Wednesday, 7 March 2001

RANTING & RAVING

Driving to Vegas… y'all rant & rave for the day…

GIGGLES writes: "Right on to the reference to Artsy Fartsy Snob.  Perhaps the problem critics have with this movie is that it also combines something rarely seen anymore...an intensely moral film that also portrays the realistic, brutal violence without remorse that the Romans (and Americans today) are capable of.

Oh...of course there are also no bouncing boobs, gratuitous sex scenes, product placements, car chases or liberal sprinklings of "fuck" every three minutes.

Quills was darkly brilliant...disturbing and stayed with you like a vivid bad dream.  Gladiator stayed with you with haunting music, raw restrained sexuality,  the suspense of great taboos and the believable, fierce loyalty to family, country and the greatness of leaders and their ideals.  Too bad most people find that just too, too.

Too hard to stomach when their regular diet of cynicism makes feasting on stories filled with the kind of values their parents force-fed them.

If Julia Roberts can be a shoe in for playing herself...a hard scrabble, calculating horse faced girl with great legs who knows how to giggle and flaunt to get what she wants...then what is the film world coming to. (Don't worry dear...I've got the assets and know how to use them too!) The only thing worse was Kim Basinger winning for L.A. Confidential!  I guess you can win best actress for wearing great 40's clothes and looking good while the men carry the film!"

And from THE GODWRITER OF SOUL: "I didn't care for Gladiator. Is that the sole requirement for being called an 'artsy-fartsy snob' or is there more? My favorite film of the last year was George Washington, how's that for snobby-ness?

Does it not fulfill the classic type of Hollywood film? No for the following reasons:

Epic? No, it’s not epic. It’s just long, not quite the same thing. Epic would seem to imply a wide variety of characters over a long period of time. This film doesn't really care about anybody but the Gladiator, and damn what a lump of a character he is! He's got very little on his mind, he is not acting but reacting and the dialogue is not terribly interesting or insightful.

Sprawling? No, dude, it was mostly just special effects. There were no masterful scenes like Lawrence of Arabia riding into Aqaba, the army uncurling in Spartacus or anything remotely like John Ford's classic visuals. This was basically actors in front of a blue screen--not sprawling in my book.

Significant Historical Era? No. It might have been made relevant but it wasn't.

Story of one person's struggle against forces much larger than himself? It was a pale imitation of Outlaw Josey Wales, would that have been nominated for Best Picture this year? No. Its not a true story, not even a terribly realistic story (aging Roman emperors were not exactly known for philanthropy or introspective philosophising), so why didn't they make something that moved a little faster, didn't get bogged down so much, didn't spend so much time with a see-through, uninteresting bad guy?

Gladiator was not about any of those things. What it was about was the box office explosion of Russell Crowe. We film aficionados all knew Crowe was going to be a star and this was, apparently, the first film where the big money popcorn crowd figured it out. Bully for Russell Crowe and congratulations to everyone who happened to be standing next to him when he blew up.

But does that make this one of the year's best film? Heavens, no.

But one film that was just as epic, just as sprawling, just as significant historically and just as much about a character fighting the system was George Washington, with even more fine, endearing performances. Now I'll just sit in the corner and wear a funny hat."

MC THE HAMMER writes: "This one statement will answer all your questions, should you have any, about this left field entry: from the producers of The Omega Code.  Need I say more?  No, but I will anyway.  Carman is to Contemporary Christian music what Wayne Newton is to music in general.  He seems to do it all, yet (like all CCM artists I've come across lately) doesn't seem to enjoy what he is doing.  250 venues sounds about right, but I seriously doubt that this'll pull in the first weekend numbers that The Omega Code did.  And after the debacle that was Left Behind: The Movie (I saw it so you don't have to), I seriously doubt that Carman as a boxer will draw in the secular masses.

People wonder why films have to be loaded with profanity.  Simple.  If they weren't, audiences would feel that they were watching something that they could see on television for free.  Do I think profanity is necessary in a movie?  Only if the characters are named Beavis, Butt-Head, Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny.  I don't miss profanity, to make an argument about not having it in films.  However, audiences need to support films that are curse free in the theaters and not on home video.  I make this argument many times with people I know, and they still don't get it."

C3 writes: "Did you catch the women on the View claiming it's their right to sneak popcorn and food into a movie theater? Do these four numbskulls understand that selling popcorn is the only way the theater makes money on opening weekends? And I bet in a month you'll hear them whining when their local mega-plex shuts down unexpectedly - as is the case with 12 screens around here."

2001 AD writes: "when they showed Striptease on tv here in New Zealand a few weeks ago, the ads were pretty interesting. The big ad thing (ripping the suit off to the bikini) was interspersed with faux quotes: "A Classic" "I laughed, I cried", etc. etc. But by people like "Seymour Butts" and such. And finally before the bikini: "Who are we kidding: Demi gets her gear off". One of the best movie ads I've seen in years. :)"

NOT NATIONAL REVIEW writes: "He wrote "the problem is that the academy voters (just like most of America) has tastes that are in the middle of the road."

The middle of the road taste is something that's always bothered me about the Oscars. I figure that people should be able to see excellence within their own field of employment... but time and again the acting and technical nods seem to be about the movies they occur in rather than on their own merits.

I actually think that middle of the road taste is curable. The solution is for everyone to see more films. I know it cured me. Back in 1984 for example when I was young and only a budding movie fanatic... I loved the Oscar winning Amadeus but I also thought that Splash and the Karate Kid were great films. Now I'm more likely to love something like Beau Travail, Dancer in the Dark, or Before Night Falls. I prefer a challenge, you know? I see about 70 films a year. I am not paid for it -just a movie fan and a website owner  who likes to write about movies. I assume if someone were paying me for it I'd see a couple hundred a year. I think this is why critics are considered to be "too highbrow" or why you get called "artsy fartsy" Once you've seen thousands of movies... it's pretty difficult to get all worked up about the standard entertainment.

So all of this leads me to this question: How many films do you think Academy Voters actually watch? Are they like me ( at the very least one a week) or are they like you or other media writers (presumably a hundred or two) or are they like the society at large (some depressing figure like six a year... I don't recall) Any guess-timates?

As for who will win the Oscars. I don't think it's anybody's game as so many people are claiming. I think it's Gladiator's to lose. Why? Because it seems to be capturing the zeitgeist. There was a great article in the New York Times recently about the return of the Angry White Man in Russell Crowe. I had been thinking about it ever since America fell in love with Eminem , nearly half the country was voting  for George W Bush, and Charlton Heston was always on the news harping about the right to bear arms.  It seems that we are now heading back to the patriarchal order of the 50s. White male power reigns after years of diversity training and progress. The backlash was bound to occur. Straight white men want their power back. Gladiator could have been made 50 years ago. It's big. It's manly. It's simplistic. It's traditional. It's white. It's angry. It's violent. It's just what America is embracing right now. How could it lose at the Oscars?"

THE BIG MO sent this in: "I hate to disagree with your loving of the Way of the Gun. Because, God knows, we are all entitled to like what we like. That said, I hate this movie with a disgust I find hard to communicate. First: Benico Del Toro's acting in this film is just him making facial expressions. He doesn’t need to talk, all he needs to do is make Brad Pitt like faces from True Romance! Have you ever noticed how much Del Toro and Pitt look alike? This movie waste Del Toro. Utterly waste him. Second: Ryan Weatherspoon, oops. Phillipe has a voice in this flick that is annoying beyond all affects of the imagination. It is hard not to want his character to meet a glass covered ending. He is a good actor, but in this movie he is annoying and has the acting ability of a chimp. Third: Good score, but overused TOO DAMN much. Nothing is worse than wasting good music. Four: I cant think of anymore hatred for this film since it came out in September of last year. All I advise is that people look at the DVD and video of this film, picked it up, look at it, and put it right the HELL back down. Oy vey with that movie. I must stop or I will remember more of this movie and get even more upset."

B MAC writes: "David, I finally got the opportunity a little bit ago to see Before Night Falls. After reading your comments (especially your recommendation of it as your favorite film of 2000), I was extremely eager to see it, chomping at the bit for it to finally open (unheralded, I might add) in Chicago. Reading up on Reinaldo Arenas before seeing the picture, I even did the preparatory re-viewing of Schnabel's other biopic, Basquiat. Sadly, I was left not thinking very much of Julian Schnabel. I can't even say that I was necessarily engaged by anything on screen. I found Javier Bardem interesting to watch (the dexterity of mastering a different Hispanic accent lost on my untrained Anglo ears) but not very compelling. The way several reviewers had lavished praise upon him and the entire film, I had expected to be truly moved, swept up in cinematic lyricism and the contrasts of squalid horror and lush beauty, and so on and so on. Before Night Falls only made me wish that Mr. Schnabel didn't take such offense to narrative structure.

What has prompted me to write this was a recent viewing of this Oscar season's other artist biography, Pollock. Both films, in my mind, have flaws - unmitigated jumps in structure and time, the sudden appearance of unintroduced characters - that mar many films of this nature. Both pictures were shot successfully in very distinct but separate styles. And both focused almost too intently on their subjects. Arenas' life was ripe with adversity, struggle and (after a good whitewashing) heartfelt sympathy where

Pollock's was filled with arrogance, booze and (again, in my opinion) a sort of lack of artistry. For these and obviously other reasons, critics seem to be rallying behind Before Night Falls and dismissing Pollock as a vanity project. Why is it then that I felt more drawn into Ed Harris' film and relatively untouched by Schnabel's?

I feel like I have missed the boat on these movies. I will admit, no one else I know has seen either of these films, so most of my critical comparison lies in the hands of professional film reviewers. Last year I was right along with you in your praise for Titus, The War Zone and Fight Club. I have heartily enjoyed the majority of the other 'critics picks' this year (Traffic, Almost Famous, Wonder Boys, In the Mood For Love and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) but these are the two pictures that stick out for me. Wha'd I miss?"

E ME: Your turn.