ReelThoughts
Choose the month you would like to access:
ReelThoughts
The Price of Magic: Introduction
For those who read The Price of the Crown, welcome back to the land of Devforth. For those who haven't, I would encourage reading the first book, but it isn't a necessity. The Price of Magic is intended to be a stand-alone, although there are numerous hooks into its predecessor.
When I wrote The Price of the Crown in the early 1990s, I didn't expect to write a sequel. The book was intended to tell of the rivalry between Sor and Wil, and, when that rivalry ended, so did the book. Along the way, however, I conceived an idea that couldn't be explored in the first book. And, when it was all over, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't in good conscience leave Sor in the state he was in. So the sequel was born.
Don't expect things to get better for the king of Vorti immediately. In fact, don't expect to "see" him for about a week. The book starts out by introducing a new group of characters, then moves on from there. New blood is good. The Price of Magic starts 20+ years after the conclusion of The Price of the Crown, and, due to a skip in time about a third of the way through this book, the majority of the story transpires 35 years beyond events of the first volume. If there's a constant, it's Sor, who is pretty much the same the first time we meet him in The Price of Magic as he was in Chapter 36 of The Price of the Crown. Things will get worse before they get better.
This is more of a traditional fantasy novel than the first one. It includes non-human races and deals more with magic than politics (although the latter forces still play a part). The landscape has been broadened. We see more of Devforth. Significant portions of the story take place outside of Vorti. For those who were dissatisfied with the end of The Price of the Crown, I think you'll find that this one packs more of a punch.
Additional effort was required to get this book into "postable" shape than was the case with its predecessor. The Price of the Crown was written in 1991, but has been revised twice since then. The Price of Magic was written in 1992 and 1993, but hasn't been touched since then. Consequently, instead of just converting the .doc files into .html files, I had to do a major edit. I avoided entering "re-write" mode, so all I did was to correct some mangled sentences and do a lot of chopping of adjectives and adverbs. I believe this will make The Price of Magic flow better than The Price of the Crown.
There are 34 chapters, but in order to keep the posting entirely in the month of August, two chapters will be posted on August 1, 2, and 31. Meanwhile, work continues on the third book, The Price of Terror. It will be completed in the near future, but, since I won't start posting it until it's done, there will be a longer gap between books two and three than there was between books one and two. (My current goal is post The Price of Terror in December 2005.)
As always, comments are encouraged and welcome. Authors write in a vacuum, so any feedback reminds us that someone is out there. Tell me what you think of the characters and situations, and explain what I have done wrong. At least in a general sense, suggestions received about The Price of the Crown are being applied to the last third of The Price of Terror.
Thanks, and enjoy. On August 31, I'll provide some specifics on where I think The Price of Magic went wrong, and where it went right.
Sorry, Sienna
Normally, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I'm a card-carrying unbeliever. While I don't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, I don't subscribe to the theory that Lyndon Johnson was behind the assassination. I'm not a "UFO person" (meaning that I don't believe we have been visited by intelligent life from another planet, although I accept that such life almost certainly exists somewhere, out there, amongst the stars). But there are times...
When the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes romance blazed its comet-like trail across the front pages of gossip rags worldwide, I shrugged. Some people theorized that these two weren't really in love - it was all a publicity stunt. Pretty stupid way to gain publicity, it seemed to me. Soon, Cruise had been branded as a cook and Holmes as his up-and-coming Stepford Wife. Not exactly postiive image re-inforcement. I stand by my original statements that these two are really into each other, not just playing to the cameras.
The Jude Law/Sienna Miller mess is another story. First of all, who apologizes publically for having an affair? This is the kind of thing that's done behind closed doors (unless it's like the unfortunate Hugh Grant situation). Now, because of Law's mea culpa heard round the world, broken-hearted Sienna is a media darling and whose tragic story has eleveated her to A-list status. Makes the pill a lot less bitter. Next step, I suspect: a tearful reunion with Jude. All is forgiven.
My devious mind postulates that this so-called affair never happened. It was a scheme cooked up by Law and Miller to polish her reputation at the temporary expense of his. Men never suffer long-term for this sort of thing. Did the Meg Ryan affair hurt Russell Crowe? Of course not. In Hollywood, the double standard lives when it comes to infidelity. If the man does it, he's a stud. If it's the woman, she's a bitch and a whore. (Observe what happened to Meg Ryan after the Crowe interlude. Meg who?)
Alternatively, it's possible that Law did sleep around and this is his penance: come clean with it in public so Sienna gets the sympathy and the roles that come with it. That's the price of a reunion. Of course, if these two never get back together, that torpedoes my theories. But I can't believe all is as it seems here because this thing stinks like rotting fish.
Then again, if Miller is a good actress, she deserves the break, regardless of how she gets it. (I haven't seen enough of her to make a determination - a few minutes in Alfie and a few minutes in Layer Cake. Come to think of it, thanks to the costume designers, I have seen quite a bit of her...) As for Law, I don't care whether he is or is not dallying with the babysitter. But at least he may have the inside track on another in the endless list of big-screen TV show re-makes: Nanny and the Professor.
Burn, Bay, Burn
So Michael Bay's The Island is a box office disaster of Heaven's Gate proportions. Even with overseas sales and DVD proceeds figured in, this movie looks set to lose a ton of money. In the normal course of things, this wouldn't be a big deal for director Michael Bay. All filmmakers, even "can't miss" ones like Steven Spielberg (remember 1941?), have duds. Considering the schlock he peddles, Bay was overdue. But there are extenuating circumstances.
In the first place, rumor has it that the failure of The Island may bring down its financing studio, Dreamworks (much as Heaven's Gate is credited with bankrupting United Artists). It's likely that Dreamworks will soon be co-opted by Universal Pictures, either to be retired or used as a branding label. The way things work in Hollywood, Bay will become known as the man who ruined Dreamworks. That kind of reputation is tough to overcome. Michael Cimino never did. Although he made a number of films after Heaven's Gate, most were small-budget and obscure.
Additionally, Bay's chosen genre, the "blow things up" action movie, is undergoing a financial fade. The Island isn't the only popcorn flick to underperform this year, and Hollywood is re-evaluating the market. The poor performances of Sahara, Stealth, and The Island is making studio heads wonder whether big budget action films have become dinosaurs. They are expensive, unwieldy, and only worthwhile if audiences arrive in large numbers. This is Bay's playground, and it's in danger of being razed.
I don't mean to imply that Bay will never work again. But it's likely that in the future, he will lack the total "creative freedom" he has thus far enjoyed. And his time as the Golden Child is over. Meanwhile, Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson should emerge unscathed. Both are more comfortable working in a smaller arena. In Johansson's case, being in The Island raised her profile. She could probably appear in another major motion picture if she wanted, but, at the moment, she is content to star in low-budget movies and function as Woody Allen's latest muse.
This summer's box office has baffled analysts in Hollywood, because trends have been difficult to dissect. Straightforward action films have bombed. Superhero movies have performed admirably, but none have blown the roofs off multiplexes. Revenge of the Sith is triumphant, but that's a dead-end street, since the big-screen Star Wars saga is over. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has been a hit, but how much of its appeal is related to nostalgia associated with the Gene Wilder version? Wedding Crashers is a powerhouse; expect it to spawn clones in much the same way that American Pie did. Kingdom of Heaven may have put the final nail in the coffin of big-budget historical epics. It's the fourth one in two years to tank, following Troy, King Arthur, and Stone's Heaven's Gate, Alexander. Adam Sandler's appeal is on the wane - witness the performance of The Longest Yard. (Since 2000, he has had only two bona fide hits: Anger Management and 50 First Dates.) Lastly, maybe now we'll see a rush of movies with penguins as leading characters. (They have appeared in two successful summer movies: Madagascar and March of the Penguins.)
The Adam Sandler Story
It's unbelievable how upset some people can be made by a simple statement. In the midst of my Bay-bashing yesterday, I snuck in the following two sentences: "Adam Sandler's appeal is on the wane - witness the performance of The Longest Yard. (Since 2000, he has had only two bona fide hits: Anger Management and 50 First Dates.)" And boy did that set off a firestorm.
Okay, I admit I screwed up. Since 2000, Sandler has had three hits. I missed Mr. Deeds. But I stand by my statement about The Longest Yard Yes, it made about $150 million domestic, but the studio was expecting more and it never hit the #1 weekend box office spot. (Production and adverstising costs ran north of $100 million, so that's not as impressive a total as it sounds.) Paramount executives were a little disappointed. Plus, how much of that $150 million came as a result of (1) the nostaglia factor (consider that many men consider the original The Longest Yard to be one of the best sports movies ever made), and (2) Chris Rock fans?
The thrust of my seven-word argument is that Sandler isn't as potent a box office force as he once was. When you look at the facts, that's an indisputable statement. Sandler's first two starring vehicles, Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore, were modest successes. They each grossed more than twice what they cost to make, and went on to do booming business on home video. That's where Sandler's career took off. Between 1995 and 1999, the only bump in the road was the Sandler/Damon Wayans pairing in Bulletproof. That was a dud.
Sandler's box office reign peaked in 1998 and 1999, when The Waterboy and Big Daddy made more than $160 million each (against budgets of $23 million and $34 million, respectively - those are huge profits). In 1999, there was arguably no bigger draw than Sandler, but, as happened with Schwarzenegger and Carrey, this kind of momentum cannot be sustained.
Only three of Sandler's next seven films were successful. The four misses (Little Nicky, Punch Drunk Love, Eight Crazy Nights, and Spanglish) were major disappointments. Even if you consider The Longest Yard to be a hit, the actor's success record post-1999 is 50%. That no longer qualifies him to be considered box office gold.
There are reasons why Sandler's popularity is waning. (There's that word again!) His fan base is getting older. He's getting older. And he's trying his hand at more serious films. Punch Drunk Love and Spanglish fall in that category. There are noteworthy similarities between Sandler's career and that of Jim Carrey. Both began their box office ascent by making dumb comedies, rode the wave for a while, then started to slide when they expanded their repertoires. Carrey has done alright since retiring from the role of box office champ, and no doubt the same will be true of Sandler.
Understand this: I do not dispute that Sandler is an A-list star, and probably one of the dozen most bankable actors currently working in Hollywood. But anyone who doubts that his clout is less in 2005 than it was in 1999 isn't paying attention. So I write again: Adam Sandler's appeal is on the wane.
Expectations
There is a commonly believed myth that film critics should go into a movie screening with no expectations. After all, expectations damage objectivity. The reality, however, is that there is no such thing as an "objective review," and any critic claiming to produce such an essay is either deluded or a liar. Reviews, no matter how well thought-out or informed, are always subjective (as is any form of criticism). How else is it possible to explain that a movie derided by one critic as a piece of garbage may be regarded by another as a masterpiece?
It's rare for me to go into a movie without some degree of expectations. Because I read so much about films, the concept of a "virgin movie-going experience" is alien, except at film festivals, when many pictures arrive without advance buzz. Expectations, however, do not impact my post-viewing opinion of a movie. Some may argue that if I go into a movie expecting not to like it, I have handicapped my ability to appreciate it. But that's not the case. When the movie starts, I want it to work - otherwise, I wouldn't be there. Until a film loses me, I'm its biggest booster. A couple of weeks ago, I was dubious about Sky High, but I ended up giving it one of the most positive reviews of the summer.
I never go to a movie anticipating that it will be lousy enough to earn less than two stars. Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations for either The Devil's Rejects (although I was hopeful) or The Dukes of Hazzard (I wanted at least three laughs, which I didn't get), but never did I imagine I was going to be subjected to a pair of half-star movies. My rule of thumb is that if I sincerely believe that a movie is likely to fall below the two-star threshold, I skip it. That's why there will be no review of Four Brothers. And that's why I won't be giving Rob Schneider 77 minutes of my time for Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. If I hear from other critics I trust that either is worth my time, I'll change my mind.
Mediocrity in film more than anything else has dampened my overall enthusiasm for the medium. Surprises are increasingly rare. With every passing year, Hollywood retreats more into the realm of sequels and re-makes. "Orignal" fare is often little more than a paint-by-numbers production. Staleness has replaced freshness. Too many movies are carefully pre-packaged and homogenized. That's why, when something catches my attention, I want to trumpet its virtues.
When it comes to the motion picture industry, there's no adage more apt than a familar one: hope for the best, but expect the worst. Words for the critic to live by.
Graphic Nudity
Time for another MPAA-related rant. Maybe I should dedicate one day a week to an anti-MPAA ReelThought.
Last week, I saw Broken Flowers, the lastest Jim Jarmusch film. The MPAA has given it a justifiable R-rating. That's not what this column is about. Instead, it's about one of the reasons for the R-rating. According to the MPAA's content description, it is rated R for "graphic nudity" (amongst other things).
"Graphic nudity?"
I can't recall having seen that phrase used before to elaborate on a rating. "Graphic violence" - yes. "Graphic sex" - yes (usually NC-17). But not "graphic nudity." So what constitutes "graphic nudity?" I was curious. Was I about to see a close-up of a vagina or a penis? Was someone in the film going to spread his or her legs? The lack of an NC-17 indicates that the "graphic nudity" occurs in a non-sexual situation, so pornography seemed unlikely. Maybe it would be something like the still photographs in Kinsey. That, as far as I could guess, would deserve to be tagged "graphic nudity."
So what was so shocking, so unusual that the MPAA coined a new term for it? A naked woman walks into a room, smiles at Bill Murray, then turns around and walks out. Admittedly, we see pretty much all of her (breasts, buns, pubic hair), but it doesn't last long. Three seconds tops. Frankly, it's a lot tamer than some nude scenes in films that have not been labeled as containing "graphic nudity." There was pubic hair in The Devil's Rejects, and the only "graphic" that film got was for violence.
There are reasons beyond the "graphic nudity" for Broken Flowers to be rated R, so I'm not going to quibble with the classification. But, from the MPAA's perspective, the nude scene alone would disqualify this movie from a less restrictive rating. And that's where things stop making sense. Once again, I find myself asking why a naked human body cannot be seen by anyone under the age of 17. The context is non-sexual. Are breasts such a horrifying sight that we feel the need to protect minors from seeing them? (This makes even less sense with girls, since they have them. Are they not allowed to stand naked in front of a mirror?)
Even after bringing religion into the equation, it still makes no sense. (Nudity is not a sin, and if the presence of nudity results in lust - which is a sin - the problem is with the observer, not the nude person.) The point of this scene (and countless others like it) is not to titillate or arouse. It's to illustrate an aspect of a woman's character (that she's uninhibited and doesn't mind casual nudity). People in this country are scared of the human body. It freaks them out. They can't deal with the concept that covering something up makes it more taboo. If women were allowed to go topless as freely as men are, the intense fascination with breasts would abate in a generation or two. (Look to those counties where female toplessness is legal.) There would still be breast festishists, just as there are foot fetishists and hair fetishists today. But naked breasts would no longer be objects of shame and fear.
And now the movies give us "graphic nudity." For those keeping score, here is what I believe the MPAA means by some of its cryptic, unhelpful phrases related to naked bodies. "Discreet nudity" refers to a glimpse of flesh, but nothing that can be identified except by pausing the DVD player during a particular frame. A quick flash of a nipple or partial view of buns fits into this category. "Nudity" refers to a breast or bun view - anything that lasts longer than "discreet nudity," but doesn't show anything between upper thighs and hips in the front. "Graphic nudity" is what is more commonly referred to as "full frontal." Or at least that's what I think it means. I'll need to see some more "graphic nudity" before making a final determination.
Whatever will the MPAA think of next?
Convergence
This past week, Robert Iger became the latest voice to join a growing chorus advocating a major overhaul of the current movie distribution system. With DVD sales outstripping ticket sales, the time has come to stop thinking of home video as a "secondary market." In a limited sense, studios have begun recognizing that - DVD advertisements are more prominent now, with tens of millions put into the DVD release campaign (comparable in some cases to the amount spent on the theatrical launch). But there's still a six-month lag between theatrical release and video release, and this is irksome to some of those who don't visit multiplexes.
Iger's belief: that in the not-too-distant future, movies will be released simultaneously into theaters and on DVD. Maybe not all movies, but some of them. That way, those who prefer to avoid the crowds and bustle of multiplexes can stay home and watch a movie without being penalized by the six-month waiting period. Meanwhile, those who cherish the "theatrical experience" of seeing a movie in a communal environment on a big screen or those who like the social nature of attending a multiplex (teenagers) can continue to keep the 'plexes alive.
The potential negative is evident. Revenue, especially for theaters, could drop. But it's not a sure thing. I suspect that kids are still going to go to theaters once or twice a week. When you're that age, it's all about getting out - the destination is almost irrelevant. Staying home to watch a movie isn't a big draw. Teenagers want to be with their friends, and, since malls became passe, theaters have taken over as a weekend hang-out. That isn't likely to change. And, because teenagers make up a significant percentage of a multiplex's revenue stream, the fall-off won't be catastrophic. Where the theater/DVD convergence could hurt is with family films - moms and dads with young children may prefer to buy the DVD and watch it at home rather than go through the challenges of attending a theater.
The upside is that the home video market gets a major boost. And there's a greater chance to increase revenue by double-dipping: release a bare-bones $15 DVD on opening weekend, then add a deluxe special edition six or nine months later. It's difficult to determine whether the decrease in theater revenue will be offset by the increase in home video.
Simultaneous theater/DVD releases will also address, at least in part, one of the MPAA's chief concerns: piracy. The most desirable titles to acquire via illegal means (either downloading or buying on the street) are those not available in stores. That's not to say there isn't a black market for DVD titles, but (at least in the United States) it's smaller. DVDs are cheap enough here that most consumers will opt for legal copies. Releasing movie titles on DVD at the same time as their theatrical opening would cut the legs out from under many of the domestic pirating operations.
Another benefit would be that studios could save money by mounting only one advertising campaign. Rather than having to spend to promote a film for its theatrical opening, then re-loading for the DVD release, everything could be done in one fell swoop. For major releases, this could save millions of dollars. Advertising is no longer a minor line-item on the budget sheet. For some movies, advertising costs can equal 50% of what's spent making the film.
The pioneer for the theatrical/DVD convergence is likely to be Steven Soderbergh, who has a deal in place with 2929 Entertainment. This deal calls for Soderbergh to produce six digital films for the company that will be targeted for DVD and theatrical release on the same date. The first of these, Bubble, is due next year, and its performance (both on DVD and in theaters) will be watched with great interest by the industry.
If convergence occurs, it will likely start slowly with select titles. Smaller, independent films will be the first to cross over, since the DVD release would widen their potential audience, while family films and blockbusters would lag. It's possible that a compromise could be considered for big-budget films whereby they might have a one or two month theatrical run prior to the DVD release.
One factor that will impact any transition is the emergence of digital projection. If this becomes prominent (something likely to occur, although the time table is uncertain), it will in all likelihood speed the move toward convergence. Once film has been taken out of the equation, it makes more sense to produce DVDs early in the process. High Definition DVD is another issue, but it's unclear how that will play out with the looming potential for a format war.
Will this happen? Will at least a percentage of titles be released in theaters and on DVD at the same time? The answer is almost certainly "yes." But it's not clear how long it will take this idea to gather steam - although it's apparent that a number of Hollywood executives are becoming converts.
Too Close
Every once in a while, I am asked why I don't conduct interviews. This has not always been my policy - it has developed over the course of my 14 years as a film reviewer/critic. There was a time when I participated in interviews - those who browse through my Commentary section can find a few of those that I wrote up. (My "high point" was sitting down for 20 minutes with Kenneth Branagh.) There have been others that I have used as background material for reviews. But after numerous contacts with celebrities and others involved in the film industry, I have come to several realizations.
(1) Actors rarely have anything useful to say about a film. Unless they are directly involved in some production aspect, they're on board as hired talent. They can talk a little about preparation or what drew them to the script. For the most part, however, it's standard boiler plate stuff - like when an athelete talks about "giving 110%" and how it's "all about the team." I suppose the lure of interviewing actors has something to do with spending some one-on-one time with a celebrity, but that doesn't do it for me. (Although I admit that if I had an opportunity to interview John Cleese, I would jump at it. And maybe Scarlett Johansson, who seems uninhibited enough to offer more than the usual cliché quotes.)
(2) The potential exists for one's impression of a filmmaker/actor/etc. to impinge upon the opinion of a film. Let's say, for example, that I see and dislike a movie. I then interview the director. He's a likeable, engaging person who's genuinely enthused about his film. Then it's time to write the review. The temptation would exist, perhaps subconsciously, to soften my opinion. That's human nature. So the review would not be an accuate representation of what I thought of the film. I can name instances when friends of mine have offered one view after seeing a film but have modified their opinion after talking with a director or star. The opposite can also happen. An interview with a self-centered jerk of an actor or director can negatively impact one's positive opinion of a film.
(3) Publicists can be too controlling. As everyone reading ReelThoughts knows, I'm not a big fan of publicists. Not all publicists are bad people... plenty are affable and helpful, but then there are those few... Occasionally, publicists will attempt to direct an interview, in some cases going as far as to limit what questions can be asked. This kind of censorship does not sit well with me. I'm not going to ask an actor about his or her love life, but a journalist should not be threatened with termination of the interview if he/she poses the question. (The actor can always say, "No comment.")
In this celebrity-obsessed society, it is necessary for many paid critics to conduct interviews in order to retain their jobs. I sympathize with them. There's nothing more annoying that having to sit across a table from an actor and ask him the same dozen questions he has responded to from tens of other critics and entertainment reporters. Thankfully, I'm not in a position where I have to do that. My job is to write about movies, not ask Tom Cruise whether he considers his latest role to be worthy opportunity to expand his talents as a thespian.
Naked in New York
When one considers the names of "progressive" U.S. cities, New York probably isn't at the top of the list (despite its status as the largest and best known locale in the country). San Francisco, in all likelihood. Seattle and New Orleans too. Nevertheless, a law exists in New York that puts it leagues ahead of many of its fellow East Coast metropolises. According to this statute, women have as much right to go topless as men do. Or, to put it another way, it's legal for a woman to wander the city streets bare-breasted.
For the most part, this law has been meaningless since no women have chosen to take advantage of it. This is understandable. In a culture where the covering up of the human body has resulted in breast obsession being raised to a high art, it's reasonable that a woman would feel uncomfortable letting it all hang out (literally) if she was the only one doing it. There's safety in numbers. A female who would go naked at a nude beach might show more restraint in Central Park, regardless of the legality of her actions.
Recently, however, one woman broke from the crowd and wandered the streets of the lower East Side topless. It happened on August 4. That woman, Jill Feeley, was taken into custody but not charged. The police detained, then released, her. On August 14, ten women (including Feeley) stripped off their tops in Columbus Circle to protest Feeley's earlier encounter with the police. Expectedly, they received a lot of attention. More noteworthy, however, is the fact that many New Yorkers are now aware of something of which they were previously ignorant: a woman cannot be arrested for removing her top in public. (Don't try that in most other East Coast cities, however.)
What New York has done is acknowledge an absurdity that most Americans ignore. How does it make sense that men can be topless in public, yet women cannot be? Both sexes have breasts. Women's are generally better shaped, but not necessarily larger. The only difference is that, because of societal conditioning, female breasts are viewed as sex objects while male breasts are not. Why? Because they are kept hidden. Go to a country where toplessness is the norm, and you'll find that breasts are viewed no more sexually than shoulders, eyes, necks, and feet. They are admired by many and fetishised by some, but there is no taboo. But this is territory I have covered in previous ReelThoughts. My primary point here is to indicate that there is a law on the books in New York City that gives hope to those who view the current American view about nudity as idiotic. Now, the question is whether women will begin taking advantage of this new freedom or if the statute will remain a paper act of lip service to sexual equality.
Inside 9/11
Tonight and tomorrow night, at 9 pm, The National Geographic Channel is presenting the two-part, four-hour documentary, Inside 9/11. Sticking to the facts and using available private & public footage, this is said to be the most comprehensive look at the tragedy to-date. I welcome documenatries about 9/11, since there are many angles that have yet to be explored, and documentaries represent an excellent way to record any event - even one this shattering - for posterity. Imagine what a treasure trove it would be to have an in-depth, four-hour documentary about Pearl Harbor or Gettysburg using a wealth of on-the-spot camera and news footage.
Documentaries are rarely for-profit ventures. The best their makers usually hope for is not to end up deep in debt. They are typically made because the filmmakers have a passion for the subject and a thirst to shine the spotlight on it. The purpose of Inside 9/11 is to educate and elucidate, not titillate.
And that brings me to the three major Hollywood feature films in the works about 9/11. It's tough to make value judgements about something sight-unseen, but that's not going to stop me in this case. The sole purpose of nearly every Hollywood motion picture (even those with "serious" pedigrees) is to make money. Movie studios are commercial enterprises; they don't greenlight something unless they believe there to be a financial upside. Thus, this trio of 9/11 features is by definition capitalizing on a tragedy. And I find that to be disgusting. The vultures have gathered, and we're not even five years beyond the date.
I suppose it all comes down to what events are portrayed and how they are depicted. But I can't see how the issue of insenstivity can be avoided unless (a) no real people are involved, and (b) the actual events are not shown either via real footage or a re-creation. Paramount's intentions are stomach-churning - re-create in real time the events on board Flight 93. I don't need to see that. Heroic or not, these people are all dead, but most members of their families are still alive. It's too soon. Maybe in 50 years, when the wound has scabbed over.
Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but Hollywood's tendency to trivialize events worries me. Producers, actors, and writers will make statements about "honoring the memory of the victims," "doing things tastefully," etc. But, when all is said and done, the goal is to make money. Grave robbers by any other name are still plundering the dead. I'll withhold futher comment until I see the fruit that falls from this thorny tree. Hopefully, it will be more appetizing than it appears to be from this distance. Until then, let's leave the events of 9/11 in the province of documentarians, where they belong.
Plane Movies
Three of the movies I saw on planes during my marathon 44-hours in the air during the last week of May have now reached U.S. theaters. One of the benefits of flying Singapore Air is that each passenger has his/her own personal entertainment center, which includes roughly 100 on-demand movies (some current, some past, and many international). Since I'll view just about anything in similar circumstances, I ended up re-watching Caddyshack and Dirty Harry and seeing three films I was unfamilar with: 2046, Apres Vous, and Ferpect Crime. These are now available in limited distribution is some U.S. theaters.
It is not possible to write a review based on a plane viewing. No one would describe the conditions as optimal. Nevertheless, none of the films encouraged me to run out and see them upon their eventual art house arrival. Of the three, I would recommend one - 2046 - but only to Wong Kar Wai fans. Seeing it once was enough for me, but I enjoyed the experience. As for the other two, they are strictly video fare (at best). If you miss them, your life will be no poorer.
2046 "pretends" to be a science fiction film, but it's really a human drama. Much like In the Mood for Love, it's more about atmosphere than plot. We follow one man, a writer, as revisits his past and moves from woman to woman. As with Wong's other films, 2046 evokes emotions, but features a minimalist plot. The time travel element purports to be about a man journeying by train into the future, but it's only a part of the book being written by the main character, and it occasionally gets juxtaposed with his memories. It's merely a device to get us into the story. The meat of the movie is about the romances of the lead character. The actors - Tony Leung, Gong Li, Zhang Ziyi, and Maggie Cheung - are superlative. They do a lot with the dialogue, but more with their eyes and expressions. 2046 is slow and sublime, but requires an unhurried mind frame to appreciate.
Apres Vous is billed as a French comedy, but I didn't find there to be anything funny (or compelling) about it. When a maitre d' (Daniel Auteuil) saves a suicidal man (Jose Garcia) from hanging himself, he feels responsible for the would-be victim's life. This results in the maitre d' searching for the lost love of his new "friend." Ultimately, that woman, Blanche (Sandrine Kiberlain), becomes embroiled in a romantic triangle with the two men. Apres Vous fails as a comedy, doesn't work as a romance, and is too silly for a drama. The film is slow and draggy, and it's tough to develop much feeling for any of the characters. Even on video, it may be asking the viewer too much to get through the entire 110 minutes.
Ferpect Crime is Spanish/Italian black comedy that has moments of incisive satire, but the sum doesn't equal the whole of its parts. A Cassanova, Rafael (Guillermo Toledo), who works in an upscale department store, becomes involved in an accidental death. All that stands between him and prison is a lone witness: Lourdes (Monica Cervera), the ugliest woman working at the store. In order to keep her quiet, Rafael must vow undying love and marry her. This puts him in a living hell, and he begins to contemplate how to murder his bride. The film starts out breezily enough, with some vicious skewering of department store sales practices and the behind-the-scenes backstabbing that occurs when commissions are involved, but as the running time increases, the comedy level goes down. Occasional bursts of humor are sufficient to keep the average viewer engaged, but not enthusiastic. Ferpect Crime is a suitable diversion, but nothing to go out of one's way for. On the plane, however, it was a decent way to kill the part of the trip from northern Japan to just off Alaska's west coast.
Blogging
Time to really ramble today…
"Blog" is an ugly word. It sounds like something that comes out of the nose when a person is sick with the flu. As I'm sure nearly everyone reading this knows, "blog" is short for "web log." (I prefer the term "online journal.") Initially, it was a noun, but its versatility has been expanded. It became a verb (to blog). Then the verb became a gerund (blogging). So the ugly word has legs and has become an official entry into all comprehensive dictionaries.
By all reasonable definitions, ReelThoughts is a blog, although it's less of a diary than an online journal. As the title implies, it's predominantly concerned with issues that are directly or indirectly related to cinema, but I have been known to stray from the straight-and-narrow, often provoking cries of anguish from the 2000 (or so) faithful readers of this column. Politics represents a sore spot for some, who are of the opinion that film critics should not share their political viewpoints. (By corollary, does that mean that political commentators should not give their opinions of movies?) I also confound those who like to apply labels, since some of my views are liberal and others are conservative. I vilify Democrats and Republicans alike, and think the last great American President was Harry S. Truman. Actually, my views are simple: Modern politics are a cesspool in which politicians frolic. Anyone else who gets too close gets shit all over himself.
I keep a little notepad with ReelThoughts ideas on it. Some topics have lingered there for a while; others get "used up" as soon as I think of them. I put a time limit of 30 minutes on each column - 25 to write, 5 to edit. And reviews always come first. That's the primary reason I don't add a new ReelThought every day. I have to find the time to review all of the latest wonderful entertainment being provided by Hollywood. I write a review as soon as I see a film; posting depends on the release schedule. This week, for example, I'm seeing five movies, but posting only two reviews. That's the way it goes.
The readership of ReelViews is about 250,000 per week. (That's site accesses, not hits - hits number between 500,000 and 600,000 per week.) ReelThoughts is a "specialty" sector of the site, drawing about 1% of the overall readership. That's fine - it's nice to have a smaller group reading these ramblings. It makes for more of a sense of community. 2000 readers is still a lot.
ReelThoughts allows me to do a few things. On some occasions, I can address ideas and themes that go outside of what I can put in a review. On other occasions, I can comment on something that's currently in the news (cinematic or otherwise, although faithful readers will recognize that I have avoided a lot of "hot button" issues and headline-grabbers). And then there are the rants, which are good for mental health reasons. I don't have high blood pressure and I don't need a therapist (that will make Tom Cruise happy), so they must be doing some good.
To a certain extent, blogs reflect their writers, which is as it should be. My wife's is informal, intimate, and intended for a small audience. (I offered to post a link, but she demurred, looking terrified at the thought of someone other than her friends and family reading it.) In principal, mine isn't all that different - I just write with the consideration in mind that a few thousand people will read it.
Possible Future Site Changes: My grandiose plans for this site are not always realized, but here are some ideas I'm tossing around for implementation during the next two years. (Yes, I'm a long-term planner, but those of you who followed the weekly posting of the Top 100 already know that.) The first order of business is to implement an RSS feed, probably next January. I would like to resurrect Video Views and enhance it so that it emphasizes the weekly DVD release market. The Links section will probably be removed. I don't have the time to maintain or update it, so it's probably better to take it down. It has lain virtually untouched for four years. I would also like to implement a theater database that rates theaters across North America (or even the world). (Are the seats comfortable? Do the movies start on time? Are there commercials? How good it the audio/video quality? Are the employees courteous? Ticket price? That sort of thing.) This would require considerable reader input. I tried something similar eight years ago and it was a spectacular failure, but that's when my readership was about 200 per day, not 40,000 per day. Whether or not I update the "look" of the site will depend on whether I can find a graphic designer who proposes something that catches my eye. I'm fine with the current appearance of ReelViews, but I'm one of those people who likes to change every few years just to stay fresh.
No Brothers
Contrary to how it may appear, I do not have a prejudice against movies with the word "brothers" in the title. I never intended to review Four Brothers - the press screening was held at a theater I avoid and I didn't feel like spending $8 of my own to catch the film during its general release. Had other critics believed it to be fanstastic, I would have seen it, but the reviews were lukewarm and I was assured by a couple of friends that it wasn't worth my time.
I had intended to watch The Brothers Grimm. Originally, I was going to see it at a publicity screening Thursday night, but I opted instead for The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which opens while I'm in Toronto. (This way, I can provide a timely review). My plan was to see The Brothers Grimm Saturday afternoon and provide the review Saturday evening. Keen-eyed observers will note that I have removed The Brothers Grimm the "Now Playing" tables. I will not be writing a review. Sorry to those who were awaiting it.
Critics are not immune to the everyday problems that plague everyone else. When the well pump goes on the fritz (I'm talking literally, not figuratively, here), other issues must be pushed aside. So, faced with an emergency plumbing problem, one of the first things to be crossed off the "to-do" list was The Brothers Grimm. Since it's Terry Gilliam, I'll probably see it, but too late for a review to have meaning. (90% of my hits come on the first weekend of a movie's opening.) Besides, I have a ton of reviews coming in the next few days, and Toronto is looming less than two weeks away.
When I started reviewing in 1992, I imposed a policy to see everything I possibly could. Good, bad, or indifferent. I did not attempt to isolate myself from likely duds or films that held little interest. That policy held for about three years. After that, I figured I had paid my dues and I decided to become more selective. It's one thing to see 250 movies a year if you're being paid. It's another thing to see 250 movies a year if you are paying. With gasoline around $2.50 per gallon, a "free" movie costs me between $10 and $15, which is more than the price of a full-admission ticket anywhere in the vicinity. So the value of filling all my weeknights with movies is putting a strain on my wallet. If I see 5 movies per week, that costs about $70. Not too shabby if the product is a quality one, but a horrendous waste of money if it isn't.
Not every movie I miss is bad. I miss some mediocre ones. I probably miss a few good ones. But there are reasons for every movie I see and avoid. Sometimes, it's a case of opportunity. On other occasions, I don't feel like going out. In the next few days, reviews will appear of Pretty Persuasion and Assassin. Neither is very good, but both had an advantage: they were provided to me as screeners. When I can watch something at home without paying the 2 1/2 hour trip penalty and the associated $12, it becomes more attractive as a review candidate.
All things considered, I would have preferred sitting in a theater watching commercials, trailers, and The Brothers Grimm than trying to decide whether to spend $3000 or $10,000 on various plumbing options. But that wasn't to be.
A Few Words about that I, Claudius Prequel
HBO calls it Rome, but it's really a prequel to I, Claudius. The classic 1970s BBC series (based on the Robert Graves novels, I, Claudius and Claudius the God) examined the reigns of the first four Roman Emperors: Augustus (born Octavian), Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius (with a guest appearance by Nero). It was one of the great TV sagas of the decade, not only breaking new ground with its depictions of sex and nudity, but with its literacy and intelligence. I, Claudius brings life to historical events in a way that no other filmed version of Roman history has.
Rome, which is co-produced by the BBC, turns back the clock several decades before I, Claudius to the time of Julius Caesar. The first season of the drama recounts the "Caesar years," and ends with the "et tu, Brute" bloodbath. If it's made, season #2 will presumably chronicle the struggle between Octavian and Marc Anthony for control. If the series survives long enough, it will be interesting to see whether it eventually starts re-creating events that were dramatised in I, Claudius. That's when the comparisons will start in earnest. But that's a concern for the future.
Rome feels a lot like I, Claudius with a larger budget. Lavish sets, impressive costumes, and lots of extras are the areas in which the improvements are the most noticeable. The writing for the earlier series is superior (at least based on the first episode of Rome), but not glaringly so. Plot-wise, there are similarities: betrayals, treachery, warfare, and gruesome political machinations. Rome has its Livia, as well. Her name is Atia, and she's played by Polly Walker. Like Livia, Atia's goal is to get her son, Octavian, on the throne. Walker is not as forceful an actress as Sian Phillips, but she is more attractive. And she doesn't hide anything from the camera. Those who have appreciated Walker's charms in her numerous film roles are cautioned not to miss Rome's premiere.
The cast is comprised of respected British thespians, including Ciaran Hinds (Caesar), Kenneth Cranham (Pompey), James Purefoy (Marc Antony), Linday Duncan (Servilia), and Kerry Condon (Octavia). Young Max Perkis leaves a strong impression as Octavian. The first episode was directed by Michael Apted, so there's at least one A-list filmmaker behind the lens. If Rome falls on its face, it's not for a lack of talent.
Ultimately, it's too early to make a determination about the series, which will run into the fall before exhausting its time on Sunday evenings. So far, so good. Rome doesn't have to match I, Claudius to work. (To do so is likely impossible, anyway.) But if it delivers some of the same excitement and anticipation, it will find an audience. The key to the success of I, Claudius was its ability to make known historical facts immediate and interesting. That challenge now faces Rome. We know that Caesar is going to be murdered in the Senate. So here's the question: Can Rome make us care enough about the characters and circumstances leading up to that event so we aren't just waiting for the inevitable?
Unrated DVDs
One of the biggest marketing scams out there is the existence of "Unrated DVDs." Oh, it's not always a ploy. There are times when a director may have to cut content to allow an NC-17 film to obtain an R rating. In these cases, the director's version may be released on DVD as an "Unrated edition." (Two examples: The War Zone and Requiem for a Dream. There are dozens of others.) Often, video stores that will not carry NC-17 titles will carry "Unrated" ones, so that's a way through the loophole.
More often, however, studios are using the lack of a rating as a marketing tool, typically with raunchy R-rated movies targeted at teenagers and twenty-somethings. The scam goes something like this: take the R-rated movie and add "new, hot" content with "scenes they wouldn't let you see." (I'm not sure who "they" are… Theater owners? The MPAA? Uncle Sam?) The intention is, of course, to apply to the prurient element in all of us. We're expecting nudity and hot sex. And, if it's "Unrated," that means it has to contain content that the MPAA deemed to steamy for an R rating, right? Uh, not quite. The reality is usually different.
Instead of salicious material, we are usually presented with a few short outtakes that were removed from the theatrical version because they weren't good enough to make the final cut. (The term "good" being subjective.) Sometimes, there's a little sex or nudity, but most of the time the material is not as "naughty" as we are led to believe. Those expecting NC-17 "additions" are likely to be disappointed. (Unless, of course, a reliable source has informed you differently.)
Here's how the DVD ratings process works… If a movie is released on DVD with exactly the same content as its theatrical counterpart, it gets the same rating. But if anything is added - even a quick, inoffensive scene - the DVD version has to go before the MPAA for classification. So if a studio alters a theatrical cut and does not re-submit the film to the MPAA, it must be released as "unrated" (even if the content level has not changed). Therein lies the origin of what has become a marketing bonanza.
The key thing to look for is whether the DVD is labeled as an "Unrated Director's Cut" or an "Unrated Longer Cut/Special Edition." In the former case, there's a good chance that the DVD may be "harder" than the theatrical version, since it will contain material the director was forced to eliminate (either because of length or classification concerns). In the latter case, it means that the studio is trying to sucker you into buying or renting something you might otherwise ignore by running the "Unrated" scam.
Even with Director's Cuts, caveat emptor applies. For example, Oliver Stone recently released a re-edited version of Alexander. Among the many changes, approximately 1/3 of Rosario Dawson's nude scene has been eliminated. Admittedly, this is a rarity, but if you buy the new version of Alexander hoping to see "new, hot" content with "scenes they wouldn't let you see," you may find that there's less flesh than you remember from theaters.
©2005 James Berardinelli
August 1, 2005 (Monday):
August 3, 2005 (Wednesday):
August 4, 2005 (Thursday):
August 5, 2005 (Friday):
August 7, 2005 (Sunday):
August 9, 2005 (Tuesday):
August 13, 2005 (Saturday):
August 15, 2005 (Monday):
August 18, 2005 (Thursday):
August 21, 2005 (Sunday):
August 22, 2005 (Monday):
August 25, 2005 (Thursday):
August 28, 2005 (Sunday):
August 30, 2005 (Tuesday):
August 31, 2005 (Wednesday):
Back To New Movies Page