Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere

May 9, 2008

Got Milk?

Filed under: Gay, Gay Rights, Human Rights, Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts, Politicts, Religon — Cork McGraw @ 9:53 am

Sean Penn used to be one of those people that … well, I’d cringe whenever I’d hear his name. There were all those “bad boys” movies in the 1980s and that whole Madonna thing and … I remember a few times over the years that someone would start talking about him … and to tell the truth, I just sort of stopped listening. Then, several years after the movie came out, I finally convinced myself to watch Dead Man Walking, a movie that totally took me by surprise, although it wasn’t until he’d done I am sam and Mystic River that I started to think that maybe he wasn’t going to be so bad after all.

Sean Penn as Harvey MilkNow, granted – I haven’t seen the movie yet, but from what I am hearing – one of his next movies may just prove me wrong again. I’m talking about a movie, currently set to release in November called Milk.

Milk is the latest movie from Director Gus Van Sant (the same guy who brought us Good Will Hunting, Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, and My Own Private Idaho, just to name a few) and tells the story of San Francisco’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk.

If you don’t know about Harvey Milk, go rent the excellent documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk.

On November 27, 1978, then city supervisor of San Francisco, California, Harvey Milk was assassinated by the recently resigned city supervisor, Dan White. White was convicted of his crime, but only received a seven year sentence because his legal defense team claimed junk food made him temporarily incompetent. Yes, this was the original “Twinkie Defense”. San Francisco erupted in riots over this – and the Milk assassination became one of the crucial turning points in the fight for gay civil rights.

Even this early in the game, Sean Penn is already starting to receive adoration from the way he is portraying Harvey Milk, leaving some to start to wonder if a second Oscar Award is coming soon. (His first was for Mystic River.)

Josh Brolin as George W. BushMe? I just wonder what Barbra Streisand is thinking right now?

Her Son-In-Law, Josh Brolin, who recently finished filming Milk – where he plays Milk’s assassinator Dan White, has just started filming Oliver Stone’s W. where he plays George W. Bush – Two totally opposite (yet strangely similar) real-life characters I’m sure The Funny Girl has some pretty strong feelings about…

And from the recent cover of Entertainment Weekly – he appears to have a pretty good likeness…

…although this is now starting to lead into a topic for another, later, blog post!

February 2, 2007

Film Ratings…

Filed under: Gay, Gay Movies, Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts, Politicts — Cork McGraw @ 6:41 am

As an avid DVD collector and movie buff - I have always been just a little intrigued about the whole movie rating thing. It’s … just … confusing!

Like most people I know - film ratings don’t mean all that much to me. I can see how they can be useful to some people - especially those with children - but when it comes to movies I either rent or buy for myself … those ratings have little (if anything) to do with what I walk away with.

Personally, I usually find that the “unrated” or “NC-17″ version of movies are better than the R-rated versions, although I don’t see this as much of a “ratings” issue as it is a “director’s cut” issue. For example - Fatal Attraction’s Theatrical Release is ok… but, the director’s cut is so much better. The only big difference is the ending… that whole ‘He kills her, then she comes back to life so his wife can kill her too’ … what the heck was THAT about? The original ending was, believe me, much better!

Now - this isn’t always true… Alexander is one of those movies where I enjoyed the Theatrical Version more than I did the Director’s Cut. (Due to political pressure from right wing groups, some of the gay-related themes were taken out of the movie.)

But, lately a bunch of movies have come up with both the Theatrical Version as well as an Unrated (NC-17) Version. Usually, the Unrated Version is just a bit more graphic (either nudity/sex or violence). It’s not that rare to compare the movie run times and see that only a minute or two of added footage has been added. I think this is more about censorship than anything else. (And, censorship is a completely different issue all together.) The Unrated version of American Psycho is merely five seconds longer.

I know that not all Unrated movies would have recieved an NC-17 rating… sometimes the films would have recieved an R Rating while the Theatrical Release was rated PG-13. Charlie’s Angles: Full Throttle is a good example of this.

Comparing Rated and Unrated versions of films can be kind of fun and interesting. Sometimes, it is just silly. (Dare I mention Team America: World Police? The only difference is some pretty absurd sexual acts between two puppets…)

Sometimes, though - it doesn’t make any sense.

One of the R-rated scenes removed from Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (but put back into the Unrated Version) was cut because it showed Dylan (Drew Barrymore) being hit in the face and spraying blood from the force of the impact. And yet, there are other movies where that happens frequently, yet still manages to keep a PG rating. (Not PG-13 … PG!) Rocky, for instance. So, why does one scene get an R-Rating, while the other gets away with PG?

When it comes to nudity or sex, however - the confusion runs more rampant. According to the MMPA, all movies are based on the same criteria, regardless of gender, race, or even sexual orientation of the characters involved. Yet gay themed movies are held to a different standard than heterosexual themed movies. A gay movie could not have two naked men wrestling each other - but a straight movie could. (Women In Love)

Last year, I wrote a blog post “Outrage Over Film Rating???” about a group of Evangelicals who were outraged that a movie they produced received a PG rating rather than a G rating (even though the movie deals with some pretty adult things like teen sex and pregnancy). Had the movie dealt with teenage homosexuality, I wonder what the movie would have been rated? I also wonder if the right-wing pundits who lobbied for a change in legislation regarding film ratings made any difference at all? I wonder what that means for me…

I started writing this blog post a few days ago, but last night I watched the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated, that amazingly dealt with many of the topics I covered in this film, plus a lot of others. If any of this has made any sense to you - you ought to check this movie out too. Although, personally I would have liked to see the faces of those on the ratings board when this movie was submitted for rating…(wink)

December 6, 2006

Only In America

Filed under: Humor, Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts, Politicts, Religon — Cork McGraw @ 1:28 pm

At first I thought they were kind of funny. Then I thought some film student just had too much time on their hands. But, then I thought … Maybe, just maybe … It’s a good example of social commentary. No. I am not talking about paparazzi videos of Britney Spears Crotch.

I’m talking about a few movie trailers on YouTube.

The “Scary Mary” trailer of Mary Poppins is one example. Take a few clips from the film, throw in some scary music - and the trailer makes the movie look more like The Exorcist or The Omen than The Sound of Music.

And then there’s the Harry Potter and the Closet of Secrets trailer … that makes Harry Potter look like good movie competition for Brokeback Mountain.

Or, how about the new Shining trailer … the one that makes Stanley Kubrick’s movie of Stephen King’s The Shining look like a heartwarming story of a boy in search of a father figure.

Yes - these kinds of things are kind of fun to watch. We all probably know that Mary Poppins isn’t a horror flick, Harry Potter is not a gay love story, and the Shining … well, that movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid.

But, what if we had never even heard of those movies before? Would we want to see those movies after watching the (fake) trailers?

It just got me thinking about all the stuff we see on the evening news. There’s a myth or urban legend floating around that says the evening news is supposed to be unbiased and fair to both sides of a news story. Maybe when Barbara Walters was a budding journalist - that was the case, but that notion seemed to fly out the window a long time ago.

In fact, lately it seems like the evening news is nothing but opinion.

Case in point. Gwyneth Paltrow recently made a statement to some Portuguese newspaper - and before long, it was all over the American press how Gwyneth was Anti-American … how Gwyneth went on an America-Bashing spree. Whatever she said must have been real bad, to cause this much fury … right?

Finally I watch the news to learn that all Mrs. Paltrow said was that she preferred living overseas because the Brits tended to be a little smarter and more cultured. But, all the promos were promising me information on why Gwyneth hates America … why Gwyneth thinks Americans are stupid … why she dislikes the American culture so bad. But, she actually said nothing of the sort. Not at all.

I felt bad … mostly because I thought she had a good, valid point. America - the country that made Borat the Number One movie for how long now … the same country that gave us such memorable films as Talladega Nights or Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle … the same country that unleashed Beavis & Butthead into the world … and yes, the same country that went ballistic when the President got caught getting a blog job … that made such a big deal over Janet Jackson’s left tit and Britney Spears naked shaved crotch getting out of a limo … and …

So what if someone thinks America is dumb. I’m sorry - I love America - I love being an American - but we’ve done some pretty stupid things over the years, and American Culture … oh, don’t even let me go there.

Gwyneth, my friend (can I call you that?) … I totally understand and can relate with what you said. I’d live in Brittan too if I could … (and not just because I’m a sucker for a guy with an accent, either…)

All this just makes me wonder … why I even watch TV? I don’t believe the news is telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth … so … how the heck do we really know what’s going on in the world.

September 13, 2006

Remembering The Black Dahlia (Part Two)

Filed under: Articles, Movie Reviews — Cork McGraw @ 11:46 am

Here’s an article I wrote on the Black Dahlia several years ago. With the upcoming movie release, I thought I might as well share it with you:

The Black Dahlia

The murder of Elizabeth Short (also known as the Black Dahlia) remains to this day as one of California’s more extraordinary unsolved mysteries. And it seems to have been made of the stuff legends are made of - a brutal crime … the victim as a small-town girl gone off to Hollywood to make it in the movies … a list of suspects that seemed more like the Titanic’s passenger list than anything else …

Over the past half decade, countless articles, books, movies, and television shows have presented information on the Black Dahlia. And it seems like the more you know, the more questions you have. And yet the questions remain - Who killed the Black Dahlia and why?

The Victim

Elizabeth ShortElisabeth Short was born on July 29th, 1924 in Hyde Park, Massachusetts, but a short while after she was born her family moved to the town of Medford - a few miles outside Boston.

By all accounts, Beth Short (known as Betty to friends and family) had always been a pretty girl. Her biggest concern was her health. She was plagued with a rather nasty case of athsma. One one occasion, she had to have an operation to remove some fluid from her lungs. Yet, even through all of that she still remained a friendly, feisty, and caring woman and everyone she met seemed to like her.

Her other major concern dealt with a certain birth defect. Her vaginal area was slightly deformed, causing normal penetration to be impossible. She also did not have a normal period. Several doctors stated when she was young that she would eventually outgrow this - however, she never did.

When she was a girl, her mother, Phoebe, would often take her and her younger sister to the movies. Beth loved this, and had often dreamt of being an actress. This was, perhaps, her biggest goal in life. Years later she would move to the Hollywood area, and try to make that dream a reality.

She would move in with her father, Cleo, for a short while when she was nineteen. He had moved there when Beth was a small girl after faking his suicide when his miniature golf course business went under. Years later, he contacted his wife and wanted to be a part of the family again. Phoebe refused. Beth’s relationship with her father was fairly rocky, and he eventually asked her to leave because he found her lazy, boy crazy, and untidy.

After having a rather rough time in Hollywood, she moved temporarily back to Medford, and then headed south to Miami Beach where she met Major Matt Gordon, a pilot. (She seemed to have romantic fantasies about servicemen.) During their engagement, however, he was sent to India. Before he could return home, he was killed in a plane crash. Beth Short had already decided the next thing in store for her was marriage, so after a short while, she called upon a former beau - another serviceman. But that relationship was doomed to failure as well.

Some of the servicemen who knew her started calling her The Black Dahlia. One of the popular films at the time was called The Blue Dahlia (with Veronica Lake and Alan Ladd) and the name stuck because she dressed in black lacy dresses and had black frilly hair. Beth liked the nickname and started portraying this sultry personality.

The Murder Of The Black Dahlia

On January 15th, 1947 a young lady and her daughter were taking a stroll near a vacant lot when the two spotted what the woman first thought was a broken mannequin. But it wasn’t a mannequin - it was the nude body of a young woman, the lifeless body of the Black Dahlia.

She had been posed naked, on her back with her arms stretched above her head bent at the elbows, severed at the waist. Her lower half was angled upward at the hips, her legs spread-eagle. It was believed that she was severed after death, but some evidence suggests it was possible she was severed while still alive. Her bodyparts were placed in a line. The liver was exposed. Her face and breasts were slashed. Marks on her wrists and ankles suggested she’d been tied up, perhaps in an upside-down position Evidence also suggests that feces was placed in her mouth while being tortured.. An incision was also made crudely from her pubic region up to the navel.

After an autopsy was performed, a few more curious details would enter the picture. Some evidence suggested that she was frozen for a period of time, perhaps to aid preservation. Other evidence suggested that the body had been put down, at some point, face-down in dew covered grass and then turned over. The body had also been dead for at least ten hours before it was placed in that lot. Her hair and body had been extensively and painstakingly washed and cleaned. No evidence of semen was found, although that could have been because she had been washed so well. The official cause of death was listed as being caused by a concussion to the head, and to the wounds on her face and breasts.

The police tried everything they could think of to crack this high profile case. They spent countless hours trying to recreate the last few days of her life. They talked with friends, and even went as far as rounding up nearly every known (or suspected) sexual deviants or perverts and questioned them.

During their investigation, they located Robert Manly. He was a hardware salesman and known the Dahlia for only a short time. A week before her death, the two had checked into a motel, gone out to various nightclubs, and then headed back to the motel. Manly reports he slept in the bed while Beth Short slept in a chair. She had complained of not feeling well. The next morning, he had an appointment, but when he came back, she was now dressed, and apparently feeling a little better. She said she wanted to meet her sister so when Manly had to leave that evening, he left Elisabeth Short alone in the room waiting for her sister. This would be the last time anybody saw her alive. She disappeared for the next six days before turning up severed in the vacant lot. Manly became the first suspect the police had. However, after several long interrogations he was eventually released.

The police were flooded with calls from people who knew the Black Dahlia. It took major manpower to handle the volume of calls and to follow up on the tremendous amount of information. Meanwhile, Phoebe Short arrives in California to claim her daughter’s body. It seems her ex-husband wanted nothing to do with the whole fiasco. Later, Phoebe would bury her daughter in The Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland.

And then the local papers received a package containing a few of Elizabeth Short’s personal belongings such as an address book with pages torn out, her social security card, birth certificate, business cards, photographs of her with various servicemen, claim checks for suitcases she had left at the bus station - accompanied by a note made from newspaper clippings which said, “Here are Dahlia’s Belongings” and “Letter to Follow.” The police tried to lift fingerprints off all of this, but none were able to be found. Each and every name in the address book was tracked down and interviewed, but not much came of it.

The Investigation

The investigation went nowhere fast. Every lead seemed to turn into a dead end. And yet, everyone seemed to know something about the Dahlia’s death, or had some connection that nobody else had. For example…

Two detectives sat in a local restaurant discussing the case. When they returned to the station, they got a call from a man who said he had seen the killer. As it turns out, he was the waiter at the restaurant and the two officers were to whom the man referred.

An astrologer said that if they buried the Dahlia with an egg in her hand, her killer would be caught.

Several landlords reported that their problem tenants were most likely the killer. Many women reported their ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands.

One serviceman was reported to military police by another serviceman with whom he had fought about money. The man who was reported had blood on his clothing and had some newspaper clippings of the Dahlia. The man confessed, saying that he could have done this since he often got violent toward women when he was drunk. The police saw through his confession eventually and he was sent to a psychiatrist.

In fact, as many as fifty different people confessed to the crime - but there were none the police took seriously.

Suspects

A crime reporter for the Herald Express named Aggie Underwood wanted the police to investigate a connection between the death of the Black Dahlia and the murder of a socialite named Georgette Bauerdorf. Bauerdorf. had known the Dahlia and had died in what Underwood considered similar circumstances - she had been strangled and raped before being drowned in a bathtub with a towel thrust into her mouth to keep her from crying out. The police never followed this lead, citing various reasons.

Janice Knowlton wrote a book titled Daddy Was The Black Dahlia Killer in which she tells of the affair Elizabeth Short had with her father George and pinning the murder on him. According to officials, George Knowlton was never considered a suspect.

Another popular book - Severed: The True Story Of The Black Dahlia Murder by John Gillmore, which contained a totally different view (and sources of information). While it is recommended that you read both books, it is also recommended that you make your own judgements on the information they contain.

Not much to go on. I know. Perhaps this - above anything else - explains why the case remains open andd unsolved, even after over fifty years.

The Killer

From the evidence presented, we can make certain educated guesses at what the killer was like, or certain other bits of information about him. I must strongly note here that since the killer is still unknown - all we are able to do is make these educated guesses. Even though the information presented in this section is logical - there is still a chance that it may not be correct.

Beth Short was a high risk victim. We can guess this since she was emotionally vulnerable, had a somewhat needy personality, led a lifestyle of club hopping, was often homeless, and had a dependant personality. Any killer who was looking for women who he could dominate and manipulate would have been easily attracted to her from the get go.

The nature of the crime suggests that this was a lust murder - although certain aspects of the crime tells us that it dosn’t fit the normal bill. Most lust murderers are, for the most part, disorganized types. However, since the killer went to such legnths to was the body (we can assume to get rid of physical evidence) and the manner in which she was severed, and these are definate signs of an organized offender, an interesting discussion on his personality traits can be made.

Since the body was killed elsewhere and then left in a vaccant lot, we can assume a few more details. The killer would have to have a car. Considering the year is 1947 and that most Americans did not own cars at this point in history, we can either conclude that he was criminally sophisticated enough to be able to steal one without it ever showing up as evidence, or that he was wealthy enough to be able to afford one.

The area where the killer dumped the body was not a busy intersection, however it was populated and nobody ever reported seeing anything amiss. We can assume here that since nobody saw anything out of order, that the killer either blended into his surroundings so that nobody would remember seeing him, or that he went completely unseen however unlikely that is bound to be.

In order to have tied the Dahlia up and torture her the way he did, he must have had his own home (or other such place to - cough snort - work) and he probably lived alone. It would be difficult (but not totally impossible) to pull this sort of thing off had he lived in an appartment, or if he lived with another person. But, then again, considering that the person he lived with might have gone away (as in out of town), and since he cleaned up The Dahlia very well, we can also assume he thoroughly cleaned the area where he kept and killed her, so that no traces were left when the others returned. However unlikely this scenario might be, I must also admit it could be possible.

Since the body was placed out in the open for people to find, we can also surmize that his intention for doing this was to shock or offend the entire community, and make a statement. He also appearantly was not too woried about leaving behind evidence of his identity, thus relating again to the fact that he cleaned the body.

Later, he would communicate with the police. This would suggest that he wanted credability, he wanted to outfox or outsmart the investigators, and that while he was fairly bright, he wasn’t too smart.

The crime also showed definate signs of sadism. He manipulated and degraded his victim to such a drastic level that we can guess his anger wasn’t against her, personally, but against her as a woman, suggesting his anger was toward all women. Or, at least all woman who the Dahlia reminded him of.

Remembering The Black Dahlia (Part One)

Filed under: Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts — Cork McGraw @ 11:43 am

I am another one of those fine folks waiting for the release of The Black Dahlia. However, I am often one to criticize movies that are based on true events because, more often than not, the story or characters have been fictionalized to the point that it becomes a whole new story. This especially seems to be true about stories with either political ramifications (such as the recent The Path to 9/11) or movies about controversial or sensational events. Unfortunately, the murder of Elisabeth Short (or, The Black Dahlia as she’s better known) seems to fall in that later category. Occasionally a movie comes along that does the story justice.

When it comes to The Black Dahlia, I have found few people who can remember what the case was all about. Most people remember it involved a young lady in Hollywood who was an aspiring actress who was brutally murdered. They also seem to remember that The Black Dahlia murder has remained one of the most sensational unsolved mysteries in history.

When remembering The Black Dahlia, it’s important to remember what life was like back in the late 1940s, especially in Hollywood. So much has changed about the way we think of everything from Celebrities to gruesome murders, it is hard to imagine what it was like back then.

Perhaps, a renewed interest in the story of The Black Dahlia’s murder will inspire further investigation. We have come such a long way since 1947 in terms of understanding criminal behavior. We have more and better forensic tools available now that weren’t even dreamed of then. It is always possible we may never know exactly what happened to Elisabeth Short, who killed her, and-or why, but maybe a few fresh faces on the trail of her killer may shed some light on her story and lead us to new clues.

In many ways, The Black Dahlia’s murder reminds me of Jack The Ripper, another one of those sensational murders that, after so much time, the world started thinking that the case would never be closed. Every few years, a new movie would come out that would shed a slightly different perspective on something or give an alternative theory to the events. But then, a few years ago, novelist Patricia Cornwell and a team of forensic workers began taking a new, fresh look at the case and using modern forensic investigation techniques were able to shed some new light into the darker corners of the case. Using DNA evidence, they were able to link some elements of the story to specific people. If you’re even remotely curious, I’d suggest you check out her book Portrait of a Killer; Jack the Ripper - Case Closed.

June 11, 2006

Corky McGraw reviews The Omen

Filed under: Movie Reviews — Cork McGraw @ 8:18 am

Corky's Rating: 4 Stars 

Last night, I went and saw The Omen. I thought it was pretty good. Better than I expected, in some ways, and yet … kinda lacking in others.

Unfortunately, sometimes I just get into a certain mindset and its hard for me to shake it. In the recent past, they've started to remake a lot of the old horror classics. They've done a new (ok two new) Exorcist movies. They've remade The Stepford Wives as a comedy, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has been remade and a new prequel is being released later this year. The Hills Have Eyes (remade) - The Wicker Man (remaking) - House of Wax (remade - and Paris Hilton gets a pole through her head, YEAH!) - The Haunting was remade - The Fog was remade - are they running out of new ideas for Horror Movies?

One of the things that I liked best about this movie was who was in it. Seriously, when The Manchurian Candidate guy hires the woman who gave birth to Rosemary's Baby (aka Rosemary) as a nanny … or when he and the Harry Potter Werewolf guy goes to visit Dumbledore to find out how to kill the kid … although what they should have done was asked one of those Tabloid Reporters because he'd have known for sure, considering he played Damien in the original

I had to stop there - I was starting to confuse myself.

Like other recent remakes, this movie is a slightly updated version of the original. For example, the film uses the death of Pope John Paul II, September 11, Hurricane Katrina, and other recent catastrophes as signs of the Armageddon.

Unlike other recent remakes, the movie doesn't require the use of too many special effects, and doesn't need to scare you with too much gore. Yes, there is some gore and special effects - it's hard to decapitate the paparazzi without a little gore, for instance… it's the characters (or the actors who play them) that can really creep you out. The evil nanny just needs to smile politely at you to give you the shivers.

I gave the movie a 4 Star rating because I felt the movie was pretty well made, well acted, and beautifully shot. It pays enough homage to the original without going overboard - and tells you a good story with just the right ammount of everything, other than maybe Julia Stiles' acting ability. 

May 23, 2006

Corky McGraw Reviews The DaVinci Code

Filed under: Movie Reviews, Religon — Cork McGraw @ 2:37 pm

Corky's Rating: 4.5 Stars

This past weekend, I did get to see The DaVinci Code. Usually I am amongst the last of my friends to see just about any given film, but there are rare exceptions. This was one of them.

Generally speaking, I try watching a movie without too many expectations. This was a hard thing to do with the DaVinci Code - for a few reasons. First, pretty much anything Ron Howard does is going to be good (with film credits like Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, and Cinderella Man - it sometimes seems like you can't go wrong with him.) The other thing is that with all the press coverage on The DaVinci Code, all the people talking about it in their blogs - it's hard not to form at least a basic opinion on the film even before you see it. Much of the discussion about The DaVinci Code has centered around the topic of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - (which I have already briefly posted on). Of course, the Church thinks it's complete bull-duty; there are others that think it might just be possible. I am, though, one of those people who just love looking at alternative theories about history. So, that aspect of the storyline did, kind of, appeal to me. Do I think that the version of history presented in The DaVinci Code is correct? I don't know. I wasn't there. I've never met Jesus Christ or Mary Magdalene, but I swear when I was younger, I saw them making out in the parking lot of the Piggly-Wiggly. (Or was that Elvis and Amelia Earheart?) Sigh - Just kidding.

One of the things I enjoyed most about the film was in the way it was beautifully shot. I'm just a single guy, living paycheck to paycheck - and I am most likely never going to be able to see just about any place featured in the movie. I would love to spend the week going through the Louvre - or how about going through Roslyn Chapel - or maybe take a stroll through Westminster Abbey (although that was the one location in the film they could not get permission to film in). Reading the book, you could kind of envision these places - but in the film you could actually see it. It was almost like you were really there. Tom Hanks (especially when he's paired up with Ron Howard) is also usually good on film. Audrey Tautou, while still pretty new to English-speaking movies, seemed to play the role of Sophie pretty well.Ian McKellen as Teabing was an interesting role for him, although I thought someone of his caliber could have handled a few things a little better - not that his performance was bad, mind you. It almost seemed as if he was holding back.

When it comes to special effects, one scene in particular stood out. As Teabing was explaining that alternative theory of history - using, in part, DaVinci's The Last Supper - to Sophie, there were some interesting effects. Had they been able to develop the concept a tad bit more I think that scene (as well as the scene where Langdon was trying to crack the code with the missing orb) could have been a slight bit better.

I've given The DaVinci Code a four and a half star rating for two reasons. First, I think the movie could have been a slight bit better (although I really shouldn't compare it with Howard's other films) although a half-star's disappointment really isn't that much … and in part because the film could have captivated me a little bit more. The acting was great, although I wasn't touched by the characters nearly as much as I was when I was reading the book. But, still I felt it was, overall, pretty good.

April 26, 2006

That DaVinci Code Lawsuit

Filed under: Movie Reviews, Religon — Cork McGraw @ 1:51 pm

Several weeks ago, when I heard that the authors of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail were filing a lawsuit against Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, the first think that popped into my head was that this was probably nothing but a publicity stunt. I was one of those people who, back in 1993, after reading The Da Vinci Code for the first time, ran back to the bookstore to pick up Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and a number of other books on the same subject. And I wasn’t the only one - while the Da Vinci Code was climbing the bestseller lists, so was Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

When the lawsuit started, I noticed that a lot of people were, once again, running to the bookstores to buy The Da Vinci Code, as well as Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Having read both books, I didn’t pay that much attention to the lawsuit, the news reports, or the blog posts about the suit.

The judge’s ruling came down, finding in favor of Dan Brown - finding he did not plagiarize the other book, even though his book was based, in part, on the same subject matter. (Anyone who has read both books can find numerous parallels between the two books.)

The history of The Da Vinci Code is actually a kind of interesting lesson in how to promote, advertize, and market a book. First, there’s The Controversy - or, the element in the book that has so many Christians and Catholics up in arms. When you do something like this, of course people are going to talk about it, debate it, debunk as much of it as they can, and chances are, people on both sides of the fence are likely to go out and pick up a copy.

Secondly, there is Dan Brown’s Website. One of the features of his sites utilizes code-breaking games - giving you the chance to solve puzzles just like Langdon does in the book. Of course, some of those puzzles are a lot easier if you actually have a copy of the book in your hands. (How else will you know what the first word of the first letter of the 49th chapter is?)

One of the website puzzles was taken from the inside of the jacket of the hardcover book. When reading the inside cover of the dust jacket, one would notice that several of the letters appeared in bold typeface. If one would make note of those letters, apply a certain code-breaking technique, a secret message could be decoded.

Pretty good marketing strategy, if you think about it. What better way to get readers to pick up your book than by revealing that you’ve hidden extra secrets within the book or even on the cover.

So, what does all this have to do with the Holy Blood v. Da Vinci Code lawsuit? Would it surprise you to read that the judge has hidden a secret message in his ruling, a la Dan Brown’s website challenges?

Mr. Justice Peter Smith’s complete judgment can be found here. However, in order to find the secret message, one must view the PDF file version of his ruling. One will notice that certain letters in the document are printed in a bold typeface. (Sound familiar?)

Mr. Justice Peter Smith, as far as I have heard, refuses to give any information about the secret message, although he says he would "probably" confirm it if anyone was ever able to crack his code.

April 19, 2006

Those Unspoken Of Gay Characters…

Filed under: Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts — Cork McGraw @ 11:02 am

With all the recent talk about movies like Brokeback Mountain (movies where the main characters, and much of the plot-line involve homosexuality) it's easy to overlook all those movies and tv shows where the gay characters are in the background or in supporting roles.

It wasn't all that long ago that if a movie came out that had a gay character in it (even if that character only had a few lines) it seemed like it was a big deal. It wasn't that long ago that you just didn't see this sort of thing at all. It wasn't that long ago that gay themes had to be presented in some pretty odd ways.

I remember one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called The Outcast from Season 5 where the Enterprise encountered a planet where everyone was androgynous, except for a small percent of the population who identified as either Male or Female. Riker starts to develop feelings for one of the ones who consider herself female, and tries to save her when her planet's leaders discover this about her and force her to go through a procedure to make her androgynous, rather than female.

Cheers was another show that occasionally covered the topic of homosexuality. In fact, they won a Media Award from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) over an episode from the first season called The Boys In The Bar, where an old teammate of Sam's comes out as gay, and Cheers nearly becomes a gay bar in the process. In another episode, Norm tells some people he's gay in order to get a job. When his employers try to set him up on a date with a friend of theirs, he tells them he's straight and nearly loses his job.

On the show Three's Company, the main character, Jack wouldn't have been allowed to live with two women, so they told the landlords he was gay - although there was no doubt in anyone else's mind he was straight. In later episodes of Cagney and Lacey, Lacey discovers her new neighbor is gay. In The Golden Girls, Blanche's brother is gay, although he only appeared as a minor character twice. There was another episode where Dorothy finds out one of her friends is a lesbian (and has the hots for Rose).

Even in some of the popular British shows (available on PBS in most areas) had to be very careful (yet very obvious) in depicting gay characters. Even though it is never stated one way or another, there is no doubt at all that Mr. Humphries from Are You Being Served? was gay. In Keeping Up Appearances, we never quite meet the Bucket's son Sheridan, although he's obviously gay and often seems to be calling for money. (Mrs. Bucket never realizes her son is gay, although everyone else seems to know.)

It's important to remember that many of these shows came out when the subject of homosexuality was considered very taboo. The gay plot-lines were often either used either as something happening on the sidelines, or on rare occasions part of the subplot.

It was very rare to see gay characters dealing with some very gay issues. One of the best examples of this comes from the original Tracy Ullman Show. The first season featured sketches involving Francesca, who lived with her father, and William (her father's lover). In one episode, Francesca had to write a paper on what her family was like, but her teacher didn't like what she turned in because she came from a different type of family. By the end of the skit, the teacher recanted, realizing Francesca had two parents, just like everyone else, and maybe a little diversity is a good thing.

We have come such a long way since then. A show such as Will and Grace just wouldn't be possible when all these shows mentioned above were made. And definitely not shows like Showtime's Queer as Folk, or The L Word either. Even re-occurring gay characters like Stanford Blanche on Sex And The City would probably have pushed the envelope too much.

While these shows might not have been major events in the history of gay characters on TV and in the movies, I think it is important to remember that they did, in fact, pave the road to where we are now.

April 14, 2006

How Not To Critique A Film… (The Chronicles Of Narnia)

Filed under: Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts — Cork McGraw @ 1:32 pm

Another one of those things that really gets to me is how they critique a film. Often, reading someone's reactions to a film makes me wonder if they've ever seen the damned thing in the first place. Either that or it's so obvious they have some sort of political agenda because of the way they distort every little thing. Sometimes, it's actually funny … well, until you realize that someone can, and often do, take such reviews seriously.

To prove my point: Here is my review of the film: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe.

I watched this movie, expecting to see a good film with good Christian values. What I saw was nothing of the sort. Instead, I was confronted with themes such as magic, child endangerment, pedophilia, and even bestiality.

If you were one of those people who did not like the Harry Potter movies because you felt it promoted witchcraft and or paganism, this film is going to be no different. Once again we find ourselves facing a movie with the message that magic is good. One great example of this is the magic potion that features predominately in the film. The potion supposedly heals all physical wounds. When one of the major characters nearly dies on the battlefield, he is brought back to life by this magic potion. Do we really want our kids to start thinking that there are magical potions that could bring them or their friends back to life when they're knocking on death's door?

The movie starts innocently enough. Mother sends her children off to live with relatives during The War to keep them safe. But the youngest child, once she gets there, finds a magical wardrobe which transports her to a place called Narnia. Upon arriving in Narnia, she is greeted by someone who isn't wearing any pants, not even a shirt. In fact, all he wears at all is just a scarf. And what does he do when he meets the girl? He entices her back to his home. And he's got some pretty dastardly plans for her.

Now, I don't know about you - but if anybody thinks that there is anything good about a young girl running off with a man who never wears pants or shirts… that's not just wrong - that's SICK!

Oh, and I forgot to mention one thing - he's half animal, half man. Which brings us to the topic of bestiality. Considering he's half animal, half man we have to assume that one of his parents was human, the other animal - and once again, this is not the type of values I want a child thinking about.

In case you're thinking this is one of the bad guys - he isn't. In fact, he's one of the good guys. As we watch this film, we're led to pity him, and think he's one of our friends. Sick sick sick!

Throughout the film, we're introduced to many strange animals, in fact. Talking lions, beavers, wolves… again, promoting bestiality. The way bestiality is promoted by making these animals seem human, giving them human qualities.

These are just a few examples of why The Chronicles of Narnia can be considered one of the most disturbing movies ever made. And if all of this can happen in a PG Rated movie (not PG-13, not R, not NC-17) then I shudder to think of what's in store in the future.

(please note: While I did write this review, I did so only to prove a point - and not because I agree with any of the subject matter. In fact, I don't really agree with any part of the movie review.) 

April 4, 2006

Those Gay Cowboy Films…

Filed under: Gay, Gay Movies, Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts — Cork McGraw @ 11:02 am

Today, Brokeback Mountain came out on DVD, (yes, I already bought my copy, thanks for asking) and just like I expected, the Blogsphere has been filling up with Brokeback Posts. (I also got The Chronicles of Narnia at the same time, and I am wondering if that is sacrilegious.)

Most of the comments I've been reading on people's blogs (other than the posts where some straight dude is debating if he should rent Brokeback Mountain or not) are starting to sound like there has never been a cowboy movie with gay people in it. So, to compliment my most recent post, I thought I would share with you a brief list of cowboy movies for gay people…

Blazing saddles (1974)
- Mel Brooks' takes on the Old West isn't exactly a gay themed movie, but what the heck. It's hysterical. It really isn't your typical cowboy movie, although all the cowboy stereotypes are picked on. And if you can't picture some drag queen doing Madeline Kahn's "I'm Tired" number, you weren't paying attention. Or, maybe, like me, you had to run to change your pants because you laughed so hard you peed…

Wagons East (1994) - While the main attraction to this movie just may be John Candy's next-to-last film (unless you're a Star Trek: Voyager fan) - John C. McGinley's flamboyantly gay character can't be forgotten. Yes, that's the same guy who plays Dr. Cox on Scrubs - so trust me, it's worth it. He's … um … FABULOUS!

Midnight Cowboy (1969) - This seems to be another one of those movies everyone forgot about. When it first came out, because of the homosexual situations and homoerotic themes, the film was given an X-rating. In fact, it's gone down in history as being the only X-rated film to ever have received an Academy Award. Fortunately, the ratings people eventually relaxed a bit and the film was later allowed to have an R-rating. However, considering when the film was made - it is definitely worth a look and a mention here.

Ok, I know - that's only three. Unfortunately, I'm running out of time, for now. Happy Watching!

March 31, 2006

Those Forgotten Gay Films

Filed under: Gay, Gay Movies, Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts — Cork McGraw @ 12:45 pm

Yeah, I know - I've told a few people I wouldn't add to the seemingly endless posts about Brokeback Mountain. I swear, sometimes it seems like everyone either thinks it's the best movie ever made, or the worst. Me? I haven't seen it yet, and am patiently waiting for it to come out on DVD next week.

Many of those who love Brokeback Mountain seem to think it is the first gay movie ever made. Or, maybe they think it's the only gay movie that ever won an award. I hate to say this - but both statements are wrong. Here's a short list of a few movies you may like: (in no particular order)

The Crying Game (1992) - was one of those movies that most people never would have noticed had it not been nominated for six Academy Awards. (Best Editing, Original Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Jaye Davidson), Actor (Stephen Rea), Best Director (Neil Jordan), and Best Picture.) It did, in fact, win for Best Original Screenplay. It's the story of what happens when a kidnap victim befriends one of his IRA Terrorist captors and asks that after they kill him, that the guy go find his girlfriend and let her know he was thinking of her when he died. The terrorist guy does exactly this, but falls for the guy's girlfriend - only to find they have a lot more in common than they realize (wink) … Yes, there are some gay twists. And not just Lyle Lovett singing "Stand By Your Man" either.

Boys Don't Cry (1999) - is yet one more of those gay movies that had it not been for the Academy Awards, nobody would have seen it. Hillary Swank (who later went on to do it again with Million Dollar Baby) did win the Best Actress award. The movie is supposedly based on the true story of Brandon Teena/Teena Brandon - although I highly disagree with that. You can read my article on that here. If you forget that it is supposed to be a true story, Swank does an amazing job transforming herself into Teena/Brandon, and did deserve to beat out people like Anette Bening, Julianne Moore, and Meryl Streep for that Best Actress Award.

Angels In America (2003) - Staring Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Emma Thompson, Mary Louise Parker, Meryl Streep, Mary Louise Parker, Emma Thompson and … ok, just watch the movie and you'll understand. The movie totally swept up multiple awards at both the Golden Globes and the Emmy Awards (Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, just to name a few) I was a little reluctant at first to watch the six hour movie, but honestly after those six hours were over, I wish it could go on another six hours. The play (and therefore the movie as well) is just so F'int brillant, you just can't get enough.

The Children's Hour (1961)
- Wait a minute. Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine as lesbian lovers? Maybe, just maybe. It isn't the best movie Hepburn or MacLaine ever made, but it was a movie from the 60s (and a play from even before then) that dealt with topics like lesbianism.

To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar (1995) - might not be one of the best films ever, but it isn't all that bad. In fact, I think that both Patric Swayze and Wesley Snipes did a little too good of a job playing drag queens. Stockard Channing and Blythe Danner are awesome as well, and the cameo apperances from people such as RuPaul and Robin Williams (who plays John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt) and of course, Julie Newmar, make this movie quite fun.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen Of The Desert (1994) - When Terrance Stamp, Hugo Weaving, and Guy Pearce all play drag queens, you'd better expect something a little different - and that pretty much discribes Priscilla. Ok, Priscilla was the bus, but you know what I mean.

In And Out (1997) - Debbie Reynolds in a gay movie? Ain't going to happen. Just kidding. You know we love you, Debbie, more than we love our luggage. Kevin Kline does an awesome job trying to convince us his character is straight, just as Tom Selleck does an awesome job trying to convince us his character is gay. I'm not sure if Joan Cusack is really doomed to only marry gay guys, but …

Six Degrees of Seperation (1993) - Will Smith in this movie plays a gay man. Well, he plays a guy who likes to have gay sex when he's happy. His sexuality is kind of a side point considering what else the character does and stands for (claiming to be Sidney Poitier's son). It is, still, a movie that one ought to catch.

Far From Heaven (2002) - This was one of those movies I almost passed by before I realized it might be interesting. Once I started watching it, I couldn't turn away. Julianne Moore plays a woman who discovers her husband's homosexuality (the hard way) and deals with it by having an affair with a black man. Did I mention that the story takes place in the 1950s?

Basic Instinct (1992) - Who can forget all the bisexual hoopla over Basic Instinct - not to mention the protests from that group calling themselves Catherine Did It. Yeah, I know - their attempts to boycott the film just made everyone want to see it more. Oops.

Desert Hearts (1985) - This Mid-80s lesbian drama is a great film and proves that homosexuality can exist on the screen and not be offensive. (Ok, as a gay man, I almost find that the legnthy lesbian sex scene was a bit … ok, maybe not.)

But I Am A Cheerleader (1999) - This was another one of those movies I didn't think much of until I reluctantly started to watch it - and found it to be much better than I feared. Ok, any film where RuPaul plays a "heterosexual" has got to be interesting, although she's (I mean, he's) no match for Cathy Moriarty.

Even Cowgirls Get The Blues (1993) - Uma Thurman as a girl with big thumbs, based on the Tom Robbins novel, and if that isn't enough for you, I have but three more words for you. Lesbian Dude Ranch.

Midnight In The Garden of Good And Evil (1997) - Clint Eastwood (Dirty Harry himself) directed this movie, a supposedly true story based on John Berendt's bestselling book. Yes, Jude Law does play a gay guy (which isn't really all surprising, considering he's done that several times) but I think the real star of the show is Miss Chablis - a character so unique that they couldn't find anyone good enough to play her, so they got her to play herself.

And The Band Played On (1993) - Let's say I told you there was a gay movie with everyone (pretty much) who's anyone in it? I'm talking Matthew Modine, Alan Alda, Phil Collins, Richard Gere, Angelica Houston, Steve Martin, Ian McKellen, Lily Tomlin, D.B. Wong, Swoosie Kurtz. The only person you swore shoulda been in the movie but isn't was Mary Louise Parker, but we forgive her after such amazing performances in both Angels In America and Boys On The Side. The book by Randy Shultz is classic, and can't be compared to the movie, however this film is one of the best and most honest portrayals of the AIDS Crisis in the early 80s.

Blog at WordPress.com.