Posts filed under 'Controversy'
August 26th, 2009
Yesterday, I watched the 2008 French horror film MARTYRS, directed by Pascal Laugier. To say it’s an extreme experience is putting it mildly. In fact, on the DVD, you have the option to watch the movie with an introduction from Laugier where he, in effect, apologizes for the film you’re about to see and the experience you’re about to have watching it.
I’m not going to review it in my column, but I was fascinated by it, and when I scraped myself back up off the floor as the end credits rolled, I decided I thought it was, in fact, very good at what it does. You can argue that what it does shouldn’t be done at all (though I wouldn’t), but you have to admit that Laugier knows how to skillfully execute a film and that MARTYRS has ambitions far beyond SAW, HOSTEL and other sleazy exploitation films of that ilk.
So here’s why I’m posting this cryptic little message: If you’ve seen MARTYRS and want to bat around some thoughts on it, feel free to post in the comment section below. I’ll check back every so often and toss in my two cents, and maybe we can get a discussion going.
Here’s a question to start us off: Just what exactly did Anna say to the Mademoiselle?
August 21st, 2009
In GROUNDHOG DAY (one of the best movies of the 1990s, incidentally), snarky weather man Phil Connor (Bill Murray) learns to be a better person after reliving the same exact day over and over (and over and over) again. The question remains, though — just how long was poor Phil stuck in the 24 hours of Groundhog Day?
It turns out there’s a bit of a debate. Harold Ramis, who wrote and directed the movie, says in this e-mail to Heeb Magazine’s Web site that he spent at least a few decades on that single day:
 ”I think the 10-year estimate is too short. It takes at least 10 years to get good at anything, and, alloting for the down time and misguided years he spent, it had to be more like 30 or 40 years… People [i.e. spaz] have way too much time on their hands. They could be learning to play the piano or speak French or sculpt ice”
Turns out Ramis is responding to this guy, who claims it was eight years, eight months and 16 days. And he has the math to prove it! (Check out his site for the extremely detailed explanation of the graphic below.)
Supposedly, the original version of the script had Murray stuck on the same day for the equivalent of 10,000 years. Personally, I like that idea. It fits more into the philosophical theme of the film — that to become a better person, it might take a very, very long time.
August 13th, 2009
There’s an interesting discussion going on over at Cinematical.com regarding just how much of a movie you have to see to form an opinion on that movie (and for that opinion to be considered valid). It all got started with this post in the series “Movies I Will Never See” about how the writer would never set his eyes upon the horror film CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. (That was followed by a “Movies I Will Never See” about TRANSFORMERS 2. I’ve seen one of these movies and refuse to see the other. Can you guess which is which?)
Anyway, that led to this post asking the musical question “How Much Do You Have to Watch Before Distaste is Legit?” I remember getting into an argument years ago with a friend’s wife about how she had watched some notoriously violent movie (it might have been TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, but I’m not sure) but had deliberately not watched any of the violent parts. I told her that I didn’t think she had actually watched the movie because she avoided the main reason the movie existed. If the point of a film is to scare you and you look away during the scary parts, have you really seen that movie? I’d still say no.
Let me put it another way. Pretend I claimed to have seen THE WIZARD OF OZ, but deliberately left the room during all the musical numbers. Do you think I’ve actually seen THE WIZARD OF OZ? Me neither.
To me, if you’re watching a movie, you should watch that movie, even if it means seeing things you’d rather not see. (Ask me about my college-era viewing of PINK FLAMINGOS over a beer sometime). The filmmakers are telling you a story, and you have to see and hear that story — the whole thing — before you can fairly judge it.
Of course, this is the sort of argument only real film geeks would ever engage in, but hey, that’s why I write this blog. What say you, my fellow movie fans?
Update: The latest entry on the “Movies I Will Never See” list is… SCHINDLER’S LIST. And it turns out, I pretty much agree with his reasons — though I have seen the movie more than once.
July 9th, 2009
Courtesy of Hollywood Elsewhere.
June 12th, 2009
Interesting piece in today’s New York Times about Sacha Baron Cohen’s upcoming comedy, BRUNO, and how it walks a fine line between getting laughs by exposing homophobia and gets them by mocking gay culture (and stereotypes)…
 So it goes for BRUNO, a movie that, in mercilessly exploiting the discomfort created when straight men are ambushed by aggressive gayness, happens to (surprise!) expose homophobia. Gay groups are reacting with deeply mixed emotions, heightened by the recent triumphs (Iowa) and losses (California) in efforts to legalize gay marriage. Is the film then vulgar, inappropriate and harmful? Or bold, timely and necessary? All of the above?
It’s a safe bet that this movie will be even more controversial than Cohen’s last comedy, BORAT. The question is, will it be as funny?
May 5th, 2009
With his long history of playing nice guys and heck, generally being a nice guy, you’d think everyone would like Ron Howard. And with its huge box office and equally huge book sales record, you think everyone would like movies based on the conspiracy pulp novels of Dan Brown.
But you’d be wrong on both counts. According to Howard himself, the Vatican wasn’t exactly thrilled with his upcoming thriller, ANGELS AND DEMONS. In fact, they tried to stop it from being made. From an Associated Press article:
“When you come to film in Rome, the official statement to you is that the Vatican has no influence,” he said. “Everything progressed very smoothly, but unofficially a couple of days before we were to start filming in several of our locations, it was explained to us that through back channels and so forth that the Vatican had exerted some influence.”
ANGELS AND DEMONS focuses on the Illuminati, a legendary secret society that supposed pulls the strings behind world events. In this story, they’re plotting against the Catholic church, and Harvard symbols expert Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks in a less ridiculous haircut than he sported in THE DA VINCI CODE) has to save the day. In other words, the Vatican is apparently working against a film where they’re on the side of the goodguys.
You’d think, given all the other problems in the world, they’d have better things to worry about. But again, you’d be wrong.
May 1st, 2009
David Lynch’s 1986 creeptastic masterpiece was on IFC last night, and I stayed up way too late watching it for the umpteenth time. It’s a truly great movie — one of the best of the 1980s, in fact — but there are precious few memorable bits I can post here for your viewing pleasure. (Mostly thanks to Dennis Hopper’s imaginative use of the English language.)
But there is this, and it might just be the best scene in the whole movie. It’s amazing what Lynch does with Dean Stockwell in too much makeup, a mechanic’s shop light, and an old Roy Orbison recording. And watch how Dennis Hopper reacts, his obvious pain building into frustration and fury. And, if you’ve seen the movie, you know this is only the beginning…
Strangely enough, that’s not how the scene was originally planned. According to the book LYNCH ON LYNCH, Lynch had planned to use the Roy Orbison song “Crying,” but when he got a copy of a greatest hits album, he went with “In Dreams” instead. Then, he had planned to have Dennis Hopper sing the song, with Dean sort of watching and singing along, but when Dennis stopped singing and watched Dean, Lynch knew that was the way to go. And finally, the light Dean Stockwell uses was left there by some member of the crew and not originally meant to be in the scene. Dean thought it was, though, and just wound up using it.
Of course, Lynch did end up using a version of “Crying” in 2000’s MULHOLLAND DR. Here’s that memorable scene:
April 23rd, 2009
Over at Salon.com, Andrew O’ Hehir’s “Beyond the Multiplex” column takes a look at the rivalry between Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival (held in winter in Utah) and Robert De Niro’s Tribeca Film Festival (starting this week in Manhattan.)
It might seem like a lot of inside baseball for festivalgoers and indy movie fans, but I thought it was an interesting look at the way the two festivals differ. Sundance (as we learned in excrutiating detail in Peter Biskind’s book, DOWN AND DIRTY PICTURES) was a low-key, low-budget hippie-flavored film fest that became something much flashier and more expensive when movies like SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE and RESERVOIR DOGS were first screened there and became hits. Tribeca was launched by De Niro and some rich associates in the wake of 9/11 to boost business in Manhattan, and has become a showcase for American documentaries, sports films and premieres of huge-budget blockbusters that don’t seem to fit its film fest sensibilities (though, coming as it does right before the summer movie season, their inclusion makes perfect economic sense.)
Speaking of documentaties, this year, the most controversial film at Tribeca (by far) is director Kirby Dick’s OUTRAGE, a look at closeted gay politicians who have supported anti-gay marriage legislation. Here’s the review from Variety.
January 30th, 2009
According to Cinematical, mega-retailer Wal-Mart has urged Kevin Smith to remove the word “porno” from the DVD case of his movie, ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO, and Smith has agreed.
Sure, this keeps innocent young eyes from glimpsing the word “porno” in the title of an R-rated film, but as the article says, it raises another issue — “What happens when one of the unsuspecting few buy it and then get the rude awakening of a movie alllll about sex and porn?”
Thoughts?
November 6th, 2008
Â
I haven’t seen the new movie ROLE MODELS yet (well, obviously — it hasn’t opened yet), but I’m already predisposed to like it, and a big reason for that is the prescence — both in front of and behind the cameras — of Paul Rudd.
Rudd (who co-wrote ROLE MODELS) is the sort of likeable, good-looking actor who could’ve amassed a small fortune by now playing it safe and starring in an endless series of bland, forgettable romantic comedies. Thankfully, he’s avoided that career path (well, for the most part) and instead decided to play likeable, good-looking oddballs in a series of comedies that do include romance, but always look at it from a decidedly skewed angle.
He was great as David, the lovelorn loser who got dumped (by Kelly from THE OFFICE of all people) and descended deeper and deeper into post-relationship madness. A lesser actor would’ve balked at videotaping his own butt in an electronics store and having it displayed on multiple screens, but clearly Mr. Rudd has no shame. In a comedic actor, that’s a very good thing indeed. He was also very funny — a bit more down to Earth — as Pete, the married dad who just wanted to sneak away for a little fantasy baseball with his buddies. Married life is a tricky thing to play onscreen, but Rudd (and co-star Leslie Mann) manage to make it funny and real. And really funny.
More? How about FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, where Rudd plays a blissfully stoned surfing teacher. Or WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY, where he kills as John Lennon, endlessly repeated his name and the names of his bandmates. Or ANCHORMAN, where he played the Sex Panther-doused field reporter Brian Fantana. Or numerous appearances on the underrated show RENO 911?
In short, he’s great in everything. Keep on keepin’ on, Paul.
Previous Posts
