I Drink Your Blood/I Eat Your Skin

I Drink Your Blood 

I Eat Your Skin

YouTube viewing 

The closure of movie theaters this year as a result of The Virus has led to a resurgence in drive-ins. Here’s a first-hand account from this past summer of a mother taking her family to a drive-in. In Queens, a drive-in has been born (with a Brooklyn extension), plus a local diner set up one in Astoria. Others have sprung throughout the tri-state area.

Years ago, I wrote about ways drive-ins could improve, and while my suggestions would be less feasible in the face of a pandemic, I still believe they could work in normal times. As things stand right now, drive-ins are a nice way to retain the traditional theater-going experience.

In the 60s and 70s, drive-ins were repositories for, shall we say, more adventurous cinematic material, the kind that appealed to younger audiences. Horror films were among the more popular genres. 

Neighborhood links

Joker director Todd Phillips, previously known for his raunchy R-rated comedies like The Hangover trilogy, has said one reason he made Joker, a drama, was because it was difficult to make irreverent comedies, since audiences are more easily offended these days.

Is it true? The numbers don’t lie: when the tween comedy Good Boys opened at number one this summer, it was the first R comedy to do that in over three years. Once again, PG-13 appears to be the safer choice for Hollywood studios now; in a recent interview, Eddie Murphy, whose R-rated Rudy Ray Moore biopic Dolemite is My Name is playing on Netflix, confirmed as much. This Variety piece from 2017 also theorized a change in the culture, but cited the immediacy of late-night television as a factor...

...which brings us back to Phillips’ theory. I know my tastes have evolved over time. I don’t seek out R comedies (Murphy’s movie notwithstanding), but I don’t think I ever did—unless Kevin Smith made them. Why don’t I go to R comedies as much anymore? If I’m being honest, I suppose I want a little more... sophistication. All those Lubitsch and Wilder and Sturges movies made an impression! Plus, a movie like The Hangover works better if you go with friends, and practically none of my friends, who are over forty, like me, have any interest in them either.

Fear of being offended is not a factor for me (I laughed at the “porch monkey” jokes in Clerks 2), yet I can’t deny “woke culture” is a palpable presence these days. Twitter users are ready and willing to pounce on anything that carries even a hint of being un-PC, and if they have led to a decline in irreverent comedies, that would be a shame and a waste. It may be with the best of intentions, but I don’t like the thought of pop culture settling into a safe middle ground where everything is sanitized. If I choose not to see a Hangover-type movie, that should be my choice—and I should be free to change my mind without fear of censure. At the same time, I hope I don’t have that fear-of-offense attitude myself, but if I do, I’m gonna work at changing it.

——————

Lonergan (L), next to the Wyler sisters.
I don’t know who the moderator was.

Last month, Virginia and I had the privilege of attending a New York Film Festival screening of one of my favorite classic films, Dodsworth. It was a new restoration, screened at Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall, and the daughters of director William Wyler, Catherine and Melanie, were in attendance for a Q&A, along with Manchester by the Sea director Kenneth Lonergan.

This was the first time I had seen it with an audience, and once again, I found the experience of hearing other people laughing at moments I didn’t necessarily find funny jarring. I’ve seen other film bloggers talk about this when it comes to old movies, and now I understand this feeling better: you see a film made in a different era, you connect with it, and then you see it with a crowd and that connection changes because others don’t react to it the same way you do. I doubt the audience thought Dodsworth was campy, and I don’t think they were being disrespectful; their reactions just rubbed me the wrong way. I don’t get like this when it comes to more recent movies, or if I do, the feeling’s not as acute. That’s the chance you take with an audience, but it’s okay.

Regardless, the restoration was beautiful. The Wyler sisters and Lonergan discussed casting, including William Wyler butting heads with Ruth Chatterton; Mary Astor’s great performance despite the scandalous divorce she was part of at the time; the overall acting; and the film in a historical context. Virginia loved the film, as I knew she would.

———————

I saw Ad Astra again, this time with Ann, who wanted to see it. I think I understand the movie better the second time around. As I explained to Ann afterwards, the bigness of the movie, the Kubrick-meets-Malick aspect of the storytelling and filmmaking might have blinded me to the humanity at the heart of it all, but the second viewing made it easier to see the characters as people, and I appreciate it better. If you wanna talk about it further, spoilers are allowed in the comments to this post.

More on the other side.

Shazam!

Shazam!
seen @ Cinemart Fiveplex, Forest Hills, Queens NY

Earlier this year we talked about the superhero formerly known as Captain Marvel, now called Shazam — one of the oldest active characters in comics history, with a wide and devoted fanbase. He was the first superhero to make it to the big screen. He and his supporting cast spun off a ton of merchandise at the peak of their popularity. When DC Comics acquired the rights to the character, he enjoyed a new wave of popularity in the 70s. A big reason why was his television incarnations.

Filmation was big on Saturday morning and weekday afternoon television in the 70s and 80s. While their animation style looks primitive compared to, say, Teen Titans Go, never mind the great WB adventure toons of the 90s, lots of kids from my generation remember them fondly. They also made live-action shows, and their first was Shazam!, in 1974.

Hard Boiled

Hard Boiled
YouTube viewing

The 90s were a great time to work in video retail — for me, anyway. Quentin Tarantino made being a video store clerk cool, and the store I worked in for much of the decade had a primo selection of independent and foreign cinema. Our clientele appreciated us for this.

This made me want to keep up with the current filmmakers building reputations outside the boundaries of Hollywood: Mike Leigh, Lars von Trier, Hal Hartley, Jim Jarmusch, Pedro Almodovar, just to name a few. One of the hottest directors during the decade, one championed by us film nerds, was a fella from Hong Kong named John Woo.

I admit, I jumped on the bandwagon for Woo late, after he made his American debut in 1996, with the film Broken Arrow. If you were a film nerd then, though, it was damn near impossible to avoid the buzz surrounding him.

This was partly due to the rising interest in Asian cinema in general, especially the chop-socky kind: Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Michelle Yeoh were also crossing over to the Western market around this time (plus filmmakers like Ang Lee and Wong Kar-Wai, who appealed to the Film Forum/Angelika crowd).

You will always see a moment like this
in a John Woo film.

Tarantino made it clear his films owed a big debt to Asian cinema, and lo, his disciples did go forth and spread the word, from their churches of VHS and Betamax, to their customers, and the word was Cool.

Woo made high-octane crime flicks, with levels of violence that would make Sam Peckinpah gasp. Woo's films were among the first where I understood the importance of letterbox.

In those primitive days before every television was formatted in widescreen proportions, I remember hearing my video store co-workers use phrases like "aspect ratio" and "pan and scan" and "two-three-five to one" and learning from them that how you watch a home video matters, especially if it's a tape of a film by a certain kind of filmmaker, like Kubrick, or Cameron, or Woo.

Many film nerds from my generation agree that one of Woo's best is Hard Boiled, starring Chow Yun-Fat, the Robert De Niro to Woo's Martin Scorsese, a star who also crossed over to Hollywood.

In Hard Boiled (story by Woo), he's a loose cannon cop who inadvertently crosses paths with an undercover cop while investigating a smuggling ring. It's a grand guignol of blood and bodies falling in slo-mo and bullets, bullets, bullets. It's not for the faint of heart, but man, is it fun to watch!

In searching for pics for this post, I discovered that Woo wants to remake another one of his classic HK films, The Killer, for American audiences. (Lupita Nyong'o? Talk about an out-of-the-box choice!)

My fear is that Woo's brand of ultraviolence won't have any traction today, in an era where PG-13 films reap wider audiences than R-rated ones. Then again, given how crazy PG-13 films can get with the violence themselves, maybe it's not an issue anymore. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

The Simpsons Movie

The Simpsons Movie
Cinemax viewing

It was not the first animated series in prime time. It was not even intended to be a series at first, but a supplementary feature of a mostly-forgotten variety show. Other animated series have since come and gone that have tried to harness its spirit, to varying degrees of success. One or two have come close. When the final tally is taken, however, I suspect the dysfunctional family from Springfield, USA will reign supreme. If you disagree... well, don't have a cow, man.

I knew The Simpsons had arrived on the pop culture landscape when I first saw the t-shirts. They were everywhere. Wearing a Bart Simpson t-shirt, for awhile, was a countercultural statement. "Family values" was a big thing in the Reagan 80s, but Reagan's family was just as screwed up as that of most people. I think Matt Groening's creations were meant to reflect not just that, but to reveal the soft pink (or yellow, in this case) underbelly of what we always thought of as the traditional American nuclear family, the flip side of Andy Hardy and Father Knows Best and The Waltons we never noticed - or wanted to notice.

Nothing was more symbolic of that idea than the moment when Fox, the fledgling network with nothing to lose and everything to gain, put The Simpsons head-to-head against The Cosby Show. I remember feeling torn. The Huxtables represented the epitome of urban middle-class, upwardly mobile family life that also appealed to middle America - a black family, no less. Abandoning them in favor of these animated upstarts from the same network as the equally trashy Married... With Children, to me, almost felt like an act of disloyalty... but The Simpsons were that good. Time has borne this out.

When The Simpsons Movie was announced, I remember thinking after the show's unprecedented longevity, having done and said so much about so many things, a movie version would be pointless without two things: a naked Marge (or at least topless) and Bart saying fuck (or at least shit). Otherwise, why do it? I still think that way. We got nudity, but seriously, was anybody clamoring to see a 10-year-old animated boy's penis?

The movie has everything that made the show great, but I found it a bit disappointing because it didn't push the boundaries more. The South Park movie preceded this by eight years and they took full advantage of their R-rating. The Simpsons, by contrast, stuck to a PG-13. Maybe that was a result of having become so mainstream, so accepted by America. I dunno.

If The Simpsons has a legacy, hopefully it's one in which audiences see animation as capable of more than Disneyesque talking animals and family-friendly entertainment. Movies, in this country, at least, still tend to stick to the cutesy stuff - even Pixar, for all its innovation, has yet to make a "mature audiences"* movie - but TV has seen an explosion of edgier animated material post-Simpsons (even if it's been confined to cable), which is good.

Has The Simpsons ever done a multi-part arc? (Besides the "Who Shot Mr. Burns" two-parter.) Each episode is packed with so much stuff, it almost seems redundant to engage in the latest trend in television. Still, I think that's the one thing I'd like to see them try before they retire. What else is left after all this time?

-----------------------
* We do understand that stories with mature themes don't necessarily have to have nudity and profanity, right?

Hungry links

Good news: I've got an ETA on the next issue of Newtown Literary which will include my short story "Airplanes." It'll be released in December... and that's about as specific as I can get right now. For those of you in the New York area, the magazine is available at Astoria Bookshop in Queens, a fine literary establishment which I heartily recommend.

As for the WSW anthology, I admit I've slowed down on this because I've never published an e-book before and I'm kinda nervous about getting it right (although I'm told that it's relatively easy). The hard part is picking out a good cover. I suppose I could design one myself, but I really want it to look professional, and graphic design was never my strong suit. When it's ready, I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, I've also been busy taking my NaNoWriMo draft and re-working it. It feels like it's on the verge of looking much more like a proper novel now, in part because I'm planning the second draft out in much sharper detail than I did for the first draft. I've learned about this writing guru named Randy Ingermanson who offers a lot of good advice about novel writing, and I've immersed myself in his techniques. So far, they seem to help.

Your links for this month:


Paddy talks about a beloved Canadian TV movie host from days gone by.

Danny expounds on a really wacky pre-code movie about love and puppets.

Margaret writes about the dude who was the Mexican Chaplin of his day.

Ivan discourses on the first film version of my favorite play, Death of a Salesman.

Raquel reviews the debut novel from notable film blogger Farran Smith Nehme, AKA the Self-Styled Siren.

Monstergirl's 500th post is about the horror classic The Haunting.

You must read this incredible story about an ex-bank robber who turned his life around in prison, went to film school, and has made an autobiographical documentary about his experience.

So maybe WB/DC will dabble in TV/film crossovers after all.

Studio genre movies were big in the 80s. Less so now.

Here's an informative video on the dilution of the PG-13 rating.

Guardians of the links

I already announced this on the Facebook page, but part of the reason why I missed a big chunk of July is because I've begun work on a WSW compilation book. It'll collect select posts from the first two years of the blog and also include some new material. It's early yet, so I don't say too much more than that right now, but I believe that the combination of my movie posts and my City Mouse cartoons will make this a unique and highly personal book that you're gonna want for yourself. More to follow.

So this hasn't been the best season for outdoor movies so far. I've only written about three; the rest of the ones I've had scheduled for June and July were either rained out, canceled or were shows I blew off for other reasons (for instance, I saw Life Itself after deciding not to see an outdoor movie). Certain individuals on Twitter who fancy themselves comedians have taken the opportunity to treat my nighttime excursions as if I were sneaking out of the house past my bedtime or something, but despite such tomfoolery, I expect the rest of my schedule to go well.

Your links for this month:

Jennifer ponders how much truth there is to the belief that classic film actresses were considered washed up after age 40.

Maureen O'Hara and The Quiet Man mean a great deal to Kellee.

The Lady Eve goes on a ramble about dessert food and champagne and manages to tie it to movies.

Monstergirl is in her element with a truly wacky horror B-movie featuring a truly bizarre-looking monster.

Aurora returns to upstate New York for Capitolfest, and here she interviews one of its heads.

The analysis on Boyhood's Oscar chances has begun.

An oral history on the flawed but adorable Galaxy Quest.

Who to turn to in order to make your R-rated movie into a PG-13.

And finally, I wanna wish a happy 25th wedding anniversary to fellow film blogger Dorian and her husband, Vinnie.

PG should not equal inferior

Last week a debate broke out as to whether or not to abolish the PG-13 rating, a result of a PG-13 being given to the upcoming Expendables 3. I tend to think that all MPAA ratings are useless and inaccurate and should be done away with, but that's not what I want to address. Amidst the debate, I noticed something that was taken for granted on both sides. On the pro-abolish side:

...So here's what we do. We lobby to eliminate PG-13. What this does is force the MPAA to look at content differently.... Instead of shaming adults into seeing a PG-rated film, embolden them to see an R-rated movie, knowing there's more adult content available for them.

And on the anti-abolish side:

...Thanks to the PG-13 rating the PG rating has been softened to the point it's rarely used any longer, while at the same time studios aren't going to make big budget tentpole features for an R-rated, adults-only audience. Marvel and DC Comics' movies will be watered down to the PG-rating and adults will begin to shy away, a solution no one wants.

(Emphasis mine in both quotes.)

Why should there be any shame in seeing a PG movie? If we agree, as both sides of the debate do, that PG-13 means an extremely limited amount of profanity and nudity and a fair amount of violence (as I noticed, for example, in X-Men: Days of Future Past), does that mean that we, as an adult audience, reject movies without them, regardless of content? I'm not sure I like what that says about us (and I absolutely include myself in this statement).

PG-13 was created to stretch the boundaries of PG movies, while stopping short of explicit sex and violence, which would remain the purview of the R movie. As a result, PG-13 has become extremely profitable for Hollywood because it favors the youth market, particularly when it involves genre material, whether it's young adult action (Hunger Games, Twilight, Divergent), general sci-fi/fantasy (Inception, Pacific Rim), or the superheroes (as if you need examples of those). Indeed, these days it's not unusual for some PG-13 movies to skate close to the edge of an R rating.

'Belle' is a recent example of
a PG movie with adult themes.

In the process, however, PG movies that express adult themes without relying on some combination of sex, violence and profanity have become all but extinct at the big studios. We agree that PG-13 is what Hollywood tends to aim for now, for many of their movies, because that's where the money is, but by implication, that also means that we, the audience, now demand a certain amount of violence and profanity, because that's more "realistic." (We still have a problem with sexuality, though, but that's another story.) 

Many of the greatest movies of Hollywood's Golden Age would get by with a PG rating today (assuming they could get made at all). True, the industry operated under a production code that placed extreme limits on sex and violence, but those great movies succeeded, and stood the test of time, in spite of those restrictions. Does anyone really think Casablanca would be greatly improved with Humphrey Bogart swearing, or with a sex scene between him and Ingrid Bergman? But no one thinks in those terms these days.

I'm not a prude, but I do think it's unfortunate that market demands have prevented adult PG films from being economically viable. Sure, nudity and profanity may make a movie look more like real life, but in creative terms, it's easy, and after using it time and again, it loses its impact. Not every movie needs it that badly. So if we must have ratings in American films, I say that instead of eliminating the PG-13, let's strengthen the PG instead, by investing in adult films that don't rely on sex and violence. It would open up an under-served audience that's fed up with modern movies, and it would do away with the stigma associated with PG films, a stigma it didn't earn and doesn't deserve.

Agree?

Freeze Frame: The WSW Roundtable take 6

And we're back once again for another go-round on the world of film. This is third and final session with the current group of fellow film bloggers:

Tom from Movie Reviews by Tom Clift

Courtney from Big Thoughts From a Small Mind

Rachel and Jess from their brand-new blog, Reel Insight 

A new group will come on board beginning in June. 

And here are this month's questions:

Bully for us

The documentary “Bully” will be released without a rating, its distributor, the Weinstein Company, announced Monday in a news release. The decision to release the film unrated comes after a contentious battle between the MPAA and “Bully’s” backers, including its director Lee Hirsch and Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein. 

The MPAA gave the film — which followed bullied children around for one year and spoke to the families of kids who committed suicide — an R-rating over six uses of the “F” expletive, a decision the Weinstein Company appealed to no avail. Despite criticism from celebrities, including Meryl Streep and Justin Bieber, politicians, educators and writers — who believed the film would be unable to reach its target audience without a PG-13 rating — the MPAA and its chairman, former Senator Chris Dodd, did not back down from their decision.

Like most kids, I had my share of bully problems. I vividly remember two in particular from third grade; their names, if I recall correctly, were Eric and Patrick. My biggest problem as a kid was my great big mouth. It got me into more trouble than I care to remember. At some point in my early childhood, I developed a sense of machismo, and if insulted, I had to respond in kind, which inevitably led to fisticuffs.

Eric and Patrick knew they could bait me, so they did, and often. I don't remember with what; it was probably fat jokes. I got a lot of that growing up. Anyway, they wouldn't even have to beat me up all that often. I got much more verbal abuse from them than anything else. I almost always ended up throwing the first punch, though, and as a result I'd be the one who got in trouble, not them.

I told my father about these guys, and one day he met me after school so that he could see them for himself. Now, I've written here before about what a people person my father was, how gregarious and charming he could be with others. And he wasn't looking for a confrontation per se. He just wanted to talk to Eric and Patrick. And he did.

And he ended up doing the absolute last thing I wanted him to: he befriended them! Why would he do that? I wondered. I wanted him to strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger! What good was becoming their buddy?

Plenty good, as it turned out. Eric and Patrick eventually laid off on me, though it took awhile. Not a solution I would've imagined, but then, it was exactly the sort of thing my father would've thought of. He was not a violent man. Quite the opposite, in fact. He was intellectual in a down-to-earth way, one might even say he was street smart. He knew enough to keep a level head when it came to dealing with bullies.

As a social worker, he'd absolutely have to. He dealt with kids all the time. That's why I know he'd be quite disturbed to read about how serious the problem of bullying in school has become. I believe he'd be in favor of a film that tried to document this situation using real case studies.

But I don't believe he'd be put off by the language such a movie would have. My father wasn't nieve; he worked with enough children to know that many of them use profanity, though he himself never did (and frowned on it in our house). His great gift was the ability to relate to people on multiple levels without the need for profane language of any kind, without coming across as being elitist or judgmental. (Even he had his blind spots, though, but that's another post.) Too many people tend to think that you won't be taken seriously unless you swear, but not my father.

My wonderful sixth grade language arts teacher, Ms. Brooks, once imparted to us that yes, there were indeed times when she said "shit," which shocked and amused us at first - ooooh, teacher said a curse word in class! - but in that particular case she was making a point, that just because she stands in front of a blackboard talking to ten-year-olds all day doesn't make her any less human.

Obviously, I'm in favor of the movie Bully being shown as is, profanity and all, and it's good to see that it will be, MPAA be damned. Language is imperfect, but it's the best thing we have when it comes to communicating. Deciphering what's behind language - the things that go unsaid as well as said - is tricky, and difficult to learn, but if we remain hung up on the words themselves we'll only get so far. And bullying is too critical an issue to let language get in the way of finding solutions.

Fritz the Cat

Fritz the Cat
seen online via YouTube
12.1.11

I remember when Vija took me to see the documentary Crumb, about comics legend Robert Crumb. At the time, I wasn't that interested in seeing it, believe it or not. I had never heard of him, for one thing. For another, this was a few years before I met Jenny and she got me interested in underground comics. While Vija's probably best described as a casual comics fan (mostly through my intervention), I suspect a big reason why she wanted to see it was because Crumb was a major cultural touchstone of her generation. I'll return to that point in a bit.

When it comes to Crumb the artist, the element that stands out in my mind the most is his hatching style; i.e., those small lines that he uses to indicate shadow and dimension. I remember when I was a freshman in high school, I had an art teacher who everyone absolutely loathed. He was strict, humorless and uptight and he was always hard on his students. We hated him with a passion and couldn't wait to get out of his class. Me, though, I'll forever be grateful for him because he broke me of a habit I wasn't even aware of.

In his class, I did a still life in pencil, and for some reason, I rendered the whole picture, which must have been 18" x 24", with this little vertical strokes perhaps an inch and a half in length. The picture was recognizable as a still life, and I knew enough to render light and shadow, but the entire thing was done in hatch lines, all in one direction. My teacher pointed it out to the class and to me, and made me realize that I wasn't doing it as a stylistic choice. I was doing it because I didn't know any other way. He enabled me to use broader strokes, in different directions, to shade in the shape of the object I was drawing, and that freed me up artistically. I became a better, more complete artist as a result.


In art college, we were taught how to work with fewer lines instead of more, particularly in figure drawing. "An economy of lines" was how one of my teachers put it - and as a result, my drawings began to have a cleaner look to them. So when I see a style like Crumb's, the art school side of me recoils slightly because it's not as economical as I might prefer (though this doesn't necessarily make it bad, of course).

Ralph Bakshi does a good job of preserving Crumb's style in the animated film version of Fritz the Cat. You can see the hatch lines in places, even if they seem really superfluous in an animated cartoon. I've never read the original comic strip, but the familiar Crumb elements are there: the counter-culture sensibility, the jazz music, the fat chicks.


Vija and I have often talked about the 60s. She was a Midwestern teenage girl at the time, so she was definitely part of the zeitgeist, so to speak, especially when she went on to college. It's hard for someone like me to believe that talk of revolution and consciousness was so prevalent, but the 60s is stereotyped that way for a reason! Fritz has quite a bit of that as well, although substituting anthropomorphized animals for humans comes across a bit incongruous at times, such as in one scene where Fritz talks about race relations with a crow, crows being the stand-ins for blacks. Shouldn't that be species relations instead?

I have to admit, all the animal sex made me think of furries for a moment or two. I've met plenty of animal lovers, but I can't recall ever meeting any open furries. I don't doubt the stereotypes are true to a degree, but I'd just as soon not have them confirmed for me... (This from a cartoonist whose best known characters are talking rodents.)


Finally, given the current talk about how to sell the NC-17 film Shame to the masses, the poster for the X-rated Fritz comes as a bit of cold water to the face, as you can see. But then, it was a much different time in 1972, and the X rating didn't have quite the same connotations as it does now. We could use some of that perspective today.

Five juvenile ways to get adults to see 'Shame'

...Hollywood is in agreement that Shame... represents the most important moment in years for the ghettoized NC-17 rating. Translated, the rating means "patently adult. No children allowed," according to the Motion Picture Association of America, which runs the ratings program with the National Association of Theatre Owners. Technically speaking, the rating means no children under 17 allowed, period. Shame is destined to push the boundaries of what's acceptable in the eyes of American moviegoers, as well as the willingness of theater owners to carry such fare and advertisers to carry promos for the movie. 

"I think NC-17 is a badge of honor, not a scarlet letter. We believe it is time for the rating to become usable in a serious manner," says Gilula. "The sheer talent of the actors and the vision of the filmmaker are extraordinary. It's not a film that everyone will take easily, but it certainly breaks through the clutter and is distinctive and original. It's a game changer."

Fox Searchlight, a studio that has delivered some of the finest movies of the past decade, including Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine and Slumdog Millionaire, is prepared to put its money where its mouth is by not only accepting the NC-17 rating the MPAA slapped onto the controversial Michael Fassbender movie Shame, but using it as a selling point in a bold attempt to de-stigmatize the rating. More power to 'em, I say. In a culture that is perfectly okay with ever-escalating levels of gore and violence in films but shrinks in horror at even the suggestion of sex, I hope their efforts will begin to make people - especially theater owners - think twice about that sort of thing. How will they go about it? We don't know for sure just yet, but they could do a lot worse than take these suggestions:

- Reverse psychology. "Watch this movie? No, you don't wanna do that. Ladies, you don't have any interest in seeing this totally suave and sexy actor whom you loved in Jane Eyre earlier this year completely naked. Fellas, don't waste your time with a movie where you can see that hottie from Drive completely naked. Cinephiles, don't even bother seeking out this film from a critically-acclaimed director that took Best Actor at the Venice Film Festival and blew 'em away in Toronto. No, it's okay, really. I hear Adam Sandler's cross-dressing in his new movie. You go see that instead. It's fine."


- Taunting. "You don't wanna see this movie? What's the matter - chicken?"

- Guilt. "How can you not want to see this movie? Don't you know how fortunate you are to live in a country where we can see naked people whenever we want? Why, there are some countries that don't have any naked people at all. America's founding fathers fought and died for the right to see naked people, a right you should get down on your knees and give thanks for daily! You should consider it your patriotic duty to go see Shame, because if you don't... the terrorists have already won."


- Fear. "All your friends are gonna see it. Your boss is gonna see it. Way I hear it, he's gonna go with that dorky brownnoser who used to work in your department. Yeah, he's a dick, but he's a dick who makes more than you now. Bad enough your boss already thinks you're a little... peculiar for not coming to the staff bowling nights. Besides, what else are you gonna have to talk about on Monday morning - how the dryer at the laundromat broke on you again?"


- Bribery. "See Shame and we'll stop remaking 80s movies. Well, okay, maybe we can't speak for all the other studios out there, but how about this: see Shame and we'll make sure the next Die Hard movie is rated R like the last one should have been. How's that?"


I think those would work, wouldn't you?

Is the only good comedy a raunchy one?

Leonard Maltin hopes not:

...I’m not a fan of toilet humor—which in this case actually involves gags about people using the toilet and/or talking about their bodily functions. That’s just the tip of the iceberg: [The Change-Up] seems positively eager to break down supposed barriers and wallow in foul-mouthed, crude behavior and dialogue... Because the film is enjoyable at times, I have to wonder how much (if anything) would have been lost if it had been toned down a bit. Would audiences have complained that it wasn’t edgy enough? Might it have suffered in comparison to other recent hit comedies?

 But maybe some movies need to be raunchy:

...This may sound juvenile, and yes, I'm well aware that comedy can be derived from any number of sources more innocuous than gratuitous sexual content, explicit language, drug use, and violence, but certain comedies don't feel genuine without the risk factor. Crude comedies and black comedies, the kinds that pull their subjects from the dark pits of human suffering and certain deadly sins, should push at their confines without worrying about catering to someone's definition of what's appropriate. Sometimes this may lead to failure (I'm looking at you, Hangover II), but when 'going there' pays off, it pays off big.

I'm a Kevin Smith fan, so you better believe I appreciate dick and fart jokes as much as the next guy. R-rated comedy definitely has its place at the multiplex. So why hasn't it done anything for me lately? I dunno. I suppose if I were to see The Hangover, I'd laugh. Perhaps not as much as other people, but I'm sure I would. Still, I never felt the desire to rush right out and see it or any other comedy like it from the past several years. I've never seen a Judd Apatow movie, I gave up on Adam Sandler long ago, and I've never seen a Ryan Reynolds movie since he became a star (apparently he was in the first Harold and Kumar movie).

I can't explain it. A trailer for a comedy either appeals to me or it doesn't. If Clerks were to come out this week, would I go see it? Depends. A big part of what has defined Smith as a filmmaker is his independent, DIY aesthetic. That has shaped my perception of him. If Clerks were a studio film and Smith was being touted as the new Judd Apatow, that'd be a huge difference in how I saw him, so perhaps he's not the best example. My original point still stands, though.

But are raunchy comedies the only ones that hit big? I looked up the top 20 money-makers from the years 2006-10, as ranked by Box Office Mojo. 19 out of those 100 movies were comedies in the broadest sense of the word, including musicals like Mamma Mia and action comedies like Get Smart. 17 of those 19 comedies were either PG-13 or R. The PG-13 movies include stuff like Little Fockers, Grown-Ups and Rush Hour 3, not exactly highbrow material. Here's the key stat, though: of the four R movies, look at the upward trend in terms of (domestic) money made:  

• Borat (2006), $128 million
• Knocked Up (2007), $148 million
• Sex and the City (2008), $152 million
• The Hangover (2009), $277 million

And of course this year, both The Hangover Part 2 and Bridesmaids have surpassed $150 million.

The Maltin quote at the top was from his review of The Change-Up, which he did find funny in places, despite his misgivings on the level of vulgarity. He followed that up a couple of days later with another piece further expanding his feelings on raunchy comedy, and his feelings on the matter echo my own:

...I don’t believe that everybody embraces The New Vulgarity, but no one wants to be the naysayer—or prude—who voices objections when friends find something funny. The box-office success of movies like The Hangover changed the playing field for what is widely considered “the norm,” and that’s what worries me. We’re expected to accept a much higher level of raunchiness than moviegoers did just a few years ago…and I don’t think there’s any turning back.

I like to think certain comedy classics like Some Like It Hot would be successful today, but our standards have changed from fifty years ago. I accept that. But dick and fart jokes only amuse me for so long.

Agree? Disagree? I'd really like to know.

Fallout from the 'Valentine' decision

PTC condemns MPAA's decision to overturn Blue Valentine's NC-17 rating:

"...The new rating may be correct or it may be incorrect. We don't know because we haven't screened the film. What we do know is this: the entire integrity and legitimacy of the MPAA ratings system has been compromised. There is no transparency; there is no consistency; and there is no accountability - unless you are a wealthy producer who can afford to hire the biggest legal guns in the nation and wage a massive PR campaign." [Emphasis added.]

Well, I think we can all agree that there is no transparency, consistency or accountability on the MPAA's part, and this decision alone will not change that. But the Parents Television Council loses all credibility when they say they haven't seen Blue Valentine, because as I've said before, context matters. Is the sex in this movie comparable with that of your average porn movie? Does it serve the characters and the story, or is it gratuitous? Still, this is nothing new; as I recall, Dogma suffered the same problem from moral watchdogs who hadn't seen the movie.

What if Valentine lost its appeal though? Would you still see it if it was NC-17?

Plus:
TWC's Harvey Weinstein talks about the strategy used in getting the R rating for Valentine
Director Cianfrance calls it a victory for free speech

Related:
- The King's Speech is still rated R. (AM Law Daily)
- Roger Ebert says American movies need only three ratings. (WSJ)

Also:
- An excellent interview with Toy Story 3 screenwriter Michael Arndt. (Thompson on Hollywood)
- Speaking of Anne Thompson, she also writes this article about the visual effects of Tron: Legacy. (Popular Mechanics)
- And speaking of visual effects, longtime FX wizard Douglas Trumbull compares movie effects then and now. (The Dark of the Matinee)
- Here's a list of 100 public domain movies. (Toronto Sun)
- Spike Lee will do a signing in New York this week for his new book about the making of Do the Right Thing. (Powerhouse Arena via The Skint)

A few words about Gibson's 'Beaver' trailer

Wow, who was it who just said that separating the artist from the art is essential? Gotta love the timing on this one.

Well, I still believe in that statement, but let's be honest - it's not easy. It's not easy at all to appraise the work of a creative person who says or does things that are reprehensible to you, and I have my blind spots that I probably should work at overcoming. That said, I still believe it's the work that matters in the end. Why? Because as creative people, we like to believe that our work will outlive us. Even if the artist is forgotten, the work - if it's good enough - can have a life of its own and can influence future generations. And that's the most we can hope for in this life.

What do we know about The Beaver? The screenplay by Kyle Killen topped the 2008 "Black List" of unproduced screenplays, meaning it was highly sought after. Both Steve Carell and Jim Carrey were attached to the film before Mel Gibson came on board. Insiders on the film tried to stir up some Oscar buzz for Gibson on the belief that The Beaver might be released late this year. And perhaps most notably, director and co-star Jodie Foster, a long-time friend of Gibson's, continues to stand by him.

The trailer itself is intriguing in terms of not only Gibson's performance, but the art-imitating-life factor (especially when Foster's character says "I will continue to fight for you"). It looks like it might have a substantial element of sap running through it as well, though from what I've read from those who have read the screenplay, that's not the case.

Right now, my feeling is that I think I may give it a shot, though more on the basis of Foster's reputation and the much-buzzed-about screenplay than Gibson himself. I think Foster's continued support of Gibson is remarkable and should not be minimized; indeed, I think it's her presence that could mean the difference in how well The Beaver does. I'd be very interested in hearing what other people think about this.

The Beaver (trailer)

Also:
- Danny Boyle says Trainspotting 2: Electric Boogaloo is only a matter of time. (Cinematical)
- An interview with Mark Logue, grandson of Lionel Logue, Geoffrey Rush's character in The King's Speech. (Speakeasy)
- Speaking of The King's Speech, has a whispering campaign against it already begun? (Scott Feinberg)
- It's hard out here for a black director. (NPR)
- The facts and the fiction behind Peter Weir's new film The Way Back. (BBC)
- How the MPAA regards the sex in Blue Valentine versus the sex in Black Swan. (LATimes)
- Leonard Maltin talks about the Disney/Dali collaboration Destino. (Movie Crazy)

Franco, Hathaway to host Oscars

“James Franco and Anne Hathaway personify the next generation of Hollywood icons— fresh, exciting and multi-talented. We hope to create an Oscar broadcast that will both showcase their incredible talents and entertain the world on February 27,” said Cohen and Mischer. “We are completely thrilled that James and Anne will be joining forces with our brilliant creative team to do just that.”

Eh. I suppose this confirms that Oscar wants that youth demographic no matter what. They're not bad choices to host the Oscars, but they don't exactly have me waiting with baited breath for February 27 to come round, either. Oscar night is something I both anticipate and dread: the former because it's the Oscars, after all; the latter because it's always so damn long and pretentious and self-indulgent. At this point they could get Barack Obama and Betty White to host the Oscars and I'd still feel the same way.

Also:
- David Zucker remembers the late Leslie Nielsen. (THR)
- The ballet community has not exactly embraced Darren Aronofsky's new film Black Swan. (Toronto Sun)
- A look at how evolving tastes in film over the years has affected the ratings system. (LATimes)
- Speaking of ratings, there's an online petition up in support of changing Blue Valentine's NC-17 rating. (The Petition Site)
- On filmmakers and their websites. (NYTimes)
- An interview with the last surviving member of the cast of Sunset Boulevard, Nancy Olson Livingston. (LATimes)
- Did you know Marlon Brando directed a Western called One-Eyed Jacks? (Blogdanovich)

The Man With the Golden Arm

The Man With the Golden Arm
seen @ Landmark Loews Jersey Theater, Jersey City, NJ
11.19.10

A number of high-profile films have challenged their MPAA ratings this year, most notable among them being the Ryan Gosling/Michelle Williams romantic drama Blue Valentine and the British biopic The King's Speech. The latter was hit with an R rating for one scene involving excessive profanity; the former was given the dreaded NC-17 for a scene involving oral sex. Both films, however, claim that context is everything, and that these scenes are not gratuitous, but rather are in service of the story. Both films are major Oscar contenders distributed by The Weinstein Company, whose head honcho, Harvey Weinstein, is hiring a team of high-powered lawyers to dispute the MPAA's decisions.

For as long as there has been some sort of governing body overlooking "standards and practices" in film, it seems, there have been filmmakers chafing at it, doing their best to push the envelope of what is considered "tasteful" in the name of making art. The double standard of violence over sex continues to be in play, and as Blue Valentine's Gosling has recently stated, there is also a strong element of sexism behind these decisions.

At last night's screening of The Man With the Golden Arm at the Loews Jersey City, I was pleased to learn about that film's battle with the production code. Director Otto Preminger had a history of pushing the boundaries with his films. Preminger biographer Foster Hirsch was a guest at the screening, and after the film he talked about the making of Arm and how unique it was in that no one had ever talked about drug abuse so explicitly in film before. The MPAA wouldn't certify it, and that's how it was eventually released - and it became a success anyway. (Also, the movie was different from the book it was based on, much to the dismay of the book's author - very different ending, for one thing.)
Sometimes I question the necessity of a ratings system. The MPAA attempts to apply a uniform code of standards with their ratings, but as they've shown repeatedly, those standards appear to be arbitrary, and often, they don't consider context. Most of all, the identities of these unelected individuals are notoriously kept secret, so it's unclear how representative of the American moviegoing public they are. How many blacks are part of the MPAA? How many women? How many gays? How long do they serve? And yet, history has shown that despite the attempts to limit the audience for edgy, quality films like Arm, they usually end up getting recognized and appreciated, if not in the short term then over time.

I hardly ever pay attention to what rating a movie is anymore; I haven't for years - but then, I'm a single adult with no children. Many people find it easier to accept a rating without considering whether it's an accurate one or even if it truly reflects their personal tastes in movies. The power needs to be put back in the hands of the consumers to decide for themselves what films are good - educating oneself about a given movie is a fine start - and it needs to be exercised properly, because it's clear that the MPAA, as it is now, seems unable to evaluate movies well.

Another thing I learned, according to last night's emcee, is that Arm star Frank Sinatra, a Jersey native, used to attend the Loews, coming by trolley car from nearby Hoboken. The story goes that one night he saw a singer perform there (I forget who the emcee said it was) and he was inspired to become a singer himself as a result.

I went to see Arm with John and Sue again. I think I've gotten them hooked on the Loews. They really dig the theater. We're probably gonna skip the holiday programming next month, though.

Does H'wood excuse violence against women?

...Though one in four women has experienced domestic violence, and one in six will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, Hollywood is teaching us that violence against women isn't very important in the scheme of things. Of course, there's no evil group of cinematic warlords pushing this agenda, and most people who perpetuate it probably don't mean to... Nevertheless, this blase indifference exists towards women-centric violence, giving a blinding green light to such actions. We already see how image affects girls nation-wide, but think about what this indifference says to those women who are sexually assaulted or beaten across the world. If we don't show that we care -- that it's a very important issue -- these women will suffer in silence, never coming forward because the environment is overrun with hostility and a desire to ignore or downplay the problem.

Also:
- The producer of the Ryan Gosling/Michelle Williams romantic drama Blue Valentine says they won't change a thing about it, despite the NC-17 rating. (Cinematical)
- GLAAD defends their position against the gay joke in The Dilemma. (The Big Picture)
- Valerie Plame, the CIA agent outed by the Bush administration, talks about her biopic Fair Game. (Vanity Fair)
- On the future of Netflix with regard to streaming movies online. (Slate)
- Blind Side 2? Jets linebacker Bart Scott is next to get the Hollywood treatment. (Cinema Blend)
- A first look at the movie version of the best-selling novel The Help. (Awards Daily)
- Singer-actress Doris Day looks back on her long career. (WNYC)