|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Movies | |
|
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Link Dump: Space! Time is short, so just a few space themed links for you:
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Netflix Activity The recent bout with myTV on DVD addiction necessitated an increase in Netflix usage, which made me curious. How well have I really taken advantage of the Netflix service, and is it worth the monthly expense? If I were to rent a movie at a local video store like Blockbuster, each rental would cost somewhere around $4 (this is an extremely charitable estimate, as I'm sure it's probably closer to $5 at this point), plus the expense in time and effort (I mean, come on, I'd have to drive about a mile out of my way to go to one of these places!) Netflix costs me $15.99 a month for the 3-disc-at-a-time plan (this plan was $17.99 when I signed up, but decreased in price two times during around two years of membership), so it takes about 4-5 Netflix rentals to recoup my costs and bring the price of an average rental down below $4. I've been a member for one year and ten months... how did I do (click for a larger version)? 
A few notes on the data:
This has been an interesting exercise, because I feel like I'm a little more consistent than the data actually shows. I'm really surprised that there are several months where my rentals went down to 6... I could have sworn I watched at least 2-3 discs a week, with the occasional exception. Still, an average of 9 movies a month is nothing to sneeze about, I guess. I've heard horror stories of where Netflix will start throttling you and take longer to deliver discs if you go above a certain amount of rentals per month (at a certain point, the cost of processing your rentals becomes more than you're paying, which I guess is what prompts Netflix to start throttling you), but I haven't had a problem yet. If I keep up my recent viewing habits though, this could change...
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Top 5 Anticipated Summer Movies The first few months of 2008 has been a real movie wasteland. A couple of interesting releases, but nothing all that great. As summer approaches, things are looking up a little. The guys at Filmspotting will be doing a top 5 anticipated summer movies on Friday, so in an effort to beat them to the punch, here's my top 5:
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Episodes I've been watching a lot of TV on DVD (or Netflix Watch Online) lately. It can be quite an addictive experience, as the shows don't have commercials and many episodes end with something interesting (not necessarily a cliffhanger, but enough to make you want to see what happens next). I usually end up watching a bunch of episodes at once. In the past few months I've watched a bunch of shows in this fashion, including Dexter (seasons 1 and 2), Battlestar Galactica (season 3), It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (seasons 1 and 2), Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, and The Wire (seasons 1 and 2). It helps that all of these shows are pretty good, but I began to wonder about the impact of watching shows on DVD versus broadcast television. I also started to wonder what the ideal length of a TV episode should be and why most Anime series, even dramatic ones, tend to be only a half-hour, while the best American drama series tend to be an hour per episode... A few weeks ago, I finished up BSG season three and in my post on the subject, I said: I'll be able to watch season 4 as it happens. This presents an interesting contrast though, as I've watched the first three seasons on DVD. I've been wondering lately what impact this sort of schedule has on the perception of a series. It's certainly fun to watch. Addicting, actually. Will watching only a single episode a week (as opposed to 4 commercial-free episodes at a time) have a positive impact on my perception of the show? It's obviously a highly subjective question, but I guess I'm going to find out.So we're a few episodes into season 4 of BSG, and I have to say that I'm not enjoying it as much as when I was watching it on DVD (though the latest episode was pretty good). It's hard to tell if it's the notion of having to wait a week between episodes, or if it's just that the quality of the episodes is bothering me, and there's no real way to accurately test this, though I suppose if I do it more often (i.e. watch a series on DVD and catch up to the broadcast) I could get a better idea of how this impacts a show. Season 3 of Dexter is supposed to start up sometime this summer, so I guess that's my next chance... I'm particularly interested in this when it comes to Anime episodes, because most of us Westerners pick up DVD sets and watch multiple episodes at a time. Perhaps it's the typical half-hour duration that Anime uses (more on this later), but I wonder if a series would get frustrating if I had to wait a week between episodes. For GitS:SAC, there are some episodes that fit well into the series when watching it all at once, but that I think i'd find frustrating if I had to wait a week to see the next episode. For instance, the entirety of episode 9 takes place in a chat room where a bunch of people talk about the Laughing Man (a cyber-terrrorist whos is being chased throughout the series). I guess some interesting stuff comes to light in that episode, but if I was watching that series as it aired, I might have been a little more underwhelmed. I love Haibane Renmei, but I have to admit that it's probably not something I'd have stuck with if I had to wait a week between each episode (at least, not until DVD). And so on. I think part of that is that the duration for the grand majority of Anime seems to be a half-hour (with commercials, OPs, and EDs, it works out to around 22-23 minutes an episode), and I'm not sure that's the ideal length for some of the stories that are being told through Anime. Of course, lumping all Anime together is foolish, as it's extremely broad and some series work fine. So what is the ideal length of a TV episode? Let's take a look at the typical lengths (emphasis is on American series, as that's what I'm most familiar with, but I'll also go a little into Anime):
These days there are too many long-form TV shows to list. A big part of this is that people have broken away from broadcast television and consume their media in different ways (DVRs, torrents, even waiting for a DVD set), so they don't really have to worry about missing an episode and losing track of what's happening in the story. There's also a notion that television series have gotten much more complex and referential to be more cognitively engaging for the audience (Steven Johnson makes a compelling case for this sort of thing in his book, Everything Bad is Good for You). It's much easier to develop a multi-threaded story comprised of a complex network of relationships in 12-24 hours than it is in one or two hours. Interestingly, television used to be the domain of the short form narrative, where a story was crammed into a 23 or 46 minute timeframe. Movies told more of a long form story that took 90 minutes to 3 or even 4 hours to develop. However, as time goes on and our ability to time-shift television programming gets better, television and film have become inverted. Television now tells the long form stories, and because they have even more time than movies, their stories can be that much richer and more complex. Of course, this all depends on how well done the television show is. The Wire would certainly hold its own with most movies, but it's also a bit of an outlier. Most shows are not done at the same quality level as The Wire. Given the above, I have to wonder why there aren't more Anime series that have a one hour format. I think hour long episodes tend to be better for telling a complete narrative (or contributing a more meaningful chunk of an overall story arc) than a half hour episode, so I think it would be interesting to see an Anime series take on that sort of format. For instance, I think GitS:SAC would benefit greatly from a little more time to flesh out the characters and their universe (which, as I've noted before, can sometimes be a little confusing - though I should note that SAC is better at this than the feature films, which have even less time to spare). Instead, I get a rushed feeling from some episodes (and I had a similar reaction to some episodes of of Vandread and Cowboy Bebop too). In many cases, Anime series are already telling a long form story, so it would be interesting to see if an hour long format would make that long form story better (or worse?)
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Philadelphia Film Festival: Recap I had meant to write reviews as I went, but things didn't work out that way, so here's a recap of all the films I've seen this week. Star ratings are out of 4 stars.
Update: Made some edits, specifically to the Storm review... Also removed the The Last House in the Woods entry, as I didn't end up seeing that film...
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Philadelphia Film Festival: Confession of Pain One of the more successful Hong Kong films of recent years is Infernal Affairs, a story of an undercover cop and a police department mole. It was remade in the U.S. as The Departed and it netted Scorcese's first oscars (among others). The symmetrical plot of Infernal Affairs is cliever and complex, but the real strength of the film is the psychological struggle of people who've been undercover for so long they're not sure who they are anymore. Confession of Pain is from the same writers and directors as Infernal Affairs. The plot doesn't feature the clever symmetry of Infernal Affairs and the psychological aspects aren't as deep, but the stakes are still high and the story is still complex and interesting. After his girlfriend commits suicide, Detective Yau Kin Bong quits the force and becomes a private investigator. He also becomes an alcoholic. His former partner and friend Lau Ching Hei keeps tabs on him, and when someone murders Hei's father-in-law, Hei's wife hires Bong to investigate the suspicious circumstances of the murder. It sounds like a pretty standard plot, but the filmmakers manage to wring a lot of complexity out of it by employing a lot of noir story elements and maybe some of the Infernal Affairs-like symmetry. It ends up being a story of betrayal and revenge, and there are numerous surprises along the way. The lead performances by Tony Leung and Takeshi Kaneshiro are great, and the visuals are sleeker and more cinematic than Infernal Affairs. It moves a little slowly and there are some confusing hiccups along the way (perhaps a lost in translation sorta thing), but in the end, it's a very well executed noir-like mysery/thriller. Apparently, a U.S. remake of this film is also in the works, though I'm not sure this one will go over as well... *** (out of 4 stars)
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Battlestar Galactica I've spent the better part of this past week catching up with the third season of Battlestar Galactica on DVD (in preparation for the start of the 4th season later this week) and I realized that it's not something I've discussed on the blog, so here are a few thoughts (Spoilers are called out at the start of a bullet).
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Vigilantes I recently finished watching both seasons of Dexter. The series has a fascinating premise: the titular hero, Dexter Morgan, is a forensic analyst (he's a "blood spatter expert") for the Miami police by day, but a serial killer by night. He operates by a "code," only murdering other murderers (usually ones who've beaten the system). The most interesting thing about Dexter's code is the implication that he does not follow the code out of some sort of dedication to morality or justice. He knows what he does is evil, but he follows his code because it's the most constructive way to channel his aggression. Of course, the code is not perfect, and a big part of the series is how the code shapes him and how he, in turn, shapes it. To be honest, watching the series is a little odd and disturbing when you realize that you're essentially rooting for a serial killer (an affable and charming one, to be sure, but that's part of why it's disturbing). I started to think about this a bit, and several other examples of similar characters came to mind. There's a lot more to the series, but I don't want to ruin it with a spoiler-laden discussion here. Instead, I want to talk about vigilantes. Despite the lack of concern for justice (or perhaps because of that), Dexter is essentially a vigilante... someone who takes the law into his own hands. There is, of course, a long history of vigilantism, in both real life and art. Indeed, many classic instances happened long before the word vigilante was coined - for example, Robin Hood. He stole from the rich to give to the poor, and was immortalized as a folk hero whose tales are still told to this day. I think there is a certain cultural fascination with vigilantes, especially vigilantes in art. Take superheroes, most of whom are technically vigilantes. Sure, many stand for all that is good in the world and often cite truth and justice as motivation, but the evolution of comic books shows something interesting. I haven't read a whole lot of comic books (especially of the superhero kind), but the impression I get is that when the craze started in the 1930s, it was all about heroics and people serving the common good. There was also a darker edge to some of them, and that edge has grown as time progressed. Batman is probably the most relevant to this discussion, as he shares a complicated relationship with the police and a certain above-the-law attitude towards solving crimes. Interestingly, the Batman of the 1930s was probably a darker, more violent superhero than he was in the 1940s, when one editor issued a decree that the character could no longer kill or use a gun. As such, the postwar Batman became more of an upstanding citizen, and the stories took on a lighter tone (definitely an understandable direction, considering what the world had been through). I'm sure I'm butchering the Batman chronology here, but the next sigificant touchstone for Batman came in 1986, with the publication of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Written and drawn by Frank Miller, the series reintroduced Batman as a dark, brooding character with complex psychological issues. A huge success, this series ushered in a new era of "grim and gritty" superheros that still holds today. In general, our superheroes have become much more conflicted. Many (like Batman) tackle the vigilante aspect head on, and if you look at something like Watchmen (or The Incredibles, if you want a lighter version), you can see a shift in the way such stories are told. I'm sure there are literally hundreds of other examples in the comic book world, but I want to shift gears for a moment and examine another cultural icon that Dexter reminded me of: Dirty Harry. Inspector Harry Callahan is an incredibly popular character, but apparently not with critics: Critics have rarely cracked the whip harder than on the Dirty Harry film series, which follows the exploits of a trigger-happy San Francisco cop named Harry Callahan and his junior partners, usually not long for this world. On its release in 1971, Dirty Harry was trounced as 'fascist medievalism' by the potentate of the haut monde critic set, Pauline Kael, as well as aspiring Kaels like young Roger Ebert. Especially irksome to the criterati was a key moment in the film when Inspector Callahan, on the trail of an elusive serial sniper, is reprimanded by his superiors for not taking into account the suspect's Miranda rights. Callahan replies, through clenched teeth, "Well, I'm all broken up about that man's rights." Take that, Miranda.I should say that critics often give the film (at least, the first one) generally good overall marks, praising its "suspense craftsmanship" or calling it "a very good example of the cops-and-killers genre." But I'm fascinated by all the talk of fascism. Despite working within the system, Dirty Harry indeed does take the law into his own hands, and in doing so he ignores many of our treasured Constitutional freedoms. And yet we all cheer him on, just as we cheer Batman and Dexter. Why are these characters so popular? Why do we cheer such characters on even when we know what they're doing is ultimately wrong? I think it comes down to desire. We all desire justice. We want to see wrongs being made right, yet every day we can turn on the TV and watch non-stop failures of our system, whether it be rampant crime or a criminal going free or any other number of indignities. Now, I'm not an expert, but I don't think our society today is much worse off than it was, say, a hundred years ago (In fact, I think we're significantly better off, but that's another discussion). The big difference is that information is disseminated more widely and quickly, and dramatic failures of the system are attention grabbing, so that's what we get. What's more, these stories tend to focus on the most dramatic, most obscene examples. It's natural for people to feel helpless in the face of such news, and I think that's why everyone tends to embrace vigilante stories (note that people don't generally embrace actual real-life vigilantes - that's important, and we'll get to that later). Such stories serve many purposes. They allow us to cope with life's tragedies, internalize them and in some way comfort us, but as a deeper message, they also emphasize that the world is not perfect, and that we'll probably never solve the problem of crime. In some ways, they act as a critique of our system, pointing out it's imperfections and thereby making sure we don't become complacent in the ever-changing fight against crime. Of course, there is a danger to this way of thinking, which is why critics like Pauline Kael get all huffy when they watch something like Dirty Harry. We don't want to live in a police state, and to be honest, a real cop who acted like Dirty Harry would probably be an awful cop. Films like that deal in extremes because they're trying to make a point, and it's easy to misinterpret such films. I doubt people would really accept a cop like Dirty Harry. Sure, some folks might applaud his handling of the Scorpio case that the film documents (audiences certainly did!), but police officers don't handle a single case in the course of their career, and most cases aren't that black and white either. Dirty Harry would probably be fired out here in the real world. Ultimately, while we revel in such entertainment, we don't actually want real life to imitate art in this case. However, that doesn't mean we enjoy hearing about a vicious drug dealer going free because the rules of evidence were not followed to the letter. I think deep down, people understand that concepts like the rules of evidence are important, but they can also be extremely frustrating. This is why we have conflicting emotions when we watch the last scene in Dirty Harry, in which he takes off his police badge and throws it into the river. I think this is a large part of why vigilante stories have evolved. Comic book heroes like Batman have become more conflicted, and newer comic books often deal with the repercussions of vigilatism. The Dirty Harry sequel, Magnum Force, was apparently made as a direct answer to the critics of Dirty Harry who thought that film was openly advocating law-sanctioned vigilantism. In Magnum Force, the villains are vigilante cops. Then you have modern day vigilantes like Dexter, which pumps audiences full of conflicting emotions. I like this guy, but he's a serial killer. He's stopping other killers, but he's doing so in such a disturbing way. Are vigilante stories fascist fantasies? Perhaps, but fantasies aren't real. They're used to illustrate something, and in the case of vigilante fantasies, they illustrate a desire for justice. The existence of a show like Dexter will repulse some people and that's certainly an understandable reaction. In fact, I think that's exactly what the show's creators want to do. They're walking the line between satisfying the desire for justice while continually noting that Dexter is not a good person. Ironically, what would repulse me more would be the complete absence of stories like Dexter, because the only way such a thing could happen would be if everyone thought our society was perfect. Perhaps someday concepts like justice and crime will be irrelevant, but that day ain't coming soon, and until it does, we'll need such stories, if only to remind us that we don't live in a perfect world.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Hey Internet, Stop Being Such Cynical Effing Douchebags Blog-a-Thon So in the movie blogging world (and probably others), there's something called a "blog-a-thon" in which someone proposes a topic and then lots of folks write a post on that topic (this is similar to what's called a "carnival" in other areas of the internet). I've never actually participated in one of these blog-a-thons, so I figured I'd give it a shot. Stacie Ponder recently threw up a challenge: I'm not afraid to get excited about movies. When did looking forward to something or having an unabashed I cannot fucking wait to see that attitude become passe? These are movies, people...they're entertainment. I pay money to be entertained, and I want my fucking face rocked off. I want to circle a release date on my calendar and be the first in line when the date arrives. ...Well then, what shall I write about? She's not picky about it - I can choose a movie or a scene or just about anything I want. There's actually a pretty easy answer for this, one which I've been looking forward to for a long, long time. I got a taste about 2 years ago and had an opportunity to revisite about a year ago, but due to circumstances beyond my control, I could not participate. So another year has passed, and this time I'm ready. I've circled my calendar and I've even taken time off work so that I can partake in the filmic goodness that is the 2008 Phildelphia Film Festival. To be more specific, I'm filled with "complete and total unbridled fucking retarded JOY" for the Danger After Dark series, which is filled with all sorts of horror and gangster films. I've never even heard of most of them, but I think that's a big part of the appeal (and it's part of what made my experience in 2006 so fun). Yeah, sure, the PFF isn't a world renowned festival like Sundance, Toronto, or Cannes, but it's my damn festival, and I love that there's a whole slew of genre films that I'll probably never get a chance to see otherwise. Sure, there are some other festival darlings I'll probably check out (Son of Rambow comes to mind), but what I'm really looking forward to is the unbridled joy of genre filmmaking. In 2006, I saw a bunch of Danger After Dark films, and absolutely loved every minute of it. The only thing missing from this year's festivities is another Adult Swim For Your Lives event.  Timecrimes Just a few movies that are currently on my list:
 Pistoleros And then there's to the totally off the wall stuff, like Bad Biology (from the makers of Frankenhooker!) or Dead Fury (raunchy, gory, animated fun directed by someone who's actually known as FSudol). No, it's not a prestigious festival, but I like it, and I can't wait. Update: The Blog-a-thon is up over at Final Girl.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Trailer Park It's been a while since I've kept up with what movies are in production. I used to totally geek-out on various movie news sites and forums. For instance, I remember seeing behind the scenes footage of the first Lord of the Rings film somewhere around 1999 (two years before the film came out). Since then, I've tended to let that sort of thing go (with an occasional exception), for a few reasons. First, it's really annoying to follow a production over the course of years and realize that you still have to wait two more years before you'll finally get to see it (the aformentioned LotR being a good example). Second, following every detail of a production tends to build up expectations that are too lofty... it's rare that a film will truly impress when you've spent years building up expectations (LotR is a good example of that, but again, that's the outlier. A film you've been following for years is more likely to be like The Phantom Menace.) And finally, following a movie production from beginning to end without learning spoilers is near impossible. Even movie trailers these days are often filled with spoilers (plus, they have a tendency to be overedited, repetitive and boring, but we'll get to that in a second.) Trailers are an interesting art form. Since the advent of DVD, I've had the opportunity to watch a lot of older trailers, and boy are they awful! There are some exceptions, of course, but sometimes I'm really in awe of how bad movie trailers used to be. Now, I'm no expert, but I think the zenith of movie trailers was probably the 1990s. I remember going to the movies then and almost looking forward to the trailers as much as the movie I was seeing. Perhaps I've just matured to a point where the tricks of the trade just don't work on me anymore, but I remember enjoying trailers for movies that ended up being terrible. These days, I'm usually able to pick up on that sort of thing right away. Of course, the mid-90s were also a time where people were still in awe of what could be done with the latest special effects... something I imagine people have become bored with. Many of the things that used to make trailers interesting are now simply cliched tropes (i.e. frenetic editing, pulse-pounding music, movie guy voiceover, etc...) I think we're starting to see a trend for more interesting trailers, even though the typical stuff is still dominant. So let's take a look at some recent trailers for big new movies and see if I should start paying more attention:
Update: Fledge comments, and answers the unspoken question: Why is it called a "trailer" if it's shown before the film?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Oscar Liveblogging As is traditional, I'll be liveblogging the Oscars tonight. If you're interested, here are previous installments: 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004. Check back for frequent updates (starting around 8:30 pm EST), and feel free to hang around and leave comments to play along... Anyway, here are my picks for the major awards:
Oh, and Alex has posted his picks (we only really disagree on Best Supporting Acress... he picked the one person I didn't even consider), and he may be liveblogging (though I think the Aussie broadcast is behind the U.S. broadcast... so he'll be delayed). Update 4:00 pm: The fine folks at Greencine will also be liveblogging... Update 7:39 pm: I'm sorry, but does Barbara Walters actually not realize who Ridley Scott is? And she's got this job why? Update 8:03 pm: I'm sorry, I can't take this pre-Oscar, red carpet crap. I'll be back at 8:30, when the updates will come more frequently. Update 8:27 pm: Regis just called Javier Bardem "Xavier" Bardem, and the best part about it was that you could tell that Regis knew he was saying it wrong, but he went ahead anyway like nothing was wrong. Well played Regis. Well played. Update 8:32 pm: And the show begins with a montage thingy. You know, I wonder how the show would have been if the WGA strike was still going strong. There was apparently some super secret plan that was in the works, but obviously didn't see the light of day. And John Stewart is hosting again? Huh, I didn't think anyone would want to host multiple times. Not bad so far. Update 8:36 pm: "Too often, the Academy ignores movies that aren't good" Heh. Oh, and again with the sunglasses, Jack Nicholson? Again? Update 8:42 pm: Oh boy, the costumes award! Let's just say there's a reason I didn't pick one above. And what a shock, the most absurd, showy costumes get the win. Holy crap, I blinked and she was done her speech. Well done, woman I've never heard of! Update 8:50 pm: "Hi, I'm George Clooney, I'm going to mention a bunch of things you wish would happen at this Oscars, like a streaker running across the stage." Depending on how you classify the opening, this is Montage #2. We're only 20 minutes into the broadcast. What's the over under for montages? I'm going to say 18. Place your bets! Update 8:53 pm: Good presentation by Steve Carell, and best Animated Film goes to Ratatouille! I'm one for one so far, and Brad Bird gives a mildly amusing speech, followed by the typical thank yous and the music ushering him off stage. Update 8:56 pm: Were there really so few movies to nominate for Best Makeup? And holy crap, my shot in the dark guess is correct - I'm two for two! Update 8:59 pm: As is traditional, the first best song nominee performance warrants a break so that I can start drinking alcohol. I do like Amy Adams a lot though... Update 9:03 pm: First music performance down, and I'm still alive (mmm, beer). A good sign. I actually am kinda looking forward to "Falling Slowly" from Once. In case you can't tell, musicals ain't my thing, but I kinda enjoyed Once and I think it deserves this award. Update 9:08 pm: Can you smellllll what the Rock is cooking? It's apparently the visual effects award. Again, I have to wonder why there are so few nominees. What the - The Golden Compass wins the award? Huh. I could have sworn Transformers was a shoe-in. I actually never saw The Golden Compass... And I'm 2 for 3 so far. Update 9:12 pm: Art Direction award goes to Sweeney Todd (another movie I haven't seen, but given Tim Burton's work, I'm not surprised this won for Art Direction). I guess we're getting all the "small" awards out of the way first, eh? Heh, people with accents are funny. Almost makes the traditional "Thank You" speech bearable. Update 9:17 pm: Montage #3! Though at least we're getting to a good award early. Best Supporting Actor goes to ("Call it, friendo") Javier Bardem. Shocking! I love it when people speak a foreign language in their acceptance speech. I think they bleeped him too. I'm 3 for 4. Update 9:22 pm: Javier Bardem's speech was not a classic Oscar moment. It could have been, if his entire speech was in Spanish. That would have been awesome. Are you kidding me? Montage #4. For binoculars and periscopes. Seriously? I guess it was a joke, but still. #4. And wow, #5. Bad dreams, an Oscar salute. Making fun of montages with more montages still counts as a montage, right? Update 9:26 pm: Music performance #2, and I'm on beer #2. This does not bode well for me. You'll be lucky if I'm conscious by the end of the Oscars, let alone able to piece together coherent sentences. Update 9:30 pm: Are the short film awards really necessary? Not to belittle the films themselves, but it's not like the grand majority of the audience has ever even heard of these things. And Seinfeld is still pimping his Bee Movie stuff? With another montage (#6)! Update 9:38 pm: Yet another montage (#7). I'm beginning to think that the "super secret Oscar plan" for if the WGA strike was still going was just to show non-stop montages. And best supporting actress goes to Tilda Swinton. Yes! In your face Alex! I'm 4 for 5. And a decent speech too. Update 9:41 pm: The little asides before commercials where former winners comment on their award has also got to be part of the "super secret Oscar plan" for if the WGA strike was still going. Update 9:44 pm: I Watch Stuff is also liveblogging: "Tilda Swindon wins, dressed as half a wizard. Or possibly as an art piece: 'Woman Emerging From Satin.'" Update 9:48 pm: Jack Nicholson "I'm going to have you killed, Josh Brolin." And best adapted screenplay goes to No Country for Old Men. Er, interesting speech? Keep it simple, Ethan. I like it. Incidentally, this does not bode ill for No Country, but it doesn't necessarily bode well either. Best screenplay awards tend to go to movies that are too cool to win the best picture awards. But I still think No Country will win. Update 9:54 pm: Ahhhh, another song. I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Antonio Banderas. (For those who don't know or remember, Banderas performed one of the best song nominees in 2005 in what has become one of the better unintentionally funny Oscar moments). Update 9:58 pm: It's been like, 20 minutes, since the last montage. I'm going through withdrawal pains. Update 10:06 pm: Seth Rogan and Jonah Hill are awesome, imitating Dame Judi Dench and Halle Berre (that would make sense if you were watching - incidentally, how does one become a "Dame"?). And best editing goes to The Bourne Ultimatum. Darn, I'm 4 for 6. This also does not bode so well for No Country though at least There Will Be Blood didn't win, which would be a really bad sign for No Country. And Sound Editing (an award I didn't pick) also goes to The Bourne Ultimatum. Perhaps this isn't too surprising. Lots of people like that movie (including me - it's in my top 10 movies of 2007), so it makes sense that it would be given these smaller awards. Update 10:08 pm: Montage #8! I feel better now. Update 10:14 pm: Cate Blanchett is scared of herself, I think. Or maybe she's just thinking, "I can't believe I got nominated for being in a film no one saw or liked." And best actress goes to... Marion Cotillard? Huh? Ok, I guess. I wasn't expecting that, but then, I didn't see most of the films in this category. Foreign people are funny. I'm 4 for 7. Update 10:20 pm: Fourth nominated song. So close. Oh, and this is the one I actually like. And it's performed by the actual people in the movie. Seriously though, the song loses something without context. But I'm still rooting for this one. Update 10:20 pm: Jack Nicholson, what the hell? You've replaced your lame sunglasses with trendy ones? Montage #9! Best pictures of the past. Update 10:29 pm: I'm a moron. Apparently the earlier award for editing was actually "Sound Editing." But The Bourne Ultimatum wins this one too, so my thoughts then remain. Also, I remain at 4 for 7. Heh, John Stewart: "Someone just took the lead in their Oscar pool with a guess." Hehehe. Update 10:32 pm: Who the hell is Robert Boyle? I bet a montage will tell me why this guy is getting an Honorary Oscar. Yep, montage #10. Score. Update 10:34 pm: Some other livebloggers:
Update 10:50 pm: The crowd is clearly with "Falling Slowly" for best song. It better win. And it does! I actually like the best song winner. Shocking! Make Art, Make Art! Awwww, she didn't get to say anything. Poor girl... I'm 6 for 9. Update 10:54 pm: Montages I'm looking forward to:
Update 11:00 pm: Hehehe, blondes are dumb and can't pronounce cinematography. And the award goes to There Will Be Blood. I'm 7 for 10. Oh my, Paul Thomas Anderson looks absolutely diabolical. Update 11:02 pm: Yay dead people! Montage #11. Update 11:09 pm: And best score goes to Atonement and it's stinkin' typewriters. I'm 8 for 11 though. Who is that sitting next to James McAvoy (on the left)? She looks like a zombie. Update 11:15 pm: All of the nominees for documentary, short subject are about Iraq. Several of the full documentary nominees are about Iraq as well. Yay Iraq! Update 11:20 pm: Just a callout for The King of Kong and My Kid Could Paint That, two documentaries that could be nominated if we didn't demand that documentaries be controversial or about Iraq. And the Oscar goes to... Taxi to the Dark Side. Huh, it looks like we'll get our political statement of the night... and not much of one. Apparently I suck at picking this award. I'm 8 for 12 so far. Update 11:28 pm: Original Screenplay goes to Juno, which pretty much means it won't win best picture. Still, it's a worthy win, and I'm glad. I didn't expect someone named Diablo to cry, but good on her. It was her first script, after all, and it was pretty darned good. I'm 9 for 13. Update 11:35 pm: Montage #12! Oh, they chose to show a bad scene for Daniel Day Lewis, but he's going to win anyway. Look at Johnny Depp grinning maniacly like he knows he's going to win. Whoa, look at Viggo's beard. And best actor goes to, big surprise, Daniel Day Lewis. I'm 10 for 14. Update 11:37 pm: I'm sorry, did he say his grandfather was Michael Bolton? It can't be! Ok, I just rewound, and it sounds more like Michael Bolkin or something. Phew. I thought we had a time travelling no talent ass clown on our hands. Update 11:40 pm: Montage #13! And the best director oscar goes to Joel and Ethan Coen! Great reprise Ethan! Oh wow, I want to see Henry Kissenger, Man on the Go. Well done guys, you deserve it. Update 11:45 pm: And best picture goes to No Country for Old Men. A complete surprise? Yeah right! Update 11:50 pm: Only 3.5 million hours. Not bad. I came in at 13 for 17 (I think I lost count somewhere in there), which is 76%. Not too shabby, and about average for my picks the last few years. All in all, a decent show this year, though nothing too special seemed to happen. Oh well, there's always next year. And they're ending the show with the Mission Impossible theme song? What the heck? Well, that's my cue, have a good night folks. Update 2/27/08: Alex has posted his thoughts on the awards, and he's got a new theme on his website too.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Friday is List Day: Oscars Edition The Oscars are this weekend, so here's a few lists for your enjoyment including some movie related ones. Oh, and of course, I'll be liveblogging the Oscars (as I did last year, and even a few years before that). Feel free to stop by and play along! Random Ten
Everyone does Oscar Blunders lists, but there are some that I've always thought were being a little too harsh. Were the below wins really a "blunder"? Probably, but I think it's worth considering that the films that won...
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Adaptation Via Author, I found this question posed by Iwa ni Hana: Why would fans want to experience / creators want to tell more or less the same story with more or less the same characters in different formats, be it manga, TVA, OVA, feature film, CD drama, novel, live action movie or live-action TV series?The structure of the question pretty much demands a two part answer (one for fans and one for creators), and I'll tack on some tangents while I'm at it. I imagine that the creators question has the easier answer, though there are really several possible reasons why a creator would want to adapt their work to other mediums. Perhaps the creator always wanted to make a movie, but lacked the resources and expertise to create one, so they started with a comic book/manga/web comic instead (Author notes this in his post - "formats form a vague hierarchy of expense, with cheaper works (such as manga) forming the base and being adopted into more expensive arts."). Another big reason could be because the creator wants their story to reach a wider audience. A corollary to that would be that the creator would assent to an adaptation because they were paid well, and if the adaptation is successful, they may be able to achieve a higher degree of independence or creative freedom in their future work. Note that these aren't necessarily good things, but high-cost mediums like film require creators to make a name for themselves before studios will sign off on the budget for a dream project. This probably isn't that common a scenario, but it's definitely possible, and the history of film shows great filmmakers "slumming it" before they go on to make their classics. Take Stanley Kubrick. He got his start as a photographer for Look magazine. He once did a photo-essay on a boxer named Walter Cartier, which he later adapted into an independently financed short-subject documentary called Day of the Fight. He parlayed that minor success into a few more short documentaries and then into narrative fiction films, doing kinda standard noir thrillers like Killer's Kiss and The Killing. These are fine films, and better than most of their contemporaries, but Kubrick was also paying his dues in the film industry, which is something he continued to do up until Spartacus, after which his career really took off. He had proven himself a bankable commodity. A filmmaker popular with the critics and with audiences (a rarity, to be sure). Again, this probably isn't that true of all artists who do (or allow) adaptations of their own work, but it seems likely that at least some creators would pursue other mediums so that they can tell the stories they want to tell. The fan's perspective is a little more complicated. Why would you want to watch what basically amounts to the same story you just read? I'm honestly not sure. Personally, there are definitely cases where a book is adapted into a movie and I dread watching the movie (said dread is often justified). But there are a few reasons this could happen. First, it could be a way to introduce a friend to one of your favorite authors or books without nagging them to read the books. Second, there is often a chance, however slim, that the adaptation will add something new and interesting to the source material. Most adaptations are, by necessity, not the exact same story. In the rare instances where they are, they generally turn out a little bland (I actually enjoyed the first two Harry Potter films, but they're also bland and a little boring if you've read the books). Indeed, many of the best adaptations are significantly different than their source material. Not to keep using Kubrick as an example, but The Shining is a wonderful example of a movie that only bears a superficial resemblance to the book, and yet is quite entertaining. It's also one of the few examples of an adaptation that has carved out it's own reputation without affecting the reputation of the source material. In my mind, both the book and movie are classics, but for different reasons. This actually makes sense, as different mediums use different "language" (for lack of a better term) for telling a story. I think this is part of why authors who write the screenplays for movie adaptations of their work often produce disappointing results. For example, take any number of Stephen King adaptations where he's written the script, including even The Shining mini-series, which pales in comparison to Kubrick's film. This brings up an interesting question about movies that end up being better than their source material. Of course, most often, it's the other way around, but in some instances, lightning strikes. Unfortunately, I haven't read many of the typical examples, but from what I can see, both Jaws and The Godfather took rather conventional source material and elevated them into classics. One I have read that's a better movie is The Bourne Identity. It's not an utterly brilliant movie, but I thought the book was poorly written (though I think I like the story better). Other books I've read that have at least comparable or debatably good adapatations are Fight Club and The Exorcist. All of which makes me wonder why people don't adapt (or remake) bad stories that have a neat idea. The All Movie Talk podcast had an interesting list of movies that should be remade, and I think it's an interesting concept. But I digress. Another reason fans might want to see an adaptation is that they're just so enamored with the characters or the story that they revel in any chance to revisit them. As Author notes, other mediums may add something of value to the original work, even if the adaptation is not as good as the original. So to recap, there are lots of reasons! Personally, I find the most compelling to be spreading the story around to a wider audience, though I do have a soft spot for wanting something new and exciting from an adaptation. Then, of course, you also get totally off the wall stuff like the movie Adaptation, which is based on an oddly recursive story: The screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, was hired to write an adaptation of Susan Orlean's novel The Orchid Thief, but he found the task to be quite difficult and could not seem to make any progress. So instead of actually writing the adaptation, he writes a script about how he is having trouble writing the adaptation. (A quick tangent: Ironically, the one story that Stephen King has sworn not to sell the film rights for is the Dark Tower series, in which King basically pulls the Adaptation trick.) In the end, I think adaptations are good things, even if many of them are of dubious quality.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence As I made a last minute rush to watch 2007 movies for the recent awards, my netflix queue was whittled down a bit (I'm at a manageable 109 DVDs) and without paying attention to my queue, I ended up getting Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence in the mail last week. I enjoyed the first film a lot, and after watching the sequel, I ended up with pretty much the same feeling as the first. It's not perfect, but it is an excellent animated film and it brings up many thought provoking subjects. Minor Spoilers below... The first Ghost in the Shell film has a cult following and is rightly proclaimed as one of the essential Anime films that anyone interested in the form needs to see. It was one of the first to be released in theaters in the U.S., though it has been more successful on DVD than in the theaters. It's weighty themes and confusing plot turned off some people, but struck me as being fascinating, and it has also captured the imagination of U.S. filmmakers (you can't watch the lobby gunfight in The Matrix without being reminded a little of the first GitS film, and even the Wachowski brothers have acknowledged the influece of the Anime in their work). 9 years after the first film, this sequel was made. The story takes place in 2032, and it follows the special officers of Section 9 as they investigate a series of grisly murders committed by gynoids (basically female robots used for, well, take a guess). Many characters from the first film return, including the main protagonist of this feature, Batou. Other members of Section 9, such as Chief Aramaki and Togusa also make appearances. After the disappearance of Major Kusanagi in the first film, Togusa becomes Batou's new partner (Togusa clearly knows he has big shoes to fill, but he works well with Batou, and as Alex notes, one of the joys of this film is the camaraderie they share) and they trace the murders back to a specific model of gynoid, made by a cyborg company called Locus Solus. It appears they're doing something strange to their gynoids which makes them more desirable than other models, but also appears to drive them crazy. As Batou and Togusa get closer to the truth, help arrives in the form of an old friend. 
Like the first film, the plot can be a little obtuse at times, and would probably take a few viewings to fully decipher. I get the impression that this whole series loses something in translation, though I obviously can't be sure. This film is not quite as difficult as its predecessor, but there are still lots of plot twists and complex shifts of perspective. In general, it covers most of the same thematic ground as the first film, but from different angles. The first film was about cyborgs - human beings that were becoming more and more machine - and the philosophical implications of that. I talk about this a little in my review of the first film: It's a dense story, and the technological advances pose a ton of intriguing questions about the nature of identity. The Major, whose physical body is almost all machine, is understandably a little paranoid | |
