Douglas Howe: December 2006 Archives

One of the most interesting--albeit meaningless--awards of the year comes from CNN Headline News' "Showbiz Tonight," which names its "Most Controversial Celebrity" of the year. For 2006, Britney Spears won out over the likes of Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Tom Cruise, Anna Nicole Smith, Naomi Campbell, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Madonna, and Star Jones.

I say it's interesting because it says something about how truly un-interesting celebrity news has become these days. I think someone should have to accomplish something truly amazing to even be considered as a "star," and then have to do something really controversial to be considered for such a list. Given that, I'd eliminate Britney, as well as almost everyone else on the list. What has Paris Hilton actually done to make her a "star." For that matter, what about Lindsay Lohan or Anna Nicole Smith? Sometimes the whole Hollywood thing reminds me of a junior high, full of a few people who trying to be popular, a few others who get them to believe it, a few who are envious, and the largest part of the crowd hiding in the safety of anonymity with something to talk about.

Of course, this prestigious award is not merely selected at random. CNN employs four primary criteria:

1) Does the mention of their very name spark a visceral reaction?

2) Which celebrity provoked the most continuous shock and outrage from their antics over the course of the entire year?

3) Which celebrity generated the most continued interest through the year?

4) Did their actions leave any lasting impact?

I think the real stars are people who step up and step forward. The real controversial ones are those who assume leadership roles, and do it in ways that others either don't agree with, don't respect, or don't even notice.

Mel Gibson made a wonderful impact upon the world with his depiction of Christ's passion, and the comments he made during an arrest were as disrespectful as they were embarrassing and career-threatening. After that, the list falls apart, in my book. These stars' names don't spark a visceral reaction--despite what you'd think from watching or reading the media that tries to make stories out of who they are and what they do, just for the purpose of, well, having something to talk about in the gobs of TV time and printed column space given over to celebrity "news."

For all the time young people buy magazines, read papers, watch shows, listen to podcasts, read blogs, etc., I wish someone could succeed at engaging them in something truly controversial and relevant--like how to feed the under-resourced people of our world, starting in our own communities. Or how about how to use technological advances to contribute to the future rather than just watching it, listening to it, or reading about it? Or how about how to pick part of the world that is not us (any nation in Africa or Asia or Latin America) and engage young minds and hearts with the question of how best to help?

Whether they succeeded or failed, those who tried would make two of my lists: not only the Most Controversial, but the Most Inspirational as well.

If you've seen all the other family movies this season--or even if you haven't--take your teens or even your grown kids to see "Rocky Balboa." It may end up being the kind of bonding that goes beyond inspiration to transformation. "Rocky Balboa" starts a little slow compared to most action flicks, but the teens I've watched in two screenings are curiously drawn into the story of a father figure-older guy with a way about him that's endearing. They seem to get his humor, and end up rooting for him for completely different reasons than those of us (like me) who were alive when the original "Rocky" burst onto the scene and became iconic.

I didn't like "Rocky Balboa" as much as I respected it, and was surprised by its impact on younger people. Its message went beyond the typical underdog or one-in-a-million themes of the first "Rocky," and it also went beyond the sloppy sentiment of a lot of father-son stories as well. "You cast a big shadow" is as real and un-syruppy a line as I've heard, and Rocky's "victim" speech to his son is the kind of thing executives and H.R. departments spend big bucks to communicate to a generation that knows more about how to blame than how to work.

For those who enjoy comparisons and contrasts to the prior movies in the series, there's plenty in "Rocky Balboa" for you, too. This "Rocky" manages to blend the depth of the first two with the faster movement of the next three. It doesn't labor along (once it gets going). Pedro Lovell's "Spider Rico" ends up being a born-again Christian, as surprisingly as "Mick" ended up being Jewish, as we found out at his funeral in "Rocky III." Talia Shire is credited as "Adrian" even though she's passed away, which is probably about the only believable way to remember her understated and powerful humanity from "Rocky" and "Rocky II."

Antonio Carver's "Mason Dixon" is reminiscent of Mr. T's "Clubber Lang" from "Rocky III," but only in the ring. He's as socially connected and savvy outside of the ring as Lang was reclusive and withdrawn. And the cameo of Mike Tyson is sort of a real-life version of Rocky's empowering Burt Young's "Paulie" to make a few bucks off of Balboa's success.

In the end, "Rocky Balboa" is much like the great fight of the original: It may not rank as an all-time classic, but it goes the distance and has the crowd--including me--rooting it on.

So I'm adding "Rocky Balboa" to my all-time list of Christmas movies with a message--not the ones that preach but ones that go beyond mere inspiration to potentially have a real impact. I've written in the past about my all-time favorites, which include the obvious ("It's A Wonderful Life," "Miracle on 34th Street") as well as the less-obvious ("Home Alone II," Ron Howard's "The Grinch"), and the stretches ("Die Hard 2," "Fitzwilly), where significant wrongs are righted at Christmastime.

"Rocky Balboa" belongs, and when we gather to watch it next Christmas, it won't be me bringing it up--it'll be my teens, and I'll be glad they're listening to its message.

Like a lot of people, I love lists, and I love the Beliefnet team of gifted bloggers, writers, and editors, but I have to say it's a glaring oversight that "The Nativity Story" doesn't make the list of Top Ten Family Films of 2006, which Sharon Linnea--Beliefnet's Reel Inspirational columnist--compiled.

For years, young people have not had a definitive version of the Christmas story to watch, rent, buy, or give. The closest we've had is the Peanuts special, which at least recites the story. The makers of "The Nativity Story" may not have made an Oscar winner or even an all-time classic, but they made the best we have so far, bringing the drama of the story to life on a screen much bigger and with a sound much broader than the classic Sunday School flannel board lesson. And in our media culture, kids deserve this.

When some people think of classic love stories, they think of Romeo and Juliet, or perhaps something they saw with their first boyfriend. But I think the Christmas story is the greatest love story of all time. Jesus left heaven, became one of us to show us a visible image of an invisible God, lived among us for awhile to know us and to be known, died to make a relationship with God possible and rose from the dead to prove it was all true.

I'd love it if future Christmas seasons brought us sequels that focused on each area of his life, death, and resurrection. Movies have an ability to transcend denominations and sectarian biases and just tell a story, and families are well-served to have something so meaningful to then discuss together.

"The Nativity" may not have some of the accoutrements of the typical feel-good holiday flick, but it's content alone makes it an essential for the spiritual seeker.

I’m writing this after having just turned off the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) Selection Show, that is airing in prime time on the FOX, even though there's still a half-hour left to go. The show's now on its fourth commercial break, having yet to reveal what the show promised: The college football matchups for the popular Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowl games.

I’m tired of feeling like a seal waiting for the next little sardine if I just stick around through all the commercials that is paying the network's bills. So I'm outta here.

For that matter, I’m tired of the BCS thing entirely. Sports used to be about rooting for your favorite team, your local team, your alma mater, or (perhaps) the players on your fantasy team.
Now, it’s more like the world of boxing, where we’re supposed to root for our team to "win" some voting derby and computer logarithm just so they are allowed to play in some game, so then we can cheer for them. ESPN now stands for Ever-Selling-Promoting-Nation and FOX Sports could stand for False-Offers-&-Xtras, which extend the games and dilutes the coverage. It's boring because it's a parlor game. It's confusing because the system is flawed. It's sour not only because someone's always disappointed, but because they're playing bingo with the lives of college kids. It's just wrong.

And especially during the Christmas season, I’d rather watch authentic stuff. The only reason I watch sports is because it’s always been the truest reality TV. But those times, they are-a-changin'.