—–

The clear winner is easy. When I heard Clint Eastwood would appear in a car commercial and have a pep talk with America, I expected something a little more light. Maybe they’d use his “Dirty Harry” image in some satirical way. Who knows. But, when the advertisement started playing, the entire room (which was previously filled with talk and laughter and some yelling) went silent. Everyone was glued and listened to every word that slipped from Eastwood’s mouth. It was a pep talk alright. And I say we band together and start a petition to nominate Eastwood for an Oscar for his little pep talk. The second he starts walking towards the screen, he consumes you in his shadow. He speaks from experience and he speaks almost as a godfather to us all. By the end of it I wanted to stand up and salute the flag. It makes one more and more excited to see Eastwood return to the front of the cameras for his next flick.

Coming in a close second would have to be the king of funny: Jerry Seinfeld. He brings the laughs in his car commercial. He never relies upon copying his “Seinfeld” image to bring the laughs. He builds on it and that’s why we love and miss him so much. His dryness and his wit and sometimes overacting are exactly what we want and he gives it to us all in the name of advertising:

—–

Coming in dead last is the advertisement relying completely on the glory days of Matthew Broderick. I love “Ferris Bueller” as much as the next guy, but the reason he and this commercial fail is because they rely completely on that image. They just simply copy act after act and line after line from the movie. It requires nothing and gets nothing in return. Eastwood and Seinfeld gave us new and that’s what we want:

—–

If there’s any meaning to take from these advertisements, it’s this: America misses the old school. We miss real men like Eastwood sitting us down and telling us: “It’s alright sonny. Don’t you worry.” We miss Seinfeld’s wit making us laugh in a genuine way. Nowadays, we are left with Taylor Lautner pretending he’s an action hero and “30 Rock” pretending it’s a hit with America like “Seinfeld.”

We don’t want these guys mimicking their old selves (hence: Matthew Broderick). We want them still rocking the screens and the hearts and minds of America. Yet, Hollywood doesn’t seem to get that we like real men and genuinely funny people.

It’s halftime, Big Hollywood, let’s send them a message.

‘THE HELP’ WINS THREE SAG AWARDS, STREEP AND CLOONEY LOSE

This is a good sign for “The Help,” which is a superb film. SAG is one of the most reliable Oscar bellwethers because so much of the Oscar voting pool is made up of actors:

[T]he big winner of the night was Tate Taylor’s The Help, which took home three of the five SAG film acting awards it was up for with Octavia Spencer winning in the Female Actor in a Supporting Role category, followed by Viola Davis taking the Female Actor in a Leading Role award, solidifying her lead over her primary awards season competition Meryl Streep. …

French actor Jean DuJardin pulled an upset himself by taking the SAG Award for Male Actor in a Lead Role for his performance in The Artist over the favorited George Clooney

Because I haven’t seen “The Artist,” or the films for which Clooney and Streep have been nominated, there’s no way for me to judge if this is fair. What I do know is that Clooney’s improved dramatically as an actor over the last decade while Streep’s become a parody of herself, and the snippets I have seen of “The Iron Lady” tell me nothing’s changed.

ANALYST: PAY TV PROVIDERS HAVE ENOUGH MUSCLE TO BLOCK COMPETITION FROM THE WEB

I don’t completely disagree, and there are a few points worth highlighting but also a few to add.

First off, what you’ll read immediately below is why you pay for a ton of crap on cable you don’t watch. Secondly, this is how crap nobody watches stays alive. Finally, and most importantly, this is how a VERY FEW monopolize our popular culture:

Six companies — Disney, News Corp, NBCUniversal, Time Warner, CBS, and Discovery — account for 90% of all viewing hours. They demand that their channels be sold in packages, ”and only that way[.]” …

Well, then what’s to stop an online service from creating a virtual cable company — offering packages of channels via the net but for less than current pay TV providers charge? You’d think there’d be room for someone to do that considering that that consumers pay Comcast about $79 a month for programming that costs the company about $29.

Three reasons follow, and each is valid:

1. “Hollywood studios would only help a new competitor if it offered to pay more than the current pay TV guys do. ”A subscriber lost to Comcast or DirecTV is also a subscriber lost by News Corporation and Disney,” Moffett says.”

2. “[S]treaming video entails “huge and very real infrastructure costs associated with the massive server farms, transport costs, and hosting fees…For a large scale startup, the cost could run into the billions.”

3.  ”The cable guys can upend the economics of online video just by adopting usage based pricing for their broadband services.”

In other words, since most Internet providers also provide cable, they can start charging us exorbitant fees to download and watch programming via a provider such as Netflix Streaming. This will offset any savings we gain moving from cable to a streaming service. Moreover, because of the massive start-up costs involved, it’s hard to imagine a Netflix getting into the business of providing internet. Agreed. But…

This analysis doesn’t take a few things into account, like human nature.  For starters, it assumes the providers of entertainment and Internet hold all the cards when they don’t. The customers create the market, not the other way around. The entertainment providers can try to blackmail us by withholding their product from streaming venues, but eventually we’re going to stop watching their product. Internet providers can blackmail us by charging huge fees, but eventually we’ll use their product less to avoid those fees.

What happens, then, is the unthinkable (for Hollywood), and that’s fewer eyeballs on the product. And when that happens, Hollywood will have to go to where the eyeballs are, which mean bowing to the Streaming god. This also means the cost of streaming will have to go down (if it increases at all) in order for viewership to increase.

For Hollywood, nothing will ever trump eyeballs on the product. That’s where the real money is for obvious reasons. Therefore, everything will be done to get that product in front of people.

One thing I suspect will happen is that once everything is streaming, programmers will do to their programming what we’re seeing done today with online videos, and that’s adding a commercial or two that can’t be fast-forwarded through. There’s a lot of money to be made in advertising if the sponsors know we’re a captive audience no longer in possession of the power to avoid commercials.  Crackle TV does this now to pay for the free programming they stream, and there’s no reason the others can’t.

This is how the inevitable (streaming) can be monetized, and monetizing the inevitable is what everyone needs to be focused on, not fighting it.

RIP:  ‘SEINFELD’ ACTOR IAN ABERCROMBIE DEAD AT 77

“Seinfeld” hasn’t aged a day. I’ve been watching the DVDs after work while killing myself on the treadmill (three miles in two hours is pretty good, right?) and the show’s genius for gently mocking self-involved, urban liberals plays even better today. And, it’s just plain ole’ funny.

10 BEST DIRECTOR’S CUTS

Generally I despise director’s cuts and see them for what they really are — a way to cynically double dip  fans, but I can’t argue with the choices of “Blade Runner,” “Das Boot,” and most especially Orson Welles’ “Touch of Evil,” which went from curiosity to classic after a recut was produced using the director’s very precise notes.

WEAK: FULL MATTHEW BRODERICK AS FERRIS BUELLER SUPER BOWL AD FOR HONDA

Weak. Weak. Weak. They couldn’t get Ben Stein? The final bit is kind of clever, though.

What’s most interesting about this ad is that there’s an ad in front of it.

READER: HOLLYWOOD DOES SELL MEMORABILIA

In Friday’s Call Sheet I wondered aloud why Hollywood keeps and reuses props and wardrobe when  there’s a huge market for memorabilia. A reader emailed:

[Y]ou need to watch ‘Hollywood Treasures’ on the SyFy Channel. It’s about a company called Profiles in History, which has regular auctions of Hollywood memorabilia. They’ve done two seasons already, so maybe you can catch them in re-runs or on DVD. You’d be amazed at what some of this stuff goes for — and likewise what doesn’t sell. They handled the Debbie Reynolds collection recently because she couldn’t get anyone in Hollywood interested in building a museum, which is a real shame.

Check it out.

—–

—–

LAST NIGHT’S SCREENING

Double shot of Dirty Harry (1971) and Magnum Force (1973) on Blu-ray. These are movies you just have to rewatch a couple of times a year. The Blu-rays look great and were really inexpensive. The two-pack was only $9 and included some pretty interesting extras.

If there’s time tonight, it will be my other $9 two-pack: The Enforcer (1976) and Sudden Impact (1983).

Sometimes you just got to get your Dirty Harry on.

A few months after he first hired me, Andrew Breitbart called me up during that year’s Super Bowl halftime.  During the conversation he asked me what I was watching. I told him “Sudden Impact.” He said, “I hired the right guy.”

—–

—–

SCOTTDS’ EPIC LINKTACULAR

AN UPDATE ON DARREN ARONOFSKY’S BIBLICAL TALE ‘NOAH‘

CINEMA RETRO’S DAVE WORRALL AT “BOND IN MOTION” AUTO EXHIBITION

ROOM 237 DOCUMENTARY ATTEMPTS TO DECIPHER KUBRICK’S ‘THE SHINING‘

NEW THE ‘DARK KNIGHT RISES’ MERCHANDISE PROMO SHOTS

10 GEEKIEST ONE-SHOT GUEST STARS ON ‘CHUCK‘

SECOND PHOTO OF VIN DIESEL ON THE ‘RIDDICK’ SET

10 KICKASS THINGS MEL BROOKS DID (BESIDES HIS MOVIES)

‘MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 4′ SETS FRANCHISE RECORD WITH $571M WORLDWIDE SO FAR

THE LOST PROJECTS OF HAROLD RAMIS

BUT FOR ‘ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN,’ THERE’D HAVE PROBABLY BEEN NO GRATEFUL DEAD

OSCAR-NOMINATED MOVIE POSTERS: WHAT IF THEY TOLD THE TRUTH?

STEVE BUSCEMI TALKS ABOUT THE SECRET OF ‘BOARDWALK EMPIRE’

ON THE INHERENT DARKNESS OF STEVEN SPIELBERG

READERS BID FAREWELL TO ‘KOTTER’S’ JUAN EPSTEIN

15 FILM FESTIVAL DARLINGS THAT WOULD’VE BEEN BETTER AS TV SERIES

CHRIS ROCK: ‘GROWN UPS’ CAST REUNION MIGHT NOT BE A SEQUEL

EXPLORING THE HIDDEN MYTHOS OF ‘POLICE ACADEMY’ (YES, SOMEONE ACTUALLY WROTE THIS)

‘PHANTOM MENACE’ 3D PREVIEW FROM ‘STAR WARS’ INSIDER

THE MOST RIDICULOUS SCI-FI PLOTS FROM ACTUAL SOAP OPERAS

SEE DON DRAPER ON THE COVER OF SCOTCH & SMOKE MAGAZINE

A LOOK BACK AT ‘THREE CASES OF MURDER,’ STARRING ORSON WELLES

‘TRUE BLOOD’ SEASON 5 TEASER VIDEO

37 THINGS WE LEARNED FROM THE ‘HARD CANDY’ COMMENTARY

‘GAME OF THRONES’ SEASON 2 TRAILER

—–

—–

CLASSIC PICK FOR TUESDAY,  JANUARY 31

TCM:

8:30 AM  EST: Black Narcissus (1947) –  Nuns founding a convent in the Himalayas are tormented by the area’s exotic beauty. Dir: Michael Powell Cast:  Deborah Kerr, Sabu, David Farrar. C-101 mins, TV-14, CC.

Bizarre, very adult and beautifully filmed classic, one of those films that prove the Production Code made for better films with the limits it placed on artists to tell these kinds of stories through subtext and symbolism. Without those limits, the movie wouldn’t be half as good as it is.

—–

—–

Please send comments, suggestions and tips to jnolte@breitbart.com or Twitter @NolteNC.

After all, Tina Fey’s impersonation of the former Vice Presidential candidate helped derail the McCain/Palin ticket, and celebrities love nothing more than slamming the hockey mom of five.

“Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus promises viewers won’t hear any new Palin cracks when the comedy, which focuses on a senator turned overwhelmed vice president, debuts next year. The “Seinfeld” alum tells Capitol File magazine via Politico the new series will be so fair and balanced we won’t even know which party her character calls her own:

“There’s talk of the opposition and that party and this party, but it is never identified. So this is not a partisan politics show in any way. What it is, though, is a show about political behavior. And that is where the comedy comes from.”

She added, “This is in no way a parody of [Sarah Palin] or any other female politician.”

Interesting if true, but celebrities will often promote their ideological projects by pretending there’s not so much as a pairing knife to grind. We’ll see how accurate Louis-Dreyfus is when the first few “Veep” episodes hit HBO in 2012.

I come from a cancer riddled family. My father died of stomach cancer; my sister of leukemia, a niece of pancreatic cancer; another of ovarian cancer. I would dearly love for us to find a cure but I wonder why it is that Breast Cancer has become the darling of Hollywood celebrities. AIDS research is another disease that gets more attention from Hollywood than any other.   

John Stossel reported back in 2009 on the Fox Business Website- “In 2001, AIDS research got $4,439 per patient from NIH, breast cancer $290, Parkinson’s $175.  Diabetes, which killed more people than AIDS and breast cancer combined, got $41.  Heart disease, the number one killer, got $58.” 

Parkinson’s is listed third and could that be because Michael J. Fox is a very effective spokesperson and victim of that disease? Several Hollywood actresses have survived breast cancer and are enthusiastic supporters of the pink campaign;; Suzanne Somers; Kate Jackson; Edie Falco; Jaclyn Smith; Shirley Temple Black and more. Rock Hudson brought the AIDS epidemic to every household watching Dynasty and I can’t count how many of my gay friends died of this preventable disease. 

I wouldn’t be surprised to see osteoporosis climb the research funding chart since Sally Fields has admitted she suffers from this while promoting a drug to control it. 

The problem I have with celebrities fundraising for these diseases and whole months being designated for feverous campaigns is that corporations end up exploiting the sales for profit. For every yogurt you buy with a pink ribbon, the company will send ten cents for research. You would end up eating three yogurts a day for the month just to generate a $36 donation. Why not just send a check directly to the Cancer Society?  Why not support research for all cancers? 

I’ve always identified with Kramer on the Seinfeld show who enraged everybody at an AIDS Walk by refusing to wear a red ribbon. He’s confronted and assaulted by two AIDS walkers after screaming, “This is America! I don’t have to wear anything I don’t wanna wear! “ 

Well apparently we all do, Kramer, bow to the pink and the red and whatever color ribbon Hollywood celebrities will don on Oscar Night. 

The irony about the pink campaign is that it came about in the early 1990’s when a woman with a family history of breast cancer, Charlotte Haley, made peach ribbons with a card that read, “The National Cancer Institute annual budget is $1.8 billion, only 5 percent goes for cancer prevention. Help us wake up our legislators and America by wearing this ribbon.” 

The executives at Estee Lauder and Self Magazine asked Haley for permission to use her ribbon. She refused saying they were too commercial so they changed the color to pink. 

I wonder if this October “pink” campaign would have pissed me off so much if the color was peach. 

 I like peach.

The truth is that Seinfeld reflects the worst among us. It is made up of a memorable cast, all of whom play the most self-serving people you could ever meet. Self-absorbed, vain and often underhanded, the show is a perfect embodiment of many involved with the entertainment industry.  You’ve got to love its transparency. Unlike James Cameron (who is just as materialistic and self-serving as a George Costanza), you never have to worry about the show sermonizing the politically correct cause du jour.

Funnily enough, it is Seinfeld’s lack of a soapbox that spurs me to take a good hard look at myself more than any other show on television. How often do you find yourself disgusted at the selfishness of George or Jerry, only to realize that you’ve most likely acted similarly (if not identically) at one point or another?

Whether it’s as mundane as bragging about a prime parking space or as shameful as breaking up with a dame due to hygienic differences, we’ve all found ourselves in “Seinfeld moments” more often than we care to admit.  How often have you watched the show with your friends only to hear echoes of, “Oh, that’s so something  you would do.”

Miraculously enough, I’ve probably made more self-corrections from watching Seinfeld than I ever would from listening to today’s self-righteous celebrities. Isn’t that the way life goes?  Whether it’s your parents putting a limit on your candy intake as a child or a pompous celebrity demanding that you adopt his opinion as your own, when someone else tries to force you, your natural instinct is to rebel. Action meets reaction. But when someone lays everything out on the table and allows you to make your own decisions, more often than not, you’ll opt for the right one. You find yourself thinking things like, “Hrm, Mom was right.  Eight pounds of Pixie Stix probably isn’t such a great idea.” Or, “I now see why fires should only be lit in a contained area.”

In the same way, when watching Seinfeld, one often finds themselves with a well-deserved feeling of guilt in their gut, muttering, “Well, I’ll never do that again.”  A mirror’s reflection is the greatest tool one can use toward self improvement, and Seinfeld is one hell of a mirror.

That’s why I love this show.

Plus, Letterman just sucks these days.