Britt's On

American Idol: The Search for a SuperstarStarring: The Idol Crew + contestants from Season 1
Times Watched: I'll go with 3?
Genre: Music
Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic: NA

Road To Ownership: Let me explain! Do you remember what a BIG DEAL Idol was in its first, and in particular, second seasons? It was the biggest sensation in town, hot on the heels of another summer reality sensation, Survivor. I was in high school at the time and received this DVD as a Christmas gift in a Secret Santa exchange.

The Plot: The bulk of the DVD is about an hour long, give or take, and basically gives you a rushed overview of the first season of American Idol. You get some glimpses of the auditions - including Kelly Clarkson's and a handful of the worst ones out there - snippets of the top 30 round, a week-by-week recap of the theme, eliminated contestants, and usually one or two of the top performances, and then at the finale you get to hear Justin Guarini sing 'A Moment Like This', plus Kelly's emotional rendition after winning (which is subsequently butchered by Nikki McKibbin or whatever her name was). There's also a few other features that mash together cast interviews, behind-the-scenes clips, and moments from the show.

The Good & The Bad: You know in retrospect, it would have been cool had Idol put this DVD together properly. They *rush* over all of the weeks so quickly, and include not one, but TWO Nikki performances, plus some of Justin and Kelly's worst performances (in the penultimate episode). It would have been nifty had they featured every contestant at least once, as well as at least three or four songs from Kelly - also, why no love for the 'Big Band' week, which in my opinion had some pretty great moments? Bah!

Er, anyway. Although there is some fun nostalgia with watching this DVD - a pre-groomed Kelly! A tiny set where security hazards (crazed fans) exist! Pre-crazy Paula! Brian Dunkelman? - it's ultimately a pretty disappointing recap of the first, great, socially phenomenal season of American Idol. Awhile back they reaired the season with commentary from the contestants and judges and it was way more interesting (when I caught a glimpse anyway) than this thing, although it made for entertainment while ironing when I watched it, I guess.

I just wish they'd done more performances, less recaps / talking. Like, did you need to include each competitor's goodbye video? That's one of the WORST filler-worthy parts of the show? Having every group number (and not just the majority) would have been nice as well, cause at the end of the day, seeing the singing is all I want to see! Plus it would have been nice to include some of the judges' more memorable critiques / reactions - like after Kelly's 'Natural Woman' performance. God I'm getting impassioned over this.

Best Scene: Kelly Clarkson singing 'Natural Woman' or her winning performance of 'A Moment Like This'. So ironic when you consider how vehemently she broke things off with the Idol crew after the series. But for reals, the latter was a pretty iconic pop culture moment in the 00's.

Worst Scene: Justin's performance in the penultimate show. Really producers, of all the performances, you included this one? I would have much rather seen "Get Here", which is what he was *known* for.

Best Character: Er...Ryan Seacrest does a decent commentary?

Worst Character: Brian Dunkelman. You got fired for a reason bro, and it's your fake tears after the gang's performance of 'That's What Friends Are For'.

Soundtrack of our Lives: The best of the 60s, 70s, 80s, big band...yeah you get it.

If You Like This You'll Like: Apparently there are other idol DVDs out there, plus I'm sure a good chunk of the show's breakouts have concert DVDs to their names.

GRADE: 1.5/5

American History X
Starring: Edward Norton, Ed Furlong
Co-Starring: Beverley D'Angelo (of National Lampoon fame!), Fairuza Balk, Avery Brooks
Times Watched: 1
Genre: Drama
Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic: 84% / 62

Road To Ownership: This is another one of the boy's movies that I've never watched. Apparently he watched it in 'Electronics', aka the high school filmmaking course he took. It struck him enough that he bought it and watched it one more time, but last night was the first time he'd watched it in however many years.


The Plot: The film opens with Danny Vinyard rousing his brother Derek from having sex with his girlfriend because a couple of black guys are jacking his car. As a revered neo-Nazi, Derek snaps, pulls a gun on the hooligans (who, for the record, are specifically targeting him after a basketball court feud), and ends up killing them. Three years later and Derek is quietly released from prison, a changed man. He is disturbed to find out however, that Danny has spent the last three years idolizing his older brother and falling into the same cult-like devotedness to Cameron, the man that first brainwashed Derek with Nazi idealism all those years ago. Danny has been tasked with writing an essay about Derek's arrest and the events that led him there, which we hear about through Danny's voiceover and see in flashbacks provided by both brothers.


The Good & The Bad: This movie was very different from what I thought it would be, partially because at one point I assumed it was about Malcolm X (durr). It was stirring, but not in as haunting a way as one might think. Sure it was disturbing to see these people so filled with hatred and bile, and everytime Ed Norton had his shirt off, you definitely did a double take (and not just because his bod was ridiculous) at his tattoos, but really the filmmaker did an excellent job at showing the sheer naivete of the characters, especially Derek's 'rise' and fall so to speak in the Neo-Nazi world.

In this instance, the black & white really worked for the flashbacks. Aside from making it easy to jump back and forth across plot points, it also served as a visual reminder that Derek used to see things quite literally in black and white, that his vision was very obscured and cut and dry. The progression of his character from the smug, vicious killer we see in the beginning to the desperate, searching man at the end were excellently delivered through the story's set-up, and most importantly, through Ed Norton's incredible acting job (but more on him later). There was some beautiful artistry (even when it was painful to watch) throughout, although sometimes the director got a little too friendly with the slow motion / high-speed camera effect.

There are a couple of weak areas though. The film does a good job of setting you up for some tension, that something bad will happen, you just don't know what (although in review, the repeated importance of the relationship between Derek and Danny and the 'what if it happened to you?' discussions set things up quite well for the ending). However, I felt like the specific delivery of the ending was kind of random...which debatably might have been the point, but it still didn't feel like a balanced payoff to how the film opened.



I have less problems with the ending than I do with some of the shadowyness regarding what Sweeney (the black principal that encourages both brothers to see the error of their ways) was trying to get Derek to do, both when he visited him in jail and towards the end when him and the cop asked him to 'step in' and talk to his people...whatever that meant. I felt like Sweeney working with the cops and collaborating with Derek and teaching Danny all could have had a stronger payoff / connection to one another. In fact Sweeney's character was kind of a bizarre shadowy enigma - why DID a guy with two doctorates settle with being a principal / vigilante justice seeker in a rough area of LA? I don't know. In general it felt like there were a number of loose threads that weren't wrapped up quite as smoothly as they could have been. I also sincerely wonder what effect the final major event in the film would have on all of the main characters. I sort of feel like a teacher writing in the comments of a paper you turn in - I wish they had just pushed things a little further in some areas.

One final note. A lot of people have noted that the film goes for shock value in order to elevate itself - the infamous curb stomping and shower raping scene in particular are frequently cited. While I couldn't watch the curb stomping, I think the inclusion of those particular scenes was there to show the monumental shifts in power and in effect, demeanour, of Derek, and thus were well-executed and important to the story.

Best Scene: The opening scene was very artfully, dramatically directed - music and all - and the return to it midway through the film (with more context) was truly chilling. The glint in Edward Norton's eyes, the feeling of 'this is my chance!' in comparison to the reformed man we've gotten to know provided an excellent character study.

Worst Scene: I found the dinner table flashback a little hard to follow - were they talking about the grocery store the gang Danny and Derek belong to knocked over? - and also a little long, and a little frustrating to watch. Also I'm uncertain about the timing - did that conversation happen the same night that Derek got arrested? In retrospect it provided a very good set-up for the ending, but it was a little oblique compared to the rest of the film.


Best Character: Derek, obviously. I don't know why he isn't more appreciated, but Ed Norton is easily one of my favourite Hollywood actors, without me ever explicitly stating it. Whenever I see a film with him in it I'm amazed by the levels of depth and interest he can bring to a whole range of characters. In this film in particular, he has the most expressive eyes I've ever seen - especially as demonstrated in the jail scenes.


Worst Character: Davina, the boys' sister. She felt like dead space, other than to be a marginally more forceful commentary than their somewhat oblivious mother about how stupid Danny and Derek are being in their devotion to Cam at different points. It's also baffling because she seems way older than she apparently is. Her weird maturity and total disbelief in the boys' naivete just feels jarring compared to Danny's security in Cameron. You would think with a sister so adamant against his skinhead lifestyle and a brother in jail, Danny would smarten up, but apparently Divina is useless. Also Seth Ryan (played by Hollywood's go to angry / fat character actor Ethan Suplee) was hella annoying, but that was the point I think.

Soundtrack of Our Lives: An interesting mix. The haunting choir score of the opening and closing was used to great effect- these innocent angelic voices against the monstrous acts we witness. Beyond that you've mostly got some thrasher rock music here and there.

If You Like This You'll Like: Well, anything with Edward Norton logically. Also films about counterculture, jail, and racial tensions. Trainspotting and Requiem for A Dream come to mind for some reason. Boys In The Hood, Elephant...

Final Grade: 3.5/5

You may have noticed in my recap of new fall premieres, I failed to talk about Saturday Night Live. The thing is, I wanted to wait to let the newbies have a bit of time to stretch their legs before I talked about it. We're still only two episodes in and I'm still hesitant to jump on one side of the fence or the other, but after doing more work on my self-imposed music project and noticing the one of the newbies' first starring sketch had earned a spot on the YouTube home page, I felt the need to speak up.

Here's a question that once upon a time had a very easy answer when it came to Saturday Night Live: what makes for a good episode, season, or 'era' of the show? Is it the cast or the writing? At one point, it would have been a no brainer to answer the writing, for you can have a comedic genius on your show (as a regular or a guest) and completely waste them if the writers' don't sharpen their pencils to a fine comedic point. SNL always had a reputation of hiring good talent, the cream of the crop more often than not, so any shortcomings often fell on the writers, and not the infinitely talented cast.


Nowadays however, it seems bland and blander are continually dragging the show down in terms of both cast AND writing. The main problem of the current era, as I've stated in the past, is the men are generally interchangeable and forgettable, right down to their names. The breakout stars of the male-dominated cast have been the ones who have a little something extra - like Andy Samberg and his digital shorts or Fred Armisen's chameleon-like getups (although to Bill Hader's credit he does play a good movie scene stealer, it's just too bad most people don't know his name). On the flip side, this was okay for awhile because we had some really solid female leads in the form of Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph, and Kristen Wiig.


Now that Wiig is on her own however, the talent seems dangerously unbalanced. Wiig is ridiculously overused, and often thrown into sketches as the centrepiece in variations on a similar theme (which often have to do more with her making faces for the camera rather than throwing out clever deliveries of amusing lines). Wiig is a greatly expressive actress, fantastic at embodying different characters, but more often than not they just make her into a really OTT performer because the writers are too damn lazy to write some great dialogue. Consider that the majority of her most famous characters are well known for the words and inflections they use - Penelope, Judy the travel guide, and the Target Lady - versus the ridiculous facial expressions of the likes of Gilly.

We've gone through several ladies over the years designed to accompany Wiig as the female cast dropped out to make babies and career moves. Casey Wilson was unceremoniously turfed after two unimpressive seasons as a featured performer. Jenny Slate's amusing doorbell bit didn't save her f-bomb-laden reputation after one season. Abby Elliot was mysteriously upgraded to full cast member status this season despite having ZERO characters to her name (other than a half-baked, irrelevant Angelina Jolie impression), and still failing to do anything of note in the first two episoides. Naveen Andrews made it through her first season, which is fine by me as I thought she showed the most promise of last year's new gals. And finally we now have new meat in the form of Vanessa Bayer.

VB is the one who had the aforementioned YouTube clip, a segment of her hosting a talk show to replace Amy Poehler's hilarious 'Dakota Fanning Show, the similarly titled 'Miley Cyrus Show'. Poehler's take was hilarious because she portrayed Dakota Fanning as anything but a bubblegum blonde, regularly sending barbs in the direction of her piano playing sidekick and outsmarting the majority of her guests. In contrast, Bayer's Miley impression was a lot more dead on with who Miley actually seems to be - a slightly obnoxious loudmouth with a really, really grating way of speaking. There were all of two funny moments in the sketch: when she claimed she was also seeking out darker roles like Johnny Depp, and the clip of the movie she was in with Andy Samberg, but other than that, a good impression does not a hilarious sketch make. Yet SNL is shoving it down the throats of the masses as this week's buzzed about moment...

Which no doubt means they'll trot it out a million and one times. I don't know what's up with the writers these days, but it seems once they hit on a formula that maybe sorta kinda works, they drive-it-home. How many times did we see 'What Up With That' last season (and have already seen it once this one)? Or the same troop of unfunny bits - Keenan's alien sports co-host, the 'Scared Straight' segments (that are only remotely funny cause the boys always look like they're going to laugh), or the oft-repeated 'Fred Armisen takes over a talk show and can't help'? Egads, I'm getting frustrated just looking at this.

Typically speaking, I enjoy seeing a few old favourites return, but for the most part the show has failed to produce any memorable characters other than the ones Wiig has produced. While I get jazzed for the occasional appearance of one of her characters, the writing has dropped of considerably, and the fact she's so overused makes me less interested to see much more of her than I already do. Some of the best sketches in recent memory have been the ones that are standalone pieces (like last year's hilarious 'Single Ladies' bit), or the first time you encounter something like 'What Up With That'. At the very least, writers, make a radical variation on the theme to surprise us and make us laugh. Let Lindsay Buckingham sing instead of Keenan!

As for the other cast members, so far the other two white dudes have seamlessly blended into the cast of forgettable faces, and I don't mean that in a nice way. I'm happy the show has added some more diversity in the form of another African-American male, but much like Bayer's Miley impression, just because he does a 80% job of Will Smith, doesn't mean he's going to be super funny. The show is just in such a terrible place right now, with flagging talent on the main cast and a lack of creativity to let the featured performers (and ahem, Abby Elliot) step up to the plate and do something worth talking about that is actually FUNNY.

Finally, to conclude my SNL rant I'm going to repeat what everyone in the blogosphere seems to be repeating: what the hell is up with the lack of host inclusions? Aside from Abby Elliot, they get less lines and interaction than anyone else they're featured in a sketch with. There's an old rule in advertising that if you run out of ideas, you should go back and look in the archives to see what worked with the best sketches - and hosts - ever. I'm not saying rip a sketch off from the 1970s, but I am saying pay attention to what makes something funny or unfunny, because right now the writers seem to have no clue with what to do with the majority of their hosts. Jon Hamm and Justin Timberlake are two of the best hosts in recent memory, but even their more recent episodes were flagging compared to just a couple of short years ago (which begs the question - who all has been shuffled out of the writing department lately?), and I'm sure the multiple-time hosts like Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin have noticed it as well. One of the best episodes in the current era I can think of is the hilarious Christopher Walken episode. And you want to know why peeps? Because it picked up on so many elements of his character (including the awesome 'Walken Family Reunion') and what it would be funny to see him do - not, where can we stuff this celeb into a main cast member set piece?

I see the challenges SNL is currently grappling with, but the formula they're messing with is so old, I'm just wondering why they're so adamant at destroying their legacy with such terrible casting, writing, and use of hosts over the last few years.

Adieu.

- Britt's On

Lately I've been working on a self-imposed project regarding the radio industry, part of which has involved some judicious analysis of the Canadian Content standards imposed by the government run CRTC (radio & television commission). For those of you that aren't aware, the CRTC requires a certain level of programming be Canadian on a daily basis. So if you're wondering why your favourite pop station plays excessive amounts of Hedley or Drake, CanCon is the reason.

Back when CanCon was first introduced, it was admittedly kind of a joke. You only needed to have 25% of your weekly playlist be Canadian music, and it could air at anytime. By the time the 90s rolled around, this number was bumped up to 35% - both on a weekly basis, and during peak hours from 6 AM to 6 PM. Given that the average hour of programming has 10 to 14 songs, this averages out to about 4-6 songs per hour needing to be part of the MAPL system. That is, Canadians had their hands in at least of two of the following: the music composition, the vocal performance (artist), the production, and the lyric-writing.

On one hand, the fact this system really strengthened itself at the same time as the Canadian music scene went stratospheric points to the fact that CanCon 'works' to develop new artists, which at the end of the day is what it's all about - providing a platform for Canadian musicians to celebrate their individuality and actually work as a musician (no matter what element of the MAPL system they're involved in) for a living.

On the flip side, 35% is awfully high, and doesn't really do tons for Canadian artists. Basically if you're lucky enough to have a breakout single (or a one hit wonder) you'll get airplay - and plenty of it - creating a false sense of popularity and credibility. I remember being a youngster in the 90s and thinking "I can't stand The Tea Party and Moist but they must be HUGE given how often MuchMusic plays their tunes!" If CanCon didn't exist, I doubt a good chunk of the musicians the proliferated in the 90s would have been as big as they are - but is that a good thing or a bad thing if a decent number of them only produced mediocre work at best?

The other problem with the 35% rule is if the goal is to develop new Canadian talent, the sheer lack of new Canadian talent again makes this a bit of a throwaway rule, and has actually made popular music even more disposable than the name 'throwaway pop' implies. More often than not, you'll hear a slightly dated Avril Lavigne or Nelly Furtado tune on a popular music station in order to make their CanCon targets. This works out well for the stations because neither artist is obscure enough to prompt a switcheroo (wherein you go channel surfing), but in terms of developing new Canadian talent? Well, it's not. Instead what you've got is very skewed radio station formats that don't want to risk overplaying Drake's latest single too many times - they essentially have twenty to forty 'must play' songs during the peak hours, 95% of which probably don't include any Canadian music whatsoever. They then pepper each hour with various Canadian tunes that are either current (and where hot Canadian artists are a godsend) or a tiny bit out of date, such as singles from their previous albums.

My overall thought is I like the idea of Canadian Content, on paper. Just like communism sounds good on paper. Artists like Hedley would probably be nowhere with it, so that's kind of nifty. On the other hand, I think it's seriously messing with the airwaves and allowing for more diversity on what we hear when we tune in for some free music listening. There's plenty of up and coming acts from other parts of the world that would love the exposure, but weirdly Canadian radio only responds (at the moment) if a song BLOWS UP and is thus worthy of their very limited 'hit list'. It makes us behind the times in the latest trends and artists, unfortunately, which in turn has many folks switching off their radios altogether in favour of their personally crafted iTunes mix.

My suggestion on how to fix the CanCon issue? I think I'd reduce the total requirement for CanCon a bit during peak hours - down to 30%, but keep the 35% for the overall week. I'd also make a requirement that on hit music stations, 10% of the tuneage should be released in the last two years, or perhaps 5% in the last year, to make music directors a little more creative in mining new Canadian talent. I'm sure that overcomplicates things which is why they make it a flat 'rate' of 35%, but I guarantee if you sat down and looked at a chart station's playlist or even just flipped on the radio when tackling a major house project for the day, you would easily recognize the issues I'm talking about.

- Britt's On

I promise this'll be my last Degrassi post for awhile, other than to review their season premiere that's happening on October 8th. I'm just about finished up with rewatching the first six seasons (having watched seasons 7-10 in the last year) and I just read a fantastic article with the show's current Exec Producer, Stephen Stohn, that had a ton of insight for fans of the original series, the next generation, and the current generation (just titled 'Degrassi' these days). Check it out here: http://www.ksitetv.com/ksitetv-interview-with-degrassi-executive-producer-stephen-stohn/

Anyway in the article Stohn mentions they've done 236 episodes, in contrast to the original 65 episodes Linda Schuyler and Kit Hood produced thinking they had told every story there was to tell. You may drop your jaw at that number and think, has Degrassi REALLY covered 236 issues? The short answer is no. While the first few seasons of TNG had a much more issue of the week format, as the series has progressed many issues are told across multi-part A-plot episodes, while others branch out across dozens of A-Plot and B-Plot storylines that could last a season or longer (see: Marco's sexuality). So realistically if I sat down and counted, they've probably covered countless issues, plus a good number of the shows plots, particularly in the later seasons, dealt with 'event' issues - like who to cast in a play, the stress of year-end finals, reactions to the shooting or JT's death, etc.

That being said, there is still a fair bit of ground for Degrassi to cover, shockingly enough. Some of these ideas are borrowed from the original series, some are things that just haven't been done, and some are modifications of existing plotlines. Without further ado, I bring you: Issues Degrassi Hasn't Dealt With:

ADOPTION - Other than Liberty giving up her baby for adoption and Derek briefly telling Liberty he was adopted, this plot hasn't ever really been fully explored. It could be a piecemeal development, spurred on by the likes of 'multicultural day' to find out one's heritage, only to realize something isn't quite adding up. Someone I know found out their dad wasn't their real dad via a letter delivered to their high school...needless to say it made for a pretty emotional showdown between kid and parent(s), and has space for future development i.e. trying to hunt down the birth parent with no luck, meeting the birth parent, considering leaving their adoptive parents for the birth parent only to find it's a bad idea, or living with the birth parent and loving them, getting angry and rebelling against the adoptive parents, etc. So many possibilities Degrassi! This was a big plot for Wheels on the original series, but it could definitely be reinvented for the next next generation.

SUICIDE - The show always has to tread a fine line between storylines that will seriously screw their characters' storylines up and storylines they can conceivably come back from. This is why you don't see them getting DUI's, even though drinking and driving IS a teen issue. Anyway, it's shocking Degrassi has never done a suicide storyline as it was the major death plot point in the original series, and it's the only teenage type death they haven't done yet (and would make for a huge plot point on par with the series' two other deaths), other than a tragic car accident or something (ahem, drinking & driving). Rick did not commit suicide (unlike his school shooting compatriot on One Tree Hill, Jimmy, ironically enough), and JT certainly didn't, other than his half-hearted attempt with the pills...there's definitely a few characters that could be potential suicide victims. Perhaps Eli's tortured artist will catch up with him, Fiona's mental instability, Riley being bullied for being gay (see: the recent rash of suicides in the USA), or Adam's identity challenges will make him do the deed. A suicide pact might also be an interesting tip-off for one character, it's just a question of whether the series will save the hero before they die. Obviously it's way more powerful when a character does leave, they just have to make sure they're okay with them leaving. Hence, don't kill Eli!

HE SAID SHE SAID - Can I just say this was one of the most frequent plot points in my actual high school? A couple would break up and rumours would run rampant about who did what as the couple basically divided everyone between who was friends with who. By the time we graduated things got a little fragmented. There was obviously an opportunity to do this with the KC/Jenna/Claire triangle, although Jenna & Alli seem to have patched things up and Claire was even around them at the S10's mid-season finale dance prep. Perhaps if Eli and Claire breakup this could be an interesting storyline.

DUELLING EXES - In theory this has been done, but primarily between the ladies and not strongly enough (again see: missed opportunity for Clare/Jenna drama). I think with Declan's return this season there is room for some interesting developments for Declan to try and win back Holly J from Sav's grimy clutches.

INTERRACIAL DATING TENSION - I give credit to Degrassi for being 100% realistic about this, that interracial dating isn't an issue for 99.9% of the population these days. That being said, this was a choice storyline from the original series between Michelle and BLT, and I'm surprised not a single one of these oh-so-traditional, uptight 'cultural' parents (Marco and Riley's in particular) haven't been inserted into an oblique "You're dating HIM/HER"? plot line.

ABORIGINAL ISSUES - This is a minefield, and one that isn't particularly relevant to the show's huge US fan base, so I don't blame them for not tackling it. If anything it's something they would have done in the earlier seasons. Regardless, I can't believe Degrassi has never had an Aboriginal character, as there is a rich amount of opportunity for them to be a good role model for the Aboriginal community and also tackle some of the issues facing Aboriginal people in Canada. If they came from a disadvantaged family, wanting to break the mould would make for an interesting storyline.

SCHOOL CHEATING - This is such a basic issue that has barely been touched by Degrassi. Toby tried to hack the system for Jimmy and Paige handed in a bought essay in University, but the show has never done the classic 'steal the test answers' plot line that is used on so many other shows, which would make perfect sense for a character that is struggling with their studies. Or there's ye ol' chestnut from the original series where Yick handed in a paper that Arthur's older sister Stephanie Kaye (ah she was so cool hah) wrote the previous year - Yick received a better mark on the paper than Stephanie did, proving Raditch's bias.

DEPRESSION - I wish they had done more to explain Paige's S6 breakdown. I know someone who has been prescribed as having actual panic attacks, and that is another specific plot device they could have used (while also visiting the checks and balances of taking your meds vs. being overmedicated). Anyway, the show hasn't ever really tackled depression. Craig had a mental disorder and Emma's extreme mood swings post-shooting and during Spike & Snake's split were tied to other issues (safe sex & eating disorders), so the show hasn't ever really had a character that is suffering from clinical depression. Might be a good lead-up to a suicide storyline!

STALKING - We had Darcy's creepy internet 'pal' and Rick was debatably interfering with Terri's life, but no character has ever been continually stalked for longer than one episode. Perhaps it might be a way to write off one of the two villainous duds introduced this past season - Fitz or the antagonistic football player, Owen - as they stalk Bianca or something.

UPPERS & DOWNERS - Have there seriously been no caffeine pills consumed on this show?

I could go on...all one has to do is look at episode lists for the likes of Dawson's Creek, The OC, One Tree Hill, Gilmore Girls, etc. to see there are plenty of opportunities abound for the show to continue on.

Finally a parting thought: we now have three Degrassi babies circulating out there. Who do you think will lead the third generation's development? If the show continues on its current schedule of one school year every year and a half (they've talked about next summer being the wrap-up for the current seniors), then:

Mia's Baby Isabella - Conveniently named after a Twilight character, Bella will be teenaged (at least grade 9 aged) in about a decade. She was three years old when we met her and Mia was in grade 10. Mia would now be a senior with Holly J, Sav, and Anya which would make Bella five, so for her to be a full-blown 13 or 14 year old is ten years down the road which seems ample time for a reboot. By then, Nina Dobrev's CW-infused career might be flagging and she might be willing to come back, or they could just cast someone new as her mom, or she could be living with her dad since her mom is in theory a supermodel.

Liberty's Unnamed Baby Boy - Adopted boy is off in Seattle, and was born when Liberty was in grade 11, which would make him about three years old by now. Perhaps his journey could start by opening up the chest Liberty gave him and discovering he's, gasp, adopted!

Jenna's Unnamed Fetus - At this point the show looks like they're going to make Jenna go through with the baby. This is the only baby storyline they haven't tapped yet - despite arguments that Mia's storyline was all about the rigors of being a teenaged mom, Jenna's is part Liberty's (being a pregnant mom) AND part Mia by taking us through her baby journey from start to finish. Although a miscarriage might make for an interesting late-in-the-game twist (would she feel sad? relieved?), I suspect she'll have the baby. Obviously this one will take the longest to mature which means it's either the most or least likely to lead the crusade for D:TNG 2.0.

S'all. Any other Degrassi topics you can think of that have never been touched? I think suicide & adoption are the two biggest ones for sure. Yes they were covered on the original series, but there's a ton of new, long-term development ways they could look at them.

- Britt's On

You know, I have a small bone to pick with Jeff Probst. I love the dude, don't get me wrong, and I'm very much part of the faction of people that believe Survivor will be half the show it is now if he leaves. I just...don't want it to stop. Ever! Seriously, few other shows have managed to engage me for 20+ seasons (because no shows have that many seasons), and make me as delighted as I am on a weekly basis to watch a bunch of loons on an island of the non-Canadian persuasion. Plus I still feel like they have a fair bit they could do: Survivor Couples (wherein each pairing of teammates are split onto two tribes)! Celebrity survivor! Bring back all the former winners that actually want to come back (and see if Sandra can make it a threepeat)! ARCTIC SURVIVOR!

Anyway my beef is that JP has whinged about the strain it takes to shoot Survivor, given he's off in some remote destination for 40+ days. That's right, Jeff Probst works (remotely anyway) for about 90 days a year, because let's face it, he doesn't have a bunch of other successful gigs lined up for him. Phil Keoghan of Amazing Race fame however, probably works for about six to eight weeks, and spends the rest of his time riding bikes and writing books. The difference is, Phil is zipping all around the world for those six to eight weeks. No doubt he's staying in nice hotels, but dude is suffering from the same amount of jet lag and travelling from challenge destination to challenge destination to make the race happen. So Probst, can it and keep on doing Survivor! Although how cool would it be if they swapped jobs for a season? I digress.

Another note on The Amazing Race. This is the first year they lost their Emmy. It's also the first year Survivor was NOT nominated, which is so bizarre it hurts after coming off of a pretty phenom season like 'All Stars'. Perhaps it's because Samoa was a pretty terrible season (sans Russell's world domination) and they don't consider 'All Star' seasons to be as creatively charged as brand new casts. It's just a tragedy because they lost to Top Chef of all things, which as far as I know doesn't even air in Canada. Lametown. That being said, I'm not in disagreement - TAR has a pretty weak year last year, with way too much time spent in one general area (Asia) and pretty lame casting.

Much like Survivor, the secret to a good reality show is in the casting. It needs to be a balance of gimmicky (see: acrobatic little people, Kentucky coal miners, beauty queens, etc.) and explosive (see: every violently angry couple on the show ever), with a dash of heart and goodwill (see: the hippies that won their respective seasons) and 'relative' hotness in the form of relatively douchey male teams (see: almost every season where a team of beefcakes was entered, they won).

This year it seems the folks on TAR are reallllly pushing for an all female team to win, with FOUR entries into the mix and NO beefcake male teams to speak of. The last time they did this was Season 14, with the flight attendants, the antagonistic but athletic (except for swimming) black sisters, and the former redheaded NFL cheerleaders (who ultimately placed second). Unfortunately none of these female teams had the charisma and fan base that Dustin and Kandice, the two-time second-place finishers had, and thus it was kind of okay that another chirpy, happy, intelligent brother & sister duo won (shortly after Ryan & Starr a season or two earlier).

Of the ladies on the race this year, I suspect the doctors or the volleyball girls have the best chance. Brook was annoying as all get out this episode, and I suspect Clare will lose enthusiasm as the race continues to NOT include taping thirty-minute segments while fondling some jewels. The mother/daughter reunion team is just all kinds of awkward, and beyond that, they don't have that competitive "We've both wanted this for SO LONG!" spirit that the majority of the other teams have. The doctors preformed solidly and calmly throughout the episode, making them a touch boring, but at least commendable. The volleyball chicks will likely be able to bring a bit more interest to the table, and they're buff and gorge, which will help them throughout.

Other than that, I think the male/female couples all have some interesting and potentially explosive dynamics. Nicky & Vicki are America's Best (idiots) so while they provide good entertainment value their time on the race is going to be short. Jill & Thomas (I keep on wanting to say jack & jill) may be interesting as well after a solid finish on the first leg, I'm curious to see how the Express Pass plays out, and whether the set-up dynamic for him being Ivy League and her being a beautician will come into play. She certainly got them across that lake fast enough, which contributed to their win. Finally I can't remember their names, but team 'Roid Rage' as I've dubbed them promises to be the couple 'most likely to be reconsidering things' after the race. I get squeamish at the verbally and physically abusive couples, but I hope it's at least a wake-up call for them.

Finally we have a scattered remaining group. I love the Gleeks! LOVE! I will be putting them in my early teams to root for that's for sure. They had a rough start but pulled off a very respectable third-place finish despite being on the second flight, so kudos there. Just as the race has never had an all female team win, they've also never had a parent/child team win, and I've loved many of the parent/child teams. So I'm also waving a small flag for our two parent/child teams - the Asian internet Sensations and Little Miss Sunshine & her dad. Truthfully I wasn't too sad to see Tony the Tiger & Ron leave. Their musical antics sounded interesting in the interviews but I was kind of yawning at their raceplay. There are other teams I want to see more of and it was nice that all of the female teams made it past leg 1.

Overall because of the solid casting here and the drive of the producers to have some very strong female contenders for the win, I'm giving TAR a promising thumbs up for the season to come. The Express Pass is an interesting twist / alternative to the underused Fast Forward (remember the first two seasons??) and not quite as dramatic of the Medallion of POWAHHHH! on Survivor, so I'm happy they shook up the game a bit. I'm wondering if they'll keep on popping more of those passes in the race or not, but content with the one for now. It's much better than the damn 'team' detours they throw in every once in awhile.

I'll also mention that Dancing with the Stars has fallen by the wayside. The cast just wasn't as interesting as I'd hoped in comparison to last season, and quite frankly watching that show without a PVR to skip through the excessive ads is not my cuppa tea. It's a very spoilerrific show and I'm very much an internet surfer, so watching it the next day on my laptop just isn't a good option either. I also skipped Desperate Housewives' premiere this week, as I feel the show has become a mockery of what it set out to be all those seasons ago. Easy come, easy go.

A friend of mine watched the new JJ Abrams show 'Undercovers' and being a mega-Alias fan was quite disappointed. I haven't heard the best things about it, and frankly, Abrams isn't a guaranteed hit-maker (and will jump ship once a show has launched to a higher ground) so I'm not chancing it. I am planning to tune into the new drama premiering tonight, 'No Ordinary Family', about a family of superheroes. Sort of like Heroes meets The Incredibles. It hasn't gotten a lot of buzz, but perhaps it'll build if the first few episodes are good.

That's a wrap on my fall round-up. We're in the home stretch for summery shows including Mad Men and Project Runway (seriously WTF TO MAD MEN THIS WEEK?), which is fine and good because a bunch of awesome-sounding movies are coming out right away. Stay tuned for my thoughts on four of fall's biggest movies: Easy A, The Town, The Social Network, and Let Me In!

- Britt's On!

Okay kids, I've been adding steadily to my drinking game for Degrassi the Next Generation in my previous post, but I thought it was time to repost here as I finish up with Season 6. I promise to simply update the date next time around, but since I fundamentally changed the layout of it I figured it was worth a repost.

So my friends, take a sip, or a shot, every time:

IN GENERAL
- There’s a confrontation in the bathroom (a bizarre replacement for ‘confrontation in the stairwell’ of the original series)
- Characters talk about one another using their full first and last names
- Kid Elrick is mentioned
- A teacher is totally incompetent at catching a misbehaving student
- An original series cast member makes a guest appearance (unless they're credited as regulars)
- Somebody gets stuffed into or slammed against a locker
- Downtown Sasquatch or Studz plays
- Whenever someone brings up Heather Sinclair
- The show goes meta and uses internet slang (as per Palex) or talks about how 'West Road' has 'terrible writing' and is so 'issue of the week'
- There is a reference to Bollywood
- Someone brings up how something didn't happen on school property
- Someone says the word Lakehurst
- A dance is held
- A Degrassi couple breaks up
- Dream sequences!
- A new character with speaking lines shows up
- Somebody dies
- The Spirit / Power Squad needs or gets new uniforms

EMMA, MANNY, JT, TOBY, LIBERTY & SEAN
- Emma protests something
- JT wears a top hat
- JT pretends to be gay
- Sean talks about being poor
- Sean wears a wife beater
- Toby mentions his bubby (grandma) or being Jewish
- Manny uses the term 'Coo coo bananas'
- Someone makes a joke about how slutty / skanky Manny is
- Emma talks about the environment
- Liberty is at a student council meeting / involved with morning announcements

PAIGE, ASHLEY, TERRI, HAZEL, ELLIE, SPINNER, JIMMY, & CRAIG
- Paige says ‘hun’
- Paige & Spinner call each other Honey Bee
- Spinner gets a new hairstyle
- Paige changes her mind on whether she's interested in men or women
- Someone calls Ellie 'Frosh'
- Ellie calls Jesse 'Boss Man'
- Anytime Marco or someone else talks about Marco being gay
- Terri has a storyline or scene regarding her weight
- Spinner misuses a word
- Ellie does something related to journalism
- Jimmy develops a new talent
- Jimmy wears something from Triple 5 Soul

DARCY, ALEX, JAY, PETER
- Darcy does something deliberately un-Christian (see: breaking Paige's leg, drinking beer, running an online semi-pornographic site)
- Peter has a camera with him

The NEW Next Generation Kids (Season 7 Onwards)
- Holly J has a clipboard in her hands
- Clare talks about her faith and morals
- Bianca wears hoop earrings
- Alli and KC demonstrate why they don't belong in the advanced Grade 9 class
- KC makes a reference to his shady past / halfway home situation


Finally! Drink if anything on the show happened to you!

- Britt's on!

The other week I posted about how this season of Project Runway was going down as one of the best in recent memory. A good chunk of that in my mind has come from the expanded format of the show that has allowed for getting to know the designers - and their catty mentalities - a little better, much like the earlier seasons allowed for based on the way they were editing. Let's face it, the characters on the show are half the fun - the designs themselves are the other half.

Unfortunately, the last two episodes have been - to borrow a phrase from another fashion-related reality show - dreckitude. Sadly, I don't feel it's the designers to blame here, but the producers of the show that have done TWO Back to Back episodes of 'surprise! design another piece at the 11th hour! cheers!'. As a result we had two of the worst runway shows PR has EVER seen, with the top 3 barely scraping by and liberal critiques being heaped on the top 3 almost as much as the bottom 3 (and god only knows what the middle 'safeties' would hear from the judges were they on stage).

As a result, my favourite designer this season - Valerie - has been in jeopardy. Both times she has had pretty nifty sounding plans / sketches, only to be thwarted by the producers of the show that think it's so shocking and cool to cram as much design as possible into one episode - perhaps the negative side of 90-minute shows where they need to stretch the design room time. I mean, for this week's challenge we had eight designers left...why not bring the eight eliminated designers back to assist them with the second look?


The thing is, I'm not asking for the show to revert to its early season slower pace, where designers frequently had two days to design showstopping garments, I'm simply asking them to be upfront with the designers - at least once - about how much time they have instead of continually springing additional pieces and challenges on them. I'm thinking back to the couture challenge of Season 4, featuring Chris March and Christian Siriano's STUNNING gown (and ready to wear companion piece). The judges were clearly looking for something of that calibre this week and they didn't get it - and it's partially because of the crazy twists and turns the show keeps on piling on. I just want to see the designers have the time to complete something for once, and get a proper sense as to whether or not they are good designers, plain and simple, or if they really do bite off more than they can chew.

Moving on, we have SEVEN designers left and only 'THREE' spots at Fashion Week. Can I point out that in past seasons, PR has been a very unique show in that it airs (primarily) during the ten-week span the winning designers have to go home and work on their collections. This year however, there were so many designers 'left' on the show, that TEN, count em, TEN of them had shows at Fashion Week. That's more than half of the contestants - and although only three (or four) of them are up for the grand prix, it still kind of diminishes the specialness of "only three of you will make it to fashion week". I'm sure the decoys are given much smaller budgets to work with, but they still have the prestige of going to fashion week, and the big PR prize ain't that special, sorry (I mean, Mondo won nearly the equivalent of the model's prize this week!).

Moving on to the final 7 and my predictions:

April - The show can be a bit maddening in its criticisms, sometimes telling designers they seem stuck in one style, other times criticizing designers who try to shake up their aesthetic (as per Ivy getting the axe with her foray into BRIGHT colours this week). However with April, I lean towards the 'one trick pony' designation, as I've found nearly all of her pieces are black, tattered, and snoozy. I'm not interested in seeing a final collection of April's, and I have a hunch she'll be shown the door before fashion week.

Valerie - It feels to me like Valerie (up until recently anyway) was given a bit of a winner's edit - she has easily become the fan favourite with a very likable, witty, endearing edit and her 'always the bridesmaid' designation has won her many fans that think she is the rightful winner on same challenges. I wanted to think that with her breakdowns over the last few weeks - why don't the judges get my work? why am I second guessing myself? why did I create a vest over a jacket (stupid twist)? - they were giving her a 'Phoenix rises from the ashes' storyline, but now I'm not so sure. I think the producers were definitely wise to keep her in over Michael & Ivy the last two weeks, and I think she could pull it out with adequate time a la fashion week, but I'm not sure her confidence is up to it at this point.

Mondo - I'm on the fence about Mondoman. On one hand I feel like he just throws together a bunch of crazy shit, sews it decently well, and the designers credit him for it not being totally fugtastic. On the other hand, I have flashes of S3's Uli and her innate ability to mix patterns - while Uli's was a much more subtle bohemian look, Mondo's is a lot more like a box of crayons got bulimia on his work table, yet I at least find his work *interesting*. I think seeing a final collection from him that requires some cohesion and thought would be interesting, but I don't know that I'm rooting for him to win at this point. I'd be okay with him making it to the final 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if I did.

Gretchen - I feel like Gretchen still has a pretty negative edit, and that her clothes still aren't that imaginative. What they are is modern, well-made, and designed for women who very much share her aesthetic, which is a trendy one. I've noticed the designers this season have really projected their design style into their personal style - Mondo's wacky combos, Valerie's cutesy reconstructed outfits, Ivy's chic little dresses and skirts, April's goth bombshell look, and Gretchen's boho model gear. I think it's a wise choice to represent your point of view as a designer by looking like your work, and Gretchen does that in spades. She does have the strongest track record - falling into the bottom only once on the team challenge - and the show seems to have indicated it's a forgone conclusion we'll see her at fashion week, I'm just skeptical she can pull it out to walk away with the win. I'm smelling Daniel Vosovic of S2.

Andy - I feel like Andy is sort of the forgotten child of this season (along with Chris). He's supposed to be the avant garde one, and has a style similar to last season's fellow lost boy Jay, but Mondo is totally eclipsing him and I think it might lead to his late-season ouster. I credit Andy for being uber bold, but I don't particularly like his clothes - just elements within them. He might be a surprise contender for that third spot though...I just feel like he hasn't received enough praise or airtime to take that winner's spot, but perhaps the producers are blinding me with the drama and the central characters in that mess!

Michael C - The other designers hate him, and although the show has edited Michael C's storyline to have a sympathetic nod in his favour, I suspect the show will throw them a bone by eventually delivering his comeuppance. Here's my conclusive thoughts on MC: he makes quite beautiful clothing that in general, always fits well (this week's mini dress was moulded to that girl's body), looks nice, and seems on par with today's contemporary evening looks. However, I agree with Gretchen that he doesn't have a deeply engrained POV. In fact, I could probably describe each designer in one phrase, and not really come up with something for Michael. April (Shredded Goth), Valerie (Bright & Basic), Mondo (Colour & Pattern Barf), Gretchen (Boho For Hipsters), Andy (Futuristic Industrial), Chris (Classy Dream Gal)...Michael just makes nice clothes, period. That being said, the concept of him putting together a collection kind of tickles my fancy. What would he send out? A Carol Hannah line of evening gowns? Probably, which the judges don't want to see, and won't earn him the win. I guess he's auf'd in the next week or two.

Christopher - I always forget Christopher Collins is on the show, until he butchers something and ends up in the bottom, flailing. He's a cutie, but a bit of a wet blanket when it comes to joining in on the dishiness, or even having a particularly interesting design point of view or specialty. I think he makes *nice* clothes like Michael C and veers towards a ladylike aesthetic, but I couldn't tell you much about Chris beyond that. I feel like he's a throwaway pick to get rid of before the final episode.

So my picks for the final three? I think Gretchen, Mondo, and either Valerie or Andy will be 'officially' at fashion week. Chris Collins is next on the chopping block, and then it's a free for all.

Do me proud PR!

- Britt's On

As a companion to my list of the Best Buffy Episodes Ever? I present to you my breakdown of the best Buffy seasons, in order this time. Partially inspired by the fact I just read Julie & Julia, and to J Powell's credit, she has good taste in TV shows.

Order goes from the BEST to the WORST:


SEASON 5 - Hands down, this is easily my favourite season. I was truly mystified how Buffy was going to overcome Glory, the twist and turns of the entire season were insane (albeit towards the end it got a bit jam-packed, I'm looking at you Knights of Whatever), and the finale ranks among the best finales - and Buffy has great finales. Some people argue that the story here was a little too steeped in mythology, but I always enjoyed the episodes and parts of the show that delved into what it means to be a slayer. The season opened up with this very premise in what I think may be the best season premiere - Buffy vs. Dracula - and followed it throughout the season, including the spellbinding episode 'Fool for Love' and the death of Joyce bringing home the weight of humanity in 'The Body'. There were a handful of snoozy episodes this season, but in general, it boasted the strongest overall story arc while still providing plenty of laughs and twists.


SEASON 6 - I thought about this long and hard, and it actually surprises me to put Season 6 in the second spot, but at the end of the day I was amazed at how deftly the show slowly unwound the consequences of Buffy's death and resurrection across the entire season. I might call this one a tie with Season 2, but unlike S2, I feel like Season 6 had very strong character / story arc episodes throughout, while the so-called filler episodes were for the most part, actually quite *good*. I always enjoy a good bait & switch, which the show throws at you in Seasons 2 & 6 most dramatically (and arguably a bit in 3 & 4 regarding Faith and Maggie Walsh respectively), and the four-part finale - although not made up of any of my individual favourite episodes - let to a pretty explosive ending. There's something special about this season and I think it boils down to the fact they overcame the impossible - Buffy's death - and did it well.


SEASON 2 - Most people will put S2 at the number one or two spot, and I don't disagree. It's when the show found its legs and cemented itself as a force to be reckoned with. The introduction of Spike and Drusilla, the bait & switch between them, and the second switcheroo with Angel at the helm was inspired, especially for all the fangirls out there that were in love with TV's most star-cross couple. The finale is possibly the best of all season finales, and the 'arc' episodes are among the strongest in the entire series. However, the reason why this drops to third on my list is there is still a ton of crappy monster of the week type episodes that not only detract from the main plot (Hello 'Go Fish', thrown in at the end of the season), but actually don't really do anything at all for the characters or the show. The difference between the filler episodes here and in season 6 are like night and day - I actually think I like S6 more *because* of the filler / fun episodes, versus S2 probably has stronger arc plots, making them more or less tied for second.


SEASON 4 - Again, a relatively unpopular choice, but I generally liked the post-high school years of Buffy better than the high school ones. S4 suffers the same counter-balance issues with S3 - I think I like S4 because the filler episodes, the overall change of pace and vigour with which Buffy says "Okay, we're doing the college thing, at least for this year" make this season stand out in terms its overall tone and messaging. Some of the funniest episodes of the entire series happen here, and I actually thought The Initiative and Riley were awesome the first time around. It also boasts some of the most memorable episodes, including 'Hush' and 'Restless'. Although the season's story arc probably sputtered out the most, the overall zesty rebrand of the series here puts it right in the middle of my list.


SEASON 3 - A lot of people tend to put S3 at number one or number two, and if you're partial to the high school years, that totally makes sense. It has the strongest continual development of the major story arc - The Mayor and Faith - with only a handful of filler episodes, and for the most part, even those tie into the major storyline with cameos from the aforementioned main players. I always want to like this season more, but I think because it lacks a ton of standout episodes for me - and I got irritated by this point at how old those high school seniors were looking - it has never resonated quite as much. It's still a great season, but I just don't get that excited about it.


SEASON 7 - Oh Buffy, what could have been. After a very strong start, the show kind of lost itself mid-season and never fully recovered. Like Season 5's weakness, it tried to do too much in too little time, throwing new villains and unnecessary twists at us, while also feeling like it was dragging on as the slayerites huddled down in Buffy's house. The lack of interaction with the outside world, other than glimpses at the high school, made this season feel strained and drawn out at times. That being said, there are a large number of episodes I quite liked this season, and the overall series finale left me feeling satisfied, so I can't totally bash this one.


SEASON 1 - Everyone and their dog drops Season 1 at the bottom and I'm no different. It's hard to convince people to watch the show when they have to sit through the cheese that is S1, particularly in the SFX department. That being said, the creators make the best of it, frequently referencing moments in S1 in later years for funny running jokes and half-decent payoffs. The show is definitely quite campy and funny this time around, but it shows glimmers of the razor sharp humour and kick-ass fearlessness that defines the show.

- Britt's On

In the last month I have read Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert, watched the film adaptation, and read Julie Powell's memoir, Julie & Julia (I watched the film about a year ago). I have to say, it always surprises me when memoirs get made into films because in essence, a memoir is about infusing yourself in your words, something films generally can't capture. The exception to this in recent memory is the adaptation of 'An Education', however someone I know that read the book explained the romantic relationship the film is centred on is only a minor part of what is otherwise the ramblings of a fairly unremarkable person.

Here's my verdict on these two entries into foodie memoirs turned foodie films:


Eat Pray Love
The book: I am not really on the same wavelength as Elizabeth Gilbert. Her spritely, indulgent personality doesn't well mesh with the way I lead my own life, and I sometimes found her to be shallow, condescending, and self-absorbed. I walked away from the book shrugging my shoulders and going 'Really?'. I still generally feel that way, however I will say the spirit of the book has stayed with me. I recently moved, and some of the lessons Liz hands down from one traveler to another I have taken to heart and it has helped me make the transition and enjoy myself. So in that sense, I give her a pass, and say that I did appreciate the actual visible growth of herself as the pages turned.


Julie & Julia
The movie: All I have to say is ech. The movie didn't have spectacular reviews so my expectations going in were pretty low, and they were, humbly, met. The movie was way too long, and the devices by which to transmit Gilbert's written words were sloppy - often being told by minor characters instead of from the writer herself. Also the spiritual and emotional significance of certain scenes was downplayed compared to what they meant to Liz in the book. It was basically a rambling, overlong travel log, instead of a movie about a journey. Julia Roberts was a good pick for Elizabeth, and Javier Bardem as Felipe was awesome, but I felt like the book focused too much on some areas and not enough on others.

The Winner: Surprisingly, the book version.



The Book: A note. Sometimes people will stick like glue to whatever they encounter first - be it movie or film version. However my issues with the film were reflected in the book. I felt like the whole thing was sort of...meta. The book isn't so much about the Julie/Julia Project, it's about writing the Julie/Julia blog, experiencing a bit of fame and attention, the day to day gripings of a Generation X-er, and generous sprinklings of the trials and tribulations and general insanity of the project (524 french recipes in 365 days). The most enjoyable portion of this was, by far, the stories of cooking. In fact, I often found myself thinking, I'd rather be reading Julie's blog right now (or when the whole thing went down) than reading a book about blogging. The fact is, the end point in Julie's journey was getting a book deal, and reading a book about getting a book deal does not a good memoir make. Elizabeth Gilbert had her book deal in hand when she went on her trip, so perhaps that's the difference (although she also took care to show the journey was about the book deal, it was facilitated BY the book deal), but I felt like the concept here was spread thin and lent itself better to Julie's initial blog format (which is still online FYI) than a book.


The Movie: Going into the movie I'd been told two things: it had a very whimsical joie de vivre (to be all french) tone, and the Julia part was way better than the Julie part. I wholeheartedly agree. While the Julia segments in Julie's book are short little snippets with little bearing on the plot, the film actually picks up Julia's story more or less where Julie ends it - when she decides to attend Le Cordon Bleu. Meanwhile Julie is just as hysterical and condescending and critical in the film as she is in the book - it makes the generally likably but tiny bit shrill Amy Adams into a Shrill Sergeant (hah) and results in the temporary breakdown of Julie's marriage (which in real life doesn't happen till her second book). I thought the film did a great job at drawing that parallels and character traits that unwittingly bonded these two women, and picked up the highlights of Julie's story (including yes, the inevitable fame, attention, and book deal that lead to said movie, again META!) versus the spread like butter concept in the book.

The Winner: The Movie, by a long shot, although even there the Julie parts wear thin.

- Britt's On