Findcate

BILL HENSON has dominated the headlines during the past week for all the wrong reasons but when the hysteria dies down we might find this affair has coughed up a few revelations.

First: the level of public ignorance that exists in relation to the visual arts. In 2005 Bill Henson was the subject of huge retrospectives at the Art Gallery of NSW and the National Gallery of Victoria, which were advertised in the media and even on bus shelters. His work is held by most of the important public collections in Australia and he is every bit as internationally successful in his field as Cate Blanchett or Hugh Jackman are in theirs. He has been making works that use teenagers for almost 30 years, exhibiting and publishing at the highest levels. And yet, when this furore breaks, it seems that his detractors have never heard of him.

This should be a source of concern to art museums, arts funding bodies, art educators and organisations with cultural responsibilities such as the ABC. It seems that most people in Australia could not care less for the visual arts unless they are presented in the form of a page one scandal.

The second eye-opener is the irresponsible way the politicians have responded to this affair. From the Prime Minister to the Premier, to the leaders of federal and state oppositions, every one has blurted out a litany of damning, inflammatory comments, having seen nothing more than a few blurry snapshots.

It is no secret that rank populism is now a fact of life in Australian politics. But in an age when every message is refined and spin-doctored to avoid offending anyone’s delicate sensibilities, it appears to be OK to pronounce judgments on unseen works of art in the name of public morality. The comments of the politicians have provided tremendous support for one-eyed activists such as Hetty Johnston, who claim to be speaking in the name of “the community”.

Directly or indirectly, our leaders have encouraged the police to act in a high-handed manner by confiscating works of art, thereby setting the scene for an ugly and futile battle in the courts. Finally, they have helped create a climate in which self-appointed witch-hunters and vigilantes can ring the Roslyn Oxley gallery with threats of violence.

Related posts

• Cate Blanchett joins art censorship row in Australia
• Winner Cate remembers Heath in Spirit
• Winner Cate remembers Heath in Spirit
• The week’s best films
• The dangers of celebrity politics
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars

He has had dinner with Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban, enjoyed the company of Russell Crowe in a Washington hotel, been to the cricket with Hugh Jackman and, to cap it all off, visited Cate Blanchett and her new baby instead of attending the funeral of John Button.

Of course Mr Rudd has much to thank Blanchett for, because by appearing with her newborn at the 2020 Summit last weekend, she guaranteed Rudd some positive media.

Related posts

• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008

IT’S DIFFICULT to be sceptical about Kevin Rudd’s summit
of Australia’s “best and brightest”. One of the Government’s first
announcements about the event was that Cate Blanchett would convene
a session. A little while later it was revealed that Hugh Jackman
would be attending. (We don’t know whether Mel, Nicole, or Russell
have been invited %26#151; maybe they’ll make a surprise
appearance.)
Obviously the Prime Minister’s media advisers calculated that
the sight of Kevin Rudd discussing the nation’s problems with
Hollywood celebrities would combat his image as a boring
bureaucrat. So far those advisers have been proved right.
There’s nothing wrong with Labor (or the Liberals) having
summits, conferences, and talkfests. Sometimes it is useful to get
experts together to debate policy, and occasionally a good
suggestion might emerge.
But the timing of the summit is curious. It was only four months
ago that Kevin Rudd won an election after he promised he had all
the solutions. Obviously Canberra’s 155,000 public servants can’t
provide the answers the Prime Minister needs %26#151; if they could
he wouldn’t need a summit.
The problem with Labor’s summit is that 95% of the participants
will be in enthusiastic agreement that the Rudd Government is good,
that the Howard government was bad, and that the solution to any
problem is higher taxes and more government spending.
The Australia 2020 Summit is an exercise in pure and simple
politics. The summit will co-opt the country’s elite into endorsing
the Rudd Government’s policies, and in the process the Howard
government will be airbrushed from history.
The background papers for the summit give the game away.
Although the papers profess “to tell an evidence-based story about
how Australia is faring”, the evidence they provide is skewed to
present the Coalition government in the worst possible light. In
among the more than 100 pages of material there’s no reference, for
example, to Australia experiencing the longest period of economic
growth in its history.
If summit participants are to be encouraged to confront the
challenges of the future they should at least be told about the
conditions of the present. It’s impossible to consider indigenous
policy without examining the results so far of the Coalition’s
Northern Territory intervention. The background papers, however,
make no mention of the intervention.
Similarly, social welfare reform is discussed without reference
to the single biggest welfare reform in a generation, namely the
introduction of “mutual obligation” and work for the dole. And the
list goes on.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Iraq war,
you’d expect it would be in the section on foreign policy or there
would at least be a reference to it. Yet, bizarrely, Iraq doesn’t
rate a mention.
The summit’s background papers cleanse Australian history of the
11 years of John Howard. Trying to ignore the fact that Kevin
Rudd’s immediate predecessor ever existed might give some of the
summit participants a warm inner glow, but such an approach doesn’t
make for good policy.
All governments play politics; after all, that’s the nature of
politics. It’s naive to believe that when it comes to Labor’s
summit the laws of politics are somehow suspended.
The Australian media analysed and dissected John Howard’s every
move in an attempt to discern the political advantage he or the
Liberals would gain. In contrast, Kevin Rudd’s summit has been
breathlessly embraced as an exercise in bipartisanship
nation-building that is above the day-to-day reality of what
politicians do.
It’s good politics for Labor to portray the Prime Minister as a
leader boldly forging a consensus. Bob Hawke made a career out of
it. But sometimes you can get too much of a good thing.
A measure of the health of a democracy is the extent to which
there are differences of opinion in the public debate. Under the
Liberals, the ABC, the ACTU, and Australia’s public universities
guaranteed that opinions different from those of the government
would be aired and disseminated.
Now, with Labor in power federally and in every state and
territory where will those opposing views come from? They’re
unlikely to come from a summit of 1000 hand-picked participants.
One can speculate on a participant’s chances of success if they
suggested at the summit that Canberra should have less power rather
than more, or that there are bigger issues confronting the planet
than climate change.
There are strong incentives for those at the summit to
co-operate with Kevin Rudd. He has an approval rating of 70%.
Brendan Nelson’s is 9%. Labor doesn’t look like being dislodged
from power across the country any time soon. Given this stark
reality, the question is how many of those attending the summit
will be able to afford to disagree with the Government?
John Roskam is executive director of the Institute of Public
Affairs.

Related posts

• Ideas summit? More like a Labor love-fest
• Ideas summit? More like a Labor love-fest
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Dream comes true for scorching Kylie

Rudd good, Howard bad, does not foster strong public
policy-making.
It’s difficult to be sceptical about Kevin Rudd’s summit of
Australia’s “best and brightest”. One of the Government’s first
announcements about the event was that Cate Blanchett would convene
a session. A little while later it was revealed that Hugh Jackman
would be attending. (We don’t know whether Mel, Nicole, or Russell
have been invited - maybe they’ll make a surprise appearance.)
Obviously the Prime Minister’s media advisers calculated that
the sight of Kevin Rudd discussing the nation’s problems with
Hollywood celebrities would combat his image as a boring
bureaucrat. So far those advisers have been proved right.
There’s nothing wrong with Labor (or the Liberals) having
summits, conferences, and talkfests. Sometimes it is useful to get
experts together to debate policy, and occasionally a good
suggestion might emerge.
But the timing of the summit is curious. It was only four months
ago that Kevin Rudd won an election after he promised he had all
the solutions. Obviously Canberra’s 155,000 public servants can’t
provide the answers the Prime Minister needs - if they could he
wouldn’t need a summit.
The problem with Labor’s summit is that 95% of the participants
will be in enthusiastic agreement that the Rudd Government is good,
that the Howard government was bad, and that the solution to any
problem is higher taxes and more government spending.
The Australia 2020 Summit is an exercise in pure and simple
politics. The summit will co-opt the country’s elite into endorsing
the Rudd Government’s policies, and in the process the Howard
government will be airbrushed from history.
The background papers for the summit give the game away.
Although the papers profess “to tell an evidence-based story about
how Australia is faring”, the evidence they provide is skewed to
present the Coalition government in the worst possible light. In
among the more than 100 pages of material there’s no reference, for
example, to Australia experiencing the longest period of economic
growth in its history.
If summit participants are to be encouraged to confront the
challenges of the future they should at least be told about the
conditions of the present. It’s impossible to consider indigenous
policy without examining the results so far of the Coalition’s
Northern Territory intervention. The background papers, however,
make no mention of the intervention.
Similarly, social welfare reform is discussed without reference
to the single biggest welfare reform in a generation, namely the
introduction of “mutual obligation” and work for the dole. And the
list goes on.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Iraq war,
you’d expect it would be in the section on foreign policy or there
would at least be a reference to it. Yet, bizarrely, Iraq doesn’t
rate a mention.
The summit’s background papers cleanse Australian history of the
11 years of John Howard. Trying to ignore the fact that Kevin
Rudd’s immediate predecessor ever existed might give some of the
summit participants a warm inner glow, but such an approach doesn’t
make for good policy.
All governments play politics; after all, that’s the nature of
politics. It’s naive to believe that when it comes to Labor’s
summit the laws of politics are somehow suspended.
The Australian media analysed and dissected John Howard’s every
move in an attempt to discern the political advantage he or the
Liberals would gain. In contrast, Kevin Rudd’s summit has been
breathlessly embraced as an exercise in bipartisanship
nation-building that is above the day-to-day reality of what
politicians do.
It’s good politics for Labor to portray the Prime Minister as a
leader boldly forging a consensus. Bob Hawke made a career out of
it. But sometimes you can get too much of a good thing.
A measure of the health of a democracy is the extent to which
there are differences of opinion in the public debate. Under the
Liberals, the ABC, the ACTU, and Australia’s public universities
guaranteed that opinions different from those of the government
would be aired and disseminated.
Now, with Labor in power federally and in every state and
territory where will those opposing views come from? They’re
unlikely to come from a summit of 1000 hand-picked participants.
One can speculate on a participant’s chances of success if they
suggested at the summit that Canberra should have less power rather
than more, or that there are bigger issues confronting the planet
than climate change.
There are strong incentives for those at the summit to
co-operate with Kevin Rudd. He has an approval rating of 70%.
Brendan Nelson’s is 9%. Labor doesn’t look like being dislodged
from power across the country any time soon. Given this stark
reality, the question is how many of those attending the summit
will be able to afford to disagree with the Government?
John Roskam is executive director of the Institute of Public
Affairs.

Related posts

• Ideas summit? More like a Labor love-fest
• Ideas summit? More like a Labor love-fest
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Dream comes true for scorching Kylie

IT’S DIFFICULT to be sceptical about Kevin Rudd’s summit
of Australia’s “best and brightest”. One of the Government’s first
announcements about the event was that Cate Blanchett would convene
a session. A little while later it was revealed that Hugh Jackman
would be attending. (We don’t know whether Mel, Nicole, or Russell
have been invited %26#151; maybe they’ll make a surprise
appearance.)
Obviously the Prime Minister’s media advisers calculated that
the sight of Kevin Rudd discussing the nation’s problems with
Hollywood celebrities would combat his image as a boring
bureaucrat. So far those advisers have been proved right.
There’s nothing wrong with Labor (or the Liberals) having
summits, conferences, and talkfests. Sometimes it is useful to get
experts together to debate policy, and occasionally a good
suggestion might emerge.
But the timing of the summit is curious. It was only four months
ago that Kevin Rudd won an election after he promised he had all
the solutions. Obviously Canberra’s 155,000 public servants can’t
provide the answers the Prime Minister needs %26#151; if they could
he wouldn’t need a summit.
The problem with Labor’s summit is that 95% of the participants
will be in enthusiastic agreement that the Rudd Government is good,
that the Howard government was bad, and that the solution to any
problem is higher taxes and more government spending.
The Australia 2020 Summit is an exercise in pure and simple
politics. The summit will co-opt the country’s elite into endorsing
the Rudd Government’s policies, and in the process the Howard
government will be airbrushed from history.
The background papers for the summit give the game away.
Although the papers profess “to tell an evidence-based story about
how Australia is faring”, the evidence they provide is skewed to
present the Coalition government in the worst possible light. In
among the more than 100 pages of material there’s no reference, for
example, to Australia experiencing the longest period of economic
growth in its history.
If summit participants are to be encouraged to confront the
challenges of the future they should at least be told about the
conditions of the present. It’s impossible to consider indigenous
policy without examining the results so far of the Coalition’s
Northern Territory intervention. The background papers, however,
make no mention of the intervention.
Similarly, social welfare reform is discussed without reference
to the single biggest welfare reform in a generation, namely the
introduction of “mutual obligation” and work for the dole. And the
list goes on.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Iraq war,
you’d expect it would be in the section on foreign policy or there
would at least be a reference to it. Yet, bizarrely, Iraq doesn’t
rate a mention.
The summit’s background papers cleanse Australian history of the
11 years of John Howard. Trying to ignore the fact that Kevin
Rudd’s immediate predecessor ever existed might give some of the
summit participants a warm inner glow, but such an approach doesn’t
make for good policy.
All governments play politics; after all, that’s the nature of
politics. It’s naive to believe that when it comes to Labor’s
summit the laws of politics are somehow suspended.
The Australian media analysed and dissected John Howard’s every
move in an attempt to discern the political advantage he or the
Liberals would gain. In contrast, Kevin Rudd’s summit has been
breathlessly embraced as an exercise in bipartisanship
nation-building that is above the day-to-day reality of what
politicians do.
It’s good politics for Labor to portray the Prime Minister as a
leader boldly forging a consensus. Bob Hawke made a career out of
it. But sometimes you can get too much of a good thing.
A measure of the health of a democracy is the extent to which
there are differences of opinion in the public debate. Under the
Liberals, the ABC, the ACTU, and Australia’s public universities
guaranteed that opinions different from those of the government
would be aired and disseminated.
Now, with Labor in power federally and in every state and
territory where will those opposing views come from? They’re
unlikely to come from a summit of 1000 hand-picked participants.
One can speculate on a participant’s chances of success if they
suggested at the summit that Canberra should have less power rather
than more, or that there are bigger issues confronting the planet
than climate change.
There are strong incentives for those at the summit to
co-operate with Kevin Rudd. He has an approval rating of 70%.
Brendan Nelson’s is 9%. Labor doesn’t look like being dislodged
from power across the country any time soon. Given this stark
reality, the question is how many of those attending the summit
will be able to afford to disagree with the Government?
John Roskam is executive director of the Institute of Public
Affairs.

Related posts

• Ideas summit? More like a Labor love-fest
• Ideas summit? More like a Labor love-fest
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Dream comes true for scorching Kylie

Billionaires, young idealists, stay-at-home mums and elder
statesmen are among the participants named today to plot
Australia’s future at the federal government’s 2020
Summit.
Media and gaming boss James Packer, 25-year-old Brisbane water
engineer Erin Cini and former governor-general William Deane are
among the 1000 people who will gather for the ideas-fest.
Others to make the final cut for the April summit, chosen from
almost 8000 applicants, include former AFL footballer James Hird,
aerial skiing gold medallist Alisa Camplin, actor Hugh Jackman and
former Victorian premier Steve Bracks.
Former head of the Australian Defence Force General Peter
Cosgrove, barrister Julian Burnside, businesswoman Margaret
Jackson, indigenous leader Tania Major, media personality Geraldine
Doogue, former Australian of the Year and scientist Tim Flannery
and actor Claudia Karvan are also among familiar names in the
mix.
Women make up 51 per cent of the list, reflective of Australia’s
demographics, but in contrast with the announcement of the heads of
the 10 steering committees, of whom only two are women.
Releasing the list today, Melbourne University vice-chancellor
and summit co-chair Glyn Davis said those chosen would represent
the breadth of Australia’s population, with everyone from
“electricians through to university professors and everything in
between” included.
“The mix was also a lot of Australians who you might want to
characterise as ordinary Australians,” Prof Davis said.
“Stay-at-home parents and so on who were interested in ideas and
a number of those have come through, because they have something
really important to contribute.”
Ms Cini said she was excited and felt privileged to be chosen
for the summit.
The water engineer will be putting forward ideas for grey water
and storm water usage schemes for household water users, as well as
greater transparency for all water users.
“It seems so simple,” she told AAP.
“I really think it is simple, it’s just making it happen.”
She said the chance to have her generation’s voice heard was too
good to pass up.
“My generation previously hasn’t had the opportunity to have a
voice and it’s my generation that will inherit the decisions
for 2020,” she said.
Professor Davis said the depth of wisdom and quality ideas
contained in the nominations showed a great commitment from right
across the community to helping shape Australia’s future.
Anyone could still submit ideas to be discussed at the 2020
Summit through the event’s website, he added.
Professor Davis said there was a strong representation from
rural Australia, but he had been disappointed that relatively few
from Australia’s regional cities had applied.
“There’s 51 per cent female, people from every state and
territory, they are from a whole range of professions,” he
said.
“There is a deliberate focus on rural and remote Australians …
there’s a very strong representation of indigenous
Australians.”
He said he expected great argument and debate at the summit.
“This is not a consensus summit, it’s not about agreeing at the
end,” Prof Davis said.
“On the contrary it’s about having a really good set of
discussions, debates, disagreements, in order to try and say what
are the key issues, what are the points of difference, where have
we got to make decisions as a nation?”
Actor Cate Blanchett heads the Towards a Creative Australia
committee.
The other nine committees focus on health, security, the
economy, rural communities, governance, indigenous Australia,
climate change, families and productivity.
AAP

Related posts

• Television’s fashion police head Down Under
• Television’s fashion police head Down Under
• Sorry, squire, your dacks are just too daggy
• Sorry, squire, your dacks are just too daggy
• Sorry, squire, your dacks are just too daggy
• Sorry, squire, your dacks are just too daggy
• Much ado about NIDA’s direction
• Much ado about NIDA’s direction
• Much ado about NIDA’s direction
• Much ado about NIDA’s direction

CALL IT star power or celebrity networking, but one thing is
certain: the Sydney Theatre Company is attracting some of the best
film talents in the business.
Liv Ullmann, a film director and actor best known for her
collaborations with Ingmar Bergman, will direct Tennessee
Williams’s A Streetcar Named Desire next year with Cate
Blanchett as its heroine, Blanche DuBois.
Ullmann has been in Sydney this week making preparations with
the company’s co-directors, Andrew Upton and Blanchett.
“It is an honour to work with the STC,” Ullmann said.
“[Williams] holds the audience through the revelation of quiet and
ordinary truths and I’m excited by the prospect of discovering
these with %26#133; inspiring artists.”
Although the company’s 2009 program will not be announced until
later this year, A Streetcar Named Desire is sure to be a
selling point. Hugh Jackman has also been tipped to appear in a
classic Australian drama. “Having an artist of Liv Ullmann’s
exacting vision at the helm of STC’s production of one of the
greatest plays of the 20th century will be wonderful,” Blanchett
said.
Bryce Hallett

Related posts

• Bergman muse to direct Blanchett
• Blanchett keen to play more screen villains
• US ties with Oz `embarassing` - Blanchett
• Sydney can turn on the waterworks
• Sydney can turn on the waterworks
• Sydney can turn on the waterworks
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip

At last the Zeitgeist has thrown up another tool for analysing
popular culture that is almost as powerful as the notion of
“jumping the shark”. It is the concept of “the nut guard”.
If it had been created in Australia it would probably have been
called “the cup” or “the box”, by analogy with the device used by
cricketers to protect their vulnerable parts.
However, because it was created in the US, it is defined thus by
Entertainment Weekly: “Nut guard (noun): the credit on an
actor’s resume that is so beloved it stops fans from wanting to
actually kick him where it hurts after sitting through his latest
stinker.
“Origin: after seeing Fred Claus, Mandi told her friend
Karen that she wanted to kick Vince Vaughn in the nuts. Karen said,
‘You can’t. He’s got a nut guard because of Swingers.”‘ So
John Travolta, who has made many a kickworthy, gets a nut guard for
Pulp Fiction; Brad Pitt is guarded by Fight Club and
George Clooney by Michael Clayton. Tom Cruise, whose whole
life is kickworthy, gets nut guards for Rain Man and
Collateral.
The concept applies to women, too, even if it’s a technical
misnomer. Lindsay Lohan’s nut guard is Mean Girls, which is
not nearly enough. Angelina Jolie’s is A Mighty Heart, which
counterbalances two Lara Croft movies. Cate Blanchett has so many
guards she could do kickworthies for the rest of her career.
Last year, this column, after consulting its readers, declared
that Nicole Kidman had jumped the shark, based on a string of
embarrassments that displayed chronic bad taste in scripts.
Since then, she’s been the best performer in The Golden
Compass and has played an interesting neurotic in Margot At
The Wedding (which made just $80,000 in its first week in
Australian cinemas, suggesting Our Nic is not a huge drawcard in
her own land).
Any protection she may claim from those performances is
dissolved by a flick just opened here; the sci-fi potboiler The
Invasion (in our photo, Kidman has just learned that her former
husband has been turned into a zombie by aliens, which sounds like
the story of her life).
Like The Stepford Wives, it’s the kind of shark-jump
symptom that causes audiences too polite to don the steel-capped
boots to ask: “What was she thinking?”
The nut guard is a new tool for media analysts, and its
parameters need refining. Click here if you can
help with these questions:
Is an Oscar-winning performance automatically a nut guard, and
how many kickworthies should it block?
What is the current nut guard/kickworthy balance of Eric Bana,
Toni Collette, Russell Crowe, Judy Davis, Mel Gibson, Rachel
Griffiths, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Miranda Otto, Guy Pearce,
Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Hugo Weaving?
It is, of course, a matter of personal opinion, and we’d like to
hear yours.

Related posts

• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA

CALL IT star power or celebrity networking, but one thing is
certain: the Sydney Theatre Company is attracting some of the best
film talents in the business.
Liv Ullmann, a film director and actor best known for her
collaborations with Ingmar Bergman, will direct Tennessee
Williams’s A Streetcar Named Desire next year with Cate
Blanchett as its heroine, Blanche DuBois.
Ullmann has been in Sydney this week making preparations with
the company’s co-directors, Andrew Upton and Blanchett.
“It is an honour to work with the STC,” Ullmann said.
“[Williams] holds the audience through the revelation of quiet and
ordinary truths and I’m excited by the prospect of discovering
these with %26#133; inspiring artists.”
Although the company’s 2009 program will not be announced until
later this year, A Streetcar Named Desire is sure to be a
selling point. Hugh Jackman has also been tipped to appear in a
classic Australian drama. “Having an artist of Liv Ullmann’s
exacting vision at the helm of STC’s production of one of the
greatest plays of the 20th century will be wonderful,” Blanchett
said.
Bryce Hallett

Related posts

• Bergman muse to direct Blanchett
• Blanchett keen to play more screen villains
• US ties with Oz `embarassing` - Blanchett
• Sydney can turn on the waterworks
• Sydney can turn on the waterworks
• Sydney can turn on the waterworks
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip
• Surging emotions in stylish guilt trip

At last the Zeitgeist has thrown up another tool for analysing
popular culture that is almost as powerful as the notion of
“jumping the shark”. It is the concept of “the nut guard”.
If it had been created in Australia it would probably have been
called “the cup” or “the box”, by analogy with the device used by
cricketers to protect their vulnerable parts.
However, because it was created in the US, it is defined thus by
Entertainment Weekly: “Nut guard (noun): the credit on an
actor’s resume that is so beloved it stops fans from wanting to
actually kick him where it hurts after sitting through his latest
stinker.
“Origin: after seeing Fred Claus, Mandi told her friend
Karen that she wanted to kick Vince Vaughn in the nuts. Karen said,
‘You can’t. He’s got a nut guard because of Swingers.”‘ So
John Travolta, who has made many a kickworthy, gets a nut guard for
Pulp Fiction; Brad Pitt is guarded by Fight Club and
George Clooney by Michael Clayton. Tom Cruise, whose whole
life is kickworthy, gets nut guards for Rain Man and
Collateral.
The concept applies to women, too, even if it’s a technical
misnomer. Lindsay Lohan’s nut guard is Mean Girls, which is
not nearly enough. Angelina Jolie’s is A Mighty Heart, which
counterbalances two Lara Croft movies. Cate Blanchett has so many
guards she could do kickworthies for the rest of her career.
Last year, this column, after consulting its readers, declared
that Nicole Kidman had jumped the shark, based on a string of
embarrassments that displayed chronic bad taste in scripts.
Since then, she’s been the best performer in The Golden
Compass and has played an interesting neurotic in Margot At
The Wedding (which made just $80,000 in its first week in
Australian cinemas, suggesting Our Nic is not a huge drawcard in
her own land).
Any protection she may claim from those performances is
dissolved by a flick just opened here; the sci-fi potboiler The
Invasion (in our photo, Kidman has just learned that her former
husband has been turned into a zombie by aliens, which sounds like
the story of her life).
Like The Stepford Wives, it’s the kind of shark-jump
symptom that causes audiences too polite to don the steel-capped
boots to ask: “What was she thinking?”
The nut guard is a new tool for media analysts, and its
parameters need refining. Click here if you can
help with these questions:
Is an Oscar-winning performance automatically a nut guard, and
how many kickworthies should it block?
What is the current nut guard/kickworthy balance of Eric Bana,
Toni Collette, Russell Crowe, Judy Davis, Mel Gibson, Rachel
Griffiths, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Miranda Otto, Guy Pearce,
Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Hugo Weaving?
It is, of course, a matter of personal opinion, and we’d like to
hear yours.

Related posts

• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Sweet! A nutcracker guard for stars
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Indy, Bond, Trek, Batman: Movies coming in 2008
• Kylie’s dream comes true in LA