Saints and Sinners

Back home in Michigan it would be noted that today is St. Urho’s Day.
As you can see from the Wikipedia entry, the whole thing was made up as a joke in response to the more widely-known St. Patrick’s Day.
Some might say that it’s demonstrative of a Finn’s desire to one-up people, but I think what’s more likely is that creating a holiday the day before St. Patrick’s Day was designed to give Finns an excuse to get a head start on their St. Patrick’s Day drinking.
Of course, a drinking Finn doesn’t need much more than simply waking up as an excuse to drink…
On this particular St. Urho’s Day I found myself going to the dentist in the morning.
He didn’t hassle me quite so much about having been so long absent as I expected him to, but in my defense I stated that it’s not a matter of me being unwilling to go, but that I just couldn’t afford it before now.
I have to go back next week, and most likely many times after that.
The focus now is less on saving as many teeth as possible, as some of them have broken beyond repair, but there will still be an expensive crown or two.
Beyond making the cheesecake with Kathleen last night, I haven’t done any cooking this week (mostly because I have a freezer full of leftovers), so today I decided to make a vegetarian lasagna.
Rather than use eggplant, as we did when we made one in class a few weeks back, I opted for zucchini. I also decided to use an alfredo sauce rather than a tomato sauce.
Sure, it drives up the fat content, but while I did like the version we made in class, I’ve typically encountered vegetarian lasagna made with alfredo rather than tomato sauce.
Beyond preparing that and throwing it into the fridge for later cooking, I haven’t done much else today, though I did re-read “To Hell and Back,” a Sin City story.
It was, in fact, the first choice for adapting to the screen as the Sin City movie, but, for reasons that are unknown to me, Miller and Rodriguez decided to go with three stories (technically four, counting “The Customer is Always Right,” which is a short film that Rodriguez had made solely for the purposes of convincing Miller to let him make a Sin City movie, and which is included in the movie as the opening footage) in one movie.
“To Hell and Back” is a very cool story (but then, they all are), and ideally it will be made as a sequel, assuming that SC does well enough.
In planning a “Hell” movie, the role of the main character, Wallace, was slated for Johnny Depp, whom I have to say would make a pretty good Wallace.
Hopefully he’ll be up for it if/when “Hell” is made.
This week I started seeing the SC trailer airing on TV, which is very cool.
One thing that I’m a little concerned about, though, is the fact that the film is not yet rated.
It would be distressing if it had to be pared back in order to receive an “R” rating, as an “NC-17” rating would kill its chances at succeeding at the box office.
That's something of a no-win situation. Most of the existing content is essential to telling the stories properly, but if presenting the stories in all their grisly glory prevents it from getting wide distribution, the potential for the creation of a Sin City movie franchise dies on the shelf.
What I’m more concerned about, though, is that the decision on the rating might actually be between getting an “R” or a “PG-13.”
Given the content of the stories being adapted to the screen, it’s almost impossible to think that it actually could be made into a “PG-13” movie.
At the very least it seems unlikely.
Except…
There is the matter of Jessica Alba playing a stripper who doesn’t strip.
Sure, that could just be a matter of the directors really wanting her to play Nancy and respecting her desire to not appear nude.
Except…
Carla Gugino plays the part of Lucille, a role that, in the comics, featured nearly as much nudity as that of Nancy.
As we already know, in the movie Nancy will not be appearing nude.
But what about Lucille?
Gugino has appeared nude on film in the past, so it’s clear that she’s not completely opposed to nudity.
In the raw footage played for convention-goers several months back there was a shot of Gugino as Lucille, intercut with a panel of original art from the comic (in order to demonstrate how faithfully the material was adapted), and, as in the original art, Lucille appeared topless.
In fact, in an interview in “Entertainment Weekly” Gugino made reference to appearing in the film “clad only in a G-string and shadows.”
However, in the latest trailer that same shot is shown, with the exception that she is no longer topless.
Admittedly, they might have done this simply to be able to include a shot of her along with the rest of the cast, and, as we all learned from the Super Bowl in 2004, there is no sight on earth more damaging to the fragile psyche of human beings than that of a woman’s nipple (I often wonder how women manage to get through their days not just having to see the evil things, but actually having them on their bodies).
So sure, maybe they threw a top on her for that purpose.
Except…
The shot could have easily been cropped in such a way as to not show the area of her breast at all, thereby eliminating the need to cover her evil nipples.
Also, the trailer does contain another shot of her, so it’s not as though they really needed to include the no-longer-topless shot.
So the question becomes, have they removed all nudity in order to obtain a “PG-13” rating, and if so, what else has been cut out?
While I am concerned about this, as toning down the content of the stories to achieve a particular rating will undoubtedly detract from the quality of their adaptation, I’m not allowing it to dampen my enthusiasm.
Can Sin City still be a kick-ass movie with a “PG-13” rating? I have no doubt.
Still, the potential for losing important elements of the story because of the more kid-friendly rating does give me pause (As does the prospect of not getting to see Carla Gugino’s fabulous boobs bare on the big screen).
Despite these “suspicious” elements, I sincerely doubt that Miller would be willing to tone things down enough to make it into a “PG-13” movie, so most of my concerns are undoubtedly unfounded.
On the topic of SC and nudity, this month’s Playboy features Sin City as its “Movie of the Month” in the Reviews section. I had flipped past the movie reviews without seeing that, and was then very pleasantly surprised when, after reading the reviews of new DVD releases I thought to look back to see what current movies were reviewed, I saw a big picture of Jessica Alba as Nancy.
I’m still not thrilled about that bit of casting, and not just because she refuses to appear nude. I just have no confidence in her acting abilities.
Fortunately, while Nancy is an important character, her portrayal on-screen doesn’t really have the potential to make or break the movie, so it’s not that important.
In any case, that’s going to do it for this entry.
I’ve been doing a little drawing this week, so maybe I’ll actually finish something and post it at some point.My TV shows are reruns again tonight, so it’s fairly likely that I’ll be back again later.