Prophylactic Fun

You gotta love this...

>Imagine if all major retailers started making their own condoms and kept the same tag-line...

>>Sainsbury Condoms - making life taste better
>>Tesco Condoms - every little helps
>>Nike Condoms - Just do it.
>>Peugeot Condoms - The ride of your life.
>>Galaxy Condoms - Why have rubber when you can have silk.
>>KFC Condoms - Finger licking good.
>>Minstrels Condoms -melt in your mouth, not in your hands.
>>Safeway Condoms - Lightening the load.
>>Abbey National condoms - because life is complicated enough.
>>Coca Cola condoms - The real thing.
>>Ever Ready condoms - keep going and going.
>>Pringles condoms - once you pop, you cant stop
>>Burger King Condoms - Home of the whopper
>>Goodyear Condoms - for a longer ride go wide
>>FCUK condoms - no comment required.
>>Muller light condoms - so much pleasure, but where's the pain.
>>Halfords condoms - we go the extra mile.
>>Royal Mail condoms - I saw this and thought of you.
>>Andrex condoms - Soft, strong and very very long
>>Renault condoms - size really does matter!
>>Ronseal condoms - does exactly what it says on the tin
>>Ronseal quick-drying condoms - its dry and waterproof in 30 minutes
>>Domestos condoms - gets right under the rim!!!
>>Heineken condoms - reaches parts that other condoms>just cannot reach
>>Carlsberg condoms - probably the best condom in the world
>>AA Condoms - for the 4th emergency service
>>Pepperami condoms - it's a bit of a animal
>>Polo condoms - the condom with the hole
>>The Manchester United Condom... One Yank and your>whole world falls apart.

Brokeback Mountain Broke My Heart

Yesterday afternoon I got to see a preview of Ang Lee's profoundly moving new film, Brokeback Mountain. It's an adaptation of E. Annie Proulx's short story and stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as Ennis and Jack, two cowboys who begin an intense sexual love affair whilst working on the eponymous mountain in 1960s Wyoming.

Living in the strictly oppressive, pre-Stonewall era, Ennis and Jack can't even consider living as a couple so they go their separate ways. Ennis marries Alma (Michelle Williams who gives a remarkably expressive performance) whilst Jack marries rodeo girl Lureen (Anne Hathaway). The years pass, the two men have children but sporadically meet up for "fishing trips" on Brokeback Mountain. The toll that their secret love takes on the two men and their families builds to a devastating final act, that stands out as possibly the most heart-breaking ending that I have ever seen (for those who have read the story, you will know that "the shirt" plays a pivotal role).

This is a beautifully written, directed and acted story. I cannot recommend it highly enough. There was a fear that the gay theme would alienate audiences but after a while, you get so wrapped up in the tale that you forget that it's two men whose relationship you are rooting for. It truly becomes universal: everyone will be able to relate to Ennis and Jack's pain and if you are not horrendously moved by the final scene, then I'm afraid that you might not be of the human race!

Ang Lee, who directed Sense and Sensibility, The Ice Storm (a movie that thematically prefigured the later American Beauty), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hulk (a disaster), once again expertly handles repressed emotions and the struggle between modernity and tradition. The loneliness of the two men is thrown into sharp contrast - and then strangely amplified - by the sweeping vistas that Lee offers the viewer. He has brought a sensitive eye to this tale and elicits magnificent work from all those under his auspices.

The two lead actors are extraordinary. It was a brave choice for a couple of young men just beginning their Hollywood careers and they certainly don't hold back. It's unfair to single one out for praise, but special mention must go to Heath Ledger, who has not had an opportunity to demonstrate his acting range before now. His Ennis is a hulking, inarticulate, confused, sad, lost soul who, for reasons he can barely express, slowly and painfully watches his one chance for true happiness fritter away. It's an astonishing performance that in its intense rendition of self-loathing and bewildering pain is reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull. Give this young man an Oscar right now.

Brokeback Mountain is without a doubt the best film released this year and is a nice bookend to the year's second best film which was released last January: Clint Eastwood's similarly heartbreaking Million Dollar Baby.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (but it will be texted)

A spectre is haunting Europe. The spectre of text voting.

Watching the final show of The X Factor last Saturday night, a thought struck me. This show, like so many other (vastly inferior) reality programmes, galvinised the public into voting in huge numbers. Almost 11 million people voted on Saturday evening in the space of 2 hours, almost 6 million of those votes going to the eventual winner Shayne Ward.

What I'm wondering is this: did Tony Blair even get that many direct votes in the last general election? Isn't it frightening to think that the Prime Minister - who runs the country and makes monumental (and catastrophically incorrect) decisions on war and peace - might not have even secured the same amount of votes as a 21 year old singer on a TV show?

Imagine if people in this country were able to vote in the next general election by text or email? This country, like many democracies wordwide, is badly, badly in need of a democratic revolution. Ireland has been dominated by the one political party in a manner that would make the Soviet satellite states of the old Eastern Bloc envious.

Now I know that people multiple-vote in reality shows and so the voting figures are probably wildly inflated, and although this is an option that Sinn Fein might like, structures could be put in place to ensure the integrity and fairness of the system. PIN numbers could be issued to make sure that the 'one person, one vote' pillar is not compromised. Polling cards have to be issued anyway, so it wouldn't be a huge bureaucratic nightmare.

Can you imagine what a shake up it would be to our shoddy, jaded, complacent democracy if people actually voted in huge numbers? It could end in disaster; the entire state structures might stay the same or it could change the political and social landscape forever.

Of course, our ruling politicians would never go for it. The mere thought of empowering voters like that would make them shudder and thank the Lord above that they have so successfully breeded and perpetuated such astonishing levels of cynicism and apathy in the electorate. Can you imagine Blandie Ahern signing off on such an innovation? Imagine if he did though. Just think of how it would shake things up so radically.

We need something to change, something to inspire people, some way to get people to engage in the democratic process. Because if we don't figure out those things soon, the future for Irish politics and society looks very bleak, very boring and very depressing.

John Spencer

I was devastated to learn over the weekend of the sudden death of actor John Spencer, who played Leo McGarry on fictional White House drama The West Wing. Spencer has always been the best actor on a brilliantly acted show and The West Wing will struggle to recover from his loss.

In a case of life imitating art, his character was also a recovering alcoholic and suffered a massive heart attack. For the first five years on the show, Spencer played the savvy, world-weary Chief of Staff to President Bartlet (Martin Sheen). In the course of that period, Spencer had many great moments but two stand out in particular. In an episode from the first series, Leo had to come clean on his former drink and pills addictions after a young staffer leaks the information to the press. Later in the episode, Leo meets the staffer and tries to explain to her what being a recovering alcoholic means. It was the most intelligent and honest discussion on alcoholism that I have ever heard and Spencer was amazing in those scenes.

His finest hour, however, arrived in the third series, in an episode entitled 'Bartlet for America'. In this installment, Leo is facing the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the White House's concealment of Bartlet's Multiple Sclerosis during the election. In flashback, we see how Leo first convinced Bartlet to run but the main thrust of the epiosde is to show how Leo once fell off the wagon and got drunk during a crucial primary debate. It was quite simply amongst the finest screen acting I have ever seen and Spencer was awarded an Emmy award for that episode.

In the sixth series, his character became the catalyst for huge change in the White House and the series as a whole. After suffering a massive heart attack, Leo resigns and is replaced as Chief of Staff by press secretary CJ Cregg (Allison Janney). This causes a whole rejigging of the staff and major new characters, storylines and dynamics were then introduced. Leo returned in a smaller capacity as an adviser but the sixth series ended with Leo becoming the Vice Presidential candidate alongside Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits). The seventh series, currently airing in the US, was continuing the campiagn between the Santos-McGarry ticket and Republican Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda).

The show, which many presumed would end after the current series, now faces huge challenges in writing Leo out of the series for good. Spencer was a gifted, worldly actor and will be truly missed by West Wing fans the world over.

Man of the Century

Never mind Gorbachev, Gandhi or Winston Churchill. My vote for Man of the Century goes to a man who makes me think about and view the world differently. A man who makes me laugh and cry; inspires unconditional love in my weary heart and whom I have devoted a good proportion of my life to. Yes people, I'm talking about...Homer Simpson.

Here are some pearls of wisdom from the love of my life.

I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman.

I'm having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!

Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such and such.

Getting out of jury duty is easy. The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.

It's not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I managed to fit in eight hours of TV a day.

Lisa, Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and eskimos.

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

Old people don't need companionship. They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

Homer: How is "education" supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?
Marge: That's because you were drunk!
Homer: And how.

Bart, with $10,000, we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of useful things like...love!

And my all time favourites...

Look Marge, you don't know what it's like - I'm the one out there every day putting his ass on the line. And I'm not out of order! You're out of order! The whole freaking system is out of order! You want the truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! 'Cause when you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do!! Forget it Marge, it's Chinatown!!!

What is a wedding? Well, Webster's Dictionary defines a wedding as 'the process of removing weeds from one's garden'.

Homer to Bart: Stealing? How could you?! Didn't you learn anything from that guy who gives all those speeches at Church, Captain What's His Name? We live in a scoiety of laws. Why do you think I brought you to all those Police Academy movies? For fun?! Well, I didn't hear anyone laughing, did you?...Except for that guy who made all those funny noises [laughs at the memory; imitates some of the noises]. Now, where was I? Oh yeah: stay the hell away from my stuff.

I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to speed around a city, keeping its speed over 50, and if its speed changed, it would explode! I think it was called, "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."

Marge try to understand, There are two kinds of college students: jocks and nerds, and as a jock, it is my duty to give the nerds a hard time.

Don't go easy on each other just because you're brother and sister, I want to see you fighting for your parents' love! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

Belle: 'Do you realize you're wearing a grocery bag?
Homer: I have misplaced my pants

Kent Brockman: Scientists say they're also less attractive physically and while we speak in a well-educated manner, they tend to use low-brow expressions like 'oh yeah?' and 'com'ere a minute.'
Homer: Oh yeah? They think they're better than us, huh? Bart! Com'ere a minute.
Bart: You com'ere a minute."
Homer: Oh yeah?

George of Arcadia

There was an American TV show that went down a storm in the States last year called Joan of Arcadia. It was about a teenager to whom God appeared in various guises, advising her to do crazy and random things that will apparently make sense in the long run. Surely this is the definitive TV show of the George W. Bush era?

Roth-en to the core

If you want an incisive analysis of the American political, social and cultural systems since World War II, you have two options. You can do a degree in American Studies or, the cheaper option, you can read a series of novels that American novelist Philip Roth published in quick succession towards the end of the 1990s.

There is an interview with Roth in today's Guardian. He's a miserable, grumpy bugger but his 'American Trilogy' is an astounding literary achievement. The books are I Married A Communist, The Human Stain and the magisterial American Pastoral, for which Roth won the Pulitzer Prize. In all these novels, Roth telescopes the narrative onto individuals effected by wider political and historical concerns. As the man has said himself, history doesn't stop at their doors. In fact, history barges in and it most certainly does not wipe its dirty feet beforehand.

I Married A Communist has the context of 1950s McCarthyism; Stain is set during the Clinton Impeachment; and Pastoral takes in the whole post-war period, particularly the counter-revolution of the 1960s. That last novel also prophetically deals with the topic that looks set to dominate American political discourse for a generation to come: terrorism.

His latest work, The Plot Against America, is a 'what-if?' that creates an alernative American history where Charles Lindburgh, aviation hero and Nazi sympathiser becomes President in 1940. I wasn't mad about this but he's still well worth checking out - it beats having to read newspapers MAJ class!

Gift of the Grub

Fans of Gift Grub on Ian Dempsey's Breakfast Show on Today FM have been spoiled over the last few weeks as Mario and the team have been on a particularly strong roll. Check out the Bosco installment and laugh as the pastoral memories of your childhood are destroyed. Inspired stuff. More Bosco news can be checked out here!

Look out for the charity release of Roy Keane's version of Will Young's 'Leave Right Now' - genius, nothing short of it.

I Think I Better Leave Right Now, by Roy Keane

I've gone,
When did I arrive?
Cos all they've left me with is me bloody P45
No more mid-field General
No holding role
But at least I'll be the richest man down the dole
And for me who'll they replace?
A lad with a bit of pace
But will he ever make the face?

So I say..

I think I better leave right now
Before I fall any deeper
I think I better leave right now
Our players are getting cheaper and cheaper
Somebody's gotta tell me how
That Alan Smith's a midfielder
I think I better leave right now

They say don't worry
Sure we'll be grand
Sure we've got Wes Brown and Rio Ferdinand
I told the Gaffer
You're having a laugh
If you think that tool is a decent centre half
Because he's just no bloody use
Always has an excuse
I never heard that from Steve Bruce

So I say..

I think I better leave right now
Leave all the prawns and the blazers
I think I better leave right now
Before it dawns on the glazers
Can't you just see it now
Here come the knives and the razors
I think I better leave right now

All credit to the time it's flown
Remember how I beat Juventus on me own
The greatest midfielder of his era
Are you listening Patrick Vierra
But I'll keep going, you'll see
Even with me dodgy knee
Oh how the mighty have fallen, it's pathetic
I might end up in Wiggan Athletic

I think I better leave right now
Leave all the prawns and the blazers
I think I better leave right now
Before it dawns on the glazers
Can't you just see it now
Here come the knives and the razors
I think I better leave right now

What's In God's DVD Collection?

"The Flintstones was a delightfully funnny movie about the personification of the famous TV cartoon series. Unfortunately, several examples of unacceptable material reduced the wholesome family value of an otherwise good movie. Wanton Violence/Crime suffered due to the relative success of a criminal, physical violence, kidnapping, and threat of harm to children. There was none of the usual PG-style impunity from adolescents toward their parents but Impuity/Hate lost points due to cheating, language(1), and hateful relationships. Sex/Homosexuality suffered deeply due to the ever-present attempt of the movie industry to increase the threshold of sexual acceptabilty by strategiacally placing frequent sexual inappropriateness of dress and action. There was only one case of unacceptable material in each of Drugs/Alcohol (consumption of what was likely to be alcoholic beverage), Offense to God (euphemisms of God's name in vain)(1), and Murder/Suicide (lynching with intent to hang, noose around neck was visible)."

That insighful commentary comes courtesy of the Christian Analysis of American Culture website that has a database of hundreds of movies and how they do or don't represent an affront to God and what not. Bizarre, bizarre stuff.

I'll have a pint of Bitter please, love

Remember to tip your waitress y'all or like Moby, Gwyneth Paltrow and Lou Reed, you could end up with a bitter waitress. Hilarious stuff.

Bubba loved cigars; Dubya loves Camel

Just, ahem, came across this on the Guardian website - and I didn't think I was easily shocked anymore. Bravo Steve Bell!

The Green Globes

Congrats to Cork actors Cillian Murphy and Johnathan Rhys Meyers who received Golden Globe nominations today. Murphy - who's married to the daughter of my local TD! - was recognised for his extraordinary performance as transexual Kitten Braden in Neil Jordan's superb new movie Breakfast on Pluto.

Rhys Meyers was nominated for his title performance in the TV movie Elvis. He's also extremely good in Woody Allen's Match Point, which is slowly building up huge acclaim.

Murphy is going head to head with Pierce Brosnan, who's in contention for his role in The Matador. I'm a tad reluctant to call Brosnan fully-fledged Irish. Have you seen the movie Evelyn? The man had to put on a (dreadful) Irish accent in it!

Golden Gobshites

Oh how the fallen have fallen. Extremely distressing news from Hollywood today. Scanning the list of the just-announced Golden Globe nominations, I was horrified to see that the heinous movie adaptation of The Producers has been nominated for a mind-boggling 4 awards.

Now, I realise that the Golden Globes are voted for by the Foreign Press Association, a notoriously amorphous collection of hacks with worryingly bizarre tastes in movies, but even they have outdone themselves by giving this codswallop citations for [laugh out loud] Best Musical or Comedy, Best Actor for the hideous Nathan Lane, Best Supporting Actor for the appalling Will Ferrell and a Best Song nod for Mel Brooks.

I can only assume that the FPA has either not seen the movie or that they ingeniously pandered to the legendary venality of the Golden Globe voters in order to bestow some industry respect on this dreadful, offensive, interminable dross.

The Catcher in the Die

The 25th anniversary of John Lennon's murder brought his killer Mark Chapman back into the public gaze and with it, a fascinating sidebar to the killing. It was revealed afterwards that Chapman was obsessed with Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of J.D Salinger's seminal novel The Catcher in the Rye and indeed a copy of the novel was found by police amongst his possessions.

John Hinkley Jnr shot U.S President Ronald Reagan in March 1981 in a bid to impress actress Jodie Foster, whose character in the movie Taxi Driver he was fixated on. It turns out Hinckley was also a devoted fan of Salinger's novel.

The Catcher in the Rye is, of course, the definitive 'rights of passage' novel. You really cannot avoid it during your teens: it will either be forced on you in school or you find it yourself and read it over and over as you rant and rave against your parents, your teachers and all the phonies out there in the world. It's just fascinating the impact that this book has had on the public imagination. It really has something for everyone who feels like they are any way different or don't fit in in a given environment.

The notoriously weird Salinger insisted that the novel never have a fancy cover - he prefers all his works to have a blank white cover bearing just the title, indicating that these novels are really just canvases with a little paint on them that you mould into a design that reflects your own experiences, fears, desires. Who said that television and movies are the cause of violence and copycat killings in today's world?

Eire on Jerry Springer

[What follows is an extract from the transcript of a once-off, unbroadcast edition of the Jerry Springer Show]

Cue Music: Title reads "Capitalism cheated on me...now I'm pissed!"

Jerry: Hello and welcome to the show. Today, we're going to be talking to people who have discovered that their lovers are cheating on them [audience goes 'woooo']. When they confronted their paramours about it, they were told 'I found someone better' [audience wooos again].

Please welcome Eire. She says that her beloved, Captalism, has announced that he wants an open relationship and that he has found a lover that makes him happier [audience noise].

Hi Eire.

Eire: Hi Jerry.

Jerry: Eire, we've had Capitalism on this show many times so we're familiar with your problem but tell me about your relationship with him.

Eire: Well Jerry, it's like this. I've been involved with Capitalism for years. I had longed for him for ages beforehand and I bent over backwards and made enormous sacrifices to attract him. I eventually hooked him after an enormous struggle and it was great. We had a couple of wonderful years together. He wined and dined me, promised me the moon and the stars. He spoiled me rotten, I wanted for nothing, he seduced me with flash gifts - he swept me off my feet basically.

[Eire's voice trembles, she swallows a tear]

I'm sorry.

Eire: It's ok Eire, in your own time.

Eire: Suddenly things changed. He was distant. He said that I was making too many demands on him, that I was too expensive for him. It's his fault for keeping me in the style that I became accustomed to. That's when I discovered...his other lovers.

[audience inhales, some laughter].

Jerry: Go on, Eire.

Eire: I knew that he was shopping around for people, I know him better than he thinks. Afterall, I know I lured him away from other people to begin with. He's a heartless BLEEP really. Suddenly, he was all "Well, this person makes it easier for me to grow as a person" and "That person doesn't want to hold me down like you do". I was so angry and hurt. I badmouthed him to all my friends, but he doesn't care. He just tells me: "There's plenty more where you come from".

[audience woos]

Jerry: Well, we have Capitalism waiting back stage [audience chatter excitedly]. Eire, are you ready to confront him?

Eire: I sure am. Bring it on! [audience hollers]

Jerry: Come on out Capitalism.

[audience erupts in cheers, boos]

Capitalism: [shouting above the noise] Listen honey, I never promised you nothing, alright? You want me to be honest? I was using you, ok? You were available, you gave me what I needed. Yeah, we had some great times, but I need to move on. It's not in my nature to settle for one person, I want to have as many as I can [audience boos, some cheers]. You knew that when you got involved with me so don't start moaning now!

Eire: Why you son of a BLEEP! [Leaps up from chair and lunges at Capitalism]. I'm gonna BLEEP-ing kill you, you rotten BLEEP-er, how could you betray me like that?!

[Steve the bouncer rushes on stage and restrains Eire]

Capitalism: Whatever honey, talk to the hand cos the face aint listenin.

Eire: You BLEEP! [shakes off Steve, rushes at Cap.]

[Capitalism places his hand on Eire's face and keeps her at arms length laughing].

Eire: What have they got that I don't huh?!

[Capitalism laughs and sways his pelvis in a sexual matter]

Eire: YOU BLEEP!

[Steve has to carry Eire off stage, she cannot be restrained. Capitalism stays on stage, unfazed, laughing]

Jerry: Capitalism, have you anything to say for yourself...again?

Capitalism: Jerry, I aint ever gonna change so I'm warning y'all out there watching today: you might all want my good, good lovin but I will always be looking for someone better.

[audience hollers, boos, cheers. The din is overwhelming]

Jerry: Well, it looks like I'm going to have to wrap this up. Capitalism...well, what can I say? You never change so I guess I'll see you here again. Eire, I hope you can find some peace with the reality of Capitalism and maybe accept that your golden days with him are over.

[Jerry's Final Thought]

We've had to re-learn a painful lesson here today. Capitalism is a self-confessed, serial adulterer. He won't settle for just one person: he's always looking out for that next find, the one that's cheaper, hotter, has more to offer in a number of ways. As Eire has realised tonight and many more before her, you can't completely submit yourself to Capitalism's charms and demands and then cry foul when he finds someone else willing to go one better than you. It's what he thrives on.

By staying in a relationship with the adultrous Capitalism, you are putting a great deal of your future, your wealth and your health at risk. It's the thrill of this risk that keep us coming back. He's proven time and again that he is the only one that can really give people what they need. But he is ruthless, selfish, greedy and opportunistic and Eire will have to accept that she can't Ferrie well benefit enormously from Capitalism's flattery and expect to have it stay that way forever. The more attention he gives us, the more we demand and that's normally when he begins to look for the competition.

I'll see you again next time but until then, take care of yourselves...and each other.

[fade to music]

I wanna thank my mom,my dog, Jesus: Part 3

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman...

Best Actress:

2005 will surely be remembered as one of the worst years in living memory for actresses in Hollywood. There is a frightening dearth of decent roles this year, the weakest in over a decade.

Even in recent years, where there was some competition, the eventual winners were all beautiful actresses who had to 'dress down' or 'go ugly' in order to win. Hilary Swank won her first Best Actress Oscar for playing a transexual in Boys Don't Cry (1999) ; Halle Berry scrubbed down for her role in Monsters' Ball (2001) ; Nicole Kidman famously donned a prosthetic nose to play Virginia Woolf in The Hours (2002) and Charlize Theron underwent a remarkable transformation for her Oscar winning portrayal of serial killer Aileen Wuornos in Monster (2003).

The miserable selection of performances that could be considered legitimately award worthy means that just about any female performance could sneak in this year.

Rom-com queen Reese Witherspoon is the early favourite for her role as long suffering June Carter Cash in Walk the Line, a performance that has comprehensively silenced the critics who said Witherspoon couldn't do drama. The awards recently have all gone to young actresses so she could well be crowned this year.

Former winners Charlize Theron and Gwyneth Paltrow are potential nominees for movies that have not exactly overwhelmed critics - Theron as a striking miner in North Country and Paltrow for the adaptation of stage-play Proof. Similarly Desperate Housewife Felicity Huffman has received good reviews for playing a transexual in Transamerica, a road movie that has divided critics. Huffman has the gargantuan Miramax publicity machine behind her plus an Emmy winning role in a high profile TV show so she stands a good chance.

Another youngun, Claire Danes, has gotten raves for her role opposite Steve Martin in Shopgirl as has past nominee Joan Allen for The Upside of Anger. The Brits will be angling for nominations for The Jaw aka Keira Knightley for Pride and Prejudice (which has gone done a storm on both sides of the Atlantic) and for perennial nominee/winner Dame Judi Dench for the so-so Mrs Henderson Presents. In light of the anaemic competition, the studio might well bump Rachel Weisz up to lead status for her superb performance in The Constant Gardener. Naomi Watts is suddenly a contender for the scream queen role in King Kong - yes, that's the kind of year it's been for actresses.


Best Supporting Actress:

The Supporting category is a bit more hopeful than the Lead one. Weisz would be a strong contender here but if she's competing as a Lead, the field is left wide open. Old-timers Shirley MacLaine and Diane Keaton have the kind of scenery-chewing roles in their respective movies In Her Shoes and The Family Stone that walk off with Supporting awards. Past winner Frances McDormand could get in for North Country as could the brilliant Laura Linney for The Squid and the Whale.

The indie favourites should feature strongly here too. Amy Adams is building support for her role in Junebug and Hope Davis could sneak in for Proof. Catherine Keener stands a great chance for playing 'To Kill a Mockingbird' author Harper Lee in Capote. Dawson's Creek alum Michelle Williams has received remarkable reviews for her turn in Brokeback Mountain and Sandra Bullock could break through into Hollywood respectabilty by way of her against- type performance in Crash.

I wanna thank my mom, my dog, Jesus...: Part 2

Let's hear it for the boys...

Best Actor:

Last year, four out of the five Best Actor nominees were actors playing real-life people. This year, biopics look set to dominate again. Top of this pile are Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, Philip Seymour Hoffman as gay writer Truman Capote in Capote, David Strathairn as Edward R. Murrow in Good Night and Good Luck and the surliest man in town, Russell Crowe as boxer Jim Braddock in Cinderella Man.

Phoenix is the early favourite but he will have to see off increasing buzz from Aussie actor Heath Ledger who is receiving rave reviews for his portrayal of a repressed gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. Repressed emotions is what Ralph Fiennes does particularly well in The Constant Gardener and gathering momentum for Munich might make Eric Bana a contender too.

There is always room for the indie favourites in acting categories these days and there are more than enough actors competing for limited space here. Irish eyes will be looking on Cillian Murphy for his extraordinary performace in Breakfast on Pluto, although an anticipated mixed reaction to the movie could set him back. Viggo Mortenson does good work in A History Of Violence and who couldn't love recidivist Robert Downey Jnr in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang?

Jeff Daniels is getting the best reviews of his career for divorce drama The Squid and the Whale whilst Cannes winner Tommy Lee Jones enters the race with his self-directed movie The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, which should get an Oscar for Worst and Most Unmarketable title of the year. Can't rule out George Clooney for Syriana, Terence Howard for Hustle and Flow, Jake Gyllenhall for Gulf War drama Jarhead and Bill Murray for another deadpan, hangdog performance in Broken Flowers.

Best Supporting Actor:

The supporting categories often allow the Academy to be more adventurous so they are always worth watching out for. Having said that, they can also be used as a Lifetime Achievement prize or as an evenue to correct a grave wrong from previous ceremonies. Last years' Oscar snubee Paul Giamatti could well be rewarded this year for his turn in Cinderella Man.

Donald Sutherland might bag his first - yes, his first - Oscar nomination for his role as the Bennett patriarch in Pride and Prejudice. Semi-old timer Craig T. Nelson might also make his Oscar debut for his effective performance in The Family Stone. Young guns are also gearing up for the race. Jake Gyllenhall is almost a lock to be nominated for Brokeback Mountain. His Jarhead co-star Peter Saarsgard - arguably Hollywood's most interesting and talented actor - might feature here too. Ensemble drama Crash offers a raft of potential nominees - Terence Howard, Don Cheadle and, best of all, Matt Dillon in a career best performance.

Munich also features former winner Geoffrey Rush (Best Actor, Shine, 1996) and new Bond Daniel Craig. Frank Langella is a strong contender for Good Night and Good Luck, as is Chris Cooper in Capote, Steve Martin for Shopgirl and Kevin Costner in The Upside of Anger. Val Kilmer - yes, him - should be taken seriously for some great work in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.

Implicit homophobia

Quentin Fottrell wrote a superb article in last weekend's Sunday Tribune about homophobia in Irish life, implicitely reinforced by the Catholic Church's medieval thinking on the topic. You can read it here.

Penguins on the March

The so-called cultural wars really came to the fore in last year’s Presidential race in the United States. The enormous controversy caused by two movies demonstrated just how polarised the nation had become. Conservatives embraced Mel Gibson’s epic ‘The Passion of the Christ’ whilst liberals championed Michael Moore’s devastating Bush-basher ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’.

This summer, the Conservative side claimed a new cinematic ally in their fight against the pinko enemy. ‘March of the Penguins’ provided a sufficiently blank canvas for people to project whatever qualities onto it that they wished. To fundamentalist Christians, such as the “Concerned Women for America”, this movie argued against evolution, abortion and homosexuality and strongly endorsed monogamy, child-rearing and ‘intelligent design’.

'March of the Penguins', which is released here on December 9th, should not be hijacked by politics because it is a beautiful, funny, fascinating and moving film. If I give you a plot summary, you'll just look at me funny: it's about the mating rituals of Emperor penguins in the South Pole. See? I knew you'd raise your eyebrows! But please take my word for it. These penguins will have to compete for cinematic space with Narnia and King Kong but please don't miss this movie that will instil the kind of wonder in all hearts and minds that no CGI-laden special effects extravaganza can match.

I wanna thank my mom, my dog, Jesus...: Part 1

It's getting to that time of the movie year again when CGI-laden blockbusters and event movies, not to mention movies that end in a number, all fizzle out and the Hollywood studios reveal their prestige pictures that they hope will bag them some of the plethora of awards that carry so much currency (literally and metaphorically) in Tinseltown today.

Nominations for the Golden Globe awards - which are bafflingly influential on Oscar voters - are announced on December 19th and from there, it will be a non-stop gong-fest until the mother of all tear-stained, over-earnest, self-congratulatory Bacchanalia arrrives: Oscar night on March 5th next year.

Upon hearing that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had been formed to hand out Oscar awards in 1927, one famous studio exec allegedly said: 'What art? What science?'The Oscars are constantly being disparaged by critics, industry insiders and even actors - Marlon Brando and George C. Scott being their most famous critics. Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and Sean Penn all later denounced the awards but quickly changed their tune when they actually won an award. Everyone in Hollywood wants to win an Oscar and anyone who says otherwise is a total liar. The industry is obsessed with the awards and every studio times their releases every year to cash in on award fever.

So here are a few of the movies in contention as well as the actors and directors hoping for a chance to hide their grimaces and desperation behind a fake smile in one of the five camera shots as some extravagantly paid, overly gift-basketed presenter says 'And the Oscar goes to...

This posting will look at the movies competing for the big cheese - Best picture of the year. The acting categories will follow later!

Best Picture:
This year, movies that tackle topical and political issues are at the top of all critics lists for awards. Many are commenting on how this year is to be the Year of the Gay in Hollywood - gay characters, that is, not gay actors. Heaven forbid! Besides, there are no gay actors in Hollywood anyway, right? (There are just superstars who pay young actresses to be in relationships with them, convert them to Scientology and have babies in a manner that makes the movie Rosemary's Baby look positively normal).

The traditional route to winning an Oscar in the past - as parodied so well by Kate Winslet in Ricky Gervais' Extras - is to play a character with a disabilty or mental illness. This year, Hollywood is treating homosexuality as the new disabilty - it gives actors meaty (!) roles to sink their teeth into, especially considering that movies tend to treat homosexuality as being an enormous trauma. This disturbing trend nevertheless gives actors the chance to emote, convey desires and emotions with their eyes and body language - and all that other claptrap that Lee Strasberg graduates will spout on about in interviews (as well as constantly reminding us of their real-life heterosexuality lest there be any doubt).

Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee's adaptation of Annie Proulx's novella about a doomed love affair between two Wyoming ranchhands - Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall - is really the one to watch for this year. Observing the reaction to a movie that debunks myths about cowboys and traditional masculinity in a country where some states have adopted constitutional bans on gay marriage will be fascinating to behold.

Promising to be even more controversial is Steven Spielberg's latest Munich, which he finished in rapid time in order for it to be eligible for this year's awards. The action of the movie takes place in the aftermath of the 1972 Olympics where 11 Israeli athletes were killed by members of the Palestinian terrorist group, Black September. The film focuses on the Mossad agents sent by the Israeli government to hunt down the killers. A Jewish director entering the wasps nest that is the Arab-Israeli conflict is sure to provoke enormous debate over the next few months. Time Magazine has already devoted its latest cover to the movie.

2005 is also looking up to be the year of George Clooney. Stephen Gaghan, the Oscar winning screenwriter of Traffic (2000), is the writer-director of Syriana, a political thriller based upon the explosive contemporary topic of oil control in the Persian Gulf. Clooney himself serves as director, co-writer and star of Good Night and Good Luck, a highly praised account of legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow's battle against the Senator Joe McCarthy's House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s. Like most historical films, Good Night registers many present-day anxieties and comparisons between McCarthyism and the censorious climate of George W. Bush's America have already been fiercely debated Stateside. One look at the film's various taglines indicate where Clooney's political sympathies lie: 'In A Nation Terrorized By Its Own Government, One Man Dared to Tell The Truth' and 'We will not walk in fear of one another'.

Clooney stands a chance of being nominated as an actor in Syriana and Good Night as well as director and screenwriter of the latter. Not bad for the man who starred in the abominable Batman and Robin!

Rob Marshall, who directed Chicago to Oscar glory three years ago, is in contention this year for an adaptation of Arthur Holden's Memoirs of a Geisha. The movie is building considerable attention, particularly for it's stars Ziyi Zhang and Gong Li. Whether they can penetrate the astonishing racism of the Academy remains to be seen.

Biopics are strongly represented again this year. Walk the Line tells the story of the late, great Johnny Cash and his wife June Carter Cash, played by Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, who both perform their own singing, and, by all account, deliver superb performances on top of it. Philip Seymour Hoffman, an actor better known to most viewers as 'What was he in again?' headlines the biopic of flamboyant journalist Truman Capote in Capote. Incredible reviews are pushing Hoffman to the fore for the acting prizes which was enough to earn Ray a Best Picture nod last year largely on the strenth of Jamie Foxx's performance.

Other contenders include the superb and avowedly political The Constant Gardener, directed by City of God helmer Fernando Meirelles and featuring strong lead performances from Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. The early releases for Ron Howard's Cinderella Man and Paul Haggis' melting-pot drama Crash might see them struggling to stand out in voter's memories during the end of year rush. David Cronenberg's ambiguous and thought-provoking A History of Violence must be in the running and, just this week, surprisingly excellent reviews are arriving in for the movie that might well challenge Titanic to be the biggest in the history of cinema: Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. Can the big hairy ape - Kong, not Peter Jackson - make it onto the Best Picture roster?

It's possible that Kong will snag the place on the list that is often set aside for the 'serious comedy' or the more light-hearted contender. Musicals are given far more weight these days and fantasy films cannot be ruled out in the wake of Lord of the Rings' Oscar haul of 11 trophies 2 years ago. For that reason, The Chronicles of Narnia, Mrs Henderson Presents and Pride and Prejudice might be legitimate runners. Mixed reviews for the movie adaptation of stage musical Rent will hurt its chances and, having seen the movie adaptation of the musical The Producers , I can say that it is unfathomably dreadful and if it gets a single Oscar nomination, I am boycotting the awards. But then again, the whole point of that movie is that there is no accounting for taste and that is certainly a guiding maxim of the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences (Hello? Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind and Chicago are all recent winners here!)

Civil Disunion

Christmas 2005 is going to be extra festive, extra gay if you will, for a good deal of people across the United Kingdom. In three weeks time, the Civil Partnerships Bill will come into effect in the UK which means same-sex couples will be able to enter into civil unions.

This Bill will allow for access to spousal-like benefits such as pensions, next-of-kin status and an exemption on paying inheritance tax. The same alimony and child support responsibilities in the event of separation will also be a feature of the Bill. The union will not be a 'marriage' per se - but will assume many of the rights attributable to the institution.

The news has been largely hailed as a positive move by gay rights groups. Two of the UK's most prominent gay publications - Gay Times and Attitude - have both devoted their December editions to the topic, covering everything from gay honeymoon packages to gay wedding planners! Ireland's Gay Community News (GCN) devoted its cover to Gráinne Close and Shannon Sickels, who will be married in Belfast when the law comes into effect.
Elton John and his partner David Furnish will be among the first to sign the register on December 21st - reportedly in the same place as Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles did in April of this year!

It is a huge step forward and the endlessly beleaguered Blair government should be commended for getting the Bill through parliament.

A civil arrangement is what many gay activists are seeking in this country. It's a long way off by the sounds of things.

Minister for Justice Michael McDowell was the controversial choice to launch this years' Look Out! Dublin Lesbian and Gay Film Festival at which he spoke at length on the government's commitment to introducing legislation for "co-habiting couples...some of which will resemble some of the incidents of marriage in law but in other respects differ substantially from marriage".

This years' festival was an expressly political one: its stated theme was 'Family Values' amd it choose screenings that portrayed the family - both real and imagined ones - in all their complexity.

In his speech at the festival, McDowell stated and I quote him at length here:


"I note that many of this year's films focus on the theme of family values and I know that the issue of legal recognition of same sex partnerships is of immediate concern to you. I have previously acknowledged, on behalf of the Government, during the debate on Senator David Norris' Civil Partnership Bill that the position of same sex couples before the law, and others in caring relationships, including extending State recognition to civil partnerships between such persons, needs to be addressed. There are a number of factors which will inform future decisions on this issue. Those factors include the Report of the Law Reform Commission on Rights and Duties of Cohabitants, the Report of the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution of its examination of the Articles relating to the family and the outcome of current litigation regarding the recognition of a foreign same-sex marriage".

It is believed that the forthcoming Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution will not be advocating that the definition of 'the family' be sufficiently widened so as to allow for civil unions in the Republic. So that's that option out. Where does that leave us? Nowhere?

The areas covered by the British legislation - which McDowell deemed extraordinarily complex but yet seemed to get through pretty quickly - will need "careful study and realistic, sustainable responses" in the Irish context.

I'd like to draw your attention to one recent event that serves as an interesting frame for the whole question of civil arrangements in Ireland.

It's coming up to the first anniversary of the civil ceremony of Bernadette Coleman and Patrick Dunne. Who are they, you ask? Patrick and Bernadette were the winners of Dublin 98FM’s ‘Two Strangers and a Wedding’ competition. Bernadette and Patrick met at the altar for the first time on December 3rd of last year. Two complete strangers married as a result of a cash offering by the radio station and enjoyed a lavish ceremony at Clontarf Castle costing €63,000. This was a turn of events that should turn the stomach of every gay and lesbian person in Ireland.

It should also have rankled the forces who are out to protect marriage from the apparent degradation that same sex couples are seeking to bring to the revered institution (no offence guys, but I think heterosexuals are doing a pretty good job of undermining marriage themselves).

All of those commentators who oppose gay marriage – from pressure groups, the media and the political establishment – should have been up in arms over this blatant disregard for and cheapening of the institution.

A gay couple that have been in a meaningful, loving, deep-rooted relationship, perhaps for years or even decades, will have to drag their private life through the courts, at their own expense, in order to receive the legal and formal entitlements that were so frivolously granted to two complete strangers, who married, essentially, on the basis of a blind date.

Without even knowing each others' favourite colour or their middle names, this couple can completely exploit a legal avenue that a loving gay couple, such as Drs. Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan have to fight in the courts over to achieve recognition of their Canadian same sex marriage by the Irish State and the Irish Revenue Commissioners.

Most gay men and women in Ireland realistically acknowledge that full-blown gay marriage is a battle that just cannot be won, not at this point anyway. Judging by the mute reaction to 98FM’s prize, law-makers and the Irish public should have no problem with allowing gay people to formalise their relationships with a civil ceremony.

Afterall, if two total strangers can just avail of the option, with no regard for the subsequent taxation and legal consequences, and all to zero public outrage or consternation, what’s the hold-up with granting that right to a committed gay couple?

Ah but there’s the rub. What this points to, perhaps, is the homophobia that is still subterraneous in our ‘post-gay’, pseudo-liberal society. (Before I continue: I'm not saying that the partnership between Bernadette and Patrick will fail, nor do I hope it does. If two people can find love, then good luck to them. If you by chance know them, let us know how they're doing!).

But everyone must realise how offensive it is to the gay community to see the one thing that they are striving to achieve being so taken for granted by a couple, all in the name of ratings, publicity and cheap sensationalism. The fact that this case did not provoke any indignant responses in defence of civil institutions shows that, deep down, people don’t really consider the ramifications for the tax and legal systems, not to mention the family and the institution of marriage itself, when a heterosexual couple (and do they even deserve that title considering that they didn’t even know each other beforehand?) avail of a civil union.

It’s when you substitute ‘straight’ for ‘gay’ in that equation that the some people shake themselves into public remonstration. If those who have appointed themselves as the ones to protect the basic tenets of society from exploitation are to do their job, then perhaps they should widen their gaze to include heterosexuals too. Otherwise, depriving civil union rights to gay people is nothing more than homophobia, pure and simple.

May I wish all those availing of the new law in the UK all the luck in the world for the future. If you're really smart, you'll synchronise your registering at the same time as Elton. You might even get a song out of him. As for achieving similar rights in Ireland, it sounds like we'll have to sing for that too.

Vatican's Rainbow

By the end of December, the Civil Partnerships Bill will have come into effect in the UK, allowing gay men and women to register their relationships as civil unions and acquire many of the technical tax and inheritance rights associated with marriage.

Just as some progress is being made in the international arena of gay rights, who better to come in and shit all over it than the Catholic Church? This week, the Vati-cant released a document, signed by Pope BeneDictator on August 31, that will bar "those who practice homosexuality", "candidates who have profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" and those who "support the so-called gay culture" from becoming seminarians.

But it's not all bad. If your homosexuality is "simply the expression of a transitory problem...such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate". How the Church plan on proving that the "tendency" has been overcome wasn't mentioned.

The document is full of the same old hoary chestnuts that the Church bullshits on about when denouncing gay people. Again, they emphasise in the document that the Catechism of the Catholic Church "differentiates between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies". The "acts" are "grave sins" that are "intrinsically immoral", "contrary to natural law" and their practitioners "objectively disordered". But before you get upset, the document says that it teaches these views "while profoundly respecting the persons in question" at the same time. Ah, that's good to know. I'm not offended anymore!

There really is not a lot to be surprised about from this bizarre document. Gay people are well used to being demonised by the Church at this stage. What makes this document monumentally offensive is that it is being released in the context of the Church's move to atone for it's cataclysmic failure to halt - not just prevent but halt - the widespread rape and sexual, mental and physical abuse of young children by priests.

It's quite astonishing that the Vatican has released this document but we have not heard a peep from Papa Razzi or his cronies in the higher echelons of the Vatican regarding the devastating Ferns Report or similar audits that have come to attention in recent times. Apparently, the powers that be are too preoccupied with instigating their gay witch-hunt than exposing paedophiles and bringing them to justice.

But gay people and paedophiles are two sides of the same coin in the Vatican's eyes. Of course the document doesn't explicitly state this but they need a convenient scapegoat for the paedophilia crisis. So they focus on the fact that a lot of young boys were the victims of paedophiles to justify excluding gay men from the Church.

It's a clever tactic from their perspective. Why, gay men are nothing more than evil, leering child molesters anyway, right? You can't trust them around children, you must actively discriminate against them when it comes to hiring people in the caring professions such as teaching. And don't even think about giving them children to adopt or foster.

Their line of thinking is so hurtful, hateful, discriminatory and depraved that I wish there was a way that I could officially, legally and publicly renounce my Catholicism and put in place legal mechanisms that would make it a crime for my family to have a Church funeral for me when I die (How any gay man or woman would desire an official send-off from an institution that hates them so much and thinks so little of them is beyond me).

Yes, young boys were, tragically, targets of paedophiles. So were young girls yet heterosexual men are not the subject of any exclusion order from the Church. Male priests that raped young boys were psychopaths, not homosexuals. They held an affliction of the mind and soul that is so dark, so evil that none of us want to even think about it. They are not homosexuals - they are paedophiles.

Of course it's possible that there are paedophiles that are gay too. But a regular gay priest is not going to rape a child. They would be horrified at the very thought of it. Because a healthy adult gay man is not going to be attracted to a child any more than a healthy straight man would be to a young girl.

The people who rape defenseless boys and girls are paedophiles. It is a separate thing from being gay or straight. Regardless of this bifurcated orientation model, a paedophile, when he acts on his or her desires, becomes something else entirely. They are no longer just gay or straight: they are a paedophile and should be removed from children's society as quickly as humanly possible.

I ask all you straight men out there: how would you feel if you were not only grouped with collared paedophiles but were being officially arrogated the blame for all the evil depravity associated with that scandal? How did it come to a situation where gay men are seen to be the root of the Church's paedophilia crisis?

This situation vaguely resembles the foremost political event of our generation. Saudi-born Osama bin Laden organised the terrorist attacks on the US in 2001. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. So George W. Bush invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein in retaliation for bin Laden's offence. It helps to have a convenient scapegoat that has already been singled out as a hate figure, a threat, a danger.

Please, please, please don't misunderstand me. I am not comparing gay people to the monstrous Saddam - that is not the purpose of the analogy. I use that example to demonstrate how messed-up and dangerous the Church's thinking on gay people is. The majority of paedophiles were - are - known to the Holy Father and the higher echelons of the Church. They were aware of the problem - well aware as a read of the Ferns Report will solemnly attest to. If they have incontrovertible proof that all these paedophiles were confessed homosexuals, I promise to rethink my opinions. But I doubt hugely that they do.

Because the Church's way of dealing with paedophiles wasn't to isolate them and remove them but to just move these paedophiles around, convinced that the crimes were a once off (ignoring also that once is one time too many). As soon as the scandal - and the extent of it - became apparent, Il Papa had to act to rebuild some part of the deservedly shattered institution that is the Catholic Church.

It can't openly admit its epic complicity in concealing the crimes of these paedophiles because to do so, I believe, would destroy many more reputations than it has already. Who knows how far up the criminal conspiracy of silence - which this is - goes? Who exactly knew what and when? Who else is a paedophile that we don't know about?

But these answers are a long way from being answered. Gay men are the culprits in the eyes of the Church. I hope that there will never be a paedophilia scandal of this sort in the Church again - I doubt there will be anyway. People are too aware - so aware that they are keeping their children away from spending any alone time with men of the cloth anymore. And who can blame them? If I had children, I wouldn't leave them with anyone anymore.

This will give the Pope and his men the opportunity to point out in a few years that their policy of barring gay people from joining the priesthood was justified, a success even. But any dimunition in paedophilia crimes in the Church will be down to brave victims past and present who have come forth to tell the world what the Catholic Church has done to them. It certainly won't be due to any move by the Vatican to root out paedophiles and destroy the rot forever.

These victims' courage will result in mainly retroactive convictions and indictments of paedophiles. The Church's cowardice and malicious scapegoating will result in more disenfranchisement for gay people, more discrimination, more fuel to add to the flame of homophobia that has been so worryingly resurgent all over the world in recent years.

In his novel Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon wrote a great line that demonstrates the thinking that underlies this latest Vatican inquisition: if they get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

'Desperate' Times

The complete first season of Desperate Housewives is now out on DVD and is sure to be found under more than one Christmas tree this year. After a phenomenally successful first year, the inevitable backlash seems to have started in the US, as the second series continues to underwhelm critics and audiences.

Whilst the show’s creative merits are now under scrutiny, this first series played an interesting role in the culture wars that surfaced during last year’s presidential election. When this show launched in September 2004, America was in the midst of a nasty, bitterly-contested presidential election. ‘Family values’ and moral virtue dominated the “debate” about who was fit to lead the nation – Bush or Kerry.

No doubt looking to ride on someone else’s success, Laura Bush professed herself an avid fan of the show. The First Lady is without a doubt the most popular person in the Bush White House but her critics couldn’t help but smile at the irony of Laura counting herself amongst the show’s fans. To them, she resembles Marcia Cross' character Bree Van der Kamp: the ultimate Stepford Wife, all smiling and perfectly coiffed, with no agenda or ambitions beyond raising her family, gazing adoringly at her husband and defending the Bush policies, no matter how catastrophic and ill-planned they are. Indeed, her recent astronomical approval ratings across the whole political spectrum speaks volumes about what some Americans believe is the appropriate and desirable role for women, mothers and wives in America today.

Desperate Housewives’ dark, irreverent and caustic look at the ultimate suburban manifestation of the American Dream is remarkable considering the cultural climate in which it was being produced. Ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US has swung more and more to the right, as evidenced by the decisive endorsement of George W. Bush in last years’ election. The political and social vision espoused by the Christian fundamentalists that have such a powerful voice in the Bush White House appeals to vast numbers of people in a traumatised nation, that was attacked so viciously for reasons that few understand and has since been existing in a world where fear and uncertainty pervade all aspects of life.

This fear and uncertainty has found expression – some would say opportunistic exploitation – in the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence and in the passing of new laws and regulations that curtail more and more freedoms. In such a climate, where all the comfortable certainties of the post-Cold War Clinton Era are suddenly gone, increasing numbers of Americans have consciously returned to the basic fundamentals that they feel they can control: namely family, morals and their religion. Whilst nearly everyone on both sides of the political and cultural divide have recognised and embraced the importance of family and the return to their faith, some have been more enthusiastic and fervent than others – and it so happens that these are the ones that have the conducive ear of the President and the powers that be.

Many believe that the liberalism of the 1990s has incurred the wrath of God and that America is being punished for the Clintonian support of gay rights, a woman’s right to choose and increased secularism in all aspects of American life. The sex scandals that plagued the Clinton Presidency, whilst largely dismissed as partisan attacks and jokes in Europe, were and are viewed with extreme distaste in the States. Many Americans are happy in the knowledge that such a thing would never happen in the Bush White House – although the Iraq war and the CIA leak scandal (amongst other dishonours) has shown us that far more serious cheating and deception is taking place there.

Be that as it may, a puritanical streak has entered the cultural life of the US and has installed an unofficial set of moral guidelines for what is acceptable viewing in this new, ‘cleaned-up’ America. Janet Jackson’s infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction’ at the 2004 Superbowl had the country up in arms and incurred record fines for the networks. Suddenly all networks were cleansing their shows and broadcasts of all swearing and gratuitous nudity and violence, even when it’s an integral part of the show’s story, like in hospital drama ER. Even Steven Spielberg’s WWII epic Saving Private Ryan had to have vast portions of its violence edited out in order to be screened on NBC – surely the most extreme move yet in the censorious climate of Bush’s America. (Censoring bloody scenes of war on US screens? Not in Bushworld, surely?!)

The show is a fantastic example of the contradictory attitudes towards sex that is an essential component of American society. Sex has always been treated as a double standard in the US: it’s used to sell everything but there will be hell to pay if it’s mentioned or displayed on screens. This is a country where the modern precedent for a Presidential high crime and misdemeanour is lying about a blowjob – but not lying about the reasons for sending US troops into battle!

That attitude was in evidence in one advert used by the shows’ makers. A cheeky (!) promo for Desperate Housewives, that also served as a crossover ad for Monday Night Football, featured the outrageous Edie walking into the changing room of a football team and disrobing in front of an African-American player.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) immediately initiated an investigation into the ad and slapped Housewives’ network ABC on the knuckles. ‘Family-oriented’ companies such as Kellogs, Tyson Foods and Lowes pulled their advertising contracts from ABC (a subsidiary of Disney), after intense lobbying from the American Family Association, a self-proclaimed “traditional values” group.

But, proving that there really is no such thing as bad publicity, advertisers have been spurting Hydra-like as soon as others have pulled out. What’s more, a 30 second ad for the show now costs $300, 000 - more than double the original price than when the ad slots were originally sold in May 2004. On top of that, the show continued to draw in weekly audiences averaging at 25 million. Over 30 million Americans watched the last episode of the series – which is nearly the same amount of viewers who tuned into the last ever episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond had been on for nine years and had built up huge critical and popular support. It’s remarkable for any show to trump an established series like that in its first season. (Ray got the last laugh though by beating the Housewives to the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series in September).

In addition to its cultural impact, the show also threw a lifeline to struggling TV execs. ABC was the big TV winner of last year, possibly even of the new century so far, having launched Housewives and Lost to huge global success. With the demise of television behemoths like Friends, Sex and the City and Frasier, and with an all too pervasive network trend towards legal/police dramas and mind-numbing reality TV shows, it was feared that no new series could attract massive audiences and capture the imagination of viewers at the same time. These two shows tapped into the formula that keeps modern viewers hooked: mysteries, gimmicks, cliff-hangers, sex, sensationalism, the creation of a sense of an event, the ‘must-see’/’water-cooler’ factor.

So before the second series arrives on these shores along with the backlash, keep in mind the role this show played in cultural debate in the US, if only for a little while. Any show that subverts or slyly attacks the notion of the American family deserves credit for getting away with that. The alternative is the so-unbelievably-hilariously-nauseatingly-awful-that-it-must-surely-be-a-joke Seventh Heaven so thank your lucky stars!

The Irish Language: The Future, if any?

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny incurred the wrath of Gaelgeoirs across the land at the recent party Ard Fheis by calling for compulsory Irish to be taken off the school curriculum in Ireland. Needless to say that his iconoclastic assault on one of the few remaining shibboleths of Ireland's founding republican ideals was shot down before any debate was had on the matter. Abolish Irish? 'An bhfuil se as a mheabhair?'

First of all, 'ideal' is exactly what the restoration of the Irish language ever was and ever will be in Ireland. After Independence, it was believed that Irish could be effectively institutionalised as the mother tongue of the nation. That would show the Empire, right? What better way to distance ourselves from and punish the oppressor than relegate their language to second class status?

Yeah, the thing is, it didn't really work out that way. DeValera gave constitutional status to Irish as the first language of the state in 1937 and it became an essential component for success in schools, universities and the civil service.

'Grá gan chuiteamh' is an Irish term for 'unrequited love'. If ever there was an unrequited love affair, it was between Irish people and the Irish language. It might have loved us but, boy, was that love one-sided.

There's no need to get into the age-old stories of the language "being beaten into" our parents' generation, although that point should be remembered in the context of the present debate (or lack therof).

The fact of the matter is that our official Irish language policy has been an utter failure. Retaining Irish as a mandatory subject in the school curriculum is doing untold damage to the confidence and success of school students. We're not learning it to speak it on a daily basis nor to gain access to the vast majority of jobs in the country.

So why are we still forced to study it in school? Because our forefathers lost their lives so we could speak it. Because we will lose an essential component of our cultural identity.

Our forefathers also gave up their lives so that we could vote to elect our own leaders - yet there are no accusations of historical betrayal when there are appalling voter turnouts in successive Irish elections and referenda.

As for losing an essential component of our cultural identity: I hate to be the one to inform you but we lost that about 150 years ago when the practicalities and realities of life as a part of the British Empire put paid to any future for the Irish language. English was the language of the future - parents encouraged their children to learn it as it was the only hope of securing employment in Britain and its colonies. The importance placed on the role of English in our country not only hindered our abilty to adopt the Irish language- it arguably set the tone for Irish people's generally abysmal aptitude for any foreign language. English was always seen to be the only language that mattered to a nation so chronically dependent on our neighbours directly to our West and East.

Irish was beaten out of people then and beaten back into them after Independence. Government policy failed time and again to find the way to allow the language to grow naturally so that it wouldn't feel imposed. Hence the neverending tales of how people suffered at the hands of this language. No wonder it's seen to be such a drag.

The reality is that more people in Ireland today are unified by the fact that they don't speak the language rather than do. It's a source of dread for so many students in this country. Undoubtedly the way the langauge is taught in school has had an enormous effect on attitudes towards, and success at, attaining the liofa.

Speaking from my own experience, I can say, quite confidently and without reservation, that I had the worst Irish teacher ever seen in an Irish educational establishment. This man, lovely though he was, was drafted into my school to manage the senior hurling team, which is a dubious enough reason for hiring teachers. But then this joke was given the honours leaving cert class to wreak havoc on. Only separate, paid grinds got me through. My grind teacher was inspiring, a native speaker: but the likes of him are few and far between. In fact, I ended up loving the language and even did it in first year in college. But, yet again, atrocious, boring, uninspired teaching soon put an end to any grá I had for the Gaeilge.

The vast majority of Irish teachers in Ireland themselves had terrible teachers - it's a vicious circle of dire teaching and learning methods that has sounded the death knell for a language that was as imposed on the people of this country almost as much as English was. Unless we can clone my grinds teacher from Leaving Cert, there is little that can be done to save the language, and the teaching of it, in its current form.

Only a tiny amount of us can and do speak it on a daily basis. It is not the dominant language of our parliament, arts, media or popular culture. There is an overwhelmingly negative attitude towards it amongst huge number of young people - sure, most say that they would love to be able to speak it, but nobody can nor, more importantly, sees a need to.

So what is to be done? Well, it would serve the language a lot better to take Enda Kenny's initiative and start a real debate about the language. Instead of pursuing pointless, tokenistic gestures like making Irish an official working language of the EU, let's try and work out a realistic future for Irish.

The success at incorporating Irish into the workings of the EU is an embarrassment more than anything else: it draws attention to the fact that hardly any of us here can or will ever speak it. Our European partners would be correct to look at us in puzzlement and ask why on Earth it means so much to us. Surely our history has taught us that laws and officialdom are not going to save a language. A language is a living, breathing thing that is constantly evolving. It will thrive or perish depending on its use. Irish almost has the same living status as Latin at this stage.

I suggest that the future for Irish belongs in a new school subject: Irish Studies. There has been an alarming drop in the number of students taking History, especially irish history. Irish literature and cultural studies has to compete for attention in a crowded and time-constrained English curriculum. How about a new subject that would be composed of limited language study as well as the study of the works of Irish novelists, poets, playwrites and filmmakers? Folklore and historical topics could be pursued also. That way, those who want to learn the language can. Of course, the abolition of the compulsory element to the language will have an impact on the future learning of the langauge, even in that limited guise (most importantly, will there be any language teachers left after a while?).

I know my suggestion is shaky so tear it apart if you want. But for God's sake, don't ignore the opportunity to discuss options for the survival of the language. Dismissing Enda Kenny's call for a debate on language policy without even considering alternatives might, ironically, ensure the language's demise rather than its salvation.

What's Lost exactly?

The Hatch. The Hatch. The Hatch. That’s all we’re going to be talking about until RTE import the second series of J.J Abrams’ riveting, labyrinthine, frustrating mystery drama Lost, which concluded with a double episode a few weeks ago but which I just got round to watching recently.

We were left none the wiser, only with more questions and more conundrums to puzzle over. Fans that feel short changed would be well advised to check out the other masterwork from Abrams’ oeuvre, Alias (2001-present), the spy drama starring Jennifer Garner, that has consistently proven itself to be the most inventive, compelling, addictive TV show of the new century so far.

On the surface, Alias seems too high concept, too constrained by the narrative technique that has been chosen for it. But Abrams is a genius and has, on a number of occasions, completely upended the show, altering its dynamic entirely – yet it somehow manages to remain the same.

This regular rejigging and reinvention does not impinge on the show’s cohesion but instead, opens it out to reveal a much wider, deeper, thrilling story. Charles Dickens tried to end each chapter of his novels with a cliffhanger and Abrams has sought to stamp that trait onto his work. Plot arcs introduced in season one of Alias were not resolved until the end of the fourth series – so on that basis alone (not to mention how commercially viable Lost is), we could be in for a long run with this desert island thriller.

The Lost finale left American critics and fans decidedly under whelmed when it screened last May – but why did they expect anything less? Had they not been watching the same show we were? It’s beginning to look like the whole point of the show is that these characters – and us fans – are meant to be left in limbo, not knowing why things are happening or how it’s all going to end.

Devoted followers of the show have had the Internet buzzing for months about what is going on in this show. The common belief is that the plane crash survivors are in Purgatory and are all specifically stranded on some celestial island where they are to atone for whatever misdemeanours they perpetrated in the living world.

Other rumours suggest that they are in the Bermuda Triangle or that the island is part of some government experiment. But I think the answer is more philosophical and has been dangled before our eyes on more than one occasion throughout the series, conveyed through the enigmatic character John Locke (played so fantastically by Terry O’Quinn, who was criminally deprived of an Emmy in September).

He has frequently said to numerous characters that fate has brought them all to the island and that faith alone is all that can ensure their survival. This world in which they find themselves is dangerous: random, baffling crimes take place; the innocent are punished along with the guilty, often even instead of them. Nobody really understands why they have fallen on such hard luck.

Strangers are thrown together and must learn to trust each other and cooperate through some form of social contract in order to get by. All these people are flawed; they are equally capable of acts of kindness, love and generosity as they are of selfishness, greed and evil. Is this ‘the island’ we’re talking about, or just life itself? (ooohhhh!)

Our world is obsessed with ‘meaning’: everything must have a purpose, every person, act, event must be able to be explained rationally and some lesson derived from that contemplation. But as Locke stresses to the ‘man of science’ Jack (Matthew Fox), not everything can be explained by reason alone. Trying to extrapolate meaning from Lost is as futile as trying to figure out the meaning of life. That’s why we don’t have answers: because we’re not meant to.

Now, I've been known to read too much into things (way too much sometimes!) and I certainly would not be a Johnny Religious Head. But it is possible that Lost’s scriptwriters have ingeniously constructed a metaphorical discussion about the limits of post-Enlightenment thinking: that science and reason can, must provide answers in our world.

Maybe they can’t. Life is mysterious and its many plot twists can enthral and delight, intrigue and horrify in equal measure. The hatch, the strange polar bear, the numbers, ‘the Others’ are all MacGuffins that divert our attention from what this show is really trying to tell us: that the modern world we inherited from the Enlightenment, whilst equipping us with essential mental tools for survival, has left us with an incapacity to believe that faith might be the only quality that gets us through a baffling world that makes no sense and whose mysterious forces we can never truly grasp. Maybe that is what is truly lost.

Or perhaps it's all just a prank constructed by the writers to see how much nonsense fans will put up with and to what extent saddos like me will read too much into it! Either way, it's food for thought.

Something about the Twentysomethings

Author CS Lewis once wrote that we read to know we are not alone. Sometimes, we listen instead.

Ryan Tubridy recently held the second of his 'My Generation' shows in the new 9-10am slot on Radio 1. The first Monday of every month is set aside for certain age groups to come into the studio and discuss issues that surround and affect their lives. This month (7th Nov) , it was the turn of the Twentysomethings.

Ryan's selection of listeners came from all backgrounds and experiences. One girl had become a mother in her late teens and was only now getting round to getting her career on track. One other speaker was a twentysomething priest. Another was the artist, Rasher, who has forged an extraordinarily successful career out of his wild, unhappy teenage years.

The majority of the speakers, however, were just ordinary young people, working in jobs they don't particularly care about but which are a necessity in order to survive. The general feeling from the studio that morning was that we are the first generation of Irish people to grow up in the Celtic Tiger golden age. We were teenagers when the boom began - we benefited from the rising tide and now we are adults struggling to find a ship in which to traverse that tide.

Is 'struggling' the right word to use? Yes, I think so.

Too much choice is nearly as bad as no choice at all. When I was in my Leaving Cert year, we were told we could be anything we wanted, do anything we wanted, study anything we wanted (the points race aside!). Even at that stage, trying to decide what to do with your life was an impossible decision to make. You try to choose the path that is truest to whatever nascent plan you have for your life. I chose Arts in UCC because the only things I was ever any good at were humanities. After three years, I was none the wiser so went into an MA in UCD for reasons I know longer remember. That year was the best thing to happen to me personally, certainly not professionally (or academically, shame on you UCD).

After that year, I went out into the big bad world to earn a living. I had no plan, just survival. I temped, working in a tourist information centre and later a bank. In between, I even managed to work for a few weeks in AOL Europe - farcical considering that I had trouble creating this blog, nevermind no anything more complicated.

I always wanted to be a journalist but was too afraid - too afraid of not being good enough, of not making it, of not ever having a job. But I got over it and now I love what I'm doing. I'm still absolutely terrified but it's a good terror that keeps me on my toes, keeps me hungry, ambitious and focused.

It's took me a long time to get this still-unfinished point - as it does for the vast majority of twentysomethings. Some are even older before realising who they are, what they want. Trying to find your professional orientation and trying to balance that with personal and familial matters would be enough to drive you to drink. And it does.

As one speaker on Tubridy's show said, he looks forward to going out as many nights as he can afford to just to forget all that pressure, that expectation, that sense that your life and your dreams are dangling in front of you but you can't seem to quite reach them.

You might see that as just an excuse for binge drinking but I see the guy's point. Last year, when I was working in jobs I could care less about, I went out about 4-5 nights a week just because I felt like I was entitled to some relief after college but mainly to forget that I seemed to have lost track of where I was going and what I wanted.

The so-called quarter-life crisis is increasingly becoming part of the cultural dialogue of society. Part of the reason for the success of Zach Braff's 2004 movie Garden State is that it struck a chord with this generation who are over-privileged by comparative historical standards but are directionless and overwhelmed by it all too. Whilst promoting the movie, Braff made an interesting remark. He said that your teenage years are for your physical adolescence but your twenties are for you mental adolescence.

Damian Barr, a freelance journalist, wrote a book two years ago entitled 'Get It Together: Surviving Your Quarter-Life Crisis'. In that book, he interviewed a number of twentysomethings and charted the struggles they had to find work and a career, pay rent, find love, save, have some kind of social life - and all on very little money and with not enough work or life experience to meet the crazy demands of employers who seemingly want 22-23 year olds to have 3-4 years work experience on top of a 3-4 year degree.

His book didn't offer any answers per se - but it fulfilled CS Lewis' maxim quoted at the start of this piece. What it did was show readers that nearly everyone their age, no matter where they lived, was going through the same thing. People seem to dismiss just how stressed many twentysomethings become as they try to figure out how to get started in adult life. A leitmotif in Barr's book is that today's twentysomethings are too young to be old and too old to be young - so where does that leave us? No, I don't know either so give us a break, ok?

What I do know is that more people in their twenties should talk about the stresses they are under - if not with friends, then in blogs, articles or web forums. It helps to know that you are most certainly not the only person your age who hates their job, knows they can do better, who is made to feel guilty for wanting to party instead of settling down or working 12-14 hours a day for crap pay just to get on the radar of some corporation, who thinks that everyone is a success but them.

Some might call it 'me-me-me' self indulgence. Write or talk about it folks - because whilst you or I might have caught some glimpse of a light at the end of it all, there are many others who have not. Sharing your experience may just ease their lonliness, their confusion, their fear -as well as keeping your own further at bay for at least another day.