Johnny Depp has been good to me. I realize that this sounds like an exaggerated form of name-dropping, but I should state that simple fact at some point, and I guess this is that point. I'm not sure when it dawned on me that he wasn't just being his charming self--which everyone will tell you is his standard demeanor to all--but he was serious about...More
It’s time for me to vote on the 2008 CRITICS CHOICE awards given out by the Broadcast Film Critics Association. Due to the crush of award nominees opening in the final month of the year, I saw a larger portion of the potential winners on encrypted dvd’s this year than in the past. Finally, though, I got through all of them.
Before giving my choices (which may or may not have any relationship to the actual winners) for the top categories, there are a couple of points worth making: First, film awards by their very nature are more of a game than a fact. You might take the official name of the premiere award organization—The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—and note that the selection of the OSCAR-winners and all of the rest of our various groups’ statues is more of an art than a science. Why? Because we all use different criteria to make our selections. Take the biggest category: Best Picture. What constitutes “best”? Is it that all of its elements coordinated more completely than its rivals? Is it because it had more of an effect on audiences than other movies that year did? Is it because it was the most popular at the box office? Is it because it was the most original? Is it because it was the most socially responsible? Or is it because of something else? You can ask a cross section of voters in the various industry and critics’ groups, and you will get different combinations of answers. So, when one motion picture is awarded the “best” designation, there’s no way to know even what the majority of voters used as their criteria. They simply decided that it was the “Best Picture”. Sounds more like the opinions of economists than anything else to me… Secondly, how about the individual performance categories for lead and supporting roles divided by gender? Let’s put aside the fact that I’m not aware of any upper body strength advantage that males have over females in this contest that might justify the division. Just consider the basic concept of comparing performances: Is Clint Eastwood “best” because he created a “classic Eastwood character” in GRAN TORINO, or is Brad Pitt “best” because he played someone so different from his hunk persona? Is Meryl Streep “best” because she held the screen with the power of her mother superior, or is Angelina Jolie “best” for portraying motherly desperation? Is Sean Penn “best” because he captured Harvey Milk so accurately, or is Frank Langella “best” because he captured the essence if not the impression of Richard Nixon? George C. Scott was right when he said that judging the “best actor” made no sense unless different actors attempted the same role. Still, having made those points, I think awards and the shows that announce them are important. They signify that quality still counts in show business, even if the business of maximizing the box office is still dominant. They almost certainly are the main—and, in some cases, the only—reason that studios will make films that they believe are good but not surefire mass market successes (sometimes the awards move people into the seats in large numbers, but more often it’s the pride of making award-winning films that is the reward). So, I’ll do my part and announce my selections in the major categories of the BFCA nominations for the CRITICS CHOICE awards—sort of a “magnificent seven”. Remember, these choices, not predictions: BEST PICTURE Changeling The Curious Case of Benjamin Button The Dark Knight Doubt Frost/Nixon Milk The Reader Slumdog Millionaire Wall-E The Wrestler THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON BEST ACTOR Clint Eastwood - Gran Torino Richard Jenkins - The Visitor Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon Sean Penn - Milk Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler SEAN PENN--MILK BEST ACTRESS Kate Beckinsale - Nothing But the Truth Cate Blanchett - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married Angelina Jolie - Changeling Melissa Leo - Frozen River Meryl Streep – Doubt KATE BECKINSALE—NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Josh Brolin - Milk Robert Downey, Jr. - Tropic Thunder Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight James Franco – Milk PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN--DOUBT BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona Viola Davis - Doubt Vera Farmiga - Nothing But the Truth Taraji P. Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler Kate Winslet - The Reader PENELOPE CRUZ—VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA BEST ACTING ENSEMBLE The Curious Case of Benjamin Button The Dark Knight Doubt Milk Rachel Getting Married MILK BEST DIRECTOR Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight Gus Van Sant – Milk DAVID FINCHER—THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON Am I ambivalent about these choices? Sure. Will it give me pleasure if any number of others win instead of these selections? Yep. Do I think that the CRITICS CHOICE awards have a good track record of predicting OSCAR selections? I do. So, onto the awards—all of them. I’ll be interested, but I won’t take them as the results of a scientific method; I’ll just enjoy them. Then, on February 22, I’ll be backstage at the Academy Awards for the “final answer” in the ultimate “Who Wants to Be a [Multi] Millionaire?” game. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
On this last day of 2008, this is just a short New Year’s wish before I enter my choices for the various Broadcast Film Critics Association awards deadline this weekend. The CRITICS CHOICE awards will be given out on Thursday, January 8, on VH1.
As I look out at this coming year, I have been thinking about the unique and enormous pain that many people are going to be enduring as we slide further down into the economic trench: Many of the people in my business will be in trouble or out of a job; more will find that their savings, their homes, their plans for their families and their futures are damaged—in some cases, beyond repair. As I’ve been home during the holidays, I’ve thought much about that. I’ve also realized how lucky I am. Of course, life can end or turn nasty for anyone at any time, but I am so lucky at this moment that it would be insensitive beyond acceptability not to notice how good I have it. Some of the luck is due to the accidental point in my life when all of these problems exploded. At my age, I have a house paid off, no debts, no serious illnesses, a happy family. Some of the luck is due to where I work, WHYY and the University of Delaware—places not as vulnerable to commercial collapse and downsizing as many others. Whatever the reason, 2009 begins better for me than for so many others, and that brings me to a simple, sincere wish: May those who are already in trouble through no fault of their own find the means and the strength to rebound; may others like that who develop problems contend and overcome them; and may those who have been unkind to others in ‘08 find a better part of themselves as we begin this very new year! |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Jim Carrey is an interesting man. Like most comic actors, he’s a serious person who has spent a lifetime carving a persona that is so energetically entertaining that it fills the room. He can also bring a conversation down to a quiet, contemplative tone that is both charming and disarming.
Now solidly in middle age (he was born in 1962), he is making the transition from physical clown to romantic comedy, as did Steve Martin before him, and he’s also done well with some serious roles, as Robin Williams did before him—to mention two of the few in his league who understood that you can’t keep doing what used to work and hope it always will. With YES MAN taking the number one box office slot in a lousy weather-depressed weekend, it’s clear that the audience is still there for Carrey, but is that because what they cared for were the over-the-top moments of humor in the otherwise sweet romance? I’ll address that at the end, but first I’ll wander down the memory lane of interviews: I first interviewed Jim two decades ago in 1988 when he played a supporting role in the comedy EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY. Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis were the stars, but the producers decided that two of the furry aliens were so funny as people that they paired the unknowns together and let us interview them. Both were great—playing off of each other with ad libs and great timing, and following whatever direction I wanted to go in the interview. One was Jim Carrey; the other was Damon Wayans. You didn’t have to be very prophetic to know that both were naturals, but I don’t pretend to have known that they would both be household names within a few short years. Wayans was smart enough to cast Carrey in his TV show, IN LIVING COLOR—the only cast member who was not a “person of color”—so I suppose he’s the one who deserves the “prophetic” label Jim had what you might call a good year at the box office in 1994 since he starred in ACE VENTURA: PET DETECTIVE, DUMB AND DUMBER, and THE MASK—all major hits. I interviewed him for each of those, and he was good, but I think the back-to-back media interaction took a great deal out of him. He was funny and gracious, and he didn’t develop the “everyone tells me I’m a genius, and I now realize it’s true” problem that some others have, but he began to realize that he didn’t always have to “entertain” in the interviews. I like this, of course, since I’m always talking about the craft of acting and filming, and I don’t have to report to some news director or other commercial television type screaming, “where’s the eight-second funny sound bite” or “why didn’t you ask about the [fill-in-the-blank scandal of the moment]”… He kept busy playing the Riddler in BATMAN FOREVER the following year and doing the sequel to ACE VENTURA, but you could tell that he was beginning to tire of the need to top himself with physical humor. In my interviews—which were getting more reflective with each one, I suspected that he wanted to open a new book. Still, it’s not that easy to do. Yes, by this time, he could command an immense salary, but people were paying for his box office clout, and that clout was due to his saleable image of the man who could make his body and face do rather astounding things. So, how do you stretch [no pun intended] without losing your fans in a major film. You might try combining your outsized image with some dark humor. If you do, you might end up with THE CABLE GUY (1996) which didn’t end up pleasing audiences or critics. I interviewed him for that and I think he had gotten enough feedback to know that it was going to be a hard sell. He tried to give the kind of performance in the interview situation that moviegoers had been expecting in the movie. It was rather awkward, especially since I’m among those who didn’t think it worked. One view of his next film, LIAR LIAR (1997) is that he went back to what his now huge salary demanded: all out Jim Carrey comedy. There is a difference, however: there were some very touching scenes worked into the script with the character’s son, and Jim even managed to make the fantasy believable, as Tom Hanks had done in BIG a decade earlier. It earned big bucks Perhaps that’s why Carrey made a very good decision the following year when he accepted the title role in THE TRUMAN SHOW. He won the Golden Globe award in DRAMA and the plaudits of us critics. He knew he had accomplished something when we sat down for the interview, and we talked about the fact that some comic actors create award-level performances in dramas, although it doesn’t often work in reverse for dramatic actors. Of course, then came the famous snub of the Academy when he wasn’t even nominated for an Oscar, and Jim wasn’t shy about expressing his disappointment and criticism of the members. As Russell Crowe was to learn years later when his extraordinary performance in a A BEAUTIFUL MIND was ignored while the film and other actors got the statues, it doesn’t pay to attack the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences when they have the final vote. Jim Carrey would learn that lesson the next year when he turned in an almost perfect performance as Andy Kaufman in 1999’s MAN ON THE MOON, directed by no less than Milos Forman—itself quite a coup for someone who came out of slapstick comedy. Here he spent months inside of the character, on and off the set, and he again won the Golden Globe (although they put it in the comedy/musical category, so it didn’t have quite the same impact). I’m not sure my colleagues knew quite what to make of him at this stage of his career. My impression was that he was a frustrated person at this time, not entirely understanding why his clear ability to do drama was always being ignored or underestimated. It seemed to me that he felt a little like the Woody Allen autobiographical character whose fans were always saying about his films, “I liked them better when they were funnier.” Well, that doesn’t take too much interpretation since Carrey’s reaction when he was ignored by the Academy voters completely was not exactly amusement. He also didn’t improve his situation for future Oscars with his complaints. When I interviewed him for ME, MYSELF, AND IRENE just after that, Jim seemed…resigned, I suppose…polite, pleasant, but almost as if he were being forced to get back on a path that he thought he had left. His energy level was low, perhaps because he was pouring so much into his next movie: That was one of his biggest hits: Ron Howard’s HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS (2000). All of us who saw it before it opened knew how successful it was going to be, and since it would clearly be one of those classics that would shown often in years to come, we were looking forward to the interviews. They were all good—especially Ron, who, besides being brilliant, makes you feel like you’re one of his best friends from Mayberry. I talked to Jim about the challenge of using his skills under the real physical limitations imposed by that outfit and makeup, and I got the impression that finding a way to make it work when many of his comedic tools were taken away from him reenergized him. He was also looking forward to another try at a serious movie. THE MAJESTIC opened the following year to an audience that was so in love with Jim Carrey because of the Grinch that it was hard to watch what happened. It just didn’t work as either a political film or a romance. It wasn’t Jim’s fault, but it set back his crossover attempt again. It was two years before BRUCE ALMIGHTY got Carrey back in box office favor in 2003. I thought at the time that it was ironic that the chief comic characteristic of his role was frustration. Still, he wasn’t far off from doing the film that should quiet those who doubted his acting ability. I was fortunate to have someone who saw an earlier screening of this film advise me not to make any judgments about it in the first fifteen minutes. It is one of the most unusual, original, and eccentric films of the past decade everybody connected with it was excellent, including Jim Carrey. It was, of course, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004). Now, here’s an odd thing. I don’t remember interviewing Jim for this one. That’s odd because it’s the type of film that viewers of public television would appreciate more than the average moviegoer, but I don’t think he was available. That may be right because he only did a press conference setting for his next movie, LEMONY SNICKET’S A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS (also in 2004). There were cameras shooting us individually as we asked him questions, but I am not particularly interested in group questioning, so that format is wasted on me. Nonetheless, it indicated that he no longer wanted to spend as much energy on individual media people as in the past. Jim kept that low media profile through FUN WITH DICK AND JANE (2005) and THE NUMBER 23 (2007). Fortunately, I was included on a fairly short list for YES MAN, and it seems to me that Jim is at a good point in his life. Although the film is a romance with Zooey Deschanel as his love interest, it’s being marketed with the classic Carrey comic moments being highlighted. That’s understandable, but I like this newest Jim Carrey. Improvising doesn’t always have to be maniacal comedy, and his offbeat style is nicely matched by Zooey’s eccentric charm. I particularly liked the improvised moment on the Hollywood Bowl stage where he just begins singing a Beatles’ song and she slides easily into a nice little moment. As a producer of YES MAN, he could adjust the script and set the tone, but he told me in my interview that he was always allowed to contribute and change from the beginning of his movie career—something that usually doesn’t happen until you are an A-list star. So, when you see this film, you see how Jim sees himself at this stage of his career. There’s an ease to it that seems genuine. He’s a nice guy. I wish good things for him. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Our nominations are out.
“Our” is the Broadcast Film Critics Association—the national group of TV, radio and (major) online critics that was formed because the other associations at the time either were for the foreign press (who do the Golden Globes) or were for print press. I was in the relatively small group that were the founding members, but it is now the largest critics’ organization in America and Canada. So, here is the official nomination announcement of films and creators from which we’ll choose the winners of the Critics’ Choice awards that will be telecast on VH1 the evening of Thursday, January 8: The Broadcast Film Critics Association (BFCA) has announced the nominees for the 14th annual Critics' Choice Awards. The winners will be announced at the Critics' Choice Awards gala on Thursday, January 8, 2009 at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. VH1 will again broadcast this year's ceremony Live at 9:00 PM (ET/PT). Milk and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button lead the pack with eight nominations for the 14th Annual Critics' Choice Awards. Milk received nominations for Best Picture, a Best Actor nod for Sean Penn, two Best Supporting Actor nominations for James Franco and Josh Brolin, Best Director for Gus Van Sant, Best Writer for Dustin Lance Black, and Best Composer for Danny Elfman. The eight nominations for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are for Best Picture, a Best Actor nomination for Brad Pitt, Best Actress for Cate Blanchett, Best Supporting Actress for Taraji P. Henson, Best Acting Ensemble, Best Director for David Fincher, Best Writer for Eric Roth, and Best Composer for Alexandre Desplat. The Dark Knight, Doubt and Slumdog Millionaire all tied with six nominations, each including a Best Picture nod. (Listed below) Clint Eastwood received a Best Actor nomination for Gr an Torino and a Best Composer nomination for Changeling, which added two nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress (Angelina Jolie) The BFCA, the largest film critics' organization with more than 200 members in the United States and Canada, representing television, radio and online critics, selected nominees in each of the 17 categories. The Critics' Choice Awards were created by the BFCA to recognize excellence in cinematic achievement. Eligible films were released in 2008. The accounting firm of Gregory A. Mogab tallied the written ballots. Historically, the Critics' Choice Awards are the most accurate predictor of the Academy Award nominations. The nominees were announced this morning by Academy Award® nominated actress Rosie Perez, "At the Movies" hosts Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz and VH1 President Tom Calderone in a press conference at the MTV Network studios in Times Square that aired live on VH1. To view or download broadcast quality f ile formats of today's nomination press conference please visit http://www.epk.tv. A complete list of nominees is available at http://criticschoice.vh1.com. VH1's "Critics' Choice Awards" site, which launches today, will be home to detailed information about the awards and will provide a forum for both the Broadcast Film Critics Association (BFCA) critics and users to comment on this year's nominees. VH1 will expand elements of the show online at VH1.com. Exclusive video footage from the event will include celebrity interviews, red carpet footage and more. Additional multiplatform plans will be announced in the coming weeks. Counting down to the LIVE premiere of the Critics' Choice Awards, VH1 will air the "14th Annual Critics' Choice Awards Red Carpet Premiere Featuring Maria Menounos" pre-show LIVE on Thursday, January 8 at 8pm (ET/PT) and will also stream it LIVE on VH1.com. Covering the excitement of the celebrity arrivals on the red carpet will be "KTLA Mornin g News" entertainment reporter Sam Rubin and No Good TV's Carrie Keagan. Interspersed throughout the red carpet arrivals will be pre-taped interviews with NBC and Access Hollywood's Maria Menounos as she sits down and speaks with some of today's hottest stars. The 14th Annual Critics' Choice Awards are sponsored by Walmart, AT&T and Crest Whitening Expressions. The 14th Annual Critics' Choice Awards is executive produced by Bob Bain for Bob Bain Productions, Joey Berlin for Berlin Entertainment and Lee Rolontz for VH1. MEDIA CREDENTIALS: To request media credentials to cover this show you must email jfalkowitz@mprm.com If you have any questions, please contact Jamie Falkowitz or Kelly Krause of mPRm Public Relations at (323) 933-3399. NOMINEES FOR THE 14TH ANNUAL CRITICS' CHOICE AWARDS Top Nods Go to: Milk (Eight Nominations) Best Picture, Best Actor, Two Best Supporting Actor Nominations, Best Acting Ensemble, Best Director, Best Writer, and Best Composer The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Eight Nominations) Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Acting Ensemble, Best Director, Best Writer, and Best Composer The Dark Knight (Six Nominations) Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Acting Ensemble, Best Director, Best Action Movie, and Best Composer Doubt (Six Nominations) Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Acting Ensemble and Best Writer Slumdog Millionaire (Six Nominations) Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writer, Best Young Actor/Actress, Best Song, and Best Composer BEST PICTURE Changeling The Curious Case of Benjamin Button The Dark Knight Doubt Frost/Nixon Milk The Reader Slumdog Millionaire Wall-E The Wrestler BEST ACTOR Clint Eastwood - Gran Torino Richard Jenkins - The Visitor Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon Sean Penn - Milk Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler BEST ACTRESS Kate Beckinsale - Nothing But the Truth Cate Blanchett - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married Angelina Jolie - Changeling Melissa Leo - Frozen River Meryl Streep - Doubt BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Josh Brolin - Milk Robert Downey, Jr. - Tropic Thunder Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight James Franco - Milk BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona Viola Davis - Doubt Vera Farmiga - Nothing But the Truth Taraji P. Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler Kate Winslet - The Reader BEST ACTING ENSEMBLE The Curious Case of Benjamin Button The Dark Knight Doubt Milk Rachel Getting Married BEST DIRECTOR Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight Gus Van Sant - Milk BEST WRITER (Original or Adapted Screenplay) Simon Beaufoy - Slumdog Millionaire Dustin Lance Black - Milk Peter Morgan - Frost/Nixon Eric Roth - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button John Patrick Shanley - Doubt BEST ANIMATED FEATURE Bolt Kung Fu Panda Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa Wall-E Waltz With Bashir BEST YOUNG ACTOR/ACTRESS (Under 21) Dakota Fanning - The Secret Life of Bees David Kross - The Reader Dev Petal - Slumdog Millionaire Brandon Walters - Australia BEST ACTION MOVIE The Dark Knight Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Iron Man Quantum of Solace Wanted BEST COMEDY MOVIE Burn After Reading Forgetting Sarah Marshall Role Models Tropic Thunder Vicky Cristina Barcelona BEST PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION John Adams Recount Coco Chanel BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM A Christmas Tale Gomorrah I've Loved You So Long Let the Right One In Mongol Waltz With Bashir BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE I.O.U.S.A. Man On Wire Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired Standard Operating Procedure Young At Heart BEST SONG "Another Way to Die" (performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys, written by Jack White) - Quantum of Solace "Down to Earth" (performed by Peter Gabriel, written by Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman) - Wall-E "I Thought I Lost You" (performed Miley Cyrus and John Travolta, written by Miley Cyrus and Jeffrey Steele) - Bolt "Jaiho" (performed by Sukhwinder Singh, written by A.R. Rahman and Gulzar) - Slumdog Millionaire "The Wrestler" (performed by Bruce Springsteen, written by Bruce Springsteen) - The Wrestler BEST COMPOSER Alexandre Desp lat - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Clint Eastwood - Changeling Danny Elfman - Milk Hans Zimmer/James Newton Howard - The Dark Knight A.R. Rahman - Slumdog Millionaire That’s it. Now I have to sort through all of the encrypted dvd’s they’ve sent me “for my consideration” of the examples above that I haven’t already seen and decide how to vote. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
On air fundraising and interview trips lasting four and five days at a time…
That’s been the schedule for the past couple of weeks, so I’m a bit late on this blog entry, but we’re now in the home stretch of the holiday race for the box office. Every year about this time, the studios bring out their stars and the films that they’ve been saving both for the increased movie attendance during this period and the nominations for awards that all of us who do this for a living must make in our various groups—in my case, that means I must complete the ballot for the Critics’ Choice Awards that will be shown on VH1 on January 8. So, that means that I’ve been going to screenings, watching the encrypted dvd’s of the films the studios send us “for consideration”, and interviewing people almost non-stop. Just before Thanksgiving, Hugh Jackman, Meryl Streep and Debra Messing were the major names, and today alone were Will Smith, Rosario Dawson, Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway. Tomorrow will be Jim Carrey and so it goes. Then will come the blessed weeks of Christmas and New Year with no travel until 2009 comes around, and we all have to cope with the many cutbacks, lower customer service, and general nastiness of airplane travel again. Meanwhile—lest it start to sound like too much like whining—it’s worth noting what a great time of year this is for film lovers. Whether it’s movies like SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE or MILK, to pice two examples, that are already out in major cities, or upcoming quality ones like DOUBT, SEVEN POUNDS, or THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, there is more of a choice at this time of year of different kinds of films than at any other. The summer is escapist, of course, with a few exceptions; the fall is serious, with those movies that hope to get noticed and survive into award season, and the winter—well, except for those left over from the potential award movies opening in wider markets—is the season of low expectations and the occasional surprise winner. This time around, you have probably noticed that we have a surfeit of films. Pick your genre and you can find several possibilities. Part of the reason for this is what happened earlier, but how well they’ll do is because of what’s happening now. The writers’ strike and the threatened actors’ strike delayed productions and made the studios push back projects. Even Harry Potter decided to take his broom into mid-2009 rather than be part of this year-end crunch. I suppose Warners did that so that some of its other films, like Jim Carrey’s YES MAN that I’m on my way to see when I finish writing, have more room to get their audiences. Still, look around. See the posters for the various movies. Normally, there would be a few selected to be featured, but this time around major releases are bumping into each other and a flood of products from smaller groups. Even if things were normal, this would mean that each film has a short time to find an audience or it must make way for others on those multiplex screens. Of course, things are very much not normal now. We are officially in a recession. Jobs are going away or being threatened with extinction. My friends in commercial television are scared because automobile sales make up the bulk of advertising, and entertainment journalists are less needed at these stations since so much is available from different sources. Radio and print people are in even worse shape. Oddly, public broadcasting is doing better than it has in years—perhaps because of the disappearance or undercutting of various institutions and companies so people who don’t bother to pledge when they weren’t sure their money was needed have decided that this is something they want to stay financially strong. So, what will all of this mean to the box office this holiday season? Will the lack of spending on other products be the case for filmgoing as well? Will people’s need to escape from an increasingly gloomy economic present and future mean they’ll seek distraction in movies, as they did in the Great Depression? Anybody who claims to understand the intricacies of our current situation is brave but implausible. I certainly don’t know as much as the economic experts, and they clearly are too confused to predict anything with credibility. Still, it’s just a blog, so I’ll take a position and then just watch: With so many movies competing for attention and families making decisions on what they are willing to spend their dwindling resources, I’ll predict that attendance at movies will be wider spread than usual—that is, just about everyone will go to some of the films this time around—but they won’t go to as many different films as they did in years past. So, individual blockbusters may be few, but cinema will play a bigger role in American life in this economic downturn than it has in the recent past. That’s not necessarily good news for individual films, but it’s not a bad thing for the industry in the long term. Now, off to another screening and then to sending in my nominations… |
|
0 Comments | |
|
TWILIGHT did as well as I expected (see the last blog), and it will continue on the same path, helped by repeat business. It’s always interesting at the beginning of a movie franchise; many have wanted to start one—in the tradition of HARRY POTTER—but it looks like little Summit has managed to do it.
Turning from box office bonanza to a risky quality movie that has no such expectations, this will be the beginning of the rollout of MILK—Sean Penn’s likely Oscar-nominated title performance about the San Francisco openly gay politician assassinated by another city supervisor named Dan White (and also well played by Josh Brolin) in 1978. Since it hasn’t officially opened, I’ll do no review of the film now, but the lynchpin of the action is the combination of the first “out” California politician and his efforts to get elected and the martyrdom that is made clear is coming from the beginning of the film. Before dealing with that, it should be noted in passing that MILK does not have the advantages of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN which ultimately was a hit at the box office. Heath and Jake were able to give that movie a dose of popular stardom that Sean has virually avoided with his film choices over the past decade or so. People will compare the two movies, but that will be bogus. MILK is a much harder sell (with no ambiguity, gorgeous location shots, or empathetic characters from the outside world to comfort those who have trouble watching homosexuals interact), and Focus Features understands that. It may take some awards and numerous nominations to get people into the theaters, so they are counting on a slow build. What’s the same is the message of tolerance, of course, but tolerance in and of itself is obviously not a box office draw. So, let’s talk about the exact opposite of tolerance, understanding, fairness, and empathy: sociopaths. If the word is not familiar to you, the reality probably is. You have known some sociopaths in your time—perhaps you even know a couple now, as I do. The exact definition of one is a person who has “a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.” Put more simply, it’s someone who believes that the only thing that really matters is what’s good for them and anything that they do that is good for them is not only reasonable but even required beyond their control to stop themselves. You know them. They’re the ones who try to tear down others who have done them no harm, who lie without hesitation, and who think of anything negative to them—even that which has happened because of their own unethical behavior—to be wrong. They also think YOU are the same as they are, but you’re just hiding it. That’s why their personalities are considered psychopathic, even when they pretend to be pleasant. They make excellent con men (and women), but they also tend to self-destruct because they can’t stop themselves from overreaching in their destructive dishonesty. That’s why the best reaction to them is keep acting ethically yourself and the self-destruction will spiral to their inevitable disappointment or even destruction. Our own experience is always interesting (and even amusing, if your sense of humor tends that way), but the reason I mention it now is because Dan White was clearly a sociopath. In the film, as in life, White’s complete self-absorption led him to demonize others and try to eliminate them or con them, as he considered best for his interests at any given time. We see him in MILK pendulum-swinging between antagonism for Harvey Milk and trying to co-opt him. Ultimately, his erratic personality causes him to misstep by resigning his position in a pique of self-pity and blaming of others and then going over the edge when he couldn’t convince Milk and then San Francisco mayor Moscone to let him rescind his resignation. Then, as sociopaths always do, he mistakenly thinks that he must destroy them—never realizing that this means he will taking a setback and turn it into his own complete destruction. So, Dan White shoots Milk and Moscone, turning them into respected martyrs and giving them immortality and a level of appreciation that White longed to attain but never could. After trying to blame his actions on junk food—the infamous “Twinkie” defense—he’s sent to jail where he remains for five years and then gets out only to realize that he is considered worthless not only by the people who know him personally but also by the world in general. So, finally and far too late facing the level of self-destruction to which his sociopathic tendencies have taken him, he kills himself. So, he also has immortality—as a unethical, self-loathing, dishonest, and utterly selfish sociopath. Most of the conversation about MILK will understandably revolve around gay rights, the irony of Prop 8 passing in California, fairness, and the ensemble film’s qualities. That’s as it should be. I thought it might be interesting to look at the lessons of the underside of this story—although sociopaths, by definition, are incapable of stopping themselves. You can be depressed by that fact or you can take heart in the more important fact that you’re not one of them. At the end of the day, that’s the place to be. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I never read TWILIGHT, and I have not visited one of the 350 or so fan sites connected with this mega seller.
So, I went into the screening of the film based on the book with an open (and predictably empty) mind. I’m sure the readers of the 17 million books sold will find much has been left out of the movie, just as I have felt in similar situations in the past—starting with PRIDE AND PREJUDICE and continuing through LORD OF THE RINGS--but I had no doubt about the film’s success after seeing it. First, a generic point that needs to be made from time to time: movies aren’t books. You wouldn’t think you would have to make that point, but you would be surprised how many people think that a film should be the visual version of what they read. Not only shouldn’t it be, but in fact it cannot be. A book is designed to give you those symbols we call “words” in a combination that allows you to create a fantasy world—however realistic or mystic—in your imagination. It’s yours alone, and nobody else’s version is quite the same. Much of it wouldn’t involve much of anything visual as it takes place in people’s thoughts or private moments when nothing much is happening on the outside. Films tell their stories through a montage of visual images that must cut and move in a tempo rhythm that matches the style and tone of the movie with the subtext under and beyond the dialogue being conveyed through sight and sound. To nail down the obvious point, they are two different art forms and one is not just a different version of the other; they are unique within their differences. If anybody is still paying attention after that academic lecture, I’ll get back to the film TWILIGHT. I can’t do a review of it for the usual reasons: reviews are for opening days and beyond. I CAN talk about the elements that will make this a bit more than another movie—perhaps even a bit of a phenomenon. I suppose everyone except me knew the concept: a small group of vampires live in the northwest of the United States in a small community where they keep to themselves and are considered rather odd by the local inhabitants; a teenage girl (Kristen Stewart in the film) goes to live with her father after her mother must follow her new husband on the road and becomes fascinated by them, especially one of them (played by Robert Pattinson). It turns out that these are vampires that do not allow themselves to feed on human blood, although they crave it, but there are others around who do and become a threat to the new couple. The rest is the rest of the story. The first thing you notice in that capsule plot premise is that you’ve got a reworking of Shakespeare’s ROMEO AND JULIET where Stewart’s “Juliet” finds herself reluctantly falling in love with the “forbidden” and dangerous “Romeo” of Pattinson. I mean, forget being done in by a sword thrust by those who oppose your union, this “Romeo” craves your blood and will take your soul while being in danger of being torn apart by creatures on his side of the divide who don’t share his “humanstic” sympathies. Match that, Will. There are dozens (perhaps hundreds—I haven’t done the research) of films that use the Romeo and Juliet theme. Doomed or, at least, forbidden love is a staple of teenage lore from music for each generation to the variations on the story. What makes this film (and book) so powerful is that it takes the rawest of female fantasies and gives it a literal sparkle that is perfectly seductive. It won’t go too far to say that Kristen Stewart is excellent as the protagonist—the girl who tells and lives the story. If we don’t empathize with her, then this is just a benign horror film or a limp love story. I have an interview with her and Robert we’re airing and putting on the website this week. Once you’re seeing all of this through her eyes and language, however, you recognize the fantasy: a male who personifies mystery, attraction, unattainability, danger, and power; one who becomes better the more she gets to know him; one who senses her every feeling, her every need, her vulnerability; yet, one who never feels he knows enough about her, who uses his power to protect her—even from his own, superhuman lust for everything about her, who ultimately needs her—and only—her forever. And he sparkles like diamonds in the sunlight—just in case that wasn’t enough. Whew. All of that sort of makes the average romantic comedy, with its impossible formula of bad boy becomes good guy because of his love for what he finally realizes is his soulmate, almost a documentary. There’s this moment in the movie (and I assume in the book) where the girl is finally telling her immortal suitor just how attracted she is to him when he describes the situation perfectly by replying that—and this is just a paraphrase—she has no choice but to want him since everything about him like his face, his masculinity, even his scent, forces her to feel the way she does. Now, THAT’S self-confidence without ego—perhaps the final ingredient in every seduction. Yet, there’s something else here, or you would just have a story with a beginning, middle, and end that would have no continuing interest. The details are many, but the principle is simple: all of the various players are fighting their own most basic impulses—something that all teenagers, including those who have been out of their teenage years for some time now, recognize. Consider: most plots that involve action of any kind—thrillers, romances, mysteries, capers—are about people trying to “get” something. It may be to stop the bad guy, find the perfect love, solve the crime, or get the…whatever. This film is about NOT satisfying your ultimate desires, so that you’re always on the VERGE of satisfaction that grows more powerful as it stays just out of grasp. The books must find a way of continuing that feeling while appearing to satisfy it from time to time, but I can only speak to the film and why it has a cinematic power. So, I am curious to see how well this movie does. If it taps into that combination of female fantasy and even has something for males in its masculine imagery of power and seduction, it should do very well and even get repeat business. We shall see. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Obama won.
You may have heard. It was on the air. On election night, I was sitting in the restaurant of the Renaissance Hotel in Hollywood watching the returns on the TV they had set up for us. The setting was both incongruous and appropriate: Tinseltown, with the stars on the sidewalk outside the hotel, is hardly where you expect to see the most important election in any of our memories, but when they called the election for the first African-American to win the presidency of the United State, my thoughts flew back to the movie theater in my hometown in Virginia where I not only developed my love for films that was to determine the rest of my life but also was where I first saw the discrimination that was everyday life in the fifties. I must have been about seven or eight when I can remember being taken the Community Theater—one of two movie theaters in the little town of Woodstock, Virginia, and that would make the time period in the mid-fifties. Although it’s like trying to remember by looking at still shots of memory at such a young age, I can just see in my mind’s eye the sign on the steps to the balcony that read, “Coloreds Upstairs Only”. The restrooms and the drinking fountains were also separate. As a child, I didn’t remotely understand what this meant and there were so few African-Americans who lived in the area—as there were throughout the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia since this wasn’t a part of the south that historically had had many slaves, being settled by the Pennsylvania Dutch and, later, the Irish who didn’t have any. Consequently, unlike the rest of Virginia and the south, there were not many descendants of slaves in the area and no reason for African-Americans to have moved there since there was virtually no industry—just small towns and farms. In any event, as I shared the realization with the rest of the country that America had finally shed its shame of bigotry by electing an African-American to the presidency, the steps that I saw growing up that led to the possibility of that happening decades later came back to me. By the time, I was a young teenager, the overt separation of the races was gone in the movie theater, but there were still remnants elsewhere: I remember going to a truck stop restaurant when I was about fifteen or sixteen, only to discover that the first African-Americans who were admitted to our high school had to go into the back to be served; I still remember the cold outrage of the waitresses when I insisted on sitting back there with them (although I wonder now if I should have embarrassed the black kids with my “in your face” stand since they had to live that everyday, and I could just go anywhere anytime I chose). A couple of years later, I was in Atlanta as the president of the tri-state youth fellowships (Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia) of the United Church of Christ (yeh, that’s right, our president elect’s denomination) for a civil rights conference with teens from around the country. That’s where I met Andrew Young who was then known only for the time he spent with Dr. King, and he was a minister in the same church where I thought that I would eventually do the same. At that conference, which we thought of us as just part of our church’s support of tolerance, our presence so aroused the local populace that the National Guard was called out to encircle the little Clark College campus site, and we saw our simple conference featured on the evening news as a source of concern that we young people might be in danger. None of us felt any anxiety, and we were amazed that anyone would care what we thought or did. Of course, the sixties were a blur of assassination and various kinds of social and political change for us baby boomers, but we have taken our attitudes with us all of these years. Yes, we have been arrogant, self-righteous, egotistical and self-satisfied. We overdid everything, especially sex, and we were also part of the continuing drug problem. And yet… When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, I think it’s fair to say that this was something that we have wanted to see happen all of our lives, and we got to live to realize it. The big story is the change this means for the whole world and our country in particular; the personal story is that this all began for me in a movie theater, and I’ve gotten to see the change happen in my lifetime. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I’ve spent days thinking about how to write this entry about what I’m interested in rather than the official subject matter of the journal—covering films and their stars.
What’s that? If you have to ask, then stop reading now because your interests and priorities are too far removed; I mean the election, of course—the only thing worth occupying the minds of adults. As I write this, we’re within the crucial final 48 hours before the polls close. Sometime, in the hours, days, or—in the case of serious problems a la 2000—weeks after the last vote is cast, everyone will know what I don’t know now: who won. Still, I should tie this most significant election in living memory to the movies in some way, however token is the connection. So, consider how much of a leap in the national consciousness it is that the frontrunner for the presidency of the United States self-identifies as an African-American. Films have dealt dramatically with the American racial conflicts while the world has watched us move from a complete suppression of full and free citizenship to an election in which you couldn’t find a dozen people in a focus group willing to admit that they had any racial prejudices at all. That’s not the case, of course; in fact, I’m pretty sure that the large pool of “undecided voters” consisting of many people who feel “uncomfortable” about Barack Obama, even “fearful” of him for reasons they can’t articulate, are largely made up of those who don’t believe that they’re bigoted but still don’t quite see him as “one of us”. I have some strong thoughts about the significance of all of this, but I’ll save them until after the election. For now, here’s the hook to this blog’s subject matter: How many films can you name that have African Americans playing the president of the United States? Yes, perhaps the most famous image of a black president is from the TV series “24” where the charismatic actor Dennis Haysbert commanded the Oval Office for five years, but that’s a TV show, not a film. What’s the difference? TV is a friendlier medium, with the characters on the small screen introduced into peoples’ consiousness in easily digestible spurts until you feel like you KNOW those characters. Films loom large and boom at you with unrelenting force from beginning to end. So, again, how many African Americans have played the Commander in Chief (right…Sigourney was on TV too, and that just emphasizes the rarity of both groups)? According to the Internet Movie DataBase, there have been just four. And who were they? Well, the first on their list is the man—and they were all men--who personified the father figure in film after film: James Earl Jones. The movie was THE MAN, and it was back in 1972. It was indicative of how unlikely it was that a person of his race could be the president in that the plot had him take over the office by accident and the conflict was what would then happen to him should he decide to try and stay in the job. Apparently, it didn’t seem to the viewing public that this was a very likely scenario because the IMDB doesn’t list another African American character who is president for another quarter of a century, although then they make him sort of the president of the world. That was in the 1997 Bruce Willis movie, THE FIFTH ELEMENT, and the actor was Tommy “Tiny” Lister—more quickly remembered, perhaps, if you never saw the film as the large black actor with a crossed eye. In a way, it was refreshing because his race was never acknowledged explicitly but since the film was set in the distant future, it was another testament to the unspoken assumption that this wouldn’t be a factor “someday”. The same rationale might have been part of the reason that a move made the following year cast Morgan Freeman as the president of the United States in the near future—DEEP IMPACT—but then again Morgan, like James Earl Jones, is a national father figure, and we’re willing to accept either as God in films as well. The other two movies with African Americans who reach the White House are IDIOCRACY (2006) with Terry Crews in the part and HEAD OF STATE (2003) with Chris Rock. The former has the less than encouraging plot of an experiment gone wrong that ends up with the nation being run by people who are explicitly what we now call “low information” types, and the latter is a vehicle for the comedian to score points for laughs while revealing societal hypocrisies. But you could hardly call either a foreshadowing of Barack Obama’s rise. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that Hollywood didn’t see this coming even three years ago. Having said that, I think it’s also clear that movies have conditioned many who might not have pictured an African American president this soon to hold an image in their mind with which to compare Obama’s style with some of their favorite film stars like Denzel Washington and Will Smith, to mention the two who seem to share his easy self-confidence. I might even go so far as to say that it was the public’s comfort with stars like these and others that kept the accusations of that “dangerous” dark man from sticking. That’s a nice thought that says something good about the power of cinema. Whether he wins or loses, this is a moment of history, and I will be watching with enormous interest. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Kevin Smith was one of those “pleasant surprises” that happen in interviews from time to time. I first interviewed him for the film, DOGMA, in 1999, and I was not expecting the conversation to be deep.
I apologize for that, but I was prejudiced by the funny but hardly cerebral films like CLERKS and MALLRATS. Yes, he also wrote CHASING AMY—a film with a completely different sensibility and one of the best movies of 1997, but I hadn’t quite reconciled the two genres when I sat down with him the first time. By then, he had become something of an icon as “Silent Bob”, the ultimate slacker unless you compared him to “Jay”. I understood that this was a “mask” but I wasn’t expecting somebody who was so articulate, erudite, and eager to discuss matters of craft and substance. Sometimes, you just hit it off with an interview subject, and Kevin Smith seemed to like the chance to demonstrate his range of interests and knowledge. I just finished interviewing him for his newest movie, ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO, and he said that he would like to sit down with me to get enough material to create an hour’s interview. I agreed that we could easily fill sixty minutes on a variety of subjects. All of which is simply a prelude to the point of this blog entry: I wanted to establish that Kevin is an interesting and complex creative man who cannot be fairly pigeonholed in any type of film because it’s fair to say that ZACK AND MIRI blow past the normal limitations of crudity and visual sexual fare into some niche all its own. This is not a review of the film, since it hasn’t opened, but it’s possible to talk about its violation of screen taboos without discussing the overall movie. Let’s see, what do we have that you normally don’t see in films that AREN’T pornos? Well, there’s full frontal nudity. Of course, you have examples of glimpses of that in Judd Apatow and Robert Altman movies, to pick a couple of examples, but you don’t quite GLORY in it for comedic effect to the extent here. Then, of course, there’s the excrement scene during…ah…the making of the movie mentioned in the title. That may be the moment that leaves people shuddering for a few minutes as the plot goes on while the viewer is still reeling. Of course, watching two people “making love” without showing the more graphic angle is now a staple of movies from Bond films to romantic comedies to BOOGIE NIGHTS. Watching two people who secretly love each other have sex while being rather explicit in the moments of the most intimate contact while filming a scene for a porno is not quite the same. That’s putting aside completely the dialogue which combines humor with maximum vulgarity for an hilarious but envelope-pushing effect. You’ll just have to take my word for it until you see it, and then you’ll get the point. So, what are the contrasts between this obscenity-plus creations and the creator? Well, for starters, Kevin Smith is a devoted friend and family person. Among the people with whom he likes to work are Jason Lee, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Jason Mewes, Scott Mosier and others less well known that he repeatedly hires; his home area in New Jersey remains his favorite place, and he once tried to build a sound stage in his hometown of Red Bank (where he owns a comic book store) so people could shoot independent films there—but couldn’t work out the financial details. His daughter’s name is Harley Quinn Smith and “Harley Quinn” is the name of a character in the animated BATMAN series, and that’s probably good enough for most of his fans (who know about his enormous love of comic books), but you get a better image of the real Kevin Smith if you know that there were comic troupes in the seventeenth century in France and Italy known to theatre students as the “commedia dell’arte” and the main comic character was named “Harlequin”—a reference understood both by the makers of the animated series and Kevin Smith. That’s a level of scholarship that no slacker would have (in fact, since I teach a course in theatre history at the University of Delaware, I just lectured my students on the “commedia dell’arte” and “Harlequin” the other night). More impressive and more to the point, Smith’s interest in film history and technique is more reminiscent of Martin Scorsese than any other director that comes to mind, except perhaps Woody Allen. So, when you go to see his newest movie, keep in mind that the creator is a man of many tastes and interests. In fact, his next film after ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO is called RED STATE (2010) and will be one of his other interests—a horror movie—with the stated premise being about a bunch of zombies and fundamentalists in Central America. Sounds like fun. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
IGN.com |
GameSpy |
Comrade |
Arena |
FilePlanet |
GameSpy Technology
TeamXbox |
Planets |
Vaults |
VE3D |
CheatsCodesGuides |
GameStats |
GamerMetrics
AskMen.com |
Rotten Tomatoes |
Direct2Drive |
Green Pixels
IGN RSS Feeds
Post a Comment