[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

Yeah, every now and then we like to dump out campaign ideas we won't run.

1. Aztlan Chrome -- near-future cyberpunk set in the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez metroplex. Assume a de facto independent state in that region, extending all the way to San Diego/Tijuana, with very little federal control on the part of either Mexico or the United States. The tech is sufficient for wired reflexes; i.e., money can provide you with a definite advantage in a fight (which is really the core ethos of cyberpunk gaming, right?). The Ciudad Juarez serial killer is on my mind as I think about this setting. So is the five solid hours of Los Lobos I listened to last night. So is The Shield, but I'm not sure if that's for antagonists or protagonists. Could be either, really.

2. Bathsheba Smiles -- an A/State game that kicks off with the death of a Nakamura-Yebisu noblewoman. Her will has an immediate and world-shaking effect on the lives of four people living in Mire End, one of the worst slums in the City. A/State is one of those keen grim Scottish SF horror games; everyone lives in one big City which is drenched in politics and bitterness and mystery and run-down Dickensian slums. The macrocorporates have nanotech, but you have maybe some fried dog for dinner if you're lucky. Think China Mieville's New Crobuzon, but no magic and more technology.

3. Big Fangs, Skinny Ties -- this was a mashup I did some time ago. Still one of my favorites. It's a fairly standard Sabbat Vampire game centering around a Sabbat pack that's basically the Banzai Irregulars with fangs. I'd play up the whole "Sabbat save the world from Antedeluvians" aspect of the Sabbat, since it's my favorite aspect of the sect. Remember: the Sabbat are completely and utterly good guys, once you accept the concept that humans are cattle.

4. Rats in the Cellar -- Angel meets Whitey Bulger. You know this one. The big problem I have here is that everyone who's expressed interest doesn't want to play a hard-nosed Irish guy from Southie. One or two outsiders is OK but it loses the feel if it's all errant Harvard professors and the like. Since I'll never get around to running it, that's probably OK. Under the Eaves is the sister game to this. I can never decide if it's lighter or darker.

5. Squared Circle -- the indie wrestling federation Unknown Armies game that I've wanted to run forever. Indie wrestling is a perfect environment for quite a few UA character types; wrestlers cut themselves all the time and they take stupid risks and it ought to be obvious how great the ring is for many Avatars. The ring itself has been soaking up magickal energy all this time until it's a super-potent artifact. The owner of the fed is one of the last Cryptomancers, because what's pro wrestling but an extended lie? To get into the mindset for this, remember that a wrestling federation is pretty much just an old-time touring carnival and watch that HBO series again. Yeah, like that.

[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

Closer is the movie that Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance wanted to be: it's a story about the pain humans cause one another. It succeeds where Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance failed, because the characters are people and not caricatures and because Mike Nichols recognizes that pain arises from the cruelties we deal one another. It's very close to being a great movie.

The only flaw in the ointment is Julia Roberts, but let's leave that for a moment. It's the best Jude Law performance of the year, edging out his executive in I &9829; Huckabees. He's still got that surface gloss which detracts a little from his performance, but like his executive, this is a role that fits that gloss. And his body language is a thing of beauty. Particularly during his scenes with Natalie Portman: the pair of them express themselves in exactly the way lovers interact. Not when they're first meeting -- that's not so hard -- but when they're parting badly, and one of them wants to taste the other's mouth, and there's the moment of wanting to give in, to comfort, but no, you can't --

They had that down perfectly. Body language was the key to both of their performances. If you see it, or see it again, watch how Natalie Portman moves. When she's unhappy or uncomfortable she's a feral jittery thing who can't keep still. She moves, and tics, and tilts her head, and never comes to rest. When she's on her home ground, she's a feral calm thing who moves, well, like a woman who knows she has the edge. It's a great transformation. It's definitely nomination-worthy.

Apparently the studio is pushing Julia Roberts for the Best Actress nomination, while Natalie Portman is relegated to Best Supporting Actress, but that's wrong. If I had to pick, and I'd hate to do it, I'd say Natalie Portman has the marginally more important role. Clive Owen is getting pushes for Best Supporting Actor and Jude Law for Best Actor, but that split makes more sense. And Jude Law was a touch better than Clive Owen, although there was nothing wrong with Clive Owen's performance. He's not as good an actor, but does he bring the heat? Yes, he brings the angry crude cunning heat. The scene in which he and Julia Roberts break up is so furious that the theater exhaled when it ended.

That was not, I think, a spoiler. Then again, it is, but you would be poorly served if you entered into an act of commerce involving Closer without the awareness that this is a movie about people who hurt other people by granting and withdrawing and withholding their love. You want to brace for it.

And Julia Roberts? She's a cipher. She is the actress who is boldly playing an older woman, but not really. No crows-feet. The role was originally going to Cate Blanchett, which would have worked out better. There's nothing horrendous about Julia Roberts, but she's such a passive actress. Even when she's playing heated, it's hard to believe her. The other characters have emotions, but she drifts. This is perhaps in some part the character. It still weakens the film to a degree.

At one level, the movie is about two men fighting; they use their relationships with two women as the battleground. This is exactly as un-feminist as it sounds. Natalie Portman undermines that, though. It's not that she's admirable, it's that she understands the battleground as well as the men. So do they use her as a place to fight? Yes. But she is using them in other, more subtle ways. She's a person, not an object. I'm not sure I can say the same about Julia Roberts, whose Anna is so passive that at times it seems like she just follows the last man who seduces her, in whatever sense of "seduces" one likes.

Perhaps, again, this was the point of the character. But if so, all I can say is that Julia Roberts was born to play that role.

In the end, mind you, it doesn't matter because everyone else brings enough anger and passion and desire to the screen to more than make up for any lack on her part. It's a fine movie which will be on my top ten list in a month or two. I should also caveat that my distaste for Julia Roberts may be irrational; if you would agree with that statement, feel free to disregard the last three paragraphs. A lot of critics really liked her performance.

Instead, consider the elegant cool greys and blues of the film, and don't be put off by the contrived slow-motion opening sequence which seems so much like just another bad romance opening. The bookend closing sequence parodies it ruthlessly, up to and including the mawkish song. It is a meticulous movie, and I liked it very much.