A Visual Trend

Below are three posters of movies that all debuted in the list of the top five highest-grossing American film releases last week. Can you spot the object(s) that appears in all three?

Must-See Fall Movies

You can always count on the Fall film season to be much more somber than its laidback cousin, the Summer season. Everyone loves them for different reasons, but while Summer offers variety for your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Fall is apt to showcase a slate of ultra-serious, air-tight film epics. Your violent, your political, your tragic love stories usually pop up this time of year. The reason, as many film aficionados will tell you, is that Fall commences the judging season for Golden Globe and Academy Award contenders. There are a few exceptions (Ridley Scott’s Gladiator was released in May 2000 and took home the Best Picture Oscar in March 2001), but the majority of Best Picture contenders are released between September and December.

So far this season, we’ve seen a Western remake (3:10 to Yuma), another twisted marvel by Body Horror king David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises), another empowered chick flick/action film starring Jodie Foster (The Brave One), a Beatles-inspired musical (Across the Universe), and Daniel Radcliffe’s first non-Harry Potter venture (December Boys).

For a year that has yet to give us a prominent Oscar contender, the upcoming Fall 2007 movie season offers some over-marketed generic pictures that feature the big budget, the big director, and the big actors, but the majority leave a lot to be desired when it comes to the actual story. Aside from these over-hyped puff balls we have the dazzlers – the movies that don’t demand much from our intellect but certainly please our eyes and speak to our hearts. Whether any of these offerings will speak to and remain in our brains has yet to be seen.

Lucky for me and those that desire something more from their cinematic experiences, there are a decent number of incoming films that aim higher. My vote for most original story would go to Wristcutters: A Love Story, an eccentric narrative about the consequences of suicide in the hereafter. Wristcutters was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, while it won the Jury Award and Best First Time Director prizes at the Philadelphia International Film Festival. In it, a lovestruck young man (Patrick Fugit of Almost Famous) suddenly finds himself trapped at afterlife bus terminal reserved for suicide victims shortly after he slashes his wrists. What follows is a journey film involving our leading man, a suicide bomber, a Russian musician, and a lone girl, all looking for the satisfaction that eluded them in life. Think Little Miss Sunshine meets Ghost, with disenchanted dead people. If Wristcutters doesn’t emerge as a strong contender for the Academy Awards, it will most likely sweep the Independent Spirit Awards.

Director Ang Lee resurfaces with Lust, Caution, his first film since famously Oscar-snubbed Brokeback Mountain. Lee has delivered yet another controversial film (this one is rated NC-17 by the MPAA) set in Shanghi during World War II. It follows a young actress (newcomer Tang Wei) as she struggles to live and work during the threat of Japanese occupation of the city. Abandoned by her father, the young actress opts to hone her craft in college, where she joins a student group of actors. However, she discovers that the group’s true goal is to resist Japanese occupation through radical and dangerous plots, including one to assassinate a man named Mr. Yee, who is the nation’s major Japanese collaborator. Wei drives a story of espionage and desire, where the line between actual and false identity is blurred. Lee is constantly pushing the plots of stories in conventional settings into unthinkable circumstances. With Brokeback, the American way was challenged with a story about two male cattle ranchers who become lovers. On Lee’s terms, Lust, Caution looks to challenge the role of Chinese women in their culture, from their social ranking to their part in the initiation of sex.

Besides Lee, famed director Woody Allen is set to release another film, this one without Scarlett Johansson. But rest assured, she’ll be back for his next effort. Meanwhile, the event that has me most excited, and the rest of Hollywood as well, is the return of director Francis Ford Coppola. Youth Without Youth is his first film in ten years and, based on the teaser trailer on the film’s website, it looks like the Man Who Made The Godfather has returned to his arthouse film roots. Based on a novel by Romanian author Mircea Eliade, Youth examines the concepts of time and reality in a story about a professor (Tim Roth) living in pre-WWII Germany who believes he has discovered the key to immortality. His secrets make him the Nazis’ most-wanted man, forcing him to flee his homeland and explore the mysteries of life along the way. If Coppola’s excitement about returning to his film school roots is any indication, this one’s gonna be a major contender come January 2008.

The vote for most unlikely franchise would go to Elizabeth: The Golden Age, starring Cate Blanchett as the Virgin Queen during the later years of her reign in England. Australian-born Blanchett proved she could don the white make-up and give Elizabeth I a human side in 1998’s Elizabeth, and now she takes on the role that made her famous a second time. In this round, Her Majesty takes on the very Catholic Phillip II of Spain and his seemingly unbeatable Armada, confronts a plot that involves her cousin Mary Stuart (the Queen of Scots), and is tempted by the handsome explorer Sir Walter Raleigh to break her married-to-England vows. Director Shekhar Kapur has discussed the possibility of releasing yet a third installment in the Elizabeth saga, and based on the buzz for his upcoming film, he may get the go-ahead. As long as Blanchett is nominated and wins for the role that should have garnered her a Best Actress Oscar ten years ago, all will be right with the world.

From mid-November until the end of the year, audiences will have plenty of big-budget epics to choose from. The most anticipated is Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf. Presented in the same live-action/animated style that was used in The Polar Express, Beowulf is a cinematic retelling of the ancient English poem of an unbeatable Scandinavian warrior who sets out to defeat a menacing beast named Grendel. Crispin Glover lends his voice to the Grendel character, while Angelina Jolie voices Grendel’s vengeful mother. Rounding out the cast are Anthony Hopkins, Robin Wright Penn, John Malkovich, and Brendan Gleeson. While Beowulf may seem like your usual Fall action flick, it marks the beginning of what could become a long-term trend in film exhibition: the modern 3-D film. Gone are the days of those headache-inducing 3-D cinematic experiences with the cardboard blue and red glasses. The likes of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas are so excited about the new 3-D technology that Lucas himself has authorized the process of transforming all six Star Wars films into 3-D presentations, and more studios are considering making future films exclusively in 3-D in the coming years.

Also on the epic side is I Am Legend, yet another adaptation of Richard Matheson’s novel by the same name (The Last Man on Earth and The Omega Man were adapted from the same text). Will Smith stars as the only survivor of biological warfare, but life as the last man on earth isn’t all it’s cracked up to be after he discovers that those who died are now up and walking around, all with an insatiable taste for blood. While the original text and the 1964 Vincent Price film were both set in Los Angeles, I Am Legend occurs in (post-Apocalyptic) New York. As the blood-sucking dead rest during the daylight hours, Smith’s character and his cute yet tough-as-nails sidekick, a German Shepard, destroy as many of them as they can before the dead reawaken at dusk. Will Smith has proven that he can take on just about any enemy in any locale on numerous occasions, but can he pull off a film where there are no other major, uninfected human beings to be his foil? Stay tuned.

For the kids, films like Bee Movie and Fred Claus offer cutesy comic indulgences, while The Golden Compass, The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising, and The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep offer young people new franchises to fall in love with as the $4 billion Harry Potter series starts to wind down. The Water Horse has the most interesting premise: it follows the story of a boy who finds an egg that hatches into a baby water horse who will one day rule the Loch Ness Lake. It may not be new in terms of plot (a clever little boy hides a bizarre creature from the dim-witted adults), but who hasn’t wished for a dragon or an extraordinary friend when they where young? The Water Horse taps into that unfulfilled wish, and that aspect will definitely make it an interesting and worthwhile cinematic experience between children and their parents.

One film that is definitely not for children is the controversial animated drama Persepolis, which has been named as France’s official 2007 Oscar entry in the category of Best Foreign Language Film. Persepolis is based on a series of autobiographical graphic novels by Iranian Marjane Satrapi, and it details Satrapi’s childhood during the Iranian revolution in the 1970s. Marjane (“Marji”) is a child when the Shah is removed and new leadership comes to power. As the new regime takes control, Marji’s parents immediately send her to a private school in Vienna so that her values will remain intact. Her existence in Europe is a constant struggle for acceptance and normality, as those around Marji berate her for being an Iranian citizen, and the complex struggle that was so important to her people becomes a shamefully simplified footnote in Western eyes. There’s rumor of a plot twist midway through the film, but it’s the setting and the storyteller herself that makes Persepolis stand out.

Perhaps the greatest source of intrigue in this Fall’s film roster is Tim Burton’s long-awaited adaptation of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Burton and now six-time collaborator Johnny Depp have adapted Stephen Sondheim’s popular Broadway musical into a spectacle only a Burton-Depp effort could pull off. Depp is Benjamin Barker, a man banished from London by a ruthless judge, who returns to his hometown years later under the pseudonym Sweeney Todd. He opens a barber shop above the bakery of Mrs. Lovett (played by Burton’s love Helena Bonham Carter), and soon after the business opens, Todd’s enemies begin to disappear and Mrs. Lovett sells pies with a tasty new recipe that become the culinary sensation of England. Featuring Alan Rickman, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Anthony Head, Sweeney Todd may be the film that finally earns Burton his Best Director Academy Award, if Francis Ford Coppola or Shekhar Kapur doesn’t beat him to it.

Whatever the final contenders may be, you can be sure I’ll keep you up to date on award season developments. Happy viewing!

In Defense of Steven Spielberg

It’s been reported by various film publications that Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has expressed indifference to losing Steven Spielberg if he opted not to renew his contract with DreamWorks by 2008. Dauman told investors at a Goldman Sachs conference the “The financial impact to Paramount first and especially to Viacom overall would be completely immaterial.” According Dauman, the loss of Spielberg and his fellow DreamWorks co-founder, David Geffen, would barely put a dent in their financial situation.

Dauman’s words were first published in an article on Daily Variety on Tuesday. Yet more than a month ago, he dismissed any tension between Paramount and DreamWorks (both owned by Viacom), and expressed approval over Spielberg’s latest project, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Of course, at the time Dauman denied reports and supported his star director, Viacom was seeing major returns on its summer blockbusters, including Transformers and Disturbia.

So let’s take a moment to see how allegedly “immaterial” Steven Spielberg is, by looking at the profits of his last five major film releases:

Munich (2005)
$47,379,090 (U.S.)
No Worldwide Number Posted

War of the Worlds (2005)
$234,280,354 (U.S.)
$588,929,061 (Worldwide)

The Terminal (2004)
$77,872,883 (U.S.)
$218,686,156 (Worldwide)

Catch Me If You Can (2002)
$164,615,351 (U.S.)
$351,112,395 (Worldwide)

Minority Report (2002)
$132,014,112 (U.S.)
$353,600,000 (Worldwide)


Source: The Internet Movie Database

Altogether, these films amounted to an astounding $656,161,790 in American profits, and a whopping $1,315,510,072 in profits worldwide (note: the worldwide figures include the American figures). So it begs the question: why would a CEO call the financial impact of his $1 billion man unimportant and irrelevant?

Dauman and his company stood to receive a big chunk of War of the Worlds and Munich’s profits, as both were made in the year when DreamWorks was acquired by Viacom. At the moment, Spielberg is not only making the fourth Indiana Jones installment, but he also has two more directorial projects in the works. There are also the numerous productions he has lent his name to as an executive producer that deserve to be considered. Spielberg is a genuine star maker, and he’s proven time and time again that he knows how to peddle that popcorn. Taking all this into consideration, we’re still left with the notion that Dauman considers Spielberg’s influence in the company “immaterial”.

There’s more than meets the eye here.

I’m reminded of a scene from Philadelphia, where Joe Miller (Denzel Washington), a defense attorney representing a client (Tom Hanks) who was fired from his law firm because his AIDS status, cross-examines one of his client’s former bosses. Miller is able to establish that before his client’s condition became known to his bosses, this particular boss gave him an extremely favorable review. After the condition became known, the client’s reviews fell below average. Miller remarks, “So my client went from being caviar to a baloney sandwich!” That statement, comical as it is, is applicable here. Whatever the reason may be, Dauman has seen fit to devalue Spielberg from one of cinema's most important directors to one of its most replaceable.

In this instance, we’re seeing the demotion of an American icon. And for what? So that Dauman can take greater control of DreamWorks and thereby increase the number on his paycheck. It is true that we are living in an economy that is careening towards recession, despite what our President insists, and it’s only natural for fear of a recession to cloud a man’s judgment. But to downplay the importance of a man who has given so much to the American film institution is beyond reproach. It is wrong to measure a man’s work solely on monetary value. Steven Spielberg has made a lot of people very, very rich in money and fame, but he has also made the lives of millions of American citizens richer in imagination. The American film has the power, and the duty, to enrich and expand the imagination. No one has achieved that prospect quite so well as Spielberg, and anyone who insists otherwise has never seen his work, or is Philippe Dauman.

I encourage any and all who support the work of Steven Spielberg to write to Philippe Dauman of Viacom and tell him not to remark negatively on Spielberg again. We need more filmmakers like Spielberg, and we ought to stand by the ones we already have and encourage the next generation as much as possible.

To send an email to Viacom, visit http://www.viacom.com/CONTACT/.

The 11 Most Underrated TV Shows of All-Time

As Time Magazine lists its “100 Best TV Shows of All-Time”, I’ve decided to unveil my list of the “11 Most Underrated TV Shows of All-Time”. Nine are no longer running, two continue to create new episodes, and all have failed to get the recognition they deserve. Until now.

11. You Bet Your Life
What started as a popular radio quiz show in 1947 blossomed into a highly-successful television game show in 1950 and continued for eleven seasons. Its allure could be explained in two words: Groucho Marx. At least two later attempts were made to revive the show in subsequent years, but the program’s biggest draw was its original host. Audiences tuned in to NBC week after week to see Groucho’s uproarious back-and-forth banter with the contestants, and it was the only show on the air that featured a toy duck dressed with a mustache, glasses, and a cigar that would descend from above with $100 in its beak when contestants unknowingly spoke the “Secret Word”. Much has been written about the alleged “cigar comment” that may or may not have occurred, but the improvised one-liners between Groucho and his guests that were broadcast were priceless. In one instance, a young female contestant revealed she was not married, and when asked why, she replied “I don’t know, I keep asking myself that question.” Groucho fired back “Well stop asking yourself and ask somebody else for a change!”


10. The Critic
The brainchild of former Simpsons writers Al Jean and Mike Reiss, The Critic featured Jon Lovitz as the voice of “New York’s Third Most Popular Early Morning Cable-TV Film Critic”, Jay Sherman. For two seasons, Jay Sherman was the Russian Judge of film criticism, using the same two words to describe every film that he had the displeasure of reviewing: “It stinks!” After one season on ABC, where it was considered too raunchy for the network’s family-oriented audience, the series was moved to FOX, but didn’t last beyond its second season. The show’s trademark was its relentless and wonderfully silly parodies of recently-released films, including The Slide Whistle (spoofing The Piano), Edward Plungerhands (Edward Scissorhands), and Honey, I Ate The Kids (Silence of the Lambs meets Honey, I Shrunk the Kids). It also featured an opener that was Gershwin-esque in its tribute to New York City, from its Rhapsody in Blue-inspired music by Hans Zimmer to its montage of the city’s remarkable landscape. Creators Jean and Reiss also utilized “the touch of uniqueness” aspect that existed in every Simpsons opener. Instead of Bart Simpson writing a different phrase on a chalkboard, The Critic featured a different phone call/radio report for each opener. My personal fav: “This just in, the state of California has officially changed its name to State of Emergency.”


9. The Electric Company
Bill Cosby applied his experiences on the show towards his Masters degree in Education, but the rest of us used it to boost our reading and writing skills. While Sesame Street strove to promote individual letters and counting numbers, The Electric Company emphasized the ability to read, pronounce, and apply words and letters for its school-age demographic. Thanks to performances from Morgan Freeman, Rita Moreno, Lee Chamberlain, Judy Graubart, and, of course, the Cos himself, the program made the process fun, thanks to animated segments, clever comedy sketches, and catchy songs. Freeman played the laidback hipster Easy Reader as well as Vincent the Vegetable Vampire and Mel Mounds the disc jockey, while Rita Moreno took on the roles of Millie the Helper (who gave pop culture the phrase “Hey you guyyyyyyyys!”), Otto the Director, and the bratty Pandora. Equally unforgettable were the infamous were the Soft-Shoe Silhouettes that featured two cast members in a silhouette trying to make words and the segment The Adventures of Letterman, which was narrated by Joan Rivers and featured Gene Wilder as the voice of the title character. After six seasons and more than 750 episodes, The Electric Company was switched off for good in 1977, but efforts have been made by the Sesame Workshop to revive the wildly successful show by fall 2008.


8. As Time Goes By
It made a star out of Dame Judi Dench, and it also proved that a love story between an older man and woman was as captivating, if not more so, than the countless youthful love affairs that came before it. As Time Goes By followed the lives of Jean, an older woman nicknamed “Iron Drawers” by her employees, and a cantankerous author named Lionel, who meet by chance 30 years after they fell in (and out) of love during the Korean War. After realizing that a silly mishap beyond their control drove them apart, they pick up where they left off, with a little help from Jean’s grown-up daughter Judy and Lionel’s over-enthusiastic book publisher Alistair. The beauty of the show lies in its gradual unraveling of Jean and Lionel’s relationship on an episode-by-episode basis, and by the time they are married in season five, audiences have come to understand that their relationship is anything but simple. The program continued for five series (or seasons, as they are called in the U.S.) after the wedding episode, and we got to see Jean and Lionel deal with new trials and tribulations as a married couple, from the issue of retirement to the perils of getting older to the headaches that come with learning new technology. For 9 seasons, Lionel, Jean, and their faithful viewers in Britain and America learned that even in matters of love, everyone deserves a second chance.


7. Rocko’s Modern Life
Before Spongebob Squarepants, kids (and adults) were in love with a wallaby named Rocko. Spongebob creator Stephen Hillenburg got his start directing animated comedy on Rocko’s Modern Life, and the series’ best writers, including Rocko’s creator Joe Murray, Derek Drymon, Tim Hill, and the mysterious Mr. Lawrence, currently work on both Spongebob and Camp Lazlo. But from 1993 to 1996, they put their creative tendencies together to create an adult series disguised as a children’s cartoon. As the title would imply, the series followed the modern life of a wallaby named Rocko, who worked in a comic book store and was constantly getting into wacky situations with his gluttonous best friend Heffer (a steer raised by a family of wolves who intended to eat him, but loved him as one of their own) and his other best friend Filburt (a turtle who is essentially an animated Woody Allen, sans the Hebrew background). Also thrown into the mix were Filburt’s hook-handed feline girlfriend and eventual wife Dr. Hutchison, Rocko’s amphibian next-door neighbors the Bigheads, and Rocko’s broom-loving dog Spunky. Die-hard fans are still clamoring for a DVD set of the series, which is does not currently play anywhere except in snippets on YouTube.


6. Tales from the Darkside
During the Eighties, horror master George A. Romero was offered the chance to create a show based on his 1982 hit Creepshow. The result was Tales from the Darkside, which featured a format similar to The Twilight Zone, but the endings for each episode of Darkside were decidedly more sinister and horrific. The series attracted seasoned horror writers and directors including Stephen King and Tom Savini as well as newcomers like Clive Barker. Even Jodi Foster took the opportunity to polish her directing skills in an episode entitled Do Not Open This Box. From the series’ debut in September 1984 until July 1988, 90 episodes enthralled viewers week after week, and each episode featured the same cryptic voice-over by Paul Sparer: “Man lives in a sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But…there is, unseen by most, an underworld. A place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit…a Darkside!” Today, Tales from the Darkside still remains unseen by most, as it has yet to receive the same flashy DVD treatment as its 1950s predecessor, but this only adds to its status as a cult classic and must-see for horror fans and aspiring horror writers and directors.


5. Futurama
In an effort to make lightning strike twice, Simpsons creator Matt Groening decided to create a new primetime cartoon series that was wildly different than his first successful show. The result was Futurama, which neatly blended hand-drawn animation with intergalactic 3-D animated planets and spaceships. The show was undoubtedly more cynical than The Simpsons, but its various critiques of humanity, consumerism, and politics gave it a sophisticated edge over Groening’s first family of comedy. Countless TV programs have included a robot character, but no other series in history can boast a foxy, butt-kicking female cyclops that audiences cheered for. As the once-cancelled series takes on a new life of its own in the form of direct-to-DVD movies, fans will undoubtedly turn out to see if a possible resolution will pan out for the will-they-or-won’t-they relationship that exists between Leela and 21st century-boy Fry, and enjoy seeing old friends Bender, Dr. Zoidberg, Professor Farnsworth, and the Narcissistic Captain Zapp Brannigan (originally to be voiced by comedian Phil Hartman). While it may forever live in the shadow of The Simpsons, Futurama features two things its predecessor doesn’t: a cyclops-human romance, and a reference to an incurable learning disability known as “Sexlexia.”


4. Mad TV
Although it began twenty years after Saturday Night Live, Mad TV was and remains a formidable sketch comedy rival. For more than a decade, it has entertained the late-Saturday night crowd with movie parodies, music video parodies, and merciless critiques on current issues. Equally brilliant were the show’s signature characters, including timid-voiced Ms. Swan, the bikini-clad old vamp Dixie Wetsworth, the super-angry black TV host Dollar Bill Montgomery, Depressed Persian Tow Truck Man, a man-child named Stuart, the Vancome Lady, and the insecure, sex-starved Connie Chung, who is actually play by male cast member Bobby Lee. Mad TV’s animated portions served up a few laughs as well, the most well-known being Clops, a claymation take on the popular FOX show Cops that featured lovable characters such as Gumby, Paddington Bear, and Santa Claus being busted for drug possession and indecent exposure. Among the more memorable sketches: Action Jackson, featuring chameleon character actor Phil LaMarr as Michael Jackson the crime-solving cop, The Artist Formerly Known as the Prince of Egypt also starred LaMarr as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince trying to free the Hebrew slaves of the Old Testament, and a particularly memorable sketch about men trying to register their porn star names at a DMV-like registration center for porn stars.


3. Black Adder
Rowan Atkinson may be known best as the silent yet clumsy Mr. Bean, but before he was named for a vegetable, he was the Black Adder. Atkinson played a different incarnation of the character for four series between 1983 and 1989, beginning with Prince Edmund, the Duke of Edinburgh circa 1485. Edmund the Black Adder schemes to take the crown from his father, the loud and boisterous King Richard IV (who, according to history, was allegedly killed by his uncle Richard III in the Tower of London), but fails again and again until the finale, when he is king for five seconds before he succumbs to the poisoned wine everyone else in the royal family has consumed. From 1986 until the final season, Atkinson portrayed the Edmund Blackadder character as a clever courtier in the court of the surprisingly-stupid Elizabeth I, as an underappreciated butler to the dim-witted Prince Regent (played marvelously by a pre-House Hugh Laurie) during the late 18th century, and a cynical army captain during World War I. By his side through each of the series is Blackadder’s faithful yet filthy man-servant, Baldrick, whose famous catchphrase never failed to make viewers laugh or annoy his eternal master: “I have a cunning plan!” In Britcom history, a cunning Adder trumps a dim-witted Bean any day.


2. Mr. Rogers Neighborhood
Sesame Street hit the airwaves in 1969, but by that time, Fred Rogers had been involved in children’s programming for 15 years. By the time Mr. Rogers Neighborhood came into being, its host had created his signature puppets and the infamous red Trolley on two other programs. The show was produced on WQED in Pittsburgh from 1968 to 2001, but in the beginning, it was carried by only three stations in Boston, New York City, and Washington D.C. When it was acquired by the newly-formed Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1969, the program reached a wider audience, and children around the nation were able to access a form of television that would benefit their growth, which was Rogers’ goal from the beginning. For 33 years, we learned how crayons were made, how to deal with angry feelings in the healthiest way possible, what to expect when going to the doctor for a check-up, why death is a part of life, and most important of all, how special we were to the world and to the man in the cardigan sweater. Such a simple sentiment caused older viewers and adults to wonder if Rogers was half-hearted in his attempts to make children feel special, but according to those who met him and those who knew him personally, Fred Rogers was always the real deal.


1. Scrubs
In an era where E.R. and Grey’s Anatomy take medicine to its most dramatic soap operatic conclusions, a show like Scrubs is a welcome change of mood. It does feature the same formula, right down to the slow, sometimes sappy music that plays overhead as the episode draws to a close and the conflict that swirled around the story has been solved, but the characters bring a new dimension of human zaniness to a television genre that takes itself way too seriously. Led by Dr. John “J.D.” Dorian (Zack Braff, in the role that made him a star), Scrubs follows a slew of colorful characters in a typical American hospital, including J.D.’s soulful best friend and overconfident surgeon Turk, the Latina-and-damn-proud-of-it nurse Carla, the unnamed Janitor whose relentless pranks on J.D. are borderline illegal, the racist/sexist/classist/every-person-is-dumb-but-me-ist chief of medicine Dr. Bob Kelso, and J.D.’s best friend/secret love Elliot, who was given a boy’s name at birth. But the stand-out character is J.D.’s emotionally shut-down mentor, Dr. Cox, who never misses an opportunity to call J.D. by a different girl’s name or to tell him he is a bad doctor, even though deep down, he and viewers know differently. As the show approaches its seventh and final season on NBC in fall 2007, it has yet to win the Golden Globe or the Emmy Award for the comedy series of the year or for any of its talented actors, despite the series’ consistently hysterical writing and acting, which makes this comedy gem the most underrated television program in history.

Why We Have Forgotten

The big comment on Western Civilization is that it tends to remember its victories and readily forget its defeats. But Western Civilization is also one to commemorate its worst tragedies and insist that they never be forgotten, lest they be allowed to happen once more.

Six years after the day an era was demolished, somewhere between defeat and tragedy, we have allowed ourselves to forget September 11th, 2001.

It is a curious situation, because it offered many examples of the best and worst sides of humanity simultaneously. The use of four planes as four missiles was unthinkable, and the eventual destruction caused by these missiles was equally unthinkable. Yet our first instinct was not to seek revenge, oddly enough. Our first instinct was to show the enemy that we were intact, that everything we worked for would not fall apart as a result of their actions against us on our soil. Hours after the attacks, millions went to their porches and raised their American flags. It was reminiscent of Iwo Jima and the Moon landing, when Americans raised the flag as a symbol of victory. We had suffered the worst foreign attack in U.S. history, and yet we emerged victorious.

A brief moratorium on normality went into effect in the weeks that followed. Television changed, and late night comedy programs like The Daily Show and Late Night with Conan O'Brien, both situated in New York City, pointed out that the next move was not yet obvious to them. The smoke of the World Trade Towers hung heavily in the air. Should we laugh while a cloud that could very well contain the microscopic remains of dead Americans still hangs over our heads? On September 29th, in the Saturday Night Live studios at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, following a moving tribute to the firefighters, police officers, and the victims of 9/11, creator Lorne Michaels casually asked then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, "Can we be funny?" The response is still as crisp in my mind now as it was in the moments after it was spoken then: "Why start now?" Few realized it at the time, but Giuliani had, in effect, encouraged us to laugh again. In three little words, no less.

In the years that followed, we've gone to war (allegedly as a result of the attacks on 9/11, despite the fact that none of the attackers were from Iraq), we've surrendered our precious civil liberties to the hope that wider surveillance nets will catch anyone that thinks nasty thoughts about our great nation, and we're spending more money on lifestyles we can't support and probably don't even need while the nation's economy sprints towards certain recession. Our national leaders have given more reasons, not less, for the world to turn its back on us, and greater motivation for terrorists to attack us.

Terrorists know that this is a perfect time for them, because more American servicemen and women are overseas, which means military-trained men and women that are still present in the nation are already being stretched to the limit. The government-sanctioned surveillance program is watching millions of potential terrorists at once, but it will take billions of hours to carefully examine those emails, phone calls, and activities. While our leaders waste their time following false leads, the real problems are getting into this nation at unprotected or sparsely-protected borders in Canada and Mexico. How is all of this making us safer?

Forget about safety, for the time being. The point is that in less than a decade after the September 11th attacks, we've gotten too comfortable again. We're a little too eager to move on with our lives, to the point where we've swept the ashes of the dead under the rug. We're treating this day as it was intended to be treated six years ago - as a forgettable defeat. No one wants to acknowledge a defeat, because it would remind us of our weakness to prevent it. I don't see the value in dwelling on defeats, because while we could have prevented them, the power to do so is past. We are only left with the aftermath. But 9/11 was not a defeat, it was a tragedy. Maybe we asked for it, maybe we didn't, but the harsh reality is that thousands of Americans died - horribly - that day.

When someone dies, those around that person are required to remember their life and legacy. Yet the many victims of that Tuesday in 2001 died in a state of agony. How are we to commemorate their lives when their deaths came too soon and at so great a cost?

We owe it to the victims to remember September 11th because they lost their lives and their bodies. Death ends the life of a person, meaning that their role as a living, contributing individual in the world is over. But a majority of the September 11th victims would lose their own bodies to the fire and destruction that took place. This loss robbed the victims of proper burials, and their relatives of the ability to say goodbye.

The truest memorial for any tragedy is remembrance. The victims deserve recognition for what was taken from them, and the nation affected deserves respect for having survived it all. Americans must remember this day because it reminded us all that life is too short to get weighed down by material pleasures and synthetic power. For a few fleeting days, we rediscovered our mortality and saw tremendous value in each breath we took. We were proud to be Americans, and we were eager to lend a hand in the reconstruction of families and neighborhoods that would never be the same. We were proud to show the world that we weren't going anywhere, that we were going to stay and fight together, as a united nation of ideals that were being enacted.

Six years later, September 11th, or Patriot Day, as it was christened by President George W. Bush, is just another holiday with history that no one seems eager to remember. For this day, I want Americans to ask themselves this one, simple question: What makes 9/11 so forgettable to you?

The Seen and Unseen: Interview with Filmmaker Seth Landau

Seth Landau knows how make horror. Unfortunately for him, someone else knows how to make it, too. During the course of production for his latest film, an unknown person advertised a fake call for extras that nearly stalled the production (the producers had to respond to every email and phone call that bombarded the production office). Later on, footage from the film was stolen and posted online. Speculation swirls as to who was responsible, but the film itself may provide a clue: it deals with the concept of cults and the dangers of believing what you're told without question.

Narrated by Tony “Candyman” Todd, Bryan Loves You follows the story of a therapist named Jonathan (played by Landau) who moves into a small town in Arizona. His patients, including Mr. Flynn (TV royalty George Wendt), tell him about a mysterious cult that has taken over the town. As he investigates his patients’ stories, Jonathan finds himself being pulled into the bizarre and sinister world of the alleged cult, and the cost of this knowledge may be his own sanity.

As the world premiere of the film approaches, the team behind Bryan Loves You is gearing up for what promises to be an extraordinarily memorable undertaking, thanks in part to the introduction of horror’s newest maniacal force – the Bryan Cult. The other part of this equation, director Seth Landau, took time to indulge my questions about his film, his actors, and his religious affiliations.

Last time we spoke, Bryan Loves You was in post-production. Today, the film has a distribution deal in place. What can we expect to see now that Bryan has a distributor?
Actually, we signed the movie to a sales agent, Shoreline Entertainment, and Shoreline will sell the movie to a distributor. Shoreline is planning to World Premiere the movie at a festival and/or market this fall. And to have a distribution deal in place by the new year would be ideal. We’ve already heard from several parties who are sniffing around the movie, so hopefully a deal will materialize in the near future.


Will there by any off-the-wall ad campaigns to promote the film? Will any unique product promotions be utilized to sell the audience on the film before it comes out?
Knowing us, probably. We’re kinda known for being decent marketers, so I’d expect nothing less than innovative. Especially when you put so much of your life into making a movie, you know how special it is. So to honor the product with a unique campaign is worthy, I think. I like to involve audiences in the movie as much as possible. So for instance, these masks of the Bryans we’ve been giving out intermittently since production wrapped – those are real masks worn by cult members in the movie, not to mention extremely rare since there were only 50 or so made for production. We’re literally giving part of the movie’s soul to audience members and fans. And since the movies I make are really personal, that’s what it’s all about: sharing something and involving the audience. It’s made for them and I want them to achieve some kind of catharsis and live vicariously through this thing we go to war for. There will be further products and promotions but those are to-be-revealed at a later date.


The phrase "Based on a true story" gets used a lot in films of the horror genre. What is it about the phrase that makes it so marketable and enticing to potential audiences?
Simply put: when something is based on reality, there’s more human interest since these events may have happened to you, around you, or could possibly affect you or someone you know. It’s basically like the news. “Here’s what’s happening in your world.” People are interested in their environment.

The production was plagued by some pretty deliberate acts of sabotage. Do you think these occurrences have helped or hindered the film's chances of being a success?

Some of them were very stressful for me personally, since at the end of the day I am responsible for the movie. But to those outside the production walls, so to speak, it can only help because now it’s not just a movie, it’s news – it’s an event. It’s the movie that, “Oh, didn’t you hear: that’s the Arizona movie that was written about in Page Six because of some call for extras hoax.” So during the incidents, no – it’s not fun at all. But at the end of the day, you’re in the history books for something other than the 91 minutes on the screen.

Your film boasts an impressive cast of actors, including Tony Todd and George Wendt. Were you intimidated by working with actors who are so well-known?

Absolutely, since no one is a bigger fan of movies and the actors therein than I. Tony and George specifically were actors I grew up watching and that actually affected me. Tony scared the shit out of me as the Candyman when I saw it at the Superstition Springs Mall theater in Mesa, Arizona in the 90s, and he stayed with me for many nights afterwards. And it wasn’t until far into adulthood that I could say Candyman several times while alone and in the dark. George has been in so many things I’ve seen. Like a lot of other people I grew up watching him on Cheers. And to this day, as an adult, I laugh-out-loud at that show because it’s timeless comedy and flawlessly executed. And I would say that about maybe 5 to 10 TV shows total. There was a scene between George as Norm and his best friend on the show, Cliff, where they were in some kind of argument, but came to a resolution while in the back room with the pool table. And it was so sincere and meaningful it actually made me tear up. So you talk about professional performers and how they can evoke emotion in you, and then go to working alongside of them and ostensibly on the same level? Yeah, it’s very intimidating. I’m an actor in Bryan Loves You and George’s character is a patient of my character, who is a therapist. I was thinking about that scene with George for so many weeks. And hoping I was on top of my game, wasn’t gonna come down with a cold or flu or something the night before the scene, hoping all of the tech aspects would go off without a hitch, etc. Just worrying about everything. But when ‘action’ was called and we were in the scene, all of that extraneous chatter in my mind went bye-bye and he was perfect in the role and hence ideal to play opposite of. And Tony was in the scenes by himself, so I only interacted with him as a director. But to me, a director lets his actors do what they do, so it was more like watching his genius ability and then saying “cut” at the end of the scene.

How is Bryan different from past horror anti-heroes like Freddy Krueger or Michael Myers?

Because Bryan is what you don’t see.

What is more desirable in a horror film: seeing blood and entrails, or not seeing the monster until the very end?

I think it totally depends on the story. You could make an argument for both ways. You could take Rob Zombie movies and Alfred Hitchcock movies and appreciate the scares in both mediums: gore and suspense, respectively. For the type of story of Bryan Loves You, the “what you don’t see” works best because the terror is from the ulterior motives of your peers. And to me, that’s most frightening and is actually what I experienced growing up in rural Arizona. The movie is very autobiographical in a lot of ways.

What's your take on today's horror film offerings? Are we better off or worse than the horror renaissance of the 1970s?

It’s hard to qualify movies by timeframe. For me personally, the only thing that I’ll say, generationwise, is I’m a big fan of the action movies and comedies of the 80s and 90s, mostly. Give me a Brewster’s Millions or a Ghostbusters or a Bad Boys with Will Smith and Martin Lawrence or a Lethal Weapon. For horror, I see great ones in all ages – from silent black-and-white films to 70s to 80s to 90s. The ones that affected me the most were from the 80s, because that’s when I was a little kid and afraid of a lot of things, way more fears than a normal kid. I was even afraid of fantasy movies. Like, the TV version of Alice in Wonderland scared me terribly and was one of several influences on Bryan Loves You. E.T. scared me terribly, too. An extra-terrestrial with a creepy voice interacting with a suburban family is extremely horrifying to me, or at least it was when I was in grade school. I have to say though that nothing tops The Exorcist and Ju-on (the original) for me, and those movies were made 20-something years apart. I think it’s more the story-telling rather then when the story is told.

Do you think you will make more horror films after Bryan?

My next one is a horror. I also intend to take Bryan Loves You on the Evil Dead route and make a trilogy out of it. Although the next Bryan Loves You will not be my very next movie. I need some space from it before I go back into it.

Your first feature film was shot on a budget of $13,000. Bryan Loves You was shot for $25,000 and a 17-day shooting schedule. What's the secret to making an effective film on a small budget and an even smaller shooting schedule?
I could probably talk for days about this. But in the name of brevity, let’s just say that knowing how to stretch a buck and having a laser-like focused creative vision are imperative. Also imperative is being highly disciplined. Having the mentality of “I’ll do this or die trying” doesn’t hurt.

Let's talk merchandising: how likely is it that we'll see Bryan action figures and Halloween masks on the market sometime soon?

Hopefully ASAP. I think the art used in the movie is scary enough that if I were a kid, I’d wear a Bryan mask around my neighborhood on Halloween. And Halloween is my favorite holiday, so I’m pretty passionate about it. So I’d like Bryan stuff to become of fixture of my favorite holiday.

Are you working on any new projects now? What can we expect to see from you next?

Right now all of my energy is being put into Bryan Loves You, since we’re close to a premiere and sale. But after it’s on its way, I have a horror called Y.A.B. about something I can’t quite reveal right now. And I have an action called The 4th of July about thieves who steal all the money in the world and two cops who have to get it back. I plan on Y.A.B. next and 4th after that. Hopefully Y.A.B. will get moving, a production start, by next summer.

One last question: Have you accepted Bryan as your Lord and Savior?

If I say “no” I could be in danger. But if I say “yes” I give in to what others want for me. It’s a tough question. Can I say I’ll consider it?

Bryan Loves You is preparing for a Fall 2007 premiere. For those who need an immediate Bryan fix, check out director Seth Landau's website for his production company, Grass Roots Theory. Additional info can be had at the Internet Movie Database and the Shoreline Entertainment website as well.

Virginia Tech prevented?

Following a four-month-long investigation, a review panel concluded that more could have been done by school officials at Virginia Tech to save more lives on the April 16th attack. School administrators did send out an email two hours after the gunman's first victims were killed, but Cho was able to enter Norris Hall and continue his crimes less than twenty minutes later.

Much blame has already been placed on the university, from failing to remove Seung-Hui Cho from the school altogether or at least report his violent stories in a creative writing class to university health services, to not giving students ample warning that their lives where in danger. Parents of some of the victims have even called for the resignation of Virginia Tech's president Charles W. Steger.

The problem with any attack, such at the one at Virginia Tech and the attacks of September 11th, 2001, is the inability to determine actual information from speculative information. People are in a state of panic, and it is more difficult for witnesses to express a definitive account of what they have seen because of the trauma they have suddenly found themselves in. Another reason for the discrepancy of the facts is the information break-down that occurs. On September 11th, more than 20 planes reported being hijacked, but these reports were not able to be conclusively disproved until days later, ever after 3 planes crashed into buildings in New York and Washington D.C. and 1 crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Humans are more likely to make mistakes during times of catastrophe, even the calmest of people, because so much information is bombarding the people involved, and there is no full-proof way to tell what is important or true and what is false.

In October 2006, I had the opportunity to complete an assignment for the Temple News, my school newspaper, which explored the lessons learned at a then-recent shooting at Dawson College, a higher education institution in Montreal. The school population there is a lot smaller than Temple and Virginia Tech, but a gunman managed to kill 1 person and injure 19 people, and it is probable that he also may have suffered from mental disease. In an article published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Canada, it was reported that the gunman wrote chilling messages on his profile on the website Vampirefreaks.com. One of his last entries featured a picture of himself holding a gun, with the following caption: "Ready for Action."

One of the things that struck me most about interviewing one of the school's officials was how determined this community was to learn from what happened. In the hours that followed, the decision was made NOT to make Dawson an armed campus, despite the tragedy that had taken place hours earlier. No one blamed one another for what happened, but the people of the college hoped to take new precautions to make sure such an event never happened again.

Despite the hope for preventing future attacks, my Dawson College interviewee, Donna Varrica, pointed out that it is not possible to completely plan for an attack. "There's no way to plan for this, because you can't predict the human mind. You can plan an escape in the event of a fire or a chemical spill, but the human mind is much more difficult to predict."

While the gunman at Dawson College was able to harm 20 people, students around the college courageously called and text-messaged their friends to warn them to stay away or get off of the campus. The people who were still on campus were able to be saved by the school's security guards, who knew every student by name, and vice versa. The security guards immediately called local authorities and made the swift and safe evacuation of the students their most important priority.

At Dawson College, the students were as integral at the security guards and local police when it came to evacuating students and saving lives. A text message system of warning would probably be more effective for America's colleges and universities, as opposed to an email warning system. Students should also be involved in the process. At new student orientations across the country, the message must be emphasized that everyone - student, faculty, staff, and security - should be part of the warning system. If there are loud speakers or television screens in high traffic areas, administrative officials should use these mediums to alert the population to an attack and provide them with information on safe evacuation procedures.

Implementing an effective system of communication will no doubt save lives in the future. However, the process of preventing individuals who could potentially cause harm pose a bigger challenge. While Cho did compose violent stories and plays, I would highly disagree with anyone who believes in using a person's writings against them. When the attacks happened back in April, a friend of mine, a film student like me, believed that for the next year, anyone writing a violent script or making a violent film in our department was going to be scrutinized. "This will probably increase the amount of censorship that already exists in colleges," he told me. "Everyone writes a violent story at some point. We do it because we can, because we want to prove ourselves as writers. We're not gonna go out and hurt someone because we wrote a story about it."

It says a lot about our culture when one nation under guns will defend an American's right to own firearms and then just as quickly condemn people who use them, or worse, write a story about people who use them. There are a lot of guns present in today's movies, TV shows, books, and magazines, and the artists who include them are praised for creating such stylized violence (The Departed, anyone?). So to judge someone on the basis of what they write will probably not be as effective as observing their behavior. Some freshman in the Temple film program are more apt to recreate the violence they've seen in their favorite films in their own student film projects - does that make them potential mass murderers?

Blaming anyone beyond Cho for what happened at Virginia Tech will not resurrect the victims or prevent a future attack. While I agree that steps could have been taken to prevent Cho from killing more people on that day in April, I think the better course of action would be to devise a new and better system of communication for future students. We have all made mistakes in judgement, and that is what made is possible for Seung-Hui Cho to fool his teachers and friends and even buy a gun. Education and communication are the only weapons against violence that can save students in any educational institution.

All schools should have evacuation procedures, effective systems to communicate warnings, and well-trained security guards who can spot problem situations and know when to call local authorities for back-up. Above all, we should all be looking out for each other. I think that every student, in grade school, high school, and college, should pick at least ten friends they can look out for. These ten friends would exchange email addresses and phone numbers, and in the event of an attack or violent situation, one friend could contact each of these friends immediately to make sure they are safe and help them get to safety by warning them.