Classics Corner: “Citizen Kane”

28 10 2010

Rosebud.

It’s the secret of “Citizen Kane,” the movie considered by many film scholars and critics as the greatest ever made.  So pardon me for being a little shocked when I got to the conclusion of Orson Welles’ masterpiece and realized I knew the ending thanks to watching AFI’s “100 Years, 100 Quotes” special on CBS.

The search for the meaning of “Rosebud,” however, was still quite enthralling.  Welles’ take on newspaper giant William Randolph Hearst, here under the guise of Charles Foster Kane, is a power chronicle of greed and power are still just as resonant today as they were in 1941.  So relevant, in fact, that many people pointed out the thematic similarities between it and David Fincher’s “The Social Network.”  Curious to see the connection to the chronicle of Facebook I was so highly anticipating, I watched them both on the same day to really have a comparison.

I debated it on the LAMBcast, but I don’t see all that much similar between the two other than the main characters.  Both Kane and Mark Zuckerberg start with humble origins, setting out to revolutionize the way people see the world.  There is success right from the get-go, and there is acclaim.  So both set their sights higher and see no ceiling on their ambitions.  This causes them alienation from friends and loved ones, yet for them this a small price to pay for the success they are having with their ideas.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that Orson Welles completes the story of Charles Foster Kane, a luxury that allegories can provide.  Since Aaron Sorkin made no effort to hide the fact that “The Social Network” was the story of Mark Zuckerberg, however fictionalized, he would lose credibility if he tried to extend beyond what is already known of Facebook’s short history.  He chose to document the site’s origins and the effect that meteoric success had on its founder.

The future of Facebook as is difficult to forecast as the rest of Zuckerberg’s life.  Who knows what kind of life the world’s youngest billionaire will lead?  At 26, he still has a whole life to live, one that would be tough for anyone, let alone Aaron Sorkin, to predict.  When “Citizen Kane” was released in 1941, William Randolph Hearst was 78, and his life work was nearly complete.  While he was still influential (probably more so than Zuckerberg has been in his vehement disapproval of his cinematic treatment), there was a reasonable amount of closure Welles could provide.  Aaron Sorkin left “The Social Network” fairly open-ended, and I found a certain amount of joy in being able to interpret the movie as I wanted.  How I chose to interpret it, however, was very similar to the message that “Citizen Kane” communicated.

It’s a great sign of a movie’s longevity when it can be compared to something as modern as Facebook seven decades after its release, but “Citizen Kane” did more for movies than offer up thematic depth.  The movie was a watershed event in the development of the craft of cinema for decades to come.  It’s easy to look at the movie and notice nothing, but I had heard that the movie was a true revolution, so I looked deeper.  Since I can count the number of movies I have seen from before 1941 on one hand, I went to my good friend the Internet to find out the changes.  According to Tim Dirks, we take a whole lot of Orson Welles’ techniques for granted now.  Notable first in “Citizen Kane” include:

  • Subjective camera work
  • Unconventional lighting
  • Shadows and strange camera-angles
  • Deep-focus shots
  • Few revealing facial close-ups
  • Elaborate camera movements
  • Overlapping dialogue
  • Flashbacks
  • Cast of characters who ages throughout the film
  • Long shots and sequences, lengthy takes

Can you imagine movies without any of these of these things?  What would “The Social Network” be without the overlapping dialogue?  Could Mark Zuckerberg really be like a StairMill to Erica if they paused nicely to hear each other?  Orson Welles did cinema a huge favor with this movie.  While other people have taken these techniques to towering heights, “Citizen Kane” is a necessary watch for anyone who claims to love movies because it is the origin of so much cinematic development.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #457

28 10 2010

I’m calling excess alert right here.

The Academy – that’s right, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences – has a Twitter.  The organization that gives out the Oscars, one of the classiest and most respected prizes in the business, has now stooped to the level of Ashton and Demi.  Clearly someone in their advertising department was bored and just had the thought, “Hmmm, I’ll make an AMPAS Twitter.”

Here are some of my predicted tweets in AMPAS’ future:

LOL just saw king’s speech – this will win something

Wonder who will wear the trashiest dress to the ceremony…

Remind me why we invited miley cyrus to present again?

What movie is meryl in this year?

Dark Knight Rises is great … no BP nom here tehehehe


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

OPINION: A Great Movie Reviewer

27 10 2010

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


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Features, Opinion

Random Factoid #456

27 10 2010

It’s October 27!  Do you know what that means?

Well, it’s time for me to start listening to Christmas music!  I’m starting to reload it onto my iPod, and I’m so excited.  Nothing gets me in a good mood like listening to Christmas music in October.

And what do I start with?  “All I Want for Christmas Is You” from “Love Actually,” of course.  It makes me so happy, and I predict I’ll have to sit down and watch the whole movie soon.  That and “Elf,” my two favorite Christmas movies.

Maybe this year I’ll finally watch the Christmas classics like “White Christmas.”  Maybe…

(Thanks to NBC/Universal for blocking embedding on the video from the movie.)


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #455

26 10 2010

Purgatory – it’s real.  At least for movies.

It’s an industry term that got some press over the weekend from The Los Angeles Times, and apparently it has been somewhat of a secret.  Did you wonder why Bradley Cooper and Renee Zellweger look so young in “Case 39?”  (The real question is did anyone actually see “Case 39?”)  Here’s an explanation for why that may be:

“‘Case 39’ was stuck in a little discussed corner of the industry: movie purgatory, where films with marketable stars — not just Cooper but Matt Damon, John Cusack, Eddie Murphy and Mel Gibson — can linger for months, even years, trapped by marketing disagreements, creative clashes, executive shuffles, money shortfalls or the judgment that they are such surefire flops that it makes no sense to throw good money after bad and distribute them.”

The alternative to movie purgatory is, of course, direct-to-DVD release.  I won’t watch a direct-to-DVD movie on principle, simply because if it’s not good enough to hit theaters, it’s not worth watching.  However, “Slumdog Millionaire” was stuck in movie purgatory for a time, so we can’t say that all movies that are in such limbo are bad.  But as far as I’m concerned, movie purgatory as a whole lot better than a straight-to-DVD release.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Oscar Moment: “For Colored Girls”

26 10 2010

Tyler Perry has been finding great success making comedies for the past five years, yet with “For Colored Girls,” he tries something totally different.  It’s a project more similar to “Precious” than “Diary of a Mad Black Woman,” dark, dramatic, and depressing in tone.  Based on an award-winning play and featuring an ensemble cast of eight headlining African-American women, this seems like a great awards contender on paper.

Yet it won’t be able to follow in the footsteps of “Precious.”  As Guy Lodge of In Contention put it back in August, “‘Precious’ entered the race on a wave of festival-acquired respectability; it’s doubtful whether voters would have sought it out without the prior approval of Sundance, Cannes and Toronto. ‘For Colored Girls’ will have no such advantage.”  It will surely get a crowd from Perry’s die-hard fan base that will see anything he makes; however, how many of them will flock to see a drama is fairly suspect.

For a Best Picture play, it needs the critics since it didn’t have the opportunity to garner buzz on the festival circuit.  Knowing the stakes, Perry decided to screen the movie in advance for critics despite a bad experience with pre-screening of “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” that convinced him not to show his eight subsequent films.

And apparently, Perry should have stuck with his instincts because “For Colored Girls” is getting trashed out of the gate.  I’ll give you a sample of what the critics are saying.  BEWARE, it’s actually quite humorous.

Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter:

“For once, Tyler Perry doesn’t put his name above the title, but perhaps he should with ‘For Colored Girls’ to distinguish this train wreck of a movie from the stunning theater piece of 36 years ago by Ntozake Shange … All Perry does is force conventional plots and characters — utter cliches without lives or souls — into the fabric of Shange’s literary work. The hackneyed melodramas get him from one poem to the next but run roughshod over the collective sense of who these women are.”

Peter DeBruge, Variety:

“While Perry’s craft has slowly but surely improved with each successive film, this latest project seems to fall beyond his reach. Just as the director was finding the organic quality that eluded him in ‘Diary’ and other early efforts, he’s confronted with a conceptual piece that calls for an entirely different approach. Yet he can’t resist turning ‘For Colored Girls’ into a Tyler Perry Movie, which means imposing diva worship where nuance is called for and a pleasure-punishing Christian worldview where a certain moral ambiguity might have been more appropriate.”

The last Tyler Perry movie to get an Oscar nomination was — oh wait, none of his movies have ever received an Oscar nomination!  If it comes off as melodramatic to audiences, word of mouth could be toxic and all chances for the movie could be sunk.  There’s only one hope I see for the movie in the big category: the fact that it is the only movie about minorities in the hunt.  The Los Angeles Times made this observation: “For the first time since the 73rd Oscars 10 years ago, there will be no black nominees in any of the acting categories in the February ceremony.”  The same goes for Best Picture which, at the moment, looks to be about as white as bleach.

Sasha Stone of Awards Daily suggests that the movie could take “The Blind Side” slot, but I think it has too narrow appeal and too depressing subject matter to be that movie.  In my mind, the best chance “For Colored Girls” has is in the acting categories.  With so many actresses, there are so many possibilities.  The question, though, is how to pick which one?  Or two?  Unless there is a clear standout, the actresses will cancel each other out.

Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere quotes an Academy source who says there are three levels of performances offered in the movie: Janet Jackson and Loretta Devine are good; Phylicia Rashad and Thandie Newton are great; Kimberly Elise and Macy Gray are masterful.  Interestingly, the two mentioned as being the best are probably the least well-known of the group.  Apparently Elise came up short in 1998 for a critically acclaimed turn in “Beloved,” so maybe this nomination could be redemption.  Gray, however, has shown up in few movies, but her work here as a back-door abortionist could be shocking and gripping.

Katey Rich of Cinema Blend offers another candidate for consideration, Anika Noni Rose.  She says of Rose, “she has one of the film’s strongest monologues, plays a character who undergoes significant changes over the course of the film, and never oversells it.”  She also brings up the fact that Rose has been solid in other awards movies like “Dreamgirls.”

For me, the only certain thing about “For Colored Girls” is that nothing is certain.  The success (or lack thereof) of the movie itself makes it a risky call for Best Picture, and the fact that no female has emerged as the movie’s dominant force makes it difficult to get much buzz going for Best Supporting Actress.  Even though it’s a weak field and the movie may have a strong showing, one or two women need broad support if the movie hopes to get a nomination.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actress (Rose, Elise)

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Gray, Jackson, Newton)


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #454

25 10 2010

A few months ago, I wrote a factoid based on Kai’s movie items he wished he had.  I jumped the gun and quickly said I wanted the basketball from “Space Jam” with the talent of the New York Knicks.  This was impulsive and wrong – and my readers didn’t hesitate to remind me of it.  I took some time to examine what I really want, and now I think I know.

If I could have an item from a movie, I would want …

Juno’s hamburger phone.  Because it’s the most awesome invention ever.  I want to find the man who invented the hamburger phone, shake his hand, and give him a pat on the back.  Although given Juno’s frustration with it, I hope that by 2010 there’s a hamburger phone 3G.

“Hey, yeah, uh, I’m just calling to procure a hasty abortion. What? – Can you just hold on for a second, I’m on my hamburger phone.”  She’s calling Women Now … because they help women now.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

“Conviction” Poll Results

25 10 2010

With a good-not-great 65% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 61 on Metacritic, it doesn’t look like “Conviction” has the goods to make in the Best Picture race.  However, this ship is hardly the Titanic, and all is not sunk for Fox Searchlight.

There is still an incredibly viable contender in Sam Rockwell, who has been the favorite aspect of the movie across the board.  If he gets a nice push from the studio, the underrated Rockwell could get the moment in the sun he deserves.  In my Oscar Moment on “Conviction,” I asked you all whether Rockwell will get a nomination.

You seemed to have faith.  Four voters said yes; one said no.  That’s a whopping 80% in favor of a potential nomination for Sam Rockwell.  The movie opened in Houston over the weekend, and I haven’t been able to see it yet.  Hopefully I’ll be able to join the chorus of adulation soon.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Marshall and the Movies, Polls

Random Factoid #453

24 10 2010

I don’t know why I felt so compelled, but yesterday afternoon I was flipping through the channels and found nothing on but “Slumdog Millionaire.”  I basically dropped everything I was doing and watched all two hours of it.

While I still maintain that it wasn’t the best movie of 2008, I sure did enjoy it more than I did a year or so ago.  I think I felt backlash syndrome when the entire world went “Slumdog” crazy, proclaiming it the best movie ever while I stood off to the side saying, “Psh, that was so three months ago.”  That’s what you get for being ahead of the game on indie movies.

I hate backlash, and the worst part about it is that the entire thing is external.  I loved the movie when I first saw it, but when everybody else loved it, I felt like the movie lost something.  It was no longer my little secret, it was their discovery.  Now that the movie has won 8 Oscars and made $300 million worldwide, there’s no way I can call this my movie anymore.

So now that I’ve watched it again, I really can say that I’m back on board for “Slumdog Millionaire.”  I really saw the technical mastery of Danny Boyle and what a dynamic director he is.  I’m now slightly convinced that it earned those tech awards that I was skeptical about the movie winning.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #452

23 10 2010

If you really knew me (to steal a conversation starter from MTV), you’d know that I’m not big on fashion.  Especially at the movies.

Excuse me for not caring what I wear in front of a room full of strangers when we are going to be sitting in the dark for two hours staring at a screen.  I don’t think it’s an uncommon feeling; the only time I’ve ever heard of people dressing up to go see a movie is for “Sex and the City” when the women all get in some snazzy dresses (which is a HUGE waste).

Oakley is apparently convinced that everyone is like the hip “Sex and the City” crowd and has unveiled a special pair of 3D glasses to tie-in with the release of “Tron: Legacy.”  Priced at $150, the glasses are a perfect buy for all those who care about looking fashionable in the dark.  I’m sorry, but I’ll take the free pair of Wayfarers over these overpriced stylish shades any day.  Considering that I paid $50 less for a really nice pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses last year that give me infinitely more utility, there’s no way in hell you would catch me buying these things.

Now, if Oakley came out with 3D glasses that could transport me to Pandora or something for the release of “Avatar 2,” then I’d be more interested…


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Oscar Moment: “Made in Dagenham”

22 10 2010

“Made in Dagenham” could fill a whole lot of quotas at this year’s Oscars.

To start off, it’s British.  Secondly, it’s British.  Oh yeah, and did I mention it’s British?

There’s always interest when it comes to our friends across the pond as a second “British Invasion” is beginning to sway the Academy in a different direction.   And they sure do love recognizing their own movies, even if they aren’t very good (cough, “The Reader”).  If you can’t tell by the accents, “Made in Dagenham” is a VERY British movie, even enhancing its anglophilic capabilities by chronicling a period of social history in the United Kingdom.

Which brings me to my next point: it’s about women’s rights!  Rita O’Grady (Sally Hawkins) leads a strike of sewing workers to fight for equal pay for all sexes.  This true story of trying to end discrimination by gender is even told with a touch of comedy to keep it from devolving into “Norma Rae.”  What’s not for the Academy to like?

I’ve thrown out a lot of possibilities for a so-called “The Blind Side” slot.  It pains me to think that such a thing exists, but we have to consider inspirational and heartwarming movies a threat no matter how cheesy they may be.  I’ve suggested that “Conviction” and “Secretariat” both have qualities that make them a threat in a similar way, and you can add in “Made in Dagenham” to that list as well.  After the movie bowed at Toronto, Kris Tapley of In Contention stated that “the story is exactly the sort of underdog tale that can make an awards dent, especially in a field of 10.”

If it turns out to be a crowd-pleaser, even if just to a smaller crowd, this could easily be nominated when you take into account that it has pretty solid reviews.  I see a close parallel in “An Education” – a light British drama with a dynamite leading turn.  Sally Hawkins, two years removed from a snub for Mike Leigh’s “Happy-Go-Lucky,” is back and blazing in this role.  Some have compared her to Sally Field, who won an Oscar in 1979 for her role in “Norma Rae” as the titular union organizer.  Women’s rights activists have done well in Best Actress (see Charlize Theron in 2005 for “North Country”), a category that likes to celebrate strong women.  The big concern is that she may not have the prestige to break into a tight field of five this year.

But according to most professional prognosticators, the movie’s biggest acting asset is Miranda Richardson, who plays the fiery Barbara Castle.  In the same article as reference above, Kris Tapley said this of Richardson:

“Miranda Richardson may finally nail down the Oscar win many of us have desperately wanted to see her wrangle for years.  If nothing else she’s on a clear track for a nomination.  The actress is on fire as Barbara Castle, the Labor party Baroness who bravely threw her weight behind female Ford factory workers demanding equal pay in an unfair system, and at a time when it was raging against a fierce tide to do so.  The supporting actress category is ripe for the taking this year and Richardson’s is exactly the kind of commanding, bold, yet humorous turn voters love to recognize.”

In a Best Supporting Actress category that is as unshaped as a slab of clay, Richardson could swoop down and steal the momentum – because no one else has yet!  Mo’Nique got the buzz from Sundance last year and never let go; Richardson could do the same (albeit 10 months afterwards).

There are plenty of other outside possibilities for the movie, including a potential second Best Supporting Actress bid for Rosamund Pike (which seems likely if the movie goes huge) and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bob Hoskins (more likely than Pike, although Bill Murray for “Get Low” is more likely to take his slot).  It will be much easier to tell what we can expect in the middle of November when the movie is released; its success in awards season will rely quite a bit on the reception it receives here.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Actress (Hawkins), Best Supporting Actress (Richardson)

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Hoskins), Best Original Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, Best Original Song


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #451

22 10 2010

Dear Warner Bros.,

According to /Film, you are going to make a sequel to “Inception.”  That’s a poor decision.  If you ever want my business again, you will NOT make a sequel – especially not without Christopher Nolan, which you technically have the right to do.  This is not “The Land Before Time;” you cannot destroy it by making irrelevant sequels like that!

In fact, even if Christopher Nolan himself comes on board for the sequel, I’ll wonder to myself how much you paid him under the table.  This isn’t a movie that needs a sequel.  A new installment would just be shameless money-grubbing.  So be happy you got $300 million from a $175 million dollar production in the U.S. alone.  You’ve made enough money, now go find some other auteur and develop him to superstardom.  Leave Christopher Nolan alone!  There should be no reason for me to scream at you in veiled Chris Crocker references!

Sincerely,
Marshall


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

F.I.L.M. of the Week (October 22, 2010)

22 10 2010

Tom Hardy wasn’t first on the table for discussion after anyone saw “Inception,” simply because there was just so much to talk about.  Yet once all the disagreement over the ending and what Christopher Nolan intended to be real was over, everyone could pretty much settle on one thing – that British guy Eames was a great scene stealer.  He did, after all, deliver one of the movie’s few laughs with “You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.”

Curious on what could have prompted Nolan to cast such an unknown actor in a high-profile role in a $175 million movie, I went back to Hardy’s roots and discovered his big breakout, a small British action-thriller entitled “Bronson.”   It’s a great masculine movie, filled with merciless fighting and almost ceaseless violence.  (Sounds like a great date night rental, doesn’t it, ladies!)

While he was born Michael Peterson, Britain’s most dangerous prisoner will go to the grave as Charles Bronson, his fighting name.  He’s a ball of destruction that ultimately becomes too much for the country’s jails to handle.  Strangely enough, this is a man sprung from a fairly affluent middle-class family who had nowhere to go but up.  And perhaps that’s one of the movie’s messages – it doesn’t matter where you come from if you have violent tendencies.  They will take over you.

These violent outbursts land Bronson in the slammer, which hardly calms or rehabilitates him.  He sees it like a stage where his violence is his show for a hardly-impressed audience of guards.  The film perfectly captures the theatrical nature of Bronson’s violence, even spoon-feeding it to those who don’t pick up on it from Hardy’s brilliant portrayal of obsession.  Because of this, “Bronson” is more than just your average prison thriller.  It’s a portrait of a potentially demented man who will throw a punch no matter what the consequences are guaranteed to get the testosterone pumping through your body.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #450

21 10 2010

Documentaries can often arouse passion and indignation. But do they change our minds or just preach to the converted?

That’s the question that Patrick Goldstein of The Los Angeles Times‘ blog The Big Picture asks, and it’s the question Marshall of “Marshall and the Movies” will try to answer.

There has been an influx of politically-charged documentaries hitting mainstream consciousness as of recent, beginning with Davis Guggenheim’s but actually Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Ever since then, we’ve seen movies that tackle touch issues like the economy (“Inside Job”), education (“Waiting for Superman”), dolphin killing (“The Cove”), and Iraq (too many to name) going outside their usual art-house audience.  These are very different kinds of documentaries from the ones that you see at school and on the history channel; they are made by filmmakers with a mission to prove that something needs to be changed and then try to spur you to action over the course of the movie.  The Internet has made it a whole lot easier to give such help, and documentaries have become a powerful tool for real change.

But, as Goldstein puts it, “Documentaries can often arouse passion and indignation. But do they change our minds or just preach to the converted?”

Here’s my take on these politically-charged documentaries.  I am willing to listen if the movie gives me the facts first and then allows me to make my own conclusion.  I don’t mind listening to a differing opinion, but as long as I get some separation, I can bear it.  If a filmmaker can’t do that, I really don’t want to spend my time watching the movie.  I want to be informed, not lectured.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

“Black Swan” Poll Results

21 10 2010

Everyone’s talking about “Black Swan” for Best Picture in the blogosphere.  Their opinion, which I totally agree with, is that a nomination for Darren Aronofsky’s latest feature would be the first true step forward for the Academy in years.  They have nominated movies like “Avatar” and “The Blind Side” and “District 9” before; out of the ordinary is not the same as making full progression.

But alas, when I published my two cents on “Black Swan” to kick off Oscar Moment Week in September, I focused more on the movie’s surest bet for a nomination, Natalie Portman.  She’s all but a lock to be nominated.  The big question is can 29-year-old Portman win?

The results were definitive.  2/3 of voters said they expected Portman to win Best Actress, while the other third remained skeptical.  I love Natalie Portman and can’t wait to see this movie; sight unseen, she is who I want to win.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Marshall and the Movies, Polls

« Previous Entries Next Entries »