So I'm surprised that she's now starring in a movie. It may even be a hit. She chose well. THE INVISIBLE MAN looks good in the trailer. It seems like a new take on an often told story. It also plays into how she's seen -- as a strong woman. Too many TV actresses have wasted film careers (Sarah Michelle Geller, for example) by wanting to not play strong women in their films even though that's how they made their names.
So it could be a hit for her. Unless there are a lot of people like me who just have a negative reaction to her. To be clear, this has nothing to do with her politics. I have no idea what her politics are. This is just a visceral reaction I have to her. I have the same reaction to Jeff Daniels. It's as though I'm allergic. Highly allergic.
If they'd cast Lindsay Loham in THE INVISIBLE MAN, I'd see it and it seems like the sort of generic thriller she'd do these days.
A lot of women could have and should have been action stars.
One of the few has been Sigourney Weaver. I have no idea why others have shied from it. Linda Hamilton should have gone there after T2 but she wanted to do small films instead, art house films. Geena Davis got married to an action director and then started doing action films (CUTTHROAT ISLAND, THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT) but she didn't stay with it. (Too bad because THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT is a great film and one of my favorites. I bought it on VHS. When I switched to DVDs, I bought it on that. Now that I am doing streaming, I've bought a streaming version via AMAZON. I really love the movie and think Geena and Samuel L. Jackson are great in the film and great together.)
Sarah Michelle Geller was kick-ass Buffy. Then, I guess fearful of being type cast, wanted to be sweet little thang in SIMPLY IRRESISTABLE among other bad films. Today? She has no career.
Or take Jamie Lee Curtis who went the horror route as a tough female not a victim (SGM played victims in horror movies). She ended up with a career. Jamie Lee and Sigourney can and have done tough females throughout their careers. And because they built careers with those roles, they could do other things as well -- A FISH CALLED WANDA, GHOSTBUSTERS, WORKING GIRL, YOU AGAIN, etc.
At 37, Elizbeth Moss is probably not going to have a lot of chances to star in films. If THE INVISIBLE MAN is even a modest hit, she should really try for an action career. Warning: Not a woman in jeopardy career. Ashley Judd did that and we were all bored three films into that nonsense (HIGH CRIMES, TWISTED). She thought she could make a career out of LIFETIME FOR THE BIG SCREEN. Jennifer Lopez made this mistake once and only once. She did ENOUGH and then she saw she needed something more complex o get people to go out and spend their money. That's why she's had a career as a leading lady and Ashley struggles for parts.
Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, February 25, 2020. Joe Biden makes clear he should not be the nominee.
Starting in the US, where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. Long before any caucuses or primaries were held, the press declared War Hawk Joe Biden the front runner. That title was lost the minute people started officially registering their preferences. His campaign maintains that if he wins this week in South Carolina, it proves he's electable. The other three states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and Las Vegas -- apparently didn't matter.
Does winning South Carolina put Joe on the map? Only if the United States shrinks from fifty states to just one. But Joe now has a more serious problem he's facing: Can you run for public office if you don't know which office you are running for?
As noted last night, "Joe Biden tells South Caroline he's running for the US Senate (not a joke)"
Starting in the US, where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. Long before any caucuses or primaries were held, the press declared War Hawk Joe Biden the front runner. That title was lost the minute people started officially registering their preferences. His campaign maintains that if he wins this week in South Carolina, it proves he's electable. The other three states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and Las Vegas -- apparently didn't matter.
Does winning South Carolina put Joe on the map? Only if the United States shrinks from fifty states to just one. But Joe now has a more serious problem he's facing: Can you run for public office if you don't know which office you are running for?
As noted last night, "Joe Biden tells South Caroline he's running for the US Senate (not a joke)"
“My names Joe Biden I’m running for the United States Senate”
Shaun King
“I’m Joe Biden, I’m a candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see, help out.
If not, vote for the other Biden.”
- Joe Biden, moments ago. Not a joke. I’m serious, he actually just said this.
Joseph A. Wulfson (FOX NEWS) reports:
Former Vice President Joe Biden made an unfortunate
gaffe just days before the critical South Carolina primary, telling
voters he's a Democratic candidate for the "United States Senate."
Biden was one of several 2020 hopefuls to attend the South Carolina Democrat Party's First in the South Dinner, where he reportedly received the longest ovation of any of his competitors.
"You're the ones who sent Barack Obama the presidency. And I have a simple proposition here: I'm here to ask you for your help," Biden pleaded to Democratic voters. "Where I come from, you don't go very far unless you ask. My name's Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United State's Senate. Look me over. If you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden. Give me a look though, okay?"
We're barely into primary season and he's already losing it in front of voters. This is the one to put on the top of the ticket for a general election? Hell no. He doesn't know where he is, he doesn't know what he's running for. He's not fit for the office. He's lost all cognitive powers. It's time for Joe to go and to go home.
He thinks he's running for the US Senate. Grasp that. He says vote for him or "vote for the other Biden." He has no clue.
Joe Biden: "My name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate...if you don't like me, you can vote for the other Biden."
Joe Biden is running for... Senate?
WATCH: Joe Biden tells a crowd in South Carolina that he’s running for the “United States Senate.”
Bad news, folks. Bernie’s gonna win South Carolina too.
This is not a minor moment. This goes to how he does not have the faculties to handle the campaign trail. He is not fit for the primary campaign and the general campaign will be much, much tougher. Those who have made excuses for Joe throughout this campaign need to stop minimizing what these moments say because they are making clear that the brain is no longer there and he has no clue what he's doing.
Putting hi on the ticket at this point is begging for four more years of Donald Trump.
Kate Ng (INDEPENDENT) reports:
Mr Biden, 77, has made a series of confusing and controversial statements during a presidential campaign to date that has seen his poll ratings tumble.
Earlier this month, he mistakenly referred to New Hampshire as Nevada on the night of the state’s first-in-the-nation primary.
The speech led some on social media to raise concerns about his health and how rigorous campaigning was affecting him.
As bad as things like that are, this was no Joe mixing up what state he was in. This was Joe mixing up the office he's running for.
When someone gets wrong what office they're running for -- and doesn't catch it and compounds it by saying "vote for the other Biden," you're a fool to support them. They don't know what time of day it is. Clearly, Joe is suffering from early dementia. It's not going to get better and it would be a huge mistake to hand him the nomination. He needs to drop out for his own health and the health of the party.
Have had multiple people who were in the room there tonight in Charleston, South Carolina reach out to say that this low moment for @JoeBiden was not the exception, but the rule throughout his remarks.
They said the whole room whispered to themselves out of grave concern.
One moment like that in an October debate against Donald and we would have four more years of Trump. We can't afford Joe Biden.
We also can't afford the bulk of our so-called independent media. Which is worse? THE NATION or THE PROGRESSIVE? THE NATION continues to offer garbage. Two examples? Katha Pollitt's latest ridiculous garbage. People took offense to her saying she was going to write about a term that had nothing to do with her. So she turns that into yet another bad column and she wants to tell you the history of the term "Ms." -- at least in the way a male writer for NYT tells it so that it credits a man for it. She has no knowledge that the term was taught for years to secretaries. That would be too much for the 'feminist' to handle with her male-centric brain. It's garbage pure and simple and, no, THE NATION never needed their own William Safire. One more point, that photo of Katha is over 15 years old, she needs to update it despite (or maybe because of) her vanity. Then we get a piece that I'll be kind about and not link to or shame the author. Elizabeth Warren, the article tells you needs to win because Medicare For All would be great but it would not address sexism.
I hate to break it to the simplistic writer but Elizabeth as a president is not going to address sexism. The same way Barack Obama as president did not address racism. There is no simple cure to either. There's hard working to defeating both.
And a strong argument can be made that Medicare For All would do more to reduce sexism. It would provide working class mothers with an equal playing field. That's not a minor issue.
Then there's THE PROGRESSIVE. It took Michael Bloomberg entering the race for THE PROGRESSIVE to finally start covering it. It does slam pieces on Bloomberg. Is that helpful? It might be were the rag not self-presenting like some loony survivalist outpost "COMMENT: PREPARE FOR THE UPCOMING CIVIL WAR"? They lost their way in 2006 and they never found the way back. Useless.
What can you expect from a rag that withdrew its coverage of Iraq long, long ago?
In Iraq, the protests continue.
#Iraq #civicspace update:Amid protests:
Authorities use lethal force Armed militia attack protestersProtesters, activists, journalists, aid workers, attacked, arrested, kidnapped, assassinatedMedia outlets shut, internet blockedRead more: monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/0…
One protest that won't be taking place? Cult leader and demagogue Moqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran weeks ago. This week he began saying he was calling on a protest of Parliament -- a protest in Iraq -- if they did not approve everything the prime minister-designate wanted (his full Cabinet). Moqtada has now dropped that move. Why?
Some are saying on Arabic social media, that he suspended it because he realized that his followers weren't listening to him. Maybe because of the coronavirus fears, maybe because he was in Iran, maybe because of his erratic positions on the protesters.
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: They've already accomplished a great de...
- TV: The documentary weak on facts
- Hey, Cher, we need Medicare For All
- We deserve better than Biden
- Jussie's got a defense!
- Tweet of the week
- The Face of Loreal
- Tweet of the week international
- This edition's playlist
- Highlights
The following sites updated:
No comments:
Post a Comment