Posts tagged `movies`

I will be at the Chicago Humanities Festival until sometime on Sunday. When I get a chance, this post will be expanded into a write-up.

The Chicago Humanities Festival is in its 17th year, having grown from a small, one-day event for Chicago residents to a multi-week festival that draws students from all over the Midwest. My professor had mentioned it last year, and what fun she had at it, and so when she told me that she wished to nominate me for an ACI Fellowship—basically, a way to cover the costs of tickets and lodging—I said yes. For a while, it seemed as though I wouldn’t be selected: I imagined that as a computer science major, I would be a lower priority than other English, History, or Poli. Sci. majors who wished to go.

Despite all that, however, I received a letter in the mail saying I had been chosen, and a few days later, I received a package of tickets, a program brochure, a dorky name tag necklace, and information about special events. I was going after all.

When the time drew near, I was somewhat leary: the previous weekend had been my 4th anniversary, and I had done enough driving to last me a long time. I was tired. I wanted to spend my weekend sitting in my underwear, drinking coffee and blogging. I knew it was a good opportunity, though, and besides, I had already sent in the forms agreeing to go. I knew that I merely had to overcome my inertia—the sort of mental inertia that prevents me from doing a lot of things and going a lot of places—and I would be fine.

Read more…

§1496 · November 7, 2006 · 9 comments · Tags: , , , ,

Boy Scouts in the Los Angeles area will now be able to earn a merit patch for learning about the evils of downloading pirated movies and music. [...]

The movie industry has developed the curriculum.

“Working with the Boy Scouts of Los Angeles, we have a real opportunity to educate a new generation about how movies are made, why they are valuable, and hopefully change attitudes about intellectual property theft,” Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said Friday.

…. Does this seem just a bit creepy to anyone else, or am I on my own here?

A few problems:

Allowing an industry to develop a curriculum is a recipe for disaster (or should I say “flop”?). I would no more allow the MPAA or RIAA to tell me about copyright than I would allow Exxon to tell me about alternative energy or Microsoft to tell me about “embrace and extend.” Remember, the MPAA’s the same organization that said you aren’t allowed to make backups of the DVDs you buy—if it gets damaged, you simply have to go out and buy another copy. Apparently, this sort of stricture is perfectly OK, but it strikes me as odd, given the Boy Scouts’ fear of homosexuals: apparently, getting fucked in the ass is only all right if it’s a litigious media conglomerate doing the mounting.

Glickman, ever stubbornly flogging the same dead horse, is right when he concludes that the attitude toward intellectual property theft needs to be changed—yes, by consumers, but just as much by the studios and the soulless abysses which represent them. I think people know the value of movies, and that is precisely the problem: certainly, they don’t seem to be worth buying anymore. At least, not when they suck, hard, and are available on digital media that was designed to give consumers the shaft.

The article goes on to that say that prospective badge-earners must also choose from a list of activities which include visiting a movie studio “to see how many people can be harmed by film piracy.” I love this, because I’m quite certain these children will be told that for every movie they download, some humble janitor or assistant to the assistant director will lose their job and return home, Bob Cratchit-like, to tell his starving family that there’ll be no Christmas presents this year—piracy has ruined the movie industry and it tireless, selfless constituents. No one will tell the Boy Scouts, of course, that the people who really care about piracy are executives whose salaries won’t be affected. The truth is that this tack by conglomerates to stem piracy with appeals to pathos is little more than people like Dan Glickman holding a pistol to some lowly worker’s temple and screaming that Dammit, if the piracy doesn’t stop, then Mr. Cratchit here gets it!

Dan Glickman is an asshole. And his merit badge isn’t worthy to wipe my ass with. Fín.

§1473 · October 23, 2006 · 2 comments · Tags: , , , ,

Ben Stein opines about the Oscars. The result? A mix of obvious truth and blithe ignorance.

I did not see every second of it, but my wife did, and she joins me in noting that there was not one word of tribute, not one breath, to our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan or to their families or their widows or orphans. There were pitifully dishonest calls for peace — as if the people we are fighting were interested in any peace for us but the peace of the grave. But not one word for the hundreds of thousands who have served and are serving, not one prayer or moment of silence for the dead and maimed.

If he didn’t see one second of it, and his wife did, then she doesn’t “join” him in noting anything. She does the noting, and he accepts her report as genuine. But that’s just semantics. As to the lack of wellwishing to our troops overseas, well, it’s the Oscars. Any of that sentiment would have been as forced as the film montages. It’s a masturbatory award ceremony: what do you want? A large American flag backdrop and heartfelt renditions of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

The idea that it is brave to stand up for gays in Hollywood, to stand up against Joe McCarthy in Hollywood (fifty years after his death), to say that rich white people are bad, that oil companies are evil — this is nonsense. All of these are mainstream ideas in Hollywood, always have been, always will be. For the people who made movies denouncing Big Oil, worshiping gays, mocking the rich to think of themselves as brave — this is pathetic, childish narcissism

Does Ben Stein think that George Clooney’s movie “stands up against” Joe McCarthy because they fear that he’ll rise, zombie-like, from the grave and attract his faithful legions? Or maybe—just possibly—because the issue of the media vs. the government is somehow a relevant topic? Oh, but wait, there’s more:

The brave guy in Hollywood will be the one who says that this is a fabulously great country where we treat gays, blacks, and everyone else as equal. The courageous writer in Hollywood will be the one who says the oil companies do their best in a very hostile world to bring us energy cheaply and efficiently and with a minimum of corruption. The producer who really has guts will be the one who says that Wall Street, despite its flaws, has done the best job of democratizing wealth ever in the history of mankind.

Except…. we don’t treat gays and blacks as equal. Oh, and oil companies somehow manage to reap obscene profits even in a stale economic period. Oh, and America has one of the greatest wealth gaps in the world. A guy who says these things isn’t brave; he’s shamefully dishonest.

No doubt the men and women who came to the Oscars in gowns that cost more than an Army Sergeant makes in a year, in limousines with champagne in the back seat, think they are working class heroes to attack America — which has made it all possible for them. They are not. They would be heroes if they said that Moslem extremists are the worst threat to human decency since Hitler and Stalin. But someone might yell at them or even attack them with a knife if they said that, so they never will.

No doubt. Certainly, rich actors who think that they are working class heroes would be sadly mistaken, although those that portray working class heroes may be celebrated for their bringing the issue to the fore. Of course, there’s a big difference, not just semantically, between “attack[ing] America” and pointing out America’s flaws. If I pretended that America was just dandy, well, I’d not only be an idiot, but I’d be failing my civic duty as well. A movie that points out crooked politicians or bigotry is not attacking America in a malicious sense; it’s only pointing out flaws that need to be fixed, just as we have been fixing flaws since our inception as a nation. It’s no more honest for Stein to call Goodnight, and Good Luck a cowardly attack than it would be to call Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a cowardly attack. Or maybe it is: damn the 1920s and their liberal media!

And no doubt many people—Hollywood included—understand the grave, looming threat of Islamic terrorism and its primacy. No doubt there are celebrities making asses of themselves by proclaiming otherwise, though I have yet to hear of any. The fact that liberals try so desperately to fix America domestically is because they want to make it worth saving.

Hollywood is above all about self: self-congratulation, self-promotion, and above all, self-protection. This is human and basic, but let’s not kid ourselves. There is no greatness there in the Kodak theater. The greatness is on patrol in Kirkuk. The greatness lies unable to sleep worrying about her man in Mosul. The greatness sleeps at Arlington National Cemetery and lies waiting for death in VA Hospitals. God help us that we have sunk so low as to confuse foolish and petty boasting with the real courage that keeps this nation and the many fools in it alive and flourishing on national TV.

All very valid points, though I would nitpick insofar as there was greatness in the Kodak theatre, because there is an incredible power in cinema, even if the Oscars turns it into a carnival. But I don’t ever recall calling a celebrity “brave,” only talented. Perhaps Ben Stein is chasing a ghost.

§1060 · March 28, 2006 · 5 comments · Tags: , , , , ,

“The celebrity status in Hollywood has gotten really out of control,” Theron told The Associated Press at September’s Toronto International Film Festival, where her new film “North Country” premiered.

“Like one of those snow-globe things, it’s this fragile little ball of perfection, and I think people have forgotten what actors do. After a while, I was like, ‘Well, what did you want me to do? Did you want me to play this woman and not look like her?’ ”

That focus on her appearance gradually subsided in a wave of newfound respect for her as a serious performer, culminating in her best-actress win at the Academy Awards for Monster.

Did Charlize Theron wake up one morning and say to herself, “For as long as I’ve been an actress, I’ve starred in mostly crappy movies like Reindeer Games and The Astronaut’s Wife where I bare my chest for no good reason. I think now I’m going to stop those, do a couple of half-decent films like Devil’s Advocate and Sweet November and then turn around and start being a really excellent character actress”?

How the hell does this work?

§803 · October 18, 2005 · 5 comments · Tags: , ,

Growing up, there was no movie I think I enjoyed more than the 1971 film adaptation of Roald Dahl’s quirky story. Part of it had to do with me being young and thinking that an edible room with a chocolate river is just about the coolest thing in the world, but most of it, I think, has to do with the utter mastery of Gene Wilder’s performance. Those of you who aren’t familiar with Gene Wilder’s work are missing out on some of the finer points of cinema in the last 40 years. Think Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Producers, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, Stir Crazy, &c.

I knew just from the trailer’s of this new Tim Burton iteration that I wasn’t going to like it. When it saw it for the first time, I felt a sense of abject betrayal that anyone, even Johnny Depp, for whom I otherwise have a lot of respect, would even attempt the Sisyphean task of measuring up to Wilder’s performance. It doesn’t help at all that Burton’s style is not at all suited to such a script. I understand that the 1971 version took a lot of liberties with the original story, and that Dahl’s predilection for oddly twisted storylines seems like the ideal project for someone as morbidly quirky as Burton, but the latter takes the dark, screwball ambience to such an extreme that it patently ruins the magic of the story.

In Charlie & the Chocolate Factory (as opposed to 1971′s Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory), Wonka is a strange, heavily made-up man who harbors a lot of neuroses from a bad childhood relationship with his father (a facet, I believe, which was not in the original book). Depp plays the character well (we knew he could: just look at his portrayal of Raoul Duke), but the character itself is a disappointment, falling far short of the exceedingly eccentric but always composed and charismatic Wonka that Wilder gave us so many years ago. In fact, the acting in general is far superior in the earlier version, no doubt helped by the artificial surrealism that Burton tries to impose on all his films. Peter Ostrum as Charlie is a cute blonde kid (with bad pitch, I grant you) and not the Harry Potter clone of the new one. Veruca Salt is an honest-to-god Traci Lords clone, pouty and bitchy and utterly convincing. Mike TV is a simple spoiled boy, as opposed to the computer genius that Burton gives us (although I really appreciated the line about particles being different from waves).

SPOILER ALERT

But perhaps the most irksome of all the differences is the ending. In the ’71 version, the contest is contigent upon a question of morality: a Wonka employee poses as the rival candymaker Slugworth, who offers each child fabulous wealth if they get him an Everlasting Gobstopper. When Wonka tells Charlie he has lost the contest (because he stole Fizzy Lifting Drinks), Charlie leaves the Gobstopper on Wonka’s desk, thus displaying integrity (if not logic). In Burton’s version, Charlie merely wins by default (a great lesson for kids). When Wonka offers him the factory, Charlie says that he’ll only go if his family comes, so Wonka (who, remember, is neurotic in the new version) revokes his offer and goes home. This is followed by an incredibly contrived subplot tacked onto the end of the film, involving Wonka and his father the dentist (played by the woefully undercast Christopher Lee). Only after we’ve suffered through it can Burton’s diversion rejoin the proper storyline and Charlie gets the factory and his family (which includes, I might add, a father who was absent from the book). It’s anticlimactic, and it ruins the story as far as I’m concerned. Not only is the morality play gone from the equation, but turning Wonka the Enigma into a bundle of primal fears and unresolved issues effectively mitigates him into something unimpressive and unimportant.

One other aspect I should mention, even though I don’t find it particularly important, is the Oompa Loompas. Burton cast one midget (named Deep Roy) and digitally cloned him into an army of Oompa Loompas. The songs they sing use Dahl’s original lyrics, but run the gamut from disco to heavy metal. They’re fun, I suppose, but also unintelligible; all in all, however, they aren’t a contentious point with me, as they are merely incidental to the story, anyway.

Like Sideways, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory‘s original movie adaptation, while not completely true to the book, turned it into something much better and longer-lasting. Unless you really like Tim Burton, and you don’t have a deep affection for the ’71 version, don’t even bother seeing the new one. It’s just not worth it.

§702 · August 4, 2005 · (No comments) · Tags: