|
Would ya look at this mess?
You take ONE week off from blogging (news was at a trickle) and look at all the junk that crops up. Let's sort this out...
For starter's this happened:
http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/article/1753796
That's Hollywood.com reporting that Michael Moore's documentary accusing the Bush Administration of botching the current war on terror, "Fahrenheit 911," is now the first documentary to win the Cannes festival's top prize "Palm D'or" since Jaques Costeau in 1956.
Well, since Cannes is a festival celebrating film-as-art from around the world and thus a place of international unity where the free exchange of ideas forms the essence of cultural understanding and all; I'm SURE that all the usual suspects in the politicization-biz will do the respectful thing by holstering the guns and just letting all of these fine films that have been awarded be appreciated on their artistic merits at this point, right?
Hmm. Didn't think so.
Despite director and jury-foreman Quentin Tarantino's matter-of-fact statement both to Moore and to the press that the award was given for it's art, not it's politics, the usual fun-and-games just keep going.
Moore himself STILL contends that Disney CEO Michael Eisner is trying to "bury" the film at the prodding of Florida Governor Jeb Bush by not allowing their Miramax wing to officially distribute the film. Mike, look, I dig most of your films. I really do. But everyone has figured out that Disney was NEVER going to distribute such a "charged" movie and this whole "controversy" is mostly you fishing for publicity. Winning Cannes will now give you that, so stop with the Mel Gibson impression already.
Meanwhile, Miramax head Harvey Weinstein (currently working to buy the film as a whole from Disney and distribute it on his own) has taken the opportunity to gloat about how his endorsement of the film has "proven he hasn't lost his edge." Harv, sorry, you lost your edge back when you realeased "English Patient" and sealed the deal when you chickened out on "Dogma." If digging Michael Moore is such a proof of "edge" for you, where were you back BEFORE "Bowling For Columbine" when he was still an "underground" celebrity? Now and then, Miramax DOES release a good film (mostly because Tarantino somehow isn't sick of them yet). The rest of the time, they make "Cold Mountain"-esque crap. Miramax, "Fahrenheit" could go on to be the biggest film of the year, and you'll STILL have made "English Patient."
Oh, and don't think that Moore's agitprop-counterparts on the Right didn't have their talking points ready for this one. As could easily be predicted, the standard response is: "Oh, OF COURSE he won. It's in FRANCE! And HOLLYWOOD is there!" The "Liberal Media conspiracy theory" once again. For the record: Really, is THAT the best they've got? The film was voted on by a Jury of Americans, Europeans, Chinese, etc. Moore is biased, the film will be biased, certainly. But the movie winning is HARDLY evidence of a vast, worldwide conspiracy against... um.. whoever the "great silent majority" still claims to be. Meh.
Oh, SPEAKING of film controversy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/movies/12AFTE.html?ex=1115956800&en=90aeac959e1520be&ei=5083&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes
This is almost too delicious for words. Turns out Roland Emmerich's latest disaster epic, "The Day After Tomorrow" is turning into a matter of political controversy. Why? In the film, a series of major natural disasters result all at once from.. global warming. PROBLEM: The current administration, connected as they are to the energy industry, has stocked it's science advisory teams with experts who don't believe global warming actually EXISTS!
It seems a solid share of the Political Right buys into a far-reaching conspiracy theory that goes something like this: The eeeeevil forces of, er.. is it Communism this week? The boogeyman changes so often it's hard to keep track.. have "made up" Global Warming as part of an eeevil scheme to "cripple" American industry by imposing pollution limits. Seriously. This is a real theory, believed in by real people.
By some miracle, or at least by way of the Right recalling the disaster that ensued the LAST time one of it's spokesmen attacked a fictional story (remember Dan Quayle's assault on Murphy Brown?,) the Bushies DIDN'T go directly after the movie (even though punching holes in the science of a Memorial Day disaster-pic wouldn't be hard at all.)
Instead, the environmental lobby has taken the fight TO THEM using the movie, and Emmerich has been happy to oblige. Eco-friendly ex-Veep Al Gore has been singing it's praises for two weeks, and now liberal activist group MoveOn.org has been hosting events in it's honor. The theory: They know the science is bunk and the film is basically just a ride-flick, but their hoping it scares enough people to make Global Warming a talking-point again.
My take: A surprising but potentiall ingenius move by MoveOn and the eco-movement as a whole. This film is going to be a HUGE hit by any rational prediction, and hitching their cart to it's success could pay off big. If they can make it an "assumed truth" that a film that nearly-everyone will see is something "The Bush Administration Didn't Want You To See," it'll be a public relations coup for the ages.
And hey, since this update has been mostly about political pundits getting involved in the movie-buzz game, howzabout we end on this?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/13/161558.shtml
There's Jerry Falwell, complaining that the upcoming dark comedy set in the world of "Born Again" Christian teens, "Saved!," is casting his crew in a less-than-flattering light.
The film, (ALSO opening on Memorial Day weekend just like "Day After Tommorow," what a lousy weekend for the Religious Right thats turning out to be,) follows a teenager who questions her born-again christian beliefs after an attempt to lead her gay boyfriend "back to the flock" leads to her getting pregnant, eventually bringing her into conflict with the less-than-well-adjusted "spiritual leaders" among her peers. You'd better BELIEVE I'm seeing this as soon as possible.
As for Jerry, well.. not to sound like a broken record but... THIS GUY SAID ON TV THAT GOD ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN BECAUSE AMERICA WAS TOO NICE TO GAYS AND FEMINISTS. And now HE feels slighted by a teen comedy? Jerry... that's life, pal.
The breakdown of the marked difference between the computer-animation films produced by Pixar ("Toy Story," "Finding Nemo," etc.) and those produced by Dreamworks/PDI ("Ice Age," "Shrek,") goes something like this: Pixar generally goes for the "timeless" angle in their films, while PDI's work is more of the moment. Pixar, thus far, has the superior batting-average; but not necessarily because of philosophy but because of quality of work: Pixar hit the ground running, PDI got off a little shaky. And while Pixar has become a new legend of American moviemaking, PDI had mostly scurried about at the sidelines until emerging at last with their first essential perfect creation: "Shrek."
In "Shrek" we see what has become the "PDI model" of animated features fully formed: A high-end Hollywood comedy (complete with big-name stars, in-the-moment references and a pop/rock soundtrack) that has been dressed in the "skin" of an animated adventure for children. PDI was using this angle all the way back in their criminally-underrated "Antz," (still better, as far as I'm concerned, than Pixar's not-too-shabby "Bugs Life" of the same year) but not until "Shrek" did it finally click when paired with a smart script, terrific cast and an ambitious mission-statement: Giving the "Disney-fied" versions of classic fairytales a "Princess Bride"-style comic-evisceration.
What made "Shrek" special, and jarring, was it's apparent lack of blatant desire to BE special or jarring. Most animated films, good or bad, are at pains to let the audience know how much time and effort was put into their creation, "Shrek" ambled along it's jokey way as if it had been "shot" over a weekend; it had a sprightly "whatever" energy not often found in animated fare. If "Pixar" is the new keeper of the original Walt Disney/Mickey Mouse "stories for the ages" vision of family filmmaking, then PDI has inherited it's genes from the flippant soul of Bugs Bunny.
To recap: Shrek (Mike Meyers) was an Ogre charged by the evil Lord Farquad (John Lithgow) to "rescue" Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) from a Dragon's Keep in order to prevent the would-be king from turning Shrek's swamp into a reservation/concentration-camp for all of the fairy-tale creatures being exiled from Farquad's Disney-like kingdom of Duloc. Fiona hoped for freedom from a curse that turned her into an Ogre at night, but instead found mutual love and self-acceptance with Shrek, who in turn found himself leading the uprising against Farquad and bringing about an finale that turned the Disney-vision of happy endings on their ear: Fiona finds her "true" self as an Ogre, while a "monster," a Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and a Dragon triumph over the Prince.
"Shrek 2" picks up where we left off: Shrek and Fiona have retired to their swamp home in wedded bliss, only to be interupted by a royal invitation: Fiona's parents, the King and Queen of "Far Far Away," are throwing a ball in honor of her rescue from the tower and subsequent marriage; unaware that her "prince" (and, now, she herself) is an Ogre. Arriving in FFA (a medieval version of Los Angeles,) the couple recieve a cold welcome from Fiona's parents (John Cleese and Julie Andrews.) That's not all: The powerful and dangerous magic potion CEO Fairy Godmother appears to have "arranged" Fiona's whole situation in order to get her son Prince Charming into the royal family, and she's not about to see it undone by Shrek. Holding some dark secret over the King's head, she orders him to "take care" of the Ogre...
"Shrek 2" doesn't quite have the same "damn!" impact as the first when it comes to it's suberversive ribbing of the fairy-tale ouvre, largely because now we're "expecting" it. In the first film, the Ogre-as-hero premise and Beauty-is-the-beast denoument were intended surprises; but here we're "returning" to the world of Shrek as opposed to entering it, so the fact that Shrek is the good guy and the more traditional good guys are suspect is now part of the deal.
The film is well on it's way before it starts creeping up on most folks just how much of a spin has been placed on things: The last film went after Disney, this one goes after the fairy-tale stlyings at their core. Not only is the Ogre the good guy, but the two most sacred images of fanciful goodness; the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming are the villians of the peice.
Wisely, the film doesn't try to "top" the events of the first film for the most part. It charts an entirely new course that takes it in the kind of new directions that we often expect but seldom recieve from sequels. The first film was a quest in true fantasy form, but the second is something I never would have expected: A drama of political-intrigue. Unknowingly, his rescue of Fiona has placed Shrek in the midst of an intricate web of schemes and double-crosses which he must now navigate. Charming, our presumed-villian, is actually a patsy being craftily manuvered into a position of power by a scheming, domineering mother. An intentional nod to "The Manchurian Candidate," perhaps?
The actors all fall into their roles nicely. "Shrek" is largely the straight-men this time around, an Meyers fits just fine into his mostly-dramatic roles this time around. Diaz, too, is required largely to play it with less-jokes as Fiona. The two Ogres are largely being shoved around by forces beyond their control this time, so much of the joking is now handled by the new characters and the supporting cast. Eddie Murphy once again gets all the best gags as the over-excitable Donkey, and, as you've no-doubt heard, a great deal of scenes are stolen by Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots, here cast as a "sleazy hitman" hired to asassinate Shrek but who instead teams up with him.
As before, the film layers it's comedy with kiddie-slapstick on the surface, adolescent scatology beneath that and subtle "blue" humor for adults WAY below the surface. This time, though, the grownup gags aren't as much about grownup humor as they are about social undercurrents to the proceedings that adults will snatch more readily than children. Example: The film plays it VERY close to the vest, but adults will probably guess what the "dark secret" that FGM is holding over King Harold's head before it's revealed, but it's still a pretty well-hid "gotcha."
It's tempting to get into whether or not "Shrek 2" is better or worse than the first; but the truth is it's hard to say. It's a much different film, with it's own rhythm and it's own speed, exactly as a good sequel should be. The only scenes that really come close to "rhyming" with the first film are, appropriately, the conclusion which (without spoiling the fairy nifty mid-way twist to the intrigue) once again involves an army of fantasy-land misfits making open war on a false "happily ever after" ending.
"Shrek 2" is a more-than-worthy sequel and offers proof that Dreamworks/PDI now have quite a franchise on their hands. As a good sequel should, this not only keeps the story going in great directions, it makes us excited for the amount of directions still available. Reccomended.
Yeggh. Where to begin?
RODRIGUEZ LEAVES "MARS"
I pick... here.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4795
That's Comingsoon.net passing on the buzz from IGN that Paramount and Robert Rodriguez are unable to work out their pickle over his resignation from the DGA and, thus, that he is no longer the director of "A Princess of Mars."
Phooey.
This issue has been, from the beginning, a butting of hard-heads pure and simple. Rodriguez is mad that the DGA wouldn't let him call Frank Miller the co-director of "Sin City," so he won't re-sign even though Paramount only works with Guild directors. Of the three involved parties, no one would budge; and now they've all lost: Paramount has lost the chance to have Rodriguez's talent guiding their hoped-for tentpole-franchise, Rodriguez has lost the chance to direct one of the most unique film properties now on the market, the DGA has lost Rodriguez membership dues. Depressing as it may be, I still have the hardest time sympathizing with Rodriguez in this: The DGA didn't "ban" him from membership, he voluntarily refuses to re-sign because he's miffed that they wouldn't give him a waver on the "Sin City" matter. He wasn't being penalized by the Guild, at least is my understanding, to any extent, so unless there's a level to this thats not being reported he basically took HIMSELF out of the project. Pity.
The film will probably still get MADE, of course, though it's a sure bet that Rodriguez will take all or most of his self-done pre-production work with him. Memo to Paramount: The ball is in you're court, now. You've got a big advantage in that the fanbase of this project has been waiting so long they WANT to like it and be optimistic. Therefore, it falls on you to KEEP USING the same good judgement that got Rodriguez hired in the first place. Don't hand this off to a Paul W.S. Anderson-style "safe" director, find someone else who really GETS this stuff. (Kind of a shame that Steven Sommers is already engaged on the similar "Flash Gordon," eh?)
The last peice of this that remains unresolved is the producer-level involvement of Aint-It-Cool guru Harry Knowles, who was on-hand as the film's "voice of the fandom" source-material expert AND as a pal of Rodriguez. Is he staying on? As of yet, we don't know.
THE SHADOW FALLS
Perhaps, in light of Mr. Rodriguez recent adventure coming to it's sad end, it's time to once again reflect on the sad tale of the LAST major director of geek cinema classics to get mad enough at the DGA to up and quit permanently. What was that name again?
Just when the Geek Community thinks it doesn't have any respect for George Lucas LEFT to lose, something like THIS comes along...
http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=4330
That's JoBlo with a look at an image that originally appeared as part of a larger article on AICN. If you don't wish to click, let me save you the trouble: It's the "Jedi Ghosts" scene from the end of "Return of The Jedi" (Luke sees Yoda, Obi-Wan and a human-again Anakin as spirits) only actor Sebastian Shaw (Anakin) has been replaced by the ever-more Tiger Beat-ish visage of Hayden Christensen, the "new" Anakin of the prequels.
Apparently, this is the real deal. And, if not, the concept at least has been on the list of likely-changes to be made by Lucas to the Original Trilogy special editions soon to hit DVD.
I could write ten pages easily on what a travesty this is, on how Lucas continues to destroy his own work in a fit of raw ego in his vain quest to re-write history. He'll do anything he can to perpetuate the lie (which he now seems to truly believe himself) that the perverse parody he has made Star Wars into was always "the way it was going to be."
Better men than me have said it, but it bears repeating: If you consider yourself any kind of lover of film and film history, here is one of those rare opportunities to prove it: DON'T BUY THESE DVDS. Seriously. Just don't do it. Rent `em. Borrow `em. Wait for HBO. I know, we ALL want to see Star Wars on DVD... but this isn't "Star Wars," it's an ever-more-warped, dilluted shadow of "Star Wars."
There's a great old episode of "The Cosby Show" that, for some reason, this reminded me of. In the ep, Cliff is trying to re-create a Carribean restaurant he and his wife dined at long ago as an anniversary gift. To do this, he has hired the very chef that cooked the original food and asked him to ply his trade again. The catch: The chef informs Cliff he doesn't "do" that anymore, he's "moved ahead" to new dishes more along the lines of what he always wanted to prepare. The joke is that the "daring" new elements the chef is so obsessed with are terrible ideas, like adding Rasberry tofu to Carribean soup. Sound familiar?
FIRST he "replaced" the original films with sanitized, bastardized "Special Editions." THEN he sullied the legacy of his own work to further unimaginable depths with the truly abysmal Prequels. NOW, as Episode III nears, he moves lower once again: Retooling the originals (or whats LEFT of them) to "fit" with the Prequels.
Folks, at what point is enough enough? "Return of The Jedi" is the least of the original trilogy, yes, but even then it's still a classic of scifi/fantasy filmmaking. To force that film to become "subserviant" to peices of sub-poor cinematic trash like the Prequels is to commit an OBSCENITY.
I ain't buying these DVDs. Who's with me?
I live my life by very few ironclad rules, and even those with escape clauses. There's very little in the world which I do not believe benefits from an open, malleable perspective.
To wit: ONE of the few ironclad rules is to educated myself exponentially more on the veiws, outlooks and opinions of those who DISAGREE with me than with those who agree. It's a simple axiom, perhaps even dated, but I subscribe to it none the less: You learn more from people you who disagree with you.
It is for that reason that, whenever time avails it, I scour the web for not only the film reviews but the art, literature and CULTURAL reviews put out by those whom I consider my ideological "foes." Readers of this blog will guess, correctly, that I refer to the "traditionalist" side of our so-called Culture Wars.
This stuff can make you crazy if you don't approach it with a certain detachment. It helps to remember that disagreeing with you on a position doesn't necessarily make someone crazy, and even if they ARE crazy they speak as individuals even as they claim to speak for a "movement."
I try, very hard, to absorb all such material in a manner that allows me to take in all information without getting uselessly angry. It takes rare instances of outright, bald-faced madness presented as journalism to make me angry.
I'm angry.
Here's why:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38450
It's an article from right-wing website Worldnetdaily, reprinted from Business Reform magazine. Title: "Is Kill Bill Responsible for Abu Ghraib?"
Yes, you read that right. The author is asking us to consider if a Quentin Tarantino movie is responsible for the scandal of U.S. reservists abusing prisoners in Iraq. Please excuse me while I vomit.
What's really going on here, predictably, is the extremist wing of the Religious Right trying to turn American's justified anger at Abu Ghraib into a sounding-board for their advocacy of film censorship. Their argument: The actions of the soldiers who abused the prisoners are "symptoms" of our eeeeevil progressive culture, specifically entertainment that glorifies violence.
I could write a long disortation about this, but do you really need that? You're intelligent people, I know, and thus capable of seeing this for the clap-trap propaganda it is. However, it DOES have a use I think as an object lesson in the hypocrisy of the cultural right: "Kill Bill," a work of art, is responsible for evil because it "glorifies violence," but the culture-warriors LOVE "The Passion," the most violent film of the year.
These are the people who want to control what we can see and what films we can make. Never forget that.
It's so nice not to be dissapointed in a movie for a change.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS TO FOLLOW, ESPECIALLY FOR ANYONE WITHOUT A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF "THE ILIAD." CONTINUE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Four immediate observations about "Troy":
1.) Has Brad Pitt really made ANY serious career missteps lately? I can't think of any. From "Fight Club" on, he's been such an excellent example of a movie-star-with-range it's as those he's actively seeking revenge on everyone who wrote him off for all the crap he made between and including "Thelma & Louise" and "Meet Joe Black."
2.) A good 70% of Eric Bana's ability to appeal is contained in his ultra-expressive eyes. He's the Betty Davis of action heroes, and good for him.
3.) Proving himself the exception to the rule that a rising star's talent and/or staying-power are inversely-proportionate to the number of pre-teen girls who plaster said star's image on their walls,(aka "The DiCaprio Equation,") Orlando Bloom is the real thing and he's here to stay.
4.) Peter O'Toole= God. Brian Cox= Godder.
So, here we have "Troy." A 200 Million dollar epic reworking of Homer's "Iliad" which, I think it's a pretty safe bet, was pitched to at least ONE investor/producer as "Lord of The Rings meets Gladiator." Here we have the first big-scale "serious" action entry of the Summer, a bronzey swords n' sandals war drama in which a solid portion of "People Magazine's 50 Most Beautiful" young male actors strap on their leathers and hack one-another up on the sandy beaches of an ancient kingdom which may never actually have existed in a loose adaptation of a Homeric adaptation of a war which may never actually have occured. Stuff like this used to be Hollywood's stock in trade, these days it's a rare treat to see one and a rarer treat to see one so well executed.
This story was still required reading when I was in school. Is it still? I'm not sure. Either way, a small-ish plot recap is in order:
In ancient Greece, Prince Paris of Troy (Orlando Bloom) has fallen in love with Queen Helen (Diane Krueger,) wife of King Menaleus (Brendan Gleeson) of Sparta, and spirited her back to the kingdom of his father Priam (Peter O'Toole.) Enraged, Menaleus calls on his power-hungry brother King Agamemmnon of Mycenae (Brian Cox) and King Odysseyus of Ithaca (Sean Bean) to help him rally all of Greece in a bid to avenge this affront by laying seige to Troy. To accomplish this feat, the kings enlist the aid of Achilles (Brad Pitt) a warrior so effective he is a legend in his own time. Prince Hector, (Eric Bana,) Paris' older brother, elects to take charge of Troy's defenses, eventually leading to a clash of wills between himself and Achilles.
The big "buzz" in academic circles about this particular adaptation of the "Iliad" story has been it's de-mythologizing of the story: Homer's original story, like all of Greek Drama, involves at it's core the machinations of the manipulative Olympian Gods. This version, however, removes any "definate" image or evidence of the gods in favor of a "realistic" vision of the events.
It's not surprising, given the nature of the beast, that "Gnostification" of the material fundamentally changes the entire flow and tone of the tale, it's hardly a "cosmetic" change. Greek Drama, generally, isn't "about" character nuance or motivation, it's about the reactions of mortals to the subjective whims of the gods. It's possible that such a change could render much of Greek myth-epics unfilmable, (What's "The Odyssey" without it's fickle gods and their pet monsters?,) but here the effect yeilds a surprising and overwhelmingly positive result: The audience is challenged with an action film where good and evil are blurred, "morality" is subjective and at constant quandry.
Removed from the (literal) Deus Ex Machina of all-powerful deities pulling the strings, the characters in Troy are, for the most part, neither entirely good nor evil: The strange duality of Homeric Heroes, here banned from using godly intervention to explain away all quirks, becomes a sort of instantaneous depth-generator for the larger than life characters inhabiting the story. Paris is foolish, naive and impudent, yet also noble in his own way. Achilles is an arrogant, battle-obsessed narcissist seemingly devoid of a moral center or belief in anything other than his own legend; yet is also a figure of perpetual honor and a staunch defender of fair-play among the scheming politicians leading the war. And so on, and so forth.
Thus, we're presented here with a real rarity not just for action films but for mainstream films in general: A film of moral complexity, one that refuses to tell you who's "good" and who's "bad" and asks you to cheer and boo for all involved in equal measure. We're actually asked to be awed by Achilles' physical power at the same time as we're galled by his behavior otherwise. Good show.
Special mention goes out to the action scenes, which are gorgeously choreographed and manage to make the done-to-death spectacle of armored men clashing into one-another in formation feel fresh with innovative techniques. As yet another result of the no-gods rule, the film has to re-invent Achilles' superhuman abilities: Instead of a Styx-powered immortal strongman, Pitt's Achilles is a creature of agility and quickness to adapt in battle; a blonde, bronzed Jackie Chan who usually kills in a single stroke like a Samurai.
Serious and appropriately respectful of it's source, "Troy" can't really resist setting up a slew of "crowd pleaser" moments: The big one-on-one battles are framed as WWE-esque "matches," presented and executed as though the filmmakers were in the full knowledge that action fans will want to recall them as "Achilles vs. Hector," "Ajax vs. Hector," "Paris vs. Menaleus," etc. as opposed to parts of the story-proper. For the record: The film's best "smackdown" is, as it should be, Achilles vs. Hector; which features the leads fighting with long-spears and shields in what is probably the best fight scene ever featuring those particular weapons.
Speaking of crowd-pleaser moments, the guy who comes to this with the most "baggage" is Orlando Bloom. While everyone else is more or less "proven" as stars, Bloom is here making his first "big" showing since exploding onto the scene as Legolas in the LOTR trilogy. It's being closely watched to see how well he "ables" himself with a role absent his famous debut. The answer: He's a good actor, suited to the genre. However, it's obvious that he'll not be allowed to "depart" his Legolas connection just yet: Late in the film, when Paris joins in the big battle and procures, yes, a bow and arrow as his tools of combat, the film lingers on the image as the audience is given time to remember why it's "cool" that Bloom has returned to his bow. If you're theater applauds or buzzes at this moment, you're in good company.
"Troy" is a solid, spectacular actioner that will find fans among those who don't typicall enjoy action-oriented films. It deserves to be seen, especially considering the positive ripple-effect the mega-success of a morally-complex epic could have on the rest of the industry.
Definately check it out.
Those of you in the Los Angeles area may have heard the faint hissing sound wafting over the Film District early this morning and wondered "what the hell was that?" Wonder no longer: The sound you hear is a few thousand executives, producers and business types at 20th Century Fox and Marvel Films sucking their breath through pursed lips as their personal web-watchers informed them that "Aint-It-Cool-News" honcho Harry Knowles announced that he was, well, "perturbed" at the direction of the "Fantastic Four" movie adaptation.
Welcome back, for those enjoying the weeks of relative normalcy in the world of web journalism, to the warped reality that this "business" is: Variety could print a front-page story tommorow about "bad-buzz" around a big-budget tentpole like this and the studio would largely shrug it off, but a "fanboy" guru in Austin drops a "fan's perspective" column that essentially states that he is dismayed by gossip he's reading and it counts as a BIG problem for the project. Make no mistake, having Knowles come out this hard negative on a project of this pedigree THIS early in production is a potentially seismic event for the producers.
Here's Harry's peice:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17541
And, for completeness' sake, here's the IGN.com article that inspired him:
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/513/513316p1.html?fromint=1
Okay, my fellow Geeks reading this understand why we're talking "big deal" here, so permit me to address the non-geeky for a moment and explain what's going on as briefly as possible in semi-timeline order-of-events fashion:
1.)Fox and Marvel are making a film out of Marvel's comic franchise, "The Fantastic Four."
2.)Fans are excited by the prospects because this is one of comicdoms most enduring franchises.
3.)The Studio is "unsure" about how to proceed because, while enduring, FF has never QUITE attained the cultural-iconhood in the "mainstream" of a "Superman," "Spider-Man" or even "X-Men."
4.)Rumors hit early last year, courtesy some off-the-cuff vaugaries by Marvel Films producer Avi Arad, that the film would be aiming for a "sitcom"-like, family-comedy angle.
5.)If there's one thing you NEVER say to comic fans about an action franchise, it's that you're either going "family" or "comedy" with the property. Negative buzz has been an undercurrent since then.
6.)Shortly after the "movie-is-a-sitcom" buzz started, A mini-shakeup occured at Marvel Comics proper: Plans were announced to unnexpectedly remove series-writer Mark Waid in the middle of a much-praised run and replace him with a new artist/writer team charged to turn in a new direction that would stress, yup: family-comedy as an angle.
7.)Fans, believing this to be A.) a bad idea as Waid's run had been quite popular and B.) an obvious attempt to make the comic "conform" to the proposed vision of the movie as a tie-in, revolted in a massive letter-writing protest that resulted in Waid being restored and the "new" team's concept being spun off into it's own seperate book. All was calm until...
8.) Marvel officially announced it was adding an "Fantastic Four" title to it's "Ultimate" product line. For the uninitiated: "Ultimate Marvel" is a line of comics, seperate from the main-continuity books, which re-tell the stories of popular characters in a "modern setting, unhampered by lengthy backstory." That's company speak for: "Same stuff, but with old-in-a-week MTV-references in the dialogue to seem more current." Ultimate Marvel basically serves a sole purpose: To provide Marvel with "easy access" versions of characters soon to be made into films.
9.) This came to a head yesterday when IGN published the story where Arad eludes HEAVILY to the idea that the FF movie is sloping MUCH more toward the "Ultimate" than "Classic" model. Cue uh-oh sound here.
10.) Knowles, who had been (for AICN) mostly-silent on this particular issue, issued the scathing column linkable above. Fallout is, at this point, innevitable.
Here's why this is a big deal and BIG bad news for Marvel and Fox:
Right now, the only people who are following the production of this film, the only "journalists" who will be keeping track of the early stages of this project, the ONLY group of potential filmgoers paying attention at this stage... are now going to be OUT FOR THEIR HEADS.
Now, Knowles, on his own, doesn't really have the clout to "torpedo" the project with this. HOWEVER, AICN's true power and true threat to the studios in cases like this are it's "talkbacks" on such articles: The endless message-boards on which Geeks respond to the story, often with links to other sites and thus the news and the negative buzz spreads.
Marvel needs "The Geek Street" to be psyched about it's projects from the get-go, because a super-excited fan-base with web access translates into BILLIONS in free-promotion for the film months before they even cut the trailers. Not only that, they need even more for them NOT to be outwardly hostile, because it so happens that fans who are willing to devote time and web-space to expressing their joy at an upcoming project are ALSO willing to devote DOUBLE the time and web-space to expression their apprehension. Check out the coverage for Warners "Catwoman" debacle for proof of this phenomenon.
What Knowles has done, with this posting (in bold, bright-blue hypertext link at the top of his high-traffic site) is to turn the buzz on FF from bad-to-worse. Those Marvel and Fox most need to be "hyped" about this are now unhappy, and it will translate into a storm of negative anti-hype for a good while.
My take: I like Harry and AICN half the time and am "apprehensive" about them for an equal half for the same reason; it's the only site among the "movie gossip boom" brood that still maintains it's guerilla modus-operandi. This is the sort of business that made Harry the most unlikely X-factor in film production history, and in this case he's close to 100% correct as far as I'm concerned: This isn't the "costume issue" from the X-Men movies or the "biological webshooters" mini-mess from Spider-Man, this is a bad direction at a pure story and character level.
We're about to witness a lot of interesting news from this over the next few days, and it's going get MORE interesting before it gets better. Knowles, knowingly or unknowingly (unknowingly being VERY unlikely,) has symbolically laid out about a dozen cannonballs in front of Movie Geekdom en-masse and pointed right in the direction of Fox/Marvel, and for good or for ill their publicity department is about to have a VERY busy rest of the week.
You may have noticed something about most reviews of "Van Helsing" available right now: They're all basically the same, but the "ratings" are different. Without exaggeration, there are two kinds of reviews for this film: Reviews that say "It's nothing but monster fights, I hated it" and reviews that say "It's nothing but monster fights, I loved it."
Here is that rare sort of pop-entertainment that Hollywood used to be the world's leading expert in: A film that can really only be liked or disliked in and of itself. There's no message, no "movement," no subtle subtext by which to aid or detract from one's enjoyment: You either LIKE a giant-scale action-epic in which a gunslinging superhero navigates the battle between Count Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf-Man, or you DON'T like it.
Hugh Jackman, who I'm now indeed ready to forgive for "Someone Like You" and "Kate & Leopold," stars as the title hero culled loosely from the pages of Brahm Stoker's orginal "Dracula" where he appeared as an elderly vampire expert. THIS Van Helsing is a Vatican-sponsored monster-hunter with no memory of his immediate past (much the same as Jackman's other hero, "X-Men's" Wolverine) who takes out The Forces of Evil in a manner that suggests Indian Jones and gear that suggest a Victorian 007.
Dispatched to Transylvania with sidekick Friar Carl (David Wenham), Van Helsing's mission in this film (after polishing off a "guest-starring" monster I won't reveal) is to track down and destroy Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) before he can kill Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale,) a female vampire-hunter and last in a bloodline sworn (thusfar unsucessfully) to destroy The Count before he can execute his Master Plan.
That Dracula's "Master Plan" in this reads like something a gang of pre-teen monster movie fan came up with during a marathon session of action-figure makebelieve is evocative of how smile-inducingly "wacky" the whole thing is. In brief: After 400 years of carrying-on with his sexy trio of Vampire Brides, Drac's castle is (literally) dripping with "Alien"-style pods containing his unborn vampire offspring. To bring his brood to life, Dracula is seeking the scientific reanimation secrets locked inside the missing Frankenstein Monster. Aiding The Count in this quest are Frankenstein's ex-assistant Igor (Kevin J. O'Connor) and The Wolf-Man employed as a VERY effective bodygaurd.
If you can read the above description and the word "COOL!" does not escape your lips at least once, you really have no business expecting to like this movie. It's as simple as that.
This is a monster movie for people who love monster movies. Director Stephen Sommers loves monster movies, and he's made it something of an artistic mission to get MORE monster movies onscreen. His results, thus far, have been mixed: "Deep Rising" is a solidly-cool giant squid yarn hampered by some unfortunate special effects. "The Mummy" was a slick reworking of the Universal Monsters mainstay, while "The Mummy Returns" suffered from fight-scene overkill. "Van Helsing" is a return to form, perhaps not as good as "The Mummy" but definately close. It may be an odd distinction, but it's a fact: Sommers makes the best big-budget summer-movie revamps of old-school monster franchises on the planet.
This is not to say that "Van Helsing" is perfect, it's not. It's stuffed to the brim, often to the point where it begins to feel cluttered, but I'll always take a film that's trying too hard than not hard enough. The pace is certainly a marvel: a 2 1/2 hour film that goes by like a quick breeze. The problems of "Van Helsing" are the problems that tend to come standard with a Monster Team-Up movie, and frankly I wouldn't have it any other way.
Jackman again cements himself as a natural for action roles. Van Helsing, by necessity of plot (and hoped-for franchise) is so mysterious that he's not even afforded a first name until halfway through the film, and with a lesser actor this mystery could've read as lack of development. But Jackman finds a solid hold within his character's minimal dialogue and disaffected "been-there-staked-that" sulk. He's smart enough to know that the film is hinging more on his ability to look cool in a cowboy hat than on character nuance, but he doesn't talk down to the material.
Humor is left to the supporting characters: Wenham (in a COMPLETE 180 from his turn as "Faramir" in Lord of The Rings) is the most endearing "comic relief" foil in awhile. O'Connor, an underutilized character actor and friend of Sommers whom the director usually casts in "the Igor role" in these films finally gets to be THE Igor, and he doesn't so much dive into the role as he does cannonball.
Sample Exchange: Dracula: "Igor, why do you torment that beast ::The Wolfman:: so?" Igor: "It's what I do."
The dramatic roles fall on Beckinsale, who has probably never looked more drop-dead gorgeous than she does here as a bodice-clad swordswoman saddled with the sexiest faux-German accent in recent memory; and Schuler Hensley as the Frankenstein Monster, who takes the pathos and self-pity ever associated with the role to such operatic heights of exaggerated melodrama that it nearly renders the characters steam-belching mechanical appendages and exposed, spark-throwing, glass-domed brain to near-subtlty.
And then there's Roxburgh, who plays Dracula as though he was offered money by Gary Oldman to make HIS scenery-chewing turn as the Count look reserved and introspective by comparison. Pacing up and down walls, morphing into a huge man/bat hybrid and engaging in some of the most surreal crazy-people-arguing scenes ever with his emotionally unstable Brides, Roxburgh here gives the best "on another PLANET than the rest of the movie" bad-guy effort since Alan Rickman in "Robin Hood."
What more can I really say? This is a movie where handsome heroes and droolicious heroines battle werewolves, vampires and other monsters in giant gothic castles, sprawling dance halls and mad science labs full of whirring turbines and explosions of sparks using crosses, garlic, stakes and gas-powered "automatic crossbows." I LIVE for this stuff. This stuff makes me go to the movies. This stuff makes me want to MAKE the movies. If you're at all like that, you'll probably get a kick out of this.
Highly reccomended, just tons of fun.
NOTE: While it won't get the film confused with being high-art, "Van Helsing's" ending is "unexpected" enough to have prompted the studio ask critics not to reveal details. I agree with them. Anyone who spoils the surprising events of the MASSIVELY kick-ass 3rd act of "Van Helsing" is being profoundly uncool. For what it's worth, the finale of this film houses two of the most pleasant and (for summer-action cinema) "gutsy" surprises I've seen in a movie this year.
Appologies for the lateness on this and other assorted topics, was unable to access for a few days. So, where were we?
SPIDEY PULLED
Following a public outcry not seen from disgruntled sports fans the likes of which not seen since, y'know, the LAST public outcry from disgruntled sports fans; Major League Baseball and Sony have scrapped their plans to place "Spider-Man" web pattern on bases as a promotion for the upcoming Spidey sequel.
Superherohype passes on the news:
http://www.superherohype.com/spider-man/index.php?id=1334
It's tempting to let Geek Pride get the best of one and wonder aloud if the reaction of sports fans would have been this negative had the promotion been for something a little more "traditionall" sports-related? Say, I dunno, for "Gatorade" or something? The "Champion" sportswear logo? I guess we'll never know.
Mind you, I'm the first person to admit that commercialization is doing major harm to the integrity of athletic competition in this country; and I'll admit that this is at least a victory against commercialism. Still, there's a little spark in me that just HAS to ask: Was this REALLY, at a point in history where most of the ballparks are "decorated" with the NAMES OF THE CORPOROTATIONS THAT OWN THEM (while these "eyesores" were essentially specks in the center of bases), just about anti-commercialism or could it be that it was at least in part about a vocal segment of fans furious that Geek Iconography might "taint" a sports institution? Just asking :)
BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW
You don't need to have your ear even remotely CLOSE to the ground to know that big rumblings are afoot at Disney. Eisner is now sharing the top spot, powerful-in-name-only Roy Disney wants him out for good and Pixar's Steve Jobs sees him in a position to be tossed out as condition for aquiring Pixar distribution rights.
News of Eisner's impending end have been met with near-unanimous glee in the Geek Community: He was, along with ex-Warner Bros. biggie Lorenzo DiBonaventura, one of the all-time archetypes of the "bean-counter" boss who crushed all creativity in his quest for market dominance. It's often asked, "who could be WORSE as the head of a major studio than Michael Eisner?"
Well, for starters, how about, say... A close pal of the Extremist Religious-Right movement with recent ties to the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?
Yup, Mel Gibson is being sought by "a mysterious consortium of European investors" to stage a takeover of the Mouse House. The New York Post passes along the story:
http://nypost.com/gossip/23749.htm
Yeesh. Now, first things first:
A.) This story is still only gossip, nothing more.
B.) I have no personal "grudge" against Mel Gibson, in fact I've been a fan of about 90% of his work aside from "The Passion," which I find to be a train-wreck of a film and deeply troubling as a cultural artifact.
C.) I would certainly never suggest that a certain set of moral/political beliefs should "disqualify" one from the job of running a major studio. (On the contrary, Gibson has proven himself a superior businessman time and time again.)
What troubles me here is not so much Gibson but the company that he has kept as of late. During the promotion of "The Passion of The Christ," Gibson closely aligned his film and himself with various segments of the so-called "Religious Right" in America in order to garner support for the film. Groups like Pat Robertson's "Christian Broadcasting Network" (CBN) openly promoted the film as a tool for use in their ministry.
CBN still, in fact, devotes an entire section of it's website to "articles" that essentially amount to a giant hunk of free promotion for the film. Here's the link:
http://cbn.org/special/PassionOfChrist.asp
WARNING: This site may include content and/or opinions which may offend you. Click at your own risk.
Despite the fact that CBN is here essentially piggybacking the promotion of their own theological and political agendas onto the hype for Gibson's film, there has been no real effort on the part of "Passion" production to disassociate the film from groups such as this.
And what sort of group is CBN? Specifically, what are their views on the entertainment industry? Well, here's a nice article from CBN that attempts to blame "explicit" Hollywood films for fueling terrorist hatred of the U.S. No, I'm not joking:
http://cbn.org/living/entertainment/screen/hollywoods_america.asp
So, by CBN's logic, if we could just stop making R-rated movies, maybe there'd have been no 9/11. Yup, sounds like a rational, clear-thinking, harmless political group to me. Not.
Actually, Jerry Falwell and CBN head Pat Robertson are quite the virtuosos of blaming 9/11 on people other than the terrorists: Falwell in 2001 appeared on the CBN "TV news broadcast" (actually a PAID PROGRAM) "The 700 Club" and advanced the theory that God "allowed" the attacks to happen because of America's tolerance of feminism and homosexuality. Swell buncha guys, the "Religious" Right is, dontcha think?
There was a famous incident in the 1980s wherein the Reagan (Bush?) presidential campaign wanted to use Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as a campaign song. The incident is famous because Springsteen quite publically refused to allow use of his work to further a political agenda he was not entirely supportive of.
See the connection? Right now, organizations which promote (among other things) an extremist political movement, anti-gay and anti-choice agendas, etc., are using the notoriety of "The Passion" and the fame of Mel Gibson to promote themselves and their political aims. As of yet, Gibson has not denounced these groups or what they stand for in whole or in part. Therefore, I believe that until proven otherwise it is reasonable (if INCREDIBLY depressing) to infer that Gibson MAY in fact be in "alignment" with these individuals.
If so, I believe it would be a TREMENDOUSLY bad thing for ANY individual with such ties to be heading a major film studio, as it has the potential to open the door to CBN and the like to work their Religious Fundamentalist messages into films. However, as I said, it has not been proven that Gibson DOES support CBN as much as they support him. Were Mel to simply denounce these extremists as not representative of him or his intentions with the film, I would feel A LOT less apprehensive about this potential deal. (I would, however, still find "The Passion" to be a severely below-average film at best.)
SOME SILLINESS:
Sorry, I know that was a little heavy. Let's have some fun: I want to hear some responses in the comments on the following question that ties the two news items together:
Since so many pundits chose to characterize the huge boxoffice success of "Passion" as some kind of "referendum" on the enduring relevence of Traditionalist Christianity, in effect equating ticket sales with religious devotion; if "Spider-Man 2" winds up beating "Passion" at the boxoffice... does that mean that Spider-Man is now a more "relevent" icon in the U.S. than "Passion's" Christ?
Followup: If so, is that necessarily a bad sign? :)
Y'all have probably heard about this by now, as it's getting a ridiculous amount of press coverage, but just in case here's the scoop:
Sony and Major League Baseball have teamed up for a cross-promotion by which the bases at MLB ballparks will sport ads for "Spider-Man 2" from June 11-13. Hm. The imagery of Geek Iconography placed onto the "sacred" tools of a sporting event... think sports fans are happy? Didn't think so. (for the record, I love baseball. GO YOU REDSOX!)
The New York Yankees are mad as hell about spoiling the "purity" of the game, as the AP reports:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040506/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_spider_man_on_base_13
It makes sense that the Yankees should be the ones to get mad about this. After all, we all know that among all of the MLB the Yankees are the last oasis of the pure, old-fashioned sportsmanship and pluck of old-school, classic baseball, right? Um, wait... no they aren't! The Yankees are the most ultra-slick, commercial-age, hype-driven team in either league, their the Donald-flippin'-Trump of Baseball; and THIS is too much for them??
Ahem.
I should preface this by saying that, yes, the commercialism of modern sports IS a big problem. The most eggregious example is the "sport" of Nascar Racing, where the obscene spectacle of it's drivers and their cars covered head-to-toe with promotional logos has reduced what was already not much of a "sport" to begin with into a surreal "everything-wrong-with-America" visual metaphor in which crowds of thousands pack stadiusm to watch BILLBOARDS ON WHEELS DRIVE IN A CIRCLE.
That being said, the venom being spewed over this I actually find amusing and, dare I say, delightful. Especially since, as you can see in the AP link, the "eyesore" is little more than a tiny web-pattern symbol in the center of the base. For DECADES, geeks have had to "put up" with "mainstream-appeal" stuff being shoved into, say, comic-based films (hip-pop tie-in soundtracks, miscast "name" actors, etc.) so it's hard to feel anything but a sense of "how do YOU like it!?" glee watching the ULTIMATE 'normal' pastime, the sports event, enduring the opposite.
Oh, don't look at me like that. C'mon, think about how cool this is, especially the part about the MLB heads agreeing that this will help them "reach" more fans. You read that right: The SPORTS WORLD feels it needs to associate itself with a movie about SPIDER-MAN in order to remain "cool" and "relevent." Again: A SPORT now needs to be associated with a COMIC-BOOK HERO in an attempt to make the SPORT cooler.
New Age Of Geek Cinema? Don't say I didn't warn ya.
BTW, back to the AP story, how funny is it that they found time to go and get a downer quote from Ralph Nader about this? Money quote from His Spoilerness:
"It's gotten beyond grotesque," Nader said. "The fans have to revolt here. Otherwise, they'll be looking at advertisements between advertisements."
Less than a year away from the election, a major war effort turning to muck before our eyes, a MAJOR war-related scandal breaking over the week, and a candidate for the U.S. presidency finds time to publicly dennounce... Spider-Man 2 logos on bases? Huh? Must be all part of Nader's (thus far) campaign-wide plan to inform everyone who thought he was "cool" compared to Bush and Gore four years ago what a PILL he tends to be overall...
Show of hands: Who's surprised about this?
...
Didn't think so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ei=5006&en=89982416bdce50c0&ex=1084334400&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=
Here's the basics: Michael Moore has a documentary, "Farenheit 911," which he claims is largely about connections between the Bush and Saudi families and the possible effects of such on the current War On Terror. Miramax was set to distribute the film domestically in the U.S. Disney owns Miramax. Disney is "asking" Miramax not to distribute the film for fear of controversy. Everybody got that? Okay. Here's what's going on here:
However you feel about Michael Moore, his films are consistently two things: High-profile and controversial. Whatever you think of it's intent, "Farenheit 911" is going to be interpreted on all sides as an unsubtle indictment of the president and his policies timed for release in an election year. This makes for a doubly-controversial situation.
What we have here is a clash of wills between two parts of a studio which, collectively, is lacking almost entirely in guts. Disney is just about the most spineless of all the major studios, terrified of offending ANYONE. Miramax is not exactly huge in the bravery department, if not for Tarantino's "Kill Bill" films they would have had virtually NOTHING worth legitimately bragging about for the last five years, at least.
Spineless they may be, both sides are driven by profit and shoring up their "base appeal." Miramax's desire to distribute the film has NOTHING to do with politics or a yearning to be involved with edgy material and EVERYTHING to do with solidifying the Weinstein's cozy relationship with the film community in Western Europe, where Moore's films have a wider political appeal than most other American political documentaries tend to. Likewise, politically-correct Disney is NO ONE'S idea of a "right wing" studio ideologically, but they worship at the altar of wide-as-possible appeal and Moore's films are always largely divisive: Disney wants NO part of any film that can't be hyped to appeal to every last demographic on Earth and beyond.
This was innevitable. Earlier in the year, the big gossip was that Mel Gibson's "Icon Productions" was going to distribute the film, an odd match considering Gibson's ultra-cozy relationship with the extremist Religious Right in general and the Bush family itself. Icon dropped out and Miramax dropped in.
My prediction: Miramax can always be counted on to buckle under the threat of controversy, especially with big boss Eisner cracking the whip as of late. I doubt that they'll want to stand up against the barrage of media scrutiny that'll be "afforded" the film by the Republican party, Fox News Channel and the like. It really doesn't make any financial sense for them to do so: Documentaries, even big ones, are seldom blockbusters, and no matter what side of it your on Moore's film IS going to be largely a polemic. His films aren't designed to change minds so much as give those who already agree with him ample ammunition with which to atriculate their beliefs.
The juiciest rumor here, of course, is "The Florida Connection." Some in Moore's camp are accusing Disney of making the decision not out of political or ideological concerns of their own, but rather to avoid having Florida's governor, (the President's brother Jeb) of yanking the special tax breaks Disney gets on their Florida theme parks. Whether thats true or not we'll likely never know, but it makes things much more interesting.
Overall, this is all mostly smoke-and-mirrors damage control: Moore's film will be playing at Cannes, already has European distributors, etc. It will find an U.S. distributor and all of the "trouble" it's had getting made will become part of it's "legend." Moore's fans have nothing to fear about the film being "surpressed," while his detractors are probably overreacting to the amount of "damage" the film can do to Bush politically as Moore (again, all personal feelings about him aside) is usually seen by both his fans and haters as largely preaching to the choir.
That being said.. Disney, do us all a favor and grow a spine.
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|