Theories on Actors; Arguing.

so i saw American Gangster on Saturday. good, solid film, although really, there wasn't any way it couldn't be. i mean, you've got Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington, they aren't going to combine for a shitfest. it's really interesting, in that Denzel and Russ are each the leads, like, it's not a cop movie, it's not a gangster movie, it's basically a character study of two extraordinary men and the determination they bring to what they do. good stuff, flawed? absolutely. but still very, very solid. i give it an 8.5/10. my primary criticism is that the film is actually too short. like, it's 2:37 as it is, but i want to know more about the two main characters and what makes them tick. we're given hints, but it's not enough. maybe it should have been two movies, like the first one being focused on Frank Lucas' rise as a kingpin and the second focused on Roberts' investigation and bringing Lucas down, that would have been sweet. two sweet and drastically different movies, with the same cast, like, the last 30 minutes of both movies would have been the same. i don't know if anyone other than me would have liked it, but i would have fucking loved it. i'm sure the director's cut will be around 4 hours long, it is Ridley Scott after all, so hopefully we'll get more of that, my fingers are crossed.

p.s. i can't wait to see No Country For Old Men. it's official.

i hate movies that are rated PG or PG-13. there's no reason for any movie that's geared towards people older than 8 to not be rated R. life is rated R, honestly. grow up and grow a pair, watch a movie that reflects reality.

so if you didn't already know, i'm basically obsessed with movies, and probably the most important aspect of movies are the actors that make the shit you're seeing on screen believable. so on that note, i'm going to give you my favorite actors, and my least favorite actors, and some problems that i have with actors that are otherwise popular. without further ado, here goes.

first, the Favorites (i'm listing as my favorites younger actors, in order to give other people a chance, if i included everyone, it'd obviously be Al Pacino, DeNiro, Jack, Sir Anthony Hopkins, et al):

1. Russell Crowe: my main man, he brings intensity and believability to his varied roles. i'll see anything he's in, and probably love it. my only criticism is that he can't really pull off a contemporary American accent, but that doesn't really matter. highlights include: Gladiator (obviously), L.A. Confidential, The Insider, Cinderella Man, 3:10 to Yuma, A Beautiful Mind and American Gangster.

2. Daniel Day-Lewis: unbelievable. if he worked more often he'd be widely hailed as the best actor in Hollywood. go youtube "there will be blood", if you aren't immediately excited for that film, you probably should stop reading. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml2Ae2SIXac&feature=related) highlights: Last of the Mohicans, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The Boxer, Gangs of New York, In The Name of the Father.

3. Christian Bale: he's exploded onto the scene in the past few years, which is definitely a very good thing. highlights: Rescue Dawn (i'm just assuming b/c i haven't seen it yet), Batman Begins (far and away the best Batman), Equilibrium (if you haven't seen this movie, check it, it's like the Matrix + 1984), The Prestige, 3:10 to Yuma, American Psycho, The Machinist, Harsh Times, The New World. basically, every movie i've seen of his. oh, including Empire of the Sun, when he's like 6.

4. Leonardo DiCaprio. it took me a long while to come around on this dude, due to his whole "teen heart throb" thing he had going on there for a while, but let's be honest, the dude can act. he's our DeNiro. there, i said it. highlights: The Departed, Blood Diamond, The Aviator, Gangs of New York, Catch Me if you Can, The Man in the Iron Mask, What's Eating Gilbert Grape

5a. Clive Owen highlights: Children of Men, Sin City, King Arthur
5b. Liam Neeson highlights: Rob Roy, Michael Collins, Kinsey, Schindler's List
i couldn't choose between these dudes, so i chose both.

other favorites: Chris Cooper, Matt Damon, Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Forrest Whitaker, Eric Bana, Tom Hanks.

the second group are the fundamentally flawed actors, i.e., those that i can't quite bring myself to love and/or they get on my nerves because there is just something wrong with them:

Denzel Washington. he always plays the SAME character. how does no one else realize/notice this? he's always angry as hell and intense/fiery as hell. seriously, he does it all the time. his best roles are the films where his anger/intensity doesn't matter, b/c it's part of the character - Man On Fire, Training Day, American Gangster. but he seriously makes the same faces in every single film he's in and does the exact same things.

Owen Wilson. same deal. he does the same things and plays the same person in every movie. he doesn't actually act, he just is Owen on camera, and people love it b/c he's cute/aloof. sure, you changed your accent for the Royal Tenenbaums and the Life Aquatic, but you aren't fooling anyone any longer.

Johnny Depp. i know, i should love him. people that like movies like i do usually do. buuut, you're just a little too weird for me john. your schtick isn't working. oh, and you had to go and do all three "pirates" like a fuck. you're good John, you're just too weird. oh, and people that do $100 million disney movies aren't friends of mine. i'll always love Donnie Brasco though.

now, the worst of the worst. the "hated" group.

1. Nic Cage. what a hack. i hate nic cage with all of my being, i hate what he stands for, i hate what he's all about, and i hate how he got famous/why he is famous. nicolas cage's real name is nicolas coppolla. he's francis "godfather/apocalypse now" coppolla's nephew. i hate hate HATE nepotism. and i hate you for having no talent, but being a multimillionaire nonetheless. he took his stage name b/c he was a huge fan of the marvel comics character "Luke Cage", who is basically a blacksploitation muscleman. great nic. way to continue to be a fuck. will i always love the rock? absolutely, the rock suceeds despite of nic's douchebaggery, but in general, cut it out. you've got ticks up the waz, and you're a spaz. please, just go away. everytime a nicolas cage movie makes $100 million 1 million third world children come down with HIV. it's true, i read it on wikipedia.

i was going to rant about Ben Stiller, but then i realized i already have on this blog. but anyway 1.) you're a LITTLE too ripped to be an "everyman" ben, oh, and you're a spaz who gets cheap laughs off of toilet humor in literally every movie. grow up and learn how to actually be funny. what a talentless hack.

3. Paul Walker. why are you famous? oh, you're good looking... and that's it. great job paul. why do i even know your name? why are you a millionaire? why are people in hollywood refusing to let you go be a waiter and bang chicks b/c you used to be in movies?

4. Martin Lawrence. who in the hell keeps giving you work? you aren't even kind of funny. there are like 15 TOO many martin lawrence movies, and that's offensive to me. i can't think of a single time when Martin lawrence made me laugh. i like bad boys and bad boys II despite of his ass, and that's saying a lot. i once watched "Black knight", and i kind of threw up in my mouth. (by "kind of", i mean "a lot")

honorable mentions: Keanu Reeves (only saved because of Point Break), Kevin Costner

phew. ok, now onto the arguing.

now, for those of you that don't know, i'm in law school. which means, people like to argue. now, don't get me wrong, i like to argue as much as anybody, but, there are certain things that should just not be argued about, b/c they cannot possibly be resolved. so therefore, i'm going to lay out a couple of ground rules for healthy debate and set some limits on what can and cannot be debated under these ground rules. first: don't do the "i know someone" thing, b/c that can go on forever and isn't really an argument. like, if you're arguing in favor of welfare, don't say "my aunt was on welfare and she needed it to get back on her feet". you cannot justify an entire social program by highlighting one emotional story. that's what the mass media does, and that's why the mass media is garbage. the fact remains that anyone can trot out one individual to make any point they want to make, b/c people are infinitely varied. i could probably go out and find individuals that fall on both sides of every issue b/c of their experiences, that doesn't make either one right in and of themselves. you have to think of what is best for the largest group of people, b/c every decision helps and hurts some people some of the time. focus on the macro, not the micro, unless you're writing literature. if you're arguing public policy, you have to think of the big picture, not of the one kid you met. in general, stay away from emotion. emotion is the opposite of logic. so you don't think it's "right" that people in Africa are starving. explain to me some way in which the idea that you're presenting is going to work in real time. use "facts" and "logic", i know both aren't even taught anymore b/c the world is so wishy-washy, but that's what actually helps you make a point, if anyone even cares about such a thing anymore. stay clear of insults and broad overgeneralizations. avoid demonizing the person you're arguing with, it's childish, dramatic, and over emotional. you know what i'm talking about. it's the main reason why people in the United States no longer enjoy freedom of speech, b/c so much of our society overreacts to everything. everyone should be able to state any opinion they want to without people freaking out and causing that individual to lose their livlihood. no one has any authority other than what the listener assigns to the speaker, so why the hoopla over shit that non-authority figures say you ask? simple. because it allows the individual oppossed to the statement made by the now villified speaker to avoid the statement entirely by dismissing the speaker. that statement is never confronted with logic or fact, but rather with emotion. i believe this unfortunate fact of american life explains in large part the decline of american society. there are large swaths of american life that simply cannot be fully and rationally discussed because doing so is "racist" or "homophobic" or "anti-immigration" or [insert verbal hyperbole here]. the freemasons had it right, with their "no politics, no religion" rule for discussion, b/c really, you aren't converting anyone on either one of those points, especially in today's day and age, when politics are indistinguishable from religion. George W. Bush is vilified to an extent that no political figure ever should be in the public sphere, as was Bill Clinton, as will the next president. that's just the name of the game in a world where logic and reason have taken a back seat to name calling, emotion, overgeneralization/simplification and hyperbole. i mean spare us the verbal hyperbole and acrobatics. anyone who leads the world's most powerful military and economy is going to make some bad decisions, which are of course amplified by the stakes at issue as well as the sheer resources involved. that doesn't make them a moron, it doesn't make them evil, it makes them human. and the fact of the matter is that everyone would get along a lot better if we stopped approaching every issue as a matter of dogma, and approached it rationally, with real world solutions and remedies readily at hand. i'll give you 2 issues as an example. 1.) israel/palestine. 2.) immigration. what's the point of "debating" these issues? does it ever end in anything other than a shouting match? it's impossible to "debate" something that isn't broken down in rational terms for either party involved, but is rather an emotional issue to be approached as a matter of utmost importance. someone that's pro-israel sees it as israel's right to exist as a country, someone that's pro-palestine, as the palestinian's right to have a country amid the injustices that they've incurred. neither side gives two shits about the other. now where's the resolution there? clearly the jews aren't just going to leave, and clearly there's no where else for the palestinians to go. ergo, the solution requires them to work together, which they are unable to do b/c of the sheer emotion involved. so what's the point in debating it? you aren't debating anything, you're invoking emotional pleas concerning who suffered more and who deserves more. that's so removed from reality to be comical, so what's the point? if an issue can't be approached logically, why talk about it? immigration, same deal. for those that are anti-immigration, it's about maintaining the status quo, about keeping law and order, about securing the borders, about saving jobs. for those that are pro-immigration, it's about rights and "this is a nation of immigrants" and equality and so on. once again. apples and oranges. so why debate? unless something can be framed in the same parlance, there's no point, b/c no agreement or compromise can possibly be reached. unfortunately, we have the sensationalist media to thank for this. in order to make every news story sound as tantalizing as possible, every issue is broken down to emotional absolutes, so that's how the public understands everything. illegal immigrants are "criminals" for one side and "victims" for the other, rather than something to be discussed and understood. no one wants to understand anything, they want to be right. and seriously, when was the last time that someone's poorly informed initial opinion turned out to be correct? i'll give you a hint, it starts with an "n" and rhymes with "clever". i'll argue "Goodfellas" vs. "the Godfather" all day, or something else that can be framed as an actual discussion, but you can keep the abortion debate to yourself, b/c it cannot possibly be approached in a logical and responsible manner. this is 2007, and the United States of America has been reduced to squabbling children.