Month: February 2009

Here, courtesy of a grab posted this morning by New York/”Vulture”, is the official logo for Quentin Tarantino’s absurdist-mannerist-ironic hip cheeseball war dramedy, debuting in Cannes in May and opening in the U.S. on 8.21.

From my Basterds script review that ran on 7.11.08: “It is absolutely the most inauthetic, bullshit-spewing World War II movie that anyone’s ever written. And I love it, love it, love it for that. Every other line is a howl or a chortle. It almost could have been written by some 15 year-old suburban kid who used to play pretend WWII games with his friends when they were 10 or 11. Four or five times I literally laughed out loud, and that’s rare for me. And every scene is pure popcorn, pure shit-kickin’ Quentin, pure movie poontang.”

Note: Apologies for the disappearance of this and other stories earlier today.

Note: Apologies for the disappearance of this and other stories earlier today.

Yesterday morning an absolutely blistering piece by Ron Rosenbaum, author of Explaining Hitler, appeared on Slate that ripped into Stephen Daldry‘s The Reader. He called it “the Worst Holocaust Film Ever Made” and which implored Academy members not to vote it Best Picture. “Somebody has to say [it’s the worst],” Rosenbaum writes. “I haven’t seen others do so in print. And if I’m not the perfect person to do so, I do have some expertise.”

“Somebody has to say [it’s the worst ever made]. I haven’t seen others do so in print. And if I’m not the perfect person to do so, I do have some expertise,” he writes.

“And so I will: This is a film whose essential metaphorical thrust is to exculpate Nazi-era Germans from knowing complicity in the Final Solution. The fact that it was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar offers stunning proof that Hollywood seems to believe that if it’s a ‘Holocaust film,” it must be worthy of approbation, end of story. And so a film that asks us to empathize with an unrepentant mass murderer and intimates that ‘ordinary Germans’ were ignorant of the extermination until after the war, now stands a good chance of getting a golden statuette.

“And so the film never really questions the presumption that nobody could know and thus register moral witness against mass murder while it was going on. Who could have imagined it? That’s the metaphoric thrust of the Kate Winslet character’s ‘illiteracy’: She’s a stand-in for the German people and their supposed inability to ‘read’ the signs that mass murder was being done in their name, by their fellow citizens. To which one can only say: What a crock!”

Note: Apologies for the disappearance of this and other stories earlier today.

Before or after watching Hollywood Reporter critic Kirk Honeycutt talk about Stephen Frears‘ Cheri, which has broken through as the biggest (and only) big hit of the Berlin Film Festival, consider this Sunday, 2.8 article by The Film Experience‘s Nathaniel R., who’s taken the time to real the Colette novel that the film is based upon. The period drama stars Michelle Pfeiffer, Kathy Bates and Rupert Friend.

Note: Apologies for this story and five or six others having disappeared earlier this afternoon.

Here‘s a video link to last evening’s Harvard University Institute of Politics panel on “Looking for Lincoln In His Time and Ours — A Conversation on the Meaning of Abraham Lincoln.” It was during this event that Lincoln screenwriter Tony Kushner made his remarks about (a) how “the decision will be made on [Steven Spielberg‘s] Lincoln next week” and (b) that if the green-light is given the film will be out “by Christmas.”

Kushner’s comments in this vein were made during the first hour. He starts speaking around the 21 or 22-minute mark. Real Player is required.

Note: Apologies for this story and several others having disappeared earlier this afternoon. A server switchover is going on right now and into the night, and three stories that I wrote and saved late this morning and early this afternoon — this one, “No Quarter,” and “Cheri Ignites Berlin” — have not only disappeared on the browser, but also from my staging software, Movable Type 4.0. I’m re-writing and re-posting as we speak. The irony is that the beginnings of these disappeared stories are up and still readable on my iPhone. They all vanished about two hours ago.

HE’s Belo Horizonte-based friend and correspondent Pablo Villaca reports that thousands of Brazilian Oscar fans without cable are out of luck this year because Rede Globo, the country’s most important TV network, has decided to shine the Oscar telecast in favor of broadcasting events surrounding Rio’s annual Carnival.

“Years ago Globo’s main competitor, SBT, took the rights to broadcast the Oscar in Brazil from Globo,” Villaca explains, “and for five years that worked. SBT wasn’t as prepared then to deal with such an important event, but at least it broadcast the full event for Brazilian cinephiles.

“Then Globo bought the rights back. Since then, it’s been a terrible experience for those who don’t have access to cable and therefore can’t watch the Oscars on TNT.

“At first, Globo chose the wrong hosts to comment about the event live. But then it got worse. Ever since Oscars started happening on Sundays, Globo never aired it in full. Big Brother Brazil, the local version of the reality show produced by Globo, concentrates its ‘main events’ on Sunday, including the choosing of those who can be voted off the show.

“Instead of shortening the episode for this one special Oscar Sunday or bumping the “important” BBB activities to the next Monday, Globo inexplicably decided to cut the Oscars short. Every year, Brazilian viewers had to catch the Academy Awards after five or six prizes were already awarded (including the Supporting Actor and Actress categories).

“Could it get even worse? Yes. This year, the Oscars will happen during our Carnival, and Globo decided to scrap the ceremony altogether in order to show the Samba groups parading in competition.

“It’s as simple as that because they own the ball. They won’t allow other networks to broadcast the Oscars and they won’t show it themselves. If you have cable, great — go to TNT. If you don’t, tough luck. Watch the Carnevale transmission (even if you hate it) while you wait for Globo to inform you who won what.

“Apparently the Academy (or ABC) doesn’t stipulate in its contract that any company that buys the right to broadcast the Oscars should be required to…well, broadcast the Oscars. Clearly this development marginally weakens the show’s allegation that the Oscars are being watched by hundreds of millions of people all over the world. And it certainly seems to suggest that the Oscars are really not the strong show they were in the past.”

“On an August morning in 1978,” the story goes, “French director Claude Lelouch mounted a gyro-stabilized camera to the bumper of a Ferrari 275 GTB and had a friend, a professional Formula 1 racer, drive at breakneck speed through the heart of Paris.

“The film was limited for technical reasons to 10 minutes. The driver barrel-assed all the way from Porte Dauphine (on the city’s western edge, adjacent to the Bois de Bologne) to the Basilica Sacre Coeur in Montmartre.

“No streets were closed, for Lelouch was unable to obtain a permit. The driver completed the course in about 9 minutes, reaching nearly 140 mph (or was it kph?) in some stretches. The footage reveals him running real red lights, nearly hitting real pedestrians, and driving the wrong way up several one-way streets.

“Upon showing the film in public for the first time, Lelouch was arrested. He has never revealed the identity of the driver, and the film went underground until a DVD release a few years ago.” (Thanks to Chris Dalrymple.)

Because N.Y. Times Oscar blogger David Carr (a.k.a. “the Bagger”) managed to get only six people to talk to him about the Oscars during a 90-minute troll around Times Square, he’s taken this to mean that the economically besieged Everyman is almost angrily dis-engaged from it all, in part, obviously, because the nominated films haven’t connected in a big way (i.e., no Best Picture noms or Dark Knight or WALL*E), and therefore…no, he;s not saying the Oscar ratings are going to be totally toileted. But indications are, he reports, that “if people are going to tune into this year’s Oscars, they haven’t made their plans yet.”

What happened to the old adage about people traditionally being keen to escape into fantasy reveries during tough economic times? What about the old example from the 1930s about the movie business being recession- or, more to the point, depression-proof? As Carr reports, the Grammy show ratings “perked up this year” and that “people are still going to the movies” with “admissions…up nearly 8 percent this year.” Nonetheless, he warns, “It’s going to take a lot more than a little song and dance from Hugh Jackman to bring home the Nielsen bacon.

“Those of us who live in the Oscar Ninny kingdom might have missed something. While we were all debating the whole Mickey vs. Sean thing, the rest of America has been out there living life on life’s terms, which has not been a pleasant endeavor of late.” Perhaps because deep down, he suggests, it’s “hard to get past a president shouting we are all about to go over the waterfall if something isn’t done soon.”

“Presumably out of ideas for the time being, Jeffrey Wells goes seeking advanced word on The Road at…IMDb,” snickered In Contention‘s Kris Tapley earlier today.

Well, there was a heavy-hitter screening of John Hillcoat‘s much-awaited film in Los Angeles a few days ago. I was told about it myself and had it confirmed by a Weinstein Co. spokesperson. The attendees were said to include Josh Brolin, Ethan Coen, Oliver Stone, David Fincher and a guy named McCarthy — probably original The Road author Cormac McCarthy, possibly The Visitor director Tom McCarthy. I contacted every one of these guys today except Coen and Cormac McCarthy to try and get reactions, willing to run their views non-attrib if they so requested. Only one replied, and not substantively.

The original tipster said “find out what they thought — don’t trust me — and you’ll have what you wrote tonight confirmed [by serious people].”

Playwright Tony Kushner, who’s been laboring on a script for Steven Spielberg‘s Lincoln movie for a very long time, is right now taking part in a discussion at a Harvard University Institute of Politics forum panel discussion called “Looking For Lincoln: In His Time and Ours — A Conversation on the Meaning of Abraham Lincoln.” It began at 6 pm at the John F. Kennedy Forum.

In any event, a longtime HE reader in attendance informs by cell-phone e-mail that Kushner has said “the decision will be made on Lincoln next week” and that if the green light is given the film will be “out by Christmas.” That’s pretty fast work for a expensive period film that’ll use a lot of CG, no? Even if Spielberg passes on Civil War battle scenes.

Kushner also said that Lincoln “only covers two months of his life,” my guy says, and that “the first draft covered four months and [was] 500 pages.”

Kushner also said that the 13th amendment — the abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude — “is a big thing in the movie.”

One presumes that Kushner meant that the film will cover the last two months of Lincoln’s life, or roughly February 15th to April 15th, 1865 — the day of his death. The 13th amendment was enacted on December 6, 1865, so there’ll apparently be a little skipping around, event- and chronology-wise.

If any attention is to be paid to the Civil War during the last 60 days of Lincoln’s term, possible inclusions would be (a) the Union victory at the Battle of Five Forks on April 1st, which forced Gen. Robert E. Lee to evacuate Petersburg and Richmond, the Confederate capital, (b) a subsequent rebel loss at Sayler’s Creek, and (c) Lee’s surrender on April 9, 1865, in the village of Appomattox Court House.

When I spoke to Liam Neeson (who will most likely play Lincoln) in the summer of ’05, he said he understood that the film would span the full arc of Lincoln’s time in the White House, beginning in March 1861.

“All [last] week writers were talking about how chick flicks are regressive and are setting women back, and many (mostly guys) have asked why women would be interested in these types of films,” Melissa Silverstein wrote today on Women & Hollywood. “I’ve been quoted in a bunch of pieces talking about the lack of women writers and directors and my desire to see different types of movies with stronger female characters.

“I really don’t see these early 2009 films on the same continuum with Sex and the City and Mamma Mia. I just don’t. Sex and the City had romance and a wedding, but to me, the film was about the friendship between the women. Mamma Mia also had romance and a wedding but, to me, it was a mother-daughter love story. What’s different about Mamma Mia and Sex is that the women are seen from a place of strength, not a place of weakness. Maybe it’s the age of the women that gives them more substance.

“I remember that both Sex and the City and Mamma Mia got a bunch of pretty shitty reviews too. I remember when Sex opened that people were making fun of Sarah Jessica Parker‘s face. I remember people writing that Meryl Streep has ruined her career for appearing in Mamma Mia.

“But I don’t remember people saying that women were stupid for going to see these movies. They called us shallow and materialistic but I don’t remember being called stupid. While I don’t have any interest in seeing Bride Wars and He’s Not Into You, I don’t agree with the name calling and think it needs to stop.

“Just because you see a stupid movie doesn’t make you stupid. Did anyone call the people (both men and women) who went to see Paul Blart Mall Cop stupid? That movies got pretty bad reviews too. It’s not my type of movie but it seems that it’s OK for guys to act stupid, yet, there is this accepted, nasty misogynistic tone that pervades the criticism of movies targeted at women. Long time movie critic Peter Travers puts it this way in Rolling Stone: “Are women desperate or just desperately stupid? This is the misogynist question at the core of He’s Just Not That Into You, a women-bashing tract disguised as a chick flick.”

“The facts are clear. Women do direct less than 6% of the films and write only 10%. But I’m not letting women off the hook. We (me too) are complicit in this problem. When we go and see these films and make them successes that means that Hollywood will make more of them. That’s law #1 of Hollywood.

“I blame the system for these films. Women writers have credits on all these films (and Drew Barrymore produced He’s Just Not That Into You) including the upcoming Confessions of a Shopaholic. Everyone needs a job and if the only movies that get made in Hollywood that you can make any money on are chick flicks you’re going to take the gig. Let me tell you, principles don’t pay the rent or mortgage even if we wish they would.

“I blame the system for these films. I blame a system that perpetuates stereotypes on a regular basis. I wish that a film like Frozen River could get on 3,000 screen but struggles to keep 100. I wish that women would have other choices in their multiplexes beyond He’s Just Not That Into You. I wish that people would stop calling women stupid for going to a movie.”

HE comment #1: I for one declared a little while ago that a significant portion of the fans of Paul Blart, Mall Cop came from the lower end of the gene pool. HE comment #2: Silverstein is more or less saying that female moviegoers flock to insipid chick flicks because they haven’t much of a choice if they want to see a film with a semblance of a female stamp or sensibility. That’s fair, but if she were really honest with herself (and us) she would acknowledge the quarter-of-an-inch-deep vibe that groups of women give off when they go to see these films in groups at the local plex. And when they sit around at a bar afterwards and talk it over. Especially after they’ve had a couple of glasses of wine. The ghosts of Gertude Stein, Virginia Woolf and Dorothy Parker would weep from shame.

Shame on the mtvu.com voters who didn’t support the obviously hipper, cooler and far superior candidate, David Distenfeld, in the competition that will send a college-age interviewer to the Oscar red-carpet. They voted instead for three standard-issue clones — Fordham University’s Justin Shackil, Rice University’s Fateem Ahmed, and San Diego State University’s Megan Telles — as finalists. A winner will chosen from these three.

As I wrote on 2.1, “Every one of these kids is trying their best to act like an E! or Access Hollywood interviewer. And they have it down pretty well. They all have that empty, fluffy, celebrity-worshipping, bullshit ice-cream attitude that every executive producer of every TV entertainment show tends to like and hire. They all suffer from Ben Lyons disease (which, trust me, will probably lead to high-paying gigs for most of them when they get out of school).

“Please help stamp out the Stepford virus,” I futilely pleaded, “and vote for Distenfeld. You’ll be helping to shape the tone of future TV entertainment coverage if you do.” The voters have done that, all right.