American Cry-dol: American Idol Season 10 - updated

James Durbin was eliminated from American Idol on May 12, 2011. He was in the 4th spot. Oh, I don’t know anymore. I know that I should not watch but I was seduced by the sweetness and positivity of the judges: Jennifer Lopez, Steven Tyler and Randy Jackson were wonderful. This seemed to be a different Idol. The thing is the voters had obviously not changed. In addition Idol maintains a status-quo and difference is not tolerated. Adam Lambert is my favorite example. I thought that Durbin would be safe because he is married and has a child. However, he sang heavy-metal. A no-no on Idol.





Scotty who kissed his cross when Lady Gaga mentored and Lauren who is aligned with Miley Cyrus were the 2 in the finale. My hope was for Haley Reinhart to win when Durbin was kicked off. She was sent home next. You know, I heard a definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. I am not insane, probably, but I am hopeful. Every year I am disappointed but I watch anyhow. See, I understand the context, the parameters. Maybe some of the contestants hoped to alter them…





The contestants were all extremely talented this year. There was never a question of that – on this level choosing was very difficult. It all boiled down to conforming to an established ‘norm.’ See, this absolutely brilliant singer – Jacob Lusk – was too fey. Casey Abrahms – the amazing Jazz guy – was too eccentric. Paul McDonald was way too groovy and it goes on and on.




Maybe my hope is kind of what I would like from culture in general. The resistance to ‘difference’ is a gentle reminder that work still needs to be done. *sigh*

I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS

A film review of I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor.

http://tinyurl.com/3hhp8um

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoFANivV44g

For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.

Judy Garland

Lady Gaga's Resistance

This is what I think Lady Gaga is doing with her new song Judas and the horns on her head. I think that she is taking a critical approach to the notion of demonization. The bible demonizes gay people and is used to justify prejudice and homophobia. As a spokesperson for gay-rights she is making the symbol for demonization, concrete. What she is doing is radical and dangerous. People resist challenge to a belief-system. I can intellectualize what she’s doing but many cannot and believe that she is the devil incarnate. To take what she is doing at face-value is to miss the point.

‘Source Code’

For centuries, man believed that the sun revolves around the earth. Centuries later, he still thinks that time moves clockwise.

Robert Brault



Director: Duncan Jones

Writer: Ben Ripley

Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga



I couldn’t resist writing about the film Source Code. It combines two of my absolute favorite subjects – Quantum Physics and Reality. (I’m a geek, right?) This film doesn’t dumb-down or have low expectations for its audience. You do not need to know science to enjoy this film, but if you do you will not feel diminished.



Director Duncan Jones says, “We wanted the audience to be able to enjoy the thriller aspect, and not beat them over the head with the science fiction elements. This is a contemporary thriller that has a few science fiction elements that are necessary to set up the story, but it’s all about Jake and Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga, and then the action that ties it all together.” (http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/03/duncan-jones-talks-source-code-superman-and-sci-fi-love)



The “Source Code” is a computer program that allows someone to enter the last 8 minutes of another person’s life in order to gain perspective on what happened in an effort to prevent future disasters.



Plot: An action thriller centered on a soldier who wakes up in the body of an unknown man and discovers he’s part of a mission to find the bomber of a Chicago commuter train. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0945513/)



Where to start…Duncan Jones. He is the son of David Bowie and the director of the amazing film, Moon (2009). He takes risks and I think that he’s fabulous. Anyhow, he says that this film is a departure for him. “I felt a real responsibility to hopefully deliver something that [fans of "Moon"] could enjoy,” Jones said, “Now I was very, very apprehensive because, although there are similarities between the two films, they’re very different. Pace wise, they are exceedingly different. But fortunately people who loved Moon seem to enjoy this. And I think that they do see that they’re very different kinds of films.” (http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/entertainment/movies/duncan-jones-source-code-director-the-blast-interview/)



For Jake Gyllenhaal, it was important to understand the science. “Now, merging consciousness and the synaptic map, the science of that, I don’t know much about. But it was important for me to understand that these concepts made sense and that they could be founded in something real. So it was very important and continues to be. I want the audience to know it’s legitimate, because it is legitimate. It could happen.” (http://www.newsinfilm.com/2011/04/02/interview-jake-gyllenhaal-on-source-code/)



The entire notion of reality is tossed like a salad. Jake Gyllenhaal’s character, Colter Stevens, thinks he’s in a capsule. He isn’t. So apart from the subject-matter of the film – jumping back in time, in someone else’s body to find the bomber of a train – things are not what they seem.



In my book I write, “I have always believed that we are limited by our senses. We depend on them too much. We imagine we can know “truth.” Curiosity is a good thing, but it’s helpful to acknowledge our limitations. A fish in a fishbowl only knows what a fish in a fishbowl knows, right? I believe we are like the fish. We can only know so much because of our state of being. This does not mean we do not ask the important questions. It just means that our answers might be somewhat skewed. I guess we need to be humble.” (You Never Know: A Memoir pp. 44) Well, this film regards what we can truly know.



Michelle Monaghan is one of the most in-demand women in Hollywood, starring opposite Shia LaBeouf in Eagle Eye and she was in Gone Baby Gone. (http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/interview-source-code-star-michelle-monaghan) Monaghan has also starred in the black comedy Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and opposite Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible III. In 2008, she starred in the romantic comedy Made of Honor.

In this film she plays the love interest but more importantly she is a constant. Every time that Colter Stevens wakes up in his new body she’s there.



Vera Farmiga plays Goodwin – Colter Stevens’ guide and connection to the ‘outside’ as he attempts to uncover first-hand who bombed a train. An article commented, “It’s difficult enough for an actor to work off of another highly animated actor. It is another thing entirely to have to act the majority of a film off of a camera alone. That is where actress Vera Farmiga (The Departed, Up in the Air) found herself in Duncan Jones’ Source Code.” (http://jake-weird.blogspot.com/2011/03/source-code-infographic-vera-farmiga.html) “Often, I find it hard to be still,” she admits. “Always, when I get stuck, it’s the thought process [of a character] that I return to.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/mar/27/vera-farmiga-film-interview) She claims that she and Jake Gyllenhaal were filmed in separate “realities.” It was a lonely and isolating experience for her. In all cases she appreciates Duncan Jones’ mind-boggling twists, and the ideas of time-travel, alternate realities, and parallel universes. (http://www.movieweb.com/news/exclusive-vera-farmiga-talks-source-code) Works for me.



On Rotten Tomatoes Kevin A. Ranson said, ‘Quantum Leap’ meets Groundhog Day by way of The Matrix... aside from a few predictabilities, Source Code succeeds. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/source_code/) It does succeed – very well. Yes, we have seen certain elements before but the combination of them makes this film fresh and unique – really.



It’s similar to when you liken a musical artist to another one or you put a type of music in a genre. There is context in this film but it’s pleasantly exploded. We know that it is sci-fi but it’s distinct. I am going to buy it when it comes out on DVD and watch it over and over again, like I do with Dark City and Groundhog Day. ‘Reality films’ work my buzz.



I hear that the filming took place where I live – Montreal. If only I had known. Maybe I could have set up interviews…oh, well. In a parallel dimension I do set up interviews. *sigh*



Romy Shiller is a pop culture critic and holds a PhD in Drama from the University of Toronto. Her academic areas of concentration include film, gender performance, camp and critical thought. She lives in Montreal where she continues her writing. All books are available online

Website: http://romyshiller.com/
Twitter: RomyShiller



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkTrG-gpIzE

Film Me

So, right now I’m writing film reviews (http://www.liveforfilms.com/). I taught Gender in Film at a university; most of my doctoral thesis regards film; I acted in film, worked at a production house etc. I remember that I took a class in CEGEP called ‘From Fiction Into Film’; it was my best grade.

I forget that film has always been a part of my life.
All of my reviews are on my website http://romyshiller.com/

The Differences Between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper‏

A Canadian election is coming up. Do you need some information?

Joan Bryden wrote for the Canadian Press under the heading: Ignatieff stokes election fever, and lays out contrast with Harper Tories.

As Ignatieff told it, it will be a choice between a strong team and a one-man show, between a leader who listens and one who imposes his ideology, between a leader who inspires hope and one who traffics in fear, between a leader who wants to invest in family care, education and retirement security and a prime minister who'd rather spend billions on prisons, stealth fighter jets and corporate tax cuts. His tub-thumping performance came during a Liberal caucus retreat, held ostensibly to plot strategy for Monday's resumption of Parliament but aimed more at preparing for a possible election that could be triggered over the federal budget, expected in March.

This is the message that the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff have to focus on. Because the differences between Ignatieff and Harper are profound, beginning with the fact that the first leads a party, while the other controls a party.


Having a strong team is something that the Liberals have over the Conservatives in spades. Harper's science minister, Gary Goodyear, doesn't believe in science (aka Evolution). The Liberal science critic, Marc Garneau, was an astronaut. I think he believes in science.

Harper's immigration minister, Jason Kenney, has a high school education. The Liberal critic, Justin Trudeau, is not only the son of one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers, and well educated, but has been an activist for social issues, including literacy.

The list goes on.

Irwin Cotler, the Human Rights critic, is considered an expert on international and human rights law. As an international human rights lawyer, he served as counsel to Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Stephen Harper belonged to a group that worked to keep Mandela in prison.

Pablo Rodríguez, Canadian Heritage critic, has dedicated much of his time to humanitarian causes. "...his belief in helping developing countries and the eradication of poverty led him to collaborate with numerous organizations including Oxfam-Québec, where he was a Vice-President for nearly four years." Stephen Harper has instead been choking off and threatening to choke off the funding of humanitarian aid groups: "Other aid organizations that speak out on public issues say they have received warnings that their funding is in jeopardy. Stories of unsettling conversations with federal officials are spreading through the aid community. The only safe policy seems to be silence." Instilling fear in aid organizations. How cowardly.

Bob Rae is a Rhodes Scholar and former premier of Ontario.

Ujjal Dosanjh is a former premier of BC, and was on the board of directors for BC Civil Liberties Association, the Vancouver Multicultural Society, and the Labour Advocacy Research Association. All things alien to the Harper government.

Kirsty Duncan, is a recipient of the Knowledge Millennium Award. “This award is presented annually to an individual who has made a significant mark on theme of the Global Knowledge Millennium summit. This year’s theme is emerging health threats – and Dr. Duncan has been recognized for her contribution to research on flu pandemics. A Nobel laureate herself, she will stand amongst six other Nobel laureates who previously won the award."

A Nobel laureate. At a time when our government is promoting ignorance.

Michael Ignatieff wants his legacy to be a national childcare plan, costing a billion dollars a year. Harper gives a handout that does nothing to provide quality childcare and has cost us 12 billion during his five year reign of terror, or $2.4 billion a year.

Michael Ignatieff has a PhD from Harvard and has taught at schools like Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics. Harper has a masters in economics from a school ranked 33rd for it's business programs, but has never worked a single day as an economist. His only real job was the mail room at Esso. He is a career politician and it shows.

Michael Ignatieff was a war correspondent, spending time in places where Stephen Harper would probably wet his pants just watching the conflicts on television.

Michael Ignatieff is an award winning producer of documentaries, taking home a Gemini for Blood and Belonging. Stephen Harper runs juvenile attack ads.

Michael Ignatieff has written 17 books, several winning awards and translated into 12 different languages. Stephen Harper writes fundraising letters and plagiarizes speeches.

I'm so sick of the promotion of ignorance in Canadian politics. It's time to bring back some smart. It's time to get rid of Stephen Harper by voting him out.

I did take a bit of offense to Bryden's piece though, when in suggesting that it was Ignatieff pushing for an election, "While he made no apologies for Liberals propping up the government in the past, Ignatieff signalled those morale-sapping days are over."

The media seems to forget that Michael Ignatieff was quite prepared to bring down Stephen Harper in the past, but when he announced it publicly, they went into a tailspin, and Jack Layton pulled in his horns, keeping the Harper regime alive.

Ignatieff is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I'm glad he's fighting back.

Vote please.

Pop culture

I’m a pop culture critic. Right now I’m focusing on Film but even so, there are dashes of music, celebrity and social ideology. We find meaning in the popular – we see ourselves reflected.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says, “Popular culture (commonly known as pop culture) is the totality of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes, images and other phenomena that are deemed preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture, especially Western culture of the early to mid 20th century and the emerging global mainstream of the late 20th and early 21st century. Heavily influenced by mass media, this collection of ideas permeates the everyday lives of the society.

Popular culture is often seen as being trivial and dumbed-down in order to find consensual acceptance throughout the mainstream. As a result, it comes under heavy criticism from various non-mainstream sources (most notably religious groups and countercultural groups) that deem it superficial, consumerist, sensationalist, and corrupted.

The term "popular culture" itself is of 19th century coinage, in original usage referring to the education and "culturedness" of the lower classes, as was delivered in an address at the Birmingham Town Hall, England. The term began to assume the meaning of a culture of the lower classes separate from and opposed to "true education" towards the end of the century, a usage that became established by the interbellum period. The current meaning of the term, culture for mass consumption, especially originating in the United States, is established by the end of World War II. The abbreviated form "pop culture" dates to the 1960s.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture)

I am aware that there still is a bias towards pop culture. Even though I did my PhD in Drama, there still appears to be a hierarchy of so-called ‘taste.’ Some dramatic works are more acceptable than others.

I have always gone against the grain – I do what’s unpopular, believe it or not, and I expect controversy.