Tuesday, March 08, 2005
New Blog/Podcast: Cinecast
Please visit Cinecast, a new film podcast with Adam Kempenaar and Sam Hallgren.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
OUT TO LUNCH
I regret that CS may go on hiatus for awhile -- as if I wasn't on one already. I could find time to post links to stories and write three or four sentences every day, but I always wanted to mix blog-style conversation with some legit, halfway-decent film criticism, and that simply requires more time than I have right now. I do expect to be back in one form or another though eventually. Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
I KNOW
I'm being a terrible blogger. I have plans to write. I really do. Just haven't seen anything in awhile due to a hectic schedule, other than 'Adaptation' for the second time. Laughed harder, enjoyed it more... still stopped caring when the 'Hollywood plot' kicks in, and think that Kaufman can't pull off the film being both a satire and about personal growth and loss and love blah blah...
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
RANDOM MUSINGS
Speaking of comic-book movies... I caught the first non-teaser trailer for Ang Lee's 'The Hulk' (June 20) before 'Daredevil' Sunday night and all I can say is -- these CGI artists must be stopped. I'm wasn't necessarily looking forward to 'Hulk' that much, but Lee is exactly the type of virtuoso director who should have been helming 'Daredevil.' And I like the cast. After being so charismatic in 'Chopper,' Eric Bana was a great choice for the titular character; a very-haggard looking Nick Nolte (when isn't he haggard-looking?) plays his father; and Jennifer Connelly -- who, for what it's worth, may be the sexiest woman on the planet, in addition to being a fine actress -- stars as his love interest. The first 30 seconds or so of the trailer introduces us to these stars and sets up the story and then wham!, we get our first glimpse of the green computer-generated monstrosity that is supposed to be the Hulk and, well, it just looks awful... like something out of a Nintendo game. No, I'm not showing my age by saying Nintendo instead of PlayStation or X-Box. I mean it really looks like Nintendo. I don't think I can sufficiently explain just how bad the Hulk looks in this preview. See for yourself here.
Legendary cinematographer Conrad L. Hall was posthumously awarded with the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) top award Sunday for his work on 'Road to Perdition.' Hall died of complications from bladder cancer on Jan. 4 at the age of 76 and is almost surely going to win the Oscar as well, where he is competition with Dion Beebe (Chicago), Edward Lachman (Far From Heaven), Michael Ballhaus (Gangs of New York) and Pawel Edelman (The Pianist). Hall won an Oscar for 'American Beauty,' his first collaboration with 'Perdition' director Sam Mendes, though he will probably always be remembered for 1967's 'In Cold Blood,' and perhaps even one signature scene, which I recall as one of the first instances where I actually became aware of what a cinematographer can add to a film. Here's how a feature on the ASC's web site describes it: "In an unforgettable scene, a chillingly unemotional killer speaks to the prison chaplain, who is reading the Bible aloud in the dim glow of a desk lamp. The light coming through the window creates a moody ambience. When the crew used a wind machine to put movement into the rain, the water condensed and ran down the window like a veil of tears. During a rehearsal, Hall noticed that the light and streaks of water on the window cast shadows on the killer’s face that looked like tears. He and director Richard Brooks subsequently incorporated the 'happy accidthe film. It captured the sense of pathos in a way that words couldn’t, and it was a major departure from the classical Hollywood style." Eric wrote a little tribute to Hall here on Jan. 17.
Legendary cinematographer Conrad L. Hall was posthumously awarded with the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) top award Sunday for his work on 'Road to Perdition.' Hall died of complications from bladder cancer on Jan. 4 at the age of 76 and is almost surely going to win the Oscar as well, where he is competition with Dion Beebe (Chicago), Edward Lachman (Far From Heaven), Michael Ballhaus (Gangs of New York) and Pawel Edelman (The Pianist). Hall won an Oscar for 'American Beauty,' his first collaboration with 'Perdition' director Sam Mendes, though he will probably always be remembered for 1967's 'In Cold Blood,' and perhaps even one signature scene, which I recall as one of the first instances where I actually became aware of what a cinematographer can add to a film. Here's how a feature on the ASC's web site describes it: "In an unforgettable scene, a chillingly unemotional killer speaks to the prison chaplain, who is reading the Bible aloud in the dim glow of a desk lamp. The light coming through the window creates a moody ambience. When the crew used a wind machine to put movement into the rain, the water condensed and ran down the window like a veil of tears. During a rehearsal, Hall noticed that the light and streaks of water on the window cast shadows on the killer’s face that looked like tears. He and director Richard Brooks subsequently incorporated the 'happy accidthe film. It captured the sense of pathos in a way that words couldn’t, and it was a major departure from the classical Hollywood style." Eric wrote a little tribute to Hall here on Jan. 17.
Monday, February 17, 2003
DAREDEVIL - 'Daredevil' collected a tidy $43.5 million at the box office over the weekend, despite being almost universally panned by critics -- Rotten Tomatoes shows a 50% freshness rating, which isn't terrible, except that most of the positive reviews are from small-time newspaper critics and fringe Internet folks like myself; the only big-name critic to give it a positive review was Roger Ebert and all he can say about it is, "The movie is actually pretty good." Such a box office triumph would seem to lend credence to the notion that critics are not only powerless, but completely out of touch with the average moviegoer. However, as I've always said, the fact that a movie makes a ton of money doesn't necessarily mean audiences enjoyed it any more than critics, especially when we're just looking at opening weekend totals. Even 'Godzilla' made over $100 million and have you ever met anyone who liked it? Last weekend was an extended one for some because of President's Day and it was also Valentine's weekend, which had to help 'Daredevil' tremendously because it's an obvious date movie. Guys like superheroes, action and Jennifer Garner, while chicks like Ben Affleck in spandex -- a perfect compromise. But how big will the drop-off be next weekend when the word gets out that this movie is a borderline stinker? I remember reading a feature somewhere in which writer/director Mark Steven Johnson explained how he loved the comic as a kid and had to push hard to get the studio to allow him to direct their big-budget-franchise-to-be; of course, they wanted a bigger name director like Ridley Scott. The story warmed my heart until I thought about the fact that this is the same guy who ruined one of the greatest books of all-time, John Irving's 'A Prayer For Owen Meany,' in the form of the mostly dreadful 'Simon Birch.' The story behind 'Daredevil' has all the makings of a great comic-to-screen transfer. Instead of an all-powerful do-gooder like Superman or, to some extent, Spider-Man, Daredevil is set apart by his disabilty, having been blinded as a kid. He fights crime amidst the grime of Hells Kitchen and does so with a vigilante mentality, dispensing justice as he sees (no pun intended) fit. It's the kind of dark, psychological stuff Tim Burton had a ball with in 'Batman.' But Johnson is no Burton, nor is he Ridley Scott or Bryan Singer, who successfully made a comic-book film ('X-Men') that never felt like a cartoon and managed to be serious and thoughtful without being (overly) pretentious. Everything about 'Daredevil' -- from the dialogue, to the music, to the shot selections -- is painfully obvious. The narration consistently tells us what we've already been shown in a previous shot, and the music selection is so literal and corny it's laughable. I wish I had taken notes just so I could recount the number of times the lyrics to various songs verbalized exactly what was taking place on screen. The visual effects and fight sequences were also lame because it's impossible to shake that been-there-done-that feeling when you are watching the same tiresome, high-flying kung fu moves popularized by 'The Matrix' and 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' What's worse is that there is no legit explanation for any of the characters in 'Daredevil' to have such abilities. As Movie Poop Shoot's Jeffrey Wells so nicely put it: "...Murdock is still just a blind guy who, not being from Krypton or any other planet outside our solar system, should be bound by the laws of physics. How, then, does he get to jump from building to building like a human grasshopper? The answer, of course, is because Batman, Spider-Man, Superman and the X-Men are all gravity-defying bipeds with super powers or appearances of same, and therefore Matt Murdock -- the star of a movie competing with all these previous super-hero flicks -- has to match them stunt for stunt." The action stuff aside, I can't help but wonder what a better writer and director could have done with this material. Instead of spending any time showing how the corrupt, insufficient justice system is what forces Murdock, a lawyer by day, to don his maroon outfit and play judge and jury at night, Johnson gives us one measly and ridiculously unrealistic courtroom scene where Murdock unsuccessfully prosecutes a rapist. Instead of having any sympathy for Murdock's endeavor to seek justice, I couldn't help but wonder if Matt just isnt a very good lawyer.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
NO, REALLY - I will post today. I will post today. I will post today.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
OSCAR REACTION PART DEUX - Sam makes a great point in the Feedback Forum regarding 'Punch-Drunk Love': "If they had released it in late-December or January with the other prestige pictures, I guarantee that Anderson would be getting Nia Vardalos's original screenplay nomination and Emily Watson would have Queen Latifah's supporting actress nom." It is amazing how much of a factor release date is when it comes to the Oscars. All five nominees for best picture came out near the end of the year, as did most of the acting category nominees save for Diane Lane in 'Unfaithful' and Paul Newman in 'Road to Perdition.' That being said, 'Punch-Drunk' was probably hindered by its language and subject matter that was described in one letter to the Chicago Tribune entertainment section as being "obscene." (I'll have to dig this letter out and post it here sometime because it is one of the best examples of the disconnect that exists between film critics and moviegoers. This particular woman felt that critic Michael Wilmington tricked her by using the words "romantic comedy" to describe something so vulgar. Hilarious stuff.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR -- Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Ed Harris (The Hours); Paul Newman (Road to Perdition), John C. Reilly (Chicago), and Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can)
How great is it to see usually unsung actors like Chris Cooper and John C. Reilly garnering some attention? Unfortunately, even though I liked Reilly as "Mr. Cellophane" in 'Chicago,' he was basically playing the same boring, cuckolded husband role he seems to have perfected. As I said when I wrote about 'Chicago' on Jan. 6 (A.O. Scott Stole My Thunder) the best performance in the whole film was turned in by Richard Gere, but somehow his Golden Globe win didn't translate into an Oscar nom. Newman and Walken are both fantastic in their respective films. The dignity and humanity Newman brings to his mobster character in 'Perdition' is the best reason to see that movie. The only choice that bothers me here is Ed Harris for 'The Hours.' I've always been a huge Harris fan, but his performance as a poet dying from AIDS is far too showy. It just screams Oscar, and apparently it got the Academy's attention.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS - Kathy Bates (About Schmidt), Julianne Moore (The Hours), Queen Latifah (Chicago), Meryl Streep (Adaptation), and Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago)
I can't comment on Kathy Bates' performance, but I have pretty much the same reaction to it as her co-star Nicholson getting another nomination. She already has one Oscar and excels at playing over-the-top characters. Do we really need to reward her again? Like Reilly, Queen Latifah is barely in 'Chicago' enough to warrant a nomination. That Miramax marketing team is good, isn't it? Streep is another actress who is hard to root for because she already has, what, three Oscars at home? But I'm glad to see she got a nod for her surprising turn in 'Adaptation,' playing a neurotic, lonely writer who gets caught up in drugs and sex, instead of her break-down-on-cue-give-me-the-Oscar-now performance in 'The Hours.'
BEST DIRECTOR - Rob Marshall (Chicago), Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Roman Polanski (The Hours), Pedro Almodovar (Talk To Her)
I still need to see 'Talk To Her,' though if 'The Two Towers' was deemed worthy of a best picture nomination, then Peter Jackson probably should have gotten a directing nod. I've always been a traditionalist when it comes to the notion that the best picture is made by the best director. Scorsese will probably win, regardless of whether 'Chicago' beats 'Gangs' for best picture, because the latter is a more ambitious, epic-sized achievement. In a way, it will be a little sad though because Scorsese will finally get rewarded for a film that isn't as deserving as 'Taxi Driver,' 'Raging Bull,' or 'GoodFellas.' The Academy will probably try to make up for its past transgressions this year. My vote would be with Polanski since 'The Pianist' is the best film of the bunch.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR -- Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Ed Harris (The Hours); Paul Newman (Road to Perdition), John C. Reilly (Chicago), and Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can)
How great is it to see usually unsung actors like Chris Cooper and John C. Reilly garnering some attention? Unfortunately, even though I liked Reilly as "Mr. Cellophane" in 'Chicago,' he was basically playing the same boring, cuckolded husband role he seems to have perfected. As I said when I wrote about 'Chicago' on Jan. 6 (A.O. Scott Stole My Thunder) the best performance in the whole film was turned in by Richard Gere, but somehow his Golden Globe win didn't translate into an Oscar nom. Newman and Walken are both fantastic in their respective films. The dignity and humanity Newman brings to his mobster character in 'Perdition' is the best reason to see that movie. The only choice that bothers me here is Ed Harris for 'The Hours.' I've always been a huge Harris fan, but his performance as a poet dying from AIDS is far too showy. It just screams Oscar, and apparently it got the Academy's attention.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS - Kathy Bates (About Schmidt), Julianne Moore (The Hours), Queen Latifah (Chicago), Meryl Streep (Adaptation), and Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago)
I can't comment on Kathy Bates' performance, but I have pretty much the same reaction to it as her co-star Nicholson getting another nomination. She already has one Oscar and excels at playing over-the-top characters. Do we really need to reward her again? Like Reilly, Queen Latifah is barely in 'Chicago' enough to warrant a nomination. That Miramax marketing team is good, isn't it? Streep is another actress who is hard to root for because she already has, what, three Oscars at home? But I'm glad to see she got a nod for her surprising turn in 'Adaptation,' playing a neurotic, lonely writer who gets caught up in drugs and sex, instead of her break-down-on-cue-give-me-the-Oscar-now performance in 'The Hours.'
BEST DIRECTOR - Rob Marshall (Chicago), Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Roman Polanski (The Hours), Pedro Almodovar (Talk To Her)
I still need to see 'Talk To Her,' though if 'The Two Towers' was deemed worthy of a best picture nomination, then Peter Jackson probably should have gotten a directing nod. I've always been a traditionalist when it comes to the notion that the best picture is made by the best director. Scorsese will probably win, regardless of whether 'Chicago' beats 'Gangs' for best picture, because the latter is a more ambitious, epic-sized achievement. In a way, it will be a little sad though because Scorsese will finally get rewarded for a film that isn't as deserving as 'Taxi Driver,' 'Raging Bull,' or 'GoodFellas.' The Academy will probably try to make up for its past transgressions this year. My vote would be with Polanski since 'The Pianist' is the best film of the bunch.
ERIC'S OSCAR REACTION - Just a lot of good, interesting writing to which I thought I'd provide links. If you're like me, some of the most interesting selections each year are the foreign-language nominations, because they are the only category that does not receive any hype. You usually can't see them at very many theaters, and the conventional wisdom among distributors is you have to pick and choose where you show them as the film-going public generally doesn't like them. They may be right, but 'Talk to Her,' Pedro Almovodar's critically-acclaimed valentine did not get nominated for this category despite being on around 90% of critic's top 10 lists. June Thomas has an OK explainer of this on Slate, but it's more noteworthy for the links it provides. One is for an explainer from a previous year, on Adam's recent question about why some actors seem wrongly or oddly nominated for a Best Actor/Actress vs. Supporting Actor when they don't seem to fit that description. Even better is a link to a diary by a member of AMPAS foreign-film committee, Ken Rudolph, explaining his reaction to every single movie as well as his predictions for the nominations. And best is a link to an L.A. Times story about the Afghanistan film, 'FireDancer,' the first ever entry for the country in the Oscars, where the producer allegedly killed the director and kept his head in his refrigerator. Yes, you read that correctly.
As far as my feelings, I really thought Jeffrey Wells summed it up best when he started composing his Oscar Balloon 2003 before the 2002 nominations even came out. Granted, he lives in L.A. and writes about the industry for a living, but his Feb. 7 column was right on with his aloof tone. Most of the column is actually a deconstruction of why 'Antwone Fisher' hasn't done better with award nominations, but it's still pretty solid. I usually find his columns hit or miss, so I don't read him all the time, but he always writes what he experiences or feels about a movie, and I like that, unlike some of his readers that lambaste "Nuts" further down in his last column. His new one today is quite good as well, and I generally agree with his Oscar sentiments. He has a tidbit about 'City of God' not getting any love in the foreign language category, as well as more gossip about 'A Confederacy of Dunces,' which we'll officially dub as the most eagerly anticipated project of the next 5 years for Eric, or TMEAPIN5YE.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
As far as my feelings, I really thought Jeffrey Wells summed it up best when he started composing his Oscar Balloon 2003 before the 2002 nominations even came out. Granted, he lives in L.A. and writes about the industry for a living, but his Feb. 7 column was right on with his aloof tone. Most of the column is actually a deconstruction of why 'Antwone Fisher' hasn't done better with award nominations, but it's still pretty solid. I usually find his columns hit or miss, so I don't read him all the time, but he always writes what he experiences or feels about a movie, and I like that, unlike some of his readers that lambaste "Nuts" further down in his last column. His new one today is quite good as well, and I generally agree with his Oscar sentiments. He has a tidbit about 'City of God' not getting any love in the foreign language category, as well as more gossip about 'A Confederacy of Dunces,' which we'll officially dub as the most eagerly anticipated project of the next 5 years for Eric, or TMEAPIN5YE.
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
OSCAR REACTION - If you read my regurgitation yesterday of the Chicago Tribune's Oscar predictions, then you couldn't have been too surprised when the nominees were announced this morning. Between them, Mark Caro and Michael Wilmington were pretty much dead on. Let's go through each of the main categories, shall we?
BEST PICTURE -- Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Two Towers and The Pianist
I've seen all of these films except for 'The Two Towers' and I can't say I'm offended by any of these choices. 'Chicago' isn't worthy of 13 nominations, but it just missed my top ten films of the year list. 'Gangs' suffers from a muddled final act, but Daniel Day-Lewis' performance alone lodged it at #10 on my list. 'The Hours' is totally overrated, but not insufferable -- at least it wasn't for me, though I freely admit to being won over by the charm of the book's author, Michael Cunningham, during the post-screening Q&A I attended here in Chicago. The only film that truly deserves to be on this list, however, is Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist.' There are a handful of scenes that are so emotionally scarring that I still play them over in my head about once a day. As pointless as the Oscars are in the grand scheme of things, it's nice to know that more people will be influenced to seek out this film thanks to the nomination.
BEST ACTOR - Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Day-Lewis (Gangs), Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt).
I haven't seen 'Schmidt' or 'The Quiet American' yet (the latter just opened in Chicago last weekend), so I can really only comment on the other three. Then again, I don't care if I ultimately think 'Schmidt' is the best film of all-time, there's no way I'd root for Jack to win another award. His win for 'As Good As It Gets' has to be one of the biggest Oscar crimes since Roberto Benigni's win for 'Life is Beautiful.' Everyone except Brody has won at least one Oscar before, either as a lead or supporting actor, so I'm tempted to root for him just on that basis alone. Of course, you can also root for him because he delivers an amazing performance -- intense and emotional, but subtle. I thought Cage was probably the best thing about 'Adaptation,' but I'm rooting for Brody or Day-Lewis. Curiously, Lewis' role as Bill the Butcher never struck me as a lead role. Granted, he towers over DiCaprio in the film and is without a doubt one of the most fascinating characters in recent memory, but he isn't the main character of the story -- DiCaprio is. I always assumed Lewis would get a supporting nod. Not that the Academy has ever really had a clear criteria for this. Donald Sutherland was nominated for Best Actor in 1980 for 'Ordinary People' despite the fact that newcomer Timothy Hutton -- who is in probably 95% of the movie -- was the clear protagonist. Hutton won for Best Supporting Actor, but Sutherland only got the Best Actor nomination because he was Donald Sutherland and nobody knew who Hutton was.
BEST ACTRESS - Salma Hayek (Frida), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven) and Renee Zellweger (Chicago)
I saw all of these performances except for Hayek's and, again, I'm not offended by any of the choices -- though I guess I would be disappointed if Zellweger won simply because she's just a little to winsome as Roxie Hart. I think Kidman, Lane and Moore are all three great actresses and are deserving of the honor as a sort of lifetime achievement award, if not necessarily for the performances in question. But if I was voting I'd give it to Moore. I thought her 'Mrs. Magnatech' was as complex and real a character as you could expect to find in a post-modernist marvel like 'Far From Heaven.'
More to come...
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
BEST PICTURE -- Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Two Towers and The Pianist
I've seen all of these films except for 'The Two Towers' and I can't say I'm offended by any of these choices. 'Chicago' isn't worthy of 13 nominations, but it just missed my top ten films of the year list. 'Gangs' suffers from a muddled final act, but Daniel Day-Lewis' performance alone lodged it at #10 on my list. 'The Hours' is totally overrated, but not insufferable -- at least it wasn't for me, though I freely admit to being won over by the charm of the book's author, Michael Cunningham, during the post-screening Q&A I attended here in Chicago. The only film that truly deserves to be on this list, however, is Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist.' There are a handful of scenes that are so emotionally scarring that I still play them over in my head about once a day. As pointless as the Oscars are in the grand scheme of things, it's nice to know that more people will be influenced to seek out this film thanks to the nomination.
BEST ACTOR - Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Day-Lewis (Gangs), Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt).
I haven't seen 'Schmidt' or 'The Quiet American' yet (the latter just opened in Chicago last weekend), so I can really only comment on the other three. Then again, I don't care if I ultimately think 'Schmidt' is the best film of all-time, there's no way I'd root for Jack to win another award. His win for 'As Good As It Gets' has to be one of the biggest Oscar crimes since Roberto Benigni's win for 'Life is Beautiful.' Everyone except Brody has won at least one Oscar before, either as a lead or supporting actor, so I'm tempted to root for him just on that basis alone. Of course, you can also root for him because he delivers an amazing performance -- intense and emotional, but subtle. I thought Cage was probably the best thing about 'Adaptation,' but I'm rooting for Brody or Day-Lewis. Curiously, Lewis' role as Bill the Butcher never struck me as a lead role. Granted, he towers over DiCaprio in the film and is without a doubt one of the most fascinating characters in recent memory, but he isn't the main character of the story -- DiCaprio is. I always assumed Lewis would get a supporting nod. Not that the Academy has ever really had a clear criteria for this. Donald Sutherland was nominated for Best Actor in 1980 for 'Ordinary People' despite the fact that newcomer Timothy Hutton -- who is in probably 95% of the movie -- was the clear protagonist. Hutton won for Best Supporting Actor, but Sutherland only got the Best Actor nomination because he was Donald Sutherland and nobody knew who Hutton was.
BEST ACTRESS - Salma Hayek (Frida), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven) and Renee Zellweger (Chicago)
I saw all of these performances except for Hayek's and, again, I'm not offended by any of the choices -- though I guess I would be disappointed if Zellweger won simply because she's just a little to winsome as Roxie Hart. I think Kidman, Lane and Moore are all three great actresses and are deserving of the honor as a sort of lifetime achievement award, if not necessarily for the performances in question. But if I was voting I'd give it to Moore. I thought her 'Mrs. Magnatech' was as complex and real a character as you could expect to find in a post-modernist marvel like 'Far From Heaven.'
More to come...
Monday, February 10, 2003
OSCAR TALK - I saw 'City of God' over the weekend, plus 'In The Mood For Love' on DVD... and I still haven't commented on 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind' yet. But it's the day before Oscar nominations are announced, so that takes precedence. Mark Caro and critic Michael Wilmington each listed their predictions for nominations in yesterday's Chicago Tribune. I'll have a little bit of commentary at the end, but will save my talk on who is deserving and who is not for after the noms are announced.
BEST PICTURE
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Chicago, The Hours, The Two Towers and The Pianist
Caro thinks the surprise hit 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' will get a nom; Wilmington goes with 'Gangs of New York' for the fifth spot
Entertainment Weekly says Golden Globe Winners 'The Hours' and 'Chicago' are the favorites, while also throwing out for consideration -- About Schmidt, Adaptation, Road to Perdition, Antwone Fisher and Far From Heaven.
BEST DIRECTOR
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Peter Jackson (Two Towers), Rob Marshall (Chicago), Roman Polanski (The Pianist), and Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York)
Caro goes with Stephen Daldry (The Hours) in the final spot; Wilmington thinks critical darling Pedro Almodovar (Talk to Her) is in
EW adds to the mix Alexander Payne (About Schmidt), Spike Jonze (Adaptation), Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven), Sam Mendes (Perdition) and Denzel Washington (Antwone Fisher).
BEST ACTOR
Caro and Wilmington agree on all five: Adrian Brody (Pianist), Nic Cage (Adaptation), Michael Caine (Quiet American), Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs) and Jack Nicholson (Schmidt)
Click here for EW's list.
BEST ACTRESS
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven) and Renee Zellweger (Chicago).
Caro goes with Meryl Streep for 'The Hours' while Wilmington thinks Salma Hayek will squeak in for 'Frida.'
Click here for EW's list.
BEST SUPP. ACTOR
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Paul Newman (Perdition), Dennis Quaid (Far From Heaven) and Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can).
Caro throw in Alfred Molina for 'Frida'; Wilmington likes Ed Harris for 'The Hours.'
Click here for EW's list.
BEST SUPP. ACTRESS
Caro and Wilmington agree on all five: Kathy Bates (Schmidt), Queen Latifah (Chicago), Moore (The Hours), Streep (Adaptation) and Xatherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago).
Click here for EW's list.
HOPE THEY'RE RIGHT: Dennis Quaid, Julianne Moore (Best Actress, Far From Heaven), Adrian Brody, The Pianist, Daniel Day-Lewis
HOPE THEY'RE WRONG: Only one of their Best Picture predictions ('The Pianist') made my top five for the year, so, obviously, I wouldn't mind that entire list getting blown up. Not likely to happen though. Queen Latifah is fine in 'Chicago,' but it's not a role worth even a Supporting nod. Co-star Richard Gere should get one, though apparently Miramax was pushing him for Best Actor, which is a mistake. Ed Harris and Meryl Streep both have showy performances in 'The Hours,' but who cares? I love Harris, but his dying-from-AIDS-visionary-poet bit is too obvious an Oscar choice.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
BEST PICTURE
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Chicago, The Hours, The Two Towers and The Pianist
Caro thinks the surprise hit 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' will get a nom; Wilmington goes with 'Gangs of New York' for the fifth spot
Entertainment Weekly says Golden Globe Winners 'The Hours' and 'Chicago' are the favorites, while also throwing out for consideration -- About Schmidt, Adaptation, Road to Perdition, Antwone Fisher and Far From Heaven.
BEST DIRECTOR
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Peter Jackson (Two Towers), Rob Marshall (Chicago), Roman Polanski (The Pianist), and Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York)
Caro goes with Stephen Daldry (The Hours) in the final spot; Wilmington thinks critical darling Pedro Almodovar (Talk to Her) is in
EW adds to the mix Alexander Payne (About Schmidt), Spike Jonze (Adaptation), Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven), Sam Mendes (Perdition) and Denzel Washington (Antwone Fisher).
BEST ACTOR
Caro and Wilmington agree on all five: Adrian Brody (Pianist), Nic Cage (Adaptation), Michael Caine (Quiet American), Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs) and Jack Nicholson (Schmidt)
Click here for EW's list.
BEST ACTRESS
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven) and Renee Zellweger (Chicago).
Caro goes with Meryl Streep for 'The Hours' while Wilmington thinks Salma Hayek will squeak in for 'Frida.'
Click here for EW's list.
BEST SUPP. ACTOR
Caro and Wilmington agree on: Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Paul Newman (Perdition), Dennis Quaid (Far From Heaven) and Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can).
Caro throw in Alfred Molina for 'Frida'; Wilmington likes Ed Harris for 'The Hours.'
Click here for EW's list.
BEST SUPP. ACTRESS
Caro and Wilmington agree on all five: Kathy Bates (Schmidt), Queen Latifah (Chicago), Moore (The Hours), Streep (Adaptation) and Xatherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago).
Click here for EW's list.
HOPE THEY'RE RIGHT: Dennis Quaid, Julianne Moore (Best Actress, Far From Heaven), Adrian Brody, The Pianist, Daniel Day-Lewis
HOPE THEY'RE WRONG: Only one of their Best Picture predictions ('The Pianist') made my top five for the year, so, obviously, I wouldn't mind that entire list getting blown up. Not likely to happen though. Queen Latifah is fine in 'Chicago,' but it's not a role worth even a Supporting nod. Co-star Richard Gere should get one, though apparently Miramax was pushing him for Best Actor, which is a mistake. Ed Harris and Meryl Streep both have showy performances in 'The Hours,' but who cares? I love Harris, but his dying-from-AIDS-visionary-poet bit is too obvious an Oscar choice.
Thursday, February 06, 2003
PLEA FOR MORE PATIENCE - Interesting posts from Joeyc and newcomer Meep Womp in the Feedback Forum. I'm inspired to comment on them except that... well, except that this week has left me utterly inspired. It seems that Sam and Eric are just as busy this week too. I need some more time to recharge and, perhaps, even rethink the purpose of this blog. CS will be back Monday morning, hopefully with a review of 'The Recruit' and at least one other movie. If you have any words of inspiration or suggestions for topics to discuss, please send them my way.
In the meantime, Eric's got a little something to chew on.
ODDS AND ENDS - Just thought Joey C's post about his new favorite movie in the Feedback Forum was appropriate, since I've also seen two movies recently that would have made my top 5 from last year, had I seen them then. One, Hell House is just gold. Top film of the year, hands down. The other, starting tonight at the Bijou in Iowa City, is Chain Camera, and is still quite good, top 5 good, just not as funny. It can get a little Degrassi Jr. High at times, but still excellent. And if you couldn't already tell, I'm a big documentary fan. Adam, Sam, any recommendations?
It's official, our readers like 'North by Northwest' as the best Hitchcock film of all time, in a poll containing 3 votes. I would have to agree with this declaration, and I think most others would too that have seen a fair deal of Hitchcock. Maybe a better question is his 2nd best film since he has such a vast body of work. There are certainly tons to choose from: Rope, Dial M for Murder, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train, Sabotage, Spellbound, Rear Window; the list boggles the mind. But my choice would have to be Notorious, a little Cary Grant/Ingrid Bergman ditty about the Nazis. Has that old-school Hollywood sheen most Hitchcock films don't reflect until the late 50s. Vote on the Feedback Forum.
One last item, which may become a permanent feature if I can find enough of them regularly: The Hollywood Gasbag. Actual quotes from actual movie critics about recent movies.
David Sheehan, CBS Los Angeles, 'Shanghai Knights' - "Hysterical! A comic kung fu colossus!" There you have it, complete with exclamation points.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
In the meantime, Eric's got a little something to chew on.
ODDS AND ENDS - Just thought Joey C's post about his new favorite movie in the Feedback Forum was appropriate, since I've also seen two movies recently that would have made my top 5 from last year, had I seen them then. One, Hell House is just gold. Top film of the year, hands down. The other, starting tonight at the Bijou in Iowa City, is Chain Camera, and is still quite good, top 5 good, just not as funny. It can get a little Degrassi Jr. High at times, but still excellent. And if you couldn't already tell, I'm a big documentary fan. Adam, Sam, any recommendations?
It's official, our readers like 'North by Northwest' as the best Hitchcock film of all time, in a poll containing 3 votes. I would have to agree with this declaration, and I think most others would too that have seen a fair deal of Hitchcock. Maybe a better question is his 2nd best film since he has such a vast body of work. There are certainly tons to choose from: Rope, Dial M for Murder, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train, Sabotage, Spellbound, Rear Window; the list boggles the mind. But my choice would have to be Notorious, a little Cary Grant/Ingrid Bergman ditty about the Nazis. Has that old-school Hollywood sheen most Hitchcock films don't reflect until the late 50s. Vote on the Feedback Forum.
One last item, which may become a permanent feature if I can find enough of them regularly: The Hollywood Gasbag. Actual quotes from actual movie critics about recent movies.
David Sheehan, CBS Los Angeles, 'Shanghai Knights' - "Hysterical! A comic kung fu colossus!" There you have it, complete with exclamation points.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
BACK, ALMOST - Obviously, I didn't get a chance to post before I left for Florida. Got back into Chicago late last night and have had no time to post yet. Look for something tomorrow. I'm sure my three loyal readers are patiently waiting. Thanks.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Thursday, January 30, 2003
MOVIE CLUB: (NO) CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND AND MORE (3)
From: Adam
To: Sam and Eric
Subject: Had enough of Hitler
Thanks guys for finding the time to post and get the discussion(s) going. In addition to my hellish excursion to the DMV trying to get Illinois license plates, I've been at home with a sick 10-month-old and busy getting ready for my weekend jaunt to Ft. Lauderdale to "work" at the NHL All-Star Game. No, I'm not prostituting myself. I put work in quotes because watching hockey and interviewing athletes isn't really work. I leave Friday morning and don't return until Monday night, so I don't expect to have a new post up until Tuesday.
I should probably start by following through on my promise to discuss 'Max' and 'The Pianist,' even though the two of you have yet to see either. There is, of course, an interesting connection between the two films in that 'The Pianist' is about the effect of Adolf Hitler's ambition and hatred, while 'Max' attempts to show us the cause -- or, at least, the beginnings -- of his ambition and hatred. The trait that makes 'The Pianist' such an amazing experience is precisely what makes 'Max' a mostly forgettable one; namely, Roman Polanski allows the harrowing subject matter -- the true story of famed Polish pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman's (Adrien Brody) evasion of the Nazi's in the Warsaw ghetto -- to speak for itself, while 'Max' director Menno Meyjes can't avoid mucking things up with melodrama, essentially reducing the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust to a missed encounter between a bitter, struggling artist named Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) and his Jewish mentor/art dealer Max Rothman (John Cusack).
Premiere's Glenn Kenny articulates my point much better than I could in his take on 'The Pianist': "Reporting from Cannes last May, a misguided Hollywood Reporter correspondent complained of this film that it “recounts its tales of horror and triumph, but never makes the viewer experience them.” In a way, I must agree with Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt; the cinema is indeed an insufficient instrument for making one experience the humiliation, oppression, and terror of life in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II. I should expect that one might be grateful for that. I only cite this comment because it is the most boneheaded out of many boneheaded things that have been said about this masterful film-a more common (and really, when you get right down to it, more hateful) snipe is that this whole, you know, Holocaust theme has been cinematically done, you know, to death. Jeez, I can't figure out how some people think. But such displays of ignorance, aside from being frightening, underscore just how necessary this film's existence is."
I wasn't surprised to learn that Kirk Honeycutt reacted to the film in that way, feeling like it was lacking some kind of emotional resonance, because I, too, was struck by how Polanski never tries to up the emotional ante of the story. There are no scenes of Szpilman longing for his family members who were sent to the concentration camps, or any heart-warming reunions; no final scenes of closure such as we find in Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' between Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley. Like Kenny, however, I think Honeycutt missed the point of the film completely. 'The Pianist' is about survival, and Polanski quite meticulously and gracefully shows how Szpilman miraculously manages to do just that. Maybe Honeycutt has been so brainwashed by Hollywood that he needs a heroic score and sentimental speeches to feel something, but simply watching a woman (unsuccessfully) trying to find water for her baby before being loaded onto the trains, or watching Nazi soldiers randomly pull a group of Jews out of a lineup and shoot them in the head, was enough for me to feel the horror. Adrien Brody is amazing as Szpilman, matching Polanski's subtlety note for note. It's also worth pointing out that Brody and Polanski believably pull off Szpilman's piano playing without a lot of editing or trick photography. It really looks like Brody is fingering every note, which adds another layer of authenticity to the story. (For the opposite effect, see Woody Allen's 'Sweet and Lowdown,' where Sean Penn's guitar playing is so obviously fake that it becomes an unbearable distraction.)
I had a number of problems with 'Max' and to speed up the proceedings a bit I'm afraid I'm just going to have to catalog the major flaws one by one. 1) John Cusack's accent, or lack thereof: why is it that every German in the film speaks English with a German-flavored accent, while Cusack talks like the Chicago-born guy that he is? Did the filmmakers somehow think that Cusack is such a wonderful, big-time actor that audiences would buy him -- nay, prefer him -- to speak in his normal tongue? Not me. 2) The ending: without giving away anything too specific, Meyjes wants us to believe -- and I'm speaking here of the movie world, not the real world -- that the young Hitler's political ascension began only after he missed his shot at art stardom. But even though Rothman finally does praise Hitler's work near the end, Meyjes makes it explicitly clear that Hitler really isn't that good. He's lazy, unemotional, and he more or less just mimics artists who have come before him. So even though he does finally get inspired by his desire to return Germany to its past glory, I was never convinced that his work would withstand more than one or two showings before being dismissed and forgotten. 3) Did I mention the ending?: Meyjes rips off Coppola's Baptism sequence in 'The Godfather' by intercutting a rousing anti-Semitic speech by Hitler with Rothman and his family worshipping at their synagogue. The juxtaposition of the soothing Jewish chants with Hitler's terrible wailing is effective. The problem is that Rothman's faith has never been a significant issue leading up to this point. He is a Jew, yes, but not a devout one, which makes the sequence feel forced. The conflict inherent in Hitler's hatred for the Jews, but apparent regard for Rothman, isn't sufficiently explored enough to give the juxtaposition at the end any real power.
For what it's worth, I seem to be in the minority here. I suppose I am crazy for criticizing any film with this line of dialogue: "Hitler, come on, I'll buy you a lemonade." I'll have some comments on your posts and 'Confessions' before I take off tomorrow.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam
To: Sam and Eric
Subject: Had enough of Hitler
Thanks guys for finding the time to post and get the discussion(s) going. In addition to my hellish excursion to the DMV trying to get Illinois license plates, I've been at home with a sick 10-month-old and busy getting ready for my weekend jaunt to Ft. Lauderdale to "work" at the NHL All-Star Game. No, I'm not prostituting myself. I put work in quotes because watching hockey and interviewing athletes isn't really work. I leave Friday morning and don't return until Monday night, so I don't expect to have a new post up until Tuesday.
I should probably start by following through on my promise to discuss 'Max' and 'The Pianist,' even though the two of you have yet to see either. There is, of course, an interesting connection between the two films in that 'The Pianist' is about the effect of Adolf Hitler's ambition and hatred, while 'Max' attempts to show us the cause -- or, at least, the beginnings -- of his ambition and hatred. The trait that makes 'The Pianist' such an amazing experience is precisely what makes 'Max' a mostly forgettable one; namely, Roman Polanski allows the harrowing subject matter -- the true story of famed Polish pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman's (Adrien Brody) evasion of the Nazi's in the Warsaw ghetto -- to speak for itself, while 'Max' director Menno Meyjes can't avoid mucking things up with melodrama, essentially reducing the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust to a missed encounter between a bitter, struggling artist named Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) and his Jewish mentor/art dealer Max Rothman (John Cusack).
Premiere's Glenn Kenny articulates my point much better than I could in his take on 'The Pianist': "Reporting from Cannes last May, a misguided Hollywood Reporter correspondent complained of this film that it “recounts its tales of horror and triumph, but never makes the viewer experience them.” In a way, I must agree with Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt; the cinema is indeed an insufficient instrument for making one experience the humiliation, oppression, and terror of life in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II. I should expect that one might be grateful for that. I only cite this comment because it is the most boneheaded out of many boneheaded things that have been said about this masterful film-a more common (and really, when you get right down to it, more hateful) snipe is that this whole, you know, Holocaust theme has been cinematically done, you know, to death. Jeez, I can't figure out how some people think. But such displays of ignorance, aside from being frightening, underscore just how necessary this film's existence is."
I wasn't surprised to learn that Kirk Honeycutt reacted to the film in that way, feeling like it was lacking some kind of emotional resonance, because I, too, was struck by how Polanski never tries to up the emotional ante of the story. There are no scenes of Szpilman longing for his family members who were sent to the concentration camps, or any heart-warming reunions; no final scenes of closure such as we find in Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' between Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley. Like Kenny, however, I think Honeycutt missed the point of the film completely. 'The Pianist' is about survival, and Polanski quite meticulously and gracefully shows how Szpilman miraculously manages to do just that. Maybe Honeycutt has been so brainwashed by Hollywood that he needs a heroic score and sentimental speeches to feel something, but simply watching a woman (unsuccessfully) trying to find water for her baby before being loaded onto the trains, or watching Nazi soldiers randomly pull a group of Jews out of a lineup and shoot them in the head, was enough for me to feel the horror. Adrien Brody is amazing as Szpilman, matching Polanski's subtlety note for note. It's also worth pointing out that Brody and Polanski believably pull off Szpilman's piano playing without a lot of editing or trick photography. It really looks like Brody is fingering every note, which adds another layer of authenticity to the story. (For the opposite effect, see Woody Allen's 'Sweet and Lowdown,' where Sean Penn's guitar playing is so obviously fake that it becomes an unbearable distraction.)
I had a number of problems with 'Max' and to speed up the proceedings a bit I'm afraid I'm just going to have to catalog the major flaws one by one. 1) John Cusack's accent, or lack thereof: why is it that every German in the film speaks English with a German-flavored accent, while Cusack talks like the Chicago-born guy that he is? Did the filmmakers somehow think that Cusack is such a wonderful, big-time actor that audiences would buy him -- nay, prefer him -- to speak in his normal tongue? Not me. 2) The ending: without giving away anything too specific, Meyjes wants us to believe -- and I'm speaking here of the movie world, not the real world -- that the young Hitler's political ascension began only after he missed his shot at art stardom. But even though Rothman finally does praise Hitler's work near the end, Meyjes makes it explicitly clear that Hitler really isn't that good. He's lazy, unemotional, and he more or less just mimics artists who have come before him. So even though he does finally get inspired by his desire to return Germany to its past glory, I was never convinced that his work would withstand more than one or two showings before being dismissed and forgotten. 3) Did I mention the ending?: Meyjes rips off Coppola's Baptism sequence in 'The Godfather' by intercutting a rousing anti-Semitic speech by Hitler with Rothman and his family worshipping at their synagogue. The juxtaposition of the soothing Jewish chants with Hitler's terrible wailing is effective. The problem is that Rothman's faith has never been a significant issue leading up to this point. He is a Jew, yes, but not a devout one, which makes the sequence feel forced. The conflict inherent in Hitler's hatred for the Jews, but apparent regard for Rothman, isn't sufficiently explored enough to give the juxtaposition at the end any real power.
For what it's worth, I seem to be in the minority here. I suppose I am crazy for criticizing any film with this line of dialogue: "Hitler, come on, I'll buy you a lemonade." I'll have some comments on your posts and 'Confessions' before I take off tomorrow.
MOVIE CLUB: (NO) CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND AND MORE (2)
From: Sam
To: Adam and Eric (and readers)
Subject: City of God, Oceans 11 and Adaptation re-examined
As an unredeemed movie geek who currently has Godard’s “Breathless” waiting at home in a Netflix envelope, I still have trouble going out of my way to see foreign films and documentaries in the theatre. Continued exposure to films like the recently released “City of God” should help cure me of that. If not the very best film I’ve seen in the (extended) 2002 movie season, it is certainly one of the most successfully ambitious. Ambitious in its huge, sprawling canvas; its huge cast; and its stylish visuals, the film succeeds on every level. And more importantly, it never lets details get lost under the sheer weight of the story (which covers 15+ years and introduces 30 or so characters). In a nut shell, the film tells the incredible true story of a boy coming of age in a Brazilian ghetto. Rife with violence, drugs and gang-warfare, the eponymous City of God is a South American urban nightmare. The directors take an unflinching portrait of the place, which makes for some exceedingly unpleasant scenes; but the film is also hugely entertaining. Apparently the cast is made up largely of non-actors, residents of the actual City of God, but for the most part you’d never know it. The lead actors who emerge in the latter parts of the film are wonderfully subtle and charismatic. If the film has any flaw, it’s that it is occasionally too flashy (the co-directors come from a music video/advertising background, and it shows), but this is far outweighed by the detail they bring to even the most secondary characters. See it if you can. Or write it down and rent it when it’s released on DVD.
On other notes: I’ve been bad. Still haven’t seen “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.” Adam’s thoughts mirror my expectations. We’ll see. I think I’m comfortably pessimistic, which could result in a pleasant surprise when I finally do see it (definitely this weekend). Something else that Adam raised: films that disappointed in the theater that, under re-examination, turned into favorites. Adam chose one of my best examples: “Oceans 11.” My expectations were through the roof when I saw it in the theatre, and I found it superficial and jokey. Eight months later I saw it on an airplane and found myself laughing out loud. The following week I bough it on DVD and I’ve seen it since (at least in parts) a couple more times. It gets better every time I see it. It’s loose and fun and has a great supporting cast. (I could definitely do without Brad Pitt, but he’s a minor distraction). I completely agree with Adam on this one. It’s hard to think of another film that fits this criteria—mostly because if I didn’t like it in the theater I’m not going to go out of my way to see it on DVD—but there are several films that I liked enough in the theatre to see again and, upon seeing them again (and in some cases, again and again and again) became even better (“Get Shorty” gets better every time I see it—you’ve got to see it again for Gene Hackman’s performance alone; and I didn’t love “Rushmore” until I saw it for the third time).
I finally saw “Unfaithful.” A strange, masochistic experience with a weak opening 20 minutes and a brilliant second act (OK, the second half of the second act is brilliant—assuming there are three acts). Diane Lane is good, but she couldn’t possibly live up to the expectations that had been set—critics have been calling her performance Oscar-worthy since July. Too much of her performance seems edited together into wrought-with-emotion montage scenes. Also: Adrian Lyne is one of the best DVD commentary directors out there. A stylish director who pays attention to the little things, he’s very good at describing why he made certain directorial and editing decisions.
One more thing for theatre-lovers. I saw “Moon Over Broadway” last night on DVD and it is essential viewing for anyone who has spent time working in the theatre. It’s a documentary (by documentarian extraordinaire D.A. Pennebaker) about the Broadway mounting of “Moon Over Buffalo” starring Carol Burnette (who hadn’t been on Broadway in 30 years) and Philip Bosco. The expert editing of last minute script changes, the play’s prick of a director, and a neurotic playwright keep this thing interesting every single minute of the way. As a bonus, the DVD offers a commentary track which essentially acts as a sequel to the film as participants look back on the documentary five or six years later. Lots of entertainingly uncomfortable moments.
So. Two of the most entertaining movies I have seen recently? A foreign film and a documentary. Lesson learned.
Oh, and one more thing: I saw “Adaptation” for the second time last week, and I loved it. The ending made sense to me. I don’t have the time or the brains to explain it; I just think the film needs to be seen twice to be appreciated. Once you know the ending, especially if it’s fresh in your head from your first viewing, you can see the logic to it. I’d love to have this discussion with someone. Because all I’ve been doing is getting into fights with people who have only seen it once. I feel like I just found God and all my companions are non-believers, using the same non-believer language I used myself before seeing the film again. Or something like that. I’m just glad that my decision to put the film in my number 2 slot for best of the year is justified. Adam? Eric? Any chance you’ll see it again?
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam
To: Adam and Eric (and readers)
Subject: City of God, Oceans 11 and Adaptation re-examined
As an unredeemed movie geek who currently has Godard’s “Breathless” waiting at home in a Netflix envelope, I still have trouble going out of my way to see foreign films and documentaries in the theatre. Continued exposure to films like the recently released “City of God” should help cure me of that. If not the very best film I’ve seen in the (extended) 2002 movie season, it is certainly one of the most successfully ambitious. Ambitious in its huge, sprawling canvas; its huge cast; and its stylish visuals, the film succeeds on every level. And more importantly, it never lets details get lost under the sheer weight of the story (which covers 15+ years and introduces 30 or so characters). In a nut shell, the film tells the incredible true story of a boy coming of age in a Brazilian ghetto. Rife with violence, drugs and gang-warfare, the eponymous City of God is a South American urban nightmare. The directors take an unflinching portrait of the place, which makes for some exceedingly unpleasant scenes; but the film is also hugely entertaining. Apparently the cast is made up largely of non-actors, residents of the actual City of God, but for the most part you’d never know it. The lead actors who emerge in the latter parts of the film are wonderfully subtle and charismatic. If the film has any flaw, it’s that it is occasionally too flashy (the co-directors come from a music video/advertising background, and it shows), but this is far outweighed by the detail they bring to even the most secondary characters. See it if you can. Or write it down and rent it when it’s released on DVD.
On other notes: I’ve been bad. Still haven’t seen “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.” Adam’s thoughts mirror my expectations. We’ll see. I think I’m comfortably pessimistic, which could result in a pleasant surprise when I finally do see it (definitely this weekend). Something else that Adam raised: films that disappointed in the theater that, under re-examination, turned into favorites. Adam chose one of my best examples: “Oceans 11.” My expectations were through the roof when I saw it in the theatre, and I found it superficial and jokey. Eight months later I saw it on an airplane and found myself laughing out loud. The following week I bough it on DVD and I’ve seen it since (at least in parts) a couple more times. It gets better every time I see it. It’s loose and fun and has a great supporting cast. (I could definitely do without Brad Pitt, but he’s a minor distraction). I completely agree with Adam on this one. It’s hard to think of another film that fits this criteria—mostly because if I didn’t like it in the theater I’m not going to go out of my way to see it on DVD—but there are several films that I liked enough in the theatre to see again and, upon seeing them again (and in some cases, again and again and again) became even better (“Get Shorty” gets better every time I see it—you’ve got to see it again for Gene Hackman’s performance alone; and I didn’t love “Rushmore” until I saw it for the third time).
I finally saw “Unfaithful.” A strange, masochistic experience with a weak opening 20 minutes and a brilliant second act (OK, the second half of the second act is brilliant—assuming there are three acts). Diane Lane is good, but she couldn’t possibly live up to the expectations that had been set—critics have been calling her performance Oscar-worthy since July. Too much of her performance seems edited together into wrought-with-emotion montage scenes. Also: Adrian Lyne is one of the best DVD commentary directors out there. A stylish director who pays attention to the little things, he’s very good at describing why he made certain directorial and editing decisions.
One more thing for theatre-lovers. I saw “Moon Over Broadway” last night on DVD and it is essential viewing for anyone who has spent time working in the theatre. It’s a documentary (by documentarian extraordinaire D.A. Pennebaker) about the Broadway mounting of “Moon Over Buffalo” starring Carol Burnette (who hadn’t been on Broadway in 30 years) and Philip Bosco. The expert editing of last minute script changes, the play’s prick of a director, and a neurotic playwright keep this thing interesting every single minute of the way. As a bonus, the DVD offers a commentary track which essentially acts as a sequel to the film as participants look back on the documentary five or six years later. Lots of entertainingly uncomfortable moments.
So. Two of the most entertaining movies I have seen recently? A foreign film and a documentary. Lesson learned.
Oh, and one more thing: I saw “Adaptation” for the second time last week, and I loved it. The ending made sense to me. I don’t have the time or the brains to explain it; I just think the film needs to be seen twice to be appreciated. Once you know the ending, especially if it’s fresh in your head from your first viewing, you can see the logic to it. I’d love to have this discussion with someone. Because all I’ve been doing is getting into fights with people who have only seen it once. I feel like I just found God and all my companions are non-believers, using the same non-believer language I used myself before seeing the film again. Or something like that. I’m just glad that my decision to put the film in my number 2 slot for best of the year is justified. Adam? Eric? Any chance you’ll see it again?
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND (1)
From: Eric
To: Adam, Sam
Subject: I've been Clooneyed
Hey, gents. I don't think my contributions are the fix Nate and Island Girl were talking about in the Feedback Forum, but since I finally got around to seeing 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,' I thought I'd help a brother out in a bind. For those of you unfamiliar with the premise, the movie is based on Chuck Barris' 'unauthorized autobiography' in which he claims, in addition to being a successful TV producer ('The Dating Game,' 'The Newlywed Game,' and 'The Gong Show'), that he was a CIA hitman who killed 33 people. The film is, well, decent for a directorial debut. I have to give Clooney this: he may not be the best actor in the world, but he always chooses interesting subject matter. It's a stylish piece, more about look and feel and lounge music than substance, but that is fine for a spy movie. There is an inordinate amount of swearing in the film. I don't have a problem with swearing, I do it quite liberally in my daily life, but often times in movies I feel like an overuse of 'fuck' is just a crutch for bad writing. A lot of the buildup for the film is based on the notion that these events may have happened. This notion is patently ridiculous, and if that's the catch Clooney was shooting for (as he claims in his myriad talk show appearances), he could have done a better job setting it up. The film maintains a frothy tone throughout until we reach the coda, which is so poorly written I think Donald Kaufman helped out on it. Supposedly there is a mole in the CIA that his superiors want him to track down, and while I don't think Clooney is pretending the film is suspenseful, it's painfully obvious who it is halfway through the film. Sam Rockwell plays Barris and he's pretty good, though I think it is Drew Barrymore's finest screen performance to date (but I didn't see 'Home Fries' or 'Ever After,' so I'm probably not a fair judge). Clooney is as stiff as his first roles on the big screen, prompting thoughts of 'Batman & Robin' to skewer my sugar-plum fairies last night. Dear Julia Roberts, so eager to expand her range after always playing the 'movie star' for years, needs more to work with better material, or just take more offbeat roles. Lord knows there's enough scenery-chewing in this film (the FCC censor) to accomodate at least one more. The shot composition is actually pretty good, so it is a good film to look at (even if I have to see Rockwell's ass more times than I've seen my own in the past month). I'll give Clooney credit for this, mainly because I've heard him talk about favorite old films of his, including 'Citizen Kane,' whence he filched several flourishes, thought it just as easily could have been cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel ('The Usual Suspects' and 'Three Kings'). It's funny, it'll bring a smile to your face, but ultimately it's no more than a series of disjointed acting exercises. Fellas, tear into me.
P.S. I nearly crapped my pants when looking into Drew Barrymore's profile at IMDb.com and seeing that there is a movie version of 'A Confederacy of Dunces' slated for release in 2004. The few that know me on this site realize this is my favorite book of all-time, and I wouldn't wish the adaptation on anyone. A quick click provides that it is Soderbergh and one of his producer buddies, and I suppose I can't think of anyone better (though it would be interesting to see what the Farrelly Bros. would do with it). The only cast member listed is Barrymore, who is also producing, so I'll be surreptitiously following this for the next year.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Eric
To: Adam, Sam
Subject: I've been Clooneyed
Hey, gents. I don't think my contributions are the fix Nate and Island Girl were talking about in the Feedback Forum, but since I finally got around to seeing 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,' I thought I'd help a brother out in a bind. For those of you unfamiliar with the premise, the movie is based on Chuck Barris' 'unauthorized autobiography' in which he claims, in addition to being a successful TV producer ('The Dating Game,' 'The Newlywed Game,' and 'The Gong Show'), that he was a CIA hitman who killed 33 people. The film is, well, decent for a directorial debut. I have to give Clooney this: he may not be the best actor in the world, but he always chooses interesting subject matter. It's a stylish piece, more about look and feel and lounge music than substance, but that is fine for a spy movie. There is an inordinate amount of swearing in the film. I don't have a problem with swearing, I do it quite liberally in my daily life, but often times in movies I feel like an overuse of 'fuck' is just a crutch for bad writing. A lot of the buildup for the film is based on the notion that these events may have happened. This notion is patently ridiculous, and if that's the catch Clooney was shooting for (as he claims in his myriad talk show appearances), he could have done a better job setting it up. The film maintains a frothy tone throughout until we reach the coda, which is so poorly written I think Donald Kaufman helped out on it. Supposedly there is a mole in the CIA that his superiors want him to track down, and while I don't think Clooney is pretending the film is suspenseful, it's painfully obvious who it is halfway through the film. Sam Rockwell plays Barris and he's pretty good, though I think it is Drew Barrymore's finest screen performance to date (but I didn't see 'Home Fries' or 'Ever After,' so I'm probably not a fair judge). Clooney is as stiff as his first roles on the big screen, prompting thoughts of 'Batman & Robin' to skewer my sugar-plum fairies last night. Dear Julia Roberts, so eager to expand her range after always playing the 'movie star' for years, needs more to work with better material, or just take more offbeat roles. Lord knows there's enough scenery-chewing in this film (the FCC censor) to accomodate at least one more. The shot composition is actually pretty good, so it is a good film to look at (even if I have to see Rockwell's ass more times than I've seen my own in the past month). I'll give Clooney credit for this, mainly because I've heard him talk about favorite old films of his, including 'Citizen Kane,' whence he filched several flourishes, thought it just as easily could have been cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel ('The Usual Suspects' and 'Three Kings'). It's funny, it'll bring a smile to your face, but ultimately it's no more than a series of disjointed acting exercises. Fellas, tear into me.
P.S. I nearly crapped my pants when looking into Drew Barrymore's profile at IMDb.com and seeing that there is a movie version of 'A Confederacy of Dunces' slated for release in 2004. The few that know me on this site realize this is my favorite book of all-time, and I wouldn't wish the adaptation on anyone. A quick click provides that it is Soderbergh and one of his producer buddies, and I suppose I can't think of anyone better (though it would be interesting to see what the Farrelly Bros. would do with it). The only cast member listed is Barrymore, who is also producing, so I'll be surreptitiously following this for the next year.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
WEEK FROM HELL - Only two days in and I need this week to be over. Is there anything more demoralizing than a fruitless 90 minute trip to the DMV? Posts Wednesday from somebody, sometime. I promise.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Friday, January 24, 2003
RANDOM MUSING - Something for Eric and Sam to perhaps consider before our next Movie Club... What movies did you not like much in the theater, but now find yourself liking a lot whenever you catch them on video/DVD or cable? Conversely, what movies did you really like in the theater and now find that you don't like much at all? I've mentioned before how I somehow liked 'As Good As It Gets' when I saw it originally, but now have realized it's almost as bad as it gets. I find it terribly smug and overbearing. What brought this on is HBO's near constant showing this month of 'Ocean's Eleven,' a film I was lukewarm on when I reviewed it upon its release. I guess I stand by my criticisms, especially Brad Pitt's annoying facial tick where he puts his lips together and opens them again quickly after every line he says; someone tell me you noticed this and were bothered by it too. But every time I start watching it, I can't help but get sucked into it. Dialogue that I never thought was nearly as clever as it wanted to be when I first saw it, now brings a smile to face, such as when Danny (George Clooney) asks his ex-wife, Tess (Julia Roberts), if her new lover (Andy Garcia) makes her laugh. "He doesn't make me cry," she replies. Other great, more humorous, lines:
Tess: You're a thief and a liar.
Danny: I only lied about being a thief, and I don't do that anymore.
Tess: Steal?
Danny: Lie.
Ruben: Look, we all go way back and uh, I owe you from the thing with the guy in the place and I'll never forget it.
Danny: That was our pleasure.
Rusty: I'd never been to Belize.
[While they are watching a dozen Chinese acrobats at a circus]
Danny: Which one is the amazing Yen?
Rusty: He's the little Chinese guy.
Rusty: What's with the orange?
Saul: My doctor says I need vitamins.
Rusty: So why don't you just take vitamins?
[Discussing possible candidates for their crew]
Danny: Phil Torenteen...
Rusty: Dead.
Danny: No kidding. On the job?
Rusty: Skin cancer.
Danny: Send flowers?
Rusty: Dated his wife for a while.
I know Sam is a big fan of Soderbergh's commentary on the DVD, if not a big fan of the movie. I should probably check it out considering I've owned it for about a year now.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Tess: You're a thief and a liar.
Danny: I only lied about being a thief, and I don't do that anymore.
Tess: Steal?
Danny: Lie.
Ruben: Look, we all go way back and uh, I owe you from the thing with the guy in the place and I'll never forget it.
Danny: That was our pleasure.
Rusty: I'd never been to Belize.
[While they are watching a dozen Chinese acrobats at a circus]
Danny: Which one is the amazing Yen?
Rusty: He's the little Chinese guy.
Rusty: What's with the orange?
Saul: My doctor says I need vitamins.
Rusty: So why don't you just take vitamins?
[Discussing possible candidates for their crew]
Danny: Phil Torenteen...
Rusty: Dead.
Danny: No kidding. On the job?
Rusty: Skin cancer.
Danny: Send flowers?
Rusty: Dated his wife for a while.
I know Sam is a big fan of Soderbergh's commentary on the DVD, if not a big fan of the movie. I should probably check it out considering I've owned it for about a year now.
MY LARRY KING COLUMN - Item! Face time with Mr. CinemaScoped himself if you can name the film where Adam got the shark's constant movement reference.
Item! From China comes the one great movie, the one to defeat all the others. Such is the hype that surrounded me during my visit there, especially after a few of them found out I write about film. The movie is called Hero and it had just come out in December of last year, so there was a massive Western-style advertising blitz to accompany it. Miramax has bought the distribution rights and this has made some fans angry because they have already announced they may fiddle with the length and are unclear when they will release it. The movie features Asian stars Jet Li ('Fists of Legend,' 'The Black Mask'), Tony Leung Chiu Wai and Maggie Cheung of 'In the Mood for Love,' and Ziyi Zhang of 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' It is directed by the acclaimed Yimou Zhang ('Happy Times' and 'The Road Home') so it isn't short on name recognition, at least to the Chinese. My guide in Beijing said he had seen it seven times already in the first month it opened, and promised it was much better than 'Crouching Tiger,' which many Chinese are using as a benchmark since it was so popular worldwide. The interesting facet of all this bluster to me was that the Chinese I talked with all seemed to think 'Crouching Tiger' was a very mediocre movie, not representative of what Chinese cinema can accomplish. More of an attempt from an American ensconced in Hollywood to return to his roots in China than a typical Chinese production. A few of them described to me that for a film to be considered "great" in China it has to have a mix of critical success and box office success, but the latter is much more important. I'm guessing because of their history, they would view critics, who attempt to influence what "the masses" think, skeptically, but probably wouldn't go so far as to send me to a labor camp (though they still do have pictures of Mao everywhere). And the only American movies they officially import are the 10 highest grossing from Hollywood the previous year. Of course, you can get any movie you want if you look hard enough on the street. Hell, you can get anything you want if you look around on the street, but that's another subject. So look out for 'Hero,' the Chinese are waiting for your reaction.
Item! We already have the recipe for chop suey and the character of Charlie Chan, so why does America need to keep trading with China? We have this stuff down pat, can't we just send all the extra Orientals piling up over here back where they came from? Kidding, of course...
Item! I was surprised after reading Adam's review and subsequent honorable mention of 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' to see how poorly it did at the Australian box office. It wasn't even playing at any Australian cinema I could find with the Internet's limited ability to check such things, and I don't even think it made as much money there as it did in the U.S. The user review on Imdb.com right now suggests part of the reason why the film is not selling like hotcakes down under, mainly that the film itself isn't so remarkable to natives even though the subject matter may be a revelation to Americans. I was there a year ago, and it was still hot topic then, with museum exhibitions in Melbourne and Sydney on the Stolen Generation and its impact. Heady stuff, and the Imdb review suggests there are still huge problems with racism in parts of Australia. I guess I'm just surprised this isn't more popular there given its critical acclaim here, but then anyone who's ever seen me dress knows I don't exactly have my thumb on the pulse of contemporary tastes.
Item! It was nice that Daniel Day-Lewis, the one guy who was the "native," decided to put some effort into his role and adopt a vulgar Five Points patois, while immigrants DiCaprio and Diaz seemed content to ramble on in their broken English.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Item! From China comes the one great movie, the one to defeat all the others. Such is the hype that surrounded me during my visit there, especially after a few of them found out I write about film. The movie is called Hero and it had just come out in December of last year, so there was a massive Western-style advertising blitz to accompany it. Miramax has bought the distribution rights and this has made some fans angry because they have already announced they may fiddle with the length and are unclear when they will release it. The movie features Asian stars Jet Li ('Fists of Legend,' 'The Black Mask'), Tony Leung Chiu Wai and Maggie Cheung of 'In the Mood for Love,' and Ziyi Zhang of 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' It is directed by the acclaimed Yimou Zhang ('Happy Times' and 'The Road Home') so it isn't short on name recognition, at least to the Chinese. My guide in Beijing said he had seen it seven times already in the first month it opened, and promised it was much better than 'Crouching Tiger,' which many Chinese are using as a benchmark since it was so popular worldwide. The interesting facet of all this bluster to me was that the Chinese I talked with all seemed to think 'Crouching Tiger' was a very mediocre movie, not representative of what Chinese cinema can accomplish. More of an attempt from an American ensconced in Hollywood to return to his roots in China than a typical Chinese production. A few of them described to me that for a film to be considered "great" in China it has to have a mix of critical success and box office success, but the latter is much more important. I'm guessing because of their history, they would view critics, who attempt to influence what "the masses" think, skeptically, but probably wouldn't go so far as to send me to a labor camp (though they still do have pictures of Mao everywhere). And the only American movies they officially import are the 10 highest grossing from Hollywood the previous year. Of course, you can get any movie you want if you look hard enough on the street. Hell, you can get anything you want if you look around on the street, but that's another subject. So look out for 'Hero,' the Chinese are waiting for your reaction.
Item! We already have the recipe for chop suey and the character of Charlie Chan, so why does America need to keep trading with China? We have this stuff down pat, can't we just send all the extra Orientals piling up over here back where they came from? Kidding, of course...
Item! I was surprised after reading Adam's review and subsequent honorable mention of 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' to see how poorly it did at the Australian box office. It wasn't even playing at any Australian cinema I could find with the Internet's limited ability to check such things, and I don't even think it made as much money there as it did in the U.S. The user review on Imdb.com right now suggests part of the reason why the film is not selling like hotcakes down under, mainly that the film itself isn't so remarkable to natives even though the subject matter may be a revelation to Americans. I was there a year ago, and it was still hot topic then, with museum exhibitions in Melbourne and Sydney on the Stolen Generation and its impact. Heady stuff, and the Imdb review suggests there are still huge problems with racism in parts of Australia. I guess I'm just surprised this isn't more popular there given its critical acclaim here, but then anyone who's ever seen me dress knows I don't exactly have my thumb on the pulse of contemporary tastes.
Item! It was nice that Daniel Day-Lewis, the one guy who was the "native," decided to put some effort into his role and adopt a vulgar Five Points patois, while immigrants DiCaprio and Diaz seemed content to ramble on in their broken English.
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (12)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Eric, who the hell is Ndugu?
I mentioned earlier in the week that I wanted to discuss the issue of film critics and whether they really do, as David Edelstein argued in the Slate Movie Club, have wildly different tastes in movies. Edelstein was responding to Variety editor Peter Bart's inane charge that movie critics are a bunch of obscurantists. While I definitely agree that it is just as dangerous to lump film critics into a collective "we" as it is to lump moviegoers together -- as in, "that's not what 'the people' want to see," as if all audiences shared a brain -- I was nevertheless struck this year by how similar many critics' end-of-the-year lists were. Here in Chicago, for example, Tribune critics Michael Wilmington and Mark Caro shared, I think, six films and even had the same three films in order, except one had them at 6-8 while the other had them at 7-9. (Sorry, I can't be more specific because the article is at home and I can't access it online.) And did any film critic in the country not have 'The Pianist' or 'Talk to Her' on their lists? 'Far From Heaven' and 'Y tu mama tambien,' were also almost universal choices.
And then there's Sam, Eric and myself, who all managed to rank 'Punch-Drunk Love' as the best film of the year. By my count, out of a possible thirty choices, only 16 movies were mentioned between our three lists, and only five or six were unique to one list. Even our worst-of lists are pretty much the same, as I too would rank 'Hollywood Ending,' 'XXX' and 'Lovely and Amazing' right up there. I would also like to add to this list: 'Attack of the Clones,' 'Orange County' (please tell me you are kidding, joeyc), 'Queen of the Damned,' 'John Q,' 'The Scorpion King,' and 'Mr. Deeds.
Believe me, I'm not really trying to argue that film critics are interchangeable. I mean, Sam, Eric and I have definitely had our disagreements over the past few months -- '8 Mile,' 'Solaris' among them -- as did A.O. Scott, Sarah Kerr, Edelstein and Roger Ebert over at Slate regarding 'Adaptation,' 'About Schmidt' and others. But this year I was able to see a little clearer why so many people regard film critics as one collective voice to consider -- or, more commonly (unfortunately), to dismiss completely.
I can't say much on the issue about Todd Solondz versus Alexander Payne because I haven't seen 'Citizen Ruth' or 'About Schmidt.' However, I'm not sure you framed the debate accurately, Eric. "But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.')" I don't think the primary criticism of Solondz is that he demeans his audience. As Salon's Charles Taylor argues in his dismissal of 'Storytelling,' Solondz is a filmmaker who can never resist getting laughs at the expense of those blue-collar people he's supposed to be so concerned about. The common sensibility of these filmmakers is that they invite the audience to share their feelings of superiority to the people they put on screen." Patronizing his audience, then, is essentially just a byproduct of his condescension toward his characters. As convincing as Taylor and other critics are, I have a hard time buying it simply because it strikes me as incredibly reductive to think that Solondz makes movies about freakshow characters because he needs to improve his self-esteem. Isn't a more plausible argument that he simply does relate to these types of characters? I'm with Sam, however, that 'Storytelling' just didn't work for me. The classroom scenes during the Fiction section are incredibly funny, especially if you have ever been part of any kind of writing workshop. It's deadly and hilariously accurate. But I just got bogged down during Non-Fiction, though I can't completely articulate why other than it lost its dark comic edge. I simply stopped laughing with the characters -- or, if you believe Charles Taylor, "at" them.
Monday I'll write about 'The Pianist' and 'Max.' This weekend I plan to see 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,' and 'City of God.' Guys, up for a Movie Club next week about George Clooney's directorial debut?
-Adam
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Eric, who the hell is Ndugu?
I mentioned earlier in the week that I wanted to discuss the issue of film critics and whether they really do, as David Edelstein argued in the Slate Movie Club, have wildly different tastes in movies. Edelstein was responding to Variety editor Peter Bart's inane charge that movie critics are a bunch of obscurantists. While I definitely agree that it is just as dangerous to lump film critics into a collective "we" as it is to lump moviegoers together -- as in, "that's not what 'the people' want to see," as if all audiences shared a brain -- I was nevertheless struck this year by how similar many critics' end-of-the-year lists were. Here in Chicago, for example, Tribune critics Michael Wilmington and Mark Caro shared, I think, six films and even had the same three films in order, except one had them at 6-8 while the other had them at 7-9. (Sorry, I can't be more specific because the article is at home and I can't access it online.) And did any film critic in the country not have 'The Pianist' or 'Talk to Her' on their lists? 'Far From Heaven' and 'Y tu mama tambien,' were also almost universal choices.
And then there's Sam, Eric and myself, who all managed to rank 'Punch-Drunk Love' as the best film of the year. By my count, out of a possible thirty choices, only 16 movies were mentioned between our three lists, and only five or six were unique to one list. Even our worst-of lists are pretty much the same, as I too would rank 'Hollywood Ending,' 'XXX' and 'Lovely and Amazing' right up there. I would also like to add to this list: 'Attack of the Clones,' 'Orange County' (please tell me you are kidding, joeyc), 'Queen of the Damned,' 'John Q,' 'The Scorpion King,' and 'Mr. Deeds.
Believe me, I'm not really trying to argue that film critics are interchangeable. I mean, Sam, Eric and I have definitely had our disagreements over the past few months -- '8 Mile,' 'Solaris' among them -- as did A.O. Scott, Sarah Kerr, Edelstein and Roger Ebert over at Slate regarding 'Adaptation,' 'About Schmidt' and others. But this year I was able to see a little clearer why so many people regard film critics as one collective voice to consider -- or, more commonly (unfortunately), to dismiss completely.
I can't say much on the issue about Todd Solondz versus Alexander Payne because I haven't seen 'Citizen Ruth' or 'About Schmidt.' However, I'm not sure you framed the debate accurately, Eric. "But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.')" I don't think the primary criticism of Solondz is that he demeans his audience. As Salon's Charles Taylor argues in his dismissal of 'Storytelling,' Solondz is a filmmaker who can never resist getting laughs at the expense of those blue-collar people he's supposed to be so concerned about. The common sensibility of these filmmakers is that they invite the audience to share their feelings of superiority to the people they put on screen." Patronizing his audience, then, is essentially just a byproduct of his condescension toward his characters. As convincing as Taylor and other critics are, I have a hard time buying it simply because it strikes me as incredibly reductive to think that Solondz makes movies about freakshow characters because he needs to improve his self-esteem. Isn't a more plausible argument that he simply does relate to these types of characters? I'm with Sam, however, that 'Storytelling' just didn't work for me. The classroom scenes during the Fiction section are incredibly funny, especially if you have ever been part of any kind of writing workshop. It's deadly and hilariously accurate. But I just got bogged down during Non-Fiction, though I can't completely articulate why other than it lost its dark comic edge. I simply stopped laughing with the characters -- or, if you believe Charles Taylor, "at" them.
Monday I'll write about 'The Pianist' and 'Max.' This weekend I plan to see 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,' and 'City of God.' Guys, up for a Movie Club next week about George Clooney's directorial debut?
-Adam
DEAD SHARK - A Movie Club, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark. And I'm solely to blame for it. I WILL post this afternoon to tie up our discussion of the best films of 2002.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)