Now with 76% more Facebook!

by Jillian Butler, Ampersandology

You can now become a fan of Ampersandology on Facebook! Click here or on the sidebar to display your nebbish affinity with pop culture obsessions WITH PRIDE! 

Ampersandology is now on Twitter! Expect updates on news, blog posts, and whatever else from my addled brainspace I can fit into a 140-character landscape. Which is to say, more than you'd think.

Follow Ampersandology on Twitter!

Big news for people who love small news.

Javier Bardem has been cast as a "villainous, stock-shorting hedge-fund manager" in the much-anticipated (by me anyway) sequel to Wall Street. Great news, hedge-fund managers: there's so many of you villainous, stock-shorting troublemakers out there that no one will think for a second it's based on you! Oh, you little scamps. We just can't take you anywhere (mostly due to your private jets being grounded)!

Also, I have more plot details, and juicy set gossip secrets!!! From NY Mag:

...the film is set in the months preceding the October 2008 collapse of the
world's economic system. Gordon Gekko has just been released from Shady Acres
federal prison, where he had spent the last twenty-plus years paying his debt to
society for his greedy ways. Shia LaBeouf plays an ambitious young Wall Street
trader in the Charlie Sheen mold, only this time around, his character isn't as
keen to impress Gekko as Bud Fox was in the original. Rather, the device that
brings the two protagonists together is the fact that LaBeouf is engaged to
Gekko's estranged daughter (that role isn't cast yet, but we think it would be
hilarious if they landed on Megan Fox). You see, Gekko has grown a heart during
his time in prison, but when nobody listens to his cautionary words to his Wall
Street cronies that the "end is coming," he becomes "obsessed with trying to
repair his ruptured relationship with his daughter."

I say OUTSTANDING. This has the exact right amount of implausible coincidence that I've come to expect. Suggestion! Leighton Meester for the daughter. Bam. What's next? Barbar: James Gandolfini. Bam. John Wilkes Booth? Jason Schwartzman. BAM. Perfection. I could do this all day. (ask me about my Breakfast Club remake!)

Okay. In the interest of full disclosure, when I first read the story I was too excited, and (incorrectly) assumed that Javier would be replacing Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko. My first thought was of confusion: 'That's ridiculous!' I said to myself, 'Who replaces a perfectly good steak with another exotically named, strongly accented steak?' Then I got mad. Like, really really mad. Who in their right mind fires Michael Douglas, a national treasure and practically Hollywood royalty? This would ruin the whole movie! I was ready to jump ship on my whole-hearted endorsement of this remake, and officially withdraw support.

I want you all to understand: I was actually upset at this development. I was getting ready to write a strongly-worded letter. About Wall Street 2. Think about that.

Yeah. I already know.

Anyway! My fears were unfounded and now Javier will once again dance the confusing line between 'exotic sexpot' and 'Mr. McCreepy.' And, once more, I will be forced to find him undeniably attractive but also kind of repellent,* turning my movie-going experience into yet another heady mix of confusion, lust and shame. Damn it, Javier: every time we do this, EVERY TIME!


*See also: Morgan, Dexter; Draper, Don.

Full story at Vulture/NY Mag: Wall Street 2 Goes Limp

You can stop holding your breath now.

CONFIRMED!

Chace Crawford set to star in upcoming Footloose remake. It's official!

Now maybe I can finally get a decent night's sleep! 

"Roll 212!": Jon Stewart's Vaudeville Thrill

“Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.”- Clay Shirky , professor of New Media at New York University

Something interesting has fallen on my ears of late, and I've hesitated to comment on until I could really wrap my brain around it: is Jon Stewart our modern day Edward R. Murrow?

James Fallows of the Atlantic (along with Eric Alterman of The Nation) sure thinks so. And no doubt, it's certainly a tidy way to package Stewart's role in the pop culture pantheon, with the bonus of reinforcing media's need to loop history into endless repeat. And comparison is not new to The Daily Show under Stewart's run: as he climbed to his current place in the hearts of White People everywhere, he's been likened to a "skinnier Letterman", or a "Jewisher Conan." (I'm as guilty of this as anyone: in my opinion he's the closet thing to an everyman the intelligentsia will ever nab). I guess someone like Stewart, who usually eschews convention by pointing out how he conforms to it before the other guy can, typically needs such helpful contexts.

What really got the Stewart/Murrow ball rolling was the now-infamous Jim Cramer interview from March 12th, compared endlessly to the Murrow/McCarthy showdown of the 1950s. It's risen to near-mythic status, and not only online: a quick YouTube search will reveal all the mentions the interview garnered in the major news networks (including Cramer's --CNBC). The Cramer interview will probably be one of those things pop culture will look back and say marked the beginning of an end for Stewart's dodge of journalistic heft.

Until recently, Stewart had seemed determined to stay safely seated at the kid's table of broadcast journalism. But, as many have noted, Stewart's style is starting to change. During the 2008 election coverage and, more recently, as the knowledge we had about the tangled underbelly of the financial crisis deepened, he slowly peeked out from behind his puppet lead in and lowered his hands from their trademark "I'm just the funny guy!" shrug. He called the media out for their blatant theatrics, their manipulation of facts, and their partisan coverage. Maybe what the Cramer interview marks is the shift of Stewart's mea culpa. He's long held the place of David to the Goliath-reach of the McNews outlets: when the occasional politician, journalist, or news anchor cornered guest on the hot seat would throw back the idea of journalistic responsibility in Stewart's face, his long-suffering defense was that his lead-in was a show about talking puppets.

But what he demanded from these guests was responsibility in the public sphere, whether it be through journalism or even government, a responsibility he himself avoided by the nature of his comedy-based program. But as more and more young people are turning to Stewart et al. for their news coverage (so much so that the University of Indiana recently did a study on the substance behind the Daily Show program), it was becoming irritating (especially for long-time fans) to see Stewart using that humor to merely disarm rather than detonate.

But watch the Cramer interview again. What do we see? A funny guy who's too pissed to crack jokes. The humor here isn't flippant anymore. It's almost morbid. By mid-March, the news had become a daily rotation of headlines that had some kind of surrealist twist to them, something that The Daily Show always thrived under.

And of course, you have a guy who came prepared. Who knows what Cramer thought it was walking into; you can see the uncomfortable ease that he tries (and fails) to pin on the opening strains of the interview. But Stewart guides the interview to the exact pinpoints to deflate everything Cramer and his ilk stand for. The precision with which he conveys how distasteful he finds the financial freewheeling that in large part landed the American economy smack dab in a recession is summed up in two little words: "Roll 212."

The video clips of Cramer from his earlier, pre-CNBC career are particularly damning, acting as a kind of nosy elephant in the conversation. You see Cramer trying to reason with the host, resorting to a flaccid self-deprecation that Stewart shoots down, time after time, with a simple command to his video guy. Their clipped presentation, one after the other, almost without commentary, is damning: Stewart has finally figured out that some news stories don't need a punchline. Emily Nussbaum of NYMag nailed it when she called the "thrilling moral vaudeville" of seeing Stewart so mercilessly exploit his fact-checking.

Much like Murrow, then, Stewart's finally figured out that television's greatest power is its scope: just as Murrow had to learn to marry the medium's pictorial focus with his own preoccupation with ideas, Stewart had to figure out that jokes can be used to point out the absurdities as well as they can soothe their sting.

But maybe the comparison is trite: The Daily Show isn't about to become the next See It Now. Maybe the truth is, our world has evolved past the need for an Edward R. Murrow. Maybe what we really need now is another Jon Stewart.

(image via)

Greed is ALIVE AGAIN!

In a truly stunning turn of events, Oliver Stone is in talks to make a sequel to his 1987 ode to high finance greed, Wall Street (the origin, you'll recall, of Gordon Gecko's famous mantra "Greed is good."). Details are still sketchy, but this is the most excited I've been about an abstract concept in a long time. 

Let's face it: Stone has lost a lot of what little appeal he had in the first place. He really made his name taking already sensational headlines and simply adding more exclamation points: his projects are marked by the oversaturation of his subjects with sensationalism, migraine-inducing editing and loud noises until people started paying attention. So his decision to revisit what really made him relevant in the first place (Wall Street, and timely digression on the nature of the cynical, fast money designs of the 1980s) is not only a stroke of genius, but also a deliciously ripe hot mess waiting to happen. 

Because Wall Street has always seemed like one of those films whose influence is greater than its actual audience, as Gecko's strong advocacy of greed (and wish-fulfilling lawful prosecution as the credits close) came to represent the money-hungry, moral-lite version of the 1980s so rampant in pop culture. Three years after its release, its mantra was central to a 1990 Newsweek cover story that asked the counter to Gecko's assessment: "Is Greed Dead?" Most recently, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly proclaimed that the film was an eerie foreshadow, as watched today it "reveals something now which it couldn't back then: that the Gordon Gekkos of the world weren't just getting rich -- they were creating an alternate reality that was going to crash down on all of us."

So, this remake/sequel idea is clearly outstanding, for several reasons (helpfully outlined below): 

Item 1: The timing is perfect-almost too perfect. Given that the germ of this recession was born in the self-centered and image-obsessed 1980s, History will look back on these days with an oddly comforting stance. It pretty much proof that history repeats itself, with a a built-in cross reference. The original has the delicious, tawdry feel of a morality tale that got caught up in its own vices,  and this sequel could potentially give many bruised consumers the cathartic growl they need. 

Item 2: It's being called a sequel, but everyone knows it will be more like an updated remake. Or at least it should be, if they're smart. Which instead of lame and unimaginative, is instead of AMAZING IN EVERY WAY. Think of it: what other somewhat forgotten 1980s movie is so ripe for a second life? (If you said Willow, you leave this blog. Leave it right now). So if they could only manage to keep the same themes, power struggles and stock characters, superficially updated to accommodate the recession, this will be brilliant. There is no way that film could fail. 

Item 3: I saved the best part for last but: not only is MICHAEL DOUGLAS returning as Gordon Gecko, but do you know who will reportedly take the role of the naive but quick to tarnish young financier? SHIA LEBEOUF! Yes, everyone, Shia LeBeouf once again proves himself the only working young actor by snagging this plum role. Originally filled by charmingly wooden Charlie Sheen, this role will give Shia the chance to use that smarmy baby-face to sarcastically fight the Man (AND MAYBE MORE?!?). 

It's unfortunate Shia doesn't have a father who is conveniently also an actor, thus sealing the onscreen father/son relationship with the rich layers that only quality stunt casting can accomplish. The father/son dynamic, with Martin Sheen acting as the ignored voice of reason to son Charlie, was actually one of the strongest parts of the original, with Gecko's counter influence acting like an incubus on the natural bonds of the American family unit. Or something! 

Early reports are promising--with writers on the project maintaining that the recently-released Gecko will appear to have reformed but ACTUAL QUOTE! "A leopard doesn't change its spots." That, random writer on the project, is a true thing.   

The possibilities are literally endless. If this turns out to come to nothing, I'll be very disappointed. I feel like this project is the last chance Olivier Stone to give his 1987 self an eternal high five.

...and on the day 'surreal' was reinvented, I simply stood in awe and watched.

Hold the phone. DO NOT PUT THAT PHONE DOWN. 

Robert Pattinson --yes, the emo vampire from Twilight-- is playing Salvador Dali?  

I'm sorry, my mistake. It must be some other, lesser known Salvador Dali. Surely not this one: 

Funny story! I remember seeing a Dali exhibition when I was in London. There was a non-stop showing of his special little films there, and you know what the first thing I thought was? "Gee, I hope when it comes time to immortalize this eccentric bastard, they find some nice, vanilla young man who in no way resembles Dali save for an artfully glued mustache." 

AW, I'm just being cynical. In truth, the resemblance is uncanny. Dali dabbled in both anarchism and communism, and counted among his friends several prominent members of the Dada movement. On the other hand, Pattinson has more than once been touted as the next Jude Law AND knows Harry Potter! George Orwell famously declared  that Dali was "a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being." Meanwhile, xxedwardsgirlxx simply LOVES it when [sic] "Rob does thhat little shy thing, it’s so adorable!" Seriously, did Pattinson go Method for months in preparation? Because I can't tell where he ends and Dali begins. 

But to be fair....really, this IS the most surreal choice the filmmakers could have possibly made. I'm certainly reeling from all the metafictional mixed messages and I only found out like, ten minutes ago. So in a bizarre, roundabout way...I guess they're fulfilling everything Dali stood for. 

Hey, but good news, Daniel Radcliffe! This creates a promising precedent. If the performance of Pattinson's little mustache is any indication, apparently all you need to do to lock in the part of Napoleon Bonaparte is a really big hat and a baguette! 

"I thought this was a party. LET'S DANCE!"

Zac Efron is in talks to play Ren in a remake of Footloose. 

I'm conflicted. 

On the one hand, this is another in a lost, confusing list of movies being remade that don't need it. The original Footloose is perfection realized in a damp, cut-off sweatshirt and skinny jeans. The abandoned warehouse scene alone...oh, it is perfect cinema. From the angry, regret-tinged insertion of music into the tape deck to the reedy strains of Moving Picture's seminal hit blaring through the air as Ren throws down his Coke in disgust (OOH! BAD-ASS!), beginning a dance sequence many have called the GREATEST THING EVAH OMG. Or, just me. 

On the other hand: 

1. Zac Efron amuses the bejesus out of me. This could be disaster on an epic, carwreck drive by neck-craning scale, or it could be the horrible dance movie I know he can make.  

2. A whole new generation of rebellious teens could learn about the healing power of music AND dance! When it comes to pain and suffering, don't feel it: DANCE IT. That advice got me through some real tough years...but in the fake version of my life where I'm a character in a John Hughes movie. 

3. Holy crap, now I'm salivating thinking of the cast. Who will play Willard? Ariel? Oh my God: WHO WILL PLAY REV. MOORE? This could be the role Bruce Campbell has been waiting for. 

Wow. I think I'm on board.

Well. In any case. Until my fears are either confirmed or dispelled, this is the only real remake of Footloose I'll be acknowledging for a while: