Visual Effect

I love visual effects in movies, especially when they look awesome, are used to great effect, seamlessly blend into the story, and aren't self serving.

I guess that's why I often skirt the summer blockbusters, because even though they overflow with visual effects, they have so little to say, your eyes feel raped, but your soul feels dumped.

Anyway, here's a cool clip about visual effects throughout the years:

Delusional quote of the day

From Towleroad, here's how new Utah Governor Gary Herbert, who is against anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, justifies his pathetically delusional views:

"I don't believe sexual orientation should be a protected class in the way that race, gender and religion are. We don't have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do and we don't have to have a law that punishes us if we don't."

In Utah it is legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender, which pretty much sums up the stupidity of the statement of the highest official in the state saying that "we should all do the right thing because it's the right thing to do."

Then again, in his warped mind view, doing the right thing probably does include firing someone simply because he's gay.

Prop Hate

I was in Italy when the California Supreme Court decided to uphold Prop 8, or, as it has come to be known, Prop Hate, so I never posted about it, but I think a quick comment is warranted.

Obviously, I think they made a big mistake. While a year prior 4 courageous justices decided to uphold the rights of every individual, this time 3 of them bent to the threats of being recalled by the religious right and forever stained their legacy.

Thankfully, they let the 18,000 marriages performed before the passage of Prop Hate stand, but that's a small consolation. Actually, they virtually created a new class of people in California.

I'm no lawyer, but a lot of constitutional scholars were surprised not really by the decision (they were expected to uphold Prop 8), but by the language in the opinion, lacking any hints of limiting what people can do to the Constitution and practically denting their own opinion from a year earlier.

A few excerpts from a series of articles I read once back from our vacation.

The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.
[...]
Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.

The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.

"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.

UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."
[...]
But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical.

"It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
[...]
Justice Carlos R. Moreno dissented, calling the ruling "not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

"The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry," Moreno wrote, "it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."

Gay rights advocates and several legal scholars said they were surprised that the court did not attempt to rein in constitutional amendments.

"For the court to see only structural changes as those requiring a greater majority is perhaps the worst feature of the opinion today," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, who voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds. "It makes it much too casual for individual rights to be withdrawn."

An opinion piece:

This decision raises the obvious question: “why did the California Supreme Court first rule that there is a fundamental right to marriage equality and then rule that the voters can take that away?”
[...]
The Court made clear that today’s decision was not a ruling about whether there should be a right to marry in California; it was a ruling about whether the California Constitution, as written, permits the voters to pass Proposition 8 and thereby limit the right to marry.

Although same-sex couples in California who did not marry before November 4, 2008 are barred from marrying until Proposition 8 is itself repealed, the Court made clear that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to enter into a family relationship (i.e. domestic partnerships) with access to all the constitutionally based rights and responsibilities of marriage.
[...]
I realize, of course, that the right of gays and lesbians to marry in this state has only lately been recognized. But that belated recognition does not make the protection of those rights less important. Rather, that the right has only recently been acknowledged reflects an age-old prejudice that makes the safeguarding of that right by the judiciary all the more critical …

Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

Another one:

The decision Tuesday that upheld a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was social and moral nonsense.
[...]
Legal precedents notwithstanding -- and the six clearly nervous justices who made up the majority in this case reached all the way back to the state Constitution of 1849 for those -- Tuesday's decision was intellectually and morally incoherent. It essentially tells Californians that a right as fundamental as the ability to choose the marital partner of your choice is a kind of judicial lottery ticket -- if you got in early, you win, but those who arrived a few days late lose. Sorry.

You could feel the justices straining for their convoluted result in every tortured sentence of Tuesday's 6-1 opinion, and it was impossible not to draw comparisons with the moral and legal clarity of the court's ruling last year that the state Constitution guaranteed gays and lesbians the right to wed the partner of their choice.
[...]
Consider this passage from George's latest majority opinion, asserting -- against all reason -- that Proposition 8 did not entirely repeal or abrogate same-sex couples' right to privacy and due process or the "constitutional right of same-sex couples to 'choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized and protected family relationship.' " Instead, George wrote, "the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state 'constitutional rights.' "

George went on to argue that Proposition 8 did not abrogate "all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection under the laws."

In other words, gay and lesbian Californians can board the marital bus but must take seats at the rear.

Moreover, denying an entire class of people the right to marry the partner of their choice is a "narrow exception" to the equal protection clause? And it's morally permissible to carve out exceptions to constitutional rights for specific groups, as long as it's done by majority vote?

So, if a majority of Californians voted to "carve out a narrow exception" to California's right to privacy and applied it only to Jews, would it be constitutionally acceptable? If Native Americans were accorded all the protections of the law by a ballot proposition, except the right to marry a non-Indian, would that be legal?

This is social and moral nonsense.

The court tried Tuesday to cover itself with a fig leaf of decency by allowing the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages to stand. It won't work. This is a logically and morally incoherent decision that simply will plunge the state into another round of bitterly divisive initiative politics, while adding fuel to the growing sense that all three branches of California's government have lost the ability to function in the public interest.

Very eloquently written. And they pretty much say it all.

Now two of the brightest lawyers in the country have taken up the fight and raised the bar by suing at the federal level on the grounds that Prop 8 was unconstitutional under the privacy, due process and equal protection guarantees of the US Constitution, a big gamble that makes a lot of gay rights organizations uneasy at the prospect of an unfavorable outcome in a US Supreme Court that currently leans right and won't lightly rule in favor of homosexuals.

We'll see what happens next, but a new battle at the ballot box is inevitable, possibly as early as next year.

A video tribute

Someone put together this great tribute to Meryl Streep's incredible movie career on the occasion of the release of her latest film, Julie and Julia, which I'd love to be able to catch in a theater, maybe with my friend Vittorio, who's about to get here.

Enjoy it.

Virtuality

This was supposed to be a new series, but Fox didn't pick it up, so they just showed the pilot to see if it would generate enough interest in the public to maybe reconsider it. Granted, not a lot can be said about a series from a pilot, but this one looked pretty promising.

The premise: a crew of 12 (all very attractive) individuals is sent on a very long trip toward our nearest neighboring star to look for other signs of life. They are about to approach the point of no return, that is the point after which they cannot turn the spaceship around and come back to Earth.

The twist: in keeping with current television trends, their whole daily existences are televised for an audience of billions back on the home planet.

The obvious: the mission is sponsored and produced by a big corporation whose own bottom line is clearly its main focus.

The hook: in order to prevent the crew from going crazy, because of the long trip holed up into a piece of metal and in daily close proximity with the same people, each member is equipped with very advanced virtual reality eye glasses that allow them to evade their constricted reality whenever they can. Unfortunately, something seems to have gone haywire in the virtual reality software.

The background story: apparently Earth is in the grip of a worldwide global warming aftermath in which millions are suffering the consequences of living in a cramped world with what are now limited resources and an unpredictable weather system. The astronauts' families, however, are supposedly looked after by the big corporation, interested in keeping the crew happy ... and under its control.

Did any of this pique your interest? It sure piqued mine, especially since the excellent cast was very engaged and the script quite captivating, promising a lot of political intrigue, sexual tensions, and misteries to be solved. It even featured an interesting gay couple, although the fact that they had to be in the closet even if the show takes place decades in the future wasn't a positive message.

I doubt the show will come back (especially given its potential price tag for the visual effects), but you never know, it's happened before.

We shall see.

Horton Hears a Who!

We resumed Family Night after a long hiatus with this movie based on a famous book by Dr. Seuss by the same title.

The story is quite simple, but the message at the center of the film, that a person is important no matter how small, is incredibly powerful and deserving to be spread.

The technical aspect of the movie is good, and the cast brings the script to life. This is particularly positive since the lead character is voiced by Jim Carrey, an actor I don't always like.

Overall, a pleasant movie for the whole family. Very cute and very well made.

Grade: 7

How does it feel to be gay?

This is a video that every heterosexual should watch, especially those that believe that homosexuality is not innate but simply a lifestyle choice.



This exercise is excellent because it doesn't simply ask the participants to put themselves in a gay person's shoes, which would be almost impossible for them to effectively do, but it actually asks the participants to imagine a world turned upside down. What if "being normal" meant being gay and straight people were a minority.

I'd like to know how many straight people who honestly go through the exercise still doubt our claims that we are being discriminated against for a trait we have no control over. How different would our lives be if everyone went through this exercise?

Brüno

I went to see this movie because I was curious to see what Sacha Baron Cohen had created to rile up so many gay organizations and because of the gay theme.

I watched Baron Cohen's HBO show featuring Alig G, Borat, and Brüno and I think he is a very funny comedian, a master actually, given the skits he comes up with and what he's able to get people to say or admit to. On camera.

I also watched the big screen treatments of Alig G and Borat, but only liked the latter. Brüno falls right in the middle: not as I-will-never-enjoy-life-again bad as Ali G, but not as enjoyably funny as Borat.

I usually avoid all trailers and spoilers, but because of the huge marketing campaign and the controversy surrounding it, it was quite hard this time not to miss a few of the most widely reported gags or jokes. Unfortunately, given the short length of the movie, those few gags and jokes turned out to be the bulk of it. As a result, I was neither shocked nor did I laugh much.

Did I like the movie? Yes and no. It was funny at times, but it also often fell flat. As a gay man, I find Brüno the character to be slightly offensive because it represents the stereotypical flamboyant gay man (at least what a gay man looks like in the minds of many straight people), but at the same time I also realize that he's so far out there, that no reasonable individual would think that's how gays behave.

And that's the crux of the controversy as well. Will audiences understand that Brüno doesn't represent the gay community at large? That gays don't behave like he does? That Brüno is a caricature meant to push buttons and not a portrayal of real life gays?

I'd like to think so, and I hope so, but you never know. One thing I do have to admit is that, in spite of his misadventures and the way in which people treat him and react to him, he always maintains his self-confidence. Brüno is gay, and he's unapologetic about it. To see such a feminine gay man on screen and not have him cry all over himself is a great accomplishment. In a way, Brüno is Will & Grace's Jack to the 10^th degree.

My only question is, does that gigantic penis shown close-up really belong to Mr. Baron Cohen? If so, my compliments!!

Grade: 5

Cloverfield

I was very excited to finally watch this movie, which generated quite a bit of interest leading up to its release date, mostly because of the secrecy behind it (not much was known, except what could be garnered from the teaser poster or the cryptic trailer) and because his producer was the very prolific and innovative J.J. Abrams, creator of, among others, the revolutionary show Lost, which I love.

In the time since, I've found out that Cloverfield is the code name for a monster that attacks New York City (what do monsters have against poor old NYC anyway?!) and that a bunch of twenty-somethings try to survive such attack.

That's pretty much the movie in a nutshell, from its very slow (and boring) beginning to its frantic end. Evidently, the director's intent was to slowly build our expectations about what was going to happen -- he wanted to get us in a frenzy. He meant to feed us little to nothing for a while so that we'd get hungry for something, and when that something finally arrived, we'd gourge ourselves. It's been done before, but with better results.

Here, we are introduced to a bunch of upper-middle class juveniles at a party for one of them who's leaving the country for a business opportunity, and we're let in on the fact that there are some matters-of-the-heart that have not been fully resolved. Supposedly, this will make us care for them more.

It doesn't. I don't really give a damn about any of those kids (actually, the two brothers are quite cute, but I'm digressing ... ). All I care about is seeing the big, bad monster, watching in horror while he unleashes its destructive power on the city and its inhabitants, and wondering on the edge of my seat whether it will survive and run away (an inevitability in order to have the mandatory sequel) or if it will be terminated. Well, I guess I was also waiting for the moment our "heroes" started dying off.

Two other gimmicks employed by the director to make the movie more interesting, the romantic flashbacks from the tape already in the camera and the shaky (read, realistic) camera work, didn't increase my appreciation level one iota.

Overall, I can't say the movie is totally unsatisfying, but it's an empty satisfaction, too fleetingly gone to be really enjoyable.

Grade: 5

The Equality US Flag

I saw this post on Joe.My.God. Someone had the brilliant idea of creating a US flag that shows only the stars belonging to the states that actually respect the American ideal of equality for all its citizens.

Currently, same-sex marriage, which confers the same rights to gay couples that heterosexual couples enjoy, is only legal in 6 states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire), therefore, rather than 50 stars, this flag only has the 6 that correspond to those states.


Hopefully, we won't lose any stars (Maine's equality law will likely face a people's veto referendum in the fall) and will soon be able to add a couple more ( ... New York ... New Jersey ... hello??).