Golden Gabbing

I was a total cinematic slacker in 2009. I admit it. But it was a really, really, really tough year for me. 2009, I'll see you in hell. Anyway, back to the matter at hand... I didn't see much last year, so maybe I have no business yakking about the Golden Globes and the fairness or unfairness of it all, but guess what? I'm going to shoot my mouth off regardless.

I don't know much about the workings of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which is responsible for choosing the winners of the Golden Globes. What I do know is that it's a relatively small, "exclusive" (less than 100 members) group of foreign journalists who cover Hollywood for the rest of the world. These journalists/members are based out of the United States but write for foreign audiences, and they themselves are not native to the United States. I could be wrong about all of this, and please feel free to correct me if I am, but this is what I've gathered from my admittedly very rushed researching. For your consideration, here's a list of the members, the people you either want to praise or blame for the winners.

So, when it comes to movies, there are blockbusters, and there are...non-blockbusters. I know it might be over-simplifying, but that's essentially how it breaks down all year long. There are those that are made to make money and those that are made to win awards...sometimes, a movie does both and gets the audiences AND awards (Titanic and, apparently, Avatar). There's mainstream, and there's not. Just because something bombs at the box office doesn't automatically put it into the non-blockbuster category, though...if it looks like a blockbuster, clucks like a blockbuster...you get the picture. But just because something is artsy doesn't mean it can't also be mainstream, and just because something is mainstream doesn't mean it can't also be artsy. I kind of feel like I'm digging my own grave right now, so I'm going to try to stop babbling. (Sheesh, can you tell I haven't done this in awhile? Yikes...) In conclusion, the movies I'm calling non-blockbusters, in the context of this piece, are what I would consider typical awards fodder (generally end of the year releases, but not exclusively), stuff with substance that deserves to be seen but generally doesn't find the biggest audience or a ton of money, "the good stuff" if you want to be snotty, or independent or arthouse or whatever...basically, you're not going to find Transformers 2 in this category.

Now, all that being said, I don't ever remember there being such a distinct division between blockbusters and non-blockbusters at the Globes as there was this year. I've already been having a blast discussing this on various Facebook status messages (I LOVE talking about this stuff!), but it's especially fascinating and disconcerting this year. There's just such a rift. The 67th Annual Golden Globes was a total popularity contest. I know, I know, people are going to say that it's always a popularity contest, but I don't necessarily agree with that. My point is that it's painfully obvious this time around. If there was the option to go with a commercial choice, the Hollywood Foreign Press took it and ran with it. This is like high school; it could very well be an episode of Glee! Take the Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical category: there's the jock (Robert Downey, Jr., Sherlock Holmes), and then there's the geek (Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man). On what planet would Michael Stuhlbarg NOT deserve this award? Well, this one, apparently, if you ask the HFPA. The cool kid won out. But really, doesn't it make sense when you think about who's voting? Would foreign, globally-conscious voters vote for the flashy Downey, Jr. in a holiday blockbuster or the seriously subtle Stuhlbarg in an under-the-radar gem? Hmm. Downey, Jr. is the more familiar choice, the safe choice and, I propose, the cowardly one.

But I never really thought about this or felt so cynical about it until this year. Have the members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association been blinded by the bling? This show just seemed so glaringly commercial. I mean, I have a love/hate relationship with awards season (don't we all? We love to hate them!), and whether I agree with the winners or not, I have always LOVED watching the Globes (something about celebrities and booze...). It's maybe my favorite out of all the shows - I love the combination of film and television. Anyway, I feel like the Globes have gotten it right a LOT over the years, so I'm not going to let this year's show muck up its reputation overall. But yeesh...what happened tonight? Well, the box office owned it. The wins for Robert Downey, Jr., Sandra Bullock (I'm sure she's lovely in The Blind Side, but really?? Best Dramatic Actress over all those others?), The Hangover, and Avatar prove that. The box office told credibility and artistry to suck it. That may be a little harsh, but it's how I see it. Since Avatar is a global phenomenon, and the Globes promote, for lack of a better term, global-ness, it makes sense that Avatar won Best Motion Picture Drama. Why would the foreign press care about a film about the Iraq war (The Hurt Locker, which I would have called a lock to win)? Hollywood proper will care when it comes time for the Academy Awards. But globally? Nah. To put it simply, this year's Golden Globes ceremony was a slave to the box office. Or maybe whore is more apt...

Now, some other random thoughts on the show in a segment I'm calling "Things I learned from watching the 67th Annual Golden Globes" (I'm not going to list all the winners or nominees; for a comprehensive list, go here):

• Evidently, I need to start watching Glee and Dexter. I'm not being facetious either.

• Neil Patrick Harris and Jane Krakowski talked about not being suited for drama because of their enormous foreheads...um, Quentin Tarantino's is still bigger. Than both combined. Sorry, guys.

• I still hate the combo Musical/Comedy category. The only reason Nine got nominated is BECAUSE it's a musical - it certainly didn't deserve it otherwise. I think the "musical" label should be cut out completely, and musicals should be placed into whichever category is the most fitting, be it dramatic or comedic. Nine would be a drama. Ray was considered a musical, and thus Jamie Foxx robbed Paul Giamatti of his Golden Globe for Sideways because he was unfairly placed in the same category as Giamatti. Jamie Foxx's portrayal of Ray Charles is not a comedic/musical performance - it is dramatic. And just because the movie is about a singer and has songs in it, that doesn't make it a musical! See also: Walk the Line. At least Nine actually IS a musical, even though it's not a very good one. But where would the brilliant Chicago land - comedy or drama? It's a very dark comedy, certainly, but I would probably come down on the side of drama. Any thoughts on this?

• If I'm going by the nominees for Best Comedy (or Musical - arg!), then 2009 was a very, very bland year for comedies. I guarantee you that no one would have even given It's Complicated or Julie & Julia a second thought, much less any nominations, if not for the prestige that Meryl Streep brings with her everywhere she goes. Don't get me wrong, I love her with a fiery passion, but they'll nominate anything she does. Nine, by default, had to be in this category, (500) Days of Summer, from what I hear, is worthy of its nomination, but is The Hangover really all that? What about the brilliant and hilarious Zombieland?

• Apparently, The Hangover IS all that, as it racked up yet another award - Best Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy. Well, okay then. I guess I have to see it.

• The standard for nominated comedies seems to have plummeted. I can't imagine something like The Hangover being nominated any other year. Why wasn't Superbad nominated in its year? What, that was too low-brow for the Globes, but The Hangover isn't? No, I'm not bitter...

• Combining adapated and original screenplays into one category is stupid. And Quentin Tarantino should have won for Inglourious Basterds. Just saying.

• Ricky Gervais rules. I especially liked his jab at Mel Gibson. While holding a beer, he introduced Gibson, "I like a drink as much as the next man...unless the next man is Mel Gibson." Ba-zing.

• Alec Baldwin needs to go away and give someone else a turn (namely, Steve Carell).

• The more time that passes, the less I like Up.

• The more often that ludicrously long subtitle to Precious pops up, the more ridiculous it sounds, and the more it, unfortunatly, hurts the credibility of the film. Let. it. go.

• Mo'Nique's well-deserved win tonight brings her one step closer to the Oscar. She gave a beautiful speech, too.

• Christoph Waltz's well-deserved win tonight brings HIM one step closer to the Oscar.

• I love Colin Farrell more every day. His Best Actor (Musical/Comedy) Globe win last year for In Bruges was one of the most wonderful and unexpected surprises that the show has ever given me. It might just be my favorite Globe win of all time. Farrell was back tonight, as a past winner, to present an award. I don't remember exactly what was said verbatim, but Ricky Gervais talked about how film brings people together and shatters stereotypes, something like that. He solemnly segued, "One stereotype I hate is that all Irishmen are just drunk, swearing hellraisers." Without skipping a beat, Gervais promptly introduced Colin Farrell. Farrell came out and took it like a champ. He even hugged Gervais. He then said, in a playful sing-songy voice, "Oh, I once was a cliché." He continued, "I heard Ricky had specifically asked to introduce me, and I thought...'Oh, balls.'" It was glorious.

And finally, speaking of glorious, or inglourious to be precise...I absolutlely LOVE Christoph Waltz's thematic, custom-tailored-for-the-occasion acceptance speeches. It's really rather marvelous. The other night at the Critics' Choice Awards, he spoke of the series of "choices" that brought him to that moment and that award. Last night, at the Golden Globes, because it was a global award involving our whole planet, he went with an astronomical theme (and I don't mean "astronomical" in the sense of being huge, I mean it literally, as in pertaining to astronomy). Waltz talked about his "globe," being exposed to the gravitational forces of Quentin Tarantino, and being a part of the bigger constellation of this film...oh hell, just watch it, it's great:

I think his approach to these speeches is so adorable and totally refreshing. Most people just recycle the same thing over and over; Waltz is actually thoughtful enough to recognize and appreciate each honor in its own right by expressing his gratitude in terms of the award itself. I think that's just extraordinary. What a sweet, humble, gracious, beautiful man. Christoph Waltz, you're a hell of a guy, you deserve every bit of this, and I can't wait to hear what you do with your Oscar speech.

Question: Would a Rose by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?

Answer: When the rose is an iconic building, no. No, no, no. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! NO!!!! No.

Le sigh.

Chicago is experiencing an identity crisis, courtesy of the egomaniacs at Willis Group. Who? Exactly. Our beloved Sears Tower is soon to become the Willis Tower. And I thought the British stopped colonizing a long time ago...

I'm very much of the opinion of this editorial piece from the Daily Herald (originally here):

"Let this be a lesson to whomever buys Wrigley Field. The name matters.

Apparently, Willis Group Holdings of London thought they could just march across the pond and rename an iconic building and no one would notice or care.

Granted, we in the Chicago area don't have as much history as England boasts, but, hey, three decades of calling the tallest building in the United States the Sears Tower means something to us.

'With the Sears Tower name having international cachet, you could argue that imposing a new name might be kind of cheeky on their part,' Tim Samuelson, Chicago's cultural historian, told The New York Times.

Perhaps Willis should have done a little homework first and talked to some Chicagoans. Instead, their chief executive told the Chicago Tribune he was surprised at the uproar. And its spokesman told our reporter Jamie Sotonoff that 'This is a new day, and over time, Chicagoans may come to embrace the Willis name.'

We wouldn't count on it. And we wouldn't count on most of us ever calling the building anything but Sears Tower.

As Sotonoff detailed in a story Saturday, we cling to the name we know even when politicians or business execs try to foist new monikers on us.

Granted, United had an easier time getting buy-in on the new United Center because the old Chicago Stadium was demolished. The same could have been said for U.S. Cellular Field, but even tearing down the old Comiskey Park has done nothing to get regular usage of the new name.

Politicians think it's honorable to rename our tollways for politicians and do-gooders. And that's well and good. But the directionally challenged or those who like using numbers for their roads still are in the majority, so the Reagan Tollway, for example, is still the East-West Tollway or I-88 to most of us.

We know Willis has every right to rename the building. They paid $2 million for 140,000 square feet of office space for 500 employees and got the naming rights thrown in. Normally, that would be great news, especially in these trying times. And most of it is.

But as noted earlier, the name counts. Nothing against Macy's really, but it's still hard for many to embrace the store that took over Marshall Field's. That's probably not as evident in the stores Macy's built since they came to town, but it certainly is for the venerable department store building they took over on State Street.

Macy's has had to spend a lot of money overcoming those obstacles in Chicago. But Willis, a global retail insurance broker, has no direct dealings with consumers. They have no image to build up. So why?

'It's ego,' Bob Killian, CEO of Chicago-based Killian Advertising, told Sotonoff.

Yes, we can hear them denying that all the way from London: 'Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis,' they might say.

Hmmm. We might say that too."

Step off, Willis. When you mess with Chicago, you mess with Chicagoans. We're bloody pissed. And not like you'd care, but our rich history is full of much more than just buildings...perhaps you've heard of Al Capone? I'm just saying...

Readers, please help preserve Chicago's heritage and sign the petition at: http://www.itsthesearstower.com/.

Killer Body Barbie

Kathlyn and Gay Hendricks' BRILLIANT article, "Body Politics: Sarah Palin's Body Language And Why It Should Worry You," from The Huffington Post totally made my day. It tickled me, and I hope it tickles you, too.

**

Since our last post, we've been asked many times to comment on Sarah Palin's mannerisms. Her Body-Talk is not as blatant as her running mate, probably because she has a background as a performer in beauty pageants and television. She has learned to conceal the smirks and clenches that play so openly across the countenance of John McCain.

In our work we call body language the Five Flags, because there are five major ways human beings react when they're not speaking the authentic truth. Twitches and jaw-clenches are examples of Flag #1, Body-Flags. To understand Sarah Palin, though, you need to understand Flags #2 and #3, Voice-Flags and Attitude-Flags. The English word 'personality' comes from two Latin words, per and sona, "through sound." The Romans knew that the personality comes through in the tone of voice and other vocal aspects.

From thirty-five years of clinical experience, we can tell you a lot about Sarah Palin's real personality and why it makes many people even more nervous that John McCain's.

Attitude-Flag #1: The Aggressive Confidence Of The Con-Person

Sarah Palin has mastered one fundamental requirement of a Republican president: she can smile and look you directly in the eye while telling an outrageous lie. At least when John McCain lies, his body screams his discomfort by putting on an eye-catching display of twitches, phony smiles and robot moves. McCain's body language is so strange that it's easily observable; he appears to be operated by a puppeteer who is a couple of triple-espressos over the line. That's a good thing, though. We'd much rather have a presidential candidate who reads like a comic book when he's lying than one who conceals those whoppers under a grin and a wink. Sarah Palin belts out her deceptions and distractions with a radiant confidence we usually only see in sociopaths and infomercial pitch-persons. The last public figure we saw who could grin and lie with that kind of sunny confidence was O.J. Simpson.

Voice-Flag #1: The Exaggerated Folksiness Of The Huckster

Our partisan colors may peek through subtly from time to time, but we do our best to be non-partisan lie-catchers. We cringed when Bill Clinton did his famous "I did not have sex..." line. We immediately looked at each other and said "uh-oh," because his body language let us know loud and clear that he did indeed have sex with "that woman." About ten minutes after Clinton's declaration, our phone started ringing from producers of talk shows wanting us to comment on Clinton's body language. They knew they'd seen something, but they couldn't figure out exactly what.

More recently, we cringed when we heard Sarah Palin start using more of those pseudo-folksy expressions such as "You betcha" and "doggone-it." She was droppin' so many g's on-stage at last week's debate that the janitorial staff may have had to work over-time pickin' 'em up, by gum. The last eight years have taught us all a sobering lesson: you don't have to be smart to be the President of the United States. However, we hope that America is smart enough to see Palin's exaggerated folksiness for what it is, a cheap trick to cozy up to us so they can sell us four more years of Bush Lite. We hope America will hear those "You betchas" and send Mc Cain/Palin a message right back: Just because you pretend to be dumb and folksy, you don't automatically get to live in the White House.

Voice-Flag #2: The Metallic Shriek Of The Fear-Monger

To emphasize certain points, Sarah Palin takes her voice up the tone scale to a metallic shriek. This tone will be familiar to many of us: it's the voice your mother employed as a last resort to get you out of bed when you were a teenager. It's designed to scare you, to rake fingernails across your inner chalkboard. She often uses this voice when she first takes the stage at a rally. It works quite well there, because it cuts like a knife and jolts any of the faithful who might be dozing to sit up in their seats. We hope Americans are not so sleepy as to vote in favor of hearing this tone of voice for four years.

Here's the bottom line: The McCain/Palin campaign strategy is based entirely on stirring up fear. It's a classic way to distract people from thinking about real issues and to cover up the lack of any real solutions. Their thinking goes like this:

• If we can get people scared that Obama might secretly be a Muslim or a terrorist, maybe we can get them not to think about the real issues.

• If we can get people scared that Rev. Wright might turn the inaugural benediction into an anti-American rant, maybe we can get them to believe America's economic problems are just something cooked up by the elite media as a way to play "Gotcha" on poor Sarah and John.

• If we can scare people into thinking Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going to put Louis Farrakhan in charge of the annual White House Easter egg hunt, maybe people won't notice that we have absolutely no solutions to the real problems they face.

Barack Obama has so far opted to run a positive campaign based on hope and thoughtful solutions. It's our fervent desire that he continue to do so, because it's about time we turned our national attention to positive possibilities. Over the past eight years we've had enough fear-mongering to last a lifetime.

(Stay tuned! In our next post we'll look at two more important bits of body language that we all need to be paying attention to during the campaign. We've noticed these flags at play in both Joe Biden and John McCain, and they spell trouble for all of us.)

**

I'll stay tuned indeed! Watching that vice-presidential debate...ugh. I saw all of this as clear as the Alaska sky before shooting a polar bear or a wolf. How can so many people be so blind?! Oops, gotta go - reckon that doggone polar bear over yonder is looking to rassle. You betcha. Lock and load.

Oy.

Why We Fight

I promised John Kass that I would be coming for him. Well, here I am, Johnny Boy. And lucky for you, I'm extra cranky (no, not PMS, you pig), having seen Lady in the Water AND The Happening in one week. So, watch out, this kitty has sharpened her claws, and she's out to get you. Me-ow. You know the part in Batman Returns when Michelle Pfeiffer becomes Catwoman in her apartment, and one of the final stages of her transformation is to punch out letters from her "Hello There" neon sign so it says "Hell here"? And how she only did this after she had been pushed out of her office building to her death by Christopher Walken? Yeah, I'm madder than that. The meek little pussycat is about to roar.

To warm up, I'm going to use Entertainment Weekly's Gregory Kirschling as a punching bag. Gee, hope I don't break a pink, freshly manicured nail. In the June 13th issue of EW, Kirschling weaseled a little column into the movies section entitled, "Your Movie Is Too Long! Making Sex Safe For Guys." Note that this was ignorantly written two weeks after the film's release, meaning that Mr. Kirschling had full knowledge of the film's impact, success, and significance for women. He blurbs beneath the title, "How did Sex and the City end up being 146 minutes long?! Watch as we edit the movie for beleaguered boyfriends and husbands everywhere. (Everyone else, be warned: Mild spoilers follow!"

These "beleaguered" legions of men should be grateful they even have girlfriends or wives if they cop that kind of attitude with them. I bet to their faces, they're all like, "Of course, honey, let's go see it." And I bet they probably don't mind when their significant others play SATC-inspired dress-up. I bet you don't have as much of a problem with it when your woman is looking fine in her Manolos (which you probably BOUGHT her, or else resent that she is self-sufficient enough to buy them herself) and banging outfit. Not like clothes mean everything, but if people like Kirschling and John Kass are stupid enough to reduce it to superficiality, I'll play their little games.

Also, aren't relationships give and take? I doubt one woman ever put a gun to her boyfriend/husband's head and forced him to take her to see Sex and the City. And how many times have women good-naturedly gone along to so-called "guy flicks"? But more about this later. If Kirschy can do some dissecting of this film, I can dissect HIS dissecting.

On the left side of his column, he breaks down the plot into intervals. On the right side, which is what I plan on focusing on, is where he plays manly man and cuts out chunks that he feels would save the poor darlings from the distress caused by this film.

Here are his points on expendable minutes:

1. "First scene to go: the one where the women meet Samantha on the street and shriek. And shriek. And shriek. Do women really shriek at one another like this? While we're at it, let's lose the whole auction scene that follows." This subtracts five minutes.

Rebuttal: Seeing as how Samantha lives in LA now, the first reunion between the fab foursome is pretty damn important. I wouldn't call it "shrieking." They're not banshees. Excitedly squealing, perhaps. And yes, women do that. We have feelings, and we let them out. When I reunite with girl friends who I haven't seen in a long time, I vocally emit my happy feelings, with words accompanying the sounds. Kirschling makes us sound like dolphins. What do men do when they see friends after a long time apart? Do the silent, macho one arm, one second long hug? Do they grunt like Tim Taylor on Home Improvement? Or do they homophobically avoid eye or physical contact and just stand aloof with their arms crossed ten feet away from each other? So, "do women really shriek at one another like this?" Do men usually oink at one another?

Also, the auction scene is crucial because it sets up Samantha's storyline.

2. "Love you and your snappy Diane Arbus quip, Candice Bergen, but you're fired. In fact, any scene that has the word Vogue in it is gone. That name-brand-dropping, retail-porn wedding-dress montage? It's not even going on the DVD!" This subtracts 10 minutes.

Rebuttal: Of course, you WOULD want to cut out the Bergen/Vogue stuff. This element emphasizes Carrie's professional status, that designers are fawning over her to wear their stuff. She's made it. I'm not sure why the montage won't be on the DVD, but the fans loved it. The dresses are fab, and Sarah Jessica Parker looks gorgeous (it puts her detractors to shame). She's basking in her dream wedding moment. And yeah, like this is the only time a major motion picture dropped a product's name.

3. "Here's a rule: If the scene isn't set in NYC, it's out. This means a lot less Samantha, but that'll teach her for moving to L.A. Her subplot with the well-endowed fornicator next door is deadly." This subtracts 20 minutes.

Rebuttal: My, aren't we closed-minded. If it's not in NYC, it's out? Maybe the whole movie should take place in Carrie's closet. Would that be better? We wouldn't want these strong women running rampant around North America. Reel them in. They are out of control. That'll teach Samantha for moving to LA? Her moving is an integral part of her character arc, and her subplot with the well-endowed fornicator (jealous, Greg?) is what makes Samantha...Samantha.

4. "More silly fashion, more loud shrieking: We're cutting the girly 'Walk This Way' dress-up sequence where Carrie models old clothes while her friends caterwaul on the couch. Easy call." This subtracts 2 minutes.

Rebuttal: Two minutes? Is that worth cutting? Sorry the sequence is too "silly" for you, but this is a demonstration of Carrie's fashion evolution (including the beloved tutu). In case you haven't noticed, she's something of a fashion icon. The girls are also saying good-bye to Carrie's apartment, home base for the entire series. It's fun, and it's poignant. It stays.

5. "You know what? Let's ax the whole Mexico sequence. Remember the rule: No NYC, no mas. Just jump to Jennifer Hudson. Carrie's still mopey then, too." This subtracts 20 minutes.

Rebuttal: Are you crazy?! They're in Mexico on what should have been Carrie and Big's honeymoon. It's significant for them to be there so she can confront it, no matter how "mopey" she might be. I'd be mopey, too! Sheesh. Give her a break. SJP does some of her best acting in Mexico. Also, it's a getaway. Clearly, NYC has been tainted for the time being. Mexico gives the girls a fantastic chance to bond and showcase the chemistry we love so much, and it gives Carrie time and space to mend. Doesn't she deserve that?

6. "Charlotte's news flash? Who cares? As punishment for the 'Poughkeepsie' scene (don't ask), we're cutting her out of the rest of the movie..." This subtracts ten minutes.

Rebuttal: Cutting out one of the girls? Yeah, that's worth the extra ten minutes. And Charlotte's news is HUGE. I care, and so do millions of other fans, you big jerk. Also, the Poughkeepsie scene is hilarious, and it serves a major function by making Carrie laugh at last. It's great to see them all laugh together. And "punishment" is an interesting word choice... why stop at cutting her out of the film? Just flog her and put that bitch in her place.

7. This final cut subtracts 10 minutes. "...which means Big can't come to Charlotte's aid late in the movie anymore, setting up the ending. He and Carrie will just have to run into each other in the supercloset now. Seems a little random, but at least it gets us out of here."

Rebuttal: Yeah, setting up the ending is SO overrated. The run-in between Charlotte and Big got one of the best reactions at my screening. It's two-fold: she gets to tell him off (and he deserves it), and he has to help her with her "news flash." Since we care about Charlotte, this is a rather important event. But hey, cut out her delivering her first naturally conceived child - no biggie, right? Not like she had been longing to get pregnant for years or anything. Besides, this is the perfect way to bring Carrie and Big back together.

Total running time: 146 minutes
Our running time (Kirschling is apparently speaking for all men): 69 minutes

Anyone else think he planned that to come out to 69 minutes? Seems awfully convenient.

Why Gregory Kirschling decided to write this two weeks after the film came out bewilders me. Why is he still suffering so? I know respectable publications like Entertainment Weekly and the Chicago Tribune post stuff like this because they know it's going to cause controversy. So maybe I'm playing right into a trap, but I don't care. Why does Kirschling feel the need to manit (man + edit) the film? I have never once seen a woman do something similar in EW...or anywhere else. If we could only stop sewing long enough and take those scissors to some of the "dick flicks" (get it? I think that could catch on), those movies would be chopped up beyond recognition. But women don't, and you know why? We have been persecuted for so long that we understand how to exercise tolerance.

To play devil's advocate, though, I'll edit a dick flick. How about Transformers? (And I'm not saying there aren't women who like Transformers. I'm making a general assumption like these media assholes.) I do admit that Transformers is geared toward men and Sex and the City is geared toward women. But this is like telling a little boy that he can't play with a doll and telling a little girl that she can't play with a truck. I know SATC's core audience is female, but there are plenty of male followers, gay and straight.

Anyway... Transformers...

Running time: 144 minutes
"Our" version: Zero minutes

There you go. If you want to be spiteful, I can be, too.

Now, my Kirschling attack was just the appetizer. It's time for the main course. Maybe I should order a cosmo...or ten.

John Kass wrote his article on May 14, 2008. Before the film even came out, he was spitting on it. How about giving it a fucking chance first? I don't know who makes me more mad: Kirschling for writing his spiel AFTER the film's success or Kass for writing his misogynistic whinefest BEFORE the release. Kirschling's belated bitchslap undermines the tangible, positive steps made for women, but Kass prematurely undermines it and, at the same time, tries to stop it before it starts. And Kass is much more offensive and pointed in his piece, so he's definitely the worst of the worst. Let's break down Kass' article, sexist bit by sexist bit.

"Because no man should feel the agony of this film" by John Kass:

"Today's column contains a free John Kass' Get Out of Watching the Sex and the City Movie Card, or Kass' SATC Absolvo Carta for short, and I'm offering it for this simple reason:

I can still hear the terrified cries of men from across the sea, from England, men scared stiff by the new Sex and the City movie premiere, and such cries are cries of warning to men in America, where this evil film will debut in a few weeks."

Rebuttal: First, I'll start off by saying that John Kass is more then entitled to his opinion. But, as this is a free country, so am I. That being said, on to the bashing:

Referring to yourself (I periodically speak TO Kass in this entry) in the third person in the first sentence reeks of arrogance. Yes, you can actually print out a certificate (more on that later). How delightfully interactive of him. Get a life. Doesn't he have anything better to do than come up with a certificate? If a man gave me that certificate, I would slice his throat with the paper. Any man who presents that certificate to any woman with self-respect and concern for her gender will be in danger of bodily harm or being denied sex infinitely. Terrified cries? Very melodramatic for such a macho man, don't you think? He calls it an "evil" film. Not just bad or annoying...EVIL. Credibility = gone.

"One of the first shrieks of woe came from a regular guy named Phil. His warning was posted in the Times Online, as a comment on the review of the film that premiered the other day in London.

'I don't think SATC is just for girls. I am a reasonably well-adjusted bloke and I am looking forward to seeing the film with my girlfriend. I am then looking forward to poking my eyes out with red-hot pokers, burning my skin off, and rolling around in salt for a while.' - Phil Mann, Newcastle upon Tyne."

Rebuttal: Men shriek now? Maybe he should confer with Kirschling about that. Well, Phil, once your girlfriend read your comments, I bet she was looking forward to your self-mutilation, also.

"He's not alone. Millions of men are sick about this movie based on a TV show about four terrifying, rich, aging, elitist women who whine about sex and men and purchase $700 pairs of shoes to feel better about themselves. What guy wouldn't love such a movie?"

Rebuttal: MILLIONS of men? Hyperbole central. One might say Kass is acting hysterical, a horrid word that originated due to male doctors' ignorance at diagnosing female patients, especially in the past couple hundred years. Rather than find something actually wrong with the patient, she'd basically just be labeled "crazy," overreacting to silly women's problems that couldn't be handled by someone so feeble, and tossed aside. Don't believe me? Doesn't hysterical sound awfully similar to hysterectomy, the procedure in which the uterus is removed? Ugh. History is fun.

"Terrifying": Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha are terrifying? Why, because they're successful and independent? Because they embrace their sexuality? Because they would probably make fun of your sexual inadequacies? When did they turn into monsters?

"Rich": Why is rich used as a derogatory term? Because they make their own money? It's so irrelevant...unless you're a threatened man.

"Elitist": This is totally out of line. What makes them elitists? They like nice things, and they can afford them. Maybe you're confusing being an elitist with having standards.

"Whine about sex and men": Have you never had a bad sexual experience or relationship? Just because men are too uncomfortable to discuss their feelings doesn't mean the SATC women should be insulted for venting. They don't whine; they talk. Your article, John Kass, is whining. Besides, the name of the show is Sex and the City - what do you think they're going to talk about, needlepoint?

"Purchase $700 pairs of shoes to feel better about themselves": Hmm, oink, oink, Mr. Kass. They aren't purchasing the shoes to feel better about themselves; they just like shoes! They prefer not to walk around barefoot in New York. So, they're expensive. They earn their own money, so they can spend it how they want. And if a pair is occasionally bought to make them happy or to "feel better about themselves," what's wrong with that? Has a man never bought something he wanted just because he thought he deserved it or because it would cheer him up? What a crime.

"What guy wouldn't love such a movie?" Kass asks. Well, no guy if he approaches it with the same condescending, smug attitude. And besides, no one is asking you to.

"Naturally, millions of men are ready to poke their eyes out with red-hot pokers, peel their skin off and roll around in salt - and if not salt, then we'll soak in a bathtub of lemon juice and slit our wrists with Manolo Blahnik credit card receipts - if our wives or girlfriends demand we accompany them to Sex and the City.

Why?"

Rebuttal: All of those things you described, yes, you go do them. Demand? Are they really "demanding"? Or are they just asking you, as part of a loving relationship, to at least attempt to show some respect and take an interest in something that they enjoy? Honestly, what woman would want to take a man like John Kass, or the apparently millions of others, to see SATC? We all want to go with our girlfriends. Stop being so narcissistic.

"It is the never-ending question to the never-ending story, why men would rather chop their toes off with a rusty hoe than walk across the street to see Sex and the City.

Why? Tell me why."

Rebuttal: Why, why, why? Sheesh, talk about whiny. Does baby need a nap? No one's stopping you from chopping your toes off with a rusty hoe. Actually, we might stop you so we can leave it out in the rain a couple more nights. "Tell me why"? Is he going to launch into the Backstreet Boys?

"'I just don't understand why you men don't like Sex and the City,' said a woman on Tuesday. 'I had a nice man over to my house. We were watching TV and Sex and the City came on, the show. And I said, 'Oh, let's watch Sex and the City and he said, 'You like that romantic [stuff]?' And I said yes.' And then I never saw him again. My friends said, 'Girl, you don't need a man like that. He's nothing but a loser.' I don't know if he was a loser. But he sure disappeared."

Rebuttal: First off, I feel sorry for this woman who spoke to John Kass. Secondly, YES, honey, he was a loser. Any man who would leave you over something like a TV show or, for that matter, any man who would compare a film to the forces of evil, is a loser.

"Sadly, that's just another example of the painful truth: Women Just Don't Get It. Because when it comes to Sex and the City, women don't care about our needs, our desires, our deepest hidden longings - and our phobias about $700 pairs of Manolo Blahnik shoes. I've never seen such shoes. But if I saw the bill, I'd begin to cry."

Rebuttal: Yes, women ARE idiots. We clearly don't get it. Oh, right, it's the women who don't care. We're so selfish. Men's needs, desires, and deepest hidden longings? What, to avoid a movie? It's about damn time men cater to the needs, desires, and deepest hidden longings of women! Wake up! This isn't the 19th century. And hey, the women in SATC are proud to buy their own Manolos. I can't speak for women everywhere (like John Kass evidently deems himself worthy of speaking for men everywhere), but we don't need men to buy us stuff. And any man willing to spend the money, well, that's his choice, isn't it?

"So today, and today only, I'm offering absolution to every manjack on the planet. It's your Get out of Sex and the City Absolution Card.

Just sign this, and show it to your wife or girlfriend, and they'll be prohibited by Kassian law from making you see the movie. If they persist, drop me a line, and we'll report their crimes in the paper, showing them to be nothing more than unrepentant SATC-istas.

OK, have you cut it out? Have you signed it? Or have you clicked to chicagotribune.com/nomovie and printed it out? If you have, then I've got three things to say: Absolvo. Absolvo. Absolvo. It's all over. Stop worrying. You don't have to go.

Use the card at your discretion."

Rebuttal: "Absolution" is an awfully grandiose, loaded word. I thought that only kings or the Pope could offer absolution. How lucky we are to have John Kass amongst the rest of us mere mortals, granting his benelovent justice. Ooh, Kassian law, huh? So, one might say he's the Hammurabi of our times.

Seriously, any man who prints out the certificate, signs it, and presents it to his lady should be prepared for banishment to yonder couch. I know that Kass thinks he's being witty and hilarious, but this sentence bothers the heck out of me: "If they persist, drop me a line, and we'll report their crimes in the paper, showing them to be nothing more than unrepentant SATC-istas." It's so sinisterly anti-women that it makes me want to vomit. I don't even have a response except to say that if you don't get what's wrong with that sentence, you must have had a lobotomy. Yeah, use the card at your discretion: like at the risk of dumping, death by paper cut, or a Manolo to the eye. Sheesh.

"Whew, glad that's over. But the last thing I need are a horde of SATC-istas writing me, saying this is all mere macho posturing.

Aren't I the guy who champions Guy Cry Movies? The guy who suggested that you rent Random Harvest and An Affair to Remember for Valentine's Day? Yes, indeed. So take your Manolo Blahniks and smoke them in your pipe, if you have one."

Rebuttal: Oh no, John, you're wrong. This is far from over. The last thing he needs is a horde (what are we, animals?) of SATC-istas writing him? Please. He's begging for it with this article. He's asking for a fight. Wow, congrats on "championing" Guy Cry movies. Maybe mentioning more than two would make your argument more compelling, or else picking films that are weepies but also feature substance and strong women. No one can honestly say that the beautiful-yet-simpering Greer Garson in Random Harvest or the rather uninspiring Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember are strong feminine role models. Kass is still too limited and intimidated. I bet Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn make him quake in his bunny slippers. Is that really his justification for spewing this misogynistic bullshit, that he recommended two movies? And they're stereotypically women's movies, meaning that they're movies men think that women love (the ONLY kind they love) or movies that will help them score if they sit through them and squeeze out a tear. Disgusting. This IS macho posturing of the highest order.

"Otherwise, listen to what unmarried guys have to say.

'I'm not going,' said my young apprentice, the Polish Spartacus, whose girlfriend is a confirmed SATC-ista. 'She wants to see the movie. Fine. But I'm not going.'

Oh yes, you're going.

'I'm not going! I'm not!'

We'll see.

He said the same thing about 27 Dresses and Juno.

'OK, but I really hated Juno, that damn thing. I was so miserable,' he said.

But you saw it.

'Yeah, but I'm not going to see Sex and the City,' he said.

Of course you're not. Sign the card. Show it to your girlfriend.

Defend thee.

Rebuttal: The Polish Spartacus? That's a somewhat homoerotic label for his pal.

Did you notice?

John Kass likes to write one sentence at a time.

And then put a space in between.

He thinks it gives his words gravity.

Isn't that annoyingly pretentious?

Anyway, discussing 27 Dresses and Juno in the same sentence is blasphemous. Juno is NOT a chick flick. It's a humanist film that just happens to have an empowering heroine at its core. I don't know why Kass felt this exchange between himself and Spartacus was necessary to share with us. Maybe because it makes him look like some sort of middle-aged hero with great wisdom to impart to the next generation? Wow, imagine THAT world. We'd be doomed. "Defend thee"? How noble Kass' mission is.

Kass' last words: "Oh, the horror. The horror." Wait, those are MY last words about his article. HIS last words are: "They can take our remote controls, but they'll never take our freedom!"

Rebuttal: I imagine him proclaiming that, punctuating it with a Tim Allen-style grunt, and pounding his chest with one fist. "Women bad. Must stop movie. Kass mad." And then he grabs his woman by the hair, drags her across the ground as he lumbers off toward his cave, club over one shoulder and, forgetting to duck, bangs his protruding forehead on the rock of the cave's entrance...as his woman laughs.

One movie has got you in this much of an uproar? He was trying to undermine the movie before it even came out. He knew it would be successful, but probably not HOW successful. I hope he was sitting down when he heard the box office numbers. How ignorant for him to diminish the significance of the one major movie event for women in the history of cinema.

Honestly, this is the first potential (and confirmed) female blockbuster. How childish of him to try to snatch the victory away from us (not like we would let him, but his attempt speaks volumes, about him and the state of gender equality in this deplorable country).

Oh, let's take a look at Kass' cute little certificate.

This part is my favorite: "...shall not be compelled, or enticed or whined at or nagged at or begged or pouted into having to sit through the Sex and the City movie. And if any girlfriend or female relation tries anything uncool, they will rue the day."

Is that all women do? Whine, nag, beg, pout, and entice? Oh, sorry, for all you chauvinists out there, let me translate Kass' words: Oink oink. Oink oink oink.

Oink.

Oink oink.

Snort.

I don't care if this article is supposed to be a joke. There's nothing funny about misogyny or even faux-misogyny. People don't take the time or energy to tell the difference. And I don't think it IS faux. This article stems from a dark, miserable, angry, hateful place. Think of the impression you're giving off, John Kass, the ramifications of these venomous statements. How dare you pump your poison into society?

Why are you so threatened by this hyper-feminine (to borrow a phrase from my dear colleague Sara Freeman) film? Are you that insecure? And for someone who hates it so much, John Kass devoted quite a bit of time to writing about it. Are you a closet SATC-ista (is that his term? I've never heard it before) perhaps, John Kass? Don't be afraid. It's okay to let it out. We (women) won't judge you. That's your job - to judge us. Or is it your right as a man to judge us? And don't think I forgot about you, Gregory Kirschling, and all the rest of you pathetic, sniveling men out there so intimidated by the idea of women banding together and embracing their sexuality and femininity.

Fuck you, Gregory Kirschling and (especially) John Kass. You give men a bad name. You're the reason women become man-haters in the first place. For every gain we make, you make damn sure to do your part to try to set the women's movement back. The operative word is "try," because you will never succeed. A $120 million and growing U.S. box office proves that.

The last line of Kass' article slays me: "They can take our remote controls, but they'll never take our freedom!"

We'll never take YOUR freedom? What an asinine statement! I'll tell you where you can shove your freedom! How's your throne in the Land of Delusions, Mr. Kass? Comfortable? Well, we're sick and tired of catering to YOUR comforts. How about our comfort for a change? What about our freedom since the beginning of time, you jackass?! Haven't we been oppressed enough? You couldn't forego your petty, chauvinistic column and let us have this one? Must we ALWAYS fight?

Well, John Kass, men like you and Mr. Kirschling are the reasons why we fight, and why we'll continue to fight, and why we'll win. Yes, some day, we will win total equality, and YOU will rue the day. And...we'll look fabulous while doing it. We might even be wearing a $700 pair of Manolos.