Six Degrees of Film

Two thoughts on the Academy Awards show Sunday night. It’s wonderful to see “The King’s Speech” honored, and Colin Firth was a “shoo-in” for Best Actor. But when you’re looking back on any actors entire body of work, it’s always nice to find some of the ones that got away.

Some films are simply not distributed or didn’t make it big as box office hits, but are worthy of attention if you enjoy movies. For Colin Firth, he will always be associated with “Pride and Prejudice” as THE Definitive Mr. Darcy.

However, he has been in some other note-worthy films. “Valmont” was an early film, and he also appeared in “The English Patient”. His comic style and timing was exceptionally displayed in both “Bridget Jones” films with Renee Zellwegger. And, of course, he hammed it up with Meryl Streep and others in “Mamma Mia” last year.

But one of the memorable performances was his portrayal of a Father who was an inventor in the coming of age movie, “My Life So Far.” These roles can really showcase the nuances, subtlety and range that an actor like Firth projects.

Some other note-worthy performances that are often missed are Russell Crowe’s early film, ‘The Sum of Us”. Based on a stage play, Crowe portrays a gay man but it’s his relationship with his father, with whom he lives, and the interaction between the two men that makes this film special.

Another great British actor, Clive Owen, is in a seldom seen movie adaptation of the play, “Bent”. He gives an extraordinary performance as a gay man in a German Concentration Camp during WW II. The range and nuance that is seen in Owen’s performance is something that he isn’t always allowed to display when he plays a tough guy role.

The under-appreciated films that these actors have starred in prior to their big break out roles can sometimes give you a better idea of why they have been nominated and are considered some of the best actors working in film today.

The second thought is on the Awards show itself. Why in the world did they hire Anne Hathaway and James Franco to host? They were in way over their heads, it was obvious from the start, and it turned out badly. But this is just one in a long line of disastrous hosting gigs that Oscar has presented in recent years.

David Letterman comes to mind, and there was the year that Snow White and Rob Lowe went into the audience to sing to Tom Hanks and Paul Newman. Jon Stewart did not fare well, and several comics bombed badly (Richard Pryor played a frozen, nervous man that didn’t translate well).

For a town that prides itself on “creativity and innovation”, sadly, the true corporate nature of the movie industry rears its ugly head when all is said and done. They want a winner, someone who can host like Bob Hope or Billy Crystal, and these types of entertainers don’t grow on trees. There are a select few who can do it year after year and it’s always hard to keep the material fresh. Stand up comedy should be followed by short routines and usually there are other comics and popular entertainers inserted in the mix.

But this year, it’s almost like all thoughts of entertainment were banned from the broadcast. Where was Ben Stiller or Jim Carrey? Or Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber? Where was Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt? Or George Clooney & Julia Roberts?

Older famous pairings like Robert De Niro with (almost anybody) would have been nice. Warren Beatty was sitting in the audience just applauding! He could have been on stage with Jack Nicholson. Elizabeth Taylor is gravely ill, therefore they could have recognized her body of work as a past recipient. But no, this would have been way too much for the lame milquetoast production that was just downright boring.

Sometimes it’s better to take chances and to fail then to just be so bland and boring that no one really cares what happens. That is the case here. They need some creative minds to “re-think” the Oscar broadcast.

Originally at the Oscars they sat at tables and had a dinner show. They should seriously think about having food served like a CineBistro. It might be more interesting to watch celebrities eating. Or turn it into a reality show with introspectives and montages, mixed with celebrities and comics who know how to entertain a room while the camera is rolling-LIVE! I would suggest almost anything would top the stale, dull, by rote type of pabulum that seems to flow from the spicket each year at Academy Awards time.

This is not brain surgery but it does require common sense. That is something that has been in short supply in so many of our major industries lately. The corporate mentality strikes again!

1. Robin Hood: Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott together have compiled all the main ingredients for the Robin Hood “stew”. First, you explain how the story with Robin plus his band of Merry Men gets all the way from the Crusades into Sherwood Forest. That takes the better part of one hour. My one big “beef” with this plot was the time it took to get Robin and his crew into the Forest.

Everyone knows that Robin is the Earl of Locksley. This is another vital element. Everyone knows that Richard the Lionhearted is the “good” king and John is the evil brother. There is the Sheriff of Nottingham, who is always up to no-good. And layered over everything is the love story between Robin and Maid Marian.
In this instance, the fleshing out of the story pays off because Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett work together to craft a believable relationship between two strong characters.

The Merry Men are an aside in this instance, giving the usual storyline a nod and a wink. But the main theme of the story is always the fact that Robin is an outlaw and an altruist at heart. Throw in the conceit of Robin as Master Archer and you concoct a fairly plausible story of “Robin Hood.”

It works, in this instance, even if it does take a tad long to get to the “meat” of the storyline. But this Robin may easily overtake the bastardized Kevin Costner version to find a place in the annals of Robin Hood lore. Not a place quite as high as the gold standard of “Robin Hoods” with Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone.

Crowe is not a swashbuckling sort of Robin. This is a man with some humility and has his tongue firmly in cheek. The stuff that dreams are made of is found more in the outlandishly overblown performance from a young Errol Flynn. But as Robin Hood’s go, this makes for a pretty good story.

Apparently, Liam Neesan is the new “go-to” tough guy. The mantle that was long worn by the likes of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Sylvestor Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Sean Connery is now being filled by Mr. Neeson.

In the sleeper hit from last year, “Taken” the word of mouth and buzz was generated by Neeson’s measured performance and quiet sense of violent energy. When Neeson was seen in an early film with Dennis Quaid and Cher,( “Suspect”), I remember thinking of this forgettable plot, “The only one really trying to ACT is the mute guy with no lines!” That was Liam Neeson and he has managed to convey the sense of urgent unrest in his greatest roles, such as “Schindler’s List”.

This type of action-pabulum is usually thrown out for audiences who don’t care about minor details like acting and plot points. But in this case, “The A Team” is simply a nice little piece of action-candy. It’s not high theater, but it’s not as low-brow as some might think.

The other actors, notably the Australian actor Sharlto Copley, who was most recently seen in “District 9,” are not always trying to aim for the trees with their acting chops but it makes for a nice relaxing two hours of mindless action theater for those who know the drill. There is nothing wrong with knowing what the basic elements of the plot will be. The audiences in Shakespeare’s day all knew the story line of his plays. The trick is in getting the audiences attention and keeping it.

I have taken solace in the fact that critics have been sitting up and taking notice of the fact that the summer movie season has really been loaded with a bunch of crap. There are bad movies and there are unfortunate re-makes and there are movies that should never have been made.
I am funny about things like this because, the older I get, the more it takes for me to actually GO to the movie to see something. Rarely will I get the urge to go and sit for two hours or more without a compelling urge to see a certain actor or to see some new plot twist or variation.

I guess the older I get, the more I see that there really is not much new under the sun. But it’s no secret that the summer movies have been loaded with nothing. The few exceptions are mentioned here, but it’s been an extraordinarily long summer for fans of GOOD movies.

“The Other Guys” is a typical Will Farrell movie in that he is in it to make ‘em laugh. The twist is that this time the movie has some really clever and original moments that will surprise those of us who have come to expect Will Farrell “boiler plate” comedies.

You know that he is going to “out-dumb” the rest of the cast with his quirky sayings. You know that he is going to irritate his partner in fighting crime, Mark Wahlberg, who is perfectly cast as the irritated foil to Farrell’s desk-bound persona.

There is a really funny cameo bit from “The Rock”, Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L Jackson but, as is the case in some great comedies, one of the “second bananas” ends up stealing the show. Cast as the captain presiding over the pair of misfits, Michael Keaton reminds us that he got his start in stand-up. Keaton at one point earnestly points out that his second job at “Bed, Bath & Beyond” is one of the reasons he’s trying so hard to ensure that his department doesn’t step over the line…This is just one of the many asides that are tossed out on the dartboard for the audience to absorb.

The twist in this film is the fact that Will Farrell loves his desk-jockey position in the police department and Wahlberg, as the volatile and trigger-happy partner, is not content to stay in the office. Mayhem ensues and the laughs pile up. This film is a happy follow-up to the quirky piece Farrell did with John C. Reilly, ‘Stepbrothers”, directed by Farrell “go-to” guy, Adam McKay (Mckay also directed the funniest of Farrell films, “Anchorman”.

Steve Carell and Paul Rudd are two immensely likeable actors working with at times, an annoying script. The premise is based on an earlier French film, which is problematic from the start. French comedy doesn’t always translate well, and, although I haven’t seen it, I suspect that the comedy was a subtle one whereas in America, we tend to use a sledgehammer to “Jerry Lewis” the comedy out of all situations (i.e…”milk it for all it’s worth!)

In this instance, less probably should be more, but the actors somehow turn in into a bittersweet sort of treatise on the corporate greed and insensitivity of big companies that is a popular mantra these days. The opening is one of the most interesting and creative elements that showcases the quirks and foibles of Carell’s obnoxious character.

There is just enough here to make it interesting to watch and nothing more. I would say that the like-ability factor goes a long way in this case to make the film watchable. But this piece of sugar candy will melt in your brain and fizz away before you leave the theatre.

Most of the reviews for this movie have focused on the pedestrian plot line and some of the predictable formulaic comedy (reminiscent of “The Out-of-Towners”) and not on the performance of the comics or the fact that this is a rare comedy NOT skewed for younger or thirty-something audiences. At one point, Ms. Fey states, “Don’t judge me…What is a flash drive?”
At this point, we realize why some audiences/reviewers will not “get” this movie. The old-fashioned idea of a “date night” is almost quaint by today’s standards. This is a comedy for baby boomers. It is made for those of us who are “of a certain age.”
For that reason alone, baby boomers should identify with this movie. The idea of a married couple wanting to make their marriage work and working at it by going out on the town on a “date” is a hilariously quaint notion in some quarters. That is what makes a lot of Steve Carrell’s films work. The fact that he starts from the point of view that he is “square” and not hip. He is everyman to a lot of people and that is something that is lacking in a lot of film stars today. It’s the same quality- the quality of connecting- that comes through in Tom Hanks movies. Date Night is a light comedy and it is not for everyone. But if you like this kind of comedy, it may tell you something about who you are. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Some of the 6 Degrees of Film ideas directly link the films of the present with films of the past. But other degrees link the ever-evolving IDEA of film with the future of media and movie-making. Two books about Hollywood are highly recommended for all 6 Degree followers: One book that speaks to this is a new book about the real “Hollywood numbers”. “The Hollywood Economist”, by Edward Jay Epstein chronicles the interesting fact that box-office profits are a marginal amount of the vast money-making machine of Hollywood. The REAL profits are found in deals for DVR’s and overseas distribution plus the marketing rights for blockbuster film products. It’s a dirty little secret about modern-moviemaking.

The other book is “Hellraisers” about the hard-drinking and sometimes darkly comic lives of four of Hollywood’s great actors of the latter part of the twentieth century.
Peter O’Toole, Richard Burton, Richard Harris & Oliver Reed are chronicled in this book. Peter O’Toole is a particular favorite in 6 Degrees films so this is a must-read for all film buffs!

Nothing really jumps out in terms of New Releases this month other than “Date Night” with Tina Fey and Steve Carrell.
Movie fanatics (one step of obsessive-compulsive from movie BUFFS) take note: This month Turner Classic features Gene Kelly’s famous dance with the cartoon mouse in MGM Parade (set to TIVO as its shown sporadically throughout the month). One of the great character actors, Patrick McGoohan (star of the classic “The Prisoner” series), stars in “The Quare Fellow” on April 10th.
Those who love comedy will love the unforgettable scene where Cary Grant smash-faces Katherine Hepburn in “The Philadelphia Story”.
Bad B Alert! Looks like “Reveille with Beverly” & Eve Knew Her Apples” rival “Hot Tub Time Machine” for the honor of best/worst film titles. (Followers of the blog can pick from the list of our favorite Bad-B’s of all time! On the last day of April, TCM will show “Beach Blanket Bingo” PLUS a William Shatner film from 1965 so the “deliciously awful” hits just keep on coming!

A friend of mine told me recently that her adult son liked to see movies where the fight scenes looked “real.” And for that reason, he would not see “Avatar.” This is a valid argument perhaps, however it is certainly not the only reason I would choose not to see “Avatar.”

If I believe that the world in which the aliens live is a viable and realistic depiction of an alien life-force, I would go see “Avatar.” If I believe that the dialogue between the main characters is witty and realistic and engaging, I would go see any movie.

If I believe that I will learn something or become engaged in an emotion and/or cathartic moment of cinematic magic, I will see a film. Movies are meant to be viewed and reviewed by all different types of people. Some movies are not “my cup of tea” but I know they are valid and have merit.

Other films I love and realize they are not viewed in the same light by many other people. The same is true for all art forms, including paintings and literature. But the criteria for movie-going cannot be narrowed to a bias that some of another generation can reduce to “kick-ass” cinema, as I call it. “Kick-ass cinema” can be defined as a type of film where the predominant emotion is one of elation when the hero “kicks-ass” against the protagonist and the entire film-making experience is cathartic only for those who view life through a very narrow window.

This is not really a new problem for film-makers and there are a number of films that have been made from the post-WWII generation through today catering to the “kick-ass” audience. However, the types of films that have lingered in the highest-grossing list and the ones that have earned sequels in the past ten to twenty years represent the “dumbing-down’ of a large portion of the movie-going audience.
To be fair, films like Titanic & Avatar don’t really figure in this category. But films like “Fast & Furious”, Transformers and other mindless high-speed car chase action films are fast becoming the sure-fire hits for Hollywood studios. These films are the counter-point to the small, independent pictures that have been made in the U.S. and abroad since the ‘60’s.

The breakdown of the old Hollywood studio system did spawn independent and foreign films that make us think. But the “kick-ass” brand of film-making makes money and that is why they are here to stay. At some point in our lives, as we age, we start to ask ourselves how much money we want to spend to be entertained by the same mindless pap that is being paraded on screen and masquerades for “entertainment?” Speaking for myself, this is a nasty apocalyptic thought. Even the notion of having to waste two or more hours sitting through this type of dribble has made the very thought of becoming a film critic akin to someone condemned to a torture chamber.

One of the most satisfying addendums I have seen in recent times comes in one of my least favorite movie guides, “Entertainment Weekly.” In the sidebar, there is a list where the highest-grossing films of all times are adjusted for inflation, and the list begins to look quite different. (“Gone with the Wind” comes out on top, I do believe!)

So the good news is that there are still great films being made, even in Hollywood. But the demand is high for pabulum and dribble being churned out of Hollywood simply to generate revenue, and that is all we may eventually get. Imagination and originality in plots and content are all that should be asked for in good film-making. It’s not too much to ask and we should all demand more of it in the days and decades to come.

I like “old school” movies such as these because if you go to see a movie about werewolves, you would expect blood and gore. And this picture delivers that. Anthony Hopkins and Benecio del Toro are good in their parts. Hopkins reminds me a bit of the old Boris Karloff who would behave in horror films the way he was expected to behave. He was there to deliver a “menacing persona” that would encompass a whole spectrum of horror we had come to expect from his presence in a movie.

In this case, Hopkins doesn’t even have to extend himself much to allow us to identify him with the menacing persona. He delivers it in his voice. The plot is pretty standard as wolfman plots go, but my one big complaint was the fact that the character del Toro played was supposed to be an actor. That footage must have ended up on the cutting room floor as we never see him, save for one brief flash, acting. But the idea would have been interesting enough to further the characters development and was instead, simply thrown out as an interesting aside to his character.

The movie is fairly forgettable, but there are worst wolfman movies out there. Unfortunately, I don’t have to guess because I have seen a few of them! The movie is a good popcorn movie for Friday night horror but not worth the trip to the cinema.

My final analysis of the Academy Awards show was that it was okay. Anyone who reads my blog would not be surprised by that opinion, as I’m usually not enamored with all things Hollywood –at least not in the last few decades.

I think there were some good things about the Oscar show. Number One: they chose Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, who were very funny together. Number Two: they chose not to “high-brow” the affair because no one likes to see a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectual “Hollywood elite” types trying to appear sophisticated, glamorous and “above it all” when the rest of America knows they are not!

But they opened the show with this cheesy act from Neil Patrick Harris that was pretty cringe-worthy. And their list of presenters was, for the most part, boring. They did not use enough past Oscar winners nor the “up and comers” of the acting world. They did use a lot of very young people in a fairly shameless ploy to boost ratings.

And in that same vein, they bottom-loaded all of the final significant awards into the last ten minutes of the evening, which simply made it look inept. And they also chose to use “testimonials” to the best actors/actresses which could have been left out, in my opinion because everyone in that audience should know if the actors in question are good to work with, and if they aren’t, it just looks awkward.

But one of my biggest beefs is the fact that we are in the 21st Century and the show looks a lot like a holdout from a bygone era. The glitz and glamour are not as believable when there is so much more to the film industry in the modern era. The age of computer imaging and video games and the type of sophisticated special effects used in modern films were barely acknowledged. There was little mention of the separate awards show they hold for the scientific and technical awards.

James Cameron has invented a new method of film-making and George Lucas and others have initiated many breakthroughs in the way we see things on film. NONE of this was mentioned….at all. And there should be new categories to acknowledge this and it should be brought to the public’s attention.

Plus the global village that we live in is still fairly compartmentalized in one or two categories of short films and the foreign film category. Even though “Slumdog Millionaire” won so many of the awards last year, it was treated as if none of that had ever happened. The encapsulated world of Hollywood elites still appears to be fairly homogenized. (barring a few obligatory jokes about Jews in Hollywood). The only nod to the changing of the guard was the fact that Barbara Streisand gave the Best Director award to a woman for the first time. And the black actress who won the Best Supporting award acknowledged Hattie McDaniels and all of the women of color who had come before her.

If Hollywood and film-making are a large part of the American “persona” and this show is one of our best chances to advertise our unique and diverse American way of life, then why don’t they pull out all the stops on these occasions? Instead, the powers that be in Hollywood present a timid and tepid kind of tribute to films the way they’ve always been done before. Not that there is a need for pornography or new age philosophy, but there should be an acknowledgement of INNOVATION. To my mind, THAT was “the stuff that dreams are made of” that Bogart spoke of so long ago.