CommentaramaFilms

Scott's Links February 2012

2012-02-29T09:00:00.016-05:00

For those who don't know, Scott roams the internet far and wide. Because of this, he supplies interesting links to Big Hollywood every day. I've asked Scott to give us a list of the best links he finds each month and a quick synopsis of what's behind each one. Check these out. . . share your thoughts!

How Stanley Kubrick shot his own Newsweek cover

No director will ever have greater control over his films, his marketing, or his image than Stanley Kubrick. This article tells the story of how, in the winter of 1971, Kubrick managed to get his Newsweek cover photo shot by his own people on his own terms in his own house. Lucky guy.

The physics behind your favorite sci-fi theme songs

I'm always interested in people's favorite songs (or films, novels, etc.) and what, if anything, they have in common. It turns out that many of our geek-friendly film scores - including many of my favorites - have something in common: "the perfect fifth." (Sorry, Andrew, they don't mention The Black Hole!)

Looking back at The Phantom Menace rumor mill

Remember 1999? Bill Clinton was president, we were all fearing Y2K, and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace was released. Needless to say, rumors of a Star Wars prequel had been circulating for years and this article revisits some of the more outlandish predictions. Charlton Heston as a Jedi?

61 things we learned from the Armageddon commentary

Take it away, Ben Affleck: "I asked [director] Michael [Bay] why it was easier to train oil drillers to become astronauts than it was to train astronauts to become oil drillers, and he told me to shut the f--- up, so that was the end of that talk."

10 undervalued Woody Allen movies

I've seen almost every Woody Allen movie, though this list is not complete without his wonderfully charming 1996 musical Everyone Says I Love You. The ending sequence, which features a group of all-singing all-dancing Groucho Marxes and Woody Allen and Goldie Hawn dancing along (and above) the River Seine is magical.

5 reasons Firefly was lucky to get cancelled

Interesting article which I totally agree with. Had the show lasted, the studio execs no doubt would've ordered Joss Whedon to make it more "accessible" for mainstream audiences, thus alienating the fans who would've made it a hit to begin with. It's quite the paradox.

From 2009: The hidden conservative streak of 30 Rock

Yes, I'm a huge fan of this show and I realize it's a big target, considering who stars in it and the network it airs on. But the show can be surprisingly even-handed when it wants to be. One of my personal favorite episodes makes a complete mockery of NBC's "Green Week" and another episode guest stars Carrie Fisher as a 70s-era comedy writer who: a.) is still fighting "the man" after all these years, and b.) is a poor trainwreck.

5 NC-17 films that wore their rating proudly

It's a shame the NC-17 rating is frowned upon, especially since there are plenty of R-rated movies that get away with graphically torturing people, but if you have too much nudity, it's the end of the freaking world!

Movie special effects you won't believe aren't CGI

As I'm fond of saying, CGI is just a tool and it should be used wisely. Many directors don't know any better but the culprits are usually the studio execs who are convinced that's what people want. This article looks at some awesome FX sequences that were done sans CGI.

Hedy Lamarr: "most beautiful woman" by day, inventor by night

I still think this is the coolest story: I've never seen a Hedy Lamarr movie but in the 40s, she helped develop a technology for the war effort that became the precursor for today's wi-fi and cell networks. "That's Hedley!" [smile]

Last night's listening:

The late Leonard Rosenman's score for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is definitely the odd one out in the Trek musical canon and many fans (including me) have always had mixed reactions to it. My opinion improved last December when Intrada released the complete score, remastered with extensive liner notes and alternate cues, including two long sought-after pieces: an alternate version of the main title in which Rosenman reprises the theme to the original series, and the complete version of "I Hate You" which blasts from the punk's boombox during the bus scene, making this the first Trek soundtrack album with an Explicit Lyric warning! (You don't hear it in the film but the F-word is used at the end of the song.)

Questionable Trek vol. 4

2012-02-28T09:00:00.003-05:00

Probably the most interesting character on Star Trek TNG, and certainly a fan favorite, was Lt. Cmdr. Data. He's got it all: creepy pale skin, girlfriend troubles, a no-good brother in a biker gang (The Ex Borgs), and the complete memories of over 4,000 colonists. He even met Mark Twain. But it could'a been better. . .

Question from Andrew: "Scott, give me five criticisms of Data."

Scott: Some of these might sound nitpicky, not to mention much of this is the fault of the writers and not actor Brent Spiner.

1. For starters, he's an android who is capable of performing sixty trillion operations per second... yet he can't use contractions? What was the purpose of this particular quirk? (I think it came in handy in one episode... and that was it. Besides, the show was rather inconsistent with this anyway.)

2. There were times when the crew would become affected by some Virus of the Week and, for some reason, Data would be affected, too, even though he's an android and you'd think he'd be immune to such things.

3. Data was always trying to understand the human capacity for humor... except these scenes were often more cheesy and/or cloying than anything else. And they weren't very funny.

4. In retrospect, there was a major flaw inherent to the character: Data endeavors to become more human and in the first TNG film, he's given an emotion chip. So what do they do? In the next film, he is able to switch it off (which defeats the purpose). In the next film, we find out he can actually remove it when it suits him. In the final TNG film, he doesn't exhibit any emotions at all - the creators had hit a wall with the character and the character (and audience) suffered for it.

5. I'm not entirely sure I buy his, uh, one-night stand with security chief Tasha Yar. We never really learned how that worked but it was the 80s - there were certain things you just couldn't do on TV back then! [smile]

Andrew’s Response:

Excellent criticisms, Scott. I would suggest the big problem with Data is inconsistency. His abilities seem to come and go as needed for the storyline. Also, he supposedly lacks emotion and yet they didn’t really stick to that. Instead, he only seemed to lack “obvious” emotions, i.e. emotions which were the focus of the episode. When the writers didn’t call attention to the emotions, he largely acted like just a regular human only stiffer.

On your point three, for me, the problem was that these scenes lacked a genuine willingness to explore humanity good and bad. Instead, they explored the cliff’s notes version of humanity and used these storylines more as a way to turn him into a narrator than a researcher. The few times they did set him free to research, I thought were some of his strongest moments.

Scott's Reply:

Fair criticism, though the problems you point out are simply part and parcel of writing a weekly TV series. I've honestly never thought about the emotion/"stiffer" element and I can't disagree. On your second point, I also agree about their willingness to explore both the good and bad sides of humanity, though I doubt Data would actively seek out "bad influences" - I can imagine a Very Special Episode where Picard finds out Data's joined a gang, which is something I would expect in Short Circuit!

The Great (film) Debates vol. 27

2012-02-26T09:00:00.034-05:00

Wait a minute, wasn't that guy wearing a red shirt a moment ago? And where did the bullet hole go? Oh, there it is. Wait! It's gone again! Ahhhh!

What one error (continuity, out-of-character moment, etc.) just kills you every time you see it?

Panelist: T-Rav

Maybe I have dinosaurs on the brain, since I answered with its sequel to another question, but the ending of Jurassic Park always bothered me. The survivors are in the visitor center and cornered by the Velociraptors; they look doomed, until the T. Rex appears from nowhere to fight the raptors and thus they can escape. Now, the movie established early on that you can hear the rex coming from a long way off, so how could they not have noticed it until then? This has always baffled me, and I get the impression Spielberg or whoever it was wrote themselves into a corner and couldn't find a way out. Either way, it's a weak finale to an otherwise good movie.

Panelist: ScottDS

I wouldn't say this one "kills" me but the preceding 42 minutes are so perfect that, to see a continuity error in the last 20 seconds is just a heartbreaker! In the popular Star Trek: TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise", a ship from the past comes forward through time, thus altering the timeline. The Federation is now at war with the Klingons and the older ship has to go back in order to restore the timeline to normal, even though it will mean certain death for everyone on board. In addition to the geopolitical situation, there are all sorts of aesthetic differences that Trek fans love to talk about: darker lighting, more widgets and panels on the bridge, stylized Sam Browne belts for the crew, as well as higher collars and black cuffs. Well, guess what. At the end of the episode - literally the last live-action shot before the final ship flyby - we see Geordi LaForge and Guinan in Ten-Forward (the ship's bar) and LaForge's uniform still has black cuffs, even though this is supposed to be the normal timeline. Anal-retentive? Yes. [smile] Maybe they'll fix it for the HD remaster that they're working on.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

There is no better known continuity error than Felix Leiter's pants in Thunderball going from shorts to long pants and back to shorts while he's flying the helicopter. But the one that always bothered me comes from a movie which is itself a walking continuity error: The Big Sleep... reappearance of gun, unexplained murder, Bogart gets a free trench coat, etc. The most glaring though occurs when Lauren Bacall unties Bogart, who has been captured. In the middle of this scene, her shoes suddenly vanish and she's barefoot. Then the angle changes and they come back. I can understand how continuity errors can happen because things get shot on different days or out of order, but how do you forget you were wearing shoes?

Panelist: BevfromNYC

It’s not in any particular movie, but I see it a lot in films and television. You know, the eating/drinking scenes where the liquid in a glass keeps changing from empty to full to empty to full. Or the sandwich is half eaten then will be untouched in the next shot. I think it happens more in television than in film, but it makes me nuts.

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: Black Swan (2010)

2012-02-24T09:00:00.083-05:00

Academy Awards are not a measure of greatness. To the contrary, they’re often better at marking films you should avoid. Black Swan received five nominations and won for Best Actress. Bad sign. Add in that this was billed as a snotty, behind-the-scenes, “insider” look at the world of ballet, plus my displeasure with Darren Aronofsky over The Wrestler, The Fountain and Below, and this looked like a loser. Imagine my surprise when I watched this and found it to be one of the best films in years. Seriously.

On its surface, Black Swan is the story of ballet dancer Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) who has won the role of the black/white swan in the play “Swan Lake.” She is plagued with doubts, a sexually harassing director (Vincent Cassel), a jealous stage-mom, and a young competitor Lily (Mila Kunis) with effortless natural talent. The story begins right before she wins the role and ends after her first performance. Sounds thrilling, doesn’t it?

Actually, this is a classic example of the marketing not quite telling you what the story is really about. In truth, this isn’t about ballet at all. It’s a psychological thriller. And you should give this film a chance without thinking it’s a film about sniping at a ballet. You won’t be disappointed. Before I continue down this path, however, let me put up the spoiler warning because pretty much anything I talk about after this point will be a genuine spoiler:

** Spoiler Alert – I recommend seeing this film before continuing. **

One of the first things to strike you when you watch this film is how nasty everyone seems. Cassel is a sexual harasser who thinks he has the right to openly demand that his leading ladies sleep with him. He’s smarmy, rotten, and indifferent to the harm he’s doing to these women. His last conquest, who he has apparently forced into retirement, lives in a perpetual jealous rage. Sayers’ mother is like a living version of Norman Bates’ mother. She watches Sayers like a hawk, even creeping into her room at night, and keeps her trapped in the apartment. She also pounds Sayers with constant barbs about how she gave up her career as a dancer to raise Sayers. Lily is even worse. She’s a flirt and everyone loves her, and she seems to try very hard to befriend Sayers, but this just hides her betrayal.

All of this gets woven together so wonderfully that my first thought watching the film was that Sayers was truly alone, surrounded by hateful people all with their own agendas, who are trying to destroy her to satisfy their own perverse desires. And as their actions become more extreme, this film seemed headed toward a spectacular explosion.

But you soon start to realize something is wrong with Sayers. In fact, the plot moves so expertly that you don’t see the signs until you are deeply within her psychosis. For example, we see excessive shyness and social awkwardness, but it doesn’t seem outrageous. We see a rash, which she scratches, and her mother obsessing over her scratching it. We see her sneak into the star’s dressing room and steal her lipstick because she’s dreaming about being a star. It seems harmless. None of this raises our suspicions, especially because her conduct seems to be a response to the nasty, aggressive people around her.

Soon we start to see the truth. She is intensely frigid to the point of being obsessive. And her view of the others as sexual predators may not be true at all. For example, Sayers sees Cassel as a sexual predator, yet he never actually forces himself on her. She sees Lily the same way, but maybe Lily’s just flirty and is genuinely trying to be nice? That rash? It’s no rash. She cuts herself and doesn’t remember doing it. The stolen lipstick? It’s part of an eerie stalker-like collection. And then you have the visions. When they begin, you think she’s simply mistaking one person for someone else she knows. But as they progress, it becomes clear they are paranoid visions of herself, and soon we don’t know what’s real and what isn’t.

Usually when actors try to play crazy, they shift around nervously to make themselves appear different or do something maniacal while saying things that make no sense. The idea is to standout and seem abnormal. Here, Portman and Director Aronofsky do the reverse. Rather than make Portman act crazy, she acts sane and troubled by the crazy actions of the others around her, each of whom seems slightly over-the-top and exaggerated. Thus, while Portman seems sane, it’s only because we don’t understand at first that we are seeing the world from her perspective.

The visions are the perfect example of this. Rather than treating the visions as real and overacting to them, as is typically done, Portman very cleverly, through her acting not her words, tells the audience that she knows these are visions and knows they aren’t real. This adds an incredible amount of depth to her portrayal of insanity. For one thing, this feels more real because this is how most people probably fear insanity would creep upon them, i.e. that they would slowly lose touch with reality rather than it all happening at once. For another, it allows the audience to feel her insanity because they are just as confused about reality as she is. Indeed, rather than being an observer watching her rant and rave, we are a participant trying to figure out what is going on. Finally, it makes the audience feel her despair because she clearly needs help, but there’s nothing the audience can do to help her. Any film that can pull an audience into a character and make them feel the emotions of the character is brilliant and Aronofsky and Portman achieve that here through their brilliant choice to understand her insanity.

I think there are some excellent lessons here. If you want to portray insanity, focus on how the insane person sees the world. Remember that for many insane people, it’s everybody else who’s crazy. And crazy need not be stark raving mad. Portman and Aronofsky should be commended for this film. It’s one of the best I’ve seen in years.

Politics of Trek: “Balance of Terror”

2012-02-22T09:00:00.076-05:00

Let’s talk about Episode 14: “Balance of Terror,” which introduces the Romulans! Patterned on submarine films, this episode involves a tactical game of chess between Kirk and a Romulan commander with a galactic war hanging in the balance. It’s also an allegory for dealing with aggression and it’s firmly conservative.

The Plot

As the episode begins, Kirk is about to perform a wedding, when the Enterprise goes to red alert. An unknown alien craft is attacking a manned Federation outpost along the Romulan neutral zone. The Federation and the Romulans fought a war a century earlier, before the advent of warp power. The treaty ending that war and establishing the neutral zone was negotiated over subspace radio, and neither side ever saw the other. The Enterprise arrives at the scene of the attack to find the outpost destroyed and a sensor blip leaving the scene. Kirk and Spock immediately suspect the blip is a Romulan “Bird of Prey” (warship) and that the Romulans have developed a cloaking device. Kirk decides to destroy the Romulan ship before it can slip back across the neutral zone.

Why It’s Conservative

Liberalism and conservatism have fundamentally different views about the nature of aggression. Liberals believe aggression is the result of fear, by the aggressor, that others intend to do them harm. Thus, the aggressor turns to aggression as a means of preemptive self-defense. Hence, the liberal solution to aggression is to assure the aggressor that the victim intends the aggressor no harm. This was why liberals advocated disarmament in the face of Soviet aggression, to show the Soviets we meant them no harm, and why it advocates appeasement in the face of Islamic terrorism.

Conservatives reject this. Conservatives believe aggression is the result of envy combined with the aggressor believing they have the power to seize what they desire because the target cannot successfully resist. Thus, showing an aggressor weakness, either by disarming or by demonstrating a lack of will to fight back, will encourage the aggressor to become more aggressive because it makes aggressor more confident of success.

This episode comes down firmly on the side of conservatism. Consider the debate over what to do about the Romulan:

MCCOY: You're discussing tactics. Do you realize what this really comes down to? Millions and millions of lives hanging on what this vessel does.
SPOCK: Or on what this vessel fails to do, Doctor. . . .
STILES: We have to attack immediately.
KIRK: Explain.
STILES: They're still on our side of the Neutral Zone. There would be no doubt they broke the treaty. . . . These are Romulans! You run away from them and you guarantee war. They'll be back. Not just one ship but with everything they've got. You know that, Mister Science Officer. You're the expert on these people. . . .
SPOCK: I agree. Attack.
KIRK: Are you suggesting we fight to prevent a fight?
MCCOY: Based on what? Memories of a war over a century ago? On theories about a people we've never even met face to face?
STILES: We know what they look like.
SPOCK: Yes, indeed we do, Mister Stiles. And if Romulans are an offshoot of my Vulcan blood, and I think this likely, then attack becomes even more imperative.
MCCOY: War is never imperative, Mister Spock.
SPOCK: It is for them, Doctor. Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive colonizing period. Savage, even by Earth standards. And if Romulans retain this martial philosophy, then weakness is something we dare not show.
MCCOY: Do you want a galactic war on your conscience?
KIRK: . . . Prepare to attack.

Spock and Stiles represent conservatism. Spock argues that aggression is part of human nature and that showing weakness will feed that aggression rather than cause it to abate: “weakness is something we dare not show.” Indeed, he notes that for some people, aggression is simply a way of life, e.g. countries premised on a “martial philosophy.” This is directly opposed to the liberal belief that aggression is the result of fear and can be tamed by showing weakness. Stiles backs this up by noting that the Romulans have historically responded to demonstrations of cowardice with increased aggression, which mirrors our own history. Thus, they argue that the only way to stop aggression is to stand up to the aggressor, or as Kirk puts it, they are “suggesting we fight to prevent a fight.”

McCoy, the show’s liberal, is aghast that they are considering attacking the enemy vessel. He believes that using force against an aggressor will lead to a larger conflict, a “galactic war,” and he dismisses Spock’s view as prejudice, i.e. based on “memories of a war over a century ago” and “theories about a people we’ve never met.” He would rather let the Romulans destroy the Earth outposts and presumably sue for peace. This is appeasement. And the fact that he’s an appeaser is clear from his statement that “war is never imperative.” Indeed, if you never reach the point where war is “imperative,” then logically you are suggesting that you are always ready to make compromises to avoid war. That’s a statement of perpetual appeasement and ultimate surrender.

Kirk, true to his conservative form, rejects the liberal position and decides to stand up to the aggressor. His decision is validated by the Romulan commander:

COMMANDER: Danger and I are old companions.
CENTURION: We've seen a hundred campaigns together, and still I do not understand you.
COMMANDER: I think you do. No need to tell you what happens when we reach home with proof of the Earthmen's weakness. And we will have proof. The Earth commander will follow. He must. When he attacks, we will destroy him. Our gift to the homeland, another war.
CENTURION: If we are the strong, isn't this the signal for war?
COMMANDER: Must it always be so? How many comrades have we lost in this way?
CENTURION: Our portion, Commander, is obedience.
COMMANDER: Obedience. Duty. Death and more death. Soon even enough for the Praetor's taste. Centurion, I find myself wishing for destruction before we can return. Worry not. Like you, I am too well-trained in my duty to permit it.

There are several interesting aspects here. First, note how the Centurion believes the time to be aggressive is when you are strong. The Commander confirms this view of aggression when he says the Praetor will attack when he learns of the Federation’s weakness. This runs counter to the liberal belief that aggression is borne of desperation and instead shows aggression as being opportunistic. Note also the subtle anti-concentration of power argument, as the Commander observes that the Romulan people are trapped in a series of never-ending wars because their absolute ruler is bloodthirsty. And he even notes that he disagrees with this policy so much that he almost wishes he would die rather than succeed at his mission, but his own desires do not matter.

Note also the subtle anti-concentration of power argument, as the Commander observes that the Romulan people are trapped in a series of never-ending wars because their absolute ruler is bloodthirsty. He even disagrees with this policy so much that he almost wishes to die rather than succeed at his mission, but his own desires do not matter.

This dovetails with another conservative message in this episode: the importance of the individual. Unlike collectivism, which sees people like the Romulan as tools of the state, classical liberalism favors the individual. So does this episode. We see this both in the fact that the Romulan Commander obeys the collective against his better judgment and is destroyed, and in a fascinating speech where McCoy points out the value of the individual human life and how unique we are:

MCCOY: But I've got [an answer]. Something I seldom say to a customer, Jim. In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all of that, and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named Kirk.

But even more, we see it in a subplot about guilt by association. No human had ever seen a Romulan before Spock manages to hack into the Romulans’ viewscreen. At that point, we learn they look a lot like Vulcans. Because of this, Stiles begins to view Spock as a traitor. Some interpret this as a message about racism, but it’s really not. If it was about racism, Stiles would have hated Spock from the beginning. Instead, it’s a message about guilt by association. And Kirk will have none of it on his ship: “Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There's no room for it on the Bridge.”

This is a conservative message, though liberals won’t like hearing that. Conservatism, like classical liberalism, rejects the concept of group guilt and judges individuals on their own merits.

Modern liberalism, on the other hand, divides people into groups by race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., and then assigns rights and obligations, and assumptions about guilt/innocence to people through their groups. Indeed, this is the theory behind affirmative action, that people should bear the collective guilt for the historical actions of “their group” whether they partook in those actions personally or not. Similarly, liberals tar Christians for centuries old abuses, tar Catholics for the crimes of a few Catholic priests, seek to take the rights of all gun owners for the misuse of the product by a few, destroy the internet to stop a handful of pirates, etc. In each case, guilt by association underpins the policy, as liberals seek to inflict group punishment rather than just punishing the specific individuals who did the wrongdoing.

Kirk rejects that kind of thinking and makes it clear that Spock is an individual and will not be made to answer for the crimes of his distant cousins the Romulans.

Once again, conservatism prevails.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 26

2012-02-19T09:00:00.013-05:00

A couple weeks back we asked about movie detectives, but those guys are one-case wonders. Let's talk about the guys who do it week after week.

Who is your favorite detective on television?

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

O.k. it worked for film so why not here. Private sector is Craig Stevens as Peter Gunn. How can you not like a suave, urbane dick who likes jazz? ;) Public Sector is Helen Mirren in Prime Suspect.

Panelist: ScottDS

Sledge Hammer (though I think he was officially an "inspector") from the satirical 80s TV show of the same name (played by David Rasche). Creator Alan Spencer (who had thought of the idea as a teenager) based the character on Clint Eastwood's Harry Callahan. Like Harry, Sledge works for the San Francisco Police Department and his best friend in the world is his .44 Magnum. He is completely over the top, downright sadistic at times, has no problem with gratuitous violence, and won't hesitate to bend or even ignore the rules. His partner is the lovely Dori Doreau (Anne-Marie Martin) who manages to see some redeemable qualities underneath Hammer's tough-as-nails exterior. Their boss is Captain Trunk (Harrison Page) who is often exasperated and prone to migraine headaches, thanks to Hammer's antics. The show aired from 1986 to 1988 and when I finally discovered it in 2004, my first thought was, "Why haven't I heard of this show before?!?!" The jazzy theme was composed by a young Danny Elfman and the show managed to parody everything from Witness to RoboCop. "Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

Panelist: AndrewPrice

So many good choices from Magnum P.I. to Sherlock Holmes. . . but I have to pick Peter Falk as Columbo. His mix of supreme cleverness and his willingness to bait his traps with humility is just fantastic. Add in that he’d probably be fun to grab a beer with and he’s the guy I would call in a pinch.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

James Franciscus in Longstreet. He was blond, blind, and had a great sense of smell! He was cuuute.

Panelist: T-Rav

I used to watch a lot of detective shows growing up; there are a lot I could name, but Dick Van Dyke as Dr. Mark Sloan in Diagnosis Murder is probably my favorite. He did a great job combining his comedic touch with the business of detective work. (Angela Lansbury as Jessica Fletcher in Murder, She Wrote would be a very close second.)

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: Paul (2011)

2012-02-17T09:00:00.053-05:00

I’m a fan of Simon Pegg’s work. Shawn of the Dead was incredibly witty, clever and funny. It was a brilliant homage to zombie films. Hot Fuzz wasn’t quite up to Shawn’s standards, but was still well done and had great moments. Paul is flat. It also suffers from a giant liberal sucker punch.

** spoiler alert **

Paul is the story of two nerds from Britain, Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost), who run into a real alien, Paul (Seth Rogen), while touring the American southwest. Paul has been on earth for decades and has run away from the government. Pegg and Frost decide to give him a lift. Soon they pick up Ruth Buggs (Kristen Wiig), a Christian fundamentalist. The rest of the movie is a slow motion chase as they take Paul to a rendezvous point to be picked up by his own people.

Why Paul Doesn’t Work: The Sucker Punch

Let’s start with the sucker punch. Most of what people call sucker punches aren’t. For example, interpreting two groups of penguins helping each other as a message promoting collectivism and the United Nations is downright paranoid. And others are too weak to matter, like making an oil company a generic villain. But genuine sucker punches do bother me, and this film has one. Here’s why.

Paul was marketed as a comedic homage to science fiction, and no mention was made that this film would attack Christian fundamentalists, but it does, and it’s mean-spirited about it. Right after Pegg and Frost pick up Paul, they run across Kristen Wiig. Wiig plays an ignorant, closed-minded Christian fundamentalist who fights with the nerds over the issue of Creationism. Shortly thereafter, Paul implants his knowledge of the universe into her mind. Suddenly, she realizes there is no God and that she’s been wasting her life trying to be moral. For the rest of the film, she drinks alcohol, smokes dope, swears every other word, and become hypersexual. She also expresses disdain for other fundamentalists, whom she now views as stupid.

These are direct attacks on the beliefs of fundamentalists and on their intelligence. There is nothing good-natured about these attacks. Indeed, substitute “American Indian” for fundamentalist and then ask yourself if it would be considered good-natured for an American Indian character to suddenly realize that their beliefs are stupid, to adopt the exact opposite behaviors associated with Indian culture, and then to denigrate other American Indians for being stupid. Odds are, that wouldn’t go over too well, would it?

Further, Wiig’s father is presented as the typical Hollywood trope for fundamentalist Christians. He is a hateful man, who dominates and terrifies his daughter. When confronted with anything of which he disapproves, he literally reaches for his shotgun and his Bible. He is, of course, murderous.

None of this was good-natured. To the contrary, it is denigrating and insulting. None of this was necessary for the plot either. But more importantly, none of this was anything audiences would have expected from the topic of this film or the marketing of this film. That’s what makes this a genuine sucker punch. And so you know it was intentional, both Pegg and Frost are atheists who told the BBC they wanted the film to explore atheism.

Why Paul Doesn’t Work: The Humor

Sucker punch aside, this film is just flat. In many ways, Paul seems like the kind of film Judd Apatow would make if he were smarter. Indeed, despite the really broad topic Pegg and Frost have chosen with Paul, it is in essence an Apatow film with almost all the jokes being about swearing, being gay, or having sex. Further, the jokes are generic and are carried on FAR too long.

Swearing: About 90% of the jokes in Paul involve swearing. And I don’t mean that swearing is used to convey the joke. Instead, the fact that someone is swearing IS the joke. For example, it’s supposed to be funny that Paul swears. And the first couple times it is. But it soon becomes part of his character and just isn’t funny anymore. Yet, they keep treating each swear like a punchline.

Kristen Wiig swears too. In fact, she swears constantly. Here the joke is that being freed from her religious stupidity, she is now free to swear, which she does with reckless abandon. But, and this is supposed to be the funny part, she’s not good at it, so her swearing is awkward. This may have worked in theory, but it was very poorly executed. Wiig doesn’t come up with clever or creative lines, nor does she do anything interesting like speak hidden truths or say the inverse of what the rest of us would say. She just randomly tosses out words, e.g. “ok, penis milk.” It’s just not funny. Moreover, they never stop this joke. She swears in every sentence for the last 70 minutes of the film and it becomes tedious.

Compare this with Debra in Dexter. She has a lot of problems including inappropriate swearing. But the way Dexter handles it is hilarious because of the timing, the word choice and the reactions of those around her. Her outbursts are sporadic and so far over the top of what is appropriate that you literally can’t stop yourself from laughing. Wiig’s swearing, by comparison, is constant and without purpose. She might as well be adding a random word in every sentence.

Sex Jokes: Besides the constant swearing, Paul is largely a collection of sex jokes. Indeed, this isn’t the kind of film where you learn about an alien culture or get a new view of human nature. Instead, you get a series of jokes about anal probes and alien genitalia. You also get awkward jokes about sex with nerds, and you get a steady stream of gay jokes. Some of it’s funny, but it hardly lives up to the promise of an homage to science fiction.

Weak Referential Jokes: Finally, where this film does rise above Apatow’s work is in its homage to science fiction. Indeed, Paul is strewn with references to science fiction like a cowboy bar band playing the Star Wars cantina music, the use of lines like “boring conversation anyway” after a telephone gets shot, Blythe Danner punching Sigourney Weaver and saying “let him go, you bitch!”, and Paul sitting in the Raiders of the Lost Arc warehouse. In this regard, this film is very much like Shawn of the Dead where the references are well set up and used appropriately and creatively. The film also trusts its audience enough that it doesn’t try to point these references out.

That said, however, this film is way too shallow in this regard. Indeed, whereas Shawn of the Dead was tightly written, this film wanders and abandons the homage for large stretches as they revert to the sex and fart jokes. For example, the opening is great, as they begin at Comic-Con and they briefly lampoon many of the excesses and oddities of nerd culture. But this lasts only two minutes. Then they switch to gay jokes. Then there’s another brief montage of alien-conspiracy culture as they drive an RV through the southwest, which ends in gay jokes. At this point, you’re about five minutes into the film and beyond this point, the science fiction jokes become scarce until the ending. There certainly are references to specific science fiction movie moments throughout, but they aren’t the focal point anymore. Instead, the film becomes a chase film with occasional references to science fiction mixed in between the swearing jokes, the sex jokes, and the atheistic proselytizing.

That’s why this movie didn’t work for me. Whereas Shawn of the Dead was an incredibly smart movie which distills zombie films to their essence, Paul is a stupid Apatow-like comedy disguised as something smarter and with an obnoxious sucker punch running throughout.

Does Tom Cruise Die In War of the Worlds?

2012-02-15T09:00:00.126-05:00

Does Tom Cruise die at the end of Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. You’ve probably never heard that before and there’s no direct evidence that he’s dead, but I think he does.

Think about the odds that Cruise can walk from Staten Island to Boston in the middle of this alien invasion AND finds that these aliens have somehow missed the neighborhood where his ex-wife lives in the heart of Boston. Keep in mind, the aliens literally wiped out every other building along the way. Doesn’t that seems oddly coincidental?

Further, his ex-wife and her parents all look happy and normal, just like they’d stepped out of a J.Crew Catalog. There are no signs here of people who fled from aliens, people who have been living without water, food or electricity for days/ weeks, people who have been living in fear of death.

Also, Cruise’s son is with them. This kid was last seen charging into a hopeless battle, a big mass of fire. Yet, somehow, he survived and decides to give up his incredible desire to fight back so he can rush to his mother’s house in Boston? How does he arrive before Cruise? And why is he dressed the same as when Cruise last saw him? He lives here, his clothes are here, why not change out of what he wore to walk from NYC?

None of this rings true.

Also, why does Tom’s son suddenly respect Cruise when he has hasn’t throughout the film and when Cruise has done nothing to earn his respect that he could possibly know about? The ex-wife suddenly being so friendly with Cruise also seems odd. Yes, Cruise brought back her daughter, but he let her son run off into a battle.

None of this is impossible to believe, it just feels “too perfect.”

Tom’s destruction of the tripod which captured him seems odd as well. How can they be that easy to destroy? And why didn’t anyone else try this before? Even the soldier with the grenades didn’t think to try this, why not?

And what about that walk to Boston? This film meticulously followed Cruise’s every moment of the journey right up to the point where he blew up the tripod. Suddenly, we skip days or weeks ahead right to where Tom heroically tells the military to shoot the stumbling tripod and then skips again to his ex-wife’s house where we get an overly-happy ending where everybody looks just like Tom remembers them and all sins are forgiven? None of this fits the early part of the film. It feels more like a dream.

And that brings me to the final clue. This whole final scene is bathed in a strange, fuzzy light, which is normally reserved for “other worldly” sequences or dreams.

I suspect what’s going on here is that Tom died in the tripod and what we are seeing as an ending to the film is either a last second heroic fantasy Cruise has before he is killed or this is Cruise in the afterlife. Either way, I think he’s dead.

Thoughts?

Also, can you think of any scenes from other films which aren’t what they appear?

Questionable Trek vol. 3

2012-02-14T09:00:00.001-05:00

We began the Questionable Trek series by ranking the top five Star Trek films, today we flip that around:

Rank the bottom five Star Trek films from not-so-worst to worst.

Scott:

1. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
2. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
3. Star Trek: Generations
4. Star Trek: Insurrection
5. Star Trek: Nemesis

To be honest, there’s nothing really wrong with Star Trek III, it’s just the middle part of an unintended trilogy - the ending is a foregone conclusion, the low budget is obvious, and there are a couple of narrative shortcuts that stick out. Star Trek V is interesting - William Shatner had a much grander vision for the film but was hampered by a slashed budget, a writers strike, and an effects company ill-equipped for the job. The final product is a mess at times but, like Star Trek: TMP, it’s an old-fashioned adventure about Big Ideas (with an excellent music score). I loved Generations when I first saw it at age 11 but watching it now, I see just how badly written it is. “Plot holes big enough to fly a starship through,” as the saying goes, all revolving around a completely ill-defined plot device (the Nexus). Nemesis actually could’ve been a good movie but wasn’t, which makes it worse than Insurrection which never stood a chance with it’s Avatar-esque plot, ineffectual villain, and lame jokes. Nemesis tries too hard to be Star Trek II but fails. Too many decent character scenes were left on the cutting-room floor, the supporting cast was wasted, and the theme of nature vs. nurture wasn’t explored as well as it could’ve been. Nemesis turned out to be the lowest-grossing Trek film and ensured there would be no more TNG films.

Andrew:

1. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
3. Star Trek: Generations
4. Star Trek: The Search For Spock
5. Star Trek: Insurrection

This is an interesting question for a variety of reasons. I really despised the reboot because it was so abusive to the original material and so bland that it doesn’t even belong on this list. Instead, that horrid stink burger Insurrection holds up the bottom because that film did nothing right. There are things I truly hate in Generations, though all in all, it was a better movie than Search for Spock which felt like it was a two line transition between two films that someone decided to turn into a full blown movie. And why is Voyage Home down this low? Because it just doesn’t felt very Star Trek to me, and while I enjoy much of it, it feels dated, cheap and uninspiredly liberal in hindsight.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 25

2012-02-12T09:00:00.025-05:00

Comedy comes in many styles, from stand up to slapstick to word play to simple jokes. And different comedians are good at different things.

Who is the best comedic actor for physical comedy? (and what is their best role)

Panelist: T-Rav

Chris Farley in Tommy Boy, no doubt about it. Today, they might be called cheap fat-guy jokes, but his antics still crack me up every time I see it, and I love the energy with which he threw himself into his act.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Tough to pick just one, but I'd say Peter Sellers is certainly right up there, particularly with Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther series so I'll go with him. More recently, John Belushi was great with Animal House as his signature film, although, strangely 1941 was also one where he was great as I recall.

Panelist: ScottDS

I'm going to go off the beaten path and here and say John Ritter, who I always felt was underrated. I still miss him, too. He was one of those actors who made it look easy, which no doubt takes years of practice. As for his best (comedic) role, I never watched Three's Company but as a kid, I was a big fan of Peter Hyams' 1992 film Stay Tuned, in which Ritter and Pam Dawber (they play husband and wife) are sucked into a bizarre Satanic cable TV system and must fight for their lives in various TV shows: warped parodies of real shows and films with titles like Driving Over Miss Daisy, Northern Overexposure, etc. It's not a great movie by any means but it's a lot of fun. "Holy Shatner!"

Panelist: AndrewPrice

Physical comedy is not my thing because too often it's just falling down and playing stupid, slipping on banana peels and looking awkward about it, that sort of thing. But one guy who rises far above this is Jim Carrey, particularly in Ace Ventura. With him, the joke is never that he took the fall, it's the way he gets back up and that's what separates him from the crowd.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

I’m going to say Jim Carrey. Though his schtick is getting old, he is just hysterical in Fun With Dick & Jane. When they announce on tv that he is going to be indicted for stealing money from Globadyne and he starts running around yelling “INDICTED?!”, it’s hysterical.

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: Unstoppable (2010)

2012-02-10T09:00:00.165-05:00

Directed by Ridley Scott’s brother Tony, Unstoppable stars Denzel Washington and Chris Pine as two guys who need to stop a runaway train. This film is based on a real life incident where a train got away from an engineer who hopped out of his cab to manually flip a switch. In some ways, this film is completely brilliant and I absolutely recommend it. Indeed, it’s an enjoyable, exciting film which will keep you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately, it also pushes its brilliance too far and becomes a parody of itself.

** spoiler alert **

● The Challenge: Before we discuss what Tony Scott did so brilliantly (and so unbrilliantly), let me point out that making this film exciting was a much harder challenge than people may realize. At first blush, a runaway train seems exciting. Trains are ultra-powerful and can do immense damage when they derail. Add in an explosive cargo and you’ve got the makings of a real disaster. BUT don’t forget, trains are highly predictable. Even a runaway train will move at a constant rate of speed down a set path, meaning you know exactly where it will be, you can clear out the area of impact, and you can even knock it off the rails at a point of your choosing. Thus, in practice, a runaway train isn’t as exciting as it seems in the abstract.

So how do you make a runaway train more exciting? Scott found three ways to inject a lot of tension into the film. Unfortunately, he also pushed each solution too far.

● Solution 1: Frenetic Direction. Scott has an eye for color and scenery, and manages to get the most out of each shot by filling each scene with lots of action, e.g. people and cars running all over the place, and using quick edits and some shaky-cam moments to create a sense of frenetic motion which makes everything feel urgent.

Unfortunately, the shaky-cam annoys the heck out of people, me included. The problem with the shaky-cam is that it makes some people motion sick and will cause them to turn their eyes away from the screen and takes them out of the movie. And even if it doesn’t make you sick, it still wears you out because the shaky-cam is the visual equivalent of being blasted by high decibel music. This eventually makes you numb to the movie.

Further, there is a longer term problem with the shaky-cam: desensitization. As people get used to the shaky-cam, it will require ever increasing visual-stimulation to get the same level of excitement. Films that rely on this visual trickery to generate interest will soon seem boring and outdated. In effect, films shot like this are giving themselves a limited shelf-life, and I suspect this is one of those films.

● Solution No. 2: Aggressive Acting. Scott also added large amounts of tension into each scene by apparently telling his actors to fight with each other constantly. These characters don’t talk to each other, they shout at each other. They challenge each other and violate each other’s orders. He even has characters throw phones at each other. This gives the film a sense of tension and makes it feel like high stakes are being played out in each moment, even though they are all just waiting for the derailment.

But there’s a problem with this. Telling the actors to be as angry with each other as possible creates believability issues, which some of these actors aren’t able to overcome. Denzel Washington can. He’s angry about the way the company treats him and he’s angry at Chris Pine being an indifferent idiot. But Washington is a great actor, probably one of the best of our time. He’s got amazing screen presence and has never turned in a bad performance, and he absolutely has what it takes to carry off this character as angry, but not so angry that we doubt that he would do what he is doing in this film.

Chris Pine, however, lacks the skill to play the role. He’s not capable of convincing us that deep down this angry jerk would care enough to go on a suicide mission. Rosario Dawson also isn’t believable as the dispatcher because she’s so angry at her boss that she would have been fired long before, especially as her boss (Kevin Dunn, who plays a generic corporate villain) is equally angry in return and would never allow a dispatcher to be that disrespectful to him. Their relationship feels Hollywood-fake. And ultimately, all of this anger becomes too much and this constant fighting for the sake of fighting starts to feel like a parody of itself. And that brings me to the real issue in this film.

● Solution No. 3: Insane Writing. Dear God. As someone who loves good writing, this film appalls me. . . and I’m sort of laughing when I say that, but not really. The modern school of screenwriting says that each scene should involve conflict and should increase the stakes in some way. You should avoid scenes that don’t push the plot to a higher level of tension. Unstoppable takes that advice far too literally and becomes absurd.

To give you a sense of what I mean, here’s how this film comes across (assume each ellipse marks a new scene about a minute apart): we just learned there’s a runaway train! ...and it’s speeding up! ....and it’s heading for a populated area! ....and it’s packed with explosives! ....and uranium! ....and nerve gas! ....and it’s going to derail in the middle of town! ....and the phone lines are down so we can’t reach the town! ....and there’s a daycare center where it will derail! ....and every kid in town is at the daycare center today to receive an award from the mayor! ....and the Pope is a surprise guest! ....and the kids all brought puppies! ....one of the puppies holds the key to fighting cancer! ....and your wife just called, she’s pregnant! ....she’s calling from the daycare center! ....and there’s another identical train coming from the other direction! Ahhhh!

See the point? The first couple add to the tension nicely. But at some point, the writer goes too far and this takes on the feel of parody. The problem I had with Unstoppable was that every minute, they added some new complication and after a while this became a distraction. Rather than making the plot more interesting, it began to feel like the writer was showing off. Indeed, I found myself wondering whether the title, Unstoppable, wasn’t meant as a reference to the writer’s view of their ability to keep ratcheting up the drama rather than the train.

The best way to describe what happened here is that Tony Scott was absolutely brilliant at finding ways to make a rather dull story -- two guys chase down a train to apply the brakes -- into something exciting. But he lacked the feel his brother has for taking his foot off the throttle to reset the audience. It’s hard to keep the audience red-lined for 98 minutes no matter how many things you throw at them, and maybe it’s not a good idea to try?

Guest Review: In Time (2011)

2012-02-08T09:00:00.010-05:00

By tryanmax

I am stunned to think that this movie came from the same mind as Gattica. I had mixed expectations when I sat down to watch. The premise—time has literally become money and if you run out, you die—sounded a little clunky to me. But I figured that maybe Andrew Niccol could pull it off. Besides, dystopian sci-fi is my favorite genre and I figured, if nothing else, I could expect some fast pacing, cool, futuristic visuals, and some clever one-liners.

** spoiler alert **

Never underestimate Hollywood’s ability to let you down.

Synopsis (Note: the names have been omitted because I don’t care.)

Scruffy Poor Guy (Justin Timberlake) lives in a future where humans have been genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. If they want to live longer, they must earn more time. Time is currency; one can earn it or spend it. To keep track of time, everyone has a timer embedded in their forearm. If it reaches zero, you die instantly. A side effect of the engineering is that everyone’s speech is riddled with wordplay about time.

In the ghetto, people live paycheck to paycheck. (ha!) So when a Stranger comes to town with a century on his clock, it attracts the attention of a gang of time thieves called the Minutemen. (ha!) Scruffy rescues him and in return the Stranger gives him his time (ha!), effectively committing suicide—but not before letting Scruffy in on the “vast conspiracy.” For the first time in his life, Scruffy has time on his hands (ha!), but the Timekeepers (a.k.a. cops, ha!) think he murdered the Stranger and the gang is now after him, too. Scruffy decides to skip town with his Hot Mom and go live the high-life. Before he can reach her, however, she runs out of time. (ha!) Now Scruffy is out for revenge and he plans to take it from, who else?, some rich dude he’s never met before.

Flawed Concept

One of the challenges facing any dystopian narrative is that, more so than other genres, it relies heavily on a gimmick. As far as that goes, the one here isn’t all that bad. The trouble is that this can lead to a weak script if the gimmick is made to carry too much. That is precisely the problem with In Time.

Most dystopian tales deal with the individual against a repressive society, but the “time is money” concept more easily pits the haves against the have-nots. This film dabbles with both as well as third concept involving the desirability of immortality, which might have paid off immensely if it weren’t so quickly abandoned. After a bit of waffling, the film finally takes off on a social justice screed that is itself a gimmick.

It is apparent that no real thought was given to how a society such as this one might actually work. For starters, in the film funds can be transferred—or stolen—with a simple handshake, so the fact that this society hasn’t crumpled into total anarchy is something of a miracle. Besides, given the life-or-death consequences of poor money management, one should expect the average person to have the financial acumen of a mutual fund manager. Plus, there is no logic that dictates only the affluent can live past 100 while the poor must die much younger.

It’s also impossible to get a sense of value within the movie. Prices seem assigned based on the needs of the plot rather than comparative worth. A point is made of shocking the audience early with the idea that a cup of coffee takes four minutes off of your life. But a “decent lunch” costs about 30 minutes while a five-mile bus ride costs two hours and a typical loan payment is two days. Things get even more out of whack when the action moves from the poorer “Time Zones” (ha!) to the more affluent ones. Suddenly, things move from being priced in minutes and hours to being valued in months and years. This is supposed to illustrate the grave disparity between rich and poor, but when a century makes one astonishingly rich, even the well-to-do can barely be making ends meet. Maybe I’m obsessing over the details. Or maybe it’s just lazy writing.

Heavy Handed Liberalism

This may not be the worst movie I’ve ever seen, but it is definitely vying for the most blatantly liberal. From the annoying electric whine of all the cars to the token black guy who “gets it” when no one else does, this film practically has an “Obama/Biden” sticker on the back.

The film is so chock full of tirades, I can’t recall a scene without one. Several times, Scruffy broadly labels the rich as thieves. Sheltered Rich Girl (Amanda Seyfried) laments her privileged station a few times. Evil Rich Guy (Vincent Kartheiser) delivers a canned speech about Darwinian capitalism and the next stage of evolution—you know? the one that comes after conquering disease, age and death. Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) laments that Scruffy is hurting the very people he means to help because that sounds like something a cruel conservative might say.

And remember the “vast conspiracy” I mentioned earlier? Here it is: the rich live in luxury while the poor struggle to survive even though there’s plenty to go around! This is what liberals pat themselves on the back for sorting out? The only thing more juvenile is the plan Scruffy and Rich Girl hatch to bring “the system” down: steal lots of money and if that doesn’t work, steal more money. I hate to say it, but a plot like that makes “unobtanium” seem like pure genius.

Nothing else is good, either!

At the beginning I said I was hoping at least for a quick film with eye-candy and witty dialogue. This isn’t even that. At only 100 minutes, In Time feels interminable, and endless chase scenes aren’t to blame. Rather it belongs to a repetitive stream of leftist pontifications. The art direction seems to have been lifted from Gattaca minus several bucks, so the only eye-candy takes the form of the entirely twenty-something cast. Somebody must’ve told Niccol that a good script has a twist at the end, because there is one thrown in that contributes nothing to the story and isn’t all that surprising anyway. And the dialogue, well, I don’t need to waste your time. (ha!)

Politics of Trek: “A Private Little War”

2012-02-07T09:00:00.036-05:00

Would it surprise you to know Star Trek did a pro- Vietnam War episode? Prepare to be amazed as we continue our journey through the conservative world that is Star Trek the original series with Episode 45: “A Private Little War.”

The Plot

This week, the Enterprise visits the planet Neural in the Zeta Bootis System, a veritable treasure trove of medicinal plants and specimens. Kirk surveyed this planet thirteen years before when he was a lieutenant on the USS Farragut. What he found was a primitive but peaceful planet where villagers and Hill People lived happily side by side, hunting food with bows and arrows. But when he beams down this time, he discovers a group of villagers setting an ambush for a Hill People hunting party. Moreover, the villagers are carrying flintlock muskets, something they shouldn’t be able to manufacture at this phase of their development.

Kirk disrupts the ambush and reunites with a friend he made during his prior survey -- Tyree, who has risen to become leader of the Hill People. Kirk learns that the Klingons are arming the villagers with the flintlocks. Some of the Hill People want Kirk to give them superior weapons, but Kirk will only offer flintlocks to maintain the balance of power. Tyree resists even this offer because he’s a pacifist and thinks the villagers will return to their peaceful ways. But when the villagers kill Tyree’s wife, he finally accepts Kirk’s offer.

Why It’s Conservative

“A Private Little War” involves primitive people who find themselves in a nasty arms race as each is backed by a galactic superpower, i.e. the Klingons and the Federation. This is a metaphor for Vietnam, which was raging at the time. In fact, the original script referenced Vietnam and described the villagers as wearing “Ho Chi Mihn type” clothes. Even the revised script refers to “twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent.”

To call this story “pro-Vietnam War” is perhaps a bit of a stretch, because the story definitely laments the loss of innocence of the Hill People and the villagers, which can be seen as an anti-war statement. However, that interpretation doesn’t mesh with the deeper philosophical points made. To the contrary, the moral of this story is that you cannot back down in the face of aggression. And if the other side is arming their allies, then you need to arm yours. That is a very conservative point.

We see this moral in the argument between Kirk and McCoy over what to do about the Klingon Empire’s interference. McCoy, who is the show’s emotional factor and who often took on the role of advocating the liberal bleeding-heart position, was aghast that Kirk would even think about arming the Hill People. Presumably, he would have Kirk abandon the Hill People to the mercy of the villagers so they could live in peace as slaves under the villagers and by proxy the Klingon Empire. In this, McCoy is echoing the peace movement which rioted at the 1968 Democratic convention a few months after this episode was first shown (ironically, it was repeated 3 days before the convention began).

Kirk rejects this, noting that the only solution to aggression is to stand up to the aggressor. And if they fight through a proxy by arming that proxy, then you must provide your allies with identical weapons to maintain the balance of power. Here’s the script:

MCCOY: Do I have to say it? It's not bad enough there's one serpent in Eden teaching one side about gun powder. You want to make sure they all know about it!
KIRK: Exactly. Each side receives the same knowledge and the same type of firearm.
MCCOY: Have you gone out of your mind? Yes, maybe you have. Tyree's wife, she said there was something in that root. She said now you can refuse her nothing.
KIRK: Superstition.
MCCOY: Is it a coincidence this is exactly what she wants?
KIRK: Is it? She wants superior weapons. That's the one thing neither side can have. Bones. Bones, the normal development of this planet was the status quo between the hill people and the villagers. The Klingons changed that with the flintlocks. If this planet is to develop the way it should, we must equalize both sides again.
MCCOY: Jim, that means you're condemning this whole planet to a war that may never end. It could go on for year after year, massacre after massacre.
KIRK: All right, Doctor! All right. Say I'm wrong. Say I'm drugged. Say the woman drugged me. What is your sober, sensible solution to all this?
MCCOY: I don't have a solution. But furnishing them firearms is certainly not the answer.
KIRK: Bones, do you remember the twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent? Two giant powers involved, much like the Klingons and ourselves. Neither side felt they could pull out.
MCCOY: Yes, I remember. It went on bloody year after bloody year.
KIRK: What would you have suggested, that one side arm its friends with an overpowering weapon? Mankind would never have lived to travel space if they had. No. The only solution is what happened back then. Balance of power.
MCCOY: And if the Klingons give their side even more?
KIRK: Then we arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power. The trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides.

This is solid conservatism. Liberalism believes aggression is the result of fear, by the aggressor, that others intend to do them harm. Thus, the aggressor turns to aggression as a means of self-defense. This was why liberalism advocated disarmament in the face of Soviet aggression, to show the Russians we meant them no harm. Conservatism knows better. Conservatives understand that aggression is the result of desire: a desire to take something which does not rightly belong to the aggressor, combined with the power to take it. Conservatives also understand that we cannot eliminate desire as a human trait. Thus, the only way to prevent aggression is by making it impossible for the would-be aggressor to achieve their goals through aggression, i.e. to stand up to them.

This episode encapsulates that. First, note that the villagers’ aggression is not the result of fear. The villagers have nothing to fear from the Hill People, as shown by their prior peaceful coexistence. And the only reason they are aggressors now is they now have the power to take what they want. This is confirmed when Tyree’s wife tries to cut a deal with the villagers. If they were aggressive because they were fearful, they would have listened to her when she came to them. But they don’t listen. Instead, they try to rape her the moment they see her, before killing her, because their power over the Hill People has corrupted them.

Secondly, Kirk correctly calculates the conservative position and arms his allies. He knows aggression can’t be stopped with words or hoping the villagers suddenly become pacifists. He knows it can only be stopped if the villagers realize they can’t achieve their goals through force. He also knows that giving the Hill People superior weapons would only shift the aggression. Hence, the only solution to the Klingons’ interference is to maintain the balance of power. (This was the initial Vietnam strategy.)

Finally, as a kicker, Tyree rejects pacifism and his belief the villagers will return to their peaceful ways when his wife is killed because he realizes the villagers will always be aggressive unless they have reason to fear the consequences -- that’s human nature and how it responds to an imbalance of power. Conservatives understand this, liberals don’t. Liberalism believes human nature can be changed and they would have hoped to find a way to change the villager’s “violent natures,” e.g. address the “root causes” of the violence. Conservatives understand that human nature can merely be contained.

That’s why this episode is conservative. Because it applies a conservative understanding of the nature of aggression.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 24

2012-02-05T09:00:00.015-05:00

With the Super Bowl in sunny, beautify Indianapolis today, which oft appears on film, it brings to mind this question:

What if your favorite town to see on film? And was there any town that a film made you want to visit?

Panelist: ScottDS

I'm answering this in reverse. After watching films like Vertigo, Star Trek IV, and Basic Instinct, I'd like to visit San Francisco one day. Not only is there a thriving film industry there (most notably Francis Ford Coppola and Lucasfilm), it also appears to be quite scenic. I obviously don't know enough about the city in terms of local attractions (museums, theaters, etc.) but I regret not making it up there when I actually lived on the west coast. As far as a favorite town to see, I'm not entirely sure. I'm inclined to say New York City but we've seen it so many times - what is there left to shoot? I suppose I like seeing the suburbs in film, if only to compare it to the neighborhood I grew up (and currently reside) in. Think Spielberg in the 80s.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

Miami is a cool city to see on film, so is San Francisco, but I'm going with a surprise pick: Paris. And not just touristy Paris, but the old-part of Paris where films like Ronin took place.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

In true Commentarama-style, I will name the city I want least to see on film - New York City. It is pretty disturbing seeing the city in which you live blown up, flooded, pillaged, and flattened.

Panelist: T-Rav

After watching Home Alone, I always thought Chicago would be a nice place to visit, at least around Christmas. It may be a liberal craphole, and I'm sure it was nicer twenty years ago than it is now, but John Hughes made it seem like such a lovely bit of Americana. At the other end of the country, I like seeing New Orleans in the movies just because of how exotic and inviting they make the Creole culture out to be.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Philly. Not only does it bring back memories, but it is an incredibly interesting town in so many ways, particularly when you throw in the suburbs. Just think about M.Night Shyamalan's films from the standpoint of location shooting. Apart from Philly, anyplace that is not New York City, Washington, D.C., L.A. or San Francisco.

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: Unknown (2011)

2012-02-03T09:00:00.025-05:00

I like Taken a good deal and Unknown feels similar to Taken in many ways. It has some interesting facets too, some good, some bad. On the good side, Unknown handles the “stolen identity” concept better than any other film that comes to mind, and Liam Neeson is excellent as always. On the downside, the film ultimately feels flat and its politics are to blame.

** spoiler alert **

The Plot

As the film open, Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) arrives in Berlin to participate in a biotechnology conference. But he mistakenly leaves his briefcase at the airport, and on his way back to the airport to pick it up, his taxi accidentally plunges into a river. He’s saved by his taxi driver (Diane Kruger). When he wakes up in the hospital, he learns another man has taken his place. This man has identification cards in his name, family photos showing him with Neeson’s wife, and everyone accepts him as Dr. Martin Harris. Even Neeson’s own wife Liz (January Jones, who is awful here) seems to treat this man as the real Martin Harris. Is Neeson insane or is something else going on here? And why are people trying to kill him?

The Stolen Identity Issue

Generally, stolen identity thrillers face an uphill battle. While it’s certainly believable one person would impersonate another, it’s just not believable that they could fool the people close to the person being impersonated. Indeed, how could your family and friends not know the difference? What about co-workers? Even if you’ve only dealt with people over the phone, it still seems unlikely that an imposter could fake the voice, the speech patterns, and the level of knowledge needed to pull that off. Also, once you flash your ID to the cops, the imposter’s web starts to unravel.

So when I hear the words “stolen identity,” I cringe because I know I’ll be subjected to unbelievable setups, inexplicable behaviors, and a host of moments where characters need to act stupidly to make the concept work. This is problematic at best because any scheme that relies on everyone on the planet getting movie-stupid is not a great premise for a film.

But that wasn’t the case here. In fact, I was really impressed. I hate to give too much away and there are several twists, so I will proceed cautiously. The issue starts with the question of whether or not Neeson might actually be insane. Indeed for some period of time, you do genuinely wonder if the other guy isn’t the real Dr. Martin Harris and Neeson isn’t just suffering from head trauma. Soon, all the pieces start being explained bit by bit, and in the process a political intrigue is revealed.

Where this film truly deserves recognition is in the execution of that explanation. For one thing, the entire explanation makes sense. Indeed, every last aspect of it is perfectly logical once you understand what happened. Moreover, it is highly unexpected. This is not a solution you’ll see coming, but at the same time, it’s not so far beyond the bounds of common sense or so impractical that you can’t believe it. Further, it’s woven tightly into the political intrigue, meaning it never feels like a gimmick added to the film just to liven it up.

But most importantly, it’s executed perfectly in that the characters never act stupidly to make this work. The authorities don’t inexplicably ignore Neeson’s claims or become blind to obvious clues or throw up their hands in plot-driven helplessness. And all the pitfalls identified above are overcome. For example, it’s Thanksgiving, thus there’s no way to check with the American consulate to look for passport photos. Neeson can’t produce an ID because his wallet was in his briefcase. His wife’s behavior, the presence of his friend (Frank Langella) in Europe, and other similar issues are all reasonably explained. And Neeson isn’t a fool. That makes this a solid, enjoyable story.

Bland Liberalism Masquerading As Depth

All that said, however, there is a problem with this film. Specifically, the film lacks depth, both in the political intrigue and in the characters Neeson meets.

Drama comes from hard decisions, but there are no hard decisions here because the political intrigue is so one-sided. The film takes place in Berlin and it involves a conference where an Arab prince will giving the world for free an environmentalist-fantasy grain which would feed the world’s poor without the usual beefs environmentalists have with farming. Essentially, the greatest guy on earth is about to offer utopia. Yawn. This film would have been much stronger if there was some doubt as to who the good guys and bad guys really are. Yet, as Neeson discovers what’s going on, his choice becomes patently obvious. There’s some irony in what he’s doing, which I won’t go into, but there’s never a single moment where he needs to ask himself if he’s doing the right thing. That robs the film of a ton of drama which would have made the film so much stronger.

Moreover, outside of Neeson, the characters are flat. The bad guys belong to some generic conspiracy that kills people on behalf of rich companies. Yawn. There is never a sense of why they are actually doing this other than bland profit. As we’ve said many times, it’s hard to care about a villain who doesn’t even care about his own schemes.

And the good guys are even more pointless. By and large, they are nothing more than idealized liberal tropes. For example, there is an illegal alien from Africa who tells Neeson where he can find Diane Kruger, an illegal alien from Russia who becomes Neeson’s sidekick. This character adds nothing else to the plot, yet we’re supposed to care about him because the film tells us that Germans mistreat African immigrants and force them to live in slums (a total falsehood). And when he gets killed we’re supposed to care that his poor family in Africa will never know what happened to him or why the money he sends each month suddenly stops. Boo frick’n hoo. This has nothing to do with the story. And the fact the writer hopes to use this to humanize the story is a prime example that the writer had no idea how to connect the characters to the plot or the plot to the audience. This is what happens when you use an indifferent, generic villain.

Similarly, we are introduced to an ex-Stasi officer. He really does nothing to further the plot except explain the nature of the political conspiracy to the audience -- which actually detracts from the film, as it would have been better to have Neeson learn it himself. But again we’re supposed to care about him and again the reason we’re supposed to care is his liberal beliefs. He is presented as a kindly old former military officer who laments that, “We Germans are good at forgetting things. We forgot we were Nazis and then we forgot we were communists.” Oh gee, what a wonderful guy. Only, it’s crap.

For one thing, the Germans have spent the past 60+ years trying to atone for being Nazis. They’ve made themselves pacifists, built museums to war crimes, outlawed denial of Nazi crimes, made it illegal to sell Nazi paraphernalia, and given money all over the world to try to make good. No one in Germany has forgotten they were Nazis. But they did forget they were communists, and this film is a great example of that. It is a total whitewash to present the Stasi as just another military institution. They were in fact one of the more brutal organizations in history, and that gets whitewashed here, especially when this Stasi character describes how peacefully he questioned “suspects” without ever mentioning the torture, the killing and the spying.

But the bigger issue, again, is that he doesn’t fit into the story. He’s a plot convenience. The information he provides could have been found by Neeson in a newspaper. Yet, the writer mistakenly thinks he can humanize the story by giving us another liberal lament through this character. This is poor writing. It’s like the writer spent all his energy solving the stolen-identity puzzle and he didn’t have any energy left to put into the conspiracy and the supporting characters, so he just grabbed some liberal tropes out of the liberal-idiocy bag and jammed them into the story.

This is a good film, but it’s flawed, and that’s rather sad. Indeed, for a film that takes the horrid concept of a stolen identity and handles it exceedingly well -- a rare accomplishment -- the rest of this film doesn’t do it justice.

A Conservative Opportunity In Hollywood?

2012-02-01T09:00:00.018-05:00

I’m wondering about the future of the film industry. In particular, I am wondering if there isn’t an opening developing for conservatives? I don’t mean that Hollywood is about to open its doors to conservatives. What I mean instead is that Hollywood failed to lock the door and its audience is escaping. Maybe conservatives should think about offering them a new home? Consider this.

The entertainment industry has become an oligopoly (though groupthink basically makes it a monopoly). Six companies control 90% of all viewing hours on television: Disney, News Corp, NBC Universal, Time Warner, CBS and Discovery. These companies decide what you get to watch. They also own either in whole or in part, the major studios, who dominate the theater chains. Thus, a handful of companies are responsible for all the films and television you see. Even independent companies like Netflix or Blockbuster rely on these companies to provide them with content.

Ok, so why is that important? Because these companies have fallen into the same trap that all monopoly/oligopoly companies have fallen into before them.

When a company has “market power,” i.e. the power to exclude competitors and dictate to consumers, they get lazy and greedy. Specifically, they realize that it makes no sense for them to innovate or embrace change because their current business model gets them much higher profits than they could otherwise obtain in a free market. Thus, they put their energy into maintaining their monopoly rather than improving their products. This results in: (1) high prices which consumers see as unfair, (2) lack of innovation in the product, (3) an unwillingness to embrace technology, and (4) poor customer service.

The entertainment industry is beset by this. Films are generic so they can be marketed to the broadest possible market. No risks are taken. To make foreign sales, the film companies now strip out anything from films that would harm the films in any region, rather than customizing them by region. Hollywood also forces theaters into a destructive business model. And they fight any technological change which would give consumers greater choice. This is the exact course the music industry charted to its near death.

All of this results in falling box office attendance, falling numbers for cable subscribers, and an increase in pirating.

But here’s the thing. This isn’t 1950. Technology is giving people a way around the entertainment monopoly. The web has made it ridiculously easy to self-publish a book, a record, or even a film. Indeed, you no longer need a distribution network or a chain of theaters to get your film shown. Similarly, modern technology has made it incredibly cheap to shoot movies as you no longer need million dollar cameras and miles of film or a multimillion dollar studio backing you. All you need is a solid digital camera, an eye for using it and editing software.

My point is this. Hollywood is pricing itself out of the market right now at the exact time that technology has opened up avenues for alternatives. Moreover, Hollywood has chosen this moment to start turning out corporate computer-generated crappola for product and is busy stripping out the great dialog (too complex for foreign audiences), the cool humor (too many people might not get it), and the cool patriotic and pro-human themes audiences love (won’t play in China or Berkley).

This creates an opportunity. If conservatives are smart, they can create a new Hollywood, picking up the opportunities Hollywood won’t touch and selling them to audience over the net, either through the creation of a new film site, eHollywood, or in partnerships with the likes of Blockbuster and Netflix. This is an historic opportunity to get ahead of the curve and conservatives should seize it.

Am I right or wrong? What would it take for you to start watching truly independent films?

Questionable Trek vol. 2

2012-01-31T09:00:00.001-05:00

Let’s continue with our Questionable Trek series. Today’s question comes from Scott and it’s about Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khaaaaaaaan! (1982).

Question From Scott: “You ranked Star Trek II as your second favorite film in the last question. Give me five criticisms of the film.”

Andrew’s Answer: Tough question Scott, but I am all about criticism, so......

1. The dialog actually gets pretty sloppy and there are moments where it makes no sense if you think about it. For example, in the classic scene where they get the Reliant to lower her shields, why does Khan interrupt Kirk and Spock? He doesn’t want anything and then he acts like Kirk interrupted him.

2. Kirk’s son is a whiny, wussy, waste. I’d phaser him.

3. There is a sense throughout the film that the original crew is too old. I wish they would have dropped this. It adds an unneeded element of depression to a film that is about action and vengeance and other extreme emotions.

4. This film starts the disrespect for the Star Trek history. Why did they let Khan capture Chekov and then claim he “never forgets a face” when he never met Chekov? How hard would it have been to use Sulu instead and respect the history of the series? This, like point 3, set a bad precedent.

5. I don’t like the way they refer to THE Enterprise as “Enterprise” and Savick as “Mr. Saavik.” This strikes me as an attempt to sound more military but it’s wrong and it sounds jarring.

Scott’s Response:

1. Fair enough IF you really stop to think about it, but the film is so well done (overall) and quotable that the viewer rarely has time to contemplate this stuff. To use another example I’ve mentioned before, Back to the Future has its share of time travel plot holes but because it’s done so well, we don't have time to think about them. Only when a film starts to drag does the audience start thinking about what they’ve just seen.

2. I don’t think he’s as bad as you think. I recall someone asking Nicholas Meyer during a Q&A session, "Why did you cast such a bad actor to play Kirk’s son?" He didn't dignify the question with a response!

3. I believe the midlife crisis subplot was done to compensate for the lack of character development in the first film (Spock notwithstanding) and I suppose the filmmakers simply wanted the characters to start showing their age. At least in this film, it’s part of the overall tone - Kirk’s surrounded by young cadets, Spock has a young protégé, Kirk meets his son, the MacGuffin is a device that can transform old worlds into new ones - it’s all part of a tapestry. Generations handles this in a more awkward fashion during the Nexus scene when Kirk asks Picard about retirement and tells him about making a difference - nice sentiments but it kinda comes out of nowhere. Nemesis handles this even worse with Data’s death. There was a great post-wedding scene with Picard and Data discussing human celebrations and the passage of time, which would’ve done a better job informing the death scene... except it was cut!

4. I never had a problem with Khan recognizing Chekov - most fans suggest that perhaps Chekov had been serving on the Enterprise during that episode, but below decks, where Khan could’ve encountered him. The bigger problem I have is, why didn't the Reliant know what planet it was?!?! They think it’s Ceti Alpha VI but it’s actually Ceti Alpha V. Author Greg Cox explained this in one of the novels but I know you don’t count that stuff. [smile]

5. I think the military stuff in this film works just fine. Star Trek VI is where I feel Nick Meyer went overboard with it (“Right standard rudder”?). Meyer initially had trouble relating to the Trek universe until he made the Horatio Hornblower connection. Trek, in his view, was gunboat diplomacy. To this day, fans still debate the nature of Starfleet: is it a scientific organization or a military one? Thankfully, Star Trek has managed to walk that line relatively well over the years.

Andrew’s Reply: On point 1, what bothers me is that these things would have been very easy to fix, but they didn’t. On the Ceti Alpha problem, that actually doesn’t bother me because I accept the idea the planet’s orbit shifted and it is now where Ceti Alpha VI should have been.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 23

2012-01-29T09:00:00.002-05:00

If someone who litigates is a litigator, then why isn’t someone who detects a detector? I don’t know, but for $25 a day plus expenses, I’ll look into that for you.

Who is your favorite detective on film?

Panelist: T-Rav

Character-wise, that would be Sherlock Holmes, of course. As for the actors who have played him, I think most have done a pretty good job (except for Roger Moore; really?), but I think you just about have to go with Basil Rathbone. It doesn't get more classic than that.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

I'm going with Bogart as Sam Spade in Maltese Falcon, probably only because I already voted for Dirty Harry as favorite anti-hero. Maybe I could cheat and do private vs. public sector. ;-)

Panelist: ScottDS

Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective Lieutenant Police Squad (a special division of the police department). Drebin was portrayed by Leslie Nielsen in the three Naked Gun films which, in turn, were based on the short-lived ABC show Police Squad! The show (which was cancelled after six episodes) was a parody of police procedurals but, just as Airplane! is primarily based on Zero Hour!, Police Squad primarily resembles the 1950s cop show M Squad, which starred Lee Marvin as Lt. Frank Ballinger. Drebin is a bumbling fool, but he always gets his man. His boss is Captain Ed Hocken (George Kennedy in the films, Alan North on the show). The show and the films were filled with ridiculous sight gags, puns, and non sequiturs, and indeed, the reason why the show was cancelled was because the audience actually had to watch it - creators David & Jerry Zucker and Jim Abrahams learned the hard way that most people simply multi-task with the TV on. The films reprise the show's classic title sequence and theme music and feature Priscilla Presley as Drebin's love interest Jane Spencer and O.J. Simpson as the hapless Officer Nordberg. Drebin battles a variety of villains including assassins, evil industrialists, and mad bombers. Oh, and be on the lookout for "Weird Al" Yankovic's cameos in all three films! R.I.P. Leslie Nielsen. "Nice beaver!"

Panelist: AndrewPrice

So many good choices from Eddie Valiant in Roger Rabbit to Peter Hustenoff as Hercule Poirot in Death On the Nile to Sam Diamond in Murder By Death. But when it comes to film, there's only one man I trust to solve my murder: Dirty Harry Callahan. You may not know if you fired five rounds or six, be sure does. . . punk.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Nick and Nora Charles of the Thin Man series! They served a mean martini and wore great clothes and always figured out “who done it”. And Asta the wire-haired terrier was cute too!

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

2012-01-27T09:00:00.008-05:00

Battle: Los Angeles looked like a big blockbuster film designed to attract an audience for two weeks and then be forgotten. Imagine my surprise to find a truly inspired film. And do you know what makes this film stand out? An utter lack of cynicism and a strong sense of patriotism. This IS a conservative film!

** spoiler alert **

Battle: Los Angeles is the story of a platoon of Marines who are called in from Camp Pendleton to defend Santa Monica when aliens begin an invasion of the Earth. The squad’s initial orders are to rescue civilians who are trapped in a police station which was overrun. But things get complicated as the aliens grow in strength and numbers and the squad finds itself stuck behind enemy lines.

Everything works in this film, from the effects to the acting to the writing. For example, when they fly to the battle, you never once doubt they are in actual helicopters looking down on a burning city. Explosions are realistic. There is no wire fighting. The battles are believable as well. They don’t overdo the damage to the city or the power of the weapons, nor do they downplay it to give the characters an easy out. Indeed, the battles feel entirely real and the city looks like a city that’s been under attack -- the level of damage even increases as the film advances and the battle spreads. Even the use of the shaky cam (something I normally HATE) is done well here to add to the sense of motion rather than just annoy the audience.

The aliens are great too. They are original looking and yet also completely believable, and we are constantly given little moments of insight, such as when we learn their weapons are surgically attached to their bodies. The story also does an excellent job of ratcheting up their threat level as the film progresses, and neither side ever acts stupidly to create drama.

Moreover, the film does a very credible job of presenting a realistic portrayal of how the Marines would deal with these aliens. Too often, films like this pretend that none of the characters has ever heard of an alien, a zombie or a vampire and thus has no idea how to deal with them. Not here. These Marines know what aliens are, just as you and I know, they just haven’t seen a real one. And when they do, their reactions are realistic, particularly with regard to how the Marines gather the knowledge they need to fight them. There is one particularly brilliant scene where the lead character, Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) tries to figure out where to shoot the aliens to kill them without wasting a lot of bullets. That’s the sort of thing Marines really would do.

Indeed, the military procedures throughout are highly accurate. The characters never ignore military protocol, rank, or the chain of command. They also use their weapons realistically, and not in cool “Hollywood” ways, e.g. standing out in the open machine gunning down dozens of aliens while firing two guns at once. In many ways, the procedures are so accurate this feels like it could have been a documentary about a real operation.

But where this film really hits it out of the park is in the writing. Modern war films have become cliché-ridden and are laced with noxious liberal messages: the military is power hungry, the military murders civilians, the military kills for oil and tortures prisoners, and our officer corps is full of stupid, arrogant racists. This film has none of that!

The platoon is made up mainly of minorities, which is the liberal myth that the poor and minorities do the fighting for America, but a funny thing happened after that starting point. Not one single character ever mentions race. . . not even in jest. These characters hang out with each other, care for each other and fight and die for each other and there isn’t one single hint in this film that they ever consider the race of their comrades. Moreover, the officer in charge of the platoon, Lt. William Martinez (Ramón Rodriquez), is an Hispanic character (several officers are minorities) -- something Hollywood rarely shows.

And while Martinez is fresh from Officer Training School, he’s not cowardly, stupid or unprepared as such officers are usually presented. And even though his veteran staff sergeant has to shake him out of his initial shock, he doesn’t fall apart or abandon his training. Indeed, unlike other movies that use this premise, the staff sergeant doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t overstep him, and doesn’t try to take over the platoon to save everyone else. He does what he’s been trained to do: assist Martinez to be a better officer.

None of the other liberal clichés are here either. None of these soldiers is power hungry or bloodthirsty. They are instead proud professionals who do their job without complaint. No one whines about not knowing why they are fighting or tries to surrender or betray the unit. They don’t rape or loot or plunder or engage in an orgy of violence. Not one of them is shown to be a coward. The same is true of the civilians who prove to be heroic in their own right. In effect, everyone is shown acting their best at the moment of crisis.

The film also avoids all of the toxic geopolitics which pollute other films. There’s no politician or oil company trying to exploit the crisis. There’s no CIA operative who wants to sneak home an alien body to create a bioweapon. There’s no general who really, really wants to nuke American cities. And there are no gangs who suddenly appear to create apocalypse kingdoms. There are just good people doing their best.

I’m sure some would argue this film is actually a veiled metaphor for America as a resource plundering nation that exterminates indigenous people. But that’s just not the case. There’s never once a sense of irony that the aliens are now doing it to us and no one suggests this is turnabout. Moreover, the aliens attack the whole world, not just America. And the American military saves the day. That’s not anti-Americanism.

Reinforcing all of this are a handful of truly stirring speeches. Nantz was brought to the platoon because their regular sergeant was away. There is resistance to Nantz initially because it is believed he got some Marines killed in Afghanistan in a raid. . . he did not get them killed through cowardice or incompetence as is usually the case in recent war films. This issue gets resolved later in the film and when it does, Eckhart gives a deeply moving speech about the responsibility officers feel for their men. This is not a speech anyone who hates the military could ever have written. In fact, the film is strewn with excellent speech where the characters explain why they fight. None of these fit the cynical modern mold. Indeed, unlike Tom Hank’s horridly defeatist speech in Saving Private Ryan, these speeches are deeply patriotic, such as when Lt. Martinez tells his squad they are “fighting for our families, our homes, and our country God dammit!”

All of this is highly patriotic in the best sense of the word. These characters don’t wrap themselves in the flag and then dishonor it, instead they honor the spirit of our nation through their every action and their love of the country, its people and their sense of duty. This is a film about people who believe in America and who will never surrender or dump their duties on others.

That’s why this film is so fantastic. It’s populated by good people doing their best for all the right and noble reasons. There is no cynicism and no irony and none of the defeatist, disheartening hallmarks of modern Hollywood war films. It is thus no surprise that liberal reviewers hated this film, because it rejects their ideological expectations about how the military, patriotism and race should be presented and it is an affront to those who want to hate America, Americans and the American military. That’s why they trashed it.

I very much recommend this film.

Scott's Links January 2012

2012-01-25T09:00:00.005-05:00

For those who don't know, Scott roams the internet far and wide. Because of this, he supplies interesting links to Big Hollywood every day. I've asked Scott to give us a list of the best links he finds each month and a quick synopsis of what's behind each one. Check these out. . . share your thoughts!

A look back at Last Action Hero

1993's ill-fated Last Action Hero starring Arnold Schwarzenegger is another guilty pleasure of mine. After reading this article, it's a miracle the filmmakers managed to get a frame of film shot. Egos, paranoia, money, and a release date against Jurassic Park all spelled certain doom for this tongue-in-cheek deconstruction of the (80s) action genre.

39 things we learned from the Dark City commentary

I haven't seen the film in years, though Andrew reviewed it back in 2009. I'm a fan of informative DVD/BR bonus features and while Roger Ebert recorded an excellent commentary track for the film, this article focuses on what director Alex Proyas has to say.

Why can't Hollywood get Washington D.C. right?

Try as they might, it's simply impossible for a film crew to get every single detail correct when they shoot one location for another. This article focuses on the Showtime series Homeland in which North Carolina doubles for our nation's capital.

The 100 greatest Simpsons movie references

I haven't watched a new episode of The Simpsons in years and I stopped collecting the DVDs after season 10 but as far as movie references go, it doesn't get any better than Troy McClure in Planet of the Apes: The Musical.

Out of print Blade Runner sketchbook available online for free

When this film was released 30 years ago, a book of artwork was published, featuring work by futurist Syd Mead, director Ridley Scott (an accomplished artist in his own right), and more. A kind soul has scanned every page and put it online for all to see.

Movie plots that technology killed

The author of this article is correct: Marion Crane would still be alive if she could check out the Bates Motel on her Trip Advisor app.

George Takei's greatest and weirdest moments

I'd say this one is pretty self-explanatory. Oooh myyy.

25 things you didn't know about Three Amigos!

This movie still makes me laugh after all these years. I recently bought the Blu-Ray release which has some deleted scenes, including a brief appearance by Fran Drescher as an actress (and the Amigos' studio rival). Sadly, the rest of the deleted footage - including a Sam Kinison cameo! - has been lost forever.

4 unexpected fanbases in popular culture

I'll never get over the idea of grown men who watch My Little Pony. I'm not kidding - they call themselves "bronies"!

The Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker comedy glossary

These guys have been responsible for much of what I watched during my childhood (and continue to watch today). This article explains the method to their madness. "Nice beaver!"

Last night's listening:

La-La Land Records recently released a 2-disc album of Elliot Goldenthal's score to Batman Forever. It's so nice to be able to hear music from the film that wasn't on the original score album from 1995. Yes, even as a 12-year old, I was aware of such things. The remastered music sounds great and, while many of the technical terms found in the liner notes go over my head (tritone?), it's interesting to get Mr. Goldenthal's take on the music and the superhero genre itself. I also love his inspiration for Batman's theme: when children play, they tend to make up their own theme music! So Goldenthal simply unleashed his inner-child and wrote!

Politics of Trek: “The Way To Eden”

2012-01-24T09:00:00.019-05:00

Today’s episode is Episode 75: “The Way To Eden.” Hippies. Dirty, smelly hippies. How can hippies be conservative? Observe.

The Plot

As our episode begins, the Enterprise captures a group of hippies who have stolen a space cruiser. Among them is the son of an ambassador, which means Kirk must treat these hippies as guests rather than criminals. There is an obvious culture clash here, but the Enterprise crew comes to see the hippies as harmless and accepts them. But the hippies aren’t harmless. They are led by a brilliant research engineer named Dr. Sevrin, who is a luddite and is leading the hippies to a planet he believes to be Eden. Sevrin is barred from traveling to primitive planets because he carries a disease which would wipe out the indigenous populations. When Kirk tells Sevrin he will not be allowed to continue to Eden, Sevrin plots to hijack the Enterprise. Catching the crew unaware, the hippies knock out the crew using acoustics. These acoustics are strong enough to kill if left on, and Sevrin leaves them on when the hippies leave the ship. Moreover, the hippies have risked intergalactic war with the Romulans by taking the Enterprise deeply into Romulan space. In the end, Eden turns out to be a poisonous, uninhabitable planet.

Why It’s Conservative

“The Way To Eden” is crawling with conservative themes. For example, there’s a self-help message when Spock suggests the hippies make their own Eden. There’s also the old favorite rule-of-law idea both when Kirk points out his frustration that he cannot put the hippies in the brig because one is an ambassador’s son and in this exchange where Kirk and Spock debate the merits of the hippies:

KIRK: Doctor Sevrin is their leader?
SPOCK: Yes. A brilliant research engineer in the fields of acoustics, communications and electronics on Tiburon. He was dismissed from his post when he started this movement. . .
KIRK: Well. But they've rejected all that and all that this technology provides. And they seek the primitive.
SPOCK: There are many who are uncomfortable with what we have created. It is almost a biological rebellion. A profound revulsion against the planned communities, the programming, the sterilized, artfully balanced atmospheres. They hunger for an Eden where spring comes.
KIRK: All do. The cave is deep in our memory.
SPOCK: Yes, that is true, Captain.
KIRK: But we don't steal space cruisers and act like irresponsible children.

There are two conservative principles here. First, Spock points out that seeking their own utopia is a worthwhile pursuit (imposing one would not be). This is conservative because the idea of the individual charting their own course rather than following the herd is the very underpinning of classical liberalism, which sought to give individuals the freedom to make their own decisions. It is modern liberalism which seeks to limit the risks people can take, the goals they may achieve and how far they may stray from the herd.

Kirk then counters Spock’s point by noting that a noble goal does not excuse criminal and selfish behavior. This is rule of law and respect for property rights, both of which are conservative positions. Conservatives do not riot, do not steal, and do not destroy the property of others when they are upset because conservatives understand the value of the labor and the sacrifice/risk the owner undertook to obtain the property and they respect others’ rights to be left in peace. Liberals, by comparison, see property crimes as harmless, and consider minor violations of society’s rules as excusable (unless it is a law they like).

But there’s something much bigger in this episode. Dr. Sevrin, who appears to be based on LSD/“turn on, tune in, drop out” advocate Dr. Timothy Leary, is using the hippies for his own evil purposes. He is a megalomaniac who wants to remake a planet of primitive people into his version of utopia despite the fact his body carries a disease which will kill those same primitives. Here’s the transcript:

SEVRIN: I have no influence over what [the hippies] do.
SPOCK: They respect you. They will listen to your reasoning. For their sake, you must stop them. . . . incitement to disaffection is criminal. The Federation will never allow the colonization of a planet by criminals. If they persist, they will be so charged and forever barred from Eden.
SEVRIN: As I have been barred.
SPOCK: Then you knew you were a carrier.
SEVRIN: Of course I knew. You've researched my life. You've read the orders restricting me to travel only in areas of advanced technology because of what my body carries.
SPOCK: What I fail to understand is why you disobey those orders.
SEVRIN: Because this is poison to me. This stuff you breathe, this stuff you live in, the shields of artificial atmosphere that we have layered about every planet. The programs in those computers that run your ship and your lives for you, they bred what my body carries. That's what your science has done to me. You've infected me. Only the primitives can cleanse me. I cannot purge myself until I am among them. Only their way of living is right. I must go to them.
SPOCK: Your very presence will destroy the people you seek. Surely you know that.
SEVRIN: I shall go to them and be One with them. And together we shall build a world such as this galaxy has never seen. A world. A life. A life.

There are three strong conservative messages here. First, this episode warns against charismatic leaders. Sevrin represents the danger of following a charismatic leader: there is no protection should the leader prove to be evil. If Sevrin gets his way, the Enterprise crew will be dead, a galactic war may start, and any indigenous population already on Eden will die. The hippies know this, but they wrongly trust Sevrin when he lies to them, as seen here:

IRINA: What will that do to them? What is it?
SEVRIN: Well, I'm using sound against them, beyond the ultrasonic. It will stun them and allow us time to leave. We'll go in one of their shuttlecraft.
IRINA: Sound pitched that high doesn't stun, it destroys. I remember when we read in the text that it--
SEVRIN: I've gone beyond those texts, Irina. It's correct for you to be concerned, but be assured also.
RAD: . . . It does destroy.
SEVRIN: We cannot allow them to come after us. It will not reach us in here. I can control it all. I have adjusted it so that it will suspend its effects after a few moments and allow us time to escape. Then, after we've gone, it will automatically reactivate. Rejoice, brethren. Soon we shall step together into Eden.

Note that Irina is a talented scientist who knows what Sevrin is saying is false, but she accepts his assurance because she has chosen to follow him blindly. This is how the Hitlers of the world come to power. This is also why conservatism subscribes to rule of law, rather than rule of man. Conservatism holds that the best society results when the rules apply equally to all and keep the country’s leaders in check. Liberalism, by comparison, is grounded in vague notions of fairness and it trusts charismatic leaders with extreme discretionary power with the intent that they will use it fairly. Sevrin shows the folly of that.

The second and related point is a direct warning regarding the hippie movement and similar movements. Mindless followers attract evil leaders. And by 1968, it had become obvious the American hippie movement was being overrun by radicals, terrorists, and communists, who sought to do harm. They used the hippies as a smokescreen. By not looking closely at the leaders of the movement, society let a dangerous, destructive element into their midsts. This point is driven home in this episode when the crew dismiss the hippies as harmless and when the hippies overcome a security guard as he is distracted by their music, giving us the conservative message to stay on guard and always find out who is pulling the strings and what they really want, i.e. trust but verify.

Finally, the episode raises an interesting question about tolerance. Throughout the episode, the Enterprise crew is told to tolerate the hippies: they may be different, but they are harmless. Yet, the crew is shown repeatedly that the hippies are abusing that tolerance, which eventually rises to the hippies trying to kill them. The message is clear, tolerance is fine, but blindness is not. You simply cannot tolerate someone who will not tolerate you. This issue lies at the heart of the multiculturalism debate, with liberals arguing that all foreign ideas must be tolerated and conservatives arguing that foreign ideas that seek to destroy Western ideas should not.

That is why this episode is conservative.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 22

2012-01-22T09:00:00.002-05:00

Where are my flying cars!! Science fiction may be visionary, but sometimes it’s annoyingly wrong too.

What do you think was the silliest guess about the future made in a science fiction film?

Panelist: T-Rav

I don't think there have been a lot of really stupid guesses about the future, considering how many things we have now that would have been totally outlandish a few decades ago. The one thing I've never understood, though, is the idea that we could press a button and food or other materials would automatically materialize. Not gonna happen. You can't make something out of pure nothing.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Planet of the Apes. Look, it is supposed to be science fiction, so I may have to revise this if I can think of a film that presents a dumb vision of the future and pretends to take itself seriously.

Panelist: ScottDS

1995's Johnny Mnemonic. It's obviously no classic and while I'm not exactly an expert on the work of William Gibson or the "cyberpunk" genre, this film gets quite silly at times. For starters, filmmakers in the 90s seemed to think that the Internet of the future would look like a Blade Runner-style theme park and we would all surf the Internet using virtual reality or some other kind of sensory input. We're not quite there and I don't see people wearing goggles just to read their e-mail. The filmmakers also failed to take Moore's Law into account. At one point, Keanu Reeves (the titular Johnny Mnemonic) complains that he has to store 320 GB in his head. I can go to Best Buy today and purchase a 2 TB drive the size of a paperback book. Oh, one more thing. . . the filmmakers failed to predict solid state memory and personal video recorders. Despite taking place in 2021, Ice-T's character tells people to fire up their VCRs. Whoops!

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I’m going with everything about the Star Wars prequels. Why? Three reasons. First, although these are prequels, somehow their technology got more advanced than the later films. Secondly, their world is incredibly sterile. It’s a world without personal effects, a world of soundstages. No one will live like that. And third and most importantly, none of their technology is useful. It’s a world with some cool stuff, but none of it is practical and none of it is stuff that would make people’s lives better or easier.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Does The Jetsons count? If so, where did the land go? Why don’t they have any roads? I know the cars fly, but what happens to all the “antique” cars that would probably require rubber tires and garbage powered-nuclear reactor engines? And if you can fly in a car, why do they use the vacuum tubes to get places? I mean really, what happened to the purple mountains majesty? However I really hope that one day we have instant dressing tubes. It would save a lot of time.

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

2012-01-20T09:00:00.026-05:00

I see where The Adjustment Bureau looked like a brilliant concept. Random chance brings a man and woman together. They fall in love. But God’s plan for the world requires they be apart. Angels separate them, but the man fights against God’s plan to be with his true love. That’s an incredible amount of fascinating conflict. Sadly, Bureau mishandles every aspect of this and muddles all the conflict, which makes it feel as tired and indifferent as the last few weeks of a canceled television show.

** spoiler alert -- I will talk about the ending **

The Plot

Matt Damon is the idealized liberal politician destined to become President. Damon meets a woman (Emily Blunt) and falls in love. Damon is kidnapped by men who turn out to be angels, and told he cannot be with the woman because it violates “the Chairman’s” plan (i.e. God). If he tries to be with her, they will blank his personality and leave him insane. Damon still tries to find her because he’s fallen in true love. He finds her. Now the angels warn Damon he will ruin her life and his if he doesn’t leave her. He does, but then goes back to her. Surprise! They chase him. He tries to see God to get God’s plan changed. True love conquers all.

Where It All Went Wrong

Based on a Philip K. Dick story, Bureau is one of those films that feels wrong when you watch it because you have a hard time caring about the things they tell you to care about, the mystery doesn’t seem mysterious, and it all feels pointless. Here’s why. Films are about conflict, and conflict requires interesting stakes. If there’s nothing worth gaining or losing, then the conflicts won’t interest the audience and the story will be hard to care about. Bureau is packed with conflict, but it keeps undercutting every single stake it tries to establish.

For example, there are problems at the outset with the believability of the characters. Damon is running for Senate and dreams of becoming president. This desire to be president is a vital point to the story, as you’ll see in a moment. But Damon’s character seems indifferent to the prospect. In fact, the only reason we know he wants to be President is because other characters tell us this is what Damon wants. This is bad writing and it happens throughout the film -- we are constantly told things are true even though there’s no evidence to support them.

The love story suffers similarly. Instead of finding some way to show us how much Damon and this woman love each other, we get only good- natured, self-depreciating ribbing along with a couple kisses. To convince us this is love and not just acquaintanceship, the writer has the other characters tell us repeatedly that these two are in love. In fact, they don’t just tell us they are in love, they tell us they are in God’s plan-shattering destiny LOVE. Yet, there isn’t the slightest hint of this from Damon or the woman. This is mainly the fault of really poor writing, but Damon plays a role in this failure too. Matt Damon has become a nasty man, and I don’t just mean politically. The likable Matt Damon of Good Will Hunting and Ocean’s 11 has been replaced by the brooding Jason Bourne, and Damon seems angry throughout this film.

Even beyond the love story, Damon’s character is hard to believe. He’s presented as the ideal (liberal) politician -- a young good looking environmentalist outsider who isn’t like other politicians. . . he’s “authentic!” And what proves he’s authentic is a concession speech he gives where he exposes the sordid underbelly of candidate packaging. But here’s the problem. This speech is pedantic and pointless. We’re supposed to believe he’s exposing some big secret which makes the world fall in love with his authenticity, but all he’s really doing is confessing that he paid a consultant to pick his tie and scuff his shoes. There’s no substance in the speech which would make the public love him. So how do we know the public loves him? Because every character tells us so -- the writer even obnoxiously has random characters call out Damon’s name as he walks around town and tell him they voted for him and they love him.

As an aside, Damon is clearly a white version of Barack Obama and the script is laced with Obamaism, like when one of the angels says he doesn’t know God’s plan because “that’s above my pay grade.”

But all of that is just the beginning of the problem. The film really falls apart when it gets to the stakes. The angels tell Damon that if he doesn’t abandon the woman, then his dream of becoming president will be destroyed. Those are the stakes: true love versus fulfilling his dream. But these are problematic stakes, because wanting to be president isn’t a dream people consider realistic. And there’s no reason to think he needs to be president to cause something good or stop something bad. Nor will he end up homeless eating garbage if he fails, he’ll still be rich and famous. That’s not really a horrible loss, so it’s hard to get worked up over this. Also as mentioned above, he certainly doesn’t seem to care about this personally.

And it gets worse. As the story unfolds, the angels tell us the reason he wants to be president is the plan calls for it, hence the angels put the desire to be president into his head. But this kills the stakes. Now Damon is being asked to give up true love or he won’t be able to fulfill a dream that was never his. See the problem?

It gets worse yet. For one thing, a little earlier in the film, when they established what the angels can and cannot do, we were told the angels can’t change your desires. Suddenly, we have a story-rules breakdown. Also, this undercuts his greatness as a politician because the angels tell us this desire derives from a desperate need to be loved by crowds. In other words, he doesn’t want to be president because he’s a principled person with good ideas, he wants to be president because he craves the public’s love.

Further, Damon is looking to give up “his” dream because he has fallen in true love with this woman, right? That’s what we’re told. And it is God’s will that they never hook up. Thus, this film is about Damon’s free will challenging the God-created fate which the angels are trying to impose -- indeed, this free will v. fate point is made repeatedly throughout the film. Only, it turns out that God had a plan before the current plan and in that Plan A, Damon and the woman were to fall deeply in love. And the reason the angels are having a problem keeping them apart is that remnants of the original Plan A are still out there interfering with the new Plan B.

Now think about this.

● This means Damon isn’t acting according to free will. He is instead a victim of two contradictory versions of fate colliding. Ergo, the entire free will v. destiny conflict is phony and we no longer have any reason to care how it resolves.

● This means the whole “greatest love ever” bit is phony as well. They haven’t fallen in love against the very will of God, they fell in love because God told them to under Plan A and screwed up his math on his new Plan B. Their love is not real, it is forced upon them. Thus, it’s really not worthy of being a stake and this undercuts the entire love story.

● The whole movie is premised on the idea that God can’t change his plan. This is why the angels are so desperate to force Damon to surrender his (non-existent) free will. But now we’re told God changed his plan already once for Damon. In fact, we’re told of two other instances where God changed his plan. Further, there’s a whole division of angels who swoop in to erase people’s personalities when they don’t do as they’re told, and thereby completely re-write the plan again. In effect, we’re told Damon is going against an unchangeable plan, yet that plan gets changed all the time.

● In the end, Damon tries to get God to change his plan. To do this, Damon goes through a door by turning the doorknob left instead of right, something he’s been told never to do because “that’s only for angels.” He does it anyway, “risking everything” and thereby proving his love is so powerful that God sees it as worthy of changing the unchangeable plan. But he’s not really risking anything because the angels are chasing him to blank him out. Thus, he either does this or he dies. That’s not “risking everything.”

This is why this film fails. It promises some interesting ideas but has no clue how to handle them as it keeps undercutting everything it does, from the conflicts it establishes to the reasons we’re supposed to believe the characters. And despite the cool philosophical implications of this film, the writer basically just wrote a chase-movie. Not only are ideas like omniscience, omnipotence, faith, and even the mercy of God ignored, but the writer chickens out on his subversive idea of man v. God by making the angels fools who can’t stop Damon, by refusing to call God “God” and instead calling him “the Chairman,” and by studiously avoiding all of the philosophical and theological questions. “The Chairman” could just as easily have been some alien or a government conspiracy and little would have needed to change in this film.

"A Night To Remember" -- The Titanic In Film Since 1953

2012-01-18T09:00:00.011-05:00

By Tennessee Jed

Few, if any, events in modern times have captured public imagination as has the Titanic disaster. That assertion is bolstered by the fact four feature length films, not to mention two made for television movies, have chronicled its demise. Numerous other productions, some dating as far back as 1912, feature either Titanic or a thinly veiled substitute.

Excluding the 1943 German film Titanic which was strictly Nazi propaganda, the other major productions each helped create or revive fresh interest in the story. The sinking of R.M.S. Titanic is the perfect template for the “disaster genre,” made all the more intriguing by the fact it was an actual historical event. Facts surrounding the disaster include all the requisite elements for gripping drama: who lives or dies, bravery, cowardice, chivalry, class distinctions, celebrity, unresolved mysteries, and abundance of eerie “what ifs.” The viewer invariably asks “how would I react under those circumstances?”

Most people today associate with the 1997 box office blockbuster that garnered eleven Oscars, and propelled Leonardo DiCaprio to mega-stardom. Movies with multiple “remakes” make for interesting comparisons. While later versions benefit from advances in cinematic technique, it is also harder to find a “fresh” angle. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the sinking, let’s review the major productions. No spoiler alerts required:

Titanic ( 20th Century Fox, 1953) - This was the first Hollywood feature film about the disaster. Although several celebrity millionaire passengers and crew officers are briefly portrayed, the focus is almost exclusively on one fictional family. Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck star as an estranged couple, Richard and Julia Sturges. She is traveling first class to take the children Annette and Norman back to America away from the foppish, high society world that engrosses her husband. In order to stop her, Richard secretly books passage in second class, then bribes his way “upstairs.” Their daughter falls for a young Purdue student named “Giff” Rogers (portrayed by a young Robert Wagner who looks eerily like Leo DiCaprio.) As Julia and Annette are being placed into life boats, Richard and Julia have a tearful reconciliation. Young Norman refuses his seat and remains with his father joining a chorus of doomed passengers singing “Nearer My God to Thee” (“Bethany” the American setting) as the ship founders. While helping lower lifeboats, “Giff” is knocked overboard, breaking his arm. He is pulled into a life boat and survives. Richard Basehart plays a young priest who had been suspended for alcoholism, but leads prayers as the ship goes down.

Modeling and special effects were pretty good for the time. Stanwyck was reputed to have been overcome with sorrow during the scene where she was lowered over the side in a lifeboat.

A Night to Remember (The Rank Organization, 1958) - is a highly faithful film adaption of Walter Lord’s 1955 best selling book. Because the book was so well written and the facts so compelling, it reads like a suspense novel. Lord scrupulously researched all information available at the time, reviewing testimony from boards of inquiry, plus newspaper and eyewitness accounts of survivors from both passengers and crew. There are a few scenes where slight artistic license is taken, but no wholesale fabrication of characters or fictionalized sub-plots. In reality, the film is more docudrama, yet never lacks for tension. Costuming was perfectly detailed and accurate, interiors perfect reproductions of the actual grand staircase, dining rooms, and smoking lounges were used. It is the most accurate of all Titanic films, even though exterior modeling shots were a bit weak.

The film stars veteran British actor Kenneth More as Second Officer Charles Lightoller, and is primarily told from his point of view since he was senior surviving officer and one of the more reliable witnesses. When I first saw this movie, I had not yet read the book, and knew little detail beyond that presented in the 1953 film. I was amazed to see how Lightoller survived after going into the freezing ocean, climbing onto an overturned collapsible life boat with several others, then somehow managing to keep it from capsizing by calling out commands to lean left or right as needed. All of this was accomplished for several hours without succumbing to hypothermia as ice formed on their soaked clothing. At first, I assumed this was merely incredible cinematic license only to discover it was a true account.

The British production, which took five months to film, added even more authenticity to the film with a cast mostly unfamiliar to American audiences. This film features an incredibly poignant scene with cellist John W. Woodward playing and singing “Nearer My God to Thee” in the more likely Horbury setting. It is fun to see a young David McCallum as assistant telegraph operator Harold Bride, plus Honor Blackman, and very brief uncredited appearances as crewmen from both Desmond Llewelyn and Sean Connery (the latter three later appearing together in larger roles in Goldfinger.)

S.O.S. Titanic (EMI, Argonaut 1979) - This production was first seen as an ABC “movie of the week.” At over two and a half hours without commercials it was presented over two nights. A shortened version cutting about 40 minutes was shown theatrically in Europe. Plagued by horrible editing, this unfortunately is the version used for subsequent VHS and DVD releases. Rushed into production prior to a rumored expedition to locate and raise the Titanic, it carries a definite television quality feel, but at least retains the distinction of being the first Titanic movie filmed in color.

The film stars and focuses on David Jansen as J.J. Astor, Cloris Leachman as Molly Brown, and David Warner as Lawrence Beesley (an actual second class passenger survivor who wrote a book about his experience.) Susan Saint James plays the fictional Leigh Goodwin, a school teacher and quasi-love interest for Beesley. As with the later Cameron film, a significant amount of time is spent with steerage passengers. In fact, there is a bit too much political sermonizing about the class distinctions of Edwardian England. Much of the footage was shot aboard the Queen Mary, and it appears several special effects shots were pilfered from A Night to Remember, then subsequently “colorized.” Bright spots include future great Helen Mirren in an early role as stewardess Mary Sloan, and Ian Holmes as J. Bruce Ismay. Despite some shortcomings it was a welcome addition to the Titanic catalog, the first re-telling in over twenty years.

Titanic (RHI Entertainment 1996) - Seventeen years later, another two part tele-movie premiered on CBS. It too leaned heavily on fictionalized characters to recount the experience of the sinking. Television, as is it’s habit, rushed production to capitalize on the hype generated by the forthcoming Cameron film. It shows, and this is clearly the weakest of the group in terms of sub-plots, dialog, and acting. Plotting yet again follows a pair of fictionalized first class and steerage passengers in romantic relationships. Perhaps the best thing about this version is that American audiences are introduced for the first time to the stunning beauty of the young Welsh actress, Catherine Zeta-Jones as Isabella Paradine, a married American passenger who is returning from Europe alone after attending a funeral. By chance, she meets her former lover, Wynne Park, played by the thoroughly dreadful Peter Gallagher, and they rekindle their long lost love while Mrs. Paradine struggles with the guilt of it all.

Before departure, a young pickpocket, Jaimie Perse (Mile Doyle), is saved from Queenstown police by two men in a crowded pub. One becomes quite drunk, brags about his upcoming passage on Titanic, and passes out permitting Jaimie to pilfer his steerage boarding pass. The other man who shielded Jaimie is the unsavory Simon Doonan (Tim Curry), a truly evil individual who happens to be a steward on Titanic, and uses his position and knowledge of the stolen pass to extort Jaimie. Curry is a fine actor, excellent villain, and produces one of the brighter acting jobs in the film. George C. Scott has a somewhat expanded role as the ship’s captain, Edward J. Smith. It may be the only time I’ve ever see Scott mail in a role, as his acting mainly consists of grimacing every time he speaks. Roger Rees (Cheers) overplays Ismay as the “go to” fall guy at fault for the disaster. In this film’s defense, almost all versions tend to unfairly promote a somewhat exaggerated, unflattering view of Ismay in that regard.

Also included is a gratuitous, inaccurate scene in which Doonan rapes Jaimieʼs love interest, Aise Ludvigsen, another steerage passenger he meets on board. Class bias is hyped and historical inaccuracies abound. On the bright side, discovery of the actual wreck in 1985 confirmed reports by many eye witnesses that the ship had in fact broken apart as it foundered. That effect was included, an improvement over prior films. The band does not play “Nearer My God to Thee” a distinct possibility.

Titanic (20th Century Fox/Paramount/Lightstorm 1997) – There is little that can be said about James Cameron’s Titanic that hasn’t already been said or written. Nominated for fourteen academy awards, winner of eleven, worldwide revenues over $1.8 billion. Essentially, this version became an incredible phenomenon, shattering all previous box office records. Cameron came up with a story that was original, and an angle that was fresh. He paid attention to details of historical accuracy, and put his $200 million of expenses to good use in terms of sets, costuming, and CGI. In short, the film deserves the success it attained. Once again, “Nearer My God to Thee” is featured as the last song played by the band using the “Bethany” setting.

This version of Titanic was first to make full use of the 1985 discovery and subsequent exploration of the wreck by modern deep water submersibles. The exploration is expertly woven into the story using a past and present format that permits the story to be told by the reminiscences of a 100 year old survivor. The screenplay proves just how well the events can be recounted utilizing fictional protagonists. Acting was overall first rate, particularly for the principals DiCaprio, Winslet, Zane, and David Warner. The inclusion of Warner in this film permits him to hold the unofficial record of three appearances in films featuring Titanic. (The third was Time Bandits which features a segment set aboard the ship.)

Cameron intends to re-release this film in 3D, 2D Imax, and Blu Ray as part of the centennial anniversary observance of the ill fated voyage.

Summary - We may never shake the grip the Titanic disaster still holds on so many of us a hundred years later. I admit to an unending fascination with the events, ironies, trivia, side stories, and human drama. As such, I appreciate all dramatic efforts to bring it to life. However, my own conclusion is that while the 1997 film Titanic is undoubtedly the best, most elaborate recounting ever made, A Night To Remember remains my personal favorite. The former is the most realistic visually and boasts a terrific screenplay. The latter unveiled more historically accurate events and a devotion to accuracy of sets and costumes than other films before or since. What is your favorite?

Defending Star Trek V

2012-01-17T09:00:00.002-05:00

by ScottDS

Let’s go back in time to the summer of 1989. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Licence to Kill, Ghostbusters II, the juggernaut that was Batman. . . and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, the film that easily could’ve killed the Star Trek franchise (but thankfully didn’t). I’d say a good 90% of Star Trek fans consider the film an unmitigated disaster – or at the very least, an odd curiosity, a vanity project for its director, a film that had the rug pulled out from under it by the studio. . . a film about Big Ideas without the Big Budget to pull it off. But I like it!

William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy had in their contracts a “favored nations clause” which stipulated that anything one actor received, the other would also receive. After Nimoy’s success behind the camera on Star Trek III and IV, it was Shatner’s turn. His original outline was titled An Act of Love and told the story of a holy man named Zar (later Sybok) who is searching for God. Zar hijacks the Enterprise and turns the crew against Kirk. After arriving at the planet where God supposedly resides, Kirk and Zar instead find Satan (and, by extension, God exists). Zar dies and Kirk manages to save Spock and Bones from being whisked away to Hell. The studio liked the idea but producer Harve Bennett (who had joined the franchise on Star Trek II) said it reminded him of a TV Guide logline: “Tonight on Star Trek, the crew finds God.” Immediately, the viewer knows this is impossible.

Ultimately, the crew would not find Satan, but instead an alien entity masquerading as God. Gene Roddenberry had his misgivings and both Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley demanded revisions: neither Spock nor McCoy would ever betray Kirk. Screenwriter David Loughery was hired to turn Shatner’s outline into a script but two things were working against him: the 1988 Writers Guild strike and the studio brass who, after the success of Star Trek IV, wanted more humor in the film. The studio also demanded budget cuts, which meant Shatner had to scale back his vision for the ending, which involved angels and demons in a rather Dante-esque tableau. Shatner and Co. scrapped this and went with six lumbering rockmen. . . then later one rockman. . . then finally some flying energy bolts. Unfortunately, Industrial Light & Magic wasn’t available to produce the visual effects and the filmmakers went with Associates and Ferren in New York. As anyone can see from the final film, they were in over their heads.

Looking back at the film now with the benefit of hindsight, it’s actually not bad. I think it’s better than the last two TNG films (Insurrection and Nemesis) and I give this film all the credit in the world for having a big heart and for wearing it on its sleeve. As much as Shatner enjoys action, he also dares to ask the Big Questions about man’s purpose and relationship to the universe. This harkens back to the first film which, despite its flaws, had a good old-fashioned sense of adventure. Whereas most of the films are your standard action films with Hornblower-inspired space battles and fisticuffs (not that there’s anything wrong with that!), Star Trek V is an adventure in which our crew sails into the unknown, survives it, and emerges on the other side wiser for having faced the challenge. There’s also a great familial feeling on display. The trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy has never been better and they share some heartfelt scenes throughout the film.

Shatner proves to be a capable director. This was his first theatrical film but he had prior experience directing theater and episodic television. I don’t entirely blame him for the difficulties he had to face here (all of the above plus a Teamsters strike!) and it’s a miracle we even got a watchable movie out of it. Shatner knows how to frame a shot and, as I wrote in my Temple of Doom article, establishing geography and spatial relationships is important. There are also some interesting camera moves (including a bridge shot which starts at an overhead angle, rotates, and eventually tilts to eye-level) and some great individual shots including one in the opening of Sybok riding his horse which looks like something out of Lawrence of Arabia, and another towards the end with Kirk, et al. walking down a mountain which is silhouetted against the sun.

The opening credits feature Kirk free climbing El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. While some may consider this nothing more than an ego trip for Shatner, I believe it when he says (in on-set interviews) that it is representative of man’s need to scale new heights. Kirk, Spock, and Bones share a poignant scene in front of a campfire where, as usual, they contemplate their own mortality and Kirk admits that he’ll die alone. This comes full circle wonderfully at the end when he tells Spock he thought he would die and Spock, having just rescued him, replies: “Nonsense. You were never alone.” Kirk also insists that men like them don’t have families – another line that is paid off when Kirk mentions that he lost a brother once but (looking at Spock) he’s glad he got him back. Bones: “I thought you said men like us don’t have families.” Kirk: “I was wrong.” It’s scenes like these that make geeks like me want to be a part of this universe and spend time with these characters.

Sybok is portrayed by Laurence Luckinbill, who does not get the credit he deserves for his performance. Sybok, it turns out, is Spock’s half-brother. He was banished from Vulcan for embracing emotion instead of logic. This is best exemplified in his first scene in which he laughs – something Vulcans aren’t exactly known for. Luckinbill portrays Sybok as cunning and manipulative (the character was inspired by televangelists after all!) but also strangely dignified and we genuinely feel for him at the end when he’s defeated by his own vanity and avarice. His best scene – and arguably the best scene in the film – takes place in the ship’s observation lounge in which he attempts to relieve Kirk, Spock, and Bones of their “secret pain” – which is how he’s able to amass followers, who are so grateful for the experience that they’ll follow him anywhere. We see Bones relive the experience of pulling the plug on his ailing father and Spock’s father’s initial rejection of him for appearing “so human.” Kirk will have none of this and the scene culminates in a great Kirk Speech in which he yells, “I don’t want my pain taken away. I need my pain!” It’s might be one of the best scenes in any Trek film.

Another item in the plus column is the excellent music score. This film marked the return of composer Jerry Goldsmith to the franchise ten years after his Oscar-nominated work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture. He reprises his theme to that film (which had since become the theme to TNG) along with his Klingon theme while developing four entirely new themes: a theme for Sybok, a theme for the “God planet” Sha Ka Ree, an Americana-flavored theme for the Yosemite scenes, and a four-note “quest motif” which he would use again in future Trek scores.

While most of the visual effects are subpar (Shatner and Co. admit this much on the DVD retrospective), there are a few great shots, including one of the Enterprise against the moon as well as a fun crash sequence in which a shuttlecraft barrels its way into the shuttlebay. The scale is off but it’s still exciting. No one will ever argue that Star Trek is about special effects but, sadly, this is one film in which they were sorely needed. Ironically, the low budget meant they had to produce many of the effects in camera (without compositing) and there are some good shots that resulted from this, mainly any shot in which we see outside the Enterprise through a window. With bluescreen, the camera would most likely have been locked down. . . but with rear projection live on the set, Shatner could have a moving camera and there would be no matte lines.

As much as I enjoyed the new Star Trek reboot, it wasn’t nearly as humanistic as this one, nor did it have that extra little bit of intellectual “oomph,” the Big Ideas that keep people thinking on their way out of the theater. At the end of the day, I think this film deserves another look. There are some good lines of dialogue and character moments and while some of the humor falls flat, some of it actually works, including the Yosemite “Goodnight” scene which must’ve been the filmmakers’ homage to The Waltons. If Paramount ever allows Shatner to produce a Director’s Cut of the film, I’ll watch it (he was already denied once) but if they don’t, I can live just fine with the film the way it is now.

Bonus: Captain Kirk is Climbing a Mountain (Techno Remix)

The Great (film) Debates vol. 21

2012-01-15T09:00:00.002-05:00

Worst. . . sequel. . . ever. . .?

Panelist: T-Rav

Spider-Man 3. No contest. There have been a lot of bad sequels, but none which killed my enthusiasm for the whole series so completely as this one did. It's the rare movie that just made me feel worse the longer I thought about it later.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Hmmmn . . . how about Jaws 3?

Panelist: ScottDS

Hmm... I can answer this in any number of ways. In terms of massive disappointments, my answer would have to be - wait for it - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In terms of sequels that actually taint the original, we have The Matrix sequels. But as far as total cinematic clusterfraks go, my answer would have to be Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, which had a flawed premise to begin with, along with a couple of infamous producers - Golan and Globus of The Cannon Group - who slashed the budget at the last minute, which is why the visual effects are actually worse than the effects in the first film produced a decade earlier! You really can't help but feel bad for Christopher Reeve, who is probably the best thing in the movie. Oh, one more: Police Academy: Mission to Moscow, which went direct to video. Sure, the other films aren't exactly works of art but this film makes the first one look like Citizen Kane. I'm embarrassed to own it but it came in the box with the other six films. If I celebrated Christmas, I'd use the DVD as a tree ornament!

Panelist: AndrewPrice

Highlander 2. Highlander was a cool movie with a unique idea which came to a natural and complete end at the end of the film. Highlander 2 had no idea how to re-open the series, so it came up with some just awful reasons to explain why the first film really wasn’t the end and it could all sort of begin again. The film was so bad they basically ignored it when they started the television series and the later sequels. Essentially, everyone pretends it didn’t happen.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

This is a hard one. There are so many. I was most disappointed in the sequel to National Treasure. With the success of the original, the sequel was just a cheap imitation and the subject could have been interesting – The Book of Secrets – but it went off the rails.

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: Tron: Legacy (2010)

2012-01-13T09:00:00.000-05:00

Was Tron: Legacy the worst movie ever? Nope. I liked the soundtrack a lot, the effects were excellent and the actors read their words competently. It didn’t offend me either or bore me too much. So if that’s what you want, then this movie certainly delivers. Thumbs up! But if you’re one of those picky people who want more than a placebo for a film, then this one isn’t for you.

** spoiler alert **

I usually start my reviews by outlining the plot, but that’s not possible here because there really wasn’t one. Basically, the hero gets sucked into the computer world, does some disc fighting, has a motorcycle chase, meets the be-breasted NewTron (this time called Quorra. . . which is Latin for “not all there”), finds his dad, gets told how to get back out of the computer, and leaves. It takes 98 minutes before we even find out the bad guy (evil Jeff Bridges) is up to something more than just being evil, and even then we don’t really know what. He’s built an army and wants to do something to the outside world. But what exactly he wants to do is never really spelled out because this film has an aversion to substance. His big beef seems to be imperfection, which makes me think he’s a spell checker gone rogue.

The rest of the movie is pretty much nonsense too. First of all, the film is a scene-by-scene theft of Tron. Indeed, if you lined up the order of events in Tron, and the events here you will see they are identical, they’re just hidden by different effects. Also, much of the film is stolen directly from The Matrix, such as the effects in the digital desert, the techno music during the fights, the wire-fighting, and even the black-clad hero is just Neo with less personality. . . yeah.

The fascinating bit, though, is the utter lack of substance in this film. Observe:

This film supposedly takes place inside a computer world like the original, but nothing tells you that. One of the strongest aspects of Tron was that it was strangely believable. Sure, computers don’t really work this way, but Tron set up a believable world where the characters acted as one would expect computer programs to act if they were given human form. Their actions, their desires, their conflicts all reflected perfectly the kinds of issues that occur inside a computer -- struggles for access, energy needs, security measures, etc.

All that’s gone in Legacy and these programs never really act like programs. They attend gladiatorial games where they cheer the death of other programs. They attend clubs where they dance and drink. One program is suicidal. Several programs seem to be motivated by sex. And through this all, there is no sense that the actors were given rules to follow to make them act like programs rather than just club kids. Plus, in the end, these programs are all pretty pointless to the plot.

Neo is pointless too. He comes, he leaves. He does little else. Also, his character is set up as a generic rebel, but he never mentions anything he cares about -- either pro or con, and this “rebel” owns all the shares of the company and thus controls the company, so his once-per-year “struggle” against the evil company is nonsense. Beyond that, he’s pretty pointless.

The good Jeff Bridges (Neo’s dad) had a purpose before the film began. In flashbacks, we learn he wanted to create the perfect computer world where all of us could move. . . no, I’m not kidding. Then he found these living things which aren’t explained all that well, but they all got killed so now he lives in a cave. Beyond that, he’s pretty pointless except he knows the way to the exit.

Be-breasted NewTron really adds nothing to the story except breasts. It turns out she’s one of these living things, but that goes nowhere. The only reason they mention that is so Neo can take her back to his world and live happily ever after with his electronic dream girl.

There’s a guy who owns a bar. He looks like those Albino things in Matrix II and he seems kind of important for about five minutes, though I have no idea why from the script. All he really teaches us is that he likes to rip off Doomsday when he dances during fight scenes. Beyond that, he’s pretty pointless.

There seem to be some rebels too, but they don’t do anything except show that black and minority programs are socially conscious.

There’s old Tron too, sort of. He grunts a lot and you never see his face. His purpose seems to be to add wire-fu to the film, but that’s about it.

Then there’s the bad guy, evil Jeff Bridges. He’s a knock off of the Master Control program from Tron only he spends his time bored watching the games and chasing after good Bridges’s identity disc because that will give him the power to let his army go forth and do something or other. . . somewhere. His goals are revealed to us in a very bland speech that is meant to suggest fascist tendencies, but is actually nonsense if you listen to it. I honestly could not sum up his plans for you.

Heck, even the action is pointless. This is one of those “go to point A so they can tell you to go to point B where you will fight someone to win the movie” kind of movies. There is no actual plot. The bad guy has no plan except stop the good guy. The good guy has no plan except stop the bad guy. There is nothing the good guy really needs to do to make this happen except arrive at the end of the film. The people who help him along the way impart neither wisdom, clues or skills which the good guy will need, nor does he really need their help. Basically, they just help him pass the time. And the few times they venture into something that could generate substance, the characters spit out meaningless dialog before they start fighting.

I am not kidding when I say this movie is truly substance free. . . it is Michael Bay’s wet dream. And I find this pretty shocking. They’ve stolen two movies -- Tron and The Matrix -- which crawl with philosophical and moral questions and they turned them into village-idiot-grade pabulum. Tron established a world where users are as much a mystery to the inhabitants as God is to us. The Matrix deals with the nature of reality. And Tron: Legacy stole these two films wholesale yet somehow managed to ensure that not one single idea actually comes across to the audience.

I don’t know if I should be horrified at the idiocy of these plagiarists or stand in awe at their achievement. Was this a mental tour de force where they brilliantly showed their power to suck the life out of something inspirational? Or did they just leave out the hard parts they didn’t understand? I honestly don’t know.

In any event, as someone who loves science fiction, let me suggest that films like this are ultimately very destructive. Films like this mock the idea that science fiction is capable of anything more than blowing stuff up. Films like this are undoing the legacy created by films like 2001, Blade Runner, The Matrix and even Tron.

Movie Rewind: Where Were You in ’82?

2012-01-11T09:00:00.001-05:00

By ScottDS

Along with 1939, 1982 is considered a banner year for Hollywood. Many films we now consider classics thirty years later (and a few we consider “guilty pleasures”) made their big screen premieres this year. Some struck box-office gold while others needed some time to be appreciated. Let’s take a look at a few members of the Class of 1982.

Blade Runner -- What more could possibly be said about Ridley Scott’s adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s story about replicant hunter (“blade runner”) Rick Deckard? The director clashed with crewmembers as well as Harrison Ford who, in turn, didn’t get along with Sean Young, and executives kept threatening to take the film away and recut it themselves. However, the film is visually stunning with details upon details threatening to overflow the frame, and features a stirring synth score by Vangelis, complex performances, an intelligent screenplay, and visual effects that still hold up to this day. Blade Runner was greeted with mixed reactions upon its release but found the fame it so deserved in the 90s with the discovery of an alternate cut. Ridley Scott later completed his Final Cut which you can find on DVD and Blu-Ray. “Wake up. Time to die!”

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- Paramount brought in TV veteran Harve Bennett to produce a Trek sequel that wouldn’t cost as much as the first film. Bennett, in turn, brought in Nicholas Meyer, best known for his Sherlock Holmes novels. Cobbling together bits and pieces from other drafts (including terraforming, a son for Kirk, and a protégé for Spock), Meyer turned in a script in 12 days. Leonard Nimoy and the studio eventually had second thoughts about killing off Spock so an epilogue was filmed in which we see his torpedo-slash-casket on the surface of the Genesis planet, thus proving that, in Star Trek, no one is ever truly dead. This film also marked the debut of Kirstie Alley (as Lt. Saavik) and was the first Trek job for effects house Industrial Light & Magic while the nautically-inspired score put young composer James Horner on the map. “Aren’t you dead?”

Poltergeist -- This film, chronicling the Freeling family and the malevolent ghosts that abduct their youngest daughter, remains controversial to this day. The question of who really directed it – co-writer/producer Steven Spielberg or Tobe Hooper? – still hasn’t been answered to some folks’ satisfaction while others consider the so-called “Poltergeist curse”: among other things, the use of real cadavers as props and the untimely deaths of actresses Dominique Dunne (strangled by her boyfriend) and Heather O’Rourke (septic shock during production of the third film). However, the film is a modern horror classic with likable characters, an ethereal score by Jerry Goldsmith, and wonderfully old-school visual effects. This was Spielberg in full “popcorn mode” and he’s never been able to top the string of hits he produced in the 80s. “This house is clean.”

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial -- Oh, how I wish I had been around for the craze surrounding this film, which became the highest-grossing movie of all time, holding the record for 11 years. The story of a lonely boy who befriends an alien, Steven Spielberg’s sci-fi classic was spawned from a couple different ideas he had been toying with, including a story about childhood and another about malevolent aliens who terrorize a family. The film has also been subject to myriad interpretations with some calling E.T. a Jesus figure and others labeling it a Jewish story: the ultimate immigrant’s tale. Of course, one group that was disappointed was Mars, who refused to let the filmmakers use M&M’s! Spielberg’s technical prowess is in top form as are his collaborators, specifically composer John Williams and creature effects guru Carlo Rambaldi. “Well, can’t he just beam up?”

Tron -- This film is the very definition of “ahead of its time.” After years in development, first-time director Steven Lisberger finally found a home at Disney for his far-out vision combining video games and computer graphics, which at the time were about as advanced as Pong. The end result is a visually dazzling tale of good versus evil, with Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner as our heroes, Cindy Morgan as the love interest, and the always-entertaining David Warner as the villain who seeks (virtual) world domination. Greeted with mild box-office and mixed critical reception, the film later became a cult hit and spawned a series of comics, merchandise, and a rather unnecessary sequel in 2010. Pixar chief John Lasseter pays the film the biggest compliment when he says, “Without Tron, there would be no Toy Story.” High praise, indeed. “Now that is a big door!”

Porky’s -- Writer/director Bob Clark’s film tells the story of a group of Florida teenagers intent on losing their virginity. After being humiliated by the owner of the titular club who promised them a good time in exchange for all their money, the boys plot their revenge. Along the way, they manage to spy on their female classmates in the shower and let’s just say one boy regrets this after the appropriately-named Ms. Balbricker intrudes on the scene. Truth be told, the film is rather uneven and many of the characters tend to blend together. There’s also a ham-handed racism subplot (with a Jewish boy mistakenly referred to as a “kite”) and many of the laughs seem to come from watching other characters laugh… but it’s all harmless fun. “Please, can we call it a ‘tallywhacker’?” (Sadly, Bob Clark and his son were killed by a drunk driver/illegal immigrant in 2007.)

Fast Times at Ridgemont High -- In 1981, a young writer named Cameron Crowe spent a year undercover in high school researching a book. He later adapted it for this film, which also marked the directing debut of Amy Heckerling. The film takes place within the span of a school year and introduces us to a variety of characters, including: stoned surfer Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn in the role that even his critics enjoy); Stacy Hamilton (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who loses her virginity and, in a rather dark turn of events, gets an abortion; Stacy’s brother Brad (Judge Reinhold) who hates his humiliating fast food job and is caught in an embarrassing moment by Linda Barrett (Phoebe Cates), whose pool scene caused many VHS tapes to be constantly rewound and subsequently damaged. (Oh, and be on the lookout for a young Nicolas Cage!) “Aloha. My name is Mr. Hand.”

The Thing -- John Carpenter’s adaptation of the novella Who Goes There? (which also inspired Howard Hawks’ 1951 production of The Thing) is a cold, claustrophobic, extremely effective horror film. After a tepid reaction at the box-office, the film has become a modern cult classic. Kurt Russell leads an extremely likable cast of character actors, including Wilford Brimley, Keith David, Charles Hallahan, Richard Masur, and Richard Dysart – just Average Joes living a humdrum existence on the edge of civilization as an evil force unknowingly lurks within. Rob Bottin’s make-up effects (this was before CGI) still amaze and disgust after all these years and the film ends on an ambiguous note as our only surviving characters decide to “wait [and] see what happens.” Production values are all top-notch. “I just wanna get up to my shack and get drunk.”

Also: Conan the Barbarian, Deathtrap, The Dark Crystal, Das Boot, Death Wish II, Diner, First Blood, 48 Hours, Night Shift, An Officer and a Gentleman, Tootsie, The Verdict, and Gandhi.

Will 2012 prove to be as memorable? I hate to sound like a cynic. . . but I’m doubtful.

Politics of Trek: “The Conscience of the King”

2012-01-10T09:00:00.015-05:00

Let’s continue the Politics of Trek series with Episode 13: “The Conscience of the King”! This is a fascinating episode about a man who executed thousands of people to save thousands more. What conservative message could this send? How about, the ends never justify the means.

The Plot

As the episode begins, the Enterprise has been diverted to Planet Q by Kirk’s friend Dr. Thomas Leighton. Leighton claims to have discovered a new food source, but he’s lying. He really wants Kirk to investigate a visiting actor, Anton Karidian, whom Leighton believes to be Kodos the Executioner. Kodos was the governor of Tarsus IV, where he executed 4,000 people, including members of Kirk’s family. He did this because the colony was running out of food and Kodos hoped to save half the colonists by executing the other half. Kodos was believed killed when he was overthrown, but his body was never found. Kirk initially refuses Leighton’s request. But when Leighton is mysterious killed, Kirk arranges events so the Enterprise gives the acting troupe their ride to the next planet. One thing leads to another and Kirk confronts Karidian, who is in fact Kodos.

Why It’s Conservative

A fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals involves the question of whether motives can excuse behavior. With rare exceptions, e.g. self-defense, conservatives judge people on their actions, not on what motivated those actions. Liberals, by comparison, take motives into account. This is why they consider things like root causes, the relative economic power of the parties, and whether the person’s goals outweigh the tactics they use to achieve those goals, i.e. do their attempted ends justify their means. Conservatives reject this and look only at the means you have chosen. This episode comes down firmly on the conservative side.

For example, Leighton lies to bring the Enterprise to the planet and Kirk reprimands him for it, despite the extreme importance of his request. Kirk then engages in trickery himself and thereby alienates and endangers his friends and crew. Both times the message is that the ends, no matter how important, did not justify the chosen means. But the real focus is on Kodos. Here Kodos tries to justify his crimes to Kirk:

KARIDIAN: Kodos, whoever he was—
KIRK: Or is.
KARIDIAN: Or is. Kodos made a decision of life and death. Some had to die that others might live. You’re a man of decision, Captain. You ought to understand that.
KIRK: All I understand is that four thousand people were needlessly butchered.
KARIDIAN: In order to save four thousand others. And if the supply ships hadn’t come earlier than expected, this Kodos of yours might have gone down in history as a great hero.
KIRK: But he didn’t. And history has made its judgment.
KARIDIAN: If you’re so sure that I’m Kodos, why not kill me now? Let bloody vengeance take its final course! And see what difference it makes to this universe of yours.
KIRK: Those beautiful words, well acted, change nothing.

Kodos is walking through standard liberal arguments here. First he argues that he acted with the best of intentions. This is the argument liberals use to excuse abuses of power: that the ends were very important and justify the means. Then he argues that he deserves “understanding” because he was charged with making life and death decisions. This is moral relativism because it asks that he be judged under a different standard than others because of the circumstances he faced. This is the idea behind the liberal root-causes argument, which says that criminal behavior should be judged in light of a person’s economic circumstances or personal history. Finally, he argues that punishing him will not undo the crime. This is the liberal impulse to dismiss all aspects of criminal justice except reformation. Kodos essentially presents liberal criminal law in a nutshell.

Kirk rejects these arguments with disgust and derision and doesn’t even bother to refute the logic: “all I understand is that four thousand people were needlessly butchered.” That is conservatism: all that matters is what Kodos did, not why he did it. Guilty.

So what about punishment? McCoy, the show’s bleeding heart, suggests there’s no point in punishing Kodos because his victims are dead:

MCCOY: What if you decide he is Kodos? What then? Do you play God, carry his head through the corridors in triumph? That won’t bring back the dead, Jim.
KIRK: No, but they may rest easier.

Kirk rejects this because he sees justice as a matter of principle and asserts that it must account to the victims even if they are dead. Liberals increasingly see this view as “vindictive,” which is why they oppose long sentences, victim’s rights laws and so-called “victimless crimes.”

Kodos then suggests he has suffered enough when he says he no longer treasures life and he laments how he has been haunted by his crimes:

KARIDIAN: Blood thins. The body fails. One is finally grateful for a failing memory. I no longer treasure life, not even my own. I am tired! And the past is a blank.

Actor Arnold Moss does a tremendous job of conveying how this has tormented Kodos even with only these few words, but Kirk dismisses this idea out of hand. Unlike liberal Captain Picard in “The Survivors”, Kirk does not accept the idea that self-imposed suffering is sufficient. Instead, Kirk takes the conservative position that crimes must be punished objectively and cannot be overlooked just because the criminal thinks the punishment is too harsh.

So what does Kirk do? Interestingly, he tells Kodos that he won’t kill Kodos despite wanting to:

KARIDIAN: Did you get everything you wanted, Captain Kirk?
KIRK: If I had gotten everything I wanted, you might not walk out of this room alive.

This is the conservative answer, though it is frustrating. This is Kirk returning to conservative form after his earlier abuses of power. This is his declaration that he will not use improper means to achieve his desired ends, i.e. he will not repeat Kodos’ mistake. Instead, he will let the system extract justice, which dovetails with Kirk’s law-and-order / rule-of-law conservatism.

So Kirk has acted conservatively. But merely arresting a man who thinks he was justified in killing 4,000 people isn’t enough to establish the complete conservative moral, which requires the imposition of a proportional punishment. Since there’s no time to show Kodos’ trial and execution (plus television is about drama), the writer imposes a little proportional cosmic justice and in the process makes the dual points that great crimes require great punishments and evil begets evil. Indeed, it turns out Kodos’ daughter has been killing the witnesses who can expose him. Kodos thought he had shielded her from his past and it destroys him to learn his deeds have poisoned her.

KARIDIAN: What have you done?
LENORE: What had to be done. They had to be silenced.
KARIDIAN: All of them? All seven? More blood on my hands?
LENORE: No Father, not anymore. I’m strong, Father. It’s nothing. . . . Don’t you see? All the ghosts are dead. I’ve buried them. There’s no more blood on your hands.
KARIDIAN: Oh, my child, my child. You’ve left me nothing! You were the one thing in my life untouched by what I’d done. . . Murder, flight, suicide, madness. I never wanted the blood on my hands ever to stain you.

She then kills her own father while trying to kill Kirk. The punishment is complete, justice is had, and the moral is clear: evil means are never justified and evil will receive the punishment it deserves. And that is a strong conservative message.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 20

2012-01-08T09:00:00.001-05:00

People’s tastes change over time, which is good or we’d all be wearing bell bottoms and listening to grunge. And sometimes, this means our taste in films changes too.

What movie did you like a lot at one point, but no longer like. . . and why?

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Mary Poppins. I loved Mary Poppins when I was a child. It was colorful and magical and my parents bought me a “Mary Poppins In The Painting” doll when I was in the hospital after an appendectomy. And it was the first movie that I got to see twice! I loved Mary Poppins. Well, many years passed and I finally got a chance to watch it about 10 years ago. Hmmm, Mary Poppins was kind of mean and stern. And, though I still love Dick van Dyke as Bert, his cockney accent was just bad.

Panelist: T-Rav

There are many I no longer like, but one I used to really like was The Lost World: Jurassic Park. I thought it was a good film the first time I watched it, with lots of visuals, and you can't hate Jeff Goldblum. But there's a lot that bothers me about it now. The raptors are basically shoehorned in, the ending is little more than a rip-off of every Godzilla film, and the underlying political message is. . . just awful. Taking dinosaurs off the island is evil and wrong; therefore our "heroes" try to save them by destroying the would-be captors' equipment and thereby get a lot of those guys killed. But it's okay, because they're capitalists and mercenaries and we should be okay with their deaths. I wonder if this was the inspiration for Avatar.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Robert Altman's Nashville. I liked this film when it first came out. Years later, I bought the DVD for a song. Even liked it the first time I re-watched it. Then, I popped it in a few years later and it just sucked. Nothing worked - the jokes didn't work, the acting seemed wooden. I just had to turn it off. Comedy is the most fertile field for this phenomenon. If you are in the right mood, you can laugh yourself silly. Wrong mood and you don't even crack a smile. Jim Carey's Liar, Liar fell into that category.

Panelist: ScottDS

The Fifth Element. I didn't like it the first time I saw it. Then, for some reason, I watched it again once it premiered on HBO and I liked it. Several years passed by and it aired on HBO again. . . and I didn't like it. I'm usually the last person to complain about a film that tries to do something different but it's just too goofy and ridiculous (and French?) for me to take seriously. I like Bruce Willis and Gary Oldman, Ian Holm, and Brion James (R.I.P.) are always fun to watch... but I simply want to kill Chris Tucker whenever he's on the screen and, dare I say it, Milla Jovovich never did anything for me. There, I said it!

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I really hate saying this, but Octopussy. When I was a kid, this movie was awesome. You had dirty Russians, exotic locations, a nuclear bomb and James Fricken Bond! But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve started to realize a few things about this film. For one thing, every scene is ridiculous and the bad guys are incompetent. Those exotic locations? Well, the cinematography is so narrow it could have been shot outside Atlanta. The Indian guy is a lame, racist stereotype. The action is slapstick. And frankly, Roger Moore was getting too old and prissy by this point.

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: Apollo 18 (2011)

2012-01-06T09:00:00.002-05:00

I’m of two minds about Apollo 18. On the one hand, I’m glad I saw it. But on the other, I cannot recommend it and I never want to see it again. Why? Well, it has a solid story, ruined by its presentation. It had excellent effects, squandered by its presentation. It was simultaneously too long and too short, both because of its presentation. Put simply, this was a potentially excellent film ruined by a misused gimmick.

** spoiler alert **

The Plot

The last manned moon mission was Apollo 17 in December 1972. Or was it? In December 1974, the Department of Defense secretly launches three NASA astronauts to the moon aboard Apollo 18. Their ostensible reason for going is to install an ICBM detector on the moon to warn the US in the event of a Russian missile launch. But when they get to the moon, they discover a mystery in the form of an abandoned Russian moon-lander and a dead cosmonaut. Then things get worse.

Why This Film Could Have Been Excellent, But Wasn’t

When I first heard about this film, I was excited. After all, the plot description above is pretty stellar. It promises intrigue, mystery, action, science fiction and has tons of potential for terror. Imagine the horror of not being able to see or hear things approach, of not being able to breath outside of the suit or the capsule, of communications blackouts, and of the horrific unknown. Add in a trailer which appeared to show a dead astronaut walking around on the moon and this became one of the few films last year that I genuinely wanted to see.

Then it got released to universal derision. My hopes were dampened. Then I heard it was yet another “found footage” film and my hopes died. But it gets worse. Not only is this a found footage film, but they completely mishandled the already awful concept.

The concept of “found footage” films (e.g. Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity) is premised on the idea that someone has cobbled together a movie from film found at the scene of a mysterious tragedy, film taken by some amateur to whom the tragedy befell. This is actually a brilliant concept for several reasons. For one thing, it allows you to make movies cheaply because low quality film and cameras can be used. It also reduces the cost of special effects because any time something is too expensive to produce, the director just has the “amateur” photographer pan away from the action or drop the camera or something like that. Similarly, this approach gives great leeway in editing by allowing longer-than-normal shots with no cuts because audiences excuse the lack of multiple angles and Hollywood-style editing. It also allows jump cuts to skip over boring parts of the film because the director can simply pretend the amateur turned the camera off during that period or that the film was destroyed. This allows directors to skip from highlight to highlight while simultaneously allowing the director greater latitude in letting individual scenes develop.

But found footage films can be annoying for these same reasons: low quality images, the shaky cam effect, annoying jump cuts, and a tendency to over-tease the audience by revealing too little. All of these problems are present in Apollo 18 along with a new and truly annoying problem: aggressive, seizure-inducing edits.

Unlike most found footage films which rely on one camera, Apollo 18 involves at least five cameras which run simultaneously. Thus, it is legitimate to show scenes from multiple angles, which means more Hollywood-style editing can be employed -- this is usually not possible in found footage films.

Unfortunately, the director/editor took this way too far. Rather than doing something clever with the angles or some subtle manipulation, they pound your brain into submission with a never-ending stream of constant cuts, often settling on angles for less than a couple seconds. Even worse, to justify this constant hopping from camera to camera, each edit is preceded by fake interference to suggest the rest of that particular footage in that camera was destroyed. But this nausea-inducing style of constant quick cuts prevents you from ever seeing anything (like the special effects) and it starts to eat up considerable amounts of film time with nothing but annoying static.

Worse yet, the director/editor used these constant cuts as a way to hide a lack of story by trimming the dialog to short bursts of words. Thus, you will encounter large parts of the film which seem like a fever dream where the dialog only gives the impression of what is going on: “hold truths— [static/new angle] self-evident— [static/new angle] created equal— [static/new angle] perfect union.” Even the longer expositive scenes begin right as something is happening and end seemingly randomly before you have gotten all the necessary information to understand the scene: “That’s correct Bill, and the murderer is—” In many ways, the dialog is so disjointed it’s often like skipping ahead randomly in a film and only stopping for a few seconds at a time. What this does is take a story that seems compelling and make it meaningless. Indeed, the elements for a good story seem to be present, but they never show it to you, they only suggest it.

This approach also makes the film feel simultaneously too long and too short. At 85 minutes, the film is very short and it feels lightweight. It feels rushed and it feels like they took the easy route over and over again by cutting away every time you would normally expect something substantive -- not to mention a big chunk of time is lost to static. Yet, at the same time, this film feels far too long because the constant static and jumpcuts wear you down and make it impossible to get into the story -- because the story moves forward in random bursts. Thus, the story drags and feels laborious.

All and all, this could have been a tense and superb film. It had tremendous potential. The concept is solid, though not original. The premise, the setting, the effects, the ambiance are all top notch. The potential for mystery and horror are obvious throughout. Even something more deeply philosophical could have been done, e.g. what if they found something Biblical? But to pull that off, the film needed to be shot in a traditional manner where these things could have been exploited, or at least the found footage approach needed to be done more cleverly and less obtrusively, by for example, revealing the footage through a briefing where the pace could be controlled better and the mysteries better maintained.

But that didn’t happen and that’s too bad. This is a good film ruined by a gimmick.

The Power of Clichés

2012-01-04T09:00:00.014-05:00

They say the eyes are the window of the soul. They also warn us there be monsters in a film. Monsters like the Cheese Burglar!

When the Cheese Burglar was young, he fell in love, which apparently makes you feel like you have a giant head. . . floating over the ocean.

But it was not to be. The fast lane was where he wanted to be, fast women, fast cars, fast food.

Arson, guns, unlimited cans of whoopass, this was his new life and he flame broiled anyone who got in his way. . . it was all so black and white.

But even arsonists get the blues, and things began to go crooked for our Cheese Burglar when he lent a friend money to buy a cheeseburger. . . he said he would gladly pay Tuesday.

He didn’t. Now the Cheese Burglar roams the streets alone looking for the man who took his money.

I noticed long ago browsing the video store aisles (and book stores) that movie posters and book covers are all about clichés. On the one hand, I guess, this is a good thing. Clichés exist because they have become universally recognized as having meaning. And since we all know what they mean, that lets you pack more information into simpler images. Indeed, single images can now tell whole stories and simple phrases can take the place of whole pages.

But too often clichés become a substitute for substance. When the clichés leave the marketing world of the movie poster and book covers, and they begin to occupy the substantive world of plots, then things go wrong. And too many films today are little more than clichés strung together to create the impression of a film.

Is it any wonder box office attendance is down 11% over two years? The problem isn’t even the topic of films or the incredible number of reboots or sequels, it’s that these films are lifeless, meaningless, and void of any substance when you get into them. This is because Hollywood has begun to speak in clichés rather than ideas. It’s stopped being the dream factory and become the film assembly center. And as long as they continue down that path, things will only get worse.

What are your most despised clichés?

Questionable Trek vol. 1.

2012-01-03T09:00:00.003-05:00

Let’s start Star Trek Tuesdays by introducing a new debate series: Questionable Trek. In this series, Scott and I will ask each other questions and debate the answers in a quest to get to the heart of everything Star Trek. Today we begin with a simple toss up question:

Rank the top five Star Trek films in order.

Andrew:

1. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
3. Star Trek: First Contact
4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
5. Star Trek: Nemesis

For me, there were two difficult decisions here. First, there’s the choice of Undiscovered Country over Wrath of Khan. I know that’s probably Star Trekrilege, but I just feel like Undiscovered Country is the better movie. It moves quicker, its plot is more unexpected, and the characters aren’t as depressed. That said, there is no more poignant scene on film that Spock’s death. The other difficult decision was choosing Nemesis over Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Despite its flaws, Frontier is still fairly enjoyable and I think Sybok is great. But Nemesis is simply the better movie.

Scott:

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
3. Star Trek: First Contact
4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
5. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

I’ve never been good at ranking films (in case you haven’t noticed) and this was pretty tough. I honestly don’t think any of the Trek films are God awful - even the worst ones have one or two redeemable qualities. When I was younger, I’d watch Star Trek II at least once a week. It has arguably the best villain, quotable dialogue throughout, and the themes of aging and mortality are explored rather well, as opposed to future Trek films that simply try to shoehorn those moments into the story. Star Trek IV is just a lot of fun. Yeah, it’s a fish out of water tale and there are some dated elements but it’s just done so well and the crew’s chemistry has never been better. Star Trek: First Contact is the best TNG film though that may not be saying much. I’ve always enjoyed Star Trek VI but when I watch it now, I can’t help but notice some signs of a rushed production and Nick Meyer’s nautical quirks on display. Star Trek: The Motion Picture has, in my opinion, aged like a fine wine and, like Andrew says, it’s one of the only films where the crew gets to go on an actual adventure into the unknown.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

2011-12-23T12:59:00.002-05:00

Merry Christas and Happy Holidays to everyone! I’m taking a break until January. But we’re planning some good stuff for the new year. . . All the posts will be moving to mornings instead of afternoon so you can tune in earlier. Also, Bev will be joining the film debates. And I’m adding a Star Trek Tuesday every Tuesday!

In the meantime, leave your thoughts below. Tell me what films you’ve seen that were good or bad or just ugly, and tell me if there’s anything you want to see at the site in the new year!

The Boiler Room Elves’ Top 5 Santa Films

2011-12-21T09:00:00.002-05:00

As Boiler Room Elves, we’re usually pretty busy around Christmas time. There are cookies to bake and the boilers need extra attention in winter. But we don’t go in for that whole making presents for free thing. We may be unionized, but we’re not communists. So when Bossman Andrew asked us to write about Santa, we told him we didn’t have the time. Then he showed us our contract. Grr. So here are our five favorite portrayals of Santa.

1. Miracle on 34th Street (1947): Probably the best known Santa film, this one perfectly shows the true spirit of Santa. In it, a man is accused of being insane because he thinks he’s Santa. A trial is held. Is he the real Santa or not? The films lets you decide and it’s pretty heartwarming along the way. A bit of trivia here, the real Santa has a cameo. Next time you watch, see if you can spot him.

2. The Santa Clause (1994): This one completely annoys Santa and he won’t even watch it because he’s offended by the suggestion he’s under contract to be Santa! He does it all out of the goodness of his heart (plus he failed out of business school after some prof told him his business plan would never fly. . . but you didn’t hear that from us). Still, the movie is enjoyable, heartwarming and funny, just the kind of thing to make you laugh at Christmas time.

3. South Park: Red Sleigh Down (2002): How can you not love this episode: Santa Claus as action hero! In this South Park episode, Santa gets shot down over Iraq and must be saved by Jesus. And in the end, Santa dispenses a little hot red justice on his captors and then magnanimously tells people that they shouldn’t just think of Santa on Christmas, they should think of Jesus too. Good stuff.

4. Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964): True story. Elves are really big on documentaries.

5. Rudolph The Rednosed Reindeer (1964): Although this story is mainly about Rudolph, they do a great job depicting life at the Pole (minus a few labor violations) and Santa. The one complaint we have about this show it the depictions of the Elves. We’re waaaaaaaaaay cooler than that. And there aren’t enough cookies.

So if you want, list your favorite Santa films, memories or whatever below. Or more importantly, tell us what your favorite cookies are. You never know when you may get a surprise care package down your chimney.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 19

2011-12-18T09:00:00.009-05:00

A couple weeks ago we talked about our favorite James Bonds. But who would Bond be without a cool villain?

Who is your favorite James Bond villain?

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Favorite Bond villain was Robert Shaw as Red Grant. He was a ruthless killing machine, and J.B. was lucky to survive. Probably the most realistic. Odd Job is a close second.

Panelist: T-Rav

I think you have to rank Blofeld pretty high up there. Maybe it’s because he dates to the Connery era, but he’s become almost as iconic as Bond himself. Well, maybe not, but he’s a major part of the stories regardless.

Panelist: ScottDS

If we’re including henchmen, then my answer would have to be Red Grant, played by Robert Shaw in From Russia with Love. I haven’t seen the film in years but it’s my favorite Connery Bond film and I just love Robert Shaw (he passed away too soon, at the young age of 51). He’s as cool and ruthless as ever in this film, with blond hair and piercing eyes. The fight scene aboard the Orient Express was particularly brutal for its day.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I also picked Robert Shaw as Red Grant. He’s one of the few villains who was truly on Bond’s level. He was strong, smart, clever and unbelievably, ruthlessly violent. He was the only villain who legitimately got the drop on Bond and really tried to kill him. . . no inexplicable stupidity at the critical moment. My runner up would be Dr. No because he’s the grand daddy of them all.

Comments? Thoughts? Who would you choose and why? And while we're at it, who was the worst Bond villain?

It’s a Wonderful(ly Capitalist) Life(!)

2011-12-16T15:30:00.002-05:00

by tryanmax
It’s a Wonderful Life, the quintessential tale of selflessness, gratitude, and the blessings of friends and family—traditional values all—is for many as much a holiday tradition as trimming the tree and baking cookies. So it may seem odd that Frank Capra’s beloved tale should be considered by many to be strongly anti-capitalist. Indeed, back in the HCUA days the FBI fingered the film in a memo entitled “Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry.” And just last year, Glenn Beck got into a back and forth with a progressive blogger over the issue.

One could simply brush off the interpretation of these Grinches, these Scrooges, these Mr. Potters, if you will, as “missing the point.” Yet that does little to reduce the embarrassment that a film so adored for epitomizing the best in human nature would cause to conservatism by disparaging the free-market. Gladly, this is not the case.

Quite the contrary, It’s a Wonderful Life praises a far more substantial vision of free-enterprise than its detractors seem to apprehend. Besides that, the film is also a tribute to family, a salute to Americanism, an homage to goodwill, and an ode to traditional values all wrapped up in a beautiful golden-age Hollywood Christmas card.

NOTE: If you haven’t seen It’s a Wonderful Life, what’s the matter with you!? Go out and find a copy and watch it right away! In the meantime, here it is re-enacted by bunnies in 30 seconds: LINK. Of course, there’s much more to the story, but for the sake of brevity (hah!), this article assumes familiarity with the film.

The Director

Before discussing the movie, I’d like to examine Frank Capra’s directorial style. Many of the ideas explored in It’s a Wonderful Life are not unique to that picture. Capra explored similar themes in almost all of his work. He intentionally centered his films around values he acquired growing up in the Italian neighborhoods of early 20th c. L.A.; hard work, self-reliance, and a love of freedom and the American Dream. (The real one, not that chicken-in-every-pot nonsense.)

This decision wasn’t made without controversy. His diatribe against political corruption, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, met with unilateral opposition from the US Senate. Meet John Doe attacked exploitation of the poor by politicians and the media. His last film bearing a strong political message, State of the Union, took on special interests and crooked electioneering with a message that would likely resonate with the Tea Party today. If It’s a Wonderful Life contained an anti-capitalist message, it would be coming from the most unlikely of sources.

A Tale of Two Capitalists

How then can anyone find such a message in the film? I suspect it comes partly from accepting one of liberalism’s favorite bogeymen: the heartless capitalist. The confusion makes some sense because actual specimens do exist. There are unscrupulous men in this world who can justify almost anything that garners profit. (George Soros comes to mind.) The bogeyman is crafted simply by painting all entrepreneurs and businessmen with this broad brush. This is the sort of “capitalist” vilified in the film, and I shudder to think that any “conservative” would defend it.

Henry F. Potter is presented as such a capitalist, a wealthy businessman, banker, and slumlord who looks down on everyone and is frequently credited with “owning the town.” In other words, Potter controls virtually all means of production and exchange in Bedford Falls. He may be the primary purveyor of jobs, but he also has considerable sway over the way the town is run, which he is apparently not shy about exercising. Potter is the picture of a small-town oligarch rather than the enterprising businessman.

Opposite him is George Bailey, the reluctant but principled proprietor of the Bailey Building and Loan. While Potter’s form of capitalism is underhanded, monopolistic, exploitive, Bailey's is straight forward, even-handed, and, most importantly, competitive. The B&L is just about the only venture in Bedford Falls that Potter hasn’t got his fingers in, and he can’t stand it. Throughout the film, Potter attempts every angle to take over the B&L from takeover to buyout to outright theft.

Through all of Potter’s attacks, however, Bailey presses on and invests himself into turning the marginal B&L into a cornerstone of the community. He wards off a run by delivering an econ-lesson in brief, explaining how the patrons' money isn't in the B&L, but in the homes and ventures of all their neighbors. He founds Bailey Park, providing a modest but better alternative to Potter’s slums—and considerable consternation to Potter himself. Bailey doesn’t mean to irk Potter, it’s just a side-effect of his selfless approach.

A Visit to Potterville

To underscore the superiority of George Bailey’s brand of capitalism, Capra gives us, in a flight of fancy, a glimpse of the town as it would be if Potter were left to run roughshod over it. No one can argue that the pursuit of a dollar is still the driving force in town. However, without Bailey to compete with Potter, the emphasis has changed from the honest buck to the easy one.

Gone are the quaint storefronts, replaced with seedy bars and dance halls. Not only has the respectable nature of the town vanished, but so has the optimism. The vibrant Bailey Park is replaced by a cemetery (no subtle symbolism there). The human toll is apparent in the creased faces and impatient demeanors. Whereas Bailey’s enterprising ways lifted people up, Potter’s exploitation has brought them down.

What’s Missing

If that isn’t enough to convince you, It’s a Wonderful Life continues to praise the free-market in what it leaves out from the story. For one, not once does anyone insinuate that Potter is a criminal, or that he even ought to be. Until the climactic moment when Potter discovers Uncle Billy’s misplaced deposit, every thing he does is perfectly legal. Furthermore, even his sole act of theft goes undetected that we know.

Also, it is revealed that Bailey’s business acumen is such that he is able to build houses for half the cost of their finished value. With skills like his, Bailey could have easily padded his own salary and hiked his rates. Instead, he continues in his—and his father’s—original mission, to help his clients realize their own American dreams.

Final Thoughts

Like many good stories, It’s a Wonderful Life clues the audience in to what the story is about from the outset. It starts on Christmas Eve. The town of Bedford Falls lies still under falling snow. The only sound to be heard are the rising prayers of the townsfolk, all pleading for the same thing—the well being of George Bailey. Above, the prayers are received and an angel named Clarence is recruited to answer them.

“Is he sick?” Clarence asks of Bailey. “No, worse,” replies another angel, “He’s discouraged.”

Right away this exchange reveals this to be a story about discouragement and its counterpoint, hope. Capra’s message isn’t simply about what is right or wrong, and it certainly isn’t about what is fair. It is about the hope that upholds principles in the face of adversity. Hope isn’t just a bunch of fanciful wishful thinking as some might suppose. It is derived of opportunity and possibility. These things are also the underpinnings of a free society in all respects, be it in the market, speech, worship, or whatever.

My Problem with Judd Apatow

2011-12-14T15:30:00.001-05:00

By ScottDS

Whenever the media does a story on today’s “Hollywood comedy renaissance,” one name continues to crop up: writer/producer/director Judd Apatow. While I’m a huge fan of his earlier work in TV (The Larry Sanders Show, The Critic, Freaks and Geeks, and Undeclared), his cinematic offerings leave me wanting. I don’t believe The 40-Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Funny People deserve half the praise they’ve been given. I also want to stress that I have nothing against the man personally. He’s worked hard to get where he is and he is partially or wholly responsible for some classic television comedy. Also, I don’t entirely blame him for his reputation – that fault lies, as always, with the media.

The elephant in the room is improv comedy. Like anything else, it can be wonderful if wielded correctly but Apatow and Co. simply don’t know when to cut back. While filmmaking is a collaborative medium, there is a world of difference between a director asking his actors before a take, “Can you guys think of anything better?” and what Apatow does, which is to tell his actors, “We’re leaving the camera on for ten minutes. Go!” This is probably due (at least in part) to Apatow’s collaborations with Adam McKay, the co-writer/director of Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and The Other Guys (Apatow produced the first two). McKay is an alumnus of Chicago’s famous Second City comedy troupe (Apatow started as a standup comedian) and seems to belong to the “Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” school of filmmaking. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this – I would say the same thing about the ZAZ team who brought us Airplane! and The Naked Gun – but McKay, like Apatow, simply doesn’t know when to stop. There are gags in Anchorman that look as if they were lifted straight off the improv stage, with the actors constantly trying to top each other with no payoff.

Let’s take the “You know how I know you’re gay” scene in 40-Year Old Virgin in which Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd ask each other this question for what seems like an eternity. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the story and it goes on for entirely too long. It’s telling that even critics who adore Apatow’s work think his films are too long, and the “unrated extended” editions that show up on DVD and Blu-Ray are even longer, with prolonged sequences that destroy the pacing and, in comedy, pacing is everything. To be fair, most of Bill Murray’s material in Caddyshack was improvised but director Harold Ramis knew when to rein him in and Murray is a much better actor than Seth Rogen. (On the other hand, I do credit Apatow with making me a fan of Paul Rudd.)

Technology also plays a role here. With digital cinematography becoming the norm, directors can let their actors go on without having to worry about how much film is left in the magazine. Likewise, with digital editing, directors and their editors can experiment, leaving things out, adding things in, etc. whereas they would’ve had to be more judicious in the past when the editor had to physically cut a piece of film – a laborious process if there ever was one.

Improv is also deadly for memorable dialogue. Quick, give me a line from Knocked Up! [waits five minutes] Yeah, that’s what I thought. Years later, we still quote the Marx Brothers, Abbott & Costello, Woody Allen, This is Spinal Tap (yes, it’s improvised but with much greater discipline and within a mockumentary framework), the various 70s/80s films of John Landis and Ivan Reitman, not to mention classic sitcoms from The Honeymooners to Seinfeld to The Simpsons. While there are the occasionally clever lines in Apatow’s films, improv, like jazz, is often ephemeral. There is no lasting impact because there was no thought put into the joke – it was simply the first thing the actor said and too many actors Apatow works with (cough, Rogen and Jonah Hill) don’t know any better so they resort to an easy F-bomb (I’m no prude but it loses its shock value after a while) or an easy pop culture reference, which will only date the movie in the years to come. Improv is a skill that’s tough to master but there’s nothing like a witty, well-crafted line of dialogue. Again, improv can be a good thing (see: the films of Christopher Guest) but it’s too often used as a main course when it should be desert.

Apatow’s films are also boring to look at it. Don’t get me wrong – in comedy, nothing can get in the way of the joke, but a director can still make a comedy that looks good. Blake Edwards, Billy Wilder, Mel Brooks, John Landis and Ivan Reitman in their prime… they all made comedies that looked good and, as far as today’s filmmakers are concerned, I would include Edgar Wright, Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, and David O. Russell in that category as well. Lighting, color, contrast, framing… they are all tools in the director’s bag of tricks, yet Apatow’s films all look as if they switched on one key light and said, “Okay, let’s go!” I’m not saying his films need to look like Blade Runner, nor should they, but there is something to be said about films that are pleasing to look at. One explanation I’ve read is that, due to the heavy use of improv, Apatow uses multiple cameras which means the lighting has to have a more uniform look (one camera can’t capture an errant shadow, for instance).

I want to like Apatow’s films more than I do. I sat in the theater watching The 40-Year Old Virgin with a grin on my face but I have no need to see it again, I can only quote two lines of dialogue from it (one is a David Caruso reference!), and I still can’t believe my local paper gave it four stars. Knocked Up fairs even worse in this regard and there’s one shot during the birth scene that is completely gratuitous. I know Apatow can do better. Whether it’s a case of dealing with the restrictions imposed by the TV world (including HBO) or perhaps a change of actors is needed, I don’t know. I hate to sound like I’m looking at the past through rose-colored glasses but it’s telling that I’d rather watch a 70-year old comedy than one made five years ago and since Hollywood studios all love to capitalize on the latest trend, every other comedy that’s released today is basically “Apatow lite.” (I don’t blame him for this, but it doesn’t help.)

To wrap it up, while I remain an Apatow fan (albeit a slightly disgruntled one), I remember watching The 40-Year Old Virgin and, five minutes in, there was a gag that involved Steve Carell trying to urinate with an erection. My first thought wasn’t, “This is funny,” but, “I’ve seen this before… and this is the new comedy god the papers are raving about?”

The Great (film) Debates vol. 18

2011-12-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

At one point, Hollywood held a lot of mystery for average Americans. Actors were larger than life and lived exotic lives. These days they're all rehab junkies and political morons. But think back to Hollywood's Golden Age:

Who is your favorite classic Hollywood actor and what is their best role?

Panelist: AndrewPrice

This is one of those impossible questions. Bogart exuded "tough guy." Jimmy Stewart was the most honorable man alive. John Wayne was America personified. And Cary Grant defined class. But I'm going with Steve McQueen. I understand he was a bit of a monster in person, but on screen he was just compelling. You couldn't help but watch him and pull for him even when he was the bad guy.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Bogie. Why? he had a magnetism that is hard to explain. He isn’t an obvious looking "man’s man" like the Duke, but a "man’s man" he was. His best role? Maltese Falcon by a hair over African Queen and Sierra Madre. That may be due to a slight bias on my part for the genre. African Queen was one of the first "grown up" films I remember seeing.

Panelist: T-Rav

There are a lot of them I like--Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, etc.--but my personal favorite would probably be the lesser-known Danny Kaye. I watched his The Secret Life of Walter Mitty some years ago in high school and just loved it. He did a great job of playing the ordinary, looked-down-on guy who suddenly gets thrust into an important event. I think he was in White Christmas as well, or whatever that big '40s movie was; I liked him in that too. Great all-around actor.

Panelist: ScottDS

Ask a hard one, why don’t ya?! Since I can’t decide between Jimmy Stewart and Humphrey Bogart, I’ll go with James Cagney instead. I haven’t seen every film he ever did (far from it) but the one that sticks with me is Yankee Doodle Dandy. Yeah, it’s a little cheesy at times but it’s great and wonderfully optimistic. Anyone who thinks Cagney could only play gangsters needs to watch this film. He sings! He dances! He does not shove a grapefruit in a woman’s face! "My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, my sister thanks you, and I thank you."

Comments? Thoughts? Who would you choose and why?

Film Friday: The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

2011-12-09T15:00:00.000-05:00

With Christmas just around the corner it’s time for a holiday film. There is no more quintessential Christmas story than Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol.” This story is so perfect that it’s been adapted at least 22 times in film and dozens of other times in other ways. So why is my favorite version the Muppet version? Read on. . .

The Plot

The story should be familiar to all. Ebenezer Scrooge (Michael Caine) is a money lender and a rotten man. He’s nasty and mean- spirited to his employees and unbelievably cheap. In fact, he’s so mean-spirited that his one loyal employee, Bob Cratchit (Kermit the Frog), must beg him to give the employees the day off for Christmas. Bah humbug!

On Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghosts of his former business partners, Jacob and Robert Marley (Statler and Waldorf). They have been condemned to an afterlife in chains for their evil deeds, deeds which are shared by Scrooge. They have come to warn Scrooge that he will be visited by three ghosts who will show Scrooge the error of his ways.

These ghosts include the Ghost of Christmas Past, who shows Scrooge that he was once a decent man, the Ghost of Christmas Present, who shows Scrooge how miserable he is compared to others who value families over money, and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, who reveals that Scrooge will die unlamented and his miserliness will lead to the death of Tiny Tim. Naturally, Scrooge changes his ways and the story ends happily.

Why The Muppet Version Is The Best

There are many fantastic version of this story. The 1951 version is excellent as is the 1984 version with George C. Scott as Scrooge. Bill Murray gives us an excellent modern version in Scrooged. Even the most recent Doctor Who had a nice adaptation of this. But of them all, the Muppets are the best. Why?

Different types of stories require different methods of storytelling to be effective. Alien would not have worked as a musical. Ghostbusters would not have worked as a drama. And A Christmas Carol works best as a fable, not as a drama as it is typically portrayed.

The goal of a fable is to impart certain lessons or warnings to the audience. This is done by a narrator who talks directly to the audience, explaining the motivations of the characters and their flaws, describing their mistakes, explaining the consequences of those mistakes, and then summarizing the lessons learned. It’s like a legal brief presented with puppets.

Dramas, by comparison, have none of this. Instead, they require the audience to draw its own conclusions from the actions and words of the characters and the consequences of the plot. Moreover, characters in dramas must come across as real before we can accept their plight and find their stories interesting. Characters in fables do not. In a fable, the only “real” person is the narrator who tells us the fable to impart some point. So long as the narrator entertains us sufficiently, the story is a good one without regard to how true the details of the story seem. Because of this, fables can be told in parts, i.e. vignettes, and we can simply be told of necessary changes in the characters or their circumstances between scenes. Dramas, on the other hand, must demonstrate such changes.

A Christmas Carol is, at its core, a fable. It is the moral of Scrooge’s failings and how he came to save himself. It is a series of vignette, each of which affect Scrooge differently and Scrooge has significant growth from scene to scene which is not shown in the plot. Thus, the best structure for telling this story is the fable structure, with a narrator to walk us through the story, point by point, and explain how each segment of the story, i.e. each vignette, affects Scrooge. Further, Scrooge is too one-dimensional to be a “real” character. This is intentional. Scrooge is an archetype of our worst, greediest, miserly natures, and he works best when we see him as such -- as part of ourselves rather than as a real person to whom these events transpire.

This is why the Muppet version is the best, because they treat this story as a fable. Gonzo acts as Dickens the narrator. Caine brilliantly provides the wide mood swings needed to be an archetype. And the Muppet players provide important levity and breaks to let us digest each scene before we move on and to distract us enough to let us think sufficient time has passed for Scrooge to undergo the personality changes needed. George C. Scott’s version may be excellent, but it is a drama and it lacks these critical elements which connect us to the heart of the story.

Finally, let me add two things. Michael Caine is an incredible actor. He never disappoints and he doesn’t disappoint here. Indeed, Caine does something brilliant. By soft-pedaling Scrooge’s cruelty and retaining his sense of humor, though he has misdirected it in cynical directions, Caine plays Scrooge not as a cruel man who must change his nature, but as a decent man who has lost his way. This connects us better to Scrooge than prior versions because (1) it is harder to connect with a truly cruel Scrooge because none of us wishes to see any part of ourselves as cruel, and (2) it is easier to believe a return to our better natures than a fundamental change of character.

And lastly, the Muppets deserve tremendous credit for playing this film “straight.” Specifically, the Muppets are adept at blending their antics into the film so you’re never distracted from the film. Too often when a comedian is brought into a film, they become a distraction (e.g. Robin Williams, Robin Williams, Robin Williams) as they turn their time on screen into an advertisement for themselves. Not here. The Muppets do the things you love about them, but they do them quickly and within the confines of the storytelling. Thus, there are no breaks in the story where you feel like you’re about to watch a couple minutes of a generic Muppet routine jammed into the film.

These are all brilliant choices which put this version ahead of all the others.

So what are your favorite Christmas films?

The Sound of Inconsistency

2011-12-07T15:30:00.004-05:00

Humans are fascinated by time. We have a million words to describe it and explain it. We measure it and measure ourselves by it. And we wonder about its nature. Does it move in a straight line or does it exist all at once? Can we move through it? Can we go back in time and change the past or is the past simply gone? And science fiction loves this concept. But sometimes the concept gets mishandled.

In particular, I’m thinking about a film called A Sound of Thunder. This film bombed. Lousy effects, indifferent acting and a weak story all resulted in the film earning only $12 million against its $80 million budget. But I think the real failure was its utter misuse of the concept of time travel. Observe.

Based on Ray Bradbury’s short story of the same name, Thunder involves a private company that sells hunting tours to the past. For a large fee, you can go back in time and bag an Allosaurus. But wait! Won't that change the future? That’s what the butterfly effect tells us: if you go back in time and kill so much as a butterfly, you can change the present/future in unimaginable ways. Why? Because that's how butterflies roll.

To avoid changing history, this company has chosen a specific, doomed Allosaurus to be hunted. This Allosaurus is seconds away from sinking into a tar pit, and the tar pit will be covered by a volcanic blast a couple minutes later. Thus, killing the doomed Allosaurus a minute or two early won’t change anything.

But in the process of hunting the doomed Allosaurus, something goes wrong and one of the hunters steps on a butterfly. BamO! The future begins to change.

Right away, the flaws appear in this premise. For starters, how did they find this Allosaurus and pinpoint his time of death? And how can they take back more than one hunting party since each party will arrive at the same time? But much more importantly, how can killing the butterfly matter when the volcano will kill everything in the area, including the butterfly in a matter of minutes? In other words, if it’s ok to kill the doomed Allosaurus, why isn’t it ok to kill the doomed butterfly?

Then it gets worse. When they get back, nothing has changed. But a few hours later, things do begin to change. Only, they change in waves. At first, some of the plants become more jungle-like. Then some animals begin to change. Then some humans become more animal-like. Then new species begin to appear. And if our intrepid team can’t get back to the lab and go back in time and fix this by stopping the butterfly-slaughter (or maybe giving it mouth to mouth), then soon everything will change.

But this doesn’t really make any sense. Why would time change in waves? Further, why would it only change a little bit at a time, e.g. making some plants jungle-like, but not others, changing some humans, but not others. This reeks of "plot convenience"! Indeed, what’s going on here is rather than sticking with a consistent concept of how time should work, they are just doing whatever the plot needs. That makes the whole premise a joke.

This film highlights the real danger of doing time travel paradoxes in films. People find this stuff fascinating and they like to think about it. And if your theory isn’t consistent or doesn’t make sense then you’re doomed. You can’t just fake this stuff scene by scene because science fiction audiences are too savvy for that.

So while we’re on the topic, let me leave you with a couple questions.

1. Do you think time exists and can we change the past?
2. Would you change the past if you could?
3. What are some of your favorite time travel films/stories?

The Great (film) Debates vol. 17

2011-12-04T09:00:00.003-05:00

Casablanca was an ok film, but it could have been so much better with a bunch of young hotties like Justin Timberlake and the tragically constipated Kristen Stewart. . . what? You don't agree? Ok, then you tell me:

If you were going to recast Casablanca with modern actors, who would you choose?

Panelist: T-Rav

As Rick Blaine, I'd pick George Clooney. Yes, I know, but he can do the romantic lead and the debonair man of mystery very well in the right role. I could also see Russell Crowe playing this character. For Ilsa Lund--honestly, I don't think there are any actresses who could nail it as well as Ingrid Bergman. Only Naomi Watts and Cate Blanchett come to mind as capable of filling her shoes; I'd give it to Watts because she has a bit softer, '40s look to her. Victor Laszlo strikes me as kind of a stiff nonentity and not as important, but someone like Liev Schreiber could do a good job as him. And for Captain Louis Renault, I'd have to go with Geoffrey Rush, partly because he impressed me as the morally conflicted police inspector in a recent film production of Les Miserables.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I am sorely tempted to make Jason Statham Rick, but I won't. George Clooney would be Rick. Maura Tierney would be Ilsa -- I think she plays tragic roles well -- and Daniel Craig would be her husband. Johnny Depp would replace Peter Lorre as Ugarte. Jean Reno would replace Claude Rains. Frank Langella would replace Sydney Greenstreet. And Gabriel Byrne would play Strasser.

Panelist: ScottDS

Hmm... Jon Hamm as Rick. Yeah, that’s my cop-out answer! Cate Blanchett as Ilsa, Guy Pierce as Victor Laszlo, Jude Law as Captain Renault, Andy Serkis as Signor Ugarte, Bob Hoskins as Signor Ferrari, and Bill Nighy as Major Strasser. I went through a lot of great British actors but they were either too young or too old. And for the love of God, keep Steven Soderbergh the f--- away! He had his chance to make a movie in the style of Casablanca but failed miserably.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

I want Colin Ferrell and Naomi Watts in the Casablanca leads.

Comments? Thoughts?

Film Friday: The Tourist (2010)

2011-12-02T15:30:00.000-05:00

The Tourist can’t decide if it wants to be an unfunny comedy, a romance without chemistry, or a dull action film. In the end it splits the difference. It also adds an awful twist which makes everything so much worse. But its biggest flaw is rampant unbelievably.

** spoiler alert -- I will talk about the twist/ending **

The Plot

Angelina Jolie’s boyfriend is a financier who absconded with billions in mob money. He owes ₤744 million in taxes on this money. But he’s disappeared and got plastic surgery so no one can recognize him. Scotland Yard wants their money. They follow Jolie hoping she will lead them to him. And as the film begins, she gets a message from her boyfriend to board a train, find a man with his same build and features and make the cops think he is the boyfriend. She picks Johnny Depp, an American high school teacher who happens to be on vacation. Jolie takes him to Venice, where they get a mansion-like hotel room. Once there, mobsters try to kill him because they think he’s the boyfriend. Some stuff happens, there’s a twist, and everyone leaves the theater disappointed.

The Problems

This film stinks because there’s a total lack of chemistry between the stars. Indeed, Jolie and Depp have all the chemistry of an accountant and a construction worker sitting across from each other on a bus. But it isn’t all their fault. Before any relationship can work in film, be it a romance, a friendship or even absolute hatred between two enemies, the audience must believe the characters’ feelings are genuine. That’s impossible here.

For one thing, Jolie isn't believable in her role. She’s plastic and her acting is stiff. It’s like the director told her apathy is her motivation. She’s way overdressed for day-to-day life. And while she’s clearly rich, she has nowhere to live and owns nothing personal. In effect, she’s the kind of blank character who doesn’t exist off screen.

Moreover, her premise stinks. She’s supposed to be so in love with the boyfriend that she continues to pine for him every waking moment of her life even after he’s been gone a year, yet she never displays any passion about him. Even when she’s asked directly, she muddles something about not being sure she really loves him. Huh?! Then why live her life waiting for his call?! Nor is it ever explained why she didn’t go with him when he left in the first place. Why the Rube Goldberg plot contrivance of “hey, let’s separate for a year and then you see if you can spot me!”? Also, despite being so deeply in love, she immediately falls in love with Johnny Depp. This again contradicts her entire character which is premised on waiting for her true love’s return.

Depp is no better. The film tries to establish Depp and Jolie as a sort of “opposites attract” scenario with her being sophisticated Euro trash and Depp being an American bumpkin. But he isn’t. Depp is supposed to be a simple high school teacher on vacation, but nothing about him fits that description. He’s got traces of an English accent. He dresses unorthodoxly like an actor at a publicity function. He spouts views you would find in European political journals, and there’s nothing about him to suggest a real life outside the plot.

Further, his character is incredibly unappealing. He’s smug and effete. He’s also entirely reactive in the film. Not once does he take the lead in any scene. Instead, he allows himself to be pushed around by Jolie, by waiters, by hotel clerks and by the cops. And since these other characters are ridiculous, it gets tiring.

What do I mean by ridiculous? Simple. Their actions are not credible -- they act purely in ways to drive the plot. For example, a police officer watches the mobsters chase Depp across rooftops and shoot at him. But when Depp hits the ground and knocks the cop over, the cop magically forgets everything he just saw and arrests Depp for assaulting him. Why? So Depp can get arrested, betrayed by the cops to the mob, and then Jolie can save him.

The Scotland Yard officers are incompetent buffoons like the Keystone Cops, only without the sense they are meant to be funny. The head agent is obsessed and keeps the investigation going even after his boss cancels it. . . why the other agents go along with this is never explained. He also acts incredibly recklessly just to further the plot, like when he tells his snipers not to fire as the mobsters are about to kill Depp and Jolie just because he wants to see if the boyfriend will somehow show up to save them. At one point, in the climax of a stakeout just as the mobsters put a gun in Jolie’s face, he decides that he and the other officers should “have some fun” with Depp by pretending to think Depp is really the boyfriend. This. . . makes. . . no. . . sense! Cops do not play pointless practical jokes when someone they are watching is being threatened with a gun. Then, inexplicably, Depp escapes from the van unnoticed as the cops turn their backs.

It get worse. The agent waits too long to call the snipers, so Depp and Jolie die, right? Nope. The agent’s boss has come from Britain to Venice in the middle of the night, found the stakeout van, and arrives just in time to give the order to shoot. Huh?! How did he find them? They didn’t even know where they were going. And why did he find them at all? Why not call when he learns about the illegal operation and have the agent arrested? And how did he even know to give the order to fire? He literally just burst into the van a second before giving the order. For all he knows, they just realized they were aiming at the wrong targets. This. . . is. . . nonsense!

And it doesn’t stop there because there’s still the twist. Actually, there are two twists. First, Jolie is an Interpol agent. Surprise! Of course, this means nothing you’ve seen up to this point makes sense anymore. Why is a deep cover agent sent after a man who owes taxes? Just seize his bank accounts (he actually draws a check for the amount owed at the end). Heck, why did they even assign a deep cover agent in the first place? It’s not like he owed the taxes until he skipped out, so Interpol assigned a deep cover agent to seduce him before he even committed the crime. Why? And why the cat and mouse game between her and Interpol? Oh, because she went rogue somewhere along the way. Then arrest her. No, let’s leave her as bait and have twenty men incompetently follow her 24/7 for over a year. Yeah, good use of resources. Also, to make the plot move, she inexplicable decides to rejoin Interpol (and they even more inexplicably agree) only for this to turn out to be a trick with no discernable purpose whatsoever. Seriously. This decision does not affect the plot in any way. It is merely something the writer thought would be cool.

Then the second twist is revealed. Guess who the boyfriend is? Yeah, that’s right. It’s Depp. This is just awful. Now we’ve added an impossible coincidence to the story. She supposedly “randomly” picks Depp out of an entire train packed with people, yet somehow she just happens to pick the guy who is really her boyfriend? Bullship! And then, despite being in close proximity to him for a day and a half while she falls deeply in movie-love, she never recognizes him? This is incredible, even if he did have plastic surgery. And do you know how they “explain” this to us? Jolie makes a particular point of mentioning that she was fooled by him having his teeth whitened and straightened. Seriously. Would that keep you from recognizing someone you love?

This film is a clinic on sloppy writing at its worst. I am being kind when I say the writer is an idiot and should have his fingers broken. This was written by someone who stole a bunch of scenes from other movies and didn’t know how to tie them together, so he just rammed them into each other. When it came time to explain the parts that made no sense, he just plopped down a line of dialog with the first explanation that came to mind. There isn’t a moment of cleverness or beauty or competence in the entire script.

I honestly don’t know what could have made this film worse? Maybe Jar Jar Binks.

Defending the Temple of Doom

2011-11-30T15:40:00.008-05:00

by ScottDS

Few films stir up more conversation on this blog than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Steven Spielberg’s 1984 sequel (prequel, actually) to Raiders of the Lost Ark. I love the first three Indiana Jones films equally and while Raiders is rightfully accepted as a masterpiece, Temple of Doom does nothing but divide. It’s either an action-packed piece of pulpy fun... or an annoying mess of a movie – Spielberg and George Lucas doing nothing more than indulging themselves at the expense of the audience (and, at times, their stomachs).

I don’t think Temple of Doom is better than Raiders but it isn’t nearly as bad as its detractors suggest. It accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do, mainly serve as a delightful throwback to the two-reel serial adventures of old. It’s still more fun and more action-packed than most summer blockbuster movies made today. Having grown up watching these films on television, it never once occurred to me that this film was inferior. The central Macguffin may not be as relevant or meaningful as that of the first film (Sankara stones vs. the Ark of the Covenant) but does it really matter? After all, it’s only a plot device. Did anyone watching North by Northwest care about the secret microfilm? If Indiana Jones – played once again by Harrison Ford who’s game for anything – is interested, then we’re interested, and since the exposition is handled relatively well (i.e. not boring or confusing), then we know all we need to know and we’re not confused an hour into the film.

This brings me to sidekicks. Short Round never bothered me. In the pantheon of kid sidekicks, he is far from annoying and, unlike so many unnecessary supporting characters, he doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere (like Jar Jar Binks). Using history as a template, it’s established that Indy befriended Short Round after the kid’s parents were killed when the Japanese bombed Shanghai. The relationship between the two is rather endearing and “Shorty” gets a few good lines of dialogue as well.

And then there’s Miss Willie Scott. I know what you’re thinking… she does nothing but scream her way through the film. But that’s exactly what a sheltered showbiz dame like that would do in those situations. (It’s a miracle Kate Capshaw married Steven Spielberg after the arthropod hell he put her through!) I suppose when people watch this film, they can’t help but compare her to the strong, feisty Marion Ravenwood from the first film. Willie is your classic damsel in distress and her rocky relationship with Indy results in a fun seduction scene that is equal parts romance and screwball comedy. Besides, it works both ways: people who like her don’t have a problem and people who hate her get to see her put in uncomfortable situations!

As for villains, while Indy and Belloq had an interesting working relationship, Mola Ram, high priest of the Thuggee cult, is just a badass! He was played by an imposing Indian actor, the late Amrish Puri, and just oozes villainy without being campy. Subtle? Not at all. But he’s no 60s-era Batman villain either, speechifying with cheesy catchphrases. His sheer physical presence makes up for the lack of a previous “relationship” with Indy and the basic idea of the Thuggee cult is horrifying enough without any mustache twirling. He’s certainly more memorable than Walter Donovan, the Nazi villain from The Last Crusade, and Agent Spalco from Crystal Skull. Roy Chiao appears to be having a blast as the Chinese gangster Lao Che in the opening of the film and Roshan Seth plays the bespectacled Chattar Lal, sneering Prime Minister of Pankot Palace and Thuggee acolyte.

As for the film itself, it’s beautiful to look at and to listen to. The cinematography by Douglas Slocombe B.S.C. is lush, vibrant, and he and Spielberg knew how to take advantage of the widescreen 2.35:1 frame. Interestingly, Mr. Slocombe never used a light meter – he would simply judge the amount of light based on the shadow his thumb cast over the rest of his hand. Unlike many summer blockbuster films made today, the action is easy to follow, geography and spatial relationships are properly established, and the film is bathed in more than two colors. (Seriously, did you ever notice most action films today are a mix of blue and orange?)

Ben Burtt’s sound effects give the film a creepy ambience (as if the insects didn’t do that already) and the music score is one of John Williams’ masterpieces. He reuses his famous Raiders march from the first film and develops a love theme, a theme for Short Round, a march for the slave children, and he even reprises the Raiders “sword trick” music for a gag in which Indy reaches for his gun to dispatch two sword-wielding bad guys... and finds his holster empty. Even Cole Porter gets in on the fun with an opening musical number featuring Willie performing “Anything Goes” in Mandarin. I have no idea what audiences were thinking at the time but I applaud the filmmakers for doing something different. Imagine if The Bourne Supremacy began with Jason Bourne attending a performance of Cats!

The Oscar-winning visual effects by ILM are top-notch. Miniatures, stop-motion, matte paintings on glass – they simply don’t make movies like this anymore. I’m not a member of the “CGI sucks!!” brigade – computers are just a tool – but the limitations of real-world objects and the photochemical process meant filmmakers more often than not had to improvise. For instance, a modified 35mm Nikon still camera was used to film the mine car miniatures. Speaking of mine cars, the last twenty minutes of this film are non-stop action: the fight in the temple, the aforementioned mine car chase, the waterfall, the rope bridge, the death of Mola Ram, and the arrival of the British riflemen... it simply never ends and it takes real talent to sustain that kind of excitement over an extended period of time without overwhelming the audience. Unlike most of the Star Wars films, we’re not constantly cutting from one battle to another and unlike the other Indy films, it’s less stop-and-start and more “This goes to 11!” Now that I think of it, the opening 20 minutes are a rollicking ride, too: an old-fashioned music number, a melee in the club (in which Indy accidentally punches a cigarette girl!), a car chase on the streets of Shanghai, a plane crash, and an inflatable boat ride down the slopes of the Himalayas and a raging river, all scored with wall-to-wall John Williams music.

In conclusion, this film has plenty to offer. It may not be fair to compare it to its predecessor or action movies of today but it does pass one very important test: if it comes on TV, I don’t change the channel!

“Kali Ma!”

The Great (film) Debates vol. 16

2011-11-20T09:00:00.006-05:00

Bond. . . James Bond. There have been many James Bonds, but some would say there was only ever one. But we don't accept half answers here, so tell us:

Rank the James Bond actors from best to worst.

Panelist: ScottDS

Connery, Brosnan, Craig, Moore, Dalton, Lazenby. I want to be clear that I like them all. Connery is the man - no doubt about that. My first theatrical Bond experience was GoldenEye in 1995 when I was 12 so I guess it’s only natural that I would rank Brosnan higher than other people might. In my opinion, his problem was that each film got worse and worse - I still think GoldenEye is his best but I admit nostalgia might be playing a part here. I enjoy the hell out of Craig (who cares if he’s blonde?!) but he’s batting .500 right now. I like Moore but The Man with the Golden Gun is my least favorite Bond film and I think he stayed on for one film too many. The one actor whose Bond films I enjoy in toto (probably because he only did two) is Dalton. Yes, I like Licence to Kill even though it’s more Joel Silver than James Bond. For a first-time actor, Lazenby wasn’t too bad. Unfortunately, he didn’t want to do any more Bond films so we’ll never know how good he could’ve been.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Connery, Nivan, Dalton, Craig, Lazenby, Brosnan, Moore.

Panelist: T-Rav

1. Sean Connery -- because he’s Sean Connery.
2. Daniel Craig -- No, really. I know some people were mad because he was the first blue-eyed Bond or something, but I thought he pulled it off well.
3. Pierce Brosnan -- Didn’t care for him that much, but he was effective.
4. Roger Moore -- because I could never take him seriously as Bond.

I don’t know about the other two guys who took the role (Timothy Dalton and someone), but they only had it for like one movie so I can’t imagine they were good.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

Connery comes first, hands down. He had it all. He was suave, handsome, charming and yet brutal. Surprisingly, my second choice is Craig. Craig has shown a real ability to shift between charming and brutal and projects an "I don't care what anyone thinks, I will get the job done my way" attitude which really fits Bond perfectly. I have to admit, I've even come around on his second film on re-watching. Then we hit a cliff. Brosnan was handsome and suave, but never tough enough. Lazenby was plastic, but was saved by his excellent Bond-Girl Diana Rigg. Then comes Roger Moore. He's the first Bond I saw and I thought he was great... but over time, he's come to seem prissy, snippy, uncomfortable and more suited to comic relief than the lead. Why is he wearing old-lady glasses? Finally, we come to angry, classless Timmy Dalton. His scripts were garbage. I honestly have a hard time seeing them as Bond films.

Who's your favorite?

TV Review: Hell On Wheels (2011-????)

2011-11-18T15:40:00.011-05:00

I hate predicting how a series will turn out after only two episodes. But only two episodes into AMC’s new show Hell on Wheels, I’m having serious problems with the show and I think it’s only going to get worse because the problems lie within the writer’s liberal worldview and dishonest motives.

Hell on Wheels is the story of Cullen Bohannon (Anson Mount), an ex-confederate soldier seeking revenge for the killing of his wife. He takes a job working for Thomas Durant (Colm Meaney), who is building the transcontinental railroad through Nebraska in 1865. Bohannon takes this job because the man he wants to kill works for the railroad as a foreman. Bohannon gets the job and then goes to kill the foreman. But the foreman throws him for a loop when he mentions another murderer Bohannon knows nothing about. But just as the foreman is about to reveal the man’s identity, the foreman is killed by Elam Ferguson (racist rapper turned actor Common). Hilarity ensues.

My problems with Hell on Wheels actually started from the first word. For weeks before the show premiered, AMC ran ads implying this would be more than just a Western. Specifically, they used a line of dialog which implied something supernatural was taking place. But in the opening twenty seconds, we discover that "line" was in reality two separate lines spliced together to create a misleading impression. Rather than referencing some supernatural force they unleashed, the character was only whining about how evil he and the rest of the Union Army were in the Civil War. Boo fricken hoo.

And it doesn’t stop there. Soon we get blasted by characters whining about how evilly the South treated Union prisoners of war. . . how evilly the Union treated the South’s soldiers. . . how evilly the Southerners treated the slaves. . . how evilly whitey treated the Indians. . . how evilly the Irish were treated. . . how evilly whitey treated the Chinese. . . how evilly corporate America treated its workers. . . etc. etc. etc. Every racial, ethnic, religious, political or economic grievance you can conjure up about the era gets crammed into the first two episodes. That’s whiny liberalism at its worst.

Even worse, the characters accept the modern liberal worldview. Hence, they all lament how evil they are and almost every scene involves characters whining about some group-based grievance. And even worse, standard liberal hypocrisies apply. Thus, they are all hopelessly conflicted and dearly apologetic about all the evils done by their own people and they reject evils like racism and violence. . . unless you're black or an Indian, then it’s hunky dory. This is ridiculous. This show seems to be written from the worst end of the racial identity politics regime. If we swapped the characters’ races, you’d swear this was written by the Klan.

And it doesn't stop there. Our hero Bohannon is a cliché, being a cold-blooded killer in the tradition of Clint Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns. But he's also noble because he freed his own slaves before the war because he knew slavery was wrong. Really? This is ex post facto liberal false courage masturbatory disease. This is all those liberals who tell you proudly how THEY would have stood up to Hitler if THEY’d lived in Germany, or THEY would have led the Civil Rights Movement, or THEY would have ended slavery, or THEY would have been the first to [fill in the blank]. . . when the reality is they are abject cowards with a complete blindspot for the intersection of personal responsibility and morality. The Bohannon character is an attempt by liberal writers to feel morally superior by criticizing a long gone era using modern sensibilities knowing that they risk nothing by being so "brave."

The villain, Thomas Durant, is the ultimate liberal boogeyman, by the way. Not only is he entirely corrupt, as we’re told all businessmen apparently were at that time, but he’s murderous, gratuitously racist, he beats his underlings and needlessly humiliates people he bribes. He openly bribes and threatens Senators, tells the press his evil plans because he knows they would never go against him, and he laughs maniacally at all of his own evil doings. He actually sees himself as evil and revels in it. Indeed, Colm Meaney plays Durant so rottenly that Ebenezer Scrooge would cry foul.

But even beyond the politics, this story is full of inexplicable actions and plot conveniences. Why does Bohannon bother joining the railroad when he could have just rode up and shot his nemesis? Why stick around after the murder except to get caught -- he wasn’t told until later that Elam knows who the other killer might be. Why would Durant not hang Bohannon (he framed him for the foreman’s murder) just because Bohannon says he knows how to handle blacks? And what are the chances Elam would kill the foreman just as he was about to spill the beans, and then actually know the foreman’s secret when the foreman clearly never confided in blacks and when Elam wouldn’t even have any way to connect the dots? Or are we to believe the foreman liked to brag about the same murder that supposedly haunted him?

Almost every moment in this show feels manufactured. It is manufactured in the sense that the characters’ actions make no sense, they espouse beliefs that are anachronistic and inconsistent, and each scene feels set up just to let them espouse those beliefs. The actions binding the character together are nonsense and the characters themselves are laughably cardboard and seem drawn to act as liberal archetypes.

Even beyond that, there are problems. Is the show fast paced? Sure. But the acting is weak and the accents are horrid. The costumes are good, except Common looks too clean and modern to be a railroad worker from 1865. . . he looks more like a model. Does the plot twist and turn? Sure. But it’s not surprising.

But in the end, the real problem is that I keep feeling in scene after scene that I’m being fed propaganda. I keep being told revisionist history. I keep seeing extreme liberal boogeymen and I can’t help but see a sad liberal writer proudly telling himself, "that would have been me!" Yeah, sure. This show is dishonest and that’s the problem.

Guest Review: The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)

2011-11-16T15:40:00.002-05:00

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

Few would deny the Coen brothers are among the most acclaimed film makers of their generation. Yet much of their work has not resonated quite as loudly at the box office as with the critics. Some claim the brothers dwell too often on negative or depressing themes. That could certainly be argued for one of their more obscure films, The Man Who Wasn’t There. Perhaps so, but it is probably my favorite Coen Brothers film for a variety of reasons which I’ll discuss below.

Format - The idea for this film germinated from a poster used in the film The Hudsucker Proxy which depicts various styles of haircuts from the 1940ʼs. As the brothers developed their idea, they settled on a film noir, black comedy set in the late 40ʼs. The Coens freely credit as their inspiration the gritty style of writer James M. Cain (Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice.) As such, they chose to use black and white, and the conventional, straightforward filming techniques of the time. Along with thorough attention to realistic props, there is no question the movie accurately reflects the look of the period. Interestingly, cinematographer Roger Deakins points out he actually shot the movie on modern color stock, then modified it to black and white, claiming that gave the film a more smooth and lush texture (non-grainy) than could otherwise have been possible.

Themes - As with other works by the Coen brothers, this film implicitly explores the philosophies of both Soren Kierkegaard (Existentialism) and Albert Camus (Absurdism.) The latter is actually an outgrowth of the former and is grounded in the notion that it is impossible for man to make sense or order out of his life in a world that is fundamentally chaotic in nature. In fact, at the time of its release, several critics pointed out the numerous thematic similarities between this film and some of the works of Camus.

*** slight spoiler alert ***

Plot - This is a superb classic film noir story about a very ordinary man named Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) a barber in Santa Rosa, California in the late 40ʼs. The character serves as the film’s narrator, and is instinctively recognizable as the quiet unassuming man everyone has known at one time or another who blends into the background to the point he is virtually invisible (as intimated by the title.) Crane is second chair in a barber shop owned by his brother-in-law, Frank (Michael Badulucco of L.A. Law.) Ed is settled into what could best be described as a stale marriage to Frank’s sister Doris (Frances McDormand.)

Doris works as an accountant at Nirdlingerʼs, a local family owned department store and drinks too much. Her boss, “Big Dave” Brewster (James Gandolfini) owes his own career to his marriage to Ann, the daughter of the store’s owner. Ed feels certain Doris is having an affair with “Big Dave” (“all the signs were there”) but true to his character, he appears outwardly to not particularly care all that much.

One day, Ed is cutting the hair of a stranger in town named Creighton Tolliver (Jon Polito.) Tolliver is looking for a silent financial partner in a new, potentially commercially viable process known as dry cleaning. Intrigued, but without the means to invest the required $10,000, Ed hits upon a scheme to anonymously blackmail “Big Dave” regarding his affair with Doris. Big Dave even confides in Ed that he is being blackmailed for $10,000 for an affair he is having with a married woman (not mentioning it is Doris, of course), asking him what he should do. Ed naturally advises Big Dave to pay, then secretly collects the money from the drop, and signs the paperwork for his partnership with Tolliver who is in the process of heading out of town.

However, as so often happens in well-crafted film noir, the web of deceit woven by Ed Crane becomes tangled and quickly spins out of control as a complex set of events conspire to create unanticipated consequences not revealed in this review.

Acting - Headlined by a masterful performance from Thornton (in which he puts on a clinic for the term “underacting,”) the strength of acting is uniformly top rate throughout the cast. In addition to Thornton’s role and an equally strong performance by Gandolfini, some of the “usual suspects” found in Coen brothersʼ films make their presence known as well. Frances McDormand (Joel Coenʼs wife) is her usual brilliant self playing Doris to perfection. I have had the pleasure of meeting Jon Polito numerous times before his career started (while he was at Villanova University sharing an apartment in Bryn Mawr with a high school buddy of mine.) Polito, who regularly collaborates with the Coen brothers, is one of the best character actors in the business. When people look him up and see his picture, everybody goes “Oh Yeah . . . him . . . sure!”

There are also several smaller roles with effective performances by a young Scarlett Johansson as Birdy Abundas, a teenaged neighbor and potentially talented piano student, as well as Tony Shaloub (Monk) as hot shot attorney Freddy Riedenschneider. I would be remiss, though, without mentioning a funny and fine performance by Richard Jenkins as Birdyʼs father Walter Abundas.

Direction - Joel Coen shared best director award at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival with David Lynch for Mulholland Drive. Both equally deserved the award. When you look at each scene carefully, it is hard to argue with most of the choices made by the director, although the occasional allusions to extra terrestrials and flying saucers were mostly lost on me. Still, the look, feel, and pacing of the film are all superb and credit must be given where it is due.

Summary - Much of the award nominations went to the cinematography, and I agree the techniques used to simulate a 40ʼs era film noir were superb. But really, this film works well on a lot of different levels. It is well plotted and scripted with plenty of black humor throughout, all expertly handled by the actors. The music soundtrack consisting mainly of Beethoven piano sonatas is, perhaps, unexpectedly effective given the genre. There is almost nothing I would change, but admit that Edʼs seeming indifference at the end to his ultimate fate might seem a tad unrealistic even from an absurdist point of view. Neverthless, it is a film I would highly recommend and remains my personal Coen Brothers favorite.

What are your thoughts about this film, and do you have a favorite Coen film?

The Great (film) Debates vol. 15

2011-11-13T09:00:00.002-05:00

These days we have a lot of celebrities, and we know way too much about their pointless lives. But history is full of great people with great deeds. Some of them deserve a little screen time.

If you could see a miniseries made about someone’s life, who would it be?

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Queen Elizabeth the Second. I think she is the ultimate classy person and queen. Definitely leave in the scene where she is given an ipod of Obama’s speeches.

Panelist: T-Rav

Pope John Paul II. I think there’s already been one or two made-for-TV movies about him, but he had such a full life, it really deserves a more extended look. Plus, he had a more important role in defeating Communism than a lot of people realize, and that aspect of his achievements--and his spiritual way of looking at the world in general--needs more attention.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

This one is tougher than it seems because there are so many. I'd love to see a series on Napoleon. . . the inventor of the modern state and the man who started what should really be considered the first world war. Shakespeare fascinates me too -- he wrote that thing. . . or didn't. But right now, I'd go with J. Edgar Hoover (sans the smear job). He is one of the most important men when it comes to shaping the modern federal government and I'd be fascinated to see that story.

Panelist: ScottDS

Teddy freaking Roosevelt! If HBO doesn’t want it, then give it to Showtime or ReelzChannel. Bring in Edmund Morris (author of an excellent three-part biography) as a consultant and John Milius (TR fan and director of TNT’s Rough Riders movie) as a producer and possibly director as well. Some subtle CGI can bring turn of the century New York City and D.C. to life.

Comments? Thoughts? Who would you choose and why?

Politics of Trek: “Patterns of Force”

2011-11-11T15:40:00.007-05:00

If you haven’t seen the original Star Trek series, you should. Not only is it deeply woven into our culture, but it hits a high-water mark in terms of science fiction addressing social issues without beating you over the head with the message. Moreover, whether they realized it or not, it’s a fundamentally conservative/libertarian show. So today I want to start a new series pointing out some of the most conservative Star Trek episodes from the original series. . . as compared to the ultra-liberal Star Trek: The Next Generation. Let’s start with Episode 50: Patterns of Force.

The Plot

This is “the Nazi episode.” The crew of the Enterprise is called to Ekos to investigate the disappearance of Federation historian John Gill. Gill, one of Kirk’s professors at Starfleet Academy, went to Ekos to observe their culture. As the Enterprise nears Ekos, they are shocked when a nuclear missile is fired at them. Beaming down in secret, they discover that the Ekosians have replicated Nazi Germany, right down to the uniforms, and the Ekosians are planning to exterminate their peaceful planetary neighbors, the Zeons. What's worse, John Gill has made himself the Führer!

Eventually, Kirk and Spock find a way to get to Gill. When they reach him, they discover he’s been drugged into a stupor and is little more than a literal figurehead. Deputy Führer Melakon is the real power.

Why It’s Conservative

On its surface, you might think a story about Nazis is left wing. After all, Hollywood wants you to believe the Nazis were a right wing phenomenon equivalent to Libertarianism/ Conservatism. This is laughable, as the national socialist Nazis were everything the left claims to love. Yet, many people still ignorantly accept the idea the Nazis were rightists rather than leftists because that’s what they’ve been taught by leftist teachers. So it shouldn’t surprise if a show about Nazis was meant as an attack on conservatives.

But “Patterns of Force” isn’t actually an anti-Nazi story. Rather, it’s a warning against the idea of the “benign” totalitarian government. To see this, we need only look at the episode’s payoff scene where Kirk questions Gill after McCoy counteracts the drugs given to Gill. Kirk angrily demands to know why Gill violated the Prime Directive (non-interference in alien worlds). Gill answers that the Ekosians were a divided people and Gill thought he could unify them using the Nazi model. Kirk then asks why Gill picked the Nazis, who were cruel and murderous. Gill (with an assist from Spock) explains that the Nazis, while ruthless, were highly efficient and highly organized. Gill believed he could recreate the good parts of Nazi Germany without the bad parts by being a benign dictator. Here's the transcript:

KIRK: Gill. Gill, why did you abandon your mission? Why did you interfere with this culture?
GILL: Planet fragmented. Divided. Took lesson from Earth history.
KIRK: But why Nazi Germany? You studied history. You knew what the Nazis were.
GILL: Most efficient state Earth ever knew.
SPOCK: Quite true, Captain. That tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated, rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination.
KIRK: But it was brutal, perverted, had to be destroyed at a terrible cost. Why that example?
SPOCK: Perhaps Gill felt that such a state, run benignly, could accomplish its efficiency without sadism.
KIRK: Why, Gill? Why?
GILL: Worked. At first it worked. Then Melakon began take over. Used the. Gave me the drug.

This is not a liberal message. To the contrary, it is a fundamentally conservative message.

Liberals desire powerful government. They believe that even totalitarian regimes can be good so long as they are run benignly. Indeed, you’ll often hear liberals suggest that we should suspend things like rule of law and free elections or give the state tremendous power so it can achieve some supposedly noble goal that can’t be achieved the legal way.

Conservatives, on the other hand, know you cannot give power to one person without taking away freedom from another, and they understand that what sounds like benign power to some is tyranny to others. They also understand that when too much power is given, tyranny will always follow. That’s the point of Lord Acton’s most famous quote: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This difference in belief is the core or fundamental difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

And while it is true that many liberal stories involve people fighting against oppressive governments, it is important to note that they rarely (if ever) criticize the concentration of power. Instead, they merely attack those who would misuse the power, i.e. those who would use the power for purposes of which the liberals don’t approve -- this is why oppressive governments in liberal stories are always police states, military dictatorships or theocracies. And in many cases, the resolution of the story involves the replacement of the evil government with a benign council of experts or bleeding hearts who will then use that power “to help people.”

“Patterns of Force” rejects this as faulty logic. It warns that you cannot have a benign dictator. It warns the problem is the concentration of power itself because the misuse of that power is inevitable. And no matter what the intentions may be for the creation of the state, the very concentration of that much power will attract someone who will misuse the power for evil.

And that makes this a fundamentally conservative message.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 14

2011-11-06T09:00:00.003-05:00

Classic Hollywood produced some wonderful actresses. They had style, grace, and they could act.

Who is your favorite classic Hollywood actress and what was her best role?

Panelist: ScottDS

Miss Barbara Stanwyck, and I would say her best role is a toss-up between Phyllis Dietrichson in Double Indemnity and Jean Harrington in The Lady Eve. In fact, when people ask me who my celebrity crush is, I mention a few modern day actresses and I top it off with "Barbara Stanwyck circa 1941 when she did The Lady Eve and Ball of Fire." A friend of mine thinks she resembles a girl I had a crush on in film school but the jury is still out on that one. "There’s a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour."

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Joanne Woodward (of course) in Long Hot Summer. Hepburn is the obvious choice, but you did say favorite!! I liked Long Hot Summer over 3 Faces of Eve even though the latter won her an Oscar. The rationale for that is probably as a native Georgian, she was a natural in LHS.

Panelist: T-Rav

Judy Garland. Obviously, The Wizard of Oz would be the high point of her career; it's hard now for me to imagine Dorothy being played by anyone else but her. She had several good movies after that, of course, like Meet Me in St. Louis (on my mind right now for obvious reasons), and through the '40s and '50s she probably had a better set of pipes than anyone else in Hollywood, in my opinion. I wonder what more she might have done, if not for her sad descent and premature death.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I was tempted to say Rosalind Russell because she was a fantastic actress and I've liked her in everything I've seen her in. But for favorite, I just can't get away from Lauren Bacall. Her performance in To Have And Have Not is one of my all-time favorites and she was solid in every film after that -- even as late as the 1970s, when she starred in Murder On The Orient Express. There isn't a character she couldn't play.

Comments? Thoughts? Who would you choose and why?

TV Review: Boardwalk Empire (2010-????)

2011-11-04T15:30:00.000-04:00

HBO has another hit on its hands: Boardwalk Empire. It’s a really good drama with a lot to love. It does have flaws, but they’re easy to overlook -- except they do hold the series back from being truly addictive. Interestingly, most people compare this to Sopranos, but it’s actually very different in some key ways, and I think that’s where the flaws lie.

The Story

Created by Terrence Winter, who wrote 25 episodes of The Sopranos. Boardwalk Empire is an hour-long series on HBO centered around historical crime kingpin Enoch “Nucky” Johnson (renamed “Thompson” for the series). Nucky (Steve Buscemi) is the boss of Atlantic City when Prohibition becomes the law of the land. He controls the local government. He controls the police. And now he control the liquor industry in the city.

As of the middle of season two, the story has been primarily about the struggle between Nucky and a group led by “the Commodore” (Dabney Coleman), who are fighting to wrestle control of Atlantic City from Nucky. Meanwhile, Nucky is fending off outside gangsters including a young Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Arnold Rothstein and more, while dodging Federal Prohibition Agents led by religious extremist Nelson Van Alden (Michael Shannon). Interestingly, neither Lucky nor the Commodore’s group had resorted to violence until recently, so this isn’t a traditional mob story.

Where Empire Fails

I’m enjoying Empire a lot, but I do have some criticisms. For one thing, there are too many characters. There are 16 characters listed in the cast and another 13 listed as recurring characters, with more coming all the time. In and of itself, a large number of characters isn’t a problem, but Empire tries to touch upon each of these characters at least once per episode. That means too much is tossed at you in any one episode and it’s typically treated too shallowly because there just isn’t enough time to go into depth with that much competing for screen time. Also, some of these subplots add little to the story. Often, minor characters get lengthy contemplative scenes, such as disfigured WWI sniper Harrow spending five minutes getting his picture painted and later spending another ten minutes contemplating suicide. But these add nothing to the plot and the characters are too minor for us to care about their inner thoughts.

At the same time, this many-short-scenes approach leaves us with too little insight in Nucky himself. This is where the Sopranos comparison comes in. It’s clear that Empire is structured like Sopranos. But there are key differences and it’s those key differences that keep Empire from being as addictive as Sopranos. For one thing, you liked Tony Soprano. You couldn’t help but like him. He was a bumbler who wasn’t well-equipped to handle the problems he encountered. He desperately wanted to be the good guy but he didn’t know how. His decisions, while made from his heart, always came across as dictatorial and stupid and blew up in his face time and again. But you liked him because you knew how hard he struggled to be good, even when he ordered the murder of close friends.

Nucky is not Tony. Like Tony, Nucky has serious flaws which blind him to what is going on around him and his decision-making process is flawed. But unlike Tony, Nucky is cocky, arrogant and competent. Tony’s failures came from not knowing how to act, Nucky’s failures come from being a jerk. That makes him hard to like.

Also, whereas the Sopranos was really the story of how Tony dealt with his family, Empire all but ignores this part of Nucky. Yes, we see his home life in each episode, but he never leaves the office, so to speak. Indeed, the only times we see him at home is when he rushes home to explain what he’s doing before he rushes off to another meeting. Moreover, even though Nucky is in most scenes, we are never privy to his thoughts. So we never really get a chance to know Nucky the person.

To me, these are significant flaws which keep the story from reaching its potential. Nucky is too hard to like. Thus, it’s hard to care about what happens to him. There are too many subplots and characters to give us the chance to care about anyone else either. Also, the plot itself is pretty obvious and the surprises are not surprising. At the same time, too much remains vague and goes unexplained.

Where Empire Succeeds

With all that being said, I am really enjoying this show very much. The sets and costumes are great. The acting is stellar. The story is solid and unpredictable enough scene-to-scene to keep your interest. The characters are interesting, if not likable, and there’s a real sense the story is building to something much more interesting with each passing episode. The writing is fantastic too. Each line is beautifully written and the show is packed with great lines, yet these lines never feel forced. Also, the characters are all unique and deep. This isn’t simply Goodfellas or The Godfather or The Untouchables transferred to the 1920s.

Finally, the story is historically smart. Most shows like this give you one or two cliché moments to let you know they looked up the era on Wikipedia, e.g. they introduce a famous boxer from the period. This show goes way beyond that. You meet famous entertainers, sports figures and politicians, some of whom get wrapped into the plot. Historical events like Prohibition, World War I, and the influx of the Irish are constantly in the background. Even day to day life is portrayed accurately. Indeed, every scene is deeply ensconced in things that make you believe this is really the 1920s.

All in all, I highly recommend Boardwalk Empire. It might take a couple episodes to get you interested, but when it does, it’s well worth the time.

The Myth of Foreign Films

2011-11-02T15:40:00.001-04:00

I am calling bull on the idea of “foreign” films. For decades, we’ve been told that foreign films offer “something different.” They are deeper and more thoughtful. They aren’t structured for quick commercial sale like everything coming out of Hollywood. They are supposed to offer us a glimpse into an entirely different way of seeing the world, a glimpse you just can’t get from Hollywood. Uh.... no.

I’ve seen a vast number of foreign films. And yet, it’s the truly rare foreign film that offers something unexpected. Yes, they are often slower and typically much more talky and they don’t look quite like our films, but they function in the exact same ways Hollywood films do. Specifically, they establish their heroes using the same tricks. They designate their villains in the same way. Their conflicts aren’t anything you haven’t seen in American films. And their resolutions follow the standard format we all learned in high school English. Good luck finding a story that starts with the climax, or which has no climax.

Sometimes, you find something culturally interesting. For example, the substitution of a noodle cook off for a gun fight in Tampopo, which is really a remake of the Spaghetti Westerns, which were themselves remakes of Kurosawa’s work. Or the high premium placed on honor in the wuxia style fantasy/kung fu films from China. But these aren’t foreign concepts, they just aren’t so much in vogue right now in Hollywood.

Indian musicals are unpleasant unique, I’ll give them that. But only because their singing style is different. Other than that, they aren’t much different from 1950s musicals. Hong Kong films are direct rip offs of American action films. The Japanese are excellent filmmakers, and occasionally offer something unique, but still rarely venture far from the American formulas. German films are full of angst, but little originality and, frankly, I don’t even see much culture in them. And French films are the most Hollywood out there, unless you count British films as foreign.

Ran is King Lear. High and Lo is Ransom!. Stalingrad is Platoon. Strictly Ballroom is the classic ugly duckling story. Etc.

At one point, I decided to see what the world had to say about romance or love. So I rounded up a bunch of foreign films on the topic. I was hoping to see something distinctly non-Hollywood. I didn’t. There were some glimpses, but each film still fell pretty firmly within the formula. Interestingly, the best foreign romance film I saw wasn’t even a romance, it was Hero (2002), a Jet Li wuxia martial arts film based around a tragic love story.

Where I have had some success has been in the odd-ball films. Diva was an odd French film which presented a strangely likable stalker. Hero, as I said, had a great love story. The heroine in the Korean My Sassy Girl was interesting because she’s so hard to describe. She’s both self-destructive and sadistic, but not in the sexual way Hollywood interprets the term. . . there’s no easy way to describe her, which makes her rather unique. Shall We Dance was great because it had all these aspects of Japanese culture in them -- the remake was typical Hollywood stereotypes. Run Lola Run was neat because of its pounding pace and writing trickery. And Kurosawa’s Ikuru, though quite old, was easily the best film I’ve ever seen about the problems of bureaucracy and how people stand in the way of good deeds.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many good foreign films (and many more stinkers), but I’ve come to the conclusion that few really offer what foreign films supposedly offer -- a glimpse into a strange world with a very different set of rules than our own. Ultimately, I guess that’s a good thing because it means humans have a common culture. That means we should all one day be able to work together. But in the meantime, it kind of sucks the life out of the foreign film experience.

So give me some help here. Tell me some foreign films you’ve seen that really struck you as unusual, deeply explicative of culture, or just really good.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 13

2011-10-30T09:00:00.006-04:00

With Obama's approval ratings approaching 0.0% like a Delta House GPA, we need a replacement. And there's nowhere better to look for said replacement than Hollywood!

Who is your favorite Hollywood (film/TV) President?

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I'm going with William Devane as Henry Hayes in Stargate SG-1. Not only does Devane look the part, but he carries himself like a president. Too often actors play presidents like they're noble geniuses or gosh-darnity, simple country boys, and it just seems fake. Devane plays a guy who is smart enough and political enough to be believable as a President, yet he always does what's best for the country, but he's also practical about doing it. In other words, he's not perfection/idealism personified, but he's a good guy. He'd make a great president.

Panelist: ScottDS

Oh man, is this a tough one! As much as I’d love to pick President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho (Terry Crews) from Mike Judge’s Idiocracy, I keep coming back to President Thomas J. Whitmore (Bill Pullman) from Independence Day: Gulf War veteran, family man, and ballsy enough to go into battle with aliens. I don’t know nearly enough about politics to provide a more detailed analysis but I’d probably vote for him! "I don’t understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?" (Honorable mention: President James Dale [Jack Nicholson] in Mars Attacks!.)

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

I think my favorite president on film was Charlton Heston who portrayed Andrew Jackson in The Buccaneer and The President’s Lady. He looked like him and had the gravitas. Raymond Massey as Abe Lincoln is just as good though in Abe Lincoln in Illinois.

Panelist: T-Rav

Morgan Freeman, hands down. Yes, he’s only been the President in one film that I know of (Deep Impact), but he’s just got such dignity and gravitas about him, such an aura of wisdom and calm, you can’t help but think he would make a good executive. Or at least you would have before we elected another guy to the presidency based on him looking cool and presidential and all (snark snark snark). Plus, he played God in Evan Almighty, so he’s obviously qualified.

Comments? Thoughts? Who would you choose and why?

My Favorite Obscure Horror Films

2011-10-28T15:40:00.015-04:00

In honor of Halloween being Monday night, I thought I’d put together a list of great horror movies you can use to creep yourselves out. Boo! But rather than list the usual suspects like The Exorcist, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, and Alien, I thought I'd give you some more obscure films that I truly love.

● The Others (2001): A psychological drama as much as a horror film, this story of a borderline-abusive mother (Nichole Kidman) who lives in a darkened old house with her two photosensitive children delves deeply into questions of paranoia and supernatural hauntings as an unseen enemy seems determined to destroy Kidman. This film also has a genuinely amazing twist you'll never see coming.

● Phantasm (1979): A true cult classic, this independent film is well known among horror aficionados for a reason: it’s great! The story of a young boy who discovers something mysterious going on at the local graveyard, Phantasm has a truly original concept, a surprisingly strong execution, and gave us a murderous flying ball, an army of dwarves, and an iconic villain: “the Tall Man.”

● Pontypool (2009): More a psychological thriller than a zombie film, Pontypool provides a very strong and unique take on zombies. This one is really gripping. (Reviewed Here)

● Prince of Darkness (1987): John Carpenter’s scariest film, POD is the story of a group of scientists trapped in a church as the Antichrist tries to break into our universe. This film combines a very original premise with some fantastically creepy suspense and some really horrific moments to give us one of the more troubling horror movies in the past forty years. (Reviewed Here)

● Session 9 (2001): I expected nothing when I saw this David Caruso/Paul Guilfoyle-led independent film late one night and I was amazed to find it tense, compelling and spooky. The story of an asbestos cleaning crew who freak themselves out as they work to clean up an abandoned mental hospital with a horrific past, this film provides enough tension to keep you on the edge of your seat throughout.

● Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983): Not a scary movie by any means, this is more of a mood movie, with Jason Robards as a father who fears he’s lost the respect of his boy, giving an opening to an evil circus ring-mastered by Jonathan Pryce to come to town and lure the townsfolk to their doom. The library scene alone is worth the price of admission. (Reviewed Here)

● The Fog (1980): Staring Adrienne Barbeau, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janet Leigh and Hal Holbrook, John Carpenter’s The Fog is a film that is so much better than it deserves to be. The story of a California fishing town about to be overrun by a fog seeking revenge for sins committed by the town’s founders 100 year before, this film will creep you out without grossing you out. Interestingly, the creepiest moments were forced upon Carpenter by the studio. (Avoid the remake.)

Great Scene: Poltergeist

2011-10-26T15:30:00.004-04:00

Every once in awhile, a movie scene really stands out. Today I want to talk about such a scene. This is a truly brilliant speech from the film Poltergeist, where Tangina (Zelda Rubinstein) the medium explains what has happened to Carol Anne. This speech is incredible. In fact, it makes THE film.

(I’ve reproduced the entire speech below, so you can read it.)

Up to this point, the film has set the viewer up perfectly for the climax to come. The film starts by introducing the family through a series of fun and insightful scenes. We are also told something supernatural is going on inside the house. At first, this involved comedic or mischievous moments, such as stacked chairs. But we also saw a more sinister side the family hadn’t, as a spectral arm reached out for Carol Anne one night. Then the force kidnapped Carol Anne.

At the time of this speech, we don't know yet what this force is or how malevolent it really is. We have hints. For example, kidnapping Carol Anne is not a good thing -- though it could just be she walked into another dimension and is lost as happened in a Twilight Zone. But we also saw the force put horrific images into the mind of one researcher. Yet, at the same time, the lead researcher explained to us that death is a beautiful experience and she gives a vision of tranquility, happiness and continuing life beyond. So is it evil? We don’t know yet, but we're about to find out.

As the speech begins, Tangina has just examined the house, telling us it has “many hearts,” meaning many centers of psychic activity. Now she gathers the family together.

She begins by telling us authoritatively the film’s philosophy of death. “There is no death, it is only a transition to a different sphere of consciousness.” This opening line is so layered and full of things to consider that it could actually form the basis of an entire movie. It also brilliantly puts the audience at ease and opens the part of our brains which do deep, philosophical thoughts. In other words, this line makes you receptive to profound thoughts, which will cause the horror to come from much deeper within your psyche than if she started with “there’s a monster,” which makes your brain defensive. It is also calming, which creates a greater contrast (i.e. more emotion) as we transition to horror.

She then explains how Carol Anne is alive and how she doesn’t belong where she is. In fact, she’s a bit of a road hazard because she’s distracting dead souls from a guiding light where happiness awaits. Tangina also subtly shifts the afterlife from happy to sad by telling us these souls “desperately desire but can’t have anymore” things like “love and home and earthly pleasures.” The writer has now triggered happiness, peace, reflectiveness and sadness within the audience. In effect, the writer is forcing the audience to become highly emotional. This shuts down the logic center of your brain and turns on the emotional part, which primes you to feel fear.

Then we get our first hint of horror, as Tangina tells us this state of death is actually “a nightmare from which [these souls] cannot awake.”

Now comes the key line: “Now hold onto yourselves.” This line changes the entire feel of the movie. Up to now, everything has been vague. It’s been more about curiosity than it has fear and it’s only offered suggestions of apprehension. This line screams: get tense! I honestly cannot think of a more effective line to cause the audience to stop breathing and brace themselves for the reveal.

With the audience set up, the reveal better be huge. It is. But it’s huge because the writer doesn’t actually do the reveal right away. He could have said, “It’s the beast!” And you would think that was cool, but you'd be disappointed. Instead, he teases the audience and builds the reveal up bit by bit. It is “a terrible presence,”, telling us to fear it. It is “so much rage, so much betrayal.” At this point, you still have no idea what it is, but you can already imagine it's horrible and evil. There is no doubt this is a scary thing.

Then Tangina tells us how strong it is by saying both that “I’ve never sensed anything like it,” meaning this is truly unique, and “it was strong enough to punch a hole into this world and take your daughter.” How strong must something be to “punch a hole” into our world? This is a freak out moment and you still don't know what it is. And she’s not done. She tells us we’re helpless against it by telling us “it hovers over the house,” i.e. it’s been here the whole time watching you and you can’t see it or stop it. Scary!

So it’s finally time for the reveal, right? Not quite. The writer now strikes even deeper. First, he tells us “it keeps Carol Anne very close to it,” which gives us images of some vile dead thing wrapping itself around this child. And then the writer plays on the fear of all parents, that someone will exploit their child’s greatest weakness -- their inability to reason like adults: “it lies to her. It says things only a child can understand.” This is a brilliant line because the writer never has to come up with any specific lies, which would inevitably disappoint. It also adds to the creature’s menace because how do you fight something that knows your child better than you?

Then Tangina ups the stakes by telling us that it is using Carol Anne to “restrain the others.” Think about this for a second. It has punched a hole into our reality and taken Carol Anne for the purpose of using her to keep souls from finding their way to God. That is an incredibly dark motive!

Then we get the reveal: “To her it simply is another child. To us it is the beast.” Wow! Now we know we're up against a chilling, unbeatable foe. But interestingly, we still don't really know what it is. This is fantastic writing because the biggest disappointment in horror films is the reveal of the nature of the horror. Here, the horror is never really revealed. We know its traits and what it wants, but we never really get told what it is -- all we get are suggestions of a monster and we are left to fill in all the details. This is brilliant.

Then the speech finishes with a fascinating fake-out. Tangina says: “Now let's go get your daughter.” This is a fake out because it implies the climax to the film has come. They will fight the beast, defeat it and all will end happily. . . as it appears to do. But the credits don’t start rolling. Instead, much worse is suddenly unleashed into our world and the end of the film provides a completely unexpected second climax. And the only reason it’s unexpected is because Tangina just built up the first fight into a climax with that one line.

This is incredible writing. This is the kind of scene writers should examine to see how to build suspense and change the tone of a film. The writer here does everything right and then some. Bravo!

There is no death. It is only a transition to a different sphere of consciousness.

Carol Anne is not like those she's with. She is a living presence in their spiritual, earthbound plane. They're attracted to the one thing about her that is different from themselves: her life force.

It is very strong. It gives off its own illumination. It is a light that implies life and memory of love and home and earthly pleasures something they desperately desire but can't have anymore.

Right now, she's the closest thing to that and that is a terrible distraction from the real light that has finally come for them. Do you understand me? These souls, who, for whatever reason are not at rest are also not aware that they have passed on. They're not part of consciousness as we know it. They linger in a perpetual dream state a nightmare from which they cannot awake.

Inside this spectral light is salvation. A window to the next plane. They must pass through this membrane where friends are waiting to guide them to new destinies. Carol Anne must help them cross over. And she will only hear her mother's voice.

Now hold onto yourselves.

There's one more thing. A terrible presence is in there with her. So much rage, so much betrayal. I've never sensed anything like it. I don't know what hovers over this house but it was strong enough to punch a hole into this world and take your daughter away from you.

It keeps Carol Anne very close to it and away from the spectral light. It lies to her. It says things only a child can understand. It has been using her to restrain the others.

To her it simply is another child. To us it is the beast.
Now let's go get your daughter.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 12

2011-10-23T09:00:00.005-04:00

Now I'm told actresses are important to films too these days. Who knew?! Since we did actors last week, let's see what people think about these so-called "actresses" this week.

Who is your favorite modern actress and what is their best role?

Panelist: T-Rav

She's not very well known, but Jenna Fischer. Probably she's more famous for NBC's The Office than for any film roles, which include Blades of Glory, Slither, and Walk Hard: movies which, in truth, were not very good. However, she does a good job of being sweet, funny, and clever all at the same time. I can't see her doing anything very dark or dramatic, but then you can stay in light comedic roles and still be a good, endearing actor or actress.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

There are several modern actresses whose presence ruins films for me (e.g. Julia Roberts), but I regret to say there are no modern actresses who make me more likely to see a film. That said, a few do stand out. Anna Farris has great comedic timing. Katherine Heigl has whatever it is that works well in romantic roles. Sandra Bullock is hard not to like. But when it comes to a favorite, I have to go with Natascha McElhone. She was great as an Irish terrorist in Ronin and did a super job in a very hard role as the reincarnated wife of George Clooney, who was destined to be suicidal, in Solaris. A close second comes from the 1980s with Bonnie Bedelia, who was great in Presumed Innocent and Salem's Lot.

Panelist: ScottDS

Originally, my answer was similar to my answer for favorite modern actor (I don't have one), but thanks to some peer pressure on the part of one of the panelists, I ended up answering the question anyway. I won't name names but his alias is "Memphis Ted." So I would say that my favorite modern actress is Kate Winslet. She can play the range of the emotional spectrum, she can do demure and overpowering with equal aplomb, and she's pretty easy on the eyes (and unlike so many other actresses, she doesn't see a need for plastic surgery). I certainly haven't seen every film she's done but I don't believe she's gotten to the point where it looks like she's "acting." She might be best remembered for Titanic but, even if I had never seen that film, I would've ended up falling in love with her in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. "Meet me... in Montauk."

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Naomi Watts - her "dual" role in Muholland Drive cemented her creds. with me for all time. However, I may have to add that for romantic roles or comedies, I’d go with Reese Witherspoon. As I’ve mentioned, I love what she does non-verbally with her facial features, much like Lucille Ball, but subtler. Despite what I’ve just said, her performance as June Carter Cash is her greatest.

Comments? Thoughts? Who would you choose and why?