Thank God scientists finally found the missing link (aka Darwinius masillae, aka “Ida”). Now we can at last prove Charles Darwin right and be done with films like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as well as all the seemingly pro-science movies that inadvertently ruined the theory of evolution. We now look forward to the “Ida” biopic, or at least a movie detailing the 26 years (give or take 47 million) it took for the discovery of her fossil to become a mainstream media sensation. Never mind that this is hardly the missing link between apes and humans. With almost 50 years passed since the release of Inherit the Wind, film-loving Darwinists need some kind of missing link story to grab onto.
It is true that cinema has not been so kind to Darwinism, giving us such mockeries as Evolution, Howard the Duck and Creature from the Black Lagoon. But filmmakers have consistently shown a special love for the concept of the missing link, at least. Although many movies depict the idea with little seriousness, and some feature negative portrayals of primitive monsters, there are a number of truly lovable creatures that represent the concept of the missing link on film. Check them out after the jump. …Read more
Yesterday’s list dealt with Tom Cruise’s performance in Tropic Thunder. Today, a response to Robert Downey Jr.’s role in the same film as a white actor portraying a black soldier in a war movie (seen in the above clip). Doesn’t it seem such an original and shocking idea? I guess not if you see it as an update on blackface. Fortunately, it’s different when it’s an actor playing a character who makes himself up to look black. It’s funny. But isn’t it typically more acceptable when the make-up isn’t quite as authentic-looking as Downey’s? He actually looks black. Specifically, he looks like Fred Williamson.
I’ve seen plenty of lists detailing the worst instances of one race or nationality playing characters of another race/nationality (John Wayne and Susan Hayward in The Conquerorcomes to mind as #1), but I can’t recall any lists involving actors playing characters disguised as or playing another race. So here’s one:
Christina Crawford––adopted daughter of Joan Crawford, and author of Mommie Dearest, the woe-is-me memoir on which the Faye Dunaway camp classic was based––has always had a bizarre/brilliant way of promoting herself. This week, the woman who is only famous for having been adopted by a celebrity is promoting a 30th anniversary edition of her memoir about being adopted by a celebrity by saying that celebrities shouldn’t adopt. From The Guardian:
“I have tremendous concerns about celebrity adoptions by people like Madonna and Angelina Jolie,” she said in an exclusive interview to mark the publication of a 30th anniversary edition of her memoir. “From the adoptee’s point of view, it is vitally important to know who they are, where they came from, or it can have profound medical and psychological effects.”
Crawford alleges that her mother, who was one of the biggest film stars of Hollywood’s Golden Age, adopted her four children for publicity purposes…When asked if today’s celebrities are driven by the same motivation, she replied: “What do you think? Why are they so keen on getting the maximum newspaper and magazine coverage?”
Of course, taking advantage of one’s relationship to a celebrity to attract media attention, and then using that opportunity to rail against how celebrities shouldn’t do things to attract media attention, is completely different. And none of this has anything to do with that new book about Joan Crawford, recently excerpted in Vanity Fair, which basically contends that Mommie Dearest was pure fiction manufactured by Christina in a desperate ploy for attention. Why can’t you give her the respect that she’s entitled to?!?!
Almost three years ago, after Diary of a Mad Black Woman opened to big box office but largely negative reviews (16% on Rotten Tomatoes, in spite of fairly sympathetic reviews from EW and the New York Times) Lionsgate gave up even screening Tyler Perry films for critics. This is not an unprecedented move for Lionsgate–the studio’s bread and butter is the kind of disposable horror film that opens and closes on the whims of teenage boys, who are generally not dedicated readers of film reviews. But it does seem unusual in terms of demographics: Tyler Perry is the only filmmaker I can think of who is making films for and about middle-class adults–people who do read newspapers, even if they don’t necessarily use them as a guide for cultural consumption–whose movies are routinely denied entrance into critical discourse.
Sure, the NYT will send a critic to a Friday matinee and publish a review in Saturday’s paper, but the very fact that they have to exercise effort on this almost guarantees that the review will be dismissive. Compare second-chair critic Stephen Holden’s review of Diary to Anita Gates’ review, in the same paper, of Perry’s next film, Madea’s Family Reunion. Holden acknowledges that Perry has a built-in (black, middle-class, female) audience that doesn’t include (white, middlebrow, middle-aged, male) him, and then procedes to take Diary seriously enough to consider the film on its own terms. Gates, meanwhile, finds Madea’s very premise suspect. “What is it about fat-lady drag that appeals to so many young black male comedians?” she asks, but doesn’t attempt to answer.
But could the tide be turning? It seems significant that mainstream critics are now going out of their way to defend Perry’s latest film.
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Almost three years ago, after Diary of a Mad Black Woman opened to big box office but largely negative reviews (
