Just in case recent google ads on this site left anyone confused about whether this site had a certain political leaning, here’s our candidate:

The New York Times ran a story this weekend on Angelina Jolie titled “The Mommy Track”.   The article discusses her menagerie of children, the “Brangelina” effect, her upcoming Clint Eastwood-directed movie “The Changeling”, but also her strange place in Hollywood.  Citing her ability to become an A-list female actor without doing any romantic comedies, the author wrote: “Nobody is ever likely to call her America’s Sweetheart”.  

When I’ve had discussions about Jolie with people I’ve been surprised at the vehemence of some of the reactions.  Mostly the argument seems to be whether she has created and manipulates the media machine around her, or whether it’s far beyond her control.  Personally, I think if she and Brad can auction off some pictures of their Bennetton-like family with proceeds going to a charity, then more power to them.  Of course, I don’t think you get to their status without some large egos helping you get there, but still, they seem relatively genuine about their various causes, and the article makes it sound like being a parent is more important to Jolie than being a movie star.  Or is it all just to sell movies?   Thoughts?

It’s been awhile since we’ve posted here, but I’m back to watching tv so I might as well share some thoughts on what I’ve been watching. I’ll start with what I consider the most frustrating new show of the season, “Fringe” by Lost creator J.J. Abrams.

I keep watching it, convinced that it really should be good, but each episode it disappoints me.  The premise of the show is that stange, unexplainable things, referred to as “the Pattern”, are happening (although only around Boston, it seems). These involve mind-reading, flesh-melting viruses by clones, and strange super-fast ageing babies. (Seriously, I couldn’t make this up on my own).  Called in to assist is super-special FBI Agent and quiet talker Olivia Dunham, assisted by crazy old scientist Dr. Walter Bishop (who, as far as I can tell is actually responsible for developing all of these twisted phemenona - Nuremberg Code anyone?).  Assisting Olivia in dealing with his mad scientist father, and providing a slight bit of sexual tension, is Peter Bishop, played by good old Pacey from Dawson’s Creek, a.k.a. Joshua Jackson.  Rounding out the cast is Olivia’s boss, played by The Wire’s Lance Reddick.

So it has a relatively good cast, good creator pedigree - why does it kind of suck?  There’s an overarching “bad coorporation is at the root of everything theme”, but J.J. Abrams has said he doesn’t want to make Fringe the type of show that has to be watched from every episode.  He wants each episode to be “complex and accessible”.  The result, in my books, is a show where you want to know more about the overarching theme, but they spend the first 15 minutes of each episode recapping it, then they offer you a very very tiny piece of it at the end.  Completely unsatisfying.  Am I being too hard on it?  It just doesn’t strike me as quite as smart as it thinks it is.