Film Buffery

[Gillianren]

So the question is, am I the only hopeless Oscar buff around? Heath Ledger won; Kate Winslet finally won. And Sean Penn actually gave a speech that I liked, because he acknowledged that he makes it hard for people to like him personally. Which I don't.

[gzhpcu]

Which you don't what?

[لطفيّ]

Which you don't what?

Like Sean Penn personally. At least that's my interpretation.

Can't say if I do, I've never met him.

[Gillianren]

I don't like Sean Penn as a person. The whole public persona he presents grates on me. He may not be like that in person; I don't know. But if, as indicated in his acceptance speech, he knows that he comes across as a jerk, why would he keep acting that way if he wanted to be a more popular actor? I did think it was an amazing performance, though, and the lack of an Editing Oscar for Milk is shameful.

[Gillianren]

Has anyone else seen Grey Gardens? I've finally gotten to it, and it's fascinating.

[Disinfo Agent]

I felt that Meryl Streep deserved the Oscar more than Kate Winslet -- even though I have still not seen either film.

I also was not very impressed with what they picked for best foreign movie. The German candidate seemed more interesting, though again I have seen neither of them yet.

[Gillianren]

I dislike Meryl Streep quite a lot; I have no problem with her losing. Or failing to get nominated. I think she plays Meryl Streep more than she plays characters these days. (And there are already people in the Julie & Julia thread advocating an Oscar win for her for that, and it doesn't come out at all until August--and an August release is a bad sign anyway.) I think Kate Winslet is a fine actress. Then again, I haven't seen either movie, either. I did see Changeling, and despite my dislike of Angelina Jolie, I thought she did a pretty good job.

For Best Actor, I was really hoping Richard Jenkins would get it, though I knew he wouldn't. Failing that, I was gunning for Frank Langella. Such a better Nixon than the guy who played Nixon in Watchmen, who relied more on makeup than an attempt at actually playing the character.

[Gillianren]

Re multiple endings and the Code--in some ways, multiple endings were mandated by the Code! The movie would reach a reasonable stopping point, and Breen wouldn't be satisfied, because Evil didn't get properly punished. So some epilogue would be stuck on the end in order to appease the Office. It's really quite common, or more common than you might think.

Actually, I was thinking more about the whole thing last night, and I'd argue that To Kill a Mockingbird has three endings. (Spoilers, but really, you should have seen it by now!) "Stand up, Miss Jean Louise. Your father is passing" is a great ending line. It wouldn't be a happy ending, and it wouldn't have passed the Code--and, of course, there's quite a lot more pages in the book!--but still. The moment Tom Robinson dies, likewise, is a good ending place, though, again, not possible under the Code.

I was also thinking about it, and practically the entire history of Hollywood is "within living memory." Less and less of it, I grant you, but GWTW is only seventy come December. There are, I believe, members of this board old enough to theoretically have seen it in its original release.

[Tog]

Re multiple endings and the Code--in some ways, multiple endings were mandated by the Code! The movie would reach a reasonable stopping point, and Breen wouldn't be satisfied, because Evil didn't get properly punished. So some epilogue would be stuck on the end in order to appease the Office. It's really quite common, or more common than you might think.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of horror films doing it early on. Final scenes where the Evil seems beaten only to pop out one last time and show the audience that good didn't win the war, just the battle.

The more I learn about that period in history the more fascinated I am at the hoops one side set up and the lengths the other side went to get over, through or around them.

[Gillianren]

I was actually thinking more along the lines of horror films doing it early on. Final scenes where the Evil seems beaten only to pop out one last time and show the audience that good didn't win the war, just the battle.

That's more pre-Code. The Breen Office had final approval, and anything that would imply that Evil could possibly triumph was against the Code. A second popping out only to be defeated again was permissible, but it had to be very clear that Good would triumph and no other option was possible.

The more I learn about that period in history the more fascinated I am at the hoops one side set up and the lengths the other side went to get over, through or around them.

I just read a really interesting biography of Breen himself (Hollywood's Censor : Joseph I. Breen & the Production Code Administration, by Thomas Patrick Doherty) that describes just such things, including the go-around Hitchcock had over Rebecca. Portraying adultery was against the Code, you see, and of course, a murderer could not be permitted to escape justice. But if you've read the book, you know how pivotal that is to the story. There's apparently a lot of debate about whether the Breen Office did good or bad to Hollywood screenwriters, and I have to say, the biggest problem with the whole thing is the movies that couldn't be made at all.

[Paul Beardsley]

This is very interesting. I've been involved in (or observed) many debates where young, would-be writers go on about how bad any kind of censorship (i.e. restriction in any way shape or form) is. Whereas more mature writers tend to argue that restrictions make the writer work harder. I tend to favour the latter attitude, but there's no doubt about it, there are certain valid works that cannot be made at all.

[Gillianren]

This is very interesting. I've been involved in (or observed) many debates where young, would-be writers go on about how bad any kind of censorship (i.e. restriction in any way shape or form) is. Whereas more mature writers tend to argue that restrictions make the writer work harder. I tend to favour the latter attitude, but there's no doubt about it, there are certain valid works that cannot be made at all.

Mmm. Restrictions may make the writer work harder, but that doesn't necessarily make them a good thing. After all, up until 1941--and December at that--Hollywood was strongly discouraged from making any movie that decried Nazism, because the studios were afraid of losing the European market. In fact, Breen was opposed to social commentary of any kind. It's true that he couldn't, technically, stop anyone from making socially concious films; it was outside the purview of his office. However, there are cases of his pressuring studios by using all the technicalities he could muster. During World War II, Breen considered his protection of the nation's morality more important than his boosting of the nation's morale. It's one of the reasons movies actually from World War II are so clean. He wouldn't let them be realistic, despite the fact that the newsreels--over which he had no control--were showing the horrors of war.

It is also true that the experiences of many were not shown due to the restrictions of the Code. I'm not saying there would have been a rash of gay-themed movies, for example, and it took ten years after the removal of the miscegenation restriction before Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? got made, simply because Hollywood was afraid of losing the Southern market. However, the relatively benign "Curley," a Little Rascals short that featured black and white children attending the same school, was banned by Memphis censor Lloyd T. Binford--who also threatened films by Charlie Chaplin and Ingrid Bergman because of the performers' personal lives. Heck, Sesame Street's beloved Mr. Hooper was on the blacklist!

[Paul Beardsley]

Again, very interesting, Gillian, and all valid points.

Granted, a lot of restrictions are clearly bad things. But a couple do spring to mind.

At one time, the use of bad language was not allowed in certain types of film. Personally, I think the films were much better without it. A character can express anger so much better when s/he doesn't just produce a stream of swear words. This particular freedom has resulted in a lot of desperately banal dialogue.

Another thing that springs to mind is the TV series Sliders. (Not a movie, but probably a useful example.) When the first series came out, it was quite fresh - weekly travel to a different parallel world made for good entertainment. So they increased the budget. With more money to spend on the second season, they produced a series of episodes that were lazy rip-offs of recent movies. For the following season their budget was reduced, and so the writers were forced to come up with ideas again, and so the quality improved.

I accept that this sort of beneficial restriction is probably very much in the minority.

[Gillianren]

At one time, the use of bad language was not allowed in certain types of film. Personally, I think the films were much better without it. A character can express anger so much better when s/he doesn't just produce a stream of swear words. This particular freedom has resulted in a lot of desperately banal dialogue.

True. However, think of how silly actual soldiers from WWII thought the dialogue was in WWII movies. Special dispensation had to be given in order for movies to use "Hell" as a place name! A good writer can use swear words effectively; a bad writer still wouldn't be effective if forced to use more complicated dialogue. Trust me--I can cite examples.

Another thing that springs to mind is the TV series Sliders. (Not a movie, but probably a useful example.) When the first series came out, it was quite fresh - weekly travel to a different parallel world made for good entertainment. So they increased the budget. With more money to spend on the second season, they produced a series of episodes that were lazy rip-offs of recent movies. For the following season their budget was reduced, and so the writers were forced to come up with ideas again, and so the quality improved.

On the other hand, of course, can you imagine making Gone With the Wind properly on a low budget?

I accept that this sort of beneficial restriction is probably very much in the minority.

Well, yes. Even in the Sliders example, it would still be possible to be lazy with the concept even low budget, after all!

[KaiYeves]

As for the "twist ending" thing, there was one DCOM*, the name of which I forget, but it was about some Salem witches with a living spellbook who were magically brought back to life and proceeded to wreak havoc. Anyway, at the end, they had a really lame "twist". When the witches are dead for good, the book's eye is shown moving around just before the credits. My brother and I all shouted "That doesn't matter! The witches are dead, who's gonna use it?"

*Disney Channel Original Movie.

[Moose]

It's been brought to my attention that post-reorganization, this thread is probably a better fit here in SMaL. So I've moved it as a sort of early present to Gillian. Happy Belated St.Pats/early Earth Day/Yule (belated or way early, pick one)/No Special Reason Day.

[HenrikOlsen]

Spring Equinox.

A friend of mine got a day off Friday because spring equinox is a holy day in our religion.

[korjik]

It's been brought to my attention that post-reorganization, this thread is probably a better fit here in SMaL. So I've moved it as a sort of early present to Gillian. Happy Belated St.Pats/early Earth Day/Yule (belated or way early, pick one)/No Special Reason Day.

Oh heck, I forgot that yesterday was No Special Reason Day!!!

[HenrikOlsen]

Oh heck, I forgot that yesterday was No Special Reason Day!!!

As in having a "Day that ends in Y party"

[Gillianren]

Spring Equinox.

A friend of mine got a day off Friday because spring equinox is a holy day in our religion.

I always celebrate on the twenty-first; it's easier to remember. But, yes, Ostara thread-moving for everyone!

[geonuc]

Speaking of vampires, there's a really good movie available on dvd now: Let the Right One In. No fangs, but a beautiful interpretation of vampirism. I particularly like how the vampire's limitation against entering a home unbidden is handled in the film.

It's not at all like other vampire movies.

[Parrothead]

David Cronenberg has been awarded France's Legion of Honour.

Story.

One tidbit of info, I liked from that story is:

These days, the 66-year-old Cronenberg says he's working on a spy thriller, and is in talks with Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise as possible stars.

He expects to begin shooting the blockbuster in September, but says he's still working on finalizing the script. The story is based on Robert Ludlum's 1979 book "The Matarese Circle," about rival spies who join forces.

I re-read that novel last year or late '07, IMHO, it was one of the best thrillers that Ludlum wrote. It will be interesting to see what he does with the story. I'll definately be looking forward to this release in the future, assuming it gets that far.

[Gillianren]

I just wish Tom Cruise would go away.

In happy news for me, I got in contact with my sister's ex-fiance, Raul, the other day. As readers of my journal know, Raul is one of my two movie gurus, right up there with Roger Ebert. Arguably, Raul had a bigger influence on me during my formative years--my mom watched Siskel & Ebert, and therefore so did we, but I didn't start really paying attention to what he said until maybe five years ago, not long before the whole cancer thing. So this is truly awesome for me, but not something I want to make a fuss over in my actual journal. I'm afraid you guys are stuck with sharing the information instead.

[sarongsong]

I just wish Tom Cruise would go away...

Ssshhhh---you'll wake him!

[sarongsong]

Coming soon?

April 2009
...After decades in development hell, Ayn Rand’s capitalism-minded “Atlas Shrugged” is taking new steps toward the big screen...A number of stars have expressed serious interest in playing the lead role of Taggart. Angelina Jolie...Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway...
riskybusinessblog.com

[Gillianren]

Bleah. Now, there's a movie I'm not going to see. I don't care who's in it or how many Oscars it gets nominated for. I don't do Ayn Rand.

I did, however, see Hiroshima, Mon Amour this morning. That is a very intense film.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

Bleah. Now, there's a movie I'm not going to see. I don't care who's in it or how many Oscars it gets nominated for. I don't do Ayn Rand.

What? The stilted dialogue, the cardboard characters, the plot that exists solely to bludgeon the audience with crackpot philosophy--what's not to like?

Actually, The Fountainhead can be quite enjoyable ... if you imagine that you're watching it with Joel and the 'bots.

[sarongsong]

What? The stilted dialogue, the cardboard characters, the plot that exists solely to bludgeon the audience with crackpot philosophy--what's not to like?

"...and the nominations for Best Picture are..."

[Disinfo Agent]

Bleah. Now, there's a movie I'm not going to see. I don't care who's in it or how many Oscars it gets nominated for. I don't do Ayn Rand.

What if they gave Ayn Rand the Starship Troopers treatment?...

[ToSeek]

I was also thinking about it, and practically the entire history of Hollywood is "within living memory." Less and less of it, I grant you, but GWTW is only seventy come December. There are, I believe, members of this board old enough to theoretically have seen it in its original release.

My father's first date was taking a girl to see The Wizard of Oz.