Visit United Hollywood.com and watch this video:
Friday, November 09, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Nostalgy
I was reading the new blog of an old friend this morning. He just arrived in Philly from France. And it made me think about my own arrival, 4 years ago (see post below - and the link section and the right for a permanent link to Raph's blog).
Back then, it took me 5 months to create a blog (it took him a week, which proves the blogosphere has come a long way). Anyway, here's a link to my first day of posting (5 posts in a few hours! Unbelievable! Oh yeah, and it was in Franch, back then!). It's very nostalgic indeed. Keep reading and you'll find stuff about the 2004 Bush-Kerry elections and more. And a lot of reading about Middle-eastern politics, especially in the comments. Haaa, that was the time...
While I'm here, I also created a website, back then, to incite my fellow students from INT to follow the same program I did, DMAT. That one a little more pro (thanks, Baril).
Ok maybe I'll post something original soon. In the meantime, comment G-D damned!
Back then, it took me 5 months to create a blog (it took him a week, which proves the blogosphere has come a long way). Anyway, here's a link to my first day of posting (5 posts in a few hours! Unbelievable! Oh yeah, and it was in Franch, back then!). It's very nostalgic indeed. Keep reading and you'll find stuff about the 2004 Bush-Kerry elections and more. And a lot of reading about Middle-eastern politics, especially in the comments. Haaa, that was the time...
While I'm here, I also created a website, back then, to incite my fellow students from INT to follow the same program I did, DMAT. That one a little more pro (thanks, Baril).
Ok maybe I'll post something original soon. In the meantime, comment G-D damned!
Monday, August 13, 2007
Anniversary
Today I celebrate my 4 years in the United States.
I arrived on August 13th, 2003, on a memorable CDG-PIT-CVG-LAN flight (that's Paris - Pittsburgh - Cincinnati - Lansing for the rest of you).
That day I visited 3 different US states! An amazing gift to who figures out which...
I arrived on August 13th, 2003, on a memorable CDG-PIT-CVG-LAN flight (that's Paris - Pittsburgh - Cincinnati - Lansing for the rest of you).
That day I visited 3 different US states! An amazing gift to who figures out which...
Monday, August 06, 2007
The Pursuit of PG-rated Hapiness
I would like to denounce here the FCC, the MPAA and their stupid rules. As everybody knows, movies are rated here in the US by a panel of a few secret members, the Motion Picture Association of America. They decide who should or should not watch such and such movie. The same goes on TV. Even though ratings are not very famous on the small screen, the FCC fines frequently TV Networks (or, to be correct, their affiliates) for airing inappropriate material.
What infuriates me is, precisely, what they consider to be proper or not.
There are two obvious categories: violence and sex. There are also two different scales of "appropriateness".
A movie (or tv program) with repeated violence, such as fighting, stabbing, and minimal blood (including people shooting each other) will probably be rated PG-13. If there is one or several on-screen violent death, involving an extra portion of blood, burnt skin, or even torture (the Saw series comes to mind), it will be rated R. Which means really, any teenager can watch it.
But when it comes to sex, it's an entirely different ball-game (pardon the pun)! Let there be only one nipple, and it will be rated R. Anything more, and it's the much feared NC-17, a promise that the movie will be seen by none, and forever forgotten.
One has to ask himself: "what's the usual purpose of ratings?"
- The most obvious answer is that we should protect the kids from what can shock them.
- The second answer is that we have to make sure we don't portray some actions as "normal" or acceptable.
The difference is important, since a teenager introduced to R movies will probably go through 2 different phases. First, he will get used to it, and will stop closing his eyes when someone is tortured or breast are shown on screen. Then, and only then, he might, if not raised properly, try to emulate those scenes in real life.
This is why the system is so wrong. According to the FCC and MPAA ratings, it's OK for a teenager to emulate a crime, but not to have sex? Their action certainly lead us to believe so. Lots of people, I'm sure, would argue that this is historical, that the US have always been the home of puritanism. Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but I believe puritanism condemns violent behavior just as much as sexual conduct. So much for the historical argument.
"You can't imagine PG-13 movies with topless woman, surely?" you ask. Well, yes I can. Go to europe. In France, shampoo commercials with topless (and beautiful) woman air all day long, including during the "Dora the explorer" commercial breaks. And why not? What in the name of God is shocking in a pair of boobs? If anything else, it should be reassuring, and help us recall memories of our infant childhood. "Taboo", answer some. Then pardon my french, but a cop shooting another in the head should be taboo, too.
So what do I want? Explicit sex in PG movies? Not at all. Because there's another concept we need to take a look at, here: the relation between violence, sex, and entertainment.
A violent movie can be entertaining. In fact, violence itself can be entertaining, as has been proven countless times, with horror genre movies, stupid stunts of the "Jackass" kind, or even classics like "Marathon Man".
Sex can be entertaining, too. Because, just like violence, it appeals to our inner instincts. I'm not ashamed to say a great sex scene can add a lot to a movie, when it's carefully plotted. For example, "Match Point" by Woody Allen, has a few of them (with the beautiful Scarlett Johansonn and Jonathan Rhys Meyer, nonetheless). "Ghost" starts with another, now cult, lovemaking one.
Then the question we have to ask ourselves is a question of limit, and of prevention from entering a degrading circle. Movies with explicit sex need to be stamped with a porn label, but just as much as movies with explicit and free violence need to be stamped with a new, still- to-determine label. They're called more and more "torture porn" but I don't think this will stick.
Example: a movie like Saw, with countless torture scenes, is a thousand time more shocking and disturbing than a porno with explicit sex scenes. Because porn movies are scenes of our everyday lives and hopefully, horror scenes are not.
I have to admit here I watched, and enjoyed Saw. Why? Because I've been raised watching horror movies, and I've been used to it. I've passed the first step, the "getting used to". And this is where we have to intervene. It's still time to change our view on this, and make sure such movies are properly labeled. We have to make sure 13-year old kids today will never get used to watching explicit violence, will never pass the first step.
On the other side, lots of people enjoy porn as well. I'd love if you guys tell me your take on this. Do you enjoy watching horror or porn movies? Have you ever compared the two? The comments section awaits you! And so, I think porn movies should be as available as horror movie - as long as they have the right rating.
So, to summerize, here's what I would do if I were head of the MPAA or FCC (in another 20 or 40 years):
- Lower the standard ratings for movies involving sex: I would rate PG-13 films involving fighting or topless women.
- Raise the standard ratings for movies involving violence: I would rate R films involving any death (like a gunshot), and non-explicit sex (but explicit nudity would be fine here).
- I believe people above 18 can do whatever they want with their lives, so I would rate NC-18 any movie with explicit violence or sex.
Now you tell me: what do you think? If we change all of this now, are gangs going to disappear, and will we start seeing explicit sex in the streets of the Bronx and South central instead?
What infuriates me is, precisely, what they consider to be proper or not.
There are two obvious categories: violence and sex. There are also two different scales of "appropriateness".
A movie (or tv program) with repeated violence, such as fighting, stabbing, and minimal blood (including people shooting each other) will probably be rated PG-13. If there is one or several on-screen violent death, involving an extra portion of blood, burnt skin, or even torture (the Saw series comes to mind), it will be rated R. Which means really, any teenager can watch it.
But when it comes to sex, it's an entirely different ball-game (pardon the pun)! Let there be only one nipple, and it will be rated R. Anything more, and it's the much feared NC-17, a promise that the movie will be seen by none, and forever forgotten.
One has to ask himself: "what's the usual purpose of ratings?"
- The most obvious answer is that we should protect the kids from what can shock them.
- The second answer is that we have to make sure we don't portray some actions as "normal" or acceptable.
The difference is important, since a teenager introduced to R movies will probably go through 2 different phases. First, he will get used to it, and will stop closing his eyes when someone is tortured or breast are shown on screen. Then, and only then, he might, if not raised properly, try to emulate those scenes in real life.
This is why the system is so wrong. According to the FCC and MPAA ratings, it's OK for a teenager to emulate a crime, but not to have sex? Their action certainly lead us to believe so. Lots of people, I'm sure, would argue that this is historical, that the US have always been the home of puritanism. Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but I believe puritanism condemns violent behavior just as much as sexual conduct. So much for the historical argument.
"You can't imagine PG-13 movies with topless woman, surely?" you ask. Well, yes I can. Go to europe. In France, shampoo commercials with topless (and beautiful) woman air all day long, including during the "Dora the explorer" commercial breaks. And why not? What in the name of God is shocking in a pair of boobs? If anything else, it should be reassuring, and help us recall memories of our infant childhood. "Taboo", answer some. Then pardon my french, but a cop shooting another in the head should be taboo, too.
So what do I want? Explicit sex in PG movies? Not at all. Because there's another concept we need to take a look at, here: the relation between violence, sex, and entertainment.
A violent movie can be entertaining. In fact, violence itself can be entertaining, as has been proven countless times, with horror genre movies, stupid stunts of the "Jackass" kind, or even classics like "Marathon Man".
Sex can be entertaining, too. Because, just like violence, it appeals to our inner instincts. I'm not ashamed to say a great sex scene can add a lot to a movie, when it's carefully plotted. For example, "Match Point" by Woody Allen, has a few of them (with the beautiful Scarlett Johansonn and Jonathan Rhys Meyer, nonetheless). "Ghost" starts with another, now cult, lovemaking one.
Then the question we have to ask ourselves is a question of limit, and of prevention from entering a degrading circle. Movies with explicit sex need to be stamped with a porn label, but just as much as movies with explicit and free violence need to be stamped with a new, still- to-determine label. They're called more and more "torture porn" but I don't think this will stick.
Example: a movie like Saw, with countless torture scenes, is a thousand time more shocking and disturbing than a porno with explicit sex scenes. Because porn movies are scenes of our everyday lives and hopefully, horror scenes are not.
I have to admit here I watched, and enjoyed Saw. Why? Because I've been raised watching horror movies, and I've been used to it. I've passed the first step, the "getting used to". And this is where we have to intervene. It's still time to change our view on this, and make sure such movies are properly labeled. We have to make sure 13-year old kids today will never get used to watching explicit violence, will never pass the first step.
On the other side, lots of people enjoy porn as well. I'd love if you guys tell me your take on this. Do you enjoy watching horror or porn movies? Have you ever compared the two? The comments section awaits you! And so, I think porn movies should be as available as horror movie - as long as they have the right rating.
So, to summerize, here's what I would do if I were head of the MPAA or FCC (in another 20 or 40 years):
- Lower the standard ratings for movies involving sex: I would rate PG-13 films involving fighting or topless women.
- Raise the standard ratings for movies involving violence: I would rate R films involving any death (like a gunshot), and non-explicit sex (but explicit nudity would be fine here).
- I believe people above 18 can do whatever they want with their lives, so I would rate NC-18 any movie with explicit violence or sex.
Now you tell me: what do you think? If we change all of this now, are gangs going to disappear, and will we start seeing explicit sex in the streets of the Bronx and South central instead?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Super Dope Me
It's almost 11pm on a saturday night, and I'm watching Florida - Giants on ESPN. Barry Bonds has 754 home runs now, only one short of Hank Aaron's record. When he finally ties then breaks it, which is bond (haha) to happen soon, it's gonna be a biiiiig day, something baseball fans will remember for all their life. For several reasons.
First, breaking the HR record is a big deal. It's a record which brings back memories of Babe Ruth, , who's been broken only once since the babe's era almost a 100 years ago.
But of course, the big deal is all about Barry Bonds, whose use of steroid is widely known. What do you do when someone who you know takes illegal stuff does something amazing? The problem, of course, is that nothing has ever been proven, so even though everybody knows the truth, "every us citizen is considered innocent unless proven guilty", as MLB commissioner Bug Selig puts it.
The same thing happened with Lance Armstrong winning a record 7-straight Tour De France. I still find it amazing Americans believe Armstrong to be innocent. They speak of his unbelievable story, a cancer survivor who comes back to win - 7 times! - the world's physically toughest event, as if it was something to be celebrated.
The truth is, if it's unbelievable, there's a reason for it: because it is not true. How can a smart person think someone who has gone through chemotherapy hell can come back and be naturally fit enough to win a Tour de France, let alone 7?
It is very fitting, I think, that Barry Bonds will break old' Hank's record just when the worst Tour in history is about to finish (several teams retired because their leaders were found guilty of using steroids and other testosterony crap). This might well qualify as the most shameful week-end in sport history. So why do people celebrate despite of all?
In Barry Bonds case, I think the answer has to be profoundly American. Breaking records is as much about looking forward to an always improved future as it is about celebrating a glorious past. Both values are dear to American hearts. Those hearts believe in people's best and to the beauty of sports as a way to push yourself always further. If it is proved in later years Barry Bonds cheated, his record will be taken away, but at least baseball fans won't have missed an occasion to celebrate their sport.
In Lance Armstrong's case, it's a little easier. The Tour shines from France on the whole world. Americans will never let an occasion for one of theirs to become a sport hero. So the US media made sure Armstrong's faults were not widely known (despite France newspaper and tour de france founder "L'Equipe" efforts),and instead destroyed poor (though guilty) Floyd Landis as a scapegoat. Landis is an American, of course, so that makes them look fair.
Finally, why does the Tour de France continues, year after year, stage after stage, despite the growing evidences that the whole sport is corrupted? Maybe it's because simply stopping the Tour seems impossible. Maybe because we all love to watch those guys climb mountains with a smile, the way James Bond haircut stays perfect even after 2 hours of action hell. Maybe the Tour is closer to Hollywood than we think.
First, breaking the HR record is a big deal. It's a record which brings back memories of Babe Ruth, , who's been broken only once since the babe's era almost a 100 years ago.
But of course, the big deal is all about Barry Bonds, whose use of steroid is widely known. What do you do when someone who you know takes illegal stuff does something amazing? The problem, of course, is that nothing has ever been proven, so even though everybody knows the truth, "every us citizen is considered innocent unless proven guilty", as MLB commissioner Bug Selig puts it.
The same thing happened with Lance Armstrong winning a record 7-straight Tour De France. I still find it amazing Americans believe Armstrong to be innocent. They speak of his unbelievable story, a cancer survivor who comes back to win - 7 times! - the world's physically toughest event, as if it was something to be celebrated.
The truth is, if it's unbelievable, there's a reason for it: because it is not true. How can a smart person think someone who has gone through chemotherapy hell can come back and be naturally fit enough to win a Tour de France, let alone 7?
It is very fitting, I think, that Barry Bonds will break old' Hank's record just when the worst Tour in history is about to finish (several teams retired because their leaders were found guilty of using steroids and other testosterony crap). This might well qualify as the most shameful week-end in sport history. So why do people celebrate despite of all?
In Barry Bonds case, I think the answer has to be profoundly American. Breaking records is as much about looking forward to an always improved future as it is about celebrating a glorious past. Both values are dear to American hearts. Those hearts believe in people's best and to the beauty of sports as a way to push yourself always further. If it is proved in later years Barry Bonds cheated, his record will be taken away, but at least baseball fans won't have missed an occasion to celebrate their sport.
In Lance Armstrong's case, it's a little easier. The Tour shines from France on the whole world. Americans will never let an occasion for one of theirs to become a sport hero. So the US media made sure Armstrong's faults were not widely known (despite France newspaper and tour de france founder "L'Equipe" efforts),and instead destroyed poor (though guilty) Floyd Landis as a scapegoat. Landis is an American, of course, so that makes them look fair.
Finally, why does the Tour de France continues, year after year, stage after stage, despite the growing evidences that the whole sport is corrupted? Maybe it's because simply stopping the Tour seems impossible. Maybe because we all love to watch those guys climb mountains with a smile, the way James Bond haircut stays perfect even after 2 hours of action hell. Maybe the Tour is closer to Hollywood than we think.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Simpsons Movie
Tomorrow opens The Simpsons, the movie. I bet it will break all records. More than Harry Potter, more than Spiderman, etc, etc.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)