You couldn’t have written a funnier SNL skit.

The scene: President and Mrs. Obama’s first official meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth. 

The gag:  A stately gift exchange, in which the Brits present their American counterparts with priceless historical artifacts, while the Obamas come bearing worthless, generic, condescendingly Ameri-centric pieces of pop culture …

Like a DVD collection of American classics.  But oops!  They’re not formatted for British DVD players! *laughter*  And Gordon-don will have a hard time enjoying the visual grandeur of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece “2001: A Space Odyssey,” seeing as he’s partially blind!  And what better way to lampoon Barack’s image as a hipster icon than for him to show Her Majesty how to rock a pair of earbuds when he gives her an iPod.  As Barack busts a move, the First Lady (appearing Amazonian next to the diminutive monarch) dares to touch the Queen by putting her arm around her.

The potential for physical comedy is a gold mine.

As everyone knows by now, something not unlike this farce actually played out recently, when the heads of state met (on two separate occasions) for a publicity stunt that ruffled the feathers of Anglophiles the world over.  How could a President so supposedly “in touch” make such a laughable faux pas?  How could the First Lady get away with such an egregious breach of etiquette?  This was the kind of foreign relations embarrassment that most Americans were hoping to avoid this time around.

But I thought of it as a perfect example of the way the Obamas are taking over the world.

Despite being embattled by multiple crises on the home front, Barack and Michelle still seem above the fray.  They both embody such a confidence, you get the sense that when they walk into any room –  be it filled with snarling congressmen or levitating royals – no one questions the tone they set.  I’m reminded of Richard Nixon’s line in Frost/Nixon – “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”  In this case, if Obama does it, it’s not uncool.

Wherever they go, the discourse seems to bend around the force of their charisma.  No longer does America seem as small as George Bush’s hunched shoulders next to the wider worldview of more integrated minds.  Wherever we send our President, the focal point of the world shifts.  Whatever he says, no matter how trivial, has weight.  Mass.  Gravity.

Another case in point (speaking of mass): during Obama’s recent visit to Istanbul, the Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of Constantinople Bartholomew I – after rhapsodizing about the many great accomplishments of Obama’s trip – paused to congratulate our president on his correct prediction of the Tar Heels as America’s college basketball champs.

A complete “puff piece” about Obama filling in his Final Four bracket had been carried across the world and caught the attention of the primus inter pares.

Hail to the chief.

Barrymore says she’d like to helm ‘Twilight’ film

By ROB MERRILL, Associated Press Writer - Mon Mar 9, 1:59 pm ET

 

Already trying to channel Edward Cullen?

NEW YORK – She starred as a buddy to that lovable alien E.T., but does Drew Barrymore have what it takes to direct vampires?  

The 34-year-old actress (“E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial,” the “Charlie’s Angels” films) has confirmed that she’s being considered for “Eclipse,” the third movie in the blockbuster teen vamp saga that launched with “Twilight” last year.

“I’m one of the directors that is being talked about, which is great, because I’m a director now,” Barrymore said in a recent interview.  Oh, really?!  I’m one of the writers who thinks that statement doesn’t make sense, which is great, because that’s what I’m writing.  “But, you know, they’ll make their choice.”  Well at least she has a feel for the dialogue.

“Eclipse” is slated for a summer 2010 release.

Chris Weitz (“The Golden Compass“) is directing “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” the second film based on Stephenie Meyer‘s best-selling series. He took over the franchise from “Twilight” director Catherine Hardwicke.

“New Moon” will be in theaters in November.

Barrymore directed “Whip It!” starring Ellen Page (“Juno“), due in theaters this year.  And she’s not running the DGA yet??

This week, the man with all the Right moves was RNC Chairman Michael Steele.  He went on D.L. Hughley’s show and got “called out” by a comment about Rush Limbaugh being the de facto head of the Republican party, to which he responded, “No, he’s not — I’m the de facto head of the Republican party.”  Beeyotch.  He went on to assert that what Limbaugh does is entertainment, and said, “Yes, it’s incendiary.  Yes, it’s ugly …”  At that point, Hughley cut in and gave a closing remark, which seemed to indicate that time for the interview had run out.

The next day, stories were all over the internet stating that Steele had described Limbaugh as incendiary and ugly, but I think that’s a misleading description.  Steele was clearly trying to convey the message that he doesn’t have strings that Limbaugh pulls, but he wasn’t really, as Hughley put it, “crying down” Limbaugh’s rhetoric.  Hughley seemed to be trying to get him to do so by citing Limbaugh’s remarks about wanting President Obama to fail, but Steele parried with the question, “How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?” — a point that Hughley conceded.

Steele seemed to be contrasting the confrontational nature of Limbaugh’s role in shaping the party’s thinking with the efforts of its actual leaders, who attempt to advance the Republican agenda with a more diplomatic approach.  I think he was very deftly not speaking out against the content of Limbaugh’s bombast, nor even the fact that Rush has a voice within the party.  He almost seemed like he was about to make a defensive statement: “Yes, it’s incendiary.  Yes, it’s ugly, but …”  Of course, Limbaugh didn’t take it that way.

He took to the airwaves the following day to say what he thought of Steele and his kind.

Just an observation.  Here’s what our version of that character had to say:

Michael Steele, you are head of the Republican National Committee. You are not head of the Republican party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the Republican National Committee, and when you call them asking for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of being some talking-head media star.

I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.

Republicans and conservatives are sick and tired of being talked down to, they’re sick and tired of being lectured to. And until you show some understanding and respect for who they are, you’re gonna have a tough time rebuilding your party.

Not a surprising response. Nor, unfortunately, was the reply from Steele the following day. Let’s break it down.

My intent was not to go after Rush (I believe that’s true; Hughley kind of goaded him into denying that Limbaugh is the leader of the party) – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh.  (Okay now you lost me.  If that’s true, I have enormous disinterest in whatever else you have to say.) I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking.  Possibly true. It was one of those things where I was thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. Mmmaybe. What I was trying to say was a lot of people… want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.  Yeah, no, that’s definitely not what you were saying. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. Agreed. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.

That’s exactly what you were attempting.

It’s really no wonder that no one, Rush Limbaugh included, has any respect for this Republican party.  They don’t even have the spine to stand up for their attempts to stand up for themselves.  And if that’s not enough cow-towing for you, you’ll be glad to know that Bobby “Pre-existing” Jindal went on record to say he was glad Steele apologized.  Because Americans can do anything.

Injured good Samaritan ticketed for jaywalking

Thu Feb 26, 7:34 am ET

I bet Bobby Jindal wouldn’t have put up with that kind of bureaucracy.

The President’s message was bold and broad, and I think he succeeded in reassuring the country that (1) we have a plan, (2) it makes sense, and (3) the full force of Obama’s mandate is behind it.  I’m still skeptical that it will all work out as perfectly as he envisions it, or that he’ll be able to sway enough Republicans to get it done, but I have no doubt that this is the kind leadership we need now.

What we don’t need now – no way, no how – is the provincial nonsense of Bobby Jindal’s GOP.  The widely-proclaimed rising star of the Republican party was given the privilege of making their rebuttal to President Obama’s speech, and his remarks fully displayed their utter inadequacy to the task of national governance.

What we heard was a warmed-over rehash of the illogical arguments that John McCain and Sarah Palin served up in their campaign.  He started off by pretending that it wasn’t the Republican leadership who gave government a bad name with its failure to act in the wake of Katrina.  Then he launched into a story about a local sheriff who stood up to those big bad bureaucrats so that regular Joes could get to work and start savin’ folks.

“There is a lesson in this experience,” he concluded.  ”The strength of America is not found in our government.”

What a ridiculous non sequitur, an absurd generalization, to connect the role of national government to ”some bureaucrat” who “showed up” to enforce safety regulations.  And just out of curiosity, Gov. Jindal, if the bureaucrat showed up to stop the boats that were “all lined up and ready to go,” why was the sheriff shouting into the phone?

He continued:

“It is found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens.”

Another hallmark of modern conservativism — the disassociation of citizens from The Government … which is comprised of citizens.  When will they stop thinking of government as an alien entity, created to oppress the rugged individual?  And if government is not meant to regulate, then what should be its role in this economic crisis?  How about a fresh, focused, realistic perspective, Governor?

“To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and not to just put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you, the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.”

Just not the Americans that we elected and sent to Washington to run our government.  In other words, the only people who can solve this problem are the ones who lack the desire to devote their lives to solving it.  Brilliant.

“That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs.”

Say what?

I’m no economist, but I can’t even imagine how any of what he said there makes sense.  What does reducing income tax have to do with creating jobs?  How do tax credits for home-buyers stabilize home values?  And what good does it do to “strengthen incentives” for businesses to expand when there’s no credit available for them to do so?  Rather than provide the answers to these questions, Jindal turns to criticizing the Democrats’ approach.

“But Democratic leaders in Congress — they rejected this approach. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money …”

You mean like we did before the recession?

“… they passed the largest government spending bill in history, with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest. While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a “magnetic levitation” line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called “volcano monitoring.” Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

So he admits that some of the projects make sense.  Okay, now what are these wasteful, unnecessary projects you’re concerned about?  Buying new cars for the government?  Good call — we wouldn’t want to invest any money in the auto industry; they’re doing just fine.  Mass transit between two of America’s biggest tourist destinations?  Nice catch — no potential for job creation there.  Oh, and don’t even get me started about that “something called ‘volcano monitoring,’” which I can only assume is called “volcano monitoring” because that’s what it is.  (Paul Krugman explained the stupidity of that remark far better than I could.)  Let’s not waste any money on scientific research, especially not the kind that could prevent a natural disaster.  People who live in high-risk areas can fend for themselves.

The rest of the address was a combination of McCain/Palin stump speeches and a campaign commercial for Bobby Jindal 2012.  He hit all the familiar notes: eliminating earmarks, tax cuts, keeping the price of gas down by drilling off-shore, keeping health care decisions between patients and their doctors, staying on the offensive overseas so we can defeat our enemies.  All that was missing were the words, “my friends.”

The best summation came in the following form:

“We oppose the National Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and to create jobs.”

Empower them how?  And who would be empowering them??  If you answered, “the government,” then get on board, Bobby.

Within moments of the orchestra striking its opening chord, I knew this would be a good show. The set actually made me sit up and say, “Wow!” which hasn’t happened in … ever. Crystals — what a great idea. They really created a fantastic lighting effect and a more intimate, nightclub atmosphere. I loved the idea of moving the orchestra up onto the stage level and allowing them to play throughout the night. It’s become an Oscar tradition look down into the pit and joke about getting played off the stage by Maestro Bill Conti, but I thought music director Michael Giacchino did a great job reinventing some classic movie themes and making the music more a part of the party. I really liked his work in Ratatouille and The Incredibles, and I’m anticipating more good scores from him in the future.

Mr. Jackman set the tone early with his contagious energy. I was pleasantly surprised by how adept he was with the timing and delivery of his opening jokes, all of which were clever and played well with the audience. Then, as promised in his “revealing” Barbara Walters interview, he launched into song and dance for one of the greatest opening numbers in Oscar history. The conceit of a low-budget, Recession-friendly production was inspired, and the performance was perfectly timed from start to finish. Anne Hathaway stole the spotlight momentarily (and took advantage of another opportunity to showcase her pipes), but the high point had to be the SNL-worthy dance for The Reader. It was a hilarious slap in the face to the self-important Serious Film.

The first bold departure from years past was the choice to feature five former winners in the acting categories to describe the nominated performances. The introductory montage was a bit unwieldy, but once it became clear what they were all doing up there, I started to really like the idea. I thought the comments were well-written and wonderfully-delivered across the board, with the exception of Alan Arkin’s bungling of Philmore Seamus Hoffman. It was really neat to watch the nominees react to their peers’ praise, which is what the Oscars is all about, after all. I thought that was a great way to spotlight the spirit of the ceremony.

Speaking of good writing, the Screenplay awards were another highlight, thanks to the comedic chemistry of Steve Martin and Tina Fey (and Steve Martin). Brevity is the soul of wit, and they kept it short, sweet, and absurdly funny, as when Martin interrupted himself to warn his presenting partner, “Don’t fall in love with me.” We’re trying not to fall out of love with you, Steve, so take a break from movies and wait for a good script to come along.

And how great was it to see Sean Penn laughing at the Scientology joke?! I think the experience of working on Milk was good for him in more ways than one.

Moments later, he was crying – along with many others – during the emotional acceptance speech of Dustin Lance Black for Original Screenplay. This was a great moment, but it foretold the inevitable defeat of Milk at the end of the night. Screenplay nominations are notorious for becoming Best Picture consolation prizes, although Slumdog won for Adapted Screenplay as well, which should’ve gone to one of the less-fortunate movies. (Doubt and Frost/Nixon, both renowned stage plays, went home empty-handed — one of many travesties this year.) Nonetheless, I was glad to see Mr. Black recognize and be recognized.

The other Mr. Black is worth recognizing, too. After humorously breaking up the façade of red carpet banter by refusing to play dumb with his pre-show interviewer, Jack alleviated some of the pressurized focus on his co-presenter Jennifer by deftly delivering one of the night’s best zingers. Asked how he makes more money doing animation than live action, he riffed on the obvious superiority of Pixar films by claiming that he bets his paycheck on their chances at the Oscars. Dreamworks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberger laughed appreciatively, and Pixar wiz Andrew Stanton graciously accepted the Honorable Mention.

Then came the dynamic duo of Natalie Portman and Ben Stiller, brilliantly channeling Joaquin Phoenix. This bit must have taken much rehearsal to avoid cracking each other up, but they both kept their composure and provided one of the funniest presentations in recent Oscar memory. It’s too bad Mr. Stiller didn’t steal one of those screenplay nominations for Tropic Thunder.

And while we’re having a moment of semitic levity, let’s take another swipe at the pretentiousness of The Reader by letting James Franco giggle uncontrollably over one of its “dramatic scenes.” The writers of this year’s telecast did a great job playing up the fact that comedies and action movies get no respect at the Oscars. I’d like to take this opportunity to make a six-degreesesque prediction: In 2009, comedy is given the spotlight as it ridicules The Reader for being stuffy and pandering, but it wins an Oscar for Kate Winslet … Kate Winslet, who was counseled comedically by Ricky Gervais that the surest way to win an Oscar is to star in a “Holocaust film.” If there’s any comedic performer working today who can perfectly balance humor and pathos – yes, perfectly enough to make a comedy that could win Best Picture – it’s Ricky Gervais.

Mr. G, it’s yours for the taking.

Best Picture

Milk is the only movie that comes close to deserving the title of best picture; I would call it “great.”  Frost/Nixon is at least a good picture, and the other three are like the picture of the Indian movie star after the kid in Slumdog Millionaire jumped into the hole of the outhouse — they’re being held up and signed off on, and no one is acknowledging that they stink.

Best Actor

I haven’t seen The Visitor or The Wrestler, and I’m sure Mickey Rourke is deserving, but I like Sean Penn for his luminous embodiment of Harvey Milk. He shared what it must have felt like to have something deeply personal and profoundly universal to believe in.

Best Actress

I wish I had seen Doubt before now, and I plan on seeing it soon, but I can tell you just from watching the previews that Meryl Streep is more deserving of an Oscar for that role than Kate Winslet is for The Reader.  There is absolutely nothing about that movie worth honoring. I haven’t seen Revolutionary Road yet either, but I can still tell you it was better than Stephen Daldry’s crime against humanity.

Best Supporting Actor

I know I’m supposed to say Heath Ledger, and when he wins, I won’t have any complaints. But Josh Brolin absolutely nailed his portrayal of conflicted killer Dan White. He’s done such strong work over the last couple of years, I would love to see his career take a quantum leap forward with an Oscar for that performance. Heck, I would give it to him based solely on the scene where White shows up drunk at Milk’s birthday party (same goes for Sean Penn). The two off-screen old friends gave an acting clinic with their mesmerizingly natural dynamics. Brolin had the fierce presence of Daniel Day-Lewis and the comedic genius of Robert Downey, Jr., and he played them almost simultaneously. “Dan White has an issue!” Josh Brolin has a gift.

Best Supporting Actress

For this one, I can really only say who I wish would win, and who should absolutely not even be nominated — Taraji P. Henson. Her stereotypical, overacted version of “Mammy” was grating from start to finish. As with The Reader, there’s nothing worth honoring in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I would’ve said make-up and special effects for Brad Pitt’s character, but the train wreck they made out of Cate Blanchett ruined it. As for who I wish would win: Amy Adams, purely because my wife said that she will never, ever win. Too plain and too earnest. I’m sure she’ll be proven right (again) when the Oscar goes to the ravishing Penélope Cruz.

Animated Feature Film

This one should go to Bolt, because WALL-E should be nominated for Best Picture, which it is.  I hate this category.  The medium shouldn’t matter — a great film is about the story and the characters, and Pixar consistently produces movies of such narrative grace that other Hollywood studios ought to be ashamed of themselves.  Bolt was funny, touching, and visually perfect, but WALL-E was visionary.

Best Director

Danny Boyle’s work in Slumdog is impressive, but it’s not very inventive — it’s just Danny Boyle doing his signature style, which didn’t enhance the flimsy plot, it gave it more juice than it could conduct.  David Fincher embarrassed himself with Button.  (I wouldn’t want to show my face at Fight Club after putting out that piece of sentimental mush.)  Ron Howard assembled the parts of Frost/Nixon like a lounge singer puts on a show — polished, professional, pedestrian.  Don’t even talk to me, Daldry.  Only Gus Van Sant distinguished himself by his understated, sensible, sensitive guidance of the kind of story that cinema was created to tell.

Original Song

Academy, you still owe Rufus Wainwright for last year’s snub! It’s not too late to make it right, but you’re off to a bad start by once again nominating multiple songs from a mediocre movie. If Peter Gabriel doesn’t win for WALL-E, someone needs a cream pie in the face.

App Store Moral Battleground: “South Park” Nixed

By Darrell Etherington

Apple may or may not be thinking about it this way, but the iPhone App Store is fast becoming a moral battleground for the gaming and entertainment industry. Forget the ESRB, forget the MPAA, the new moral authority developers and studios have to contend with is Apple’s App Store reviewers, and they may be setting the bar pretty high, at least judging from a recently publicized rejection. The app denied, in this case, is a “South Park” one (not the original Imaginationland game, which remains available), which would have brought a range of “South Park” content to the iPhone and iPod touch. The app had been submitted in October 2008, but kicked around the review process for quite some time, actually being rejected twice until its development team finally decided to stop bashing its head against the wall and let the thing die a peaceful death. Apple’s reason for blocking the app, which provided clips, information, and other media for “South Park” fans to use and view on their phones, was that it was “potentially offensive.” Throwing the “potentially” in there is a nice attempt to evade being painted as arbiters of morality, which is just what I’m doing in this article. Macworld UK points out that full seasons of “South Park” are available uncensored from Apple via iTunes as it is, and can therefore be easily transferred to the iPhone, so refusing to offer clips of the same content via an iPhone app seems a little arbitrary. “South Park” developers said that Apple suggested App Store standards would evolve, just as iTunes standards did (explicit lyrics were originally not allowed), but why should it require a separate evolutionary process? It is, after all, an addition to iTunes, not an altogether different beast. My big problem with this latest rejection is that Apple is beginning to take on the role of industry councils set up for the purpose, made up of members representing a variety of concerns. Because of the success of the App Store, and since they are able to set the terms of access for developers, they are becoming a private company with the authority of a regulatory board, and as such have undue influence over what does and doesn’t get made. Hopefully the advent of mobile app stores from so many other carriers will force the establishment of some kind of standards governing software in this space, so that Apple can’t keep single-handedly setting the industry tone.

I say, what’s wrong with Apple setting the tone? They developed the technology, they have a company image to be concerned with, so they should be the ones to decide what type of content to offer “front-and-center” through their App Store. If other providers want to accept what South Park is offering, maybe that will cause enough demand among Apple’s customers for the company to change its decision.

I don’t think Apple is really concerned with the “morality” of South Park‘s content. But when they approve an application that was created specifically for their product, the iPhone, it receives the Apple imprimatur, and there is a closer association between the content and the provider than there is when Apple sells an episode of South Park on iTunes. If you ask me, some of the Apps that have been approved are incongruent with Apple’s high standard of aesthetic design. But I guess in the case of South Park, they’re concerned about a different kind of clean lines.

By Michelle Collins

 

Dow Drops Nearly 300 Points

 

By JACK HEALY and MATTHEW SALTMARSH

Published: February 17, 2009

From Hong Kong to eastern Europe to Wall Street, financial gloom was everywhere on Tuesday.

Stock markets around the world staggered lower. In New York, the Dow fell more than 3 percent, coming within sight of its worst levels since the credit crisis erupted.