Cinecast Mailbag (10/6)

Friday's show will be posted around noon CT ... to the Mailbag ...

Please, how can you call Laura Linney over-rated and accuse her of taking herself too seriously, and then go on to praise Gwyneth "I named my poor kid APPLE" Paltrow in the same breath?! She is, IMHO, the most over-rated actress of her generation. She over-emotes, has a one-size-fits-all injured, naive look, and her apparently flawless English accent fluctuates from Cockney to Upper Class and back again within the same scene in Emma, Sliding Doors and Shakespeare in Love.

Meanwhile, Renee Zellwegger and the gloriously unpretentious Cate Blanchett get completely over-looked. If you want to see real acting and a flawless Brit accent, check out Shekar Kapur's Elizabeth.

Shame on you! --Sabina from London

Thanks for the email, Sabina. Are Renee Zellwegger and Cate Blanchett really overlooked? Both have Oscar nominations; Zellwegger has a win (for Supporting, I know). [Edit: Actually, they both have Supporting Actress wins. Blanchett won for "The Aviator" last year. Thanks to Hannibal6152]. But I suppose I should point out that it's Sam who hates Laura Linney, and I'm the one who is fond of Gwyneth Paltrow. Sam seems to regard Paltrow about the same as I do Linney, which is to say that we find them each merely "good." One thing that should probably be clarified though... when Sam rips on Laura Linney for taking herself too seriously, he means it as a performer -- on screen. Off screen, I'm not sure Sam has an opinion about Linney, nor should he. I mention this because you threw in a jab about Paltrow naming her kid "Apple" (a name, for what it's worth, I kind of like). You seem to have good reasons for disliking Paltrow beyond any pretentiousness she may have as a person, but I still find it odd whenever such concerns become part of the discussion. I've heard numerous people express their disdain for Russell Crowe -- as an actor, mind you -- because they think he's a jerk in real life. Excluding the fact that his behavior off screen is irrelevant to his behavior on screen, the most troubling part is that, of course, they don't actually know what Crowe is really like. All they know is his tabloid-fueled persona. Anyway, I stand by my Gwyneth selection!

Hi guys, I thought the most recent episode's anecdote [in Cinecast #43] regarding the George Clooney quote about the montage cut from his new film was very interesting. I see his point completely. One film in which I saw such a montage, as the last several minutes of the film, where it probably rendered the rest of the movie irrelevant was in Spike Lee's Bamboozled. The movie is only mediocre overall, but the final montage showing a historical timeline of film and TV content of the depiction of black people in America was heartbreaking, sad, and extremely powerful.

I almost always agree that subtlety and thought-provoking are better qualities than hit-you-over-the-head thematic points, but this Spike Lee movie is an example where four minutes at the end of the movie is most likely much more worthwhile than the rest of the movie. How can fiction played as farce be more real than what was actually produced and distributed as entertainment. I think that this speaks so much more. In this case, anyway.

Just wanted to point out this film which most people, including Spike Lee viewers, probably haven't seen. Worth checking out to see if it alters your strong agreement of the Clooney point. I was applauding Clooney, as you did, until I recalled this film.

Best,
Rod Akizuki

Interesting comparison, Rod. I agree with you about a few things here -- that "Bamboozled" is overall mediocre and that Lee's montage at the end is pretty effective. But Clooney should still be applauded. It's not important to Sam or me that Clooney cut a montage, specifically, from his film. What matters is that he cut something significant from his film that would have been manipulative and patronizing to his audience. To some extent, Lee probably commits the same sin. But I think the difference is that Lee is always pretty blatant and in your face with his message, so the montage is consistent with the rest of the film.

That said, it occurs to me that maybe the reason we both like the montage at the end of "Bamboozled" is because it's actually far more subtle and provocative than the rest of the film. The "sad, powerful" images make the point much more effectively than the rest of the film does. It adds something to the experience rather than being redundant, which I think the Clooney montage would have been.