Haywire, Stephen Soderbergh’s bone-crunching action movie starring mixed martial arts fighter-turned-actress Gina Carano hasn’t made its budget back yet, but Carano’s just signed up to star in another action movie, this one from director John Stockwell, who helmed surfing flick Blue Crush and thriller Into the Blue. Saorsie Ronan, who first came on the scene as a nosy child in period movie Atonement turned to action as a teenaged assassin in Hanna, signed up to star in Stephenie Meyer’s science fiction thriller The Host, and just, to some commentators’ surprise, just committed to star in a third action movie. Hailee Steinfeld, who came to prominence as a girl hunting her father’s killer in the Coen brothers’ remake of True Grit will have another chance to hone her action chops playing female child soldier Petra in the adaptation of science fiction classic Ender’s Game. And Chloe Moretz’s outings as a pint-sized, foul-mouthed superhero in Kick Ass and a vampire in Let Me In haven’t prevented her from playing sweet and girlish in movies like Hugo. IConsidered together, that’s a pretty incredible crop of young action heroines on the rise. And it’s fascinating to contemplate what their collective impact could be on the industry.

In the past, it’s seemed like we can really only have one major female action star at a time, and that taking on that role can come with some limitations. Sigourney Weaver’s had that lock for her generation, and even when she takes on lighter fare, she ends up playing a heavy, or a character defined by her aggression. In You Again, ostensibly a female comedy, she’s a grown-up high school mean girl. In Red Lights, a paranormal thriller that was picked up out of Sundance, she’s a scientist defined by her intellectual certainty: she has a son, but the movie never gives us even the slightest inkling of a husband or partner or an explanation of whether she had her son on her own in the first place. It’s never a bad thing for an actress to get those kind of roles—I can’t say how excited I am to see Weaver play a vampire queen in Amy Heckerling’s Vamps along with Krysten Ritter and Alicia Silverstone—but being a competent action star shouldn’t mean that an actress can’t also nail a romantic comedy (or her male co-star in that action movie). Angelina Jolie’s allowed slightly greater range in her action roles, but seduction tends to get treated as part of her killer toolkit. When she takes on non-action fare, it tends to be as a historical figure like Mariane Pearl, or to play a woman in a different kind of extremis, as she did in Changeling.

I’d be curious to see if these younger actresses coming up a generation or a generation and a half behind Jolie can forge a new course, where they can do action movies and work in other genres. Some of it may simply be a chops issue: Jolie is just not a very funny actress, where as Moretz has charisma to burn in that particular space. And it would be nice to have female action heroes for whom action is an expression of other concerns. In the Mission Impossible movies, Ethan Hunt’s ass-kicking gets to be an expression of concern for his wife. James Bond’s womanizing and his action as a spy are both expressions of his lack of regard for himself—Daniel Craig’s elevated the act to a kind of exploration of self-harm. So it would be nice to see more female action characters with larger concerns other than lioness mode, who are allowed to protect people and interests other than small children. While I’m not a huge fan of the way The Hunger Games books ended, I do think that’s precisely the kind of franchise that could wed a woman’s ability to be a credible killer to a complex larger set of concerns.

It would also be nice to see more creative thinking about how to direct action sequences. I’m fine with certain female action stars getting choreographed the same way that men do, if they’ve got the stature for it to be plausible that they can plow through a crowd of heavies. But I also think it’s worth considering what kind of approaches slighter women would have to take to get the same result as male action stars who are bigger than them. Are there different schools of martial arts that would tip the balance? More inventive use of equipment? Differentials in vulnerabilities that female fighters could exploit? There are physical differences between men and women, and fight choreographers should think of that as an opportunity to try new things rather than as a reason to treat women as if they aren’t plausible action stars.

I think Bill O’Reilly is correct that Whitney Houston is perhaps not the best example to deploy if you want to make the case that legalizing narcotics would decrease violence related to the drug trade and make it easier for addicts to get help (I happen to agree with at least a limited version of that case). But the rest of this statement doesn’t exactly count as brave truth-telling. Watch it:

There’s nothing bold, counterintuitive, or perhaps more importantly, compassionate about saying cruel things about addicts like: “Whitney Houston wanted to kill herself. Nobody takes drugs for that long if they want to stay on the planet.” I’ve been fortunate enough not to be touched directly by addiction, but it’s my understanding that the compulsion to use has little to do with a specific suicidal ideation. And of course, you can have an addiction and still love life and depending on the level of use, contribute to society. Whitney Houston’s fans know she’d struggled for years with a disease—not failed morals. Whitney’s daughter, Bobbi Kristina Brown, who O’Reilly mentioned had been hospitalized in the wake of her mother’s sudden death, is probably more aware of anyone else on the planet of what it’s like to live with her mother’s particular failed fight against addiction.

Nobody Bill O’Reilly to remind them that Houston’s addiction robbed her of many productive years of her career and was painful, embarrassing, and detrimental to her. And there’s nothing brave about blaming addicts for the societal consequences of their addictions.

By David Liss

Some stories are so complicated that they require considerable effort on the front end in order to yield dividends down the road. Alcatraz is not one of them. A quarter season of largely generic maneuvering has been in no way necessary to buttress any kind of narrative architecture. The show has been laboring with a set-up that is – to use two similar culinary metaphors – both half baked and under cooked. All that said, it seems that Alcatraz is finally inching toward deploying its various elements to some effective purpose.

Last night’s episode felt like, in most ways, a major step forward. There are still some major problems related to Alcatraz’s most basic premise. Another week, and another psycho from the past is running around in the present day, commit crimes because he’s been programmed to do so or because it’s simply his nature – or, perhaps, both. This time it’s xxxx, who is a serial land-mine deployer. Um, yeah. Okay. I will say that when land-mine wielding Paxton Petty, first shows up, I thought we were going to have a grade-A badass on our hands. Madsen sees him at the scene of the crime, chases him down, and gets the drop on him – until Petty hurls a land mine at him. How cool is that? Except, that’s his last cool moment of the episode. For the rest of the show, he just looks creepily at people and digs in the sand a lot. Meanwhile, Madsen is hot on his trail and figures out exactly how to track him down by asking a couple of people some probing questions. She’s good at police work, that one. Soto tags along, trying to convince himself and everyone else that he has some purpose in the investigation and in the story. Having a Soto geek moment-of-the-week is simply not enough, though I appreciate that this week it was a reference to Sandman – the original pulp Sandman, not that Neal Gaiman stuff.

Alcatraz’s real strength has been its flashback sequences to the prison in the 1960s, but in the past couple of weeks, those segments have fallen off, delivering less dramatic punch and serving more to explicate the less satisfying contemporary narrative. This week, at least, the two timelines are bridged in ways I found interesting.

Since she was shot and rendered comatose in the second episode, there have been hints of a connection between Hauser and Lucy, and this week we get more of the picture, including a budding romance between 1960s Hauser and Lucy. This raises some very interesting questions: mainly how is it that Lucy and Beauregard have come forward in time and Hauser has not; and if they possess time travel know-how themselves, is there some opposing power that possesses the same technology? We also got to learn something about Lucy’s sophisticated reprogramming techniques, which involve ice cold water boarding followed by tea, sedatives, mints and electrocution.
Read more

If you’re running late on your Valentine’s Day planning, never fear! ThinkProgress is here to help! Here are five great movies about progressivism and romance, so no matter if you’re looking for someone new, just started seeing someone, or celebrating a long-term love, you’re covered—even if you don’t have time to get your hands on a disc on the way home.

If you like progressive history: Catch The Loving Story on HBO at 9PM EST tonight. The movie’s both a good recapitulation of the court case that bears the family’s name, and that made interracial relationships in America legal, a Valentine’s Day-worthy story if there ever was one. But it’s also a terrific portrait of the Lovings themselves, bolstered by archival footage of them and their lawyers. Sometimes, we need a reminder that without fiercely dedicated individuals facing up to illogic and inequality, history doesn’t move forward.

If you’re headed out to work on a campaign this cycle: Watch Definitely, Maybe, the rare multi-purpose romantic comedy that works both if you’re trying to keep a long-distance relationship going on the trail, or hoping to meet the person you’re destined to be with! Also if you have an adorable child who’s kind of like Abigail Breslin! But seriously, this is a deeply charming movie that’s rooted in the substance of campaign work. And it offers a nice rebuke to the romantic comedy ideal that there’s only one person that you’re meant to be with if only fate will cooperate—instead, Definitely, Maybe argues that you’ve got to do work to make it work.

If you’ve just started dating someone: Okay, so the movie may be weirdly romantic and optimistic about the role of lobbying in the policy-making process. But The American President is a pretty great movie about the early stages of seeing someone, whether it’s dinner invitations or picking out the right flowers to send your sweetie. Plus, you want to make a big gesture to a policy nerd? This is your template.

You need a reminder that political integrity is sexy: Dick is wildly underrated as a political movie. But it’s also a worthwhile reminder that a) even if you think the President is dreamy, you should weigh in his corruption and meanness to his dog when deciding that you have a crush on him, b) you should never commit your confessions of love to the tape recorder in Rose Mary Woods’ desk.

You’re looking for affirmation that love conquers all—even small towns: Issue movies are fantastic. But sometimes—and Valentine’s Day is such a occasion—there’s nothing wrong with wanting a little uplift. In that case, turn to Big Eden, which is all about what happens when you return to your hometown, work out your issues with your old crush, and find new love in a place you least expected it—and the romances just happen to be gay and interracial.

Someone at Public Policy Polling clearly has a sense of humor, because they included comedian Roseanne Barr, who is pursuing the Green Party nomination for President in their latest national polling survey. And even more surprising, the survey found that in a three-way race between President Obama, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Roseanne, Roseanne pulls 6 percent, ahead of undecided at 5 percent. Those are still minuscule numbers in comparison to Obama, who leads with 47 percent, and Romney, who follows him with 42 percent. And it’s not clear that Roseanne’s numbers will hold under any circumstances: she has a 63 percent disapproval rating and a 14 percent approval rating.

Perhaps the people who should be really interested Roseanne’s poll results are the executives at NBC, who have hired the comedienne for a new show about the recession, Downwardly Mobile. In that show, Roseanne’s co-star from her titular hit show, John Goodman, will join her on screen again. Even though Roseanne’s overall numbers are bad, there’s one bright spot for NBC, which is desperate for key viewers in the 18-49 demographics: in the Romney-Obama-Barr matchup, she pulled 19 percent of polled voters between the ages of 18-29.

The bridge is yours.

-Game of Thrones Valentines, for all your medieval romantic needs.

-I would like Michael Bay a lot more if he was making the Transformers movies as a way to fund a whole bunch of wacky passion projects.

-How are people feeling about Smash? James Poniewozick sums up some of my concerns.

-This Chinese sci-fi novel sounds fantastic.

-And because it’s that kind of day, George R.R. Martin reads nursery rhymes:

Note from Alyssa: With a glut of shows set in Washington—and more specifically, in the halls of power—set to hit television screens this year, comparisons to The West Wing are inevitable. But while that show set a high-water mark for political programming, does that mean that its characters were actually good at politics or at running the country? My colleague Ian takes a look at the man who occupied the Oval Office.

For seven seasons, the West Wing was therapy for thousands of Bush-weary progressives who fantasized about being governed by a Nobel Prize winning scholar who didn’t believe that high-income tax cuts were a panacea. Now that America actually is governed by a Nobel Prize winning scholar with a real domestic policy agenda, however, it’s time to be honest about President Bartlet’s legacy. While the ability to rhetorically shame conservatives made him an appealing fantasy, the substance of Bartlet’s policies ranged from uninspired on issues like health care to downright destructive on Social Security and education. Bartlet had a lackluster economic record. He gave away a seat on the Supreme Court to the far right, and he consistently favored symbolic cultural victories over real opportunities to make life better for American families.

If you set aside the budget-busting Bush tax cuts, George W. Bush was actually a better president on domestic policy than President Bartlet. So Bartlet expanded Medicare to cover mammograms and cancer clinical trials? President Bush actually signed a prescription drug plan for seniors. And while George W. Bush at least had the decency to allow his plan to turn Social Security over to Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers die a politically embarrassing death, Bartlet worked with Republicans to pass a massive Social Security reform at a time when Republicans’ were single-mindedly focused on privatization. If the Bartlet Social Security plan had actually been in effect when the market bottomed out in 2008, millions of American seniors would have been left with no safety net to fall back on.

Besides trashing Social Security, the Bartlet Administration had few bold ideas. What was the Bartlet plan to ensure universal access to health care? Or the Bartlet plan to combat global warming? What did President Bartlet do to close the education gap between poor and rich children? Or to ensure that every child who does succeed in high school will be able to pay for college? If anything, his education policy was as much a betrayal as his Social Security debacle. Although the first term Bartlet White House had ambitious plans for education reform, the second term Bartlet wound up supporting school vouchers.

After nearly an entire term in the White House, Bartlet’s economic record was so dismal that it is a miracle he was reelected. Consider his attempt to literally defend this record before God (who he also calls a “feckless thug”): “3.8 million new jobs, that wasn’t good? Bailed out Mexico. Increased foreign trade. 30 million new acres of land for conservation. Put Mendoza on the bench. We’re not fighting a war.”

Read more

At Sundance, one of the most powerful documentaries I saw as Love Free or Die, director Macky Alston’s chronicle of Bishop Gene Robinson’s fight to get the Episcopal Church in America to recognize gay clergy and gay couples’ marriages—as well as the story of Robinson’s own wedding to his long-time partner in New Hampshire. In addition to being a moving story about Bishop Robinson’s life and work, Love Free or Die is a counter to a major progressive assumption: that the gay rights movement will have to proceed largely without the help of major American religious institutions.It’s also the rare Sundance movie that you can help bring to your own community: details on how to do that are available on the movie’s website. I spoke to Bishop Robinson and to Alston in Park City about making the movie and arguing that gay people religious people shouldn’t have to give up their faith—and that the church shouldn’t have to lose its members. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

I was wondering if maybe both of you could talk about the experience of working together and for Bishop Robinson, about moving to the center of the frame in a documentary instead of being one of many subjects?

Bishop Robinson: This was a big decision for me, to allow a film crew into my life and my family’s life for, you know, three or four years…I wouldn’t have done it with someone I didn’t trust implicitly. And Macky has just been true to his word about doing this film with great sensitivity and taste, and we so agree on the message of the film, which is that love trumps everything, and when people get to know us as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people, it changes everything, because then they’re not responding to an issue, they’re responding to a person.

I guess also, in the back of my mind, you know, all those kids that I hear from, literally every week, who are in some little town in Idaho or Alabama or halfway around the world, who seem to draw inspiration from my being public about who I am, and yet saying, you know, you don’t have to give up your religion and your faith just because you’re gay. And I wanted to make this film for them as well.

You talked about letting the camera crew into your life. Was that stressful? What were those conversations like with your family about deciding to go ahead, as well?

Bishop Robinson: I think they trusted me and my trusting Macky. And, you know, my husband – my legal husband now, but my partner for 24 years – is not a public person, particularly, and, you know, he didn’t know he was signing on for this 24 years ago…But he also believes, you know, believes in the power of integrity, and the power of one person’s story to inspire courage in many, many people. And our greatest hope for this film is that everyone will see themselves as a prophet, as a potential voice to call their Aunt Betty or to talk to that co-worker that works next to them about the gay and lesbian people they know in their lives, and that the discrimination that has historically been true for us is just simply wrong, so that each person can become empowered to do justice work, which is what this is really about. It’s really not enough to be compassionate, although that’s wonderful…Beyond compassion, we need justice. And that’s true to the Biblical record, that we’re, yes, we’re called upon to love, but we’re also called upon to fight for justice for those who are marginalized. And so our greatest hope is that this film will empower people to do that.

This is a documentary, but it fits into a larger pop-culture spectrum that has become more accepting of gay love stories but that doesn’t often bring the church or faith into those stories.

Bishop Robinson: Well, and, to be honest, when the church is brought into it, it’s almost always a negative. And I think the culture is behind the times a little bit, because the culture has so often written off religious institutions. They don’t realize that religious institutions are changing, and they’re changing at a remarkably fast pace. And I think one of the things this film will do is catch people up on the remarkable progress we are making in religious institutions for the full inclusion and acceptance of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Macky Alston: The research shows also that we cannot skirt religious communities if we want freedom, our freedom, LGBT equality in the US, that the number one reason that people are voting against us is their religious convictions. And so…we have to speak from our own faith convictions, and we have to be engaged with people of faith to help them understand, help us understand how we can be better Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, living into a number one mandate of our traditions: to love your neighbor, whoever that neighbor is, and to do justice. So helping people understand the compatibility—in fact, the mandate—in their faith traditions to love and to stand for justice. That’s the only way that we’re gonna get the votes in 2012 in these critical states like Minnesota, Maryland, North Carolina, Maine. And one of my struggles with secular organizing in this movement is that, I think, folks just hope that we don’t have to go there, that in a separation of church and state-based society, we can stay separate.
Read more

The video for Jay-Z and Kanye West’s “Ni**as in Paris” isn’t exactly something we’ve never seen before:

Visually, it’s a clear descendant of both the Gnarls Barkley video for “Crazy”:

And the ghostly big cats seem like they probably strolled over from the menagerie on the set of Frank Ocean’s video for “Novacane”:

But “Ni**gas in Paris” does a really nice job of showing us a pulsing crowd that almost seems to be undergoing mitosis looks from the perspective of the men on stage. There’s something profoundly disconcerting about the way a normal audience suddenly splits into wild geometry or the passage through the crowd is suddenly full of horror-movie sets of identical twins. If this is what the world looks like when you’re an insanely famous person, it’s a lot less appealing than it looks from the outside.