• Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
A Diva Through And Through PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
Wednesday, 10 November 2004
When you get right down to it, Being Julia is a truly extraordinary one-woman show. Obviously, there are a number of other solid actors and actresses in it; all giving terrific performances, but its Bening who has to sell the movie. Fortunately, she owns it. Shes nothing less than glorious. The film may not be perfect, but Bening struts across the screen and makes it work. People who love the theater are probably going to love the movie. If you believe all the publicity, Buffalo is the fifth greatest center of theater in the universe, after New York, London, Toronto, and Chicago, which means there should be plenty of folks rushing out to see Bening and her delicious film. She plays a wildly famous 1930s London stage actress in this mostly dead-on adaptation of Somerset Maughams novel Theatre.

Bening is at times vain, giddy, haughty, loving, hilarious, neurotic, and sexually supercharged. She is an actress playing an actress who never stops acting, especially in her personal life. Benings Julia usually triumphs, but she does occasionally falter onstage, and is, depending on her moods, both convincing and obvious in her offstage manipulations. Why she is like she is a completely different matter. The movie never quite gets around to explaining Julias behavior. Theres no psychological resolution, but maybe there doesnt have to be. Perhaps she is what she is because thats the way she is. Theres nothing wrong with sitting back and enjoying what director Istvan Szabo and screenwriter Ronald Harwood have concocted: a delightfully glamorous and wonderfully witty backstage world.

At the start of the film, Julia, a diva who knows how to drape a mink over her shoulders with just the right note of insouciance, claims exhaustion. She asks her producer husband (Jeremy Irons) to stop the play in which she is currently starring. The request seems reasonable enough, but the reaction of everyone around her offers clues that Julias momentary whim falls into the heard it all before category. It certainly hints at her capricious temperament. Irons character feigns indulgence, but being very business-minded, he offers her a deal. He agrees to end the show, but not immediately. He believes, or knows, that she will change her mind. Julias devoted dresser and maid, played with entertaining good humor by Juliet Stevenson, has definitely heard it all before. In fact, she can mouth along to what Julia says as she complains about middle age, her lot in life, the weather, the audience, almost anything and everything. The curtain has come down on Act 1, and I have no idea what happens in Act 2.

One very refreshing aspect of the character, especially the way Bening plays her, is that Julias not completely self-absorbed. Shes a diva with an understanding that artifice isnt everything. She can be sweet and warm and charming, and you can tell its not an act. She revels in the company of her theater friends and is honestly concerned about the emotional needs of her quite prescient teenage son (Thomas Sturridge). Julia is just a little less developed as a person than she is as a performer. The movie uses the conceit of her now-dead first, and much beloved, acting teacher (Michael Gambon) offering her advice on everything, sort of a whimsical angel-devil on her shoulder.

Much of the film revolves around Julias affair with a young American accountant who adores her acting and then adores her body. Were soon in All About Eve territory. Tom is played by Shaun Evans, who we first see as cute and blond, but latter as cute and bland. Ah, callow youth. Evans acts the part with just the right understanding of his characters place in the scheme of things. Julias open marriage allows her to cavort, and she is thrilled by the opportunity, and loves giving gifts. Tom is a puppy, nude and lusty, and is filled with eager advice for Julia. He tells her she could be in pictures, to which Julia responds, Real actresses dont make pictures, an in-joke that Bening delivers with just the right note. But when Tom starts pushing the career of a willowy ingenue, Julias claws come out. Boy, do they ever. Tom and the ingenue havent got a chance.

Its great watching the London diva swallow what Tom has to offer, but you know shes smart enough to retain a touch of wariness. You love it when Julia giggles as those around her comment on her sexy sparkle. And you love it when she gets annoyed at Tom and decides she has to turn the tables.

Its clear that Julia believes that Tom might be an accessory, sort of like the hats she wears. But she certainly knows how to get into the swing of things. As for her husband, well, I got the impression that it was he who opened the doors for the open marriage. Julia also has a dalliance with a chap named Charles (Bruce Greenwood), who ends up revealing something about himself that actually doesnt surprise her. And hubby isnt beyond the gentle shag or two. Theirs might be a marriage devoid of romance, but theres still a lot of love left in it. And it sure does make for great dialogue. Listen for exchanges such as Julia complaining Im a bitch. Awful through and through. Nevertheless. Irons begins in response. And as the producer in the relationship, hes the only person on the planet who can tell her when shes giving a bad performance.

Being Julia is beautifully photographed by Laos Koltai. The costumes and production values are top-notch. Theres not a dark view or bad outfit in the movie. This is a comedy, after all. As noted, the acting from everyone is sublime. Also enjoy appearances by Rita Tushingham, Rosemary Harris, Lucy Punch, Miriam Margolyes, Sheila McCarthy, Leigh Lawson, and Maury Chaykin, he himself a product of the University of Buffalo and our towns avant-garde theater scene in the late 60s and early 70s.

Bening, of course, delivers nothing less than a tour de force.

Read more...
 
EPA Pesticide Study Endangers Children's Health PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
Monday, 08 November 2004
The study entitled CHEERS (Childrens Environmental Exposure Research Study) pays participants up to $970 and offers them a free camcorder, free VCR, as well as t-shirts, calendars, bibs, and a framed Certificate of Appreciation. Participants are asked to maintain their normal pesticide applications throughout their home for two years. The EPA will monitor developmental changes in babies, from birth to 3 years, who are exposed to pesticides in their home. The study looks at 60 children, with less than 10% representing a control group, which consists of children that have low pesticide exposure, rather than no exposure at all.

The widespread use of toxic pesticides in homes is a serious threat to our childrens health. Many commonly used products contain ingredients that can affect the nervous system, cause birth defects, increase asthma rates and are suspected to cause cancer. The EPAs role is to protect infants and children from harmful pesticides, not encourage exposure! said Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE). CCE believes this study is unethical and dangerous to infants and children. We are sickened by the fact that the EPA views infants and children as acceptable test subjects. Frankly, we are appalled and horrified by the whole study Esposito added.

The study solicited participants from 6 health clinics and 3 hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida. According to the study, the 6 health clinics primarily serve individuals with lower incomes and the 3 hospitals report 51% of all births were to non-white mothers, with 62% of all mothers having only received an elementary or secondary education.
The selection criteria for the study requires that a participant must spray or have pesticides sprayed inside their home routinely. This study solicits people that may be easily persuaded to maintain or increase their pesticide use to receive monetary and other forms of compensation, stated Brian Smith, CCE Program Coordinator. It has been clearly designed to target lower income families and to endanger the health of their children, making it grossly unethical, Smith added.
The study has received $2 million in funding from the American Chemistry Council, which represents 135 companies, including pesticide manufactures, leading one to question the motives of the study.

CCE has written to EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt to ask him to halt the study. CCE believes that it is unethical that an agency set up to protect public health and the environment would advance a study designed to endanger the most vulnerable members of our society, infants and toddlers. This study must be stopped immediately so as not to set a precedent for future similar studies, stated Esposito. Once the study is stopped, CCE would welcome the unexpended dollars to be allocated to expand educational outreach on the dangers that pesticides pose to children and vulnerable populations, Esposito concluded.

The EPA website on the CHEER study: http://www.epa.gov/cheers/

Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE) is an 80,000 member not for profit, non-partisan advocacy organization working to protect the pubic health and natural environment. For additional information please visit www.citizenscampaign.org

Last Updated ( Friday, 18 May 2007 )
Read more...
 
post-election perspective PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
Monday, 08 November 2004
While the paranoid, delusional Christian right is doubtless applauding its minions efforts, organizations and individuals on the left like Move On and Michael Moore are pacifying their base with words of conciliation and sympathy, relentlessly remarking what a remarkable effort they made (Moore lists 17 reasons not to slit your wrists on his website). The fact that everything from the Redskins loss to the Red Sox win in sports forecasting analogies, and the overwhelming numbers of world leaders and citizens hoping for a Democratic victory had little or no effect on the outcome does not change the fact that America and the world are faced with four more years of unprecedented deficits and illegal wars, lost rights and opportunities, lies and deceitful corporate cronyism at the hands of the neo-cons pulling puppet Bushs strings, or that America deserves everything that happens to it because of it. Even the 49 % of us who know better, but couldnt stop it anyway are going to pay the price for the ignorance, superstition and government promoted paranoia of the other half. So much for the separation of church and state in American politics.

On the upside, the youth vote, which turned out in unprecedented numbers this year, was largely (55-45%) in favor of anyone but Bush, and even here in pre-civil war time-warped Virginia, that the city of Richmond came down on the right (left) side of the ballot demonstrates hope.

On the other side, the Democratic party, while fiscally solvent for the first time in decades and pulling its best numbers ever, is as dead as the squirrel carcass laying in the street in front of your house. The party died in 2000 when it bent over for Bush Is Supreme Court coup, and hasnt shown a pulse since. Ralph Nader was right. A third party needs to gather the disappointed and disenfranchised Dems and make a new choice (not the Republican-lite the Democrats have devolved into) that actually provides an option to the conservative, religious right, pro-corporate-profit clones that comprise the parties of the only two levers presently pullable.

Whatever happens, the important thing is that we keep this pre-election's political public discourse open and active so that mistakes like this can be corrected BEFORE they happen next time.

alexander graham

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

Results 19 - 21 of 21