movies
May 19, 2006
Summer Movie Pool
Every summer since 2001, I've participated with a few dozen film academics and fellow travelers in a summer movie pool. We all predict the top ten summer box office grossers, and whoever's list comes closest wins. (The specific rules are way too detailed to list here, or for me to even remember - these are academics, after all.)
I came in third my first year, but it's been downhill ever since. This year's a real tricky one to predict - I'm very confident in Superman Returns at #1, but after that, it's a real crapshoot.
The ballots were due on May 15, but movies released before then still count. So, we were all able to take into account the disappointing openings of MI:III and Poseidon. I've concluded audiences this year are unmotivated to rush to the theaters for bigger, louder sequels and remakes, figuring they can eventually catch them on DVD. But everybody needs a summer movie fix eventually, so I'm betting on Superman Returns as the movie that brings the nation together, Da Vinci Code as the must-see object of controversy, and Cars as the kids' movie adults enjoy too. (I guess Superman Returns is kind of a remake/sequel, but the previews suggest Brian Singer's produced a fresh take on the material - an idealistic antidote to our ugly era.)
On the other hand, I almost always underestimate the power of the mediocre sequel - junk like Rush Hour 2 and Austin Powers 3 have been my undoing, year after year. But some years, the audience does rebel. So far, this is looking like one of those years.
Not that my entry is full of European art flicks. Here's my complete list:
1. Superman Returns
2. The Da Vinci Code
3. Cars
4. Pirates of the Caribbean II
5. X-Men III
6. Mission Impossible III
7. Click
8. The Break-Up
9. The Lake House
10. Nacho Libre
We also get to pick three "dark horses":
Talladega Nights
Little Miss Sunshine
A Scanner Darkly
And we each pick a catchphrase every year. This year, mine comes from blockbuster savant George Lucas. According to Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher, it's the only direction he ever gave them on the set: "Faster, more intense."
All the summer movie pool results since 2002 are online here. You'll just have to take my word for it that I finished in the money in 2001.
UPDATE: I take it back. Complete top finishers since the pool's start back in 1994, including corroboration of my 2001 finish, are available on this Hall of Fame page.
Posted by tedf at 11:24 AM | Comments (1)
April 03, 2006
Interview in Gwinnett Daily Post Article on Hollywood and 9/11
It's always weird being quoted in a newspaper article - you ramble on the phone for half an hour on a whole range of topics, then they take one or two random sound bites you may not even remember saying.
But I think this piece by reporter Shelley Mann came out pretty well. I was trying to drive home the argumnt that the claim that "it takes time to develop historical perspective on an event" can become a copout against taking a stand on political issues while they're still controversial and relevant. For all its clumsy didacticism, it took guts for Michael Moore to make and release Fahrenheit 911 in 2004, so soon into the Iraq War. We need to celebrate and reward those artists (Moore, George Clooney, Sean Penn) who have the courage to take stands on the most important issues of our day. They're the ones creating what will become tomorrow's conventional wisdom.
That said, I hadn't seen or read anything about the upcoming Oliver Stone 9/11 movie when the Gwinnett Post reporter called me up, so I hope I'm not completely off base. I'll be really disappointed if it turns out to be as dumb as, well, just about every movie Stone's made since Natural Born Killers. Nixon was just awful, and Any Given Sunday smothered Jamie Foxx's sizzling performance underneath Al Pacino's relentless yelling. Then came that feature-length documentary on Fidel Castro that soft-pedaled Cuba's human rights record. I couldn't bring myself to see Alexander, although I guess it might be worth a rental for camp value. I'd write Stone off, but Platoon, JFK, and especially Salvador remain three of the greatest political films ever made, matching a gonzo filmmaking sensibility to real moral seriousness. In fact, anybody who wants to know how the Bush junta cut their teeth should definitely rent Salvador.
Posted by tedf at 12:47 AM | Comments (0)
March 24, 2006
"Snakes on a Plane" Trailer
Get your copy of the player here
Here's a great article in the Hollywood Reporter on the accidental viral marketing campaign for SoaP.
Posted by tedf at 10:57 PM | Comments (0)
March 18, 2006
Product Placement Databases
Brand Hype is a valuable new resource for connoisseurs of corporate backscratching like myself: a database of product placement in movies. Did you know that Orville Redenbacher's Popcorn makes a cameo in Crash?
See also Agenda Inc.'s American Brandstand, which charts the mentions of brands in pop songs. The top musical brand of 2005? Mercedes Benz, mentioned in hit songs by Kanye West, The Game, and Ciara.
For my own takes on product placement and commodity culture, check out this piece on Cast Away and this one on The World of Coca-Cola.
Posted by tedf at 02:28 AM | Comments (0)
March 06, 2006
Quote of the Night
Jon Stewart, after the stage goes wild when Three 6 Mafia shocks the Oscar crowd - and thrills presenter Queen Latifah - by winning Best Song for "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" from the great Southern hip hop film Hustle & Flow:
"You know what? I think it just got a little easier in here for a pimp!"
Overall, I'm disappointed Brokeback Mountain didn't win more - I'm a huge Ang Lee fan - but I can't begrudge Crash. It's clumsy at times, but it's heartfelt and often edgy. And it showcases perhaps America's two greatest actors, Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle. I'm going to have to teach it sometime soon and see if the class can help me make more sense of it.
Coming soon: Ted's Movie Rankings for 2005 . . .
Posted by tedf at 12:33 AM | Comments (0)
February 23, 2006
Lego Brokeback Mountain
SmugMug - Daniel Brown : Lego Brokeback Mountain
Posted by tedf at 05:11 PM | Comments (0)
February 17, 2006
Let's Hear It for GSU Filmmakers!
Georgia State just rocked the Atlanta Campus MovieFest, one of five international locations for "The World's Largest Student Film Festival." All of the films are five minutes long and available online. Check out this list of winners.
GSU is also the proud alma mater of the makers of Dig!, the best rock'n'roll documentary ever made. For those who haven't seen it, it's about the rivalry between two good-not-great indie bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. It was the recent subject of a very entertaining tribute episode on The Gilmore Girls, featuring a cameo from Joel Gion of the Brian Jonestown Massacre, as well as Sebastian Bach, who plays a deli owner/guitarist. Their band, Hep Alien, gets their big break to perform in front of A&R scouts, but the lead singer has an epic meltdown onstage in a scene straight out of the movie.
Posted by tedf at 12:44 PM | Comments (1)
December 25, 2005
Happy Holidays!
Salon.com Arts & Entertainment | All hail Pottersville!
Posted by tedf at 03:27 AM | Comments (0)
November 20, 2005
On "Coming Attractions," "Best Week Ever," "Ebert and Roeper," and the Death of Cultural Criticism on TV
The oddest show among my Tivo Season Passes is undoubtedly "Coming Attractions," The E! Channel's weekly collection of new movie trailers.
The best part of the show is the beginning, where they tell you what's coming up - it's the trailer for the trailers. The worst part of the show is the current host, Michelle Merkin, who may be the most leaden speaker ever to be paid to present information on TV. Her intros always sound like she's reading them phonetically, and doesn't actually speak English. At least that would spare her from knowing that she's named after the hairpiece that lets the carpet match the drapes.
I didn't mean to be so bitchy - I just find the clunkiness of the show mystifying. Who else would watch (or Tivo) this show - tracking it through multiple rotating timeslots - other than Hollywood-savvy obsessives like myself? If that's the case, what's the point of dumbing it down? Why not at least give us Entertainment Weekly level commentary?
I guess this is a symptom of the more general dearth of intelligent movie coverage on television. For all its flaws, Ebert & Roeper remains just about the only game in town - honest judgements (though buzz-heavy summer flicks and Oscar wannabes sometimes seem to get the benefit of the doubt) and the occasiona artyl foreign film (though they often sound like they were homework assignments for Roeper - which at least makes his petulance more appealing than Ebert's credulous Europhilia). I must not be the only freak who still watches Ebert & Roeper every week, but there can't be too many of us - in just about every market I've lived in for the last ten years or so, Ebert's show has always been broadcast around 2 AM Sunday night. There is that Bart & Guber coffe klatsch on AMC - if it isn't cancelled yet - but every time I've tuned in it's been painfully smug, justs like their book. And the Sundance Channel's promo shows, like At the Angelica, are no better than an indie Access Hollywood, complete with the 5-minute junket interviews.
This is clearly the same reason there's so little good TV journalism - networks sucking up to maintain access. But just like there's a market for The Daily Show, you think there'd be a market for smart entertainment commentary on TV, if not original reporting. I guess that's what David Spade's new show thinks it's doing, although it's more like a nasty sibling to the Access Hollywood family, snickering over the same stories with just as little perspective.
Much better is VH1's Best Week Ever, of which I'm a big fan, and which is just about the most consistently funny 1/2 hour on TV these days. (The only competition I can think of are TDS and My Name Is Earl.) But is there room for anything between the snark of "The Sizzler" and the fawning of Merkin? Ebert was the watered-down-but-worthwhile TV version of Pauline Kael, and both emerged out of the cinephelia of the 60s and 70s. I don't think cinephelia is dead. I don't think film criticism is dead - check out David Edelstein, Lisa Schwarzbaum, or the crew of The Onion, for starters, for reviews that still pulse with passion and insight. But the last ten years haven't seen the emergence of the next Ebert to replace the late Gene Siskel. Maybe Ebert blew it when he picked the amiable guy's guy Roeper rather than make an edgier call. But more to the point is that no show emerged to replace Ebert and Roeper.
I don't get it. As a film teacher, I see students every day who love to talk about, read about, and write about film. I know they've got plenty of like-minded peers. There's money to be made in not talking down to them. But I guess there's more money to be made in keeping the studios happy by avoiding anything that smacks too much of insight.
Posted by tedf at 10:36 PM | Comments (0)
May 22, 2005
Summer Movie Pool
For the past few years I've been participating in the Summer Movie Pool, a kind of movie box-office version of fantasy baseball in which a bunch of us - some film academics, some just fans - compete to predict the top ten grossing films of the summer.
In my very first year, I finished in the money, coming in third out of fifty or so entries. Since then, though, it's been downhill. Perhaps I've been losing touch as I become more ensconced in the ivory tower. So this year, I've decided to shake things up by submitting three entries representing three approaches to prognostication: one from my gut (the Malcolm Gladwell Blink approach - reflexive box office instincts), one from my heart (the fanboy approach - the movies I'm rooting for), and one from my brain (the James Surowiecki Wisdom of Crowds approach - the top-listed stocks on Hollywood Stock Exchange). My other organs will keep their opinions to themselves.
Below are the three entries. For more on the pool, check out the official website.
Ted's Gut:
1. Star Wars III
2. War of the Worlds
3. Batman Begins
4. Longest Yard
5. Madagascar
6. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
7. Island
8. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
9. Weding Crashers
10. Stealth
LS: Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants
LS: Hustle and Flow
LS: Dukes of Hazzard
Ted's Heart:
1. Batman Begins
2. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
3. Fantastic Four
4. Wedding Crashers
5. Bad News Bears
6. Brothers Grimm
7. Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl
8. Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants
9. Hustle and Flow
10. Sky High
LS: Rize
LS: War of the Worlds
LS: Star Wars III
Ted's Brain:
1. Star Wars III
2. Batman Begins
3. War of the Worlds
4. Madagascar
5. Fantastic Four
6. Longest Yard
7. Island
8. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
9. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
10. The Wedding Crashers
LS: Dukes of Hazzard
LS: Stealth
LS: Monster-in-Law
Posted by tedf at 03:41 PM | Comments (2)
May 02, 2005
Interesting New Distribution Plan
Simultaneous release of films in theaters and on DVD sounds like a wacky idea, but the guy behind this - Mark Cuban - is very savvy about experimenting with new film distribution ideas. With the demise of Madstone, his Landmark Theaters is the one artplex chain left standing. Without them, most cool indie and foreign films would never make it to cities outside of NYC and LA.
Soderbergh, 2929 See Same-Day Film/DVD Release - Yahoo! News
Posted by tedf at 05:49 PM | Comments (0)
April 11, 2005
Science Fiction and Fantasy Media Intro Lecture on MP3
Continuing my audio series, here's the introductory lecture to my course in Science Fiction and Fantasy Media. It's in two parts. Click here for Part A, and click here for Part B.
The syllabus for the class can be found here.
Posted by tedf at 10:42 PM | Comments (0)
April 07, 2005
Contemporary Hollywood Cinema Lecture on MP3
Here's another audio post: an MP3 recording of the introductory lecture from my Contemporary Hollywood Cinema class, originally recorded in Spring '03. I've appended the syllabus below if you'd like to follow along. Since then, the course has been changed slightly, and is now titled American Film History II. You can check out the version I'm teaching this semester here.
------------------
Contemporary Hollywood Cinema
Film 4960, Spring 2003
M/W 3:00-4:15, 204 Aderhold
Dr. Ted Friedman
Office: 738 One Park Place South
Office Hours: M/W 4:30-6:30 and by appointment
Email: tedf@gsu.edu; Phone: (404) 463-9522
Home Page: http://www.tedfriedman.com
Course Description
How do movies reflect and influence American life? How has Hollywood responded to changing market conditions and global influences? Why are so many of today’s movies so big, loud, and pushy? What are the alternatives to Hollywood’s stories?
This class attempts to make sense of the present state of American film by tracing the history of American movies from 1968 to the present. Along the way, we’ll look at the semiotics, aesthetics, economics, and politics of Hollywood movies and the independent underground.
Prerequisites
This course builds on the material covered in Film Aesthetics and Analysis (FILM1010) and History of Motion Pictures (FILM2700). I strongly encourage students to take those two courses before taking this class.
Readings
The coursepack is sold by Bestway Copy Center, 18 Decatur Street SE (on the first floor of One Park Place South). Additional readings will be distributed via the class email list.
Screenings
You are responsible for viewing the assigned film before class each week. The first required film, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, is currently playing in local theaters. After that, the Library Media Center will have a DVD of each week’s film on reserve. In addition, all assigned films are readily available at local video stores for home rental. Recommended alternatives to Blockbuster are Movies Worth Seeing (1409 N Highland; 404-892-1802) and Videodrome (617 N Highland; 404-885-1117).
Email Group
All students will be automatically signed up to the online class discussion group, hosted by Yahoo Groups. I will regularly forward Hollywood news, reviews of upcoming movies, and other useful material to the list. You’re encouraged to forward other interesting information, post your reactions to recent movies, respond to other postings, or continue any other ongoing discussions from class.
Messages can be read online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conholly, or forwarded to your email account. Likewise, you can post a message from the web site, or send it as an email to conholly@yahoogroups.com.
Schedule
Introduction
M 1/6 Introduction
W 1/8 In-class screening: selections from Saving Private Ryan
Hollywood Today
M 1/13 Read Dyer, Friedman
See The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
W 1/15 In-class screening: Behind the Screen: Hollywood Goes Hypercommercial
Flashback to 1968: A Violent Rupture
M 1/20 Martin Luther King Holiday – No Class
W 1/22 Read Kolker, Prince, McKinney
See Bonnie and Clyde (1968)
The 1970s: Hollywood Renaissance?
M 1/27 Read Ray, George
See Dog Day Afternoon (1974)
W 1/29 In-class screening: American Cinema: The Film School Generation
Blockbusters and Fandom
M 2/3 Read Jones, Jenkins, Schatz
See Star Wars (1976)
W 2/5 In-class screening: George Lucas in Love
Postmodernism and Science Fiction
M 2/10 Read Sobchack, Harvey
See Blade Runner (1984)
W 2/12 In-class screening: Science Fiction Costumes
The Politics of Masculinity in Reagan’s America
M 2/17 Read Jeffords (2 chapters)
See Salvador (1986)
W 2/19 In-class screening: selections on the making of Salvador
Take-home Midterm Due
Documentary and Docudrama
M 2/24 Read Tuchman, Kael, Moore
See Roger & Me (1986)
W 2/26 In-class screening: Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story
March 3-9 – Spring Break – No Class
Race and Representation
M 3/10 Read Wiegman, McKelly, Seymour
See Do the Right Thing (1989)
In-class screening: Classified X
W 3/12 Discussion
Pop Feminism
M 3/17 Read White, Faludi
See Thelma & Louise (1991)
W 3/19 In-class screening: selections from I’m the One That I Want
Queer Studies
M 3/24 Ready Doty, Simpson
See Boys Don’t Cry (1999)
W 3/26 In-class screening: selections from Off the Straight & Narrow
War and Film Today
M 3/31 Reading to be distributed via email
See Three Kings (1999)
W 4/2 In-class screening: selections on the making of Three Kings
Globalization and Hybridity
M 4/7 Read Bordwell
See Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
W 4/9 In-class screening: selections from Hong Kong films
The Indies
M 4/14 Read Kleinhans, Schamus, Biskind
See Requiem for a Dream (2000)
W 4/16 In-class screening: American Cinema: The Independents
Narrative and New Technologies
M 4/21 Read Manovich, Friedman
See Being Jon Malkovich (1999)
W 4/23 In-class screening: video games
Class Choice
M 4/28 Reading to be distributed via email
Screening to be voted on by class
The research paper is due in the mailbox on the door of my office (738 One Park Place South) by Wednesday, April 30, 6 PM.
The Take-Home Final Exam is due in the mailbox on the door of my office by Monday, May 5, 6 PM.
Assignments
The class assignments add up to total of 100 possible points. Your final grade for the class is determined by adding up your grades for each assignment, adjusting for attendance, then applying the final number to the following scale:
90-100=A, 80-89=B, 70-79=C, 60-69=D, 0-59=F
1. Take-Home Midterm – 30 points
The take-home midterm will require you to relate concepts from the readings and lectures to the films screened for class. Due in class February 19.
2. Research Paper – 40 points
You will produce a 7-9 page research paper on an American film made since 1968.
• You will write a one-page proposal outlining your topic and mode of research. We will meet in March during my office hours to discuss your proposal.
• Optional drafts of the paper can be submitted at any time in class or via email up to Tuesday, April 22. I will return each draft with recommendations for revision and expansion. If you choose, I will also let you know what grade the paper would receive if it were handed in as the final draft. You’re welcome to submit multiple drafts before the deadline.
• The final draft of the paper is due in the mailbox on the door of my office (739 One Park Place South) by Wednesday, April 30, 6 PM.
• More details on the research paper will follow in a separate handout.
3. Take-Home Final – 30 points
The take-home final will be structured just like the midterm, covering the second half of the semester. It will be due in the mailbox on the door of my office by Monday, May 5, 6 PM.
4. Film Element Observations
For every film after LOTR, students will sign up to closely observe specific film elements and report back to the class. You will observe two films, one in the first half of the semester, one in the second half. You will not be graded on this assignment, but if you miss class without advance notice on a week you’re signed up, you will be marked for an additional unexcused absence.
5. Attendance Adjustment
As Woody Allen put it, “80 percent of success is showing up.” It’s less than that in this formula, but the bottom line is that you can’t contribute to the class if you’re not there. You’re allowed one unexcused absence for the semester. After that, each unexcused absence subtracts one point from your grade total. Excused absences include medical and family emergencies. You will be expected to schedule any employment responsibilities around this class, or accept the consequences of missed classes for your grade. If you do need to miss a class, please contact me ahead of time, and make arrangements to catch up on missed material.
Policies
Re-Writes and Makeup Tests
Opportunities for revision and improvement will be available for the midterm, the presentation, and the research paper prospectus. In addition, I will look at optional drafts of the research paper submitted on or before April 22. One rule: a 24-hour cool-down period after the return of any assignment. Wait a day before coming to talk to me, and I’ll be happy to listen to your concerns and help you improve your work.
Late and Unsubmitted Papers
Late papers will be marked off by ½ point for every day overdue unless an extension is agreed upon before the due date. No work can be accepted after the deadline for the take-home final. Any unsubmitted papers will receive a 0. Likewise, any unanswered exam questions will receive a 0. So, if you answer only 2 out of 3 required exam questions, you will get a 0 on the third question.
Academic Honesty
The university’s policy on academic honesty is published in On Campus: The Undergraduate Co-Curricular Affairs Handbook, available online at http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwcam. The policy prohibits plagiarism, cheating on examinations, unauthorized collaboration, falsification, and multiple submissions. Violation of the policy will result in failing the class, in addition to disciplinary sanctions.
The Internet makes it easy to plagiarize, but also easy to track down plagiarism. Bottom line: Don’t plagiarize. It’s wrong, and it’s not worth it. There’s always a better way. Cite all your sources, put all direct quotations in quotation marks, and clearly note when you are paraphrasing other authors’ work.
Withdrawals
Students withdrawing on or before March 10 will receive a W provided they are passing the course. Students who withdraw after March 10 will not be eligible for a W except in cases of hardship. If you withdraw after March 10, you will be assigned a WF, except in those cases in which (1) hardship status is determined by the office of the dean of students because of emergency, employment, or health reasons, and (2) you are passing the course.
Incompletes
Incompletes may be given only in special hardship cases. Incompletes will not be used merely for extending the time for completion of course requirements.
Changes to the Syllabus
This syllabus provides a general plan for the course. Deviations may be necessary.
Posted by tedf at 12:15 AM | Comments (0)
March 17, 2005
Buffy's Joss Wheedon to Helm Wonder Woman Movie!
This is great news for fans of both Buffy and WW. I can't think of a better choice.
Posted by tedf at 02:35 PM | Comments (0)
Tour of the Pixar Workspace
Moriarty points out that we're living in a golden age of animation today. People will look back at this current Pixar run as one of the great moments in film history. These photos give a sense of how Pixar keeps its corporate culture fresh and creative. (Via Boing Boing).
Posted by tedf at 02:09 PM | Comments (0)
March 15, 2005
African-American Actors Supporting African Film
Yahoo! News - African-Americans Offer Hope to African Film
Posted by tedf at 03:34 PM | Comments (1)
March 08, 2005
The Aviator
I finally got around to The Aviator today, as my spring break movie binge continues. I'd been avoiding it because it had all the signs of Oscar bait: whitewashed biopic, hero with a psychological disability, movie about movies, bloated running time. It is all those things, but I'd forgotten how much fun watching a Scorcese movie always is, no matter what the putative storyline. Nobody moves the camera like Scorcese, and every scene flows into the next with effortless grace. The first 2/3 of the movie is a real treat, as Marty avoids worrying too much about the character arc and just lets us enjoy one spectacular scene after another: Hughes filming dozens of planes from the cockpit of another in Hells Angels; Hughes and Jean Harlow at glamorous premieres; Hughes and Kate Hepburn flying over LA.
Sadly, since this is still Oscar bait, we eventually have to get around to the triumph of the human spirit, and so what sounds like a pedestrian business squabble between Hughes's TWA and Pan Am gets turned into a climactic Senate hearings showdown between Howard and a corrupt senator manipulated by Pan Am, played with real glee by Alan Alda. The movie asks us to see Hughes as the fiesty underdog taking on Alec Baldwin's evil Pan Am monopolist, but it really just looks like a pissing match between two moguls, one of whom we happen to feel a little sorry for because we've been watching his life story for two hours and we know he's on the verge of succumbing to his demons. The film implies that if Hughes hadn't taken on Pan Am, the latter would have sat on its monopoly on international air flight, and the skies might never have been opened to transcontinental jet flight. But I didn't get any sense that if the situation had been reversed, Hughes would have been any less brutal in trying to quash his own competition. And while monopolies are certainly bad things (see Microsoft), deregulation can be even worse (see the present state of the airline industry).
You'd think the climactic political battle would have a bit of contemporary resonance - not only because of the Microsoft parallels and the state of airlines today, but also because the corporate purchase of political influence hasn't exactly died down in the 58 years since the film is set. But the movie's so desperate to bring us to a rousing close that there's no room for those kinds of parallels to emerge. Instead, Hughes turns the tables, grills the senator, then storms off, to the very unlikely applause of the assembled audience. The History Channel is running a "History vs. Hollywood" episode on Hughes that I'll have to check out - I'd be very surprised if the actual hearings so closely followed the plot of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
The representation of Hughes's OCD is basically well-handled, but not revelatory - he washes his hands a lot, starts involuntarily repeating words, and ends up collecting his urine in milk jars. The roots are laid at the hands of childhood trauma (a cholera epidemic in Houston as he was growing up) and a semi-eroticized fixation on the memory of his mother bathing him. The film pounds this message home with too many script callbacks and a final visual flashback to the opening bathing scene. This pat Freudianism is unlikely to overcome the contemporary audience's historical condescension; watching the movie, you can't help but think, "if only he had Prozac . . ."
The most interesting part of Hughes as a character is the confluence of his risk-taking and neurosis - compartmentalizing all his anxiety in his hygeine seemed to be part of what allowed him to risk his money and his life on a series of crazy schemes, from the most expensive movie ever made (Hell's Angels) to a series of radical airplance designs.
This drama, in the end, is clearly Scorcese's real connection with the material. Like Apocalypse Now and so many other overblown auteur labors of love, this is a drama about the creator-as-megalomaniac-as-genius. The funny thing is, Scorcese himself breaks so few rules in making it. (The whole film runs like a watered-down version of Good Fellas, which itself was a kind of glossy reworking of Mean Streets.) Scorcese seems to have tamed his inner Hughes, and learned how to work within the system. Maybe now that Oscar's given him yet another brush-off, he'll say screw it and make some truly crazed films. That would be a real happy ending.
Posted by tedf at 07:40 PM | Comments (0)
March 07, 2005
Travellers and Magicians
I just saw Travellers and Magicians, which is apparently the first fiction film ever made in the Kingdom of Bhutan. I was particularly curious about the film because its director is apparently also a Buddhist monk, and the film's been promoted for its Buddhist sensibility, as was Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter . . . and Spring Again, the South Korean drama released last year. As somebody very interested in Buddhism - at least the Americanized variations taught by Pema Chodron, Jack Kornfield, Shinzen Young, and others - I was both intrigued and frustrated by both films. This film's structure is pretty standard world cinema fare. A young man in a rustic small town wants to escape to see the world - in this case, specifically to move to the US. Over the course of the film, he learns to appreciate the beauty, slow pace, and community of his life at home, and abandons his plans to emigrate. I always worry that movies like this have less to do with authentic expression than with playing to international audiences' stereotypes and vanity. The American viewer is made to feel both smug and envious. On the one hand, we think, of course our hero wants to move here - doesn't everybody? On the other hand, we wonder, "how could he possibly want to leave the stunning Bhutan countryside, the leisurely pace of life, the rich sense of belonging?"
But as with Bride and Prejudice, the movie involves a performative contradiction. While it preaches staying down on the farm, it only exists because its director discovered the bright lights of the big cities - Sidney (where it was edited), Cannes, and the rest of the stops on the international film circuit. And of course, we Americans can only enjoy the film because we lead lives cosmopolitan enough to catch films from Bhutan at the local artplex. If I embraced the equivalent "simple life" - living without a TV in Vermont, say - I'd never be exposed to a film like this. So can't I feel a little bad for our protagonist, who wears an "I Love NY" t-shirt, but learns to accept the limited horizons of his hometown and never see the Big Apple?
The best thing in this movie is the Buddhist monk who bonds with our hero as he hitchhikes to the capital, from whence he plans to head out for the states. The monk tells a story which becomes a film-within-the-film about another restless young man who learns the value of settling down, and that part is a little too didactic. But the monk character himself is wonderful - calm, twinkling, always generous without ever being a sap. It's the vibe I feel in people like him that makes me so impressed by Buddhism. Growing up Jewish, I always found my rabbis pompous and distant - why would I want to grow up to be like them? I've similarly never been impressed by the presence of most other religious leaders I've seen - whether TV preachers, nuns, or the pope. But Buddhists like the Dalai Lama, Pema Chodron, and this character radiate a wonderful sense of wisdom and peace. (It's not just Buddhists who can find this peace, of course - I saw Desmond Tutu on the Daily Show last year, and he just blew me away with his palpable sense of joy and compassion.) Anyway, that's what spiritual wisdom ought to look like, I think. Maybe it's easier to acheive isolated in the Himalayas than info-overloaded in the Atlanta exurbs. (The monk warns at one point, "avoid the city. It's depressing.") But maybe there is a middle ground. How about a cabin out in the country, but with a DSL line and a Netflix account?
Posted by tedf at 10:35 PM | Comments (0)
March 06, 2005
Bride and Prejudice
OK, I'm going to try a new feature at Tedlog: brief movie reviews. I just saw Bride and Prejudice, the new crossover Bollywood musical by the director of Bend It Like Beckham. It's not as perfect as the last film, but it's a lot of fun. I'm a big fan of Bollywood in theory, but I still haven't seen too many of the movies. I love musicals, and I love the idea of an alternate filmgoing universe in which audiences have no problem with characters who periodically break into song. Hollywood today is so embarassed by musicals, it feels compelled to cloak them in the trappings of "realism." So the musical breaks in Chicago, for example, have to be explicitly framed as "fantasy" numbers. It really bums me out that most of my students find classic musicals almost unwatchable. They just can't suspend disbelief when characters they're supposed to care about stop everything to sing, then go back to the story like nothing strange just happened. At the same time, of course, we think nothing of it when a modern action movie pauses every ten minutes for the equivalent moment of nonnarrative spectacle - a chase, explosion, or shootout, known by some screenwriters as the "action beat" or "whammy."
So, I'm really thrilled to see the Bollywood sensibility spill over to movies like Moulin Rouge. And I'm psyched to see Bollywood itself build more of a US cult. That cult has its roots in the "desi" community of the Indian diaspora, of course, but hopefully it's starting to spread to hipsters of all ethnic backgrounds. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bollywood become the next version of Hong Kong action movies, anime, and Japanese horror - an import that grows an influential American cult, slowly seeping into the American mainstream via emigres, appropriation, and crossover hits. I'm not sure if romance movies so old-fashioned they don't even allow kissing will ever get to be as cool as Chow Yun Fat diving to the ground while shooting with two guns at once. But wouldn't it be cool if they were?
As for the movie at hand, Bride and Prejudice certainly wasn't as much of a knockout as what I take to be the Bollywood gold standard, Lagaan. (Although for all I know, cognezenti find it overrated, and there are 50 much better movies I just haven't seen yet.) But it's got charm, energy, and fun to spare. It probably helped that I don't know the plot's source material, Austen's Pride and Prejudice, any better than I know Bollywood. Both sides of the hybrid were equally exotic to me. (I only knew Darcy was supposed to be the catch because of the references to the character in Briget Jones's Diary.)
The director has said she liked the idea of transplanting Austen to India because of some of the parallels she found between the two societies - arranged marriages, closely knit families, long-time traditions and hierarchies being challenged by modernity. That all works smoothly, although I didn't find the juxtaposition as productive as, say, Emma becoming Clueless.
The film tried to make some political points about feminism and cultural imperialism. But compared to Bend It Like Beckham, which explored the impact of assimilation on the second generation so elegantly - celebrating the kids' new independence while remaining sympathetic to the parents' goals to retain the important parts of the old culture - the issues are raised much more bluntly here. The romantic leads have several arguments about cultural imperialism that seem way too on-the-nose, and are left surprisingly unresolved. (He, the American scion of a hotel dynasty - Darcy as Paris Hilton? - wants to buy a hotel in Goa and turn it into a five-star resort, so visitors can see India without getting their shoes dirty. She, a proud native of India, tells him that he just wants to turn India into a giant Disneyland - India without the Indians. He retorts that it's useful economic investment. She asks, but who gets the money? The question is dropped, but later we learn that his family has failed to buy the hotel, on his recommendation - she changed his mind. What's weird is that no alternative is broached. Couldn't they imagine a more equitable investment strategy, rather than no investment at all? Couldn't he come up with a structure ensuring local control, a democratic workplace, and culturally sensitive interaction with the community? Wouldn't that be better than punting altogether? It's a weird moral for a film that elsewhere celebrates hybridity so enthusiastically.)
Other weird aspects of the film's politics appear to be holdovers from Austen. Early on, it seems to our heroine that Darcy, the rich guy, is a jerk, while another character, the son of Darcy's nanny, is the real mensch. Later, it turns out that she judged them too quickly. The moral seems to be that just because you're poor it doesn't mean you can't be a cad, and just because you're rich it doesn't mean you can't be a great guy. Which is true enough, but not really the most hard-hitting stance one could take in a film which implicitly addresses the global inequalities between north and south.
Likewise, several dark-skinned servant characters are seen only briefly in the movie, never granted any subjectivity, and even used for brief laughs at their own expense. Again, I'm sure Austen didn't do any better on that score, but it made me long for the democratic vision of a film like Gosford Park, where everybody on screen counts.
If this isn't a perfect movie, it's still a pretty great one. How can you not like a movie with a love song on the beach featuring singing lifeguards, surfers, and a gospel choir? (Come to think of it, From Justin to Kelly probably had a scene like that too. Maybe I should go ahead and rent it . . . ) Another song blends effortlessly from mariachi music to bhangra to Hollywood shlock. If the film doesn't always work through its egalitarian impulses, its heart is definitely in the right place.
Tentative DTMTBD rating: 2 - Much better than Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's dead. (For more on the DTMTBD rating system, click here.)
Posted by tedf at 12:36 AM | Comments (0)
March 05, 2005
The Digitization of Third Cinema
This Reuters story marks a really important development. Just as digital filmmaking has the potential to level the playing field between Hollywood and US independents (cf The Blair Witch Project, Super Size Me, etc.), it also could help democratize global media.
Yahoo! News - African Films Go Digital to Buck System
Posted by tedf at 09:42 PM | Comments (0)
March 02, 2005
TCM Series on the History of Product Placement
Posted by tedf at 08:18 PM | Comments (0)
Superfriends/Office Space mashup
Courtesy of JS van Buskirk:
This video-mash of footage from Superfriends cartoons combined with the audio track from Office Space is stupendous. It’s not just that the creator managed to get the lips to sink up really well, but there’s also the hilarious choice of clips and shots, and the judicious use of original Superfriends sound effects. This thing is about the funnies thing I’ve seen all week. Month.
Posted by tedf at 07:22 PM | Comments (0)