http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:25:42 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/05/222542.php Tom ShugartWolf vs. BruckheimerIn the ongoing battle between TV production giants Dick Wolf and Jerry Bruckheimer, Wolf has raised the ante with his newest permutation of the Law and Order format, "Law and Order: Trial by Jury."Premiering Thursday night, Wolf's latest effort once again displayed the kind of tight scripting that has built the franchise into such a solid force. In the production wars, Bruckheimer, creator of the CSI franchise, may win for snazzy production-value, but Wolf takes the scripting prize hands down.I've heard that Wolf's group of writers is the only writing team in Hollywood whose average age is over 40. It shows, and I mean that in the good sense. Of course, my opinion on this is immediately suspect, seeing as how I'm well north of forty.But, discounting my bias, there's something to be said for writing that's forged out of some longevity of life experience. The perpetually clueless television executives, who lust after the coveted youth audience (because these are the people whose buying habits are still in a state of flux), have all concluded (Wolf excepted) that they have to employ writers who aren't dry behind the ears in order to be relevant to the desired audience.Suffering one flop after another, they've now figured out that they can dispense with the writers altogether by going for the "reality" format.Despite Wolf's capabilites, I do have a couple of minor quibbles with the new show: what is a guy with a slow southern drawl (Fred Thompson) doing as the New York District Attorney? Everybody knows that real-life NY DA's are rapid-tongued Italians or Jews, spitting out words at the rate of an AK-47.And, as always with all the Law and Orders, the assistant (Amy Carlson) to the assistant DA (nicely played by the talented Bebe Neuwirth ) is eye candy. Not to disparage Carlson's abilities (the jury is out on that--pardon the pun), but can't they come up with a normal-looking person? The men aren't hunks. So why do the women always have to be so fetching?I'm stupid for asking, you would retort--and you would be right. Next you would ask, "why would I mind?" You got me there. If the woman can act--then what the hell--bring on the eye goodies.Anyway, Bruckheimer and Wolf are certainly ruling the roost for the time being (in standard broadcast TV, that is. I'm not including HBO greats like Brad Grey and Alan Ball. It may be TV, but it's hardly the same medium). Alas, nothing is permanent in TVLand. Despite their current domination, the force of these two whirlwinds will at some point begin to fade and pass on, just as it did with the previous king of the producers, David Kelley. Here's hoping that the next big producer phenom will possess the ability to combine both the slick production-value acumen of Jerry Bruckheimer and the scripting chops of Dick Wolf.Most likely, he/she will have to be extra-talented in both areas in order to compete with the Reality-TV juggernaut that threatens to take over the airwaves. Video26347@blogcritics.org Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:25:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/28/175825.php Tom ShugartMuch to my amazement, every winner last night of the major Oscar award categories was exactly the person or film for which I would have voted were I a member of the Academy. I don't think that's ever happened before. Either I'm becoming clairvoyant, or the Academy is becoming more discerning and astute in its selections.Hilary Swank for Empress of Everything!I do have a complaint, however. The ceremonies keep becoming more tightly managed. Real spontaneity is a thing of the past. They're just not that much fun anymore. Host Chris Rock's comment was apropos:"Next year, we'll give out the awards in the parking lot. We'll have a drive-thru lane where you can pick up your statue, whisked through by a traffic cop who keeps the line moving."I remember watching the Oscars when they first started being televised (1953). There were no controls, it was just three or four cameras pointed at the proceedings, with a slight time-delay to bleep out any obscenities. There was no script. It was like telecasting a sporting event-whatever happens, happens.There was no time limit on the speeches. You would get the occasional drunk, lots of good repartee, and much free-flowing high spirits. It was great fun, even if most of the acting awards were based on sentimental favorites rather than artistic merit.It's ironic, isn't it, that in the age of "reality" television, with its alarming reduction in scripted shows, a real event like the Oscars becomes so scripted. Video26136@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:58:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/11/21/003522.php Tom ShugartThis must be one of most amazing bequests in the history of philanthropy. Ruth Lilly, 87-year old heiress to the Eli Lilly fortune, has set up a $100 million endowment fund for the venerable Poetry Magazine. No, that's not a typo - that's ONE HUNDRED million smackers!Poetry Magazine has been a hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-its-ass operation for generations. They have a staff of four operating out of cramped quarters in Chicago. Through thick and thin - mostly thin - they've managed to keep putting out an intelligently edited and influential publication. Can you imagine how those staffers must feel? The magazine's contributors will now be able to receive a nice increase over the customary rate of two dollars per line. Poetry Magazine will now be able to live as long as the Earth itself.If there's a heaven, Ruth Lilly has surely bought herself an express ticket. Books1952@blogcritics.org Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:35:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/17/231829.php Tom ShugartIs it just me, or has West Wing gone from boffo to stinko? I loved that show for its first two seasons, but now I find it nearly insufferable. Martin Sheen is great as always, but he isn't enough to carry the show by himself. I can't stand listening to those politico smart-asses with their machine-gun delivery of sleep-inducing minutiae of political maneuvering. If the Democrats were really like that, then, heresy of heresies, they deserved to lose. There's no suspense at all. Do they expect us to believe that Sheen is going to lose his bid for re-election, thereby ending the show? And what about that conflagration with some imaginary Middle Eastern dictator? What a pathetic attempt at being topical! I read somewhere that the audience is down over a third from last year, and dropping. Add me to the reduction. Video1364@blogcritics.org Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:18:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/08/183221.php Tom ShugartHow about the piece on 60 Minutes concerning the Fundamentalist Christian Right's maniacal support for Israel? On its face, that sounds like a good thing. Isn't it nice that this group, usually stamped as closed-minded, has opened its heart--and its pocket book--to its Jewish brethren?You would be correct if you find yourself having the reaction that it couldn't be that simple. Seems that, according to the Fundamentalist interpretation of Prophecy, the Jews need to be in control of all of Israel/Palestine--from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River--as a prelude to the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming.And what happens to the Jews after that, you might be impertinent enough to ask? Turns out that most of them are slaughtered in the battle, and the ones that remain are converted to Christ. Well, isn't that just peachy? A tip of the hat to all you great Jewish guys for holding off those pesky Muslims so that you can be killed in the name of The Messiah that you never accepted in the first place. Or if you're lucky enough to survive, you can renounce the faith of your fathers and be granted entry to the fold of the True Chosen Ones.Is there anything scarier than those--I don't care what the faith is--that absolutely KNOW the word and will of The Almighty? How about those Freddy Krueger clergy (Jerry Falwell included) interviewed by Bob Simon in his excellent piece? Some samples of their inspired-Word-of-God opinions: Mohammed was a terrorist; Rabin's assassination was the will of God; the Palestinians should all be sent packing into Jordan; there should be more, not less West Bank settlements; the Oslo Accords are the work of the Devil, and so on. The scariest part is that this Right-believing group is now a significant portion of our electorate--40 to 70 million by various estimates. They are now the core constituency of one of our major political parties. You have to be almost as old as I am to remember when the Republican Party was primarily a business-class, internationalist, civil-rights supporting group with a healthy internal liberal-conservative debate. When was the last time you heard of a "Rockefeller Republican?"George W has learned the lesson well--whatever you do; don't alienate the new core constituency. And doesn't that tell us a lot about the context of Middle East policy being forged in his administration? As the 60 Minutes piece showed, there's a backdrop for the belligerency. Video1170@blogcritics.org Tue, 8 Oct 2002 18:32:21 EDT