Thank you KJ and all my friendly firthettes. Time flies!

Just a reminder that the Birthday List Project is still underway. I've heard from quite a few people but I know there are more of you out there would would like to participate in the offering and receiving of birthday greetings here on Odds & Ends. Just e-mail me the name you use on Drool and your birthday. If you'd also like to be part of the Who Lives Where list, include your geographic location (as general or as specific as you want it to be). Both lists will be distributed via e-mail only to those whose information is included on the lists. Incidentally, old-timers, you know when one another's birthdays are, but we newbies don't know and we'd like to. So since we're starting from scratch on the list, it would be great to hear from you as well.

You're doing a great job Rika, thanks.

If TIOBE hasn't come to your town, then I doubt this one will. But Sex and Lucia is a very interesting and well made movie. Seems to have stirred up a real controversy in Seattle, as the two main newspapers refuse to advertise it and have not allowed their columnists to review it so far, even though it won two awards at the Seattle Film Fest. Yes, it has some gratuitous sex (including the always banned erect male member), but it is so well done. Truly erotic and arty. Actually, I was entranced by the male lead's face. During an early scene, when Lucia reveals what she wants, his facial expressions reminded me of Colin. Oh yeah, the film's in Spanish and is unrated, which means it would've been NC-17 so why bother. http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?4093 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020815/od_uk_nm/oukoe_leisure_ban_1 http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=13010 Other foreign/indie recs: Happy Times (Chinese) and 24-Hour Party People (v. funny mockumentary with reference to Icarus right up front and I do like Michael Winterbottom anyway). Looks like we're finally getting Colin's rec, The Last Kiss soon. Saw the trailer and it looked good.

What is The Last Kiss, Karen?

An Italian rom-com that he recommended in some interview. We cynics think he did so because of LD's connection with the film company which made her documentary.

Thank you for info on Last Kiss. And its going to be aired here. I agree that her connection obviously had something to do with statement.

(Jeanie) Harumphy! "Entertainment Weekly" does not particularly like "Possession" and gives it a "C". The critic seems to think it's a touch campy, or something to that effect. =/ Like Karen said #137 has all the reviews posted.So does: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Possession-1114793/ TIME: "What happens when a filmmaker with the gift of malice tries to make a love story? Can his fine, scaly hand carry off a caress? And if he can, will he connect with a film audience that long ago shrugged off amour?" True: I'm afraid audiences *and* critics have shrugged off amour. I saw it in Houston. Liked it. Loved the book. TIME: "These actor-poets [JN & JE] make love like chamber music - two cellos playing each other. " *Sigh*. "Only romantics need apply";-)

(Karen) Other foreign/indie recs: Happy Times (Chinese) I saw the trailer a few times before TIOBE and it looked like a lovely story.

Even though this project was one mentioned on the CF topic, for now, I'll put it here. From ScreenDaily: Parker steps back from the Wilde side Robert Mitchell in Edinburgh 20 August 2002 Oliver Parker, in Edinburgh for the UK premiere of his latest Oscar Wilde adaptation The Importance Of Being Earnest on Wednesday (Aug 21) and a Script Factory masterclass on Saturday Aug 17, revealed his next project will be a step away from the Wilde side of his career. After An Ideal Husband and now Earnest, Parker will next tackle a post-war Italian thriller which he had intended to do between the two Wilde comedies. "That one we nearly made before The Importance Of Being Earnest but it was quite hard getting the money together and it was not so obviously commercial" he told a press conference. John Sayles (Lone Star, Sunshine State) wrote the original drafts of the script which Parker is now reworking. [what an ego!] This doesn't mean that Parker has abandoned Oscar however. He is currently developing an adaptation of Dorian Gray as a producer and revealed that the comedies were something he continually rethought, "I would remake the film (An Ideal Husband) already and in a few months probably (Earnest) as well."

(Karen) This doesn't mean that Parker has abandoned Oscar however. He is currently developing an adaptation of Dorian Gray as ... Dorine and I just discussed this as the perfect roll for Colin. OP must have heard us. Hope he heard our choice of actor for it too. Come to think of it hope Colin heard us. He would be so good in this roll.

But that's the one Rupe's been talking about doing for ages.

Rupe may have been talking about Dorian for ages, but while the script has been developing, Rupe has (unlike the title character) been AGING. Dorian is supposed to look young. ODB would be a much better choice.

(Kate) Rupe has (unlike the title character) been AGING. Dorian is supposed to look young. While I'd love to see Colin in this, hadn't considered Rupe...interesting thought. KB would be an interesting choice, but he's not getting any younger looking either. To go along with your comment, I could see them going with someone considerably younger as a starker contrast. (I hate to say it, but Huge might do a decent job. Dorian would be like Daniel, but even more decadent.) Can't believe I just said that.....On way to bathroom to wash my mouth out with soap. :-/

(Dorine)I hate to say it, but Huge might do a decent job. Dorian would be like Daniel, but even more decadent. Said in an interview that he won't do dramas..."leave that to others." Good thinking...ever see "Extreme Measures"? They'd have to put KB on stilts for the Dorian Gray role. Lots of young actors in that Aussie pack that would fit the bill.

(Evelyn) They'd have to put KB on stilts for the Dorian Gray role. ROTFL! Lots of young actors in that Aussie pack that would fit the bill. OK, drawing a blank...who would be some choices? Good thinking...ever see "Extreme Measures"? V. little ;-)

(Dorine)I hate to say it, but Huge might do a decent job. Dorian would be like Daniel, but even more decadent.) Can't believe I just said that.....On way to bathroom to wash my mouth out with soap. :-( It's about time you took your own advice about washing mouth out with soap:-(( On way to bathroom, stop in kitchen and put hot pepper on tongue, then watch Matt Lauer in the am, and thank the Lord you have seen the light!

Excellent interview with JN on his topic. Not just his personal life, but about an actor's life in general. Question: Do you think actors are emotionally immature, because they keep play acting their whole lives? (JN)Well, I think that keeping that childlike sense of wonderment is a good quality, not an immature one. And I think that if everyone is really honest with themselves, in ordinary life there are many facts of ourselves that we choose to present to the outside world. We all play act more than we think. We all hide parts of ourselves, don't we, and show off other sides, depending on the situation and who we're with. ~~~~~~~~ An insightful answer. He's extremely articulate.

(Evelyn) Good thinking...ever see "Extreme Measures... Ever see Sense & Sensibility? Enough said. HG is beginning to look more mature too. Starting to see a few life-lines on the face and a little grey at the temples. Thanks for quote from interview. Watched JN in Emma again last night. He's so cute. "Emmmmmmma". To possess the high degree of imagination IMO it is necessary for a good actor to have it is essential to have "that childlike sense of wonderment" because it has no barriers to stop the creative juices from flowing.

(Evelyn) An insightful answer. He's extremely articulate Since he's single, I want to find him! I must marry this man.... sexy, intelligent, insightful, in touch with his childlike sense of wonderment, and not always home. What more could a girl ask for?! ;-D Wonder if I have a JN radar? Have to check it out next time I'm in the city.

(Pam) HG is beginning to look more mature too. Starting to see a few life-lines on the face and a little grey at the temples. Agreed. I thought he looked somewhat worn in several of the scenes in BJD.

Pam) HG is beginning to look more mature too. Starting to see a few life-lines on the face and a little grey at the temples. Agreed. I thought he looked somewhat worn in several of the scenes in BJD. But in great form in About A Boy.Which incidentally is still playing around here... three months. That one and Greek Wedding are going to go on forever!!

Changing the subject, are JLo and Ben Afflect an item? They were in Miami where he just bought a Ferrari.

Ah, you have been away too long.

Hmmm... I'm gonna ask this question here, although it may belong in the P&P thread. Is the book "The Bar Sinister" any good, and can any of you recommend one of the published sequels, or are they all awful? =) Thanks!

(Jeanie) Hmmm... I'm gonna ask this question here, although it may belong in the P&P thread. Is the book "The Bar Sinister" any good, and can any of you recommend one of the published sequels, or are they all awful? =) There is a lot of commentary on "The Bar Sinister" at Amazon. It's pretty accurate and you might be able to form a good opinion there. As for me, I agree the book needed a good edit. There were certain terms and words over-used, among other things, hence, it could get pretty annoying and thus, distracting. The author got creative with some of the character names, hence names might change at a whim. But...this is Drool, hence I can be honest and say this book was NOT PG-13, is definitely adult audiences only, and if that adds to your enjoyment (it did mine, there are definitely parts I like to re-read) and is not "off-putting" to you, then go to it. (And in case you've not figured it out, the single-most distracting thing as far as I was concerned was an incredible over-use of the word hence, someday I WILL count them.) There IS

...(duh---just keep reading--sorry) ...a story, it can be pretty engaging and you might find it enjoyable.

I agree with BarbS on The Bar Sinister. (My hated word that I'm gonna count some day is "howbeit".) But despite the editing and vocabulary issues, I liked the story, and for the most part I liked her depictions of Darcy and Elizabeth very much. What I really wanted was a copy of the book in a Microsoft Word document, so I could "fix" it.

Not to take away from The Bar Sinister which, I think, has nothing on many of the authors here at Drool, I have been alerted to a quiz. Please keep in mind, my husband is a Harley guy and he gets lots of emails, some a little raunchier than others.......Also, keep in mind, we did this together and got 18 out of 20! http://www.grex.btinternet.co.uk/breasttest2.xls I really hope I don't get inot trouble for posting this! And, since we took it, I found out that they have been sending him a quiz once a week. I'll keep ya'll updated!

Jeanie, I enjoyed the Bar Sinister. I think you will too. I found it much better that some of the other sequels that I read. I read it just after another full viewing of P&P-and I think that it added to my enjoyment.

Oh yeah, one more thing on "The Bar Sinister"... there is one scene that is lifted pretty directly from a fairly famous movie, has anyone else noticed?

I liked The Diary of Fitzwilliam Darcy.

Oh my goodness...Lisa, I got a 19 out of 20. Who knew that I was so good at figuring out boobs. Thanks for the quiz. And based on many of your comments, it looks like I'll be picking up a copy of Bar Sinister, at least to thumb through myself at Borders. :-D

This is a silly thing and I almost hate to mention it but just wondered about the possibility of "bumping" into other drooleurs. I have the high bid on an ebay auction for AMITC right now. I'm hoping to ensure the success of a chick-flick night yet this weekend. Is it bad form or has it ever been considered that we could let each other know when we are swooping in for the kill on an auction and not to run each other up? If it really is objectionable to even consider such a thing, I will punish myself by forcing myself to watch the L. Olivier P&P again.

Barb, I considered posting the same question when I was bidding for CF movies on eBay this summer. I mean, strictly speaking it's collusion, but I think the potential harm is very small. And watching P&P0 when there's so many better ways to spend one's time seems rather severe as punishment! Good luck getting AMITC - I got it on eBay a month or two ago.

Another foreign movie recommendation and very relevant to certain discussions we've had all over this place re: LD ;-) The film is "My Wife is an Actress." Here's the minireview from my alt paper: French actor-director Yvan Attal (wow wow wow!) is a Woody Allen-esque glorifier of neuroses [Ed note: without succumbing to MB's level] in this delectable 2001 romantic comedy about a man dismayed by his actress wife's celebrity and irrationally jealous over her love scenes. Attal is less of a nebbish [not at all one] and more of a realist than Allen when airing his miseries, among them the imagined affair between his wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her current costar, a suave, aging lothario with a wry sense of humor (Terence Stamp). There must be parallels between the on-screen couple and the real-life one--Attal is married to Gainsbourg--and the outrageous claims the husband hears about his wife and his annoyance at all the attention she gets seem so real one can't help but chuckle at his character's anxieties. The film tends to groan under the weight of his obsession--and his sister's fixation on circumcising her son--yet for much of the 95-minute running time the chemistry between Attal's vulne able husband and Gainsbourg's sweet, beguiling wife is irresistible. The terrific score is by jazz pianist Brad Meldau. [Great opening sequence of old Hollywood actresses from the 20s and 30s, plus a truly hysterical filming of a love scene that should go down in the annals of film history.]

"My Wife is an Actress." I saw it and by chance ended up sitting next to Lora! It was funny, I liked it, my DH did not. The filming of a love scene was a hoot.

Jeannie, to get back to the sequel thing, do not bother with anything my Emma Tennant. She wrote two sequels to P&P. Mercifully, I have eradicated the names from my memory. Don't waste your time. Actually, the readers' reviews of her books at Amazon are much more entertaining than the actual books. BTW, if you're looking for a sequel to Emma, try "Letters from Highbury." It isn't a sequel, it's a companion piece, the events of Emma as seen through the correspondence of the school mistress and her sister in London. And now for something completely different...Dame Judi made the news last night. She was supposed to christen the newest Carnival, the Legend. I guess they figured a legend to christen the Legend. So she cut the ribbon, the bottle of champagne swung down, and *clunk* it bounced off the hull. Next, they went onto the gangway, and she tried swinging the bottle by the neck (in manner of bar fight) and hitting the side of the ship. *clunk, splash* the bottle didn't break, and she dropped it. Really, to fail to break the bottle once is unfortunate, but twice shows a real weakness of swing. On the third try, someone helped her swing the bottle and it did break, soaking her, and she became Dame Judi Drenched! (don't blame me, CNN said this first)

Interesting to note how the first from Ananova is based on THR article below, which does not say that GP is "set to star." Ananova: Gwyneth Paltrow to star in US version of Fever Pitch Gwyneth Paltrow is set to star in a US remake of Nick Hornby's best seller Fever Pitch. The film switches the lead character's obsession with soccer to baseball. The Oscar winner will play the long suffering girlfriend of a man who shows more devotion to the Boston Red Sox than her. He was a fan of Arsenal FC in the original. Shawn Levy is in talks to direct the movie, which has been Americanised by comedy writers Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel. The duo have developed the lead female character for Paltrow, according to www.hollywoodreporter.com. "I'm thrilled to be working with such great source material. I've been a Hornby fan for years," said Levy. Colin Firth starred in the 1997 British film based on Hornby's acclaimed autobiography, which tells of his infatuation with Arsenal. A big screen adaptation of Hornby's first novel, High Fidelity, also switched the setting from London to the US. ~~~~~~~~~ The Hollywood Reporter: Levy plays ball with Fox 2000 on 'Fever Pitch' By Chris Gardner After teaming with 20th Century Fox on the upcoming romantic comedy "Just Married," starring Ashton Kutcher and Brittany Murphy, helmer Shawn Levy is in negotiations to direct another romantic comedy for the studio, "Fever Pitch." Levy is signing on to develop and direct the Fox 2000 project based on the Nick Hornby book about the British author's obsession with soccer, specifically the team Arsenal. The comedy team of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel adapted "Pitch" and Americanized it, with the project now focused on baseball. The story line follows the relationship between a man obsessed with the Boston Red Sox and the woman caught in the middle. The female character was developed as a starring role for Gwyneth Paltrow. Although no deal is in place for her to star, she is known to have shown interest in the project, which is being eyed for a spring start. "I'm thrilled to be working with such great source material -- I've been a Hornby fan for years," Levy said of the author who has penned such novels as "Speaking With the Angel," [sic] "My Favorite Year," [sic] "How to Be Good," "High Fidelity" and "About a Boy," the latter two of which were made into motion pictures starring John Cusack and Hugh Grant, respectively. [Ed note: what a slight] Alan Greenspan, Gil Netter and Amanda Posey are producing "Pitch" with executive producers Hornby and David Evans. At Fox 2000, headed by Elizabeth Gabler, the project is being shepherded by director of production Jack Leslie. Levy, repped by Endeavor and the Firm, began his career in episodic television before making his feature debut with the February release "Big Fat Liar," starring Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bynes, from Universal Pictures. He then segued to "Married," which is scheduled for release March 21.

Gwyneth Paltrow is set to star in a US remake of Nick Hornby's best seller Fever Pitch. A definite improvement over Ruth Gemmell.

(Evelyn)A definite improvement over Ruth Gemmell And a very definite improvement over Minnie Driver. Wasn't she mentioned as the female lead when it was being talked about with John Cusack as the male lead? Is he mentioned anywhere as still being associated with it?

Check out Empire's take on the news, especially the pic and the last paragraph: http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?4107

No mention of Cusack and, yes, I remember the early reports that said it would be a Cusack-Driver repairing. I do wonder how it will play with such a big name in the female part. Won't that detract from the male character? Won't he have to be even bigger? Seems rather odd to me.

(empire)"American filmmakers are now planning to take Hornby's ode to Arsenal, Fever Pitch, and yankify the plot even further than they did with Fidelity. " Wonder why WT didn't pick this up. It seems like it's their kind of film.... LOL with RC doing the script and His Favorite Star as Paul. (Too old)

Minkeelander Posting due to patriotism re post 1215 Heath Ledger, Hugh Jackman (and he can sing and is tall too) and Tom Long has promise. Mel Gibson we still claim as our own but getting long in the tooth. post 1240 Ruth Gemmell and FF she never worked for me either good luck to baseball FP with Gwen

Interesting article by one of our favorite vultures of British film criticism (although I think he's spot on in this, except that the old images were totally manufactured as well and many of the stars led morally corrupt lives too. The only difference is that they didn't flaunt them in public or profit by them.). Please note the ending: The dark age of celebrity by Alexander Walker (Evening Standard) Stars, they say, are born. But the behaviour of many of today's stars suggests an illegitimate union between the worst excesses of society and the worst elements of publicity. Stars used to personify likeable virtues, in public anyhow: the romantic charm of Cary Grant, the plainman integrity of Gary Cooper, the working-girl tenacity of Joan Crawford, the patriotism of John Wayne... Reality might show a different face; but it did not push itself into the headlines, in front of the cameras. If ashamed, it hid from its fans. If exposed, it promised to reform. Nowadays, the stars shamelessly exploit every public vice, on and off screen. Depending on the enormity of their indecencies, their celebrity stock goes up and up and up. How did we ever get into this dark age of stardom? It began, I think, when celebrity stripped scandal of its risks to reputation. There is almost no sin a star can commit that does not get presented by his or her publicists as a personality bonus. Stardom now is a virus that fogs judgment of achievement and worth; it distorts the values we place on life and society. Last March, Denzel Washington won the Best Actor Oscar and was hailed as a paragon of his race. What did he get it for? Exemplifying every criminal act in the bigots' book of racist invective against African-Americans: his character in Training Day was an urban psychopath, druglord, woman-beater and stone-cold killer. Some CV to honour! Not that Washington ever behaved thus, but greedily he lent his celebrity to promulgating the advantages of a stardom that does not scruple about making moral choices in the parts it seeks or accepts. Likewise, Cate Blanchett. What on earth did she think she was doing - did she think at all? - when she accepted the role of a criminal ninny in the film Heaven, a woman who plants a bomb that kills four people, two of them children, and then, after a few token contortions of moral discomfort, hares off with a lover for a romantic cross-country manhunt? Stars appear morally blind, to all but their own advantage. If Al Capone were alive today, and cornered by the cops, I honestly believe Public Enemy Number One would come out shouting: "Don't shoot - take pictures." Between criminals and celebrities there is now virtually no dividing line. Money-making has traditionally driven the Hollywood engine. But it has been superseded by the quest for celebrity. It is almost impossible to "kill off" an erring celebrity today. Hugh Grant indulged in a foolish and disreputable sex act within days of being hailed as a bright new star: was he ruined? No, he was made. He became "more interesting" after his transgressions, and turned penitence to publicity gold by bowing his head in the confessional of the chat shows. But stars are not the only ones we should blame for living off the corruption of society in their roles and their lives. There is a pernicious relationship between the great majority of the un-famous - you and me, that is - and the celebrity elite we revere. Stars don't make moral choices any longer. But their public no longer makes moral judgments. The media have developed imagemaking technology to the point where it would be cutting their own throats - or, worse, circulations - if they were to reflect a moral attitude to conduct, personality or performance that would once have brought its perpetrator into disrepute. Most of today's entertainment media is staffed by clever manipulators of public taste: but they come from that generation which never knew what it was to make moral judgments - in fact, actively resisted them, as if morality were a sin as deadly as elitism. Thus the print and electronic media collude with what they know only too well to be the symptoms and symbols of public psychopathy: stars. Many stars, when you meet them, are the dullest, most vulgar, stupid and rapacious folk imaginable. Often talentless, too. But not when their airbrushed faces appear above "celebrity interviews" in the mags, tabloids and broadsheets, or facing some telly personality who's out to gain reflected fame by giving the really famous a soft ride. It used to be said: "Scratch an actor, and you pleasure a masochist." It's truer now to say, "Scratch a star, and you'll never interview another one." Even the sticky ends some celebrities meet - sooner, these drug-fuelled days, than later - don't have any remedial effect. They don't jerk people's appalled regard back to the harm the deceased stars did to themselves or, by their example, to society. Recently, the anniversary of Elvis Presley's demise was "celebrated". But even such a squalid end as the King's evoked no moral disgust. Mortality has become a sort of airbrush that actually retouches the stained image of a Presley, a River Phoenix, a John Belushi, a Janis Joplin, or their pop ilk. When Presley died, a bloated, drugged wreck, did people say: "What shall it profit a man?" Of course not, They said: "Look at the coverage he got." The only offence that a star can commit, it seems, is to rebuff his or her fans' attempts to establish what the American critic Richard Schickel once called the "intimate stranger" bond between star and public: the feeling that these people are our friends and we've only to reach out and they'll be pumping our hand, recognising our face, our worth, our uniqueness. Britney Spears probably started the terminal slide of her career when she allegedly ignored her British fans recently at a London premiere. Celebrity binds us together like the Force in Star Wars. People would sooner hear, read and watch lies than be told that what they're worshipping isn't stardom. It's social sickness.

(Evelyn) A definite improvement over Ruth Gemmell. (Anna) Ruth Gemmell and FF she never worked for me either To each his own. Personally, I loved FP just as it was, including RG. One of my very favorite CF films. I've watched it almost as often as P&P. Hated the video cover, though.

How did we ever get into this dark age of stardom? Stardom now is a virus that fogs judgment of achievement and worth; it distorts the values we place on life and society. People would sooner hear, read and watch lies than be told that what they're worshipping isn't stardom. It's social sickness. Excellent article! Thanks, Karen. Not that it will change anything. :-( (Karen), I do wonder how it will play with such a big name in the female part. Won't that detract from the male character? Won't he have to be even bigger? Tom Cruise? I was surprised to see her with him in Austen Powers, but did their kiss sizzle!!! I saw tongues.

Will the title of the Americanized "Fever Pitch" be changed? The double entendre of the title "Fever Pitch" doesn't exist when the sport is changed to baseball.

(Moon) I saw tongues. LOL. You'll see JN's too next week;-)))

(Kathy) To each his own. Personally, I loved FP just as it was, including RG. One of my very favorite CF films. I've watched it almost as often as P&P. Hated the video cover, though. I love this movie too. It is one of my favorites. Didn't care for RG at all in the beginning, but after the 25th viewing am beginning to find her tolerable. I just don't feel they had any chemistry. Is it customary to remake a movie adapting its cultural aspects? Nick must not have anything new in the offing to do instead. I thought the cover was a real goof. Anyone choosing the video based on the cover was in for a real shock. Anything to make a buck. If this film is a real commercial success with big box-office names I feel bad because it will cause undue comparisons to Colin's portrayal which I thought was really good. It will just make FP into an obscurity. I don't think any actor deserves that. Good article. Thanks Karen. Unfortunately this is the way of the world today and have to agree with Moon that it won't make any difference. With all my heart I wish it could. But I notice with my own children that they are not as star-struck about actors as I was. They will just as quickly pan a movie with someone they like in it as praise a movie. And they don't seem all that interested in their private lives either. So maybe the star influence is not as accute as it once was. We can only hope. JN is interviewed by Jeffrey Lyons this Sunday 8/25 on the Today Show. I heard him advertise it this morning. Should be a good one.

Will the title of the Americanized "Fever Pitch" be changed? The double entendre of the title "Fever Pitch" doesn't exist when the sport is changed to baseball. ] nope title will not be changed because when Pedro Martinez came to the Red Sox in I believe 1998, cover of the horrendous Boston Herald had title "Fever Pitch". Pitching in baseball is the most crucial part to the game. Without a good pitcher, you're not gonna win many games. And Bostonians are definitely feverish about their Red Sox (me being one of them). However, if they strike, wonder how that will go down?????? Former Texas Ranger owner and now President, Bush said if they do strike he'll be "furious". I wonder if it will be feverish tho??? :)

Great article, Karen, and I agree with its discussion of celeb's personal transgressions. But I think the writer severely impaired his case with the example of Denzel Washington (Last March, Denzel Washington won the Best Actor Oscar and was hailed as a paragon of his race.) Lots of very nice actors have played not-nice people (does anyone really think Anthony Hopkins likes human liver with his chianti?). As Jon Lovitz would say, it's ACTING! The example of HG, on the other hand was spot-on. Hugh is very clever about publicity. I sometimes wonder if he didn't expect/want to be caught. Celebs can "spin" almost any transgression into publicity. But this lack of shame is a sad thing. Look at the celeb wanna-be's who go on "bachelor" and "survivor" or have sex in a cathedral. Is the 15 minutes of fame really worth it? (Kathy)Hated the video [FP]cover, though. Me too! When I rented it, I was grateful for the generic Blockbuster box. After seeing the movie, I have to say that the depiction of RG was *ahem* less than accurate? (Laura)And Bostonians are definitely feverish about their Red Sox (me being one of them). Please! I just had lunch with an ex-Mass. friend who is decidedly feverish about the Red Sox. I remember that we discussed the title here before, and I found it funny (then and now) that a title that fit soccer would also fit baseball. I don't know how a baseball version of FP will work--are there enough of you Red Sox fans out there to want to see this? And there will be the inevitable comparisons to another baseball comedy, Bull Durham (am imagining people saying, "Yeah, not bad, but it's no Bull Durham.") I wasn't crazy about RG in FP (they definitely lacked chemistry), but I loved Colin's Paul. He captured the childlike nature of the character. I can't think of an American who'd be good as Paul. I love Cusack, but he's too intense for Paul. The obsession I can see, but could he really be so laid back about the non-baseball parts of his life? I think Bill Murray could play a great American Paul, but he's too old now.

I think Bill Murray could play a great American Paul, but he's too old now ] the visual I got of Gwynnie kissing Bill Murray! ;)

(Kate) But I think the writer severely impaired his case with the example of Denzel Washington...Lots of very nice actors have played not-nice people (does anyone really think Anthony Hopkins likes human liver with his chianti?). I think he's comparing things to a time long ago when they didn't make movies like that. Yes, major actors played flawed characters, but not such a hideous bunch as are now standard fare. Look at a list of Best Actors. No Hannibal types in the bunch.

(Karen, regarding FP) Won't that detract from the male character? Won't he have to be even bigger? Seems rather odd to me. That was my first thought too when I heard this news. That might suggest that the story's going to be primarily from the woman's POV, which I think would be all wrong. Thanks for the Empire link, BTW - I don't blame them for being annoyed. (Karen, re the Evening Standard article) I think he's comparing things to a time long ago when they didn't make movies like that. Yes, major actors played flawed characters, but not such a hideous bunch as are now standard fare. Look at a list of Best Actors. No Hannibal types in the bunch. I'm not sure that's really a sign of moral bankruptcy on the part of actors.... isn't it more indicative of the kind of projects getting green-lighted by the studios? And if nobody went to see those movies, they wouldn't get made. But it is a point well taken that these days you can play a despicable character and still be a major star, where once that wouldn't have been possible. No question that we no longer expect our celebrities (be they actors, politicians, or athletes) to be role models. It's unreasonable to expect famous people to be good people (in fact, I suspect if there's any relationship between virtue and desire for fame, it's an inverse relationship), but at least in the old days celebrities put on a good public face - and in fact had to do so to preserve their careers. Thanks for the article, Karen. You're a busy bee today!

(Laura)the visual I got of Gwynnie kissing Bill Murray! ;) Oh. I was focusing on the interaction with the students and the soccer part. I guess the chemistry was so weak that I don't remember that part of the movie too well. I just remember falling in love with Paul in the first scene with the students when a kid says he read a book over the summer and Paul declares that his career is over, as he could not possibly achieve anything more monumental than getting this kid to read a book.

Jumping in about Charlotte Gainsbourg's new movie... I would recommend anything with Charlotte in it. She first starred in a movie called "L'effrontee", a coming-of-age movie about a teenage girl who was star-struck for a child pianist, and at all but 13 I think, she just "crevait l'ecran" - meaning burst out of the screen. She is very good at portraying vulnerable, tortured (but in a normal way) souls; as a matter of fact, she would make a perfect mate for Adrien LeDuc! :) I think she first met Attal on a movie about young adults being infected with AIDS and what it does to their relationship (I did not see that one but it was supposed to be good). Anyway I'll let the conversation go back to FP. Didn't anybody mention that the Canadian cover for the video was different (i.e. better) than the American one? It is my 3rd favorite CF movie too (after P&P and BJD).

(Rika) No question that we no longer expect our celebrities (be they actors, politicians, or athletes) to be role models. It's unreasonable to expect famous people to be good people But I guess the problem for me is that good people are no longer famous people either...

(Odile) But I guess the problem for me is that good people are no longer famous people either... True. Goodness doesn't make headlines anymore. But I also believe that most good people don't want to be famous, because they don't need the adulation and don't want to lose their privacy.

(Rika) I'm not sure that's really a sign of moral bankruptcy on the part of actors.... isn't it more indicative of the kind of projects getting green-lighted by the studios? Back in the old days, if a star were involved in a scandal (and many were), the studios hushed it up. [Aren't we only now finding out that Loretta Young had a baby with Clark Gable?] They created false public personas for their actors because, if they didn't, the paying public wouldn't go see those movies. The actor would be ostracized. Today, as the article puts forth, quite the opposite is taking place. Notoriety is being used to sell tickets, which gives people the impression that 'moral bankruptcy' is a sign of our times.

(FanPam) If this film is a real commercial success with big box-office names I feel bad because it will cause undue comparisons to Colin's portrayal which I thought was really good. It will just make FP into an obscurity. I don't think any actor deserves that. Yes, and it would be sad for everyone involved with FP. I thought the actors did excellent jobs, especially CF, Holly Aird and Mark Strange. Not their fault bad promotion, especially in the U.S., let it go virtually unnoticed. (Kate F) When I rented it, I was grateful for the generic Blockbuster box. I cornered the market on used ones at my local Blockbusters, and was almost embarassed to buy it -- wanted to explain that it wasn't at all what it appeared to be on the cover. (Karen) Today, as the article puts forth, quite the opposite is taking place. Notoriety is being used to sell tickets, which gives people the impression that 'moral bankruptcy' is a sign of our times. Good article, and you've made a good point. Now, after most of them are long gone, we hear that many of the movie stars from Hollywood's "Golden Age" weren't saints, but for the most part it was neatly hushed up at the time. When it wasn't, it usually ended careers.

(Kate F.) I don't know how a baseball version of FP will work--are there enough of you Red Sox fans out there to want to see this? And there will be the inevitable comparisons to another baseball comedy, Bull Durham (am imagining people saying, "Yeah, not bad, but it's no Bull Durham.") Never underestimate the obsessiveness on of Red Sox fans, as I've learned in the 7 years I've lived in Boston. (And I grew up in St. Louis, where we took our baseball mighty seriously, too!) No matter how good the movie is, though, I can't imagine it being in Bull Durham's league (ouch!)-- IMHO, the story in Bull Durham is much more interesting than FP. Also, much as I like Gwyneth Paltrow, I just can't see her performance as the female lead topping Susan Sarandon's.

Since FP is in my top three CF films, I am disappointed that there will be a re-make. I know the film did not do well here-I guess it was too British for American tastes-but how hard was the sell? Granted the cover was a total disaster, but what about the film? There is only one FP and one Paul for me. RG and all. Great article, Karen. I was surprised at the HG reference-not that it wasn't dead on-just surprised.

(Lindak) I know the film did not do well here-I guess it was too British for American tastes-but how hard was the sell? Didn't it only play in New York, and for about a week? I'm sure it was never in Houston. I love it more every time I watch it, and I've seen it over 20 times now.

(Kate) ...are there enough of you Red Sox fans out there to want to see this? My dad has lived in the New York area for 47 years and still is a diehard Boston fan, so they do exist. But have been thinking about choice of team. Has to be struggling obviously. Yankees are too successful. But how about the Mets? They haven't won a championship since is it 1982 when they oddly enough beat the Red Sox. Came close a few times, but no cigar. So time span between Championships is closer to Arsenal. I wonder why they didn't think of using them instead. I think people might identify with them more. Be good promotion for NYC too. (Kate) Oh. I was focusing on the interaction with the students and the soccer part. I guess the chemistry was so weak that I don't remember that part of the movie too well. I just remember falling in love with Paul in the first scene with the students when a kid says he read a book over the summer and Paul declares that his career is over, as he could not possibly achieve anything more monumental than getting this kid to read a book. He had me at hello. This is when I fell in love with him too. I loved the instinctual interactions he portrayed with the students, in the classroom and on the field; the parents, his family, and his friend Steven. He is a very loving person. Colin really played this well. Of course he was an emotional fuck-wit over Arsenal. No dispute there and he allowed it to have way to much control over him. But remember when he formed his attachment to them was when he was going through a very difficult time in his life. His parents had split up, obviously upsetting him and leaving him feeling insecure. He liked being an Arsenal fan because he was in a group that all loved the same thing. A real sense of belonging. Over the 21 years he followed them they had been his safe-haven, his security. He obviously was a man of intelligence and taste or he couldn't have become an English teacher, so the obsession did not come from an ignorant man. Also I don't know many men who were so willing to face their responsibilities. Instead of running from them, he seemed to welcome them, to actually embrace them. IMO his good points far outweighed his Arsenal obsession and instead of trying to change him I would have married him and Arsenal in a minute. Obviously, I really fell in love with Colin's Paul so will not be able to accept another actor in the same roll. No matter how big a star they choose I don't think they will do as good a job as Colin did. Unfortunately, not enough people are aware of this.

(Laura) the visual I got of Gwynnie kissing Bill Murray! ;) Oh, I know! It was bad enough for me even imagining them married in The Royal Tenenbaums, although in the end, being with your adopted brother is only slightly more distasteful than being with Bill Murray. ;-)

(FanPam)He obviously was a man of intelligence and taste or he couldn't have become an English teacher, so the obsession did not come from an ignorant man. Yes, that says it all. And you're right, the fans became a sort of substitute family when Paul's own family broke up. Paul is a complex character. If they don't cast the American Paul carefully, we'll get only the obsessed fan, and we'll lose the human touch. And if having GP as the female lead causes the story to be shifted to her point of view (huge mistake), then Paul could become a caricature, with body paint in team colors. (Do baseball fans paint themselves team colors as maniacal football fans do? sorry, don't watch much baseball) Although the image of Colin in Arsenal red and white body paint is certainly interesting. ;-)

I don't think you need to worry about a direct remake of FP. IMO, it will need to be a very different film. For the most part, Americans would see nothing strange at all in Paul's behavior or obsession; indeed, the Sarah character would be viewed as the oddball. Another big cultural difference is that, at least during the time Hornby's book takes place, footie was for the lower and working classes, and was a very male dominated pursuit. Some of the tension is caused by an ostensibly educated man acting in a manner like the yobs. Remember, Sarah's roommate refers to him as a football hooligan, even though she's never met him. There's no such class or gender distinction in America when it comes to sports.

Am reposting LizJP's message from 163 that seems to belong here: Topic 163 of 163 [drool]: Colin Firth - part 13 Response 536 of 540: LizJP (LizJP) * Fri, Aug 23, 2002 (21:59) * 5 lines (Karen) Back in the old days, if a star were involved in a scandal (and many were), the studios hushed it up. . . . They created false public personas for their actors because, if they didn't, the paying public wouldn't go see those movies. The actor would be ostracized. Today, as the article puts forth, quite the opposite is taking place. Notoriety is being used to sell tickets, which gives people the impression that 'moral bankruptcy' is a sign of our times. I think it would be nice if scandals weren't career wreckers OR great free publicity. I have to admit, though, that I think the old system of covering up the scandal or having it wreck the actor's career was worse than what we have now. I can't help thinking how many good performances we may have missed from Ingrid Bergman because she was ostracized from Hollywood due to her notorious (so to speak) affair with Roberto Rossellini in the late 1940's. Or, for another example, how many people would be much more reluctant to get help for a substance abuse problem if treatment centers hadn't become somewhat fashionable. Besides, if scandal still wrecked actors' careers, I wouldn't have had the chance to chuckle over Hugh Grant playing the innocent (in Notting Hill) and consoling Julia Roberts because her old nude photos were getting splashed all over the press(grin).

(Linda) I know the film did not do well here-I guess it was too British for American tastes-but how hard was the sell? Granted the cover was a total disaster, but what about the film? I wouldn't say it was too British for American tastes, unless you tried to sell it as a soccer movie, none of which have ever done well. The distributor was a two bit operation, with absolutely no clout. They couldn't get it into theaters because they couldn't pay for promotions. They wanted us to convince theater owners to request the film and for them to buy the ads. As I recall, the fact that it played in NY was largely due to a favor. It also played much later in the DC area (for several weeks), and then it would turn up here and there as part of some *special* event aimed at soccer fans or similar. The cover is another story altogether. But luckily many of us purchased our tapes from Canada, which had the normal cover. Besides, it came out on video in Canada long before it did in the US. IMO they really blew it. The film should've been sold as rom-com and marketed to women (no big rounded breasts with soccer shoes dangling in front; instead Colin's purty face) whose spouses and SO make them sports widows. Who couldn't identify with that? Is universal theme. But what do I know. ;-) Re: FP and the Boston Red Sox Even though Hornby is exec producing the film, he's really not involved. Again, he's the type who sells his work and leaves it into others' hands. The writers (Ganz and Mandel) decided it should be set in Boston. I complained to Nick about this during his book tour for How to Be Good. There was a small group at this tiny little bookshop and I brought up the question of the remake, as it had just surfaced at his Boston signings. (Our GWAPEvine is very good at passing along such info.) I told him Boston was totally wrong, as at least that team had at least made it to the World Series on several occasions. The more appropriate club was the Cubs. He started nodding his head as if he'd already heard about it. I went on to say that sorriest fans in all of baseball, a fact known all over the US, are Cub fans who support a team that hasn't been to the World Series for more than 70+ years (I was getting a lot of audible support from the male members of the audience now!) and that had a national following because gam s were broadcast on a local channel that was carried in many national markets before the existence of cable. Nick tried to explain the screenwriters' rationale and how he thought it was unique that what had been a story with a happy ending in the original was now going to be unhappy, with the Series loss. He said he'd heard about the Cubs. Then, I told him that Bill Buckner, who lost the series, had been a Cub. The guys in the audience ate this up and Nick looked very surprised.

A couple of quotes from the Independent's article about the remake: "No actor has yet been named to take the role of the anti-heroic footballing nerd modelled on Hornby and played against type in the 1997 British film version of the book by Colin Firth." "This remake now promises to spare American cinema-goers from getting to grips with both the intricacies of football's offside rule and the enigmatic psyche of the English male." http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/news/story.jsp?story=327083

(Lindak) I know the film did not do well here-I guess it was too British for American tastes-but how hard was the sell? The book was hugely popular , but sadly, it didn't do well in the UK either despite fairly good promo; (Hey you couldn't miss Mirella Folstrupp all over Colin at the premiere;-)) And got poor reviews. IMO, the film had major flaws. Go back to our discussion on it ..about 4 years ago. (karen). They wanted us to convince theater owners to request the film and for them to buy the ads. LOL. I tried.We called, emailed, cornered theatre managers.... (Hey, I'm still waitng for TIOBE!!)

whose spouses and SO make them sports widows. Who couldn't identify with that? But over here, that's a myth. The sports widow doesn't exist, and hasn't for many decades. That was the point of my earlier post. Women are just as likely to go bonkers over their favorite team as the men are; and if sports aren't their cuppa, they're independent enough to go off and find something else to do. The attitudes in FP seemed a throwback to the '50s, IMO.

Yes, I realize that was the point of your earlier message, but the basis for women "going bonkers" over sports is another one of my pet peeves. So I won't get started on it. ;-) However, I wouldn't say it was a throwback to the '50s. This change was much more recent IMO, probably the '80s.

(Karen) but the basis for women "going bonkers" over sports is another one of my pet peeves. So I won't get started on it. ;-) OK, I'll bite....why?

I'd guess that your pet peeve is that women just want to drool over the cute athletes-- but I have to say that hasn't been my experience with most women who like to watch sports. A lot of us have a genuine interest in the games, know just as much about the finer points as the men do, and it's been that way since I was a kid (which was way before the '80s, I'm sad to say;-). Then again, I am speaking as one who has organized many family trips around seeing games at all the baseball stadiums in the country. So, to me, Sarah was the oddball.

(Mari) I'd guess that your pet peeve is that women just want to drool over the cute athletes Meaning women being sports groupies vs real fans, correct? I fall into the latter category myself.

I'm not sure it will work either. No insult meant at all to football fans, but the lower-class yobbo distinction attached to the sport ("You slept with the hooligan!") is an important part of the plot in FP that won't fly with baseball in the US. Now stock car racing, that would work, at least outside of the largely misunderstood fan base, which has shot down nearly every racing movie made. Hockey has some real possibilities, though. (Dorine) sports groupies vs real fans, correct? I fall into the latter category myself. I used to argue with an ex over Sunday golf versus the Sunday race, so put me in that category too. A picture-in-picture TV helps somewhat. I suspect that Karen's pet peeve is those women who get into a sport simply to please and keep company with, or meet, men. I had it the other way around, at least for awhile; when a golf tournament is boring, it's really boring, especially compared to a nice sliding-through-the-grass-with-flaps-up multicar wreck where you saw it coming, nobody is hurt, and everyone comes out pissed off and ranting. :) On celebrity, I recently heard a feature on NPR that posited the theory that since all income levels buy 'luxury' goods now, the exclusivity is gone. Thus the new 'luxury' item, the thing everyone wants and few can afford, is celebrity. Famous for fifteen minutes, anyone?

(Elizabeth)...those women who get into a sport simply to please and keep company with, or meet, men. Now you tell me ;-)))

(Independent)"This remake now promises to spare American cinema-goers from getting to grips with both the intricacies of football's offside rule and the enigmatic psyche of the English male." How many people do they think they need to spare. OH, Please! I don't think many American cinema-goers really had to worry about coming to grips with the first one. I fall into Dorine's latter category too. I have been a NY Mets fan since 1973. No, our plight is not as sad as the Cubs, but following them is not easy. I guess I love FP because I have been the "Paul" of my family for many years. For a long time I too wondered if life's sh.. because the Mets are sh..or the other way around...and fretted about the Mets when I should have been fretting about something else. Now, I'm watching my 13 year old daughter beginning to do the same over prof. hockey. I'm proud of her. Watching sports gave me lots to do when my friends were getting bored and getting into things they shouldn't. Enough! FP1 forever!

So... is the movie "My Favorite Year", with Peter O'Toole, based on the novel by Hornby?

(LizBeth) is the movie "My Favorite Year", with Peter O'Toole, based on the novel by Hornby? Nope, the book is a collection of football stories and the movie is about a fading matinee idol making the jump to television in the 50s. Great movie, though, worth seeing if you can find it. Lordy, I just thought of WoF and now I'm wondering; just how many movies about fading matinee idols has O'Toole made? :)

I don't know where to put this and my email is different from the usual since I am on the mainland for a few months stalking my very own archaeologist, so I thought if anyone was still interested in checking "it" out, here is an entirely different size-mo-graph than I ever knew existed. http://www.sizehimup.co.uk/

Girls, definitely go to the size-ograph. What a pisser. Too bad we just can't put in a name and see what "comes up". Thank you. Pam

Wonder if we can extrapolate from the "hand" that is always on someone's shoulder during a photo op. Then, his shoe size was clearly visible to us front row types during 3DOR. And the nose is... Thanks Marcia. What a fun site. :)

Someone do the research and bring it to the birhtday party on the 10th. Thanks, Marcia!

LOL Karen! I only know one method of "extrapolation" that is precise and as someone trained in the sciences, I'm a stickler for accuracy. ;-D

(Dorine)I only know one method of "extrapolation" that is precise and as someone trained in the sciences, I'm a stickler for accuracy. So am I-a stickler for accuracy-that is. I think this could be the next big assignment for the coffee wenches. And while we're there, we just might finally get an answer to the left/right question, too. If not, you know what they say about a bird in the hand...

(Evelyn) Go back to our discussion on it ..about 4 years ago. I'd love to. Can anyone tell me where it is, because sometimes finding old discussions can be a real pain.

If you're talking about FP, it might be kind of hard to find because it probably took place on a general CF topic (pre-film discussion separation); it might also not be there, as a result of some file overlays (and general management incompetence by moi). ;-) It's the next film discussion on my list of To Do's to reformat and upload. So I'll try.

Re: Elisabeth S.'s and LizBeth's posts about "My Favorite Year" and WofF I finally got to see WofF about a week ago. I was struck by the similarity in the parts Peter O'Toole played in both MFY (which is one of my favorite movies) and WofF. Can't remember seeing Peter O'Toole in any other fading matinee idol roles, though.

(Karen) If you're talking about FP, it might be kind of hard to find because it probably took place on a general CF topic (pre-film discussion separation); it might also not be there..... There's some discussion of it on Topic 98. I think there's a little bit early in the topic, but try somewhere around response 1650 or so for the bulk of it. (I went through some of the archives when I got here, before I started posting, and when I found a film discussion I noted its location so I could go back and read it after I'd seen the film.) (Dorine)I only know one method of "extrapolation" that is precise and as someone trained in the sciences, I'm a stickler for accuracy. (Linda) So am I-a stickler for accuracy-that is. I think this could be the next big assignment for the coffee wenches. And while we're there, we just might finally get an answer to the left/right question, too. If not, you know what they say about a bird in the hand... So to speak. I knew my research methods training would pay off some day. Count me in!

(Rika) I knew my research methods training would pay off some day. I almost failed my research and design class in my last semester (hard class and a horrible teacher)....if my assignments and/or extra credit had been like this, I would've passed with flying colors!

Nope, sorry, that was a mini-FP II discussion. The other one was in Feb 1998. I'd have to go retrieve the old WordPerfect doc from my old laptop to see what topic/message number it would've be at.

Just checked the old topics. The full FP discussion would've been in Topic 67, most of which is gone, as Topic 98 (film discussion II) picks up in July 98.

(Karen) The full FP discussion would've been in Topic 67, most of which is gone, as Topic 98 (film discussion II) picks up in July 98. Let's see...vid was released in Oct 97 ( I picked it up in London for conversion). so that discussions took place probably Jan 98. OMG [Time to move on E...] A pity it's gone...it was a hilarious discussion. We had some real characters on board then. He did that film to difuse the Mr. Darcy image.He and Nick Hornby struck up a friendship after that.

(Karen) Nope, sorry, that was a mini-FP II discussion. The other one was in Feb 1998. I never claimed to have found the discussion to which you were referring. I merely said that there was "some discussion of it" on topic 98.

If this were really (solely) about Jude, I'd have put it on his topic, but it is broader. From the Guardian: Face value So what if the star's pretty but the role isn't? The rewards for taking it could be handsome. For some actors, playing ugly is all about respect, says John Patterson Saturday August 24, 2002 Jude Law, my God, would you just look at the state of him: teeth the colour of slowly moulding orange-rind, catastrophically ragged hair-do, scuttling, psycho-insect deportment, plus, towards the end, a nasty dose of broken glass shards embedded in the face. There he is up on the screen in Road To Perdition, acting his little socks off as a psychotic contract killer, having apparently done everything humanly possible in order to dim and occlude that bright beauty that lit up Matt Damon's eyes in The Talented Mr Ripley. If Ripley saw this guy he'd probably beat him to death with a boathook in no seconds flat. In short - look away lest ye be turned to stone, because he isn't one bit pretty. And it's not easy to make Jude Law look this terrible. Sexiness can't be got rid of with a few scowls and a spot of make-up. No, this kind of auto-vandalism takes a great deal of care, application, technical expertise and attention to all the queasy little details. It takes a team, working around the clock. The word from the set is that Law's good looks were so hard to eradicate, so impregnable, that getting the job done required at least three trips to the Ugly Chair. And to what purpose? Why do actors blessed, or cursed, with inordinate good looks so frequently go to great lengths to make themselves look like cowpats that have been force-fed through a mangle? Why does someone like Brad Pitt, whose good looks are of the inarguable, no-doubt-about-it variety, not the matter-of-taste kind, dress up like a tramp for the paparazzi, while cultivating the sort of explosive facial hair that makes a yeti look insufficiently hirsute? Why does Tom Cruise move heaven and earth to get Vanilla Sky made, when he spends half the film with his handsome face carved up by foot-long disfiguring scars? Is it because Ugly is the new Cute? Or is it about Respect? It's got to be Respect, hasn't it, because if Ugly really was the new Cute, there'd suddenly be all sorts of career opportunities for squat, creeping, bald, fat, cheap and nasty looking types. And there's no sudden shortage of folks bearing those characteristics - never has been, never will be. So why aren't they getting the work, when after all they certainly have the necessary qualifications written - indeed, smeared - all over their faces? Instead movies are taking honest work off the real uglies by taking bona fide cuties and carving these alarming grotesques from them. The uglies ought to unionise. Respect it is, then. Beauty, as anyone beautiful will tell you, carries its own set of curses along with all the myriad blessings. Foremost among them is the assumption that beauty alone has got you where you are today, not talent, brains or charm; that beauty is somehow essentially frivolous and unserious, and an unfair advantage to boot. Beauty also tends to work against realism on screen. Just look at Michelle Pfeiffer in Frankie And Johnnie. That's a role that needs to be played by normal gal Edie Falco, and indeed Falco is currently playing the role on Broadway, and receiving acclaim where the pretty girl got brickbats. It used to be the case that the Cary Grants and the Gary Coopers got the money, the babes, the chauffeured limos and the international renown, but it was the Rod Steigers and George C Scotts who won the Oscars. These days the marquee-topping babes and himbos want the money AND the acclaim, and if necessary, they'll cut off their noses to improve their faces - and thus their chance of Oscars. They've all seen The Elephant Man. They know the drill. So it is we come across Nicole Kidman, donning a John Merrick-like prosthetic chin extension and a fake hook-nose over her own button one, so as to be able to portray Virginia Woolf in an upcoming biopic. The girl looks nothing like Woolf, who was, for all her literary abilities, more than a tad horsey in the face. Instead of hiring Kidman, why didn't the film-makers get someone like Fiona Shaw who, while not being particularly horse-faced, does bear a considerable and very fetching resemblance to the author? Who, you ask? Well, there's your answer. No one wants to see one of Britain's best stage actresses give a straightforwardly excellent performance: they want to see their It-girl Kidman wearing a rubberised stunt-face, just like the grotesques in Dick Tracy. Paint her green and she'd look just like the Wicked Witch of the West. Which takes us neatly back to the beginnings of the phenomenon, the year 1966 and Elizabeth Taylor's Oscar-winning performance as the shrill, blowsy, drunken, overweight harridan Martha in Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? It looks like nothing today, but back then it was a very big deal for someone like Taylor, normally considered the gold standard for Hollywood glamour, to pile on the pounds and run over her own beauty with a truck. Forget three trips to the Ugly Chair - Martha, swearing, falling over, hair in hectic disarray, booze and fag-ash stains from eyebrow to ankle, looks like she fell 50 feet out of the Ugly Tree, hit every branch on the way down and when she landed, got 40 whacks from the biggest, knottiest Ugly Stick known to man or beast. Three years earlier she looked radiant in Cleopatra, but no Oscar. Now she looked like a train wreck, and the statuette was hers. Taylor might have been taking tips from Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, who at that moment were both based in Britain and busily making an impressive series of bad films that collectively form a strange subset of the horror genre - the Old Bag Horror Movie. The Nanny and Berserk! were just two movies in which they squandered their reputations for cash, behaving in the most swivel-eyed, barmy and undignified manner imaginable. They spent a large part of the 1960s replaying their roles in Robert Aldrich's robustly crude camp classic Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? Remember Joan in a wheelchair being served cooked rats for dinner by Bette, whose atrociously unflattering make-up caused her to resemble a clown who's been custard-pied for a month of Sundays? Maybe Taylor simply reversed the equation: she squandered her beauty, not her reputation, to enhance her career. And it worked, and plenty of people have followed her example. The process is perfectly simple: bad reputation as an actor? No problem - just ugly on down. Thus Keanu Reeves grows some Charlie Manson hair, dons a disastrous beard and does some extensive reupholstery work on his thespian rep in The Gift, in which he plays a wife-beating psycho (a dash of moral ugliness is just as good as the facial version). There's Cameron Diaz in Being John Malkovich, dowdy as a crack-addicted clippie. It must have taken a year in the Ugly Chair to sandblast away that beautiful face. Likewise Terence Stamp, usually too handsome to live, dressed a lot like Baby-Jane-era Bette in Priscilla, Queen Of The Desert. We've had scar-faced Tom Berenger in Platoon, Johnny Depp in Edward Scissorhands and, come to think of it, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas (bring on the baldie-wig), and Robin Williams in The Fisher King ("Wardrobe! My tramp suit and exploding hairpiece, if you please!"). And a favourite example is Mel Gibson sporting half a face-worth of mixed pizza toppings in his directorial debut, The Man Without A Face. It all comes back to Jean Cocteau's 1944 Beauty And The Beast, a title that encapsulates all the issues above. It starred the insanely handsome Jean Marais, then roundly dismissed by French critics as a no-talent boy-bimbo who'd only succeeded because he was Cocteau's boyfriend. Cocteau just suited him up like a warthog and, hey presto, the plaudits just came raining down. It's a simple and enduring principle: make yourself as ugly as all get-out, and life will be just beautiful.

(Evelyn) A pity it's gone It's not gone entirely. I have it. (Rika) I merely said that there was "some discussion of it" on topic 98. Okie doke. I just didn't want anyone to think that *that* was it. :)