Category: movies

Our Skewed Values

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Today’s LA Times contained an excellent article on our skewed values: To the MPAA ratings board, ‘The King’s Speech’ is just as bad as ‘Saw 3D’. In this article, the MPAA is taken to task for giving an R rating to a movie about how a cheeky Australian speech therapist helped King George VI conquer a terrible stammer… because he utters a few curse words, while giving the same R rating to the latest Saw installment, “Saw 3D”. The author feels this equates gratuitous violence to swearing:

To call the decision crazy and unhinged would be to let the MPAA off too lightly. Its ratings decisions, which frown on almost any sort of sex, frontal nudity or bad language but have allowed increasing amounts of violence over the years, are horribly out of touch with mainstream America, where families everywhere are disturbed by the amount of violence freely portrayed in movies, video games and hip-hop music.

Here’s what the director had to say:

“What I take away from that decision is that violence and torture is OK, but bad language isn’t. I can’t think of a single film I’ve ever seen where the swear words had haunted me forever, the way a scene of violence or torture has, yet the ratings board only worries about the bad language.”

Now, consider this. There is a movie at the Telluride Film Festival called “127 Hours”. This is a movie that is making some audiences sick. The problem is not horror, but real-life, amplified. “127 Hours” stars James Franco as Aron Ralston, who in 2003 was trapped by a falling chockstone in an isolated gully in Utah’s wilderness. Having told no one where he was headed and hiking with scant supplies, Ralston knew that if he didn’t free himself he would perish from starvation, dehydration or exposure. Five days into his ordeal, Ralston figured out that if he broke the two bones in his right forearm, he would be able to use a dull multi-tool to saw through the flesh, muscles and tendons that bound him to a certain death. The amputation is filmed in a realistic, documentary style, with the camera sometimes mere inches from Franco’s body. The director employs a variety of sound effects during the amputation, amplifying the bone breaks with a gun shot and the nerve-cutting with an electronic vibration. I’m sure we know what this will be rated.

Me? Cut me out of the violence. This is why I prefer the stage. Give me the quarts of fake blood from the Lt. on Inishmore.

Share

No. No. No.

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Can you say “no”, as in “No bloody way, no”. Warner Bros. is thinking of remaking the Wizard of Oz. Quoting from the article:

One project, called “Oz,” currently lives at Warner’s New Line label. It’s being produced by Temple Hill, which is behind a little franchise called “Twilight,” and has a script written by Darren Lemke, a writer on the upcoming “Shrek Forever After.”

A second “Wizard of Oz” project, set up at Warners proper, skews a little darker — it’s written by “A History of Violence” screenwriter Josh Olson and focuses on a granddaughter of Dorothy who returns to Oz to fight evil. “Clash of the Titans” producer Basil Iwanyk and his Thunder Road Pictures are behind that one. (“Spawn” creator Todd MacFarlane is potentially involved in a producerial capacity, to give you some idea of the tone.)

Now, I’m not saying “The Wizard of Oz”, or related properties, shouldn’t be remade. The film version of the musical “The Wiz” was a reasonable idea, although executed completely wrong. A non-musical version of Greg Maguire’s Oz-themed books, “Wicked”, “Son of a Witch”, or “A Lion Among Men” could be quite good. Even adapting the musical “Wicked”, as long as it wasn’t just a filmed stage version, might even work.

But not these ideas, or these proponents. I have no confidence, especially returning to Oz to fight evil. Trust me, “Alice” is succeeding not because it is a fairy-tale property, but because it is a fantasic envisioning. But then again, who am I to talk? People are flocking to Avatar, even though it is just a retelling of Pochahantis.

Share

Writing About Not Writing About Something

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

It’s a quiet Sunday — the calm before I return to work tomorrow. I’ve been trying to think about what to write about.

I thought about writing about “Wait, Wait – The NPR News quiz”, which has been the subject of an interesting article on CNN and even provided a news quiz about 2009 to the LA Times. But I couldn’t connect that to anything.

I thought about writing about theatre, always a good subject, triggered by a post by Charles McNulty, the LA Times Theatre Critic, about why “Nine” didn’t work on the big screen. It’s an interesting analysis, and exposes well the difference between stage and screen. But again, nothing good to tie it to.

I thought about writing about computer security, triggered by an article in the NY Times about how Cybersecurity is the hot job. The problem, of course, is they are looking for people that know how to stop attackers, not people who know how to engineer less complex and more secure systems.

But in the end, none of these stories made we want to devote a full entry to them. So I decided not to write about them. I hope I succeeded.

Share

Triangular the Relationship….

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Yesterday, whilst nsshere and her friends were off seeing “Up In The Air” (my review), my wife and I went to go see “It’s Complicated”.

“It’s Complicated”* tells the story of Jane and Jake Adler. Jane (Meryl Streep) is the mother of three grown kids (Luke (Hunter Parrish), Lauren (Caitlin Fitzgerald), and Gabby (Zoe Kazan)). Ten years ago, Jane divorced Jake (Alec Baldwin, and now owns a thriving Santa Barbara bakery/restaurant and has an amicable relationship with him. Jake has since remarried the much younger Agnes (Lake Bell), and is now step-father to the six-year-old Pedro. However, when Jane and Jake find themselves out of town for their son’s college graduation, an innocent meal together turns into the unimaginable – an affair. This both bothers Jane, for she is now in the role of the other woman, and delights her, as a fifty-ish woman seen as attractive and sexual. Caught in the middle of their renewed romance is Adam (Steve Martin), an architect hired to remodel Jane’s kitchen. Healing from a divorce of his own, Adam starts to fall for Jane, but soon realizes he’s become part of a love triangle. Also caught up in the affair is Harley (John Krasinski), Lauren’s fiancee, who sees Jake and Jane one day at a hotel.
[* description modified from the one provided by Yahoo Movies]

There are a number of ways to look at this movie, especially as it is felt in some reviews as a “chick flick”. In many ways it is: there are loads of jokes and comments about divorce and older women that put into the genre that includes “The First Wives Club”. At the showing we attended there were a large number of women in the audience. As the various chick-flick punch lines came out, you could here audience eat it up, for there was a very distinct change in pitch of the laughter. It was quite interesting to listen too.

Setting aside the chick-flick aspects, the story itself was pretty funny. There are a number of laugh-out-loud scenes (including one, alas, that had me laughing so hard it triggered the headache). The cast worked quite well together, and you can really see why a number of these folks had such a long career as they have had (I’m thinking of Streep and Martin). We have so few members of the acting community that fall into the star category these days for the range of their talents, and these two are clearly in that category. The other lead, Alec Baldwin, was also surprisingly good. I haven’t seen him before in films, and (as I don’t watch “30 Rock”) rarely have seen him on TV, but he has great comic timing and charm. The other actor I want to single out is Hunter Parrish: this is a young man who has done excellent work in TV (“Weeds”), stage (“Spring Awakening”), and now film. I think he will grow into someone well worth watching.

As someone who turns 50 in less than a month, I also found this movie refreshing in its treatment of women of my generation. Meryl Streep was born in 1949, making her 61. The film didn’t try to airbrush her youth: on the screen you saw the wrinkles and the crows feet of a life well spent. Yet the film portrayed her as not hindered by her age, as someone beautiful and sexual and desirable. This is a good thing — there is beauty in women of all ages that must be recognized. This film does that quite successfully. Further, then men lusting after her were no spring chickens either: Steve Martin is 65, and Alec Baldwin is 52. The movie makers didn’t go the easy route and have the ex-husband competing with a much younger man: they had the courage to make the ex-husband compete with an older man. A very good thing to see.

Was this movie “high art”? No. This is clearly a fun relationship flick… one of the types of stories (the movie was written and directed by Nancy Meyers) that works well on screen and will work well on the TV screen (and hell, might make a good sitcom). You want “high art”, go see “Invictus”. But this movie was fun, and I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would.

As for the previews: Again, nothing much to write home about. “Extraordinary Measures” (which has been advertised to death on TV) looks like a movie of the week. DisneyNature’s “Oceans” is a nature-flick. “Leap Year” looks like another movie aimed at the couples audience with its story about a girl trying to propose to one man while falling for another. “The Bounty Hunter” is yet another relationship movie: bounty hunter hired to retrieve his ex-wife, and soon both are on the run. “Babies” seems to tell the stories of four babies, but I can’t see a real plotline there. None of these trailers made me lust after any of these movies.

Share

A Movie for our Times

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

This afternoon, a little bit later than usual, we went out to see our annual Christmas picture. We originally thought we were going to go see “Nine”, but the reviews on it were lukewarm (plus, from what I understand, they cut out young Guido) that we decided on something else. Other possibilities includes “Avatar” (although six_gun_samurai summarized it best as “Dances with Wolves in Outer Space”), “It’s Complicated”, or “The Princess and the Frog”, and “Up In The Air”. We decided on “Up In The Air” because of the show time and the good word of mouth it was getting. We may still see some of the other candidates before I return to work.

“Up In The Air” (henceforth, UITA) stars George Clooney as a man whose job it is to fly from place to place and fire people, to provide the human connection to (so to speak) cushion the blow. He has a side effort of talking about how people have too many connections, be they “stuff” or people. He prides himself on having no connections, other than a casual friends-with-benefits connection with another frequent traveler (Vera Farmiga). His only goal in life is to reach 10M frequent flyer miles. Into his company comes Natalie (Anna Kendrick) who convinces his boss (Jason Bateman) to move to a VTC setup. Will this work? Will Clooney’s character find a connection?

I found UITA to be… interesting. I didn’t walk out going “that was a great movie”. But I also didn’t find myself watching the cinematography. I got caught up in the story and the acting, which is actually the sign of a good movie. The story was interesting, and I recognized the life of a flyer. However, it didn’t have the ending I expected. It certainly isn’t one of those touchy-feeley uplifting movies (there would have probably been a happy ending with “It’s Complicated”).

This is a movie that has a definate resonance in today’s world of downsized companies. People see themselves in the position of the downsized person, and perhaps this movie is succeeding because we don’t want the people that live for the downsizing to be happy. But inside of yourself, you do, for this movie humanizes them as well. Perhaps this is the dichotomy that makes this movie interesting.

Clooney played his normal suave self — I’m not sure if he can play much else, but he is sure good at it. Farmiga was good, especially in the wedding scenes. Kendrick came off as that green newbie who thinks their idea is the best thing since sliced bread, and it was interesting to see her growth.

As for the upcoming trailers: Not that much was of interest. Let’s see. There was “From Paris With Love”, “Shutter Island”, “Date Night”, and “The Lovely Bones”. Nothing I want to see.

Share

Perhaps There Are Somethings That Shouldn’t Be Remade

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Many years ago (back in 1980), a good friend of mine from South Africa and I went to the AVCO theatres in Westwood and saw the movie Fame (at least that’s how I remember it — Lesley, if you’re reading this on Facebook, correct me if I’m remembering wrong). I loved the movie, and remember listening and listening to the soundtrack (I especially liked the song, “I Sing The Body Electric”). I regularly watched the subsequent TV series, and have a number of albums from that as well, as well as from the stage version.

When I heard they were remaking “Fame”, I was scared, very scared. In the right hands, it could be excellent. But in the wrong hands, it would be a train wreck, something worse than Metrolink in Chatsworth. But I kept hoping. I saw a recent video on YouTube from the new version (link to be added later), and although it updated the music to hip-hop, it seemed OK… except for the rapping in the middle. I still hoped, but less.

The new “Fame” opens today. So, while eating lunch today, I took a look at the reviews in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the New York Times, Roger Ebert’s review in the Chicago Sun Times, Variety, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Dallas Morning News. They hurt the railroad engineer in me; that engineer feels intense pain whenever trains crash and burn.

From the reviews, it appears the new Fame has lost its raw grit — the feel of the city and the depths one goes to for fame. From the New York Times, “the 2009 “Fame” offers a desaturated palette. Alice’s affair with a working-class composer merely glances at class tensions; the most daunting peril is the casting couch. Rebellion? A first-time drinker is inebriated, vomits and vows never to touch alcohol again.”. This is Fame for the High School Musical generation. It is Fame de-toothed for tweens. Ugh. The Los Angeles Times puts it this way,

Call the coroner. Then call in the top teams from “CSI,” and that sexy pair from “Bones” while you’re at it, because if ever there was a crime scene that should be yellow-taped and relentlessly investigated this is it. Someone has driven a stake through the heart and ripped out the soul of the 1980 original. The responsible parties, make that irresponsible parties, should be found, thrown in movie jail and not allowed within 50 feet of a set again. Ever.

Roger Ebert blames it soley on the folks who remade the movie, indicating they didn’t understand what drove the story… and perhaps, that the story needs to come first, and the music second:

Why bother to remake “Fame” if you don’t have clue about why the 1980 movie was special? Why take a touching experience and make it into a shallow exercise? Why begin with a R-rated look at plausible kids with real problems and tame it into a PG-rated after-school special? Why cast actors who are sometimes too old and experienced to play seniors, let alone freshmen? The new “Fame” is a sad reflection of the new Hollywood, where material is sanitized and dumbed down for a hypothetical teen market that is way too sophisticated for it. It plays like a dinner theater version of the original.

This is echoed in the Dallas Morning News, which says, “[The director] Tancharoen reveals his music video and concert film background by treating Fame as a series of production numbers with some storytelling segments connecting them. The storytelling is, not surprisingly, the weakest part of this movie.”

Some of the reviewers don’t get it, however. The San Francisco Chronicle writes, “The first [major flaw] is that the kids aren’t terribly interesting, possibly because 16- and 17-year-olds tend not to be all that interesting in real life, except to each other”. Bullshit. The original Fame had interesting teens, characters with drives and flaws and vulnerabilities. The uninteresting kids in this movie are the fault of bad writing, not just their being teens. The Variety reviewer writes, “It’s only that the kids’ stories lack much bite, and their caring teachers — a virtual sitcom honor roll that includes Kelsey Grammer, Megan Mullally, Bebe Neuwirth and Charles S. Dutton (Debbie Allen provides the one link to the first movie)”, conveniently forgetting that all of these characters have had major careers on the Broadway stage as well. It also should be noted that almost ever review makes some sort of play on either “I’m going to live forever” or “Remember my name”. As the St. Louis reviewer says, “The only way that this new “Fame” will live forever is in infamy.”

I was debating going to see Fame on the big screen in the next few weeks. After reading these reviews, perhaps I’ll pass and wait for the DVD.

Share

A Touching and Uplifting Journey

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

We’re a theatrical house. We go to much more live theatre than filmed cinema. Right now, we’ve doubled our film count from last year, taking advantage of the 4th of July weekend to finally go see “Up.” Wow. I’m touched. I’m impressed. I’m uplifted.

For those who haven’t taken the time to read reviews or search the web, you can find a summary of the story from Wikipedia. If even that is too much trouble, “Up” basically tells the story of the life of Carl Fredrickson: how he meets and falls in love with the little girl adventurer Ellie; how they grow together and how he promises that one day they will go to Paradise Falls; how life intrudes, and she dies before reaching there; how Carl fulfills that promise… and goes on an adventure of his own… and finds a new lease on life. During that adventure, Carl meets and learns to care for Russell, a Wilderness Scout earning his merit badge for helping the elderly. Assisted by the talking-dog Dug and the bird Kevin, they battle the adventurer Charles Muntz, the man responsible for inspiring the young Carl and Ellie… and the man who would be responsible for Carl breaking a promise.

Normally, I’d start off a film review by commenting on the cinematography — something I’ve grown to notice when I see a film because I’m so used to theatre. Guess what? I didn’t notice the cinematography or the camera angles in “Up”. That’s a good thing: it means the story overtook the artifice that film creates. Actually, I should take that back: it means the camera angles and positioning were so well chosen they served to enhance the story silently, rather than calling attention to themselves. That’s what good sound design does in the theatre, and that’s what proper cinematography does in film.

“Up” reflects the maturation of Pixar as a studio. Their first foreys were clearly children’s films: Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles. These were successful because Pixar learned early on that story is what makes a movie (something live theatre has learned: music can’t save a show with a bad book). The stories that Pixar tells over time have become richer and deeper. In “Up”, Pixar tells what I believe is their most touching and most adult story: it is a story of what age does to a person, and what keeps a person going. At its heart, “Up” is a story about Love.

Nowhere is that seen better than in the opening sequence: the almost 10 minute segment where the life of Carl and Elle is told wordlessly. Yes, Wall-E was wordless, but this is a much more touching wordlessness. Kids may not realize what they are seeing, but adults will see their first romance and its playfullness. They will see how love forms and matures into a relationship. They will see how that relationship deepens to the point where words are not necessary, and how the bonds with one’s lover can transcend their death. We can see why Carl does what he does: the unthinking attack on the mailbox is an attack on the relationship, and how moving the house to Paradise Falls allows Carl to keep Ellie alive for him, to share the adventure. We also see how Carl moves Ellie’s spirit to Russell, and how that rejuvination of spirit rejuvinates Carl. If you can keep your eyes dry through this movie, you’re better than I. I truly believe the depth of the acting and the emotions conjured up by the animators would make this a worthy Best Picture candidate.

Pixar excels at characterization, and nowhere is it demonstrated better than this movie. In addition to the touching characterization of Carl (voiced by Ed Asner, the personification of grouchy (and when, oh when, will they release Lou Grant on DVD)), we have the eagerness and naivete of Russell (voiced by newcomer Jordan Nagai). But Russell isn’t just the eager scout — we learn the reason for that eagerness in pieces over the movie: it is Russell’s quest for approval from a father figure. Dug, the dog (voiced by Bob Peterson), captures a dog’s eagerness to please… and their ADHD (both the words “Squirrel” and “Ball” have new meanings). We see wonderful wordless characterization of Kevin, the tropical bird. About the only characture in the picture is Charles F. Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer): we know the surface reason for his maniacal desire to capture the bird, but not the real reason why he feels it is acceptable to disappear for a lifetime to go after it.

Surprisingly, I think “Up” would be a great product for Disney to musicalize. There is so much emotion in this film it cries out to be expressed in music. The scenery wouldn’t be that hard to realize, and the story would be timeless. This could be the first Pixar-to-Broadway transition. Disney Theatricals, can you hear me?

As with any Pixar film, there are also the small moments that delight. There’s the mailbox. The chairs for Carl and Emma. The knocks at the doors. John Ratzenberger having a small voice part (he’s been in every Pixar movie, it seems). There are the animation wonders: the clouds, Carl’s beard, the broken plates, the balloons. This is just a remarkable and touching film. Go see it. It will raise you up.

“Up” was preceded by a Pixar short: “Partly Cloudy”, a cute little piece about clouds making babies of various types, and delivering them by stork. It was imaginative, but predictibly episodic.

As for the previews we had:

  • G-Force. Tells the story of a guinea pig spy team put out to pasture in a pet story. Lots of poop jokes. Kids may like it, but I think it is too slight for adult. Then again, look at the business “Transformers” is doing.
  • Paper Heart. This looks to be a touching movie about a girl who doesn’t know what love is… finding love under the cameras. It has that independent feel, and might be worth seeing.
  • Shorts. A movie about kids, imagination, and wishing. I might watch it on Showtime, but the preview didn’t draw me in.
  • Fame. From the first notes, I was taken back to when I saw the original Fame in 1980. Seems to be roughly the same story, with updated music. I’ll remember the name.
  • The Princess and the Frog. Disney’s forey back into what looks like hand-drawn animation (but likely isn’t) — a welcome change if done right from the computer drawn stuff. This is also Disney’s first black princess. What will make or break this production is the story and the music: if the story is great and the music is integrated, it will succeed. If the music is background and the story exists to market the characters, it will fail. I’m encouraged by the trailer, but want to see the reviews first.

Upcoming Movies

This year is bringing a surfeit of interesting movies, so we may end up needing a full hand to count what we will be seeing. Our next cinematic trip will be for the new Harry Potter movie (opens 7/15).There are also two musicals of interest: the musical remake of Nine (opens 11/25), and the remaking of Fame (opens 9/25). Although I expect “The Princess and the Frog” (opens 12/11) to be good, I doubt we’ll see it in theatres unless it is our Christmas Day movie. Lastly, there’s a new biopic out on “The Boys: The Sherman Brothers Story” (opened 5/22) (Disney’s well-known composer lyricists) that looks interesting, but we’ll probably catch that on the pay channels.

Coming next week: On Sunday, we’re off to Finland the Ahmanson to see “Spamalot”. Until then, as they say, the balcony is closed.

Share

Going Where Many Millions Have Gone Before

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

By now, you’ve come to expect theatre reviews in this space, especially when you see a graphic. But we do occasionally set aside the live theatre for the big screen. Today was one of those exceptions, when we trotted down to a local cineplex to see the new Star Trek movie, which was meant for the big screen.

I’m not going to rehash the plot for you. There are plenty of summaries of the movie, and I figure that by now you either have seen it, have had the plot spoiled, or are not bothering to read this because you’re afraid I will spoil something. Fear not, for I’m going to put my plot specific comments behind a cut. I’ll divide my comments on the experience into three areas, and you should be able to safely read the first two.

Comment Area the First: Wherein Pacific Theatres Is Taken To Task

We don’t see films that frequently. When we go, we expect certain things: a clean theatre, a clean print, and a clean experience. We really only got the first. The movie has been in release for three weeks, and we already had the occasional line in the print. More significantly, we had numerous sound drops, as one gets from the satellite system occasionally. This shouldn’t be the case in the theatre, and indicates poor equipment maintenance and monitoring. As for the overall experience, we had the projectionist playing with the focus during the previews, and (until the volume was turned too loud), we had bleed-through bass from the adjacent theatre (Dance Flick). Pacific needs to do better.

Comment Area the Second: The Theatre Experience vs. The Cinematic Experience

As we go to movies infrequently, I was much more aware of the differences between live theatre and the movies. In this, I mean much more than the fact that the live experience is different every time, whereas everyone sees the same movie. There’s much more than that.

First, there’s the volume. The cinema booms at you, and blasts your eardrums, especially with the score. The theatre is softer — more natural voice — and you thus don’t find yourself wincing (except, perhaps, for loud shows like Rent). But even more is the difference in how you watch. In theatre, you are choosing where you are watching on the stage. Stage effects can try to distract you, but you can watch that extra upstage, or focus on a particular actor. In cinema, I’ve become much more aware of the role of the cinematographer and the editor. The cinematographer (and the director) composes the shot for you to see, and permits you to watch and focus on the nuances of the face and the movement. The editor builds the pace and the mood through the cuts and the tightness of the pacing. Combine this with the loud score, and you get much more of an experience. It is extremely different than the stage, and it makes me appreciate much more the actors who are skilled in their particular area, and those that can move effortlessly between the two.

There’s also a large difference in the credits. In the theatre, you have the time to read the program. In the cinema, the names just scroll by, and you have no idea what the people are. I imagine that in the early days of movies, there were programs. Nowadays, the cast and crew are so large that you are lucky to recognize a few names and roles. Still, I respect them for all the work that goes into a production. [However, I really didn’t like the style of the Star Trek closing credits.]

Comment Area the Third: The Film Itself

Read More …

Share