Archive for category Rants
Polishing China’s Turds
Posted by Chris Battaglia in Politics, Rants on October 2, 2008
(photo courtesy of the Globe and Mail)
China’s successful bid for the 2008 Olympic games was trumpeted as a milestone along the nation’s road to superpower status. The Olympics were supposed to be a turning point, a coming out party for a better, more advanced and more enlightened China; one that respected human rights and freedoms like a western democratic nation instead of the dissent-stifling communist dictatorship it used to be.
That’s what we were told, anyhow.
The reality is that, despite all of the promises and empty gestures, the new China is just like the old China. Don’t let all of those fancy, futuristic athletic venues fool you; it is still a nation that holds total control over its more than 1-billion people. It is still a nation ruled by propaganda that preaches silent acceptance over curious inquisition. It’s still the same old China.
In fact, the Beijing Olympics showed the world the only real difference between today’s China and the China of the 20th century: this China is powerful, powerful enough to stare down the "old money" of the international community – the G8 – and silence even their most legitimate criticism of China.
Criticism on issues like pollution. During the Olympics, Chinese authorities ordered half of Beijing’s cars off the road, something a democratic nation with a free press would never dream of demanding from their citizens. Even with those drastic measures in place for months in advance of the opening ceremonies, Beijing’s air quality was still well below the standards of the World Health Organization by the time the Olympics started.
And that’s just hot air compared to China’s other shortcomings during the Olympics.
As part of their Olympic bid, the Chinese government promised to allow protesters in designated protest zones during the games. Granted, the zones were set well away from all Olympic venues (or any areas of interest in Beijing, for that matter), and protesters were required to acquire official protest permits before any demonstrating could begin, but at least it’s a step in the right direction, right?
Well, it would have been, if any of the 77 protest applications were ever approved. Instead, most of the applications were simply ignored, while a few were rejected and a couple of applications filed by Chinese citizens led to arrests. Even a Chinese police officer has to see the irony in arresting someone for submitting an application to protest legally.
During the games, not much attention was paid to China’s working poor. That’s because they were hidden behind a giant wall built to keep the international media’s eyes looking elsewhere. I suppose that was the solution Chinese officials reached when they realized they couldn’t actually sweep those slums under a rug.
The wall is a perfect example of the lengths the People’s Republic will go to in order to maintain control of their image and their power. What they have displayed in the past few months, rather than the image of a new and reformed China, is a willingness to ignore and cover up any problem, no matter how easily it could be solved. They would rather strive for the appearance of perfection than actually work towards achieving anything positive.
With August and the Olympics now a distant memory in the face of a potentially catastrophic financial crisis in America – the nation formerly known as the world’s only superpower – it might be wise to take another look at China. A close look. In a few years, this might just be the nation that is leading the world, so perhaps we should start holding it accountable for its actions before we lose our ability to voice a dissenting opinion.
What we need to do is stand up and tell China we see through their facade. We need to say that, no matter how polished, a turd is still a turd.
The 2008 Oscar Breakdown
Posted by Chris Battaglia in Entertainment, Rants on February 23, 2008
It’s that time of year again, time for Hollywood’s cool kids to get dressed up and act like they’re doing their part to end world hunger by getting paid millions of dollars to look natural in front of a camera. Yes, the Oscars are tomorrow, and seeing as I had such a good time ripping into the long-winded pageant of self-congratulation last year, I figured I’d give it another go.
The thing is I can’t do what I did with last year’s awards, because quite simply, this year isn’t as funny as last year. Don’t believe me? Take another look at 2007’s awards. What movie had the most nominations? That’s right, it was Dreamgirls. Need I say more? Last year’s Oscars ended up being nothing more than an excuse to give Martin Scorsese the Best Director Oscar he earned at least three times before. Overall, the field of nominated films was staggeringly weak, leaving it ripe for lampooning.
This year is different. Not only does it eat last year’s films as part of a complete breakfast, it’s easily one of the strongest cinematic years in recent memory. Looking back 15 or 20 years, only 1995’s Academy Awards come close in terms of the quality of films they had to pick from (Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump). I say this because this year, there are not one, but two films that will be regarded as timeless classics: No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. Both of these films are fully deserving of every honour the motion picture industry can throw at them. It’s almost a shame they fall under the same Oscar year.
But this is exactly why this year is not as funny. In fact, it’s quite the opposite; it’s worrying. Historically, great years in film have been followed by horrible Oscar choices. Take 1977, for example. Both Taxi Driver and Network were nominated for Best Picture, but the award went to none other than the tale of that heroic Philadelphia underdog with a speech impediment, Rocky. Don’t get me wrong, Rocky is an enjoyable movie, but to say it’s better than Taxi Driver and Network is nothing short of madness. Yet that’s exactly what the Academy did.
How is that possible? Simple: the Academy Awards are all politics, or what politics would be if the only voters were old people, soccer moms, and 8-year-old girls. Every year, Oscar coverage is dominated by discussions about everything to do with each major nominee, except for the quality of their work, which is the only thing that really matters. We get to hear about who has had a longer career, who has already won a statue and who has been snubbed, who knows more Academy members, who did better at the box office, and worst of all, who has the most “buzz.” Buzz. What a bullshit word that is. Do you know what buzz really is? It’s the hot air emitted by the talking heads hired by a company to create artificial demand for whatever tribute to mediocrity they’re trying to cash in on. Buzz is fake. It’s the Astroturf of information.
This is why I’m worried. With a year this good, there are so many ways for the Academy to screw it up, so many categories to be completely wrong about.
Let’s start with Best Picture. How could they possibly screw this category up and not give the Oscar to No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood? It’s a no-brainer. In fact, it’s a double no-brainer. But that assumes members of the Academy have brains. Most of them just have buzz-detectors, and all of the buzz right now is centered around Juno, a decent movie that can put a smile on your face, but gets so far up its own ass with force-fed coolness that it loses any claim of greatness. If Juno wins Best Picture, it will be portrayed as the triumphant indie underdog, and everyone will go on and on about how wonderful it is to see a sweet little smart-mouthed charmer of a flick win Hollywood’s highest honour. Meanwhile, I’ll be busy vomiting up last week’s microwavable lasagna in disgust. These are the Oscars, not the 4th-grade Fun Run. A movie shouldn’t win just because it has a cute smile and tried its darndest.
Another highlight of how this year could be royally mucked up is the Best Supporting Actor list. Tom Wilkinson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Javier Bardem stole their respective movies. If I had to choose, I’d pick Bardem, but any one of these three more than deserves the award. Of course, that doesn’t mean any of them will actually win it. Apparently, Hal Holbrook might win. Why? Because he’s old, so he hangs out at the same lawn-bowling clubs as the geriatric Academy members, who make up a sizable voting base. Last time I checked, it was Best Supporting Actor, not Best Bridge Player.
Then there are the Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director categories. Quite simply, if the Coen brothers don’t win Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay it’ll be a mockery of each category. There hasn’t been a better, more faithful film adaptation of a novel than No Country for Old Men. The style and feel of the novel is translated perfectly onto the screen. It’s the definition of the Adapted Screenplay category, and the level of visual communication employed basically spells Best Director. If the Academy has any respect for film, not just as an art form, but as a discipline, there’s no choice here.
As for Best Original Screenplay, I have this to say: fuck Diablo Cody. She wrote an average script, filled it with references so obscure they would make Dennis Miller blush, and tried to pass it off as a cool and quirky masterpiece. Unfortunately, most people are swallowing her shit like an Irishman on St. Patrick’s Day. Let me make one thing clear to everyone: everything good in Juno was good in spite of Cody’s writing, not because of it. It was Reitman’s directing or the acting of a very solid ensemble cast. Even the costume designer deserves more credit than Cody for Juno’s goodness. The movie’s funniest and most endearing moments came when the script wasn’t dancing around going “swear to blog” and “Thundercats are go!” Have our standards been lowered so much that we’re won over by catch-phrases that are more at home on T-shirts than in movies? Is this what passes for good screenwriting now? Seriously, what the fuck happened?
Any other movie in this category should win. Michael Clayton was a very good movie, and the script was rock-solid. Need something more fun? Fine, Ratatouille then. Anything but Juno. We need to put an end to rewarding mediocrity in trendy clothing.
And who can forget the ever-controversial Sound Editing category. If that one sound editor guy doesn’t get the award for some reason, I might have to boycott the Oscars. He really deserves the win. You all saw the film he did. You know, the one that had his name buried somewhere in the middle of the credits. That one. Yeah, that guy. Doesn’t he deserve it? I think so.
That about wraps it up for my Oscar rant. I know there are many more categories for the Academy to fuck up, but I just don’t have the time, patience, or intestinal fortitude to deal with them. Hey, at least Jon Stewart will be funny.
That is, if they let him be funny.
And we all know they won’t.
Goddammit, I fucking hate the Oscars.
An Open Letter to Mark Bonokoski
Posted by Chris Battaglia in Rants on November 9, 2007
Dear Mr. Bonokokski,
My name is Chris Battaglia. I am a first-year Journalism student at Ryerson University. In one of my classes this week, my professor showed the class an article, written by you, about my fellow classmates and me.
I must admit, it was quite amusing. I never expected to see a news piece on first-year Ryerson Journalism students. Personally, I didn’t think there was much news there.
Then again, it is the Sun; it’s not exactly a paper with the highest news standards.
But sir, I have to ask: do you feel better now? In the article, you’re clearly upset by the epidemic of laziness you see in the next generation of journalists, and you seem quite offended that they used electronic mail to contact you,
Do you want mp3 music download from online mp3 archive, Do you want download mp3 music from online mp3 archive
and misspelled your name in so many different, creative ways.
Mr. Bonosoki, you must be very concerned in order to commit an entire article to the subject. There’s no way you’re just picking on freshman students to make yourself feel big. After all, you are a professional journalist, right?
No really, I’m asking. You work for the Sun, so one can never be too sure.
Assuming you are, in fact, a professional, it must be genuine concern you are expressing. In that case, Mr. Bonolfski, let me assure you that your fears are completely unfounded, born more out of a desire to assure yourself that you are not fading away as the world begins to pass you by than a true unbiased account of the potential future of journalism.
Why am I so sure of this? Well, for starters, the assignment you refer to in your article, the one that makes you weep for a future that is sure to be full of Paris Hiltons with nanosecond attention spans, was the first assignment us first-year students received in that class. To suggest that this assignment (one that was handed out with very little prior instruction about interviewing or journalism in general, to students who are, for the most part, straight out of high school) is an accurate arbiter of the overall level of potential, determination, and passion that the future generation of journalists have for their chosen field, is downright absurd, and to put such a suggestion in print is downright irresponsible, sir.
Oh, that’s right, I forgot: it’s the Sun.
The truth is there are many journalism students currently attending Ryerson who are very passionate about writing, about reporting, and about the field of journalism in general. I cannot speak for them all, as I have not yet had the opportunity to meet all of my fellow classmates, but the ones I have met do care. They care enough to have applied to this very competitive program and put enough effort into their application to be chosen over 90% of other applicants who were not accepted. They are talented writers and intelligent human beings, but they are not yet journalists. They are here, along with me, to learn how to be journalists. This includes the interview process, a process that most first-year students, myself included, are completely unfamiliar with.
Mr. Boondockski, did you expect the first-year students who contacted you to know exactly what to do right away? Did you expect a flawless journalistic effort from them? Did you expect them to know that e-mailing is frowned upon so sternly by seasoned Toronto Sun veterans such as yourself? Were you really surprised that some of them made mistakes, mistakes that you might consider sloppy and amateur, when contacting you for an interview? As far as I can see, that was the point of the assignment. In fact, it seems to be the point of a lot of the first-time assignments us journalism students get: to make those mistakes, so we can learn from them, and so we won’t make those mistakes when it actually counts.
Seriously Mr. Blackdiamondski, you can’t expect people to believe that you were a flawless journalism student: a wide-eyed, sharp-as-nails journalistic prodigy determined to reshape the world of news and elevate the bar to a new level. My guess is you were just like us, only without the MP3s, text messaging, and high-speed internet. And my guess is that when you got your first assignments, you made more than your fair share of mistakes as well. In fact, I’m pretty sure you might not have been the journalism gem you made yourself out to be in your article. Why? Because, of all the papers you could be working for, you’re writing for the Toronto Sun.
Also: one-sentence paragraphs? That’s bush-league stuff, sir.
So the next time you feel like openly ridiculing the grammar of first-year journalism students, and the next time you want to openly lament about the sad state of kids these days and their darn high-speed cell phone MP3 contraptions, I would suggest taking a long look in the mirror before you do. Perhaps you will remember that you were once like them, and it was not because you were lazy or a product of your day’s brand of hedonistic popular culture, or that you were inferior to the generation of journalists that preceded you, but because you were still a young kid with a lot to learn, and a lot of mistakes to make.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Christopher Battaglia
First-year Journalism student
Ryerson University
Studio 60 and the Sad State of Modern Television
Posted by Chris Battaglia in Entertainment, Rants on July 10, 2007
The best show on TV this past season wasn’t Grey’s Anatomy. It wasn’t C.S.I. It wasn’t Heroes, although that show was awesome. No, the best show of the 2006/07 TV campaign was Studio 60, and it won’t be coming back for another season.
NBC just finished airing the remaining episodes of the series, after pulling it mid-season in favor of the Paul Haggis Irish mob drama The Black Donnellys, which sucked.
Why did NBC pull the plug on Studio 60? After all, everything about the show was good. The writing was solid and clever; everything you’d expect from a craftsman such as Aaron Sorkin. The acting was top-notch, especially for TV. You can thank the group of all-stars, veterans, and perfectly-cast unknowns that made up the cast for that. Matthew Perry was never this funny, or awesome, on Friends, even though he was the best of the bunch there, and Nate Corddry has enough comic potential to fill any of the ridiculous costumes he wore. The directing, the lighting, heck, even the title screen, it all fit. It all worked. Perfectly.
But more important than that, Studio 60 had something to say. From the first episode, Studio 60’s point was clear: television is about more than art and culture. It’s about more than making people laugh or cry, about more than telling a story. Television is about power, influence, control, and most of all, money. It is a business through and through, a delivery service for commercials, and any chance of broadcasting anything with some artistic merit is merely a side-benefit, one that isn’t very high on most networks’ list of priorities.
This commitment to commerce and indifference to art has become even more transparent in recent years. No, it’s not a dirty little secret that corporations are out to make money, in fact, it’s what they’re designed to do, but that doesn’t also mean the pursuit of the almighty dollar is a noble one. Sacrificing culture for cash is not something that should be commended.
And that’s where Studio 60 said more than it meant to. Its short run made its points about the TV industry self-referential. Case and point: Studio 60 was pulled for The Black Donnellys. When that low-rent mob-movie rip-off couldn’t stand on the shoulders of Paul Haggis’ name, it was pulled as well. What replaced it? The Real Wedding Crashers, a reality TV show.
The proliferation of reality TV is no secret, but it is the best example of a disturbing trend in modern entertainment. Reality TV is leading the way in a stream of entertainment so mindless and fake, so flashy and simplified, that it has no real cultural or artistic value. It’s all about money. The shows can be produced for pennies, because the people on the shows only want their 15 minutes, which means most of the ad revenue generated will be profit. And speaking of ads, the amount of product placement and name-brand sponsorship during the show alone is a gold-mine for any network.
In a TV landscape dominated by cheap, sleazy, reality cash-cows that lower the standards and attention spans of average viewers and Nielsen households, clever and thoughtful dramas like Studio 60 can’t compete. Neither can clever comedies like Arrested Development, which was lucky to get 2.5 seasons on Fox, despite its genius. The fact is, there’s no appreciation for clever anymore. Clever doesn’t sell. People don’t want nuance, or subtlety, or subtext. These days, most entertainment carries about as much subtlety as being hit in the head with a brick.
Critics of Studio 60 can, and will point to the ratings as proof of the show’s impotence. They’ll say people gave it a fair chance, and just weren’t interested in watching. That may be true, but it doesn’t answer why. The show’s quality was top-notch, so it couldn’t have been that. Perhaps, instead, between our obsession with celebrity, the sensationalism of our news media, and the constant glorification of everything mundane thing we do, we didn’t want the rug pulled out from under us. Most of us don’t want to hear it’s all a joke when the ride’s so much easy, spoon-fed fun, and the TV networks (and the corporations that control them) are happy to accommodate this, as long as we keep watching and give them more money.
In a way, I’m glad Studio 60 got cancelled. I do lament the fact that there won’t be new episodes for me to enjoy, but it’s kind of comforting knowing that it never became a pop success. In a world where reality TV shows are dominating the airwaves and topping ratings numbers, perhaps high ratings aren’t a great thing. All that ratings are proving these days is that people prefer low-brow, low-grade entertainment that never asks them to think, so not catching on actually serves to validate what Studio 60 really was. It was smart. It was clever. It did make you smile and frown, because it made you think, which is precisely why it was beyond what TV is.
Studio 60 wasn’t the first show to flounder in an industry more concerned with celebrity relationships, celebrating mediocrity, and product placement than solid storytelling, good acting, and comedy that’s actually funny, and it won’t be the last. It’s a shame that shows like Studio 60, shows built well from the ground up that are actually trying to say or do something interesting, can’t find a place on network TV, but it’s not really a surprise. Television exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to deliver commercials right into the homes of everyone with a TV screen to sit in front of. Art can’t win this fight; commerce has too much money behind it to lose. It’s sad, but it’s the truth: which is something you won’t see on the airways.
Oscar Breakdown: Sunday
Posted by Chris Battaglia in Entertainment, Rants on February 25, 2007
Best Director
• Who will win: Martin Scorsese for The Departed
• Who should win: Martin Scorsese for Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, etc…
Scorsese better fucking win. I don’t care if The Departed wasn’t his best film. I don’t care if it is an Americanized version of Infernal Affairs. The academy owes Scorsese for all the times they’ve spat in his face. My only hope is that Scorsese wins, but doesn’t show as a nice big “fuck you” to Hollywood. If anyone has the right to give all of them the finger, it’s him.
Best Actor
• Who will win: Will Smith for The Pursuit of Happyness
• Who should win: Sacha Baron Cohen for Borat
I haven’t seen The Pursuit of Happyness, but I’m sure Will Smith is great in it. Likewise with Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland. So why should Cohen win for Borat? Three words: balls in face.
Best Actress
• Who will win: Helen Mirren for The Queen
• Who should win: Someone from a movie I’ve seen
Just like the foreign film category, this one is filled with movies I haven’t seen, and don’t have much interest in seeing. I am tired of hearing about The Queen, though, and no matter who wins here, people will still be talking about it.
Best Adapted Screenplay
• Who will win: The Departed
• Who should win: Borat or Children of Men
This is probably my favourite category, because I like three out of the five films nominated. Borat deserves to win because of the seamless transitions between scripted and unscripted segments, and the fact that it was hilarious. Children of Men deserves all the recognition it can get because it was simply an amazing movie. But I do think The Departed will prevail, because like I keep saying, this is the year the academy says sorry to Scorsese in the only way they know how.
Best Original Screenplay
• Who will win: Letters From Iwo Jima
• Who should win: Stranger Than Fiction
I just know in the pit of my stomach that the academy has to give another award to Paul Haggis. They love him so much for making them feel so good about themselves with Crash. Personally, I think he’s a hack, and all of the melodramatic bullshit that I’ve seen from him so far confirms that. Stranger Than Fiction’s script, on the other hand, was subtle, clever, and enjoyable. How did it not even get nominated?
Best Picture
• Who will win: The Departed
• Who should win: …
I liked The Departed, and I liked Little Miss Sunshine. Babel is Crash 2, Letters From Iwo Jima is Clint Eastwood doing whatever he feels like because he knows he’ll be showered with love, and I don’t care about the British royal family. So I’ll be happy if either The Departed or Little Miss Sunshine win, but I’d put my money on The Departed. And then I’ll be relieved, because I won’t have to deal with the fucking Oscars again for a whole year.
Recent Comments