Oscar History
Film Bitch History
Welcome

The Film Experience™ was created by Nathaniel R. All material herein is written by our team. (This site is not for profit but for an expression of love for cinema & adjacent artforms.)

Follow TFE on Substackd

Powered by Squarespace
COMMENTS

 

Keep TFE Strong

We're looking for 500... no 390 SubscribersIf you read us daily, please be one.  

I ♥ The Film Experience

THANKS IN ADVANCE

What'cha Looking For?
Subscribe

Entries in politics (403)

Monday
Jan232012

Burning Questions: Can Biopics Help But Glorify Their Subjects?

Michael C. here, just returned from witnessing Meryl Streep in all her awards bait glory.

When controversy arrives in Phyllida Lloyd’s Thatcher biopic The Iron Lady, it comes in the standard form of news footage montages depicting seas of angry protesters clashing with policemen. The actual substance of the issues - massive union strikes, war in the Falkland Islands – is not discussed so much as reframed in the most generic possible terms. Every issue boils down to the same dynamic: Thatcher’s opponents are invariably lily-livered scaredy cats pushing for compromise if not outright surrender, while The Iron Lady holds firm to strength, courage, and principle over popularity. The filmmakers would no doubt say that they are focusing on character over unimportant detail, but it has the direct effect of letting Thatcher off the hook for her positions. Conservatives are free to mentally fill in their ideology and cheer her resolve, while the rest are encouraged to ignore partisanship and admire her gumption.

To be fair to the filmmakers, if Iron Lady had taken the opposite tack and really dug into the thought process of why Thatcher did what she did it would no doubt serve to amplify charges that the movie was aggrandizing its subject. It appears to be a case of damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. The very act of storytelling itself invites the audience to understand the protagonist’s motives and actions. It begs the question: Can biopics help but glorify their subjects? 

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Dec282011

National Film Registry. Have You Seen These Titles?

Porgy & Bess, in which Sidney Poitier and Dorothy Dandridge both lipsynched is one of the 25 inductees.The film is rarely screened, not all that well and regarded but badly in need of restoration. Is that what did it?Each year I read the press release list of the films admitted to the National Film Registry and promptly forget them. I guess I've never absorbed just what this does for the films beyond being an obviously prestigious honor. So this year rather than doing the usual read the titles and forget, I stopped, actually took a breath (a rarity on the web), wondered, and googled a bit. I stopped being lazy about it so you don't have to be either. I didn't just list titles below but actual information!

However I am still a bit confused as what the honor actually means beyond admittance into the Library of Congress. If this meant government funding to restore or preserve the films or if it meant an automatic transfer to each new medium that surfaces (VHS to DVD to Blu Ray to whatever is next) so that that film in question never disappears it would be a truly astounding honor. But it doesn't mean this.  The National Film Preservation Board which is connected to the National Film Registry  does not own the rights and can thus not distribute the films. The honor is also no guarantee of preservation. Film preservation is still a privately funded matter. Hollywood as a whole is fairly disinterested in its own history (except to mine it for remakes) and US politics has always been depressingly anti-arts funding. (Thank the Right Wing of the country for that.)

Here are the 25 new inductees in chronological order of creation. I am ashamed at how few of the I've seen. Should we watch them together?

 

  • The Cry Of The Children (George Nichols, 1912) a short film about child labor
  • A Cure for Pokeritis (Laurence Trimble, 1912) a short slapstick comedy
  • The Kid (Charles Chaplin, 1921) another Chaplin film for the Registry
  • The Iron Horse (1924) a long western starring George O'Brien of Sunrise fame.
  • Nicholas Brothers Family Home Movies (1930s and 1940s) I assume this is the famous tap dancers?

 

The Nicholas Brothers

Beloved orphan fawns, globally famous serial killers, and remarkable actress faces, and more after the jump... How many have you seen?

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Dec152011

Linker by the Dozen

Philadelphia Weekly offers up 6 family films that would draw the ire of the far right in the wake of Fox's ridiculous Muppets bashing.
Coming Soon Another pic of Daniel Day-Lewis from the set of Lincoln, this time with Steven Spielberg
TOH on Matt Damon vs. Tony Gilroy in GQ, hurt feelings around the Bourne franchise.
Guardian David Thomson's ode to Jeremy Renner 

The Cut chooses 11 surprisingly stylish celebrities of 2011
Monkey See 20 Unhappiest People in the Comments Section of Year End Lists. Teehee
Pajiba thinks the teaser poster to Prometheus looks familiar.
Slant Oscar Prospects: Midnight in Paris
Bernardin Could Netflix revive Firefly? It's wishful thinking but thinking wishfully is fun.
Critical Condition "Hush up and watch the Artist" 
Tom Shone why the Globes are better than the Oscars. 

So the HFPA love their stars! What sinful wretches! To survey the history of the Golden Globes is to enter a fragrant Arcadia where all the great Oscar howlers of the last 30 years simply didn't happen. Where E.T. smushes Gandhi, Brokeback Mountain kicks Crash to the curb, and The Social Network roundly thrashes The King's Speech."

@MarkWassmer posted this fine mashup of the latest superhero posters. I haven't posted either previously because their über seriouness drained all joy from my inner child.

I miss superhero pictures that loved color and fun like the original Spider-Man or the original Superman or even X2. Damn you Chris Nolan! ;) I reallydon't want my superheroes looking like they could just meander over to the set of a Clint Eastwood picture and fit right into the I'm A Serious Movie near black and white aesthetics.

Top Ten o' the Day - Dennis Dermody at Paper Mag
Begins by calling The Tree of Life a "psychedelic turd" and moves on to one of the year's most immature and sloppy pictures (Kaboom) so I don't know how seriously to take it but I like the second sentence on Melancholia a lot.

 I feel slightly guilty enjoying the spoils of Von Trier's ongoing depression."

Thursday
Dec082011

Occupy Q&A! Purposefully Bad Acting & Post-Movie Etiquette

Roughly one hundred years ago on November 18th, 2011 I took questions for the next Q&A and after what was meant to be a short diversion answering the oddly abundant small screen questions I am now answering them. I am many things but I am nothing if not punctual. This is Part one of two as there is much to answer. Tomorrow's edition will actually arrive tomorrow night as it's already written. Yay me!

Just to stretch out the variety a bit I asked y'all to refrain from any questions about legendary actresses this time -- my favorite topic and apparently yours since many of you didn't listen ;) -- so  in this week's column, the men get a little time to shine. Let's go!

ANNIE: What was your favorite experience of seeing a movie with an audience, where the audience's reaction actually enhanced your viewing?

I've had many screenings like this that have enhanced my love of the movie we're all watching together. Which is why I believe so emphatically in the sanctity of moviegoing, and why I wish studios and theaters would lower prices before they price themselves out of populist relevance. TV is free and home theaters are getting larger so the movies really need to understand that they can't be making it so difficult for families to hit the multiplex or who will go? Movie attendance is a fraction of what it once was no matter how big the box office numbers seem and that is sad.

Jack and Leo discussing how awesome Barbra Streisand is in "Funny Girl"In terms of special events almost nothing beats Funny Girl's revival at the Ziegfeld several years ago here in NYC. It must have been sold out and that theater is HUGE. I saw at least one semi-famous person in the crowd and everyone was obviously there because they loved the movie. Seeing such a legendary star-making performance super-sized in a historic theater that had actual ties to the movie? Bliss. Nobody was raining on anyone's parades in there. It felt like oxygenated euphoria in that house. Also you know what movie was fun to watch with a typical noisy multiplex crowd just a few blocks from there? The Departed ! I still relish the audience reaction when you-know-who gets shot so mercilessly without fanfare or warning. It was as if there were tiny rugs under every individual theater seat and diabolical trickster Martin Scorsese had yanked them all at once and all OH.HELL.NO broke loose in there; the most fun you'll ever have watching someone get shot in the head!

How's that for a double feature: Funny Girl and The Departed ? Hee.

JOHN-PAUL: With three summer releases still alive in the Best Picture race (The Help, Midnight in Paris, The Tree of Life) and fall Oscar-bait movies seemingly underwhelming left and right (J. Edgar, The Ides of March, Carnage, A Dangerous Method, etc.), do you think the so-called "Oscar season" will become less relevant in the coming years?

I wish I could say "Yes" but this happens on a fairly regular basis and nothing changes. What's more this year has even more "one week qualifiers" than usual (4 or 5 by my count), so the system is definitely not changing for the better. I hate to be a broken record but I firmly believe that AMPAS should change the rules drastically. I don't think a film should be eligible for the Oscars unless it has allowed regular moviegoers to watch it in at least the top six markets. The current system gets called elitist on a regular basis but for stupid reasons ("Hey they didn't vote for that lame-ass blockbuster sequel that audiences flocked to for habitual lemming-like reasons!") and never for the actual elitist problem which is that you can show yourself for seven days in one theater in LA and ignore moviegoers totally and still be eligible for Best Movie prizes. That's all kinds of elitist, suggesting that the only audience a movie need concern itself with is 6000+ voting members of AMPAS. 

Mr. W: Any thoughts on Jean-Jacques Beineix' 'Diva'?

Have you ever seen DIVA (1981)? It's quite a time capsule.

Love it. Saw it three times at least in the 80s on VHS. Unfortunately I remember little about it other than its distinctly 80s new wave aesthetic and the fantastic diversity of the cast (black, asian and white characters on equal footing in the narrative? So rare in the 80s! And even now). I also liked that the story was built around something as mundane but unusual as a bootleg concert of an opera singer who refused to be recorded. No one speaks of "bootlegs" anymore -- they were put out of business by illegal downloads and leaking. 

JOHN T: Which legendary male actor would you like to pull a Christopher Plummer and make a comeback and get his first nomination-must be 65 or older to enter.

[The answer and more questions after the jump including awesome bad acting, Occupy Wall Street and post-movie etiquette.]

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Nov122011

Review: "J. Edgar"

Disclaimer #1: This reviews briefly talks about the ending but... duh. It's history.
Disclaimer #2: Everyone has biases and the only people who tend to get in trouble about them are the ones that admit them like me. Generally speaking I think biopics are the dullest of film genres and it takes a strong artistic voice to overcome their persistent nagging limitations.  Generally speaking I do not love the work of Clint Eastwood. Though many critics feel duty bound to praise even his most obvious misfires, I've been accused of the exact opposite approach though I liked all four of his modern Best Picture grabs... (just not in the way Oscar did.)
Disclaimer #3: Clint Eastwood makes me sad because -- though this is not his fault -- he has ruined many famous film critics for me. My favorite living filmmaker is Pedro Almodóvar but I didn't try to pretend that Broken Embraces, Live Flesh, or The Skin I Live In were masterpieces. I don't trust anyone who can't see Eastwood's weaknesses as a filmmaker, his inability to vary up his visual ideas, the uneven "we did it in one take!" acting (it shows), and so on...

If you've already tuned out I understand and forgive you. That's too many disclaimers but one must approach the ceaselessly idolized Clint Eastwood with caution. Extreme caution is also recommended when approaching J. Edgar Hoover, the infamous half century FBI overlord and mean SOB. "J. Edgar" who is played from sixteen (?) to death by L. DiCaprio is also, as it turns out, an unreliable narrator. J Edgar (2011) is fully aware of this though weirdly cagey about when to reveal it. Rather than encouraging us to look at the man and his actions with clinical wide eyes from the start, it encourages much sympathy with groaner on-the-button lines like 'no amount of admiration can fill the place where love should be.' In fact, it embraces the title man's point of view to such an extent that he narrates the entire movie -- that old groaner device of "telling his story for posterity." His point of view is the only point of view so even his life long "friend" Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) is first viewed only as a menacing shadow behind closed doors, something to be ashamed of. After two plus hours of sympathising and listening to apologies about his behavior (but his mommy hated the gays -- naturally he was fucked up!) he is clumsily retrofitted at the tail end as the movie's Keyser Soze of sorts, only less purely evil on account of all the sad little boy business. But yes, he's been lying all along... or fibbing, if you're still feeling sympathetic.

Though the screenplay needed another few drafts as badly as some of the minor performances needed additional takes, there are brief flashes of the movie it could have been. The Charles Lindbergh and John Dillinger storylines, for example, are enough to fill movies by themselves. We know this because they've made for better movies than J. Edgar. Despite decades of evidence warning filmmakers about this exact "EVERYTHING!" approach, J. Edgar falls for the typical bio-traps. Movies are shorter than novels and definitely shorter than entire human lives and must thus choose which elements are worth dramatizing. Instead J. Edgar, like so many bios before it, crams itself full with cliff notes instead of truly absorbing the text and breathing its ideas. J. Edgar clings to many of the famous storylines and its own suppositions about them as desperately as Hoover clings to Tolson. But it's not just their manly love that's unconsummated; this whole movie has blue balls. Just as you become invested in one chapter or detail, you've lept ahead or backwards and on to another. No one involved in the production ever seems to decided what they found interesting about the material other than "ALL OF IT!"

For their part, the actors do what they can with the unfocused material. Leonardo DiCaprio, ever fond of playing anguished men, gives it his all but doesn't reach the charismatic precision or depth of feeling that he can hit when the material is more focused on entertainment than on SERIOUS ACTING. (In short, we're losing DiCaprio the movie star to DiCaprio the 'Master Thespian' and this is a crying shame.) Armie Hammer is more than adept at the dreamy Ivy League gay catch he plays in the early scenes but loses his way once he's playing a character well beyond his own age. He's swathed in lbs and lbs of prosthetics (maybe he couldn't see his marks? Why do makeup artists think "old" means 130? Why does he look older than Judi Dench?) Naomi Watts, who needed anything but yet one more bleak movie on her resume, is barely consequential at all. Though she embodies "Loyalty" -- we know because J Edgar tells us just that in the constant narration -- you could leave her on the cutting room floor and not lose much. Finally, though she's in little of it, Judi Dench walks away with the whole thing with her devastatingly unsympathetic mother-son chitchat about "daffodils". It's obvious and cruel code for "don't be a fairy!" though she knows her boy already is one. 

"Is that legal?"In the end, though, what burdens the movie as heavily as the extreme prosthetics must have weighed on Hammer and DiCaprio is its utter joylessness. Again Clint Eastwood dully plinks away on the piano at key moments rather than hiring a composer who could have elevated this movie with something more robust and filled with different shades of feeling. The murky cinematography by Tom Stern, is just as monotonous in feeling in addition to being practically monochromatic. Another Eastwood picture all drained of color. Black and white movies are among the most beautiful movies ever made so if you want to make a black and white movie, have at it; consummate the love affair! But none of this "color is too flowery!" business.

Even the early most playful scenes wherein J. Edgar and Clyde are becoming intertwined lack the spark that you can only see in Armie Hammer's eyes. You could stretch and say that the film's entirely bleak aesthetic is meant to represent the joylessness of Hoover's life only if you've never seen a recent Clint Eastwood. That's just how they always look. The movie is an über-drag, long before J Edgar is softly whimpering in his mamma's dress.  D+