Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Hope you all have a very safe holiday. Since I won't be updating Civilian Voices this weekend, I decided to make today's edition an extra long one. I've received so many great letters since I threatened to kill the clown. (Believe me, she knows she has lots to be thankful for this holiday season.) If your letter isn't here, I promise it will make its way into the next editions. Woodge starts us off with his take on The 6^th Day and an answer to my question about controversial films…

"I too saw The 6th Day and wondered why they cast Schwarzenegger in the lead role. Some of the best things about this merely passable movie were the plot twists and the fun the writers had with the concept of clones complete with memories. But whenever the aging Arnold isn't running, shooting, and fighting, he comes off as terrifically stilted and wooden. Watching him go through the motions in The 6th Day makes me wonder if he's ever taken an acting class. Although The 6th Day is better than End of Days, I wouldn't be at all put out if Schwarzenegger just confined himself to playing cyborgs like the Terminator from now on. Were there any controversial films this year? Short answer: No. But I'd like to add that it's completely unjustified to saddle the film Billy Elliot with an R rating because of one or two stray F-words. Come on! What kid over the age of 6 hasn't heard that word a thousand times? It's too bad, because that was a sweet film that could have reached a wider audience. What is really controversial is that sex scenes are uniformly cut to receive a more marketable rating while scenes of graphic violence are becoming almost routine in far too many movies." -- Woodge

Do you agree that graphic violence is becoming "almost routine"? Which do you think is more harmful to the kiddies: graphic sex or graphic violence? Feel free to respond to Woodge's comments by sending me an e-mail.

Another civilian, we'll call him or her, civilian, has this too say about the high cost of filmmaking…

"Movies cost too much. A dozen movies could be made for the cost of Pearl Harbor, at less risk to the studio, with the possibility of making something that would push the frontier and make a profit. No, these movies wouldn't open to a $40 million weekend; they may make a mere million. But if they're any good, word of mouth will work its magic. And incidentally they wouldn't cost a mountain of money to market. They may creep quietly into your local megaplex, but they can attract a lot of attention and word of mouth. They just need to be good. Now there's a challenge to those studio executives who only recognize clones of earlier successes or vehicles for $20 million-a-pop stars." -- a civilian

Would Hollywood be better off making only low budget films? Would we better off as an audience? It's a tough call to make. Sometimes I want to go to the movies just to see things I've never seen before. Without big budgets, we wouldn't get to see realistic-looking dinosaurs, futuristic spaceships, ninety-eight percent of Star Wars: Episode I. O.K. I could have done without Star Wars: Episode I, but every once in awhile I want to turn my brain off and watch people do karate moves in midair. The Matrix wouldn't have been The Matrix if its budget had been cut in half.

The real question for me is why so few films are able to balance great story with stunning visual effects. Even when you have a screenwriting master like William Goldman penning the screenplay for your action film, you aren't guaranteed that a good story will make its way to the screen. See Mission: Impossible 2 for proof. Anyone out there have a theory they'd like to share?

Speaking of theories, roughcut.com reader Jason has theory about why the average movie-goer is interested in box office returns…

"My take on why Middle America aka 'Joe Average' cares about box office performance is because, for him, it is the most reliable indicator of whether or not he'll 'like' a movie. Joe Average goes to the movies to be entertained. He wants to escape into his 'happy place' for a couple of hours and have a good time. Joe Average knows he's not alone in this want (thus explaining why he's average), and as such, knows that whatever everyone else is seeing is likely to fill his requirements for 'liking' a movie. This is a valuable tool for Joe Average (along with traditional tools such as trailers, print ads, etc.) with which to decide where to spend his hard-earned dough. Obviously this is a very rash generalization, but I believe that this is a plausible framework for how Joe Average determines what to see. Especially, for the Joe Averages that see less than a movie a month." -- Jason

I would be interested to know when posting box office returns in non-industry publications became so popular. Who decided there was a real demand for this information? I am guilty of checking weekend returns as much as the next person, but I don't usually choose what films to see using this information. Most often, I make my choices because of recommendations from trusted critics or friends, or because of a great trailer. But much like our next civilian voice Johnny, I think the latest trailers have been a wee too revealing…

"Is it just me or do others out there fear the coming attractions? You see, I like to get to a film a little early, grab a good seat and get settled in. And as much as I like the idea of trailers, they scare the hell out of me. There's nothing more I dislike than awaiting an upcoming film and have it all ruined for me in a quick two minutes. I saw Bounce this weekend and, while I enjoyed the movie for what it was, a decent sappy romance, I felt like much of it was spoiled by the trailer. I'm beginning to feel like the first two thirds of a movie are an elongated review of the trailer where the last third is the stunning conclusion to the trailer. Does it really have to be like this? I don't believe I've ever been so frustrated as when I waited through the first half of What Lies Beneath waiting for them to get the 'red herring' part of the story over with. And how did I know the first half of the movie was a red herring? The trailer. And then I hear Zemeckis say he gave so much of the movie away in the trailer because people won't go unless they know the whole movie going in. Who are these people? Where do they live? I was in disbelief when I heard this. And though I haven't seen it yet, I hear the new Cast Away trailer does much the same thing. Now, there are filmmakers and marketing departments who know how to construct a good trailer. Take Unbreakable. The trailer gives you a good feel in a short time period. Nothing is really given away. All we know is that Bruce survived a train wreck, he was the only one, and the director of the Sixth Sense did this one as well. And the first time I saw it in the theater, people were whispering to each other about how good it looked. What are we to do... when I see the Cast Away trailer, do I have to put my fingers in my ear and close my eyes so it isn't spoiled. There are better ways to sell a film than condensing it down to a two minute clip show. " -- Johnny

Yes, Johnny, do cover your eyes and ears when the Cast Away trailer comes on the screen. I am still planning on seeing this movie, but would have much preferred to see it without the luxury of knowing every little thing that is going to happen. My favorite trailer so far this season has been Vertical Limit. I'm not a huge action movie fan, but the trailer for this one has me hooked.

Also on my list of must-sees is You Can Count on Me. Jayjerry lets us know his opinion of the film's director as well as some of the other helmers out there…

"I just saw You Can Count on Me and, while writer/director Kenneth Lonergan doesn't seem interested in breaking any new ground visually, his depiction of complex, believable human beings sets him far apart from the McGs and Michael Bays of the world. At this point in Hollywood's evolution, it can't be a coincidence that so many of our empty-calorie blockbusters are the work of directors who began their careers in music video and advertising. I know it's a cliché now, but these people (and/or their employers) obviously favor surface razzle-dazzle to any of the other qualities that good storytellers have traditionally embraced. I'm not even rejecting razzle-dazzle out of hand -- but can't we have it all? Sure, it doesn't help that 417 writers are assigned to every big-budget film, a tactic that would probably frustrate even the most accomplished director's attempts to create a coherent final product. But I get the impression that most of these guys simply know nothing about story, except how to pay lip service to it in interviews. I think that Taylor Hackford, an unappreciated director with a spotty box office record, has often managed to deliver the slick production values of classic, big-budget Hollywood without neglecting narrative and character. His only blockbuster was An Officer and a Gentleman in 1982, but I've enjoyed a number of films, including The Idolmaker, Everybody's All-American, Dolores Claiborne and the amusingly overheated Devil's Advocate. Proof of Life isn't being marketed very aggressively (as though the studio expects the lead actors' romantic scandal to put butts in seats), but the trailer piques my interest. Hackford is sort of like a modern-day Douglas Sirk, bringing sure technique to blatantly melodramatic material. His films may have less to say about their time than Sirk's did, but the guy knows how to shoot film, direct actors and tell a story. Only the first of these seems to interest the new breed of director. Having said all this, for every McG there's a Spike Jonze, for every Michael Bay, a David Fincher. Good filmmakers get their start in whatever medium they can, and they adapt their abilities to the needs of other forms. Bad filmmakers learn a few useful tricks, then stubbornly recycle them. Potentially great filmmakers like Kenneth Lonergan learn a lot about human beings, then try to share it with us in a real, but entertaining way. The razzle-dazzle is provided by the actors and the script. - Jayjerry

PAGE TWO: More Civilian Voices >>>

 

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.