Now this is the kind of movie that I hoped “Lady in the Water” would be: Magical, mysterious, incredibly stylish. One of the best movies that I’ve seen in years.
“The Illusionist
” takes a number of chances that shouldn’t work — How many great movies about the turn-of-the-century Austro-Hungarian Empire are there? And when’s the last time there was a truly great movie about stage magic? — and makes them all work. It even puts a former teen star/sex symbol in the leading female role and then shoots (almost) the entire film in sepia tone and with an early 20th century film vocabulary.
It shouldn’t work, but just like the tricks of Eisenheim the Illusionist, it does, and you find yourself marveling at the results. I don’t want to give away too much of the plot — its twists and “I can’t believe he’s doing that” element are a great part of the fun — but Edward Norton portrays Eisenheim, a stage illusionist whom fate and the forbidden love of a duchess (the surprisingly believable Jessica Biel) puts on a collision course with the violent and amoral crown prince of the empire (Rufus Sewell). The movie is a cat and mouse game between the magician and prince, with the wonderful Paul Giamatti (playing a role very unlike his normal nebbishes) caught in the middle.
“The Illusionist” gets the strongest possible recommendation for all audiences. (Even the sex scenes are 1920s fade-out tasteful.)
Starting tonight at 9 p.m. Pacific Time, much of the gaming world will be going nuts, as the first expansion to World of Warcraft, The Burning Crusade, goes live.
How global and nutsy will the 8 million subscribers worldwide get? My 62-year-old father is lining up outside a Bay Area computer store at midnight to get one of the first copies and install it before dawn, so he can be one of the first bleary-eyed explorers to crash the server visit Outland.
Me? I’m taking Tuesday off and driving to Burbank to pick up one of the coveted Collector’s Editions. But hey, at least we know we’re nuts …
I really wanted to like this movie more than I did. I’m a big fan of fairy tales and have long thought that there’s a lot of mileage in updating fairy tales to the modern day and attempting to tell new stories in the vein of a modern fairy tale.
Unfortunately, while “Lady in the Water” makes a run at it, M. Night Shyamalan’s (perhaps understandable) insistence on clinging to the original bedtime story he made up for his children hurts the film. For starters, Shyamalan’s clearly not one of those rare people who can come up with a clever nonsense word off the top of their head, so we’re stuck with “narf,” “skrunt” and “The Great Etlon,” the silliness of which undercut the sort of magical tone he’s trying to create, although their depictions in the film undercut the silliness almost (but not quite) enough not to overcome their awful names.
Secondly, things that can be taken as read in a bedtime story — “and the neighbors all agreed to help Cleveland Heep protect Story until she could be lifted up by the Great Etlon” — are jarring on the screen. Some of these cuts are restored in the deleted scenes, but there are still several outstanding instances of characters referring to bits that didn’t make it to the DVD or into the final version of the script.
Ultimately, the whole thing comes off like a very talented auteur not having someone around he can trust to tell him “no.” It’s the sort of thing that undoes lots of auteurs, but hopefully Shyamalan will be able to get back up after this stumble.
There’s a lot to like in “Lady in the Water,” including solid acting, otherworldly special effects, beautiful cinematography and a magical tone throughout. Unfortunately, it’s done in by the very mundane problem of a Swiss cheese script.
A recommended rental for fans of M. Night Shyamalan or any of the talented members of the cast.
I don’t own a Nintendo Wii, but enjoyed playing my brother in law’s at Thanksgiving (although I suspect the sports games get very dull eventually). One of the fun aspects of the Wii is making an avatar (called a “Mii”) that then is your character used in each of these games.
If you want the same experience, minus the actual game itself, some fans made an online Mii generator.
(Source.)
The Miami Herald has posted an interesting column, saying that the standard method of newsroom organization is bad for journalism:
A colleague on the police beat had learned of minor wrongdoing involving town cops. But publishing a story on it would come at the cost of the reporter’s continued access to valuable sources within the police department. Worse, she said, her state’s law allows police to withhold practically all information about investigations that haven’t brought arrests.
”This means that reporters have to keep up a good relationship with officers in order to get anything on unsolved crimes, no matter how small or how serious,” she said in her posting to the online ethics site I participate in. So the reporter faced a choice: She could sit on a perfectly newsworthy story that would embarrass the sources she relies on, or she could write it and sacrifice her future effectiveness as a police reporter.
It’s a conundrum, but it’s more than an occasional problem for a small-town paper. In fact, this conflict has been institutionalized into a routine reality that traditional journalists face, thanks to the near-universal adoption of a particular way of organizing newsrooms. Here I’m talking about beats.
Under the beat system, reporters are assigned specific subject areas and, more to the point, responsibility to cover the public or private institutions that dominate them. The upside of the beat system is clear. It encourages journalists to develop pockets of expertise so they can report knowledgeably on topics that require focus and specialization to understand.
But the beat system also requires reporters to get to know the people who control the information their coverage depends on, so they can call on those sources and rely on them. And here’s where the problems begin. The reporter’s success in covering a beat depends on the cooperation of the people being covered — and not just their cooperation, but their good will. If you deliberately set out to invent an arrangement less conducive to tough, adversarial reporting, it would be hard to beat beats.
Seen from that perspective, we shouldn’t be surprised that journalism is so often timid and reverential toward sources; the miracle is that journalists are ever tough and courageous, that beat reporters do defy their sources. But that’s a mark of their own guts and ethical maturity, and of the presence of determined informants within the institutions they cover. It’s not testimony to the wisdom of the system within which reporters operate.
Would journalism suffer if beats were abandoned? Running a staff would be harder, but life could get interesting. Time and again great stories have been broken by outsiders with clear eyes, who owe nothing to those who feed and water the beat reporters. Watergate didn’t come out of The Washington Post’s political staff, the My Lai massacre wasn’t uncovered by a Pentagon correspondent, and the White House press corps was complicit in the disinformation campaign leading up to the Iraq invasion.
Beats have got to go. They’re an endemic conflict of interest. Fortunately, they are going, and while Internet scribes have areas of interest and expertise, they have so far resisted institutionalizing themselves in the sclerotic fashion of traditional news media. Reporters can be smart and informed, and still be free.
I think the notion that Internet writers don’t carve out tiny little niches that are essentially beats is wrong; I think most of the writers who take it as seriously as offline journalists do are doing exactly that.
I didn’t study journalism in school beyond one class required for all Communications Studies majors at Virginia Tech (and, of course, my broadcasting classes there), so the origins of beat reporting are a new one on me.
I’m not sure how practical getting rid of beat reporting would be, and I suspect the short-term losses of having reporters who know, say, local government well enough to cover it with any sort of insight might outweigh the long-term gains of not having reporters beholden to their subjects. But columnist Edward Wasserman is right that it’s an awkward dance at times.
|
|
