Slater takes flight

Christian Slater's latest flight of acting fancy isn’t cinematic, but his second crack at a stage version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” at the London West End’s Garrick Theatre.

The play, like the film and book before it, centers on Randal P. McMurphy, a jailbird that may or may not be crazy, who is sent to a mental institution to serve the rest of his term. Upon arrival he immediately butts heads with the institution's controlling head nurse, Nurse Ratched and in the process snaps the ward patients out of their despondency.

Slater first played the role of Randle P. McMurphy on stage in 2004 and while this new production is flawed, Slater is commanding in the role Jack Nicholson made famous in Milos Forman’s Academy Award winning film.

It is fitting that Slater would take on one of Nicholson’s most famous role as he’s often been mocked as a poor-man’s Nicholson. But Slater is no joke, at least not in the role, and indeed proves himself perfect a fit for it. He exhibits an energy that alternates between explosive and implosive. Even in quieter moments you sense a torrid of emotions bubbling under the surface.

Slater’s performance harkens back to his dynamic work in “Heathers.” He’s charming, a bit dangerous and even sympathetic. It would be easy to play a character like McMurphy with sheer over-the-top bravado and focus only on his antics to stir up the restrictive system in which he has been placed, but Slater keeps the character multi-dimensional.

When McMurphy finds out his fellow patients are there voluntarily, while he is a committed man that could be stuck there for years, Slater plays the scene just right, keeping the tone just left of overly dramatic.

The supporting cast of "crazy" is also quite strong, especially Paul Ready as the stuttering Billy Bibbitt and Owen O’Neil as the repressed homosexual Dale Harding. Many of the other patients are just flat archetypes present for comic relief, which in the case of Ian Coppinger as the schizophrenic Martini, provide laughs, but little more.

Ready and O’Neil raise their roles beyond mere nervous ticks and instill their characters with some genuineness. Their characters fall prey most frequently to the abuses of Nurse Ratched’s “therapy” and in these scenes they win the audience’s sympathies.

The two biggest problems of the production are the portrayals of Nurse Ratched and the Chief, one of the ward’s patients.

Alex Kingston of TV’s “ER” plays Ratched too over-the-top, but it would seem the fault of this should fall largely on writer Dale Wasserman’s adaptation of Ken Kesey’s novel and directors Terry Johnson and Tamara Harvey.

Ratched is made too malicious and malevolent. Having not read the book I can’t say how she was in it, but at least in the film the evil she represented was unintentional. She became an instrument of cruelity, but she wasn’t necessarily aware of it.

Ratched genuinely thinks she is doing good, it is her methods, passive aggression and her need to keep people under her control that make her a villain. In this version Ratched comes off as taking pleasure in torturing her patients with a mischievous, almost sinister grin on her face most of the play.

Kingston does what she is asked well, but it feels off. Louise Fletcher's performance in the film was far more subtle and all the more effective.

As for the Chief, the character almost single handedly kills the production and for some he still may. The Chief is a Native American who is faking being deaf and dumb and the play uses a device of a lone spotlight coming on him as he delivers heavy-handed monologues between scenes.

The device is extremely ill advised and takes the audience out of the play, which for the most part plays on a realistic level. It throws the pace of the show off and adds only uncomfortable confusion and eye-rolling pretension.

Brendan Dempsey’s portrayal of the Chief doesn’t help matters. He feeds off of tired Native American stereotypes and speaks in a vaguely offensive slow, monotone manner.

Furthermore, these speeches ruin the dramatic punch of when McMurphy discovers the Chief can hear and talk. The audience already knows this. It is a cheat.

The play cheats the audience in other places as well. By revealing the possible punishments awaiting McMurphy: electro-shock therapy and lobotomy, the play robs itself of dramtic tension. When these both inevitably occur it is a forgone conclusion and loses its emotional weight. The film on the other hand was wise to keep these plot options a secret until the moment they occurred.

Still Slater and his support are so strong that the shortcomings are outweighed. There’s something magical about watching an actor live and in complete control of their charm, charisma and talent. That is something all too rare and because this “Cuckoo Nest” has Slater’s potent performance it can be called a success.

Female producers, where you at?

While producers like George Martin, Phil Spector, the Dust Brothers and Timbaland are well-known names, few women have broken through that barrier. Increasingly women are at the top of the charts, but behind the scenes, they are relatively absent, but not entirely unseen.

DJ Bless of London has been working in the music for nearly a decade and is beginning production on her first album. As a woman in the industry it is still very much a struggle.

“If I meet a new contact the kind of won’t take me serious since I am a woman,” Bless admits. “You have to be careful, I’ve met some chauvinists who will be like ‘If I do that for you, what will you do for me.”

But Bless thinks there is more acceptance than in the past, a sentiment echoed by DJ Caro Snatch of Newcastle.

“Of course we cannot deny the set roles still expected of women by some,” says Caro who is working on an album. “There are more and more rare dogs just doing their thing that means things are changing as ever.”

Caro believes that for a lot of woman it may be a lack of confidence, capital and timing that prevents more female producers from emerging. It becomes a less accessible option when children, a partner, a day job or no job are in the mix.

“The more women we see and hear doing it the more we realise its possible,” says Caro. “Now that we have so many more contemporaries and technical possibilities, more and more lasses are biting the bullet and going for it.”

Websites like SheJay, a network of international female DJs, producers, vocalists, promoters and performers, are dedicated to forwarding the recognition of women in the music industry.

For Caro, which she respects the intent, she sees sites like SheJay as more useful as forum for finding other women doing interesting things than anything else. If anything it does reveal that there are rumblings below the glass ceiling.

What came first the chick or the flick

Your mate rolls his eyes. Your girl friend grimaces. The latest chick flick has been released and you want to see it.

A certain disapproving tone accompanies the term. If you enjoy chick flicks it is like being put on the stand for a cross examination by a tough prosecutor. You’d better have a good defence prepared.

For a phrase so freely used by both genders, does anyone know how to define a chick flick? The elusive definition seems to change with each person: from romantic comedy to weepy, melodrama. For others it is "Thelma and Louise."

Chick flicks were once women’s films. Classics like "All About Eve," "His Girl Friday" and "The Women" fell under this term. Somewhere along the line the phrase morphed into the more derogatory chick flick.

O magazine released a list of the 50 greatest chick flicks that included such varied titles as "Notorious," "Aliens," "Pretty Woman" and "The English Patient." It seems the only defining factor of a chick flick is that it centres on one or more women. Does that mean every movie focusing on a male protagonist is a guy movie?

As a genre it isn’t easily definable. Western or horror films have recognisable elements, but the chick flick is too broad to put into a box. It can have tears, laughs or scares and fit into numerous genres. If anything all the term does is continue to perpetuate the stereotypes of gender roles and keep things in happy complacany.

Romantic comedies are the films most often slapped with the chick flick label. Even the best romantic comedy, truly great films like "When Harry Met Sally" will be condescendingly referred to as "not that bad for a chick flick."

As a male I'm quite fond of romantic comedies, so what does that mean? Does this mean I'm less of a man? Perhaps if we just pull off the silly label men can get over their machismo and admit they enjoy a so-called chick flick without fear of ridicule.

Then again maybe this is too lofty a dream. Best to get together and just watch some flicks.

Marriage ain't what it use to be in the UK

Katherine Hepburn once said, “If you want to sacrifice the admiration of many men for the criticism of one, go ahead, get married.” “Hepburn, a woman ahead of her time could’ve been addressing the present day state of marriage.

Marriage isn’t what it use to be. 50 years ago not being married was social pariah. Today, according to The Observer over 40 per cent of births are outside marriage and marriage rates in the UK are at their lowest in 160 years ago.

The UK government has eroded, If inadvertently, at the foundation of marriage by removing privileges and re-dispersing them. Previous benefits system, granted higher allowance to two parent families, but the latest model denies the need for a second adult in a child’s life.

Policy makers could switch back to awarding couples, but it appears awarding one means taking away from the other.

Powerful or eye-candy?

Angelina Jolie became "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider," Halle Berry choked on the furball that was "Catwoman" and now Charlize Theron becomes the latest Oscar winner to become a female action star as "Aeon Flux."

At times it seems like a cruel rite of passage for an actress to star in an action movie. If she's lucky she'll come sporting skin-tight outfits, and scantily glad ones if she's not. She'll talk tough and kick the butt of all the males that stand in her way. But is this women’s empowerment or just the same male fantasy dressed up for the modern age?

Critic Roger Ebert wrote of "Catwoman" that the film was about nothing more than “Halle Berry’s beauty, sex appeal, figure, eyes, lips and costume design. It gets those right. Everything else is secondary, except for the plot, which is tertiary.”

Berry, Jolie and Theron aside, there have been a lot of these lone female assassins lately from Jennifer Garner’s “Electra” to Kate Beckinsale in “Underworld” and Milla Jovovich as “Ultraviolet.” With the market so flooded by female assassins, you have to wonder how they all manage to stay in the-saving-the-world business.

In these films the female leads are eye candy. In the worst example of the female action genre, “Charlie Angels: Full Throttle,” it is through their sexuality that Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu succeed in their investigations.

In one scene the angels have to become strippers to get what they need. Surely, it would be more empowering to see intelligent women using their brains, not their bodies to save the day.

On a certain level, it can be empowering for women to watch females taking part in the heroics that were once left only to the males. For years women were merely a sidekick or love interest in the action film. Clearly, moving to the center stage is step in the right direction.

The problem is this step was made over 25 years ago in “Alien” in which the sole survivor of the film is Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley. Her defeat of the alien isn’t some elaborate physical feat, but through ingenuity. She starts out the film weak and ends strong. That seems far more empowering than the female action stars of today.

Interestingly, Weaver stayed the center of the series until 1997’s “Alien Resurrection.” By the time she starred in this fourth entry of the series she was 48 years old.

While the series had degraded in quality by 1997, the franchise continued to explore the female action hero in interesting ways. In 1986’s “Aliens” Ripley was more or less just one of the guys, but also became a surrogate mother for an orphaned girl.

Similarly, Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Conner in 1984’s “The Terminator” started out as a damsel in distress that was protected by a male hero. When the hero is killed, Sarah finds the strength to destroy Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator. Much like Ripley in “Alien,” it is done through brains not brawn.

In “Terminator 2” Schwarzenegger’s villain has now become a hero, but Hamilton still remains a major presence and is more a second lead than mere side-kick. She is a tough warrior but also a mother and it’s this aspect that seems to counterbalance things. Just because she can be as strong as a man, doesn’t mean she has to give up her womanhood.

Of recent films, it is this aspect that added more weight to Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” films. “Volume 1” was mindless, albeit well-made and fun entertainment, until in “Volume 2” you see Uma Thurman’s brutal assassin soften upon realizing she is mother. But this softening doesn’t make her weak. The film ends with the image of a strong, single mother.

Certainly, having the female action also be a mother isn’t the only way to retain her womanhood, but Hollywood isn’t even attempting to find another way. The next step isn't being made.

Instead, it is dumb the actress down, hand her a sword or a gun, put her in a sexy outfit and have her kick ass for two hours. Welcome to the world of sugarcoated, socially accepted feminism.

Insert a bad pun headline about Shakespeare here

Does William Shakespeare have a place in the contemporary world? Over 400 years after their creation Shakespeare’s works are still held in the highest regard. His plays are taught, read and performed around the world, but is it merely because we think that they should be or because they are truly great?

I pondered this question as I watched the Royal Shakespeare Company’s latest take on “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” at the Novello Theatre. I thought back on all of Shakespeare’s plays I’ve seen live.

For some cynics it is easy to dismiss Shakespeare as tired and dated. Some may say his plays are predictable and follow a formula. His comedies all have the same elements, as do his histories and tragedies. There is truth in this, but it wasn’t the plot elements that what made Shakespeare great, but the insights and language.

Ah yes, the language, to some dense and seemly incomprehensible. No one talks like that today, so why should we listen? No one talked like that even in Shakespeare’s time. His use of words made dry language poetic and lyrical. His phrasings and most famous quotes have become part of the cultural lexicon.

Shakespeare managed to tap into the universalities of humanity. His works have stuck around because whether it is through drama or comedy he struck nerves that still reverberate today. Many of his observations on love, relating and people are as true today as they were when they were first written.

Once, during a performance of “Othello” I felt the air be sucked out of a room as an entire audience gasped when Othello strangled Desdemona. That is a testament to the raw power of Shakespeare’s work.

In the case of my most recent venture into Shakespeare the entire audience was laughing long and hard at the antics of the mischievous fairy Puck, an inept acting group and the assortment of other characters in perhaps Shakespeare’s oddest play. Yet behind all the foolery, Shakespeare laid a wry satire on class, love and theatre itself.

“A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, like most new productions of Shakespeare, was given a contemporary setting. It is almost as if directors fear that audiences won’t connect with the material otherwise.

Although updating the material, while keeping the original language results in some awkward references that don’t fit in present day, when done right it can prove very clever. It further shows the versatility and relevance of Shakespeare’s work.

Shakespeare knew his audience was a mix of low and high class and he played to each accordingly. His comedies would feature sophisticated play on words and witty banter as well as slapstick, physical comedy. This is what made Shakespeare work then and it is what makes him work today.

Revenge of the indie

The Academy Award nominations for the 2006 ceremony have been released and with them an interesting development has occurred: the majority of the films nominated fall under the title independent.

As Richard Corliss noted in an article posted on Jan 31 at Time Magazine online “this is an Oscar year more dominated by non-blockbusters than any since 1997.” Four of the five best pictures are “indie” productions, as are many of the films featuring acting nominees.

With this influx of quality independent movies finally getting attention in the mainstream media, let’s take this opportunity to address what it truly means to be indie.

The image of indie cinema for many is probably that of a film made on the cheap with a group of unknown actors and a quirky story. Classic examples of this include Kevin Smith’s "Clerks" and Robert Rodriquez’s "El Mariachi."

While this type of indie filmmaking still exists because there will always be struggling young filmmakers trying for their big break, these aren’t the films that are garnering the big award attention this year.

Actors sensing that Hollywood has little to offer them in the means of challenging acting have been flocking to the fringes and in many cases forming their own production companies to produce something a bit different.

Perhaps the most successful example of this is George Clooney and director Stephen Soderbergh’s company Section Eight, which produced "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Syriana" (both of which are up for at least one Oscar).

For a film to be considered independent it simply must be produced outside of the major Hollywood studios like Fox, Sony, Disney, Universal and Paramount. These studios may later pick up indie films with good buzz for distribution. This definition encompasses both "Clerks" type films as well as the increasingly more polished and slick looking films being produced outside of Hollywood.

This description is almost too broad as it also includes, believe it or not, the last three "Star Wars" films, which George Lucas did produce separate from the studio system, although you’d never tell as these films follow all the Hollywood formulas to the letter.

An indie film doesn’t necessarily have to be eccentric or edgy, but for these bigger budget independent films, there is something to be said for having what could be called an independent spirit. This is the same spirit that drives aspiring filmmakers to make their first film and it is the spirit to dare to be different.

This sort of spirit does creep into Hollywood itself every once in a while, especially if you’re a director like Steven Spielberg, who has the clout and reputation to make whatever he wants.

Corliss even noted that you could make a case that Spielberg’s Best Picture nominee "Munich" is indie since “what Hollywood filmmaker is more his own man than Steven Spielberg?”

Does all this mean that American cinema isn’t as barren as some would lead you to believe? Yes and no. Good films are being made and even Hollywood is slowly learning. Warner Brothers had the insight to hire indie filmmaker Christopher Nolan to add substance and credibility to "Batman Begins."

Still as long as there’s a buck to be made in brainless entertainment, Hollywood will keep churning it out because indie doesn’t bring in the big money. What it does bring in is awards. Hey, at least it’s a step in the right direction.

The darker side of Hollywood

In the last few months an interesting development has occurred regarding American cinema. While the same derivate, mindless entertainment like “Doom” or “Aeon Flux” is still being forced into multiplexes, more challenging and political films are also creeping in.

As 2005 came to a close a trio of films, “Good Night, and Good Luck,” “Syriana” and “Munich” took on controversial subjects that mirror the unrest that is sweeping much of the United States and the rest of the world.

With “Good Night, and Good Luck” producer/writer/director/co-star Clooney told the story of broadcast journalist Edward Murrow’s attempts to take down red scare leader Joseph McCarthy. With privacy and freedom of speech laws in the U.S. increasingly under attack it’s a piece of American history that couldn’t be timelier.

Clooney also produced and starred in writer/director Stephen Gaghan’s “Syriana,” which takes on touchy subject matters like the international oil market, terrorism and big business corruption. It may not be the whole truth, but much of it rings true.

As for “Munich”, director Steven Spielberg has taken a blasting from both Palestinians and Israelis for his portrayal of the mission to execute Palestinian terrorist who murdered 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games.

Certainly only three films can’t be considered a trend, but there’s evidence it is going to continue with the upcoming release of the remake of “All the King’s Men.” The 1949 original took on political corruption in and unrelenting manner and with political, social activist Sean Penn in the lead, much of that should be retained.

The problem with these films is that despite their relevancies and critical claim they aren’t finding a wide audience and are instead playing for a core group with like political views. Still, they represent increasing political insecurity in the U.S.

Films are reflection of the time they are made in. In the 1950s fears of the red scare and the nuclear race were materializing in sci-fi films like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and “Them.” In the 1980s Reaganism was spoon fed to audiences in senseless action films like “Rambo” and “Commando” at the same time it was critiqued in films like “Risky Business” and “Wall Street”

While the three films discussed above are the most overt example of the current unease in the U.S. they aren’t the only ones. Looking back at the bigger movies of the summer, a time usually known for light and fluffy blockbusters, it is surprising how dark these films actually were.

“Batman Begins” may be the darkest, most psychological “Batman” film to date and that’s saying something considering it was Tim Burton that started the franchise back in 1989. This new “Batman” is surprisingly light on big, cartoonish, comic book villains and instead deals more in corruption and crime kingpins.

Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds” is perhaps the director’s bleakest, most morally ambiguous big-budget adventure. Star Tom Cruise has to kill a character in cold-blood to survive, not exactly something you see in your average Hollywood blockbuster.

The final installment of the “Star Wars” saga was easily the darkest of the bunch, featuring scenes of mass genocide and the (off-camera) murder of children. Lucas even throws some jabs in at the Bush administration.

“Mr. and Mrs. Smith” is a standard action/comedy, but buried between the action is one of the most biting and black satires of marriage since “The War of the Roses.” Burton’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” on the surface looked like bright, colorful family entertainment, but had a bittersweet core.

Even Michael Bay’s “The Island” before turning into the mindless action film you expect for the filmmaker behind “Armageddon” and “Bad Boy” started out with a thoughtful, murky edge.

In the 1970s in the amidst of the Vietnam war and Watergate, films became increasing more subversive. Could we be heading in that direction again? When a director like Bay gets introspective, if only briefly, you know something is a miss.

Should I stay or should I grow?

Nostalgia: that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when dwelling fondly in the past, usually accompanied with a goofball grin and a vacant stare. Memories are cobbled together, a patchwork of different ages: 3, 8, 11, 14 and so on, flitting around as the stupid grin stretches further across your face. It was a time that only remains in the mind. A time when life was less complicated and the problems of the world belonged to creatures known as grown-ups.

When does the point occur when you’re no longer a kid? Suddenly, you have crossed that threshold and you’re a grown up. It isn’t a moment you can pinpoint exactly, although adults will give you plenty of potential benchmarks to choose from: turning 18, graduating high school, getting your first car, turning 21, graduating university, getting your first apartment, etc. None of these fit snuggly and yet sure enough, seemingly from out of nowhere, the weight of the world is on your shoulders and the only escape is nostalgia.

Anything can trigger this wistful state. A movie, a song, a TV show, a photo, whatever sends you back to a place, a time, a feeling. Lately, it has been a DVD set of a childhood favorite, “The Adventures of Pete and Pete.” For my international readers who are clueless to what I am speaking of, the series focused on the misadventures of a pair of redheaded brothers. The show perfectly captures the magic of being a kid. It has the spirit and tone right. It is particularly good at plastering silly grins on my face. I’ve been watching it a lot lately, perhaps because I feel that piece of my life slipping further away.

I keep trying to avoid the inevitable. The most recent strategic move was grad school, but with each passing day there are fewer moves and checkmate to childhood seems imminent. The truth of the matter is I am an adult. No matter how I fight it. No matter how many adventures I share with my redheaded compatriots. After grad school there will be only one place to go: the real world with its real job, real problems and real adult life. What’s a guy perpetually stuck in daydream to do? Is it the beginning of the end?

No. There doesn’t have to be this great divide. Childhood isn’t a Technicolor Oz to a sepia-toned real world. Youth doesn’t have to be relegated to mere nostalgia. The weight of the world doesn’t have to come crushing down on my adult shoulders. It is a frightening, transitional time, but it is far from the end. I am not going to get trite and say it is a new beginning because it isn’t. The characters are just developing and the plot thickening.

Life would be pretty dull if we are all a bunch of stiff, so-called adults. Honestly, we can’t be mature all the time and who would want to be? Being an adult is all a show. We do our jobs, we pay the bills, but deep down we are all still just kids. Ultimately, this is the key of surviving adulthood. The minute that connection to youth is snapped then all really is lost. I will be an adult for all intensive social purposes, but a kid on the inside and occasionally I’ll let that kid out to play. Then again, perhaps this is all just the naïve ramblings of a nostalgic fool with a bad case of Peter Pan syndrome. Who knows?

A Mini Review of Rumor Has It

I'd say stop snickering that tabloid favorite Jennifer Aniston is starring in a movie called "Rumor Has It," but that irony is one of the funniest things about the film.

To be fair, that isn't exactly true. There are about 45 minutes of a good movie stretched across "Rumor Has It," which claims the events that took place in "The Graduate" were based on real people.

Aniston stars as the granddaughter of the inspiration for the famed Mrs. Robinson, played here with scene-stealing zest by Shirley MacLaine. When Aniston discovers the rumors about her family are true she seeks out the real Ben Braddock (Kevin Costner). Awkwardness ensues when Aniston becomes the third generation to sleep with him.

Aniston is an engaging lead and Costner shows a quiet sense of humor and charm that many viewers may have forgotten. Sadly, both Costner and MacLaine are underused as the film shifts to sticky romance. Director Rob Riener, once one the best American directors working, wastes a funny premise by losing sharp comedy in a mess of tired, formulaic clichés.

While there are some laughs for fans of "The Graduate," those unfamiliar with that film should stay away.

A mini review of Syriana

Corporate corruption, oil and terrorism all intertwine in the controversial, but important "Syriana."

Loosely based on Robert Baer’s book "See No Evil," "Syriana" is a complex film that doesn’t shy away from tough issues. With President Bush downplaying Middle Eastern oil issues, at the same time he’s fighting a war in the region, this film is practically a Godsend.

George Clooney and Matt Damon lead a large cast and both give performances that linger in the mind. Clooney, who won a Golden Globe, even suffered back injuries while shooting a torture scene that is not for the squeamish. The supporting cast is populated by familiar faces, who all have memorable moments, especially Tim Blake Nelson, who gives an already infamous speech about corruption,

Written and directed by Stephen Gaghan, the film takes the same multiple characters/plotlines approach as his screenplay for "Traffic." "Syriana" isn’t casual viewing and even the most astute viewers may feel lost. That’s what Gaghan wants. The audience is dropped in the middle of an intricate plot and, like the characters in the film, are left to pull together the threads. The film’s pace is deliberately slow, but stick with it as the overall journey is worth the extra effort.

The Golden Globes are not a laughing matter

The Golden Globes, which have a tendency towards awarding fluff, showed some progressiveness this year by awarding controversial, challenging films like “Brokeback Mountain” and “Syriana.” Sadly though they continued their recent trend of ignoring comedic work.

Unlike the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes has a category specifically for comedy. The catch is this category also includes musicals. This most likely goes back to the vaudevillian tradition of musical comedy, but it feels out of place today.

With the musical genre all but dead for two decades, the musical of the Comedy/Musical categories didn’t really make a difference. The word just dangled at the end looking awkward. But then the 2002 ceremonies ushered in the return of the musical with “Moulin Rouge.”

“Moulin Rouge” won Best Picture in its category that year and Nicole Kidman won Best Actress. That year was a particularly good year for female comedic work including Renee Zelleweger’s turn as “Bridget Jones,” Thora Birch in “Ghost World” and Reese Witherspoon in “Legally Blonde.” Kidman’s work in “Moulin Rogue” was certainly award worthy, but was dramatic, so what if she happened to be singing?

The following year brought “Chicago,” which like its predecessor took Best Picture. A Best Actor award went to Richard Gere, while Nicholas Cage and Hugh Grant’s fine work in “Adaptation” and About a Boy” respectively was passed over. A case can be made that “Chicago” is just as much a comedy as a musical, so I am willing let this one slide.

The latest development in the past two years is far less excusable. Last year Jamie Foxx won Best Actor in “Ray” for his portrayal of Ray Charles. This year “Walk the Line,” the bio-pic of Johnny Cash took Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress. All of these were under the Comedy/Musical categories.

While films like “Moulin Rogue” and “Chicago” are clearly musicals and have a claim on the category, “Ray” and “Walk the Line” are dramas about the lives of musicians. While, given their subject matters, these films obviously feature music that doesn’t make them musicals.

When it comes to movie award ceremonies, there’s this idea that drama is more award worthy than comedy. The Academy Awards certainly rarely pays comedy notice and instead focuses on hard-hitting drama. The Golden Globes in the past gave a nod to comedy, but with the new popularity of musician bio-pics, that has fallen to the wayside.

If you look at the 2005 nominees list, three of the five spots for Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical were filled by musician bio-pics. In addition to Foxx in “Ray” this included Kevin Kline’s takes on Cole Porter in “De-Lovely” and Kevin Spacey as Bobby Darren in “Beyond the Sea.” This left Jim Carrey in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and Paul Giamatti in “Sideways” to represent comedy.

Debatably, the two funniest movies of the 2004 were “Anchorman” and “Dodgeball.” Sure, they were rude and crude, but why not go out on a limb and nominate them? Award shows are supposed to be representing the best work in a year. Why must everything be high-brow, even comedy?

As for 2005, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in “The Wedding Crashers” were comic gold, and yet received no nominations. Even if they had been nominated they wouldn’t have stood a chance against the heavyweight work of Joaquin Phoenix in “Walk the Line.”

It would be a good idea to just drop the musical from the Comedy/Musical categories and place musicals in their proper categories. “Phantom of the Opera,” clearly a drama. “The Producers,” clearly a comedy. Odds are that will not happen, so at the very least let’s put the dramatic bio-pics where they belong and give comedy a chance again.

Final thought: thankful nothing remotely looking like a musical came out in 2003 so that Bill Murray was able to win for his brilliant work in “Lost in Translation.”

That quiet fellow in the corner sings (Revised)

Everyone has at least one secret talent. I roam open mics and acoustic nights silently waiting to unleash my hidden ability on the unassuming world. They never see it coming. Why would anyone think that quiet fellow in the corner with no musical instrument would be performing?

I sing with no musical accompaniment, a feat that always gets statements like "Wow that takes courage." People are dying in wars and my feeble attempts at singing are deemed courageous. Go figure.

Every time I do it I am terrified. I run through all the anxious cliches. My guts twist into knots. My palms sweat. My mouth goes dry. My nervous bladder will send me rushing to the bathroom several times. Then it will happen. I will be up. I walk up with my stack of lyrics. I look out into the audience, only to be blinded by spotlights.

Being in front of crowds makes me nervous and when I get nervous I shake uncontrollably, so much so it probably looks as if I am having a seizure. Oddly enough, it never affects my voice.

I can't imagine what people think as I quake from head-to-toe attempting to sing from a pile of papers. It can't be that visually appealing. The reception is either a puzzled, obligatory clapping or an equally baffled, but enthusiastic applause.

I am well aware that I must confuse the hell out of people. It must be mystifying to hear an a cappella version of "London Calling." And it must be dumbfounding to hear a solo, purely vocal version of "Bohemian Rhapsody."

Yet, somehow I manage to not butcher these songs. If the uproarious cheers are any indication I must be doing them justice. So, now I am the baffled one for I have no musical training. It is just something that comes out of me.

What inspires a quivering non-singer to suddenly start singing, in front of crowds no less? I discovered the cathartic release of singing just last summer. It doesn't matter if I am any good. It's a pure emotional expression that I need to share. I may use other's word, but it is my soul on display.

We spend most of our lives hiding behind facades. We wear different masks depending on the situations and people involved. It's a defense mechanism, a way of letting only certain people in. Singing is the removal of my mask.

I pour myself into the songs and when people respond to them positively I feel connected to something greater than myself. Through singing, I find an understanding of myself that I am able to share with others. Of course, compulsive shaking aside, on the most basic level it is fun.

I was once asked: "Is that a joke or serious?" To that I said, "Well what do you think?" Whether it is laughter, cheers or a mixture of both, I don't care. Do with it what you will. The rush is the same either way.

Any performer will tell you of the natural high of being in front of an audience. It is frightening and exhilarating at the same time. And so I keep doing it. In spite of my nerves. In spite of my fears.

Woody on Point- A review of "Match Point"

In interviews Woody Allen has often stated he wished his talent for writing and filmmaking had been dramatic rather than comedic. Allen has said comedy comes easy to him and so since 1977's "Annie Hall" he has struggled to make a dramatic film of substance. On a few occasions (1986's "Hannah and Her Sisters," 1989's "Crimes and Misdemeanours" and 1992's "Husbands and Wives") he has, but even these films had comedic undertones. Now after a relative creative dry spell Allen gives us "Match Point," quite possibly his strongest straight drama.

The film is a notable departure for Allen in many respects. New York, the beloved setting for nearly all of Allen’s film has been replaced with London. The “Woody” persona of the nebbish neurotic is nowhere to be seen. There’s not a laugh in the script and like “Crimes and Misdemeanours” before it, the film goes to dark, sordid territory. On the surface, “Match Point” seems nothing like a Woody Allen film and while it is certainly a distant relation to his first film, 1969’s “Take the Money and Run,” fans of the filmmaker are certain to see familiar themes regarding faith, life and morality.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers stars as Chris, a pro tennis player turned tennis teacher who takes full advantage of the offers of upper mobility placed in front of him through Tom (Matthew Goode), a wealthy playboy. Tom’s sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer) becomes quickly smitten with Tom, which leads to marriage and a cushy job at daddy’s firm. The only thing that stands in the way of Chris’ happiness is his lust for Tom’s fiancé Lola (Scarlett Johansson). Their affair leads to complications and Chris decides to take drastic measures.

As is often the case in Allen’s drama there’s a distance and shallowness to the material, that being said, this time Allen seems to be using that flaw to his advantage. Although it should be said there’s a palpable chemistry and sexual tension between Johansson and Meyers the likes of which have never been seen in an Allen film. The movie covers familiar territory regarding class and infidelity, and while Allen develops these elements well, that’s not what makes the film interesting.

The film opens with narration on how people take luck for granted and even though hard work counts, sometimes life comes down to nothing more than luck. The rest of the story works like a proof of that statement as if Allen were to say, “Okay let me give you an example.” In that respect, even when some scenes seem a bit flat and purely functional, the film works quite well.

Allen makes his point with a rather ingenious and unexpected twist. You may not agree with it, but Allen makes a valid and well-supported point by the end of the film. Allen’s thoughts on luck aren’t exactly the stuff of happy endings. For Allen good luck can happen to bad people and bad luck to good people. Not exactly a groundbreaking revelation, but still there’s a cold truth to it that rarely gets put to film and that is refreshing.