The previews alone suggested Made to Honor was a loser, but Patrick Dempsey was a surprise hit on David Letterman last night. Looking quite the "McDreamy," and providing an actually clever quick clip of the film, the two immediately bonded over his participation auto racing (Dave is a partial owner of a team and also is a fan of the Kentucky Derby). The rest of the interview was fun as well, including a couple parody magazine covers, one involving PD as a Civil War re-enactor. I still don't want to see the movie, but since I respect Dave while finding a bit too many of his shows somewhat underwhelming, a fun interview is good on various levels.
The often weak Friday show (generally taped early in the week) also had a nice undercard interview with Isabella Rossellini, who not only referenced her involvement in a guide dog charity, but also as the narrator of what amounts to nature porn (Green Porno, which examines the sex lives of various insects and such). If you are going to make a Firefly or Spider sound sexy, she would be the one. I'm sure she can do a neat twist on Charlotte. By chance, I also saw her briefly soon afterwards in an interesting looking preview on a DVD ... the DVD btw is Saving Face, a well made love story that underlines the value of functionally sound movie-making with added twists added in.
There are not many new ideas, but when they are carried out in nice ways, ways in which a scene or even glance is memorable, the films remain well worth watching. And, there are tons of good stuff to see in the U.S. and Canada alone (Manhattan supplies a chance to see but a handful of those available from the rest of the world), much of it independently produced and not given a wide release. Overall, this underlines the importance of having funding sources, including public funds. Jane Alexander wrote an interesting book on this point, Command Performance: an Actress in the Theater of Politics, in light of her appointment as head of the NEA.
Canada has a policy that such funds only should go to films sufficiently "Canadian," which meant the American director Kevin Smith could only guest, not direct/write for the show Degrassi. The NYT had one those interesting articles reminding us that we aren't the only game in town concerning a controversy that arose after the country added an additional requirement requiring an elected official "also certify that the public funding of the production would not be contrary to public policy." This led to some big names in the arts community to be concerned about censorship, the "about ten to twelve percent" production budget at issue quite important to those without big pockets.
The article notes "Curiously, the proposed change would not apply to similar tax credits that Canada offers to lure foreign (which effectively means American) producers." It also referenced a supporter of using the provision to regulate the morality of subsidised works. One advocate repeatedly cites a film that "begins with 'Young People [Fucking]' and concludes with an obscene gerund." The brackets are mine, the NYT having a policy of not saying bad words in such discussions -- including while dealing with regulation of U.S. television. This reminds of the lawyer involved in the "Fuck the Draft" case being sure to say the word at least once in his oral argument to underline it is not soooo bad that it could never be spoken in polite company.
BTW, the reference to "Young People" in the online copy kicked in the link generator, linking it to a Shirley Temple film of that name. There is a certain amusing irony there. It might also provide a lesson in grammar, the circumlocution reminding me of a selectively edited Doonsbury cartoon spoofing the potty mouth of Frank Sinatra. As to the policy, the devil is in the details and who carries them out. Thus, the concern for what amounts to be a loaded gun. And, the importance of keeping an eye on obscure details of mammoth legislation.
That can be [obscene gerund] difficult.