Link: geeknative.com
Buff enough? … Guy Ritchie may oil up to direct Frank Miller muscle-fest, Xerxes. Photograph: Carlos Alvarez/Getty Images
Guy Ritchie could be going to war, with reports today suggesting Warner Bros has offered the British director the chance to oil up for Xerxes, the follow-up to 2006’s comic book-based muscle-fest 300.
300, based on Frank Miller’s graphic novel, dealt with the story of the 480 BC battle of Thermopylae, in which a heroic band of Spartans battled a much larger army of Persians. Xerxes, based on another of Miller’s works, will be set 10 years earlier, according to New York magazine’s Vulture blog, and will presumably feature the eponymous Persian king.
Vulture speculates that Zack Snyder, who directed 300 and developed the script for Xerxes, could be tied up with his new Superman film, leaving a vacancy that Ritchie has yet to confirm he will fill.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Ginger Rogers in the movie “The Gay Divorcee,” with Fred Astaire. The AFI Silver Theatre in Silver Spring is celebrating the centennial of Rogers’s birth with a retrospective through April 7.
Friday, February 11, 2011; 4:21 PM
“I’ve got enough nerve to do anything!”
- Ginger Rogers in “Swing Time”
“Swing Time,” the sixth film that Ginger Rogers made with Fred Astaire, spins the workaday world of a gambler and a dance teacher into gilded heaven, with duets unlike any the two had whipped up before. But nothing tops this 1936 film’s final nightclub scene - the one in which Astaire serenades a heartbroken Rogers with that aching vow of celibacy “Never Gonna Dance,” then coaxes her into an increasingly explosive waltz that sends them whirling up twin flights of stairs.
Paradise, right? Not yet. On the set’s upper level, with its polished floor like black ice, Rogers flies around in tight turns, and this cyclone force carries her right to the edge of the platform - where there’s no rail, nothing but her wits to keep her from plummeting. Your heart hops. Part of the wonderment and pain of the moment is that Rogers is completely in character, disconsolate and remote. (Having fallen in love with Astaire’s cardsharp, she had hoped to marry him, until the fiancee from his past showed up.) But there’s a revitalizing purity in her turns, and with her white gown whipping like wind, she finally spins out the door in celestial glory. All Astaire can do, slumping slack-jawed onto a bench, is watch her go.
That dance went from pas de deux to pas de don’t. And Rogers had the last word.
She usually did. In her life, as in her films, Rogers was a distinctly independent woman. She was so modern in her directness, her self-possession, her firm command of her expressive powers - let alone her career - that the arrival of her centennial year, twinned with Ronald Reagan’s, comes as a shock. Unbelievably, the actress who died in 1995 would have turned 100 this July.
In a better world, this milestone would be marked with a reissuance of gowns by Irene (run, mink!), with big bands, swinging jazz and dancing in the streets. Short of that, dancers and actors alike can honor Rogers by studying her enduring naturalness, the way she underplayed her parts, keeping her cool even if she was losing her heart. There’s ample opportunity for this during the American Film Institute’s impressively wide-ranging Ginger Rogers retrospective, on view in Silver Spring through April 7.
All 10 of Rogers’s films with Astaire are included, and an equal number of her 63 others: comedies and dramas including “Kitty Foyle,” which tracks a living-by-her-wits shop clerk’s disastrous love life, for which Rogers won a Best Actress Oscar in 1940. And “The Major and the Minor,” with Rogers’s clear-eyed schemer masquerading as a child to save money. By that point (1942), Rogers was a huge star, and her benediction enabled Billy Wilder to make his American directorial debut with this sharply observed picture.
As we near Oscar season and its inevitable coronation of actors with looks and charisma but comparatively narrow abilities, the time is right to reconsider Rogers and her remarkable - and undervalued - talents. Even for her time, when actors were typically more accomplished than they are today, Rogers was a golden hat trick. Not only was she a singer-dancer-comedienne, but that multifaceted nature extended to the way she played her parts.
The key to her appeal is her duality, her mix of high and low, glamour queen and saucepot. Her best performances draw on that mixed allure. Take “The Major and the Minor,” in which she is sugary and bashful one minute, and plotting how to land her man between drags on a cigarette in another.
“Swing Time’s” furious dance-drama in the nightclub encapsulates Rogers’s yin and yang, the vulnerability and the firewall will. (She recounts in her maddeningly unrevealing autobiography, “Ginger: My Story,” that after weeks of rehearsals, 48 takes went into filming that number, and shooting finished at 4 a.m. Hours before, her feet started bleeding, and choreographer Hermes Pan told her to go home. “I wanted to get the thing done,” she writes, and she stuck it out.) Rogers was appealingly earthy, a fleshly dream with a knockout body. Yet when she danced, she could make you believe she’d float away if Astaire weren’t holding onto her. She was silk in his arms.
I love Ginger Rogers. Check the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR20110211046…
SalonThe title of the latest Adam Sandler vehicle, “Just Go With It,” gives almost no clue as to what the film is actually about. Is it a creepy thriller about date rape? A comedy about laid-off Nike executives? A drama about an unexpected pregnancy? Without Jennifer Aniston and Sandler’s figures emblazoned across its poster art, the movie would be impossible to distinguish from the host of romantic comedies with interchangeable names that have been released over the past decade — “Love, Actually,” “Failure to Launch,” “New in Town,” “Fool’s Gold” and this winter’s “How Do You Know.” Much has been written about how disappointing romantic comedies have become in the past few years, but has anyone noticed how cryptically generic their titles are?
It’s baffling that a studio would want to slap a film it’s trying to sell with the most boring, forgettable name conceivable. Is there something going on that we don’t know about? And, for that matter, what distinguishes a good movie title from a bad one? To find out, we called up Matthew Cohen, the founder of Matthew Cohen Creative, a company that has worked on the marketing campaigns of 2007 best picture winner “No Country for Old Men,” 2008 best picture nominee “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and this year’s Oscar favorite, “The King’s Speech.”
Read his response: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/index.html?story=/ent/movies/film_salon/2011/02/11/just_go_with_it_movie_title_interview
These documentaries focus on people and events that shaped the course of African-American history in the United States. Watching them is a wonderful way to learn more about various aspects of the black experience in America.1. A Man Named Pearl (2008) 2. A Small Act (2010) 3. Adam Clayton Powell (1990) 4. Crips and Bloods: Made In America (2008) 5. Darfur Now (2007) 6. Good Hair (2008) 7. Gunnin’ For That #1 Spot (2008) 8. Have You Heard From Johannesburg (2010) 9. Jean-Michel Basquiat: Radiant Child (2010) 10. Michael Jackson This Is It (2009)
See the list now: http://documentaries.about.com/od/populardocsubjects/tp/BlackHistoryDocs.htm#
This is probably the most awesome infographic in this collection. It compares two very popular companies, Marvel and the Walt Disney graphics company.
Is The ‘CSI Effect’ Influencing Courtrooms?
Correction Feb. 7, 2011
The audio and a previous Web version of this story incorrectly identified Washtenaw County as Watenshaw.
Sonja Flemming/CBSTelevision shows like CSI provide an unrealistic view of the technology available to death investigators. In this photo from a recent episode of CSI:NY, characters Det. Josephine “Jo” Danville (Sela Ward) confers with Dr. Sheldon Hawkes (Hill Harper) and Dr. Sid Hammerback (Robert Joy) in their lab.
The fictional forensic investigators in shows like CSI put old-time sleuths like Sherlock Holmes to shame. They can read a crime scene like it’s a glossy magazine.
But Post Mortem, an investigation by NPR, PBS Frontline and ProPublica, has exposed how death investigation in America is nothing like what you see on TV. Many prosecutors complain that shows like CSI make their job harder, as jurors demand ultra-high-tech tests to convict suspects.
“I think that CSI has done some great things for medico-legal death investigations. It has brought what we do from the shadows — where people really didn’t want to know and didn’t care what we do — to the bright light of day,” says Mike Murphy, the coroner for Clark County, Nev. His office was the model for the original CSI show.
“It’s also caused some problems. And some of those problems are [that] people expect us to have DNA back in 20 minutes or that we’re supposed to solve a crime in 60 minutes with three commercials. It doesn’t happen that way,” he says.
Enlarge Ethan Miller/Getty ImagesAnthony Zuiker, creator and executive producer of the CSI television shows, appears at a CSI exhibit in Las Vegas.
Ethan Miller/Getty ImagesAnthony Zuiker, creator and executive producer of the CSI television shows, appears at a CSI exhibit in Las Vegas.
Anthony Zuiker, the creator of the CSI franchise, says making amends for television is part of his job.
“Our job really is to make great television, first and foremost. And so, we have to, quote, ‘sex it up,’ ” Zuiker says. “I think Americans know that DNA doesn’t come back in 20 minutes. I think Americans know that there’s not some magical computer that you press and the guy’s face pops up and where he lives. You think America knows that the time sheets when you’re doing one hour of television have to be fudged a bit. Americans know that. They’re smart.”
But legal experts are concerned that juries may well be confusing fact with fiction.
It’s termed the CSI Effect. Prosecutors have been complaining that shows like CSI are creating the expectation that every trial must feature high-tech forensic tests. They fear that when they don’t show off CSI-style technology, juries might let criminals get away with murder.