After months of speculation, James Cameron’s Avatar opened in theaters last Friday. To call this movie an event is an understatement, as there is talk that this movie will change filmmaking forever. While I am not sure that is the case, I have no problem in proclaiming that it is a epic adventure that raises the standards for CGI effects several notches.
With such advantages in effects, the plot has a surprisingly simplistic feeling to it. It seemed a bit like watching a futuristic cowboys and Indians adventure, but with a hefty dose of cultural acceptance and spirituality woven in. The movie takes place on a futuristic moon called Polyphemus in 2154 AD. The moon is rich in natural minerals that humans want to mine to save their own dying planet, but are unable to persuade a group indigenous Na'vi to leave their home tree, where a vast supply of the material resides. To prevent an all out war from occurring a program has been set up to create a diplomatic solution, overseen by the idealistic Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). They have created a Human-Na'vi hybrid, referred to as an Avatar, which a person can remotely link up with and use to naturally interact with the Na’vi and possibly gain their trust. New to the program is Jake (Sam Worthington), a paralyzed formed marine who was brought on because his deceased twin brother had an Avatar created and Jake’s genetics make him compatible to inhabit it. On their first trip out into the planet Jake is separated from the group and has to fend for himself for the night. While driving off attacking animals he is rescued by Neytiri (Zoë Saldaña), a princess to the Na'vi tribe that inhabits the desired mineral site. Though wary of Jake’s recklessness she brings him to her tribe and persuades the Na’vi to have Jake learn their ways. As Jake spends more time with the deeply harmonistic Na’vi and inside his Avatar body he begins to have his doubts of the plan to strip and ravage their home world.
While the storyline is intriguing it is the visual effects that dominate this movie and make it so worthwhile to see on the big screen. Viewers are taken into a completely alien world and feel as if they are actually there. The camera swoops and soars over a lush landscape that engrosses the viewing experience. While it should be seen regardless, it’s best to see it in 3D. Rather then seeing the images simply come at you the viewer feels like they are surrounded and actually in the world they are seeing.
Even more impressive are the Na’vi and the Avatars. While we have seen computerized creatures in past film like Lord of the Rings and the new Star Wars trilogy, here they are detailed to a previously unheard of way. When we see Grace and Jake’s Avatar we can actually see a bit of the actor’s face in the computerized alien creature. This level of detail is both fascinating and even a little eerie at first.
While more hype is just that, this is one film that deserves all the praise it is getting. Treat yourself to a fine movie experience and see Avatar. It is a move you will not regret.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Britney Murphy dead
Actress Britney Murphy, best known for her roles in King of the Hill and Clueless, was found dead at her home on Sunday. The 32 year old was rushed to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles after going into cardiac arrest, but was pronounced dead upon arrival. No cause of death is known as of yet and an investigation will be underway.
Brittany Murphy first came of notice to Hollywood after playing the role of Tai in 1995's hit movie Clueless. She went on to play other prominent roles in several films such as Don't Say A Word, Girl Interrupted, 8 Mile, Just Married, and Sin City. However, her best remembered role was voicing the character Luanne in the animated show King of the Hill, voicing the ditzy character through the show's entire 13 season run.
Brittany Murphy's publicist, Nicole Perna, has released the following statement: "In this time of sadness, the family thanks you for your love and support. It is their wish that you respect their privacy."
Brittany Murphy first came of notice to Hollywood after playing the role of Tai in 1995's hit movie Clueless. She went on to play other prominent roles in several films such as Don't Say A Word, Girl Interrupted, 8 Mile, Just Married, and Sin City. However, her best remembered role was voicing the character Luanne in the animated show King of the Hill, voicing the ditzy character through the show's entire 13 season run.
Brittany Murphy's publicist, Nicole Perna, has released the following statement: "In this time of sadness, the family thanks you for your love and support. It is their wish that you respect their privacy."
Friday, December 4, 2009
Scott’s Tots: An Office episode That Lacks Humor
The Office has always attempted to show the humor in extremely awkward situations. Whether it is Stanley suffering a heart attack during a fire drill gone horribly wrong or Dwight killing Angela’s sick cat without her permission, the show has excelled in taking a horrific occurrence and making it funny. Occasionally there will be an incident which is just painful to watch and not funny at all, such as when Pam’s former boyfriend Roy starts violently destroying a bar after he finds out that she and Jim kissed. But these simply uncomfortable moments, besides being few and far between, are always surrounded by very funny moments. We have never had an episode that was just simply painful to watch.
Until last night’s episode aired that is.
Last night’s episode of The Office, entitled “Scott’s Tots”, was one of the most difficult shows to sit through. Instead of being awkwardly funny it was alienating and uncomfortable. The premise of the episode was this: ten years ago Michael had promised a class of underprivileged third graders that if they graduated from high school he would pay for each of them to go to college. Now they are set to graduate and he doesn’t have the money to make good on his promise. He goes down to the school where he is greeted be applause from the students and numerous members of the committee. After hearing several students give speeches on how Michael’s promise kept them on track Michael finally tells them that he can’t pay for them to go to college. The students are shocked and angry at not getting to further their education after they worked so hard to get to this point and Michael leaves the school in disgrace.
The entire episode was simply painful to watch. While Michael has made some impulsive promises before it’s never been at this horrid of a level before. Even when Michael’s receptionist Erin points out that the silver lining is that his empty promise enabled those kids to graduate from high school it still doesn’t make up for crushing those kid’s dreams and trust. Possibly the worst image is seeing a newspaper article that came out when Michael first made the promise, praising him for his generosity and for giving those kids something to aspire to. While I normally find dark humor hilarious, watching this episode was about as uncomfortable as watching a sex scene with one’s parents. Hopefully the next episode goes back to being awkwardly funny instead of just awkward.
Until last night’s episode aired that is.
Last night’s episode of The Office, entitled “Scott’s Tots”, was one of the most difficult shows to sit through. Instead of being awkwardly funny it was alienating and uncomfortable. The premise of the episode was this: ten years ago Michael had promised a class of underprivileged third graders that if they graduated from high school he would pay for each of them to go to college. Now they are set to graduate and he doesn’t have the money to make good on his promise. He goes down to the school where he is greeted be applause from the students and numerous members of the committee. After hearing several students give speeches on how Michael’s promise kept them on track Michael finally tells them that he can’t pay for them to go to college. The students are shocked and angry at not getting to further their education after they worked so hard to get to this point and Michael leaves the school in disgrace.
The entire episode was simply painful to watch. While Michael has made some impulsive promises before it’s never been at this horrid of a level before. Even when Michael’s receptionist Erin points out that the silver lining is that his empty promise enabled those kids to graduate from high school it still doesn’t make up for crushing those kid’s dreams and trust. Possibly the worst image is seeing a newspaper article that came out when Michael first made the promise, praising him for his generosity and for giving those kids something to aspire to. While I normally find dark humor hilarious, watching this episode was about as uncomfortable as watching a sex scene with one’s parents. Hopefully the next episode goes back to being awkwardly funny instead of just awkward.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
When Popularity Wins Out Over Story
This week’s episode of the show Heroes, the last one to air until January, was nothing special. The most significant advancement to happen was Nathan (Adrian Pasdar), after physically dying and having his memories imprinted into Sylar’s (Zachary Quinto) body, giving up trying to be someone who is essentially gone and allowing himself to “die” and have Sylar take permanent control. After seeing this I felt that the wrong character had just died. That the better move to make would have been to kill off Sylar instead.
Many out there would probably disagree and say that Sylar is the best character on the show. And in many ways I would agree. He is cool and intriguing and someone we root for even when he is killing people. The problem with him is that after three and a half seasons there’s simply no place for him anymore. In spite of other villains taking rise over the seasons (such as season two’s Adam Monroe, season three’s Arthur Petrelli and Emile Danko, and this season’s Samuel) Sylar remains lurking in the background. But rather then advance the overall story; he seems to just be there because viewers want him to be around.
To keep villains that are around for multiple seasons interesting, they have to grow and change as much as the heroes do. If they remain exactly the same they simply become repetitive. Since his introduction Sylar has continually been all about power and revenge. Even when he takes brief side trips he always comes back to his original obsessions. While it was a thrill to watch this during the first and even the second season, it’s stopped being interesting. Now when I watch the show I envision the writers sitting around asking themselves what can they possibly do with Sylar this week.
The writers of the show should instead take a page from the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If there was one show that valued plot progression over character popularity it was that one. Continually characters were written off of the show if it meant that the overall plot grew, even if they were beloved by viewers. While it was heartbreaking when an adored character was written off (as I experienced in season six when Tara was shot and killed) I had to give the writers credit for having the guts to get rid of popular characters if it meant the plot was advanced.
It might be time to think about getting rid of Sylar for good. Either that or come up with something for him to do that actually matters to the overall story arc.
Many out there would probably disagree and say that Sylar is the best character on the show. And in many ways I would agree. He is cool and intriguing and someone we root for even when he is killing people. The problem with him is that after three and a half seasons there’s simply no place for him anymore. In spite of other villains taking rise over the seasons (such as season two’s Adam Monroe, season three’s Arthur Petrelli and Emile Danko, and this season’s Samuel) Sylar remains lurking in the background. But rather then advance the overall story; he seems to just be there because viewers want him to be around.
To keep villains that are around for multiple seasons interesting, they have to grow and change as much as the heroes do. If they remain exactly the same they simply become repetitive. Since his introduction Sylar has continually been all about power and revenge. Even when he takes brief side trips he always comes back to his original obsessions. While it was a thrill to watch this during the first and even the second season, it’s stopped being interesting. Now when I watch the show I envision the writers sitting around asking themselves what can they possibly do with Sylar this week.
The writers of the show should instead take a page from the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If there was one show that valued plot progression over character popularity it was that one. Continually characters were written off of the show if it meant that the overall plot grew, even if they were beloved by viewers. While it was heartbreaking when an adored character was written off (as I experienced in season six when Tara was shot and killed) I had to give the writers credit for having the guts to get rid of popular characters if it meant the plot was advanced.
It might be time to think about getting rid of Sylar for good. Either that or come up with something for him to do that actually matters to the overall story arc.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Changing Viewpoint: A More Mature Look at Titanic
While it is not unexpected to know that our perspective of the world changes from childhood to adulthood, the memory of how our younger selves used to perceive something is often lost to time. Often when adults see something they loved as a child, such as a childhood movie, they not only think of it as horrid, but forget exactly why they liked it in the first place. There’s a bit of logic to this, for just as children find it hard to think as adults do, so do adults find it hard to think as they did when they were children. While most adults can act childish, few can truly think as they did when they were a child.
A personal example of this happening is with Ninja Turtles. When I was a child I loved everything Ninja Turtles, particularly the late 80’s cartoon show. Not to long ago I found a website that had old episodes on it and I started watching one. Shockingly I found myself becoming bored and actually thinking “I know it was better then this.” After a few minutes I stopped watching it for fear of tarnishing the childhood memory I had for my once beloved show.
An easier scenario to experience is seeing something, such as a movie or television show, that you disliked as a child and finding out that you like it as an adult. You can rationalize that the reason you disliked it the first time around was that you were not mature enough to appreciate what you were seeing. That either the subject matter you were experiencing went over your head or the way it was presented was unable to hold your attention. But once you’ve grown and experienced life you may discover that what once was not your cup of tea has become an unexpected treat.
Recently I decided to see how seeing a movie I once disliked might feel now that I am older. While there are a number of movies I could have chosen to see, I decided the movie Titanic would be the perfect one to see. I specifically chose it because I clearly remember that I did not like or appreciate it when I first saw it in theaters twelve years ago.
The first time I saw Titanic was at the age of fourteen during an 8th grade field trip. I didn’t really know much about the movie besides the basic plot, nor did I care. In truth there were only two things I had heard about the movie that interested me; the fact that the lead actress was naked at some point, and that Leonardo DiCaprio’s character died before the movie ended.
After a rowdy bus ride and waiting almost two hours for refreshments, I sat down in the theater just as the movie began. By the time it was over I can safely say that it didn’t make a huge impression on me. While it managed to keep my interest for the full three hours I wouldn’t say that I enjoyed or appreciated it. At fourteen I was more interested in seeing movies like Ace Ventura or Anaconda. A sweeping love story set against a terrible disaster was not something I would have made a huge point in seeing. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have seen it at all if not for the class trip.
Flash forward twelve years later. While I had seen it a couple of times after that first viewing, it had still been a number of years since I had last watched the movie. One night as I was watching TV I caught it during the middle. As I watched it I found myself enjoying it more then I had ever previously remembered. The next time I was at my video store I ended up renting it and watching it from beginning to end.
There is a big difference in seeing this movie when one is twenty six as apposed to fourteen. Not only can you enjoy it more but you are able to recognize many aspects that you would have missed the first time around. A perfect example is symbolism in appearance. As one learns more about visual storytelling you begin to notice that select costume choices are meant to reveal insights into characters. When young Rose is first shown on screen she is dressed in a tight black and white dress that seems to invoke the image of a straight jacket. In addition her hair is tightly pulled back and her face is partly obscured by a large hat. Everything about her physical appearance is meant to represent restriction and confinement. As the movie continues, and she spends more time with the free spirited Jack, she begins to physically become more uninhibited and free. Her hair it allowed to fall naturally and her clothing become looser and freer. After she has her portrait drawn she changes into a flowing dress that allows her no restrictions in movement, which she wears for the reminder of her time on screen. I have no problem admitting that this physical transformation was lost on me as a young teenager.
If there is one moment in the movie that I now view with different eyes, it’s the scene when Rose is drawn in the nude by Jack. When I first saw that scene it was my favorite part of the movie, because at that age seeing any female nudity on film was cause to get excited. Now that I’m a bit more mature I’m able to notice certain subtleties that were lost the first time, such as tiny things that made it seem more real. Instead of Kate’s character sliding perfectly into place she lays down and the two of them arrange her until she is in the right position. This is much more real then if she simply arranged herself at once. I also loved that once Jack starts drawing she can’t resist making faces and pointing out the blush that spreads across his face. I actually let out a giggle when he asks her to stop moving and she grins a little just before setting her face. Seeing that scene with new eyes brings a whole different interpretation to it. You realize that while Rose is physically exposed it is actually Jack, the world traveler who has seen it all, who is the more vulnerable one here.
While I enjoyed the portrait scene it is not my favorite moment in the movie. My favorite moment during this viewing is still a Kate Winslet moment, although this time it’s one in which we see very little of her physically. It’s in the scene when Rose is first given a chance to get on a life boat. Rose, after hearing her mother obliviously hope that the life boats will not be too crowded, angrily tells her that half the people on the ship will die because of the lack of enough life boats. Her fiancé Cal then muses that Jack’s drawing will be worth a lot by morning, since between his status as a third class passenger and being arrested for supposedly stealing the diamond necklace he’s guaranteed to go down with the ship. It is in this moment that Rose realizes the true depths of the evil Cal is capable of. This moment of comprehension is exceptionally compelling because the actress uses so little of her physical self to get the message across. Rather then contorting her face in disgust she keeps it a blank slate, and instead lets only her eyes show everything that she is feeling. It shows that sometimes the smallest gestures can reveal the most about a person.
As for the acting I was able to truly appreciate it more now then I did back in 98, particularly in watching Leonardo DiCaprio. I was unable to see much value in his performance back then, mainly because I couldn’t stand him. When all the guys on the trip cheered when his character died I was right up there applauding. It had nothing to do with him as a person or as an actor. My dislike of him stemmed from every teenage girl at the time being madly in love with him. I had a hard enough time competing against guys in my school for the attention of girls. Having to additionally compete with someone who was only seen in movies and magazines was a little to much to handle. This is a fairly common occurrence among teenage boys. In high school I had a teacher point out that while teenage boys now like Elvis and The Beatles, when they first appeared guys were less inclined to like them because of how crazy girls went for the musicians. I’m sure even now there are scores of teenage boys who can’t stand Zac Efron or Robert Pattinson simply because they are beloved by adoring female fans.
I recommend trying to reexperience something you once hated when you were younger. While it is entirely possible you might still hate it, there’s a greater chance you’ll see new value in what you once thought was rubbish. With new eyes, and a different perspective, anything is possible.
A personal example of this happening is with Ninja Turtles. When I was a child I loved everything Ninja Turtles, particularly the late 80’s cartoon show. Not to long ago I found a website that had old episodes on it and I started watching one. Shockingly I found myself becoming bored and actually thinking “I know it was better then this.” After a few minutes I stopped watching it for fear of tarnishing the childhood memory I had for my once beloved show.
An easier scenario to experience is seeing something, such as a movie or television show, that you disliked as a child and finding out that you like it as an adult. You can rationalize that the reason you disliked it the first time around was that you were not mature enough to appreciate what you were seeing. That either the subject matter you were experiencing went over your head or the way it was presented was unable to hold your attention. But once you’ve grown and experienced life you may discover that what once was not your cup of tea has become an unexpected treat.
Recently I decided to see how seeing a movie I once disliked might feel now that I am older. While there are a number of movies I could have chosen to see, I decided the movie Titanic would be the perfect one to see. I specifically chose it because I clearly remember that I did not like or appreciate it when I first saw it in theaters twelve years ago.
The first time I saw Titanic was at the age of fourteen during an 8th grade field trip. I didn’t really know much about the movie besides the basic plot, nor did I care. In truth there were only two things I had heard about the movie that interested me; the fact that the lead actress was naked at some point, and that Leonardo DiCaprio’s character died before the movie ended.
After a rowdy bus ride and waiting almost two hours for refreshments, I sat down in the theater just as the movie began. By the time it was over I can safely say that it didn’t make a huge impression on me. While it managed to keep my interest for the full three hours I wouldn’t say that I enjoyed or appreciated it. At fourteen I was more interested in seeing movies like Ace Ventura or Anaconda. A sweeping love story set against a terrible disaster was not something I would have made a huge point in seeing. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have seen it at all if not for the class trip.
Flash forward twelve years later. While I had seen it a couple of times after that first viewing, it had still been a number of years since I had last watched the movie. One night as I was watching TV I caught it during the middle. As I watched it I found myself enjoying it more then I had ever previously remembered. The next time I was at my video store I ended up renting it and watching it from beginning to end.
There is a big difference in seeing this movie when one is twenty six as apposed to fourteen. Not only can you enjoy it more but you are able to recognize many aspects that you would have missed the first time around. A perfect example is symbolism in appearance. As one learns more about visual storytelling you begin to notice that select costume choices are meant to reveal insights into characters. When young Rose is first shown on screen she is dressed in a tight black and white dress that seems to invoke the image of a straight jacket. In addition her hair is tightly pulled back and her face is partly obscured by a large hat. Everything about her physical appearance is meant to represent restriction and confinement. As the movie continues, and she spends more time with the free spirited Jack, she begins to physically become more uninhibited and free. Her hair it allowed to fall naturally and her clothing become looser and freer. After she has her portrait drawn she changes into a flowing dress that allows her no restrictions in movement, which she wears for the reminder of her time on screen. I have no problem admitting that this physical transformation was lost on me as a young teenager.
If there is one moment in the movie that I now view with different eyes, it’s the scene when Rose is drawn in the nude by Jack. When I first saw that scene it was my favorite part of the movie, because at that age seeing any female nudity on film was cause to get excited. Now that I’m a bit more mature I’m able to notice certain subtleties that were lost the first time, such as tiny things that made it seem more real. Instead of Kate’s character sliding perfectly into place she lays down and the two of them arrange her until she is in the right position. This is much more real then if she simply arranged herself at once. I also loved that once Jack starts drawing she can’t resist making faces and pointing out the blush that spreads across his face. I actually let out a giggle when he asks her to stop moving and she grins a little just before setting her face. Seeing that scene with new eyes brings a whole different interpretation to it. You realize that while Rose is physically exposed it is actually Jack, the world traveler who has seen it all, who is the more vulnerable one here.
While I enjoyed the portrait scene it is not my favorite moment in the movie. My favorite moment during this viewing is still a Kate Winslet moment, although this time it’s one in which we see very little of her physically. It’s in the scene when Rose is first given a chance to get on a life boat. Rose, after hearing her mother obliviously hope that the life boats will not be too crowded, angrily tells her that half the people on the ship will die because of the lack of enough life boats. Her fiancé Cal then muses that Jack’s drawing will be worth a lot by morning, since between his status as a third class passenger and being arrested for supposedly stealing the diamond necklace he’s guaranteed to go down with the ship. It is in this moment that Rose realizes the true depths of the evil Cal is capable of. This moment of comprehension is exceptionally compelling because the actress uses so little of her physical self to get the message across. Rather then contorting her face in disgust she keeps it a blank slate, and instead lets only her eyes show everything that she is feeling. It shows that sometimes the smallest gestures can reveal the most about a person.
As for the acting I was able to truly appreciate it more now then I did back in 98, particularly in watching Leonardo DiCaprio. I was unable to see much value in his performance back then, mainly because I couldn’t stand him. When all the guys on the trip cheered when his character died I was right up there applauding. It had nothing to do with him as a person or as an actor. My dislike of him stemmed from every teenage girl at the time being madly in love with him. I had a hard enough time competing against guys in my school for the attention of girls. Having to additionally compete with someone who was only seen in movies and magazines was a little to much to handle. This is a fairly common occurrence among teenage boys. In high school I had a teacher point out that while teenage boys now like Elvis and The Beatles, when they first appeared guys were less inclined to like them because of how crazy girls went for the musicians. I’m sure even now there are scores of teenage boys who can’t stand Zac Efron or Robert Pattinson simply because they are beloved by adoring female fans.
I recommend trying to reexperience something you once hated when you were younger. While it is entirely possible you might still hate it, there’s a greater chance you’ll see new value in what you once thought was rubbish. With new eyes, and a different perspective, anything is possible.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Another Golden Girl Passes
On Saturday April 25th Bea Authur, best known for playing “Dorothy Zbornak” on the television show The Golden Girls, passed away. According to her family’s spokesman, she died at her home with her family by her side.
Bea Arthur’s career began in the late 1940s when she became a member of an off Broadway theater group at the Cherry Lane Theatre in New York City. Further theatre roles included playing “Yente the Matchmaker" in the 1964 production of Broadway’s Fiddler on the Roof, and "Vera Charles" in 1966’s Mame. Bea Authur would go on to win a Tony for her portrayal in the latter production.
During the run of the television show All in the Family, Bea Authur occasionally appeared as Edith Bunker’s liberal minded cousin Maude. Her feminist free thinking arguments with the bigoted Archie were enjoyed so much that the charter was given her own spin off show, appropriately titled Maude. The series focused on the character living in suburban New York with her fourth husband. While it was a comedy that focused on Authur’s biting wit, the series did also deal with many serious and hot button issues. One of the most controversial episodes focused on Maude becoming pregnant at age 47. After much soul searching, in which the character focused on the many dangers in having a child at her age, Maude decided to abort the pregnancy. The episode was groundbreaking, as in 1972 abortion was not only not talked about on television, but not even nationally legal at the time of its airing (the decision to nationally legalize abortion, from the supreme court case Roe vs. Wade, would be passed two months after the episode’s airing).
In 1985 Bea Authur was cast as Dorothy Zbornak in the television show The Golden Girls. The show focused on four elderly women living together in Miami, Florida. The show became a surprise hit, and allowed young people to see the elderly as real people instead of goofy characters. The show ran until 1992, when it was canceled after Authur decided to leave the show before it fizzled out.
After The Golden Girls Bea Authur continued to act on television, guest staring in numerous shows, such as Futurama and Malcolm in the Middle. In 2002 she returned to Broadway to star in a one woman show, intitled Bea Arthur on Broadway: Just Between Friends. The show was a collection of stories and songs based on her life and career. In 2008 Bea Arthur was inducted into Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Hall of Fame.
The entertainment world will definably miss this extraordinary talented woman.
Bea Arthur’s career began in the late 1940s when she became a member of an off Broadway theater group at the Cherry Lane Theatre in New York City. Further theatre roles included playing “Yente the Matchmaker" in the 1964 production of Broadway’s Fiddler on the Roof, and "Vera Charles" in 1966’s Mame. Bea Authur would go on to win a Tony for her portrayal in the latter production.
During the run of the television show All in the Family, Bea Authur occasionally appeared as Edith Bunker’s liberal minded cousin Maude. Her feminist free thinking arguments with the bigoted Archie were enjoyed so much that the charter was given her own spin off show, appropriately titled Maude. The series focused on the character living in suburban New York with her fourth husband. While it was a comedy that focused on Authur’s biting wit, the series did also deal with many serious and hot button issues. One of the most controversial episodes focused on Maude becoming pregnant at age 47. After much soul searching, in which the character focused on the many dangers in having a child at her age, Maude decided to abort the pregnancy. The episode was groundbreaking, as in 1972 abortion was not only not talked about on television, but not even nationally legal at the time of its airing (the decision to nationally legalize abortion, from the supreme court case Roe vs. Wade, would be passed two months after the episode’s airing).
In 1985 Bea Authur was cast as Dorothy Zbornak in the television show The Golden Girls. The show focused on four elderly women living together in Miami, Florida. The show became a surprise hit, and allowed young people to see the elderly as real people instead of goofy characters. The show ran until 1992, when it was canceled after Authur decided to leave the show before it fizzled out.
After The Golden Girls Bea Authur continued to act on television, guest staring in numerous shows, such as Futurama and Malcolm in the Middle. In 2002 she returned to Broadway to star in a one woman show, intitled Bea Arthur on Broadway: Just Between Friends. The show was a collection of stories and songs based on her life and career. In 2008 Bea Arthur was inducted into Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Hall of Fame.
The entertainment world will definably miss this extraordinary talented woman.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A Sad Day For Whedonverse Fans
Actor Andy Harlett, best known for playing the green skinned karaoke demon Lorne on the television show Angel, has passed away after a five year battle with heart disease. According to news sources the 33 year old actor passed away on Sunday March 29th at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. His father Dave Hallett was at his side as he passed on.
After graduating from Assumption College in Worcester, Andy Harlett moved to Los Angeles where he worked various jobs, such as a property manager and personal assistant. But it was his love of music that shot him to fame. When Buffy creator Joss Whedon saw him singing in a Universal City Blues revue, not only did he cast him as the charismatic demon Lorne on the TV show Angel, but the initial conception of the character was based on Andy’s performance. Virtually unrecognizable in green make-up and various prosthetics, the role made great use of Andy’s talents, with many episodes having him sing numerous show stopping numbers. Andy Harlett played Lorne for four of the show’s five seasons, graduating from guest star to full time cast member in the fourth season. After the series ended he continued to pursue his music career and would regularly appear at various sci-fi conventions.
A private funeral service will be held for family and close friends in Cape Cod.
After graduating from Assumption College in Worcester, Andy Harlett moved to Los Angeles where he worked various jobs, such as a property manager and personal assistant. But it was his love of music that shot him to fame. When Buffy creator Joss Whedon saw him singing in a Universal City Blues revue, not only did he cast him as the charismatic demon Lorne on the TV show Angel, but the initial conception of the character was based on Andy’s performance. Virtually unrecognizable in green make-up and various prosthetics, the role made great use of Andy’s talents, with many episodes having him sing numerous show stopping numbers. Andy Harlett played Lorne for four of the show’s five seasons, graduating from guest star to full time cast member in the fourth season. After the series ended he continued to pursue his music career and would regularly appear at various sci-fi conventions.
A private funeral service will be held for family and close friends in Cape Cod.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)