4:00 P.M. E! has already started their Golden Globe coverage, so I guess it’s time for me to begin as well! Time for the best of Hollywood (and television) to come out and get rewarded (or robbed). Predictions will slowly trickle in as the stars grace the red carpet, but I’ll be writing from the arrivals to the awards to Ricky Gervais’ harsh quips. With recaps, opinions, and insights, make “Marshall and the Movies” your companion for the Golden Globes!
“The funny thing about winning an Academy Award is that this will always be synonymous with my name from here on in. It will be Oscar-winner George Clooney, Sexiest Man Alive 1997, Batman died in a freak accident…”
- George Clooney accepting the Academy Award for “Syriana,” 2006
“I grew up in a place called Alcobendas where this was not a very realistic dream. And always on the night of the Academy Awards, I stayed up to watch the show. And I always felt that this ceremony was a moment of unity for the world because art – in any form – is, has been, and will always be our universal language.”
- Penélope Cruz accepting the Academy Award for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” 2009
“Did I really earn this, or did I just wear y’all down?”
- Sandra Bullock accepting the Academy Award for “The Blind Side,” 2010
Why the Oscars? Why the attention?
I had planned a whole, in-depth analysis here … but then I got sick today. I want to get something up, so let me lead off with this: the Oscars are about setting the tone for an industry. It’s about making and rewarding careers. It’s about celebrating the best of an industry. It’s about capturing a moment in time, reminding future generations of what the year meant to those who lived through it.
Revised Predictions
Best Picture
As far as I’m concerned, the top six aren’t going to change. ”Moneyball” may or may not make it in, given the passion for the movie that may or may not exist. And “The Tree of Life” could sneak in as the top choice of many voters, but I don’t feel comfortable predicting that, nor do I think the late surge of “Dragon Tattoo” love will translate into a Best Picture nomination.
Now, onto the state of the race. It looks like 2008 all over again in the Oscar race. The little movie that could then was “Slumdog Millionaire.” It was a consensus critical favorite and won the BFCA (Critic’s Choice), then trumped the more conventional Globes play “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” in the drama category, and capped off its all-around sweep by taking the SAG ensemble prize without having any big stars to boast … and then pretty much every guild too just for fun. You could say “Button” or “Milk” posed a serious threat – and “The Dark Knight” might have been a formidable foe had it not been snubbed – but everyone knew it was “Slumdog” all the way.
Similarly, in 2011, the oh-so-typical Oscar movie yet anything BUT typical “The Artist” looks about ready to lap the competition. It’s been the critical darling of the year but doen’t have the unanimity that “The Social Network” had last year. Thus, it has become their gentle suggestion of the best movie of the year, not like the mandate that backfired last year. It has been scoring everywhere it needs to score – a field-leading 11 nominations at the Critics Choice Awards including Best Picture (which it will most likely win), a field-leading 6 nominations at the Golden Globes including Best Picture, and 3 nominations at the SAG Awards including Best Ensemble. Now all it needs to do is start winning things to make it undeniable.
Running closely behind is Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants,” which looks to be the “Milk” of 2011 as it seems to be the favorite for both the Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay trophies. It could win Best Picture; indeed, it seems likely to win Best Picture in the drama category at the Golden Globes. But in a year where nostalgia and an old-fashioned yearning for movies to take us out of our misery – not face it – could hurt this movie which is already burdened by comparisons to Payne’s last film, “Sideways.” 
Then again, having a virtual monopoly on the brain vote may help “The Descendants” because the heart vote is being tugged in a number of directions. ”The Help” makes a big case as it’s a period piece (Oscars love the past), it’s a feel-good movie (“The King’s Speech” won last year), it has real audience support ($169 million), and it has the actors behind it. Davis and Spencer are both serious threats to win their categories, and I would definitely consider “The Help” to be the favorite for the coveted SAG ensemble prize. Given how well-acted the movie is down to its core, this may be the movie that rallies the biggest branch of the Academy. But if “The Artist” wins that award, I would consider the race to be pretty much over.
There’s also the case to be made for “Hugo,” which harkens back to the pioneering days of moviemaking, and “War Horse,” which reminds all who see it of the weepy sentimentality and soaring scopes of a John Ford picture. But with neither making blockbuster cash and neither getting a single nomination from the SAG, it’s really hard to see either mounting a serious threat. It’s particularly problematic for “War Horse” as it missed a Best Director nomination for Spielberg at the Globes and a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination with the WGA. Spielberg’s legendary status will likely get him into the Best Director field at the Oscars, but not having a screenplay nomination will be problematic. Not since “Titanic” in 1997 has a movie won Best Picture without having a nominated screenplay, and only once in the last 10 years did the Best Picture winner not also win a Best Screenplay Oscar.
The acting thing is also an issue as it’s pretty rare for a movie to win Best Picture without an acting nomination. The last time two times it happened was with “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” – both of which had the actors’ support as shown by their wins in the SAG ensemble category yet were consensus favorites anyways. The nomination may be the prize for these movies.
As a final word on the category, don’t count out “Midnight in Paris.” It’s been flying under the radar, but it could win Best Picture in the comedy category at the Golden Globes. Woody Allen has won the category twice before, and this is his tenth film nominated for Best Picture overall. It’s also his fifth Best Director nomination and sixth Best Screenplay nomination. All this talk about career rewards for Spielberg and Scorsese need to be equally focused on Woody Allen. The movie has scored with the SAG, PGA, and WGA – so there’s no reason to take this movie lightly.
Best Director
It’s never wise to predict a split Picture-Director ticket … even when the director is as widely regarded as David Fincher, who may come into play as a dark horse for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But in my mind, the top four is set with Hazanavicius, Payne, Scorsese, and Spielberg, who were all BFCA nominees (and all but Spielberg were HFPA nominees). Woody Allen, to me, seems like the logical fifth nominee. The director’s branch has nominated him six times, four of which were not a complement to a Best Picture nomination. They like him, even when they don’t like his movie. While Terrence Malick may have crafted a more ambitious, director-driven movie, I still don’t see them opting for him over Allen.
Best Actor
The top three are locked in after getting nominations from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA. Fassbender can’t be put in the same category since he missed with the SAG, the group with the most overlap with Academy voters, but he seems pretty safe given that the nomination would be a reward for his ubiquity just as much as his performance. In addition, physical commitment to a role always plays well with the actors branch; see nominations for James Franco in “127 Hours” and Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler” as proof. ”Last Tango in Paris,” another controversial NC-17 film, received a nomination for its leading actor back in 1973. However, his name was Marlon Brando.
Leonardo DiCaprio, after garnering notices from all three of the major groups, would normally be considered a lock. But here’s my hangup on predicting him: this is a category that almost always requires a quality movie behind a quality performance. You have to look back to ten years ago when you saw a movie with a Rotten Tomatoes score below 70% – “Ali” at 67% and “I Am Sam” at a staggeringly (and unfairly) low 34%. ”J. Edgar” currently stands at 42% on the review aggregator. Not since 2005 has anyone with nominations for BFCA, SAG, and HFPA missed an Oscar nomination in this category, and that was previous winner Russell Crowe who was up this time for “Cinderella Man.” It also happened to Paul Giamatti for “Sideways” in 2004, the victim of Clint Eastwood coming out of nowhere and scoring a nomination thanks to the rising tide of “Million Dollar Baby.”
But if DiCaprio misses, who gets in? Ryan Gosling is having a great year but his two performances could cancel each other out, and neither “Drive” nor “The Ides of March” seem to have much momentum. There isn’t consensus either on which is the more deserving performance; BFCA nominated him for “Drive” while HFPA nominated him for “The Ides of March.” I feel like this is prime territory for a dark horse candidate to rise … but who will it be? Michael Shannon for “Take Shelter?” Joseph Gordon-Levitt for “50/50?” Woody Harrelson for “Rampart?” Or will SAG nominee, but still underdog, Demian Bichir capitalize on the actor’s love for his work in “A Better Life?” Unfortunately, there’s not much opportunity for any of these candidates to gain traction in the race, so you either go smart and pick Leo here or go with a hunch.
Best Actress
For the past 15 years, the SAG field has provided a clue to at least 4 of the 5 eventual nominees for Best Actress at the Oscars. The top four in the field – Davis, Streep, Williams, and Swinton – have all scored nominations from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA. Then, the plot thickens. The way I see it, there are three actresses competing for that final slot. History says go with the SAG nominee, which is Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs.” But Charlize Theron is also a threat for “Young Adult” after cracking the field for both the BFCA and HFPA.
And I definitely don’t think anyone can count out Golden Globe nominee Rooney Mara for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” People sensed the passion wasn’t there for this film, but it’s been stealthily building a healthy résumé throughout the season. It was one of the top ten movies for the National Board of Review and the American Film Institute; this week, it was nominated by both the Producers Guild and the Writers Guild.
The movie has supporters where “Albert Nobbs,” which currently sits at 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, has few. But love from producers, directors, and critics doesn’t provide any direct aid to Mara, who must be nominated by her peers in the acting branch of the Academy. They may be more inclined to vote for Glenn Close because she’s a five-time nominee who worked tirelessly for three decades to get this story on screen, whereas Mara is making her first big splash (and will likely have two other chances to be nominated for this role) and Theron seems to have had her moment in the sun.
Here’s an interesting mini-trend I’ve picked up on: since 2003, only once has the Academy not included an actress under the age of 30 in the field. Michelle Williams is now 31, so only Mara (or dark horses Felicity Jones and Elizabeth Olsen) fills this new quotient.
Best Supporting Actor
At once, this is the most solid and the most fluctuating race this year. The frontrunner still is – and has been since June – Christopher Plummer for his incredible turn in “Beginners.” I don’t really think anyone else has a prayer because this is both a sentimental, Lifetime Achievement Oscar (think Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin) and a consensus pick (think Tim Robbins and Javier Bardem). Of course, this assumes that he will steamroll to wins from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA, a scenario which I think is incredibly likely.
Branagh is the only other sure-fire nominee after scoring nominations from all three of the big organizations thus far. Brooks also seems pretty secure, although the SAG omission raises some eyebrows since the Oscars have matched the SAG five in this category for the past two years. I would also say that given the support for “Moneyball,” Jonah Hill seems like a decent bet after SAG and HFPA nominations. It’s that very support and presence that I think is the X-factor for him and perhaps the nail in the coffin for Nick Nolte, whose movie “Warrior” is totally absent on the precursor scene.
As for that final slot, I’m going gusty and saying it will be Brad Pitt in “The Tree of Life.” I don’t see why this performance can’t ride in on the coattails of his sure-fire nominated one in “Moneyball.” And it would make Pitt both a competitor and a co-star of Jonah Hill; how awesome would that be? Dark horse nominees, unnoticed by the big three organizations, happen in this category – look to Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road,” William Hurt in “A History of Violence,” Alan Alda in “The Aviator,” Djimon Hounsou in “In America.” But this is a gusty pick; smart money always goes the SAG five.
Best Supporting Actress
BFCA/HFPA/SAG only agreed on Bejo, Spencer, and Chastain. This is the only category where, to my knowledge, getting all three of these nominations does not ensure a nomination. Last year, Mila Kunis missed for “Black Swan,” and Cameron Diaz missed in 2001 for “Vanilla Sky.” It happens, although I’d say that that was more of a character judgement disapproving of some of their other, non-Academy friendly projects. None of these actresses seem to be at risk for a similar fate.
I’d call Bejo the frontrunner because there might be some vote-splitting for the scene-stealing Spencer and the year-stealing ubiquitous Chastain. If Viola Davis emerges as the one to beat for Best Actress, I would guess that the urgency to reward one of the ladies of “The Help” here will go down.
The race gets murkier beyond that, though, as the three organizations differed on how to fill those final two slots. BFCA went Melissa McCarthy in “Bridesmaids” and Shailene Woodley in “The Descendants” (they nominate six, so Carey Mulligan was also in there for “Shame”). SAG went McCarthy and Janet McTeer in “Albert Nobbs.” HFPA went Woodley and McTeer. Again, the rule is usually to follow SAG … but I just don’t think Melissa McCarthy can manage a nomination because comedic actresses just aren’t usually the Academy’s cup of tea. I think the only precedent is Robert Downey Jr. being nominated for “Tropic Thunder,” but that was a lot more daring and probing of a performance. McCarthy just – drains her plumbing in a sink.
McTeer disappears in her role (so I’ve heard) and Woodley is in the #2 movie of the year. I think those are my other two.
Best Original Screenplay
Here is where I think the surprising “Bridesmaids” love – among the top movies feted by the AFI, SAG, HPFA, PGA, and WGA – will register. It’s a well-written movie where the comedy is so heavily in the dialogue and the plot; while Apatow movies have yet to show up here, there has to be a first time for everything.
“Midnight in Paris” and “The Artist” are slam-dunk nominees destined to duke it out until the end, unless “The Artist” just pulls away and can’t be stopped. I hope the WGA nominees “Win Win” and “50/50″ translate their success there into Oscar nominations, but this category could go a number of directions. It’s hard to imagine that they would spring for a slate of five comedic nominees, but it could very well happen.
There’s a chance that “The Tree of Life,” thinly plotted as it is, will show up here. ”Beginners” is also an option; “Margin Call” could surprise. It was a very good year for original screenplays, so many things are fair game.
Best Adapted Screenplay
“The Descendants” is about to lap the field here; barring a huge surge for “Moneyball” (which would make Aaron Sorkin a back-to-back winner), I don’t see anything standing between Alexander Payne and a second Academy Award win in this category.
As for the rest of the field, it’s kind of a mess. I went with the WGA five here, which subbed the surging “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” for the sagging “War Horse.” (Funny enough, that would make Steven Zaillian nominee again in the category – the Oscars are seeing double this year!)
I think Tate Taylor, who will most likely miss for Best Director, can earn a nomination here for his work adapting “The Help.”
And while “Hugo” is a director’s movie, I don’t see why hot scribe John Logan (who also penned “Rango” and “Coriolanus” this year) can’t score a nomination.
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” ineligible at the WGA, could also sneak in for a nomination given its labyrinthine plot. But given its total radio silence during the season, I’m seeing that as a long shot at best.
Tune in this time next week for my LIVE BLOGGING of the Golden Globes!
As the few minutes left in 2011 quickly wane, I wanted to reflect on all the good that has come from this trying year of 2011. As Lester Burnham said in “American Beauty” – and I quoted on my senior page in the yearbook – it’s hard to stay mad when there’s so much beauty in the world.
No matter the general consensus of film in a year (and I don’t think it takes an expert to tell you this wasn’t a stellar one), the top 10 list is a reminder to all critics and readers that there will always be something to celebrate. Even amidst all the chaos of the year, we found reasons to be happy … and thus a way to be happy.
Much was said about high profile divorces – Demi and Ashton, Sinead O’Connor, Kim Kardashian – but the whole world tuned in for the Royal Wedding. Even with the American divorce rate soaring and half of all marriages are unable to last, it was love that brought us together.
Much was said about our military’s inefficacy in Iraq as we pulled out the last troops in December, but Seal Team Six gave Americans something to be proud of as they flawlessly took down the elusive Osama bin Laden. Failure and cynicism may make for an interesting editorial page, but it was success that captured the attention and the heart of America.
Much was said about the dumbing down of youth with mindless blockbusters like “Transformers” grossing a billion dollars worldwide and mindless literature like “Twilight” flying off the shelves. Yet the young generation – my generation – proved it was hardly an empty one by turning out in record numbers on the opening day of the final “Harry Potter” movie. If you couldn’t feel a real magic from the movie, you had to take comfort in seeing that the experiences of reading a book and going to a movie theater, thought be many to be endangered, were alive and well.
So while our president may have abandoned hope and change for 2012, I, for one, am full of it. I am confident that all will pan out for the future, especially given how willing filmmakers were in 2011 to tackle some of the toughest issues facing our society. In my top 10, you will see movies committed to showing us how to live, how to love, and – most importantly – how to change. Like Owen Wilson’s Gil Pender from “Midnight in Paris,” living in the past only works as a fantasy. We have to live in the now; we have to face its challenges; we have to accept pain as a natural part of progress.
So, without further ado, here were the 10 best movies I saw in 2011:
On New Year’s Eve, this year as always, we stand teetering unevenly between the past and the future – one eye looking forward, the other looking back. However, this particular day more than any in recent history, people seem to be casting all sight and all hope towards the future because 2011 brought them more pain than pleasure. Indeed, while there was plenty to celebrate, this year seemed to highlight the worst in all of us, emphasizing our shortcomings rather than our strengths, reminding us that we could be better … but for some reason we weren’t.
Politically, the year started with such promise as we looked to put an end to inflammatory and hateful dialogue in the wake of the horrific shooting in Tuscon that nearly took the life of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. In a horrifyingly ironic twist, Sarah Palin had put her district on a map with a shotgun sight on it a few months earlier, drawing attention to the overuse of words like murder and kill in the vernacular. The tragedy shamed us all, although apparently not nearly enough.
In this age of uncertainty, Washington moved towards its idealogical poles, only drawing attention to their vast differences instead of our many similarities. We are all committed to having a government that functions (and functions with less debt), yet the parts nearly came to a screeching halt as politicians disagreed as to the machine’s output. We all want to get out of this economic slump, but the inability to find common ground may have only added to the problem. And amidst it all, you heard the same kind of hateful speech that we wanted to eradicate back in January. Much of it was directed at the Tea Party: Rep. Maxine Waters said they “can go straight to hell,” Vice-President Joe Biden called them “terrorists,” and perhaps worst of all, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa issued a rallying cry to “take the sons of b*tches out.” We could be better … but for some reason we weren’t.
It was also a year of scandals that highlighted the inability of men to handle the power granted them by society. Rep. Anthony Weiner was forced to resign after moronically tweeting nude pictures of himself to young women (the icing on the cake was his wife’s pregnancy coming shortly thereafter). It likely went unnoticed amidst the debt ceiling drama, but Rep. David Wu also vacated his position after an alleged sexual assault.
The most sickening, though, was the Penn State child sex abuse drama that resulted in the termination of much of the football staff including the legendary coach Joe Paterno. As if 2011 needed any other humiliating debacle, Jerry Sandusky’s use of his charity for at-risk children to fulfill his perverse sexual desires (read the grand jury report if you want to gag) makes everything else look tame. Yes, even you, lovechild bearing governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, accused rapist and IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or philandering former Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain. It makes Charlie Sheen look like he actually could be #winning. We could be better … but for some reason we weren’t.
Look at TIME’s Person of the Year and you can deduce the prevailing emotion of the year: anger. Protesters throughout the world channeled their distrust and disapproval of government, of institutions, even of people into the streets. Some were organized, like the Arab Spring through social media and around a particular message, such as Egypt’s demands that Mubarak needed to resign for the sake of freedom and posterity. Others, like Occupy Wall Street and its various offshoots, just inspired people to bring whatever grievance they had in a display of civil disobedience. While the topics of income inequality, corporate greed, and the government influence of the financial sector floated into mainstream conversation, the lack of a unified goal has led to frustration, confusion, and inefficacy. In America, anger has just bred more anger.
And in the tradition of societal tumult, we look for a scapegoat. For some it was John Boehner’s Congress. Others blamed President Obama. But during the summer of our discontent, Americans found an unlikely figure to project their uncertainty and insecurity onto: Casey Anthony, the Florida mother accused of murdering her young daughter. Here was someone that represented everything wrong with the country – neglecting her duties, failing her children, squelching the possibility of a bright future – yet ironically, she was deemed innocent.
Cue everyone on Facebook and Twitter screaming in all caps “CASEY ANTHONY IS SO GUILTY!” No one wanted justice, they wanted blood. An eye for an eye, the perpetrator for the victim. That misplaced anger showed up once again at Penn State, where students rioted in support of their beloved Coach Paterno, whom they believed to be collateral damage in the fallout of the scandal. Yet if they had really listened, they would have known that Paterno had not called the police when directly given the information of Sandusky’s sexual misconduct in his facilities. We could be better … but for some reason we weren’t.
So why are you reading this on Marshall and the Movies? You probably could have read all the above on CNN. For one, I have firm belief in the ability of the history (the societal narrative) to affect the biography (the personal narrative), so everything from the shameful scandals to the angry Americans to the partial politics played a role in how we watched (or didn’t watch) movies and how they reflected us.
It was a year of intelligent apocalyptic movies, on a global scale by way of storms (“Take Shelter”), viruses (“Contagion”), planetary collisions (“Melancholia”), technological manipulation (“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”), and financial meltdown (“Margin Call”), all of which tied into the anxieties of living in the now.
There was also an abundance of movies tying into non-apocalyptic but hardly apocryphal personal crises. Much of it centered around loss - the loss of a family member (“The Descendants,” “Super 8″), the loss of health (“50/50″), the loss of a job (“Everything Must Go,” “Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop”), or the loss of perspective (“Martha Marcy May Marlene,” “The Beaver”).
However, plenty of these catalysts for change are the result of society, be they from industrial shifts (“The Artist,” “Hugo”), the impact of digital culture (“Shame,” “Page One”), the fallout of economic downturn (“Win Win”), an unfair playing field (“Moneyball”), hatred (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “In a Better World”), injustice (“The Help,” “Weekend”), or a general loss of faith in an institution (“Higher Ground, “The Ides of March”).
Just as the movies had a tumultuous relationship with society in 2011, society had a tumultuous relationship with the movies. Revenues fell again as ticket sales were the lowest in 15 years; you know, when Tom Cruise suited up as Ethan Hunt for the first “Mission: Impossible” movie, “Independence Day” ruled the box office, and “Super 8″ star Elle Fanning had yet to be born. Why so low? Look to the same distrust of corporations that moved the Occupiers to New York’s Zuccotti Park.
Just like “Inside Job” showed us that the banks scammed America, the preponderance of 3D revealed to most moviegoers that the technology was being used less for art (like in “Hugo”) and more for increasing profit margins (like for “Captain America”). As Grady Smith of Entertainment Weekly put it, “Consumers balk at the idea of having to pay a regular ticket price PLUS an additional $3.50 for an experience that doesn’t often provide much more than a headache.” With the growing precariousness of the country’s economic situation, the consciousness of high ticket prices might have kept the public at large from seeing non-essential movies in the theater.
There also seemed to be a paradoxical audience reaction to sequels in 2011 (as if there already wasn’t enough confusion this year). The top seven movies of the year were all sequels, and the rest of the top ten belonged to some larger franchise. Only at #12 (“Bridesmaids”) do you get anything original. However, this sequel success is double-edged as only the last “Harry Potter” film, “Fast Five,” and “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” were able to outdo their predecessors. Some fell just short, while others, particularly animated sequels like “Alvin and the Chipmunks” and “Happy Feet” severely underwhelmed. The success of original films like “Inception” seems to have done little to phase the studio executives, one of which said said that spectacle over story is what they count on for success. Unfortunately, audiences have wised up thanks to filmmakers like Nolan, and traditional strategies now seem more and more out of touch.
Finally, before I reach my 10 worst movies of the year, which are awful for lack of creativity, purpose, ambition, and cohesion, I wanted to end this post on the worst of 2011 on a personal note. After nearly 18 months of posting every day, I largely fell off the map this year. I returned to blog all of summer, but in the spring I let festivities of high school graduation overpower my will to blog; similarly in the fall, I let the transition to college life get the best of my writing capabilities. I never stopped watching movies (I saw a whopping 114 released this year). Hopwever, I did stop sharing my thoughts about them and interacting with the community at large, making all that time spent in front of the screen self-serving. I could have been better, but I wasn’t.
But just because I wasn’t better doesn’t mean I can’t be better. Mark my words, I will be better in 2012. Hopefully, we all will be.
“How much does your life weigh? Imagine for a second that you’re carrying a backpack. I want you to pack it with all the stuff that you have in your life… you start with the little things. The shelves, the drawers, the knickknacks, then you start adding larger stuff. Clothes, tabletop appliances, lamps, your TV… the backpack should be getting pretty heavy now.
You go bigger. Your couch, your car, your home… I want you to stuff it all into that backpack. Now I want you to fill it with people. Start with casual acquaintances, friends of friends, folks around the office… and then you move into the people you trust with your most intimate secrets.
Your brothers, your sisters, your children, your parents and finally your husband, your wife, your boyfriend, your girlfriend. You get them into that backpack, feel the weight of that bag. Make no mistake your relationships are the heaviest components in your life.”
- George Clooney as Ryan Bingham in 2009′s “Up in the Air“
“For what it’s worth: it’s never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There’s no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.”
- Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button in 2008′s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button“
In case you missed it…
It was a pretty slow week as I was incredibly preoccupied running last second errands before leaving for college on Wednesday. Hopefully I won’t fall off the map too precipitously, but things might be running slow for a while – especially in terms of reviewing new releases.
I took this as an opportunity to run reviews for some older movies that tied into other releases this week. With Jessica Alba headlining the new “Spy Kids” movie, I reviewed her “Machete” and “Little Fockers” from 2010. James McAvoy’s “The Conspirator” hit video this week, so I took the opportunity to review “Gnomeo & Juliet,” the animated Shakespearean tale to which he lent his voice.
I also took a look at the September crop of releases, which has a few gems shining amidst the trash heap. Kris Tapley of “In Contention” just updated his Oscar predictions to include “Moneyball” as a probable nominee for Best Picture, Actor, and Supporting Actor. More reason to get excited. Click on the picture below to see the September preview post.
And the end of the week saw a lot of emphasis on Anne Hathaway as “One Day” opened in theaters. On Friday, the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” was “Rachel Getting Married,” Oscar-nominated because of her performance. On Saturday, I reviewed “One Day” and for the most part liked what I saw. Click the picture below to read the review.
Recommended Reading
Save a tree, read a blog. Unless you want to print out a review … in which case, you aren’t saving trees.
And Vulture asks the question we are all pondering: Why Do Studios Think There’s So Much Value in Old Titles? After the flop of “Conan the Barbarian” and “Fright Night,” here was their best conclusion.
“‘Studios remake these movies because they often already own the title,’ says Ammer. But it’s more than that. After all, it wouldn’t cost a studio any more money to hire a writer to write an original screenplay than it would to have him or her write one based on an older film. The real appeal of an old title is more superstitious: The studios use them, says Ammer, because ‘they know it’s worked in the past.’ Even though it’s an entirely different movie made by different people for a different generation, the idea is, hey, the title worked before, why not give it another shot? For all of Hollywood’s supposed liberalism, studios, like their audiences, are quite conservative. Genre is the most predictive aspect of a film’s future results, and then title, so why not double down? A remake of a successful genre film allows a studio the greatest possible risk reduction.”
The Tree of Death
/Film said it best when they broke the story: Even Sean Penn did not care for Sean Penn in “The Tree of Life.” However, I’ll give credit to where I saw this first, Guy Lodge of “In Contention.”
Sean Penn moping about in my hometown.
In an interview with the French magazine Le Figaro, Sean Penn had this to say about Terrence Malick’s enigmatic film:
“I didn’t at all find on the screen the emotion of the script, which is the most magnificent one that I’ve ever read. A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What’s more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.”
I’ll go ahead and add this disclaimer to those that love the movie or the fact-checking Gestapo that yes, I realize that’s not the full quote. But for the sake of this post, it’s easier to just analyze this part.
Where to begin? The fact that a two-time Academy Award winner would bash his own movie would be shocking even if it was a total sellout, but even I as a non-impressed watcher see “The Tree of Life” as anything but a sellout. It’s high art, just not the kind of art that was to my taste. He doesn’t exactly mince his words there, pretty openly stating his distaste for how his role in the movie turned out.
This is nothing new, of course. Adrien Brody complained when he was largely cut out of Malick’s “The Thin Red Line” – while I don’t like when whiners get their way, he certainly got it with Roman Polanski’s “The Pianist” in 2002. But Penn’s statement goes far beyond just a diva fit, although I do think it dabbles in a sort of self-centered sensibility. He questions the very way that the movie was made! Keep in mind that Sean Penn has stepped behind the camera before, even turning out an all-time favorite of mine with “Into the Wild.”
Penn gets to the core of my issues with the movie. I’m even a little bit more flexible – I’d be fine without a conventional narrative. But Penn points out that the movie was incredibly disjointed. I’m sure that the movie was beautiful in Terence Malick’s head, just as Penn says it was beautiful on the page. Interestingly enough, I’ve heard from industry insiders that Malick shot the script with the dialogue, even allowing Jessica Chastain to speak. Then he would cut, walk over, and tell her to emote all of the dialogue just with her eyes. An interesting philosophy that produced an interesting end product.
Still moping...
Yet when everyone on set is not working in sync with the same vision towards a final product, the movie inevitably suffers. If an actor doesn’t understand his purpose on screen, how can he do a decent job? Moreover, how can he contribute anything to the movie? If a director can’t even articulate his vision to the people he entrusts to help him create art, how can he articulate it to an audience? I’ll inevitably be hit with the “it’s subjective” argument, but give it up here. You can’t honestly argue that Malick is such a visionary that he can’t even be on the same page with his fellow artists.
Even those that I’ve talked to who LOVE the film can at least admit that the Sean Penn segments were the weakest parts of the film, and the actor’s statements shed some light on why that is. An actor just existing on screen because a character exists on the page doesn’t make for compelling cinema if he doesn’t understand the basic objectives and motivations. It’s just … boring.
I guess my biggest question here is why didn’t Penn make a bigger fuss on the set? It seems kind of cowardly to whip out these harsh words now, potentially even in “too little, too late” territory for those who feel they’ve wasted their life watching the movie. I get the whole mindset that Malick is a genius and you don’t question him, but for such primal acting concerns as these, why wouldn’t you demand more from the master during production? If he was really that dissatisfied, why not walk off the movie? These problems Penn has should have been settled a long time ago, and by just bringing them up now, he’s either searching for attention or absolution for being the worst part of the movie.
Penn did close with this statement about the movie, something that I’d say I basically espouse:
“But it’s a film I recommend, as long as you go in without any preconceived ideas. It’s up to each person to find their own personal, emotional or spiritual connection to it. Those that do generally emerge very moved.”
“What is comedy? Comedy is the art of making people laugh without making them puke.”
- Steve Martin
“I am thankful for laughter, except when milk comes out of my nose.”
- Woody Allen
There’s a MASSIVE analysis of comedy down at the bottom. Please read and comment or I’ll feel like all my hard work was for nothing.
In case you missed it…
I gave two stellar reviews this week for summer closers “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and “The Help” as well as major kudos to Dominic Cooper’s performance in “The Devil’s Double.” Things were not so rosy for “Final Destination 5,” “Another Earth,” or “30 Minutes or Less.” Speaking of the latter, this week’s “F.I.L.M.” was “Roger Dodger,” the film debut of Jesse Eisenberg.
Recommended Reading
Here’s some of the good stuff I was reading. If you don’t like to read, then why are you on my site?
Sunday Funnies
The New York Latino Film Festival’s ad campaign revolved around movie clichés and implausibilities, and they nail some of the stuff we just accept spot on. (via /Film)
The Inadvertent Activist
On Monday, I noticed a humongous uptick in traffic. Naturally, I got a little skeptical, especially when a lot of the hits were coming from Facebook. Then I started getting a lot of redirects from a site called R-Word.org. I had heard of this site before, but in case you haven’t, here’s a video that succinctly states their mission:
They saw that I had called out the filmmakers of “The Change-Up” in my review for senselessly using these people as the butt of a joke. Some people are calling for radical action, and they have done a good job of making their voices heard. But as offensive as it is, the writers have the right to free speech and can say it if they want. The joke falls flat in the movie, and if you do for some reason decide to see it after my D+ review, use it as a reminder to eradicate the word from your casual vernacular. If you want more information on this campaign, click the picture below.
An R-Rated Renaissance?
In The Los Angeles Times back in July, Steven Zeitchik asked this question, “How deep will the R-rated renaissance run?” He cites the statistic that 2011 is “the first year ever that at least four R-rated comedies have topped [$75 million].
I’d like to respond back with this question: is this what a Renaissance supposed to look like? Because all I see is one comedic gem shining amidst a surplus of lackluster and forgettable others. Just because there has been a great quantity hardly means there has been great quality. Before I jump into my own analysis, I’d like to review my reviews of the seven R-rated comedies of summer 2011.
“I felt kind of trapped in that material. I felt, This is not my boat. I’m just a passenger, but I’m going down and there’s no way out.”
- James Franco on hosting the 2011 Oscars
“Here’s my guess: Critics will be out to kill ['Rise of the Planet of the Apes'] and blame me for it just because they are out to kill me. Last year people were pretty nice. This is the year when people are going to have fun going after me. I don’t feel the same way about ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ as I do about ’127 Hours’ or ‘Milk.’ It was a different kind of acting.”
- James Franco on the media in Playboy, July 2011
Credentials
This week, I went to a promotional screening for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” I decided to show up an hour and a half early because I knew the line would be ridiculously long. However, I didn’t anticipate that the theater would already be full by the time I got there!
Reeling, desperate, dying to see the movie, I resorted to a card I had yet to play. I went up to the rep and said, “You may not believe me but I’m a member of the press.” I wasn’t lying. And no, I’m not a member of the press just because I write a blog.
I guess it’s time for me to make a big announcement, one that I should have made several months ago. My work now appears on The Christian Science Monitor‘s webpage. That’s right, selected posts from “Marshall and the Movies” now appear on a section of the Monitor‘s site called the “Culture Café,” which pools a handful of bloggers for their opinions on the culture at large. Since May, 8 posts from my blog have appeared on their webpage, ranging from reviews of new releases to Classics Corner posts and even, most recently, a “F.I.L.M.”
Don’t believe me? Check it out for yourself by clicking on the link below! I’ll do a better job from now on including links to the posts they syndicate on “Weekend Update,” but know that you can always read it here first!
In case you missed it…
Not much went on at “Marshall and the Movies” this week. Running frantically behind, I resorted to publishing a lot of reviews I’d been holding back for a long time, “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest” and “Burlesque.” I did, however, strategically publish my review of “Howl” as James Franco had a big movie opening this week.
Yesterday, I reviewed “The Change-Up.” What a disaster that was. In case you don’t want to read the whole review, let me sum it up for you in one fragment: AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
The F.I.L.M. of the Week was Charles Ferguson’s “No End in Sight,” a documentary about the American occupation of Iraq. It’s still a fascinating watch even though the end is in sight … hindsight, as a matter of fact.
And because I didn’t get a chance to point it out in last week’s post, the July edition of “Classics Corner” took a look at Mel Brooks’ timeless comedy “Blazing Saddles.” Thank goodness people like it enough to put clips on YouTube so I can embed them here.
Recommended Reading
And here’s what I read this week. You should read it too, unless you are illiterate. Then find someone to read it for you.
Other cool things I read this week from non-blogger types:
James Franco and the Rise of the New Celebrity
You’re always hearing something about James Franco. Whether it’s him pursuing yet another degree, opening yet another movie, publishing a book, announcing a directorial venture, or appearing on a soap opera, the man seems to keep reinventing his own celebrity as he goes. But at the same time, we can’t help but ask, “Who is James Franco?” A Renaissance Man or a jack-of-all-trades spreading himself too thin? An entertainer or an artist? And I think that’s the question he wants us to be mulling over constantly.
The one thing that is certain about James Franco, however, is that he is brutally and blatantly honest. The man will say what’s on his mind and act his feelings; he won’t take pull any punches or hide behind any veneers. Case in point: the Oscars this year. You may or may not have read the quote at the top of the post, but he hated the material and was very vocal about it. In that same interview with Playboy, he said that he told the producer of the telecast that “I just don’t think this stuff’s going to be good.”
So how did he react? With boredom and a complete lack of enthusiasm while Anne Hathaway tried to exude enough enthusiasm for both hosts. But for those of us who know James Franco beyond the obvious filmography, this isn’t really a surprise or something we haven’t seen before. Have you seen 2008′s “Camille,” a little indie he starred in alongside Sienna Miller? If you haven’t, don’t because it’s awful.
Here’s the thing about “Camille” – Franco knows it’s terrible and acts accordingly: bored and brutalized, much like how those of us stupid enough to watch the movie feel. Or if you saw “Eat Pray Love,” you’ll see a similar display. The guy caught in the thankless A-hole ex-boyfriend role isn’t an exciting place to be, and Franco doesn’t act thrilled at all. But honestly, should he be? If you see “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” you’ll see a similar side of Franco: bored and acting like he’s above the material the whole time.
My question to you, the reader, is this: is James Franco justified in showing his feelings toward the movie on screen? Is he allowed to say “Yes, this is a paycheck movie, but that still doesn’t mean I have to like it” through an inferred glance? Or does he need to swallow his pride and just act? Because in the end, do we pay to see James Franco or the person that James Franco is acting as? Do we need to be able to separate the actor from the character? Or can we accept a post-modern blurring of the two?
Now allow me to shift gears while you mull over the tremendous amount of questions posed in the last paragraph. Back in March, when the Charlie Sheen phenomenon was raging out of control, the brilliant author Bret Easton Ellis (“American Psycho”) wrote a fascinating editorial for Newsweek cleverly titled “Charlie Sheen IS Winning.” In it, he broke down how Sheen epitomizes the modern (or post-Empire, as he calls it) celebrity. While acknowledging that there may be some mental or substance issues present with Sheen, he lays out a convincing case for Sheen as the smartest celebrity in Hollywood because he understands what the public wants. Try arguing with this:
“To Empire gatekeepers, Sheen seems dangerous and in need of help because he’s destroying (and confirming) illusions about the nature of celebrity … What Sheen has exemplified and has clarified is the moment in the culture when not caring what the public thinks about you or your personal life is what matters most—and what makes the public love you even more (if not exactly CBS or the creator of the show that has made you so wealthy)…
… Do we really want manners? Civility? Empire courtesy? Hell, no. We want reality, no matter how crazy. And this is what drives the Empire to distraction: Sheen doesn’t care what you think of him anymore, and he scoffs at the idea of PR.”
So, is James Franco the bellwether of a new kind of celebrity entering the mainstream consciousness without having a drug-fueled implosion? Or is he something else entirely? Weigh in!
“Acting is not about being someone different. It’s finding the similarity in what is apparently different, then finding myself in there.”
- Meryl Streep
“You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.”
- Roman Polanski
Out and About in the Community
As a sort of cop-out for not publishing this on time, I’m going to overpublicize two events I participated in recently over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs (The LAMB), a giant database of bloggers that get together and pool ideas and posts.
The first was the LAMB Acting School, a monthly series that gathers reviews and retrospectives centered around a single actor. This month, it was the legendary Meryl Streep, the woman who may well be the greatest actress of her generation. For those who get sick of her or claim that the Oscars are overly obsessed with her, just look at her filmography and tell me that the diversity of roles present and the dexterity with which she pulls them off isn’t flooring. Her emphasis is obviously on the drama, but she can pull off comedy just as easily. She is often lauded for her ability to change the accent of her voice to fit a character; however, it’s that incredible Streep pathos that she brings to every role that has made her a symbol of consistency and reliability in a volatile cinematic climate.
Not to mention I owe Meryl Streep a very special favor myself. If it hadn’t been for her and “Julie & Julia,” this blog probably wouldn’t exist. She has changed my life for better and for always, and I am eternally grateful.
Click on the graphic to go see all the posts, but here are links to what I have reviewed from her illustrious career:
Then, a week prior, I participated in the “LAMBs in the Director’s Chair” event, which celebrated the career of Roman Polanski. I haven’t seen too many of his movies and have reviewed even fewer, but I admire his skill behind the camera and don’t wish to comment on his legal status. I saw “Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired,” which I found an interesting portrait of a haunted man, and it just made me even more torn.
Nonetheless, “The Pianist” may be one of my all-time favorite movies. It is so powerful and moving, perhaps the only intensely personal non-documentarian account of the Holocaust we will ever get. I’m really hoping “Carnage” is another big success – I always love a good play adaptation.
Again, click the link to be taken to the post with reviews and commentary. Here’s what I submitted:
Classics Corner: Rosemary’s Baby
A Week in Review
This week, I reviewed the two non-Smurf new releases, “Cowboys & Aliens” and “Crazy Stupid Love.” My expectations were high for the former, low for the latter; the output was low for the former, high for the latter. Click the pictures to be transported to the reviews.
I also celebrated my two year birthday/anniversary, whichever it is – without the pomp and circumstance. And I’m totally OK with that.
Recommended Reading
Here’s some of the great work I read this week:
The Rant
This is a thought I had upon further thought on the sex friend movies of 2011, “No Strings Attached” and “Friends with Benefits.” (Believe it or not, it is possible to think on them.)
Isn’t in hypocritical that the MPAA has begun a crusade against cigarette smoking yet have done nothing about what I think is a much bigger issue in movies nowadays: the casual attitude towards unprotected sex. While I’m not going to dismiss smoking in movies as something that can influence kids and teenagers, I would argue that they are much more likely to imitate the sexual behavior of screen characters. Smoking is a social behavior, so kids see it out in public all the time. Movies just reinforce what they see in real life.
Sex, however, is a very private matter. Their education nowadays is abstinence or a very sanitized, conservative, condoms-on-bananas approach, like Coach Carr from “Mean Girls” (see the clip below). What they see in the movies defines how they perceive it in the real world.
While sex on film has evolved with the constantly changing societal norms, from “Carnal Knowledge” to “Brokeback Mountain” to the 2011 duo touting casual sex, I’m surprised that public awareness (and perhaps anger) of how sex is being portrayed on screen hasn’t caught up with the times. While the conservative definition of sex as an act between man and wife was thrown out quite a while ago, that isn’t an excuse not to care. Attitudes may have changed, but that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye and abandon all responsibility simply because we don’t fully agree with something.
The routine nowadays for sex is two people start passionately kissing, find a flat spot, disrobe each other, and begin thrusting. Is it really that hard to add the simple, responsible step somewhere before the thrusting begins of adding a condom? Would it really disrupt the scene that much to add in a shot of a Trojan wrapper on the ground? A hand reaching in the drawer for a rubber? We don’t actually have to see it slide on, but for kids who believe that movies reflect real life, there really needs to be some sense conveyed that these people have taken measures to be safe. Otherwise, there should be consequences.
Only two mainstream movies (to my knowledge) have really dared to have any major results from having unprotected sex, both coming in 2007: “Knocked Up” and “Juno,” both of which featured characters who had to deal with a life-changing pregnancy either willingly not using a condom (the latter) or accidentally not using one (the former). Both tackle the issue in a respectful manner but also serving as subtle cautionary tales. But other than those, the only other movie I can think of that shows safe sex being practiced are, ironically, “No Strings Attached.” (I should also credit 2005′s “Must Love Dogs,” a lame Diane Keaton rom-com that featured a scene where she and John Cusack choose not to have sex because they can’t find a condom.)
Does Hollywood really expect us to believe that 95% of the time, there are no consequences of having unprotected sex? Wouldn’t it be so refreshing to see Katherine Heigl get chlamydia in her next romantic comedy? Or after a drunken one-night stand, have Jessica Alba get pregnant? These are things that happen to real people when they don’t act responsibly, and by dwelling on the small percentage of times that unprotected sex has no ramifications, they are promoting an illusion that could damage lives.
In our immediate gratification culture which demands movies on DVD sooner, data quicker, and social information faster, I find it almost unfathomable that people have chosen to fixate on eradicating smoking from cinema with all of its LONG-TERM effects. Lung cancer takes a while to develop; you start to feel pregnancy within a month or so, a sexually transmitted disease sets in even sooner, and emotional scarring may be present the next morning. While the wages of sex are usually not life-threatening, that doesn’t mean we should just turn a blind eye to Hollywood’s dangerous condoning of an irresponsible practice.
Check back for more “Weekend Update” on August 7 … hopefully it will be published on time!
“He adored New York City. He idolized it all out of proportion. Eh uh, no, make that he, he romanticized it all out of proportion. Better. To him, no matter what the season was, this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin.
He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved … New York was his town, and it always would be.”
- Woody Allen as Isaac Davis, “Manhattan” (1979)
Empire State of Mind
In case you couldn’t tell from the epigraph, this post is going to have something to do with New York City. This post is so late because I just got back from a fantastic vacation there, a “graduation trip” of sorts. I chose this domestic locale rather than some European hotspot mainly for one reason: Broadway. I’ve been so busy being in shows for the past four years – 10, to be exact – that I haven’t had the flexibility to get up to see shows. So, as a celebration of my semi-retirement from theater, I chose to see four musicals in the hotbed of the business.
But before I get into the shows, I have to talk about the city. Just walking around, you feel the cinematic quality of the town. More than anywhere in the world, New York City has been a muse to countless filmmakers from Scorsese to Woody Allen, who might as well built a celluloid shrine to the place. It’s a city full of character and life, beauty and squalor, successes and failures, but above all a sense of passion in the air, a passion that can only be found in truly great cities.
First, it was off to “Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark.” Even those who don’t pay attention to musical theater HAD to have heard about this show, be it the cast members getting injured, the plot problems, the dreadful music, or the direction turmoil – all amplified by the biggest Broadway budget ever. With all the problems and publicity, they made a wise move to stop the show for a month to iron out the kinks, and about a month ago, they opened a “reimagined” version.
It could have been absolutely dreadful originally; however, what I saw was nothing short of incredible. The story wasn’t all that great, and some of the music didn’t really work for me. However, as I often say about cinema, theater is not only a written medium, but also a visual one. If a work can be truly stunning to the eye, showing innovation, creativity, and imagination, then it can still be successful. So in that regards, consider the musical version of “Spider-Man” the “Avatar” of musical theater. Both are breathtaking experiences that push the boundaries of what we consider possible from their respective artistic media. Say what you will about them being shallow works of art, but we need them just as we need movies like “The Social Network” and “Pulp Fiction.”
Then it was on to “The Book of Mormon,” this year’s Tony Winner for Best Musical. It was probably the main reason I wanted to come to New York this summer in the first place; I mean, who doesn’t want to see the guys from “South Park” and “Avenue Q” take on Mormonism in a musical? And to have it win 9 Tony Awards just increased the allure. It’s now the hottest ticket on Broadway, and we were very lucky to get seats as cheap and as early as we did. Try getting one now and you’ll probably be asked for $900 to $1,000. Unless you are a politician paying for love, that kind of money for that amount of time just isn’t reasonable for most people.
I don’t know if I could ever justifiably fork over that much for any one show, but I can tell you that I’d easily pay $500 to see “The Book of Mormon” again. It’s the musical you’ve been praying to see your whole life – smart, funny, electrifying, and a rocking good time. While musical theater has generally been considered an artistic medium solely for escapism, Matt Stone and Trey Parker turn the tables on the preconceived notions, delivering a shocking work that deserves to be deconstructed like any other piece of intelligent literature.
I may not personally agree with all that Stone and Parker have to say, but anyone who dares to tackle an issue as big as religion in this age of artistic repression amidst commercial domination deserves a listening ear. ”The Book of Mormon” is not anti-religion, but it will ask of you to keep an open mind and ponder certain notions that you’d probably prefer to leave alone. It certainly weeds out the weak at heart by the fourth number, “Hasa Diga Eebowai” (if you want to know what it means/ruin the surprise, go ahead and listen). It’s bold but never brazen, mocking but never disrespectful, offensive but never off-putting, and challenging but never condemning. While art nowadays consists so much of staying far away from the fine lines of acceptability, “The Book of Mormon” takes joy in finding those lines and having a rollicking song and dance number on them.
I can’t recommend this show enough. Now that you’ve read this, I’ve officially dubbed every day that you spend in New York without seeing this show a wasted day. It’s a musical theater experience unlike any other I’ve ever seen, and if for nothing else, see it for a laugh. I laughed more in one scene of “The Book of Mormon” than I have at the movies ALL SUMMER. Yeah, it’s that good.
After “The Book of Mormon” blew my mind at the matinee, I moved onto the revival of “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying” that evening. Yes, that IS the musical with Daniel Radcliffe. I’ve never had any reason not to admire him, but this was a very smart career choice. While I’m sure Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are fretting about how to break away from their Harry Potter personas, Radcliffe has already proven that he can do just about anything he can put his mind to. Here, he sings and dances like a trained professional Broadway star. He has charisma and charm totally independent from his world-famous character.
It takes time to get used to him speaking in an American accent, but after a while, the strangeness subsides and the fun reigns. He and John Larroquette are an awesome duo; neither are classical musical theater actors, yet it’s so evident that they are having so much fun on that stage that it reverberates through the whole theater. Call it the anti-”Spider-Man” with its top-notch satire on corporate ladder-climbing and its simple, resourceful set design.
And then, because I’m stupid, I tried waiting for him Daniel Radcliffe at the stage door for a picture/autograph. Big mistake. Huge. I even left the show before the bows on a tip that as long as you left a little early, you were all good. Well, all the “Harry Potter” fans were already lined up, so I was WAY in the back. Then everyone else came out, and I was caught in this claustrophobic clump of hot, sweaty fans all voraciously craving an autograph. I like to think I was most deserving since I made him a big sign for his birthday, which I couldn’t even raise above my head due to the crowd’s tightness restricting the motion of my arms. This picture is all I have to show for my hour of waiting. He’s the short, scrawny looking one in red – not the big one in orange.
My last stop on the musical theater tour was “Anything Goes,” the Cole Porter classic that was this year’s Tony winner for Best Revival. While everyone loves contemporary, there’s something to be said for the classics, and this one reminded me of why musicals keep getting revived. This production featured the incomparable Sutton Foster, a name you should start knowing. She’s the Bernadette Peters of a new generation, a fantastic performer abounding in skill and smiles. In the past decade, she has been nominated five Tony Awards and won twice – and she has only been in six shows! Those are stats that would make Meryl Streep blush.
So get on board the Sutton Foster train; you won’t be disappointed.
What Else …
Not much. I had a bunch of stuff planned, but I’ll save it for next week when I can do a better job. I’ll throw in a few links here so a few people will actually read this post. But until the next reel, hasta luego.
An Introduction
“Writing should be useful. If it can’t instruct people a little bit more about the responsibilities of consciousness there’s no point in doing it.”
- Edward Albee
So what is this “Weekend Update” thing that Marshall wants me to read now? Is it some rip-off of the “SNL” feature that seriously needs to get another good-looking girl on it (sorry, Seth, but we need a Tina/Amy) and just roasts American politicians and other assorted morons?
Well, to answer the questions that I posed for you to hypothetically ask me, it’s a new feature on “Marshall and the Movies” that conveniently borrows the non-trademarked name of a popular, long-running “Saturday Night Live” segment. It seeks to provide a lot of the same things for its audience as that segment – humor, commentary, and all sorts of fun characters. Ultimately, it’s something dependable that is always here on the weekends no matter what else I’m writing about, just like no matter how poor the “SNL” writing is nowadays, you can always get a giggle from “Weekend Update” sandwiched in the middle.
Now, as to the epigraph of this post, it mainly refers to my random factoid series, which, as you may have noticed, has gone the way of the VHS tape. It was, simply put, a pain in the butt to come up with some new nugget of commentary every single day. I would get ridiculously behind on posting them, and writing became a chore rather than a passion. So with “Weekend Update,” I’ll get the chance to provide you some of that clever witicism I like to think I’ve been providing through the “Random Factoid” series – just on a more manageable timetable. Who knows, maybe I’ll still surprise everyone with a factoid every now and then when I get REALLY worked up about something.
So without further ado…
In case you missed it…
It was a very Potter week at Marshall and the Movies, in case you couldn’t tell by my changed header (which previously adorned the 2010 Oscar favorites from October). I got the chance to see the movie early on Monday, which was totally AWESOME. To show you how true of a fan I am, just 12 hours before the screening, I had all 4 of my wisdom teeth removed. When the Warner Bros. logo flew at me in 3D, I could still feel some of the anesthesia lingering in my bottom lip.
Read my review of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.”
And then, because I couldn’t miss the opening night festivities, I had to go on Thursday night as well. I got all dressed up, wearing my Gryffindor Quidditch robe from Halloween … in third grade! I also had my Deathly Hallows T-shirt and Platform 9 3/4 cap (won at Monday’s screening) along with a wand borrowed from a friend. Oh, and I rocked the Harry Potter 3D style glasses that I got at the Monday screening as well. No one had them at the 7 P.M. screening I went to, so they were quite the rage.
The first time was a charm for this movie, but that didn’t stop me from seeing it for the third time on Saturday. I was babysitting, and the decision was easy between this, “Green Lantern,” and the torture better known as “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” I got to see it in the lovely RPX, a nice way for Regal to charge slightly more money for a slightly better experience. Still, the 3D is totally awesome on this movie, something I’ve been longing to say about a movie since … well, “Avatar.”
But the week wasn’t without its sad moments too, as the joy of this momentous occasion also brought the sorrow of knowing that there will be no more “Harry Potter” movies to bring us all together in a night of magic and fun. With that in mind, I ranked all eight of the films on Thursday – you’ll have to read it to figure out which prevailed.
See how I ranked the “Harry Potter” films.
And there was also a Friday DVD release (can you say random?), so I posted my review since I saw the film back in its theatrical run.
Read my review of “Rango.”
Recommended Reading
Here are some of the best posts that I’ve read in the past week from other bloggers. For future reference, I’ll probably post things here that are either ridiculously intelligent or ridiculously funny.
“Harry Potter” truly went out with a bang this weekend, scoring countless monetary records. The biggest midnight opening ($43.5 million). The biggest single and opening day ever ($92.1 million). The biggest opening weekend and three day stretch ever ($168.6 million). The biggest worldwide opening ever ($475.6 million). In case there was any doubt that J.K. Rowling’s series is a truly exceptional phenomenon, the record books can speak to its magic.
But this opening speaks to something more than just a movie. While “The Dark Knight” is definitely an all-time favorite and a far superior movie, I’m not as sad as I thought I would be to see its 3 year run at the top end. That was a movie that gained prestige over the weekend; there wasn’t such a rush to see it (I, for example, waited until Sunday). It also had the Heath Ledger factor that contributed to its massive opening, bringing crowds that normally wouldn’t see a comic book movie but had to see the character that brought about his demise. They came back through the floodgates in record numbers because beneath that performance, Christopher Nolan had actually made a fantastic movie that totally transcended a genre.
“Harry Potter,” on the other hand, is a phenomenon unlike any other in this generation. It’s an event picture, one that brings together people around the medium of cinema in a way that renews interest and passion in moviegoing. No matter if you were an avid reader of Rowling’s novels, just saw the movies, or have no interest in Hogwarts, if you love movies, you had to be happy on Thursday night.
The “Harry Potter” movies renewed my faith in an experience that many people are convinced is dying: the communal movie theater experience. Over the course of cinematic history, we’ve gone from watching movies at a theater to television screens to computer screens to iPod screens to cell phone screens. Just in the past decade with the series, our availability options have increased dramatically. When “Sorcerer’s Stone” enchanted us in 2001, we had to go to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video to get our DVDs (and VHS tapes). Now, we can rent and buy movies on our computers, phones, televisions, video game consoles, and disc players. Needless to say, times have changed.
So, taking all that into account, seeing everyone gathered in the lobby of my local theater on Thursday night was an incredibly magical experience. We were all gathered around a common experience: a movie, a character, some enchantment, and the end of an era. The Christian Science Monitor called it correctly when they called that night the bookend of a generation. I find this especially apt for people in my grade; as we head off to college, we tie the bow on a part of our youth with the completion of the “Harry Potter” series that we grew up with. When we were nine, the first movie was released, and their progression roughly matched our aging through puberty, middle school, high school, and finally off towards the rest of our lives.
And as the Monitor article also points out, the books and movies have also endowed a shared moral compass to our generation. While life won’t always be as simple as an all-encompassing evil like Voldemort, we can learn to be brave and triumph over our shortcomings like Harry, facing whatever life throws at us with courage. It’s a rare movie series that can do that in addition to bringing the masses to the theater.
On an NPR segment I listened to a few months ago, an expert said that a result of our fragmented culture is our dearth of moments that connect a generation to each other. Nowadays, it’s almost strictly limited to tragedies. We will all remember where we were when 9/11 happened, just like we will all remember where we were when Michael Jackson died. But the “Harry Potter” series defies the times and has produced several moments that have brought together not only this generation, but others as well. Between midnight book releases and movie premieres, this series has forged positive bonds and provided many experiences that people will remember for a lifetime. It is only fitting that the last one (at least for now) be the biggest one of them all and, more than that, the biggest movie opening ever.
As J.K. Rowling said at the London premiere, ”Whether you come back by film or by page, Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home.” So although I, along with a world full of grateful readers and moviegoers, am saying goodbye to hellos for the series now, I do so knowing that the magic will always be there in the movies and books. It has brought magic to the screen for a decade, and this week, it brought the magic back into the theater. At least for this generation, it will linger there for the rest of our lives, a comforting thought even if at times it feels out of reach.
So thanks, J.K. Thanks, Harry. You may have just saved movies.
For millions of fans across the world today, it all ends. The Harry Potter series is officially coming to a close. To commemorate, I thought it would be appropriate to rank all the films in order of quality. Perhaps with the exception of my last ranked pick, they are all exemplary films that highlight Rowling’s incredible knack for storytelling with nuanced acting and clever cinematic tricks. But when it comes down to putting them in order, some inevitably rise to the top … and others don’t.
So here’s an installment of “Listful Thinking” that, for my money, is how the “Harry Potter” films stack up to each other.
#8
“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”
2007, dir. David Yates
The only major misstep of the series, which I can attribute to the absence of one presence: screenwriter Steve Kloves. Although Yates’ first outing with Potter did some nice things stylistically and visually, nothing could compensate for the fact that this was a mess in terms of storytelling that would not have been coherent to fans who hadn’t read the book.
#7
“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”
2002, dir. Chris Columbus
While we all love Harry Potter, we don’t need this much of it at once. At a whopping 165 minutes, Chris Columbus’ second time around with Potter felt more like a marathon than a fun time at the movies with our friend from Rowling’s novel. It’s a solid movie but could have used a lot more time on the cutting room floor.
#6
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1″
2010, dir. David Yates
Once I’m able to watch this one directly before part 2, it might rise. But for now, it is as I saw it in November – just the first half of a grander storyline that tries to have its own pseudo-plot complete with a climax that just really doesn’t feel as grand as any other Harry Potter movie.
#5
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”
2009, dir. David Yates
Yates, combined with scribe Steve Kloves, gets into the groove of the Harry Potter series with his second entry in the series. It’s a great movie not just about the wizarding world but also about our world; that is to say, it could easily double as a great high school movie. This is a lot of fun, but I thought this and “Order of the Phoenix” were among the bottom of Rowling’s books, so I’m not surprised that it doesn’t rank higher.
#4
“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”
2005, dir. Mike Newell
Here’s where it starts getting REALLY difficult. The top 4 Harry Potter films are all spectacular, standing head and shoulders over the others. But to say that there’s no discrepancy is to do the better of the series a disservice. Mike Newell’s only time in the director’s chair for the series takes one of my favorite books and makes it an equally entertaining movie. It’s got great action, stunning visuals, and really delivers on emotion. I’ll drop anything and watch this movie when I see it on TV.
#3
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2″
2011, dir. David Yates
Goodbyes are tough to do, and the final Harry Potter film of them all pulls off its swan song with grace and poise. It reminds us of everything that the series has done so right – mixing high-flying visuals with potent storytelling and a soaring humanity – while never indulging itself in low-grade tears or emotion. Yates’ finest hour is an excellent way to send off a series that has entertained us so well for a decade.
#2
“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”
2001, dir. Chris Columbus
Goodbyes may be hard to do, but hellos might be harder. Chris Columbus built this incredible series from scratch, and going back and watching the first film in the series makes you realize how incredibly well he introduced a generation to the world of Harry Potter. The book has its fans, sure, but for those who needed to be brought up to speed, Columbus gives them everything they need to know without making it feel like a trudge through exposition. It introduces the magic of cinema into J.K. Rowling’s series, and the sensation of first seeing Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, and Quidditch can truly never be paralleled.
#1
“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”
2004, dir. Alfonso Cuarón
However, nothing for me tops Alfonso Cuarón’s only entry into the “Harry Potter” canon. While Columbus did a fantastic job of getting the series set up, Cuarón made the series grow up a little. He made the films more mature and dark, introducing some fantastic art into the commerce, and changing the series for better and for always. ”Prisoner of Azkaban” will always be the greatest triumph of the series for me, both on paper and on screen. It’s the most compelling story, easily Rowling’s most ingenious (save the stunning conclusion). And Cuarón’s fantastic vision of the series, whimsical when necessary but dark buy default, still excites me more than any other film in the series.
How do you rank the films in the “Harry Potter” series? Where does the conclusion rank for you?
I know that I’m a movie blogger by name, but if you’ll allow me a brief aside, I’d like to address a different field altogether. I, like many Americans this summer, have been following the developments in the trial of Casey Anthony. Today, to the shock (and disgust) of many captivated American television watchers, she was acquitted of murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee.
I will inevitably catch heat for this, but I do not sit in front of my computer typing this post in dismay. Just a day after 311 million Americans celebrated the preservation of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that so many men have died for, the trial by jury guaranteed to all citizens in the Bill of Rights produced a verdict of not guilty. Regardless how much Nancy Grace or Bill O’Reilly told us she is guilty, or will continue to tell us she is guilty, we have to trust the American legal system here. We have to trust that these jurors listened to the evidence and made the right call.
But this post isn’t about the woman in the courtroom, it’s about the people that watched her courtesy of the courtroom cameras. I learned a lot about how Americans view concepts of justice, vengeance, and entertainment, three ingredients that can make be quite poisonous when mixed. Quite frankly, what I’ve seen over the past month should have the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. This cannot be the America they wanted to create.
Just last Christmas, “True Grit” was an unprecedented success, grossing $171 million, scoring nearly unanimous critical support, and raking in 10 Academy Award nominations. The Coens’ film grapples with the tricky question of revenge; in the movie, Hailee Steinfeld’s spunky 14-year-old Mattie Ross embarks on a journey to kill Tom Chaney, the man who murdered her father in cold blood. She is seen as the hero of the film, and when she ultimately succeeds, the audience cheers. The character representing justice, Matt Damon’s LeBoeuf, is a clown that is mostly mocked by the audience.
While the Coen Brothers likely expected this to play mostly for their usual niche audience, the excellent film wound up entering the mainstream and playing well into February and March in most theaters. Not to insult the average moviegoer, but I don’t think that many of them understood that “True Grit” is supposed to be a meditation on the merit of retribution, not a vindication of it. The movie is just ENTERTAINMENT, and the Coens deliver a cinematic vengeance that excites inside a theater. But outside that theater, we aren’t meant to feel inspired to deliver payback in such a dramatic fashion.
Which brings me to the matter in question here, the Casey Anthony trial. How does an ordinary 25-year-old mother from Orlando, Florida become “The Social Media Trial of the Century,” according to Time? How does she grace the cover of People alongside Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Jennifer Aniston? Simply put, people want VENGEANCE. They want to see the death of Caylee Anthony avenged, and they want blood to pay for it.
How do I feel so confident in making this statement? Because most people didn’t need a trial or the deliberations of a jury to reach their own verdict; they just went ahead and pronounced her guilty. Bill O’Reilly even said, “She is as guilty as they come.” Although it is not specifically codified in the Constitution, it is considered a part of common law and an American virtue that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Everyone has the right to due process of law. Everyone has the right to a trial by jury. It is not up to people watching the trial on Fox News from their couch, nor is it up to those catching glimpse on CNN from the water-cooler.
But how can Americans have strayed so far from the ideals of our Founding Fathers? In my opinion, it’s the means of information that induce such expectations for violent ends. It’s a tired argument, I know. Let’s blame the media and putting cameras in courtrooms for everything! But in this case, the drive for ratings and good television has muddled the distinction between justice and vengeance by adding entertainment to the mix. We have become convinced that the American legal system is only doing its job when it’s convicting people because there is too much crime in this country for punishment to be spared.
All of those title cards for coverage of the Casey Anthony trial, no matter what channel you watched, read “JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE.” But it was never about justice for them, it was about retribution for her. They found a woman who represented all sorts of bad parenting and immoral behavior, two things they could prove without a trial. They made the trial about the condemnation of a woman more for her lack of scruples and less for her action since the case was based largely on circumstantial evidence. They wasted no time calling her a representative of all evil in society.
This, to any well-versed film watcher, echoes the message of “Chicago,” Rob Marshall’s 2002 Best Picture winning musical movie. Richard Gere’s Billy Flynn is a master of the media; in the number “We Both Reached for the Gun,” he is shown manipulating everyone literally as marionette puppets, holding their strings and making them dance. He is the best lawyer in Chicago because he can turn the tide of public opinion in favor of his merry murderesses, thus providing a nice complement to evidence that suggests, but doesn’t prove, their innocence. Billy has a mastery of the courtroom too and manages to get false acquittals for Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) and Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) because he knows one fact: “This trial … the whole world … it’s all … show business.”
Here is a perfect study of opposites: Roxie is a victim of culture’s evils, while Casey Anthony was made to represent them. The media tried to make her trial a proxy trial for her behavior. But it’s not; it’s about her actions, and the jury could not find in evidence that her actions included murdering her daughter. It makes for good television to focus on her unscrupulous behavior in the wake of her daughter’s disappearance, but it does not make for a trial in the American judicial system.
While I’m indulging in pessimism at the moment, I don’t believe this condemnation is a final verdict on America’s fate. Now perhaps more than ever, I think “12 Angry Men” rings true and relevant. The movie revolves around a twelve man jury deliberating a case based on reasonable doubt, not unlike the Casey Anthony trial. When they enter the deliberation move, it seems that all will vote guilty. However, one juror known as #8, played by the noble Henry Fonda, votes in dissent. Over the course of Sidney Lumet’s movie, #8 tries to convince the other jurors that their mental picture of the defendant is not enough to justify a vote. As he so eloquently puts it, “It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first …We’re talking about somebody’s life here.”
With the death penalty on the table for Casey Anthony, she found herself in a position very similar to that of the Puerto Rican man in the movie. But thanks to one noble juryman, he was saved. As #8 struggles to change the rest of the jury’s mind, they take a second look at the evidence that seems to tell one story yet find that it tells another one – a story where the defendant is innocent. When there are only three holdouts, #8 makes this speech that gets straight to the heart of the trial that has been the center of American attention for months:
“It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth. Well, I don’t think any real damage has been done here. Because I don’t really know what the truth is. No one ever will, I suppose. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we’re just gambling on probabilities. We may be wrong. We may be trying to return a guilty man to the community. No one can really know. But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard which has enormous value to our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure.”
Perhaps Casey Anthony is guilty. That’s what many Americans still think in spite of this verdict. But how many of us have come to this decision based on piecing together the evidence presented in court? I’m going to guess very few of us have. However, whatever notions I may have had about Casey Anthony thanks to Fox News or CNN have been wiped clean today with the jury’s verdict. I’m not sure if the deliberations played out like “12 Angry Men” or if they took on another shape or form entirely. Yet I am going to trust that however they came to their verdict, it is the right one. And if you believe in the justice system that our Founding Fathers envisioned is morally right, then you must scorn notions of retribution and entertainment and believe in their verdict too.
Before I begin, let me give credit to Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly for inspiring this post after her blog entry on Jennifer Aniston got my creative juices flowing. It’s a great post, and it’s worth a read.
After Sandra Bullock becomes the latest comedic actress to put on a serious face and win an Oscar (in the tradition of Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon), Schwarzbaum wonders if Jennifer Aniston could ever join the list.
Since she’s taken Aniston, I figured I would take eight other actresses who have a similar track record as Bullock on the comedy side of things. In part one of the “From Rom-Com to Oscar Gold” series, I will analyze four actresses who many people could actually envision with an Oscar in their hand.
These actresses are …
Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Garner, and Kate Hudson.
NOTE: While this post is a direct response to the Central Florida Film Critic‘s post “I should have gotten the training,” I mean no ill will towards the author. I only wish to express my own opinions on the matter and defend my own writings.
I’ve been a little busy doing clean-up work on my own site for the past week, but one thing I’ve been meaning to address is some criticism laid out against me by a fellow blogger. In a post calling out flaws in himself and other bloggers, he specifically addressed my post on “Citizen Kane.” For those of you who didn’t catch it, here’s the portion of the article that was written about me:
“The second thing I want to point out is Marshall of Marshall and the Movies, another fun writer. Recently he wrote a piece on CITIZEN KANE, and two things bothered me about it. Firstly, his declaration that he can count the films he has seen from before 1941 on one hand. While I can’t boast about being too much better (sixteen total, and seven came within the last few months), I do have to wonder if any of us can intellectually discuss cinematic worth with such a lack of foundation. Would you trust someone to discuss music without a foundation in understanding The Beatles or Bob Dylan? That is not to say any opinion is invalid; after all, anyone can judge art. However, a lack of classic cinema knowledge seems like it leads to false understandings of a film’s importance. Throughout his piece on Welles’ masterpiece, Marshall talks about the comparisons to THE SOCIAL NETWORK. Of course, there was a lot of talk about such comparisons, and I have referred to Fincher’s film as a modern-day CITIZEN KANE. However, I think Marshall spends so much time writing about the comparisons that it seems as if he views the classic as a building block to the Facebook movie. Welles made a masterpiece without any pretenses of Fincher, and it seems like a better way to judge it. I assume part of it is to encourage his readers to see the Welles film (like all of us, Marshall is young and his friends likely have not seen it), but I don’t think he gives CITIZEN KANE the proper critical overview, which needs more independent remarks.”
While I certainly see where James is coming from on a number of things, I think he vastly misread the intent of the post. I don’t think I’m alone in recognizing that different movie reviews serve different purposes and audiences and should be written to reflect them. In case you didn’t catch my October post entitled “A Great Movie Reviewer,” perhaps now is a better time than ever to check it out. Here’s one of the five points I laid out, which I think is especially pertinent to this discussion:
“Know why you write and who you are writing for. It’s important to know your purpose and your audience when you write because it will affect your tone, diction, syntax, and all those other things your English teachers loved to talk about. If you are writing to tell people that they need to see a movie that is unknown, you need to use different rhetoric than what you would use to tell people they should see the latest James Cameron movie. You can inform, persuade, and urge with a review, but know which you want to do when you write it. And be sure to write in a way that can appeal to the people that will read you. Intellectual ramblings will only get you so far if you write to an audience that just wants to know what to put on their Netflix queue.”
I write largely for an audience that could care less about classic film. I myself don’t really care that much for it, but I know that it’s important that I see these movies to have a larger understanding of film. The movies I choose to review don’t require an incredible amount of knowledge of classics, and referring to them in reviews or posts would be largely wasted intellectual ramble. I choose to spend most of my time watching movies that help me make accurate comparisons to help my friends and bloggers. It makes more sense to say that the latest indie comedy is no “Juno,” not that it’s no “Citizen Kane.”
My post on “Citizen Kane” wasn’t so much a review or an intellectual discussion so much as it was a reflection piece. What I wanted to look at was how a movie 70 years old can be relevant to a movie about Facebook, and when I sat down to write, that’s what I was trying to convey. I don’t have the education to talk about Orson Welles’ masterpiece in any great depth; besides, there are plenty of scholars willing to do that for me. ”Citizen Kane” means something different to an 18-year-old movie buff than it does to a film student or a filmmaker, and I found an interesting way to discuss what it meant to me through a comparison with “The Social Network.” I’m not incredibly well-suited to write a piece on the movie many critics deem the greatest ever made, but I think my perspective mirrors most of my readers.
I’m sorry to put this bluntly, but if you plopped the average moviegoer down to watch “Citizen Kane” without them knowing what it was, I doubt they would think it was anything special. I say this not in the sense that the movie is bad, but because it was so revolutionary, so many movies have mimicked it that what made Welles’ movie sensational in 1941 makes it average in 2010. What better way to illuminate the exciting side of “Citizen Kane” than by placing it side-by-side with the sure-to-be generational classic “The Social Network?” My hope was that the logic of my readers would go, “This worked in ‘The Social Network,’ so if ‘Citizen Kane’ used it, then it must be good too!”
I had no intentions to give “Citizen Kane” a full critical overview because I’m simply not qualified. But I believe that taking into account my purpose and my audience, my post did what it was supposed to do. I’m not asking you to trust me as a film scholar; I’m asking you to trust me as a teenager with an appreciation for film. I’m willing to hear criticism of my work, but my overall message to James at Central Florida Film Critic is that you can’t judge all writing through one lens. You have to take into account different perspectives, and I think your scolding of my post simply didn’t do that. If the way I view movies doesn’t align with the way you want to view them, I can only recommend you finding another site to read.
But I certainly hope that isn’t the case.
Dear Koungaroo (the neophyte blogger who left this comment exactly four months ago):
There’s no right or wrong way to be a movie reviewer; start off knowing that. But you can never stop getting better. In over a year of blogging, my movie reviews have changed quite a bit because I have been open to change. Since you seem to be so eager to accept it as well, let me offer you five tips that have helped me find success in writing reviews.
Read lots of reviews. There is so much to learn, and you are never done learning. Read as many reviews as you can tolerate because no two people write them the same. I’ve picked up so much from reading other people’s reviews, everything from words to styles. Be they professional or amateur, every writer enthusiastic enough to pen a review has something to offer you. Other writers can help you discover your voice, which is a very important thing to have when writing reviews. If you are a funny person, don’t hesitate to let it show. Don’t be afraid to crack a joke or two. If you talk like a Cambridge professor, don’t be afraid to spin an eloquent phrase.
Write what you would want to read. Just because millions of people read The New York Times doesn’t mean that you have to write like that to get readers. Don’t write in a style that would be off-putting to you. If you woudn’t want to read what you write, how can you expect anyone else to read it? Write first to please yourself, and then worry about how other people will see it. If they are coming to read it on your blog, they want your unique spin and a movie reviewer they can have somewhat of a relationship with. There are plenty of Roger Eberts out there; there’s only one you.
Know why you write and who you are writing for. It’s important to know your purpose and your audience when you write because it will affect your tone, diction, syntax, and all those other things your English teachers loved to talk about. If you are writing to tell people that they need to see a movie that is unknown, you need to use different rhetoric than what you would use to tell people they should see the latest James Cameron movie. You can inform, persuade, and urge with a review, but know which you want to do when you write it. And be sure to write in a way that can appeal to the people that will read you. Intellectual ramblings will only get you so far if you write to an audience that just wants to know what to put on their Netflix queue.
Perhaps a distinctive feature will help. Aimless reviewing makes for a lack of clarity for readers at times. Give them ways to get what they want out of your reviewing, particularly through categorizing reviews and memorable columns. Perhaps write something focusing on classics or undiscovered gems or overrated movies. The possibilities are endless, but find a way to be distinct from the average movie reviewer.
Make your review memorable. Until you get paid to review movies, you have no credibility other than what you give yourself. So what are you going to do to make people value your opinion as much as Peter Travers’ opinion? Be original and creative; don’t merely rehash what every other critic is saying. There are infinitely many ways to express a common sentiment, find your own! You have to give your reader a reason to remember your review, be it through the way your phrase your review or the way you rate it.
Until the next reel,
Marshall
Recent Comments