Three Terrible Ideas Involving Lesbians, Vampires, and Lennons

Hey, Let's Remake a Hitchcock!
While some of us enjoyed Gus Van Sant's maligned Psycho (1998) experiment in "recreation" (hey, it's more honest than "reboot") -- generally we're forgiving of artistic experiments in comparison to parasitic cash-grabs --  remaking Hitchcock movies is never a good idea in the strictest sense of the word "good". Think of the relief on the internetz when that new version of The Birds didn't take flight. See, Alfred Hitchcock is not like so many great auteurs of yore that today's audiences aren't familiar with. If there is any classic Hollywood director that contemporary mainstream audiences still 'get,' isn't it Hitchcock? The latest of his features someone wants to remake is Rebecca (1940). Maybe there should be a law against remaking Best Picture winners? I do not trust anyone in 2012 with "Mrs. Danvers". Back away from the apparitional lesbians*!

Hey, Let's Keep Making Vampire Pictures!
Doesn't anyone in Hollywood worry about bankrolling trends long past their sell-by date? While it's true that vampires never go completely out of style they do sometimes hibernate, burrowing deep into the ground until they're ready to engage again (a la The Vampire Lestat), in terms of pop culture popularity. So after two plus decades of vampire madness doesn't it seem like that bubble could burst at any moment and someone will lose bazillions of dollars? As far as I can tell 2012 and 2013 are already so stuffed with vampires onscreens both large and small that eventually audiences will be wearing garlic when they approach the TV or multiplex. But they've decided to make another one called Harker in which Jonathan Harker is no longer a Keanu Reeves like lawyer but a Russell Crowe like investigator for Scotland yard.

Hey, Let's Adapt Movies No One Saw Into Broadway Shows That Are About Famous Musicians Whose Songs We Don't Have the Rights To!
Remember that biopic about John Lennon's pre-fame years called Nowhere Boy? It had one of those long torturous 'what year does this film belong to' releases 'round the world but never caught on. It's the film that introduced us to Aaron Johnson (Kick Ass, Albert Nobbs) who we now seem to be stuck with. It also introduced him to director Sam Taylor Wood and they're happily co-habitating and child-rearing three years later. But I'm losing the point. One of the distracting things about the movie, which made narrative but not emotional sense was the absence of Beatles. Now moneyburning people are adapting it into a Broadway musical. Who pray tell would spend $100+ a ticket to see an original musical about the founding members of the Beatles that is not a Beatles jukebox** musical???

*Nick introduced me to the term apparitional lesbians. I'm forever grateful because it's so damn useful. And fun to say. Try it.

** I hate jukebox musicals. I'm not suggesting someone should make one here, just that that's what audiences would want if they went to a show about John Lennon.

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Albert Nobbs"

It's our tradition here at the Film Experience to manage our expectations for new movies by forcing ourselves into yes, no, maybe so breakdowns of trailers. Since we're obviously a yes on Albert Nobbs  --"Glenn Close is not going to be ignored, Fan"-- for reasons of genesis, Oscar, LGBT loyalty, and its Glennderful nature and since we've talked about the movie enough without yet seeing it, let's do things differently. This Trailer begs for a different sort of compartmentalization. It's almost like a trailer in four acts. Is it purposefully channelling its own internal identity crisis?

They had personal trainers in 19th century? Aaron Johnson is comfortable naked...

It starts out like a frothy period comedy 0:01-0:41 (oh haha!. Remember how much you love Downton Abbey and Gosford Park?!)

Glenn isn't nearly as willing to take her clothes off!

...moves into identity crisis drama 0:42-1:12 (Mr. Albert Nobbs is actually a woman named 5 time Oscar nominee Glenn Close and Mr. Hubert Page is actually a woman named Oscar nominee Janet McTeer!)

Jane Eyre clearly thinks Rochester's a better kisser than Nobbs.

...and then tips over the edge into total chaos 1:13-2:09 like it's an uncomfortable mashup between a dreamy sentimental An American Tail style musical immigrant drama (Sinead O'Connor lullaby!) and Yentl style dramedy of convenient marriages turned totally inconvenient (!) 

... before settling into its rightful place as a For Your Consideration Oscar Ad 2:10-2:30 intended to win Glenn Close that Oscar she deserved back in 1982 (The World According to Garp), 1987 (Fatal Attraction) or 1988 (Dangerous Liaisons) or all three times depending on your point of view.

the full trailer...

How would you describe your desire to see it now?

poll by twiigs.com

How about its Oscar chances in multiple categories? 
I'm currently thinking...  

Yes - Actress (Close), Supporting Actress (McTeer)
Maybe So - a fighting longshot chance at  "Original Song", Costumes, Adapted Screenplay (this would be another way to honor Glenn Close if they're really feeling it since she co-wrote), and Art Direction.
No - Everything else. 

One Take Wonders

Though I don't recall when it began -- maybe with Rope as just discussed? --  I've been obsessed with one-take scenes for what seems like forever. You know the kind. It's that thrilling moment when the editor seems to go out for a smoke break and the director allows the film and/or performances to fully breathe. That free breathing is probably an illusion since the scenes must be rigidly corseted by the technical and performative choreography required to get it all without "coverage".

When you see a great one take scene or film, even if that "one" take is partly a matter of film trickery (examples: Atonement, Children of Men basically the entirety of Alfred Hitchcock's Rope and Aleksandr Sukorov's Russian Ark and a scene we just discussed from 25 years ago in Peggy Sue Got Married) it can be hard to return to the world of "regular" filmmaking with its generic one and a ½ second cuts composed of plentiful coverage. Over the shoulder. Close up. Over the shoulder. Repeat for billions of converszzzzzzzzzz  

I'm sorry I fell asleep.

So why do so few film directors trust in the highwire potency of long or single takes? Are they too difficult to pull off? Are film actors that unable to sustain themselves throughout emotional hairpin turns the way stage actors can 8 shows a week for hours at a time? Do people think the audience will get bored (a falsity since these scenes are usually THE talking points of their movies)?

If they're so hard to pull off why do music videos with significantly lower budgets than movies keep selling them so well?

The latest one I saw was the low budget but high entertainment "Party Girl" by XELLE 

Absolutely hot. Think of the rehearsal time required just to time things like that glitter blow? But it works, don't you think?

And I've already expressed my love for both Robyn's "Call Your Girlfriend" - just her dancing in a gym but with all the lighting tricks it's just totally a great watch --  and Cosmo's Jarvis "Gay Pirate" which is both sing-a-long fun and actually moving.

Although it's NOT a one take video, this REM "üBerlin" video starring rising actor Aaron Johnson (directed by his partner Sam Taylor-Wood) breathes enough to suggest that it wanted to be one and would have been a classic video instead of just a frisky uninhibited one, if it were. 

So I ask in full sincerity...

  Why are today's directors so afraid of letting a moment play out without zillions of edits? If music videos -- which were once blamed for shortening the average shot length in movies -- can ironically use them so often now, why can't today's full length pictures?