bannon’s racket.

Miller’s Crossing is directed by the highly original Joel Cohen, and it’s pretty easy to tell, as there are many numerous look a likes in this film to countless others of The Coen Brothers.

In this film, there are many very good scenes that are just about being visually and emotionally captivating. Coen makes this film touch you but not with words or actions, but by the look of the film, and how you feel you’re in this torn-down 1920’s era of where gangsters and crime rule the town, and where everything is deceptive.

If you’re looking fora good mafia film then look no farther. Many stereotypes in mobster films don’t quite happen in here. We have always seen these tommy-guns blazing, but not with the kind of style this film gives us. The script is not like many other mafia films, as it is very realistic but also very challenging and complicated.

The reason it’s very complicating is because it starts off on the wrong foot talking about characters we do not know, and have no clue about. Probably about 45 minutes into the actual film is when we finally find out who all the players are. Many events in this film also happen, without us even knowing ourselves. I liked the little John Tuturro scene at first and felt that was good, but then it starts to over-play itself and just turned out to be a little too annoying.

The movie does have some pretty interesting scenes with some great violence and great visuals, but moves at a snail’s pace. There were way too many scenes that just featured these people talking, drinking, smoking, or anything else about gangsters. I felt like this film at points got boring, and does not do very well trying to pull it’s viewers in.

Miller’s Crossing features a lot of big names that are recognizable, but aren’t in this film as much as you would think. Gabriel Byrne does a very good job at playing this lead and doesn’t act tough throughout the whole movie, and actually does show some weaknesses within. Albert Finney, John Tuturro, and Marcia Gay Harden all are in this film and show up but are not used as well, and don?t seem to powerful for a film that bases it all on the power of a look and feel.

Consensus: Though not one of Coen’s best, Miller’s Crossing is a small mobster gem that is visually spectacular and features a real-life look at the world of the Mafia.

7/10=Rentall!!!

Michael Bublé – “Feeling Good” Official Music Video. Directed by Noble Jones. (Hot ladytimes begin at :36, for the impatient.)

Dragonfly out in the sun you know what I mean, don’t you
know
Butterflies all havin’ fun you know what I mean
Sleep in peace when day is done
And this old world is a new world
And a bold world
For me

Stars when you shine you know how I feel
Scent of the pine you know how I feel
Oh freedom is mine
And I know how I feel

It’s a new dawn
It’s a new day
It’s a new life
For me
And I’m feeling good

Normally I am not the world’s biggest Michael Bublé guy, but this is a great cover of a song originally composed for the musical The Roar of the Greasepaint, the Smell of the Crowd and memorably recorded by special fave Nina Simone. That recording is especially great for me because they used it in 1993’s Point of No Return, remember, the action-thriller where Bridget Fonda played a cop-killing drug addict who is given the choice between the death penalty and being an assassin (happens all the time)? I most certainly do because it was the first thing I’d ever seen her in, and when I found out that on top of being a strawberry blonde with a rabbity grill and country grin à la Jodie Foster, she was also a freaking Fonda to boot, I kind of flipped out.

But I’m much better now. You know, playing it cool.

The movie is directed by Luc Besson, director of Nikita, The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, and The 5th Element all CRAMAZING films, and former husband of model citizen Milla Jovovich, and also features the lovely and talented Gabriel Byrne (I still <3 Irish boys). It's a can't-miss. I'm not even kidding.

Anyway, so love this song, which was the original purpose of this post. Add that fact to the video’s Bond-spy-mod-squad vibe, and I’m actually all kinds of into this!

In Treatment is probably the most unique and fascinating show on television (even though it is not technically on television right now). Based on an Israeli series called Bei Tipul, it finished its triumphant 2nd season earlier in the year. It follows the life of therapist Dr. Paul Weston (played by the incomparable Gabriel Byrne), his patients, and his sessions with his own therapist Gina (played by the lovely and talented Dianne Wiest). Each week was more compelling then the next. Each character was incredible, and insightful. Each episode made you feel like you were going through therapy and life changing events with the characters. I even found myself wishing I could sit on the couch across from Dr. Weston.

Despite it’s numerous accolades, awards and critical acclaim, it was unclear whether or not In Treatment would be picked up for a third season, because the Israeli series only had two seasons. However, I was thrilled to get this piece of news this afternoon. Michael Lombardo, president, Programming Group and West Coast Operations, HBO, said: “In Treatment is synonymous with inspired writing and brilliant acting,” noted Lombardo. “This is the kind of show that could only flourish on HBO, and we’re proud to bring it back.”

Well done, HBO! I am eagerly awaiting In Treatment’s return.

Depp como William Blake

Es difícil imaginar a Johnny Depp como protagonista de un western, salvo que se trate de uno muy especial. Y especial tenía que ser la película del director de “Ghost Dog” (1999) y “Night on Earth” (1991), el singularísimo Jim Jarmusch. Esta película (Dead Man, 1995), que además tiene un reparto de lo más variado (Robert Michum, Gary Farmer, John Hurt, Gabriel Byrne, Lance Henriksen, Billy Bob Thornton, Alfred Molina, Iggy Pop y Michael Wincott), inicia con el viaje de William Blake (Depp) hacia el pueblo de Machine donde lo ha llevado una oferta de trabajo en la empresa de un tal señor Dickinson (un decrépito Mitchum). Sin embargo lo único que consigue el tímido Blake es conocer a una vendedora de flores de papel llamada Thel con quien pasa la noche. El problema es que Thel tiene un pasado con Charlie Dickinson (Byrne) que los sorprende en la cama -y en el acto trata de matar a Blake- pero solo consigue herirlo pues Thel se interpone entre ambos. Blake responde con el arma de la chica. Charlie cae muerto. Blake huye como puede. Se podría decir que este es el fin del primer viaje que la película relata. El segundo viaje comienza cuando Blake emprende la huída en compañía del indio “Nadie (Nobody)” (Farmer) que lo halla moribundo. Al saber el nombre del desgraciado que acaba de ayudar Nadie confirma que habla con un muerto viviente (ni más ni menos que el autor del poderoso The Tyger y sobretodo de los Proverbs of Hell).  Mientras tanto Dickinson padre contrata a tres matones para que persigan al forastero por el asesinato de Charlie y su “novia”, pero sobretodo por el robo del “pinto” de su hijo. Adentrándose en el territorio Blake y Nadie se dirigen a una cita cuyo término es fácil de adivinar. Blake se convierte en otra persona, una que responde: “¿Conoces mi poesía?” antes de disparar contra un oficial que le apunta. Una persona que escribe con sangre. Cuando Nadie le advierte que lo siguen, Blake responde:

- ¿Estás seguro? Es decir, ¿cómo puedes saberlo?

Y Nadie dice:

- A menudo el hombre blanco es precedido por su hedor maligno.

Blake es ahora un forajido acusado de asesinar a siete personas. Luego de una escaramuza con un taimado predicador (Molina) y sus acompañantes Blake recibe otro impacto de bala. Débil y siguiendo el curso de un río Blake le pregunta a Nadie:

- ¿Es este el bote que me llevará a través del espejo de agua?

- No, le responde su amigo -Este bote no es lo suficientemente fuerte, William Blake.

Al final de la película vemos como uno de los matones de Dickinson, un sanguinario asesino llamado Cole Wilson (Lance Henriksen) los alcanza a la orilla del mar. Blake está preparado para un entierro ritual. Cole y Nadie se disparan. Detrás de ellos la canoa ritual de Blake -el hombre muerto- se aleja. Como en otros momentos de la película la guitarra de Neil Young acompaña la secuencia.

Nadie preparando a Blake

Aho, William Blake!

De vuelta al lugar de donde provienen todos los espíritus

FlashForward: Channel 5 (Recorded 5th Oct Watched 8th Oct)

Episode 2 –  This week’s episode had a bit of a poor start; some kids played an unconvincing game of ‘blackout’, one of the kids was unconvincingly bullied for not joining in, and then the parents of that kid unconvincingly dealt with the aftermath.  Luckily, things picked up a bit, and they had at least the good grace to address early on the fact that our heroes are the self appointed world experts on the  ’blackout’, despite working in a FBI sub-office.   After last week praising the vigilance of the agent that managed to spot the one person who didn’t black out, this week I’d like to commend the FBI web developers, who knocked up the world’s most complicated web-site in a few hours.  And, a special mention must go out to whoever managed to get the authorisation for the ‘millions of dollars’ in funding needed to set it up, as their superior somehow hadn’t noticed that it had been spent.  Maybe I’m just being picky.

Like early episodes of Heroes, I think I’m watching for the intriguing set-up and not how the programme is being executed; it may be the clunkiest script I’ve heard for a long time, and their love of hammering a point home by endless repetition of earlier scenes is bordering on OCD.  There is also the deeply troubling question of why nobody seems that bothered by it all, and, given we’re in America, where are all the religious  fanatics?  Now I’m definitely just being picky.

Despite its obvious flaws, it’s still interesting enough to keep me watching. For now.

Emma: BBC HD (R 5th Oct W 8th Oct)

I’m determined that one day I’ll watch one of the BBCs acclaimed costume dramas in it’s entirety and not just give up after 10 minutes of the first episode. That day, however, is not today.  Believe it or not, I’ve actually read some Jane Austen novels and quite enjoyed them. I just can’t seem to bear it when they turn up on the telly.  Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

It’s Only a Theory: BBC4 (R 7th Oct W 8th Oct)

This is a new series in which highly-qualified experts submit a theory to a panel, which consists of Andy Hamilton, Reginald D. Hunter and a guest (this week, Clare Balding).  After some amusing cross-examination, the panel then decide whether or not the theory is approved or rejected.  On the face of it, this seems to be exactly the same format as Dave Gorman’s Genius, but with theories instead of inventions.  Whilst they are very similar, the big difference is that IOAT is actually quite serious and the theories are genuinely interesting; this week’s were, ‘the first 1000 year old human has already been born’ and ‘we’re in danger of  turning sadness in to an sickness’.  The appeal of the show is helped by the wit of unlikely duo, Hamilton and Hunter.  Yes, it’s another variation on the comedy panel show, but it’s also one where you might actually learn something to go along with your laughs.

In Treatment: Sky Arts 1 (R 5th, 6th & 7th Oct W 8th Oct)

I had mixed feelings going in to this; it’s made by HBO and is highly acclaimed, but I didn’t know if I had the stomach for watching a five nights a week drama about a therapist talking to his clients.

I watched the opening three half-hour episodes back-to-back, and each starred Gabriel Byrne as Dr Paul Weston.  The first episode sees Laura  (Melissa George) describe the events of events of a drunken night out  and ultimately confessing her unrequited love for Weston.  The second saw Alex (Blair Underwood), an über-confident fighter pilot, who slowly begins to reveal his inner turmoil over a mission which resulted in the  death of children. Episode three was the story of suicidal teen, Sophie (Mia Wasikowska).

Just watching two people have a conversation for half an hour, in a single room, shouldn’t be as interesting as this is.  The acting is uniformly superb, but special mention must be made for Byrne who spends much of the show just listening; he goes to show what a skill listening is for an actor.  Acting alone doesn’t make a show, and the scripts really shine through.  It’s really compelling  television and each strand feels like it’s slowly being opened out as we learn more about each of the patients and their therapist. I’m exciting to see where this is going to go over the next 9 weeks, and how the writers are going to sustain the momentum built in these opening episodes.  Don’t be put off by the concept, you should definitely watch this.

Stargate Universe: Sky One (R 6th Oct W 8th Oct)

I’ve never followed any of the Stargate franchises and may well not have bothered this time if it wasn’t for the inclusion of Robert Carlyle as its star.  I’ve seen bits of other Stargate episodes, but I had no real preconceptions going in to this, so I just tried to sit back and enjoy the ride.  I watched the two opening episodes, which are part of a 3 part opener, and it’s pretty good, but feels like we’re still establishing the premise.  And the premise is this; some military and scientists, who are part of the Stargate program, escape an enemy attack by taking a one-way ride to an ancient spaceship that is billions of light years away from earth.  The current plot is almost entirely concerned with their attempts to get the decrepit life support system working, and when they, presumably, get that working, then I don’t know where it’s going.  At the moment it feels like it lies somewhere between Voyager and Battlestar Galactica.  Hopefully, they will err towards the latter in terms of plot and quality.

Harry Hill’s TV Burp: ITV1 (R 10th Oct W 10th Oct)

It’s a welcome return for the show the remains the exception to the rule that ITV don’t do comedy.  I was worried during the first half that it had lost its touch, but the second half really picked up and was hilarious.It’s perfect Saturday evening entertainment.

Lie To Me: Sky One (R 8th Oct W 10th Oct)

It’s not been that long since the first season finished its run, and this season 2 opener was a welcome return.  It’s the story of Dr Cal Lightman (Tim Roth), a ‘human lie-detector’, and his team of related experts.  They’re regularly sub-contracted by various US law enforcement agencies to solve their crimes for them.

It’s not the kind of show that I normally like; I generally steer away from police procedurals and there’s no real overall storyline running through the series.  Credit to the writers and cast then that they have made essentially an episodic cop show that isn’t completely vacant.  A large part of its appeal lies in the casting of Roth who commands every scene in which he takes part; it’s worth watching just for him.

 Did the Schwarzenator have a soul? Does the current movie business have one?

 Robots gone wrong. Clones without a soul. Removable and sale-able souls. Avatars and virtual stand-ins. Replicants. Real Life and other Massive Multiplayer Role Playing Games.

All these removable or duplicate minds and souls, at the movies and in modern culture. Will we ever tire of separating our “selves” from ourselves, maybe to re-create a better self, so we can sit in a movie theater and cathartically watch our artificial selves make a mess of our “real” selves’ lives (theoretically causing us to value those real lives and authentic experiences, when we walk out of the theater and into real life)? Will we ever be just happy with who we are?

Reading bad reviews of Paul Giamatti’s new artsy Cold Souls film & the big-budget (but sinking box-office) Bruce Willis vehicle Surrogates  got me thinking last week.

What I was thinking was this: haven’t I seen this before? Oh yeah, it was called The Matrix Trilogy! And before that, Being John Malkovich (soul intrusion… where the puppetry theme also made me think of Carlo Collodi’s 1883 Pinnochio… the original robot gone bad). 

Of course, before all of the above movies we had Bladerunner . With its bio-mechanical “replicants” who were really trying to acquire a soul and to feel, this film was probably the best of the bunch. And that was in 1982, so maybe the peak for this subgenre of sci-fi happened long ago. Plus, perhaps the source of all of these stories is in some ways Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and her doc-playing-God’s inability to put a soul back into a re-animated body. But now I’m probably at risk of boring you like an English teacher, so let’s get back to the movies…

For instance, since the numerous Surrogates billboard ads seemed mostly to be selling sex, we gotta reach back even before 1982 to the “make your own perfect woman” model, as seen in such non-classics as The Stepford Wives (both old and new), and John Hughes’ silly 1985 teen version, Weird Science. So now we need to talk about Ovid’s ancient Greek/Cypriot mythic figure Pygmalion (man loves a female statue he’s made), and G.B. Shaw’s 1912 play Pygmalion. These were just a few of the original “build a better mate” stories — which also led to some cool movie versions like My Fair Lady, and in a very different way, Bride of Frankenstein.

Then there are the “robot with a heart of gold” movies, from Robocop to Bicentenial Man (not as bad as critics said… but schmaltzy) to A.I. (note Spielberg and Kubrick’s involvement here), and then some, including several really bad comedies. These movies explore the positive or perhaps teachable and programmable aspects of human emotion and consciousness — unlike Kubrick and Clarke’s HAL computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, who was both a killjoy and a literal killer.

Oh, and did I mention practically every existing action-packed Schwarzenfillum?!  Starting with Terminator (robots) and also including  The 6th Day (clones), and Total Recall (virtuals). Arnold was a specialist in the “Who is the real me?” action movie.  One might even say that his religio-apocalyptic hack-job in End of Days subsitutes demonic possession for a more technical form of soul removal and transferrance. (Not a good flick, but I like Gabriel Byrne as Lucifer, as I like almost anything Byrne’s ever done.) Those Arnold films have their place, but I would only call the first two Terminator movies great, the second better than the first, which almost never happens in Hollywood. However, Total Recall  also lets us talk about this virtual cops and/or robot robbers thing, as done in such films as Denzel Washington’s somewhat underrated Virtuosity, plus a few others.

Then there’s the rest of the Philip K. Dick film-adapted oevre  (Bladerunner and Total Recall were both based on this pioneering sci-fi writer’s stories). Most of  Dick’s novels and short stories explore what happens when we depend too much on our digital, cloned or mechanical stand-ins, when we try to re-create what is “real” and thus de-authenticate it. A semi-famous quote from Dick puts it this way: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” 

Notably, Dick was not all about science gone haywire either, but also about soul and the nature of consciousness. Maybe this was because he was a twin, whose sister died a few weeks after they were born. Also notable: Dick had a so-called visitation from God in 1974 which he was never certain was real, or a schizophrenic episode.  And he had a drug problem. And was married five times. And, and, and… in other words, this guy literally lived out there on the edges, with one foot in the tragically real world and the other who knows where.

So Mr. Dick , all by himself, causes us to consider such surrogate or fraudulent-copy movies as  Minority Report (Spielberg again), and Gary Sinise’s Impostor, plus a number of other movie adaptations (most recently Nic Cage’s Next). And there are no less than FOUR Dick-adaptation movies currently in production. Too bad this guy died before he was “discovered”. Tragically, he died at age 53, just a few weeks before Bladerunner, the first movie adaptation, premiered. Not funny, God.

Meanwhile, dark comedy is more the angle Cold Souls is trying to take, though with an existential streak that is more gimmicky promise than satirical reality, if I’m to believe the reviews. As for philosophical, art-house comedy, this stuff has been tackled better before as well. Start with the above-mentioned Malkovich , and then move on to almost all of Oscar-winner Charlie Kaufman’s  other top-flight scripts afterward (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, etc.) . Charlie often explores surreal or absurdist ideas about loss of reality, duplicate or false selves, misuse of tech and creativity, and/or the selling of our souls.

Hey wait, lookit this! Mr. Dick’s novel A Scanner Darkly was made into a movie by another of my favorites: director Richard Linklater (Slacker, Before Sunrise, School of Rock) . Gotta go pick that one up immediately, as I have not seen it yet. Furthermore, Charlie Kaufman says he is very influenced by Philip K. Dick, and Kaufman even did his own adaptation of Scanner  (which went unproduced, but can be read by going to that link there). Who knew?

Meanwhile, for sheer light comedy, Multiplicity, with Michael Keaton (times five), was up-and-down in its writing and acting quality, but had some very funny moments. And I suspect there are plenty of good clone/twin/avatar comedy projects from tv floating around all over the place… I know X-Files worked well with this concept several times, and a recent South Park featuring World of Warcraft was hilarious. 

Bottom line: these two themes (What is the essence of human consciousness? and Will tech lead us where we should not go?) have been done much better in print and movies dozens of times before. The themes often go together, too… so we might say they’re twins (ack! bad joke alert…)

So while both the current movies may be okay, nevertheless, save your $12 (or whatever a flick costs these days… I go so seldom anymore). Instead, rent one of the above classics (or classically bad camp-fests) on DVD.

…or read a book, for cryin’ out loud! Maybe start with a Philip K. Dick short story or two, quicker hits with a whole lotta punch.

O filme se passa durante a Guerra Civil americana e conta a história de cinco mulheres, um mão e quatro filhas, que precisam encontrar uma maneira de se sustentar enquanto o marido, convocado pelo exército, está ausente. É difícil ver as quatro filhas e não lembrar das irmãs Bennet, de Orgulho e Preconceito, de Jane Austen. Tem a doce, a  intelectual, a fútil e a solitária. Não é idêntico, mas é bem parecido.

A mais intelectual é também a personagem principal, Jo March (lindamente interpretada por Winnona Ryder) que sonha em ser escritora. Tão determinada em alcançar seu objetivo, ela rejeita o amor de seu vizinho, o alegre  jovem milhonário Laurie (numa ótima interpretação de Christian Bale, mostrando que também sabe fazer personagens doces). Jo parte para Nova York onde enquanto tenta realizar seu sonho descobre que seu coração sabe amar.

O filme é uma adaptação da obra de mesmo nome de Louisa May Alcott, escritora americana. O livro é um bom representante da  influência da cultura inglesa, naquela época (século IXX), na cultura americana. A história tem tudo que um romance inglês de sucesso tinha:  personagens femininas fortes e conflitos românticos e sociais. Além disso, há uma evidente falta de maldade.

Título: Adoráveis Mulheres
Título Original: Little Women
Gênero: Drama, Romance
Origem: EUA
Duração: 114 min
Ano: 1994
Direção: Gillian Armstrong
Produção: Denise Di Novi
Estúdio: Columbia Pictures Corporations / Dinovi Pictures
Roteiro: Robin Swicord, Baseado Em Livro De Louisa May Alcott
Elenco:
Winona Ryder (Josephine “Jo” March)
Gabriel Byrne (Friedrich “Fritz” Bauer)
Trini Alvarado (Margaret “Meg” March)
Christian Bale (Theodore “Laurie” Lawrence)
Samantha Mathis (Amy March)
Kirsten Dunst (Amy March – jovem)
Claire Danes (Elizabeth “Beth” March)
Susan Sarandon (Marmee March)

New York and I have had a good run. For more years than I’d care to admit, we’ve been really happy together.

I’ve had plenty of those Only-in-NY Moments. Take, for example, the homeless guy who peed in an empty bag of potato chips on the E train on my morning commute once. Or the Michael Jackson birthday party in Prospect Park. Stuff like that doesn’t happen anywhere else…and I guess there’s a sort of pride attached to it when you live here and you get to go to those things because you’ve made a conscious decision to be here.

I’ve had my fair share of celebrity sightings: Dianne Wiest, Gabriel Byrne (we live in the same ‘hood — he used to go to Cafe Scaramouche before it became Buttermilk Channel), Debra Messing, Uma Thurman, Steve Buscemi, Chase Crawford, Mario Cantone, and that tall guy from Law & Order SVU. Denny Doherty of the Mamas and the Papas starred in the musical that was performing at the theater where I worked my first summer in New York. And I interviewed the Naked Cowboy once…and had “Hi Lisa, it’s Naked…” on my voicemail for a really long time.

I’ve had some really good times here and I’ve met a lot of wonderful people and I’m so, so glad I did that big, scary thing and moved here by myself all those years ago.

And for a long time — whether because of work or school or my own personal dramas — I’ve sort of been gliding along here. I built myself a home. And for the first time since California circa 1994, I’ve felt like there’s this one place in the world where I belong. And, sure, I hate the uncertainty of freelancing and wish things had turned out differently post-J-school, but…for the most part, I’ve been fine. Sure, it’s a busy place that sucks a lot out of you…and I always looked forward to escaping to Alaska because it’s pretty much the exact opposite of New York in every way and I could actually slow down for a bit and breathe in new surroundings and see places that were untouched by virtually anything and come back feeling like I could face everything again.

No more Alaska though — this year I went to Arizona and New Mexico. The trip had about the same effect, I guess…but returning to New York in July was the first time I haven’t actually been excited about coming back. Usually I can’t wait to get back to my apartment and my life. But I didn’t feel that way this year. And, for the first time, I started noticing things that never bothered me before — it’s dirty; it’s crowded; it’s full of egomaniacs.

Then I went away again — and the same thing happened upon my return. I just don’t feel the same about being here anymore. And somewhere along the way in either Colorado or Illinois on my *next* trip, it hit me: I think I’m ready to leave New York. I’m happier when I’m not here.

And, granted, it’s not exactly reality when I’m away because I don’t have to spend eight, ten, twelve hours in front of a computer writing asset management stories or applying for jobs or pitching freelance ideas or working on the Great American Novel (…or copywriting)…so maybe it isn’t entirely fair to blame unhappiness directly on New York. But, at the same time, I’ve done some freelance work while I’ve been away…and I still think it’s safe to say I’m happier in other places. (A New York friend even observed that I look happier in the photos on Facebook that were taken in other cities…)

Last weekend was my first weekend back in a long time. And I made lasagna and empanadas (which turned out BEAUTIFUL because I watched one of the chefs at Xoco very, very carefully and tried to mimic what she did…). And I realized how happy cooking makes me. (That’s one bad thing about so much traveling — I haven’t really cooked much.) I don’t really have the budget or the appetite to cook every day…but on those days that I do, the act itself always makes me happy…which sort of begs the question of culinary school, but that’s a whole other can of worms I’m not really ready to open yet. (Plus, writing still makes me happier than anything. So, ideally, I’ll be able to forge out a living combining the two someday…)

For now, I’m expanding my job search…and we’ll see what happens. (It’s never a bad thing to have additional options, right?) If I get my dream job in New York, I’ll stay. I’ll put up with insane rent and try to make an agent fall in love with my book proposal and maybe someday I’ll be on The View telling the ladies what a rough spot it was in ‘08-’09 before my life really took off.

Or…maybe the reason nothing has worked out here is because I’m not meant to stay. Maybe I should really be somewhere else. (The problem is that my life is in so many places…I don’t know where to go. For a long time I’ve said that I think my wedding will be the only day in my life when everyone I love is actually in the same place. Although I guess the glass-is-half-full spin is that I could really go anywhere. And that got me thinking about how happy I was when I lived in England…and that it’s crazy that I haven’t been back in seven years…so I think a trip to London is imminent.)

The sort of depressing part is that job opportunities didn’t expand exponentially when I started looking across the country. There is a pretty darn good one in Dallas…and a sort of okay one in Denver…but other than that, I really haven’t seen anything. (So…maybe it’ll be culinary school after all, eh?)

Nevertheless, I spent the good part of a morning this week looking at apartments in Dallas and realized that for less than half of what I am paying now, I could get an apartment with an actual bedroom and a dishwasher and a washer/dryer and access to pools and fitness centers and all sorts of crazy stuff. And I could finally get a golden retriever! (I even looked at breeders in Texas and found one that traced the lineage of its puppies on its Web site and the father of a litter that was due last September was related somewhere along the line to a dog named Miss Racey Lacey. Gotta be some sort of sign, right?)

If I was still exceedingly happy in New York…or if I was even taking advantage of living here anymore, I wouldn’t be looking beyond its limits. But I think I’m ready for a change. And now all I have to do is figure out what that actually means.

Lead Actor in a Drama Series

Predicting the 2009 Emmys

And the nominees are…

• Gabriel Byrne (In Treatment)
  
• Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad)
  
• Michael C. Hall (Dexter)
  
• Jon Hamm (Mad Men)
  
• Hugh Laurie (House)
  
• Simon Baker (The Mentalist)

This is, without question, the least predictable race of them all. While yes, the Supporting races are pretty open and could go in many different directions, I don’t particularly like all of those directions. However, there are four people who could win this award, and I’d honestly be happy with any of them (and even one of the people without a chance) to walk away with it.

Simon Baker and Michael C. Hall are the two men who I don’t see walking off with the award, for different reasons. Baker should just be glad to be nominated, and while I legitimately like The Mentalist he’s just not dramatic or weighty enough to hold his own here. As for Hall, I think he’s amazing on Dexter (sustaining it through some less than engaging storylines on occasion), but it’s a tough sell of a performance and the show really gave Jimmy Smits the more explosive side of the acting this season, leaving Hall with really well-executed brooding that won’t connect with voters as much as it needs to.

As for Jon Hamm, this is his second straight nomination and his second time being a strong competitor. Hamm’s performance is also very understated, but Mad Men has a lot of buzz behind it and Don Draper is the absolutely perfect anti-hero that voters could gravitate towards. And Gabriel Byrne, in the second year of In Treatment, continues to gain a lot of buzz and has to be considered one of the hardest working actors in the category considering that there is rarely a single minute on In Treatment in which he isn’t giving a performance, and usually a pretty damn great one. Both have legitimate shots at this award, and I’d certainly be happy to see either win.

But if I had to narrow this candidate down to two, it would be to last year’s winner Bryan Cranston and perennial bridesmaid Hugh Laurie. With Cranston, it all comes down to how much they liked his performance the first time around and how much it was a win defined by his lack of attention for the Emmy-favoured Malcolm in the Middle. Cranston never won for that show, so there was some sense that his win for Breaking Bad was a makeup Emmy, which happens quite often. However, at the same time, he’s amazing on Breaking Bad, and he was apparently just as amazing in the show’s second season, so if nothing has changed is he really going to lose the award?

However, the fact that Hugh Laurie doesn’t have an Emmy after five season of House is itself a travesty: he won two Golden Globes, he won two SAG Awards, and yet the Emmys has never given him an award for his really great work as the eponymous doctor. This is the year where he could break that dry spell: he’s got an intense drug-addiction storyline complete with some intense hallucinations that I found manipulative but unquestionably well-performed, and it really did feel like a bang-up Emmy submission that he knocks out of the park. That’s the kind of boost he might need to conquer this last hurdle in the triple threat of sorts, although if he’s lost three times before with similarly great submissions who’s the say he won’t lose again?

Predicted Winner: Hugh Laurie (House)

However, in the end, I think it’s about time that America once again gets surprised to hear Dr. House speaking with a British accent, this time with an Emmy in his hand.

Dark Horse: Jon Hamm (Mad Men)

“A man can convince anyone he’s somebody else, but never himself.” ~~Verbal Kint

Most films are more about what leads up to the finale than the finale itself — the how, not the what. Nobody ever told Bryan Singer that, and so he directed “The Usual Suspects,” a labyrinthine teeth-kicker of a crime thriller where the end is what matters. Everything else is window dressing … but it so happens that Singer is one very fine interior decorator.

There’s no sense letting slip even one more peep about that ending, except to say that it does NOT inspire lukewarm reactions. (Think shock, uncontrollable rage, humiliation, disgust, abject hopelessness and self-pity — a veritable ROYGBIV of negative human emotions.) Best to defer to the Fight Club rulebook when it comes to those last five minutes of “The Usual Suspects”; in fact, don’t let anyone talk about any part of the movie in your presence, since there’s no such thing as an “insignificant detail” in this one. The less you know, the better. Understood?

With Act 3 off the docket, what’s left to discuss? Well, plenty, thanks to Singer’s remarkable eye for details and Christopher McQuarrie’s twisty, smarter-than-smart script. Herein lies the paradox: Although the end is paramount, the lead-up is where all the fun is. If you can call murder, mayhem and utter befuddlement “fun.” (Note: I do.) Have a chew of the setup, explained brilliantly by the movie’s tagline: “Five criminals. One lineup. No coincidence.” When a truck is hijacked, New York police haul in five familiar faces: McManus (Stephen Baldwin), the loose cannon con; Fenster (Benicio del Toro), McManus’ partner; Keaton (Gabriel Byrne), a crooked ex-cop whose cool facade hides his ruthless nature; Hockney (Kevin Pollak), who has two interests: money and himself; and Verbal (Kevin Spacey), a short con operator with cerebal palsy. The five decide to exact some sweet revenge on the cops, but the plan leads to an entanglement with Keyser Soze, a mythic, faceless figure with limitless power and unfathomable influence. Pulled in to investigate the revenge plot’s spiraling aftermath is U.S. Customs agent Dave Kujan (Chazz Palminteri), a smug man quite certain he’s in control of everything who’s none too happy to discover he knows absolutely nothing. He’s just a poor, clueless schmuck like the rest of us.

If this all sounds very high concept, that’s because, uh, it is, and arrogantly so. McQuarrie’s shooting for the ionosphere with this script, which contains so many turns that it takes multiple viewings to sort them out (and maybe not even then). The concept of linear action? Ha! Constant vigilence and attention to detail are requirements, not suggestions, just to follow along. But that’s hardly a flaw, since directors rarely assume this level of intelligence of their audiences.

Yet don’t go thinking Singer’s going to reward all this effort. If anything, his interest lies in teasing us, playing Chesire Cat to our Alice. He gives us no pieces, then the wrong ones (which sometimes turn out to be right), then the right ones (at the wrong time), then all of them tossed together like some crazy jumbled puzzle salad. It might be maddening if “The Usual Suspects” weren’t so darn cool-looking. The cinematography, with its looming darkness and shaded-just-so corners that conceal key details, adds to the tension beautifully. 

That whole “cool-looking” idea extends to the actors, who are cherry-picked. There was a time before Stephen Baldwin started boardin’ for the Lord and filed for bankruptcy. That time was 1995, and since then he has not come close to topping McManus. Benicio del Toro plays Fenster as something of a comedian, sporting an inexplicable accent that ends up being the film’s funniest running gag. Byrne, who’s never had to try very hard to be the coolest cat in the room, works the seething pit of inner rage angle perfectly, while Palminteri acts as a mirror for the viewers. And all take a backseat to Spacey, who turns in a mindhole-blowing performance as Verbal Kint. He reminds us that we must never, ever understimate him.

Make that mistake with “The Usual Suspects” and see how far it gets you.