Random Factoid #458

29 10 2010

Filmmaker feud alert!

Stop the presses … John Landis says “Inception” isn’t original!  In other redundant news, “The Social Network” isn’t entirely true and the world isn’t flat.  Here are his exact words, for all those wondering:

“Interestingly enough ‘Inception,’ which is wonderful, is not original. There have been a lot of movies like it; remember ‘Dreamscape?’ Oh that’s bad special effects but almost the same movie. It’s Dennis Quaid and Edward Albert is the president of the United States and they insert him into his dreams … ya know, I think, don’t misunderstand me I think Christopher Nolan is a wonderful director it’s just I don’t think he is yet to make a movie other than ‘Memento’ that I thought was really original, its just very stylish.”

Hello, “Inception” isn’t original, but it’s the closest thing we have to original in these meager times where imagination is about as dead as Generalissimo Francisco Franco.  These days, “original” has become synonymous with “not formulaic,” which is a shame.  Cynics would say that cinema is done being original, and now we are stuck with petty rehashes.  While Nolan presented the world of the dream in a highly creative and innovative way, it’s hardly original.  In a feature with The New York Times, the director even expressly laid out four movies that influenced “Inception” to a large extent: “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Blade Runner,” “Heat,” and “The Matrix.”

So yes, I agree with Landis that it’s not original.  But Nolan agrees too!  Everyone can agree that they’ve seen something like “Inception” before, so Landis is rendered irrelevant.  I’ll close with a wonderful quote from director Jim Jarmusch that perfectly encapsulates the point I’m trying to make here – and why “Inception” has become such a beloved movie in 2010.

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery — celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from — it’s where you take them to.”





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





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.)





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.





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.





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.





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…





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





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.





Random Factoid #449

20 10 2010

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I’m back again (along with everyone else in the world) to bash an article with incredibly poor logic and taste, this one surprisingly coming from the prestigious New York Times.  Michael Cieply published an article entitled “Longing for the Lines That Had Us at Hello,” lamenting what he called the “lost art” of the one-liner.  Such a statement is just begging to be refuted.

Clearly Cieply has been living under a rock for the past decade.  Perhaps he missed when “Juno” started a revolution in vocabulary and shook up the jargon like no movie had ever done before?  I probably quote that movie in some form or fashion EVERY DAY, be it through the use of one word or rattling off an entire line.

Comedy over the past decade has churned out many a great one-liner; two particular favorites of mine are “Role Models” and “Knocked Up,” both of which hit you with quotable line after quotable line.

But even if comedy is too “low-brow” for Mr. Cieply, plenty of dramas over the past ten years have quotable lines.  I’ll run you through one for each year among the Best Picture nominees.

  • 2000: “What we do in this life echoes in eternity!” (Gladiator)
  • 2001: “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!” (LOTR)
  • 2002: “My precious!” (LOTR)
  • 2003: “We wash our sins, we bury them clean.” (Mystic River)
  • 2004: “Anyone can lose one fight.” (Million Dollar Baby)
  • 2005: “I wish I could quit you.” (Brokeback Mountain)
  • 2006: “Maybe.  Maybe not.  Maybe go f*** yourself.” (The Departed)
  • 2007: “Call it, friendo.” (No Country for Old Men)/”I drink your milkshake!” (There Will Be Blood)
  • 2008: “Jamal! Latika!” (Slumdog Millionaire)
  • 2009: “That’s a bingo!” (Inglourious Basterds)

So needless to say, there ARE great lines in non-comedies nowadays.  And it’s not like this problem has escalated this year; as Vulture points out, we have an outstanding quotable movie in “The Social Network.”  Here are the ten lines they pull out of Aaron Sorkin’s phenomenal script that they think we will be quoting soon enough.

1. “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you would have invented Facebook.”
2. “I’m six-foot-five, 220 pounds, and there’s two of me.” Great for bar fights!
3. “A million dollars isn’t cool. You know what’s cool? A billion dollars.”
4. “You better lawyer up, asshole.”
5. “Like my brother and I are dressed in skeleton costumes chasing the karate kid around a high-school gym.”
6. “Because we’re gentlemen of Harvard.”
7. “I like standing next to you, [insert name]. It makes me look tough in comparison.”
8. Using “The Winklevi” in a sentence. When being dismissive, generally.
9. “If your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try.”
10. “I believe I deserve some sort of recognition from this Ad Board.”

So, Mr. Cieply, here’s my proof that you are indeed very, very wrong.  I’ll keep quoting movies all day long, and you can continue living on your cloud of ignorance if you so desire.

(P.S. – Is it something in the New York water?  See Random Factoid #376 for a similarly styled refutation of a detestable article published in New York Magazine a few months ago.)





Random Factoid #448

19 10 2010

I recently discovered StumbleUpon … yes, I know that I’m a little behind, thank you.  The categories I have it set to stumble upon: film, philosophy, sociology, and ethics.  An interesting amalgam of topics to represent my wide array of interests (plus I figure they would have interesting crossover).

So far, at least in terms of movies, I haven’t found anything to really catch my interest.  I’ve picked up a few interesting tricks of the trade of cinematography and such, but nothing mindblowing.  I figured it would be great for factoid fodder, and so far all I can really offer you is this diagram.  I totally agree with it, and I got a nice chuckle out of it.

Let’s just hope “Batman 3” doesn’t add another villain…





Random Factoid #447

18 10 2010

Yo soy un actor.

For those of you who don’t speak Spanish, that translates to “I am an actor.”  Throughout high school, my main extra-curricular activity has been acting.  This weekend, I wrapped up my seventh show of high school – and I still have three more to go before I head off to college.  I’ve learned a lot from the movies when it comes to acting.  In angry moments on stage, I have often tried to channel Philip Seymour Hoffman.

But acting isn’t just imitation.  I wrote a definition paper on acting my sophomore year; my three main points were that acting is reacting, acting is being, and acting is doing.  There are all sorts of theories on acting, and I’m not incredibly well-versed in many of them.  I do know that being involved in acting so intensely over these four years has really given me an appreciation for the craft when I see it on screen.  Most of all, I think I notice when an actor truly realizes a character and brings it to vibrant life.

That being said, why doesn’t Kristen Stewart know all that?





Random Factoid #446

17 10 2010

Hollywood has an interesting dilemma on its hands.

It’s hardly news to anyone who follows film news that the trailer for Ron Howard’s “The Dilemma” has come under heavy fire for using a phrase that might be offensive to some.  For those who didn’t see the trailer attached to “The Social Network,” here it is:

“Electric cars are gay. I mean, not homosexual, but my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance gay.”

Within a week, the GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) was demanding that the trailer be removed from theaters.  This came as a shock to the studio, according to The Los Angeles Times, who “not only tested the trailer with rank-and-file moviegoers but also submitted it to a number of gay rights watchdog groups. According to Universal, no one complained.”

I’ll admit that I was a little surprised to hear the word in a trailer at a PG-13 movie, but considering all the jokes I had heard in R-rated movies, I wasn’t shocked.  I’ve read plenty of satire and seen plenty of comedic movies and plays to know that writers have to have no mercy if they must resort to insulting.  Everyone is fair game, although sometimes there are some low blows.  Compared to the some of the pejoratives thrown around in R-rated movies nowadays, the joke from “The Dilemma” falls somewhere between a low blow and mild name-calling.

I guess the biggest thing about the whole dilemma here is the fact that this is a trailer, not a movie.  People who might be offended by the word could avoid a movie that used it if they were well-informed; they could get totally blindsided by it when the trailer just plays before another movie they want to see.  The fact that GLAAD is insisting that Universal take the joke out of the movie seems a little ridiculous.  It’s not just that I’m a huge proponent of free speech, but they are picking the wrong movie to go after if they want to make a serious change in the way writers toss around terms describing homosexuals.

If their long-term goal is to get the word out of the vernacular as a synonym for stupid, they should have gone full throttle on the offensive against “The Hangover.”  Yes, the word gay has come to take on a despicable meaning, but so has lame.  How many times do we use that word and not realize that it is making fun of mentally challenged people?  And there’s never any uproar when you hear lame used in a movie.

But the fact that Vaughn’s line acknowledges that they don’t mean to make homosexuals the butt of the joke should make this a little bit less of a hot-button issue.  It’s wrong that the other context exists, but it’s a heck of a lot better than just throwing the word out there and making fun of homosexuals.  Compared to “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and the banter between Paul Rudd and Seth Rogen calling each other gay based on things that they like, this is child’s play.

Of course, I have to take into account the recent suicides linked to homophobic bullying.  This trailer could send the wrong message to those willing to interpret the nature of the joke in a certain way.  The suicides have lent the joke some very dark undertones, ones that weren’t intended to be there, but now they are very present.  Given the nature of the times, perhaps it is for the better that the line was removed.  The unfortunate events cannot be changed, but Universal may have played a part in preventing some further grief and distress.

Had these events not occurred, I would be in support of keeping the joke in the trailer and in the film because it would be hypocritical to grant one group immunity from comedic effects.

As Patrick Goldstein of The Los Angeles Times said, “Comedy is a lot like free speech — sometimes you have to hold your nose to support it. If you don’t stick up for the flimsiest kind of humor, then you can’t protect the most important kind either.”  This whole situation is a hard one to take a stance on, but there is a way to handle this that can preserve the integrity of all people and comedy.

I mean no disrespect towards GLAAD or Universal with this post, and I hope that I have treated this sensitive subject with the care and respect it is due.  I have nothing but sympathy towards all those affected by the suicides, and I sincerely regret any pain that the trailer for “The Dilemma” might have caused.  In these sensitive times, I hope I have provided a commentary based in reason and a response not heightened by the hysteria of the current events.





Random Factoid #445

16 10 2010

Because two days of social issues factoid-ing weren’t enough, here come another two days of it. According to Shelf Life, the film adaptation of the novel “Hunger Games” is casting right now and encountering the issue of race.

“Rue would be a difficult role for any pre-teen actress. Adding some complexity: the fact that Rue is clearly described as having “satiny brown skin” on page 98. Don’t worry if you didn’t know that Rue and her fellow District 11 tribute Thresh were black. I didn’t either after my first read … It wouldn’t radically alter the structure of THG if Rue were played by, say, Chloe Moretz.”

I haven’t read the book (or heard anything about it, for that matter), but ethnic casting has been a prevalent issue recently given the release of “The Last Airbender,” which drew ire from Indians after the movie was white-ified by casting Caucasians in the three lead roles.  I personally think that we are in a progressive enough world where casting should be race-blind UNLESS of course the role requires a certain ethnicity.  We can see interracial marriages now and not think twice about it; we can see a racially mixed room and not instantly cry “this is just for diversity.”  If the role in the “Hunger Games” alludes to the race of Rue only once and a casual reader can go through the entire book without delegating the character a certain race, the ethnicity shouldn’t matter.





Random Factoid #443

14 10 2010

The big 18 today … which means absolutely squat in terms of movies.  Perhaps I can buy more than one ticket to an R rated movie now, but no new cinematic doors are opened for me.  (Plenty of others were opened, though, and I bought my first lottery ticket today.)

I feel like the birthday factoid is already so self-centric that it doesn’t need much of a cinematic tie-in.  I figured I’ll attach a few YouTube videos for your own enjoyment.