Im-Media-te Re-Media-L

Dear Nic and Christian,

Though your situations have recently changed–nice work with the upcoming television show, Christian–both of your careers are suffering from the same problem. I’m not overly concerned because you both probably have plenty of money. But maybe you’re looking for some satisfaction? Perhaps you want us to like you again. Well, here’s some good news: we want to, and we want to in a desperate way.

Christian, you might be okay soon. You’ve picked what looks like a good role on television, and that can do a lot for you. Sometimes, you pick up a little-seen, independent, edgie role. Good. Those of us who are hunting for you on IMDB to see what DVD’s to get can check that out. And you’re keeping up your acting chops. These are all good things in your recent resume.

Nic, you’re often hit or miss, I’m afraid. Fortunately, you generally get about 1/3 of our roles right, and that’s something considering that plenty of others don’t, plus some of your upcoming choices look good. I can be really specific if you want me to, but let’s step back and look at the forest. According to IMDB, you’re filming two movies right now (though one is voicing, so it’s not so crazy). But you’ve just finished up two others, FOUR others are in pre-production, and two more have been announced. This is going to sound a bit insulting, and I’m sorry that this is what it’s going to take: you have become Ryan Seacrest. That’s right, I said it–at least in terms of stretching your ass so thin that you don’t seem to even be evaluating roles. I mean, seriously.

PROBABLY GOOD: Knowing; Bad Lieutenant; The Ghost (but ONLY because you can’t pass up Polanski–it’s still probably not a great role for you) PROBABLY BAD: Scared Straight (will you be saying another great line like “put the bunny down”?); Kick Ass (stay away from comic books, my friend); Amarillo Slim–you’re even producing this. My goodness. Going back to Vegas will not help, Nic. I really don’t think it will unless you do a heck of a good job keeping us away from the tables and in Slim’s life. This seems unlikely.

But here’s the deal boys: WE DON’T WANT YOU TO BE ACTION HEROES. We don’t. We only like you, Nic, as an action hero in National Treasure movies because of everything that ISN’T the action. And since the sequel had more action than the first, this doesn’t bode well for the third. Still, you’ve got a following, so that’s okay, but we DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU IN ACTION HERO MOVIES. You can have a little action in your dramas. If you insist on the thrillers, there can be some action. But very little. 

Christian, ditto for you my friend. We DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU IN ACTION MOVIES. Be our intellectual hero. Be our drama hero. Be our thinking woman’s hero. Do not try to get the damsel off the train tracks unless you’re thinking your way through to find her. And even then, I think you should send a cop or something. And do I need to bring up Hollow Man II? You are Christian Slater. And you did Hollow Man II. That’s just wrong. That was your Con Air with mullet and bad dialogue (who wrote that shit? Great cast–GREAT CAST–but there was nothing of quality there, Nic. You didn’t have a chance.) You both need to stop lowering yourself to action hero.

There are so many other bad examples of stuff you two have done (one of which is in the theaters now), but here is the thing: DO NOT DO ACTION ROLES. DON’T. We want you two to be leading men in meaty roles. And if you’re not being offered good roles, then chill the fluck out. Just enjoy your personal lives, find a play, do an independent movie if you must, but don’t accept these cheesy acting roles that any himbo off the street can do. Seriously. We are waiting for you two in the good roles. Stop fooling us by accepting this crap.

Work less, deliver more.

Thank you. I miss you both.

Concerned Movie-not-goer

I’m sorry this is so long. But it’s been eating at me since the last “awards season.”

Every year, or so it seems to me, there’s some article or articles about how various actors have been “snubbed” by one awards show or another. The implication of the word “snub” goes beyond saying, “Hey, these folks did great work, and are just as good as the folks who were nominated. No, such a word suggests that these actors were left out even though they deserve to be nominated MORE than the folks who were nominated.

A snub is a deliberate act of insult–it’s passive aggressive.

Now, I’m not saying always agree with the nominations, but to the best of my knowledge, a large group of people come up with the nominations, and so there is some sense of democracy in it. Perhaps it might be a snub if Britney Spears had done something incredible in a nominated category and they were left out of the nominations. If we could look at some majorly impressive acting work by Britney Spears (just picture it for the example, okay?) in one of the categories and she wasn’t nominated, well then we might say she was snubbed because the nominating folks didn’t like all the personal crap she’s in the press for these days, or they didn’t like that someone known for her singing was going to “snake” an award, or something like that. If they’d ignored what was obvious to everyone in the freakin’ world as a major acting accomplishment, well, then that would be like she was black-balled or intentionally given the shaft.

But when Eva Longoria or the Sopranos doesn’t get nominated? I’m sorry, but to suggest it’s a snub is not only incorrect, but it’s an insult to the fine performances that were undoubtedly nominated. I’m not saying that actor or that show aren’t on the same level, but an intentional stab at either? Hardly.

In a recent Yahoo TV article/slide show (http://tv.yahoo.com/slideshow/192/photos/1) entitled “Fuzzy Math,” the writer(s) comment on Katherine Heigl’s nomination, but add, “Patrick Dempsey (“McDreamy”) and Ellen Pompeo were big-name snubs by the Globes, however.” No one is snubbing Dempsey or Pompeo. The body of nominators is rewarding several people who were nominated. I doubt that Dempsey or Pompeo were intentionally left out.

When I applied to a Ph.D. program in English, the process was that all of the candidates were ranked in order, and as people declined offers, the next folks received offers. A member of the committee who didn’t respect me tried to convince the committee to bypass me for the next person. Fortunately, I had folks to argue that the candidates had been ranked, and I was damn well next in line. Had I not been accepted, that would have been a snub–I would have been ranked by a committee as higher than someone who did get in, and that would have sucked. Personally, I feel honored that I was worth arguing over. Go me.

But back to my point–perhaps viewers would have placed Dempsey or Pompeo “above” who actually got nominated. That’s simply a difference of opinion, and it is not an indication that the nominating folks got together and said, “Well, we all agreed that we all like Dempsey better than so-and-so, but are we really gonna let a guy who already has great hair win?” If we say Dempsey got snubbed, we are saying this unlikely scenario or something like it occurred.

Yahoo comments on the fact that the much-queried (i.e. Yahoo searched) shows Heroes, The Sopranos, Smallville, The Office, and Prison Break, as if being the focus of a search is proof of greatness–proof that a show who “earned it” was passed over for something less worthwhile. I’ve heard great things about these shows. I’ve never watched any of them. I’m sure they’re good, but if the nominating folks aren’t regular viewers (which I prove is a possibility) then they’re unlikely to be persuaded by any kind of a nomination tape. Now, maybe that’s unfair–except that the folks who nominate are a large group of folks. If enough of them felt the pull to one of these actors or shows, I’m sure we’d see them listed.

In the end, it is unfair to say someone has been snubbed unless there is an argument for who or what should NOT have been nominated. If none of the shows I mentioned were nominated, then which one is so “obviously” NOT the one that should should have been nominated? Articles about snubbing rarely say things like “Heroes so obviously got passed over in favor of House that one wonders if the in-common letters got the voters confused.” Until these articles start calling out the folks who were nominated and didn’t deserve it, it’s insulting to the nominees to say that someone or something not on the list was snubbed. I’ve got my own “wish list” for nominees, but I’m not in a position to say the folks who were nominated deserved it less than my favorites. I don’t think any of my favorites were “snubbed.” My favorites were apparently bested, and I give my congratulations to the nominees on what must be fine work to beat out the folks I wish were among them.

If Susan Lucci can wait for an award after 18 nominations, or something like that, and I doubt she was being snubbed, then other folks need to put out their own best work for that many years, and someday, they just might best someone who else, who will undoubtedly be hailed as the latest victim of a snub.