June 4, 2010
My own TV/Film University!
First of all, they have some real people (not characters) in there, which is no fun, so I replaced them with fictional picks.
Dean (currently Clint Eastwood): I'm not sure if they mean a specific Eastwood character - I think they just mean the man himself. And he's cool and all, but if you want someone who's cool, fictional, and has experience running a successful school, then look no further than Professor X from the X-Men series.
Public speaking (currently Billy Mays): Is there a smoother talker on screen than Nick Naylor in Thank You for Smoking?
Choir (currently Neil Patrick Harris, apparently just as himself): Will Schuester from "Glee"! Come on! He actually plays a choir teacher! And he's just wonderful.
Film (currently film critic Armond White, who admittedly seems made up sometimes): The obvious choice is Guido Conselmi from 8 1/2, but a much more fun choice is the title character from Ed Wood. He's just so resourceful and innovative!
Culinary arts (currently chef and professional shouter Gordon Ramsay): Jack Tripper from "Three's Company!"
Dean of the art school (currently PBS painter Bob Ross): It has to be someone who has a demonstrated interest in multiple art forms...how about Maude Lebowski of The Big Lebowski? Or if you want to get more obscure (well, not for people my age), Doug's artsy sister Judy Funnie from "Doug" worked across many mediums.
Music (currently John Williams): Cosmo Brown, the sharp and snappy composer in Singin' in the Rain. Give the man a job so he can stop suffering and finally write that symphony!
Football coach (currently OJ Simpson): I'm not too well versed in football flicks, but I saw Remember the Titans once and bawled my eyes out, and I assume this had something to do with Denzel Washington as coach Herman Boone being inspiring and heroic.
Bill Nye can stay, because he's Bill motherfucking Nye. And I think there are some more real people on here, but I don't know who they are.
Next are the categories for which they have appropriately fictional choices, but ones I felt could be better.
Dean of the business school (currently Gordon Gekko from Wall Street): Gekko's a little too 80s. In these times we need a quick thinker and good adapter, which is why I nominate Jack Donaghy from "30 Rock." The man created porn for women, for chrissakes!
Dance: I'm not sure who the girl is in the current picture, but can she be a better dancer than ballerina Victoria Page from The Red Shoes?
Student advisor: Again, I don't know who the guy in the picture is (I think he's from "Lost"?) but the man with all the answers, all the time, is Mr. Feeney from "Boy Meets World."
Political science (currently Merkin Muffley from Dr. Strangelove): Muffley doesn't really seem to know the ins and outs of politics. Two people who do: Jefferson Smith from Mr Smith Goes to Washington (using his powers for good with his impassioned filibuster for justice), and Mrs. Iselin from The Manchurian Candidate (using it for evil by manipulating her husband's corrupt senate campaign).
Psychology (currently Hannibal Lecter): Lecter used to be a psychiatrist, but as of late he's pursued...um...different interests. I'd pick someone who's still fresh in the field - Martin Dysart from Equus. Unlike many other films that deal with psychology in a gentle, touchy-feely way, the majority of this flick is just doctor and patient going brutally mano a mano.
And finally, if the university received a generous endowment and could add more departments and beef up their staff...
Accounting: Louis Tully from Ghostbusters!
Agriculture: Boggis, Bunce, and Bean (one fat, one short, one lean!) from Fantastic Mr. Fox are disgusting and terrible people, but they run pretty tight farming operations.
Anthropology: There are very few anthropologists on screen, and even fewer that are tap-dancing bombshells from 1940s musicals. That's right, I'm talking about Claire Huddesen from On the Town (you can see my more in-depth look at Claire and her cohorts here).
Broadcast journalism: Ron Burgundy from Anchorman. After all, he IS the balls.
Creative writing: Jack Torrance from The Shining. His writing is definitely...creative...
Community advocacy/leadership: Leslie Knope from "Parks and Recreation!"
Education: Bertram Cates from Inherit the Wind (and real life). The man is arrested for teaching evolution to his students in the 1920s, and but keeps fighting for his right to teach it. That's dedication.
Environmental science: Pochahontas, of the eponymous Disney film, will teach you to understand and respect your world. And through song, dammit!
Hospitality management: For the restaurant sector, it would be Rick Blaine from Casablanca (he's doing something right if everyone goes to Rick's) and on the hotel side of things, Norman Bates from Psycho (despite some stabby tendencies, he's quite diligent about motel upkeep).
Nursing: Carla Espinosa from "Scrubs!"
Negotiation: Vito Corleone from The Godfather - how much better of a teacher can you get than someone whose offers are never refused?
Religion: Why not go right to the source? Jesus on "South Park" seems like a laid-back, easy to talk to guy.
Zoology: Snow White from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs! (And no, I'm not implying that the dwarves are animals, but she has that animal posse.)
Director of student life: Max Fischer from Rushmore. He's so good at overseeing a multitude of clubs!
Head of the dining hall: Chef from "South Park!"
Career services: Frank Abagnale from Catch Me If You Can. He can show you the path to any career you want. No, seriously, any career, if you're not too finicky about illegal activity.
Who would you hire?
June 3, 2010
The blame game
Why do bad movies happen?
I used to defy the conventional thinking, which blames it all on the big evil studios, and point my finger at audiences. They're catering to us, after all, and our dollars guide their decisions. If people just avoided dumb blockbusters, Hollywood would strive to create different fare (maybe). But I'm starting to realize it's more complicated than that. Studios are partially to blame, but not quite for the reason everyone thinks.
Hollywood is a business, and it wants to make money. For that, I do not begrudge it one bit. It has every right to try and turn the biggest profit possible. But the way they try to go about that is quite often misguided. I call it the "patchwork quilt" problem.
Take Robin Hood, for example. Universal probably thought they had a sure bet. The teaming of Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe had produced some huge hits, Cate Blanchett was also starring, and it focused on a legendary figure that everyone knew. The film, however, landed with a thud, and even with a strong opening in other countries, the film has barely made back its budget. So here's the problem: piecing together successful elements from other films (directors, stars, plots, styles) does not a hit make. Stars don't matter anymore, and neither do directors (with perhaps a couple exceptions) or any particular subject matter. There's no Midas touch effect where because Sam Worthington was in Avatar, every movie with Sam Worthington in it will be a smash. Avatar was a success because, like any cinematic success, it created a perfect fusion of various elements. There's no extractable "mojo" like with Austin Powers (the actual character, not the films).
Again, I don't begrudge studios for trying to recreate success. But it's starting to become pathetic that they haven't realized there is no secret formula. If there was, there would be no reason to make a movie that was not a clone of a high-grossing film. Every movie released would be an Avatar knockoff. Sometimes stars just align in surprising ways, for better or worse. The seemingly unstoppable Sex and the City and Shrek franchises, for instance, just disappointed at the box office. Ensemble comedies like The Hangover and Knocked Up that lacked famous names were huge hits. Paranormal Activity become a must-see film with an unbelievable profit margin, considering it was made for virtually nothing. Audiences obviously like movies with explosions and boobs, but then why doesn't every film that has them make Transformers money? There might be trends, but there are no sure bets. Ever. Will Hollywood ever learn?
So what's a studio to do, in such uncertain times? Make good movies. Simple as that. Now when I say "good," I'm not necessarily saying that they have to all be auteurist masterpieces. Those are obviously nice, but really what I mean is just films that are coherent and of a unified vision, films that are for the film's sake and not the fans. Films that the studio believes in and feels confident about. In fact, some of the biggest hits of recent years weren't pandering to audiences at all, they were just the committed products of a strong team. The Hangover was considered groundbreaking for its success without big names, Avatar is pretty crazy when you think about how much money was spent on creating a whole new world, language, and race of people that audiences could very easily not take to, Slumdog Millionaire had a tiny budget and a Bollywood flair but grew steadily through word of mouth and made a huge profit, The Dark Knight put a lot of trust in a director who went on to become a household name because of it, and How to Train Your Dragon has had unbelievable legs at the box office because of the above-average animation and story. Even the grim Gran Torino grossed slightly more than Mamma Mia! and earned a significantly greater profit!
To use a dating analogy (bear with me), it's like if a girl keeps changing herself to impress a guy. She'll always be a step behind, will often misinterpret signals or get things wrong, and will appear slippery and fake in trying to keep up the charade. That's why people always tell you to just be yourself, and that your natural confidence and genuine persona will always be much more attractive. So take that to heart, Hollywood. Just be yourself. You're bending over backwards trying to impress us and it's just embarassing (and often ineffective).
What do you think?
May 24, 2010
Greatest trailer ever?
May 21, 2010
Artifacts
I'm taking a trip home soon, and I have reason to believe that Volume 1 of my scrapbook memoirs resides at my mom's house. If so, stay tuned for a second installment!
May 17, 2010
Happy birthday to me!

Today I turn 23, and as my boss irreverently remarked, I will continue "hurtling towards death." In honor of my exit from the womb, I thought I'd share a few of my favorite birthday-related moments on film.
Heaven Can Wait (1943) - Quite possibly the best birthday movie there is - it's even based on a play called "Birthday," and all the main plot points occur on different birthdays the protagonist has throughout the years. There's too much greatness to summarize here - just go watch it, it's Lubitsch in top form.
The Seven Year Itch (1955) - Marilyn Monroe's character tells Tom Ewell that her birthday was a few days ago but she didn't tell a soul. Being new in town, her plan was just to sit at home alone and drink a bottle of champagne, but she couldn't get the bottle open. So she brings it down to share, and the rest is history...
Gypsy (1962) - The birthday girl here is Louise Hovick (Natalie Wood), a young girl who provides backup for her younger sister on the vaudeville circuit under the aggressive lead of her domineering mother. In a scene both sweet and somewhat disturbing, Louise's mother Rose (Rosalind Russell) throws her a crazy party with Chinese food and she receives a baby lamb as a gift. The disturbing part? When everyone has settled down and Louise is alone with her new pet, she sings a song where she wonders how old she is. (Rose doesn't let her girls know their ages so they can be forever young in their act).
Live Flesh (1997) - Here's a literal birth day. You usually find birth scenes at the end of movies, with lots of reunions and tears of happiness, but here's one as a whiz-bang opener. In setting up the impulsive and tempestuous character of Victor, the film shows how he simply could not wait to get to the hospital to be born and was therefore born on a bus. It immediately imbues the character with sense of urgency. And while giving birth on a bus must have sucked, mother and son both got free bus passes for life!
Knocked Up (2007) - The scene just uses a child's birthday party as a setting, but Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd have a big fight and then, in a moment confirming my true undying love for Rudd, he immediately switches gears and brings out the cake while singing "Happy Birthday."
Revolutionary Road (2008) - It's the 1950s, and Frank Wheeler goes out for an after-work drink with a secretary from his office, and while they're out he reveals to her (and the audience) that it's his 30th birthday and he's miserable. They play hooky and go bang at a hotel, and Frank returns home to find his wife and children with a cake and banner singing happy birthday. Watching all this play out was just like a punch in the stomach.
And if unbirthdays count...
Alice in Wonderland (1951) - I loved this film when I was younger (I imagine I still would, I just haven't seen it in a while), and the unbirthday scene always delighted me for a couple of reasons. First, it was just wonderful anarchy, and second, I was enamored with the idea that you could bring the joy and celebration typically associated with birthdays to any day you wanted.
May 13, 2010
In appreciation of Ivy, Hildy, and Claire

May 11, 2010
Context-free delight #3
April 26, 2010
What movies have you done a 180 on?

Movie nerd gift idea: magnets!
So whip some of these up for your favorite people, then come back and share your creations!
April 15, 2010
Is there such a thing as "dumb" comedy?

Obviously there are shades of gray - you can probably call the humor of Annie Hall smarter than that of Animal House - but you can't really criticize either if you find them funny. So next time you feel guilty for laughing at poop jokes, just reassure yourself that the subject matter is irrelevant and that you're just appreciating well-constructed comedy. Or do you disagree, and think that lowbrow subjects automatically demean the humor and make it "dumb"?
April 12, 2010
Movie nerd gift idea: chirashi!
Have you ever heard of chirashi? They're basically Japanese lobby cards - highly collectible 7x10 mini-posters that can only be found in Japanese cinemas. Some feature designs drawn from the original posters or a scene in the film, others have original artwork. I've poked around on eBay for them before, but the findings vary from day to day. So the cool thing is that this site sells thousands of them for between $1-$5, mostly on the lower end of that range. And it's $9 flat shipping to almost anywhere in the world, no matter how many you order! They have films from many different countries, from classics to anime, from Goldmember to Metropolis. I especially like that they have cards from film festivals and retrospectives, so you get a Woody Allen double feature of Annie Hall and Manhattan called "Films for The [sic] Nervous Lovers." Another great thing is that they're nice and small, but still more significant than something postcard-sized, so they're great for weird corners of your house/apartment that can't fit anything big but still look a little naked. It's not as imposing as "HAPPY BIRTHDAY, I KNOW YOU WANT THIS HUGE PULP FICTION POSTER TAKING UP YOUR ENTIRE WALL." So pick out two or three great ones that your cinephile friend would enjoy - just make sure to plan ahead, since shipping can take 2-4 weeks.
Here's the link: http://www.jmshop.net/index.html
April 2, 2010
Great rainy scenes in film

And a billion gazillion more - I apologize in advance for all the ones I forgot. What are your favorite rainy scenes?
March 17, 2010
RIP practical effects?

A few months ago (and yes admittedly there is a huge lag between when I generate ideas for posts and when I complete them), I watched both 2001: A Space Odyssey and Solaris (the Soderbergh remake) in the same week. I was struck by something watching both of these films in a short span of time - the shots of spaceships in 2001 look way better than those in Solaris. How can this be possible? How can a film made over forty years ago look more realistic than one made seven years ago? Not only more realistic, actually, but really, really realistic on its own merit? (And yes, Solaris is more of a drama than a sci-fi film, but it still takes place mostly in space and thus I am still holding it accountable for its spaceships.)
The spaceships (and other floating space-themed objects) in 2001 look like you can reach out and touch them, because, well, you can. They're miniatures. They exist in real life. The spaceship in Solaris, on the other hand, never existed in real life because it's computer-generated, so it lacks that tactile quality.
Or how about the many still impressive effects in Alien? The chestburster - a puppet! A puppet accompanied by high-pressure blood squibs and lots of goo. And maybe its movements are a little clunky, but you never doubt for a second that that thing is in that room, bursting out of its victim. And let's not forget about the menu from hell - everything from pasta to caviar to tripe (cow stomach) was used for other various effects. And of course the big alien - it seems almost quaint now to think that it was just an elaborate costume worn by a super-tall Nigerian dude. If the movie were being made today, probably everything would have been CG. But would it have looked better? I doubt it.
We're losing the "touchability" of our monsters and spaceships. I'm not sure I've ever seen CG create something that feels like it was really there. I'm worried that the glorious gooey-ness of aliens and the weight of our robots might be fading.
I'm not saying that CG should never be used - I think it has some great applications. Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, for example, is something that would have just been absurd without the current technology. Seriously, what would they have done for the version that was kicking around in the 90s - paint someone blue? I'm almost glad the movie was in development hell for so long so the proper tools could evolve. Dr. Manhattan doesn't look like you can reach out and touch him, but that's the point. Ghostly or gooey things are the ideal application for CG - in fact, the first completely computer-generated thing on film was the water tentacle from The Abyss (read: silver watery goo that forms different shapes). And that was sweet.
I guess what I don't understand is why CG's invention caused the near-death of practical effects. Why can't they be used in harmony? They occasionally are, such as in The Dark Knight, but more often than not, filmmakers just become lazy and use CG for completely unnecessary things, like sand. I'm not talking about the Sandman in Spider-Man 3 - obviously you're gonna need it for that - but my boyfriend reports that in G.I. Joe, a helicopter ride over a desert reveals a weirdly shiny, CG desert. Seriously. I can only explain it by either laziness, or some compulsion by filmmakers to use only the newest technology, even if it's not better. Models and costumes just aren't "cool" anymore, so why would you bother if you have a lot of money? It's whatever compelled George Lucas to go back and tinker with the original Star Wars films. Maybe the fact that you can do literally anything with CG makes it sort of addictive - just ask James Cameron.
I think practical effects feel more real and immediate because you more or less had to figure out how to make something happen in real life. I was watching a featurette on the 1956 sci-fi film Forbidden Planet, and they were explaining how they did an effect to mimic an invisible creature's footsteps in the sand (aka footsteps appear, but you don't see anyone making them). They basically rigged up a system where they would yank footstep-shaped devices out from under the sand. So essentially, footsteps really are appearing with no visible cause. Or an alien really is bursting out of someone's chest (a dummy, but still). I feel that films like Avatar will ultimately age poorly because we're really still only at the dawn of the computer effects age. It evolves so fast that some CG from only a few years ago looks lame now. But as silly as it sounds, you can't really argue with a really well-designed puppet, and so films like Alien and 2001 look timeless
So I guess for every time I groan at an overly CG-ed movie, there's something nice on DVD to keep me warm at night, and for that I am grateful. The golden age of practical effects can live on forever, and maybe some smart filmmakers (like Christopher Nolan) will inspire a renaissance.
What do you think? Am I being overly nostalgic here, or is there really a je-ne-sais-quoi to practical effects? What are you favorite practical effects films?
March 10, 2010
A possible explanation of why older people laugh at all the wrong parts of movies
People lose the ability to comprehend humor as they age.
You can read the articles here and here, but here's the broad strokes. First of all, as one of the articles clarifies, older adults experience no decrease in their appreciation of humor. If they get the joke, they still laugh and enjoy it. Where it gets tricky is humor comprehension, which one of the authors defines as "the ability to cognitively or intellectually understand humorous material, which may be assessed by the ability of the responder to select appropriate punch lines to jokes or provide appropriate logical reasoning as to why a stimulus is humorous." Here's an example: say I provide you with two statements and ask you to pick which one is supposed to be funny. The statements are:
Marriage isn't a word, it's a sentence!
I got married last June.
Now, even if you don't actually find the first statement funny, you can understand that it is designed to be humorous. That's the ability that decreases as people get older. So when those theater patrons laughed at the toilet, they probably genuinely believed that it was supposed to be a joke.
I'm taking some leaps of logic here in applying research from written statements and drawings to films, but I feel that it makes sense and can help explain a lot. So next time you are stuck in a theater with hyena-like elderly patrons, just pat them on the back and say you're sorry for their brain decay. Kidding!
