Lions Gate via Everett Collection
When we last left our heroes, they had conquered all opponents in the 74th Annual Hunger Games, returned home to their newly refurbished living quarters in District 12, and fallen haplessly to the cannibalism of PTSD. And now we're back! Hitching our wagons once again to laconic Katniss Everdeen and her sweet-natured, just-for-the-camera boyfriend Peeta Mellark as they gear up for a second go at the Capitol's killing fields.
But hold your horses — there's a good hour and a half before we step back into the arena. However, the time spent with Katniss and Peeta before the announcement that they'll be competing again for the ceremonial Quarter Quell does not drag. In fact, it's got some of the film franchise's most interesting commentary about celebrity, reality television, and the media so far, well outweighing the merit of The Hunger Games' satire on the subject matter by having Katniss struggle with her responsibilities as Panem's idol. Does she abide by the command of status quo, delighting in the public's applause for her and keeping them complacently saturated with her smiles and curtsies? Or does Katniss hold three fingers high in opposition to the machine into which she has been thrown? It's a quarrel that the real Jennifer Lawrence would handle with a castigation of the media and a joke about sandwiches, or something... but her stakes are, admittedly, much lower. Harvey Weinstein isn't threatening to kill her secret boyfriend.
Through this chapter, Katniss also grapples with a more personal warfare: her devotion to Gale (despite her inability to commit to the idea of love) and her family, her complicated, moralistic affection for Peeta, her remorse over losing Rue, and her agonizing desire to flee the eye of the public and the Capitol. Oftentimes, Katniss' depression and guilty conscience transcends the bounds of sappy. Her soap opera scenes with a soot-covered Gale really push the limits, saved if only by the undeniable grace and charisma of star Lawrence at every step along the way of this film. So it's sappy, but never too sappy.
In fact, Catching Fire is a masterpiece of pushing limits as far as they'll extend before the point of diminishing returns. Director Francis Lawrence maintains an ambiance that lends to emotional investment but never imposes too much realism as to drip into territories of grit. All of Catching Fire lives in a dreamlike state, a stark contrast to Hunger Games' guttural, grimacing quality that robbed it of the life force Suzanne Collins pumped into her first novel.
Once we get to the thunderdome, our engines are effectively revved for the "fun part." Katniss, Peeta, and their array of allies and enemies traverse a nightmare course that seems perfectly suited for a videogame spin-off. At this point, we've spent just enough time with the secondary characters to grow a bit fond of them — deliberately obnoxious Finnick, jarringly provocative Johanna, offbeat geeks Beedee and Wiress — but not quite enough to dissolve the mystery surrounding any of them or their true intentions (which become more and more enigmatic as the film progresses). We only need adhere to Katniss and Peeta once tossed in the pit of doom that is the 75th Hunger Games arena, but finding real characters in the other tributes makes for a far more fun round of extreme manhunt.
But Catching Fire doesn't vie for anything particularly grand. It entertains and engages, having fun with and anchoring weight to its characters and circumstances, but stays within the expected confines of what a Hunger Games movie can be. It's a good one, but without shooting for succinctly interesting or surprising work with Katniss and her relationships or taking a stab at anything but the obvious in terms of sending up the militant tyrannical autocracy, it never even closes in on the possibility of being a great one.
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
| Follow @Hollywood_com
After garnering widespread praise (and an Oscar nomination for screenwriting) for his 2000 directorial debut You Can Count on Me Kenneth Lonergan was in-demand. In September 2005 the writer/director began production on a follow-up feature: Margaret which touted Anna Paquin Matt Damon Mark Ruffalo Matthew Broderick Allison Janney as well as legendary filmmakers Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella (The English Patient) as producers. The movie wrapped production in a few months time. The buzz was already growing.
Now six years later the movie is finally hitting theaters. So…what took so long?
The journey to this point hasn't been an easy one and it shows. If a film's shot footage is a block of granite and the editing process is the careful carving that turns it into a statuesque work of art Margaret feels like it was attacked by a blind man with a jackhammer. The film is a cinematic disaster a mishmash of shallow characters overwrought politics and sporadic tones. The story follows Lisa Coen (Paquin) a New York teenager who finds herself drowning in chaos after distracting a bus driver (Ruffalo) causing him to hit and kill a pedestrian (Janney). Initially Lisa tells the police it was all an accident but as time passes regret takes hold and the girl embarks on a mission to take down the man she now regards as a culprit. That's just the tip of the iceberg–along the way Lisa deals with everyday teen stuff: falling for her geometry teacher (Damon) combating her anxiety-ridden actress mother losing her virginity dabbling in drugs debating 9/11 and the Iraq War cultivating a relationship with her father in LA and more. There are about eight seasons of television stuffed into Margaret but even a two and a half hour run time can't make it all click.
For more on Margaret check out Indie Seen: Margaret the Long Lost Anna Paquin/Matt Damon Movie
Modern television is a bit of a sexpot. Sure, it’s taken a while for sexually suggestive and explicit content to trickle from the freewheeling shows on HBO and Showtime into the major network landscape, but with the introduction of NBC’s The Playboy Club into a prominent Monday night slot reserved for big budget dramas like Hawaii Five-0 and newbie Terra Nova, it seems that we may be entering a new, freer era. But that freedom comes with a caveat in the form of conservative protest, begging the question: is network television really ready for sex?
The 1960s-set series in question centers on a young girl named Maureen (Amber Heard) who hails from some small Midwestern town and moves to the big city, Chicago, where she lands a coveted job as a Playboy bunny at the first-ever location of The Playboy Club, a Hugh Hefner-owned chain that, in more recent years, has become The Hard Rock Cafe of gentlemen’s clubs. There she meets the other bunnies including the queen bunny, Carol Lynne (Laura Benanti), as well as the club’s most magnetic member, Nick Dalton (Eddie Cibrian). It isn’t long before she takes the floor as the “living, breathing fantasy that is the Playboy bunny” and gets a little too much attention from one of the club’s more prominent keyholders. Everything – from her first major conflict with said keyholder, to bunnies constantly fending off men who see the club as a brothel, to the skimpy costumes and nightgown parties at Hef’s mansion, to the entire concept of the club and the series itself – is dripping with sex. It may not be graphic sex, like the HBO-only long-awaited consummation of Sookie and Eric’s lust on True Blood, but it’s still network television. There are FCC rules to comply with. The fact of the matter is that the series may garner a bit of attention by borrowing Mad Mennian elements for its 60s setting, but let’s be frank: sex and Playboy’s salacious legacy generate a majority portion of its appeal.
It’s that appeal that landed the series in hot water long before its promos even hit the small screen. First, the Salt Lake City NBC affiliate refused to air the series on grounds that it went against their morals and next, acclaimed writer and activist, Gloria Steinem, called for a boycott of the series since it’s based on the string of clubs she once cried out against. Finally, the Parents Television Council requested that NBC remove the buzzy series from its lineup. Yet somehow, it seems that these negative outcries only serve to bolster television audiences’ curiosity; we’re dying to see just how sexy this show really is. The Playboy Club was not pulled from NBC’s lineup and it’s still set to premiere Monday, Sept. 19 at 10 p.m. on NBC, though it’s probably a safe bet that Steinem and the members of the PTC won’t be tuning in.
This unfriendly reaction isn’t a novel one. Network television has never been ready for any level of unfamiliar sexuality. There hasn’t been a single moment in the last 20 years of television, let alone in the decades of television history, without at least one group of people crying out against the excess of sexualized content on the boob tube. Every time we step over an untouched boundary on the small screen, someone, somewhere protests. From the first time a couple shared a bed on television on The Mary Kay and Johnny Show in 1947, to Barbara Eden’s bikini-genie top on the 60s hit sitcom I Dream of Jeannie, to more recent issues like Gossip Girl’s controversial “OMFG” ad campaign to Glee’s racy photo shoots and frank discussions of teenage sexuality, sex on TV always has the potential to set off sparks. But it’s all part of the process. It’s a symptom of society’s push to create more openness towards sexuality and the subsequent uproar is practically a television tradition.
So how does NBC’s potential flagship series fit into this tradition? Easily. While teen series still incur the greatest wrath from angry parents and fans of more conservative content, it seems that shows branded and marketed towards adults receive a little more leeway. Maybe they can thank NYPD Blue and Officer Andy Sipowitz’ bare derriere for carrying the brunt of the controversy, but the truth is we’ve seen plenty of highly sexual content on slews of not just pay-network series, but major network series as well. Grey’s Anatomy hooked us with non-stop hospital room hook ups; Buffy the Vampire Slayer treated us to house-busting (and even dumpster-adjacent) angry sex between our heroine and an aggressive vampire; Desperate Housewives has delivered neighborhood dominatrices and wealthy housewives sleeping with teenage neighbors; Lost showed us what it would look like if two people worked out their sexual frustrations in a giant bear cage; and even The Good Wife waves around its heroine’s extramarital affair like a trophy. So why is everyone picking on The Playboy Club? It’s certainly not a member of the teen-angling 90210, Gossip Girl, Vampire Diaries set.
The argument seems to be wrapped up in the fact that Playboy magazine is technically part of the pornography industry. Which, at face value is an understandably incendiary notion, but that term, which enjoys a rather broad definition these days (you know, “I know it when I see it”) also lends a level of filth to the series that simply isn’t there. The women of the series aren’t prostituting themselves or making sex tapes, they’re wearing tiny outfits and getting into a bit of old fashioned Chicago-style trouble – some of which is more dangerous than sexual. The bunnies may be trotting around in itty-bitty outfits and playing on men’s depraved desires, but isn’t that the same thing we see yearly on The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show or the Miss Universe Pageant? (Don't fool yourself -- it is.)
NBC’s The Playboy Club is inherently sexy and sexual, but “too sexy” for network television it is not. Implied sexual content, network TV and mature themes have long been a staple of post-10 p.m. programming and the core networks are not only ready for it, they’re banking on it.
NBC is gearing us up for the premiere of its controvercial new drama, The Playboy Club, by roping us in with something we television viewers can never resist: sexy, salacious drama. We find the attractive man about town, Nick (Eddie Cibrian) who takes notice of the new bunny, Maureen (Amber Heard). We find Nick acting as her knight in shining armor when a mob boss tries to force himself on her in the backroom. We also find her damp and shivering while wearing Nick's shirt and hiding in his closet just as Carole Lynne (Laura Benanti) finds her and storms out. And finally we find out that Carole Lynne is likely going to make Maureen's life hell, because she's the Bunny Mother at Chicago's sexiest gentlemen's club. Watch, enjoy, and be prepared to feel hopelessly compelled to watch the series premiere on Monday, Sept. 19 at 10 p.m.
Katy “Too Bodacious for Little Kids” Perry used her stint on Saturday’s SNL premiere to joke about the controversy over the dress she wore in a shelved guest spot on Sesame Street. Parents’ panicked complaints about “too much cleavage” pushed the show’s producers to pull the future Mrs. Russell Brand’s kid-friendly version of her hit song “Hot N Cold.” I still don’t see what all the fuss was about, the girl’s got some serious curves – what did they expect her to wear, a turtleneck? After a week of commentary firing back and forth about the video, Perry finally nabbed a chance to speak her peace…well, sort of.
Saturday night’s premiere saw the return of SNL darling, Amy Poehler, and the talkshow sketch, Bronx Beat – basically two Bronx moms gabbing on a couch. Perry took the chance to step in as the show’s guest, Maureen DeChico, a teenager who really developed over the summer. (“Kaboom!”)
Like Perry, her spoof character is under fire for showing too much cleavage, but in this case she’s been reading to the kids at the local library and there’s been a “hullaballoo” about it. But unlike Perry's performance with Elmo, Miss DeChico is really giving them a reason to be worried – she’s literally busting out of a deep cut Elmo t-shirt. If you take a look at the video of Perry’s intended guest spot on Sesame Street, she’s really dressed rather tamely and besides, “Who cares if kids are looking at boobs? Boobs feed babies.”