Movies

Oscarblogging

I didn’t realize the Academy Awards were tonight. Unlike most film aficianados, I actually enjoy the Oscars. I don’t place a particularly high value on them, but I’m usually entertained nonetheless. Since I just realized they were tonight and given that It’s starting in 15 or so minutes, I’m going to cut this introduction here a little short and just give my predictions (which I’ll have all of 5-10 minutes to think about). Perhaps later, I’ll have more updates (no guarantee that they’ll be tied to what’s happening during the show, but maybe).

Note: 2005 Picks and blogging here.

  • Best Picture: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (more on why later)
  • Best Director: Peter Jackson for Return of the King (again, more on this later)
  • Best Actor: Bill Murray, though Sean Penn is also likely. Johnny Depp is the Dark Horse, but I think that was more of a sympathy nomination…
  • Best Actress: Charlize Theron for Monster, because she “bravely” uglied herself up. Ok, and she apparently gave a great performance too.
  • Best Supporting Actor: It looks like this one will go to Tim Robbins for Mystic River, but I’d love to see Ken Watanabe win it (not likely though)…
  • Best Supporting Actress: Toss up. Renee Zellweger has some buzz, as does Shohreh Aghdashloo. I’d also mention Marcia Gay Harden, but she won a few years ago so I don’t think she’ll win again…
  • Best Original Screenplay: Screenplay awards are where a lot of sympathy votes go, and if Lost in Translation doesn’t get the Best Picture nod, it will probably get this one… but don’t count out Jim Sheridan’s In America either.
  • Best Adapted Screenplay: Another toss up. It’s between Mystic River and Seabiscuit. I wouldn’t mind RotK or even City of God winning, but I don’t think either will…
  • Editing: Not sure at all. RotK better not win this one, but it might. We might see some sympathy votes for Master and Commander or City of God. I really don’t know…
  • Cinematography: RotK is noticeably absent from this one, so I’ll give it to Master and Commander.
  • Visual Effects: Return of the King, all the way. A second place to Pirates of the Caribbean.

There are plenty of other awards and more commentary on why I chose what I chose, but this will have to do for now. Again, more later.

The Intangibles:

Perhaps one of the more frustrating things about the Oscars is that the awards are often based more on the intangibles rather than any pseudo-objective measure of a film’s worth. We’re going to see this tonight when Return of the King wins Best Picture and Peter Jackson wins Best Director. Return of the King has it’s detractors, but it will win anyway because the Academy will think of it as awarding the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. This sort of thing worked against LotR in the past – the explaination as to why Fellowship of the Ring didn’t win was that there were still two films left and it’s bound to win Best Picture for them, right? Well, I guess we’ll see.

You’ll also notice that I mentioned “sympathy” votes above several times. Members of the Academy often view an actor’s or an actress’s entire body of work as being deserving of an Oscar and will vote for them based on that, rather than by their nominated performance. This is why Johnny Depp might win (not that his performance was bad, per say, just that he’s a very popular actor and might get votes based on that rather than just his performance).

Screenplay awards are also interesting, in that a lot of almost-Best-Picture-worthy-yet-wildly-popular films get the nod here. Again, sometimes this can be a sympathy award, as it was when Pulp Fiction won in 1994.

I haven’t seen a lot of the films that were nominated this year, but the intangibles are what allow me to make predictions because they’re not totally based on the movies themselves. Frustrating, right? Sure, but it’s kinda fun too.

Update 8:36 pm ET: Michael Moore just got stomped on by one of those giant elephants from Return of the King. I’m guess that was done with special effects. Damn. But it’s nice to see he has a sense of humor about himself.

Update 8:52 pm ET: Boy, Tim Robbins is boring, but I chalk me up a point as I did pick him… Also, check out James Berardinelli who is making live updates on his site as well…

Update 8:56 pm ET: Are these commercials made specifically for the Oscars? Kinda like the Super Bowl? Hrm. Scorcese was hilarious.

Update 9:03 pm ET: Michael Douglas, who are you kidding with those sunglasses?

Update 9:11 pm ET: James Berardinelli: “is it just me, or does Benicio Del Toro resemble a Wookie?”

Update 9:14 pm ET: LotR looks like it will be racking up lots of the technical awards, as it has done in years past. Could it be the start of a route? Or will they lose out on Best Picture and Director?

Update 9:27 pm ET: Nice, classy, tribute to our wonderful troops and Bob Hope. It’s speaks well of Crystal that he didn’t make some snarky remark during that segment. There’s time enough to make political digs (and some have already been made); best not to sully our fine troops’ tribute. But Crystal is no Bob Hope:)

Update 9:40 pm ET: With the exception of Blame Canada, I can’t think of a single Oscar music peformance that is worthwhile. I’m grabbing a beer, because I can’t take this sober.

Update 10:01 pm ET: Jim Carrey, please wake me up. Thank you. Blake Edwards, thanks for The Pink Panther. You rock.

Update 10:16 pm ET: First American girl to be nominated for Best Director? I didn’t know that. Sofia Coppola, you are that much closer to being forgiven for Godfather III.

Update 10:33 pm ET: Ho hum. Nothing much to say, so I’ll just wonder why Kill Bill: Volume 1 didn’t get nominated for anything. The film certainly has it’s drawbacks, but it is well done and deserving of at least some recognition. Even in something obscure like costume design. Throw Tarantino a bone. Perhaps they’re waiting for Volume 2…

Update 10:44 pm ET: Errol Morris takes home the Oscar. I didn’t realize he was the one who did The Fog of War, but the The Thin Blue Line is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. He’s just made his political statement, the first of the night and the second in a row by the winner of the documentary Oscar; this one is much more tasteful than the last… At this point, Morris has one of the best thank-yous of the night, but that ain’t saying much (unless Bill Murray wins later).

Update 11:03 pm ET: Come on, how can you give a 3 1/2 hour long movie that ends 5 times the best editing award? I loved the film, and the extended cuts are great, but gimme a break.

Update 11:08 pm ET: Oh great, more Oscar music performances. At least the Triplets of Belleville song was upbeat. But I don’t get Chris Guest movies. I didn’t like A Mighty Wind, nor Best in Show. It just didn’t click with me. Then again, The Princess Bride and This is Spinal Tap are great, so he’s not all that bad…

Update 11:25 pm ET: So far, I’m 3 for 4, with the one miss being RotK for editing(!?) And kudos to Jack Black and Will Ferrell for their “You’re Boring” song. Fantastic! If only the winners would take a hint…

Update 11:35 pm ET: Jeeze, maybe RotK will go 11 for 11?

Update 11:50 pm ET: Maybe Best Makeup should have went to the crew that made Charlize Theron ugly. Not many surprises tonight…

Update 12:07 pm ET: It’s a clean sweep, LotR wins it all. Peter Jackson just mentioned Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles and how the Academy wisely did not recognize those films (heheh). Very nice. Well, I’m exhausted. G’night.

One Final Update: Overall, I was 8.5 for 11 (with the 0.5 being the best actor nod, as I had wanted Bill Murray to win, but recognized that Sean Penn had a very good chance too), which works out to about 77% (well behind James’ 86%, and he made more predictions than I). My thoughts on the other two were that the voters would want to shine some light on one or two of the other films, rather than letting RotK steamroll through the competition. The show ended up being rather banal, thanks mostly to the uninspired acceptance speeches. At least it was only three and half hours long (which I think could still be cut down a bit).

Update: Films I Should Have Seen

Knock two off the list.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was pretty much what I thought it would be, a straightforward and all-around mediocre affair. Which is a shame, because the concept is so compelling. Much of the time is dedicated to action sequences which aren’t bad, but don’t really stand up to comparison with what’s going on in the movie industry today (and the special effects were less than spectacular). What was really missing was characterization. One of the neat things about the League is that they all have skeletons in their closet, so to speak. We’re only given a glimpse of that, just enough to piss me off. I guess I’ll have to check out the comic book to see what can really be done with this concept…

This stands in stark contrast to my other viewing choice this weekend, Owning Mahowny. I originally described it as “Bank clerk played by Philip Seymour Hoffman takes on Vegas,” but that isn’t quite accurate. First, though he makes a few trips to Vegas, he spends most of his time in Atlantic City. Second, I should have said he takes on Atlantic City, and loses. This isn’t what I thought it was going to be, but it was still very good. Rather than exciting gambling scenes where we get the inside scoop on how someone cheats the Casinos, we get a fascinating study of addiction. Such films aren’t very pleasant to watch, in part because a happy ending is something of a cop-out, and Owning Mahowny doesn’t (er, does?) disappoint. Worthy of a mention are the performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays the gambling addicted Mahowny, and John Hurt, who turns in a great performance as the slimy casino director who schemes to keep Mahowny gambling. A worthwhile movie, if you’re into this sort of thing…

Top 10 Movies I Haven’t Seen This Year

I was reading this New Yorker piece about Top Ten Lists and I thought to myself, I should do a top ten list. Those who know me know I’m awful at this sort of thing, in that I have a hard time choosing favorites – especially when the options are varied and diverse. That said I’m usually able to pull it together for movies, if a little late (best of 2001 coming soon!). This year I find that I’m not sure I could compile a top 10 (possibly even a top 5), but that is at least in part due to the fact that I didn’t see a lot of movies this year. It is also due to the fact that I didn’t love a lot of the supposed “great” films this year. There were several films I considered to be really good and entertaining, but very few blew me away.

So instead of producing a substandard top 10 best films of 2003, I’m going to try something a little different. I tried to emphasize offbeat films in this list, though there are a few mainstream flicks in there as well. This means that several are foreign films, indy pics, or even documentaries. Also keep in mind that I haven’t actually seen any of these films, so they’re not really recommendations… just films I think sound interesting. Make of that what you will, and enjoy:

Top 10 Films I Should Have Seen in 2003

In no particular order*

  • House of Sand and Fog: Well, it sounds a little pretentious, but I still want to see it. Plus, Jennifer Connelly is hot. Score.
  • The Russian Ark: I want to see this movie solely based on the knowledge that it consists of a single shot that lasts for the entire length of the film.
  • The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: I know it was probably butchered, but I need to watch it anyway, if only to marvel at what could have been. I will note, however, that this attitude usually leads to my enjoying the movie a lot more than I thought…
  • Once Upon a Time in Mexico: The continuing saga of “El Mariachi”, supposedly written and filmed on the fly by director Robert Rodriguez. Sounds fun, but I don’t expect a whole lot.
  • The Cooler: The unluckiest man in Vegas (played by William H. Macy) finds a way to apply his bad luck for the benefit of a casino, but runs into trouble when he falls in love and suddenly finds himself dancing with lady luck… Alec Baldwin apparently turns in a great performance as the nasty casino director (he’s done similar things before). I’m a sucker for gambling movies. Sue me.
  • American Splendor: The comic book related story of everyman Harvey Pekar.
  • Spellbound: The supposedly riveting documentary which follows 8 teenagers during the 1999 National Spelling Bee. We’ll see about that.
  • The Man on the Train: A chance encounter on a train leave a schoolteacher and a crook envious of each other’s lives. Another that I meant to see but missed out on…
  • Lost in Translation: Must. See. Bill. Murray. In. Excellent. Role. Soon…
  • Owning Mahowny: Bank clerk played by Philip Seymour Hoffman takes on Vegas? I’m so there. I meant to see this one in the theaters, but it was only playing at the Ritz and I didn’t get out there in time… I hope to rent it this weekend.

* This is, in fact, only partially true. The films are roughly listed in order from what I want to see least to most, with stress on the “roughly”

Damn, that list filled up quickly. Honorable mention: Irreversible (described by James as “Memento on Heroin”), Capturing the Friedmans, Cold Mountain, Mystic River, The Fog of War, Elephant, Swimming Pool, Cabin Fever, Dirty Pretty Things, and Underworld.

Whew. I probably won’t even get around to seeing all of these films, but they all seem interesting and at least worthy of consideration. Check them out if you’re in the mood for something different… I know I will.

Update: Knock a few off the list…

Update: Oh damn! How could I forget Bubba Ho-Tep! Still not playing in Philly, but it appears to still be making the rounds, so I’m crossing my fingers…

Reflections on LotR II

I had the pleasure of viewing Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King last night, and I must say, I am impressed. Peter Jackson deserves a whole lot more than the Oscar he’ll receive for this. The Return of the King is remarkable in that it is even better than it’s predecessors, which were exceptional movies in themselves. Naturally, we have the source material to thank for that, but it is in no small part due to Jackson’s vision and imagination as well.

My reflections on the Fellowship of the Ring still hold true and apply equally to The Return of the King:

I would describe the film as a sweeping epic, in the true sense of those words (before they were perverted by the use of critics describing the like of, say, Gladiator) and Peter Jackson should be honored for being able to capture the spirit of Tolkien’s work while, at the same time, not shutting out those who are not familiar with the books. This is perhaps one of the most ambitious efforts in film history, and Jackson actually manages to imbue the film with the depth and texture that it demands. From beginning to end, the film showcases the grand beauty of Middle Earth, with graceful vistas, immense landscapes of forbidding snow or rolling greenery, and sweeping shots of terrifying battles, but don’t let that fool you – Jackson was able to temper the pace and suspense of the film so that its scale does not detract from it. This is grand filmmaking, yes, but Jackson also focuses on the human side, letting his wonderful actors do their thing and also showing the details of Middle Earth’s history and architecture… This is an adventurous effort at its best, and its one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time.

The Return of the King builds on the base created by the first two films, making for an even more grandiose experience – complete with yet another breathtaking battle (the cavalry charge floored me), jawdropping visuals, and genuinely powerful emotional arcs. This being the conclusion of the story, there are several compelling dramatic moments (which elicited cheers from the crowd), and Jackson absolutely nails it. Also, unlike most trilogies, the climax of Lord of the Rings doesn’t dissapoint. I don’t know what it was about this film, everything just seemed better. Bravo!

Horror

Halloween has past* but since horror is one of my favorite genres, I figured I’d list out some good examples of horror books & movies because it’s always fun to scare yourself witless. When it comes to film, horror is one of the more difficult genres to execute effectively and, as such, the genuinely great horror films are few and far between. What’s left are a series of downright creepy, but flawed, films. Because of their flaws, many horror films are often overlooked and underrated and these are the films I’d like to mention here. Books, on the other hand, tend to be overlooked and underrated as a medium. Horror books doubly so.

Film

I’ve never been a fan of the classic 1950’s horror films like the Mummy, Dracula, or Frankenstein… They’re not without their charm, but when it comes to the classics, I prefer their source materiel to the films. For classics, I would mention Halloween (1978, it started the lackluster “slasher” sub-genre, but it is an excellent film, particularly it’s soundtrack), Jaws (1975, another excellent soundtrack here, but there was plenty else that made people afraid to go back into the water again…), Psycho (1960, the sudden shifts and feints coupled with, again, a distinctive and effective soundtrack, make for a brutally effective film), Alien (1979, “In space, no one can hear you scream.” Director Ridley Scott really knew how to turn the screws with this one), The Exorcist (1973, The power of Christ compels you… to wet yourself in despair whilst watching this film) and The Shining (1980, Kubrick’s interpretation of King’s masterwork is significantly different, but it is also one of the few examples of an adaptation that works well in it’s own right).

But those are all films we know and love. What about the one’s we haven’t seen? Director John Carpenter built an impressive string of neglected horror films throughout the 1980s and early 1990s (a pity that he has since lost his touch). Aside from the classic Halloween, Carpenter directed the 1982 remake of The Thing, which was brilliantly updated and downright creepy. It has its fill of scary moments, not the least of which is the cryptic and ambiguous ending. He followed that with Christine. Adapted from the novel by Stephen King, Carpenter was able to make a silly story creepy with the sheer will of his technical mastery (not his best, but impressive nonetheless). His 1987 film Prince of Darkness was flawed but undeniably effective. Many have not heard of In the Mouth of Madness, but it has become one of my favorite horror films of the 1990s.

If you’re not scared away by subtitles or foreign films, check out Dario Argento‘s seminal 1977 gorefest Suspiria, which boasts opening and ending scenes amongst the best in the genre. Argento’s rival, Lucio Fulci, also has an impressive series of gory horror classics, such as the 1980 film The Gates of Hell. Both Argento and Fulci have an impressive body of work and are worth checking out if you don’t mind them being in Italian…

The 1970’s and early 1980’s were an excellent period in horror filmmaking. Excluding the films already mentioned (a significant portion of the classics are from the 1970s), you may want to check out the 1980 movie The Changeling, an excellent ghost story, or perhaps the disturbing 1981 film The Incubus. And how could I write about horror movies without mentioning my beloved 1979 cheesy creepfest Phantasm. Other 70s flicks to check out: The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Salem’s Lot (a 1979 TV miniseries based on Stephen King’s book), The Omen (1976), Carrie (1976), Blue Sunshine (1976, almost forgotten today), The Wicker Man (1973), The Legend of Hell House (1973, a personal favorite, adapted from a novel by Richard Matheson, who we’ll get to in a moment), and of course we can’t forget that lovable flesh-wearing cannibal, Leatherface, in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974).

Ok, so I think I’ve inundated you with enough movies, hopefully many of which you’ve never heard of, for now so let’s move on to books (naturally, I could go on and on and on just listing out good horror flicks, but this is at least a good start).

Literature

My knowledge of Horror literature is less extensive than horror film, but I have a fair base to work from. We all know the classics, Dracula, Frankenstein, and the works of Edgar Allen Poe, but there are many overlooked horror stories floating around as well.

M.R. James (1862-1936) is one of the originators of the modern Ghost Story, and there are several exemplary examples of this sub-genre in his oeuvre. His works are public domain, so follow the link above for online versions… I especially enjoyed the creepy Count Magnus.

Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House is a classic that is rightly praised as one of the finest horror novels ever written.

Richard Matheson’s brilliant I Am Legend is a study of isolation and grim irony that turns the traditional vampire story on its head. This might be one of the most influential novels you’ve never heard of, as there have been many derivatives, particularly in film.

H.P. Lovecraft is another fantastic short story author whose work has been tremendously influential to modern horror. His infamous Cthulhu Mythos and Necronomicon were ingenious creations, and many have seized on them and attempted to follow in his footsteps. Indeed, many even believe his fictional Necronomicon to be real!

You might have noticed Stephen King’s name mentioned a few times already, and there is a reason so many of his books are turned into movies. I’ve never been a huge King fan, but The Shining is among the best horror novels I’ve read. I’ve always preferred Dean Koontz (sadly he has absolutely no good film adaptations), who wrote such notable horror staples as Phantoms, Midnight, and The Servants of Twilight. Both Koontz and King can be hit-or-miss, but when they’re on, there’s no one better.

Other books of note: Clive Barker’s The Hellbound Heart (which was adapted into the 1987 film Hellraiser) is an excellent short read (about 120 pages), and some of his longer works, such as The Great and Secret Show and Imajica, are also good. F. Paul Wilson’s The Keep is one of the few books that has ever truly scared me while reading it. I’ve always found William Peter Blatty’s novel, The Exorcist, to be more effective than the movie (and that is saying a lot!). Brian Lumly’s Necroscope series is an interesting take on the vampire legend, and his Titus Crow series builds on Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos nicely.

Well, there you have it. That should keep you busy for the next few years…

* One would think that this post should have been made last week, and one would be right, but then one would also not be too familiar with how we do things here at Kaedrin. Note that the best movies of 2001 is due sometime around mid-2004. Heh. This whole being timely with content thing is something I have always had difficulty with and need to work on, but that is another topic for another post…

Style as Substance

Kill Bill: Volume 1 is one of those movies that I’ve been keeping track of for years. From the beginning, I wondered why Tarantino was choosing such material for his next film. The plot certainly isn’t edgy. Uma Thurman plays The Bride, a woman miraculously survives a bullet to the head on her wedding day (the groom was not so lucky). After an extended stay in a coma, she awakes and makes a list of five people to exact revenge upon. Then she goes and kills them. That’s the plot.

And yet it’s still a good film (not a great film, but good). The plot doesn’t matter. Nor, really, do the characters. None of them are developed, or really likable. You root for the Bride, a textbook anti-hero, not because she’s been wronged and is seeking revenge, but because she’s such a badass. It is the style of the film that gets me, and like it or not, Tarantino is a master of style. The man knows how to manipulate the audience, and he is brutally unmerciful in this outing.

Let me rewind a bit. Do you remember the scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent blows Marvin’s head off by accident? Somehow, Tarantino is able to make that scene, and the ensuing events, funny. Not ha-ha funny, it’s still black comedy, but funny nonetheless. You don’t really know why you are laughing, but you are. And that is what this movie is like. It’s like two hours of that one scene in Pulp Fiction.

Blood. Hundreds of gallons of it. Spraying, shooting, fountains of blood. The grisly murder rate in this film approaches triple digits. It’s not for everyone. James Lileks says he had “no desire to see clever violence,” and that is certainly understandable. These scenes are cold, merciless, and often disgusting, yet I found myself laughing. It’s just a natural reaction when you see someone’s head cut off and blood sprays out like a sprinkler. The gore is so over the top that it eventually ceases to be disgusting and takes on a blurry, surreal quality. Tarantino knows this works, but he’s not content to leave it there.

This isn’t an easy movie. It’s not the roller coaster kung-fu action flick it’s advertised as. It’s difficult. Why? Because in those moments where the gore goes beyond the surreal, you still sense gravity in the violence. Tarantino grounds the violence just enough so that you laugh when it happens, but you’re hit by an aftertaste of guilt a few seconds later. The blood may be completely over the top, but other details are what got me. The gurgling, the spasms, the screams. These things creeped the hell out of me. And on top of that, towards the end of the film, Tarantino keeps the film rocketing along at such a pace that your conscience can’t keep up with the violence, and you know it. That is, I suppose the essense of black comedy. It’s not easy and it’s not fun, but it makes you laugh anyway.

It is difficult to say, though. It’s not as obvious as I’m describing. The black comedy is more subtle than you might think from reading this, so take it with a grain of salt.

Walter sums it up perfectly:

I think Tarantino wanted a 180 from Pulp Fiction’s tone. I think he feinted high and then socked us in the gut. And it worked. Bold as hell, and he pulled it off. Now I’m sick to my stomach, but I respect the bastard.

I don’t like this movie the way I like Tarantino’s other work. I like it like I like Taxi Driver or Requiem for a Dream, which is to say, I don’t like it, but it is so well done that I can’t stop myself from watching it. The filmmakers, damn them, are so good at manipulating the elements of cinema that I’m spellbound even as I’m wimpering.

Kill Bill doesn’t have the weight of Taxi Driver or Requiem and it’s a flawed film, but it has it’s moments of brilliance too. There is a lot more to say about it, but I am at a loss to say more. It is difficult to describe because what’s important about this film isn’t what happens, it’s how it happens. It’s style as substance, and Tarantino makes it work. Damn him.

Elly Kedward, Evan Chan, Publius, and Elvis: Media Marketing in the Internet Age

There are few who have truly taken advantage of the internet as a marketing medium. Indeed, it’s quite possible that such endeavors would not bear fruit (and as we shall see, even a compelling campaign doesn’t indicate success), but previous attempts at such advertising have proven very involving.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about a new independent movie called Bubba Ho-Tep. Apparently, this caught the attention of the Art Director of the film, who had been asked to “search out websites who might volunteer some space to put up an ad” for the new film. He sent me an email, and asked if I wouldn’t mind putting up a small ad for his film. Of course, this being an independent film, they have no money for a traditional marketing campaign, despite the obvious cult appeal and securing a theatrical distribution, so they turned to the internet. They found folks like me, who were already getting the word out about the film, and asked us to do a little more. Its an obvious step, and I was impressed that the fillmmakers have recognized the potential of the internet as a marketing medium. Naturally, I’m happy to oblige, though I have yet to decide just what form my promotions will be. Oh, sure, I’ll plaster up a few Bubba graphics and whatnot (see, there’s one down below). I’m sure that’s all they’re hoping for, and at this moment that’s the best I can do… and yet… I see potential here.

This could be so much more than just an image and link alongside gushing fanboy praise. I know what you’re thinking: Just what the hell is he talking about here?

***

I’m talking about Elly Kedward. As the story goes, this 18th century Maryland woman was found guilty of witchcraft, banished into the forest during a particularly harsh winter, and presumed dead. The following winter, however, over half that town’s children disappeared. Ever since then, whenever anything out of the ordinary happens in that area, people blame Elly Kedward. Several children have gone missing, some bodies have been found, and in 1941 an old hermit named Rustin Parr confessed to killing 7 children in the forest, telling authorities that a voice in his head (“an old woman”) commanded his actions. In October of 1994, 3 student filmmakers traveled to the area to make a documentary about the local legend. They were never heard from again, though their film equipment and supplies were discovered in the forest.

I am, of course, talking about The Blair Witch Project. The movie was made with approximately $30,000-$50,000, it had no script, it starred unknown actors and was made by unknown filmmakers. On top of that they used very little film, even resorting to videotape for a good portion of the movie. The only way they could get away with such things would be if people wanted to see their shoddy looking film, and to do this they tapped into the marketing potential of the internet. Drawing on their well thought out mythology and legends, they brought the story of the Blair Witch to you first, so that you’d be intrigued. They sold people on the concept of the film before the film was even released. Indeed, several people were even fooled by the site, believing all the information to be true. Using the relatively inexpensive internet, they created demand for the film. People ran to theaters to see the shaky, blurry exploits of 3 unknowns, and the film was a massive success. Of course, it was more complicated than that, and the web was not solely responsible for the film’s success (indeed, much of the hype around the film drove people to the website), though I do believe it had a lot of impact.

Another example is Evan Chan. In the beginning, all anyone knew was that Evan Chan had been murdered. Elaborate clues were peppered throughout Web sites for fictitious people and companies. In the Spring of 2001, thousands of people banded together on the internet to solve the mystery. This “internet game” was devised by the producers of the film A.I., and a Microsoft team continually updated game sites with plot twists and character development. Clues were buried in HTML code, audio files, and email messages. The game’s creators monitored the progress of players and used feedback to shape the game’s content. The game created a groundswell of interest among the computer geeks of the world, but it was a subtle effort. Indeed, it took a while for the game to even be noticed. The game’s relation to the movie was only tangential, and when the film was released, many found the game more absorbing than the much-anticipated movie. None of the game sites directly referred to the film, and no one knew the game had anything to do with A.I. until nearly a month after it had started. It took a while before Warner and DreamWorks even acknowledged that the game was a promotion for the film. The soft-sell had a lot to do with the game’s success. As a member at Cloudmakers.org put it: “Someone kept the commercials out of it, kept the hype down, kept us curious by not shoving

answers at us.” Again, its not entirely clear what impact the game had on the film. Though hundreds of thousands of people had stumbled upon the game, the number of active players was estimated to be around 7,000, hardly enough to make a difference at the box office. Then again, the amount of news media

coverage the game had generated probably benefited the studios. At the very least, the game is an extremely interesting experiment in internet marketing…

I’m not sure whether or not this qualifies, but there was a rather strange phenomenon surrounding Pink Floyd’s 1994 album The Division Bell. A self-described messenger named Publius began posting to the Usenet group alt.music.pink-floyd through an anonymous service. The posts were cryptic and ambiguous, and spoke of what became known as the Publius Enigma:

AS SOME OF YOU HAVE SUSPECTED, “The Division Bell” is not

like its predecessors. Although all great music is subject

to multiple interpretations, in this case there is a central

purpose and a designed solution. For the ingenious person

(or group of persons) who recognizes this – and where this

information points to – a unique prize has been secreted.

The mysterious posts continued on an irregular basis, often containing cryptic clues and puzzles, sparking immense discussion among fans as to the “true” meaning of The Division Bell. There were many who doubted the authenticity of Publius, and to this day, I don’t think the puzzle has been solved, nor has it been completely discredited. There was some discussion of a solution being offered, and accepted by Publius around 1997 – but the circumstances were strange, and you could easily take it to be an “exit strategy” for Publius, or to be a hoax unto itself. Even with the solution, no one knows what the “unique prize” is, as the winner conveniently botched his success(!?). And if it really was the solution, it was very lame, in my opinion.

In all likelyhood, the entire exercise was just the band (or at the very least, someone close to the bad) screwing around. I have no idea whether or not this has helped sales of the Division Bell; indeed, given that it was aimed at diehard fans, it probably hasn’t. But it is a good example of how to keep interest in a product for extended periods of time, as it seems to have taken on a life of its own.

***

It could be argued that all of the above examples are unsuccessful, and to be honest, I’m not sure I disagree. But at the same time, all of the above are profoundly interesting phenomena, and they exemplify the absorbing potential of the internet. It remains to be seen as to whether or not such grassroots marketing efforts can be truly successful. If the above examples are any indication, we could be in for some interesting campaigns in the future.

Will the Bubba Ho-Tep campaign grow into something that takes a life of its own? What role will I play in this campaign? Time will tell…

The King Lives!

Cult films are (generally) commercially unsuccessful movies that have limited appeal, but nevertheless attract a fiercely loyal following among fans over time. They often exhibit very strange characters, surreal settings, bizzarre plotting, dark humor, and otherwise quirky and eccentric characteristics. These obscure films often cross genres (horror, sci-fi, fantasy, etc…) and are highly stylized, straying from conventional filmmaking techniques. Many are made by fiercely independent maverick filmmakers with a very low budget (read: cheesy), often showcasing the performance of talented newcomers.

Almost by definition, they’re not popular at the time of their release, usually because they exist outside the box, eschewing typical narrative styles and other technical conventions. They achieve cult-film status later, developing a loyal fanbase over time, often through word-of-mouth recommendations (and, as we’ll see, the actions of fans themselves). They elicit an eerie passion among their fans, who enthusiastically champion the films, leading to repeated public viewings (midnight movie showings are particularly prevalent in cult films), fan clubs, and active audience participation (i.e. dressing up as the oddball characters, mercilessly MST3King a film, or uh, jumping around in front of a camera with a broomstick). Cult movie followers often get together and argue over the mundane details and varied merits of their favorite films.

While these films are not broadly appealing, they are tremendously popular among certain narrow groups such as college students or independent film lovers. The internet has been immensely enabling in these respects, allowing movie geeks to locate one another and participate in the aforementioned laborious debates and arguments among other interactive fun.

One of the first examples of a cult movie is Tod Browning’s 1932 film, Freaks, which was deliberately made to be “the strangest…most startling human story ever screened,” and featured real-life freaks as circus performers. Perhaps the most infamous cult film is The Rocky Horror Picture Show, a 1975 film which inspired a craze of interactive, midnight movie screenings where members of the audience dress up as any of the garish and trashy characters and sing along with the music.

Sometimes a cult film will break out of its small fanbase and hit the mainstream. Frank Capra’s classic It’s a Wonderful Life didn’t become popular until many years after its initial release. Repeated television showings during the Christmas season, however, have become a holiday tradition.

Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, and Frances Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now are all considered to be classics of modern cinema today, yet were all largely ignored by audiences at the time of their release.

Most cult films don’t fare that well, though I can’t say that bothers anyone. Their unpopularity is generally considered to be a part of their charm. They’re strange beasts, these cult films, and their appeal is hard to pin down. They’re often very flawed films in one way or another, yet they strike a passionate chord with specific audiences, and their flaws, strangely, become endearing to their fans. Outsiders just don’t “get it”.

This doesn’t just apply to movies either. Many authors don’t become popular until after their deaths (Kafka, Lovecraft) and many works are initially shunned, but eventually pick up that devoted cult following through word of mouth and interactive fun and games. The Lord of the Rings was massively unpopular when it was published, but a small but extremely devoted fanbase grew, and it wasn’t too long until people were creating role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons based in part on Tolkien’s enormously imaginative universe. D&D itself garnered a cult following of its own, as has role-playing in its own right. Lord of the Rings is now immensely popular, and its stunningly brilliant movie adaptations by cult filmmaker Peter Jackson (known for his disgusting work in Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, and Dead Alive, among others) which have met with both popular and critical success.

***

One of my favorite cult films is the cheesy 1979 horror flick, Phantasm. Several years ago, as I first began to explore internet communities, I realized that I needed a “handle,” as it was called. I was watching said horror flick almost every day at the time, so I chose tallman as my handle, despite the fact that I do not resemble the nefarious Tall Man present in the Phantasm films (and that, uh, I’m not tall). It is inexplicably one of my favorite films of all time, and it is a dreadful movie. The effects are awful, the acting is often laughable, and the plot is incoherent at times (especially the ending). But I still love the film; I cherish the creepy, surreal atmosphere and to this day, the Tall Man haunts my dreams (nightmares, actually). The bad effects and acting make me laugh, but there are some genuinely brilliant moments in the film, and the unreality of the ending actually serves to heighten the tension of the film, providing an eerie ambiguity that lasts long after viewing the film. The film has its moments of brilliance as well. The score is especially haunting, and the mortuary sets, when combined with director (and producer, and writer, and cinematographer, and editor, and did I mention that cult filmmakers are often fiercely independent?) Don Coscarelli’s talented visual style, are stunningly effective.

Like many cult films, it has become a cinematically important film, sparking the rise of surreality in many horror films from the 1980’s (most notably A Nightmare on Elm Street, which lifted the ending almost verbatim).

Another favorite cult hit is Sam “For Love of the Game” Raimi’s (er, I guess that should be Sam “Spiderman” Raimi’s) Evil Dead films, featuring the coolest B-Movie actor ever, Bruce Campbell. Raimi’s inventive camera-work and Campbell’s gloriously over-the-top performance make these films a joy to watch.

The reason I started this post, which has gotten completely out of hand as I’ve laboriously digressed into the nature of cult filmmaking (sorry ’bout that), was because of a new film, destined for cult success, in which Phantasm director Don Coscarelli and Evil Dead actor Bruce Campbell join forces.

The new film is called Bubba Ho-Tep, it looks like a doozy. Based on a short story by cult author Joe R. Lansdale, tells the “true” story of what became of Elvis Presley (he didn’t die on a toilet) and JFK (he didn’t die in Dallas). Oh, did I mention that JFK is now black (THEY dyed him that color; the conspiracy theorists should love that)? We find this unlikely duo in an East Texas rest home which has become the target of an evil Egyptian entity (“Some sorta… Bubba Ho-Tep,” as Campbell’s Elvis opines). Naturally, the two old coots aren’t going to just let Bubba Ho-Tep run hog-wild through their peaceful nursing home, and so they rush forward on their walkers and their wheel chairs to save the day. Its got that mix of the absurd that just screams cult film.

The trailer is great, and it features some of those trademark Coscarelli visuals (which I never realized he had before, but he does. Its tempting to throw out the term Auteur, but I’m way too subjective when it comes to Coscarelli), music that sounds suspiciously like the Phantasm theme, and Campbell’s typically cheeky delivery (including Elvis-fu, complete with cheesy sound effects). I can’t wait to see this film. Alas, it doesn’t look like its coming to Philly very soon, but I’m hoping it will eventually make its way over here so that I can partake of it in all its B-Movie glory. The King lives!

Villainous Brits!

A few weeks ago, the regular weather guy on the radio was sick and a British meteorologist filled in. And damned if I didn’t think it was the best weather forecast I’d ever heard! The report, which called for rain on a weekend in which I was traveling, turned out to be completely inaccurate, much to my surprise. I really shouldn’t have been surprised, though. I know full well the limitations of meteorology, and weather reports can’t be that accurate. Truth be told, I subcounsciously placed a higher value on the weather report because it was delivered in a British accent. Its not his fault, he can predict the weather no better than anyone else in the world, but the British accent carries with it an intellectual stereotype; when I hear one, I automatically associate it with intelligence.

Which brings me to John Patterson’s recent article in the Guardian in which he laments the inevitable placement of British characters and actors in the villainous roles (while all the cheeky Yanks get the heroic roles):

Meanwhile, in Hollywood and London, the movie version of the special relationship has long played itself out in like manner. Our cut-price actors come over and do their dirty work, as villains and baddies and psychopaths, even American ones, while the cream of their prohibitively expensive acting talent Concordes it over the pond to steal the lion’s share of our heroic roles. Either way, we lose.

One could be curious why Patterson is so upset that American actors get the heroic parts in American movies, but even if you ignore that, Patterson is stretching it pretty thin.

As Steven Den Beste notes, this theory doesn’t go too far in explaining James Bond or Spy Kids. Never mind that the Next Generation captain of the starship Enterprise was a Brit (playing a Frenchman, no less). Ian McKellen plays Gandalf; Ewan McGregor plays Obi Wan Kenobi. The list goes on and on.

All that aside, however, it is true that British actors and characters often do portray the villain. It may even be as lopsided as Patterson contends, but the notion that such a thing implies some sort of deeply-rooted American contempt for the British is a bit off.

As anyone familiar with film will tell you, the villain needs to be so much more than just vile, wicked or depraved to be convincing. A villainous dolt won’t create any tension with the audience, you need someone with brains or nobility. Ever notice how educated villains are? Indeed, there seem to a preponderance of doctors that become supervillains (Dr. Demento, Dr. Octopus, Dr. Doom, Dr. Evil, Dr. Frankenstien, Dr. No, Dr. Sardonicus, Dr. Strangelove, etc…) – does this reflect an antipathy towards doctors? The abundance of British villains is no more odd than the abundance of doctors. As my little episode with the weatherman shows, when Americans hear a British accent, they hear intelligence. (This also explains the Gladiator case in which Joaquin Phoenix, who is Puerto Rican by the way, puts on a veiled British accent.)

The very best villains are the ones that are honorable, the ones with whom the audience can sympathize. Once again, the American assumption of British honor lends a certain depth and complexity to a character that is difficult to pull off otherwise. Who was the more engaging villain in X-Men, Magneto or Sabretooth? Obviously, the answer is Magneto, played superbly by British actor Ian McKellen. Having endured Nazi death camps as a child, he’s not bent on domination of the world, he’s attempting to avoid living through a second holocaust. He’s not a megalomaniac, and his motivation strikes a chord with the audience. Sabretooth, on the other hand, is a hulking but pea-brained menace who contributes little to the conflict (much to the dismay of fans of the comic, in which Sabertooth is apparently quite shrewd).

Such characters are challenging. It’s difficult to portray a villain as both evil and brilliant, sleazy and funny, moving and tragic. In fact, it is because of the complexity of this duality that villains are often the most interesting characters. That British actors are often chosen to do so is a testament to their capability and talent.

Some would attribute this to the training of the stage that is much less common in the U.S. British actors can do a daring and audacious performance while still fitting into an ensemble. It’s also worth noting that many British actors are relatively unknown outside of the UK. Since they are capable of performing such a difficult role, and since they are unfamiliar to US audiences, it makes the films more interesting.

In the end, there’s really very little that Patterson has to complain about, especially when he tries to port this issue over to politics. While a case may be made that there are a lot of British villains in movies (and there are plenty of villains that aren’t), that doesn’t mean there is anything malicious behind it; indeed, depending on how you look at it, it could be considered a complement that British culture lends itself to the complexity and intelligence required for a good villain we all love to hate (and hate to love). [thanks to USS Clueless for the Guardian article]

Understanding Vs. Enjoyment

Does greater understanding mean getting less joy out of things? Steven Den Beste wonders how many literature professors are blind to the simple joys of reading, and Matt Howell contends that greater understanding leads to greater appreciation.

Den Beste points to Mark Twain, who laments that he lost something when he gained a mastery of steamboat piloting (and thus a great understanding of the “language of water”):

… the romance and the beauty were all gone from the river. All the value any feature of it had for me now was the amount of usefulness it could furnish toward compassing the safe piloting of a steamboat.

Howell disagrees, and points to his studies of theater. To him, a “critical analytical mindset does nothing to sap the joy from the experience of watching a play.”

In part, they are both right, because the examples are very different. Twain learned a trade, and in so doing, he lost something. He saw the river in terms of piloting a steamboat. Howell, on the other hand, learned more about theater so that he could gain a greater appreciation of theater. Twain didn’t learn the language of water to gain a greater appreciation of nature, but, rather, to avoid crashing his steamboat. Obviously their education in their corresponding subject affected them in different ways, and rightly so.

However, while I admit that I agree with Howell that a greater understanding of a subject can lead to a greater appreciation of that subject, I’ve noticed that it is very easy to over-analyze. I’m not familiar with theater, so I’ll need to fall back on film. When taking in a good horror flick, for instance, a critical analysis of the mise en scène can completely ruin the film. When I look at the screen, and I see a skewed camera angle, cool colors giving way to hot colors, and I hear the music shift, I think to myself the director is manipulating the elements of the film to imply dread; something’s going to happen. Its the difference between being told to feel horror and actually feeling horror. To someone who is passively viewing the film, the feeling of apprehension is palpable precisely because they don’t know what the filmmaker is doing to them. If they did, they’d feel manipulated and cheated, and that’s not why you go to see a horror film.

The best films, the ones that affect us the most, are the ones which transport and immerse you in another world, another time… but if you’re busy nitpicking about the lighting or the editing, then you’re still sitting in the theater, and you’re certainly not enjoying the film.

Of course, this isn’t true all of the time. Sometimes a filmmaker will actually want you to think about why a shot was from that angle or why one color or another dominates the screen at various times (and sometimes bad films will do this unintentionally, giving you that feeling of manipulation I discussed earlier). There’s no way to objectively quantify how you should watch a film, but every way has its advantages or disadvantages. Analysis of a film while you’re watching it can be rewarding and fun, but its possible to overdo it, as I think I’ve shown. Its sometimes nice to let the filmmaker’s vision sweep over you and save the analysis for later.

Its similar to the notion that you have to sometimes have to suspend your disbelief while watching a movie. When a film has too many unrealistic elements, you can no longer relate, and you’re no longer immersed in the film’s world. But the occasional fudging of reality is acceptable, as long as it doesn’t remove you from the film’s grip for too long. Sure, its fun to MST3K a movie, but proclaiming He just shot 8 bullets out of a revolver without reloading and other similar complaints is an awful way to watch a movie, just as an over-analysis of a film can significantly blunt the impact of that film. Then again, I guess this is where the difference between film and theater come in. I can watch and rewatch the same exact film, taking care the second time around to figure out why I felt a certain way during a scene, thus enhancing my enjoyment of the film…

Update 6.23.03 – Porphyrogenitus has two posts discussing how the game of Quidditch ruined the first Harry Potter film for him. He refers to the film as losing his goodwill with a few annoying details (such as the way Quidditch was handled), which is a great way of putting one of the things I was trying to get at above…