Ah, the answering machine. A perfect cinematic device. Even more so than a telephone, really, because you can hear the voice on the other end more clearly. It has so many applications: in the romantic film, after the couple's big fight, the offending party can leave soul-bearing message after message until the offendee can't bear it anymore and picks up. In the thriller, the bad guy can leave a string of menacing messages (although he's probably more inclined to go for the Breathy and Abrupt Phone Call). The comedy sees a hapless protagonist leaving embarassing messages, probably on the machine of his dream girl. And so on.
Trouble is, I don't know anyone with a traditional answering machine anymore. Even those old dinosaurs who still have land lines have probably made a mandatory switch to digital voicemail. Pressing a speed dial button, hearing a short ring followed by the robotic lady saying "Please enter your password," punching in a password, hearing "You have __ new messages" and listening to them just isn't compelling cinema. I've noticed that to cling to the answering machine for as long as possible, some filmmakers hide behind the excuse that a character has a crummy little apartment and isn't tech-savvy. Well, as previously mentioned, most phone companies have forced people into voicemail, so that line of reasoning doesn't fly.
The introduction of cell phones has also had a quiet but profound effect on cinema. In a movie made before the advent of cell phones, if you had arranged to meet with someone at a certain time and place and they didn't show, they were probably dead, kidnapped, standing you up, setting you up, etc. Now it's a different story - give them a quick ring on their cell ("Oh, you meant that park. I'll be right over."). This is a welcome development in the real world, but it makes things a little too easy on screen. Again, some filmmakers are flat-out ignoring the existence of cell phones and clinging to payphones for as long as possible, despite the fact that they barely exist anymore. Payphones/phone booths are another unfortunate loss from the silver screen, as they are wonderfully dramatic - not enough money to finish the call! Random payphone ringing! Calling the person in the next booth over to discuss your evil plans! But in the age of cell phones, payphones just seem sad and ridiculous.
What are some other fading technologies that are winding down their glory days on screen?
August 15, 2008
August 7, 2008
A few thoughts on celebrity offspring
I like celebrity gossip as much as the next guy. I might not buy a copy of US Weekly, but I'll flip through it in a waiting room, and I'll absorb all the latest dish online. I like to know who's wearing what and who's sleeping with whom - I think it's a perfectly natural human impulse. But there is one aspect of celebrity worship that I simply do not understand: the attention given to their new babies.
We're all adults here (at least maturity-wise, I presume), so let's be honest about something: ALL BABIES LOOK THE SAME. Unless you see their special parts, you can't even tell if it's a boy or a girl. The only variations are size, skin tone, and amount of hair, but a human baby is a human baby. If you put one of the Brangelina twins in a room with 100 other random babies and instructed someone to find the celebrity spawn in the bunch, they couldn't. Now, if you put 100 random men in a room and instructed someone to pick out the one that Angelina Jolie was sleeping with, you probably could on basis on attractiveness (although there was that Billy Bob Thornton debacle). Or which of 100 evening gowns she had worn. The point is, reading about celebrities is fun because of all the sparkle, glamor, and variety, but their babies are the one thing in their lives that are just like everyone else's. They're not born with halos, lightning scars, or an otherworldly glow - there's nothing distinguishing them from some hick baby born in a trailer park.
I sometimes wonder if the tabloids that pay 19 kajillion dollars for a picture or two of a famous baby half-expect something special. They send out their check, and they get back a picture of the celebrity in question holding...a baby. A regular baby. Honestly, I'm not surprised that more people don't try to scam the bloids by sending in a random Google image of a baby and trying to pass it off as one of famous pedigree, because if it wasn't for the inherent shadiness of the source, NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL.
The celebrity baby obsession is also pretty bipolar, however. Once these kids are about a year old (or in the case of adopted children, once they've been with a new celeb family about that long), they fade into oblivion instantly. No one cares. Their baby pictures may have financed three new houses, but by age 1 they're dead to the world. Their only hope of re-entering the media is through one or more of the following: 1) an exposé of their famous mom or dad's bad parenting skills that involves them only as a victim 2) an adorably futile attempt to become a star in their own right and not because of their lineage, or 3) some slutty scandal of their own.
And while some stars savor the publicity that their bundles of joy can bring, others (at least act like they) hate it. This article about Nicole Kidman and child made me roll my eyes so far back in my head that I didn't know if they'd come back. To summarize, she issues a whiny plea to the paparazzi to leave her newborn daughter Sunday alone. This won't work, because she is a celebrity and gave her baby a stupid name like Sunday (as an aside, who wants to be named after the day of the week that you spend groaning about how you have to go back to work/school?). Hey Nicole, you know how you can get the the shutterbugs away from you and your precious cargo? Go back in time and don't become famous, or don't have a baby. Being a celebrity stunned that paparazzi want to stalk your baby is like being a normal person shocked that their baby isn't potty-trained from birth. As powerful as celebrities are, they are powerless to change the social structures designed to document every second of their lives.
What do you think? Am I alone in being passionately disinterested in celebrity spawn?
We're all adults here (at least maturity-wise, I presume), so let's be honest about something: ALL BABIES LOOK THE SAME. Unless you see their special parts, you can't even tell if it's a boy or a girl. The only variations are size, skin tone, and amount of hair, but a human baby is a human baby. If you put one of the Brangelina twins in a room with 100 other random babies and instructed someone to find the celebrity spawn in the bunch, they couldn't. Now, if you put 100 random men in a room and instructed someone to pick out the one that Angelina Jolie was sleeping with, you probably could on basis on attractiveness (although there was that Billy Bob Thornton debacle). Or which of 100 evening gowns she had worn. The point is, reading about celebrities is fun because of all the sparkle, glamor, and variety, but their babies are the one thing in their lives that are just like everyone else's. They're not born with halos, lightning scars, or an otherworldly glow - there's nothing distinguishing them from some hick baby born in a trailer park.
I sometimes wonder if the tabloids that pay 19 kajillion dollars for a picture or two of a famous baby half-expect something special. They send out their check, and they get back a picture of the celebrity in question holding...a baby. A regular baby. Honestly, I'm not surprised that more people don't try to scam the bloids by sending in a random Google image of a baby and trying to pass it off as one of famous pedigree, because if it wasn't for the inherent shadiness of the source, NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL.
The celebrity baby obsession is also pretty bipolar, however. Once these kids are about a year old (or in the case of adopted children, once they've been with a new celeb family about that long), they fade into oblivion instantly. No one cares. Their baby pictures may have financed three new houses, but by age 1 they're dead to the world. Their only hope of re-entering the media is through one or more of the following: 1) an exposé of their famous mom or dad's bad parenting skills that involves them only as a victim 2) an adorably futile attempt to become a star in their own right and not because of their lineage, or 3) some slutty scandal of their own.
And while some stars savor the publicity that their bundles of joy can bring, others (at least act like they) hate it. This article about Nicole Kidman and child made me roll my eyes so far back in my head that I didn't know if they'd come back. To summarize, she issues a whiny plea to the paparazzi to leave her newborn daughter Sunday alone. This won't work, because she is a celebrity and gave her baby a stupid name like Sunday (as an aside, who wants to be named after the day of the week that you spend groaning about how you have to go back to work/school?). Hey Nicole, you know how you can get the the shutterbugs away from you and your precious cargo? Go back in time and don't become famous, or don't have a baby. Being a celebrity stunned that paparazzi want to stalk your baby is like being a normal person shocked that their baby isn't potty-trained from birth. As powerful as celebrities are, they are powerless to change the social structures designed to document every second of their lives.
What do you think? Am I alone in being passionately disinterested in celebrity spawn?
July 19, 2008
What's a nice movie like you doing in a DVD case like this? or: great films with bad DVD covers
You know the feeling: you go out to buy a DVD of a film you like, thinking how nice it will look on your shelf. And I mean a classy, well-made film. Then you find, to your chagrin, that the DVD cover is abominable and does not do the movie any justice. What are these designers thinking? In this day and age, there are typically a few different versions of a DVD available (different editions, regions, etc.) so you might have a choice - but strangely, the nicer editions tend to have some of the worst cover art. Let's take a look at some DVD covers that make me cringe every time I see them.
Dogma (1999) special edition:
I can just imagine the creation of this image: Designer: The DVD cover's all done, boss.
Boss: What?! But you forgot to put Laurence Harvey on there. He's the MAIN character.
Designer: Oh shit!
Boss: Here's what you do. Just get a HUGE picture of Laurence Harvey and slap him in the front, over everything, with a GUN. Cuz he's the MAIN character. Oh, and mute those colors, will you?
Who let the caricature artist off the boardwalk?! Cyd doesn't look too bad (aside from being a bobblehead), but Fred looks like some alien with a killer chin. Not cool.
What’s a surefire way to make Javier Bardem look even scarier? Blur out the bottom half of his face and give him Josh Brolin for a mouth. No Country, you’re an amazing movie, but on this front, you fail epically.
Remember The Apartment, that terrible romantic comedy with Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey that millions of squealing girls dragged their annoyed boyfriends to? No you don’t, because The Apartment is a bittersweet Billy Wilder gem with a stellar cast that won the Best Picture Oscar in 1960. But from this image, you’d think it was the former. The major plot elements are painstakingly laid out for morons – you see, there’s this big KEYHOLE, to symbolize the APARTMENT. Shirley MacLaine is flanked by two potential suitors, and she’s SHRUGGING, because she DOESN’T KNOW WHICH ONE SHE’LL END UP WITH! This is just insulting.
If this post has hurt your eyes and your sensibility, I recommend cleansing your palate by browsing the DVDs of the Criterion Collection. Each and every one of their covers is a miniature piece of art that skillfully communicates the theme of the film inside.
For a good read on the tangentially related subject of the differences in poster and DVD art for the same film, check out this post at More Than Fine.
Dogma (1999) special edition:
Okay, I just don't get this faux oil painting look. It just looks cheap. I understand the commercial need to cram all the stars on the cover, but this was achieved in the non-special edition with actual photos. The rendering of Linda Fiorentino makes her look like she had fetal alcohol syndrome, and that weird creature in the top center? That's supposed to be Alanis Morrissette. Yuck.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
The special edition of this film has an aesthetically pleasing cover. It looks like this:
Unfortunately, the non-special edition looks like this:
I can just imagine the creation of this image: Designer: The DVD cover's all done, boss.
Boss: What?! But you forgot to put Laurence Harvey on there. He's the MAIN character.
Designer: Oh shit!
Boss: Here's what you do. Just get a HUGE picture of Laurence Harvey and slap him in the front, over everything, with a GUN. Cuz he's the MAIN character. Oh, and mute those colors, will you?
All About My Mother (1999)
The American version of the DVD is nice enough:
The Spanish version, however, uses essentially the same image but a very different rendering:
Ew! There are toddlers than could produce better drawings than that. This is not a picture suitable for an Oscar-winning Spanish melodrama. And the eyes are different sizes! Make it go away!
There Will Be Blood (2007):
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the design here. It’s rather nice and suits the film. But doesn’t Daniel Day-Lewis look a little…funny to you? He looks like he’s made out of wax. While this could serve as a metaphor for the lack of humanity in his character (doubtful), it just comes across as shoddy design.
Silk Stockings (1957):
Who let the caricature artist off the boardwalk?! Cyd doesn't look too bad (aside from being a bobblehead), but Fred looks like some alien with a killer chin. Not cool.
No Country for Old Men (2007):
The problem here is that the cover makes this Best Picture winner look like a shitty movie. From the years I worked at a video store, I can tell you with authority that this design adheres strictly the Straight-To-Video Shitty Movie look: floating heads of actors on top, title in the middle, action-packed image on the bottom. Think about it. If it wasn’t for the star power, the Coen name and Newsweek’s enthusiastic praise, this could easily be an image from Jean-Claude Van Damme Fights People and Blows Things Up #3761. Furthermore, why don’t the names match the floating heads? I know this is common practice, but that’s typically when they’re trying to alphabetize. The names here aren't alphabetical, and it’s even more confusing because one name matches the face. And while I’m at it, what’s with the god-awful poster for this movie?
What’s a surefire way to make Javier Bardem look even scarier? Blur out the bottom half of his face and give him Josh Brolin for a mouth. No Country, you’re an amazing movie, but on this front, you fail epically.
The Apartment (1960) collector’s edition:
Remember The Apartment, that terrible romantic comedy with Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey that millions of squealing girls dragged their annoyed boyfriends to? No you don’t, because The Apartment is a bittersweet Billy Wilder gem with a stellar cast that won the Best Picture Oscar in 1960. But from this image, you’d think it was the former. The major plot elements are painstakingly laid out for morons – you see, there’s this big KEYHOLE, to symbolize the APARTMENT. Shirley MacLaine is flanked by two potential suitors, and she’s SHRUGGING, because she DOESN’T KNOW WHICH ONE SHE’LL END UP WITH! This is just insulting.
If this post has hurt your eyes and your sensibility, I recommend cleansing your palate by browsing the DVDs of the Criterion Collection. Each and every one of their covers is a miniature piece of art that skillfully communicates the theme of the film inside.
For a good read on the tangentially related subject of the differences in poster and DVD art for the same film, check out this post at More Than Fine.
July 16, 2008
Genre study: the war comedy
War: dead soldiers everywhere. Brutality against civilians. Explosions. Destructions. Families torn apart.
Hilarity?
Sure. If you ask some directors, war can be a goldmine for comedy (usually of the dark variety). But when do these comedies toe the line of bad taste? Let us examine some standout contributions to the genre.
Civil War
1. The General (1927). This Buster Keaton silent film is more of a showcase for his comic abilities than any particular scathing indictment of war (although the plot is based on true events). One might argue today that the Civil War was so long ago that nobody's blood will boil over it anymore, but at the time of this film's release, the time that had elapsed since the war was about the same as WWII to now. There's also the fact that for American audiences, there's no external force to villainize. Because the North won, it may be a bit difficult to sympathize with Keaton's Confederate-affiliated character, but he's just an everyman trying to get by. This film could have taken place anytime, from the Roman Empire to space wars of the future, but it's really just about Buster being Buster.
Offensiveness cringe scale (from 0-5): 0. The only real politically charged element is that Keaton's sweetheart basically says that he's not a real man if he doesn't enlist.
WWII
2. The Great Dictator (1940). Charlie Chaplin was always ahead of his time, and could get downright edgy (in Monsieur Verdoux, he played a lady-killer). Making a film (his first talkie) about WWII before it started? Brilliant. Playing the dual roles of a Jewish barber and a crazed Hitler stand-in named Adenoid Hynkel, Chaplin foreshadows the devastating effects of the war to come. If laughing at Hitler seems a little uncomfortable to you, Chaplin's cartoonish portrayal makes it hard not to, from speaking gibberish as German to his famous ballet sequence with a globe. The Jewish barber is in a hospital for many years with amnesia, and his innocent befuddlement upon returning to his old neighborhood is both funny and tragic. Unlike Keaton, whose war backdrop was more incidental, Chaplin's was completely deliberate. He was a known pacifist who ended this film with a lengthy and well-known speech pleading for peace.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 1 - because it's Hitler, and also because this film was eerily prophetic.
3. To Be or Not To Be (1942). Ernst Lubitsch adds his "Lubitsch touch" to this sparkling comedy about stage actors in Poland during the war. It's a clever premise: the acting troupe keeps playing different roles of figures in the Nazi government to further their cause. Unlike other war films, there is no serious message here - it's all fun. Hard to believe, since WWII was in full swing at this time and star Carole Lombard died right after production in a plane crash. It was a pretty bold move of Lubitsch not to sermonize with this film.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 3. Even though none of the protagonists sympathize with the Nazis, some of the things they say while pretending (or some of the things the Nazis say) are a bit much, particularly the line "Concentration camps - we do the concentrating, the Poles do the camping!" It also portrays Nazis as womanizers trying to seduce people over to their side, and the lack of a serious message lets the comedy keep its full sting. It's still hilarious though.
4. Catch-22 (1970). I could not get through this book. I tried. Twice. But the film is entirely another story, featuring an all-star cast that includes Alan Arkin, Anthony Perkins, Jon Voight, and Orson Welles. The focus of the film is the insane bureaucracy surrounding war, and the measures participants go to in order to stay sane. It also marked a unique piece of cinematic history: it's the first American film to show an actor sitting on the toilet, in the hilarious scene where Martin Balsam's character nonchalantly has a conversation with Perkins while sitting on the john.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 2. It's not intrinsically offensive - more blasphemous, in that it paints the heroic men of WWII as deranged, heartless, wimpy, or manipulative. But is that just the plain truth?
Vietnam War thinly disguised as Korean War
5. M*A*S*H (1970). Korean War? Bitch, please. We know what was really going on here. Robert Altman's film is a curious mix of serious subjects, medical gore, and satire. In contrast to Catch-22, which came out the same year, Altman's protagonists are careless swingers who happen to be really good surgeons. They're kind of like Steve Carrell's character on "The Office" - he has completely the wrong attitude and ethic for the job, but at the end of the day, he surprises everyone by actually being a good salesman.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 3, largely for the characters' misogyny. Again, you don't necessarily feel that Altman endorses these sentiments, but they're there nonetheless - lines like "It's a good thing you have a nice body, nurse, otherwise they'd get rid of you quick."
Cold War-ish
6. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). Stanley Kubrick turned Cold War paranoia on its head in this riotous and outrageous satire. Featuring Peter Sellers in a multitude of roles so convincing that I initially didn't know they were all the same actor, both overzealously patriotic Americans and Soviets are lampooned mercilessly. The best-known line of the film summarizes its circular logic: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!"
Offensiveness cringe scale: 3, again with the Hitler. The titular Dr. Strangelove has a condition where his hand involuntarily salutes Hitler. (This is actually a real condition, called agonistic apraxia and nicknamed "Dr. Strangelove Syndrome.") Some may also be offended by the glib and, shall we say, "explosive" finale.
War on Terror
7. Team America: World Police (2004). Right from the self-righteous title you know this movie is gonna be trouble. Your second indicator is that it was made by the creators of "South Park" (Trey Parker and Matt Stone). A film this topical can be hit or miss (Postal, anyone?), but the key is making fun of the right things. And as far as I'm concerned, Parker and Stone hit a home run in that department. And with an all-puppet cast, no less!
Offensiveness cringe scale: 5. This film mocks everyone and everything - from Kim Jong Il to...Matt Damon?! It also boasts catchy songs like "America...Fuck Yeah!" It's probably most known, however, for the filthy sex acts involving puppets that should make anyone with an ounce of decency blush. And yet, like an episode of "South Park," it's a lot smarter than you think.
Basically, the world needs war comedies -whether to lift spirits during a hard time or heave a hearty laugh at how ridiculous we can be. Because as the saying goes, "If we can't laugh, then our enemies win."
Hilarity?
Sure. If you ask some directors, war can be a goldmine for comedy (usually of the dark variety). But when do these comedies toe the line of bad taste? Let us examine some standout contributions to the genre.
Civil War
1. The General (1927). This Buster Keaton silent film is more of a showcase for his comic abilities than any particular scathing indictment of war (although the plot is based on true events). One might argue today that the Civil War was so long ago that nobody's blood will boil over it anymore, but at the time of this film's release, the time that had elapsed since the war was about the same as WWII to now. There's also the fact that for American audiences, there's no external force to villainize. Because the North won, it may be a bit difficult to sympathize with Keaton's Confederate-affiliated character, but he's just an everyman trying to get by. This film could have taken place anytime, from the Roman Empire to space wars of the future, but it's really just about Buster being Buster.
Offensiveness cringe scale (from 0-5): 0. The only real politically charged element is that Keaton's sweetheart basically says that he's not a real man if he doesn't enlist.
WWII
2. The Great Dictator (1940). Charlie Chaplin was always ahead of his time, and could get downright edgy (in Monsieur Verdoux, he played a lady-killer). Making a film (his first talkie) about WWII before it started? Brilliant. Playing the dual roles of a Jewish barber and a crazed Hitler stand-in named Adenoid Hynkel, Chaplin foreshadows the devastating effects of the war to come. If laughing at Hitler seems a little uncomfortable to you, Chaplin's cartoonish portrayal makes it hard not to, from speaking gibberish as German to his famous ballet sequence with a globe. The Jewish barber is in a hospital for many years with amnesia, and his innocent befuddlement upon returning to his old neighborhood is both funny and tragic. Unlike Keaton, whose war backdrop was more incidental, Chaplin's was completely deliberate. He was a known pacifist who ended this film with a lengthy and well-known speech pleading for peace.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 1 - because it's Hitler, and also because this film was eerily prophetic.
3. To Be or Not To Be (1942). Ernst Lubitsch adds his "Lubitsch touch" to this sparkling comedy about stage actors in Poland during the war. It's a clever premise: the acting troupe keeps playing different roles of figures in the Nazi government to further their cause. Unlike other war films, there is no serious message here - it's all fun. Hard to believe, since WWII was in full swing at this time and star Carole Lombard died right after production in a plane crash. It was a pretty bold move of Lubitsch not to sermonize with this film.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 3. Even though none of the protagonists sympathize with the Nazis, some of the things they say while pretending (or some of the things the Nazis say) are a bit much, particularly the line "Concentration camps - we do the concentrating, the Poles do the camping!" It also portrays Nazis as womanizers trying to seduce people over to their side, and the lack of a serious message lets the comedy keep its full sting. It's still hilarious though.
4. Catch-22 (1970). I could not get through this book. I tried. Twice. But the film is entirely another story, featuring an all-star cast that includes Alan Arkin, Anthony Perkins, Jon Voight, and Orson Welles. The focus of the film is the insane bureaucracy surrounding war, and the measures participants go to in order to stay sane. It also marked a unique piece of cinematic history: it's the first American film to show an actor sitting on the toilet, in the hilarious scene where Martin Balsam's character nonchalantly has a conversation with Perkins while sitting on the john.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 2. It's not intrinsically offensive - more blasphemous, in that it paints the heroic men of WWII as deranged, heartless, wimpy, or manipulative. But is that just the plain truth?
Vietnam War thinly disguised as Korean War
5. M*A*S*H (1970). Korean War? Bitch, please. We know what was really going on here. Robert Altman's film is a curious mix of serious subjects, medical gore, and satire. In contrast to Catch-22, which came out the same year, Altman's protagonists are careless swingers who happen to be really good surgeons. They're kind of like Steve Carrell's character on "The Office" - he has completely the wrong attitude and ethic for the job, but at the end of the day, he surprises everyone by actually being a good salesman.
Offensiveness cringe scale: 3, largely for the characters' misogyny. Again, you don't necessarily feel that Altman endorses these sentiments, but they're there nonetheless - lines like "It's a good thing you have a nice body, nurse, otherwise they'd get rid of you quick."
Cold War-ish
6. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). Stanley Kubrick turned Cold War paranoia on its head in this riotous and outrageous satire. Featuring Peter Sellers in a multitude of roles so convincing that I initially didn't know they were all the same actor, both overzealously patriotic Americans and Soviets are lampooned mercilessly. The best-known line of the film summarizes its circular logic: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!"
Offensiveness cringe scale: 3, again with the Hitler. The titular Dr. Strangelove has a condition where his hand involuntarily salutes Hitler. (This is actually a real condition, called agonistic apraxia and nicknamed "Dr. Strangelove Syndrome.") Some may also be offended by the glib and, shall we say, "explosive" finale.
War on Terror
7. Team America: World Police (2004). Right from the self-righteous title you know this movie is gonna be trouble. Your second indicator is that it was made by the creators of "South Park" (Trey Parker and Matt Stone). A film this topical can be hit or miss (Postal, anyone?), but the key is making fun of the right things. And as far as I'm concerned, Parker and Stone hit a home run in that department. And with an all-puppet cast, no less!
Offensiveness cringe scale: 5. This film mocks everyone and everything - from Kim Jong Il to...Matt Damon?! It also boasts catchy songs like "America...Fuck Yeah!" It's probably most known, however, for the filthy sex acts involving puppets that should make anyone with an ounce of decency blush. And yet, like an episode of "South Park," it's a lot smarter than you think.
Basically, the world needs war comedies -whether to lift spirits during a hard time or heave a hearty laugh at how ridiculous we can be. Because as the saying goes, "If we can't laugh, then our enemies win."
July 10, 2008
Is this actually a movie? #2
The second offering in my prestigious line-up of movies that can't possibly be real comes to us courtesy of Uwe Boll. Yes, Uwe Boll, director of such fine films as Alone in the Dark and BloodRayne. The same Uwe Boll who has a petition going to prevent him from ever making another movie. And yes, the same Uwe Boll who challenged his critics to a boxing match.
I present to you: Postal.
Checklist of ITAAM (is this actually a movie) elements (some gleaned from other clips and trailers):
- Brokeback Mountain joke involving George Bush and Osama bin Laden? Check.
- Verne Troyer? Check.
- Tons of monkeys? Check.
- Hot Nazi girls with Hitler mustaches? Check.
- Dave Foley's dong? Check.
- Painfully easy Tom Cruise jokes? Check.
- Suicide bombers debating the number of virgins they get to shag in heaven? Check.
- The guy who played the Soup Nazi? Check.
- A tasteless recreation of the 9/11 attack that shows a guy blowing up? Check.
And much, much more!
Inexplicably, this film won not one, but two awards at the Hoboken International Film Festival. Yet at a free screening at the same festival, 200 people walked out.
I have provided not one, but two trailers for you that highlight different elements of the film's ridiculousness. If you're still somehow enticed to see this catastrophe in the full, it comes out on Blu-Ray next month, so you can see the poor taste at superior quality. And may God have mercy on your soul.
I present to you: Postal.
Checklist of ITAAM (is this actually a movie) elements (some gleaned from other clips and trailers):
- Brokeback Mountain joke involving George Bush and Osama bin Laden? Check.
- Verne Troyer? Check.
- Tons of monkeys? Check.
- Hot Nazi girls with Hitler mustaches? Check.
- Dave Foley's dong? Check.
- Painfully easy Tom Cruise jokes? Check.
- Suicide bombers debating the number of virgins they get to shag in heaven? Check.
- The guy who played the Soup Nazi? Check.
- A tasteless recreation of the 9/11 attack that shows a guy blowing up? Check.
And much, much more!
Inexplicably, this film won not one, but two awards at the Hoboken International Film Festival. Yet at a free screening at the same festival, 200 people walked out.
I have provided not one, but two trailers for you that highlight different elements of the film's ridiculousness. If you're still somehow enticed to see this catastrophe in the full, it comes out on Blu-Ray next month, so you can see the poor taste at superior quality. And may God have mercy on your soul.
July 7, 2008
Addicting site for tracking movie-viewing progress
Wouldn't it be cool to quantify the percentage of Academy Award Best Picture winners you've seen and check them off as you go? How about the AFI Top 100? The 1001 movies to see before you die? Palm d'Or winners? All Hugh Grant movies ever?
Well, now you can.
Enter Lists of Bests (http://www.listsofbests.com/lists/home/movies). You can plow through the above lists and more, and user-created ones as well (Mindi T's "The Saddest Movies Ever Made," anyone?). The site also has similar listings for books, music, and more. You can add lists to your account that you're currently working on, and if an item appears on more than one list it'll already be checked off for you (unless it's a different DVD version, which can be a bit confusing). So addicting.
Here's how much I've seen from some major lists:
Best Picture winners: 41%
Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies to See Before You Die, 2nd ed.: 20% (oh come on, it's really long)
Time Magazine's 100 Greatest Films: 41%
AFI Top 100 (1998 version): 59%
AFI Top 100 (2007 version): 62%
Edward Copeland's 100 Greatest Foreign Films: 19% (working through it this summer...)
Films of the Criterion Collection: 8% (working on it...)
100 Highest-Grossing Films at the U.S. box office: 37%
Have fun!
Well, now you can.
Enter Lists of Bests (http://www.listsofbests.com/lists/home/movies). You can plow through the above lists and more, and user-created ones as well (Mindi T's "The Saddest Movies Ever Made," anyone?). The site also has similar listings for books, music, and more. You can add lists to your account that you're currently working on, and if an item appears on more than one list it'll already be checked off for you (unless it's a different DVD version, which can be a bit confusing). So addicting.
Here's how much I've seen from some major lists:
Best Picture winners: 41%
Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies to See Before You Die, 2nd ed.: 20% (oh come on, it's really long)
Time Magazine's 100 Greatest Films: 41%
AFI Top 100 (1998 version): 59%
AFI Top 100 (2007 version): 62%
Edward Copeland's 100 Greatest Foreign Films: 19% (working through it this summer...)
Films of the Criterion Collection: 8% (working on it...)
100 Highest-Grossing Films at the U.S. box office: 37%
Have fun!
When DVD cases or menus ruin everything
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like to know the ending of a movie before I watch it. I don't think that's too much to ask. Sometimes a friend ruins it for you, or you accidentally wander into a minefield of spoilers on the interwebs. But the worst is when endings are betrayed by DVD cases, menus, or anything else you could easily stumble upon in the viewing process. So as a public service to my readers, I would like to compile a list of films that fall into this category. Here are two examples that happened to me:
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959) - This is a a Tennessee Williams adaptation with a star-studded cast. I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more, however, if the entire quasi-twist ending wasn't revealed on the back of the DVD case! (and the IMDB plot synopsis too, as it turns out). At the video store where I used to work, this pissed me off so much that I covered the back of the case with a piece of paper on which I wrote my own, spoiler-free synopsis.
Barton Fink (1991) - If you are catching this surreal Coen Brothers flick on DVD, close your eyes and ears while it loads - some genius chose to make footage from the wild and unexpected ending be the loop that plays behind the menu!
Okay, so now I need your help. Have you ever had this happen to you and want to spare others the agony? Email me your experiences at jsesnovich@yahoo.com. Don't post to the comments section, because I want to formally compile these. Do a good deed for the sake of your fellow film fans!
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959) - This is a a Tennessee Williams adaptation with a star-studded cast. I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more, however, if the entire quasi-twist ending wasn't revealed on the back of the DVD case! (and the IMDB plot synopsis too, as it turns out). At the video store where I used to work, this pissed me off so much that I covered the back of the case with a piece of paper on which I wrote my own, spoiler-free synopsis.
Barton Fink (1991) - If you are catching this surreal Coen Brothers flick on DVD, close your eyes and ears while it loads - some genius chose to make footage from the wild and unexpected ending be the loop that plays behind the menu!
Okay, so now I need your help. Have you ever had this happen to you and want to spare others the agony? Email me your experiences at jsesnovich@yahoo.com. Don't post to the comments section, because I want to formally compile these. Do a good deed for the sake of your fellow film fans!
June 11, 2008
Is this actually a movie? #1
Being a cinephile, as I am, I try to keep up on the latest developments in the world of film. I'll read magazines or articles on the Internet about the latest movies, and I'll watch trailers of upcoming flicks. But every now and again, I find myself asking of a certain title, "Is this actually a movie?" Not just because it seems bad, but because you can't think of more than two people on God's green earth that would ever want to bring this film into existence. My mind starts reeling at the number of people who must have thought this movie was a good idea in order for it to get made. Directors, producers, actors showing up every day to put their heart and soul into something that anyone could see is a piece of crap. It's simply stunning. I think perhaps the first time I uttered those exact words was when I saw the trailer for Norbit. My response was the same as if I had seen a unicorn prance by the window: is this real?
So, in order to better share this phenomenon with my darling readers, I will begin a series called "Is this actually a movie?", featuring films that elicited that reaction from me. Let's begin!
The inaugural title is actually one I had known about for a while, but I am still in disbelief that it actually came through. It is called You and I. Sounds harmless, right? Well, the original title was Finding t.A.T.u. Yeah. As in the faux-lesbian rocker duo from Russia that had a hit song like five years ago. Oh yes.
The source material for this movie may be the only thing in the world crazier than the movie itself. It's based on a novel about two lesbians who meet at a t.A.T.u. concert in Russia. Yes, there is a novel about that. And do you know who wrote it? A Russian politician who was a member of the Russian Parliament, a manager for several bands, and the director of a porno. I am not creative enough to make all of that up.
The movie is directed by two-time Oscar nominee Roland Joffe (nominated for The Killing Fields and The Mission), although his last film was the let's-put-a-hot-girl-in-a-cage classic Captivity.
The star is Mischa Barton, doing a ludicrous Russian accent and apparently working in a meat processing plant. Interestingly, Barton refuses to promote the film, and was MIA at the premiere, fueling speculation that even she thinks it sucks.
And yes, the internet is portrayed as a series of neon tubes.
Anyway, just watch the trailer, because as is the case with most of these can't-believe-they're-real movies, you really just have to see it to believe it.
So, in order to better share this phenomenon with my darling readers, I will begin a series called "Is this actually a movie?", featuring films that elicited that reaction from me. Let's begin!
The inaugural title is actually one I had known about for a while, but I am still in disbelief that it actually came through. It is called You and I. Sounds harmless, right? Well, the original title was Finding t.A.T.u. Yeah. As in the faux-lesbian rocker duo from Russia that had a hit song like five years ago. Oh yes.
The source material for this movie may be the only thing in the world crazier than the movie itself. It's based on a novel about two lesbians who meet at a t.A.T.u. concert in Russia. Yes, there is a novel about that. And do you know who wrote it? A Russian politician who was a member of the Russian Parliament, a manager for several bands, and the director of a porno. I am not creative enough to make all of that up.
The movie is directed by two-time Oscar nominee Roland Joffe (nominated for The Killing Fields and The Mission), although his last film was the let's-put-a-hot-girl-in-a-cage classic Captivity.
The star is Mischa Barton, doing a ludicrous Russian accent and apparently working in a meat processing plant. Interestingly, Barton refuses to promote the film, and was MIA at the premiere, fueling speculation that even she thinks it sucks.
And yes, the internet is portrayed as a series of neon tubes.
Anyway, just watch the trailer, because as is the case with most of these can't-believe-they're-real movies, you really just have to see it to believe it.
Well, at least there's a guaranteed audience of horny dudes who like lesbians. Then again, some crazies are still disturbingly obsessed with t.A.T.u....
Why the remake of "The Women" is an abomination to cinema
Today I saw a trailer for the 2008 remake of The Women, based on the 1939 original.
(trailers for the original and the remake )
I am not happy.
I had a sneaking suspicion that the remake would be awful, but the trailer confirmed my worst fears. It is not just going to be awful, it is going to be pure blasphemy.
(I should note here that I am not opposed to the concept of remakes in general. Some of cinema's beloved classics are actually remakes [like The Maltese Falcon] and sometimes an original and its remake are both good/famous and can happily coexist [the two versions of Scarface - 1932 and 1983]).
The basic plot is that a bunch of women backstab each other and steal each other's men, ascending and descending the social ladder in the process. Isn't that kind of a ludicrous premise to translate to the modern day - that your social status and your worth as a woman depend on who you are married to? Aren't we past this?
Let's take a look at what we're getting in the original as opposed to the remake.
- Director: The director of the original was Oscar-winning George Cukor, lovingly referred to as one of the "queens of Hollywood" due to his homosexuality. Working with the most respected stars of the day (largely female), he directed such classics as Dinner at Eight (1933), The Philadelphia Story (1940), Gaslight (1944) and Adam's Rib (1949), winning an Oscar for My Fair Lady in 1964. He directed five actors in Oscar-winning performances, and is largely considered one of the best directors of all time.
And the remake?
Directed by Diane English, who has never directed anything before and is known for writing for the TV show "Murphy Brown." Oh, but let's not forget that she served as a production accountant on a few Nickelodeon shows in the 90s.
- Writer: The source material of both films is the same: a play by Clare Booth Luce. The screenplay for the original, however, was written by Anita Loos, who was one of early cinema's foremost screenwriters. She had a long working relationship with D.W. Griffith, and also wrote the novel that became Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953).
And the remake?
Written by Diane English. See above.
- Role of Mary Haines: In the original, the main role was given to Norma Shearer, then known as "the first lady of MGM." She dominated this studio in the 30s, being nominated for six Oscars and winning one for The Divorcee (1930). She also starred as Juliet Capulet and Marie Antoinette, and was offered the role of Scarlett O'Hara.
And the remake?
Mary Haines is played by Meg Ryan. Yeah, Meg, you were cute in When Harry Met Sally (1989), and you might even be talented, but you're mired too deep in the romantic comedy ghetto for anyone to know.
- Role of Sylvia Fowler: In the original, Mrs. Fowler was deliciously portrayed by the inimitable Rosalind Russell, who was nominated for four Oscars and memorialized such characters as Hildy in His Girl Friday (1940), Mama Rose in Gypsy (1962), and Auntie Mame in the movie of the same name.
And the remake?
Sylvia Fowler is being played by Annette Bening. I actually don't have too much of a problem with this, although she's gonna have to play really bitchy, and not just that uptight and surprised thing she usually does.
- Role of Crystal Allen: In the original, this juicy part went to the ultimate screen bitch: Joan Crawford. She won an Oscar for her role as the titular character in 1945's Mildred Pierce, and was another of MGM's top stars, appearing in other classics such as Grand Hotel (1932) and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962). Mostly, she was known for her larger-than-life personality.
And the remake?
This role goes to Eva Mendes. Probably most known for her role in Hitch (2005), her primary claim to fame is being hot.
- Role of Miriam Aarons: In the original, this role was played with sass and wit by Paulette Goddard. Starting out in the Ziegfeld Follies as a young girl, she later married Charlie Chaplin and starred in two of his most famous films: Modern Times (1936) and The Great Dictator (1940). She was nominated for an Oscar for 1943's So Proudly We Hail!
And the remake?
This role is being played by Jada Pinkett-Smith. Yeah, she was pretty good in Collateral (2004), but her role in this movie, judging from the trailer, looks restricted to speaking in hilarious ebonics for the amusement of her white friends.
I'm confused about the other characters, because the names are changed, so I can't make a side-by-side comparison.
Anyway, watch the trailers. The remake just looks decidedly unfunny and bland. The original - the trailer of which is crippled somewhat by its old-timey style of including major plot points instead of funny parts - is a witty, bitchy classic that everyone should watch before this new piece of crap storms theaters.
(trailers for the original and the remake )
I am not happy.
I had a sneaking suspicion that the remake would be awful, but the trailer confirmed my worst fears. It is not just going to be awful, it is going to be pure blasphemy.
(I should note here that I am not opposed to the concept of remakes in general. Some of cinema's beloved classics are actually remakes [like The Maltese Falcon] and sometimes an original and its remake are both good/famous and can happily coexist [the two versions of Scarface - 1932 and 1983]).
The basic plot is that a bunch of women backstab each other and steal each other's men, ascending and descending the social ladder in the process. Isn't that kind of a ludicrous premise to translate to the modern day - that your social status and your worth as a woman depend on who you are married to? Aren't we past this?
Let's take a look at what we're getting in the original as opposed to the remake.
- Director: The director of the original was Oscar-winning George Cukor, lovingly referred to as one of the "queens of Hollywood" due to his homosexuality. Working with the most respected stars of the day (largely female), he directed such classics as Dinner at Eight (1933), The Philadelphia Story (1940), Gaslight (1944) and Adam's Rib (1949), winning an Oscar for My Fair Lady in 1964. He directed five actors in Oscar-winning performances, and is largely considered one of the best directors of all time.
And the remake?
Directed by Diane English, who has never directed anything before and is known for writing for the TV show "Murphy Brown." Oh, but let's not forget that she served as a production accountant on a few Nickelodeon shows in the 90s.
- Writer: The source material of both films is the same: a play by Clare Booth Luce. The screenplay for the original, however, was written by Anita Loos, who was one of early cinema's foremost screenwriters. She had a long working relationship with D.W. Griffith, and also wrote the novel that became Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953).
And the remake?
Written by Diane English. See above.
- Role of Mary Haines: In the original, the main role was given to Norma Shearer, then known as "the first lady of MGM." She dominated this studio in the 30s, being nominated for six Oscars and winning one for The Divorcee (1930). She also starred as Juliet Capulet and Marie Antoinette, and was offered the role of Scarlett O'Hara.
And the remake?
Mary Haines is played by Meg Ryan. Yeah, Meg, you were cute in When Harry Met Sally (1989), and you might even be talented, but you're mired too deep in the romantic comedy ghetto for anyone to know.
- Role of Sylvia Fowler: In the original, Mrs. Fowler was deliciously portrayed by the inimitable Rosalind Russell, who was nominated for four Oscars and memorialized such characters as Hildy in His Girl Friday (1940), Mama Rose in Gypsy (1962), and Auntie Mame in the movie of the same name.
And the remake?
Sylvia Fowler is being played by Annette Bening. I actually don't have too much of a problem with this, although she's gonna have to play really bitchy, and not just that uptight and surprised thing she usually does.
- Role of Crystal Allen: In the original, this juicy part went to the ultimate screen bitch: Joan Crawford. She won an Oscar for her role as the titular character in 1945's Mildred Pierce, and was another of MGM's top stars, appearing in other classics such as Grand Hotel (1932) and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962). Mostly, she was known for her larger-than-life personality.
And the remake?
This role goes to Eva Mendes. Probably most known for her role in Hitch (2005), her primary claim to fame is being hot.
- Role of Miriam Aarons: In the original, this role was played with sass and wit by Paulette Goddard. Starting out in the Ziegfeld Follies as a young girl, she later married Charlie Chaplin and starred in two of his most famous films: Modern Times (1936) and The Great Dictator (1940). She was nominated for an Oscar for 1943's So Proudly We Hail!
And the remake?
This role is being played by Jada Pinkett-Smith. Yeah, she was pretty good in Collateral (2004), but her role in this movie, judging from the trailer, looks restricted to speaking in hilarious ebonics for the amusement of her white friends.
I'm confused about the other characters, because the names are changed, so I can't make a side-by-side comparison.
Anyway, watch the trailers. The remake just looks decidedly unfunny and bland. The original - the trailer of which is crippled somewhat by its old-timey style of including major plot points instead of funny parts - is a witty, bitchy classic that everyone should watch before this new piece of crap storms theaters.
June 2, 2008
A public service announcement regarding sex with celebrities
Picture this scenario: You are happily involved with a girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife/partner/significant other. You are at home alone, and they are out somewhere. Suddenly, without any rational explanation, the celebrity you have always fantasized about appears naked in your doorway and states their intent to make sweet, sweet love to you. What do you do? Forget momentarily that this would never, ever happen. Readers and friends - do you have a protocol in place for this situation?
I do.
My boyfriend and I, early in our relationship, each established our own List. The List refers to an assembling of celebrities chosen by your partner that you permit him/her to sleep with should the situation arise. The key is keeping the list short. Is it okay if your significant other hooks up with some reality TV slut at a party? No. But if they've been fantasizing about Jessica Biel for years, it's really only fair to let them have her if possible. Plus, that means you could shag your celeb of choice! (Retroactive additions to the list cannot be permitted.)
I think 3-5 celebrities is a fair number for your List. Mine includes Paul Rudd, Patrick Wilson, Simon Pegg, James McAvoy and Tony Leung. My boyfriend's consists of Scarlett Johansson, Tina Fey, Kristen Bell, and sometimes Kirsten Dunst ("drugs have not been good to her," he says). I conceded that Scarlett Johansson is so ridiculously attractive that if I found the two of them in a compromising position I would probably hop right in. I'm completely straight, but this line of reasoning provides a bonus for couples of a gay or partially gay persuasion: List overlap.
So, fair readers, I strongly recommend that you have this conversation with your loved one today - because somewhere down the line, it could save your relationship. One a more practical level, it proves whether or not they have the sense of humor necessary to engage in completely serious conversations about absurd hypothetical situations and can do so without freakish jealousy and possessiveness - because if not, you should probably break up with them anyway.
I do.
My boyfriend and I, early in our relationship, each established our own List. The List refers to an assembling of celebrities chosen by your partner that you permit him/her to sleep with should the situation arise. The key is keeping the list short. Is it okay if your significant other hooks up with some reality TV slut at a party? No. But if they've been fantasizing about Jessica Biel for years, it's really only fair to let them have her if possible. Plus, that means you could shag your celeb of choice! (Retroactive additions to the list cannot be permitted.)
Please do not send me hate mail accusing me of being a homewrecker. I am in no way endorsing the active pursuit of the stars in question, because obviously no one should be doing that in a relationship. This is only if said celebrities fling themselves at you.
I think 3-5 celebrities is a fair number for your List. Mine includes Paul Rudd, Patrick Wilson, Simon Pegg, James McAvoy and Tony Leung. My boyfriend's consists of Scarlett Johansson, Tina Fey, Kristen Bell, and sometimes Kirsten Dunst ("drugs have not been good to her," he says). I conceded that Scarlett Johansson is so ridiculously attractive that if I found the two of them in a compromising position I would probably hop right in. I'm completely straight, but this line of reasoning provides a bonus for couples of a gay or partially gay persuasion: List overlap.
So, fair readers, I strongly recommend that you have this conversation with your loved one today - because somewhere down the line, it could save your relationship. One a more practical level, it proves whether or not they have the sense of humor necessary to engage in completely serious conversations about absurd hypothetical situations and can do so without freakish jealousy and possessiveness - because if not, you should probably break up with them anyway.
A perfect day composed of movie scenes
What if you could construct your perfect day out of movie scenes? A whole day of movie moments that you’ve always wanted to experience for yourself. This task is harder than you think, because at the center of any good story is conflict - and while watching shootouts may be fun, participating in them probably wouldn’t be. You can completely disregard geography for the purpose of this exercise, however - I’ll grant you back-to-back escapades in New York and China, for instance. But aim for the general time frame - if it took place at midnight in the movie, you can’t do it at ten in the morning. There’s also flexibility regarding if you would take the place of a specific character, or just tag along a yourself (you can do both/either). Here’s what my day would look like:
- I would need to get an early start, and what better way to start my day than assuming the role of Marge Gunderson in Fargo (1996) in the scene where her adorable stay-at-home husband Norm gets up with her to make her breakfast?
- Time to see what the neighbors are up to - I’d indulge in some old-fashioned voyeurism like Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window (1954).
- Oh, what a lovely day it is! I'll frolic through the Alps a la Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music (1964).
- Time for lunch! Since I’ve decided that calories don’t count today, I’d join the five lucky kids and their chaperones to stuff my face in the all-edible factory center in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971)
- Uh oh! It started raining! No worries - I’ll find myself trapped in a gazebo with Fred Astaire in Top Hat (1935), where we’ll sing the song “It’s a Lovely Day” and tap dance.
- Since I’m already a little wet, I’ll join the gang of Center Stage (2000) in their sponge and soap fight that occurs when they’re sentenced to clean the mirrors in the dance studio.
- I’d spend some time at the Mayflower Dog Show from Best in Show (2000), because in addition to having tons of cute doggies, it features the absurd commentary of Fred Willard.
- Speaking of animals, I’d have an underwater adventure with the gang of The Life Aquatic (2004) - I want to see that glowing animatronic shark in person!
- I’d want to burn off some steam by mid-afternoon, so I’d join Peter, Michael Bolton, and Samir as they smash the copy machine out in a field in Office Space (1999). (Oddly enough, this is the first thing that came to mind when I came up with the idea for this post.)
- If I’m still a little stressed, I’ll hop aboard the old truck with Garden State’s (2004) Zach Braff and Peter Sarsgaard and scream into the rain.
- Move over, Kate Winslet - it's my turn for gratuitous sex with Patrick Wilson in Little Children (2006).
- Although I could get stuck on that last one for days, I'll have to eat eventually. For dinner, I’d replace Uma Thurman as John Travolta’s date to Jack Rabbit Slim’s in Pulp Fiction (1994), where we’d dance the night away, five-dollar shakes notwithstanding. (I think I’ll pass on the subsequent drug overdose though.) I considered the “Be Our Guest” scene in Beauty and the Beast (1994) for this, but then I realized I would have to be captive in a castle and surrounded by inanimate objects come to life. No thanks.
- After my meal is digested, I’ll go on a nice after-dinner magic carpet ride with Aladdin (1991). Good thing I already know all the words to “A Whole New World” (no joke).
- Late at night I’d wander around the abandoned mansion with James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
- My late night/early morning would be spent wandering around Vienna and philosophizing with Ethan Hawke - basically the entirety of Before Sunrise (1995).
What would your perfect movie day look like?
- I would need to get an early start, and what better way to start my day than assuming the role of Marge Gunderson in Fargo (1996) in the scene where her adorable stay-at-home husband Norm gets up with her to make her breakfast?
- Time to see what the neighbors are up to - I’d indulge in some old-fashioned voyeurism like Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window (1954).
- Oh, what a lovely day it is! I'll frolic through the Alps a la Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music (1964).
- Time for lunch! Since I’ve decided that calories don’t count today, I’d join the five lucky kids and their chaperones to stuff my face in the all-edible factory center in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971)
- Uh oh! It started raining! No worries - I’ll find myself trapped in a gazebo with Fred Astaire in Top Hat (1935), where we’ll sing the song “It’s a Lovely Day” and tap dance.
- Since I’m already a little wet, I’ll join the gang of Center Stage (2000) in their sponge and soap fight that occurs when they’re sentenced to clean the mirrors in the dance studio.
- I’d spend some time at the Mayflower Dog Show from Best in Show (2000), because in addition to having tons of cute doggies, it features the absurd commentary of Fred Willard.
- Speaking of animals, I’d have an underwater adventure with the gang of The Life Aquatic (2004) - I want to see that glowing animatronic shark in person!
- I’d want to burn off some steam by mid-afternoon, so I’d join Peter, Michael Bolton, and Samir as they smash the copy machine out in a field in Office Space (1999). (Oddly enough, this is the first thing that came to mind when I came up with the idea for this post.)
- If I’m still a little stressed, I’ll hop aboard the old truck with Garden State’s (2004) Zach Braff and Peter Sarsgaard and scream into the rain.
- Move over, Kate Winslet - it's my turn for gratuitous sex with Patrick Wilson in Little Children (2006).
- Although I could get stuck on that last one for days, I'll have to eat eventually. For dinner, I’d replace Uma Thurman as John Travolta’s date to Jack Rabbit Slim’s in Pulp Fiction (1994), where we’d dance the night away, five-dollar shakes notwithstanding. (I think I’ll pass on the subsequent drug overdose though.) I considered the “Be Our Guest” scene in Beauty and the Beast (1994) for this, but then I realized I would have to be captive in a castle and surrounded by inanimate objects come to life. No thanks.
- After my meal is digested, I’ll go on a nice after-dinner magic carpet ride with Aladdin (1991). Good thing I already know all the words to “A Whole New World” (no joke).
- Late at night I’d wander around the abandoned mansion with James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
- My late night/early morning would be spent wandering around Vienna and philosophizing with Ethan Hawke - basically the entirety of Before Sunrise (1995).
What would your perfect movie day look like?
May 14, 2008
A rebuttal to Armond White
Today I received an email from Dan over at FilmBabble, asking for my thoughts on Armond White's recent article in the New York Press (available here ). Specifically, my angry thoughts. The article is long, but you only have to skim it to get a sense of White's point, which is his passionate hatred for all film bloggers. Angry thoughts were not hard to come by after reading it.
First, a little background on White. Googling him reveals many interesting things, most notably a blog devoted solely to "parsing the confounding film criticism of Mr. Armond White" (to use their words). White is found to be a critic who has made a career out of making enemies, focusing more 0n films/directors he hates than ones he likes. He dismisses style, context, and production in films and claims that the only thing that matters is the message - which, by his logic, would make anything aired on C-Span the best movie of the last ten years. He is notorious for championing films that everyone else pans, including Little Man. Yes, Little Man. He criticized Zodiac for its excessive violence, although it featured only three murder scenes in the first 15 minutes of its 160-minute running time. He called A.I. - Artificial Intelligence one of the 10 greatest films ever made. And as a grammar and style nerd, I have to point out that in this article he does not italicize, underline, or use quotation marks for movie titles, which any tenth grader would know is necessary.
White’s first mistake is grouping all bloggers into one category. I personally think I might belong on the ivory tower that White believes himself to occupy. Though I belong to the unwashed mass of bloggers cluttering his precious cyberspace, I am a film major at a respected college. I could tell you what film stock any movie is shot on, and how they did the special effects. I have read Benjamin and Baudrillard. I have written lengthy papers on sexual transgression in the German silent film Pandora’s Box, recent trends in Korean popular cinema, and auteur theory as it pertains to Annie Hall. But none of this matters. All that matters is that I am a person, with a voice. If all I wanted to do was talk about how Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movies are the greatest cinematic achievement of all time, I have that right. Because we live in a democracy, the same democracy that affords Armond White a voice. The irony here is that White’s criticism is so far out that if the whole world subscribed to the same elitism that he did, his ideas probably wouldn’t stand a chance!
He also complains about bloggers ruining cultural discourse. Last time I checked, doesn’t “discourse” refer to people discussing things? And isn’t that what bloggers do? I noticed that on the page for his article, there was no option to comment or reply - heaven forbid he engage in discourse with plebeians!
Another tragic irony of this article is that White accuses film bloggers of “chipping away at the professionalism they envy.” Armond, honey. Were you ever a young boy that liked to talk about movies? Perhaps you would go to the theater with some friends and then afterwards discuss what you saw? Or was that banned in the apparent dictatorship you grew up in? No, it wasn’t, because you’re from Michigan, not Maoist China. So, what us bloggers did is take that discussion that I absolutely know you’ve had all your life and transplant it to the interwebs. We have no hidden agenda! We just like to discuss film! I started blogging because my filmic discourse was limited to myself and my friend Scott and, although fun, it often came to a dead end because we hadn’t seen very many of the same movies. So I opened my thoughts up to the blogosphere and started an ongoing discussion with hundreds of people about cinema. And as far as bloggers “envying” professionalism, that’s just poorly-disguised fear on White’s part that us peasants are going to put him out of a job.
Some of White’s observations about the current state of film criticism are simply insane, and seem to indicate that he doesn’t read any blogs or reviews at all, ever. “Movies are considered fun that needn’t be taken seriously. Movies contain ideas better left unexamined.” “Nowadays, reviewers almost never draw continuity between new films and movie history—except to get it wrong.” He claims that modern movies are escapist entertainment that perpetuates societal denial, which is funny because myself and my aforementioned plebeian friend Scott, after a viewing of There Will Be Blood, noted (without any help from critics!) the trend in modern movies to bravely depict the devastating and destructive consequences of hyper-masculinity. He accuses critics of blindly praising blockbusters (which they do, if they’re GOOD), then goes on to cite the Tom Cruise version of War of the Worlds as a movie containing moments of “personal emotion.” And he actually has the audacity, after all his nonsense, to bash elitism!
When I started reading this article, I was angry. By the time I finished it, I just felt pity for this sorry little man, kicking and screaming away at independent-minded movie lovers who manage to share their views without making atrocious puns like his “It’s entertainment - weakly.”
First, a little background on White. Googling him reveals many interesting things, most notably a blog devoted solely to "parsing the confounding film criticism of Mr. Armond White" (to use their words). White is found to be a critic who has made a career out of making enemies, focusing more 0n films/directors he hates than ones he likes. He dismisses style, context, and production in films and claims that the only thing that matters is the message - which, by his logic, would make anything aired on C-Span the best movie of the last ten years. He is notorious for championing films that everyone else pans, including Little Man. Yes, Little Man. He criticized Zodiac for its excessive violence, although it featured only three murder scenes in the first 15 minutes of its 160-minute running time. He called A.I. - Artificial Intelligence one of the 10 greatest films ever made. And as a grammar and style nerd, I have to point out that in this article he does not italicize, underline, or use quotation marks for movie titles, which any tenth grader would know is necessary.
White’s first mistake is grouping all bloggers into one category. I personally think I might belong on the ivory tower that White believes himself to occupy. Though I belong to the unwashed mass of bloggers cluttering his precious cyberspace, I am a film major at a respected college. I could tell you what film stock any movie is shot on, and how they did the special effects. I have read Benjamin and Baudrillard. I have written lengthy papers on sexual transgression in the German silent film Pandora’s Box, recent trends in Korean popular cinema, and auteur theory as it pertains to Annie Hall. But none of this matters. All that matters is that I am a person, with a voice. If all I wanted to do was talk about how Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movies are the greatest cinematic achievement of all time, I have that right. Because we live in a democracy, the same democracy that affords Armond White a voice. The irony here is that White’s criticism is so far out that if the whole world subscribed to the same elitism that he did, his ideas probably wouldn’t stand a chance!
He also complains about bloggers ruining cultural discourse. Last time I checked, doesn’t “discourse” refer to people discussing things? And isn’t that what bloggers do? I noticed that on the page for his article, there was no option to comment or reply - heaven forbid he engage in discourse with plebeians!
Another tragic irony of this article is that White accuses film bloggers of “chipping away at the professionalism they envy.” Armond, honey. Were you ever a young boy that liked to talk about movies? Perhaps you would go to the theater with some friends and then afterwards discuss what you saw? Or was that banned in the apparent dictatorship you grew up in? No, it wasn’t, because you’re from Michigan, not Maoist China. So, what us bloggers did is take that discussion that I absolutely know you’ve had all your life and transplant it to the interwebs. We have no hidden agenda! We just like to discuss film! I started blogging because my filmic discourse was limited to myself and my friend Scott and, although fun, it often came to a dead end because we hadn’t seen very many of the same movies. So I opened my thoughts up to the blogosphere and started an ongoing discussion with hundreds of people about cinema. And as far as bloggers “envying” professionalism, that’s just poorly-disguised fear on White’s part that us peasants are going to put him out of a job.
Some of White’s observations about the current state of film criticism are simply insane, and seem to indicate that he doesn’t read any blogs or reviews at all, ever. “Movies are considered fun that needn’t be taken seriously. Movies contain ideas better left unexamined.” “Nowadays, reviewers almost never draw continuity between new films and movie history—except to get it wrong.” He claims that modern movies are escapist entertainment that perpetuates societal denial, which is funny because myself and my aforementioned plebeian friend Scott, after a viewing of There Will Be Blood, noted (without any help from critics!) the trend in modern movies to bravely depict the devastating and destructive consequences of hyper-masculinity. He accuses critics of blindly praising blockbusters (which they do, if they’re GOOD), then goes on to cite the Tom Cruise version of War of the Worlds as a movie containing moments of “personal emotion.” And he actually has the audacity, after all his nonsense, to bash elitism!
When I started reading this article, I was angry. By the time I finished it, I just felt pity for this sorry little man, kicking and screaming away at independent-minded movie lovers who manage to share their views without making atrocious puns like his “It’s entertainment - weakly.”
May 3, 2008
Counting in movie titles
When I was deathly bored at work the other day from foolishly not bringing anything to amuse myself, I came up with a clever time-killer: thinking of movies with numbers in the title, and seeing how high I could count with them. I don’t get internet at work, so I couldn’t cheat by looking online. (Even later, I didn’t check the interwebs because that’s no fun.) I asked some friends for input though, which helped a little. I set some rules: cardinal numbers are okay (i.e. “fifth”), the number can occur anywhere in the title, and in the case of longer numbers, it’s how you pronounce it (i.e. 1984 is “nineteen-eighty-four,” not “one thousand, nine hundred and eighty four”). I set a goal of getting up to 30, which I did, sans three numbers. Thirty to 60 proved more difficult, but I got about half. Some numbers are obviously easier than others, but you only need one for each. Want to try it? Think about it, and scroll down if you give up and want to see what I came up with. Remember, don’t check the interwebs, that’s cheating!!
1. One True Thing
2. Two Weeks’ Notice
3. Three Kings
4. Fantastic Four
5. The Fifth Element
6. The Sixth Sense
7. Se7en
8. Eight-Legged Freaks
9. Plan 9 From Outer Space
10. The Ten Commandments
11. The 11th Hour (Leonardo DiCaprio environmental documentary - it was in theaters, don’t give me crap)
12. 12 Monkeys
13. Thirteen
14. 1408
15. 15 Minutes
16. Sixteen Candles
17. Edge of Seventeen (some gay independent movie we had at the video store where I used to work)
18. COULDN’T THINK OF ONE
19. 1984
20. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
21. 21 Grams
22. Catch-22
23. The Number 23
24. 24 Hour Party People
25. 25th Hour
26. COULDN’T THINK OF ONE - I had my friend IMDB it to see if there were any obvious answers, but he said there were none anyone has ever heard of
27. 27 Dresses
28. 28 Days Later
29. COULDN’T THINK OF ONE
30. 13 Going on 30
This game is dangerous, because it spurs an obsession - thinking of movies with a specific category of words in the title. It’s a great game for long car rides or for engaging shy/lame people you’re stuck hanging out with. It’s all I could think about for about a week afterward. Both solo and with friends, I thought up movie titles with color words (A Clockwork Orange, The Green Mile), body part words (Happy Feet, Hair), animal words (Dog Day Afternoon, Crocodile Dundee), food words (Mystic Pizza, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes), types of flowers (The Purple Rose of Cairo, Driving Miss Daisy), family words (Father of the Bride, Uncle Buck) U.S. states (King of California, Sweet Home Alabama), cities (Fargo, An American Werewolf in London), countries (My Voyage to Italy, Big Trouble in Little China), and even building materials (The Asphalt Jungle, Steel Magnolias). See, it’s addicting!
1. One True Thing
2. Two Weeks’ Notice
3. Three Kings
4. Fantastic Four
5. The Fifth Element
6. The Sixth Sense
7. Se7en
8. Eight-Legged Freaks
9. Plan 9 From Outer Space
10. The Ten Commandments
11. The 11th Hour (Leonardo DiCaprio environmental documentary - it was in theaters, don’t give me crap)
12. 12 Monkeys
13. Thirteen
14. 1408
15. 15 Minutes
16. Sixteen Candles
17. Edge of Seventeen (some gay independent movie we had at the video store where I used to work)
18. COULDN’T THINK OF ONE
19. 1984
20. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
21. 21 Grams
22. Catch-22
23. The Number 23
24. 24 Hour Party People
25. 25th Hour
26. COULDN’T THINK OF ONE - I had my friend IMDB it to see if there were any obvious answers, but he said there were none anyone has ever heard of
27. 27 Dresses
28. 28 Days Later
29. COULDN’T THINK OF ONE
30. 13 Going on 30
This game is dangerous, because it spurs an obsession - thinking of movies with a specific category of words in the title. It’s a great game for long car rides or for engaging shy/lame people you’re stuck hanging out with. It’s all I could think about for about a week afterward. Both solo and with friends, I thought up movie titles with color words (A Clockwork Orange, The Green Mile), body part words (Happy Feet, Hair), animal words (Dog Day Afternoon, Crocodile Dundee), food words (Mystic Pizza, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes), types of flowers (The Purple Rose of Cairo, Driving Miss Daisy), family words (Father of the Bride, Uncle Buck) U.S. states (King of California, Sweet Home Alabama), cities (Fargo, An American Werewolf in London), countries (My Voyage to Italy, Big Trouble in Little China), and even building materials (The Asphalt Jungle, Steel Magnolias). See, it’s addicting!
April 13, 2008
Six movies about movies that all (aspiring) filmmakers should see
This isn’t one of those things where I berate film lovers for not having seen certain movies, as in “How can you call yourself an aspiring filmmaker and never have seen Citizen Kane? You are a disgrace to humanity.” That is beyond annoying, and there are certainly plenty of people who already do it. Rather, I’ve compiled a list of movies that offer valuable lessons about the craft of filmmaking itself. They are by no means how-to guides, but offer insights that you might not get from Film 101.
1. Overnight (2003)
This is a documentary chronicling the creation of the film Boondock Saints. What was probably intended as a behind-the-scenes featurette, however, evolved into a portrait of a man turned monster. Troy Duffy is blue-collar bartender from Boston whose script is purchased for an unprecedented sum, with the chance for him to direct. He then proceeds to bite every hand that feeds him, and hasn’t found work since. He fucked up the biggest opportunity of his life not via creative shortcomings, but just for being a total douchebag. The problem is, you have to earn the right to be an asshole, by kissing the feet of all the other assholes. One of my film professors (who is also a professional filmmaker) says he watches this every year just to keep him in check.
2. Ed Wood (1994)
At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the story of Ed Wood, who had all the earnestness and resourcefulness in the world, but none of the opportunity. So he made his own. He proved that if you want to get a movie made, you can, whether it’s financed by a Baptist church or a terrible actress who places herself in the lead. The scene where his film crew steals a mechanical octopus for a pivotal shot but forget to take the motor as well is a perfect summary of what life on set is like. Ed just shrugs and tells the actor to wrestle with it convincingly. Even though Wood was not taken seriously during his lifetime and given the title of “The World’s Worst Director” after his death, his films sparkle with a sheen of do-it-yourself enthusiasm and gusto. I think I’ll probably make a habit out of watching this before shoots…there’s always a way!
3. This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2005)
While some viewers criticized this film for being too exploitative and sensationalist, it’s still a disturbing and well-needed insight into the corrupt world of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). In addition to being raucously entertaining, it’s also an unsettling primer for filmmakers on how audiences will ultimately see their work (if at all). Interviews with directors and actors are particularly revealing, such as a candid discussion with Boys Don’t Cry director Kimberly Pierce. She explains that the MPAA had no problem with a scene of a character getting her brains blown out, but objected to a shot of Chloe Sevigny’s face during an orgasm. The Puritan bias against sex (and the blind eye they turn to violence) is frustrating, but important to know about.
4. 8 ½ (1963) and Adaptation. (2002)
The reason I grouped these together is that despite their obvious differences, they both address a similar theme: the fine line between one’s creative work and personal life. Too often filmmakers fight to keep their own lives out of their work, which is a grave mistake. Some directors, like documentary filmmaker Ross McElwee, have careers that are solely autobiographical. Ideally, an artist can embrace his or her personal struggles and incorporate them into creative output, whether they concern women like in 8 ½ or writer’s block like in Adaptation.
5. Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
Besides being a ridiculously entertaining musical and a primer on cinema’s transition to “talkies,” this film drives home an crucial message to filmmakers: SOUND IS IMPORTANT! While you may roll your eyes at this and find it to be obvious, you’d be surprised at how many obnoxious film school students have not grasped this concept. My aforementioned film professor always reminded us that “sound is half your picture,” and there is no greater indicator of a shitty student film than shitty audio. The addition of sound also means that your script has to be solid, which distresses Gene Kelly’s character immensely when the movie he is working on becomes a sound picture (to which he protests and asks if he can just say the same silly things he always says). So many people I know get hung up on making their shot look pretty, and forget about its content. At the core of this movie is a look at what makes a movie work or not work, and how that changes over time.
Any (aspiring) filmmakers out there who have titles to contribute?
1. Overnight (2003)
This is a documentary chronicling the creation of the film Boondock Saints. What was probably intended as a behind-the-scenes featurette, however, evolved into a portrait of a man turned monster. Troy Duffy is blue-collar bartender from Boston whose script is purchased for an unprecedented sum, with the chance for him to direct. He then proceeds to bite every hand that feeds him, and hasn’t found work since. He fucked up the biggest opportunity of his life not via creative shortcomings, but just for being a total douchebag. The problem is, you have to earn the right to be an asshole, by kissing the feet of all the other assholes. One of my film professors (who is also a professional filmmaker) says he watches this every year just to keep him in check.
2. Ed Wood (1994)
At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the story of Ed Wood, who had all the earnestness and resourcefulness in the world, but none of the opportunity. So he made his own. He proved that if you want to get a movie made, you can, whether it’s financed by a Baptist church or a terrible actress who places herself in the lead. The scene where his film crew steals a mechanical octopus for a pivotal shot but forget to take the motor as well is a perfect summary of what life on set is like. Ed just shrugs and tells the actor to wrestle with it convincingly. Even though Wood was not taken seriously during his lifetime and given the title of “The World’s Worst Director” after his death, his films sparkle with a sheen of do-it-yourself enthusiasm and gusto. I think I’ll probably make a habit out of watching this before shoots…there’s always a way!
3. This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2005)
While some viewers criticized this film for being too exploitative and sensationalist, it’s still a disturbing and well-needed insight into the corrupt world of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). In addition to being raucously entertaining, it’s also an unsettling primer for filmmakers on how audiences will ultimately see their work (if at all). Interviews with directors and actors are particularly revealing, such as a candid discussion with Boys Don’t Cry director Kimberly Pierce. She explains that the MPAA had no problem with a scene of a character getting her brains blown out, but objected to a shot of Chloe Sevigny’s face during an orgasm. The Puritan bias against sex (and the blind eye they turn to violence) is frustrating, but important to know about.
4. 8 ½ (1963) and Adaptation. (2002)
The reason I grouped these together is that despite their obvious differences, they both address a similar theme: the fine line between one’s creative work and personal life. Too often filmmakers fight to keep their own lives out of their work, which is a grave mistake. Some directors, like documentary filmmaker Ross McElwee, have careers that are solely autobiographical. Ideally, an artist can embrace his or her personal struggles and incorporate them into creative output, whether they concern women like in 8 ½ or writer’s block like in Adaptation.
5. Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
Besides being a ridiculously entertaining musical and a primer on cinema’s transition to “talkies,” this film drives home an crucial message to filmmakers: SOUND IS IMPORTANT! While you may roll your eyes at this and find it to be obvious, you’d be surprised at how many obnoxious film school students have not grasped this concept. My aforementioned film professor always reminded us that “sound is half your picture,” and there is no greater indicator of a shitty student film than shitty audio. The addition of sound also means that your script has to be solid, which distresses Gene Kelly’s character immensely when the movie he is working on becomes a sound picture (to which he protests and asks if he can just say the same silly things he always says). So many people I know get hung up on making their shot look pretty, and forget about its content. At the core of this movie is a look at what makes a movie work or not work, and how that changes over time.
Any (aspiring) filmmakers out there who have titles to contribute?
March 14, 2008
The top 5 worst moviegoing patrons I have ever encountered
I love going out to see movies in theaters - who doesn’t? The only problem (other than skyrocketing ticket prices, gross overpriced food, obscurity of indie features, sticky floors, etc.) is that I cannot have the theater to myself. I am forced to share it with dozens of strangers who often seem hell-bent on making my theater-going experience unpleasant. And yet, some people go above and beyond the call of duty and make it downright miserable. Here is a tribute to the top five people who fall into this prestigious category.
1. Movie: Knocked Up
Offender: The snitch
So I’m at a theater in suburban New York with my boyfriend, and we’re meeting up with his friend there. Once we’re all in line waiting to buy our tickets, I discreetly show the friend the contraband bag of M&Ms I have purchased for the occasion. Suddenly, this guy, who is not even in line but awkwardly off the side, blurts out (in reference to the candy) “I know what you’re gonna do with those!” Um, yeah, eat them. OR BUILD A ROCKET SHIP! No, eat them. I didn’t really know what to say, except maybe that I was proud he had figured out what M&Ms were for? I stared blankly, my boyfriend and his friend equally confused, and then the guy added “What’s to keep me from telling on you?” Note: this guy did NOT work here. I think I said, “Um, karma?” We bought our tickets and went into the theater, but I ran out to use the bathroom right before the movie started. This guy was still in the lobby, with no apparent intention of seeing a movie at any point, and yelled, “There she is! There’s the traitor!” What this man was hoping to achieve through these tactics, I will never know.
2. Movie: V for Vendetta
Offender: Guy who probably thinks he’s going to marry Natalie Portman
My friend Scott and I went to a late-night showing of this opening weekend. It was Saturday night, and the theater was sparsely populated. Before the movie, Scott started eating some chips. A portly fellow sitting directly in front of us, who had clearly crawled out of his mom’s basement and through mountains of ejaculate-soaked pictures of bald Natalie Portman to be here for this occasion, suddenly whipped around and said to Scott, “Do you plan on crunching your food like that for the whole movie?!” Scott, stunned and shocked, whimpered “No.” We agreed later that he should have replied with a triumphant YES!
3. Movie: Borat
Offender: Hyena with epilepsy
Borat is a funny movie. I am aware of this. I knew this going into it, and expected a theater full of merry patrons’ laughter. What I did not expect was the guy I wound up sitting next to. He had a sort of frat-boy look, and enjoyed the movie immensely. The way he expressed this, however, was to erupt into a screeching, bloodcurdling laugh at EVERY JOKE, clap hysterically, rock back and forth like a crazy person, and repeat the hilarious line verbatim. It went something like this:
Borat on screen: High five!
Guy next to me: HIGH FIVE! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap seesaw seesaw seesaw*
4. Movie: The Savages
Offender: The phantom puker
I never came face-to-face with whoever this was, which is good for them, because I would have kicked their ass. I saw this film on a weekday night in a pretty empty theater. The actual movie went on without incident. When I went to leave, I noticed two girls staring at the exit with hesitation. When I approached, I realized that the door was soaked in vomit. The strange thing was that the point of impact was the exact middle of the double doors, right where you would push them open. That absolutely had to be pre-mediated, because in a normal upchucking situation, the vomit would just end up on the floor (which isn’t to say that some didn’t get on the floor too). The doors were so evenly covered that these two girls and myself didn’t know how to get out without touching something sticky. Eventually, we devised a system where I kicked the door open on the one dry patch, and we all ran out. I’m not saying that this was a crippling inconvenience to my life, but it was just fucking disgusting.
5. Movie: A History of Violence
Offender: the entire audience
A History of Violence isn’t a comedy, right? I didn’t think so. But this entire audience did. It was like a huge crowd of teenagers had time-traveled here from the 1950s, where they had been watching a sci-fi B-movie at a drive-in and were anxious for it to be over so they could go to Lovers’ Lane. They behaved themselves for the first half, but the second half consisted of hysterical laughter, jeering, cheering, and lewd and rude shouted comments. Included in this ruckus was my then-roommate, as I had just gotten to college and was eager to bond with the person I lived with. Incidentally, this was the first and last time we ever hung out, because she turned out to be a wretched bitch who had already written nasty things about me on her easy-to-locate blog within the first week of school when I had been nothing but nice to her. Ha, sweet revenge! At least I have the class to keep her anonymous.
Who was the worst theater patron you ever had to deal with?
1. Movie: Knocked Up
Offender: The snitch
So I’m at a theater in suburban New York with my boyfriend, and we’re meeting up with his friend there. Once we’re all in line waiting to buy our tickets, I discreetly show the friend the contraband bag of M&Ms I have purchased for the occasion. Suddenly, this guy, who is not even in line but awkwardly off the side, blurts out (in reference to the candy) “I know what you’re gonna do with those!” Um, yeah, eat them. OR BUILD A ROCKET SHIP! No, eat them. I didn’t really know what to say, except maybe that I was proud he had figured out what M&Ms were for? I stared blankly, my boyfriend and his friend equally confused, and then the guy added “What’s to keep me from telling on you?” Note: this guy did NOT work here. I think I said, “Um, karma?” We bought our tickets and went into the theater, but I ran out to use the bathroom right before the movie started. This guy was still in the lobby, with no apparent intention of seeing a movie at any point, and yelled, “There she is! There’s the traitor!” What this man was hoping to achieve through these tactics, I will never know.
2. Movie: V for Vendetta
Offender: Guy who probably thinks he’s going to marry Natalie Portman
My friend Scott and I went to a late-night showing of this opening weekend. It was Saturday night, and the theater was sparsely populated. Before the movie, Scott started eating some chips. A portly fellow sitting directly in front of us, who had clearly crawled out of his mom’s basement and through mountains of ejaculate-soaked pictures of bald Natalie Portman to be here for this occasion, suddenly whipped around and said to Scott, “Do you plan on crunching your food like that for the whole movie?!” Scott, stunned and shocked, whimpered “No.” We agreed later that he should have replied with a triumphant YES!
3. Movie: Borat
Offender: Hyena with epilepsy
Borat is a funny movie. I am aware of this. I knew this going into it, and expected a theater full of merry patrons’ laughter. What I did not expect was the guy I wound up sitting next to. He had a sort of frat-boy look, and enjoyed the movie immensely. The way he expressed this, however, was to erupt into a screeching, bloodcurdling laugh at EVERY JOKE, clap hysterically, rock back and forth like a crazy person, and repeat the hilarious line verbatim. It went something like this:
Borat on screen: High five!
Guy next to me: HIGH FIVE! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap seesaw seesaw seesaw*
4. Movie: The Savages
Offender: The phantom puker
I never came face-to-face with whoever this was, which is good for them, because I would have kicked their ass. I saw this film on a weekday night in a pretty empty theater. The actual movie went on without incident. When I went to leave, I noticed two girls staring at the exit with hesitation. When I approached, I realized that the door was soaked in vomit. The strange thing was that the point of impact was the exact middle of the double doors, right where you would push them open. That absolutely had to be pre-mediated, because in a normal upchucking situation, the vomit would just end up on the floor (which isn’t to say that some didn’t get on the floor too). The doors were so evenly covered that these two girls and myself didn’t know how to get out without touching something sticky. Eventually, we devised a system where I kicked the door open on the one dry patch, and we all ran out. I’m not saying that this was a crippling inconvenience to my life, but it was just fucking disgusting.
5. Movie: A History of Violence
Offender: the entire audience
A History of Violence isn’t a comedy, right? I didn’t think so. But this entire audience did. It was like a huge crowd of teenagers had time-traveled here from the 1950s, where they had been watching a sci-fi B-movie at a drive-in and were anxious for it to be over so they could go to Lovers’ Lane. They behaved themselves for the first half, but the second half consisted of hysterical laughter, jeering, cheering, and lewd and rude shouted comments. Included in this ruckus was my then-roommate, as I had just gotten to college and was eager to bond with the person I lived with. Incidentally, this was the first and last time we ever hung out, because she turned out to be a wretched bitch who had already written nasty things about me on her easy-to-locate blog within the first week of school when I had been nothing but nice to her. Ha, sweet revenge! At least I have the class to keep her anonymous.
Who was the worst theater patron you ever had to deal with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)