Well it's official, the Coalition to overthrow Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government is dead. Today, Liberal leader Michael Ignatief ended a month of speculation by deciding not to support the coalition and instead allow the federal budget to pass, as long as the Conservative government agrees to the proposed amendment. This amendment, if agreed upon, would enable the Liberals to call an election if the current government fails to adhere to the budget released yesterday.
Of course, for those who are either convinced that Stephen Harper is the next great dictator or believe that Mr. Harper can do no wrong, this is a dark day in Canadian history. However, for those that actually wish to see our country attempt to deal with the current economic "crisis", rather than listen to the endless rhetoric of the politicians, this is a huge step forward.
Since becoming the leader of the Liberal party, Ignatief has been critcized for not being a true Canadian, after spending a number of years living in America. However, I believe Mr. Ignatief to be an educated, politically savvy individual who is not about to throw Canada into disarray for his own political agenda, unlike his predecessor, Stephan Dion, who despite suffering an embarrassing defeat during the last election that would have sent any other politician looking for the nearest rock to hide under, continued to make decisions that sent Canadians heads spinning.
Rather than resigning after the federal election, Dion attempted to turn the entire Canadian political system upside by forming a coalition of three, ideologically opposite, political parties. A coalition whose leaders were so blinded by their hatred for Stephen Harper and their desire for power, to stop to think whether they were acting in their own best interests or that of Canadians.
Immediately following Ignatieff's announcement today, he came under fire again. However, this time from his former "allies" Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, who both claimed that by not supporting the coaltion government, the Liberals have in essence formed an alliance with the Conservatives. What makes these comments even more remarkable is that they come from a seperatist leader, who does not, in any way, have the best interests of Canadians in mind. If you ask me, I would much rather have the Liberals working with the Conservatives, than with the seperatists.
Today, for the first time, I see a glimmer of hope that this minority government may succeed. Ignatieff's decision enables the Harper government to operate, but the Liberals sent a clear message that if the Conservatives fail to meet expectations, they will be held accountable, and after all, isn't our ability to hold our government accountable for their actions the root of democracy?
Now Canadians have to watch and see if Ignatief will either prove as power hungry as Duceppe, Layton and his predecesor, Dion, and pull the trigger the minute the Harper government stumbles or will stay true to his word and act only if the Conservative government fails to make decisions that will benefit Canadians during the challenging months ahead. I guess only time will tell, but at least for now, democracy in Canada is safe again.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Notorious??
Last night, I went to the cinema. While I was waiting for the movie to begin, I was reading a magazine that highlighted the films to be released in the month of January. One movie in particularly caught my attention, and left me with a bad taste.
Over the past few years, Hollywood has become a recycling plant, pumping out endless amounts of remakes. Regardless of whether the movie is a cinematic classic like the Day the Earth Stood Still or a relatively unknown horror film such as My Bloody Valentine. In a time where new ideas have become all but extinct, no movie is safe from a remake. Surprisingly, however, it wasn't the recent plethora of remakes that made me so upset. Rather it was the release of a particular biopic.
Like the endless remakes, biopics have become another one of Hollywoods attempts to fill the void of creativity. In fact, it has reached a point where a relatively unknown individual can have a movie made about them (see Milk). However, I would much rather watch a biographical film on a less than prolific individual, who provided some positive influence on society, than view a movie based on a more famous, but hardly reputable individual.
When scanning a movie website a few months back for new releases, I stumbled across the movie titled Notorious. My initial reaction was one of curiousity. Knowing Hollywoods love of remakes, I feared that this was an updated version of the famous Hitchcock film Notorious, starring the legendary Cary Grant. Imagining an updated version, with an undoubtably poor cast, I clicked the link to obtain more information. Much to my dismay, I discovered the movie was not a remake, but rather a biopic on the Notorious B.I.G. Upon realizing the subject matter of the movie, I immediately moved on to another preview and all but forgot about Notorious, until last night where upon reading a description of the movie, I was again filled with dismay.
While most people may not have heard of the movie Notorious, unfortunately, most people know of Notorious B.I.G. (aka Biggie Smalls). Granted, rap is hardly my favourite music genre, but it is not the reason for my destain for this film. Rather it is the fact that Notorious B.I.G was openly involved in a gang. In fact, he was so involved that it resulted in his death, when he was gunned down by a rival gang, whose members include 50 cent. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, gangs and there members were considered bad influences on society. So I have to ask the question, why is Hollywood continuing to make movies about less than reputable individuals, who provide no value to society?
Many of you will argue that Hollywood makes plenty of movies about far worse people than Biggie Smalls. I agree, to an extent. Movies such as Hostel definetly do their part in glorifying violence and toture for the enjoyment (?) of fans. However, unlike Notorious B.I.G, the characters in Hostel and other similarly reprehensible films, are neither real nor are they potrayed as folk heroes. Rather they are seen as deranged, evil individuals who commit there crimes without motive or reason.
In Notorious, however, Biggie will undoubtably be glorified as a talented, misunderstood individual who made the most of a difficult situation and became a legend. I am not familiar with any of Biggies music, so I cannot comment on his talents, but that still does not deny the fact that he comes from a violent background that plagued his entire career. Unlike other famous individuals, who at least made an effort to seperate themselves from their troubled past, Biggie reveled in it. Like so many other rappers, it became his identity. To be in a gang and to invoke violence is part of the bad boy image that helps make rappers famous. Those who try to distance themselves from the gangsta image, such as LL Cool J or Ice T, are seen as sell outs to their former fans.
I doubt at the end of Notorious, want to be gangsta's will walk away from the movie, throw away their baggie jumpsuits, straight beaked hats and gold chains and say that it's time to step away for the tough guy image and join normal society. Rather, they will likely continue to idealize Notorious B.I.G, and invision themselves as tough ass gangstas who don't back down but, unlike Biggie, they will get to their rivals, before they get to them.
Despite the poor message that Hollywood is sending by continuing to make these type of films, it is unlikely that Notorious will be the last. Instead, we may even see an influx. In the midst of a struggling economy, these type of biopics are relatively inexpensive to make and most importantly they sell tickets, especially to the coveted 18-24 year old audience, who continue to idealize Notorious B.I.G, 50 Cent and other questionable characters. If these movies continue to be successful, who knows, we may even see a few remakes.
Over the past few years, Hollywood has become a recycling plant, pumping out endless amounts of remakes. Regardless of whether the movie is a cinematic classic like the Day the Earth Stood Still or a relatively unknown horror film such as My Bloody Valentine. In a time where new ideas have become all but extinct, no movie is safe from a remake. Surprisingly, however, it wasn't the recent plethora of remakes that made me so upset. Rather it was the release of a particular biopic.
Like the endless remakes, biopics have become another one of Hollywoods attempts to fill the void of creativity. In fact, it has reached a point where a relatively unknown individual can have a movie made about them (see Milk). However, I would much rather watch a biographical film on a less than prolific individual, who provided some positive influence on society, than view a movie based on a more famous, but hardly reputable individual.
When scanning a movie website a few months back for new releases, I stumbled across the movie titled Notorious. My initial reaction was one of curiousity. Knowing Hollywoods love of remakes, I feared that this was an updated version of the famous Hitchcock film Notorious, starring the legendary Cary Grant. Imagining an updated version, with an undoubtably poor cast, I clicked the link to obtain more information. Much to my dismay, I discovered the movie was not a remake, but rather a biopic on the Notorious B.I.G. Upon realizing the subject matter of the movie, I immediately moved on to another preview and all but forgot about Notorious, until last night where upon reading a description of the movie, I was again filled with dismay.
While most people may not have heard of the movie Notorious, unfortunately, most people know of Notorious B.I.G. (aka Biggie Smalls). Granted, rap is hardly my favourite music genre, but it is not the reason for my destain for this film. Rather it is the fact that Notorious B.I.G was openly involved in a gang. In fact, he was so involved that it resulted in his death, when he was gunned down by a rival gang, whose members include 50 cent. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, gangs and there members were considered bad influences on society. So I have to ask the question, why is Hollywood continuing to make movies about less than reputable individuals, who provide no value to society?
Many of you will argue that Hollywood makes plenty of movies about far worse people than Biggie Smalls. I agree, to an extent. Movies such as Hostel definetly do their part in glorifying violence and toture for the enjoyment (?) of fans. However, unlike Notorious B.I.G, the characters in Hostel and other similarly reprehensible films, are neither real nor are they potrayed as folk heroes. Rather they are seen as deranged, evil individuals who commit there crimes without motive or reason.
In Notorious, however, Biggie will undoubtably be glorified as a talented, misunderstood individual who made the most of a difficult situation and became a legend. I am not familiar with any of Biggies music, so I cannot comment on his talents, but that still does not deny the fact that he comes from a violent background that plagued his entire career. Unlike other famous individuals, who at least made an effort to seperate themselves from their troubled past, Biggie reveled in it. Like so many other rappers, it became his identity. To be in a gang and to invoke violence is part of the bad boy image that helps make rappers famous. Those who try to distance themselves from the gangsta image, such as LL Cool J or Ice T, are seen as sell outs to their former fans.
I doubt at the end of Notorious, want to be gangsta's will walk away from the movie, throw away their baggie jumpsuits, straight beaked hats and gold chains and say that it's time to step away for the tough guy image and join normal society. Rather, they will likely continue to idealize Notorious B.I.G, and invision themselves as tough ass gangstas who don't back down but, unlike Biggie, they will get to their rivals, before they get to them.
Despite the poor message that Hollywood is sending by continuing to make these type of films, it is unlikely that Notorious will be the last. Instead, we may even see an influx. In the midst of a struggling economy, these type of biopics are relatively inexpensive to make and most importantly they sell tickets, especially to the coveted 18-24 year old audience, who continue to idealize Notorious B.I.G, 50 Cent and other questionable characters. If these movies continue to be successful, who knows, we may even see a few remakes.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Another year with Oscar
One of the few things I look forward to during the long cold days of winter is the award season, particularly the Academy Awards. As a self admitted movie nut, I am always interested to see which movies are nominated.
Admittedly, there is generally a pattern with the Oscar nominations. There is either a big film that is the clear favourite, such as Titanic or Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, which is all but guaranteed to win the big prize or there are several outstanding films that, while not receiving considerable box office success, vie for Best Picture. Last year, was a great example of the later, where No Country for Old Men deservedly won, but there were at least 2 other movies that were equally enjoyable and deserving. Even in years where the nominees are neither box office hits or critical favourites, there is always that historical epic, such as Braveheart and Gladiator, that fill the void. Either way, the Oscars always make for predictable, but enjoyable viewing during a dreary time of year.
This year, however, I find myself surprisingly apathetic toward the nominees. It is a year where the Curious Case of Benjamin Button received 13 nominations, which puts in an elite category with Titanic, Lord of the Rings, and Ben Hur, for movies to receive the most nominations. However, unlike those movies, which also had considerable box office success, Benjamin Button has hardly been a huge box office smash. The one movie that received considerable Oscar buzz and definitely made an impact on the box office was the Dark Knight. Considering that the Oscar's usually achieve the highest ratings in years where a box office smash, that is also well received by critics, is nominated for Best Picture, it seemed certain that the latest Batman film would be considered for a number of awards. Instead, the movie was virtually shut out.
Of the remaining four nominees, none fit the usual best picture material. Milk is a biopic on a relatively unknown politician. While I'm sure Sean Penn delivers another Oscar worthy performance, it's not surprising this movie hasn't brought a flood of people to the theatre. Like Milk, Frost/Nixon is another political movie, based on a famous interview that only Americans remember or might even remotely care about. Then we have the Reader, a controversial movie on another one of Oscar's favourite topics, Nazis. However, unlike Schindler's List, this movie has received a lackluster response from the critics and the public alike. Finally, we have the early critics favourite to win, Slumdog Millionaire, a fairly unknown film until recent strong reviews have caught the interest of the public. Despite the good reviews, however, I can't shake the feeling that Millionaire is one of Oscar's token dark horse nominees a la Juno, Babe or Little Miss Sunshine that is considered to be a good little movie, but doesn't stand a chance against the big dogs.
So for the first time, I'm not looking forward to the Academy Awards as an escape from the winter blues. Instead, I'm turning to the recent world events to get me through the cold days of winter and provide me with a much needed break from the Oscars.
Admittedly, there is generally a pattern with the Oscar nominations. There is either a big film that is the clear favourite, such as Titanic or Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, which is all but guaranteed to win the big prize or there are several outstanding films that, while not receiving considerable box office success, vie for Best Picture. Last year, was a great example of the later, where No Country for Old Men deservedly won, but there were at least 2 other movies that were equally enjoyable and deserving. Even in years where the nominees are neither box office hits or critical favourites, there is always that historical epic, such as Braveheart and Gladiator, that fill the void. Either way, the Oscars always make for predictable, but enjoyable viewing during a dreary time of year.
This year, however, I find myself surprisingly apathetic toward the nominees. It is a year where the Curious Case of Benjamin Button received 13 nominations, which puts in an elite category with Titanic, Lord of the Rings, and Ben Hur, for movies to receive the most nominations. However, unlike those movies, which also had considerable box office success, Benjamin Button has hardly been a huge box office smash. The one movie that received considerable Oscar buzz and definitely made an impact on the box office was the Dark Knight. Considering that the Oscar's usually achieve the highest ratings in years where a box office smash, that is also well received by critics, is nominated for Best Picture, it seemed certain that the latest Batman film would be considered for a number of awards. Instead, the movie was virtually shut out.
Of the remaining four nominees, none fit the usual best picture material. Milk is a biopic on a relatively unknown politician. While I'm sure Sean Penn delivers another Oscar worthy performance, it's not surprising this movie hasn't brought a flood of people to the theatre. Like Milk, Frost/Nixon is another political movie, based on a famous interview that only Americans remember or might even remotely care about. Then we have the Reader, a controversial movie on another one of Oscar's favourite topics, Nazis. However, unlike Schindler's List, this movie has received a lackluster response from the critics and the public alike. Finally, we have the early critics favourite to win, Slumdog Millionaire, a fairly unknown film until recent strong reviews have caught the interest of the public. Despite the good reviews, however, I can't shake the feeling that Millionaire is one of Oscar's token dark horse nominees a la Juno, Babe or Little Miss Sunshine that is considered to be a good little movie, but doesn't stand a chance against the big dogs.
So for the first time, I'm not looking forward to the Academy Awards as an escape from the winter blues. Instead, I'm turning to the recent world events to get me through the cold days of winter and provide me with a much needed break from the Oscars.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A significant moment in history?
Today, Barrack Obama is swore in as the 44th US President. While I have an interest in politics, I am not an avid follower. However, I felt that it was important to watch or at least listen to the inauguration of now President Obama. I sensed that it could be one of the most significant events of my lifetime and I wanted to be able to say to my kids (if I should ever have any), that I remember listening to the speech and where I was when it happened.
Growing up, I used to ask my parents if they remembered where they were during significant moments in history, such as the Assassination of JFK or John Lennon or when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. They could neither tell me nor did they seem to care. I don't want to have the same response if asked by my children.
After listening to this "historical moment in history", however, I am left to wonder if it really was that significant an event. Like all things that are built up for months, the final result is always a let down. Before it began, it was over. There was no great moment that stood out, in fact, the moment that I will remember most is the Chief Justice saying the oath wrong, and hearing Obama pause mid-speech until the Chief Justice realized his error and corrected the mistake.
While the memorable event, wasn't that memorable, I'm certain that there will be one or more defining moments during President Obama's 4 years in office and if there isn't may be that alone will define his legacy. Compared to the last 8 years of endless drama under the Bush administration, a calm, steady leader maybe exactly what America needs. Only time will tell.
Growing up, I used to ask my parents if they remembered where they were during significant moments in history, such as the Assassination of JFK or John Lennon or when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. They could neither tell me nor did they seem to care. I don't want to have the same response if asked by my children.
After listening to this "historical moment in history", however, I am left to wonder if it really was that significant an event. Like all things that are built up for months, the final result is always a let down. Before it began, it was over. There was no great moment that stood out, in fact, the moment that I will remember most is the Chief Justice saying the oath wrong, and hearing Obama pause mid-speech until the Chief Justice realized his error and corrected the mistake.
While the memorable event, wasn't that memorable, I'm certain that there will be one or more defining moments during President Obama's 4 years in office and if there isn't may be that alone will define his legacy. Compared to the last 8 years of endless drama under the Bush administration, a calm, steady leader maybe exactly what America needs. Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
