Robert Downey Jr.: Short superstar shattering stereotypes

Here is an interesting article from http://isteve.blogspot.com about Hollywood men and their taller women costars. This follows this post  http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com  about the Knoxville Horor. In the meantime, you can read two very interesting books HERE.

Robert Downey Jr.: Short superstar shattering stereotypes


Robert Downey Jr. is currently the biggest box office star in the world, but he's definitely not the tallest. The good obsessives at CelebHeights peg him at 5'8". That sounds about right. Back when Downey was out of prison and out of work about a dozen years ago, I used to see him at our sons' baseball and soccer games at the local park, and he's not tall at all.*



These days, Hollywood casts short leading men with leading ladies who are taller than them (e.g., Gwyneth Paltrow with Downey, Nicole Kidman with Tom Cruise).





In general, leading men are not as disproportionately tall as during Golden Age Hollywood (John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper, and Cary Grant were all close to a half foot taller than the average American man of their time). Overall, I'd say that the decline in bias in Hollywood toward tall role models is a good thing.





Height used to be a pretty good marker of having enjoyed good nurture (e.g, had plenty to eat as a child). The Tory cabinet of prime minister Lord Salisbury in 1895 averaged six feet at a time when that was about a half foot taller than the average British man. From a female husband-hunting perspective, evidence that a man's family provided well for him when he was a child is evidence of a lot of good things. There's no downside to growing up so that you attain close to your genetic maximum of height.





Over time though, the systematic nutritional and health deficits that prevent a youth from a lower class background of attaining the full height of which his genes are capable have diminished. The NBA is full of guys who grew up on welfare. (Although in Downey's case, the kind of heavy drug use from very early age might have knocked an inch off his height.)





So, height is increasingly a measure less of nurture and more of nature. And, as somebody who is 6'4", the genetic advantages and disadvantages of being unusually tall seem like a mixed bag. If people weren't somewhat subjectively biased in favor of tall men like myself, I'd probably say the objective tradeoffs (clumsiness, head-banging, etc.) aren't really worth it. The human body isn't optimized for my height.





So, the continuing prejudice in favor of the tall seems increasingly pointless because it's now mostly a nature difference masquerading as a nurture difference, and there's no terribly good reason to want genes for additional height to be favored. Thus, the fact that Hollywood role models currently come in all heights seems, on the whole, like a good thing.





-------------

* By the way, don't get the impression from this that Downey is some kind of regular guy. I said hello to him and he said hello back, very friendly, but the Charisma Gap was astounding. In a social setting that was blase about minor levels of celebrity -- e.g., the baseball team mom was an Emmy-nominated character actress -- Downey, in disgrace, was the cynosure of all eyes of team parents. Just lounging on the grass watching his kid take infield practice, he's magnetic.





You know those scenes in Iron Man where Tony Stark wakes up from a horrible dream? I suspect Downey's Method Acting technique for this is to tell himself: "Just imagine I had a nightmare that I had to move back to the Valley!"

“The Avengers” is a Messy, Lackluster Bore

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!




“The Avengers” is a Messy, Lackluster Bore

By Debbie Schlussel



I’m sure I’ll get a ton of hate-mail from fanboy slacker losers in “adult” bodies for saying this, as I always do when I knock down their flimsy sacred cows.  But I hated “The Avengers,” in theaters today.  I was really looking forward to the movie and wanted to like it.  But how could I?  It’s just long, dull, and boring.  The story is lame, and it ends up looking like a gazillion final scenes from every incarnation of “The Transformers” movies.  I walked out thinking, “Is that all there is?”  And I was thinking that all throughout the movie, waiting for it to take off and spark interest.


It’s a waste of what was almost 2.5 hours and seemed like seven.  The reason you go to movies like this is for the special effects, and even those weren’t so special.  I’ve seen it a gazillion times before.  And so have you.  On top of that, the 3-D was pointless, not coming even close to a movie that uses it well, such as “Hugo” (read my review).



No, there’s nothing objectionable about the movie (unless, like me, the vision of the anti-Israel, leftist spoiled hack, Gwyneth Paltrow, however brief, annoys the heck out of you).  No politics and or anything too dirty for kids.  In fact, the movie languishes in blandness.  Yes, there are some funny, snappy lines uttered by the different superheroes in the movie.  But it’s not supposed to be an occasional comedy of sarcastic lines.  It’s supposed to be a superhero movie.  And it’s just not super.  There’s no magic, no engaging story you, none of the charm you expect–and should expect–from superhero movies.











And it’s just not a tight, well-crafted script or plot. Any superhero movie that can’t get its act together in two hours or less doesn’t cut it . . . or cut anything, including plenty of repeats of the same scenes and groanworthy gags. Captain America, for instance, is the target of a running joke by the other superheroes because he fell asleep during World War II and woke up today. They and he keep joking that he’s behind the times. Um, I got it the first time. Not funny. Ditto for the non-stop goading by various parties to try to get Bruce Banner to turn into “The Hulk” or attempts to prevent him from getting angry so he doesn’t destroy the ship. It gets old after like five times. The writers and producers could do better. A lot better. But why would they? They know that if they just slap the name, “The Avengers,” on a movie and include all the superheroes, it’ll be a blockbuster success, no matter what they do or what I say. Again, just like the “Transformers” franchise. All of the fanboys will brainlessly rush to pay their money to see the Midnight showing, without a second thought. If terrorists really wanted to get us, they’d find a way to insert mind control or secret hypnosis and programming into these cinematic emperors with no clothing.



The actors, with the exception of Robert Downey, Jr.–who’s been pretty good as Tony Stark in the two “Iron Man” flicks–are mostly dull and, at best, adequate. Mark Ruffalo–the most effeminate straight actor in Hollywood–as Bruce Banner and “The Hulk”? Not buyin’ it. He didn’t make the grade. Scarlett Johansson was okay, too. But it’s just that they had little to work with. I like “The Hulk” and “Iron Man” movies, but not this milquetoast stew of all the superheroes and a crappy, unsuspenseful plot.



The story: the superheroes are rounded up by a secret agent working for Samuel L. Jackson. They all join forces on a submarine/spaceship to stop the Norse god, Loki, from destroying the earth with a power source he stole from the ship. Thor, the Black Widow, Captain America, Iron Man, etc. all get together but spend most of their time quarreling over whose superpowers are superior and delivering sarcastic slapstick on the ship. Like I said, it’s boring and repetitive.



When they finally have it out with Loki on the ship and in New York, the movie has been going for almost two hours already. And then, it seems like it’s going to end about eight times before it finally does. I was ready at punked ending #1.



Like I said, I’m sure I’ll get attacked by the mindless fanboy crowd, like I did when I knocked “The Watchmen” (read my review).  “Avengers” Derangement Syndrome now joins “Watchmen” Derangement Syndrome.  In their blind worship, they are almost as strictly orthodox and verbally abusive as Muslims (and jealous faux-”conservatives” like Michelle Fraudkin and her mind-addled cronies) in their jihad against me and any other who dares to criticize some of the obviously empty fictional idols of the Church of Comic Books and Graphic Novels (or at least the empty on-screen depictions of them).  They are so predictable and easily played by Hollywood and its marketers.  And I say this as a superhero and comic book fan–have been one since I was a kid and a my dad shared his vintage Captain Marvel and other comic books with me).



When I walked out of the “Avengers” screening a couple of weeks ago and said I didn’t like it, two liberal media critics–who are fanboys–verbally attacked me in the abusive manner you’d attack a violent criminal who just hit your child, while you watch police cuff him.



But that doesn’t faze me a bit or change the fact: the movie was a long bore and a waste of time.



“The Avengers” is an empty shell wrapped in a lot of capes and tights, a lot of sarcasm and mild attempts at comedy, some cool special effects you’ve already seen . . . and not much else.



I’ve seen more magic and charm in a Barack Obama press conference. And a visit to the dentist.



ONE REAGAN