2011

Movie Review: Paul

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Okay, you’re probably wondering why on earth am I just posting this review now when Paul has been out for at least a month? Here’s the thing. I don’t immediately rush out to the theatres whenever a movie comes out. I see them when I see them. Often when there’s a big hit movie, I wait weeks until the crowds die down to go see it. So that explains why you get my review of Paul later than most. So after explaining all that…

Who is Paul? He’s a fugitive. He’s a celebrity. He’s a slacker. He’s a joker…He’s an alien. Paul is all those things, and the subject of a recent comedy movie. The latest concoction of the British writing/acting collaboration of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. So how does this close encounter of the funny kind end up?

Graeme Willy and Clive Gollings are two British comic book dweebs with a passion for sci-fi and alien encounters. The love it so much, they rent an RV and take it from San Diego’s Comic-Con all across the US for their own alien encounter tour. Little do they know they’d find themselves in trouble. First they come across some homophobic hunters who suspect them to be a couple. They head off, accidentally denting their truck. On the run, they get hit by a car driven by, among other things, an alien named Paul. The two bring Paul along in the RV. Little do they know that Paul is actually in pursuit by a shady government agent named Zoil who even recruits two inept FBI agents in the capture.

Later during a campfire over at a campground run by Moses, a strict Christian and his daughter Ruth, Paul tells the twosome that while captured by the government, he helped with Spielberg’s E.T. and the X-Files’ Mulder. Ever since he learned the government planned to dissect his brain, he’s been on the run since. Ruth is then kidnapped by the two. Once in the RV, she learns of Paul and refuses to trust him as it contradicts her devout beliefs. Once Paul heals her blind eye, blind since she was four, she trusts him to the point she becomes eager to sin.

Meanwhile Zoil and the two agents question Moses who says she was abducted by demons. Graeme, Ruth and Willy once again meet up with the homophobic hunters, but Paul comes to the rescue. Upon pursuit of Paul, Zoil and the agents come across him. Once Paul makes his escape, all three are after him but for their own separate pursuits each. Meanwhile Moses is chasing for Ruth.

Paul finds refuge in an old house which is owned by Tara, a young girl who saved his live back in 1947 and is all grown up, reclusive because of the ostracism she received throughout her life. Tara is relieved to find that Paul is real. After turning on the stove, a shootout ensues at her house, causing it to explode with Paul, Graeme, Clive, Ruth and Tara on the run. The three agents go on their pursuits again but only Zoil survives in meeting up with Paul, who is in a field waiting for his UFO to take him home. Instead, it’s a helicopter with ‘The Big Guy’, Zoil’s superior. Zoil reveals he was the one who helped Paul get away. Zoil disarms the men but is shot in the shoulder. Tara punches out ‘The Big Guy’. Moses shoots Clive dead. Paul heals him but his healing powers come at the risk of his own life. After Clive is revived, it appears Paul is dead but he’s just exhausted. Paul’s ship arrives, crushing ‘The Big Guy’. Heading for home, he invites Tara to come with him and finally live a life. Two years later, Clive, Graeme and Ruth return to Comic-Con. This time, they are on stage as successful comic book writers thanks to their comic book Paul.

I have to say the biggest overall glitch with this movie is that it often appears to rely on the crude and rude one-liners in many parts. It has enough humorous subject matter and comedic characters without having to resort too often to such lines. First off,  the incorporation of the subject lines of many alien shows of past, like Star Wars, Close Encounters, E.T. and the X-Files. Second off, there are already a lot of talented actors that have been able to prove of recent that they can do comedy well. Kristin Wiig and Bill Hader have proved their humor in Saturday Night Live and other movies they’ve acted in. Blythe Danner, Sigourney Weaver and Jason Bateman were also able to make their roles work in the movie. Seth Rogen, already a reputed funny man himself, did a good job in the voice over as Paul. Pegg and Frost are already known for their comedic acting as well as their writing for Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz. They don’t have to resort too often to such low brow material.

Outside of that, the movie was a good job of meshing 3D animation with live-action, an alien encounter story with comedy, and even romance with sci-fi dweebs. Pegg and Frost once again show that they’re at their best when they’re together. They also showed they can do a good job with an American story line for the first time. Also it was unique to see a comedy not just revolve around an alien encounter but also with San Diego’s Comic-Con, which has grown in popularity in recent years to the point even A-listers make appearances.

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who both wrote and star in Paul, describe it as a ‘love letter to Steven Spielberg’. You could describe their two previous big-screen comedies, Shaun OIf The Dead and Hot Fuzz, as ‘love letters’ too. If you saw Shaun Of The Dead, you’d tell it was a love letter to all those zombie movies. If you saw Hot Fuzz, you’d definitely know it was a love letter to all those gunslinger action movies of the 80’s and 90’s. I don’t think Paul is so much a love letter to Spielberg as much as it is a love letter to sci-fi as a whole. Good mesh of stories but I feel this movie is more of a salute to sci-fi dweebs and comic books geeks the world over.

Paul is an enjoyable movie. Even though I felt it could be better with the humor in the script, it is a delight to watch. Pegg and Forst know how to do enjoyable movies and they do it again here.

Pope Benedict XVI: 21st Century Radical

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Pope Benedict XVI: 21st Century Radical

One thing about the Easter holidays is that there’s often stories on magazines focusing on Christianity, Churches, Jesus or other Bible figures.  The Pope also becomes subject of cover stories around Easter time. This Easter, there were a lot of good reasons to pay attention to the Pope and the Church, especially this Easter. This also comes to light as April 16th was Pope Benedict’s 84th birthday.

Joseph Ratzinger has been with the Vatican since 1981 when he was voted Cardinal-Prefect for Pope John Paul II. After John Paul’s death, he has led the Catholic Church as Pope Benedict for six years. He has made a lot of news over the years on the actions he’s done and the responses to issues he’s spoken out about. The responses have differed. Some have welcomed his views and his actions. Others are unhappy or even outraged. Even though he is an interim Pope, he has already made his own legacy in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

This Easter weekend, he did something unique for a Pope. On Good Friday, he hosted an international televised dialogue where he answered questions written to the Vatican. Of 3000, he answered seven. This was done so on an Italian television show In His Image which was taped a week earlier.

One question was from a 7 year-old Japanese girl Elena. She asked him to explain the suffering in her country ever since the March earthquake and tsunami. His response: “I ask myself the same question: Why is it this way? Why do you have to suffer so much while others live in ease? And we do not have the answers, but we know that Jesus suffered as you do, an innocent.” He went on to give words of comfort: “even if we are still sad, God is by your side.”

Other questions he asked included one from an Italian man of what Jesus did in between the time of his crucifixion and resurrection. His answer: “The descent of Jesus’ soul should not be imagined as a geographical or spatial trip, from one continent to another. It is the soul’s journey.” An Italian woman asked of the soul of her son who has been in a coma for two years:  “The situation . . . is like that of a guitar whose strings have been broken and therefore can no longer play . . . The soul cannot be heard, but it remains within.” A woman from the Ivory Coast asked of the violence that’s tearing her country apart: “Violence never comes from God, never helps bring anything good . . . The only path is to renounce violence, to begin anew with dialogue.”

This is a break from the traditional or expected norm for the Pope. It’s a common belief that the Pope preaches from the pulpit but has no clue of what’s going on in the real world. If that interview has proven something, it’s that the Pope is listening and he is aware of the situations around the world and of people’s concerns. He’s also willing to give answers. Last year, we saw an example of his response to sexual abuse scandal by setting up a council dedicated to the scandal. This year’s example of how he’s willing to answer questions for an Italian television show demonstrated how Pope Benedict is willing to go to connect people with the answers of the Church. This factor is enough to consider Pope Benedict a radical of the Catholic Church.

We shouldn’t forget that during the reign of Pope John Paul II, John Paul came to Benedict for advise and speeches back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. It was because of this that he was heavily expected to be elected Pope after the death of John Paul II. Pope Benedict knew what the job of being Pope was long before he took to the throne. Despite what one believes, he is to represent the moral voice of the Roman Catholic Church to its 1.2 billion followers. He can’t simply ‘go with the times’ or ‘get with the program’ and say ‘yes’ to what is already deemed sin in the Bible. In fact many faithful admire how the Pope is refusing to bless popular sins. New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that the Church now has a ‘counterculture’ status: “Jesus stood in opposition to the world, in opposition to culture and society. It’s a good thing the Church is against the world.” This is enough to label Pope Benedict a radical of the times.

This is one of the challenges of the Church and of Pope Benedict. He knows that the Catholic Church has to be an example of God’s love. He also knows that the Church has to be a strong moral voice to its followers and condemn sinful acts. Finding a balance between the two is the hard part. This is not the only balancing act Pope Benedict has been trying to do. Another is trying to bring back a lot of common traits of the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council from fifty years ago. One of which was encouraging a return to the Latin Mass. He knows how a lot of Catholics left when the Latin Mass was dropped. He also is taking into account the Traditional Catholics that separated themselves from the Vatican after the Council and consider the Church false and the seat of the Pope vacant.

However the biggest surprise I received in terms of the press’ attitutes towards Pope Benedict came in an Article from Maclean’s magazine. It asked “Is The Pope Catholic?” It gave account to a lot of surprising things Pope Benedict has done over his reign and puts them into question. MacLean’s has even highlighted some of his questionable sayings:

From inflaming the Islamic world by quoting medieval anti-Muhammad remarks to welcoming disaffected Anglicans into the Roman fold, becoming personally embroiled in the clerical sex-abuse scandal, endorsing the (sometimes) use of condoms, writing a passage in his newest book exonerating Jews from the charge of killing Christ, and a host of less headline-grabbing initiatives (including a casual acceptance of the theory of evolution).

This was brought to the attention by a book by Canadian author Michael Coren entitled Why Catholics Are Right. Coren defends the Church and Pope Benedict’s actions in the book. However it’s also highlighted that the top concern of Pope Benedict is the spiritual state of Europe. There’s no question that the secularizing of European society has upset Benedict a great deal and he wants Europe to see that the Church has reason in society. He also wants to see Europe return to the Church-based values that helped shaped the continent for centuries. Only time will tell if it does or not.

Interesting the quote above mentions the ‘condom use’ part. Many remember how Pope Benedict mentioned that condom use is justifiable in some cases, like sex with a prostitute. Although it created a lot of news the world over, one thing that was overlooked that that sex with a prostitute remains a mortal sin, condom or no condom.

As Easter passes, the Church will experience another year. As the world becomes more secularized, Pope Benedict carries the Church and its moral voice on his shoulders. Some will welcome what he has to say while some will question and others will be outraged. Nevertheless, the Church has to stand firm on its morals as it carries the conscience of the Church’s 1.2 billion believers. Pope Benedict knows it and he’s ready to meet the challenge.

WORKS CITED:

MACLEAN’S: Is The Pope Catholic?. Macleans.ca. Author: Brian Bethune. 2011. Rogers Media Inc.<http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/18/rebel-with-a-cross/>

NEW YORK POST: Pope Benedict Answers Questions On TV On Good Friday.NYPost.com. Author: Andy Soltis.2011. NYP Holdings, Inc. <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/good_fri_popecast_bXYW6mxE0djUeun3iQ4j5K>

March 2011: The Month Of Charlie Sheen

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments

Recent meltdown in the public eye forces him to question his “Winning” ways.

Do you know anyone who doesn’t have a clue about all the notoriety Charlie Sheen has gone through this past month? If you do, they must live under a rock. Hard to believe that 2011 is only three months old and we already have the celebrity meltdown of the year with Charlie Sheen, who’srecent famous phrase is ‘Winning.”. The funniest thing about it is that it was waiting to happen and we all knew it!

Charlie Sheen has grown up his whole life in the Hollywood scene even when not acting. He was born Carlos Estevez in 1965 to actor Martin Sheen, whose real name is Ramon Estevez. Through Martin, he experienced the life of showbiz and of the Hollywood high life. He’s also noticed the taste of the lows with his father’s marital problems and struggles with alcohol abuse. Like Martin, Charlie has had his own acting success in both movies and television. Also like Martin, Charlie has had both the big highs and big lows of Hollywood life. However while Martin’s troubles have happened in a more private manner, Charlie’s problems have been more public. Way more public!

The first sign that Charlie was a born troublemaker was when he was expelled from his high school before graduating for bad grades and poor attendance. At 19, he became a father through his high school girlfriend. 1990 was a milestone year for him as he had his first trip to a rehab clinic, for alcohol abuse, and accidentally shot then-fiancée Kelly Preston in the arm. During the 90’s, he dated two porn stars, had two more trips to rehab, was arrested twice for assaulting his girlfriends, and admitted at the trial of Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss to sleeping with many of her prostitutes. In the 2000’s, his bachelor pad was already the legendary butt of jokes. He married Denise Richards but she soon divorced him for substance abuse and threats of violence. His 2008 marriage to Brooke Mueller followed which produced twin children. The marriage ended in November 2010, less than a year after he was arrested for domestic abuse.

Then came the biggest events leading to the meltdown. By March 1st, Sheen was living with pornographic actress Bree Olson. His two sons from Brooke Mueller were removed from his custody. Mueller herself has a restraining order against Sheen. Sheen however declares he will fight for the children with his famous phrase “Winning.” On March 7th, Warner Bros. and CBS decided to terminate Charlie Sheen from Two And A Half Men, the hit sitcom he has starred in for seven years. A week before, Sheen was banned from entering the Warner Bros. production lot. Since the firing, Sheen declared his firing ‘illegal’, has vocally criticized Two And A Half Men creator Chuck Lorre openly and has even filed a $100 million lawsuit against Lorre and  Warner Bros. He also claims he was underpaid while he was already making $1.8 million per episode. Recent public feedback has a mostly negative impression of Charlie Sheen. Is he really ‘Winning’?

Isn’t it funny that in the past five years we have seen some of the most spectacular celebrity meltdowns? In 2006 there was Mel Gibson’s alcoholism bout most brought to light with a July DUI arrest that included an anti-Semitic outburst. 2007 brought about the jailing of Paris Hilton for driving while suspended, violent outbursts of Britney Spears while dealing with a heated custody battle, and the first substance-related arrests of many to come for Lindsay Lohan. Now it’s Charlie Sheen. Currently It’s unclear what his future, or the future of Two And A Half Men, hold. In the meantime, keep your eyes peeled to TMZ, Perez Hilton, E! Online or even Charlie’s own Twitter page for the latest. Right now I can only say one thing for Charlie: Losing!

WORKS CITED:

WIKIPEDIA: Charlie Sheen. Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Sheen>

IMDB: Charlie Sheen: Biography. IMDB.com. 2011. Imdb.com Inc. <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000221/bio>

Elizabeth Taylor 1932-2011

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments

I’ll start by asking a series of questions. When you think of the term movie star, who comes to mind? Or what comes to mind? Is it their captivating looks? is it their ability to epitomize fame and fortune? Is it their ability to win crowds to the big screen time after time? Is it a presence that captivates the audience in their seats? Or is it their ability to do great acting time and time again? Do the standards of those that deserve the term movie star change over time? Or are the standards of a movie star timeless? When you think of the term movie star, how many from the past deserve that title? How many current actors deserve to have such a title bestowed upon them?

On Wednesday morning, we lost one who deserved to fit the term movie star in any or possibly every definition of the term. Her name was Elizabeth Taylor. She’s possibly one of the last of a breed that fit the term movie star as we know it to a tee. She had the looks, she lived large in more ways than one, she was able to attract crowds to the theatres and grab hold of their attention, and she knew how to give wonderful acting performances time after time.

Her acting career started early. She was discovered and signed on by both MGM and Universal at the age of ten. She had a great career as a child actor in gems like Lassie Come Home and Jane Eyre but it was her performance in 1944’s National Velvet that was her signature turn as a child actor. She was also successful in making a transition to adult actor almost immediately when she starred in 1950’s Father Of The Bride. Her career as an adult actress would accelerate starting with her role in 1956’s Giant opposite Rock Husdon and James Dean. She would then be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress four years in a row starting with 1957’s Raintree County opposite Montgomery Clift, 1958’s Cat On A Hot Tin Roof opposite Paul Newman, 1959’s Suddenly, Last Summer opposite Montgomery Clift and finally a Winner for 1960’s Butterfield 8 which she acted opposite then-husband Eddie Fisher. In 1960, she became the highest paid actress in Hollywood and more starring roles continued, including for 1963’s Cleopatra, 1967’s The Taming Of The Shrew and her second Best Actress Oscar winning role in 1966’s Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? Soon after, the movies she starred were flopping and her bankability faded. It wouldn’t stop her from acting in movies, television and stage. Her last movie role was in 1994’s live-action version of The Flintstones. Immediately after, she announced her retirement from films.

She also had one-of-a-kind winning looks. Her looks were definitely that of a movie star. Even at a young age, you knew she had a face for the screen. The smooth face and glowing violet eyes. You could tell in her earlier moviesthat she had the looks. Even in adolescence, she matured with grace and beauty and would have the looks perfect for Hollywood’s Golden Age. She also knew how to live the glamorous life. She was always seen with the most glamorous dresses and was renowned for her huge collection of jewelry including huge diamond rings and diamond necklaces. She even launched two fragrances in the 1990’s.

She also had the ability to be the subject of much publicity, both while active in her acting career and after. She was known for her eight marriages to seven husbands: starting with hotel mogul Conrad Hilton and ending with Larry Fortensky. Her relationship and eventual marriage to Eddie Fisher made headlines because it interfered with his marriage to Eddie Fisher. She married Richard Burton twice over a period of twelve years. Only her marriage to Michael Todd lasted until his death. She was known for her weight gain battles, frequently lampooned in Joan Rivers’ standup comedy material. She had well-publicized substance abuse battles that included a stay at the Betty Ford Clinic where she met her final husband Larry Fortensky. Her friendship with Michael Jackson also made tabloid headlines. Fact: she is the godmother of Michael’s two oldest children. She also battled constant health problems and they would always make for good tabloid copy. She broke her back five times and had two hip replacements. She also battled life-threatening illnesses like a brain tumor, two bouts of pneumonia and numerous heart problems. 

Despite her life of luxury and her questionable relationships, she was also one who knew how to use her celebrity to attract a cause. She supported AIDS causes starting in 1984 when they were not popular but became more active after her friend actor Rock Hudson died of the disease in 1985. She founded or co-founded two major AIDS charities and promoted major AIDS fundraising events. He also devoted herself to many causes relating to Israel and Zionism. She herself converted to Judaism in 1959. She would use her celebrity for many fundraising events and for awareness for the causes she believed in. In turn, she has been awarded humanitarian awards during her life. She was even named a Dame in 2000.

When she died on Wednesday, many believe we lost the last great movie star of Hollywood’s Golden Era. Although that’s disputable, we did lose a one-of-a-kind. She had the picture perfect looks for Hollywood but she delivered solid acting every time. What mistakes she made in her personal life, she made up for in her charm and grace. She lived every inch of the definition ‘fame and fortune’ but was still in touch with what was happening in the world. Many leading ladies came before her and many have come since but she will never be equaled. Elizabeth, we’ll miss you.

2011’s Box Office Blahs

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

This is my first movie post that has little to do with the Oscars. Hope you like it.

Can you believe we’re now into the tenth weekend of 2011? Or ninth if you don’t count the weekend beginning on New Years Eve? Yep, it’s now March. Two months have passed and have compiled some pretty shocking box office statistics. Entertainment Weekly pointed out in an article that this January had the lowest ticket sales in 20 years. Just today, I received an e-mail alert from Box Office Mojo saying that this February had the lowest gross since 2007 and the biggest Feb-to-Feb nosedive since 1995. Not good news at all. Especially surprising since a Justin Bieber movie was released this February.

One could attribute this to a lot of reasons. Could be because of other alternative entertainment options, like videogames or Youtube. Some could say it’s because of those download sites like Netflix. Some could even say it’s not those things at all but could be because of the lack of spice in the set of commercial movie fare the past two months had to offer. It was especially surprising to see certain Oscar fare like The Fighter, True Grit and Black Swan go beyond expectations and each grossing above $90 million. In the last decade, most Oscar fare didn’t fare too well at the box office. Guess this year’ s saying something.

Even Entertainment Weekly gave ten suggestions in their article. Some included less commercials, less fat filled popcorn, remake movies better than the original, TV rwritiers writing screenplays, more appropriate use of 3D, and even stylishly designed theatres. I myself had to agree with some of what the article recommended. At various occasions I’ve had to sit through 15 minutes of previews, seven commercials before the movie on one occasion, questioning the use of 3D in some movies and even believing I could write a better screenplay myself.

Now the rest of 2011 does look bright. We have the very final Harry Potter movie, the first part of the final Twilight book,  a remake of Arthur starring Russell Brand, a brand new Scream, Captain America, and sequels to The Hangover, Pirates Of The Caribbean, Cars, Kung Fu Panda, X-Men, Transformers…should I go on? Basically the theatres are going to offer a lot in the coming months. I’m sure there will be something to attract almost everyone.

Even this March has a wide variety of movies to attract people to theatres (source: IMDB) :

ACTION MOVIES & THRILLERS

– The Adjustment Bureau (opens this weekend)- Matt Damon stars in this sci-fi drama.

– Battle: Los Angeles (opens the 11th) – aliens invade La La Land.

–Limitless (opens the 18th) – Bradley Cooper stars in this psychological thriller.

–The Lincoln Lawyer (opens the 18th) – Matthew McConaughey stars in this cat-and-mouse legal drama.

COMEDY

–Take Me Home Tonight (opens this weekend) – romantic comedy with 80’s flavor.

–Paul – (opens the 18th) – two comic book dweebs capture an alien and a lot more.

TEEN FARE

–Beastly (opens this weekend) – fantasy film starring Vanessa Hudgens and Alex Pettyfer.

–Red Riding Hood (opens the 11th) – Amanda Seyfried stars in what’s more dark drama than fairy tale.

–Sucker Punch (opens the 25th) – Emily Browning as the action heroine.

FAMILY FARE

–Rango (opens this weekend) – an animated movie about a young lizard with true grit.

–Mars Needs Moms (opens the 11th) – Disney animated movie.

–Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (opens the 25th) – wimpy kid Greg Heffley’s at it again.

INDIE FLAVOR

–Red State (opens this weekend) – Kevin Smith spoofs conservatism.

–Jane Eyre (opens the 11th) – an adaptation of the famous novel starring Mia Wasikowska.

– Win Win (opens the 18th) – Paul Giamatti plays an attorney disguised as a wrestling coach.

FOREIGN FLARE

– Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (opens this weekend) – this Thai film has been impressive at film fests.

– Potiche (opens the 25th) – this French comedy contains some big French names like Gerard Depardieu and Catherine Deneuve.

So there is a lot to offer in March. Hopefully the movie business will be able to pick it up more this month and lead to the year grossing well, if not the most ever. I hope you have a reason to go this March.

Christy Clark’s Pre-Election Baggage

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Hi. This is my first non-movie article. Hope you like it.

The BC Liberal Party announced a new leader on Saturday, February 26th. Her name is Christy Clark. She is to replace Gordon Campbell who has served as Premier since 2001 but recently resigned due to low ratings. Being Premier of BC is a big job for the 45 year-old, especially after Campbell’s recent resignation. The big question is how will she and the BC Liberal Party hold in the next provincial election?

Currently Premier-Designate Christy Clark is no stranger to politics. If you saw her resume, you’d see she has quite a list of accomplishments. Her first political victory came at the age of 30 when she was elected MLA for the Port-Moody-Westwood riding in 1996. At the start, while the Liberals were the official opposition party in BC, she served as the Official Opposition critic for the environment, children and families and for the public service. As the Liberal Party headed by Gordon Campbell prepared for the provincial election of 2001, she served as the campaign co-chair in which the Party won 77 of the 79 seats. Once Gordon Campbell was sworn in as Premier, she was appointed Deputy Premier and the Minister of Education.  She would be appointed Minister of Children and Family Development in January 2004. In September of that same year, she quit provincial politics and did not seek re-election of her MLA position in 2005. She would later seek leadership of the Non-Partisan Association for the Vancouver mayor election that same year, but lost to eventual mayor Sam Sullivan.

She’s also a popular media figure too. She was a weekly columnist for the Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province during the 2005 provincial election and was a television election analyst during the 2006 federal election. She also hosted a Vancouver radio show: The Christy Clark Show from 2007 until she decided to enter the premier leadership back in December.

Even though no provincial election has been called yet, she faces a bumpy road for the BC Liberal Party firstly based on past election results. On the provincial side of things, leading  provincial parties face a huge electoral loss after their leader resigns as premier. Past history in the last 30 years have proven so. In Manitoba, NDP Howard Pawley, who was elected premier in 1981, resigned. The leadership then went to Gary Doer. The NDP finished the election with the third-most ridings. Doer would have to wait until three more provincial elections before being elected premier of Manitoba. BC premier Glenn Clark, who headed the NDP Party, resigned in 1999 and would be replaced by Dan Miller and Ujjal Dosanjh the following year. The BC NDP, headed by Dosanjh would face a humiliating loss of winning 2 of 79 seats, paving the way for Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals. Carole James, the NDP leader since, has headed the party in two provincial elections, regaining many seats for the NDP but losing to Campbell both times.

Nationally, political parties have had its own dark days when their leader resigns as Prime Minister. In 1984, Pierre Trudeau resigned as Prime Minister and John Turner would be voted head the Liberal Party. In the national election, his Liberal party would lose to the PC Party headed by Brian Mulroney. Turner remains the Prime Minister with the second-shortest leadership. He would head the federal Liberal party in the following federal election in 1988 and would lose to the Mulroney PC’s again. The PC Party would soon face its own party troubles after Mulroney resigned in 1993. Kim Campbell succeeded him. However Campbell and the PC’s would face a crushing defeat in the federal election that same year by winning only two seats. The Liberal’s headed by Jean Chretien would win the federal election. Chretien would be re-elected twice more while Canadian Conservatives would struggle with political parties for many years. The PC Party ran again in 1997, would reconstruct themselves at the Canadian Alliance Party for the 2000 federal election, and would them become the Conservative Party in time for the 2004 election.

If past elections aren’t enough for Christy to cause concern, it would be the Campbell leadership, especially in the last year. Campbell’s leadership has always been through a rocky road ever since he was elected but he would be hit hardest in 2010 upon introducing the HST. The introduction of the tax, and the rapid implementation if it, proved to be very unpopular amongst British Columbians. Soon after, the polls had him at an approval rating of just 9%, the lowest of any provincial premier. This was cause for him to resign in November of 2010.

Now despite party problems, Christy Clark has had some political problems of her own once she’s sworn in on March 14th. As Minister of Education, she introduced changes like stronger parental power, increased accountability and provided greater parental choice in the flexibility in the school system. This proved unpopular with teachers, school board members and union officials as they believed it resulted in funding gaps. She also sought to increase the independence of the BC College of Teachers against strong opposition from the BC Teachers Federation. She also has allegations against her regarding a BC Rail scandal when she was deputy premier, although nothing has been proven against her. Those could hurt her come election time.

Currently no provincial election date has been set, and there may not even be one for a full year. Dawn Black is currently interim leader of the BC NDP Party, succeeding Carole James. Jane Sterk leads the Green Party. The BC Conservative Party is not associated with the national Conservative Party and may have a slim chance in the election. Nevertheless all opposition parties have a good chance at rivaling Clark and the Liberals in the eventual provincial election. In this period of time, Sterk and Black have to prove themselves worthy of the office of provincial Premier. Black already has a lengthy resume of her own political accomplishments while Sterk has yet to prove herself. In the meantime, Clark can use the time to her advantage to improve her political image and the image of the Liberal Party in this post-Campbell era as an effort to win the next election. She would also have to use the time to prove she is worthy of being Premier of British Columbia.

With the next provincial election happening anytime, Christy Clark arrives at the Premier’s desk with a lot of baggage of the Campbell Administration and of her own doing. Despite it all, only time will tell whether she has what it takes to be Premier of British Columbia and whether she and the BC Liberals deserve to win the election.

WORK CITED:

WIKIPEDIA: Christy Clark.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Clark>