I wasn't up to watch Mira Sorvino and Academy President Sid Ganis announce the Oscar nominations this morning, but here they are. The gay cowboys lead with eight.

Mira, of course, won Best Supporting Actress for Mighty Aphrodite in 1996.

Read the 2006 Academy Award Nominations here.

The Washington Post is running a story on how the debate about climate change is shifting to the issue of irreversibility--whether or not the change is happening so rapidly that we may be unable to stop it. The tipping point scenario has been gaining attention. As the article says, some places have already reached it, such as Kiribati, which can't do anything about it because they have no power.

Read the story here.

"A pollster for the Conservative Party called me last Sunday, the day before the election, and asked me if their party had my support. 'From everything I have learned about your party,' I told him, 'I'm surprised that you're working today.'"

"Olympic Filler with Brian Williams" was also a treat.

I read one critic commenting on Annapolis and conceding that every generation probably needs its "An Officer and a Gentleman." It's a fun, entertaining film with decent male leads and a cute girl, and for those reasons it is worth the money. But don't expect James Franco and Jordana Brewster to live up to Gere and Winger, or Cruise and McGillis--just enjoy Annapolis for what it is.

In fact, there are even some welcome throwbacks to greater movies of the past, such as the "Top Gun" moment when Jake tries to impress a pretty girl in the bar with talk of going to the Naval Academy, only to discover the next morning that she is one of his instructors. There is also the dilemma about quitting or not, right after the partner dies when attempting to eject from their F-14 fighter...oh, wait a minute, wrong movie. In this one, Goose attempts to commit suicide by jumping from a sixth-floor window after flunking out, but doesn't succeed, and is grateful for the second chance to make good on life. And Rocky doesn't attend to his managers' advice once he gets in the ring--yes, there's boxing.

At the end Jake and his tough commanding officer (Cole, played by Tyrese Gibson) develop a firm mutual respect and Jake and Ali get together like they should. You see, why wouldn't you want to see this film?

The new film Tristan & Isolde, directed by Ryan Reynolds, about a knight and a princess caught in a love triangle in medieval England, is a very enjoyable story of romance, intrigue, and tragedy that is well worth the price of admission, and I recommend it highly.

Now that that has been said, however, if you are going to see the film expecting to be introduced to a great medieval fable you are only deceiving yourself. Other than the names of the characters and the fact of the love triangle itself, there is not a strand of faithfulness to the original literary sources here. The traditional story has been almost entirely reinvented to construct a thoroughly modern romantic drama that will appeal to modern moviegoers.

The earliest stories of Tristan and Isolde are from medieval French romances and are set in Ireland, Cornwall, and Brittany in France. In a disconnected set of French romances from the late middle ages known collectively as the Vulgate Cycle, Tristan is absorbed by the Camelot and Grail myths and becomes the most popular of all the knights of King Arthur's Round Table. In Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, our most important source, Sir Tristram de Lyonesse is the son of Mark's sister, and travels to Tintagel in order to fight Marhalt to earn knighthood. They tilt in plain sight on an island, and although Tristan kills Marhalt, a poisoned wound forces him to seek out the Irish king, whose daughter is assigned to treat him. When it is finally revealed that he has killed their family member, Tristan leaves, and pledges himself as Isolde's noble knight forever. This isn't love, but only chivalry, and after a number of adventures with King Arthur's knights, Tristan convinces Mark to marry Isolde, and travels back to Ireland to escort her to Tintagel. Only then does the plot thicken.

Unwittingly, the two drink a love potion that is intended for Mark, and fall in unintended love. This makes their forbidden love a result of a random enchantment, and the rest of the story is about the chaos this wreaks in the natural order of things. Tristan and Mark's loyal friendship is gradually eroded, and they live out their lives as personal enemies, always scheming against one another. At the end of the stories, Isolde comes upon the dying Tristan and dies herself, either of heartbreak in his arms, or by suicide.

In Wagner's famous opera, Isolde is betrothed to Marhalt, whom Tristan subsequently kills. In his version, their love is spontaneous, and in the boat they agree that because of this betrayal they must seek atonement through suicide. Isolde's nurse replaces the poison with the love potion. They therefore reach Tintagel in an uncontrollable delirium that drives the story. Eventually, Tristan allows himself to be mortally wounded in a duel with Melot, who has accused him and Isolde.

The divergence between these traditions and the spirit of this movie couldn't be greater, unlike two of the most compelling, recent historical dramas that have been directed by Ridley Scott, Tristan & Isolde's producer. Although major plot points of "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven" diverge from the historical record, they are distinguished by historical plausibility. In Gladiator, Scott created a non-existent but compelling protagonist, Maximus, secretly the designated heir of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, to do battle with Commodus and finally kill him in the Colosseum, although historically Commodus was assassinated. In 2005's Kingdom of Heaven, Scott took even greater liberties with the story of the defender of Jerusalem in the Second Crusade, but again the historical sensitivity and plausibility of the story is profound, particularly the distinction between the noble Muslims and the childlike Christian barbarians, a civilizational and ethical contrast faithful to the historical reality that cuts through the Christian misrepresentations that have dominated in the West.

Reynolds suffers from none of these sensitivities. Although the sources for Tristan and Isolde vary in plot and are literary, not historical, in nature, the violence he does to them in constructing his blockbuster is astonishing. The events in the film are invented mostly from scratch, and are mainly unrecognizable. The movie begins with a non-existent raid where Tristan's parents are killed, then there is no jousting with Marhalt but an arbitrary scrap, then Tristan makes it to Ireland already having been buried at sea in a burning boat that never sinks when Isolde finds and hides him. Then there is poetry--by John Donne, no less, who won't even be born for 1100 years after the story ends. After this, Tristan escapes from Ireland without being seen and returns to D'Or--for some reason it's not called Tintagel--where they have managed to build a Norman keep five hundred years ahead of its time.

The director then discards the crucial plot point of all the traditional stories--the love potion intended for King Mark that the protagonists drink by mistake--and swaps it for an ancient device deemed more believable for a modern audience: a case of mistaken identity that causes Tristan unwittingly to win his beloved Isolde to be the wife of another man. This transforms the story from a moral commentary on the interaction of cosmic forces--magic, duty and knightly values--into a watered-down modern conflict: personal honour versus the power of love. The moral compass thus replaced is epitomized by Isolde's question, "Why does it feel so wrong to love you?" and Tristan's comment at the boat launch: "We can't do this, otherwise people will say that our love brought down a kingdom."

"People will say." Obviously, the fabled love and courage of a great knight of yore doesn't amount to a hill of beans in our crazy world. Tristan turns out to have slightly too much of a legacy to commit his heart completely, while Isolde can't commit quite enough of her own to die fittingly of heartbreak in his arms.

Although Tristan & Isolde makes for an enjoyable evening, it subordinates its moral core so completely to its need to qualify as a teary date movie that it gets all its messages confused. One might even say that Tristan and Isolde without enchantment and mutual death is a colossal postmodern cop-out equal in scale to filming Homer's Iliad with all the gods subtracted. But no one would ever attempt to do something as foolish as that, would they? Surely, any filmmaker so emptied of courage to try would be better advised to make Star Wars without the Force, or Superman without flight.

Yes that's right. I am shocked and stunned, but Clark told Lana who he really is! I have just started to watch Thursday's Smallville episode and Clark has told Lana who he is. I can't believe it.

For those of you who don't watch Smallville, this is the moment we have all been waiting for for the last five years. Sometimes it comes so close, but things always happen to prevent it.

The first indication that it was going to happen was that Lana showed up in the barn saying that she had brought gloves and a scarf as he asked. They went to the cave and Clark, terrified, told her that what he was about to show her might change the way she felt about him. And then he inserted the key transporting them to the Fortress of Solitude, and finally told her the truth. And then he flew with her up to a summit, crushed the piece of coal he was holding in his hand into a diamond, welded it into place on the mounting of a golden ring, and proposed!

And after so much waiting, so much hand-wringing, the moment was every bit as superlative as we have all hoped it would be. Fantastic! I was cheering. And this wasn't a dream, since after the opening credits he told his parents that he had just done it.

Okay, I have only watched five minutes of this episode, and it is a good bet that there will be some extenuating circumstance that voids it all. But I hope not, because although Smallville is one of my favourite shows, my patience is running out, and I can't handle many more on-again-off-again plot points before I get completely frustrated.

Now, we know that Lana and Clark never end up together permanently, but it's time that the next phase of the story took place, with him and her trying to make this consciously otherworldly romance work--or not. I will update this post when I finish watching, but I truly hope this is truly it.

[Note -- It's 10:53 PM. I have finished the episode. Click below to read on and find out what happened...]

28 January 1986 was a Thursday, and at T+74.587 seconds I was in Mrs. Parry's English class in Grade 10 when someone out in the hallway told us in surprise that the Space Shuttle had just blown up. Not much else worth remembering or discussing happened during the rest of that day.

Where were you when the Challenger exploded? Lift-off took place at 11:38 a.m. EST.

After seven years, the American Film Institute's list of the Top 100 American films still remains unconquered by me. So during this relatively slow season of new film releases I am catching up, having rented and experienced the following six brilliant films in the past two weeks.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) -- No. 13

"One day the war will be over. And I hope that the people that use this bridge in years to come will remember how it was built and who built it. Not a gang of slaves, but soldiers, British soldiers, Clipton, even in captivity." In a commentary on the futility of war, David Lean directed this film about British POWs in Burma during the Second World War and the bridge they build. Alec Guinness won the Best Actor Oscar for portraying Colonel Nicholson, the British colonial officer whose immediate dedication to his men and to British army ideals almost blinds him to his responsibility as a soldier at war. In his final seconds, Nicholson recognizes his error and destroys the enemy bridge in which he has invested the entire self-worth of his men.

This past Monday I wasn't exactly glued to the coverage of the Canadian Federal Election, since I was too busy watching far more important things (24 and Surface if you're interested). But that didn't stop me from noticing a major shortcoming of the election coverage by all the Canadian news outfits.

There were no maps.

In a decade when a distinctive trend in North American elections is the growing power of what Americans call "the Heartland" and when rural areas enjoy disproportionate representation compared to major urban areas in national legislatures, you would think that country-wide maps showing the distribution of each party's seats would be a staple of election coverage.

However, the only maps I saw were small city maps of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, where the victorious Conservative Party won not a single seat. For all you Americans, this phenomenon is somewhat similar to having a Presidential candidate win the White House and yet lose California, New York and Texas.

Being unable to see maps of the entire country with, for example, the province of Alberta coloured completely blue, can seriously obscure a viewer's understanding of the political forces at play, and in my opinion was a big oversight by the news agencies.

(P.S. Here the Conservatives are blue and the Liberals are red, and we also have orange, light blue, green and grey just to make it interesting.)

The New Economist blog has quoted an intriguing story today from the Financial Times by MIT's Yasheng Huang about the differences in economic growth styles between China and India, and the lessons to be learned are on China's side.

Whereas China's growth has been due mainly to a massive increase in accumulated resources, resulting from their continued investments of approximately 50% of GDP in domestic plant and equipment, India's growth is a result of increasing efficiency. Furthermore, the world-class manufacturing facilities which China is known for are not due to internal Chinese development: they come from other people's money acquired through foreign direct investment. India, on the other hand, is best known for its homegrown products and companies, such as Infosys, which are the result of an entrepreneurial business environment that bodes well for the country's future.

The article goes on to explain that the different strategies and economic histories of India and China indicate potentially very different prospects for each, and that India will outperform China in the coming decades unless China undertakes "bold institutional reforms."

Here is another article on the article by Mark Thoma.

Salon.com is reporting that "On Sunday, NBC announced that the current season of 'The West Wing' would be its last. After seven seasons, the show will go off the air in May."

Goodbye to the greatest television drama ever produced. See my comments from a couple of weeks ago.

It has been a great run, and it leaves in style. I love it when great television shows choose when to end, instead of being forced to.

Kate Beckinsale in Underworld: Evolution

In her Salon.com film review of Underworld: Evolution, Stephanie Zacharek says that, "Kate Beckinsale's latex-clad bod is all there is to recommend about this gory Gothic sequel."

That's not exactly true, but even if it was, why would you be complaining? Were it not for Ingrid Bergman, there would be no one in Hollywood history to rival Kate Beckinsale's beauty, and I would be happy to pay to watch any film she is in five times.

But although the plot of Underworld: Evolution may not be able to stand up as an original film, it is a great sequel. It is full of acrobatics, adrenaline and suspense, and the art direction, cinematography and overall feel of the film never disappoint.

I might go and see it again.

I have just heard Roger, Rick, and Marilyn on the CHUM-FM Morning Show in Toronto tell me that Joey is on "permanent hiatus". I saw that they have no new epsiodes scheduled, but I didn't count on the worst-case scenario.

This show has never been given a fair shake by the fans of Friends, and it is a shame. After the first few episodes, the stories really came together and Joey and family have certainly delivered. Yet another good show is gone while we have to put up with rehashed reality TV. How many more monotonous seasons of castaways, boys and girls who can't find love, and competent professionals determined to waste their lives by working for Trump do we have to endure?

The last winner of The Apprentice has five academic degrees and owns a multi-million dollar consulting firm. What kind of strange, twisted psychopathology makes him want to work for Donald Trump?

Here is another hilarious posting from my friend Corey.

Sprint Can Go Die
It's not that I'm against productivity or working some extra hours, but this giant ad in the airport astonished me by proposing the worst idea of all time.

For all you Star Trek addicts--and I hope there are at least some of you reading this--have you ever wondered what the images are in the opening credits sequence of Star Trek Enterprise? Here they are.

Enterprise Opening Credits Images

The three human close-ups are, in order, Chuck Yeager with his sound-breaking Bell X-1 aircraft, astronaut Allan Shepard just prior to the Apollo 14 launch, and rocket theorist Dr. Robert Goddard writing on the blackboard with his back to the screen.

Ten seconds after my last posting, perhaps Iran hasn't learned quite so much so fast.

That wasn't even a minor penalty: CNN got off with an offside call. Don't these guys watch hockey?

CNN allowed to resume operations in Iran after apology.

I'll bet they are.

In a connected world, even the superpower and its storytellers can be seriously stung by receiving five minutes for high-sticking. Maybe Iran is making some progress after the Holocaust denial that didn't go over so well. Denial of access is how to really stick it to the man.

So much for the "sanctions have no impact so we have to bomb them" theory.

Read the Forbes article here.

And that is that "Good Night, and Good Luck" was shut out by a couple of gay cowboys. Why is it that all you have to do to be noticed is have an angle on homosexuality? Whatever happened to good classic love stories and insightful journalism?

Well, if you care, here are the winners from this evening.

On the ever-shrinking plus side, good for Reese and Joachin.

There is an excellent comment on Slashdot about political issues concerning energy. No, it's not just more Iraq War stuff, and I found it insightful enough to bring it to your attention here.

Slashdot Comment by user ralphclark

If you wish you may find the parent article here: Galileo Sends Its First Signals

Entertainment Weekly has a great article contemplating possible Oscar nominations for all the major categories. Read The Oscar Race Begins and their utterly fantastic Oscar 2006 Cheat Sheet to monitor all the possible nominees' previous showings in the on-going awards season--this one's a treat!

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire just surpassed Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith as the biggest of 2005's films.

It also looks like Narnia will take the bronze and King Kong will probably not rise higher than fifth if it's lucky.

Reuters reports that the new Smallville spin-off series about Aquaman has been cast.

Read the release here.

This week TV is back from the holidays, and the new episodes of all our favourite shows are airing. I watch nine shows, eight of which are playing now. I know, it sounds like a lot, but who cares. They are, in order of favour:

1. Gilmore Girls

One Thursday evening in October of 2000 I happened to casually switch on the television and was welcomed with the opening credits for a new show whose series premiere was airing for the first time that day. The title credits were superimposed on a vista overlooking a small town dressed in red and orange autumn leaves, and from the very first moments I was hooked on Gilmore Girls. Since then, Lorelai and Rory have stuck with me through thick and thin, and I with them. There is not much use in my explaining what I love so much about this show, since it would all be very familiar, but the genius in the conversation must be mentioned. It is some of the smartest and most current writing on television. If something happens in popular culture, two weeks later you will often see it on Gilmore Girls with a characteristic quip. And who can possibly resist falling in love with Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham)?

Currently in its sixth season, Lorelai rules on Tuesdays at 10:00 p.m. on The WB. View the Gilmore Girls Episode Guide

2. Battlestar Galactica

I found Battlestar Galactica when the second episode aired on Sky TV in the UK in 2004. I was living in Italy on Lake Como at the time and my friend in Switzerland informed me about it. It didn't take long for me to love it, nor to realize its superiority to Star Trek. (For those who know me, that is a statement of existential proportions.) It is the single best drama on television, taking over the helm from The West Wing, which comes next on my list. If you haven't seen it yet and are wondering what all the fuss is about, nothing can replace actually watching an episode. If you think it is all just a bunch of sci-fi that you're not interested in, then read any recent article on the series, including my recent post on the subject, or the second half of Heather Havrilesky's article the other day at Salon.com. If you still won't see it, then you have forfeited your right ever to comment about quality television drama ever again.

Currently in its second season, Battlestar Galactica jumps onto the Sci-Fi Channel on Friday nights at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.
View a Battlestar Galactica Episode Guide

3. The West Wing

The West Wing is the greatest drama series ever produced for television. (If you didn't want my opinion then why are you reading my blog?) For the last six-and-a-half seasons, the best cast in television history supported by a group of immensely talented writers has carried the torch for that seminal though badly bruised idea that government can be a place where good people do good things; that politicians are not all the same; and that, present circumstances notwithstanding, the executive branch of the world's leading democracy can still be a decisive force for good. Every line of dialogue on this show is a gem, every character a giant, and every story a riveting commentary on things that matter. Oh, if only all our leaders were like this.

The West Wing airs on NBC Sundays at 8:00 p.m. View an Episode Guide for The West Wing.

That's enough for this posting, so here, briefly, are the other six of my shows:

4. Smallville
5. Commander-in-Chief
6. Joey
7. 24
8. Surface
9. The 4400 (currently in-between seasons)

"Best remembered for the car-chase, the progenitor of all subsequent movie car chases, Bullitt is an excellent film." This comment from a randomly picked amateur film review is two-thirds correct. The first two clauses are right. The last one is some of the most outrageous nonsense I have ever heard in my life.

Bullitt stars Steve McQueen as a low-keyed detective who is entrusted, by a politically ambitious prosecutor, with the protection of a state's witness for 40 hours. If that sounds like a premise that might make for an interesting movie, don't get your hopes up. Known for its famous car chase through the rising and falling streets of San Francisco that popularized the 1968 Ford Fastback Mustang, Bullitt is otherwise an entirely forgettable film.

Car chase aside, the film's direction, editing, and cinematography beg from their knees to be put out of their misery. From the first few moments of the film, we are favoured with every detail of Steve McQueen's actions, including opening every door, locking his car, dialing every phone call, et cetera ad nauseam. We are treated to a wonderfully detailed scene in the police station basement watching McQueen and his colleague unpack and repack two bright pink suitcases belonging to a couple of deceased suspects.

Even the car chase, which is one of only two scenes worth watching--the other being the footrace across the airport runways--is not entirely spared the horrendous editing: here they go out of the city in a roaring chase; McQueen's Mustang is gaining; the bad guy in the passenger seat takes out a shotgun and begins to load it. And what is the next split-second cut? A close-up on the bad guy driver who, noticing his partner's action...glances down at the gun. My eyes hit the roof. The movie is filled to the brim with such worthless shots that destroy what could otherwise have been a good, suspenseful film.

The car chase is legendary, and as the good reviewer mentioned, it did set the standard for all other car chases in film and television. But your best bet is to fast-forward to the car chase, and then return the movie. Although the chase might be worth the price of the rental, the rest of the picture isn't worth a dime. Not even Steve McQueen, and a young, very attractive Jacqueline Bisset, can save this film.

My friend Corey Tamás made some interesting comments a few days ago about Islam on his blog that I think can only improve mine by quoting it here:

"...I find it particularly relevant when pop culture gives a glance to religion and its history. People are quick to point out that wars get started because of religion; persecution, prejudice and strife profliferate in the name of religion. It's true; a cursory glance at history makes that pretty clear.

The part that people sometimes forget is that great things also happen in the name of religion. It is because of Islam that we have hospitals and universities, for it was Muslims who came up with the idea to better seek knowledge and care for the sick... as Muhammed told them to. It was Muslims who, in the year 1000, made it possible to write a cheque in Spain and cash it in India. It was because of them that we have long divisions and stopped using Roman numerals. Thanks to Islam, there were streetlights in Baghdad in the same era, and while most of Christendom was illiterate, there was a street in that city where over 100 bookstores were open. It is because of religion that we had the rennaisance.

People argue that these things would have happened anyhow in the fullness of time, and that religious inspiration bore no responsibility for motivating people to accomplish great things. On the other hand, they give no weight to the idea that wars would happen as well, or that cruelty abounds regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof). In their cursory survey of history, they see that religion causes problems, and all solutions pop out of thin air without source or inspiration.

I find this extremely naive and a difficult subject to discuss because, as it's been said, a lot of people only learn enough about history to disdain it."

Late on her wedding night, Angela Vicario is returned to her parents' house in dishonour by her husband, setting off a chain of events that results in the murder of good Santiago Nasar at the hands of her brothers a few hours later.

Told in retrospect 27 years later, Gabriel García Márquez's Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the story of how old conventions, social prejudices and, above all, the studied complicity of an entire village lead Pablo and Pedro Vicario against their will to murder an innocent man. Within two hours, everyone in the village knows what is about to take place, except the victim himself who marches unwittingly to his death through coincidences so numerous that they are forbidden even to literature.

The moral core of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is a commentary on why avoidable tragedies take place in a connected world where everything is foreseen and collective ignorance impossible, and answers one of the modern age's most resistant yet quintessential questions: "How could we have let that happen?" Márquez's answer is a cornucopia of inertia, moral lapses, misguided opinion, weak judgement, and disbelief in the unthinkable; because of the sleepiness of an only half-conscious society; because of people who almost do the right thing: who are well-meaning but indecisive, resolved yet unwise, distracted, or who simply forget.

But who is to blame when millions die of preventable causes, or hundreds of thousands are killed in genocide? Gabriel García Márquez responds that for one reason or another, almost all of us are part of the equation. The question he leaves us pondering is whether or not the reasons are good enough.

Though everyone knows what is going to happen nobody warns the victim, nor takes any decisive action to prevent the crime, in spite of ample opportunities offered by the two brothers. The book's emblematic scene depicts the crowd parting like the Red Sea as Santiago Nasar walks happily through the crammed marketplace in his last minutes with his friend Cristo Bedoya who, despite a prompt and wholehearted response, finally learns of the impending tragedy just seconds too late to avert it:

"It was a thick crowd, but Escolástica Cisneros thought she noticed that the two friends were walking in the center of it without any difficulty, inside an empty circle, because everyone knew that Santiago Nasar was about to die and they didn't dare touch him. Cristo Bedoya also remembered a strange attitude toward them. 'They were looking at us as if we had our faces painted,' he told me."

The sleepiness and unconsciousness of the town is a major theme and Márquez's smooth, hypnotic prose adds to the overall atmosphere. The story and the murder take place in the dispersed aftermath of the wedding in the early hours around dawn, as the inhabitants are just waking up from the revels of the night before. Many years later, through misty recollections, it is still unclear what the weather was like that morning, the most important morning of their lives. Was it sunny or overcast? Was it a "beautiful day" as everyone remembers Santiago Nasar remarking, or was it raining? Could the stars be seen or not?

Chronicle of a Death Foretold is an excellent choice if you are looking for an introduction to Márquez. At just over a hundred short pages, it can be read in two or three hours and is gripping from beginning to end.

Read another review and plot summary of Chronicle of a Death Foretold at LiteratuReview.com.

I have just been stunned by reading Harold Pinter's Nobel lecture. The British playright was the 2005 winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, and he used his platform to unleash a scathing rebuke on Bush, Blair and on what he demonstrates to be the decidedly unhumanitarian record of the United States in the second half of the 20th century.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen such a direct and vehement attack on the war in Iraq and all that feel so moving. Then again, he did win the Nobel Prize for words.

You can also view Mr. Pinter's Nobel lecture on recorded video here.

Tonight I experienced Philip Seymour Hoffman (left) disappear into self-absorbed writer Truman Capote and two weeks ago I watched David Strathairn (right) resurrect legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow in George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck.

Beats me whose is the better performance, but without a doubt they stand head and shoulders above the rest of the male leads in film this year. Russell Crowe, Joachin Phoenix, and Heath Ledger, please sit down.

As to whom I should make my pick for Best Actor? I am leaning towards Strathairn, simply because Hoffman didn't blow me away as I was expecting. But that might simply be because I am too young to be readily familiar with the personality that was Truman Capote, whereas Murrow shows up every now and then in TV documentaries and news programs, so I have more of a personal connection with him, and consequently a better frame of reference for Strathairn's performance.

Literary critics say that the first step in truly appreciating a work is to read and re-read it until you "possess" it in its totality, both emotionally and intellectually. Only then can you really begin to look at it from different perspectives and unravel it critically.

This evening I watched King Kong for the second time, and I was really surprised at how good the film really is. I realized that on the first viewing, I spent the first part of the film impatient to see the ape, and felt that they took too long getting to the island. This time, I was astonished at how fast that first segment actually progresses.

The biggest shock for the moviegoer is witnessing the pure chutzpah of the director in out-Spielberging Spielberg. It takes a certain kind of person with a particular kind of guts to even contemplate attempting some of the scenes Peter Jackson pulls off. How in heaven's name are you supposed to plan out that brontosaurus stampede? How long must it have taken to make it work? Who would even attempt such a thing? Indiana Jones? Big friggin' deal! Jurassic Park? Borrrrrring.

Another notable aspect of the film is how little dialogue there is, and if you pay attention, you can be surprised at how long are several of the spaces between sets of dialogue when you hear virtually no speaking at all (screams not included). This is visual storytelling of a high caliber. For example, from the moment that Kong breaks his chains in the theatre to the very end of the film, there are only four or five lines of actual dialogue. Driscoll says a few words in the taxi; there are a few commands from soldiers and pilots; and then Ann agrees with Kong about how beautiful the sunrise is. Until the final words of the film, that's it.

It takes a lot of acting talent to be able to pull this off today, 80 years after the close of the silent film era, and Naomi Watts delivers. And she does it standing in front of a blue screen in speechless conversation with a non-existent, 25-foot ape. Norma Desmond couldn't have been more pleased.


"We didn't need dialogue. We had faces. There just aren't any faces like that anymore. Maybe one. Garbo."
-- Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (1950) as Norma Desmond, a washed-up silent movie star.