ReelThoughts
Choose the month you would like to access:
ReelThoughts
Enduring Popularity
I was recently asked if I had a theory about the enduring popularity of Star Wars. Why, some 28 years after the release of the first film, is Revenge of the Sith not only a lock to be the box office champ for its first week of release, but a legitimate contender for the #1 movie for the year? (There are other contenders, most of which are either animated or feature a big ape, but I'll leave that for another ReelThoughts.) Well, as it happens, I have several theories.
Star Wars is as close as we can get to modern mythology. As popular as other science fiction properties have become, perhaps only Star Trek can boast such deep pop culture penetration - and Spock & Kirk had an 11-year headstart. For members of my generation, Star Wars is our Wizard of Oz. And, while the popularity of the series is certainly not limited to Generation X'ers, that's where the greatest passion is to be found.
Star Wars was released in 1977. Those of us who are now adults in our mid-to-late 30s and early 40s were kids. We ate up everything that George Lucas had to offer and came back for more. We bought the toys, the trading cards, the books, the magazines, the comics, the towels and sheets, the tee-shirts, and the posters. Star Wars was only a movie at the very beginning. It quickly grew into a phenomenon. We gave up swingsets, four square, and kick-ball in favor of picking up a couple of sticks and playing "lightsabers." And the subsequent re-releases and sequels only expanded the empire, opening it up to younger children and future generations.
There was an innocence and purity about that original movie that appealed to viewers of all ages. In a country whose psyche had been raked across the coals by gas lines, Watergate, and Vietnam, seeing a movie like this, about outer space and genuine heroes, was a tonic like none other. There was nothing cynical about the original Star Wars. And, with special effects like no others at the time, it was pure movie magic. And it stayed in the hearts and minds of those who watched it.
When The Phantom Menace opened six years ago, it was the most anticipated motion picture event in decades. (Some would argue that it was the hottest cinematic opening in medium's century-long history.) Disappointment sprung up like a pestilence, but could any film have matched the titanic expectations piled upon the fourth Star Wars movie, and the first in 16 years?
The opening of Attack of the Clones was more subdued, and reactions to the film were mixed. The die-hards were generally positive, but the masses were unenthusiastic. The movie suffered the problem of all middle chapters - no real beginning or end, and too much exposition. Well, now we have come to the "end of all things" (to quote another popular franchise). After this, there will be no more big screen Star Wars adventures, at least not in the foreseeable future. Once Revenge of the Sith has arrived, we will know the entire story of Darth Vader, one of movie-dom's most iconic villains.
Star Wars has always been popular with childen. Lucas has admited that elements of the films have been designed with the under-12 age group in mind. (Jar-Jar Binks, anyone?) The merchandise is strongly aimed at that market. Teenagers and young adults became fans when the original films were on video and the new ones were in theaters. And older viewers still recall the magic of the first two movies, even if they have been less-than-thrilled by Lucas' recent output.
The frenzy surrounding the release of Revenge of the Sith is being fueled by the enormity of Star Wars' appeal, in conjunction with the realization that this is it. And the fact that it's rumored to be a good movie doesn't hurt. For Star Wars, this is the send-off, and fans are determined that it be a memorable one.
So why does this franchise possess such enduring popularity? The answer goes back to the first film, which touched everyone who saw it in a fundamental and lasting way. The Empire Strikes Back is a better film than Star Wars, but it did not have an identical impact (nor did it make as much money). The story for the second film is better, and the characters are more richly developed, but the sense of wonder is not the same. Yet, each time we go to see a Star Wars movie, regardless of whether it's in 1980 or 2005, the sense of anticipation takes us back to 1977. The nostalgia is palpable. For two hours, we can forget the troubles of today and immerse ourselves in the story of a galaxy long ago and far away.
"Special" Features
Is there anyone who buys DVDs for the Special Features? I have often wondered that. Obviously, if there's a choice between a super-duper Special Deluxe Collector's Edition at $19.95 and a plain-vanilla version at $19.95, it's a no-brainer. I may never watch the Special Features, but at least I have them just in case. But consider this situation: the Special Edition is $5 more. As far as the movie is concerned, it's the same transfer, the same video & sound, etc. It's just that one edition has a second disc with lots of supplements. Would I pay the extra $5? It would depend on how much I like the movie, I suppose, but in most cases, I would go for the cheaper option. That's because, with rare exceptions, most of the Special Features aren't worth their weight in bits. And the bottom line is that I buy a DVD for the movie.
Now consider this third case. The real-life example for this is Spider-Man 2. The Superbit movie-only version is actually a little more expensive than the two-disc Special Edition. (Or it was when they first came out and the latter was heavily discounted.) That didn't stop me from buying the Superbit edition. When it comes to movies, I want the best audio and video I can get, and if that means losing a ton of Special Features, so be it.
Some discs have two-hour, made-for-the-DVD documentaries, and those are usually worth the Special Edition purchase price. Typically, a lot of research and effort goes into those productions. Unfortunately, not many DVDs include these. I can do without the outtakes, blooper reels, deleted scenes, and other assorted "features" that pop up. And spare me anything that resembles a game.
Some might shrug, brushing the Special Features consideration aside as if it didn't matter one way or another. But there's a fault in that logic. Special Features take up disc space, and that means that to fit them on, the movie has to be further compressed. Compression means a reduction in audio quality, video quality, or both. So, in order to have a bunch of silly games and a publicity featurette, you're giving up movie quality (unless a second disc is provided). And that's a problem, especially if you have spent tens of thousands of dollars on a superior AV system.
For a clear idea of how much extreme compression can hurt a film, compare almost any scene from the two-disc version of one of the Lord of the Rings movies to the same scene in the four-disc version (where a lot more bandwidth is given to the movie). You'll see what I mean. My point: unless supplemental material is truly "special," we're better off without it.
And while I'm at it, here's another DVD gripe: a ton of opening garbage that can't be fast-forwarded through to get to the movie. And I'm not even talking about the "previews" that some discs now include. There's the studio logo, followed by an FBI warning, then an Interpol warning, then a notice that the opinions expressed in the supplemental material don't represent the views of the studio, then an animated menu that takes forever to load. In the grand scheme of things, waiting two minutes for a movie to start isn't a big issue, but it's damn annoying. If I pay $20 for a DVD, shouldn't it go to the main menu as soon as it's put in the machine? Then again, if I go to a theater, I pay $10 to sit through 10 minutes of commercials and another 10 minutes of previews (which are just commercials for other movies), so maybe the DVD thing isn't that bad after all.
Which Star Wars?
Will the real Star Wars please stand up? When we speak of Star Wars, which version are we actually referring to? Thus far, there have been four distinct editions, with one or two more likely. Let me identify them individually:
(1) The original theatrical cut, released in theaters in 1977, then re-released in 1979. (Note: Different audio mixes resulted in subtle changes between some prints. However, the assertion that a few early copies of the film contained "deleted scenes" has been vigorously denied by Lucasfilm representatives. Fan memories of such scenes can likely be traced to photographs of the delted scenes found in the novel, or to the comic books, which included depictions of these scenes. No reputable source has ever proven that any "deleted scene" appeared in any print of Star Wars available to the general public.)
The dedicated Star Wars fan probably owns (2), (3), and (4), although (2) and (3) are only available on VHS and laserdisc. (1) was never released on home video, and (5) and (6) don't exist yet, except perhaps in George Lucas' mind.
The existence of so many versions of one film has raised two major issues amongst fans. Let me address them.
Issue #1: "Lucas has no right to alter the film. By doing so, he has damaged the integrity of the original movie. This is tantamount to colorization." My response: balderdash. Lucas has every right to tweak Star Wars as much and as often as he wishes. As important as the movie may be to us (the fans), it is his baby. He conceived, wrote, and directed the thing, and if he wants to make changes, that's his right. The colorization argument is ludicrous - colorization is the wholesale changing of a movie without the consent of its director. (One can make a better argument regarding changes to The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi since Lucas didn't direct those movies - at least not officially. He gets a pass on Empire because Irwin Kirshner approved the changes. But Jedi is more problematic, because Richard Marquand is dead and can't approve anything.)
Issue #2: "Lucas has a responsibility to fans and film historians to make the original version (presumably either (1) or (2)) available for purchase." This is a point of contention. In point of fact, (2) is available - just not in DVD. And Lucas isn't talking about destroying all the negatives of the 1977/78 version, just not mass-marketing copies. Nevertheless, there is merit in the argument that the 1977/78 edition should not simply be swept under the rug. If fans are willing to pay for it, why not make it available? Lucas claims that he's uncomfortable with it. Ultimately, he doesn't have to include it as part of a deluxe DVD set, but it would be a nice gesture.
Really, how different is (4) from (2)? And do the "enhancements" do more than make a few minor cosmetic changes? Not as far as I'm concerned. Either way, Star Wars is a four-star film. The same feelings are stirred up when I watch the DVD of Star Wars as when I first saw it projected in a drive-in during the late spring of 1977. None of the "enhancements" cause me to wince or wring my hands in despair. Is it a big deal whether Han shot first (original theatrical), second (theatrical Special Edition), or at the same time (DVD) as Greedo? Not to me. It's a minor detail that I won't lose sleep over.
In an ideal world, Star Wars fans would have access to any of the four existing cuts of the film (or, at a minimum, (2) and (4)). But this isn't an ideal world, and I'm just happy to have the original trilogy available in the most user-friendly home video format currently on the market. And it's nice to know that in six months' time, I will have the entire saga on my video shelf.
May 25, 1977
Was that the date when you first saw Star Wars? For me, it wasn't. I'm fond of saying that I saw the film on "Opening Day," but "Opening Day" at the theater I attended was June 15 (the day Star Wars expanded to over 100 theaters). The official first release was, as many fans will testify, May 25, 1977. The movie opened in 32 locations on Wednesday, then expanded to 43 by Friday. Over that Memorial Day weekend, it was playing in two theaters close to me, but I wasn't yet interested enough to bug my parents to take me. Three weeks later, that had changed.
Curiously, my first viewing of Star Wars was at a drive-in movie theater. It is the only film I have a clear memory of seeing in such a venue. I know I went to two other drive-in features. One was Jaws - the first movie I ever saw - and I barely lasted beyond the nude woman swimming before I fell asleep. I can't remember what the other one was. Sadly, by the time I was old enough to take a date to a drive-in movie, there weren't any local drive-ins around. But that's another story.
I saw Star Wars three times during the summer of 1977. But my clearest memories of it were from two years later, when it was re-released in advance of The Empire Strikes Back. By then, I had amassed a large number of toys, had collected the comics, and had finished reading two novels (the adaptation of the movie and Alan Dean Foster's Splinter of the Mind's Eye). There were several other re-releases of the original movie during the early '80s (one in 1981 - the first version to feature the "Episode IV: A New Hope" caption - and another a few years later), but by then, my love of Star Wars had faded to a dim glow. The affair was brief but passionate. I was a die-hard from 1977 through 1980. By the time Return of the Jedi came out, I had defected to the Star Trek camp, and believed that Captain Kirk could beat the crap out of Luke Skywalker any day of the week, Jedi tricks not withstanding. I saw the third Star Wars movie more out of a sense of obligation than anything else, and didn't bother with Opening Day. (Watched it on Saturday afternoon instead.)
I was nine years old when Star Wars was released during the summer of '77. It was the third movie I saw theatrically (the fourth if I count Jaws, which I don't, since I slept through it), following King Kong and a Disney re-release (maybe Pinocchio?), so, if for that reason alone, it will always have a special place in my heart. It fired my creativity like no movie before or since. For three years, I was a Star Wars geek, and proud of it.
After a week's worth of deliberations that included reading about 150 e-mails (roughly 10% of ReelThoughts' estimated regular readership), I have decided to go ahead with plans to serialize the book. It is divided into six sections, with each section containing six chapters, for a total of 36 chapters. My current intent is to post one chapter per day over a 36 day span beginning on June 5. The final chapter will be posted on July 10. There will be no "off days" - even July 4 will see the posting of a new chapter.
Two sequels exist to The Price of the Crown. I consider the first sequel, The Price of Magic, to be inferior but still enjoyable. It has its high points. I consider the second sequel, The Price of Terror, to be the best of the three. Depending on two factors, I may post these as well. The first is readership interest, as determined by the number of people who read Chapter 36 of the first book. The second is whether I receive e-mails from readers wanting more after they have finished the first book. If I post The Price of Magic, it will go up starting in late July with a completion date in early September. The third book would have to wait until the fall. I still have to write the final chapters of that one.
Revenge of the Sith
Time constraints don't permit me to go into great detail now about my opinion of the film. (Seeing four films and writing four reviews in less than 48 hours limits available time.) That's what the review is for, anyway. Suffice it to say that I liked Revenge of the Sith better than either of the other prequels, both of which I have defended vigorously.
As a preview of my thoughts, here's the first paragraph of the review:
"The saga is complete. What George Lucas began in 1977 as a little movie that took the box office by storm, he has completed in 2005 with the most heralded motion picture of the year. With the arrival of Revenge of the Sith, Lucas places the missing piece of the six-film arc that tells of the rise, fall, and redemption of Darth Vader. It's a rousing and tragic sendoff to a beloved franchise, and the best installment in the Star Wars series since 1980's The Empire Strikes Back. If this is to be the last big-screen installment of the space opera, Revenge of the Sith ushers things out on a high note. Those who have disparaged the previous two prequels (1999's The Phantom Menace and 2002's Attack of the Clones) will find few things to complain about this time around. Lucas has delivered the film that Star Wars fans have been yearning for."
The entire review will be available Sunday as a "Featured Review."
Damn Spoilers!
A couple of times each month, I receive an e-mail from an irate reader complaining that a recent review contained an unmarked spoiler. My response is always the same: when I believe that a review includes a significant spoiler, I place a warning on the review. If a review does not contain such a warning, I don't believe it reveals anything critical. Those who want a "virgin" movie-going experience are advised not to read reviews (mine or anyone else's) until after having seen a movie. Others, who are less spoiler-sensitive, may gain something from reading the review beforehand.
By its nature, any meaningful review must contain at least minimal spoilers. The question for the reviewer becomes, when does a revelation cross a line where it needs to be called to the reader's attention? This is a judgment call, and it will vary from critic to critic. What one viewer may consider to be a major spoiler, another may accept as inconsequential. In all but the most obvious of cases, it's a matter of tolerance.
Generally speaking, the guideline I use to identify a "spoiler" in one of my reviews is when I explicity identify a significant plot point that reveals (or spoils) what I deem to be an important aspect of the film. Timing also plays a part. I don't consider it to be a spoiler to talk about anything in the first 20 minutes of a movie. Others disagree, but those are my rules of thumb.
Examples? If I was to say that "Vader is Luke's father" in a review of The Empire Strikes Back written in 1980, that's a huge spoiler. On the other hand, stating that there is a second Death Star in Return of the Jedi doesn't fit the definition, since this revelation is contained in the opening crawl. To say that the ship sinks in Titanic is not a spoiler; to say that Leonardo DiCaprio's character dies is one. I don't consider it a spoiler to state that a formulaic romantic comedy has "a happy ending," since that is implied by the genre. Defining the nature of the happy ending (Harry marries Sally, Kate and Doug kiss at the end of their routine, etc.) is entering spoiler territory. Occasionally, I am surprised by things that others consider to be spoilers. In my review of Kill Bill Part 2, I casually refer to the Bride by her name. I was surprised that some readers were angered by this. I didn't understand why that would be a big deal. True, Tarantino concealed it during the first film, but it has no relevance to the plot, so keeping it from the audience is a red herring.
The review of Revenge of the Sith poses some interesting problems. What represents a spoiler in the third film of a six-part series when most readers have seen parts I, II, IV, V, and VI? Is it a spoiler to reveal that Obi-Wan fights Anakin/Vader? That the Jedi are annihlated? In my opinion, no. These things are known from the other films. For Revenge of the Sith, the only things I consider to be spoilers are those that are revealed in this film and ONLY in this film. Anakin's transformation to Vader isn't a spoiler, it's the point of the movie. Be aware of this, however, when you embark upon a perusal of the review.
When I write about a movie, I am conscious of the potential for including spoilers. My preference is not to, but there are times when a coherent point cannot be made without a specific reference. And there will be times when others may consider something a spoiler when I don't. So, while a "Spoiler Warning" tag can be a guideline, don't take it as gospel. If you're sensitive to spoilers, tread carefully. My first paragraph is typically an overview, and can be read with about 99% assurance that nothing specific will be revealed. After that, all bets are off. Let the reader beware.
Star Wars Stars
For those who have written expressing weariness about my "endless" reminiscences about Star Wars, you'll be glad to hear that this isn't another one. (Thanks to the one person who enjoyed all the Star Wars stuff as "a break from [my] usual cynical rants. They're a breath of fresh air.") This about Star Wars, but from a more analytical perspective.
One question I have received from several readers is how I can say that Revenge of the Sith is the best of the prequels, while giving it the same 3.5-star rating that I accorded to both The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. Doesn't that, they reason, mean that all three films are on equal footing.
That's the problem with assigning numbers or stars: their relative importance gets blown out of proportion. When I wrote that Revenge of the Sith is the best Star Wars movie since The Empire Strikes Back, that's precisely what I meant. It's not a lot better than Episodes I or II, but it is superior. Or, to put it another way, all 3.5 star movies are not created equal.
For me, the star rating is an indicator of how strongly I recommend a film, and that doesn't necessarily corrlate absolutely with how "good" (or "bad") I deem a film to be. I don't deal in objective quality, because it's impossible to measure when it comes to motion pictures. (For more about my feelings regarding the star rating system, see the "Twinkle, Twinkle" ReelThought for January 21, 2004. Click on the link and scroll down.) So there can be "lesser" and "greater" 3.5 star films. Consider Revenge of the Sith to be amongst the "greater" ones. Depending on what comes along between now and December 31, it has a legitimate shot at winding up on my Top 10 list. (It would have been on last year's.) I never considered giving either of the previous prequels a similar honor.
Tomorrow, I promise that I'll take a break from the Star Wars musings. But I'm not done with outer space. Later this week, I'll have a few things to say about the other series - the one with the Vulcan, the fake planets, and the Captain who can't utter a sentence without at least one dramatic... pause.
Empty Seats
One of the big recent movie-related news stories is the decline in box office receipts. This isn't a one-time thing; it's an ongoing situation that has been building not only for months, but for years, and it is beginning to concern both movie studios and (to a larger extent) theater owners. The question everyone is asking is "Why?" The answer should be obvious even to a blind man.
Adults are attending theaters in ever-decreasing numbers. Anecdotal evidence suggests this and statistics confirm it. They are annoyed by pre-feature commercials, uncomfortable seats, rude patrons, and other conditions that can turn a night out into an intolerable experience. It's no wonder that most adults prefer waiting a few months and watching a movie on a DVD in the privacy and comfort of their own homes. I can sympathize with them. Given the choice, that's the direction I would head in. And judging by the e-mail I get, it's the preferred approach of many of my over-30 readers. That should really worry exhbitors.
With adults abandoning all but the most impressive top-notch art theaters (the one near me is packed on Friday and Saturday nights with patrons in the age 30-65 range), that leaves multiplexes to cater to teenagers. For high school students, a trip to the movies is an opportunity to socialize. For those viewers, it doesn't really matter what the movie is. Getting out of the house and spending time with their friends is the point. (My generation went to malls. This generation goes to theaters. The next generation will go somewhere else.) But there's variability within the teen volume.
Put simply, if a movie can energize the teen base, it stands to make a lot of money. Teens who only go to the movies once a month will make sure to see it. It can become an "event film." The problem is that too many movies look and feel alike. There's nothing special about them. We have reached the point of saturation and overkill when only the highest profile "brand" movies are likely to make a healthy profit. What's the only sure-fire hit of the early summer season? Revenge of the Sith, a Star Wars picture.
It's not that the movies are bad - at least not all of them - but it's that they fail to capture the interest and/or attention of the most reliable movie-going audience. Teens have notoriously short attention spans, which means they get bored easily. What satisifed them last year might not be good enough this year. They crave variety and new experiences. Movies are giving them generic regurgitations of what was hot five years ago. The Ring was a huge success - because it was new and fresh. The Ring 2 failed because interest in it (and its genre) was waning.
In the past, Hollywood has always counter-programmed a film or two during the summer - movies aimed at adult audiences in the midst of all the blockbusters. This year is no different, with 2005's contender being Cinderella Man. But Ron Howard's film faces a tough battle - getting adults back into theaters. The film may do well, but not as well as it might have fared a few years back. There will be a percentage of adults who will elect to wait for the late-year DVD.
The time is coming, if it isn't already here, when theatrical runs will become a secondary means of income to studios. The real money will be in home video. The fall-off at the box office is symptomatic of what some will view as a cinematic apocalypse. Either theaters will have to change or die. Unless they can offer something that isn't available to home theater enthusiasts, they will soon go the way of drive-ins, which now exist primarily as nostalgic venues. Our kid's kids will ask, "Grandma, what was a movie theater like?"
Theater owners and studios ask "why" ticket receipts are falling, but they know the answer. The real question is what they're going to do about it.
Starlet Watch
Seven years ago, I wrote a piece for a now-defunct web magazine about five young female starlets who I thought had the potential to become major Hollywood stars. The only requirement placed on the article by the editor was that my choices had to be under 21. Looking back, it's interesting to reflect on my selections and see where I went right and wrong. Then I'll cap things off by picking the "next generation."
In 1998, I ranked them #1 through #5. The top spot was occupied by Anna Paquin, who had not only won an Oscar but was coming off success in a family friendly movie about geese. At age 16, she looked ready to take the movie industry by storm. Sadly, it never happened. In 2005, Paquin isn't forgotten, but she has been relegated to taking minor roles in lesser films. She probably has a future in acting, but likely as a character actress.
#2 was 17-year old Natalie Portman. At the time, she had impressed in Leon and stood out as the only truly good thing in Beautiful Girls. Since then, her career has gone through its ups and downs, but now appears to be straightened out. Paradoxically, appearing in Star Wars, one of the biggest franchises of all time, may have hurt her as an actress, although it has increased her name recognition.
In the #3 position was 16-year old Kirsten Dunst, whose stint in Interview with the Vampire brought her to everyone's attention. Years later, roles in Bring It On and the Spider-Man movies have turned her into an A-list star. She could be the next Julia Roberts, if there's going to be a next Julia Roberts.
#4 was Christina Ricci, who, at 18, was beginning to dabble in off-beat features in 1998. Seven years later, she has almost completely abandoned mainstream fare, but continues to make interesting movies. She'll never be a major Hollywood star, but she probably will have the most interesting career trajectory of any of these five actresses.
In the #5 position was my "dark horse" (no pun intended), Rosario Dawson. By age 19, she had raised eyebrows appearing in Kids and Spike Lee's He Got Game. Like Ricci, however, she has gravitated more towards independent movies. Her most recent foray into something with a big budget (Alexander) was an unmitigated disaster, although Dawson managed to escape relatively unscathed.
In 2005, the field doesn't appear as rich. I scanned through lists and lists of actresses and some I thought were under 21 turned out to be in their mid-20s. Of the five I came up with, two are pretty big stars already (so that might be considered cheating) and one is very young. I can't help but feeling that I'm missing an indie starlet with cross-over potential. I'm sure I'll get plenty of recommendations via e-mail. (Please: no TV actress suggestions, unless they have at least a handful of movies under their belts. It's extremely rare that a successful teen TV star becomes successful in the motion picture industry.)
#1: Scarlett Johansson. About as obvious as can be, but she is only 20. Ironically, I almost put her on the 1998 list - that's how blown away I was by her work in Manny & Lo. Johansson is about as sure a thing as there is. She doesn't appear likely to slow down and she is mixing mainstream movies with indie stuff. Expect her to earn an Oscar nomination within 2-3 years.
#2: Kiera Knightley. She's also 20, and also on her way up in Hollywood. I first noticed her in Bend It Like Beckham, but it was her most recent outing, The Jacket that convinced me that she has range.
#3: Emmy Rossum. This is based more on her few minutes in Mystic River than her lengthy turn in The Phantom of the Opera. I don't need to see any more of her to be convinced that she can act. Opera will help her career because it got her noticed. She's 18 and is probably only a few years away from becoming a well-known name.
#4: Evan Rachel Wood. Thirteen exhibited this actress' potential. The 17-year old was also impressive in the recent Upside of Anger. Like Rossum, she's one of only two moderately "obscure" names on this list. She's also the one most likely to turn to independent films, a la Ricci and Dawson.
#5: Dakota Fanning. This 11-year old girl has the biggest upside of all five choices (except perhaps Johansson). She's the best child actor to come along in years. But the key there is "child." It's difficult for someone so young to maintain visibilty through her teens and into her twenties. If she elects to go to college, she's toast. The lack of exposure will kill her career. If not, she may be one of the rare ones (Johansson, Dunst) who makes the transition. In another seven years, she'll still be eligible for the list, or she may be forgotten.
Tomorrow, to borrow from one science fiction show for another: "It's the end, but the moment has been prepared for."
Requiem for a Franchise
It started in relative anonymity 39 years ago. It will end today in a similar state. How many people know that Star Trek is taking its last bow this evening as the most recent Trek series, "Enterprise," shuts down its warp engines? All things considered, it has been a good run: five series (six, if you count the animated one), ten movies, and a gazillion books and comic tie-ins. Some are hopeful that Star Trek will return at an unspecified point in the future, but I'm doubtful. This has all the earmarks of a franchise that has run its course. After a fruitful run of nearly four decades, it deserves a hallowed spot on television's Boot Hill.
For me, Star Trek hasn't been Star Trek since 1991, when the originators of the 1966-69 series took their final bows. No one, not even the revered Patrick Stewart, could replace William Shatner's hammy James T. Kirk. For me, since Kirk, Spock, and McCoy retired exclusively into reruns, the franchise has been treading water. I liked and watched "The Next Generation" and its successor, "Deep Space Nine," but lost interest in "Voyager" and haven't seen a full episode of "Enterprise." I never viewed Picard & Co. as "imposters" the way some old-guard fans did, but their adventures never enthralled me the way those original 78 (or 79, depending on how you're counting) episodes did. I watched them over and over, on black-and-white and color TVs, during afternoon and late-night time slots. For years, they were the most reliable thing on the tube. (I can remember at the age of 12 sneaking out of bed at 1:00 in the morning to watch "The Tholian Web," the only episode I had not yet seen. I had to rotate the rooftop antenna to pull in the distant signal from New York's Channel 11. The picture was snowy and the audio had a hiss, but it remains one of my strongest memories from early 1980.)
It's one of TV's great ironies that the thing to kill Star Trek is oversaturation. Too much of a "good" thing. Fans who lobbied long and hard during the lean '70s for the return of the U.S.S. Enterprise would be stunned to learn that the eventual end of their beloved franchise would be too much, not too little. Of course, Star Trek in 2005 isn't what it was in 1975. William Shatner wears a toupee and has won an Emmy. Leonard Nimoy no longer claims "I am not Spock." And DeForrest Kelly is dead. Other actors have sat in the captain's chair: Stewart, Brooks, Mugrew, and Bakula.
I came on-board at the end of the "drought," when the hype for Star Trek: The Motion Picture was shifting into high gear. I had seen my first episode of "Star Trek" in the early '70s but didn't become a fan until the summer of 1979. (The same summer that I started watching "Dr. Who" and saw the Star Wars re-release three times.) By the time I saw the movie in December 1979, after standing in the longest film line of my life (which would be eclipsed six months later by The Empire Strikes Back), I had seen about half of the TV episodes. Everything was new and exciting at that time. The movie was mediocre, but every fan was so thrilled to have the crew back that it didn't seem to matter. Star Trek fans loved the idea of the movie more than the actual product.
The 1980s represented Star Trek's Golden Years. The movie series became so popular that after the blockbuster success of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (the only Trek movie to earn more than $100 million - the eventual gross would be close to $200 million in today's admission receipts), a new TV series was commissioned. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was an unqualified success. New fans were born. Star Trek, the cult phenomenon, had gone mainstream.
The first sour note came in 1989 with the release of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Studio heads decided that the poor box office indicated that the original crew had become "irrelevant." (The more likely reason, that the movie stunk, never occurred to them.) So it was decided that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country would be the last voyage of the 1966 pioneers. (Sort of - Kirk, Chekov, and Scotty had small roles in the first "Next Generation" movie, Generations. In fact, Kirk died in that one, and, unlike Spock, was not subsequently resurrected.)
The long, slow decline began in the early 1990s. 18 months after the final original series movie, "The Next Generation" wrapped. Those characters, as well-liked as they were on the small screen, had only limited success on the big one. Only Star Trek: First Contact came close to equaling the monetary success of the first four Star Trek movies. The other three "Next Generation" films were box office disappointments. (Although First Contact beat installments 1, 2, and 3 in terms of actual dollars, it was signficantly behind when compared using adjusted dollars or tickets sold.) "Deep Space Nine" ratings began a slow decline, and its replacement series, "Voyager," didn't reverse the trend. In the end, the final Star Trek show was canceled because not enough people were watching it. That's the same reason the original "Star Trek" ended in 1969, although "Enterprise" got one extra season.
Yet even though, as I indicated, Star Trek hasn't been Star Trek for me for the last 14 years, this still feels like the end of an era. Whether or not I watch the last episode of "Enterprise," I'll still feel its importance. It's the end of an era - an era that has lasted ten years longer than that of its louder, flashier cousin, Star Wars.
My memories of Star Trek remain intact, and that's all that really matters. That line for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, snaking through a mall past a Woolworth's and almost all the way to a Bamburger's Department Store. Sitting in the fifth row when seeing Star Trek II in a packed 2000-seat theater - never before or since have I experienced such energy at a movie. Lobbying my mother to drive me to Star Trek III (I was three months shy of getting my driver's license) the minute I got home from school, then developing a massive headache when seeing it a second consecutive time. Finishing a final exam on the day before Thanksgiving in 1986, heading home, then waiting for my friends before rushing to a theater to see Star Trek IV. Abject horror at the abomination that was Star Trek V. And a sense of great sadness as the end credits for Star Trek VI rolled.
It's a little odd to acknowledge that Star Wars and Star Trek are both ending within a week of each other. These two have been joined since the 1970s. Many of those who relentlessly promoted Star Wars by word-of-mouth after its 1977 opening were die-hard Trekkies/Trekkers. Star Trek: The Motion Picture never would have gotten off the ground if not for the success of Star Wars. Silly rivalries not withstanding, many sf lovers remain fans of both franchises. In the next week, those people, who have been entertained for decades by Luke and Kirk, Han and Spock, Obi-Wan and Bones, Picard and Padme, and Archer and Anakin, will have one final chance to say "May the Force Be With You," "Live Long and Prosper," and "Goodbye."
The Living Room Factor
There are plenty of things to complain about regarding movie theaters: poor audio & video quality, out-of-frame pictures, sticky floors, indifferent employees, uncomfortable seats, an endless stream of ads before the start of the feature, and so on... But the biggest complaint concerns other patrons, especially those who aren't yet old enough to drink alcohol. They walk in late, don't turn their cell phones off, munch loudly on popcorn and slurp their sodas, and chatter incessantly. (My apologies to those of you in this age group who are not guilty - and I know you're out there. Tarring you with the same brush is unfair. Unfortunately, you are the exception.)
Yesterday, I got a first-hand look at another example of movie-theater rudeness. It happened while I was watching an afternoon showing of Unleashed. Shortly before the commercials were about to start, a couple walked in and seated themselves across the aisle from me. They were both around 18 or 19. The guy settled into his seat and dug into his popcorn. The girl removed her shoes and propped up her bare feet on the back of the seat in front of her. I momentarily gawked, scarcely believing what I was seeing. Appropriate behavior for a living room? Yes. Appropriate behavior for a movie theater? Not in my opinion.
Then it dawned on me. The reason why so many young people do so many unpardonably rude things in theaters is because they don't realize their actions are inappropriate. No one bothered to teach them proper etiquette. How many 7-year old kids are dropped off at a theater and left to fend from themselves? How many parents accompanying their children reprimand them when they do something that might interfere with the enjoyment of others? Based on personal experience, not many.
I can recount dozens of tales about unaccompanied young children attending Disney movies. Sometimes, even those who are there with their parents run amok, and nothing is done. 6-year olds run screaming up and down the aisles in the middle of the feature. If I had ever acted up at a movie, my parents would have grabbed me by the ear, arm, nose, or whatever else was handy, taken me out of the theater, and we would have gone home. Then it would have been a long time before I saw the inside of a movie theater again. Draconian action isn't needed, but some sort of sense of consideration has to be instilled. If kids aren't taught when they're young what's appropriate in theaters, how are they going to practice it when they get older?
Someone recently e-mailed me asking what changes I would propose that theaters make to reverse the downturn in ticket sales. I provided a response, but now I'm not sure that there's anything the local multiplex can do. If the biggest problem is the patrons, the industry is doomed. Theaters can hire courteous and consciencious employees, scrub the floors, fix the audio & video issues, and monitor the movies for projection problems, but that may not be enough. The audience will dwindle until all that's left are the uncouth teens and pre-teens who are more interested in socializing than movie-going, and theaters will start closing. Home video, which is already a huge market, will boom and studios will become increasingly less concerned about theatrical runs. (The trend has already started with Steven Soderbergh's recent six-picture deal to direct movies that will be released simultaneously in theaters and on DVD.)
And all because of boys and girls who treat theater auditoriums like their living rooms...
Misquoted
On the Croatian version of the Alexander DVD: "remek-ejelo vrijedno divljenja" - James Berardinelli. I am reliably informed that this is translated to be: "A masterpiece worthy of admiration." It's funny, but I can't remember saying anything quite that nice about Alexander. I'm guessing some creative re-working has been done with the following line: "Although some aspects of Oliver Stone's sword-and-sandals epic are worthy of mention (and even praise), they are dwarfed by the missteps and examples of bad judgment." See.. "epic worthy of...praise" isn't all that different from "masterpiece worthy of admiration." The changes could be the result of the translation. So... oops. Maybe I did say that.
The point is that publicists will jump on any quote and use it as they see fit. A review could slam a movie with this phrase: "Words like 'intelligent' and 'entertaining' would never describe this film." An intrepid publicist might then use: "Intelligent! Entertaining!" I'm not one to overanalyze word choice to avoid the possibility of a quote being used to misrepresent how I feel about a film. There are always going to be less ethical publicists out there who will do this sort of thing. It can't be stopped because... well... I did write that. I may not have meant what they are indicating I meant, but I typed the words into my computer.
One of my Croatian readers suggested I sue. Even if I felt I had a case (which I don't), I wouldn't bother. I'm in the anti-litigation camp. I also believe in the commonly-held belief that no publicity is bad publicity. This got my name out there and it is being talked about in some circles. My reputation isn't going to suffer. There are some respected critics who liked Alexander. It's not like someone is trying to say I praised Freddy Got Fingered. ("Green gives us some cinematic moments that seem destined to become classics.")
Of greater concern to me is plagiarism, which is rampant in the on-line community. I wonder how many of my reviews and essays have been passed off as high school assignments? (I get dozens of e-mails annually from teachers.) How many have been reprinted under another name on the IMDb message boards? And, most disturbingly, how many have been attributed to another writer as a paid assignment? The most galling possibility (and I am aware of at least two instances when this has happened) is for another writer to use my words to collect a paycheck... when I didn't get paid for writing them in the first place.
For me, I guess the situation is simple. When it comes to journalistic sins, you can misquote and misrepresent me, but don't plagiarize. I might turn a blind eye to the former, but I'll go after you with bared fangs for the latter.
Selling Out
I'll give George Lucas a pass on his massive merchandising - from action figures and trading cards to lightsaber replicas - and his reworking of the original films. I'll even accept the umpteen versions of the films that have come out on VHS, laserdisc, and DVD (I have purchased four different sets over the years, but I know people who have bought eight or nine). But I draw the line when I see Darth Vader hawking Burger King wares. Or Chewbacca stumping for Cingular. Or R2 and C3PO cavorting with the M&M spokescandy.
There's good business sense and then there's selling out. Somewhere, Lucas has crossed the line. Is it simple greed or is there something more at work? Maybe Lucas has enough money; maybe he's just trying to flood the market with as many of his icons as possible in the hope that they will get more bodies into theater seats. Perhaps he's afraid of failure. But does the end justify the means?
Whatever the reason, these things demean Star Wars and devalue the figures we once revered. Compared to this, the tweaking of the original trilogy that has offended so many die-hard fans is small time. How much more ludicrous is it to have Darth Vader claim to be the "uncle" of a contest winner than to have Greedo shoot first? Once you have turned Vader into a laughingstock, how does his appearance in Revenge of the Sith stand a chance of being both proud and bitter, awe-inspiring and sad?
Promotional cross-overs are nothing new in the film world, but the rape of Star Wars resulting from this latest flurry is unprecedented. Some would argue that, by virtue of adding Jar-Jar Binks to the saga, Lucas has already hopelessly devalued it. But compared to the horror of Chewbacca howling into a microphone to produce a ring tone, Jar-Jar is high art. However misguided, Jar-Jar was a sincere attempt by his creator to appeal to children. Putting beloved Star Wars characters alongside the M&Ms is buffoonery, plain and simple.
From the perspective of pure dollars and cents, it's a smart move. Lucas gets money from licensing the characters and the products sell more cereal or candy or whatever. But that's beside the point. Sellouts are common these days. They all make economic sense. But each time one happens, we become a little more cynical. Another chip of idealism melts like ice on a hot summer day. Star Wars has never been pure. The money-wagon has always galloped alongside the movies. But never has it sunk to these depths. How much, I wonder, to get Darth Vader to play Sith choking tricks at birthday parties? After all, now that he's a Burger King spokeman, how scary can he be? (Although the life-size "King" gives me the creeps.)
Random Reader Suggestions and Website Changes
Given that Revenge of the Sith opens today, I'm sure some readers are expecting me to write about it. Sorry, but I'm all Star Wars-ed out. I think I have said just about everything I have to say about it. Some of you think I have said a little too much, but that's one of the things about making daily updates to this section - I have to come up with a new topic every day. Oh, and the review for Revenge of the Sith has just become my most-read review ever.
Today's topic isn't so much a topic as it is a collection of random subjects. I have been asked whether I will add an RSS feed for ReelViews and whether I'll add a reader response area for ReelThoughts. The answers are: yes and probably not, respectively. However, the RSS feed won't start until early next year. It will take a little studying for me to be able to create it, and the only month when I have the time for that sort of thing is January. With respect to the reader response idea - although I like it in principle, it requires too much work, since I would have to actively moderate it.
Eventually, ReelThoughts will be indexed by topics, but that's another enhancement that will have to wait until January. It requires re-coding of all the old ReelThoughts pages. Nothing difficult, but a lot of busy work.
Starting today, I am instituting a spoiler-sensitive approach to reviews for which I include spoiler warnings. The potentially offensive text will be highlighted in a brownish color that will allow people to peruse parts of the review without having the movie ruined. 3-Iron is a good starting place because the spoilers are all contained in one paragraph and are necessary to the review. The warning characterizes them fairly well. I will not be using so-called "inviso-text" (white text on a white background that shows up when "wiped over") because, as a reader, I find it to be annoying. Plus, it's not aesthetically pleasing to have large white spaces in the middle of a review. And it's too much work to develop separate spoiler and non-spoiler reviews, even when one is only a subset of the other. So this will have to do.
My last ReelThought of the month will be posted May 24. On that day, I will also post reviews for most of the films opening June 1 & 3. The May 27 release reviews will go up on May 22. There is an exception: The Longest Yard. This isn't screening until after I will have left, and I'm not planning to review it (nor will I likely see it) after I return. There's too much other stuff - like Layer Cake - to see.
Finally, I have to acknowledge that this has been an unusually good week for movies - 10 1/2 stars from only three films. It has been a while since things have been that sunny. Sadly, it doesn't look like there's another similar week on the horizon. Most of the summer movies, at least those that I have seen, scream mediocrity.
Return of the Pirates
Please note that the following applies only to those who download movies and TV shows from the Net for fun, not profit. It doesn't apply to those who make money from the copyright infringement of others. Those people should be pursued and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Last year, I wrote a multi-part series (click here and scroll down: February 12, 15, 16, 20, and 29 of 2004) about the ins and outs of piracy. I expressed the opinion that the movie industry was exaggerating their financial losses and that some forms of "piracy" might not be as bad as they were making them out to be. Now, piracy is back in the news with two stories. In the first, last week, the MPAA decided to go after BitTorrent sites that provide torrents used for downloading TV shows. In the second, it has been revealed that there is strong anecdotal evidence that pirated downloads resulted in ratings upswings for two TV series with sizeable fan bases: "Battlestar Galactica" and "Dr. Who."
My belief, based on personal experience with those who loosely identify themselves as habitual pirates, is that the motion picture industry does not lose a single cent as a result of casual downloaders. When someone dowloads a film, they do it for one of two reasons: affection or curiosity. In the former case, they have almost certainly already seen the movie in a theater and likely plan to buy it on DVD. They are downloading a copy to have something as a stopgap in their personal collection. (They may not even watch it - possessing it may be enough. Understand the mind of the fan or collector.) In the latter case, the movie isn't something they intended to see in the first place, so there's no lost revenue. If the choice is between paying for it and seeing it or not paying for it and not seeing it, they will skip it. Yet if, after downloading a coy, they end up liking it, there's a chance that they will want to see it in a big-screen venue or buy a better quality copy on DVD. (This isn't idle speculation. I know of cases when it has happened.) It's a rare instance when somone downloads a movie instead of seeing it in a theater or buying it on DVD - the lost revenue circumstance that obsesses the MPAA. There's simply not much money being lost here, and quite possibly some being gained.
The situation with TV show "piracy" is more odd. The average TV show downloader goes on-line to grab an episode that he/she missed (for whatever reason). It's like having a remote DVR. If the power goes out during the season finale of "24" next week, I will take comfort that I don't have to wait until October for the DVD. To me, that's a good thing. And it should be a good thing for the producers and broadcasters. If someone misses a few episodes of "24" (or any serialized show), that's normally a cue to stop watching. But if they can download the episodes they missed and get brought up to speed, there's a chance they'll start watching again. Or what if a downloader
"discovers" a show after casually downloading a few episodes, then ends up tuning in to watch it. (Fox sort-of recognized the potential of this approach when they released Season 1 of "24" on DVD shortly before begining Season 2 on TV. People bought the low-priced DVD set, got hoooked, and started watching the show on television.)
There's also ample evidence that good word-of-mouth amplified by downloading led to big ratings for "Battlestar Galactica," which showed three months earlier in the U.K. than it did in the U.S. (so BitTorrent copies of the U.K. episodes were available to North American downloaders long before they aired on the SciFi Channel). Some industry experts (none associated with the MPAA) believe that piracy was in part responsible for the high U.S. ratings. Downloaders watched the episodes and raved about them to friends and family, and the number of viewers increased. Similarly, a preview of the new "Dr. Who" series appeared on-line several weeks before its TV debut, and this helped to fuel the hype machine. The premiere, when it aired on BBC1 in late March, was a huge success. For a show - any show - with a brand name, awareness is key. And that's something that the "buzz" generated by those who had seen the downloaded episodes contributed.
Being a writer, I am sensitive to copyright issues, but the reality seems to be that there is more money to be made by working with the downloaders than attacking them. This isn't the first time the MPAA has shown a shocking short-sightedness. They went after the VCR when it was first introduced, claiming that the concept of movies on videotape would kill the motion picture industry. Surprise, surprise! They didn't get it then, and they don't get it now.
Fighting illegal downloading is like fighting bootlegging during Prohibition. The MPAA may be able to win some battles, but they'll lose the war. For every BitTorrent site they shut down, two more will open, and it won't take long for the URLs to circulate. And keep this maxim in mind: if it's underground and has an illicit flavor, it's fun. On-liners are far more flexible and resilient than the MPAA gives them credit for. The only way to win is for the MPAA to stop fighting and find a way for the situation to work for them. Models have been proposed - everything from turning a blind eye to developing low-cost services that offer similar (but legal) content. Creativity, not reactionary thinking, is what's needed, and it seems to be in short supply.
Guilty Pleasures
Some critics will argue that there is no such thing as a "guilty pleasure." Either you like a film or you don't like it. If you like it, there shouldn't be any "guilt" involved. While I understand that position, I think the term "guilty pleasure" is effective to illustrate something about the relationship of a critic to a film. To me, a "guilty pleasure" is a movie I enjoy despite recognizing that the majority of serious movie-goers will not think highly of it. Or, to put it another way, it's liking something that is generally regarded to be a bad movie.
Sometimes, the viewer's enjoyment of a "guilty pleasure" doesn't happen in the way the filmmakers intended. There are plenty of bad movies that can be appreciated on a campy level. The best-known examples of this are the films of Ed Wood or the dubbed chop-socky flicks of the '70s. The directors making those movies were serious about them. Most viewers derive enjoyment from their silliness.
My guilty pleasures tend to be mainstream. That is to say, they are not obscure films that need to be looked up on the Internet Movie Database. The titles are easily recognizable. I don't have a ranked list, so when I present a title, it's just one that pops into my mind. Every once in a while, I'll come back to this topic and reveal another of my "guilty pleasures." (What fun would it be to unveil all of the titles at once?)
Today's selection is the 1976 version of King Kong. There's an element of nostalgia attached to this one, since it is the first movie I experienced in an indoor movie theater. When I saw it at age 9, I was awed, and thought it was a legitimately great movie. It had all the elements that a 9-year old boy appreciates: a pretty girl (notice the usage of the word "pretty" instead of "sexy" - sex hadn't entered the equation yet for me), lots of action (after a slow start), and a big, bad ape. I was in my monster movie phase at that time of my life, so it fit right in.
Today, I look at the film differently. It's campy (almost to a fault) and some of the then-lauded special effects are amazingly cheesy. Jessica Lange's performance needs to be seen to be believed (at the time, no one would have believed she would win an Oscar later in her career), and Jeff Bridges isn't much better. Charles Grodin is in full scenery-chewing mode. Kong is clearly a guy in a monkey suit. (The only legitimately "good" aspects of the film are Richard Kline's cinematography and John Barry's wonderful score.) Yet I think King Kong is great fun. At times, it works as a comedy. At times, it works as an adventure. And there are even occasions when little bits of drama work. The last scene, as Kong dies and Dwan is pulled away from her lover and into the media spotlight, is actually quite effective.
Writer Lorenzo Semple Jr. took a lot of heat for writing the screenplay, but I believe he knew what he was doing. I think a lot of the corny lines are there intentionally. Semple knew that this version of Kong could not be played completely straight, so he let loose with the cheese, relying on the actors for the right delivery. For the most part, I think they got it. Critics who want to take the film seriously see it as an unmitigated disaster. I understand their position, but since I'm looking at it another way, I don't agree with them.
In my opinion, there are two ways to make an enjoyable monster movie. The first is this way - recklessly over-the-top. The other way is more difficult, since it requires that the audience buy into the premise and be astounded by what's on screen. Jurassic Park did this, and Peter Jackson will try with his version of King Kong (out this December). As much as I'm looking forward to that movie, there will always be a special place in my heart for Dino DeLaurentiis' box-office behemoth of a motion picture.
(Note: In the wake of 9/11, it is a little unsettling to watch the climax of this movie, as Kong climbs to the top of the World Trade Center, then falls to his death. This is one of those instances in which real-world events intrude into a movie. It's impossible to watch this version of King Kong and not think about, at least in passing, what happened in 2001.)
Read the review, which was written before the towers fell, here.
Stealing Sith
Sorry if some of this sounds redudant, but it's on my mind today...
Two days after I wrote a piece on illegal downloads, the story got life in the mainstream media when it was revealed that a work copy of Revenge of the Sith appeared on-line for downloading. It is reported that at least 16,000 people downloaded (or tried to download) the movie. Does that mean the movie is in financial trouble? Of course not. Early reports indicate that the movie is poised to make more money during its first weekend than any other film in history.
16,000 people represents a drop in the bucket. At $10 a head, that's $160,000 - less than .05% of what Revenge of the Sith will probably earn at the domestic box office. And I believe the loss - if there is a loss - is far less than that. The mainstream media has jumped upon this "sky is falling" story without bothering to look beneath the surface. My guess is that almost all of those 16,000 people have already seen the movie, and will probably see it a time or two more. The reason they're on-line downloading Revenge of the Sith is because they love the film and want it as a part of their collection. When the DVD is realeased, they'll buy that to replace the sub-par work print.
Punitive action against the downloaders isn't going to solve anything. (And, for the record, I have neither downloaded Revenge of the Sith nor searched for a copy to download.) Hauling some poor nerd living in his parents' basement into court for downloading a movie he attended the night before in full costume is going to make the MPAA and Fox look like bullies. It's tactics like this that have turned public opinion against the RIAA. The MPAA looks ready to follow that lead and poison their reputation with the public.
The studios should be active in two areas: figuring out how to use this kind of downloading to their advantage (hire some marketing geniuses) and going after the people who do the uploading. Kill it at the source. Remember: the only known on-line print of Revenge of the Sith is the result of an inside job. Start punishing the people who steal work prints and there will be a drop-off in availability. The studios love posting guards at advance screenings; maybe they should employ a little security at the place where the movies are created.
For those who think I'm an advocate of piracy, let me assure you that's not the case. I'm all for stamping it out - I just think the MPAA isn't going about it in the right way. Target those who illegally mass distribute movies to sell on street corners or in foreign markets, not the poor schlub who just wants a short-term copy to bridge the time between theatrical release and DVD.
Someone challenged me to come up with a solution rather than merely pointing out the problems. So here's one possiblity. It's not the most creative one I have heard, but it will satisfy the true fans. Sell a $60 Revenge of the Sith package that includes 2 tickets to the movie in a theater, a voucher for a copy of the DVD when it is released, and access to a private site where the movie can be legally downloaded. (Protect the file so it can't be copied.) Make the file of decent enough quality that it can be watched on a conventional computer screen with an image that is about 3" wide, but so that it looks like crap if it's expanded (even to full screen). With a film like Star Wars, I bet this would result in a huge spike in revenue.
That's just a thought... and one of many. Movie piracy is a problem. But let's not get sidetracked by alarmist propeganda and ill-informed stories in the media while looking for a legitimate solution. In this case, there are 16,000 sheep and one wolf. To me, it's pretty obvious who the MPAA should be hunting.
Overrated Standouts
As there are "guilty pleasures," so too are there "overrated standouts." (I was going to refer to these as "overrated masterpieces" but that description narrowed the field too much.) These are movies that, despite being generally recognized as great pieces of cinema, simply don't work for you. A lot of the classics tend to fall into this category. Personally, I love Citizen Kane. I think it's a tremendous work of cinema in terms of narrative thrust and innovation, but I have known more than a few intelligent film-lovers who believe it to be hugely overrated. After seeing the film theatrically projected during the mid-90s, I can recall a friend who accompanied me saying, "That's supposed to be the best film of all-time? What were 'they' smoking when 'they' decided that?"
The first of my so-called "overrated standouts" is Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal. You know, the one with the often-parodied image of the Grim Reaper playing chess. I'll be the first one to admit that the movie is visually striking, but it's also as boring a production as I have ever endured. The first two times I tried to watch it, I fell asleep before the half-way point. The third time, I drank two cups of coffee beforehand. Thus fortified with enough caffeine to keep me from dozing off, I viewed all of The Seventh Seal. When it was over, I wished I had fallen asleep.
After a few years, I yeilded to the pressure of fellow critics who couldn't understand why I wasn't raving about the film. I decided to watch it again. Convinced that I had previously missed something, I gave it another try. And I fell asleep. Again. Eventually, I saw the whole movie a second time, and my opinion didn't appreciably change.
I don't know if this is the most overrated film of all time. For me, it's up there. I don't hate The Seventh Seal, but it's work to sit through it, and I can't recommend it except to film students. I'm reminded of an interview I did with Icelandic filmmaker Fridrik Thor Fridriksson back in 1993 or 1994 when he was in Philadelphia for the local film festival. When I asked him what he thought of Bergman, he looked me straight in the eyes and said, "Bergman is boring." He didn't need an interpreter for that, and he meant it.
I am a huge fan of some of Bergman's films: Cries and Whispers made my Top 100, with both Scenes from a Marriage and Fanny and Alexander just missing. Those three movies are equally as difficult as The Seventh Seal, but they are far more rewarding.
Just as everyone else has their own list of guilty pleasures, so everyone has their own list of overrated standouts. No two of us view film in exactly the same way. Many overrated lists will include titles such as The Blair Witch Project and Pulp Fiction. I think those movies are as good as advertised, but I could name a bunch of people who would disagree.
More guilty pleasures and overrated standouts to come in future installments...
Vacation Notes
I'm not a "vacation person." My idea of a perfect vacation is sitting at home for a week - watching movies, lounging around my pool, and puttering around in the yard. Maybe a day trip or two to the shore. That's about it. Boring but restful. No itineraries, no schedules, no pressure. I don't get stressed out easily, but there are three things guaranteed to elevate my stress level: airports, airplanes, and hotels. So, of course, it seems like every vacation I go on involves all three. Which means I approach every vacation with a mixture of anxiety, dread, and anticipation. I'm sure that's not the way it's supposed to be.
Film festivals involve travel, although they are more work than vacation. Toronto's not so bad. I like the hotel, even though the rooms are small (the Chinese restaurant on the second floor is excellent), and the flight is under two hours. (In theory, I could drive if I was so inclined.) However, one of the reasons I stopped my annual pilgrimage to Sundance is because I couldn't stand the trip. In perfect circumstances, it took about seven hours (four hours to Denver, 90 minute stayover, 90 minutes to Salt Lake City), and circumstances were rarely perfect. There would almost always be weather problems in either Salt Lake City, Denver, or Philadelphia/Newark, prolonging the trip into a full-day affair.
This vacation has nothing to do with movies and everything to do with my sister-in-law's wedding. The word "ordeal" seems accurate although perhaps not adequate. It's 18 1/2 hours from Newark to Singapore, then a four-hour layover in Singapore, followed by 3 1/2 hours to Manila. That's a 26-hour trip. And I almost never sleep on planes. The return journey is just as fun: 3 1/2 hours from Manila to Singapore, then a 14-hour layover, followed by 18 1/2 hours from Singapore to Newark. (I'm still trying to figure out how the East-to-West trip against the prevailing winds can be the same as the West-to-East trip with them.) I'll be spending half as much time traveling as I will on the ground in the Philippines. The only plus: I had enough frequent flier miles to get two business class tickets.
The question of what to do on a plane for a total of 44 hours puzzles me. I am bringing two books and a laptop. The books represent easy reading - no real concentration needed (Sue Grafton's R Is for Ricochet and David Ellis' In the Company of Liars). I'll write for a little while - probably about two hours going and two hours coming back. Then there are the DVDs. I selected six titles. Flirting, because I have been determined for about three months to write a review of it. Lagaan, which I have yet to see because it's almost impossible to find a block of four uninterrupted hours in which to watch it. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which I haven't seen in 16 years and would like to re-visit to determine if it's as disappointing as I remember it being. Laura, which I also haven't seen in a while. Ikiru, in case I'm in the mood for a great movie. And, of course, Patton, my desert island choice. That's about 15 hours of movies, 12 hours of reading, and four hours of writing. I guess I'll spend the rest of the time trying to sleep and/or playing computer games.
Assuming I have a broadband connection in my hotel room (which is supposed to be the case, but you never know until you check in) and a few spare moments (almost guaranteed, since I sleep an average of two hours less per night than my wife), I'll try to provide a few ReelThoughts while I'm in Manila. No reviews, though. The next one of those will go up around June 3, and will be of Layer Cake. And The Price of the Crown will start that weekend (Sunday, June 5).
Meanwhile, at my abode, my house-sitters have full permission to use the home theater, raid the DVD library, and turn on the computer - but they do not have permission to upload to my site. So anything that shows up on ReelViews is still "authorized content."
Until next time I post - enjoy staying rooted on terra firma. I'll be wishing I was joining you.
Plane Fare
I think this is May 26th. After spending 26 hours on planes and sitting in airports, and crossing the International Date Line going in the wrong (or is that right) direction, it's tough to be sure. So I'm writing this at about 8:00 at night which would make it 8:00 am EDT. Or something like that. Sleep deprivation will undoubtedly make this one of the strangest columns I have ever written. But stay with me...
I'm not a big proponent of watching films on planes. For the most part, they tend to be edited versions of mediocre Hollywood clap-trap. I discovered, however, that Singapore Air not only offers dozens of titles, but none of them are sliced and diced to appeal to least-common-denominator audiences. Imagine - a movie on an airplane where you can actually see a woman's breast (if you are so inclined)! Seriously, kudos to Singapore Air for doing this, and here's hoping that more airlines adopt this policy.
I have to admit that most of the blockbusters on offer didn't interest me, but some of the lesser profile movies did. One in particular has been on my to-see list for a while, and I was beginning to wonder if/when it is going to get a U.S. release. Odd that my initial exposure to it ended up being on a plane. I am not going to review the film based on a single viewing in such unfavorable circumstances. To do so would be unfair. However, there's no reason not to detail a few first impressions. The movie in question is Wong Kar-Wai's 2046.
It's a beautiful motion picture that deals with the loves and almost-loves in the lives of one man working as a writer in Hong Kong during the 1960s. The plot is developed in mobius strip-fashion, bending back on itself and connecting beginning to (near) end. 2046 has a lot to say about the nature of love, how we as a species view love, and the kind of power that unrequited love can lend to the object of another's affections. At times, it's easy to view the narrator protagonist in a negative light, but he is pursuasive enough to bring us around to his viewpoint.
I have seen the film referred to as a "science fiction movie" because Wong obliquely refers to 2046 as being a future year that can be visited via a "train," possibly something that travels through time. This is really a red herring, however. It occupies only a small portion of the film, and is clearly described as being a portion of a story within the story. So don't expect anything futuristic or trippy. Visually, stylistically, and thematically, 2046 has a lot more in common with In the Mood for Love (Wong's previous feature) than anything that today's audiences would identify with as "science fiction."
2046 was the only film I saw in its entirety on the Newark-to-Manila trip. I caught bits and pieces of other movies, but none held my attention for more than a few minutes. Eventually, this became a sort of channel surfing to ward off boredom. Then it was back to reading and fitful dozing. When I landed in Manila, it seemed not like the end of an epic journey, but the culmination of a long period of pointless inactivity.
So what do I think of it here? It's hot and humid, but no more unpleasant than New Jersey on a typical July afternoon. The city has more of a Western feel than an Eastern one. And there is no way I would ever consent to driving a car here. Getting behind a wheel is like taking part in a video game designed to test both visual acuity and reaction time. On at least half-a-dozen occasions, I was sure there was going to be an accident, but, as I quickly learned, "almost" is a meaningless qualifier. I think the next time I ride in a car, I'll do it with my eyes closed.
Pirates of the Orient
After spending some time wandering through the malls and markets of Manila, I have come to the conclusion that the MPAA faces a huge battle in curtailing piracy in Asia (the portion of the world where it is most prevalent). With a challenge so great, and with real revenue being lost at astounding rates, I have to question why they would expend so much time and money going after on-liners. The reason is, of course, publicity. But the fact is, they're spitting into the wind. Even if they eliminated on-line piracy altogether, it is unlikely to make a significant difference to the bottom line (for reasons previously discussed).
I don't have specific facts and figures, but I would guess that, in Manila, out of every 100 DVDs sold, 95 are pirated. It's a matter of both ecomomics and title availability. Legitimate DVDs can be found, but the variety is poor (mostly recently released blockbusters and a few "speciality" titles). On average, they cost between $9 and $12 - cheap by U.S. standards, but not close to the $1 for which any pirated title is available. And it's not like it's difficult to find pirated movies (even though they cannot legally be put on display) - I had two different vendors approach me in a marketplace asking if I was interested in buying DVDs.
We're not talking about poor-quality knockoffs, but products that look and play exactly like the sanctioned versions, which sell for ten times the price. When it comes to ten-for-one, it's pretty obvious why few people in Manila buy the "real" thing. And issues of ethics - such as revenue being taken away from those who produced the films - are dismissed with contempt. Why should someone in Manila, who struggles to make $50 a month, care about some "rich" guy in Hollywood? (By comparison, even struggling film technicians a lot make more.)
There are probably only two ways to stamp out piracy in Asia: change the culture (impossible) or cut off the source material (nearly impossible). So the MPAA has a real dilemma. If they think "education" is going to make a difference, they're misguided. Culture change requires revolutions, not pamphlets and advertisements. The fact is that the only ones who know piracy is "wrong" are the tourists, and not even they care. The people living in Asia see pirated DVDs as another buying option - and, at this time, the smart one. If you spend $10 to get essentially the same product you could get for $1, does that make you ethical? Or does it make you foolhardy?
Those who buy pirated DVDs do not consider themselves to be criminals, even though movie piracy is illegal in the Philippines. They're simply taking advantage of a system that is already in place and is generally recognized as legitimate. It's like someone in the United States driving faster than a posted speed limit. That's a violation of the law, but how many speeders consider themselves to be criminals? It's not as outrageous a comparison as it may seem.
The only realistic way to stop the mass purchasing of pirated films in Asia is to kill the distribution networks, and that's a herculean task. It's not something the MPAA can do alone, but it would seem that their time, money, and effort would be better expended in this arena than through prosecuting lone downloaders. (The MPAA's response to this, by the way, is that they are engaged in the struggle against piracy "in all appropriate areas, including [both] on-line... and international theft.")
I know I have written about piracy a lot since I started the nearly-every-day ReelThoughts postings, but, having gotten to see it first-hand recently, it has given me a greater feeling for how difficult it will be to reduce on an international level, and how irrational it is to target on-line downloading, when that's such a small percentage of the problem.
No Lack of Sith
I had initially hoped to visit a Philippine movie theater while in Manila. The idea was to get a feeling for whether there's an appreciable difference in the experience. I have never seen a movie outside of North America, and was curious about whether the audience reacts differently, whether there are the same deficiencies in technical quality apparent throughout the United States, etc. At this point, however, it doesn't look like it's going to happen. The reason is simple: Revenge of the Sith. In some Manila multiplexes, this is the only movie showing. I have seen Sith twice, and, while I enjoy the movie, I'm not planning to watch it a third time until it's available on DVD.
My other choices seem to be limited to three: House of Wax, Madagascar, and Unleashed, none of which merits repeat viewing. There's not even a locally-produced Philippine movie showing within a reasonable distance of my hotel. So, much as I might be interested in experiencing the Manila movie-going experience, it doesn't look like it's going to happen. My wife assures me that I'm not missing anything, though. And there's probably something perverse about traveling half-way around the world to see a movie.
©2005 James Berardinelli
May 1, 2005 (Sunday):
May 3, 2005 (Tuesday):
May 4, 2005 (Wednesday):
(2) The 1981 re-release. Identical to (1) except that the caption "Episode IV: A New Hope" was added. This was to bring it in line with "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back," which had appeared at the top of the sequel, released one year earlier.
(3) The "Special Edition" released in theaters in 1997. New scenes were added and a few existing scenes were "enhanced."
(4) The DVD Box Set version available on DVD in 2004. Similar to (3), but with additional "enhancements."
(5) The 3-D version expected to be released theatrically in 2007 to mark the movie's 30th anniversary. Unknown at this time is whether there will be additional "enhancements" beyond the tranformation to 3-D. But there are still deleted scenes that can re-inserted.
(6) The eventual HD-DVD release of the film. What exatly this will entail or when this will happen is anyone's guess.
May 5, 2005 (Thursday):
The Price of the Crown
May 6, 2005 (Friday):
May 8, 2005 (Sunday):
May 9, 2005 (Monday):
May 11, 2005 (Wednesday):
May 12, 2005 (Thursday):
May 13, 2005 (Friday):
May 14, 2005 (Saturday):
May 16, 2005 (Monday):
May 17, 2005 (Tuesday):
May 18, 2005 (Wednesday):
May 19, 2005 (Thursday):
May 20, 2005 (Friday):
May 21, 2005 (Saturday):
May 23, 2005 (Monday):
May 24, 2005 (Tuesday):
May 26, 2005 (Thursday):
May 30, 2005 (Monday):
Back To New Movies Page