| New Movies | ReelThoughts | Video Views | The Archives | Top 100 | PRICE novels | FAQ |
ReelThoughts
|
April Showers
This was ready yesterday, but I decided it was probably not a good idea to post any substantive content on April 1...
Looking ahead to April's theatrical releases, I have to admit it doesn't look more promising than March, which appeared much like February, which in turn wasn't different from January. Those wishing to peer ahead into May will note the expected shift then, but that's for next month's column, not this one's. For April, there are only three titles I'm greeting with heightened anticipation. (Caveat: there is a fourth, but I can't include it on the "anticipated" list because I saw it last September.)
The big April 6 release is Grindhouse but I have been dealt a bad hand for this one. For reasons unknown to me, the studio has elected not to have a local press screening. To add insult to injury, the local publicists have scheduled the only advance screening (a night promotional one) 36 hours before the film opens and in the one theater I long ago vowed never again to frequent. (It's a long story - *long* being the key word.) As a result, I will be relegated to seeing Grindhouse Friday morning, which means the review won't be available until around the end of the work day. I should have it up early enough so that anyone planning to see it Friday night will be able to ponder my thoughts ahead of time. It's a bummer, but that's the way things work sometimes.
Black Book also opens the first week in April, and it's well worth seeing. This is the "fourth" title I mentioned above. I was excited to see it last summer in Toronto and it didn't let me down. The only downside is that because it's subtitled, it may be difficult to find in some locales. Other April 6 films include yet another horror film, The Reaping, which has sat on Warner Brothers' shelves for god knows how long; The Hoax, another movie that has been gathering dust; and First Snow, which has changed its release date on a weekly basis. Anyone sense a trend?
April 13 brings the addled remake of Rear Window, Disturbia. This one intrigued me until I saw it. The Oscar-nominated After the Wedding (which I think is already out in a few cities) expands its run. Pathfinder is an action/adventure movie that seems to be targeting the LOTR crowd (despite the absence of magic). The preview makes it look like Apocalypto with swords and without subtitles. Finally, there's Perfect Stranger, the film that got a day named after it Philadelphia but isn't worth any money one might be tempted to pay out for it. As for the "hype" promising that's it an "erotic thriller in the tradition of Basic Instinct", let me note for the record that there's very little nudity and what little there is does not feature Halle Berry.
The third weekend is April offers the highly touted police farce Hot Fuzz. I'm hoping this will represent a comedy that's actually funny - something we haven't had this year. Also on my want-to-see list is the French thriller The Page Turner, which opens in limited release. In the Land of Women pretty much declares its chick flick nature via the title, but it will be interesting to see Meg Ryan playing the mother in this kind of film. Slightly younger female viewers will have The Nanny Diaries. One wonders if those two films will siphon viewers from each other. Then there's the likely-not-to-be-screened horror/thriller Vacancy, which is said to be gleefully gory and blessedly short (less than 80 minutes, apparently).
Finally, the calm before the storm. The big movie on April 27 is Fracture, which could be deliciously devious or horribly contrived - take your pick. The double presence of Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling must surely mean there's some cause for hope. Kickin' It Old School is the week's dumb comedy (featuring a Rip Van Winkle premise) and Next is science fiction thriller starring Nic Cage and Jessica Biel and based on a Philip K. Dick novel. The most intriguing movie of the week is Jindabyne, which takes its plot from a Raymond Carver short story.
If the saying is correct and April showers bring May flowers, then next month should be very interesting. Talk about a potential megaplex glut...
Blu-Ray of Hope
The question hanging over the DVD industry is simple: Has Toshiba's HD-DVD become the new Betamax?
The facts are indisputable on the high definition DVD front. Not only have more of Sony's Blu-Ray discs been bought in total, but Blu-Ray is consistently outselling HD-DVD on a weekly basis. Add to that a credible rumor that there will be bare-bones Blu-Ray players in the $300 range available before the end of 2007 and the writing, as they say, is on the wall. A year from now, the format war may be a fading memory.
Not that Toshiba will go down quietly. They have already fired the first salvo in their offensive: buy an HD-DVD player and get five free movies (a $150 value). As Blu-Ray's star continues to ascend, desperation will prod Toshiba to become more aggressive or face a quick Waterloo. Their exact strategy has not been made public, but I have heard about three possibilities. The first would be to reduce the price of the player to about $200 and increase the number of free discs to ten (a $300 value). The second would be to sell the player at $99 - a significant loss - and package two bonus discs with it (one would be a high-def demo disc and the other would be a recent blockbuster). The third, and in some ways the most intriguing, would be to offer a free HD-DVD player to anyone who purchases five discs. (The concept is cool. Go to the store and buy five discs and have someone hand you a free player. This is especially valuable if you were going to buy those five titles in standard DVD in the first place. Why not go high-def if the cost is about the same?)
The key for HD-DVD to survive is to get players in homes, even if they are given away. As razor blade manufacturers will confirm, the money doesn't come from the razors, it comes from the blades. Losses on DVD players are acceptable if the profits from the software compensate. These kinds of tactics could result in a war of attrition that will prolong the dual-format situation but could drive prices so low that buying multiple players will not be financially crippling to the consumer. (But the confusion would remain.)
However, a victory in the format war would not necessarily mean triumph for Blu-Ray. Arguably, a bigger hurdle lies in its path: the lure of downloading. Currently, this approach to purchasing movies remains in its infancy, but it has proven to be remarkably popular. At this time, only a very limited selection of titles is available and none are in high-def. This is expected to change and nearly every expert agrees that downloading will become the primary means of obtaining movies eventually. But how long is "eventually"?
Therein lies the key to Blu-Ray's success, and it's impossible to determine at the moment. It's true that consumers like to have something they can hold in their hands, but how long will it take before the convenience and possibly the cost effectiveness of downloading trumps the comfort of fondling a disc? (Plus, those who have large numbers of discs know how cumbersome they can be to store. I have spent hundreds of dollars on racks and shelves.) No one knows and that's what makes the future of a high def format winner a crapshoot. If the answer is a year or two, then a Blu-Ray victory would be pointless. Ten years would provide Blu-Ray or HD-DVD with a sufficiently lengthy lifespan to justify its existence. The reality, as is often the case, will probably be somewhere in between.
My advice for now is to remain in the dugout. Unless you're desperate for high def movies and have a screen that can show them to their full effect, there's no reason to commit. Yes, we might be getting into later innings, but that means the teams are into their bullpens and we all know how inconsistent relief pitching can be.
The Doctor Is In
The average life cycle of a television program is a known quantity: birth, first-run, repeats, death, syndication, DVD release. For some shows, the steps get jumbled a bit (with repeats and first-run episodes interspersed and DVD releases preceding syndication), but that's pretty much the way things go. No matter how successful the program, it will eventually lose viewers and be exiled to a place where it fades from memory. American Idol may be huge now but there will be a day in the not-too-distant future when it will be a dimly recalled blip on the pop culture radar. Just as it was with Friends and Seinfeld and Cheers and The Cosby Show and MASH.
There are always anomalies - shows with fan bases so large and so loyal that they get the bigwigs to take notice. The most obvious example of this was Star Trek. The series ran on NBC for three years in the late 1960s and was canceled because of poor ratings. In syndication, however, it thrived, bolstered by a die-hard core that swelled as more viewers discovered the series. After Star Wars made science fiction hip, Paramount decided to try out a big-screen Star Trek movie. This led to a film series and a rebirth of the show on television, albeit radically re-imagined (but with hooks to the original). "New" Star Trek survived for about 18 years on television, spanning four series (some better liked than others) before eroding popularity removed it from first-run existence. Yet Star Trek isn't dead. Paramount is using CGI to modernize the original episodes and is planning another movie for next year. (The question of whether or not overexposure damaged Star Trek will be left for another column; I believe that's the case.)
Something similar has happened across the Atlantic. In the U.K., Doctor Who is a national institution. In the U.S., it's a cult phenomenon. The program debuted on British screens the day after JFK was assassinated. It reached its popular peak in the late '70s and early '80s, which is when it received an injection of enthusiasm from American devotees as the program became widely available on PBS stations. By the mid-'80s, however, it was in trouble and the ax fell in 1989, when its weekly U.K. broadcast struggled to draw 4 million viewers. Doctor Who, one of the longest-running television programs in the world, was dead at age 26. Or was it?
As with Star Trek, the fans wouldn't let it die. All around the world, they lobbied for its return. Actors from the series willingly participated in audio dramas (sold on CD) that continued the Doctor's adventures. The line of Doctor Who books expanded. In 1996, FOX-TV and the BBC co-produced a made-for-TV Doctor Who movie that was intended to be a "back door" pilot for a new series. However, American audiences were lukewarm to the production (which was placed in the unenviable position of airing opposite the series finale of Roseanne) and it became a one-off outing. Doctor Who returned to hibernation.
Fast-forward to 2003, the series' 40th anniversary. During that year, the BBC made the announcement fans had been longing to hear - the Doctor was returning. Saturday night - family TV night in England - had once been the bastion of Doctor Who. Lately, the BBC schedule had been trounced on Saturdays and something was needed to stop the bleeding. It was decided to modernize Doctor Who and bring it back under the auspices of producer Russell T. Davies, one of the hottest names in British television (and an avowed Doctor Who fan). New Who debuted in the Spring of 2004 and proved to be an escapist favorite. Gone were the pathetic viewing figures of 15 years earlier. One generation later, Doctor Who had returned to its former glory.
New Who was sold worldwide and it wasn't long before audiences everywhere were getting a chance to observe Christopher Eccleston (and later David Tennant) in the title role. Because of a lengthy dispute with Universal's Science Fiction Channel about the disposition of the old series (the BBC initially wanted SciFi to purchase the rights to all the episodes, not just the new ones – an expensive proposition), the United States was one of the last countries to broadcast New Who.
In the U.K., season three debuted two weeks ago. Ratings have continued to hold and aren't far from where they were two years ago. Doctor Who is consistently the highest rated non-soap opera on British TV (beaten only by Coronation Street and Eastenders) and the #1 kids' program. There are two Doctor Who spinoffs - Torchwood (a kind of British X-Files) and The Sarah Jane Adventures (a science fiction mystery series aimed at younger viewers) - and the future looks rosy for the parent series which has officially been renewed for a fourth season and carries expectations that it will last for at least two additional years. In the United States, while Doctor Who has not garnered spectacular ratings for the SciFi Channel, they are good enough for the station to stay with the program.
Rumor has it that season 3 will debut on SciFi in early July, shortly after it ends its run on the BBC. Die-hard fans, however, will not wait that long. In this era of on-demand viewing for programs with die-hard fan bases, any delay is unacceptable. Within 24 hours after anything has been broadcast somewhere in the world, it will be available to everyone. New Who episodes are widely circulated via Bit Torrent and YouTube shortly after their Saturday evening airings on BBC1. Roughly 50,000 U.S. fans download the Doctor's latest adventures every Saturday night. (The number doesn't substantially impact SciFi's ratings, as it represents only about 3% of Doctor Who's audience, and there's good reason to believe many fans who have downloaded the episodes still watch them on SciFi and buy the DVDs - this is one reason why neither the BBC nor SciFi has become aggressive in killing Who torrents and YouTube postings.)
The strength of Old Who was its whimsical quality. It was never intended to be hardcore science fiction – in fact, it was closer to fantasy than sci-fi. It was often silly and acknowledged its silliness, and that was part of the fun. While much has changed with New Who, that aspect remains the same. Plot-wise, Doctor Who episodes vary greatly in quality, but fans tolerate the bad and the ugly - especially since they remember the dregs of the late 1980s when the wheels came off. Those of us who cut the program a break when it missteps can be excused for our largess. Nostalgia is a powerful factor and absence does make the heart grow fonder. After a 15 year vacation, it's nice to be able to acknowledge that the Doctor is in, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
Naked Addicts and Clothed Strippers
There's a curious trend in recent movies that I have noticed: strippers keep their clothes on while addicts take them off. This is by no means a hard-and-fast rule, but it has struck me as a curious development. I have a few thoughts about what it means (not very deep ones, admittedly), but I'll get to those later. First, the background...
Not all that long ago, it was pretty much accepted that if an actress played a stripper, she would be expected to take her clothing off. Make sense, right? Go back to the '90s and films like Striptease, Showgirls, and Dancing at the Blue Iguana. These three films combined offered nudity from several prominent actresses: Demi Moore, Gina Gershon, Elizabeth Berkley, Jennifer Tilly, Daryl Hannah, and Sandra Oh. (Moore's performance received a lot of publicity at the time since she reportedly got a boob job in preparation.) Recently, however, high-profile actresses playing strippers have been more coy.
In Closer, Natalie Portman gyrated seductively in a g-string but went no further than teasing the audience. Reportedly, she filmed a topless scene but she and director Mike Nichols didn't feel "right" about using it and had the footage destroyed. In Sin City, Jessica Alba's stripper danced around in a skimpy costume, but it displayed less than the toplessness called for in the script. Apparently, since Alba wants to be known as a "serious" actress, she wasn't willing to do the nudity and pointed to a clause in her contract to back her up. Finally, in the recent Grindhouse, Rose McGowan, playing a stripper named Cherry, kept the naughty bits covered. (She's in a sex scene, but it's not revealing and could have been a body double.) There's also Isla Fisher's Luvlee Lemons in The Lookout, but I'll give that film a pass because Luvlee isn't shown performing.
What is the world coming to when a movie-goer can't see flesh from strippers? Well, there's an alternative: go to a movie that deals with addicts. Granted, some of the most memorable movies about addiction don't feature nudity - consider The Man with the Golden Arm or Traffic (to name a couple of many). Things started changing with Darren Aaronofsky's Requiem for a Dream, in which Jennifer Connelly (no stranger to screen nudity) did her most explicit clothes-free work. More recently, we have seen Vera Farmiga (Down to the Bone), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Sherrybaby), Abbie Cornish (Candy), Christina Ricci (Prozac Nation), and Sienna Miller (Fatory Girl).
It takes a certain amount of courage for an actress to perform a nude scene, especially if she's from the United States, where there's an unreasonable prejudice against the naked body. Therefore, actresses who appear unclothed in anything but an overtly artistic endeavor risk gaining a reputation as someone who can be pursued for T&A scenes. This is what happened to Sharon Stone after Basic Instinct. There are indications that Stone could have done serious work but after she spread her legs in Basic Instinct, no one wanted to see her in anything where she wasn't naked.
The lack of nudity in recent stripper movies may be rooted in the fact that the directors believe their films to be inherently strong enough that the T&A element might be a distraction. So, instead of looking for the best actress who will appove a nude scene, they look for the best actress period, and if she won't take her clothing off, they work around it. Movies like Striptease and Showgirls need the nudity. Without it, they don't have anything to offer. Closer and Sin City are more substantive. (The latter, interestingly enough, features nudity, but not from the stripper.) Grindhouse is more difficult to explain since it is exploitative by intent, and McGowan's unwillingness to disrobe is odd since she has done topless scenes in previous projects.
Nudity in addiction movies, however, carries no stigmas. These are dark, serious films that address a major issue. No one is going to stereotype an actress for appearing naked in one. In most cases, the nude scene is organic to the story since it reveals something about the character. For Prozac Nation, Ricci had a "no nudity" clause in her contract but waived it because she felt the scene of her naked on her bed near the beginning illustrated something important about the woman she was playing. In general, nudity in addiction movies is meant to suggest that the character in question has moved beyond the norms of societal behavior in more ways than one.
There is no correlation between appearing nude in a movie and not being taken seriously as an actress (a study I did last year showed that 81% of Best Actress nominees have done at least one nude scene), but that statement doesn't take into account the nature of the nudity. Perhaps Jessica Alba has it partially right - appearing naked as a stripper is not a good way to advance one's standing as a credible performer. Where she's missing the point, however, is that a blanket prohibition against nudity can be a roadblock. A serious actress must be open to all roles. She may turn down nudity in one role because it could be detrimental to her future prospects, but accept nudity in another role because it advances them or because she believes in the project. Thus, it's conceivable that we'll see an actress taking her clothing off as an addict but keeping everything on as a stripper.
A Festival Comes to Town
In the film festival pantheon, there are three levels of prestige. Tier One is inhabited by The Giants. Cannes and Toronto are the only undisputed members of this select group. Some would argue that Venice belongs there, or Telluride, or Berlin. Tier Two consists of high profile festivals that aren't the equal of The Giants but still generate media attention: Sundance, South by Southwest, Tribeca, and so forth. Then there are the Tier Threes. This is by far the largest category because it's populated by hundreds of smaller local festivals.
Although the local festivals lack the allure of their bigger siblings, they provide a valuable service - offering little-seen fare to communities that might not often get something other than multiplex movies and providing a whiff of what festival life is like. For those who don't have the time or inclination to take a trip to Toronto or Europe, this can represent "the next best thing." Many of the movies on the "local festival circuit" have previously played in the majors. The average local festival may not have many world premieres but that's usually not a detriment.
Local festivals started multiplying like locusts in the early 1990s. Many have since folded, scaled back, or morphed into something different. The reason is one of economics - film festivals are expensive and time-consuming and if the customer base doesn't justify the output of the organizers, the festival cannot survive. Even Toronto relies heavily on corporate sponsorship. Without the kind of backing it received from the business community during its formative years, it would never have developed into the 500-pound gorilla it is today.
I had my first immersive film festival experience at a local festival. It was 1995 and I took a week-and-a-half off from work to attend what was then called the Philadelphia Festival of World Cinema (now called by the less cumbersome title of the Philadlephia Film Festival). I bought the $200 all access pass and spent my afternoons and evenings shuttling from one theater to another. The experience was magical. The early May weather was benign, the movies were wonderful (for the most part), and there was the sense of a marathon that accompanies any festival, with each day blurring into the next. The schedule was such that I was able to see three or four movies every day, for a total of about 35 over the course of eleven days.
Over the years, I have participated to one degree or another in every edition of the Philadelphia Film Festival, and some have been much better than others. In 1998, I was instrumental in bringing Roger Ebert to the city to give a blow-by-blow walkthrough of Raging Bull. A year or two after that, the festival underwent an upheaval as management churn left the event poorly organized and underpublicized. The biggest mistake made by the new regime was to move the festival from early May to early April. Now, instead of waiting in line on sun-spanked afternoons, a cold gray wind can be blowing around snowflakes. I no longer cover the festival as a working journalist. Instead, I pick out a few titles that interest me and pay $11 for each ticket like everyone else.
There are two "festival seasons" for local festivals. Those are periods when a group of prints make their way around the country from one festival to another, providing exposure for worthwhile films without U.S. distributors. (Most of these will eventually show up on DVD.) The first such window lasts from late September to early November. Festivals that take place during this time show a large percentage of movies that premiered in Toronto (early-mid September). The second window is April 1 through May 15. Spring festivals specialize in Sundance fare.
There are two things to consider when deciding whether to attend a local festival: the movies and the weather. The former is obvious but the latter may not be. However, there are few things worse than standing out in the cold or the rain then piling into a sold-out theater to sit in discomfort for two hours. Lines are rarely under cover, so be prepared. When it comes to picking titles, do a little research on-line. Not everything showing at a festival is quality material. There's an element of politics in picking films that can result in subpar material sneaking through. (This is true of all festivals, including the majors. I have seen some bone-crushingly bad movies at Sundance and Toronto.)
Most major population centers in the United States have at least one form of film festival. It may last as long as two weeks or as short as a weekend. It may feature new movies or little-seen older ones (Ebertfest). And, because it's local, there's no need to make a big commitment to the experience. Try out a movie or two, then come back the next year for more if you like it. Trips to the big festivals can be highly rewarding, but they're also expensive and logistically challenging. The local festival fills the niche for those who would rather stay home but still get an opportunity to explore the cinematic output of the world.
Cut It Out
For those involved in the motion picture industry, the process of editing commercial DVDs for content then offering them for sale in that edited format is anathema. There are a number of companies that offer this "service": CleanFilms, CleanFlicks, Clean DVD Edited Movies, and Family Safe Movies (to name a few). There are legal issues concerning the degree to which these companies violate copyright laws, not all of which have been resolved. The DGA and MPAA have taken a firm stance against the practice.
For those who aren't aware of what these companies do, here's a primer. They obtain a DVD, break the copy protection code, and make an edited version. The clean copy removes profanity, nudity, sex, and graphic and/or extreme violence. Most of the edited movies are PG and PG-13, although there are some "soft R" titles that have been subjected to the process. The goal is to make the final version the equivalent of a G-rated picture - or, in other words, something safe for family viewing.
When I first head about this practice, my knee-jerk reaction was one of outrage. After a lengthy period of reflection, however, I'm no longer sure. There are a lot of issues involved, the first and foremost of which is the bastardization of a director's vision. Nevertheless, in the movie business, that's almost a regular occurrence. Many theatrical versions are compromised (hence, all the "director's cuts" to appear on DVD). Then there are the "edited for TV" and "edited for airline" editions. Frankly, there's little difference between the practice of snipping and cutting for those forums than there is with DVDs except the former is studio sanctioned while the latter is not.
One way I approached this is to consider how I would feel if someone edited a copy of one of my reviews to eliminate profanity (occasionally used but not often), descriptions of sexuality, and threats of violence against filmmakers who have wasted my time by making a bad movie, and posted it at a site called "CleanReelViews.net." In principle, I don't think I would be offended as long as it was clearly noted that the review had been edited and that the original could be found at ReelViews.net. Any kind of editing, though, is a tricky matter since it could inadvertently change the intent and meaning of the review. That's a concern. There are also financial issues that I won't get into in detail. Suffice it to say that if someone is reading my review elsewhere, they're not reading it at my site and that means a loss of revenue.
Directors, the designated authors of films, have distinct opinions about the process of clean editing. Some of them, especially the auteurs, feel violated by it. Others take a more neutral stance, unwilling to outright condemn it because it fills a niche. Some filmmakers would prefer that a sanitized version of their movie be seen rather than the film not be seen at all. On the other hand, there are those who believe that changing a single frame of their final cut is not only illegal but immoral and unethical.
To what extent does the clean editing process change a movie? In most cases, very little. The majority of films that go to the editing room are already "mostly clean" - high-profile PG and PG-13 movies where the cuts do not impact plot development. It's different with R-rated movies, however. In most cases, it's impossible to clean up such a film without doing damage. A bigger question is why someone would want to. I can understand parents desiring to watch clean versions of PG or PG-13 movies with their kids, but R movies are intended to be viewed by adults. I can't make a case for clean edits of R or NC-17 movies. It makes no sense. If the directors had intended for their films to be seen by teenagers, they would have muted the elements enough to achieve a PG-13.
If I was forced to take a position, I would come out against clean edits. It's always dangerous when a middleman interferes with what is supposed to be a creative work. What if someone had edited the Venus de Milo by forcing her to wear a top? However, I find it difficult to work up a self-righteous froth when it comes to those who do this, especially when their motives are legitimate. There's also a lot of hypocrisy in the movie industry. It takes gall for the strong arm of the studios (the MPAA) to come out against this practice when no one is more guilty of meddling with a director's vision than the studios themselves.
The ethics of clean editing are a lot like those of piracy. Too many people see the issues as black and white without realizing that 90% of them exist in the gray in-between.
Mr. Ebert Goes to Urbana
I'm not the only one expressing this sentiment this weekend: Welcome back, Roger.
Oh, I know he hasn't really been away. He has written occasional reviews and other columns for the Chicago Sun-Times and has been hard at work rehabbing, but there's something reassuring about a visual confirmation. Words are amorphous; images, while they don't always tell the whole story, are not.
Does Roger look the same today as he did a year ago, before the surgery that had dire and unexpected consequences? Of course not, but considering all he's been through, he's in good shape. Would that I could look as good had I gone through a similar ordeal – and would that my attitude might be as open and upbeat. His mind is as nimble as ever, and that's the most important thing. Society puts too much of a premium on physical appearance. Nevertheless, I think Roger's concern that people will be unkind when they see photos of him is misplaced. The overwhelming sentiment, I believe, will be positive, as it was Wednesday night when he received standing ovations. He is as beloved as any non-acting television personality. The image he projects on the small screen is the real Roger Ebert. Away from the camera, he is much the same: engaging, intelligent, passionate, patient, and generous with his time and talent.
I'm sure Roger is aware of the impact he has had on many lives. It would be disingenuous for me to start with anyone but myself. Although Roger didn't have anything to do with my becoming a film critic, he became - for lack of a better word - a sponsor, and I am indebted to him for that. When he championed a fledgling ReelViews (was it really ten years ago that I received my first e-mail from him?), it opened doors. A letter of introduction from him cut through red tape in allowing me to become the first on-line film critic accredited at the Toronto Film Festival. And he wrote the introduction to my first book. I know many other film critics who cite him as their inspiration. He is revered by a generation of movie-going bloggers.
One incident I remember well is from the first day we met face-to-face. It was in September 1997 at the Toronto Film Festival. We were headed for a café for a bite to eat. Along the way, Roger was frequently stopped on the sidewalk by people wanting a word, an autograph, or a picture. He honored each request with grace and charm. There was no grumbling or sense that he was being imposed upon.
The Overlooked Film Festival, or "Ebertfest" as it has become known, is a one of a kind event. It's the only film festival dedicated to movies that have been "overlooked" in their general release. Roger handpicks each of the titles, and this year was no different. This is the ninth consecutive year it has been held and in many ways I'm sure it will be the most memorable. Next year, hopefully, Roger will be recovered and able to fulfill his usual duties as host, and it will once again be about the movies. This year, however, it's about his triumphant return.
Although Ebertfest may be only nine years old, it's something that has been with Roger for much longer. I can recall walking along Chestnut Street in Philadelphia with him in 1998 and listening him discuss his intention to start a film festival that specializes in movies that had obtained theatrical release but had been ignored by the public. The wheels were already in motion then to make this a reality; it was an idea that had percolated in his mind for quite some time. One year later, I was at the Virginia Theater in Champaign-Urbana, introducing the film Hamsun and appearing in several on-stage Q&A sessions and panels. (This link goes to an article I wrote covering the festival.)
I have been to Ebertbest twice. The second time was in 2002. My wife - then girlfriend - lived in Chicago so it was convenient to visit her and drive to Champaign-Urbana. In the years between my first appearance and my second, the festival had grown up a little but was fundamentally unchanged. It was getting more press coverage. Dave Poland and I were the only journalists at the first edition. (That's the reason I ended up writing it up for the Sun-Times - there wasn't anyone else who could do it.) By year #4, there were two dozen writers there – many of them writing for Internet sites. This year, the place is crawling with journalists and photographers.
For those who haven't attended and have an opportunity to go, it's worth the trip, at least once. Ebertfest is unlike any other festival. It's intimate and personal. All the movies are held in one location, so there's no need to schlep from theater to theater. Roger and his guests are approachable. Even for veteran festival goers, this is an opportunity for something different. Were it more convenient, I would go every year. Alas, the older I get, the more I despise flying and Illinois is a little too far for a casual car trip.
In closing, on a sadder note, I'd like to mark the passing of Bernard Spigner. The name won't mean much to most of my readers, but those who live in central New Jersey would at least recognize the voice. For five years, from 1999 until 2004, Bernard was "the voice of central New Jersey" on radio station WCTC-AM. He brought me on board in 2001 and I did a half-hour movie show with him every Friday for three years. Over those years, I got to know him quite well and stuck with him as his show moved from the afternoon to the morning to mid-day. Bernard was one of the few guests on my side of the aisle at my wedding (my wife's friends and family dominated the invitation list). I was saddened to learn that Bernard passed away on Monday at the age of 51 of pancreatic cancer. My thoughts go out to his family.
Welcome back, Roger. Farewell, Bernard.
Where's the Damn Spider-Man 3 Review?
The "where" is actually a "when," and the answer to that question is sometime on Friday. The question that naturally follows is "why?" Why Friday, when half the movie-review websites already have the review posted and the rest will have it up within a few days?
Let me present the facts of the situation. Each reader can then draw his/her own conclusions.
This is the kind of incident I would have expected ten years ago when most studios and publicists knew little about the Internet and the guerilla tactics of sites like "Ain't It Cool News" taught them to fear what they didn't understand. Times have changed since then but the attitudes and business practices of some people remain rooted in the pre-Internet days.
It should be noted that most of those working in the marketing and publicity wing of the motion picture industry are savvy enough to accord Internet critics the same level of respect given to print and television journalists, which is as it should be. Just because something is relatively new doesn't mean it should be marginalized. Unfortunately, there are still some "old school" individuals who believe that if it doesn't show up in a major daily newspaper, it's not worthy of their attention. And some of those people are in positions of power.
Twenty or thirty years from now, this will all be moot. The print media is dying a slow death. Magazines and newspapers will never disappear entirely, but falling circulation numbers will result in their diminished relevance. Even now, nearly every major newspaper in the United States is undergoing an erosion in readership. Where are those readers going to get their news and information? The Internet. When film critics retire or are laid off, they are either being replaced in-house or not at all. Venerable magazines such as Premiere close down the print side and go entirely on-line.
Where a lack of respect for on-line journalists exists, it's a result of the fear of progress. Individuals have developed power bases within a structure that is beginning to decay. Rather than trying to reposition themselves for the future - an action the requires work and forward thinking - they hunker down and try their best to maintain the status quo. Such an approach will work for only so long. Eventually they'll be crushed underfoot.
Every working critic understands this. Even the highest paid print critics, isolated to some degree by preferential treatment, are aware of it. But ten years of fighting for equal access for on-line critics has left me exhausted. It's ironic that my home base has ended up becoming one of the last bastions of critic segregation. Is it frustrating? Of course. But it's like fighting gravity. There comes a point when you realize that change will only come when someone exits the business by one means or another.
The reality is that I get to see most movies before they're released. That enables me to do my job effectively. Instances like Spider-Man 3 are rare, but it's irksome that they exist at all. My finger isn't pointed at anyone in particular but at the industry as a whole for being selectively blind and slow to react.
So what about Spider-Man 3? While I'm of the opinion that nothing I write about any summer blockbuster will change anyone's decision about seeing or not seeing it, I know people are curious about what I think and how I react. As a result, I'll see the movie at the opening midnight showing and write the review late into the night. Hopefully, by dawn's early light, it will be available.
©2007 James Berardinelli
|