AMELIE (Les fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain) (2001)
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Starring: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz, Rufus, Serge Merlin, Michel Robin, Jamel Debbouze, Dominique Pinon, Clotilde Mollet
Amelie Poulain (Tautou) has always lived an isolated life. Her parents were distant to the point of being cold - even harsh. Now, she lives and works in Paris with a varied group of eccentrics who all have similarly complex problems. However, one day - specifically, the day Lady Di passed away - she finds a small box hidden in her apartment that is full of old toys. She sets out to find the man, but is much too shy to step outside of her circle of friends and co-workers. With their help, she tracks down the man to whom these toys belonged as a boy. Inspired by this one good dead, she sets herself on a quest to make the lives of those around her just a little brighter. However, the one person she doesn't seem to be able to help is herself.
I went into this film thinking it was just another romantic comedy, and we all know how I feel about those (with few exceptions). However, this film is so much more than that. Sure, there's a bit of romance thrown in (it is French, after all), but that's not the film's focus. It's more about doing what we can to make our world a better place; not the whole world, but just our sphere of influence. Also, it's about stepping out of our comfort zone to follow our hearts.
Yeah, I know, this all sounds a bit too much like an after-school special. But the thing that saves it is the fact that it is extremely well-made in just about every respect. I've only seen one other film by Jean-Pierre Jeunet - The City of Lost Children - and that was a grotesque and disturbing film I really remember little about, other than it starred Ron Perlman (who I didn't know could speak French). The cinematic style of Amelie is similar, but it is used for a much sweeter result. This is a film that never lets you forget you're watching a movie. The viewer is privy to nearly every aspect of the characters' private lives through an ever-present narrator, a series of their likes and dislikes, a peek into their dreams and even x-ray vision. Yes, Jeunet calls attention to the fact that you're watching a movie, but he does so in a fun way. It's like he found a cinematic tool-box and, like a little kid, is having a blast using everything in it. But like an adult, he exercises a bit of control. Not very much, but just enough.
One of the things I love best about foreign films is the fact that I'm usually not familiar with the actors involved, so celebrity doesn't ruin my ability to see characters rather than stars. Although this is the film that made Audrey Tautou an international star, bring her into films such as The DaVinci Code and Coco Before Chanel. But here, I didn't see an actress. I saw Amelie Poulain, the shy, sweet, wonderful young lady. And I won't lie; I was kind of crushing on her big time. But that's another story...
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Day 52: Have You A Pistol Handy?
OUR HOSPITALITY (1923)
Directed by Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone
Starring: Buster Keaton, Natalie Talmadge, Joe Roberts, Ralph Bushman, Craig Ward
Yes folks, this is a silent film. And I get the same complaint with silent films as I do with foreign films: "I don't want to have to read anything!" Well, get over it.
Keaton stars as Willie McKay, who was brought up in New York quite ignorant of the fact that his father was killed in a feud with the rival Canfield family (sound familiar?). When he finds he's inherited the McKay Estate (a dilapidated shack in the middle of nowhere), he takes the world's first passenger train (which, like the world's first anything, doesn't work too well) to Kentucky to claim it. On the train, he meets a nice young lady named Virginia (Talmadge) and becomes smitten with her. Once off the train, she invites him to dinner, which he accepts. But as it turns out, she is the daughter of Joseph Canfield (Robers) the head of the Canfield Clan. He and his two sons vow to kill McKay, but not while he's a guest in their house. To do so, you see, would be to violate that time honored code of Southern Hospitality. McKay gets wind of this and decides to become a permanent house guest, all the time trying to woo the lovely Virginia. But the Canfield men decide to put a stop to that and Willie is soon on the run.
This is the first Buster Keaton comedy I have ever seen, and I must say it exceeded all my expectations. Some have called it an "epic comedy," and I'd agree with that statement. Everything in this movie is big, including the laughs. But there Keaton had an eye for cinema unlike most of his contemporaries (including Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin). Every shot is wonderfully composed. But the most important thing in a comedy is, of course, the laughs, and rather than play the gags as big as possible, the comedy is much more observational; almost underplayed. Everyone in the cast seems oblivious to the fact that they're in humorous situations, which works much better than when a cast seems to be aware of the fact that they have to make the audience laugh.
Also of note are some of the spectacular stunts, all performed by Keaton himself. His history as an acrobat in Vaudeville works to his advantage, and he uses a combination of elusive camera trickery and physical prowess to keep us on the edge of our seats. Toward the end of the film, both Willie and Virginia are swept down river toward a waterfall, and Willie makes a daring rescue at the very last second. All of this was done practically, that is, they had to actually build a waterfall and Keaton had to actually dangle from a rope to save the day. And it is every bit as exciting to watch as anything they can do nowadays with CGI.
Probably the most satisfying thing about the film for me was the fact that a jaded 21st Century audience enjoyed this film. I watched with a group of people, and it made me feel a bit warm and fuzzy to hear an audience raised on Mel Brooks, Judd Apatow and Seth MacFarlane laugh uproariously at what many would call an outdated and antiquated film. If that's you're attitude, I can understand it. But it really says something when a movie that's nearly a hundred years old still holds up.
Directed by Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone
Starring: Buster Keaton, Natalie Talmadge, Joe Roberts, Ralph Bushman, Craig Ward
Yes folks, this is a silent film. And I get the same complaint with silent films as I do with foreign films: "I don't want to have to read anything!" Well, get over it.
Keaton stars as Willie McKay, who was brought up in New York quite ignorant of the fact that his father was killed in a feud with the rival Canfield family (sound familiar?). When he finds he's inherited the McKay Estate (a dilapidated shack in the middle of nowhere), he takes the world's first passenger train (which, like the world's first anything, doesn't work too well) to Kentucky to claim it. On the train, he meets a nice young lady named Virginia (Talmadge) and becomes smitten with her. Once off the train, she invites him to dinner, which he accepts. But as it turns out, she is the daughter of Joseph Canfield (Robers) the head of the Canfield Clan. He and his two sons vow to kill McKay, but not while he's a guest in their house. To do so, you see, would be to violate that time honored code of Southern Hospitality. McKay gets wind of this and decides to become a permanent house guest, all the time trying to woo the lovely Virginia. But the Canfield men decide to put a stop to that and Willie is soon on the run.
This is the first Buster Keaton comedy I have ever seen, and I must say it exceeded all my expectations. Some have called it an "epic comedy," and I'd agree with that statement. Everything in this movie is big, including the laughs. But there Keaton had an eye for cinema unlike most of his contemporaries (including Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin). Every shot is wonderfully composed. But the most important thing in a comedy is, of course, the laughs, and rather than play the gags as big as possible, the comedy is much more observational; almost underplayed. Everyone in the cast seems oblivious to the fact that they're in humorous situations, which works much better than when a cast seems to be aware of the fact that they have to make the audience laugh.
Also of note are some of the spectacular stunts, all performed by Keaton himself. His history as an acrobat in Vaudeville works to his advantage, and he uses a combination of elusive camera trickery and physical prowess to keep us on the edge of our seats. Toward the end of the film, both Willie and Virginia are swept down river toward a waterfall, and Willie makes a daring rescue at the very last second. All of this was done practically, that is, they had to actually build a waterfall and Keaton had to actually dangle from a rope to save the day. And it is every bit as exciting to watch as anything they can do nowadays with CGI.
Probably the most satisfying thing about the film for me was the fact that a jaded 21st Century audience enjoyed this film. I watched with a group of people, and it made me feel a bit warm and fuzzy to hear an audience raised on Mel Brooks, Judd Apatow and Seth MacFarlane laugh uproariously at what many would call an outdated and antiquated film. If that's you're attitude, I can understand it. But it really says something when a movie that's nearly a hundred years old still holds up.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Day 51: Light Bulb!
DESPICABLE ME (2010)
Directed by Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring the voices of: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Will Arnett, Julie Andrews, Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, Elsie Fisher
The nefarious Gru (Carell) is the world's greatest villain. His laundry list of high-profile heists includes the Times Square jumbo-tron, the Statue of Liberty (the small one, from Vegas) and the Eiffel Tower (again, from Vegas). But when a mysterious new villain hijacks the Great Pyramid of Giza, Gru sets his sights a little higher. He will steal....THE MOON. But his funding is cut when a up-and-coming villain named Vector (Segel) is revealed to be the one who pulled off the Pyramid scheme (hahaha). Vector is smart, young and technologically savvy. But he does have one weakness: cookies. And when three orphan girls - Margo, Edith and Agnes (Cosgrove, Gaier and Fisher) - easily wander into Vector's impenetrable lair to sell him cookies (he's got to have his Coco-nutties), Gru adopts the girls and uses them to get in and steal a shrink ray. But now that he has what he wants, he can just return the girls to the orphanage, right? But the girls have become attached to Gru, and even though he won't admit it, he's pretty fond of them as well.
Blending superhero action and family-friendly fluff into the same film can be a daunting task, but this film does it pretty well. Not as well as The Incredibles, but still, well enough for itself. It's genuinely funny and heartwarming, and Steve Carell is a hoot as Gru.
But there is one major problem; the movie doesn't really give any reason for the girls' fondness for Gru, and vice-versa. All of a sudden, the time they've spent together forms a bond between them. Gru also has several "mommy issues" - his mother is played wonderfully by Julie Andrews, who is never not wonderful - dealing mostly with her indifference to her son's genius. It could be argued that this lack of compassion in his youth could lead him to bonding with the girls, as real parental love is something he never experienced. But it's never made exactly clear that this is the case, and drawing that conclusion is a bit of a stretch. At first, he hates the girls, but later on, he comes to love them. And it's just taken for granted that this is the case. Because of this oversight, the real emotional moments don't have much resonance.
Also, the film was made for 3D, and I didn't see it in 3D. Throughout most of the film, this isn't an issue. But the end credits don't make any sense in 2D. See, Gru's little mutant minions go through a series of gags meant for a 3D audience, but since I didn't have the glasses, they didn't make any sense. I know that sounds like nitpicking, but you've got to keep in mind that the home video release may not have the 3D capabilities. now we're stuck with an end credits sequence that's just odd more than anything.
But all in all, Despicable Me was pretty good. But with a bit of story tweaking, it could have been great. Still, not a bad first try for a fledgling animation studio.
ADDENDUM - I work at Universal Studios Hollywood, and the next project from the group responsible for this film - HOP - is being advertised to death all around the park. I've seen the trailer about 5,000 times by now (give or take a few), and let's just say...I don't have very high hopes for it. Of course, I could be wrong, and there's really only one way to find out whether or not it's any good. I guess I just hate having ads shoved in my face all the time. End rant.
Directed by Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring the voices of: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Will Arnett, Julie Andrews, Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, Elsie Fisher
The nefarious Gru (Carell) is the world's greatest villain. His laundry list of high-profile heists includes the Times Square jumbo-tron, the Statue of Liberty (the small one, from Vegas) and the Eiffel Tower (again, from Vegas). But when a mysterious new villain hijacks the Great Pyramid of Giza, Gru sets his sights a little higher. He will steal....THE MOON. But his funding is cut when a up-and-coming villain named Vector (Segel) is revealed to be the one who pulled off the Pyramid scheme (hahaha). Vector is smart, young and technologically savvy. But he does have one weakness: cookies. And when three orphan girls - Margo, Edith and Agnes (Cosgrove, Gaier and Fisher) - easily wander into Vector's impenetrable lair to sell him cookies (he's got to have his Coco-nutties), Gru adopts the girls and uses them to get in and steal a shrink ray. But now that he has what he wants, he can just return the girls to the orphanage, right? But the girls have become attached to Gru, and even though he won't admit it, he's pretty fond of them as well.
Blending superhero action and family-friendly fluff into the same film can be a daunting task, but this film does it pretty well. Not as well as The Incredibles, but still, well enough for itself. It's genuinely funny and heartwarming, and Steve Carell is a hoot as Gru.
But there is one major problem; the movie doesn't really give any reason for the girls' fondness for Gru, and vice-versa. All of a sudden, the time they've spent together forms a bond between them. Gru also has several "mommy issues" - his mother is played wonderfully by Julie Andrews, who is never not wonderful - dealing mostly with her indifference to her son's genius. It could be argued that this lack of compassion in his youth could lead him to bonding with the girls, as real parental love is something he never experienced. But it's never made exactly clear that this is the case, and drawing that conclusion is a bit of a stretch. At first, he hates the girls, but later on, he comes to love them. And it's just taken for granted that this is the case. Because of this oversight, the real emotional moments don't have much resonance.
Also, the film was made for 3D, and I didn't see it in 3D. Throughout most of the film, this isn't an issue. But the end credits don't make any sense in 2D. See, Gru's little mutant minions go through a series of gags meant for a 3D audience, but since I didn't have the glasses, they didn't make any sense. I know that sounds like nitpicking, but you've got to keep in mind that the home video release may not have the 3D capabilities. now we're stuck with an end credits sequence that's just odd more than anything.
But all in all, Despicable Me was pretty good. But with a bit of story tweaking, it could have been great. Still, not a bad first try for a fledgling animation studio.
ADDENDUM - I work at Universal Studios Hollywood, and the next project from the group responsible for this film - HOP - is being advertised to death all around the park. I've seen the trailer about 5,000 times by now (give or take a few), and let's just say...I don't have very high hopes for it. Of course, I could be wrong, and there's really only one way to find out whether or not it's any good. I guess I just hate having ads shoved in my face all the time. End rant.
Monday, March 21, 2011
My Thoughts at the Halfway Mark
So that's 50 films under my belt. True, I haven't been able to do an actual 100 days, but the fact that I've actually watched fifty new films makes me pretty proud. I don't plan on stopping till I'm done.
There have been some great movies here, and some not-so-great ones, too.
Here are the top five I've watched so far:
1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. A Face in the Crowd
3. The Fifth Element
4. Spirited Away
5. Mean Streets
And the "Bottom Five," as it were: the films I just didn't care for.
1. The Jazz Singer (1980)
2. Snakes on a Plane
3. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
4. The Black Cauldron
5. The Day the Earth Stood Still
I'm having a blast doing this, by the way. I can't wait to see what else is out there!
There have been some great movies here, and some not-so-great ones, too.
Here are the top five I've watched so far:
1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. A Face in the Crowd
3. The Fifth Element
4. Spirited Away
5. Mean Streets
And the "Bottom Five," as it were: the films I just didn't care for.
1. The Jazz Singer (1980)
2. Snakes on a Plane
3. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
4. The Black Cauldron
5. The Day the Earth Stood Still
I'm having a blast doing this, by the way. I can't wait to see what else is out there!
Day 50: He's Got The Courage Of His Ignorance
A FACE IN THE CROWD (1957)
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Walter Matthau, Anthony Franciosa, Lee Remick, Percy Waram, Marshall Neilan
Everybody knows Andy Griffith. He's the gentle, fatherly sheriff who enforces the law with his warm personality and homespun humor. Or, if you're a little younger, he's an old defense attorney who exonerates his clients in a cantankerous yet likable manner.
However, if you ever want to see another, seedier side of this American folk hero, look no further than A Face in the Crowd.
Griffith plays a wanderer named Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes. While being held for drunk and disorderly conduct in a small Arkansas jail, he is discovered by local radio host Marcia Jeffries (Neal), who persuades the sheriff to let Rhodes sing a song for her show. Rhodes' popularity soars and takes him from a small time radio station in Arkansas to a TV show in Memphis and eventually to New York City. People just can't get enough of "Lonesome." But Rhodes is his own man, and his free-wheeling ways make directors cringe and sponsors nervous. But everything he touches turns to gold, as the Vitajax company finds out when they ask him to endorse their pep pills. The more popular he gets, the more people want to get a hold of him. Marcia seemingly succeeds until she finds out that he's sleeping with half the girls in New York. Fame goes to "Lonesome's" head, and he alienates everyone who helped him get to the top. Now this down-home hero is friends with some of Washington's elite, who know that the public hangs on to Rhodes' every word. And they want him in their corner. Eventually, Rhodes goes mad with power and pushes everything and everyone away to focus on the person who is most important: himself.
This was an interesting film for a number of reasons. Not the least of which was seeing sweet, wholesome Andy Griffith play a totally corrupt, power-hungry jerk. I had my doubts to say the least as to whether or not he could pull it off, but he does so with an amazing amount of energy and verve. His monsterous laugh can, depending on the context, either be infecteous or frightening. And when his world finally comes crashing down around him, his final scenes are just as powerful as anything Marlon Brando did in A Streetcar Named Desire. He's nowhere near as subtle, but then, neither is "Lonesome," so he doesn't need to be.
As for the rest of the cast, everyone is in fine form. Elia Kazan was known as the Actors' Director, and his skills are on display. Both of my readers will remember that I blasted Patricia Neal's performance in The Day the Earth Stood Still, but she redeems herself here. She is at the same time powerful and vulnerable. She deeply loves "Lonesome," but she hates what he's become. And in the end, she knows she's the one who has to knock "Lonesome" down a peg or two. Also of note is Walter Matthau as Rhodes' head writer Mel Miller, who is the first to rebel against the down-home demagogue. And it must be said that, as a young man, Matthau was rather handsome.
Another interesting thing about the film is how experimental it was. There is one scene in particular that stands out the most. A series of quick edits show clips from "Lonesome's" various Vitajax commercials, coupled with quick shots of animated sales charts, some odd cartoon ads and a mish-mash of different ad campaigns, all with the phrase "Watch the rating" repeated over and over again. It's like something out of a fever dream. Or, at least, a David Lynch movie. It's downright strange, especially considering the year it came out. I can't think of one American director who was as willing to experiment with the medium as much as Kazan did. I can just imagine the "I Love Lucy" generation sitting in the theater and having their minds blown by this squence. If I had a time machine, I'd love to go back and see how that went over.
Actually, I don't have to. Thanks to the internet, I have found out that the film did rather poorly on its initial release, perhaps because of its strangeness or overall dark and pessimistic outlook on celebrity. The film was certainly way ahead of its time, and films that are way ahead of their time rarely do well at first. But over the years, the film has become a favorite of many, and I think it's one of Elia Kazan's best.
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Walter Matthau, Anthony Franciosa, Lee Remick, Percy Waram, Marshall Neilan
Everybody knows Andy Griffith. He's the gentle, fatherly sheriff who enforces the law with his warm personality and homespun humor. Or, if you're a little younger, he's an old defense attorney who exonerates his clients in a cantankerous yet likable manner.
However, if you ever want to see another, seedier side of this American folk hero, look no further than A Face in the Crowd.
Griffith plays a wanderer named Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes. While being held for drunk and disorderly conduct in a small Arkansas jail, he is discovered by local radio host Marcia Jeffries (Neal), who persuades the sheriff to let Rhodes sing a song for her show. Rhodes' popularity soars and takes him from a small time radio station in Arkansas to a TV show in Memphis and eventually to New York City. People just can't get enough of "Lonesome." But Rhodes is his own man, and his free-wheeling ways make directors cringe and sponsors nervous. But everything he touches turns to gold, as the Vitajax company finds out when they ask him to endorse their pep pills. The more popular he gets, the more people want to get a hold of him. Marcia seemingly succeeds until she finds out that he's sleeping with half the girls in New York. Fame goes to "Lonesome's" head, and he alienates everyone who helped him get to the top. Now this down-home hero is friends with some of Washington's elite, who know that the public hangs on to Rhodes' every word. And they want him in their corner. Eventually, Rhodes goes mad with power and pushes everything and everyone away to focus on the person who is most important: himself.
This was an interesting film for a number of reasons. Not the least of which was seeing sweet, wholesome Andy Griffith play a totally corrupt, power-hungry jerk. I had my doubts to say the least as to whether or not he could pull it off, but he does so with an amazing amount of energy and verve. His monsterous laugh can, depending on the context, either be infecteous or frightening. And when his world finally comes crashing down around him, his final scenes are just as powerful as anything Marlon Brando did in A Streetcar Named Desire. He's nowhere near as subtle, but then, neither is "Lonesome," so he doesn't need to be.
As for the rest of the cast, everyone is in fine form. Elia Kazan was known as the Actors' Director, and his skills are on display. Both of my readers will remember that I blasted Patricia Neal's performance in The Day the Earth Stood Still, but she redeems herself here. She is at the same time powerful and vulnerable. She deeply loves "Lonesome," but she hates what he's become. And in the end, she knows she's the one who has to knock "Lonesome" down a peg or two. Also of note is Walter Matthau as Rhodes' head writer Mel Miller, who is the first to rebel against the down-home demagogue. And it must be said that, as a young man, Matthau was rather handsome.
Another interesting thing about the film is how experimental it was. There is one scene in particular that stands out the most. A series of quick edits show clips from "Lonesome's" various Vitajax commercials, coupled with quick shots of animated sales charts, some odd cartoon ads and a mish-mash of different ad campaigns, all with the phrase "Watch the rating" repeated over and over again. It's like something out of a fever dream. Or, at least, a David Lynch movie. It's downright strange, especially considering the year it came out. I can't think of one American director who was as willing to experiment with the medium as much as Kazan did. I can just imagine the "I Love Lucy" generation sitting in the theater and having their minds blown by this squence. If I had a time machine, I'd love to go back and see how that went over.
Actually, I don't have to. Thanks to the internet, I have found out that the film did rather poorly on its initial release, perhaps because of its strangeness or overall dark and pessimistic outlook on celebrity. The film was certainly way ahead of its time, and films that are way ahead of their time rarely do well at first. But over the years, the film has become a favorite of many, and I think it's one of Elia Kazan's best.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Day 49: I'm Everyone And No One
DARKMAN (1990)
Directed by Sam Raimi
Starring: Liam Neeson, Francis McDormand, Larry Drake, Colin Friels
Dr. Peyton Westlake (Neeson) is on the verge of creating a breakthrough in artificial skin grafts. Unfortunately, his work is disrupted by local gangster Robert Durant (Drake) and crooked CEO Louis Strack (Friels). Turns out Peyton's lawyer girlfriend Julie (McDormand) found out these two were in cahoots by way of a memo she uncovered. When Durant and his cronies find the memo in Westlake's office, they dunk his face in a vat of chemicals, turn on some flammable gas and blow up the joint. Now scarred beyond recognition, Westlake uses his synthetic skin to assume the identities of the men who tried to kill him while simultaneously tries to rekindle things with Julie. The only problem is, the skin begins to decompose after 100 minutes of exposure.
Don't go into this movie expecting something deep or poignant. This is pure comic-book action. Apparently, this film came as a result of Sam Raimi failing to secure the rights to do a movie version of both The Shadow and Batman. So he decided to do his own vigilante anti-hero film, and it's actually not bad.
However, the major problem with the film is the acting, which is hard to believe, considering the powerhouses that are Liam Neeson and Francis McDormand. But they've got a couple things working against them. First, as far as Neeson is concerned, he had to ditch is native Irish brogue for a more generic American accent, and he never quite pulls it off. Second, the script (that had five credited writers) has a lot of lame dialogue and crazy one-liners that made my eyes roll. I never like it when a writer makes his characters speak when it would be more effective for them to remain silent. As a result, we have a pretty cliche-ridden script, which doesn't give the actors much to work with.
But it seems as if Raimi was aware of this, so he did what he does best: he went all out with the visuals. Raimi is an extremely kinetic filmmaker, and there is never a dull visual moment in his films. Cameras swoop, pan, zoom and tilt furiously, making an exciting scene even more so. Many of his tactics, such as the strange montage of images superimposed over Neeson's face when he's about to snap, may seem over the top, and they are, but that's the point. Here we have a director whose love of movie making shines. He makes a habit of overshadowing the negatives (the weak script and stilted acting) with many positives (a definite visual flair). He's having fun, and by showing us how much fun he's having, we as the audience end up having fun as well.
Cineastes and those who look down their noses at films like Darkman will probably disagree with me on a lot of this, but so what? This movie wasn't made for them, anyway. If anything, it was made for Raimi himself. One of the questions filmmakers constantly ask themselves (other than "Can I win any awards for this?") is "What kind of movie would I like to see?" Filmmaking is much more fun and satisfying for the director if they're just making something that makes them happy. And if that enthusiasm shows up on screen, it takes us along for the ride. It may not be deep or meaningful, but it's certainly fun.
Directed by Sam Raimi
Starring: Liam Neeson, Francis McDormand, Larry Drake, Colin Friels
Dr. Peyton Westlake (Neeson) is on the verge of creating a breakthrough in artificial skin grafts. Unfortunately, his work is disrupted by local gangster Robert Durant (Drake) and crooked CEO Louis Strack (Friels). Turns out Peyton's lawyer girlfriend Julie (McDormand) found out these two were in cahoots by way of a memo she uncovered. When Durant and his cronies find the memo in Westlake's office, they dunk his face in a vat of chemicals, turn on some flammable gas and blow up the joint. Now scarred beyond recognition, Westlake uses his synthetic skin to assume the identities of the men who tried to kill him while simultaneously tries to rekindle things with Julie. The only problem is, the skin begins to decompose after 100 minutes of exposure.
Don't go into this movie expecting something deep or poignant. This is pure comic-book action. Apparently, this film came as a result of Sam Raimi failing to secure the rights to do a movie version of both The Shadow and Batman. So he decided to do his own vigilante anti-hero film, and it's actually not bad.
However, the major problem with the film is the acting, which is hard to believe, considering the powerhouses that are Liam Neeson and Francis McDormand. But they've got a couple things working against them. First, as far as Neeson is concerned, he had to ditch is native Irish brogue for a more generic American accent, and he never quite pulls it off. Second, the script (that had five credited writers) has a lot of lame dialogue and crazy one-liners that made my eyes roll. I never like it when a writer makes his characters speak when it would be more effective for them to remain silent. As a result, we have a pretty cliche-ridden script, which doesn't give the actors much to work with.
But it seems as if Raimi was aware of this, so he did what he does best: he went all out with the visuals. Raimi is an extremely kinetic filmmaker, and there is never a dull visual moment in his films. Cameras swoop, pan, zoom and tilt furiously, making an exciting scene even more so. Many of his tactics, such as the strange montage of images superimposed over Neeson's face when he's about to snap, may seem over the top, and they are, but that's the point. Here we have a director whose love of movie making shines. He makes a habit of overshadowing the negatives (the weak script and stilted acting) with many positives (a definite visual flair). He's having fun, and by showing us how much fun he's having, we as the audience end up having fun as well.
Cineastes and those who look down their noses at films like Darkman will probably disagree with me on a lot of this, but so what? This movie wasn't made for them, anyway. If anything, it was made for Raimi himself. One of the questions filmmakers constantly ask themselves (other than "Can I win any awards for this?") is "What kind of movie would I like to see?" Filmmaking is much more fun and satisfying for the director if they're just making something that makes them happy. And if that enthusiasm shows up on screen, it takes us along for the ride. It may not be deep or meaningful, but it's certainly fun.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Day 48: Ea- A- -oe's
A MIGHTY WIND (2003)
Directed by Christopher Guest
Starring: Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Bob Balaban, John Michael Higgins, Jane Lynch, Parker Posey, Fred Willard
When legendary folk-music promoter Irving Steinbloom passes away, his son Jonothan (Balaban) organizes a concert featuring some of his father's most famous clients. First up would have been The Main Street Singers, but they broke up in 1975. But they were revived as The New Main Street Singers, fronted by Terry and Laurie Bohner (Higgins and Lynch). Also on the bill are The Folksmen (Guest, McKean and Shearer), but the ones holding out are the Sweethearts of Folk Music, Mitch and Mickey (Levy and O'Hara). Since their bitter breakup in the early 70's, Mitch was committed to a mental institution and Mickey married a catheter salesman. We've all got to move on, I suppose. But the two agree to reunite for the one-time-only concert, though there's a hard road ahead for them. Mitch could break down any minute. The Folksmen tend to bicker among themselves a bit too much. The New Main Street Singers are actually a religious cult that worships color, and are managed by a former child star (Willard) who never grew up.
This is yet another of Christopher Guests' "mockumentaries," and is a companion to Waiting for Guffman and Best In Show. I've never seen the other two, but I have seen This Is Spinal Tap (written by Guest, directed by Rob Reiner), so I was expecting something a bit more wacky that what I got. I've been into metal for a while, so Spinal Tap wasn't too hard for me to grasp. Then again, I'm not that big of a folk music fan, so maybe the satire was spot-on and it just flew over my head.
And that's the ironic part: I thought the music was the one of the highlights of the film. Again, my only point of reference was Spinal Tap, so I was looking for something along the lines of "Big Bottom" and "Break Like the Wind." But what we get is much more true to the nature of folk music, and it adds quite a bit of credibility to these fictitious (yet very real) characters. The Folksmen (actually the same members of Spinal Tap, believe it or not) have a great song called "Old Joe's Place" that has been stuck in my head for days. And now it'll be stuck in yours.
But my favorite part of the film was the Mitch and Mickey story. I guess I don't hate romance as much as I claim, because I'm a sucker for a good love story. Mitch is absolutely pitiable as he not only tries to remember the songs, but has to spend time rehearsing with the only woman he ever loved, who has since moved on. I won't spoil anything for those who haven't seen it, but when he and Mickey finally get on stage to play hit song (a beautiful tune called "Kiss At the End of the Rainbow"), there is a bit of an awkward moment that could have been played for laughs, but ends up being one of the most touching moments in the film.
But then again, this is a comedy, right? Yes, and it's the epilogue that is meant to provide most of the belly-laughs. But it's also the part of the film I liked the least. I suppose they meant to give the Mitch and Mickey thing some closure, but Mickey especially comes across as cold and uncaring, which just ruins the previous 88 minutes we spent attaching ourselves to them. They took something nice and tossed it out the window. Oh, and for no particular reason at all, The Folksmen go on tour and their bassist, Mark Shubb (Shearer) got a sex-change operation. Now, for a joke like that to work, there's got to be some kind of setup. And we get none. Just a great time, singing old-timey music and then...Harry Shearer in drag. It's a punchline without a joke, and it's just odd.
But all in all, the film was a lot of fun, and the music was better than I expected. I'm surprised this soundtrack didn't sell a gajillion copies like the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack did. It's all really catchy, but not as funny as some might expect.
Directed by Christopher Guest
Starring: Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Bob Balaban, John Michael Higgins, Jane Lynch, Parker Posey, Fred Willard
When legendary folk-music promoter Irving Steinbloom passes away, his son Jonothan (Balaban) organizes a concert featuring some of his father's most famous clients. First up would have been The Main Street Singers, but they broke up in 1975. But they were revived as The New Main Street Singers, fronted by Terry and Laurie Bohner (Higgins and Lynch). Also on the bill are The Folksmen (Guest, McKean and Shearer), but the ones holding out are the Sweethearts of Folk Music, Mitch and Mickey (Levy and O'Hara). Since their bitter breakup in the early 70's, Mitch was committed to a mental institution and Mickey married a catheter salesman. We've all got to move on, I suppose. But the two agree to reunite for the one-time-only concert, though there's a hard road ahead for them. Mitch could break down any minute. The Folksmen tend to bicker among themselves a bit too much. The New Main Street Singers are actually a religious cult that worships color, and are managed by a former child star (Willard) who never grew up.
This is yet another of Christopher Guests' "mockumentaries," and is a companion to Waiting for Guffman and Best In Show. I've never seen the other two, but I have seen This Is Spinal Tap (written by Guest, directed by Rob Reiner), so I was expecting something a bit more wacky that what I got. I've been into metal for a while, so Spinal Tap wasn't too hard for me to grasp. Then again, I'm not that big of a folk music fan, so maybe the satire was spot-on and it just flew over my head.
And that's the ironic part: I thought the music was the one of the highlights of the film. Again, my only point of reference was Spinal Tap, so I was looking for something along the lines of "Big Bottom" and "Break Like the Wind." But what we get is much more true to the nature of folk music, and it adds quite a bit of credibility to these fictitious (yet very real) characters. The Folksmen (actually the same members of Spinal Tap, believe it or not) have a great song called "Old Joe's Place" that has been stuck in my head for days. And now it'll be stuck in yours.
But my favorite part of the film was the Mitch and Mickey story. I guess I don't hate romance as much as I claim, because I'm a sucker for a good love story. Mitch is absolutely pitiable as he not only tries to remember the songs, but has to spend time rehearsing with the only woman he ever loved, who has since moved on. I won't spoil anything for those who haven't seen it, but when he and Mickey finally get on stage to play hit song (a beautiful tune called "Kiss At the End of the Rainbow"), there is a bit of an awkward moment that could have been played for laughs, but ends up being one of the most touching moments in the film.
But then again, this is a comedy, right? Yes, and it's the epilogue that is meant to provide most of the belly-laughs. But it's also the part of the film I liked the least. I suppose they meant to give the Mitch and Mickey thing some closure, but Mickey especially comes across as cold and uncaring, which just ruins the previous 88 minutes we spent attaching ourselves to them. They took something nice and tossed it out the window. Oh, and for no particular reason at all, The Folksmen go on tour and their bassist, Mark Shubb (Shearer) got a sex-change operation. Now, for a joke like that to work, there's got to be some kind of setup. And we get none. Just a great time, singing old-timey music and then...Harry Shearer in drag. It's a punchline without a joke, and it's just odd.
But all in all, the film was a lot of fun, and the music was better than I expected. I'm surprised this soundtrack didn't sell a gajillion copies like the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack did. It's all really catchy, but not as funny as some might expect.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Day 47: You Love Me, But I'm Taboo
CARMEN JONES (1954)
Directed by Otto Preminger
Starring: Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Pearl Bailey, Diahann Carroll, Olga James, Joe Adams, Brock Peters; voices of Marilyn Horne, LeVerne Hutcherson, Marvin Hayes, Bernice Peterson
Young Army corporal Joe (Belefonte) and his gal Cindy Lou (James) are planning to get hitched before Joe leaves for flight school. But first, he's got to transport the fiery Carmen Jones (Dandridge) to the civilian jail for starting a ruckus on the base. En route to the jail, Carmen flirts with Joe non-stop, and due to a brokedown jeep, Carmen and Joe end up in her hometown, where she succeeds in finally seducing him, for no particular reason at all. I hate when that happens, I won't lie. If one character falls in love with another, it can't just happen. There's got to be a reason. Joe was all gung-ho for Cindy Lou, but five minutes of Carmen Jones had him asking, "Cindy who?" (And if that kind of joke bugs you, Carmen will get on your nerves in a hurry.)
Anyway, Joe gets some time in the brig for failing to bring Carmen to jail, and in the meantime, Carmen takes up at Billy Pastor's, a juke joint where all the swells come to get their drink on. Carmen's friends Frankie and Myrt (Bailey and Carroll) try to convince her to take up with boxing champion Huskey Miller (Adams), but Joe returns just in time, and after a scuffle with his sergeant (Peters), Carmen and Joe are off to Chicago. But Huskey, still sweet on Carmen, is there, too. Tensions run high as Carmen leaves Joe for Husky, Cindy Lou returns for Joe, but Joe is still hot for Carmen. Carmen finally gives Joe the brush, and Joe plots revenge.
If all of this sounds familiar, it should. Georges Bizet's classic opera Carmen was retooled for a brand-new audience as an all-black musical (with new lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II), starting on Broadway and ending up as a film. While it's a pretty novel idea - not to mention and ambitious one - it never really gels. First of all, this is a movie, not a play. But everything is shot in a very theatrical style rather than a cinematic one. There are a lot of very long takes, which add to the feeling of watching a stage play. The whole thing was even shot in CinemaScope, which seems like a waste of money if all you're going to do is really long takes of people singing.
This leads us to the second problem. Otto Preminger was so intent on getting back to Bizet's style of music that he had the Broadway score retooled and brought in professional opera singers to dub the singing for his stars. And Dorothy Dandridge and Harry Belafonte were already established singers, but they lacked the range required for the parts. Only Pearl Bailey got to do her own singing, and her rendition of "Beat out that Rhythm on the Drum" is one of the highlights of the film.
Third, and maybe the most important; as good singers as Dandridge and Belafonte are, as actors, they're really not that spectacular. In fact, unless they're "singing," they're pretty wooden. Again, Pearl Bailey is the exception. She's always the glue in every scene she's in, holding the film together. Now it's fine if you want to put non-actors in your film, but cast them in bit parts rather than the leads. Your leads need to have charisma to spare, and both Belafonte and Dandrige left me wanting.
I can't fault Otto Preminger for trying something new. He was always a pretty daring filmmaker. But this is an instance of the idea being bigger than the execution. But at least Bizet's music is still good.
Directed by Otto Preminger
Starring: Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Pearl Bailey, Diahann Carroll, Olga James, Joe Adams, Brock Peters; voices of Marilyn Horne, LeVerne Hutcherson, Marvin Hayes, Bernice Peterson
Young Army corporal Joe (Belefonte) and his gal Cindy Lou (James) are planning to get hitched before Joe leaves for flight school. But first, he's got to transport the fiery Carmen Jones (Dandridge) to the civilian jail for starting a ruckus on the base. En route to the jail, Carmen flirts with Joe non-stop, and due to a brokedown jeep, Carmen and Joe end up in her hometown, where she succeeds in finally seducing him, for no particular reason at all. I hate when that happens, I won't lie. If one character falls in love with another, it can't just happen. There's got to be a reason. Joe was all gung-ho for Cindy Lou, but five minutes of Carmen Jones had him asking, "Cindy who?" (And if that kind of joke bugs you, Carmen will get on your nerves in a hurry.)
Anyway, Joe gets some time in the brig for failing to bring Carmen to jail, and in the meantime, Carmen takes up at Billy Pastor's, a juke joint where all the swells come to get their drink on. Carmen's friends Frankie and Myrt (Bailey and Carroll) try to convince her to take up with boxing champion Huskey Miller (Adams), but Joe returns just in time, and after a scuffle with his sergeant (Peters), Carmen and Joe are off to Chicago. But Huskey, still sweet on Carmen, is there, too. Tensions run high as Carmen leaves Joe for Husky, Cindy Lou returns for Joe, but Joe is still hot for Carmen. Carmen finally gives Joe the brush, and Joe plots revenge.
If all of this sounds familiar, it should. Georges Bizet's classic opera Carmen was retooled for a brand-new audience as an all-black musical (with new lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II), starting on Broadway and ending up as a film. While it's a pretty novel idea - not to mention and ambitious one - it never really gels. First of all, this is a movie, not a play. But everything is shot in a very theatrical style rather than a cinematic one. There are a lot of very long takes, which add to the feeling of watching a stage play. The whole thing was even shot in CinemaScope, which seems like a waste of money if all you're going to do is really long takes of people singing.
This leads us to the second problem. Otto Preminger was so intent on getting back to Bizet's style of music that he had the Broadway score retooled and brought in professional opera singers to dub the singing for his stars. And Dorothy Dandridge and Harry Belafonte were already established singers, but they lacked the range required for the parts. Only Pearl Bailey got to do her own singing, and her rendition of "Beat out that Rhythm on the Drum" is one of the highlights of the film.
Third, and maybe the most important; as good singers as Dandridge and Belafonte are, as actors, they're really not that spectacular. In fact, unless they're "singing," they're pretty wooden. Again, Pearl Bailey is the exception. She's always the glue in every scene she's in, holding the film together. Now it's fine if you want to put non-actors in your film, but cast them in bit parts rather than the leads. Your leads need to have charisma to spare, and both Belafonte and Dandrige left me wanting.
I can't fault Otto Preminger for trying something new. He was always a pretty daring filmmaker. But this is an instance of the idea being bigger than the execution. But at least Bizet's music is still good.
Day 46: If You Think This Country's Bad Off Now, Wait Till I Get Through With It
DUCK SOUP (1933)
Directed by Leo McCarey
Starring: The Marx Brothers (Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo), Margaret Dumont, Louis Calhern, Raquel Torres
They say that most films made today cater to the ADD audience. I think that's a bit unfair. ADD films have been around forever, and Duck Soup is proof.
There's really not much of a plot. Everything centers around the zany antics of the Marx Brothers, and the plot is secondary. But for the purposes of discussion, the small country of Freedonia is bankrupt, so they appoint Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho) as its new president. The rival country of Sylvania looks to start a war with their neighbors, and Ambassador Trentino (Calhern) hires two spies (Chico and Harpo) to dig up some dirt on Firefly. As both Firefly and Trentino try to woo the wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (Dumont), insults lead to a declaration of war. The war itself is rather short, as Trentino is captured and surrenders after being pelted with fruit.
Like I said, the plot isn't what matters here. This movie is all about the gags, which mostly center on the hypocrisy of government and the absurdity of war. But the overall effect is less political that one might think. As Groucho himself put it, "We're just four Jews trying to get a laugh." And there's plenty to laugh at here, no matter what your political leanings might be. The famous mirror scene is one of the best examples, and has been copied endlessly by everyone from The Three Stooges to Bugs Bunny. What little plot there is only serves as the setup for the next punchline. And I was surprised how much zaniness could be crammed into 68 minutes.
There's always been a huge debate as to which Marx Brothers film is considered "The Best." Many site Duck Soup as their masterpiece, while others may prefer A Night at the Opera. Personally, I think if you've seen one Marx Brothers movie, you've seen them all. But that's not to say they get repetitive or boring. In fact, it's a lot of fun to go back and see the group that inspired every sketch comedy team and/or show from Monty Python to Saturday Night Live to Animaniacs. Of course, there were other comedy teams around at the time, but few of them caused as much controlled chaos as The Marx Brothers. And if you've never seen any of their films, this is as good a place to start as any.
Directed by Leo McCarey
Starring: The Marx Brothers (Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo), Margaret Dumont, Louis Calhern, Raquel Torres
They say that most films made today cater to the ADD audience. I think that's a bit unfair. ADD films have been around forever, and Duck Soup is proof.
There's really not much of a plot. Everything centers around the zany antics of the Marx Brothers, and the plot is secondary. But for the purposes of discussion, the small country of Freedonia is bankrupt, so they appoint Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho) as its new president. The rival country of Sylvania looks to start a war with their neighbors, and Ambassador Trentino (Calhern) hires two spies (Chico and Harpo) to dig up some dirt on Firefly. As both Firefly and Trentino try to woo the wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (Dumont), insults lead to a declaration of war. The war itself is rather short, as Trentino is captured and surrenders after being pelted with fruit.
Like I said, the plot isn't what matters here. This movie is all about the gags, which mostly center on the hypocrisy of government and the absurdity of war. But the overall effect is less political that one might think. As Groucho himself put it, "We're just four Jews trying to get a laugh." And there's plenty to laugh at here, no matter what your political leanings might be. The famous mirror scene is one of the best examples, and has been copied endlessly by everyone from The Three Stooges to Bugs Bunny. What little plot there is only serves as the setup for the next punchline. And I was surprised how much zaniness could be crammed into 68 minutes.
There's always been a huge debate as to which Marx Brothers film is considered "The Best." Many site Duck Soup as their masterpiece, while others may prefer A Night at the Opera. Personally, I think if you've seen one Marx Brothers movie, you've seen them all. But that's not to say they get repetitive or boring. In fact, it's a lot of fun to go back and see the group that inspired every sketch comedy team and/or show from Monty Python to Saturday Night Live to Animaniacs. Of course, there were other comedy teams around at the time, but few of them caused as much controlled chaos as The Marx Brothers. And if you've never seen any of their films, this is as good a place to start as any.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Day 45: I Have A Right To Be Heard! I Have A Voice!
THE KING'S SPEECH (2010)
Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffery Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Derek Jacobi, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon
About time I reviewed a recent movie, eh?
Prince Albert, Duke of York (Firth) has a rather nasty stuttering problem, which is a real bother, considering part of being a member of the Royal Family is giving speeches. He's tried all sorts of doctors to help him overcome it with no success. Desperate, his wife Elizabeth (Carter) seeks the help of Lionel Logue (Rush), an Australian speech therapist living in London. Logue runs a tight ship, and he will have none of Albert's royal backsass, even going so far as to refer to him by his not-so-royal nickname "Bertie". Everything is going well and Albert is making great progress until a series of unexpected events leads to his older brother King Edward VII to abdicate the throne. Price Albert is now King George VI. And more than that, England is about to go to war with Germany. And King George must deliver the most important speech of his life to a nervous and unsure nation.
This is kind of movie Oscar loves. It's well-made, superbly acted and historically significant. No wonder it won this year's Best Picture award. Colin Firth is amazing, Geoffery Rush is funny and Helena Bonham Carter is so good that I didn't even know it was her playing the Queen Mum. That's the cool thing about her - if I don't know she's in a movie when I go in, I never know it's her until the end credits.
Of course, the question on everyone's mind: did this movie deserve to win Best Picture? There's always some kind of controversy when this award is given out every year, and many were saying that The King's Speech, while an amazing film to be sure, wasn't as good as, say, Inception or Black Swan. Well, part of the problem with expanding the Best Picture field from five films to ten is that there's no way I can see them all. Of the ten nominees, I've seen The King's Speech, Inception, True Grit and Toy Story 3 (How to Train Your Dragon should have gotten the nod, but that's for another time). And if I were to make my pick out of these four, I'd have to say, yes, The King's Speech was the best of the lot. Inception was cool, but dragged a bit and got confusing. True Grit was also amazing, but remakes have a hard time at the Oscars. Toy Story 3 was amazingly emotional, but come on, an animated film will never win Best Picture (no matter how cool it would be).
Another controversy about The Kings Speech was the R-rating it received (and the UK equivalent, the "15"), due to a scene where Lionel makes the discovery that Bertie doesn't stutter when he swears. This leads to Bertie letting off with a string of profanities, all of them stutter-free. Also, later in the film, he rehearses his speech with few f-bombs thrown in to break up the silence. I have to say, I understand why the film got the rating it did, but it might have been a bit unfair. The scene is one of the funniest in the film, and the words are used as expletives rather than verbs (which, if you will remember from This Film Is Not Yet Rated, means you can still squeak by with a PG-13). The Weinstein Company is planning to re-release a PG-13 version of the film with that scene cut short. But if someone comically swearing doesn't offend you, check out the R-rated version. There's no sex, not once square inch of skin and no violence, so something you would usually hear on the bus anyway isn't that big of a deal.
Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffery Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Derek Jacobi, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon
About time I reviewed a recent movie, eh?
Prince Albert, Duke of York (Firth) has a rather nasty stuttering problem, which is a real bother, considering part of being a member of the Royal Family is giving speeches. He's tried all sorts of doctors to help him overcome it with no success. Desperate, his wife Elizabeth (Carter) seeks the help of Lionel Logue (Rush), an Australian speech therapist living in London. Logue runs a tight ship, and he will have none of Albert's royal backsass, even going so far as to refer to him by his not-so-royal nickname "Bertie". Everything is going well and Albert is making great progress until a series of unexpected events leads to his older brother King Edward VII to abdicate the throne. Price Albert is now King George VI. And more than that, England is about to go to war with Germany. And King George must deliver the most important speech of his life to a nervous and unsure nation.
This is kind of movie Oscar loves. It's well-made, superbly acted and historically significant. No wonder it won this year's Best Picture award. Colin Firth is amazing, Geoffery Rush is funny and Helena Bonham Carter is so good that I didn't even know it was her playing the Queen Mum. That's the cool thing about her - if I don't know she's in a movie when I go in, I never know it's her until the end credits.
Of course, the question on everyone's mind: did this movie deserve to win Best Picture? There's always some kind of controversy when this award is given out every year, and many were saying that The King's Speech, while an amazing film to be sure, wasn't as good as, say, Inception or Black Swan. Well, part of the problem with expanding the Best Picture field from five films to ten is that there's no way I can see them all. Of the ten nominees, I've seen The King's Speech, Inception, True Grit and Toy Story 3 (How to Train Your Dragon should have gotten the nod, but that's for another time). And if I were to make my pick out of these four, I'd have to say, yes, The King's Speech was the best of the lot. Inception was cool, but dragged a bit and got confusing. True Grit was also amazing, but remakes have a hard time at the Oscars. Toy Story 3 was amazingly emotional, but come on, an animated film will never win Best Picture (no matter how cool it would be).
Another controversy about The Kings Speech was the R-rating it received (and the UK equivalent, the "15"), due to a scene where Lionel makes the discovery that Bertie doesn't stutter when he swears. This leads to Bertie letting off with a string of profanities, all of them stutter-free. Also, later in the film, he rehearses his speech with few f-bombs thrown in to break up the silence. I have to say, I understand why the film got the rating it did, but it might have been a bit unfair. The scene is one of the funniest in the film, and the words are used as expletives rather than verbs (which, if you will remember from This Film Is Not Yet Rated, means you can still squeak by with a PG-13). The Weinstein Company is planning to re-release a PG-13 version of the film with that scene cut short. But if someone comically swearing doesn't offend you, check out the R-rated version. There's no sex, not once square inch of skin and no violence, so something you would usually hear on the bus anyway isn't that big of a deal.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Day 44: Ceci N'est Pas Un Film (or The Treachery of Cinema)
THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972)
Directed by Luis Bunuel
Starring: Fernando Rey, Paul Frankeur, Delphine Seyrig, Bulle Ogier, Stephane Audran, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Julien Bertheau
A group of upper-class friends gather together for a dinner party. The only problem is, every time they sit down to eat, they're interrupted by many strange goings-on which range from minor annoyances to inexplicable surrealist scenarios.
Every film student is required to at least once to watch Luis Bunuel's surrealistic masterpieces Un Chien Andalou and L'age D'or. Both of those films (done with varying degrees of collaboration with Salvador Dali) are filled to the brim with surrealist and avant garde imagery, designed to either make the audience chuckle with delight or fume with anger, depending on the sensibilities of the viewer. And that's the sort of thing I was expecting going into this film. But what I got was very light on the shocking images and very heavy on dialogue that is critical of everything from world politics to religion and everything in between. The most surreal thing about the movie is the world in which it takes place, which makes perfect sense to those who live in it, but not to outsiders (like the audience).
Now I'm a big fan of strange cinema. David Lynch is one of my favorite directors, and his films Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive are on my top ten list of favorite films. I also love Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and P.T. Anderson's Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. For me, the weirder, the better. But this film came off like a drunk friend who's trying to tell a joke and forgets the punchline.
But the thing is, maybe I just didn't get it the first time around. Or maybe I don't know what I think. My first impression of the film is that it's exasperatingly boring. That's probably because I was expecting something totally off the wall and got a world that was off the wall, but so close to our own I didn't realize it. I was monumentally confused by the whole thing. But the great thing about DVD's is that we can go back and watch it again. And I plan to do that.
From what I've been reading, the film has been called "Bunuel's joke on his audience." Perhaps the joke is that I was looking at face-value for the outlandish stuff and missing the whole point. But love or hate this movie, you will have an opinion of it, which is the best thing a movie can do. The worst thing is to make a movie no one cares about or completely ignores. If you can't move an audience one way or another, you've got no business making movies.
Directed by Luis Bunuel
Starring: Fernando Rey, Paul Frankeur, Delphine Seyrig, Bulle Ogier, Stephane Audran, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Julien Bertheau
A group of upper-class friends gather together for a dinner party. The only problem is, every time they sit down to eat, they're interrupted by many strange goings-on which range from minor annoyances to inexplicable surrealist scenarios.
Every film student is required to at least once to watch Luis Bunuel's surrealistic masterpieces Un Chien Andalou and L'age D'or. Both of those films (done with varying degrees of collaboration with Salvador Dali) are filled to the brim with surrealist and avant garde imagery, designed to either make the audience chuckle with delight or fume with anger, depending on the sensibilities of the viewer. And that's the sort of thing I was expecting going into this film. But what I got was very light on the shocking images and very heavy on dialogue that is critical of everything from world politics to religion and everything in between. The most surreal thing about the movie is the world in which it takes place, which makes perfect sense to those who live in it, but not to outsiders (like the audience).
Now I'm a big fan of strange cinema. David Lynch is one of my favorite directors, and his films Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive are on my top ten list of favorite films. I also love Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and P.T. Anderson's Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. For me, the weirder, the better. But this film came off like a drunk friend who's trying to tell a joke and forgets the punchline.
But the thing is, maybe I just didn't get it the first time around. Or maybe I don't know what I think. My first impression of the film is that it's exasperatingly boring. That's probably because I was expecting something totally off the wall and got a world that was off the wall, but so close to our own I didn't realize it. I was monumentally confused by the whole thing. But the great thing about DVD's is that we can go back and watch it again. And I plan to do that.
From what I've been reading, the film has been called "Bunuel's joke on his audience." Perhaps the joke is that I was looking at face-value for the outlandish stuff and missing the whole point. But love or hate this movie, you will have an opinion of it, which is the best thing a movie can do. The worst thing is to make a movie no one cares about or completely ignores. If you can't move an audience one way or another, you've got no business making movies.
Day 43: I'm Always Around
SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006)
Directed by Bryan Singer
Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, James Marsden, Frank Langella, Eva Marie Saint
After an unexplained five year absence, Clark Kent (Routh) comes back to Metropolis. And Perry White (Langella) is nice enough to give him back his old job at the Daily Planet. While catching up with his Best Pal Jimmy Olsen, he finds out that his old flame Lois Lane (Bosworth) is engaged to be married and has a son. However, also coming back to town is Lex Luthor (Spacey), and he’s cooking up yet another crazy world-domination scheme. But of course as we all know, with the return of Clark Kent comes the return of Superman, who also mysteriously reappears. He also finds out that Lois has moved on when he discovers she wrote the Pulitzer-winning editorial “Why We Don’t Need Superman.”
I heard a lot of negative press about this film, but I have to say, I can’t really see why. It’s got everything a Superman movie should have; Lex Luthor trying to take over/destroy the world, Superman saving the day in his charming Boy Scout manner, a rekindled romance between Superman and Lois Lane and the prospect of sequel, which I won’t ruin for you if you haven’t seen it. So why all the hate? I honestly can’t say.
Director Bryan Singer is no stranger to super-hero movies, having helmed the first two X-Men films, and he handles the Man of Steel with a great amount of respect. The temptation is always to use Superman’s goody-goody persona as an excuse to make things a bit campy. There is very little in the way of camp here (aside from a few inside jokes for fans), and the film supposedly takes place in the same continuity as the first two Superman films directed by Richard Donner (and Richard Lester, if you must mention that). Great attention is paid to every detail. He wanted to get everything right, and that’s exactly what he did.
One of his best decisions was to cast Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Really, can you think of another actor who is better suited for that role? There are some who would say Gene Hackman should have reprised the part, but I was never a fan of Hackman as Luthor. He just didn’t seem diabolical enough. Spacey, on the other hand, has that maniacal edge that makes Luthor a menace rather than a clown. Sure, he occasionally plays for laughs here too, but that’s not his main focus. He’s a super-villain who enjoys his work a bit too much, which is always a bit scary, no matter how charming he may be on the outside.
As far as the rest of the cast goes, everyone does a fine job. Brandon Routh is good as Superman/Clark, but I can’t help feeling he was chosen for the role only because he bears a more than passing resemblance to the late Christopher Reeve. The good thing about him is that he doesn’t try to imitate Reeve. He stands on his own, as it should be. Bosworth isn’t bad as Lois, but then I’ve never seen a great on-screen Lois Lane. Even Margot Kidder got on my nerves a bit. Bosworth works because her attitude best matches Lane’s as a woman succeeding in a man’s world. Hers is one of the better interpretations of what is, essentially, a pretty one-dimensional character.
I do, however, have two problems with the film. First of all, the main cast are all a bit too young. Five years are supposed to have passed between Superman II and this film, and yet everyone looks younger. Second, even though we know Superman is impervious to bullets and can lift a trillion tons and all that, he always does so as if he’s lifting no more than a medicine ball. I think back to The Incredibles and what Brad Bird had to say about super-strength: even if the world’s strongest man is about to stop a runaway train, he still winces just before impact, as if to say, “This isn’t going to kill me, but it’s gonna hurt.” Just one shot like that in this movie would have done a better job of selling it. Even Superman must get a bruise now and then.
I found this to be a really good interpretation of the Superman mythos, and I still don’t understand all the bad press this movie got. Perhaps people thought it didn’t really add anything new, but that’s not a bad thing. Especially if you’re doing a reboot of a classic series. The last thing I want to see is Superman getting all dark and gloomy. This world is dark and gloomy enough already. Our heroes should rise above all that, and no one ever did it better than Superman.
And all this was written by a die-hard Batman fan. But that’s another story.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Day 42: Boards Don't Hit Back
ENTER THE DRAGON (1973)
Directed by Robert Clouse
Starring: Bruce Lee, John Saxon, Jim Kelly, Ahna Capri, Kien Shih
This is the kung-fu movie by which all other kung-fu movies are judged.
A Shaolin monk named Lee (played by, well, Lee) is hired by British Intelligence to spy on a rogue monk turned Bond villain, Han (Shih). Han is holding a martial arts tournament on his private island. Among the other combatants are two Americans, Mr. Roper (Norman Fell. No wait, John Saxon) and Mr. Williams (the non-football-playing Jim Kelly). Roper is up to his eyeballs in debt and sees the tournament as a good way to make some quick cash. Williams simply enjoys fighting for the sake of winning. During the course of the tournament, Han’s shady deals come to light. He’s involved in drug smuggling, human trafficking and the general corruption of mankind. But he’s also indirectly responsible for the death of Lee’s sister, which is enough for Lee to take the job.
Of course, there’s really only one reason to watch this movie, and that’s for the amazing fight scenes. And they don’t disappoint. The action is loud, fast and furious. In fact, the action begins to take over the plot about one-third of the way through the film. Not that the plot matters very much. It’s the standard super-villain-plots-to-take-over-and/or-ruin-the-world story we’ve all seen thousand times before. But instead of James Bond, we get Bruce Lee, who many would argue is much cooler. He may not have bedded as many henchwomen as Bond, but let’s see Sean Connery or Roger Moore try some of the moves Lee showcases here. Then again, Han could probably take Blofeld any day.
As much fun as the action was in this movie, it really is just a one-trick pony. It does one thing, and does it well. But for me, I’ve got to have an interesting story for me to care what happens next. What little plot there is only serves as a lead-in to the next fight scene. It’s exciting at first, but after a while, it starts to get old. I know that will anger many Bruce Lee fans, but I’m not saying he’s boring. Think of an action film as a three-ring-circus. If you don’t like the clowns (and who does?), there’s the elephants. If you don’t like the elephants, there’s the acrobats, and if you don’t like them, there’s something else.* In other words, there should be something for everyone. You wouldn’t go to a circus just to see one thing, so why should a film only have one trick?
But that aside, it was fun to watch. I’ve always enjoyed martial arts films. When I was a kid, my sister and I would have mock-karate battles after seeing Karate Kid or some similar film. But as an adult, they just don’t have the same pull they once did. Besides, now I can’t get anyone to fake-fight with me without them calling the cops. C’est la vie.
* $1 to Mick Foley for that analogy.
Day 41: When Someone Else Is Driving, I'm Scared
THE WAGES OF FEAR (1953)
Directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot
Starring: Yves Montand, Charles Vanel, Peter Van Eyck, Folco Lulli, William Tubbs, Vera Clouzot
In a destitute South American village, an international group of journeymen wait for their next job – and wait and wait and wait some more. The only game in town is the American Southern Oil Company, and they only hire people with experience. But a fire breaks out at one of their remote derricks, and Mr. O’Brien (Tubbs) needs several tons of nitroglycerine transported over the roughest terrain in the country. Naturally, all of the immigrant workers go out for it, and the ones who are chosen are the Frenchmen, Mario and Monsieur Jo (Montand and Vanel), the Italian Luigi (Lulli)* and the Dutch Bimba (Van Eyck). The job pays them two thousand US dollars each, which is more than enough to get them all out of the slums they’ve been living in. But they’ve got to complete the job first.
If you say the words “Master of Suspense,” most people will automatically think of Alfred Hitchcock. But watching The Wages of Fear has led me to bestow that term on H.G. Clouzot. I don’t think you will ever find a more suspenseful film than this one. You know from the very first frame that something is going to go wrong (a little slum boy tortures cockroaches with a stick), but it’s almost impossible to guess exactly when and how. The sword hangs over the heads of all four men, and Clouzot threatens to cut the thread many times. But he does so when you least expect it. And when the sword falls, everything goes to hell – literally.
It was interesting to find out that The Wages of Fear was heavily edited before its release in the United States. This was, of course, during the McCarthy era, and there are several scenes that could be considered as sympathetic to Communism and/or critical of Capitalism. But the main problem more than likely lay with the Southern Oil Company and the character of Mr. O’Brien. Mr. O’Brien and his company are portrayed as loud, crude, uncaring monsters who have no qualms about sending men on this suicide mission. The only thing that matters to them is their bottom line. Of course, now we know that oil companies would NEVER be so cold and heartless. Perish the thought!
I recommend this movie to anyone who wants to know how to do suspense right. But I know I’m going to get the same complaint I get every time I recommend a foreign-language film: “I hate reading subtitles!” To that, I have two things to say. First, it would be wise to get over that hatred of subtitles, because you really deprive yourself of some of the better films that have ever been made. Hollywood isn’t the only place in the world that produces movies, you know! And secondly, about one-quarter of this film is already in English, so this is a good one to ease into.
*Yeah, I know. “Mario and Luigi,” hahaha.
Day 40: You Don't Make Up For Your Sins In Church. You Do It In The Streets.
MEAN STREETS (1973)
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Starring: Harvey Keitel, Robert De Niro, David Proval, Ann Robinson, Richard Romanus
Charlie (Keitel) is a devout Catholic who walks a fine line between his faith and his job “debt collecting” for his mafia uncle. Johnny Boy (De Niro) is an irresponsible hood who owes money to every big shot in the neighborhood. Michael (Romanus) is one of those big shots. Tony (Proval) owns the bar where they all hang out together. But Johnny’s lack of concern over his debts casts a shadow on everyone, especially Charlie, who vouched to Michael for Johnny. To top it all off, Charlie is dating Johnny’s cousin Theresa (Robinson). As Johnny’s devil-may-care attitude gets him into more and more trouble, Charlie gets caught in the middle and tries his best to do not only what’s best for his friend, but also not to lose his spot in the organization.
Martin Scorsese’s second feature is a gritty slice of life in New York’s Little Italy, reportedly based on things he actually experienced growing up there. But even for such a low budget film and such a young director, there is already a lot of technical savvy on display. Scorsese shows that he already can speak the cinematic language and use it to his advantage. Right after a scene of Charlie in church, we cut to Tony’s bar, where topless girls gyrate and people drink, dance and shoot pool. The whole bar is bathed in a deep red light, making it look as if Charlie was in heaven in the morning and in hell at night. In what has become a staple of Scorsese’s films, most of the soundtrack consists of old rock ‘n roll standards, mixed in with some opera and classical music. But the one part that stood out was a scene where Charlie gets drunk at a party and passes out. Keitel wore a rig on his chest the held the camera in front of him. The effect is that Charlie’s head stays stationary while the background spins and shakes violently. I’ve seen other directors use this trick (Darren Aronofsky, Guy Ritchie), but this is the earliest film I’ve ever seen it in.
This film is also notable for being the first of many collaborations between Scorsese and Robert De Niro. It seems that once Scorsese finds an actor he likes, he casts him in as many films as possible. He’s doing it now with Leonardo DiCaprio. But this was the first time these two had worked together, and they would go on to do some of the most memorable films of the 70’s. And De Niro is great here as Johnny Boy. His utter disdain for all authority shines through and makes him, at times, very entertaining. At other times, he’s downright scary. He’s a loose cannon that could go off at any time. And in a culture that thrives on respect and order, that is a huge problem.
Mean Streets is a good watch for a lot of reasons. I love going back to the earlier films of established directors to see where they got their start and how they honed their skills. Most of what we think of when we think of Scorsese and his films (gangsters, gritty New York locales, and a rock soundtrack) are already here. But it’s also fun to watch and see how many of Scorsese’s tricks have been “borrowed” from other directors since then. But that’s the thing about filmmaking: if you see somebody do something you like, you use it in your own film. I’m sure Scorsese borrowed a trick or two from Roger Corman. But here, he stands on his own, and it put him on the map.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Day 39: You Can Go Places In The World With Pudding. That's Funny.
PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002)
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Adam Sandler, Emily Watson, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman
Let's say you wanted to make a romantic comedy. How would you go about it? Well, if you were to follow the standard formula, you'd take one socially maladjusted man and team him up with a lively and vivacious woman and bingo! Well, technically, that's what we have in Punch-Drunk Love. But what sets this film apart from the others is style and substance - two things sorely lacking in most rom-coms.
A synopsis of the plot would be a little hard to do. The long and short of it is, Barry Egan (Sandler) leads a very lonely life. He sells novelty plungers (which he calls "fungers"), collects Healthy Choice food products (particularly pudding, since it's the cheapest) to redeem frequent-flier miles and flies into fits of rage when his family ridicules him. One day, he witnesses a car crash outside his office and finds an abandoned harmonium left on the side of the road, so he brings it inside. He calls a phone-sex line, but can't get into it. The girl on the other end calls him back and demands money, at first as a pest but she soon becomes a genuine threat, as her boss (Hoffman) sends a gang of brothers to "collect." Meanwhile, Barry's sister introduces him to her friend Lena Leonard (Watson). He forms an almost instantaneous bond with her. Soon, she flies off to Hawaii for business, and Barry follows her. They fall in love (for no particular reason), but when the "collectors" come for Barry, they smash his car, injuring Lena. While she's in the hospital, Barry drives from Los Angeles to Provo, Utah to confront the man behind the extortion attempts. When he gets back, he promises Lena to redeem those frequent-flier miles so they can go wherever they want.
Now, I'm sure you're scratching your head right about now. But the thing about Punch-Drunk Love is that this film is all about the art of filmmaking. It's not really about the plot. It's not even really about the characters. It's about taking a bunch of things that seemingly make no sense and, through the art of movie making, making them make sense. This can be dangerous. If you try to force things to make sense, you're in trouble, but Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the few directors working today who has absolute command of the medium. And he makes no excuses for making and "arthouse film." That's precisely what he was going for. And instead of being pretentious or off-putting, he creates a film that, while not for all tastes, is one of the better examples of what it is to make real, true cinema.
It's also very interesting to see Adam Sandler out of his usual frat-house element. Instead of going strictly for laughs, he underplays the role of Barry to the point where everything he says is almost a whisper. That is, except when he's blind with rage and smashing everything in sight. Emily Watson is also very sweet as the mysterious Lena. We don't know much about her, and we really don't learn much as the film progresses. She just is who she is, which is what Barry likes about her.
I've said many times how much I despise romantic comedies. So when one comes along that sets the entire genre on its head, I tend to like it a bit more. But the genre-bending element isn't the only thing I loved about this movie. It's an amazingly artistic film. And more than that, I love any movie where some miserable bastard finds someone to love and that loves them back. It sort of gives me hope.
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Adam Sandler, Emily Watson, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman
Let's say you wanted to make a romantic comedy. How would you go about it? Well, if you were to follow the standard formula, you'd take one socially maladjusted man and team him up with a lively and vivacious woman and bingo! Well, technically, that's what we have in Punch-Drunk Love. But what sets this film apart from the others is style and substance - two things sorely lacking in most rom-coms.
A synopsis of the plot would be a little hard to do. The long and short of it is, Barry Egan (Sandler) leads a very lonely life. He sells novelty plungers (which he calls "fungers"), collects Healthy Choice food products (particularly pudding, since it's the cheapest) to redeem frequent-flier miles and flies into fits of rage when his family ridicules him. One day, he witnesses a car crash outside his office and finds an abandoned harmonium left on the side of the road, so he brings it inside. He calls a phone-sex line, but can't get into it. The girl on the other end calls him back and demands money, at first as a pest but she soon becomes a genuine threat, as her boss (Hoffman) sends a gang of brothers to "collect." Meanwhile, Barry's sister introduces him to her friend Lena Leonard (Watson). He forms an almost instantaneous bond with her. Soon, she flies off to Hawaii for business, and Barry follows her. They fall in love (for no particular reason), but when the "collectors" come for Barry, they smash his car, injuring Lena. While she's in the hospital, Barry drives from Los Angeles to Provo, Utah to confront the man behind the extortion attempts. When he gets back, he promises Lena to redeem those frequent-flier miles so they can go wherever they want.
Now, I'm sure you're scratching your head right about now. But the thing about Punch-Drunk Love is that this film is all about the art of filmmaking. It's not really about the plot. It's not even really about the characters. It's about taking a bunch of things that seemingly make no sense and, through the art of movie making, making them make sense. This can be dangerous. If you try to force things to make sense, you're in trouble, but Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the few directors working today who has absolute command of the medium. And he makes no excuses for making and "arthouse film." That's precisely what he was going for. And instead of being pretentious or off-putting, he creates a film that, while not for all tastes, is one of the better examples of what it is to make real, true cinema.
It's also very interesting to see Adam Sandler out of his usual frat-house element. Instead of going strictly for laughs, he underplays the role of Barry to the point where everything he says is almost a whisper. That is, except when he's blind with rage and smashing everything in sight. Emily Watson is also very sweet as the mysterious Lena. We don't know much about her, and we really don't learn much as the film progresses. She just is who she is, which is what Barry likes about her.
I've said many times how much I despise romantic comedies. So when one comes along that sets the entire genre on its head, I tend to like it a bit more. But the genre-bending element isn't the only thing I loved about this movie. It's an amazingly artistic film. And more than that, I love any movie where some miserable bastard finds someone to love and that loves them back. It sort of gives me hope.
Day 38: We Don't Give Out That Information
THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006)
Directed by Kirby Dick
Have you ever wondered how a film gets its rating, or what the different ratings - G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 - mean? Apparently, it's a pretty shady deal.
Director Kirby Dick interviews several filmmakers whose films have received the dreaded NC-17 rating, a rating that means no children under the age of 17 will be admitted. But it also means that many theaters won't show the film, many chain stores won't carry the DVD and the film cannot be advertised on television. They all argue that their films, though sexually explicit, were the victims of censorship at the hands of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), an anonymous board of ten people supposedly chosen at random to grant ratings to films released in America. Specifically, they argue that it is the independent filmmaker who suffers most from the ratings board, and that similarly explicit films made by the Big Studios get a free pass. Of course, it's not censorship in that the filmmakers are required to re-edit their films or that the re-cuts are done for them, but if they want their films to reach the widest audience possible, they must aim for an R rating or lower.
Dick hires private investigator Becky Altringer to find out the identities of the members of the ratings board. Why he does this isn't entirely clear. It would appear that he is trying to better understand who the people are and how the ratings process works, but it comes across more like he's just trying to blow the lid off an organization he has a problem with. And his arguments have a lot of merit. Films with graphic depictions of sex or films that deal in a frank way with homosexuality tend to get more severe ratings than films that have explicit violence or even simply a high body count with less on-screen bloodshed. But he's not entirely mean-spirited. He does try to get interviews with a few of the members, and even succeeds in talking to two former and two current raters (one of whom preferred to remain anonymous). Dick's main problem with the ratings board is the fact that they're not entirely forthcoming about who rates the films. The MPAA claims that the raters are people who are "normal parents" with children between the ages of 5 and 17. This turns out to be not true, as many of the reviewers are divorced with children aged 20 or older. Of course, if your film gets a harsher rating than you'd like, you can always appeal. But the appeals process seems to be even more shady.
This film cites many examples of other films that got the NC-17 rating, and as such, there's a lot of graphic footage here, including things that were cut from original releases. But the problem is that this film tends to focus more on the censorship of sexuality as opposed to graphic violence, which is mentioned, but is merely touched upon. It is brought up that the European ratings system is almost exactly the opposite of the American system, giving the stricter ratings to violent films, a system many filmmakers would like to see adopted Stateside.
All of these interviews and comparisons are more interesting, and ultimately more constructive than the footage of Kirby and Becky digging up dirt on the folks on the ratings board. The latter footage is, at times, funny, but usually pretty mean-spirited. Yes, the ratings system is unfair; I actually agree with that. But what will exposing these peoples' identities accomplish? What is the point of going through their garbage? Dick isn't so much trying to fix a problem or right a wrong as much as he's trying to send a message to the MPAA that he is no one to mess with. He's trying to have two wrongs make a right, which never works. But Dick does present himself as a pretty inspirational figure; taking on the huge, anonymous organization that can make or break your film.
However, the film is very eye-opening and entertaining (interviews with John Waters are particularly funny), but it's not for every taste. You can't expect to watch a documentary on censorship without seeing what was censored, and there are no punches pulled here. But it's a must-watch for prospective filmmakers who really need to see what they're up against. And even what they can get away with.
Directed by Kirby Dick
Have you ever wondered how a film gets its rating, or what the different ratings - G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 - mean? Apparently, it's a pretty shady deal.
Director Kirby Dick interviews several filmmakers whose films have received the dreaded NC-17 rating, a rating that means no children under the age of 17 will be admitted. But it also means that many theaters won't show the film, many chain stores won't carry the DVD and the film cannot be advertised on television. They all argue that their films, though sexually explicit, were the victims of censorship at the hands of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), an anonymous board of ten people supposedly chosen at random to grant ratings to films released in America. Specifically, they argue that it is the independent filmmaker who suffers most from the ratings board, and that similarly explicit films made by the Big Studios get a free pass. Of course, it's not censorship in that the filmmakers are required to re-edit their films or that the re-cuts are done for them, but if they want their films to reach the widest audience possible, they must aim for an R rating or lower.
Dick hires private investigator Becky Altringer to find out the identities of the members of the ratings board. Why he does this isn't entirely clear. It would appear that he is trying to better understand who the people are and how the ratings process works, but it comes across more like he's just trying to blow the lid off an organization he has a problem with. And his arguments have a lot of merit. Films with graphic depictions of sex or films that deal in a frank way with homosexuality tend to get more severe ratings than films that have explicit violence or even simply a high body count with less on-screen bloodshed. But he's not entirely mean-spirited. He does try to get interviews with a few of the members, and even succeeds in talking to two former and two current raters (one of whom preferred to remain anonymous). Dick's main problem with the ratings board is the fact that they're not entirely forthcoming about who rates the films. The MPAA claims that the raters are people who are "normal parents" with children between the ages of 5 and 17. This turns out to be not true, as many of the reviewers are divorced with children aged 20 or older. Of course, if your film gets a harsher rating than you'd like, you can always appeal. But the appeals process seems to be even more shady.
This film cites many examples of other films that got the NC-17 rating, and as such, there's a lot of graphic footage here, including things that were cut from original releases. But the problem is that this film tends to focus more on the censorship of sexuality as opposed to graphic violence, which is mentioned, but is merely touched upon. It is brought up that the European ratings system is almost exactly the opposite of the American system, giving the stricter ratings to violent films, a system many filmmakers would like to see adopted Stateside.
All of these interviews and comparisons are more interesting, and ultimately more constructive than the footage of Kirby and Becky digging up dirt on the folks on the ratings board. The latter footage is, at times, funny, but usually pretty mean-spirited. Yes, the ratings system is unfair; I actually agree with that. But what will exposing these peoples' identities accomplish? What is the point of going through their garbage? Dick isn't so much trying to fix a problem or right a wrong as much as he's trying to send a message to the MPAA that he is no one to mess with. He's trying to have two wrongs make a right, which never works. But Dick does present himself as a pretty inspirational figure; taking on the huge, anonymous organization that can make or break your film.
However, the film is very eye-opening and entertaining (interviews with John Waters are particularly funny), but it's not for every taste. You can't expect to watch a documentary on censorship without seeing what was censored, and there are no punches pulled here. But it's a must-watch for prospective filmmakers who really need to see what they're up against. And even what they can get away with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)