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.

Blood Pressure: A Personal Review.

When I go to the Hyland Cinema, or any movie theatre for that matter, I always check out Rotten Tomatoes' score for the film in question and I typically have full array of opinions to access for a consensus statement.

This Sunday, I had a slightly different experience with a Canadian feature film, Blood Pressure. Like too many native features, this one has has only 2 reviews on RT, although they are both positive and one of them is from the Toronto Star. As a result, I was coming to this movie this movie relatively blind, and the result is exactly the kind of cinematic experience I want from London's only art house theater.

The story is about a frustrated woman, Nicole (Michelle Giroux), who has a pharmacist job under the thumb of a hard ass manager who seems determined to crush out any human interaction and compassion on the job.  Her family life is worse with a coldly distant husband, her teenage kids are a pair of spoiled brats and she is left feeling there is nothing special in her life. One day, she gets a mysterious letter out of nowhere with an offer to help her change her life if she obeys one simple instruction to signal her willingness to begin.  She does so, and that begins a series of letters with gifts and instructions that get increasingly more lavish and bizarre until she finally gets her answers that leads to even more disturbing choices.

Part of what makes this film so effective is that Giroux's performance enables us to enter into Nicole's psyche as we experience her spiritual conflict about her private miseries even as we appreciation what she does have.  That makes that letter writer feel so seductive as Nicole is pulled in irresistibly with the sheer mystery of it, which is given an enthralling visual cue as the text appears around as she reads.  As the stakes rise and the requests become ever stranger, you are left wondering whether Nicole is being sucked into an abyss that will destroy her. Along the way, Giroux creates a life journey with touchingly funny touches as she is led out of her comfort zone as she tries out a gun range, a fancy new dress and scouts out a stranger her corespondent wants her to shadow.

Unfortunately, when that letter writer is finally revealed, the story takes a less enticing flavour as he reveals his true intentions behind the letters, leaving Nicole with a strangely agonizing moral decision. Now, the story revolves around how much as this woman has changed and what she is willing to do. That in itself is a intriguing plot thread, but it lacks the compelling mystery with the letters.  Still seeing Nicole making her choices and finding friends and hidden answers where she least expects them will push you along; unfortunately it's for an climax that feels too conventional.  That said, the very end has a real punch as the true emotional cost of her adventure finally hits home even as her shaken family comes together.

All in all, discovering a film like this, warts and all, is worth a Sunday night's ticket.

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.

Compliance, the film and the need for challenging art.

There's one more chance to see the film, Compliance, at the Hyland Cinema tonight and I have a tough time deciding what is harder to get through: the film's story or the reactions of audience, both local and elsewhere, to this film.

For those who need a summary, the film depicts an barely fictionalized actual crime when a fast food restaurant manager got a phone call from a man claiming to be a police officer who has a complaint that a young female employee has stolen something.  Without asking one meaningful question about the caller's credentials or the evidence against the girl, the manager unthinkingly follows his instructions to detain and then strip search her.  This leads to her being sexual humiliated by the staff and the manager's fiance who unquestioningly follow the instructions of this voice on the phone.  Only after the janitor walks in on this does anyone realize that this is a sick hoax and the police are left to investigate this disgusting crime that has happened more than 70 times in real life.

From what I heard, this film has sparked vociferous complaints at film festivals and the Hyland staff has had complaints and demands for refunds for a film that dramatizes a true event.  From what I gather, it was the film's disturbing sexual nature which too many are apparently making them write off the film as a kind of badly written pornography, as if the film ratings signs on the poster and at the ticket counter was not warning enough.

However, the fact is that the events of this film happened in real life and here is a 20/20 report that depicts this crime with the actual security footage.

As you can see, Compliance is hardly making up any of the core details such as the perversity of this crime that actually happened, including the follow-up interview by the former manage who is caught in a open face lie about her complicity.

So why are people complaining?  This film is the definition of a challenging work of art where your assumptions about human nature of purposefully questions. It has been said that art should be asking questions, not bellowing answers and there is a need to depict this crime in drama that simply seeing the security camera footage cannot show.

For instance, drama is needed to show the full perspective of the people involved, including their emotional responses and perspectives.  Like the famous Milgram experiment that showed what too many people are capable of when faced with authority, we need artist creations like this to ask where fully grown people doing all this abuse at the orders of a unknown stranger of the phone. With drama, we get to see a greater element of the setting of the crime and the mentality of people in such a environment that could have encourage people to act like this.

As Roger Ebert has noted in his review, "The walk-outs aren't because it's a bad movie, but because it's all too effective at exposing the human tendency to cave in to authority."  In other words, this film is rubbing people the wrong way because it is touching on an inconvenient truth that they don't want to face. 

I myself found the film rough going, but a worthwhile experience to learn about human gullibility and the fallout of it and I hope that I could react better in that situation. I would have hoped  all the patrons of the Hyland Cinema in my city could appreciate a film brave enough to do that.

Bad Propaganda and Worse Overreactions

Behold,the "courageous" director, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

It's been more than a week, but that moronic video, The Innocence of Muslims, is still causing trouble, even after some Americans were killed in a mob storming of the American Embassy in Libya, including the US Ambassador,  Christopher Stevens, who was perhaps one of the most savvy about the region in America's diplomatic corps.

And all of this for a piece of stupid propaganda that the cast have claimed was created under false pretenses. The fact that the creator has is a meth dealer and is now in hiding after causing this bloody furor is enough proof of how much of a sniveling coward he is.

Considering what we know that  the US Government has commissioned in the past through the CIA like the first film version of Animal Farm would never make something this ridiculously heavy handed and shoddy.

In this case, the CIA apparently underwrote this British animated film to adapt the classic George Orwell novel behind deep cover under the noses of the British animation studio to make it feel legitimate. As it is, the only point that could feel like blatant manipulation with the happy ending at the end to further the propaganda point while the filmmakers could believably claim that they were wanting to make the depressing story bearable to a general audience 

Furthermore, if you want to see how the US really handles propaganda nowadays, click here to see the classic Canadian documentary film, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.  This is truly how the US, and most of the Western powers handle such media control and never trying for an emotional response without a real discernible goal.

On the other hand, seeing those rioting thugs blaming the innocent in the name of Islam is hard not to see them as bloody idiots.  For instance, how many people would have heard of the film without this violence and what do they really expect the US government to do about a private citizen's constitutionally protected stupidity? Furthermore, the calls by these mobs for the US to have the filmmakers put to death is so despicable just like when Sudanese mobs once in 2007 demanded a British teacher be executed for letting her students call a teddy bear, "Muhammad". Emotions are running high with image of Muslims going wild yet another insult and attacking all the easy targets when a hour's research about the USA and its free speech laws for private citizens could have told them otherwise. The mobs who attacked the Germany and British embassies because of this American film further encourages the raw feeling and easy condemnation.

Yet, I know this fuss is created by a very small portion of the Islamic community, many of whom are no doubt horrified at both the violence, the fanaticism and how it makes their religion look.  Furthermore, I am aware that this is just the latest excuse by a hardline core leadership who regularly search online and media for any excuse like this to further their political agendas with a religious veneer.

And the worst part is that the only way to beat this will be education, savvy foreign policy by the Western powers and patience to try to curb the worst of this to develop a real understanding.  Unfortunately, that is going to be quite an uphill battle for some to come.

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.

Summer films of 2012 2: The Other Superhero Films

Now that digital projection rant is out of the way, it’s time for some more thoughts about the summer movies, in this case, the remaining superhero films.

The other two superhero films of the summer of 2012, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises,are entertaining enough in their own ways.  

I was as doubtful as most people at the idea of rebooting the Spider-Man franchise so soon, but this new film was more than adequate of getting the bad taste from the last Sam Raimi movie out of our mouths with all the executive mandate interference that killed it off. For one thing, Andrew Garfield was surprisingly good as the title character with his feeling of youthful impetuousness that temporarily hid his heroic nature. That helped the character get away from Tobey Maguire’s forlorn everyman style into a more individual creation.The problem is that while Garfield hides it well, the fact remains that is he is 28, which was older than Maguire in his first film.  The fact that the film tries to hide with an youthful athleticism with the skateboarding just seems seems to make the matter more obvious.

For his part, director Marc Webb still weaves a fun fast paced story that captures more of the spirit of the comic in his own way such as capturing Spidey’s agile and banter filled fighting while restoring fun details like the superhero’s mechanical webshooters. That last part is more significant than you might think; it helps make the character feel special on his own talents than just the luck of how he got his powers.  Furthermore, it makes him more relatable in that you know you can’t have his powers, but you can imagine having his wristguns. 

Yet, Webb’s deviations are surprisingly worthwhile such as focusing on Peter’s unwanted conflict with Capt. Stacy instead of J. Jonah Jameson. It allowed the story to have a fresher feel and enables to us to see Spidey’s relationship with law enforcement instead of the well trodden idea of idea of media hostility. On top of that, just the story’s focus on one supervillain this time itself is refreshing with Webb understanding the basic genre mistake from Spider-Man 3 and steering sensibility clear.

Unlike most people, while I found The Dark Knight entertaining enough in 2008, I thought it was harmed with a concluding act that felt more tacked on than anything. I felt much the same way with The Dark Knight Rises with writing that felt relatively disjointed and illogical compared to The Avengers’ trim narrative. 

On the plus side, Tom Hardy is fun as Bane, the mastermind revolutionary with the physical strength to match, although the whitewashing of a Hispanic character like him from the comics into a Caucasian is uncalled for, a racist Hollywood practice that Grace Randolph can explain better than I can. On a better note, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is enjoyable as the young detective who subtly acts as and becomes one of the central Batman characters in spirit while Anne Hathaway creates perhaps the best modern Catwoman ever. The action is reasonably well done, except when Bats and Bane fight, which seems too stiff even for the factor of Bruce injuries while the vehicle combat is as wild as ever.

However, I have a hard time seeing a Batman who simply gave up his war on crime just because of Harvey Dent’s fall considering how Bruce Wayne’s obsession with justice is such a central part of his character. Other stories like the comic series, The Dark Knight Returns, and the pilot TV episode of Batman Beyond provide more believable reasons like the death of his second Robin and when he had to resort to a gun during a heart attack in the field respectively.  Also, the idea of how Wayne lost his money doesn’t feel real to me, in no way could Wayne be held legally liable for trades that were obviously conducted during a terrorist raid on the trading floor.  Finally, the big plot surprise about Bane’s “trigger man” didn’t seem like much of one to me: the character in question was obviously benefiting step by step with Bane’s plot and it’s just a matter of paying attention. 

All in all, these films don't hold up against The Avengers, they certainly show that the ignorant condescension of the genre like Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin from 1997 is gone.

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.

Summer of 2012 Movie Thoughts, Part 1

Well, the summer is almost over and we're in one of the North American film market's dump months.  With that, a few thoughts about some of the better films this season would seem in order, which I'll be doing over multiple posts.

With Rainbow Cinema having a fun Movie Bingo incentive program and growing to treasure talking to the evening staff of  the Hyland Cinema, I think I've been seeing more films this summer than usual and enjoying myself with something of a relatively reasonable price to escape to for about two hours from my worries.

In the interest of disclosure, I am one of those weirdos in some eyes whose first resource for films I want to see is Rotten Tomatoes with all the anticipatory drama seeing where a film's critical approval score is going to land. Mind you, I don't always let it be the final word for all films, but I would typically rather have critics determine most of what I see than advertisers.

The summer movie season got off to a great start with The Avengers. This is the most finely crafted superhero film I have ever seen, easily topping even the first Christopher Reeve Superman film. Director Joss Whedon managed to put together all the fruits of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's previous films into a delicious artistic salad that perfectly balances all the superheroes' presence well. To have that arrangement in a exciting story that feels so true to the best of superhero comics with all its wonder, wildness and sheer scale is a testament to what a great artist who loves the comics can do . While I was drawn most to Chris Evans as Captain America with his heroism of a good man out of his time, Mark Ruffalo deserves all the kudos he's gotten for getting Dr. Bruce Banner/The Hulk down perfectly in live action film for the first time.
 
While the paucity of female and non-white characters in the cast is a legitimate concern, that is the price of keeping to the source material and an opportunity to redress by perhaps adding new Avengers in later films like Carol Danvers aka "Captain Marvel", Banner's cousin, Jennifer Walters aka She-Hulk and Monica Rambeau aka Pulsar.  In other words, this should be an opportunity to let a sequel serve in the best way: to address the original film's problems and improve the series artistically.

Another film I immensely enjoyed was DreamWorks Animation's Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted.  I have been lukewarm about this franchise of DA's, but this film overcomes a relatively standard comic action first act to create a moving story about home and how the search for it can change you like you'd never expect.  Furthermore, this film takes the sequel and uses it in the best way possible, taking the conventions of the series and thwarting them in a meaningful way, such as the circus act the characters develop and what happens when the Zoosters finally make it back to the Central Park Zoo.  Finally, as much I look forward to not having to pay a premium for 3D presentation with Rainbow converting to digital projection, DA's films will be only the regret I will have with them making the gimmick serve a real artistic purpose. The main act of the circus in London proves that point brilliantly with a unspectacular show that will leave you awestruck, not just for the visual, but in how you're rooting for the animals to hope against all hope, and find that their efforts are paying off. For myself, I had never heard of Katy Perry before, but the film's use of Firework alone in the London circus show is enough to get me interested. 

As for comedy, I've always had the least luck with this genre.  The exception include, Ted, an intriguing fantasy comedy about a raunchy living teddy and his relationship with the man who wished him alive as a boy. This film is a wildly audacious comedy that plays with a logical story question that has never been really addressed in an adult oriented film, "What if childhood magic continued into adulthood?"  Even better, the characters here largely act like believable people under the circumstances, unlike in The Campaign, where what political satire there is nearly buried by Will Farrel's usual doofusness. That gives the story a vital believability that gives the weight as an intelligent fantasy exploring all the implications.  The idea of a living magic teddy bear becoming a celebrity alone is a joy to watch, especially when you see the young toy match barbs with Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show.

Truly, this film deserves its success as biggest comedy of the summer even while I hope they don't sequelize it; it told the story with all the logic they can use with it and the studio should stand on their hand and let director Seth MacFarlane work on new ideas.

For all this, I have seen films that were a mixed bag to say the least.  This summer, one of the most obvious is Battleship, based on the classic naval guessing game.  I imagined this kind of source material would allow for much story potential and I unfortunately was proven right.  This film has a terrible opening with an unlikable jerk of a lead character who seems able to get into serious trouble and can still become a US Naval officer.  Compared to that ridiculous idea, the alien invasion plot is feels almost logical, but that turns out only feel terribly mundane, like a soggier version of Independence Day.  Only the idea that the aliens lost their main communications equipment and have to improvise with some Terran radio telescopes feels any close to creative here even as the trapped sailors fight with a homage to the game.  Only in the final third of the story, when the the sailors have to resort to the retired USS Missouri and its veteran crew does the film truly come to life with some moving moments and wild action while the sidestory of the hero's girlfriend and her double leg amputee Marine patient finally justifies its presence. However, this just creates a film best left for rental on DVD where you can get to the chapters worth your time and that's not what a truly watchable film is supposed to be.

That's the films that got me the early months, I'll be touching on the films in the later summer months next time...

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.

Changing Perspectives of Films and their Times.

It's interesting how a view of a film can shift over the years.


For instance, Orson Welles' Citizen Kane has finally been toppled after decades on top of the British Film Institute's Top 10 films of all time list in favour of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.  It certainly shouldn't be a surprise apparently since it had been rising in critical favour for decades. For myself, Citizen Kane is an interesting film with its wit and a bleakly satiric look at the American Dream at its materialistic worst with bold cinematic techniques to tell that story.  By contrast, Vertigo does have the virtues of nightmarish surrealism and it's own bleak tragedy of obsession, even when it's for the truth, to make for a interesting film experience.

Now, Mike Nichols seems to inspire similar reassessments such as with the great film critic, Roger Ebert, changing his tune about The Graduate. In 1967, he praised the film to the skies with his affection for Dustin Hoffman's Benjamin Braddock and then thirty years later, sympathizing for the ostensibly villainous Mrs. Robinson dealing with Ben who Ebert now calls an "insufferable creep." Yet, he still likes the film, but more has a museum piece of  whose time has passed, except for Simon and Garfunkel's music, which contrary to his first review, turned out to be not "forgettable" at all.

For myself, I can never have Ebert's perspective reviewing Nichol's greatest films considering he first saw them in the 1960s when they shook up the Hollywood film with their bold content for their time.  I can only rely on a historical perspective and appreciate them in that context, but my own perspective and my tastes in film will reflect my time on a visceral level I just can't shake.

In that regard, I finally got myself to see Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Mike Nichols' 1966 mega-successful adaptation of  Edward Albee's classic play. This was a film with such raw content that dealt a heavy blow to Hollywood's stifling Production Code and paved the way to more freedom for American film, if imperfectly.

However, for all this appreciation, I can't escape the fact that the film was almost unwatchable to me. The whole story about this bitter couple continually sniping at each other and sucking a young couple in repellently divorced from any real humanity or character logic. At no time do Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor's characters seem to convey one gram of warm or humanity, but carry on as nightmare caricatures of domestic emotional hell.

Furthermore, the younger couple seem to act with any feeling of basic common sense or self-preservation. After all, when someone visits a couple who are sniping at each other so hatefully that the husband brandishes a rifle at her, you'd expect any visitor would practically be running for the door.Yet, these twits stay after all and get sucked into their vicious mutual emotional torture. So, I'm expecting to be interested in seeing two emotional sadists wreak havoc with their drunken idiocies while two young nitwits go along with all this, even to the point of taking a ride with them to a bar to make it a public spectacle?  Yes, by the end, there is a shocking revelation that can give the main couple's turmoil a bit of perspective, but it is far too late in the story for me to care.

I've read that part of the appeal for its time was not only the lure of the forbidden with the rough material, but also two of the biggest stars of that time indulging in such wild antics that were once thoroughly hidden behind closed film doors.  As it is, I've grown up in a time when such material is now commonplace for TV movies and the simple shock value has long since faded. As much as I bet Albee's original play has a more nuance tone that can be properly toned for today in the confines of the stage, this film just feels like a gleeful sledgehammer that had already flattened the play's possible subtleties for a generation that was perhaps not ready for them in that medium.

Christopher Reeve, an actor's actor.

Then there is also the fact that this film was a star vehicle for Burton and Taylor.  For myself, I try to avoid seeing films because of the actors, but I first grew to like film like Star Wars and Superman where the larger story is paramount and the actors playing it who best suited to it was all important.  To me, Christopher Reeve is my ideal; a relatively unknown actor hired to play the Man of Steel, but had to do so in the shadow of Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman in third billing. Yet, Reeve is the one who proved himself brilliantly in a fantasy role that could have been hopelessly silly, but made it feel so warmly believable and appealing on its own terms.

Since then, and helped along by being bored to tears with Star Trek: the Motion Picture's glossy, but crashingly boring tale I look to story and the skill telling it above all else. Then again, I am also someone who consults the film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes more than any publicity or advertising for films to see.  I'm not immune to good marketing such my interest in the upcoming animation film, Wreck-It Ralph, with its enthralling trailer, but that is balanced against the suspense to waiting for its RT score to say whether it lives up to it.

With that in mind, I plan to be writing reviews of older films on top of other subjects for this blog to see what a modern perspective can bring and see what I can discover.