The Olympics have inspired a lot of great (and not-so-great) movies, both fact-based and fictional. Which ones can you identify?
1. A warm-weather country competed in a cold-weather sport in which fact-based Disney film?
2. Which Oscar-winning movie was the story of two Olympic runners?
3. There are two different movies about which real-life Olympic champion runner?
4. Which Olympic decathlete played himself in a movie based on his life?
5. Athletes from rival countries fall in love in this movie that is fiction in more ways than one — it has America competing in an Olympics that in real life the US boycotted.
6. One of the wildest Olympics movies ever made has a team from an almost-bankrupt country where all the citizens have super-athletic ability. Which classic comedian starred?
7. Animals compete in the Olympics in which animated feature?
8. Who stars in a movie about a gold medalist who defects who has to fight for his life when his former coach comes after him?
9. Which real-life Olympic star appeared in one of the biggest musical movie flops of all time?
10. Which movie is the tragic story of one of America’s greatest Olympic athletes being stripped of his medals?
11. Which Olympic medalist appeared in a movie about an athlete starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy?
12. Which movie about the Olympics featured Cary Grant?
Bonus question: Which Olympic and world champion became one of the highest paid stars in Hollywood?
The authors of the book “So Sexy So Soon,” Diane Levin and Jean Kilbourne, say that children are constantly bombarded by the media and advertisers with images and portrayals of hyper-sexuality.
In the book, the authors provide practical suggestions about the ways that parents can provide context and expand their children’s understanding and imagination to help them make sense of the avalanche of messages equating sexuality (and only sexuality) with happiness and power — that that buying products is the way to achieve that. This interview describes the way children respond to the media’s messages and some of the content of the book.
I am thrilled to have FIVE copies of this week’s DVD pick of the week, The First Olympics, one of my all-time favorites. This two-part television miniseries an outstanding family film about the first modern-day Olympics in 1896, exciting, touching, funny, and inspiring. The first five people who send me an email at moviemom@moviemom.com with “Olympics” in the subject line will get this very special DVD. This one is for those who have not yet won anything only, please. And stay tuned, more giveaways ahead.
The Parents Television Council released a new report on the way sex and marriage are portrayed on prime time television this afternoon. Today’s prime-time television programming is
not merely indifferent to the institution of marriage
and the stabilizing role it plays in our society, it seems
to be actively seeking to undermine marriage by
consistently painting it in a negative light. Nowhere is
this more readily apparent than in the treatment of sex
on television. Sex in the context of marriage is either
non-existent on prime-time broadcast television, or is
depicted as a burdensome rather than as an expression
of love and commitment. By contrast, extra-marital
or adulterous sexual relationships are depicted with
greater frequency and overwhelmingly, as a positive
experience. Across the broadcast networks, verbal
references to non-marital sex outnumbered references
to sex in the context of marriage by nearly 3 to 1;
and scenes depicting or implying sex between nonmarried
partners outnumbered scenes depicting or
implying sex between married partners by a ratio of
nearly 4 to 1. (emphasis in the original)
Most likely due to the competition from cable, DVDs and online media, broadcast television is spending more time on edgy, exotic, transgressive, and disturbing depictions of sexual behavior for the purposes of entertainment, not on a sympathetic or illuminating manner but usually as the source of humor or in the context of law enforcement dramas. …Even more troubling than the marginalization
of marriage and glorification of non-marital sex on
television is TV’s recent obsession with outré sexual
expression. Today more than ever teens are exposed
to a host of once-taboo sexual behaviors including
threesomes, partner swapping, pedophilia, necrophilia,
bestiality, and sex with prostitutes, to say nothing of
the now-common depictions of strippers, references
to masturbation, pornography, sex toys, and kinky or
fetishistic behaviors. Behaviors that were once seen
as fringe, immoral, or socially destructive have been
given the imprimatur of acceptability by the television
industry — and children are absorbing those messages
and in many cases, imitating that behavior.
Matthew Goode was in Washington to talk about his role in the new version of “Brideshead Revisited,” on his way to Comic-Con to talk about his next role in “The Watchmen.” He pointed out that while they are very different in theme and tone, both are based on books that appeared on “top 100” lists of the 20th century. Goode, one of the friendliest people I have ever met, talked to me about “re-visiting” Brideshead following the award-winning BBC miniseries version that many thought of as the definitive version. By necessity shorter and sharper, this version is more explicitly focused on the relationship between Goode’s character, Charles Ryder, and Sebastian and Jula Flyte, the children of a wealthy Catholic family who live in the magnificent estate called Brideshead.
What were some of the concerns you had about taking on this role?
Ryder is almost mute in this in some respects. He observes and reacts much of the time. One of my slight trepidations when I finally saw the adaptation we were going to do, was the way we had to truncate the story down as opposed to the original which is practically verbatim. When setting out to do the role I wasn’t thinking, “Well, I have to do something different from Jeremy Irons.” It’s a different cast, a different script, a different time. Yes, we’re both middle-classy, tall, thin, streaks of piss playing the same part. But this is a different take on it. Jeremy Brock did a tremendous job adapting the book. It is told via this future voice of Charles, a voice that’s been let down by life, struggling to grapple with his relationships. He still doesn’t understand what love is, where does he fit in. My way into him was to peel back those layers of his psyche. He may be the loneliest person that’s ever lived on the planet, particularly with our version.
Is there a different emphasis in this version, which necessarily has to pare down or even excerpt the novel?
The focus here is more on ambiguity of his sexuality, his faith, and how much of a social climber Charles was, how he was looking for a place where he could fit in and feel at home. We had to eliminate some things and bring the character of Julia in earlier, too. We got permission from the Waugh estate. It has to be done; you only have two hours.
What is the connection between Charles and his friend Sebastian, who first takes him to Brideshead?
The only time Sebastian was happy at Brideshead was with Charles. That idyllic summer is his real childhood. It’s the only place Charles has ever been happy, too, It’s not about class; it is about being accepted. Sebastian is definitively gay, that is more directly portrayed. Sebastian is a petulant drunk. His unhappiness, like Charles’, is as much about bad parenting as anything.
Like the miniseries, the movie was filmed on location at Castle Howard. What are some of the differences?
I like our version of Rex more. If you take out the buffoonery, he wins. We see that Charles is a sponge for life and art, and any kind of belonging, the way he is looking for a place for himself, what drew Charles, Sebastian, and Julia together. They have comparable loveless childhoods, apart form the faith and class.
How do you handle the aging of your character in a story that stretches over so much time?
It’s nice that I’m in the intermediary point of being 30 and can just about pass for 20. As Charles gets older you slow down the rhythm and he becomes a bit colder. You don’t age things like the salute because even when he is older he is still trying to fit in, still picking up mannerisms from those around him. He doesn’t snap to, he doesn’t keep the thumb down, as he might if he was expressing his own personality. That’s the element to Charles. It’s not social climbing — it’s fitting in. But he’s liked by everyone. You wouldn’t have that if there wasn’t something sparkly in his eyes.
