I'll take Business Ethics for 1000
CNN.com's front page story is the cover of Time magazine. That is, the stories are the same, but rather than use the same picture, which they both clearly have the rights to, CNN is actually advertising an affiliated magazine by making the top story a story another division wrote.
The whoring ABC/ESPN do for Disney has been bad enough, but CNN actually likes to carry on as if they had journalistic ethics. It's what keeps them going every week when the ratings come out - sure, we got killed by O'Reilly again, but at least we have our principles.
If I'm going to run a news outfit, and I have a choice of sins between partisan hackery and corporate whoring, am I wrong to think that partisan hackery is the morally superior choice?
No one complained when Katrina Vander Heuvel at The Nation made the same choice to save an American institution from bankruptcy.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Your Favorite Movie is Lame: Kill Bill Vol. 1
Since someone had the gall to suggest Kill Bill as One of the 10 Best Movies of a Certain Year, the gauntlet has been laid down. We won't bother too much with Vol. 2 which is so bad, it makes Andrew Dice Clay look like Monty Python. But they were supposed to be one bad movie rather than 2, so let's treat it like a bad movie with a long intermission. The intermission was good - in between watching these two awful movies I watched a little sports, got some Popeye's Chicken and a job, bought a car, did some Madlibs, went on a trip or two. This movie had probably the best intermission of any bad movie I've ever seen.
Before we apply the cardinal sins of pretension, let's begin with what's just plain bad:
- DIALOGUE!!! Despite the lauds for Tarantino's dialogue, all the supposedly tough guy (girl) lines fall flat. They're all delivered as if they're crushing blows...but they aren't.
- CASTING!!! The key to action picks is that the actors actually look like they can kick butt, or are casually violent, or whatever fits their character. Jet Li looks like he's spent a lot of time fighting and training. Jackie Chan looks like he has a lot of fun while fighting and training. That's why they play those roles.
Uma Thurman looks like a stick figure model who buys shoes on Sunset Blvd. She is well-trained and well-choreographed, but we just never believe she's that tough because, frankly, she isn't. Vivica Fox is ok for her part, which is just poorly written, so much so that it kind of verges on Opie offensive. Lucy Liu is the worst. She seems like she'd have trouble taking apart a fruit roll-up let alone the daring likes of Laura Flynn Boyle, Ally McBeal. But oh wait, no, she freaking runs the Japanese Yakuza! Much of her action sequences rely on long shot and dynamic cutting because she has no physical presence. And most of the part where she takes over the Yakuza is done in anime because she can't pull that off either. Why not just use CGI? Claymation? A manakin? The only character who really works is the Japanese school girl assassin, who despite her diminuitive size emanates casual violence.
Ok, so now what's really wrong with the movie: It's less than the sum of its parts. It's got cool action, a very long suffering hero, and it's full of Tarantino's broad array of film techniques. But non of these things are put to use properly - they're just thrown in to fit whatever seems cool.
The main character has no character. Her tone shifts radically and Thurman cannot pull it together - in some scenes she's angry, in some comical, in some she's honorable, in other's brutal. Whatever happens to be cool at the time. The movie has no consistent tone, which is a big error.
All of the cinematic references have no point. They're simply to prove that, yes, Quentin Tarantino knows more about movies than you do. The first 'movie about movies', Once Upon a Time in the West, used cinematic references which altered the outcome of well-known Western scenes in order to make a comment not only about the West, but about the genre of the Western. Tarantino seems to think that it's enough to be cool by putting in references to other movies.
Then there's the revenge theme. Again in the superior Once Upon a Time in the West, the mystery is why the main character wants revenge. That drives the watcher's curiousity. Kill Bill is driven by the mystery not of why she wants revenge, which is very clear, but why she was wronged in the first place. Of course, that question is completely not dealt with in Vol. 1 leaving the viewing experience almost completely hollow.
More importantly, it puts the honus of the movie not on the main character, who is no mystery, but her enemies, who are. And nothing is done to explain them in Vol.1. What makes Vol. 2 so lame is that the explanation for why all these girls betrayed her is...NOTHING! You know what would have been cooler than nothing? ANYTHING! This took me 3 seconds to come up with: Why not have the bad girls betray Uma as a part of their own revenge paths? We are given no reason why Liu went from seeking vengeance on one Yakuza boss to taking them over. Vivica Fox has no backstory. We could imagine a brilliant device whereby they themselves were somehow fulfilling their own revenge. Then Vol. 2 could have turned their burden from Vol. 1 upside down by delving into Darryl Hannah and Bill. Instead, this film simply doesn't stand alone because the burden of the film is unfulfilled. And in Vol. 2 it is catastrophically ignored. Instead we get the stupidest finishing move ever - so lame in its attempt to be cool by being lame that it is...lame.
Of course none of this matters because Tarantino has nothing to say and never will. He just wants to make cool stuff. So he makes a movie where he thinks up all the cool stuff he can and then throws them together. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. Owen Wilson is cool. James Bond is cool. Punk Rock is cool. Owen Wilson cast as James Bond playing the Punk Rock scene probably wouldn't be that cool. In fact, it would probably be pretty lame. So Tarantino sits down and says, "Ok, chicks are cool, chopsake is cool, samurai stuff is cool, yakuza is cool, anime is cool, tough talking black girls are cool, this music is cool" and he makes a movie. But Quentin Tarantino isn't cool, and so we have to sit there watching an uncool guy's coolness fantasy.
If Tarantino would make a movie about trying to be cool, then he might actually make something that speaks to the viewer since most of us who aren't Ted Tyler are trying desparately hard to be cool. Instead, Tarantino tries to make movies about revenge, which he clearly knows nothing about - apparently revenge is flippant, occasionally comical or ridiculous, and occasionally obsessed with style.
In the end, you will only like this movie if you dig Tarantino's style. I don't.
Now then, let's go to the Cardinal Sins:
1) Preachy - No
2) Political - No
3) Psychosexual - Yes
4) Too Long - Yes, in fact so much so that they had to make it 2 movies
5) Whiny Hero - No
So why is this movie so lame? More to the point, why is it still so pretentious? Well, for that, we have to give credit to Tarantino - he's invented his own category of lame. You see, rather than rely on traditional methods of pretention, putting one's message before entertainment value, Tarantino puts himself before all previous. And Tarantino isn't a political snob with weighty messages to oppress with, no. Tarantino is an art snob who thinks he knows what art is and so he has to lord it over us - look at me, aren't I artistic? Don't I defy your conventions by paying tribute to them and mocking them at the same time? Aren't I clever?
Maybe a little. But you need a stern cock-punch.
Since someone had the gall to suggest Kill Bill as One of the 10 Best Movies of a Certain Year, the gauntlet has been laid down. We won't bother too much with Vol. 2 which is so bad, it makes Andrew Dice Clay look like Monty Python. But they were supposed to be one bad movie rather than 2, so let's treat it like a bad movie with a long intermission. The intermission was good - in between watching these two awful movies I watched a little sports, got some Popeye's Chicken and a job, bought a car, did some Madlibs, went on a trip or two. This movie had probably the best intermission of any bad movie I've ever seen.
Before we apply the cardinal sins of pretension, let's begin with what's just plain bad:
- DIALOGUE!!! Despite the lauds for Tarantino's dialogue, all the supposedly tough guy (girl) lines fall flat. They're all delivered as if they're crushing blows...but they aren't.
- CASTING!!! The key to action picks is that the actors actually look like they can kick butt, or are casually violent, or whatever fits their character. Jet Li looks like he's spent a lot of time fighting and training. Jackie Chan looks like he has a lot of fun while fighting and training. That's why they play those roles.
Uma Thurman looks like a stick figure model who buys shoes on Sunset Blvd. She is well-trained and well-choreographed, but we just never believe she's that tough because, frankly, she isn't. Vivica Fox is ok for her part, which is just poorly written, so much so that it kind of verges on Opie offensive. Lucy Liu is the worst. She seems like she'd have trouble taking apart a fruit roll-up let alone the daring likes of Laura Flynn Boyle, Ally McBeal. But oh wait, no, she freaking runs the Japanese Yakuza! Much of her action sequences rely on long shot and dynamic cutting because she has no physical presence. And most of the part where she takes over the Yakuza is done in anime because she can't pull that off either. Why not just use CGI? Claymation? A manakin? The only character who really works is the Japanese school girl assassin, who despite her diminuitive size emanates casual violence.
Ok, so now what's really wrong with the movie: It's less than the sum of its parts. It's got cool action, a very long suffering hero, and it's full of Tarantino's broad array of film techniques. But non of these things are put to use properly - they're just thrown in to fit whatever seems cool.
The main character has no character. Her tone shifts radically and Thurman cannot pull it together - in some scenes she's angry, in some comical, in some she's honorable, in other's brutal. Whatever happens to be cool at the time. The movie has no consistent tone, which is a big error.
All of the cinematic references have no point. They're simply to prove that, yes, Quentin Tarantino knows more about movies than you do. The first 'movie about movies', Once Upon a Time in the West, used cinematic references which altered the outcome of well-known Western scenes in order to make a comment not only about the West, but about the genre of the Western. Tarantino seems to think that it's enough to be cool by putting in references to other movies.
Then there's the revenge theme. Again in the superior Once Upon a Time in the West, the mystery is why the main character wants revenge. That drives the watcher's curiousity. Kill Bill is driven by the mystery not of why she wants revenge, which is very clear, but why she was wronged in the first place. Of course, that question is completely not dealt with in Vol. 1 leaving the viewing experience almost completely hollow.
More importantly, it puts the honus of the movie not on the main character, who is no mystery, but her enemies, who are. And nothing is done to explain them in Vol.1. What makes Vol. 2 so lame is that the explanation for why all these girls betrayed her is...NOTHING! You know what would have been cooler than nothing? ANYTHING! This took me 3 seconds to come up with: Why not have the bad girls betray Uma as a part of their own revenge paths? We are given no reason why Liu went from seeking vengeance on one Yakuza boss to taking them over. Vivica Fox has no backstory. We could imagine a brilliant device whereby they themselves were somehow fulfilling their own revenge. Then Vol. 2 could have turned their burden from Vol. 1 upside down by delving into Darryl Hannah and Bill. Instead, this film simply doesn't stand alone because the burden of the film is unfulfilled. And in Vol. 2 it is catastrophically ignored. Instead we get the stupidest finishing move ever - so lame in its attempt to be cool by being lame that it is...lame.
Of course none of this matters because Tarantino has nothing to say and never will. He just wants to make cool stuff. So he makes a movie where he thinks up all the cool stuff he can and then throws them together. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. Owen Wilson is cool. James Bond is cool. Punk Rock is cool. Owen Wilson cast as James Bond playing the Punk Rock scene probably wouldn't be that cool. In fact, it would probably be pretty lame. So Tarantino sits down and says, "Ok, chicks are cool, chopsake is cool, samurai stuff is cool, yakuza is cool, anime is cool, tough talking black girls are cool, this music is cool" and he makes a movie. But Quentin Tarantino isn't cool, and so we have to sit there watching an uncool guy's coolness fantasy.
If Tarantino would make a movie about trying to be cool, then he might actually make something that speaks to the viewer since most of us who aren't Ted Tyler are trying desparately hard to be cool. Instead, Tarantino tries to make movies about revenge, which he clearly knows nothing about - apparently revenge is flippant, occasionally comical or ridiculous, and occasionally obsessed with style.
In the end, you will only like this movie if you dig Tarantino's style. I don't.
Now then, let's go to the Cardinal Sins:
1) Preachy - No
2) Political - No
3) Psychosexual - Yes
4) Too Long - Yes, in fact so much so that they had to make it 2 movies
5) Whiny Hero - No
So why is this movie so lame? More to the point, why is it still so pretentious? Well, for that, we have to give credit to Tarantino - he's invented his own category of lame. You see, rather than rely on traditional methods of pretention, putting one's message before entertainment value, Tarantino puts himself before all previous. And Tarantino isn't a political snob with weighty messages to oppress with, no. Tarantino is an art snob who thinks he knows what art is and so he has to lord it over us - look at me, aren't I artistic? Don't I defy your conventions by paying tribute to them and mocking them at the same time? Aren't I clever?
Maybe a little. But you need a stern cock-punch.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Why Do People Want to Emulate Barbra Streisand?
Every year, some potentially pudgy Californian announces on American Idol that she wants to emulate Barbra Streisand. Sometimes, she's talented. Sometimes she's not. But why on earth would anyone want to emulate Barbra Streisand? None of the male singers announce they want to be just like Michael Bolton.
Let's recap the thinking here - I want to be an obnoxious loudmouth who uses my ill-gotten celebrity, dubiously earned in the culturally vacuous late-70's/early-80's, to make sure everyone knows how ignorant I am. Is this really every young girl's dream?
If only Clinton hadn't done her, she would have disappeared a decade ago.
Every year, some potentially pudgy Californian announces on American Idol that she wants to emulate Barbra Streisand. Sometimes, she's talented. Sometimes she's not. But why on earth would anyone want to emulate Barbra Streisand? None of the male singers announce they want to be just like Michael Bolton.
Let's recap the thinking here - I want to be an obnoxious loudmouth who uses my ill-gotten celebrity, dubiously earned in the culturally vacuous late-70's/early-80's, to make sure everyone knows how ignorant I am. Is this really every young girl's dream?
If only Clinton hadn't done her, she would have disappeared a decade ago.
Friday, February 10, 2006
2006 OSCAR PREDICTIONS AND NOTES
We'll be using Ted's soon to be patented technique of counting key issues and weighing their relative importance regardless of the talent involved. Since I've not seen all the movies, I will nonetheless be issuing weighty pronouncements on which movies and performances are the best. Note that I don't give a damn about directors.
I'll then follow with my top 10 for the year and other awards including biggest snubs and most ridiculous nomination of the year.
* Means Will Win
! Means Should Win (Of those nominated)
& Means Did Not See
BEST PICTURE:
*&The Gay Cowboy Movie (Brokeback) (Social Issue+Western+MinorityDir+GayBonus AKA Brokeback Factor)
& The Gay Intellectual Movie (Capote) (Brokeback Factor+Intellectual)
! The Racial Montage Movie (Crash) (Social Issue+Token Black+Ensemble Cast)
&The Better George Clooney Lectures Us Subtly Movie (Good Night and Good Luck) (Social Issue+Black&White+Hollywood Royalty Directs)
The Steven Spielberg Movie (Munich) (Contemporary Issues-Foreign+Speilberg)
This year's contenders hit the key issues much harder than last year's making it a much more competitive field, even if all of these movies are veer towards lameness. I'd give Capote a better shot if it were in black&white. Crash won't win because it won the Golden Globe, which means it can't win again. That and it just doesn't have the social issues managerie that Brokeback does. Good Night might have had a shot if Clooney were Clint Eastwood. Speilberg's film gets it's obligatory nod as well - I'm tempted to add sex farce to it's attributes list. Do you think he'd show up if he didn't get nominated. If he hadn't put out Munich, would they have nominated that cess pool that was War of the Worlds, just out of fear. How bad does a serious Spielberg pic have to be for it to not get nominated, and I'm not talking one of those movies he farms out to the interns, like Jurassic Park 2.
Anyhow, the almost comical panoply of hot button factors for Brokeback makes it the pick. Unless Spike Lee were to direct a movie about midget Maoris in black&white, I don't see anyone beating it out ever. Unless their are issues I missed in the films I haven't seen, I can't see it not winning.
BEST ACTOR
*!&Philip Seymour Hoffman is Capote - Brokeback+Intellectual+Biopic+accent
&Terrence Howard is a black guy and drug dealer - Social Issues+Token Black Guy
&Heath Ledger is gay - Social Issues+Brokeback
&Joaquin Phoenix is Johnny Cash (Ray-blackness) - Black&White+E True Hollywood Story+accent
&George Clooney is a Crusading Journalist - Black&WHite+Biopic+Crusading Journalist
This is a more difficult choice. I think Ledger and Howard just don't have a chance because they don't have enough star power to overcome their hotbutton deficit. Hollywood stops for E! True Hollywood stories, so I'm scared of Phoenix, especially in b&w. And Clooney has collected a lot of factors in his favor. However, I'm going to go with PSH, mostly because I liked him in Almost Famous, and because I'd like to pretend that intellectual beats out crusading journalist, and I know the Brokeback factor beats out b&w.
BEST ACTRESS
&Dame Judi Dench is a classy English dame (apparenty this is acting?) - Sex Farce+accent
&Felicity Huffman is transsexual - Social Issues-Who?+Brokeback Factor
!&Keira Knightly is a Jane Austen character - Jane Austen+accent
*&Charlize Theron is a miner living in a man's world - Socials Issues+Accent+Playing Ugly
&Reece Witherspoon is an E!True Hollywood victim - Black&White+Accent
A weak crew, as is usually the case - movies are written by men. Or maybe women aren't strong characters. Who knows? It's one thing for Reece Witherspoon or whoever to claim an award for playing a real live person, it's another thing for Dame Judi Dench to claim an award for playing herself. Huffman is the darkhorse - how bad is her who? factor...if you replaced her name with any other on the list for that film, she'd win. Don't count her out - remember Hillary Swank and the chick from the Crying Game...or was that a man? So I hear Knightly was good in a good movie from a Jane Austen book, but since I'd rather Jane Austen be banished from the culture, I think the clear choice here is Theron. You've got women's lib, you've got oppressed iconoclast, you've got an accent, and you've got a beatiful woman playing ugly. It's a powerful combo.
SUPPORTING ACTOR
*George Clooney is a Noble Conspiracy Victim - Social Issues-Foreign+Playing Ugly
!Matt Dillon is a Racist But Somewhat Noble Cop - Social Issues+Complex-Comeon, Matt Dillon?
Paul Giamatti is a Gutsy Comedic Sidekick - Social Issues-Already Ugly
&Jake Gyllenhaal is the Other Gay Cowboy - Social Issues+Brokeback Factor
William Hurt is a Wry Gangster in a Non-Comedic Film - None
First off - William Hurt is my inexplicable choice of the year. It's one thing that he has no hot button issues. Then he has no great lines. In fact, his character is TERRIBLE. And he STINKS in it. He ruins the movie. The movie is this weighty, serious pulp novel and in swaggers William Hurt, swirling in his leather chair and cracking wry jokes to the audience. What the hell? Who thought that was a good idea? He doesn't even stand up!
Secondly, Clooney would be my solid second, and may win out. The question is whether he's hollywood royalty or not. More importantly, what happens when, someday, someone is nominated for two movies. Are they going to show him/her twice in the split screen. I think they should have a body double so that when he/she loses, one can look really happy and we can still have the satisfaction of the other one being crushed, bitter and jealous. Or maybe they could just have Bill Murray do that.
Giamatti was nice but come on, he doesn't touch the social issues with his character, and he's probably playing himself anyway. And they're the wrong social issues.
That leaves us with Dillon and Gyl...the other gay cowboy. Dillon's character is complex and compelling so all he had to do was not screw it up. In this he succeeds. So really, this award should go to the writer. That said, come on, it's Matt Dillon. Did anyone else see Wild Things and take the time to watch his performance. Outrageously bad. It's like giving an Oscar to Keanu. By process of elimination, it goes to the gay cowboy. I can't really see him up there winning, so I'll hedge my bets and say that Clooney is a strong choice here, but...you know what, I changed my mind. Clooney's going to win.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
&Amy Adams is Someone I've Never Heard Of
&Catherine Keener is In A Gay Intellectual Movie - Intellectual+Brokeback Factor
!&Frances McDormand Decided to Take a Role This Year - Women's Lib+MerylStreep Factor
&Rachel Weisz is a Possibly Not So Innocent Noble Conspiracy Victim - Social Issues-Foreign
*&Michelle Williams is the Wife of a Gay Cowboy - Social Issues+Brokeback Factor
I originally thought McDormand would win, but she's too good. I'm going with the Brokeback sweep here. Incidentally, the one person I know who's seen her performance said that all the Brokeback guys in the audience laughed when her character finds out that her cowboy is gay. That's not cool.
THIS YEAR'S SNUBS:
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER DIVISION - King Kong. I would have thought the Oscars would try to redeem this by giving it a nod or two. I guess Peter Jackson isn't Scorcese
TEPID FILM SET IN ASIA DIVISION - Memoirs of a Geisha.
SPIELBERG DIVISION - War of the Worlds
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER SEQUEL DIVISION - Star Wars III. Come on, he even made Darth Vader George Bush...not even a little love for all that work?
GOOD EPIC DIVISION - Cinderella Man
BILL MURRAY DIVISION - Bill Murray taking stock as himself in Broken Flowers
MOVIES I WISHED I'D SAW:
The Whale and the Squid
Wallace and Grommit
Grizzly Man
Corpse Bride
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
TED TYLER'S OFFICIAL BEST 10 FILMS I SAW THIS YEAR:
1. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
2. Match Point
3. Cinderella Man
4. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
5. Crash
6. Kung Fu Hustle
7. 40-Year Old Virgin
8. Broken Flowers
9. Be Cool
10. Get Rich or Die Tryin' (OK, so I didn't see it. But in a terrible year for movies, why the heck not?)
We'll be using Ted's soon to be patented technique of counting key issues and weighing their relative importance regardless of the talent involved. Since I've not seen all the movies, I will nonetheless be issuing weighty pronouncements on which movies and performances are the best. Note that I don't give a damn about directors.
I'll then follow with my top 10 for the year and other awards including biggest snubs and most ridiculous nomination of the year.
* Means Will Win
! Means Should Win (Of those nominated)
& Means Did Not See
BEST PICTURE:
*&The Gay Cowboy Movie (Brokeback) (Social Issue+Western+MinorityDir+GayBonus AKA Brokeback Factor)
& The Gay Intellectual Movie (Capote) (Brokeback Factor+Intellectual)
! The Racial Montage Movie (Crash) (Social Issue+Token Black+Ensemble Cast)
&The Better George Clooney Lectures Us Subtly Movie (Good Night and Good Luck) (Social Issue+Black&White+Hollywood Royalty Directs)
The Steven Spielberg Movie (Munich) (Contemporary Issues-Foreign+Speilberg)
This year's contenders hit the key issues much harder than last year's making it a much more competitive field, even if all of these movies are veer towards lameness. I'd give Capote a better shot if it were in black&white. Crash won't win because it won the Golden Globe, which means it can't win again. That and it just doesn't have the social issues managerie that Brokeback does. Good Night might have had a shot if Clooney were Clint Eastwood. Speilberg's film gets it's obligatory nod as well - I'm tempted to add sex farce to it's attributes list. Do you think he'd show up if he didn't get nominated. If he hadn't put out Munich, would they have nominated that cess pool that was War of the Worlds, just out of fear. How bad does a serious Spielberg pic have to be for it to not get nominated, and I'm not talking one of those movies he farms out to the interns, like Jurassic Park 2.
Anyhow, the almost comical panoply of hot button factors for Brokeback makes it the pick. Unless Spike Lee were to direct a movie about midget Maoris in black&white, I don't see anyone beating it out ever. Unless their are issues I missed in the films I haven't seen, I can't see it not winning.
BEST ACTOR
*!&Philip Seymour Hoffman is Capote - Brokeback+Intellectual+Biopic+accent
&Terrence Howard is a black guy and drug dealer - Social Issues+Token Black Guy
&Heath Ledger is gay - Social Issues+Brokeback
&Joaquin Phoenix is Johnny Cash (Ray-blackness) - Black&White+E True Hollywood Story+accent
&George Clooney is a Crusading Journalist - Black&WHite+Biopic+Crusading Journalist
This is a more difficult choice. I think Ledger and Howard just don't have a chance because they don't have enough star power to overcome their hotbutton deficit. Hollywood stops for E! True Hollywood stories, so I'm scared of Phoenix, especially in b&w. And Clooney has collected a lot of factors in his favor. However, I'm going to go with PSH, mostly because I liked him in Almost Famous, and because I'd like to pretend that intellectual beats out crusading journalist, and I know the Brokeback factor beats out b&w.
BEST ACTRESS
&Dame Judi Dench is a classy English dame (apparenty this is acting?) - Sex Farce+accent
&Felicity Huffman is transsexual - Social Issues-Who?+Brokeback Factor
!&Keira Knightly is a Jane Austen character - Jane Austen+accent
*&Charlize Theron is a miner living in a man's world - Socials Issues+Accent+Playing Ugly
&Reece Witherspoon is an E!True Hollywood victim - Black&White+Accent
A weak crew, as is usually the case - movies are written by men. Or maybe women aren't strong characters. Who knows? It's one thing for Reece Witherspoon or whoever to claim an award for playing a real live person, it's another thing for Dame Judi Dench to claim an award for playing herself. Huffman is the darkhorse - how bad is her who? factor...if you replaced her name with any other on the list for that film, she'd win. Don't count her out - remember Hillary Swank and the chick from the Crying Game...or was that a man? So I hear Knightly was good in a good movie from a Jane Austen book, but since I'd rather Jane Austen be banished from the culture, I think the clear choice here is Theron. You've got women's lib, you've got oppressed iconoclast, you've got an accent, and you've got a beatiful woman playing ugly. It's a powerful combo.
SUPPORTING ACTOR
*George Clooney is a Noble Conspiracy Victim - Social Issues-Foreign+Playing Ugly
!Matt Dillon is a Racist But Somewhat Noble Cop - Social Issues+Complex-Comeon, Matt Dillon?
Paul Giamatti is a Gutsy Comedic Sidekick - Social Issues-Already Ugly
&Jake Gyllenhaal is the Other Gay Cowboy - Social Issues+Brokeback Factor
William Hurt is a Wry Gangster in a Non-Comedic Film - None
First off - William Hurt is my inexplicable choice of the year. It's one thing that he has no hot button issues. Then he has no great lines. In fact, his character is TERRIBLE. And he STINKS in it. He ruins the movie. The movie is this weighty, serious pulp novel and in swaggers William Hurt, swirling in his leather chair and cracking wry jokes to the audience. What the hell? Who thought that was a good idea? He doesn't even stand up!
Secondly, Clooney would be my solid second, and may win out. The question is whether he's hollywood royalty or not. More importantly, what happens when, someday, someone is nominated for two movies. Are they going to show him/her twice in the split screen. I think they should have a body double so that when he/she loses, one can look really happy and we can still have the satisfaction of the other one being crushed, bitter and jealous. Or maybe they could just have Bill Murray do that.
Giamatti was nice but come on, he doesn't touch the social issues with his character, and he's probably playing himself anyway. And they're the wrong social issues.
That leaves us with Dillon and Gyl...the other gay cowboy. Dillon's character is complex and compelling so all he had to do was not screw it up. In this he succeeds. So really, this award should go to the writer. That said, come on, it's Matt Dillon. Did anyone else see Wild Things and take the time to watch his performance. Outrageously bad. It's like giving an Oscar to Keanu. By process of elimination, it goes to the gay cowboy. I can't really see him up there winning, so I'll hedge my bets and say that Clooney is a strong choice here, but...you know what, I changed my mind. Clooney's going to win.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
&Amy Adams is Someone I've Never Heard Of
&Catherine Keener is In A Gay Intellectual Movie - Intellectual+Brokeback Factor
!&Frances McDormand Decided to Take a Role This Year - Women's Lib+MerylStreep Factor
&Rachel Weisz is a Possibly Not So Innocent Noble Conspiracy Victim - Social Issues-Foreign
*&Michelle Williams is the Wife of a Gay Cowboy - Social Issues+Brokeback Factor
I originally thought McDormand would win, but she's too good. I'm going with the Brokeback sweep here. Incidentally, the one person I know who's seen her performance said that all the Brokeback guys in the audience laughed when her character finds out that her cowboy is gay. That's not cool.
THIS YEAR'S SNUBS:
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER DIVISION - King Kong. I would have thought the Oscars would try to redeem this by giving it a nod or two. I guess Peter Jackson isn't Scorcese
TEPID FILM SET IN ASIA DIVISION - Memoirs of a Geisha.
SPIELBERG DIVISION - War of the Worlds
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER SEQUEL DIVISION - Star Wars III. Come on, he even made Darth Vader George Bush...not even a little love for all that work?
GOOD EPIC DIVISION - Cinderella Man
BILL MURRAY DIVISION - Bill Murray taking stock as himself in Broken Flowers
MOVIES I WISHED I'D SAW:
The Whale and the Squid
Wallace and Grommit
Grizzly Man
Corpse Bride
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
TED TYLER'S OFFICIAL BEST 10 FILMS I SAW THIS YEAR:
1. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
2. Match Point
3. Cinderella Man
4. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
5. Crash
6. Kung Fu Hustle
7. 40-Year Old Virgin
8. Broken Flowers
9. Be Cool
10. Get Rich or Die Tryin' (OK, so I didn't see it. But in a terrible year for movies, why the heck not?)
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Gearing Up For Oscars
I want to preface my 2005 comments by discussing at length 2004. Maybe this will help us predict which of the crappy movies nominated will win. * denotes victory
2004 was the year of the shabby sex farce in the sense that never before has the shabby sex farce been so broadly represented, even though the shabby sex farce really can't compete with social issues and Hollywood royalty. Anyway, congradulations for Closer Sideways Kinsey for participating. Ahem:
Best Film/Director:
- Scorcese's Flick
- Eastwood's Women's Lib/Social Issues Movie*
- E! Hollywood Story/Token Black (Ray)
- Shabby Sex Farce for Snobs (The Wine Movie)
- A Good Movie (Finding Neverland)
Notice here that 3 key issues outdid 2 - Hollywood royalty+women's lib+assisted suicide was too much for E Hollywood True Story+Minorities and Hollywood royalty+historical biopic.
Best Actor:
- Token Black+Set in 3rd world (Cheadle)
- Good performance in good movie (Depp)
- Actor in Scorcese biopic (DiCaprio)
- Eastwood directing self in how to growl (Eastwood)
- E! Hollywood True Story+Token Black Guy (Foxx)*
Important note here - yes Foxx was better than Cheadle. But note also that local beats international when another key element is present (token black guy).
Best Actress:
- Anette Bening
- Whodat in Saywhat?
- Saywho in Whatdat?
- Eastwood's women's lib character*
- True Love Triumphs; intellectual style (Winslet)
Whodat's are far more common for the ladies. Maybe it's the smaller window of being attractive or maybe it's because most Hollywood writers are men. Anyway, this was over before it began - Eastwood PLUS women's lib - no competition.
Supporting Actor:
- Scorsese Film
- Shabby Sex Farce for Snobs
- Token Black Guy
- Hollywood Royalty+Eastwood+Token Black Guy (Extra Points for Growling)*
- Shabby Sex Farce for Snobs
Another slam dunk. Black Hollywood Royalty Growling.
Supporting Actress:
- Scorsese PLAYING Hollywood royalty*
- Sex Farce for Snobs
- Sex Farce for Snobs
- Sex Farce for Snobs
- Token Black Woman+Set in 3rd world
Again, sex farces, don't get too uppity. It doesn't matter that Cate Blanchette STANK! She was playing Catherine Hepburn in a Scorsese movie. Again, take note minority whodats - domestic issues trump foreign ones.
So, let's recap.
- Hollywood royalty matters. And there are definitely different levels of royalty: Eastwood tops Scorsese in a knife fight.
- E! Hollywood story is important, but being black is more important
- Sex farces shouldn't get out of their britches. If you want to get an award for a movie about sex, it can't be funny. (Think Monster...hell, just look at the women's movies.)
- It's nice to be married to Warren Beatty.
Anyway, here's the real top 10-list from 2004. I'll be going to a few more 2005 movies, and then weighing in on this year's Oscars with bold predictions based solely on the conclusions reached above.
BEST OF 2004:
1. Finding Neverland
2. Anchorman
3. Spider Man 2
4. Shaun of the Dead
5. Ocean's Twelve
6. Napoleon Dynamite
7. The Passion of the Christ (What of it?)
8. National Treasure (What of it?)
9. Harry Potter 3
10. Troy (Narrowly beats out Team America)
I want to preface my 2005 comments by discussing at length 2004. Maybe this will help us predict which of the crappy movies nominated will win. * denotes victory
2004 was the year of the shabby sex farce in the sense that never before has the shabby sex farce been so broadly represented, even though the shabby sex farce really can't compete with social issues and Hollywood royalty. Anyway, congradulations for Closer Sideways Kinsey for participating. Ahem:
Best Film/Director:
- Scorcese's Flick
- Eastwood's Women's Lib/Social Issues Movie*
- E! Hollywood Story/Token Black (Ray)
- Shabby Sex Farce for Snobs (The Wine Movie)
- A Good Movie (Finding Neverland)
Notice here that 3 key issues outdid 2 - Hollywood royalty+women's lib+assisted suicide was too much for E Hollywood True Story+Minorities and Hollywood royalty+historical biopic.
Best Actor:
- Token Black+Set in 3rd world (Cheadle)
- Good performance in good movie (Depp)
- Actor in Scorcese biopic (DiCaprio)
- Eastwood directing self in how to growl (Eastwood)
- E! Hollywood True Story+Token Black Guy (Foxx)*
Important note here - yes Foxx was better than Cheadle. But note also that local beats international when another key element is present (token black guy).
Best Actress:
- Anette Bening
- Whodat in Saywhat?
- Saywho in Whatdat?
- Eastwood's women's lib character*
- True Love Triumphs; intellectual style (Winslet)
Whodat's are far more common for the ladies. Maybe it's the smaller window of being attractive or maybe it's because most Hollywood writers are men. Anyway, this was over before it began - Eastwood PLUS women's lib - no competition.
Supporting Actor:
- Scorsese Film
- Shabby Sex Farce for Snobs
- Token Black Guy
- Hollywood Royalty+Eastwood+Token Black Guy (Extra Points for Growling)*
- Shabby Sex Farce for Snobs
Another slam dunk. Black Hollywood Royalty Growling.
Supporting Actress:
- Scorsese PLAYING Hollywood royalty*
- Sex Farce for Snobs
- Sex Farce for Snobs
- Sex Farce for Snobs
- Token Black Woman+Set in 3rd world
Again, sex farces, don't get too uppity. It doesn't matter that Cate Blanchette STANK! She was playing Catherine Hepburn in a Scorsese movie. Again, take note minority whodats - domestic issues trump foreign ones.
So, let's recap.
- Hollywood royalty matters. And there are definitely different levels of royalty: Eastwood tops Scorsese in a knife fight.
- E! Hollywood story is important, but being black is more important
- Sex farces shouldn't get out of their britches. If you want to get an award for a movie about sex, it can't be funny. (Think Monster...hell, just look at the women's movies.)
- It's nice to be married to Warren Beatty.
Anyway, here's the real top 10-list from 2004. I'll be going to a few more 2005 movies, and then weighing in on this year's Oscars with bold predictions based solely on the conclusions reached above.
BEST OF 2004:
1. Finding Neverland
2. Anchorman
3. Spider Man 2
4. Shaun of the Dead
5. Ocean's Twelve
6. Napoleon Dynamite
7. The Passion of the Christ (What of it?)
8. National Treasure (What of it?)
9. Harry Potter 3
10. Troy (Narrowly beats out Team America)
Monday, January 30, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Ted Tyler: Excentric Billionaire
Amongst the things I would accomplish as an excentric billionaire:
1) Building of new Yankees' stadium in former WTC-site
2) Reconstruction of 7 wonders of the world
3) Making of The Company into HBO mini-series
4) Alicia Keyes/Lauryn Hill Nina Simone Tribute Album
5) Lavish screen version of Turandot with ending fitting the composer, directed by Baz Luhrman
6) Offensive Line for Miami Dolphins
7) Requisite Tributes to My Own Soaring Genius
Further additions to come at random
Amongst the things I would accomplish as an excentric billionaire:
1) Building of new Yankees' stadium in former WTC-site
2) Reconstruction of 7 wonders of the world
3) Making of The Company into HBO mini-series
4) Alicia Keyes/Lauryn Hill Nina Simone Tribute Album
5) Lavish screen version of Turandot with ending fitting the composer, directed by Baz Luhrman
6) Offensive Line for Miami Dolphins
7) Requisite Tributes to My Own Soaring Genius
Further additions to come at random
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Wiggles Get Down
I just saw the following on i-Tunes:
NEW ALBUM! The Wiggles: Bring the...
And then you had to click to find out what it was. In case you didn't know, the Wiggles are 4 slightly effiminate Australians who sing kids songs on cheesy videos. They are hugely popular. They're sort of what would happen if you had the Teletubbies take off their costumes and sing "No More Monkies Jumping on the Bed". For the weird factor, the Wiggles replace the slightly hermaphrodite-like Teletubby with a character named Captain Feathersword.
So here's a contest - what would be the best title for a Wiggles album with that beginning? I say:
Wiggles: Bring the Funk
On a related note, I can't decide which is more disappointing - becoming numb to a song you used to love or becoming numb to a song you can't stand. You'd think it'd be the first, but I once found myself humming a Maroon 5 song I'd heard on the radio at least once every day for a month from the top40 station at work...and it came on again while I was humming it from the last time I heard it. It was a sobering moment.
I just saw the following on i-Tunes:
NEW ALBUM! The Wiggles: Bring the...
And then you had to click to find out what it was. In case you didn't know, the Wiggles are 4 slightly effiminate Australians who sing kids songs on cheesy videos. They are hugely popular. They're sort of what would happen if you had the Teletubbies take off their costumes and sing "No More Monkies Jumping on the Bed". For the weird factor, the Wiggles replace the slightly hermaphrodite-like Teletubby with a character named Captain Feathersword.
So here's a contest - what would be the best title for a Wiggles album with that beginning? I say:
Wiggles: Bring the Funk
On a related note, I can't decide which is more disappointing - becoming numb to a song you used to love or becoming numb to a song you can't stand. You'd think it'd be the first, but I once found myself humming a Maroon 5 song I'd heard on the radio at least once every day for a month from the top40 station at work...and it came on again while I was humming it from the last time I heard it. It was a sobering moment.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The 5 Cardinal Sins of Pretension in MUNICH:
To kick off our "Why Good Movies Are Lame" feature, let's deal with Munich. Munich provides an archetype for how good movies get swaddled by pretension masquerading as art. It contains the 5 Cardinal Sins of Pretension:
1) Preachy: This is the great lodestone of every supposedly 'important' film of our time. Let's clear something up: having a weighty policy rant or ankle-deep philosophical musing from an otherwise interesting if one-dimensional character a) dilutes the character b) dilutes the plot and c) usually tells us something we could figure out just by watching the movie sans preaching. No one likes a lecture - simply attend one, or better yet, give one, and observe the audience around you. Hollywood writers are seldom as wise as they think they are, and the actors delivering the speeches are far from likely to do anything other than deadpan the speech. They're too dim or humorless to ape the tripe they're forced to deliver.
2) Political: Politics is not art. The lowest form of art is the political cartoon.
3) Psychosexual: The figures aren't in front of me, but the 60's happened nearly a half-century ago or so. The intellectual academy, always thinking it's ten years ahead when it's really 20 years behind, has now caught up and, thanks to an over-abundance of lackluster PhD students and a dirth of decent PhD topics, has thrown its force behind sex research as a viable intellectual avenue. Come off it. To quote my grandmother, "Why does every generation think they reinvented sex?" Art does not need to be avante garde to be good. And bizarre sex is no longer avante garde. So all we're left with is bizarre sex and a series of critics who pretend to be 'with it' by nodding approvingly that bizarre sex is a master stroke. And Munich is the worst of them all. I thought A History of Violence had the most bizarre and impromptu sex scene in reputable film history, but at least one could construe an artistic point from the scene, and it didn't rely on being too shocking, more just on being impromptu.
But Munich took the cake...twice!! It stole the cake from itself!
(Spoiler alert) I thought the pregnant sex scene at the beginning was the new champ. I mean, she's really got a bun half-baked in the oven. Well then, at the end, her husband has sex with her while thinking about Israeli hostages getting killed. His climax is supposedly the film's climax, and he lets out a giggle-inducing roar of triumph to tell us all that he's done, and so are the hostages. Is there an artistic reason for this? Perhaps it is 'exploring the psychosexual connection between male dominance and violence?' So let's explore. Was the purpose to show that sex with his wife would have released the revenge that spurred him rather than killing? (Make love not war) Or perhaps he killed so that he could have sex, which is really what life is all about. (Make war to make love). I certainly don't know the answer. None of these answers are insightful or moving because a) none of us thinks about hostage killings while otherwise engaged and b) none of those above listed insights are all that deep. So who knows? Certainly not Spielberg, because it doesn't have a meaning - the sex is inherently artistic. And toady critics will say, "well, it's a meditation on sex and violence" or some such claptrap, codewords for, "I don't know what it means, but I get that he's trying to be artistic, and it's bizarre sex, and Spielberg, so I approve."
Imagine being Eric Bana. Steve comes up to you one day and says, "In this scene, you have sex with your wife and grunt audibly while shaking your hair back when you finish." So being a pretentious actor you say, "Great, so what's my motivation?" And Steve says, "Well, you're trying to get these feelings of vengeance off your chest, and you're thinking about Israeli hostages getting shot." Does he try out different grunts and hair shakes before he gets the right one to fit the moment? What would Olivier do?
Worse, where else is there to go? Big screen bestiality while the human partner is thinking about a downhill skiing accident?
4) Too Long. This sin especially comes in the ending. The movie could have ended with a brusque no. Instead, we get, "I'm disillusioned, young man...I'm disillusioned, boss...I'm disillusioned, wife...I'm disillusioned, vague father figure...I'm disillusioned, audience...I'm having sex with you, wife, while thinking about hostage killings...I'm disillusioned, random consulate official...I'm still disillusioned, boss. Let's have dinner." On and on it goes. Did someone watch the 3rd Lord of the Rings and say, "Yes, 15 minutes of knowing looks and slow motion hugs is a brilliant way to end a movie!"
Some doctors did some study. It showed that in some particularly unpleasant medical procedure which required continual follow-up, patients frequently didn't come back because of the pain involved. They found that the patient averaged the worst pain during the procedure with the level of pain when it ended and that produced their opinion on how uncomfortable the procedure was. So the doctors figured out that if they just fiddled around for a while after doing the procedure, pretending to do something, the lack of pain at the end would balance out the discomfort of the procedure itself and patients would come back.
The lesson I'd take is that perhaps pleasure works the same way? Shouldn't we end movies well and quickly then?
Instead, it seems directors are figuring, "Well, our movie is really painful, but if we fiddle around for a while at the end, it won't hurt as much."
I imagine Spielberg was moved by the catastrophically wretched, yet abrupt, ending to War of the Worlds, and decided to respond to his critics with a tedious, let's-end-the-movie-3-times, style ending.
5) Whiny Hero. The first rule of screenwriting, or at least one of the first couple, is "SHOW ME DON'T TELL ME." That's why you have actors - to convey feelings. If a character feels something, like, "I'm having second thoughts about killing people and it's because I'm Jewish, not because I've become disillusioned with the Jewish project," then events and the actor's reaction should show us that happening. Perhaps the actor did do that, but editing is such these days that we never get to see anyone's face on screen for more than a few seconds. So instead, at various points, the characters tell us exactly that: that they're really Jewish, that they're conflicted because they're supposed to be defending Judaism, and that it's their being Jewish that makes them conflicted.
Movies are not psychologists' offices and neither is real life. Our hero doesn't need to pour his heart out at every opportunity. We, in the audience, have feelings and a successful work of art relies on either using those feelings as a natural guide or playing off them by showing characters who react differently than we do. Assassins may have feelings, but they don't go blubbering about them all the time on mission. It makes the hero seem effete, unconvincing, and whiny. It makes him less sympathetic. We think to ourselves, "If I was in that person's position, I wouldn't be carrying on like this. I'd do my job and feel bad about it on my own time." But Spielberg is so unsure of his craft, and he's not the only one, that he has to tell us how his characters are feeling. Maybe this is how Hollywood types think everyone behaves? Do they sit around at parties and have an identity-crisis circle jerk?
What would be infinitely superior would be a quiet, Michael Corleone type reaction. Michael is so convincing because we know exactly what he's feeling without him saying it, and though we cannot imagine being in the many situations he ends up in, we can understand very well why he does what he does. His plight is moving because he doesn't complain. We see his pain rather than being told it. Apparently stoicism went out of fashion sometime in the late 70's? Or maybe that was masculinity.
To sum up, intriguing action, a solid set up, and superb technical skills betrayed by trite ideas acknowledged as art by a herd of want-to-be intellectuals.
Hence the 5 Cardinal Sins of Pretension as applied to film:
1) Preachy
2) Political
3) Psychosexual
4) Too long
5) Whiny Hero
There is a cure.
To kick off our "Why Good Movies Are Lame" feature, let's deal with Munich. Munich provides an archetype for how good movies get swaddled by pretension masquerading as art. It contains the 5 Cardinal Sins of Pretension:
1) Preachy: This is the great lodestone of every supposedly 'important' film of our time. Let's clear something up: having a weighty policy rant or ankle-deep philosophical musing from an otherwise interesting if one-dimensional character a) dilutes the character b) dilutes the plot and c) usually tells us something we could figure out just by watching the movie sans preaching. No one likes a lecture - simply attend one, or better yet, give one, and observe the audience around you. Hollywood writers are seldom as wise as they think they are, and the actors delivering the speeches are far from likely to do anything other than deadpan the speech. They're too dim or humorless to ape the tripe they're forced to deliver.
2) Political: Politics is not art. The lowest form of art is the political cartoon.
3) Psychosexual: The figures aren't in front of me, but the 60's happened nearly a half-century ago or so. The intellectual academy, always thinking it's ten years ahead when it's really 20 years behind, has now caught up and, thanks to an over-abundance of lackluster PhD students and a dirth of decent PhD topics, has thrown its force behind sex research as a viable intellectual avenue. Come off it. To quote my grandmother, "Why does every generation think they reinvented sex?" Art does not need to be avante garde to be good. And bizarre sex is no longer avante garde. So all we're left with is bizarre sex and a series of critics who pretend to be 'with it' by nodding approvingly that bizarre sex is a master stroke. And Munich is the worst of them all. I thought A History of Violence had the most bizarre and impromptu sex scene in reputable film history, but at least one could construe an artistic point from the scene, and it didn't rely on being too shocking, more just on being impromptu.
But Munich took the cake...twice!! It stole the cake from itself!
(Spoiler alert) I thought the pregnant sex scene at the beginning was the new champ. I mean, she's really got a bun half-baked in the oven. Well then, at the end, her husband has sex with her while thinking about Israeli hostages getting killed. His climax is supposedly the film's climax, and he lets out a giggle-inducing roar of triumph to tell us all that he's done, and so are the hostages. Is there an artistic reason for this? Perhaps it is 'exploring the psychosexual connection between male dominance and violence?' So let's explore. Was the purpose to show that sex with his wife would have released the revenge that spurred him rather than killing? (Make love not war) Or perhaps he killed so that he could have sex, which is really what life is all about. (Make war to make love). I certainly don't know the answer. None of these answers are insightful or moving because a) none of us thinks about hostage killings while otherwise engaged and b) none of those above listed insights are all that deep. So who knows? Certainly not Spielberg, because it doesn't have a meaning - the sex is inherently artistic. And toady critics will say, "well, it's a meditation on sex and violence" or some such claptrap, codewords for, "I don't know what it means, but I get that he's trying to be artistic, and it's bizarre sex, and Spielberg, so I approve."
Imagine being Eric Bana. Steve comes up to you one day and says, "In this scene, you have sex with your wife and grunt audibly while shaking your hair back when you finish." So being a pretentious actor you say, "Great, so what's my motivation?" And Steve says, "Well, you're trying to get these feelings of vengeance off your chest, and you're thinking about Israeli hostages getting shot." Does he try out different grunts and hair shakes before he gets the right one to fit the moment? What would Olivier do?
Worse, where else is there to go? Big screen bestiality while the human partner is thinking about a downhill skiing accident?
4) Too Long. This sin especially comes in the ending. The movie could have ended with a brusque no. Instead, we get, "I'm disillusioned, young man...I'm disillusioned, boss...I'm disillusioned, wife...I'm disillusioned, vague father figure...I'm disillusioned, audience...I'm having sex with you, wife, while thinking about hostage killings...I'm disillusioned, random consulate official...I'm still disillusioned, boss. Let's have dinner." On and on it goes. Did someone watch the 3rd Lord of the Rings and say, "Yes, 15 minutes of knowing looks and slow motion hugs is a brilliant way to end a movie!"
Some doctors did some study. It showed that in some particularly unpleasant medical procedure which required continual follow-up, patients frequently didn't come back because of the pain involved. They found that the patient averaged the worst pain during the procedure with the level of pain when it ended and that produced their opinion on how uncomfortable the procedure was. So the doctors figured out that if they just fiddled around for a while after doing the procedure, pretending to do something, the lack of pain at the end would balance out the discomfort of the procedure itself and patients would come back.
The lesson I'd take is that perhaps pleasure works the same way? Shouldn't we end movies well and quickly then?
Instead, it seems directors are figuring, "Well, our movie is really painful, but if we fiddle around for a while at the end, it won't hurt as much."
I imagine Spielberg was moved by the catastrophically wretched, yet abrupt, ending to War of the Worlds, and decided to respond to his critics with a tedious, let's-end-the-movie-3-times, style ending.
5) Whiny Hero. The first rule of screenwriting, or at least one of the first couple, is "SHOW ME DON'T TELL ME." That's why you have actors - to convey feelings. If a character feels something, like, "I'm having second thoughts about killing people and it's because I'm Jewish, not because I've become disillusioned with the Jewish project," then events and the actor's reaction should show us that happening. Perhaps the actor did do that, but editing is such these days that we never get to see anyone's face on screen for more than a few seconds. So instead, at various points, the characters tell us exactly that: that they're really Jewish, that they're conflicted because they're supposed to be defending Judaism, and that it's their being Jewish that makes them conflicted.
Movies are not psychologists' offices and neither is real life. Our hero doesn't need to pour his heart out at every opportunity. We, in the audience, have feelings and a successful work of art relies on either using those feelings as a natural guide or playing off them by showing characters who react differently than we do. Assassins may have feelings, but they don't go blubbering about them all the time on mission. It makes the hero seem effete, unconvincing, and whiny. It makes him less sympathetic. We think to ourselves, "If I was in that person's position, I wouldn't be carrying on like this. I'd do my job and feel bad about it on my own time." But Spielberg is so unsure of his craft, and he's not the only one, that he has to tell us how his characters are feeling. Maybe this is how Hollywood types think everyone behaves? Do they sit around at parties and have an identity-crisis circle jerk?
What would be infinitely superior would be a quiet, Michael Corleone type reaction. Michael is so convincing because we know exactly what he's feeling without him saying it, and though we cannot imagine being in the many situations he ends up in, we can understand very well why he does what he does. His plight is moving because he doesn't complain. We see his pain rather than being told it. Apparently stoicism went out of fashion sometime in the late 70's? Or maybe that was masculinity.
To sum up, intriguing action, a solid set up, and superb technical skills betrayed by trite ideas acknowledged as art by a herd of want-to-be intellectuals.
Hence the 5 Cardinal Sins of Pretension as applied to film:
1) Preachy
2) Political
3) Psychosexual
4) Too long
5) Whiny Hero
There is a cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)