The Credit Card for Filmmakers

I think I might've unintentionally offended Dan Eisenberg of Cinemathematics when I (jokingly) accused him of stealing my "Great Cinematic Speeches" feature with his contribution to the recent Billy Wilder Blog-a-thon. I did say that as long as he gave me credit for it I didn't mind, but I'm unsure as to whether my sense of humor was coming across properly or not. It's always so hard to be witty or sarcastic in writing without seeming mean or petty. At any rate, it really didn't bother me at all.

However, if he so wishes, Dan can legitimately accuse ME of theft as I am shamelessly copying his most recent post where he juxtaposes the beginning of Truffaut's Day For Night with the well-known Wed Anderson American Express commerical. I remember first seeing this commercial in the theatre before a movie (couldn't tell you which one though) and loving it. I'm not certain but I suspect Anderson also directed the ad as well as appeared in it. It certainly seems like something he'd do. If so, I think the idea of having prominent filmmakers direct AND act in these credit card commercials (where the filmmaker's personality can be seen in the style as well as the content) is a fabulous idea. I've seen the Wes Anderson ad probably fifty times now, so I think I'm ready for a few new ones featuring a different director. I caught one that M. Knight Shyamalan did on TV one night and it didn't particularly impress me.

This one, however, had me in stitches:



Again, I don't know whether Marty himself directed the ad or not, but his ability to poke fun at himself is wonderful. Here's a brilliant artist who (as the ad indicates) takes his work seriously, but not himself seriously. I think it's very possible that the Academy was simply waiting for him to do this commercial before giving him his Oscar.

Another Interesting Movie Quiz

Dennis Cozzalio is doing another one of his fun movie quizzes over at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. I have to admit that I love these things (even if they are somewhat of a humbling experience as they remind me how much more I still have to learn about film). Anyway, here are my answers to this latest quiz (my responses to the first one can be found here).


1) What movie did you have to see multiple times before deciding whether you liked or disliked it?
I didn't really "get" (and consequently didn't enjoy) 2001 the first time I saw it. Took me a couple more viewings, as well as reading some literature on it, to properly love and appreciate it for the great masterwork it is.

2) Inaugural entry into the Academy of the Overrated.
Quinten Tarantino. Whenever I hear this guy praised as a "genius," hailed as "the next Scorsese" or referred to as the "voice of a generation," my heart just sinks (and no, I am not particularly looking forward to Grindhouse).

3) Favorite sly or not-so-sly reference to another film or bit of pop culture within another film.
Gosh, where to begin? There are so many to choose from. I think I'm going to pick Burton's homage to Deliverance with the image of the Joker's hand emerging from the noxious chemicals in Batman.

4) Favorite Michael Powell/Emeric Pressburger movie.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea who these people are.

5) Your favorite Oscar moment.
When Roger Moore joined Sean Connery onstage at the 1989 ceremony and introduced himself as "Bond," that was something I had been waiting my whole life to see. Oh, it was kind of neat that Michael Caine was there too.

6) Hugo Weaving or Guy Pearce?
I plead the fifth.

7) Movie that you feel gave you the greatest insight into a world/culture/person/place/event that you had no understanding of before seeing it.
I know I've said this many times before and will no doubt have cause to say it again, but Schindler's List changed my life. As someone who was relatively ignorant of the Holocaust prior to seeing the film (as were a lot of people my age unfortunately), it certainly opened my eyes to the enormity of that dark period in history, but it also confronted me with how truly evil we human beings can be as well as illustrating the extreme level of nobility and heroism of which we are capable. As a friend of mine said: "Few films have unpacked quite so beautifully or honestly both the darkness and the light within the human soul."

8) Favorite Samuel Fuller movie.
Confession time: I have never seen one of Fuller's movies.

9) Monica Bellucci or Maria Grazia Cucinotta?
Monica is sooooo beautiful!

10) What movie can take a nothing day and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile?
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for me to watch Young Frankenstein without feeling good.

11) Conversely, what movie can destroy a day’s worth of good humor just by catching a glimpse of it while channel surfing?
I haven't seen Armageddon. since I first subjected myself to it in the theatre, but did manage to catch a few seconds of it on TV not too long ago. My entire day was ruined.

12) Favorite John Boorman movie.
Need you ask? See #3.

13) Warren Oates or Bruce Dern?
Bruce all the way, baby!

14) Your favorite aspect ratio.
I'm flexible. As long as the style and subject matter of the film seems to "fit" its aspect ratio, I'm not too picky. Still, you gotta love those colorful landscape shots in glorious cinemascope!

15) Before he died in 1984, Francois Truffaut once said: “The film of tomorrow will resemble the person who made it.” Is there any evidence that Truffaut was right? Is it Truffaut’s tomorrow yet?
I'd be interested to know precisely what Truffaut meant by "resemble." In what way exactly would a film "resemble" the person who made it... and why only one person? Is he predicting that films of tomorrow will cease to be collaborative efforts?

16) Favorite Werner Herzog movie.
If we can count films he's acted in as well as directed... Incident at Loch Ness. I just love that movie.

17) Favorite movie featuring a rampaging, oversized or otherwise mutated beast, or beasts.
I'm almost tempted to give the same answer I gave to the last question... but I can't. I gotta go with the "ultimate" monster movie: Jaws. I must admit that I never tire of watching that film. In fact, I have to view it at least once a year (usually in the summertime).

18) Sandra Bernhard or Sarah Silverman?
God, I hate Sandra Bernhard!

19) Your favorite, or most despised, movie cliché.
Whenever someone says the line: "I'm goin' in!"

*EDIT*

In re-reading my answer to this question, I noticed that I forgot to make it clear that it was my most DESPISED movie cliche and not my favorite. My favorite movie cliche would have the be the always beautiful shot of the drapes swirling gently in the wind to indicate someone has just escaped out the window. Thank God nobody in the movies ever owns venetians blinds.

20) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-- yes or no?
I really don't understand all the ill will that is directed at this movie. Granted, it may be the least of the three (soon to be four) Indy films, but compared to most other Hollywood fare, I think it's still quite good.

21) Favorite Nicholas Ray movie.
Only seen one: Rebel Without a Cause

22) Inaugural entry into the Academy of the Underrated.
I don't think Bruce Willis gets enough credit for his acting.

23) Your favorite movie dealing with the subject of television.
Well, Network first comes to mind and I suspect it's the film most people will choose. Rightfully so, of course, as it was certainly a very prophetic film on the changing face of television... but then again, in many ways so was The Truman Show, so (just to be different) I'm going to go with the latter.

24) Bruno Ganz or Patrick Bauchau?
Ganz gave what I consider to be on the finest performances ever committed to celluloid when he played Hitler in Downfall.

25) Your favorite documentary, or non-fiction, film.
Clear Cut: the Story of Philomath, Oregon (but my reason is somewhat embarassing to admit).

26) According to Orson Welles, the director’s job is to “preside over accidents.” Name a favorite moment from a movie that seems like an accident, or a unintended, privileged moment. How did it enhance or distract from the total experience of the movie?
The lobster scene from Annie Hall is such a wonderful example of two people who love each other just laughing and having fun together that the "reality" of the moment and the "fantasy" of the scene become virtually indistinguishable from one another.

27) Favorite Wim Wenders movie.
Oh man, this is pathetic but... I've yet to see a Wim Wenders film too.

28) Elizabeth Pena or Penelope Cruz?
By default: Elizebeth Pena (not a big fan of Penelope Cruz).

29) Your favorite movie tag line (Thanks, Jim!)
Just to throw a little more love at the movie: "If adventure has a name, it must be Indiana Jones."

30) As a reader, filmgoer, or film critic, what do you want from a film critic, or from film criticism? And where do you see film criticism in general headed?
In our intensely relativistic age, I understand that a lot of film criticism essentially boils down to personal opinion (as, one could argue, does art analysis in general), but I wish there was more of a concerted effort in the criticism "community" for some degree of objectivity. Even if it proves to be something that is not actually attainable, I think it should be some type of "goal" or "end" to which all aesthetes strive. As it is, critics nowadays not only proclaim their subjectivity, they seem to actually celebrate it, thus leaving very little room for any kind of change, progression or personal growth. It's a very safe place to be, something they can almost "hide behind." After all, one can never be "wrong" when there is no such thing as "wrong" in the first place. That's why I admire critics who seem to have at least some sense of consistent criteria which they bring with them to their evaluations rather than merely being caught up in their own wittiness (such as using hyperbole and making clever puns out of the title of a movie they didn't like rather than trying to specify what was poorly done about the film).

Basically, I hope that the film critics of the future are more like Roger Ebert than Richard Roeper.

EXTRA CREDIT: Do movies still matter?
Movies will always matter. To me, that's like asking: "Does painting still matter? Or theatre? Or music? or dance?"

Great Cinematic Speeches: "M"

As I was re-visiting Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea with Kirk Douglas, James Mason and Peter Lorre last night, I was reminded of yet another soliloquy to add to my ongoing list of great movie speeches: the "defense" that Peter Lorre's child-murdering psychotic gives as he stands trial in Fritz Lang's "M." It is certainly a harrowing bit of cinema made all the more riveting by Lorre's intense performance as the seriosuly disturbed individual who "just can't help himself." As always, if you haven't seen the film yet, SPOILERS may follow.

Did the Butler FINALLY do it?

This weekend's release of 300, Zack Snyder's cinematic "translation" (to use Robert Rodriguez's term) of Frank Miller's well-known graphic novel has lots of people very excited, not the least of all comic book fans. I happen to be one of those fans. I was very much looking forward to the film and, having just seen it, it fulfilled all of my expectations. There is, however, another reason why this film's release, and all of the hype surrounding it, pleases me. It's because I am confident it will accomplish something that I've been hoping will happen for a long time: it will turn Gerard Butler into a star.

For those who may not know, Gerry (as he prefers to be called) is the 38-year-old Scottish actor who plays the role of Spartan King Leonides with conviction, authority and gravitas. He's someone whose career I have been following for several years now and despite the fact that I think he has everything a fellow would need to become an enormosuly successful leading man and A-list movie star (looks, talent, charisma), the level of fame and celebrity available to the likes of Ewan McGregor, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale seems to have eluded him... hopefully until now.

Though I didn't realize it until years later, the first time I saw Butler was in a minor role in the film Her Majesty Mrs. Brown. He wasn't particularly memorable in it, but then it's hard to be when you're working across from Judi Dench and Billy Connelly. Apparently he also appeared briefly in the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies. Kind of funny given that years later Butler's name would be one among dozens of potential successors to Brosnan (though, quite frankly, all it seems an actor needs nowadays to be considered a possible Bond is a penis).


To this day, though, the first time I really consider "seeing" Gerry Butler in a movie was in Wes Craven's Dracula 2000 where he played the titular vampire. The film itself, to use tremendous understatement, is certainly no masterpiece but does have some interesting ideas, a few halfway decent scenes and boasts an effective Van Helsing in the form of veteran actor Christopher Plummer. The biggest impression left on me when I first saw it, though, was by Butler himself. I vividly remember Dracula making his entrance on screen and thinking to myself "Whoa! Who is THAT?" First of all, the man (and I'm secure enough in my sexuality that I can say this) is gorgeous. Secondly, he had remarkable presence. Over the course of the film, Dracula does very little talking and yet Butler still commands the screen whenever he's on it. When he does speak it's in a rather sinister whisper, giving him far more strength and power than if he were waving his arms about and shouting angrily. Despite the massive shortcomings of the film, I think Butler's interpretation of the character is good enough to deserve a place beside such great screen Draculas as Lugosi, Lee, Langella and Oldman. It's amazing that a film which is so overblown and corny can have an element of such subtlety and dignity. I made it a point to remember Butler's name because I was convinced this guy was going places (I thought the same thing of Natalie Portman when I saw her in The Professional).


Over the next few years Butler's face would pop up on occasion, either playing a supporting role in a rather forgettable movie (Reign of Fire, Timeline or the Lara Croft sequel) or a prominent role in a made-for-TV mini-series (BBC's The Jury or TNT's Attila). When it was announced that he would be playing the Phantom of the Opera in the big screen version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's popular stage musical, I was one of the few people who was actually pleased. At the very least, I knew that he could act the part and would have the requisite amount of menace, sympathy and sexiness. I was also hopeful that it might finally lift his career to the next level, but unfortunately it did not happen. If anything, it probably hurt him. Butler's limitations as a singer did not endear him to many "phans" and, as one critic astutley observed, he had the un-enviable job of being "the guy who's not Michael Crawford." After the film's upsetting reception I realized I was going to have to wait a little longer for Butler to get the attention I felt he deserved... although during this time Butler was making the rounds of the talk-show circuit (Leno, Ferguson, Ellen, etc) demonstrating his immense charm and ease and, through the process, winning a few female fans. That sexy Scottish accent I'm sure didn't hurt him either.


Also during this time, Butler managed to show up in a couple very good, though perhaps not hugely successful, indie movies such as The Game Of Their Lives (also known as The Miracle Match), a charming little film about one of the great upsets in sports history. There was also Dear Frankie, a tale about a deaf boy (Jack mcElhone) living with his mother (Emily Mortimer) who has told him some rather rosy untruths about his father, a terribly abusive man from whom she is feeling. Butler plays a character known only as "the stranger" that she hires to pretend to be his father. In spite of how it sounds, it's actually a very charming, very sweet (though not maudlin) film and a film that Butler should be proud of, despite the fact it wasn't going to be turning him into a "above-the-title" actor.

Now, with 300, Gerry finally lands his first "real" leading role in a high-concept Hollywood blockbuster (in which he performs admirably well) and I think it's high time. Perhaps from now on, whenever the name "Gerard Butler" is mentioned, the typical response from people will no longer be: "Who?"

The REAL Zodiac

I know the TRUE identity of the Zodiac Killer!

After going to see (and loving) Zodiac last weekend I decided to take home the 2005 film The Zodiac for comparison. As it turned out, David Fincher's movie was far superior, but something interesting did come from viewing this version. I was about five minutes into it when, lo and behold, I saw one of the same faces that I had seen in the other film: Philip Baker Hall, the actor who appeared in such films as Hard Eight, Magnolia and a whole host of others. In this one he plays the chief of police in Vallejo. In Fincher's film, he's a handwriting expert. At first I was amused by this coincidence"... but then I realized what it actually suggests.

Philip Baker Hall is the Zodiac Killer!

Think about it. Why else would he possibly want to appear in not just one but TWO films based on his own handiwork? Also, Hall is 75 years old, so he was certainly alive during the time of the actual killings.

In one of his messages Zodiac wrote: "I am waiting for a good movie about me. Who will play me?" Clearly he was hoping that he would.

Poster Pet Peeves

A while back I wrote a post entitled Is There Nothing New Under the Sun? in which I drew attention to the fact that the one-sheet for the soon-to-be released Becoming Jane was shamelessly imitating the same design from the posters for Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. Lack of originality is just one of my many "poster pet peeves." Today, when I saw the one-sheet for an upcoming comedy called The Nanny Diaries, I was reminded of yet another one.

Look at the image below and see if something doesn't jump out at you.


Do you see it?

That's clearly Scarlett Johansson sitting there on top of the film's title (I know because I not only recognize her pouty expression but I see her name conspicuously placed beside her). So who is that sitting next to her? Well, I can tell you who it's not. It is most decidely NOT Laura Linney! So, why on earth have they placed Linney's name on the opposite side of the boy in exactly the same corresponsing spot as Johannson's? That just makes no sense whatsoever! I wish this gross miscalculation in "name placement" were an isolated incident but, unfortunately, I have observed the phenomenon on many a movie poster.




I understand, of course, that the graphic elements on a movie's one-sheet are usually designed independently from the copy, which can often end up creating some sense of incongruency in the final product. This is why I greatly respect movie posters that have the images and the words interacting in a creative way (in the case of Stranger Than Fiction, for example, it actually emphasizes one of the major themes in the film, which any good movie poster should do; it ends up being not only very funny but somewhat profound).


I also realize that actor's agents probably fight "tooth and nail" to ensure their client's names get displayed in a certain manner when it comes to all publicity surrounding a film. I can just hear the telephone conversation now: "Oh, and I want my boy's name to be centered above the title and on it's own line. I don't want any other names next to it. I also want it to be in the biggest type on the page. Everyone else has to be smaller. (pause) So what if he directed the movie? He's not getting his name larger than my client's. (pause) I DON'T CARE WHETHER HE FINALLY WON HIS OSCAR OR NOT! LARGEST LETTERS ON THE PAGE! GOT THAT? AT LEAST TWICE AS LARGE AS EVERYTHING ELSE! (pause) Well, okay. If it absolutely, positively must be smaller than the title... but we have to get another 20 million for that!"

Still, for all that, one would think that the artists (and I use that word deliberately) who are ultimately responsible or the poster wouldn't want to compromise the unity of the entire piece. Even if it meant little more than a simple flip of the photo (which would actually solve the problem more often than not), surely it would create a better impression for the movie than having one of your star's names placed next to the likeness of a small boy. As it stands, it looks like a case of "the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing" (which is what happens when these things are done by committee). Whether it's ignorance, laziness, stubbornness, apathy or just plain stupidity, mis-attributed names on movie posters is a major annoyance and I just don't see any excuse for it.

The ONE time that I saw it occurr and it didn't bother me was for the remake of Freaky Friday. Given the body-switching gimmick of the story, this particular mis-placement turned out to be a rather clever aspect of the film's one-sheet.


In fact, since the movie itself to Freaky Friday was suprisingly good, I wonder if I'm not giving the "poster people" enough credit here. Is it perhaps possible that they engineered the name-switch on purpose? Could it be that creativity has not completely disappeared from the "art" of movie publicity?

You decide.

Coincidence?

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that this guy stole my feature... but I posted my own piece on the Few Good Men speech only a little over a week ago.

Hmmmmm.....


*EDIT*

Now here is someone, on the other hand, that I know for sure took my idea. However, he did give me credit for it, so I guess I don't really mind. Plus, he chose a great speech. :)