The Fair

Last night I indulged in the calamity that is spring fairs. Local hotspots for the misguided and pent-up urges of teenagers, these fairs create an ecocentre unto themselves that is simply enjoyable to observe. Like a sociologist on a profound study of sexuality, frenzy, and inhibition, I dove into the Brooklin Spring Fair like so many before me.

At $5 to enter, I started the night asking, "What exactly am I paying for?" Was it the pointlessness of tractor pulls, the additional cost of rides, the fried food or the massive line to the beer tent that made me question my recent entrance fee? Despite all that I focused on trying to have a good time.

I got the ball rolling with 3 dozen mini-doughnuts. Despite the temporary distraction they would provide, from my petulant neighbors in line and the mass of second hand smoke, those balls of fried dough and sugar became a mass of indigestion quite quickly.

I spent the rest of the night amusing myself with the drunk antics of those around me. From numerous beer-cup towers, to an over-abundance of bleach blonde hair, the escape was delightful.

I left the fair with a frisbee in hand, some doughnuts for breakfast, and a general feeling of over-exhaustion. All-in-all the entire thing seemed a lot like re-living a moment of nostalgia. You have the stomach-aches from the ride, the indignation from observing your immature ways through wiser eyes, and a souvenir to remember it all.

Don't Watch TV Online

If you live in Canada it is impossible to legally watch many TV shows online. The only major station that offers a decent broadband network is CTV.

If you watch TV shows online, but don't watch them on a network website or a site like Hulu, you are contributing to the demise of television. OK, so I may be exaggerating, but I do have a point to make.

TV shows air to sell ads. Ads pay for the networks. Networks pay the studios for the shows. Studios pay actors, writers, and producers to make TV shows. Advertisers pay the networks to air ads so that people will see those advertisements between shows and buy products. We watch shows for entertainment and subsequently watch ads. Nielsen measures which shows we watch the most and when we watch the most to determine how much a network can charge for ads.

Now, networks put ads online to draw more viewers. Advertisers pay for online ads just like on TV. Writers went on strike to demand a higher pay one time.

If we stop watching TV shows on TV or online then we also stop watching the ads that the advertisers want us to watch. The networks don't boast high ratings for the shows we like. The advertisers stop paying as much for the ads. The studios stop making our show.

So, if you like a show you should do the decency to watch it on TV or watch it on a network or studio website (legally) and avoid a possible cancelation. Decent TV shows need our support. Just look at what happened to Arrested Development.

LOST

It seems most people are in a frenzy about ABC's LOST, at least most people around me. As the frenzy continues and Season 5 unravels, more and more people are commenting and adding their post-episode thoughts. Tonight we saw the most recent episode and I've decided to make my thoughts public (without spoilers).

First, I will say that the entire Season 5 is moving at a slower pace than expected. I think the move to condensed seasons by the Bad Robot team was a good move. However, Season 4 saw a refreshed and re-paced approach to LOST. Now, I think the writers got ahead of themselves like a marathon runner who sprints to the front in the first third of the race. LOST has slowed down, lost pace, and moving back in the pack. The question now is, "Has LOST lost its steam?"

I don't think this is true, and I think this last episode is proof. Sure with the use of flashbacks focused on one particular character we all saw a lament to the format of seasons past. However, with consequential events and reactions to said events being intertwined in all persons concerned brings back the glory that has made the LOST series so popular. Like many of the great episodes in the past I am only left asking, "What happened!?" and, "Doesn't this change everything?"

"Chick Flick" is not a film genre!

So I've surveyed multiple people using the term "chick flick" for certain types of movies. The utilization of varying terms to refer to and classify films is nothing new to me. More-so, I understand both the need and legitimacy of such a classification.

For example, the term "film noir" is a term developed in the 1940s for a new and emerging genre. Film noir is now an excellent topic of film study, much like the Civil War to Historians.

However, unlike film noir, "chick flick" is not a legitimate genre. This, of course, begs the question: "What makes a film genre?" A film genre is used to refer to a group of films with similar characteristics. The term used is used to refer solely to those characteristics. There is a fundamental flaw with the term"chick flick" because while it may be understood that it refers to the films contained within the romantic comedy genre, "chick flick" literally is referring to the audience of the film.

I have two issues with this logic. One, by the definition of "film genre" chick flick could only refer to a film with an all female cast. However, since the only film of this type is The Women and therefore there is no reason for a new genre. Two, if romantic comedies are referred to as "chick flicks" then it insinuates the films are to be enjoyed by women and not men. By the logic of people using "chick flick" action movies should be called, "bro shows", or movies featuring a predominately Black cast should be called "black flicks". I believe all of these references, including "chick flick" are insulting.

The choice is yours, but I have not nor will not use "chick flick" to incorrectly or insultingly refer to any movie.

After the Oscars

I was extremely pleased with the 1 hour of the Oscars that I saw on Sunday night. Unfortunately I had to miss the beginning due to a prior engagement. Non only was I pleased with the winners but I was also pleased with the new format conceived by producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon. The event was intimate, engaging, and relevant. I was happy to see all but one of my predictions come true. However, I do feel that Slumdog and The Reader are two of the best films I've seen in awhile, so for Kate Winslet to win was a real treat.

My Oscar Predictions

Okay, so I have a bitter/sweet relationship with the Oscars. In the past I have had little faith in the celebrated awards show that is ridden with inner politics. There have been disappointing years, like when Crash won Best Picture. There have been great years, like when the Cohen Brothers won their first award for directing No Country for Old Men.

It is sad to see so few films nominated this year, but it is amazing to see such great films nominated. Out of the 80% that I have seen, I have loved them all. Despite my love, I, as always, feel very strongly about who I think should win and who shouldn't. Here are my thoughts:

Best Picture

• Who should win: Slumdog Millionaire. I thought all the hype for this film was possibly just frivolous. Then I saw the movie. I could go on forever about the both political, romantic, and charismatic themes that make this multifaceted movie a hit.
  
• Who shoudn't win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. This film, while excellent, didn't carry enough of a message. It was delightful and heartwarming, but could have said something more and didn't.
  
• Who will win: Slumdog Millionaire
  

Male Actor in a Lead Role

• Who should win: Mickey Rourke. He did an amazing job in The Wrestler and helped make the film the power-house it is. Dominating the screen-time the responsibility for the emotional drive of this film fell on Rourke's shoulders.
  
• Who shouldn't win: None. Each of these actors did a great job.
  
• Who will win: Sean Penn - Milk

Female Actor in a Lead Role

• Who should win: Meryl Streep. Performing the challenging role of this strong female in Doubt is something only Meryl Streep could do.
• Who shouldn't win: Anne Hathaway. She did a formidable job at playing the post-suicidal, post-drug addict dealing with a family's constant judgement in Rachel Getting Married. However, while this was an impressive performance from what we've seen before, the performance was more brooding and less contemplative than deserving an award.
• Who will win: Meryl Streep - Doubt.

Male Actor in a Supporting Role

• Who should win: Heath Ledger. Not only did Heath go beyond anyone's expectations, he made the Joker more real and in-depth than what we could have asked for in The Dark Knight.
• Who shouldn't win: Robert Downey Jr. I can only think his nomination if more of a joke than Tropic Thunder.
• Who will win: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight.

Female Actor in a Supporting Role

• I can't respond but I didn't want anyone to think I forgot this category.

Animated Feature Film

• Who should/will win: WALL-E. There isn't enough I can say about this film. An amazing feet that has heart and a truly motivating message.

I could say my thoughts for the other categories, but the cumbersome debate on their technicality would probably come across as verbose and protracted. Look for my remarks after Sunday night.

A Close (yet painful) Shave

So for the first time I tried shaving with a double-edge razor. The double-edge (or safety) razor looks like something you would see used in the 1930s, and it is. 

You may ask why I have decided to move backwards in time for my grooming regime and not forwards. Well, I was as forward as you could get and it wasn't working. I've been shaving with some named-like-an-airplane battery powered 5-blade, precision-blade waste-of-money razor for far to long. It wasn't the "best a man can get".

I had heard a lot of people talking about both the quality and economy of using a double-edge razor. I have seen those stand-alone razor blades sitting in the drug store cabinet and always wondered why they cost so much less but contained so much potential. My wondering would not be abided, as I could never find a razor to hold the blades themselves. 

That's when I turned to the Internet. Ah, the great provider. The all-knowing Internet. Mysterious in origin yet satisfying in existence. I searched for double-edge razors in Canada and found Fendrihan.com. This great re-seller of many a shave product showed me the way. I checked out their line-up, read a few articles about the benefits of double-edge shaving, and away I purchased.

It only took two days for my razor and sample pack of 20 blades to arrive! I was so excited that I went to shave right away. My first experience resulted in what you truly would expect of a double-edge shave virgin - slow, uncoordinated movements, with some blood afterwards. Like a scared child I went to my dad for advice. He told me to hold the blade perpendicular to my face and shave with, not against the hairs. I have learned for next time.