By Troy Brownfield

THE POST-GRAMMY SHOW!!

I think there was a lot to enjoy about The Grammys this year, and I'm not just talking about Christina Aguilera's dress. There were some solid performances, some nominees that made sense, and a general spirit of community. J.T. had to apologize, which is a bit irksome; pundits have turned a non-entity snicker into a full-blown circus.

I particularly wish people would lay off of Janet; she's not even the biggest dumbass in her family. LaToya and Michael aside, Jermaine recently compared Michael's legal entanglements as the equivalent of "a lynching". History lesson here, Jermaine: Dead ass swinging from tree, lynching; signing autographs outside of your court date, pep rally.

So that aside, what was good about The Grammys?

1) Prince opens the show with "Purple Rain". That was swell. The shoe-horning of Beyonce into the number even worked. The Man can still rip on guitar.

2) The Tribute to Funk, featuring announcing by Sam Jackson and music by Earth Wind & Fire, Robert Randolph and the Family Band, Outkast, and George Clinton and the Parliament-Funkadelic (with Bootsy Collins!). I'm remarkably white, but for a few minutes, I was feelin' it.

3) The Foo Fighters and The White Stripes. 'nuff said.

4) Though elements of The Beatles tribute were weak (like that hippy fuck Dave Matthews forgetting the words), I liked that they used the "Sullivan" stage set-up and vintage gear. Nice touch.

5) Celine Dion's microphone didn't work. I thought at first it was a hint. Unfortunately, it was just a (non-wardrobe) malfunction.

6) The Black Eyed Peas. Despite Birdsong's assertion that I was only into it for the legs of the token white chick, I have to say that a) it's a great song, and b) she'd be hot if she was green.

The Bad? Surprisingly, not a lot. I even have to admit that J.T. has become a capable performer. AND we were spared American Idol winner performances! Alicia Keys about put me to sleep, but that's not unusual.

The Weird: Richard Marx winning something. I half-wished that he would run over to the Foo Fighters and they would all rock out on "Should've Known Better". It would have been better than the creative abortion that was Sting & Sean Paul on "Roxanne". It was also strange to see Yoko Ono accepting an honor for The Beatles when we all know she ruined the band.

The Pissy: 50-Cent, for walking through Evanescence's win of Best New Artist. Message to Mr. In Da' Club: You're all headed for "Bands Reunited" in about five years anyway, so settle down, Beavis. (Editor's Note: I know "Fiddy" is just one guy; for that episode, they're actually going to reunite him with the nine bullets, since that's all anyone ever says about him). Incidentally, isn't "evanescence" the chemical property in Polydent that cleans false teeth? Just wondering.

The Verdict: Not a bad show, and many winners made sense. The idea that anything of quality gets recognized is usually a bit of a surprise, so it's good to see acts who take some chances (like Outkast) getting gold. Still, The Grammys have a long way to go before they get super-hip. It's not like we'll see a Husker Du reunion next year or anything.

Other Artists As Assigned: One thing that continually amazes me is how the populace at large doesn't go out of their way to embrace art that's, well, out of the way. I always thought it was a big deal to "discover" a new movie on video or cable or to find a new artist that Shawn didn't know about first (which is very, very rare; in fact, we kind of have a collaborative deal where I point him to comics he'll enjoy, and he pretty much keeps me in music).

It kind of reinforces the notion of the entertainment "herd mentality" when you consider that every so often there's one novel that's a runaway success. Generally, TV doesn't cover literature much, so when one outlet grabs something, they usually all do. The sudden stacking of news coverage makes the book hot, which translates into more coverage, bin displays, and big sales. The most recent example is probably The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown. I heard people talking about its brilliance over and over again.

Let me tell you something: I got a free copy and read it. There is not one single original idea in the book. All of the "conspiracy theories" are recycled from other sources, and most of the puzzles are so contrived as to be the functional equivalent of the jokes on Bazooka Joe wrappers. There's one "riddle" to be unlocked that deals with a five-letter-word that has to do with Sir Isaac Newton. I immediately thought, "Apple". It takes the characters, including a British antiquities professor, an expert on symbology, and a French forensics tech dozens of pages to figure this out; as the reader, my suspension of disbelief fell completely apart at the notion that the three characters could crack these Byzantine riddles that send them around Europe, but didn't associate a friggin' apple with Newton.

To be nice, it's an okay read, but it's not terribly original. So again, I'm shocked when I hear people calling it just that. And then I have to remember: it's original to them because they've never bothered to read anything outside of the thinly constructed parameters of "their taste". Personal taste is fine, but a good many people limit their potential enjoyment by rigidly imposing their own structure. Of great personal annoyance to me is the success of 16th generation punk knock-offs like Good Charlotte; a prime reason for that is that there is no avenue for the kids to realize that these candy-asses are ripping off far superior bands. Kids are gonna take what TV gives 'em. As adults, we have no excuse. The aforementioned Shawn likes to shake up his reading with histories and survival tales; I've tried to throw other things into my normal mix (crime, noir and horror), including some of Shawn's recommendations, political humor, and, of all things, Tom Clancy (something that I don't normally read).

Your mission, should you choose to accept it: Every once in a while, go outside "your taste". If you don't necessarily like hip-hop, read a couple of reviews and give something that sounds kind of intriguing a spin. If you swear up and down that you don't like Stephen King, try "The Green Mile" or "Different Seasons". This is also a good exercise considering that it's almost Valentine's Day; this almost assuredly means that the fellas are gonna get stuck watching some crappy romantic comedy. Just tell yourself you're broadening horizons, and then make her watch zombie movies for a month in retaliation, or er, the spirit of enrichment!

The Wonder Woman Debate: Rumors abound as to who will play Wonder Woman in the impending big screen version. Here's my thoughts on some of the alleged contenders:
1) Eliza Dushku: Hot, but too short (Diana's pushing six feet).
2) Shannon Elizabeth: Hot, tall, but perhaps too naive. Wonder Woman, as reinvented in the '80s by George Perez, should express some innocence about the "Man's World", but she needs to be an ass-kicker too. Elizabeth doesn't project that.
3) Sarah Michelle Gellar: My feelings on her are well-documented. But, alas, too short, and too associated with Buffy.
4) Charisma Carpenter: She flat-out said she wants it. She's got wit, and yes, she's hot. She's probably a good dark horse contender. (P.S. For the ass-clowns who said she got fat on Angel last year, she was pregnant, you half-wits. As she proved on last week's episode, baby weight is a thing of the past, y'all.)
5) Lucy Lawless: I'm not sure she's a serious contender. She would have been the logical choice like 5 years ago, but outside of a Spider-Man cameo, she hasn't been doing much. Assuming she's willing, she could probably do it justice.
6) Monica Bellucci: A lot of people think that at 40, she's too old. Fine, make her Hippolyta then.
7) Catherine Zeta-Jones: Probably my personal top choice. Good actress, great body, and capable of physicality in various capacities (check out Chicago, Entrapment, and Mask of Zorro to see her be both acrobatic and believable in fight sequences). The downside? Getting Michael Douglas to keep his hands off long enough for her to finish it.

The main consideration for a Wonder Woman film should be to make it an epic adventure. Stray into camp, and it'll suck. The continuing lessons of Marvel's films is that by being pretty faithful and balancing wit and action, you can be wildly successful.

And one other side note on rumors of Beyonce as Lois Lane: People who don't like the idea aren't automatically racist. I think it's a terrible idea for two reasons: 1) she's not a great actress, and 2) Lois Lane is a cultural icon of particular identity for over 60 years. You wouldn't want a white man as Shaft, and you wouldn't want a white woman for the lead in a Toni Morrison book. I'm all for "color-blind" casting in most circumstances, but when it comes to beloved cultural icons or literary characters of specific identity, let's use some friggin' sense, okay?

Troy Brownfield is the Editor-in-Chief of Shotgun Reviews. Email Troy at psikotyk@aol.com

shotgun reviews | the big question | review rack | feature forum | rasslin' ring | comics convention | shotgun press | contact | links home | masthead | sponsors | email: psikotyk@aol.com © 1999-2004 Shotgun Reviews - All rights reserved.