Man of Steel considered.

After weeks of half unconsciously treating the opening of the new Superman film, Man of Steel, as a minor second coming, some more sober second thought about it is called for.

For one thing, its relatively low Rotten Tomatoes score (56%)  is disappointing considering what is riding on this film working to create a true DC Comic Cinematic Universe Franchise, even if it can still claim a majority critical approval.  As it is, I think this is a case where too many critics are missing the point of the film as it breaks away from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve media image. That shadow trapped the last attempt, Superman Returns, to the point of retreading the first film's plot points with Superman being simply too powerful, thus dooming it. Furthermore, the critical situation was reversed with critics liking it, (RT 56%), but the public being far less enthused about it.

In short, Chrisopher Nolan and Zack Snyder had the same challenge Guy Richie had with creating his Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. to escape the shadow of Jeremy Brett's quintessential version.  The problem was that Brett's film version was originally on British and American public, TV and didn't have a predecessor with the grand epic feel of a major film genre redefining Hollywood movie to overshadow it. In that situation, doing a darker and harder edged Superman is about the only option. Not only does avoid the high idealism of Reeve, but gives Cavill's version a vital human grounding before embracing his alien heritage with some welcome realism of how the world would react to such a superhero appearing. In addition, Hans Zimmer's score may not emulate the full majesty of Williams' classic work, but it drives the emotional element home better than you imagine.

Man of Steel's true challenge to face.

In that case, it feels like the right move with drama and blistering action climaxing in a fight in Metropolis that finally topped Superman II's legendary brawl.  The final resolution to it would seem against Clark's character, but he's young, wholly justified under the circumstances and is cleared precedented in the comics. Just his reaction to that move gives just the right tone of a man driven to do the seemingly unthinkable for him for the greater good and paying a high spiritual price for it. In addition, Lois Lane is refreshingly talented as a reporter who figures Clark out right from the beginning and thus begins a fascinating new dynamic with the superhero as a secret keeper from the beginning.

The film is certainly not perfect in some regards.  I don't approve entirely of how Pa Kent is more concerned about keeping Clark's powers secret than helping people and the way he was killed off stretches creditability to be that determined to keep that secret. Also, Cavill's take as Clark Kent the reporter was really disappointing; unlike Reeve, he didn't put any effort in making the persona believable in any sense. For instance, he didn't even change his hairstyle and there is nothing established in the film to allow him to work at a major newspaper.  For that matter, a narration of him writing in a personal journal in his travels could have gone a long way to doing that.

Regardless, the strong Monday box office indicates a decent sustained interest in the film and hopefully we can enjoy more of them.  If it means that Wonder Woman will finally get her film before Justice League, it will be something long overdue. If only Bruce Timm, the guiding producer of the classic DC Animated Universe franchise could be in charge of the writing part of it, then its future would be really assured.

Movie Publicity Stunts: The Right and Wrong Ways to do it.

It's interesting how the internet allows, and in fact practically requires for the big blockbusters, some real creativity and interactivity to their marketing.

It's not a new concept such as Frank Capra promoted his greatest film, It's a Wonderful Life, in 1946-7 by soliciting moviegoers to write letters how they considered their own lives wonderful and Jay Ward, the producer of the Rocky and Bullwinkle TV shows used to tour in a specially marked van to do various publicity stunts across America in the early 1960s.  Eventually in the mid 1960s, outside of costumed character appearances at local community events like fairs and parades, no film company bothered to do anything really fun like those moves that wasn't related to standard TV and radio commercials. Considering that there were only three major American commercials TV networks, and two Canadian national ones for that era, you can see why marketers wouldn't see the point of doing much more than buying commercials for the obvious timeslots.

Now, with the TV audience heavily divided with the plethora of cable channels, providing people are watching them at all, marketers have to take a proactive push to promote films far beyond the usual official websites, although Wreck-it Ralph has some fun webgames equivalents of the games in its film. As it is the film companies have had to return to some interactive promotional stunts to get some attention, but there is a right and wrong way to do it.

From Superman vol. 2 #5 (May 1987)

Currently, Gillette is doing the wrong way in its cross promotion of the upcoming Man of Steel film with its "How Does He Shave?" where celebrities filmmaker Kevin Smith, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Mythbusters Jaimie and Adam and actor Mayim Bialik give their "theories" of how Clark Kent does facial grooming.  The problem is that it has been well established for decades in the comic on how Clark does it: by directing his heat vision off a reflective surface on to his own face to burn his whiskers off.  Unlike the ideas of the celebrities, this concept is simple and logical enough to keep it as a background fact without interfering with the stories.

Kevin Smith has tried to defend this silly promotion with condescending rhetoric:  "The campaign is for people who are in the mainstream. It is certainly not for the comic book aficionado. It was more to capture the attention of those who don't make Superman and comic books the focus of their lives."  That doesn't hold water considering that method has been used to the most significant TV adaptations of the modern Superman over the decades before Smallville: Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and Superman: The Animated Series, although they cheated slightly by using ordinary mirrors instead of the reflective plate from his Kryptonian rocket ship. Considering each was at least a reasonably significant popular success on that mass medium, one hardly needs to be an avid comic book fan to know this little factoid.

Instead, we get a curt dismissal of fans for a cheap promo that treats everyone like ignoramuses about a well established pop culture trivia fact that could be found with a simple online search. As much as I know the promo has been successful in sheer response numbers, but does it have to be at the expense of annoying fans who have stuck with the character

 It would have been more plausible to have done this kind of promo stunt for Superman Returns for how Superman could be surgically treatment for being kryptonite stabbed into his body with fragments breaking off internally.  That was apparently never addressed in the TV shows and you'd have to read Superman vol. 2 #4 to learn that a surgeon had to use a controlled exposure to kryptonite to weaken his skill in order to make incisions. I would have loved to seeing a medical company and/or hospital taking on that promo challenge back in 2006.

By comparison, a promotion where the fans are treated with respect with a brilliant publicity stunt was Coke Zero's Unlock the 007 in You challenge. Here, people in a train station using a particular pop machine were enticed to enter their name and then told they could get free tickets for the Bond film, Skyfall, if they could get another location in the station in 70 seconds. So, willing contestants ran through the station, dodge various obstacles while buskers played the Bond theme while various employees held displays of the remaining time. 

By contrast to the Man of Steel promo, this idea is wonderfully fun with the idea of emulating 007 as you race against the clock to win the challenge.  The only way it could have been enhanced, with some risk, is that if a classic privileged henchman villain from the films like Jaws or Oddjob could try standing in the contestants' way. In other words, this promo was designed with some real thought about the property and how to emulate its spirit in a way that fans will eagerly accept.

In short, I would love to see more publicity stunts that take the time to know the property and treat the fans with some respect.

Fred Rogers and Hollywood's Planned Cinematic Tribute

When we hear such awful stories like those women held prisoner for years in a house in Cleveland, which is one of many we've heard about, that, along with Steve Harper and his cronies' antics on Parliament Hill, can give you a really low opinion of humanity.

With that in mind, it is gratifying to see Hollywood plan to celebrate someone who was truly good in seemingly every way, Fred Rogers, with a biopic film about him. After all, when right wing neanderthals  like Fred Phelps and Fox News loathe a man of such love and humane principles as Rogers, then you know he has earned the right to be considered an American saint of Television.  Just that famous quote now about we should "look at the helpers" is enough to give strength to people in the face of tragedy is a glorious tribute to his goodness.
 
It's funny how a guy like that with only a decades long TV series could created such a sweet alternative to the frenetic "bombardment"  created by lesser minds in the medium.  Furthermore, it's especially gratifying to know that the CBC helped get the ball rolling starting the show's first incarnation, which inspired his assistant, Ernie Coombs, to do the same in Canada as Mr. Dressup. Heck, just knowing that he both liked both Eddie Murphy's Saturday Night Live parody, "Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood" and Night of the Living Dead, which was inspired by a spot on his show about going to the dentist, says a lot what an open minded man he was.

Does he look like Rogers to you?

With all that being said, I've always thought that it is a great acting challenge to portray a good, wholesome man than a flawed one since the former can bore the audience if there is minimal internal conflict. In that regard, Christopher Reeve and Chris Evans managed to pull that thespian trick off as Superman and Captain America respectively and a Rogers biopic will demand similar skill.  To that end, I always like to default to an unknown actor since he could depict the man without the presupposition of any screen presence of an established star.  However, given the whole Hollywood fixation about stars, selecting one is inevitable. Obviously, another suggestion, Steve Carrel, is out; casting a comedian like would undercut the drama. I would go for Ed Norton, he has roughly the same build of Rogers and his roles can have the same feel of charm and dramatic gravity.

For a major test, I am certain that Norton could do a dramatization of this classic moment when Rogers charmed a crusty US Senator to save the Corporation of Public Broadcasting's public funding in 1969. Only a man with a gentle presence and eloquence could do what Rogers did with persuasion and a song and only an actor of such quiet skill like Norton could recreate it. 

As it is a no-brainer to have this as a major scene in the film, then it should be a deciding factor and I bet an actor who played a white trash neo-nazi in American History X would relish this kind of different role. I just hope that the film will include the Canadian role in this story and give it it's proper due.

Until then, we can also know that Rogers' legacy lives on with his production company now producing a sequel animated series, Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, which endeavors to recreate the original series charm for new generations. For myself, I welcome that effort and I hope it can help new generations of children that Rogers devoted his life to.

The Value of an Informed Opinion

Trust them, or hidden marketers?

When one thinks about the arts, why is it that some people sneer at the idea at consulting informed opinions about the subject?  If someone buys a car or a house and does not consult some resource to see if what is the best to get and what to avoid, they are considered suckers. Yet, when it comes to something so simple like buying a movie ticket, the idea of checking out what a critic says about the film is too often treated like nothing to consider.

Even worse, the idea of ignoring critic is too often treated like some grandiose declaration of freedom from some supposed self-important cultural dictator who is telling what people to read or see. I am reminded of a story Roger Ebert told when he had a conversation with a person who asked his opinion of some film and when Ebert said that he thought it one of the best of that year, the person declared that they certainly would not see that movie because of that recommendation.

That kind of attitude fundamentally is as philosophically pathetic as those people who protested New Coke in the 1980s like it was some grand civil rights cause instead simply a high profile whining of a mere soft drink product change. In this case, saying "I don't pay attention to critics" is usually not much more than a blind embrace of ignorance.  Do these people really want to waste their money on movies that they don't like and what is so wrong of being forewarned?

For me, movies cost too much to typically waste my money on the bad ones and I want only to see the ones that are worth it.  Furthermore, those who think they are making totally uninfluenced choice of seeing a film by ignoring critics are kidding themselves; what they are exposing themselves to instead are the intense marketing campaigns, be it trailers, TV commercials or celebrity interviews, or their friends who could be similarly and ignorantly influenced by such persuasion. The movie companies spend millions to market their films, regardless of whether they deserve it or not and to unthinkingly treat that kind of pushing as inconsequential to one's decision is to allow it to achieve its ultimate goal to fool you thinking that seeing a particular film is entirely your idea.

By contrast, to pay attention to the critics is to more likely consult people who make it their business to find if something is worth your time and money.  That is not some kind of  "snobbery" or "elitism," that is just plain common sense and it will likely give you an enriching cinematic experience to try new material because you are judging on reports of merit, not because you are beaten over the head with advertising. For myself, watching a film's score on Rotten Tomatoes is often all the promotion I need and want as I enjoy its roller coaster ride and see where it will finally end up. With RT with 100+ reviews for major films, the old excuse of "That's just one person's opinion" is shot down with satisfying efficiency.

In short, when deciding about films to see, you will either be influenced by your peers as sheep, manipulated by marketers as a puppet, or influenced by hopefully disinterested critics' informed opinions as an intelligent human being.  It is not a perfect or foolproof arrangement, but its one that respects your intelligence and values your judgement rather than be someone to fool.

Film Distribution Frustrations and Unfortunate Implications.

What do Invictus, Red Tails and 42 all have in common with my favourite mainstream movie theatre, Rainbow Cinemas? They were all films that were initially scheduled for that theatre, complete with posters displayed both on the frames at the outlet and on the website. Then, they are unceremoniously removed from the schedule before their release date by their distributors over the theatre management's objections and their main run is restricted to a handful of other theatres in the city.

They are also all serious dramas with black men being the lead characters of the stories. That is a relationship that feels all the more disconcerting and illogical considering they were supposed to be up for a wide release and you'd think going back on that would be obviously counter-productive. So, given that fact, the obvious possibility that comes to mind is a racist assumption that there is no point giving those films the widest release they can get. Even when I heard reasons like Invictus had to have a certain auditorium seating capacity in a theatre to be shown is ridiculous considering that a wide release would mean a selection of cinemas with a great combined seating availability.

I know there are deviations from this pattern; the 2011 Oscar winning silent film, The Artist, was similarly pulled from Rainbow's schedule and Ali, the biopic about Muhammad Ali ran there without a problem in 2001.  However, that does not take away from the fact that it seems the majority of films I notice that get this treatment have the above racial connotation. How much this observation of mine is actually real is a matter I can't prove considering I don't have a list of distributed films that were treated in this way. However, there is a saying, "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Three times is Pattern," and it's a pattern that is deeply frustrating for myself who want to see such films, and the cinema managements who want to show them.

It would make more sense if it was the standard platforming limited release pattern for art films that is designed to build buzz to attract the audiences for such a film.  I respect that pattern, if only it means that deserving films don't get jerked around like the above films. Even if they were shown only at The Hyland, at least it's at a cinema I can go to with reasonable ease with good ticket prices. The difference is that there are no false or thwarted expectations involved for films and we the audience are not treated as disposable. Even the logic of 42's early distribution baffles me: I can see some "arty" films being restricted to the higher class multiplexs like SilverCity, but why Empire on Wellington, the rattiest cinema in London with the worst major bus route section in the city, got one of the only 2 prints in the city with SilverCity defies all logic.

Fortunately, 42 is emulating its hero, Jackie Robinson, and is a major hit that is breaking through with a wider release starting this Friday, including Rainbow.  So, I will get to enjoy a decent drama film without the expensive bother of getting to SilverCity or Empire after enduring the usual early year movie dump months.   I just wish this kind of distribution practice would be replaced with something logical for once.

Roger Ebert: a Subject Retrospective

Roger Ebert had his funeral yesterday and I thought that a follow up on my personal thoughts about his
legacy would be in order.

For one thing, Ebert's website has now been completely redesigned with a search function that is finally working again.  On this site, you can enjoy all of Ebert's reviews, essays and blog updates that made him such a force in modern film culture. My only disappointment is that apparently of Ebert's Answer Man posts have been deleted which means I may likely never find the answers to my questions again that Ebert was kind enough to answer. Still, it is a fitting archive for such a great writer and I hope it stays up for years to come.

However, many of us first learned of Roger through his TV shows and I thought a few clips of some of his most interesting stuff would be order.

For instance, we know about his pans like for North, which he "Hated, hated, hated..." and Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo which he bluntly said as a Pulitizer Prize winning journalist that it "sucks," but how about we see a modern film which he loved in its initial release?  

Well, you can just take a look at his TV review of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a masterpiece of animation with a nearly seamless integration of story and visual technique that was an unforgettable cinematic experience.  Just watching Ebert gush about this film is a treat as he praises a blockbuster film that deserved to be one.

However, I already said that I loved the special episodes that shed so much light on film and I thought posting a few on youtube would be called for.

For instance, "What's Wrong with Home Video" is a fascinating look at the early days of video film releases that is painful and hilarious watch for the utter incompetence we had to put up with on home video in the 1980s and how we have it better to a degree with DVD, Blu-ray with letterboxed films on widescreen TVs being the norm. 

However, you can see their more serious topic episodes, such as violence against women in film, which is included in the video clip here No other movie reviews on TV would have done this where a serious artistic discussion takes place that respects her. I haven't have cable TV for years, but so I don't know if anyone bothers now. 

Finally, you can see Ebert and Siskel on their anniversary show at the height of their success, enjoying a long reign that still had plenty of years to go. 

It is all a collection of memories and commentaries that we can treasure today and can inspire other to emulate a great talent like Ebert.

Roger Ebert: Goodbye and Thank You.

Yesterday, the movie world lost a revealing light in its vista and I lost an inspiration.  Roger Ebert finally lost his battle with cancer that claimed his voice and later his life, but never his spirit.

I first really began to follow him in the mid-1980s.  Before him, movies were predominately those boring long TV shows that ran constantly on the syndication TV stations I watched like WKBD in Detroit that too often seemed to have nothing to do with me except for newer films like Star Wars and Superman. The fact that I lived for years in the country and small communities like Strathroy and Comber, miles from any cinema, made the whole concept terribly remote to me.

However, after getting a preliminary taste with PBS' post-Siskel and Ebert Sneak Previews with  Jeffrey Lyons and Michael Medved, I discovered the real thing when Detroit's WXYZ ran Siskel and Ebert's commercial show on early Sunday evenings at 6:30 pm.  It was like the clouds of muddled perceptions about film had parted from my eyes and the pair showed me what I should have enjoyed from the beginning.

Roger Ebert espoused his love of cinema in ways I could understand as a teenager and broadened my horizons to introduce me to a world of art that was far beyond anything I could have dreamed.  I especially loved his special topic shows like his attack on film colorization as explained in the attached video here. With clips selection as the truest of cineophiles could do, Ebert showed a whole new perspective about film that transcended my superficial kid notions into a deeper appreciation I never thought I could have. Just understanding the silvery beauty of Casablanca's black and white cinematography, and the larger art of it, is a gift I will always treasure from Roger.

I dare say that he raised my tastes and allowed me to stretch out and enjoy film in ways I never dreamed possible without his influence. I still remember a Saturday night in 1988 in Goderich when I was home alone, bored with nothing on TV, but knowing that the drama film, The Accused, was at the Park Theatre. Roger's opinion was not directly on my mind at that time, but surely he was the reason why I ran all the way to the box office and see it and deeply enjoy the deeper philosophical issues behind it.  However, I do know that Roger's review, at least indirectly, did finally push me to see The Nasty Girl, my first subtitled foreign language film in 1990 at The Bookshelf Cinema in Guelph and a wider cinematic world opened up for me.

Since then, I came to love cinema and Roger Ebert's writing played a lot in building that passion. His insights, his knowledge and his long rich career inspired me to review performing art myself, whether it's on the stage or on the screen in London.  Although I have drifted more to consulting Rotten Tomatoes' general scoring for my moviegoing choices and reading the reviews themselves later, the film experience I love is became so much more with Ebert's help. The fact that he even took the time to answer the occasion question I wrote to him was a magical thing in of himself.

While I didn't agree with all Roger's reviews such as with Pixar's Cars 2 which he liked and I loathed as Pixar's betrayal of its artistic integrity or his relatively lukewarm review of How to Train Your Dragon, which I regard as one of the greatest animated features of all time, his opinions were something always to consult and value.

Now, I restart this blog to express my own thoughts about film and I just wanted to have this one last thought for my journalistic hero:

Thank you Roger, you guided me into seeing a powerful art in all its glory and embarrassments.  I go to my art house cinema, The Hyland whenever I can as well as the multiplexs and enjoy the movies, an art you helped me understand and love a little like you did. There will never be a writer and a critic like you and I hope I can achieve one tenth of the insights you had.  See you at the movies in spirit while I sit in that darkened room, and hope I can be something of what you became for us all.

Thoughts on DreamWorks Animation's 2013 feature film slate

DreamWorks Animation has announced their upcoming slate of films and so far, it's largely more proof that it has become truly the most exciting American feature animation house in my eyes.

For instance, whereas all Pixar has to offer next year is a Monsters Inc. prequel, Monsters University, while Disney Animation Studios will be offering a more promising film with Frozen, DreamWorks will be offering three films next year.  Better yet, in defiance of the stereotype of the company, two of them are original and another takes a revisit of another Jay Ward classic series from his Rocky and Bullwinkle franchise.

The first film will be The Croods about a prehistoric family searching for a new home.

Seeing the initial images, I can see that  most of the characters have designs that will have to grow on me and the initial premise sounds a lot like a human version of Disney's mediocre 2000 attempt to enter the computer animated feature field, Dinosaurs. Like the reptiles and lemurs in that film, this family will be forced to make a hazardous migration after a natural disaster for a new home.

However, the film is going to be co-directed by Chris Sanders of Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon and co-produced by Kristine Belson who produced the latter along with Jane Hartwell who produced the first and best Shrek film.  That is a crew pedigree that is enough to convince me that something special out of this familiar premise.

The film, Turbo, is going to be quite a narrative stretch for its next film and a challenge to see if it can be worthy of DreamWorks' new standard

Obviously, the idea of a snail gaining superspeed and wanting to become a racer owes more than a little inspiration from Pixar's Ratatouille with a rat who dreams of being a Haute Cuisine chef.  However, whereas Remy the Rat is able to strive for his goal in secret, Turbo the Snail is going to have to do this in public in the competition since it would hardly be dramatic if he participates in hiding purely for his own personal satisfaction.  That alone will be intriguing to see this bizarre situation and how the macho racing world would react to this snail.

The main pitfall is that Ratatouille was written and directed by Brad Bird, one of the greatest animation directors of our day.  While the film will be co-written by Robert Siegel who wrote the great sports tragedy film, The Wrestler, the fact is that the director, David Soren, hardly has the career experience and reputation to encourage me.  However, since Bird has abandoned the animation field, then I hope Soren and other newcomers are ready to take his place like DreamWorks Animation has shone so far.

 

The final film of 2013 will be Mr. Peabody & Sherman, yet another adaptation of Jay Ward's classic cartoons. In this case, Mr. Peabody's pet boy will screw up with WABAC machine and the pair have a big repair job to the timeline.

So far, the track record of Jay Ward film adaptation's has been disappointing with the first George of the Jungle film having a Rotten Tomatoes score of 56% while The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle has 42% and Dudley Do-Right with only 14%.  It seems that so far, nobody has really been able to emulate Ward's intelligent manic wit even with his daughter, Tiffany Ward, as executive producer.

However, this film will be directed by Rob Minkoff whose track record includes The Lion King and the fantasy premise of fouled up history can at least provide a fertile ground for an wacky story like a more erudite version of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.  If Robert Downey Jr. had stayed on the project as Peabody, then this would be something to really be confident about.


The big question however will any of these have the kind of soul that  How to Train Your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda?  Will any of these touch into something deeper that I must experience again?  Madagascar 3 managed to do that this year, seeing Alex and friends come to learn what home really is after all their adventures and finding that they have become more than ever thought they could be. That is an artistic magic that Pixar's Brave had to struggle to achieve until after its first third while Laika's ParaNorman got it in an entire different way.

Regardless, I see DreamWorks striving forward from here with real artistic gambles.  Whether they work out is going to be an experience I look forward to next year.

Digital cinema, a problematic transition

A film projector, cheaper and can be used for decades .

A typical digital projector, with an average usage of 5 years.

Before I move on to my further ruminations about this summer's films, it would seem more apt right now to comment about a looming technological business move in the movie theater business that is really hitting home in London; the conversion to digital film projection.

Apparently, Rainbow Cinema and Hyland Cinema are the final cinemas in London, Ontario that still primarily use 35 mm film stock for their projectors, and the former is apparently the last in whole Rainbow Cinema/Magic Lantern chain to not make the transition that the film companies are forcing on the industry.  However, the Hyland is an independent cinema and is not eligible for a corporate subsidy available to the chains to make the transition and now has to raise the $100,000 necessary for the projectors themselves through a public fundraising project.  So, if you like great films that often no other cinema here shows in this city regularly, the Hyland needs your help now.

For myself, this is a bittersweet transition on top of the financial element. For one thing, there some actually upsides in this move.  For one thing, Rainbow will be abandoning 3D projection once it makes the change and it can't happen too soon with nobody justifying the gimmick to me outside of DreamWorks Animation's great films like How to Train Your Dragon and Madagascar 3.  In fact, that has been a selling point for Rainbow to have a haven where people can see a film "flat" and for a lower ticket price. Furthermore, there will be the advantage of not having to deal with the inevitable scratches and other signs wear and the threat of mishaps like film breaks and fouling.

However, this still seems a stupid move for the film companies themselves. Yes, they will save a bundle from striking prints and delivering them around, but they are still changing the fundamental nature of the experience.  Digital projection is essentially a video projection, which makes the whole show essentially a  something like DVD at home.  In that case, when you make the viewing feel more like just like doing something you're already doing at home, the very point of going to the movie theater is diminished in the first place. When that happens, what's to prevent more people from just cutting out the middleman and wait for home video?

Essentially, all the movie theaters will have to compete against home viewing are newer films and a darkened room to see them without distractions. Yet, I go to the movie theater for the opportunity to get out of the house for something special and the cinemas will have to work harder to provide that and that's not having to deal with probable upgrades every 5 years while film projectors can last 30-40.  That will raise prices itself on top of the expense of this transition and that will harm the industry more. If digital projection could allow to ease the delivery expense of content, then maybe that would be worth if they could combine more variety with other suggestions I've heard like bringing back film shorts as a regular part of the programming.

All this is not even accounting for other costs like the projectionists losing their jobs in favour of this glorified projection TV, leaving less chance of a skilled expert to handle the situation if something goes wrong.  Then there is the problem of long term film preservation, the last use of film stock.  On that issue, Pixar found itself learning the limits of digital data storage the hard way when it started working on Toy Story 3 and found that their old files of their character from Toy Story 2 were essential inaccessible because they were outmoded with their current tech and they had to start from scratch.  When Pixar, the supreme masters of digital content gets caught short neglecting their own library storage like that, imagine what librarians and archivists have to deal with on far lower budgets?  It worries me that how our films could run a risk of having to be reproduced ala kinescope: filming the content from a video display with a huge loss of picture quality like TV producers had to do before videotape. That is a terrible step back we don't need.

I know the film theaters don't have any choice about this, but this is still a sad time for an industry and for its viewers in the long run.

An Animation Realignment

Well, DreamWorks Animation has finally done it and is moving to Paramount from to 20th Century Fox, apparently for the attraction of a better cut in digital distribution

For myself, I am conflicted about this move; I thought the arrangement of American animated feature films currently has been rather ideal with each of the major studios being comfortably staked out in their own niche in the animated feature film.  For most part, all of the major players have been able to co-exist and tap into a ready market with films that have been general profitable for all.

Furthermore, although the newer players like Blue Sky (Ice Age, Horton Hears a Who) and Illumination Entertainment (Despicable Me and The Lorax) have been wildly inconsistent in their film quality while Pixar has regrettably declined themselves in recent years with Cars 2 and Brave, it has been beautiful seeing DreamWorks Animation firm itself up as a pillar in this artistic golden age while new players like ILM (Rango) and Sony getting the hang of it.

Now, Fox is going to have DreamWorks and Blue Sky, the 2nd and 3rd biggest North American players in the field while Paramount has been encourage with Rango's commercial and critical enters the field with its own animation department.  As it Fox is going to have to juggle two proven animation studios to distribute and promote them both fairly and adequately. I just hope each will be able to strive for their own vision, I do not want DA to compromise on its hard won artistic excellence, nor do I want Blue Sky to be subsumed themselves, even if the Ice Age series is running out of artistic steam.  

Furthermore, I hope Paramount will be willing to look at its own history and learn from it so they don’t repeat its abysmal treatment of the Fleischer Brothers when it forced them to imitate Disney when they were making their own mark with sexy urbane fair like Betty Boop.  This when they were pushed into making features like Gulliver's Travels when they were far from ready, only to have them ultimately fail and close the door for everyone outside of Disney for decades. 
All that eventually accomplished was to frustrate and drive a wedge between them, destroying a superb studio and force Paramount to take it over as Famous Studios.  

Furthermore, all that came out of that effort was an animation studio that drove into its grandfathered properties like Popeye into the ground and created nothing but repetitious childish piffle like Casper the Friendly Ghost and Baby Huey. Heck, their Tom and Jerry knock-off series, Herman and Katnip has been derided as the most sadistic cartoon series of the Golden Age of American Animation and the main inspiration of the comically gory parody, "Itchy and Scratchy" in The Simpsons franchise. Just see an example of the former and one of the latter and decide if in content they are really any different in spirit.

Now, the rest of this year feels so promising with Hotel Transylvania’s trailer feeling so charming while DA’s The Rise of the Guardians and Disney’s Wreck-It Ralph trailers seem to be  carving out their own niches for so much fun. Meanwhile, Tim Burton will get a chance to recover his artistic reputation with his animated remake of his Frankenweenie, even though I agree with some critics that the stellar Paranorman could have taken it on.

All I can say is that there is a welcome feeling equalibrium so that has even allowed Studio Ghibli through Disney to improve their market presence with the Secret World of Arietity.  I just hope as DreamWorks, the company that helped make this flowering possible, prepares to change its partners that this realignment will be allowed to continue for the foreseeable future.

Madagascar 3 and What DreamWorks Animation has Become

Well, this has been a rather good year for animation with most of the major feature animation houses having chart topping big hits, while even the acclaimed anime import, The Secret World of Arrietty, had the best North American box office performance in the history of Studio Ghibli (producers of the Oscar winning Spirited Away).

 For all that success, I saw Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted again and I am reminded of why DreamWorks Animation is the studio to watch in this golden age. This series began in 2005 as a rather craven attempt to undercut Disney's film, The Wild, about urbanized wild animals thrown into the wilderness for real, much like how Antz was produced to head off Pixar's A Bug's Life.

However, this film series grew with each film to become something more as the Zoo animals struggle to survive and get home, regardless of the fact that they are stumbling about, never knowing what they are doing. In doing so, this third film comes to a glorious payoff as the Zoo animals desperately join Circus Zarcosa in Europe. In a lesser film, you would expect the film would keep to the formula with Alex the Lion and his friends bringing disaster to the circus as complete amateurs the moment they stepped on the circus train. For a while, the film strings you along even as they become the circus' owners with veiled threats from the residents if Alex and company ruin their business.

Instead, you will see that the circus animals are all a bunch of bumbling incompetents themselves who have lost all confidence in themselves while Alex's gang proves to be the answer.  As the Zoo animals find a way to help the circus rebuild, there is a joyous feeling of growing love, whether it being simple friendship with Marty the Zebra and Stefano the Sea Lion or full romance with Alex and Gia the Jaguar, as all involved find their ways to become more than anyone thought they were.

This all comes to a head at the critical performance in London, when they have their one chance to impress an American promoter.  Disaster threatens when Vitaly the Tiger is found packing to leave, only to be inspired by Alex, the one for whom he had been most hostile, to give his impossible ring jumping act one last chance.  When that succeeds perfectly, that proves to be just the opening act for an astounding grand performance that you would expect would end in a humiliating catastrophe.  Yet, it doesn't.

Instead, it becomes a mindblower of a circus show that would make the owners of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey circus watch in awe.  Set to Katy Perry's song, "Firework," your heart will soar as the animals pull off the impossible as you realize that for the first time Alex and the gang are succeeding at their own initiative as free creatures who have made their own place in the world.  It goes even deeper as you see Alex and Gia fly and dive about with such loving trust in each other as they each subconsciously realize what they have been missing.  Furthermore, as much as I applaud my favourite theatre's plans to drop their 3D projectors, I am reminded of why DreamWorks has made the best use of it, making it a legitimate enhancement to their films, and not merely a gimmick as the circus show becomes such an immerse joy to experience.

That cinematic beauty and the powerful drama that follows show what DreamWorks has become: a film company that has many a cinematic mistake in its past, but has learned from them to become a producer of such cinematic excellence that Pixar used to have all to itself. As that rival enters a regrettable lesser period, give me a company like DA that never had that rarefied aura and allowed their mistakes to become building blocks for something better.

The Early Summer Bittersweetness of Being

It's the beginning of the summer and my spirits are a bit higher than usual.

Anthony Pyor has finally responded to me after 10 years and seems to have gotten over what grievance he has with me. While it would be too much wishful thinking to hope that I can could chat with him like before, at least he's restarted his Wulf stories and I can enjoy some more of the fantasy erotic adventure you'll ever going to find online. It's at  and while it's definitely not to every taste, it is still a fun series of sexy stories with good humour and wild adventure that deserves a look for anyone who wants to learn how good original online erotic fiction can get.

Furthermore, this is the first week on CBC Radio One's summer schedule and that means a whole new batch of facsinating summer shows like Babel about language usage in Canada, The Invisible Hand about economics for the ordinary person, Metamorphosis: a biography version of the Late Show without the dying part, Fear Itself about the aspects and of course the international radio documentary showcase, Global Perspectives with this year's theme being "Old School, New School." For all, I know, this could be the last summer for such great shows, so I hope you might find them as interesting as I do.

Of mixed elements is that Obama's healthcare law survived the US Supreme Court and while he could have sold the whole thing much better and gone to Canadian style single payer coverage, this is still a feather in his cap to fight with for his re-election campaign. The bad news is that VIA is cutting back on passenger service, even in the busy Quebec-Ontario corridor, but at least I can still use it comfortably enough to still get to  Brantford for my parents or Toronto for whatever.  That frustrating part is that other nations are building up their passenger rail service like China and Europe and we are giving up on ours even when it makes so much economic and environmental sense to use the trains more with them being largely faster and energy efficient.


On the movie front, the upcoming movie, Ted, has a fresh status and a favourable critical consensus statement on Rotten Tomatoes and I couldn't be happier in that regard.  Unlike a dumb mashup premise like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Killer, Ted feels more natural as a creative film fantasy concept that actually asks a really good story question: what would childhood magic be like if it continued straight into adulthood?  The fact the teddy bear being alive is no secret gives the whole story a fun new element that gives its coming of age theme that much more punch.  Just check out this trailer for an inspired if rather proudly rude film

While Magic Mike is looking promising, Ted will be the first film I want to see while Amazing Spider-Man looks like it has justified the character's movie reboot with style and intelligence this Monday at Rainbow at 8:00.

All in all, these are just small developments, but the positive one are interesting enough for this time of year.

A Brave girl film with an prejudiced burden DreamWork's heroines don't have.

I saw Brave last week and while it is not not one of Pixar's better efforts compared to their daring and beautiful films like Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up!, it's a decent effort with a special twist for an adventure film.

However, the opening act is basically a standard "You Go Girl" plot where an athletic girl defies her society gender role constrictions to beat the pants off anyone who dares to push her around. If there is one thing that Pixar used to be known for doing, its to take the less travel road for stories and create fresher plots that challenge what stories American animation and film could tell.

However, the film quickly redeems itself when the lead character makes a terrible mistake to get her way with her mother, forcing them to go on an quest together to undo it and learn to understand each other along the way. That is writing more worthy of Pixar; the dynamics of a mother-daughter relationship in a classic fantasy adventure story is, for better or for worse for Western culture, fresh story material. From then on, the story has considerably more charm and thrills for a meaning story.

However, my new top tier movie blogger, Scott Mendelson, is on the money that this film is rife with weaknesses.  For instance, the older Disney animated feature, Mulan, handled the matter of gender roles with much more nuance to the point where it doesn't need to be so blatant as Brave's two competing monologues of mother and daughter. Instead, the title character takes action for a purpose that seems to be a familial purpose, but has also shows a subconscious need to be more.  Maybe Mulan has to deal with the usual Disney elements of its time like obtrusive comic relief like Eddie Murphy's Mushu and musical numbers, but that girl's actions carry the film in a way that feels thematically whole and credible.

Furthermore, that fact that Pixar has to resort to making Merida in Brave a princess is a lamentable surrender to one of the oldest role stereotypes for animated fantasy films.  Again, Mulan didn't need to be one in her story, even if she is now lumped into the rest of the Disney Princesses marketing campaign. We know Pixar has the talent to create something more, but they didn't and so, the company's artistic spirit is compromised yet again.  As noted, the blow is not fatal with the film's second half redeeming a lot, but this company is supposed to be better than that.

Finally, Mendelson noted that there is a repellent sexist cowardice with too many film pundits about the market potential of a girl centered adventure story with the boy audience. As he notes, there was no such fuss with Mulan's box office potential 16 years ago in 1998 and you'd think the spectacular success of this year's The Hunger Games with Katniss' adventures in the story would prove the point.  Heck, I remember when I was 8 years and I lived to watch the Wonder Woman TV series in the late 1970s and that was when the idea of active female action heroes was still a relative novelty to a degree. Why is it that people are reverting to the most mealy minded prejudiced idiocy in each medium?  The basic truth is that you have a female character in a well written and produced action film/TV show and boys will jump at it, especially older ones who could enjoy watching a pretty girl kick butt on top of the action.

This is another reason why my favour is to DreamWorks Animation now.  For one thing, the original director for Brave, Brenda Chapman, was fired midway through production and replaced by a male director. As such, there at least some suspicion that this film proceeded in part because Pixar didn't want to make themselves a big PR target for killing a female centered project and the film suffered for it..  By contrast, DA treated Jennifer Yuh Nelson with more respect making Kung Fu Panda 2 and the company was rewarded with the #1 animated film worldwide and the biggest money making film directed by a woman.

Furthermore, DA has steered clear of the princess cliche, except in the Shrek series where it is sent up for all its comedic worth.  Otherwise, their finest full fantasy films haven't resorted to that stereotype: the Kung Fu Panda franchise has Tigress and Viper, fierce and self-confident martial arts warriors who are definitely not royalty and neither bow to any male or need to give a speech about their need to live their own dreams. Likewise, How To Train Your Dragon has Astrid Hofferson and Tuffnut, equally mighty young warrior proteges who are ordinary viking girls who live a feminist empowerment dream in a story world that believably gives them a place.  Heck, Monsters Vs. Aliens has been described as the most successful superhero movie with a female lead with Susan, an ordinary modern woman turned heroic giant who learns to love her strange new life with fire and inner strength.

Take all that together, and you will know what DA understands and Pixar doesn't.  Now, let's see if Warner Brothers will too as they consider finally giving Wonder Woman a chance to shine on the big screen with as her brothers (Superman and Batman) in the DC Universe.

New fridge and new movies

Of all the expenses you don't want to deal with, buying major kitchen appliances must rank fairly high, but my fridge, which was a donation from Habitat for Humanity to the original houseowners years ago and must have been 30+ years old, was dying and I had to bow to reality.

At least I now have a replacement that will only use 24% of the power of the old one, just the thing you want to have in play when time of use electricity pricing is imposed on you. Now, if only I could convince the commercial tenants to take some basic measures to save electricity on their own.

I at least had some good news like I won a runner up prize at Rainbow Cinemas' Oscar contest, 4 movie passes and my latest movie bingo sheet is full. That means I have 5 free showings to go to, which is a welcome development considering the new John Carter movie is falling in its Rotten Tomato rating and I was hoping against hope it could have stayed fresh.  Oh well, the Oscar nominated dance documentary, Pina, is coming to the Hyland and that will certainly be worth the money.  Just look at this trailer if you need convincing.  The whole look of that kind of poetry in motion is a cinematic magic that you can only find at the art house cinema environment

Sorry if I don't have any insightful things to write about this Thursday, but I can show one of the most entertaining European translations of the most unlikely broad interest TV sensation of the year, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.  Namely, while most translations of the show's intro translate the language, the Italian version goes for a full re-edit into a spectacular animesque style that is distinctive in and of itself.

Just see it for yourself and enjoy!

The Lorax and Movie Compromises

With the Oscars out of the way and with it the 2011 movie year truly finished and the traditional fallow months for films finished, it's time to enjoy the first really good (hopefully) 2012 Hollywood animated film, The Lorax, based on the classic environmental fable by Dr. Seuss.

I remember seeing reading the book and seeing the original TV special in the 1970s and it was easily one of the most upsetting animated TV specials I ever saw as the greedy Once-Ler despoils a wilderness and depopulates it of all wild life. That tone of course is exactly the point of the show to see the consequences of reckless corporate greed with a  powerful ending where the boy listening to this story is charged with the task to replant the forest. Why there has been no mention of linking this special with the classic Canadian Oscar winning animated short, The Man Who Planted Trees (available at YouTube) where a shepherd manages to do precisely that is beyond me.

That being said, this kind of story would never do for a feature film as is; it would be an interminable downer of a story no mainstream film audience would sit through for over an hour with children. With that in mind, it looks like the film will be taking a balanced approached with a careful expansion of the story where the original plot will be expanded as a flashback, with the main action of the boy struggling to undo the devastation.  Furthermore, the film will apparently be expanding its theme to target urban sprawl with the boy's becoming a Seussian version of The Prisoner's Village.

 If my guesses are right, those are really good artistic calls: the film would have a passionately active tone that gives its environmental theme a powerful sense of hope with just the right kind of fantasy to create a convincing happy ending in a lighthearted fantasy land. That can inspire at least kids in spirit to think about environmental concerns without making them feel so helpless as to their enormity. In that spirit, turning the Once-Ler into a human is an excellent idea that should avoid any confusion for kids about their own species' responsibility for their world. Furthermore, the idea of the constant surveillance by the villains feels natural of their evil determination to maintain a wasteland of the soul in their artificial domain. In short, this feels like a adaptation expansion that feels like a labor of love as Horton Hears A Who became.

Unfortunately, the marketing of the film is another matter. Namely for an environmental themed film to have tie-ins with Mazda, a car company, is a red flag that you can't dismiss and disposable diapers are an equal problem for obvious reasons.

As much the contemporary economics of filmmaking dictate such arrangements, you'd think the producers would be more wary of being accused of greenwashing at its most blatant.  Of course, I can just see them giving the usual excuses with the line that if they had a problem with it, they can always see the original special instead. Still, this kind of marketing will be everywhere and mixed messages will be abounding regardless.

For myself, I'm curious to see how the film itself will deal with its theme and if it maintains the essential point of Dr. Seuss' message from his book. If that integrity is maintained, then I would worry less about the film's impact.  After all, years after the film's marketing and merchandise have faded away, the film itself will remain a part of a film company's library as the essential point of the artistic enterprise that could inspire generations.  That may be an imperfect hope, but it is the best we can hope for this, the most expensive of the arts.

Anyways, while I am waiting, I will enjoying one of the classic silent films tonight at the Western Undergranduate Film Society, The Last Laugh by F.W. Murnau.  It's a celebrated work of pantomime of an old man's fall from grace that needs only one intertitle to tell its story and that's as a poke at movie conventions by Murnau.  After seeing the schlocky, if rather exciting at times, mess of a superhero film, Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance with all of Nicholas Cage's overacting, this will be a refreshing clearing of the cinematic palate.